From fedora at leemhuis.info Fri Jun 1 05:11:46 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:11:46 +0200 Subject: Upcoming FESCo Election In-Reply-To: <1180627394.5867.2.camel@lincoln> References: <1180627394.5867.2.camel@lincoln> Message-ID: <465FAA92.6050708@leemhuis.info> On 31.05.2007 18:03, Brian Pepple wrote: > > It's that time of year again. Everyone that wants to be in the next > FESCo needs to nominate him/herself for it by June 12, 2007 0:00 UTC; > that self-nomination should contain some information's like "Mission > Statement, Past work summary and Future plans". I think it's to early to have that election; the Board (together with FESCo) still didn't clarify what FESCo will be responsible for and where other groups (release engineering for example) are in the hierarchy of the whole game. That should be solved *before* a proper election is held IMHO, as that is highly relevant. To give a short example from a voters point of view: If FESCo is responsible for the distribution itself (features, schedule) and its packages I might vote for foo and bar, but not baz. But if FESCo just handles packaging in practice I might go for bar and baz, but not for foo. What FESCo will do in the future is also highly relevant for those people that might want to consider self-nominating for FESCo. Just my 2 cent. CU thl From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Jun 5 18:26:50 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:26:50 +0200 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's Message-ID: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> Hi, from looking at the F7-feedback I saw on the lists, in reviews, in blogs and in other places I more and more think it was a failure to not do a CD version of the "Fedora" spins. Seems people are quite unhappy; the two main reasons afaics are: * people did not realize yet to use the Live-CD for installs * updates from FC6 to F7 are not possible with Live-CDs; thus people that don't own a DVD reader can only update via network based installs, with is not that well known (is that documented somewhere probably), error-pone and require a internet router (which not everybody owns; I for example would not be able to update by home server, because that's my internet router (via PPPoe and a DSL-Modem) and it has only a CD reader (sure, I did a yum update ;-) )) Just wanted to share this. Thanks for reading. CU knurd P.S.: /me on each Fedora release is astonished how many people seem not be be aware that one can do a update with the Install-DVD; should we advertise that more somehow? From notting at redhat.com Tue Jun 5 18:28:12 2007 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 14:28:12 -0400 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's In-Reply-To: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <20070605182812.GD22587@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Only tangentially related: Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said: > * updates from FC6 to F7 are not possible with Live-CDs; ... > P.S.: /me on each Fedora release is astonished how many people seem not > be be aware that one can do a update with the Install-DVD; How are they expecting to do updates, then? Are they expecting to only upgrade via yum? Bill From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Jun 5 18:41:31 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 20:41:31 +0200 Subject: Updateing Fedora (Was: Re: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's) In-Reply-To: <20070605182812.GD22587@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> <20070605182812.GD22587@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4665AE5B.8070403@leemhuis.info> On 05.06.2007 20:28, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Only tangentially related: > > Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said: >> * updates from FC6 to F7 are not possible with Live-CDs; > [...] >> P.S.: /me on each Fedora release is astonished how many people seem not >> be be aware that one can do a update with the Install-DVD; > How are they expecting to do updates, then? Are they expecting to > only upgrade via yum? Seems to me a lot of people just reinstall each release as they are not aware of the update method via DVD. CU knurd (who hasn't done a fresh install on his three main machines for a round about two years now IIRC (always yum updated)) From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jun 5 18:47:19 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:17:19 +0530 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's In-Reply-To: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <4665AFB7.1040406@fedoraproject.org> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi, > > from looking at the F7-feedback I saw on the lists, in reviews, in blogs > and in other places I more and more think it was a failure to not do a > CD version of the "Fedora" spins. > > Seems people are quite unhappy; the two main reasons afaics are: > > * people did not realize yet to use the Live-CD for installs > > * updates from FC6 to F7 are not possible with Live-CDs; thus people > that don't own a DVD reader can only update via network based installs, > with is not that well known (is that documented somewhere probably), > error-pone and require a internet router (which not everybody owns; I > for example would not be able to update by home server, because that's > my internet router (via PPPoe and a DSL-Modem) and it has only a CD > reader (sure, I did a yum update ;-) )) I think the "right" way to solve the problems are * Enable "live" upgrades to be done better * Get yum-presto up and running by default * Look into integrating jidgo. Even if we provide people CD versions of the "Fedora" spins they don't contain all the packages and some people are bound to be unhappy with that. Rahul From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Jun 5 19:02:56 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:02:56 +0200 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's In-Reply-To: <4665AFB7.1040406@fedoraproject.org> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> <4665AFB7.1040406@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4665B360.20007@leemhuis.info> On 05.06.2007 20:47, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> from looking at the F7-feedback I saw on the lists, in reviews, in blogs >> and in other places I more and more think it was a failure to not do a >> CD version of the "Fedora" spins. >> >> Seems people are quite unhappy; the two main reasons afaics are: >> >> * people did not realize yet to use the Live-CD for installs >> >> * updates from FC6 to F7 are not possible with Live-CDs; thus people >> that don't own a DVD reader can only update via network based installs, >> with is not that well known (is that documented somewhere probably), >> error-pone and require a internet router (which not everybody owns; I >> for example would not be able to update by home server, because that's >> my internet router (via PPPoe and a DSL-Modem) and it has only a CD >> reader (sure, I did a yum update ;-) )) > > I think the "right" way to solve the problems are > * Enable "live" upgrades to be done better You mean with yum? Or with Live-CDs? I assume the further; gets a "+1" from me. > * Get yum-presto up and running by default Well, I'm not sure it's a big help for dist-upgrades. Where to create the binary-data-diff from? From F(relase-1) or F((relase-1)+updates at relase time)? > * Look into integrating jidgo. Well, where is the benefit as long as we don't ship Fedora spin CD's? > Even if we provide people CD versions of the "Fedora" spins they don't > contain all the packages and some people are bound to be unhappy with that. That's the same problem with the Fedora DVD Spin as long as we don't ship a Everything Spin (and is one more reasons for a kind of internet yum update with some magic around it) CU knurd From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jun 5 19:26:02 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:56:02 +0530 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's In-Reply-To: <4665B360.20007@leemhuis.info> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> <4665AFB7.1040406@fedoraproject.org> <4665B360.20007@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <4665B8CA.8080207@fedoraproject.org> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 05.06.2007 20:47, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> * Enable "live" upgrades to be done better > > You mean with yum? Or with Live-CDs? > > I assume the further; gets a "+1" from me. Either or both. There is ongoing discussion about mashing up Anaconda as a step in between, hook it up with Pup and do something close to a live upgrade. One way or the other easy we should make this process more easy. >> * Get yum-presto up and running by default > > Well, I'm not sure it's a big help for dist-upgrades. Where to create > the binary-data-diff from? From F(relase-1) or F((relase-1)+updates at > relase time)? I haven't thought about this much yet. Just something to consider. >> * Look into integrating jidgo. > > Well, where is the benefit as long as we don't ship Fedora spin CD's? One reason we don't provide CD's is because mirrors will push back. If jidgo is integrated we can start providing CD's I think but I don't feel adding more and more variants to the default Fedora release is a good thing and hence live upgrades are a much better solution both for us and our end users. Rahul From dgboles at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 19:52:24 2007 From: dgboles at gmail.com (David Boles) Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:52:24 -0700 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's In-Reply-To: <4665B8CA.8080207@fedoraproject.org> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> <4665AFB7.1040406@fedoraproject.org> <4665B360.20007@leemhuis.info> <4665B8CA.8080207@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4665BEF8.8080802@comcast.net> Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 05.06.2007 20:47, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >>> * Enable "live" upgrades to be done better >> >> You mean with yum? Or with Live-CDs? >> >> I assume the further; gets a "+1" from me. > > Either or both. There is ongoing discussion about mashing up Anaconda as > a step in between, hook it up with Pup and do something close to a live > upgrade. One way or the other easy we should make this process more easy. > >>> * Get yum-presto up and running by default >> >> Well, I'm not sure it's a big help for dist-upgrades. Where to create >> the binary-data-diff from? From F(relase-1) or F((relase-1)+updates at >> relase time)? > > I haven't thought about this much yet. Just something to consider. > >>> * Look into integrating jidgo. >> >> Well, where is the benefit as long as we don't ship Fedora spin CD's? > > One reason we don't provide CD's is because mirrors will push back. If > jidgo is integrated we can start providing CD's I think but I don't feel > adding more and more variants to the default Fedora release is a good > thing and hence live upgrades are a much better solution both for us and > our end users. > > Rahul I apologize for posting here. I don't really belong as anything more than a 'lurker'. Rahul and many others - I have see you try to help with the same question(s) / problem(s) since the rush by users to blindly try to upgrade / install Fedora 7. No one, it appears, reads the release notes. No one, it appears, reads the installation guide / suggestions / known problems - solutions. Not many actually follow the fedora-user list. Obvious from the repeated questions. My first Linus was, I think Redhat 5.2. Whatever it was that came with "Linus for Dummies". ;-) Then you had to read docs, manuals, edit configuration files with text editors, modems did not auto-dial on demand, printers were not auto-configured, or video, or much of anything. You all have done wonders with Fedora and Linux in general to make it usable for Mr / Ms Average User. But in 'dummying' it down you now have a general user base that does not really have any idea of what they are doing. How to do other things more than a basic install. Or how to fix things that they break. If there is no GUI with check boxes they are lost. But they do get to puff out their chest and say I use Linux!! ;-) I think you have done a fine job. I'll just slip back into lurker mode now. -- David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From smooge at gmail.com Tue Jun 5 19:53:51 2007 From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen) Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 13:53:51 -0600 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's In-Reply-To: <20070605182812.GD22587@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> <20070605182812.GD22587@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <80d7e4090706051253s4fd3e190la27a0eafe5030b05@mail.gmail.com> On 6/5/07, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Only tangentially related: > > Thorsten Leemhuis (fedora at leemhuis.info) said: > > * updates from FC6 to F7 are not possible with Live-CDs; > > ... > > > P.S.: /me on each Fedora release is astonished how many people seem not > > be be aware that one can do a update with the Install-DVD; > > How are they expecting to do updates, then? Are they expecting to > only upgrade via yum? > My guess is that from dealing with questions on CentOS and other distros. Its the Debian/Ubuntu way I keep being told. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jun 5 20:04:55 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:34:55 +0530 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's In-Reply-To: <4665BEF8.8080802@comcast.net> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> <4665AFB7.1040406@fedoraproject.org> <4665B360.20007@leemhuis.info> <4665B8CA.8080207@fedoraproject.org> <4665BEF8.8080802@comcast.net> Message-ID: <4665C1E7.7060309@fedoraproject.org> David Boles wrote: > Rahul and many others - I have see you try to help with the same question(s) > / problem(s) since the rush by users to blindly try to upgrade / install > Fedora 7. > > No one, it appears, reads the release notes. > > No one, it appears, reads the installation guide / suggestions / known > problems - solutions. > > Not many actually follow the fedora-user list. Obvious from the repeated > questions. > Yep. Since I spend the time providing content on the release notes I have been able to refer end users to it frequently. I got tired of answering the same questions again and again and wrote up a FAQ at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora7/FAQ which I have posted to fedora-list now. My plan is to link to it prominent from fp.o and post to fedora-announce list and fedoraforum.org. Hopefully that helps end users rushing to get Fedora 7. Rahul From katzj at redhat.com Wed Jun 6 18:00:23 2007 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:00:23 -0400 Subject: Upcoming FESCo Election In-Reply-To: <465FAA92.6050708@leemhuis.info> References: <1180627394.5867.2.camel@lincoln> <465FAA92.6050708@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <1181152823.8071.81.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> I wanted to take the time to write a long response but haven't gotten to that and think that this needs at least _some_ response. On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 07:11 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 31.05.2007 18:03, Brian Pepple wrote: > > It's that time of year again. Everyone that wants to be in the next > > FESCo needs to nominate him/herself for it by June 12, 2007 0:00 UTC; > > that self-nomination should contain some information's like "Mission > > Statement, Past work summary and Future plans". > > I think it's to early to have that election; the Board (together with > FESCo) still didn't clarify what FESCo will be responsible for and where > other groups (release engineering for example) are in the hierarchy of > the whole game. That should be solved *before* a proper election is held > IMHO, as that is highly relevant. I tend to agree here... it's important for the upcoming Board election as well. And so the Board has started down the road of getting a proposal out. But LinuxTag and Fedora 7's release kind of put a speed bump in front of things there. I could definitely see an argument for delaying the election for that and probably would have said we should go later when fesco was discussing things, but I thought we'd have this out of the way by now :-/ Jeremy From kanarip at kanarip.com Thu Jun 7 12:00:04 2007 From: kanarip at kanarip.com (Jeroen van Meeuwen) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 14:00:04 +0200 Subject: Was it a failure to not do Fedora 7 CD's In-Reply-To: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> References: <4665AAEA.2000000@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <4667F344.9010904@kanarip.com> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi, > > from looking at the F7-feedback I saw on the lists, in reviews, in blogs > and in other places I more and more think it was a failure to not do a > CD version of the "Fedora" spins. > > Seems people are quite unhappy; the two main reasons afaics are: > > * people did not realize yet to use the Live-CD for installs > It seems we so much forget that the LiveCD installation still needs RPM files, not included on the media. There's plenty of Fedora users that do not have as fast an internet connection like "we" do, or none at all. See also the success of Fedora Unity Re-Spins in many countries with such circumstances. This makes a point and IMHO it has been overlooked (erhm, doh, it hasn't really been overlooked, but the consequences may have been underestimated). All other reasons, such as limited space on our mirrors, certainly make sense but a solution to that problem that still included spreading Installation CDs like we "always" used to maybe should have been found before abandoning the CD set at all. One could argue however that with the latest tools, one can create CD sets of their own, either from a downloaded F7 DVD repository or directly from the net. However, these tools only run with F7 so one needs a LiveCD and a DVD ISO, then use the tools and create the CD set. Just my ? 0.02 Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip From mspevack at redhat.com Thu Jun 7 14:35:08 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:35:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Upcoming FESCo Election In-Reply-To: <1181152823.8071.81.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> References: <1180627394.5867.2.camel@lincoln> <465FAA92.6050708@leemhuis.info> <1181152823.8071.81.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Jun 2007, Jeremy Katz wrote: > I tend to agree here... it's important for the upcoming Board election > as well. And so the Board has started down the road of getting a > proposal out. But LinuxTag and Fedora 7's release kind of put a speed > bump in front of things there. I could definitely see an argument for > delaying the election for that and probably would have said we should > go later when fesco was discussing things, but I thought we'd have > this out of the way by now :-/ I'll have something out on this list that continues the discussion before the end of the week. --Max From fedora at leemhuis.info Thu Jun 7 16:37:23 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:37:23 +0200 Subject: mailing list reorganization Message-ID: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> Hi, on fedora-maintainers there are some discussion to reshuffle the mailing lists a bit. See the archives or your inbox for details. We have considered a reorganization for some of the mailing list mess months ago already; I drove the task back then but put it on hold -- mainly * because F7 and the merge seemed to be way more important in the pasts months (I think that was the best for all of us). * I got told we would get hardware for a mailman host by mid April Well, F7 is out now and with the discussions heating up again now I'd like to get some questions answered by the board so we all know how to move on with it. * do we still want to set up out own mailman and a mailserver for it? Is that okay for legal? * how important is it for the Board? According to https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-June/msg00417.html its likely "a very low priority to the infrastructure team"; if we want to have a own list server we would likely need to make it a higher priority for some time Further: What I'd like to see is this: * we set up a mailman and everything else needed as lists.fedoraproject.org * we create the fedora-devel-announce there as first list * if everything works we work further through the reorganizations bits (proposal from the last discussion can be found at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ThorstenLeemhuis/MailingListReorganization -- *warning*, wasn't touched much in the past months and likely needs some adjustments, so don't take a close look); we only move over some of the lists at a time to check if everything working * if everything works we move the rest of the fedora lists over Does that sound like a plan? The alternate plan would be: simply discuss the mailing list reorganization again and realize it on the current mailman instance. Opinions? CU thl From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Jun 7 16:52:00 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:52:00 -0500 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > * I got told we would get hardware for a mailman host by mid April > > You weren't, you were told we didn't have hardware for mailman and that we'd be getting more hardware in April. We have it, and we still don't have hardware for a dedicated mailman host. > * how important is it for the Board? According to > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-June/msg00417.html > its likely "a very low priority to the infrastructure team"; if we want > to have a own list server we would likely need to make it a higher > priority for some time > I'd like to point out that we can re-org the mailing lists without hosting it ourselves. I just want to make sure the infrastructure team doesn't take on this, which is a pretty major task, just because 2 or 3 people want it that way. Is there general support from the FAB to host this ourselves? -Mike From fedora at leemhuis.info Thu Jun 7 17:19:39 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 19:19:39 +0200 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> Message-ID: <46683E2B.1010309@leemhuis.info> On 07.06.2007 18:52, Mike McGrath wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> * I got told we would get hardware for a mailman host by mid April > You weren't, you were told we didn't have hardware for mailman and that > we'd be getting more hardware in April. We have it, and we still don't > have hardware for a dedicated mailman host. There was a communication problem then somewhere. Sorry. I got the impression that some Red Hat people wanted to set up a separate server and talked to you internally about that; when we two were talking about the hardware for the mailing list reporg I accidentally assumed it would be for a seperate server. Let's forget about it now and just move on. >> * how important is it for the Board? According to >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-June/msg00417.html >> its likely "a very low priority to the infrastructure team"; if we want >> to have a own list server we would likely need to make it a higher >> priority for some time > I'd like to point out that we can re-org the mailing lists without > hosting it ourselves. I just want to make sure the infrastructure team > doesn't take on this, which is a pretty major task, just because 2 or 3 > people want it that way. Is there general support from the FAB to host > this ourselves? Fine with me, but using the hostname like list.fedoraproject.org would be nice, if possible without much hassle. Cu thl From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jun 7 18:30:27 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:30:27 -0400 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 07 June 2007 12:52:00 Mike McGrath wrote: > I'd like to point out that we can re-org the mailing lists without > hosting it ourselves. ?I just want to make sure the infrastructure team > doesn't take on this, which is a pretty major task, just because 2 or 3 > people want it that way. ?Is there general support from the FAB to host > this ourselves? I'm far more in favor of letting Red Hat to continue hosting the mailman stuff. If we can do it with a different domain, great. But they have a working setup for mailman hosting, reasonable spam filters, very good uptime, a working privacy system in place, etc... I don't see any value of trying to reproduce all this stuff just to be "more free" from Red Hat. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Jun 7 20:07:39 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:07:39 -0700 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181246859.3469.208.camel@erato.phig.org> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 14:30 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007 12:52:00 Mike McGrath wrote: > > I'd like to point out that we can re-org the mailing lists without > > hosting it ourselves. I just want to make sure the infrastructure team > > doesn't take on this, which is a pretty major task, just because 2 or 3 > > people want it that way. Is there general support from the FAB to host > > this ourselves? > > I'm far more in favor of letting Red Hat to continue hosting the mailman > stuff. If we can do it with a different domain, great. But they have a > working setup for mailman hosting, reasonable spam filters, very good uptime, > a working privacy system in place, etc... I don't see any value of trying to > reproduce all this stuff just to be "more free" from Red Hat. Aside from how nice it would be to use lists.fp.o (well, more typing, but "All together now!" is a good reason), there is the single most important challenge. It still requires @redhat.com to initially request a mailing list. I'm not against restricted access for list requests, but it should be by role/position (merit) and not employment status. If the best way to solve this is to pull the list server over the wall, fine. If we can get a hook into FAS and a 'maillist_requester' into listman.redhat.com, fine. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jun 7 20:25:59 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 16:25:59 -0400 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <1181246859.3469.208.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181246859.3469.208.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <200706071626.02763.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 07 June 2007 16:07:39 Karsten Wade wrote: > Aside from how nice it would be to use lists.fp.o (well, more typing, > but "All together now!" is a good reason), there is the single most > important challenge. > > It still requires @redhat.com to initially request a mailing list. ?I'm > not against restricted access for list requests, but it should be by > role/position (merit) and not employment status. > > If the best way to solve this is to pull the list server over the wall, > fine. ?If we can get a hook into FAS and a 'maillist_requester' into > listman.redhat.com, fine. I don't think the best way to work better with RH IS is to bypass RH IS (: If we come up with a way to determine who within Fedora space is allowed to request mailing lists, and come up for a way for RH IS to verify this, then it should be fine. I think Matt Domsch has done some things like this for getting new mirrors signed up. This doesn't sound like a hard problem to solve. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Fri Jun 8 05:54:17 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 11:24:17 +0530 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <200706071626.02763.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181246859.3469.208.camel@erato.phig.org> <200706071626.02763.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4668EF09.6060708@fedoraproject.org> Jesse Keating wrote: > I don't think the best way to work better with RH IS is to bypass RH IS (: If > we come up with a way to determine who within Fedora space is allowed to > request mailing lists, and come up for a way for RH IS to verify this, then > it should be fine. I think Matt Domsch has done some things like this for > getting new mirrors signed up. This doesn't sound like a hard problem to > solve. If someone from the Fedora Infrastructure team like Mike has direct access to it, that might work well. Currently it takes like a couple of weeks to just setup a mailing list or close one. That is not too much of a trouble but it is a pain nevertheless. Rahul From fedora at leemhuis.info Fri Jun 8 06:03:42 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:03:42 +0200 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <4668EF09.6060708@fedoraproject.org> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181246859.3469.208.camel@erato.phig.org> <200706071626.02763.jkeating@redhat.com> <4668EF09.6060708@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4668F13E.3080607@leemhuis.info> On 08.06.2007 07:54, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > >> I don't think the best way to work better with RH IS is to bypass RH IS (: If >> we come up with a way to determine who within Fedora space is allowed to >> request mailing lists, and come up for a way for RH IS to verify this, then >> it should be fine. I think Matt Domsch has done some things like this for >> getting new mirrors signed up. This doesn't sound like a hard problem to >> solve. > If someone from the Fedora Infrastructure team like Mike has direct > access to it, that might work well. Currently it takes like a couple of > weeks to just setup a mailing list or close one. That is not too much of > a trouble but it is a pain nevertheless. +1 Further: when I closed fedora-extras-list there was no easy way to get a full subscribers list from the webinterface (I wanted to invite all of them to fedora-devel) (?). According to my research that would have been easy with direct access to the mailman host. An getting those lists easily would be really good *if* we want to reshuffle more lists, as we would be in similar situation there. CU thl (?) -- yes, I know, one (often only the mailing list admins) can ask mailman for a list of all subscribed users from the web interface; but it's possible to set a hidden flag to not get listed there; quite a few of our users that that flag afaik From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 11:06:56 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 07:06:56 -0400 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <4668EF09.6060708@fedoraproject.org> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <200706071626.02763.jkeating@redhat.com> <4668EF09.6060708@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200706080706.56736.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 08 June 2007 01:54:17 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > If someone from the Fedora Infrastructure team like Mike has direct > access to it, that might work well. Currently it takes like a couple of > weeks to just setup a mailing list or close one. That is not too much of > a trouble but it is a pain nevertheless. We may not even need direct access. What we need is an agreed upon SLA with the mailman admins so that there is an expected time of completion. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Jun 8 17:25:11 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:25:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. Message-ID: It's time to finish up all the conversations that we've had about governance, boards that need to be elected/appointed, decision-making, etc. And to try to learn some things from past releases. Here's my thoughts. I'm sure there will be lots of comments. I hope this gets us a good portion of the way to where we need to be, though. --Max ============================ FEDORA BOARD + Comes up with the high level goals for Fedora (like merging core/extras, live cd, an external build system and compose tools, custom spins). Talking about these things in public, saying with an "authoritative" voice "this is what is most important for Fedora" at least sets up the possibility for innovation in those areas to happen. + Make decisions that cannot be made at a lower level, and that bubble all the way up to the top. + Manage other Fedora sub-projects and delegate. The Fedora Board is not meant to be an engineering group. It's meant to be an overall executive kind of group that handles the big picture issues, the legal stuff, any topics that must remain private, etc. The Fedora Board will be turning over some of its seats shortly. Chris Blizzard and Bill Nottingham will remain in Red Hat appointed seats. Seth Vidal will move from an "elected" seat to an "appointed" seat, since he is starting full time at Red Hat. Karsten Wade has accepted a Red Hat appointed seat. The fifth Red Hat appointed seat will be filled after the elected seats are determined. Matt Domsch is going to carry over in one of the elected seats. The other three will be left open for election. The process around that will be discussed separately. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/History http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/SuccessionPlanning Moving on to the next "decision making body" brings us to what was previously the Fedora Extras Steering Committee and is now the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. What has FESCO historically been very good at? + Representing the voice of non-RH Fedora contributors. + Building up and running Fedora Extras - the "theory" of Fedora packaging (via packaging committee) - the "practice" of Fedora packaging (the sponsor process, etc.) - increasing the amount of software in the Fedora world. Similarly, there was the "Fedora Core Cabal" which handled (not as openly as was required): + A general release schedule for Core. + A feature list for a given release. + Release engineering-type stuff. + Release ready-ness. These groups need to combine in the new Fedora world. They need to combine in a way that ensures that discussions are all had in public, but also in a way that can make sure that people who have expertise in various areas listed above still have the ability to make sure those parts of Fedora work well. For example, we're not going to create a release engineering body that doesn't involve Jesse. I propose a Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, that "reports" to the Fedora Board and that "oversees" the following sub-groups (1) Features, led by John Poelstra. This group tracks feature development (from spec through code) for various things that we'd like to have end up in Fedora at some point. They work with the schedule to see where things might land, and also determine what features are "critical" for a certain version of Fedora, and what features are able to go in "when they are ready". This group, by necessity, will have to interact with RHEL engineering management at times. The work this group does should be on the Fedora wiki, and any meetings held with RHEL folks should have their key points summarized back to the group at large. (2) The Theory of Packaging. We have a packaging committee that works great. It should keep doing its job. (3) The Practice of Packaging. One of the responsibilities of the "old" FESCO. It continues to be one of the most important things that we do in Fedora. Keeping the process for getting new code into Fedora repositories working, keeping sponsorship moving, getting new packages built and into the repositories. (4) Release Engineering, led by Jesse Keating. (5) QA and release ready-ness, led by Will Woods. I think that the community at large has the maturity to appoint certain people to FESCO, and to elect others, in order to ensure that these various groups are all getting the right people involved in them, and working properly. The Fedora Board is going to do a better job of asking FESCO for updates, and will also try to not micromanage. Things like the release schedule can work as follows: The Fedora Board has said "we'd like to get as close to a Halloween/May Day release cycle as possible." The Features and Release Engineering teams can discuss a potential schedule that comes close to that, and present it to the Board for an ack. As changes are needed to that schedule, they too can be presented to the Board for an ack. The Fedora Board's overall job remains the same: - have a general plan for a release's timeframe and big goals - handle the brunt of Red Hat's internal complaints. - manage FESCO/engineering parts of Fedora as needed - be the point of contact for all other parts of Fedora that needs to escalate issues upward. From kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 17:40:42 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:40:42 -0700 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <4668F13E.3080607@leemhuis.info> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181246859.3469.208.camel@erato.phig.org> <200706071626.02763.jkeating@redhat.com> <4668EF09.6060708@fedoraproject.org> <4668F13E.3080607@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <1181324442.3469.290.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 08:03 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > An getting those lists easily would be really good *if* we want to > reshuffle more lists, as we would be in similar situation there. Recommend you ask (admin.fp.o/tickets) for someone to request a full list of subscribers for lists, when doing shuffling. Mike can get the RH mailman admins to generate those for us. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 jkeating at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 17:42:15 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 13:42:15 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200706081342.15311.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 08 June 2007 13:25:11 Max Spevack wrote: > Here's my thoughts. ?I'm sure there will be lots of comments. ?I hope > this gets us a good portion of the way to where we need to be, though. Max, I like this proposal, it seems to fit well with what we're currently doing and capable of doing. +1 -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Fri Jun 8 17:46:35 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:16:35 +0530 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <466995FB.1090109@fedoraproject.org> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007 12:52:00 Mike McGrath wrote: >> I'd like to point out that we can re-org the mailing lists without >> hosting it ourselves. I just want to make sure the infrastructure team >> doesn't take on this, which is a pretty major task, just because 2 or 3 >> people want it that way. Is there general support from the FAB to host >> this ourselves? > > I'm far more in favor of letting Red Hat to continue hosting the mailman > stuff. If we can do it with a different domain, great. I think this is the desirable path, atleast for now. 1) If there is consensus on this, what are the steps involved? How long would it take to get done? 2) Who is taking the responsibility of talking to Red Hat IT and getting direct access to setup fedora mailing lists or getting and enforcing a SLA from the team? 3) Do we want to move the domain and then do a reorganization or both together? Rahul From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jun 8 17:51:47 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:21:47 +0530 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46699733.50702@fedoraproject.org> Max Spevack wrote: > > (1) Features, led by John Poelstra. This group tracks feature > development (from spec through code) for various things that we'd like > to have end up in Fedora at some point. I think this proposal is solid but I would like to have a clarification here. Is John Poelstra going to arbitrate features or just going to keep track of them? If he is keeping track of these features how do they end up in the features list? Are they going to get proposed and added by various teams and SIG's within Fedora or they driven by a higher level group? A combination of both of these? If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), is it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on them? Rahul From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Fri Jun 8 17:57:18 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:57:18 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20070608175718.GB17010@neu.nirvana> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 01:25:11PM -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > I propose a Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, that "reports" to the > Fedora Board and that "oversees" the following sub-groups > > (1) Features, led by John Poelstra. > (2) The Theory of Packaging. > (3) The Practice of Packaging. > (4) Release Engineering, > (5) QA and release ready-ness, [...] > Things like the release schedule can work as follows: > > The Fedora Board has said "we'd like to get as close to a Halloween/May > Day release cycle as possible." > > The Features and Release Engineering teams can discuss a potential > schedule that comes close to that, and present it to the Board for an > ack. As changes are needed to that schedule, they too can be presented > to the Board for an ack. Doesn't that short-cirquit fesco out of the loop? E.g. if fesco is supposed to be overseeing those two teams it sounds like a) board decides on Halloween/May Day ETA b) fesco interacts with feature/releng teams and lays out a plan to fulfill the board's input. c) fesco presents to the board the results, e.g. whether this is possible and what the constraining parameters will be (which features will make it etc) If this is considered too much hierarchical procedure then these two teams need to be attached to the board directly. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Fri Jun 8 18:01:00 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 20:01:00 +0200 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <466995FB.1090109@fedoraproject.org> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <466995FB.1090109@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20070608180100.GC17010@neu.nirvana> On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 11:16:35PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > >On Thursday 07 June 2007 12:52:00 Mike McGrath wrote: > >>I'd like to point out that we can re-org the mailing lists without > >>hosting it ourselves. I just want to make sure the infrastructure team > >>doesn't take on this, which is a pretty major task, just because 2 or 3 > >>people want it that way. Is there general support from the FAB to host > >>this ourselves? > > > >I'm far more in favor of letting Red Hat to continue hosting the mailman > >stuff. If we can do it with a different domain, great. > > I think this is the desirable path, atleast for now. > > 1) If there is consensus on this, what are the steps involved? How long > would it take to get done? > > 2) Who is taking the responsibility of talking to Red Hat IT and getting > direct access to setup fedora mailing lists or getting and enforcing a > SLA from the team? > > 3) Do we want to move the domain and then do a reorganization or both > together? Technically it doesn't matter as if the same mailman instance is used, all you can do is hide the lists from the web view of the various mailman virtual domains. But you need to keep the global constraint of disjoint mailing list names, so dropping fedora- prefix will probably not work. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 18:02:59 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:02:59 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070608175718.GB17010@neu.nirvana> References: <20070608175718.GB17010@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <200706081402.59995.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 08 June 2007 13:57:18 Axel Thimm wrote: > Doesn't that short-cirquit fesco out of the loop? E.g. if fesco is > supposed to be overseeing those two teams it sounds like > > a) board decides on Halloween/May Day ETA > b) fesco interacts with feature/releng teams and lays out a plan to > ? ?fulfill the board's input. > c) fesco presents to the board the results, e.g. whether this is > ? ?possible and what the constraining parameters will be (which > ? ?features will make it etc) > > If this is considered too much hierarchical procedure then these two > teams need to be attached to the board directly. I overlooked this myself. IMHO the release team and feature team and QA team should present their thoughts/desires to FESCo to decide on the schedule and -that- would be presented to the board for final sign off. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Jun 8 18:17:14 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:17:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <200706081402.59995.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20070608175718.GB17010@neu.nirvana> <200706081402.59995.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 08 June 2007 13:57:18 Axel Thimm wrote: >> Doesn't that short-cirquit fesco out of the loop? E.g. if fesco is >> supposed to be overseeing those two teams it sounds like >> >> a) board decides on Halloween/May Day ETA >> b) fesco interacts with feature/releng teams and lays out a plan to >> ? ?fulfill the board's input. >> c) fesco presents to the board the results, e.g. whether this is >> ? ?possible and what the constraining parameters will be (which >> ? ?features will make it etc) >> >> If this is considered too much hierarchical procedure then these two >> teams need to be attached to the board directly. > > I overlooked this myself. IMHO the release team and feature team and QA team > should present their thoughts/desires to FESCo to decide on the schedule > and -that- would be presented to the board for final sign off. Fair enough. I would like FESCO to be as lightweight as possible, while still providing necessary and proper oversight. That's sort of my leadership/management theory in general, actually. --Max From mspevack at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 18:22:24 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 14:22:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <46699733.50702@fedoraproject.org> References: <46699733.50702@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I think this proposal is solid but I would like to have a > clarification here. Is John Poelstra going to arbitrate features or > just going to keep track of them? If he is keeping track of these > features how do they end up in the features list? Are they going to > get proposed and added by various teams and SIG's within Fedora or > they driven by a higher level group? A combination of both of these? Anyone can place features on the list. If work gets done, and a feature is completed and gets in during the appropriate Test1, Test2, etc cycles, then wonderful. If a particular feature is "owned" by RHEL engineering or some other Red Hat group, then it stands to reason that they will get it done in time for inclusion in the appropriate Fedora release. John's job is mostly to bring organization, sanity, process, and clarity to the Fedora feature process. It's never really had those adjectives used to describe it before. > If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the > schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem > unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), > is it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on > them? I suppose the first line of conversation would be FESCO, with consultation or escalation to the Fedora Board if it is particularly conentious, or has some sort of "special" considerations that need to be discussed. -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From katzj at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 18:23:18 2007 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 14:23:18 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <46699733.50702@fedoraproject.org> References: <46699733.50702@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1181326998.3870.3.camel@aglarond.local> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 23:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Max Spevack wrote: > > (1) Features, led by John Poelstra. This group tracks feature > > development (from spec through code) for various things that we'd like > > to have end up in Fedora at some point. > > I think this proposal is solid but I would like to have a clarification > here. Is John Poelstra going to arbitrate features or just going to keep > track of them? If he is keeping track of these features how do they end > up in the features list? Are they going to get proposed and added by > various teams and SIG's within Fedora or they driven by a higher level > group? A combination of both of these? I think John (as the "head/chair" of the feature group) is doing a lot of tracking -- but also probably making sure that features that are put on the list actually meet the criteria for being a release feature. Things like "someone is committed to doing the work" and "the work is reasonable based on the schedule" > If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the > schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem > unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), is > it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on them? FESCo generally Jeremy From kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 19:08:35 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:08:35 -0700 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181326998.3870.3.camel@aglarond.local> References: <46699733.50702@fedoraproject.org> <1181326998.3870.3.camel@aglarond.local> Message-ID: <1181329715.3469.325.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 14:23 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 23:21 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > If there are disputes regarding the features being proposed or the > > schedule between releases (A strict schedule would avoid this problem > > unless we want to change it for a particular release as a exception), is > > it the responsibility of FESCo or Fedora Board to arbitrate on them? > > FESCo generally +1 It should take more than just one person complaining to get the FPB involved (as a body) in these decisions. Obviously, Board members may be involved as contributors in the decision. What I'm saying is, it shouldn't be possible to do an end-run[1] around FESCo, unless there is something egregious happening. To prevent that, we may want an informal "Ombudsman clause". Someone from the community can contact an FPB member directly, specify the egregiousness, and that Board member can either take it to the rest of the Board, or talk to the FESCo chair about the situation. Objective -- avoid wasteful and silly fights. :) - Karsten [1] Idiomatic phrase from American football, meaning to skip the usual processes and go around a blocking entity. -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 tburke at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 19:31:57 2007 From: tburke at redhat.com (Tim Burke) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:31:57 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4669AEAD.5090109@redhat.com> Max Spevack wrote: > FEDORA BOARD > > + Comes up with the high level goals for Fedora (like merging > core/extras, live cd, an external build system and compose tools, > custom spins). Talking about these things in public, saying with an > "authoritative" voice "this is what is most important for Fedora" at > least sets up the possibility for innovation in those areas to happen. > "high level goals is a very broad term", so it may well cover what I'm thinking... Most of this discussion and detail is about the mechanics of putting out a release. I think another major objective of the board is less about release production and more about community. Such as broading adoption, making things approachable for growing communities. I know you guys do spend a lot of time on that, so I think its useful to have some mention in the charter responsibilities of the board that there a lot of outreach involved. From kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 19:46:00 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:46:00 -0700 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1181331960.3469.337.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 13:25 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > I propose a Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, that "reports" to the > Fedora Board and that "oversees" the following sub-groups There is one other issue to address here, and that is the groups that have coverage/responsibility over areas that impacts FESCo. Such as L10n, Docs, etc. I'd like to see some codification of the responsibility of the steering committees to: 1. Keep FPB updated about their plans, and 2. Work as peers with a dotted-line reporting requirement to FESCo For example, I think it is the job of FDSCo to let FESCo know what cool stuff we are planning and working on. FESCo needs to have say on that direction *and* needs to help push the groups they oversee and the developers within them to follow new changes. A sort of two-way responsibility, as peer groups, with various dependencies between, etc. To match this, I think that steering committees that fail to do these dotted-line duties should be disbanded. Leaders who don't/won't work openly and within the community, who don't do their dotted-line duties, should be removed. If that seems too Draconian to start with, we want to at least be certain that our "positive messaging" approach leaves no doubt as to what is required/acceptable behavior. Because, yes, there are people who need to be reminded to play open and nice with the other kids. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 19:46:57 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:46:57 -0700 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <4669AEAD.5090109@redhat.com> References: <4669AEAD.5090109@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181332017.3469.339.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 15:31 -0400, Tim Burke wrote: > "high level goals is a very broad term", so it may well cover what I'm > thinking... Most of this discussion and detail is about the mechanics > of putting out a release. I think another major objective of the board > is less about release production and more about community. Such as > broading adoption, making things approachable for growing communities. > I know you guys do spend a lot of time on that, so I think its useful to > have some mention in the charter responsibilities of the board that > there a lot of outreach involved. +1 Fedora is so much more than just a Linux distro ... :) - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 19:51:47 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:51:47 -0700 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <20070608175718.GB17010@neu.nirvana> <200706081402.59995.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181332307.3469.345.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 14:17 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > Fair enough. I would like FESCO to be as lightweight as possible, while > still providing necessary and proper oversight. > > That's sort of my leadership/management theory in general, actually. You cannot easily lighten another's load without their wanting it, though. *All* steering committees are empowered to pass on "responsibility of decision making" to a smaller group. If FESCo is feeling too heavy with discussions and decisions, it can easily choose to empower a few members, a SIG, etc. to make a decision. FESCo retains the "accountability of the decision", and takes that to FPB, who are the group accountable to (in order) the Community, the Contributors, and the Sponsors. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 kwade at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 19:54:56 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 12:54:56 -0700 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <466995FB.1090109@fedoraproject.org> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <466995FB.1090109@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1181332496.3469.349.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 23:16 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Thursday 07 June 2007 12:52:00 Mike McGrath wrote: > >> I'd like to point out that we can re-org the mailing lists without > >> hosting it ourselves. I just want to make sure the infrastructure team > >> doesn't take on this, which is a pretty major task, just because 2 or 3 > >> people want it that way. Is there general support from the FAB to host > >> this ourselves? > > > > I'm far more in favor of letting Red Hat to continue hosting the mailman > > stuff. If we can do it with a different domain, great. > > I think this is the desirable path, atleast for now. > > 1) If there is consensus on this, what are the steps involved? How long > would it take to get done? f-infra-l question > 2) Who is taking the responsibility of talking to Red Hat IT and getting > direct access to setup fedora mailing lists or getting and enforcing a > SLA from the team? f-infra-l question > 3) Do we want to move the domain and then do a reorganization or both > together? I recommend both, and I think this is a usability question more than a community-preference question. That moves it from the realm of f-a-b into ... golly, I dunno. f-websites-l seems to be the group best staffed to discuss usability issues ... - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Jun 8 20:45:23 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:15:23 +0530 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <1181332496.3469.349.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <466995FB.1090109@fedoraproject.org> <1181332496.3469.349.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <4669BFE3.3080200@fedoraproject.org> Karsten Wade wrote: >> 3) Do we want to move the domain and then do a reorganization or both >> together? > > I recommend both, and I think this is a usability question more than a > community-preference question. That moves it from the realm of f-a-b > into ... golly, I dunno. f-websites-l seems to be the group best > staffed to discuss usability issues ... I doubt that. Many mails there just go unanswered. Rahul From mmcgrath at redhat.com Fri Jun 8 20:52:52 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:52:52 -0500 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <4669BFE3.3080200@fedoraproject.org> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <466837B0.2070409@redhat.com> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <466995FB.1090109@fedoraproject.org> <1181332496.3469.349.camel@erato.phig.org> <4669BFE3.3080200@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4669C1A4.7060001@redhat.com> Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Karsten Wade wrote: > >>> 3) Do we want to move the domain and then do a reorganization or >>> both together? >> >> I recommend both, and I think this is a usability question more than a >> community-preference question. That moves it from the realm of f-a-b >> into ... golly, I dunno. f-websites-l seems to be the group best >> staffed to discuss usability issues ... > > I doubt that. Many mails there just go unanswered. I vouch for the websites list, they've been doing good works as of late. -Mike From dimitris at glezos.com Fri Jun 8 22:17:51 2007 From: dimitris at glezos.com (Dimitris Glezos) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 23:17:51 +0100 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181332017.3469.339.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <4669AEAD.5090109@redhat.com> <1181332017.3469.339.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <4669D58F.4030908@glezos.com> O/H Karsten Wade ??????: > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 15:31 -0400, Tim Burke wrote: > >> "high level goals is a very broad term", so it may well cover what I'm >> thinking... Most of this discussion and detail is about the mechanics >> of putting out a release. I think another major objective of the board >> is less about release production and more about community. Such as >> broading adoption, making things approachable for growing communities. >> I know you guys do spend a lot of time on that, so I think its useful to >> have some mention in the charter responsibilities of the board that >> there a lot of outreach involved. > > +1 > > Fedora is so much more than just a Linux distro ... :) I too believe that the board should continue to increase its attention to community empowerment and enablement rather than technical issues/decisions. "Community" not as in not-Red-Hatters-developers, but as "contributors and users of Fedora -- present and future, and their potential -- small or large". -d -- 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 fedora at leemhuis.info Sat Jun 9 12:42:17 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:42:17 +0200 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <1181324442.3469.290.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> <200706071430.27909.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181246859.3469.208.camel@erato.phig.org> <200706071626.02763.jkeating@redhat.com> <4668EF09.6060708@fedoraproject.org> <4668F13E.3080607@leemhuis.info> <1181324442.3469.290.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <466AA029.6060109@leemhuis.info> On 08.06.2007 19:40, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 08:03 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> An getting those lists easily would be really good *if* we want to >> reshuffle more lists, as we would be in similar situation there. > Recommend you ask (admin.fp.o/tickets) for someone to request a full > list of subscribers for lists, when doing shuffling. Mike can get the > RH mailman admins to generate those for us. k, will remember it for the next time (for fedora-extras-list it was not worth the trouble -- I was able to manually find the "hidden" ones, but it took me 15 minutes as I had to click and look manually through 26 different pages...). CU thl From fedora at leemhuis.info Sat Jun 9 12:49:03 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:49:03 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <200706081342.15311.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200706081342.15311.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <466AA1BF.3020408@leemhuis.info> On 08.06.2007 19:42, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 08 June 2007 13:25:11 Max Spevack wrote: >> Here's my thoughts. I'm sure there will be lots of comments. I hope >> this gets us a good portion of the way to where we need to be, though. > Max, I like this proposal, it seems to fit well with what we're currently > doing and capable of doing. +1 +1 one from me as well (in case anybody is wondering) CU thl From mspevack at redhat.com Sun Jun 10 01:29:54 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 21:29:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <4669D58F.4030908@glezos.com> References: <4669AEAD.5090109@redhat.com> <1181332017.3469.339.camel@erato.phig.org> <4669D58F.4030908@glezos.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, Dimitris Glezos wrote: >> On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 15:31 -0400, Tim Burke wrote: >> >>> "high level goals is a very broad term", so it may well cover what I'm >>> thinking... Most of this discussion and detail is about the mechanics >>> of putting out a release. I think another major objective of the board >>> is less about release production and more about community. Such as >>> broading adoption, making things approachable for growing communities. >>> I know you guys do spend a lot of time on that, so I think its useful to >>> have some mention in the charter responsibilities of the board that >>> there a lot of outreach involved. >> >> +1 >> >> Fedora is so much more than just a Linux distro ... :) > > I too believe that the board should continue to increase its attention > to community empowerment and enablement rather than technical > issues/decisions. "Community" not as in not-Red-Hatters-developers, > but as "contributors and users of Fedora -- present and future, and > their potential -- small or large". Yes, an emphatic +1. This was, I would say, so obvious a requirement to me as I was writing it that I didn't even bother to write it down. Everything starts with community building and goes from there. --Max From luis at tieguy.org Sun Jun 10 03:47:04 2007 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 23:47:04 -0400 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] Message-ID: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> Returning to an old rant, where I described some of the reasons I was still using Ubuntu:[1] On 1/3/07, Luis Villa wrote: > * QA: Ubuntu aggressively pushes people to use their development > branch and report problems, which leads to better, more stable final > releases. At the time I chose to use Ubuntu, people were not just not > encouraged, but actively discouraged from using rawhide. This is > improving... When I went looking for rawhide information tonight, I found it impossible to find, so maybe I take back what I said about the situation improving :/ Try googling for 'fedora rawhide', or 'rawhide site:fedoraproject.org' and see what you get. What is up with that? I ask here because it could be a web or marketing team problem (page exists, but needs SEO love) or because it could be a QA team problem (page forgotten about?[2] page not deemed to be required?) Whatever the cause/responsibility for the problem, it seems like a critical problem to fix.[3] Luis [1] I'm now running F7. [2] free tip: on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA rawhide should be more prominent than, say, CLAs. CLAs don't help find bugs. Also, it would help if rawhide were mentioned *at all*. :) [3] Am willing to lecture on the criticality of the problem at great length if necessary, but I assume it should be self-evident for most here. From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Jun 10 09:49:01 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:49:01 +0200 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 11:47:04PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > Returning to an old rant, where I described some of the reasons I was > still using Ubuntu:[1] > > On 1/3/07, Luis Villa wrote: > >* QA: Ubuntu aggressively pushes people to use their development > >branch and report problems, which leads to better, more stable final > >releases. At the time I chose to use Ubuntu, people were not just not > >encouraged, but actively discouraged from using rawhide. This is > >improving... > > When I went looking for rawhide information tonight, I found it > impossible to find, so maybe I take back what I said about the > situation improving :/ Try googling for 'fedora rawhide', or 'rawhide > site:fedoraproject.org' and see what you get. > > What is up with that? I ask here because it could be a web or > marketing team problem (page exists, but needs SEO love) or because it > could be a QA team problem (page forgotten about?[2] page not deemed > to be required?) The term rawhide stems from before Fedora (Core). During Fedora Core 1 and later there was a marketing effort to rename it to development. So any rawhide references have been officially changed to development. But rawhide is such a persistant name that it just doesn't fade away :) Don't ask me why it was decided to not use this name anymore, maybe because it was derived from and resembles too much Red Hat ("Raw-Hide")? But people need a name for the next to come release, so rawhide is still used. Maybe if instead of a generic name like "development" it would get a code name then people would really drop using the term rawhide. Or Fedora could just reembrace the term "rawhide" and use it more prominently in the wiki, as most developers use the term rawhide anyway on lists, irc etc. So to come back to your problem: Just look for "development" instead of "rawhide" in the wiki. > Whatever the cause/responsibility for the problem, it seems like a > critical problem to fix.[3] > > Luis > > [1] I'm now running F7. > [2] free tip: on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA rawhide should be > more prominent than, say, CLAs. CLAs don't help find bugs. Also, it > would help if rawhide were mentioned *at all*. :) > [3] Am willing to lecture on the criticality of the problem at great > length if necessary, but I assume it should be self-evident for most > here. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fedora at leemhuis.info Sun Jun 10 10:01:45 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:01:45 +0200 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <466BCC09.2060105@leemhuis.info> On 10.06.2007 05:47, Luis Villa wrote: > [...] > What is up with that? I ask here because it could be a web or > marketing team problem (page exists, but needs SEO love) or because it > could be a QA team problem (page forgotten about?[2] page not deemed > to be required?) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Testing is afaik the page, but I'm not sure if there isn't a better page either. Further: Besides the documentation problems is mainly a self made problem afaics, because we IMHO heavily discourage people to run rawhide. Some of the reasons for this opinion: - we tell everyone rawhide can eat baby's. - we even tell people they can't upgrade from test releases to final Even I run rawhide only between test2/test3 and final. From the top of my head I'd suggest this to solve the problems: - better documentation for running rawhide - I for one would run rawhide on my main machines if it would be a bit less known to eat baby's. Maybe we could do that with a trick: maintain a second rawhide tree that only once a week (or all two weeks?) gets synced with the normal rawhide tree (files get hardlinked to save mirror space) when there are no known "baby eating things" and no "switch from python 2.(x) to 2.(x+1) in the work" - make it *easy* for people to update from the last test release to final and tell people that that's possible; then maybe more people would run test releases CU thl From fedora at leemhuis.info Sun Jun 10 10:05:23 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:05:23 +0200 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <466BCCE3.105@leemhuis.info> On 10.06.2007 11:49, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 11:47:04PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > [...] > The term rawhide stems from before Fedora (Core). During Fedora Core 1 > and later there was a marketing effort to rename it to development. So > any rawhide references have been officially changed to development. > > But rawhide is such a persistant name that it just doesn't fade away :) > > Don't ask me why it was decided to not use this name anymore, maybe > because it was derived from and resembles too much Red Hat > ("Raw-Hide")? But people need a name for the next to come release, so > rawhide is still used. > > Maybe if instead of a generic name like "development" it would get a > code name then people would really drop using the term rawhide. Or > Fedora could just reembrace the term "rawhide" and use it more > prominently in the wiki, as most developers use the term rawhide > anyway on lists, irc etc. +1 to that. One alternative to the last para: We could do what Ubuntu does: give the development tree the name of the next release when we are stating developing the release. CU thl From luis at tieguy.org Sun Jun 10 13:58:09 2007 From: luis at tieguy.org (Luis Villa) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 09:58:09 -0400 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> On 6/10/07, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 11:47:04PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: > > Returning to an old rant, where I described some of the reasons I was > > still using Ubuntu:[1] > > > > On 1/3/07, Luis Villa wrote: > > >* QA: Ubuntu aggressively pushes people to use their development > > >branch and report problems, which leads to better, more stable final > > >releases. At the time I chose to use Ubuntu, people were not just not > > >encouraged, but actively discouraged from using rawhide. This is > > >improving... > > > > When I went looking for rawhide information tonight, I found it > > impossible to find, so maybe I take back what I said about the > > situation improving :/ Try googling for 'fedora rawhide', or 'rawhide > > site:fedoraproject.org' and see what you get. > > > > What is up with that? I ask here because it could be a web or > > marketing team problem (page exists, but needs SEO love) or because it > > could be a QA team problem (page forgotten about?[2] page not deemed > > to be required?) > > The term rawhide stems from before Fedora (Core). During Fedora Core 1 > and later there was a marketing effort to rename it to development. So > any rawhide references have been officially changed to development. > > But rawhide is such a persistant name that it just doesn't fade away :) If someone tried to get rid of it four years ago(!), and I still see references to it hourly in IRC and right on the main wiki Testing page, then yes, the effort to get rid of it failed. > ... Just look for "development" instead of "rawhide" in the wiki. 'fedora development' is ungoogleable/unsearchable, and will always be unless people stop doing 'fedora development', so this is a waste of my time. Aside from it being ungoogleable, that still doesn't solve my problem- manually checking pages that should reference 'development' don't in fact reference it. For example: > > [2] free tip: on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA rawhide should be > > more prominent than, say, CLAs. CLAs don't help find bugs. Also, it > > would help if rawhide were mentioned *at all*. :) No mention there about where to find/how to install 'development.' http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development : No mention of how to actually get to the packages that are under development. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraTesting : No mention of how to actually get to the packages that are under development. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Testing : at least a mention that such packages exist. It even says rawhide (oops). Forgets to mention *how to get them*, though. Oops. So, again, maybe this information is somewhere, but it is ungoogleable and unfindable, at least to a mildly persistent person like me. (And don't get me started on thl's 'we still say it eats babies' email. I thought surely it was widely understood by now that a development tree that is believed to regularly eat babies is a bad thing? Yes, it needs warnings, but if no one runs it until test 3 you'll always have this last minute crush of critical bugs that should have been possible to discover and prioritize much earlier.) Luis From wtogami at redhat.com Sun Jun 10 21:19:16 2007 From: wtogami at redhat.com (Warren Togami) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:19:16 -0400 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <466C6AD4.5070802@redhat.com> Axel Thimm wrote: > > The term rawhide stems from before Fedora (Core). During Fedora Core 1 > and later there was a marketing effort to rename it to development. So > any rawhide references have been officially changed to development. > > But rawhide is such a persistant name that it just doesn't fade away :) > > Don't ask me why it was decided to not use this name anymore, maybe > because it was derived from and resembles too much Red Hat > ("Raw-Hide")? But people need a name for the next to come release, so > rawhide is still used. > > Maybe if instead of a generic name like "development" it would get a > code name then people would really drop using the term rawhide. Or > Fedora could just reembrace the term "rawhide" and use it more > prominently in the wiki, as most developers use the term rawhide > anyway on lists, irc etc. > > So to come back to your problem: Just look for "development" instead > of "rawhide" in the wiki. "development" is too generic of a word. Searches will find too much irrelevant information. We need to call it something unique or we lose. Warren Togami wtogami at redhat.com From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Jun 11 00:04:37 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:04:37 -0400 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <466C6AD4.5070802@redhat.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <466C6AD4.5070802@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200706102004.37577.jkeating@redhat.com> On Sunday 10 June 2007 17:19:16 Warren Togami wrote: > "development" is too generic of a word. ?Searches will find too much > irrelevant information. ?We need to call it something unique or we lose. I suggest 'rawhide'. (: -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- 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 Jun 11 00:20:34 2007 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 19:20:34 -0500 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <200706102004.37577.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <466C6AD4.5070802@redhat.com> <200706102004.37577.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <466C9552.7080409@domsch.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sunday 10 June 2007 17:19:16 Warren Togami wrote: > >> "development" is too generic of a word. Searches will find too much >> irrelevant information. We need to call it something unique or we lose. >> > > I suggest 'rawhide'. (: > I'm happy to rename the link on http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist/ to say "rawhide" rather than "development". -Matt From kwade at redhat.com Mon Jun 11 15:20:07 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:20:07 -0700 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <466BCC09.2060105@leemhuis.info> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <466BCC09.2060105@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <1181575207.3469.528.camel@erato.phig.org> On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 12:01 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > because we IMHO heavily discourage people to run > rawhide. I wonder if this is some kind of leftover Red Hat prejudice? Ironically, rawhide is more unstable because not enough people are running it. Personally, I do all my business work using Fedora. I can risk a few hours here and there, but I won't run rawhide if I can't be sure it is more stable than currently advertised. > - better documentation for running rawhide +1 It should include a simple procedure that allows an average user to: 1. Prepare a machine for being a dual F*/rawhide machine; 2. Take a latest release and turn it into a rawhide machine using yum; 3. Rollback to the stable current release (using yum?) if the state of rawhide is more unstable than a user can risk at that time. > - I for one would run rawhide on my main machines if it would be a bit > less known to eat baby's. Maybe we could do that with a trick: maintain > a second rawhide tree that only once a week (or all two weeks?) gets > synced with the normal rawhide tree (files get hardlinked to save mirror > space) when there are no known "baby eating things" and no "switch from > python 2.(x) to 2.(x+1) in the work" That's a good idea, and I concur that I would more likely to run rawhide under those conditions. Properly advertised, so would a lot of other people. Being able to run rawhide most of the time, know it is a week or two more stable than a nightly, and having an easy way to roll back to F* -- I think that is the magic formula. Oh, and as Luis says, advertise it. :) > - make it *easy* for people to update from the last test release to > final and tell people that that's possible; then maybe more people would > run test releases I think this goes hand-in-hand with the ability to rollback from rawhide to the latest release. Ironically, once we enable people with these methods and tools, we'll create a situation where we can more easily predict what is going to happen to a test release that is updated to final. Since no one is officially enabled or encouraged to do that, we lose out on valuable QA that could turn the untenable into tenable. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 davej at redhat.com Mon Jun 11 15:26:33 2007 From: davej at redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:26:33 -0400 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <1181575207.3469.528.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <466BCC09.2060105@leemhuis.info> <1181575207.3469.528.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <20070611152633.GB19359@redhat.com> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:20:07AM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 12:01 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > because we IMHO heavily discourage people to run > > rawhide. > > I wonder if this is some kind of leftover Red Hat prejudice? > > Ironically, rawhide is more unstable because not enough people are > running it. > > Personally, I do all my business work using Fedora. I can risk a few > hours here and there, but I won't run rawhide if I can't be sure it is > more stable than currently advertised. Something to note is that people have different perception of 'stable' too. With the kernel changing on an almost daily basis, you can pretty much forget having kmod's working most of the time due to API churn and associated breakage. Likewise, various other add-ons that people like to grab from livna, freshrpms etc will be busted six ways to sunday. People expecting this sort of thing to keep working in rawhide will be in for a surprise. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk From david at lovesunix.net Mon Jun 11 19:12:17 2007 From: david at lovesunix.net (David Nielsen) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:12:17 +0200 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <200706102004.37577.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <466C6AD4.5070802@redhat.com> <200706102004.37577.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181589138.3093.1.camel@dawkins> s?n, 10 06 2007 kl. 20:04 -0400, skrev Jesse Keating: > On Sunday 10 June 2007 17:19:16 Warren Togami wrote: > > "development" is too generic of a word. Searches will find too much > > irrelevant information. We need to call it something unique or we lose. > > I suggest 'rawhide'. (: Having run development since basically FC2 as my main desktop I suggest "Straight jacket", draw your own connotation. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Dette er en digitalt underskrevet brevdel URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Jun 11 19:23:39 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:23:39 +0200 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <20070611152633.GB19359@redhat.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <466BCC09.2060105@leemhuis.info> <1181575207.3469.528.camel@erato.phig.org> <20070611152633.GB19359@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070611192339.GC24343@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 11:26:33AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 08:20:07AM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > > On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 12:01 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > because we IMHO heavily discourage people to run > > > rawhide. > > > > I wonder if this is some kind of leftover Red Hat prejudice? > > > > Ironically, rawhide is more unstable because not enough people are > > running it. > > > > Personally, I do all my business work using Fedora. I can risk a few > > hours here and there, but I won't run rawhide if I can't be sure it is > > more stable than currently advertised. > > Something to note is that people have different perception of 'stable' too. > With the kernel changing on an almost daily basis, you can pretty much > forget having kmod's working most of the time due to API churn and > associated breakage. Likewise, various other add-ons that people like > to grab from livna, freshrpms etc will be busted six ways to sunday. > > People expecting this sort of thing to keep working in rawhide will be > in for a surprise. It was tough, but ATrpms managed to stay on par with rawhide for most of the time between test2 and GA. But I run a mirror and have most of the kernel module stuff rebuild automated, the fun was when the rebuilds would not build anymore. Still it was managable. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- 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 Tue Jun 12 03:43:00 2007 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:43:00 -0700 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> Luis Villa wrote: > On 6/10/07, Axel Thimm wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 11:47:04PM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: >> > Returning to an old rant, where I described some of the reasons I was >> > still using Ubuntu:[1] >> > >> > On 1/3/07, Luis Villa wrote: >> > >* QA: Ubuntu aggressively pushes people to use their development >> > >branch and report problems, which leads to better, more stable final >> > >releases. At the time I chose to use Ubuntu, people were not just not >> > >encouraged, but actively discouraged from using rawhide. This is >> > >improving... >> > >> > When I went looking for rawhide information tonight, I found it >> > impossible to find, so maybe I take back what I said about the >> > situation improving :/ Try googling for 'fedora rawhide', or 'rawhide >> > site:fedoraproject.org' and see what you get. >> > >> > What is up with that? I ask here because it could be a web or >> > marketing team problem (page exists, but needs SEO love) or because it >> > could be a QA team problem (page forgotten about?[2] page not deemed >> > to be required?) >> >> The term rawhide stems from before Fedora (Core). During Fedora Core 1 >> and later there was a marketing effort to rename it to development. So >> any rawhide references have been officially changed to development. >> >> But rawhide is such a persistant name that it just doesn't fade away :) > > If someone tried to get rid of it four years ago(!), and I still see > references to it hourly in IRC and right on the main wiki Testing > page, then yes, the effort to get rid of it failed. > >> ... Just look for "development" instead of "rawhide" in the wiki. > > 'fedora development' is ungoogleable/unsearchable, and will always be > unless people stop doing 'fedora development', so this is a waste of > my time. > > Aside from it being ungoogleable, that still doesn't solve my problem- > manually checking pages that should reference 'development' don't in > fact reference it. > > For example: > >> > [2] free tip: on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA rawhide should be >> > more prominent than, say, CLAs. CLAs don't help find bugs. Also, it >> > would help if rawhide were mentioned *at all*. :) > > No mention there about where to find/how to install 'development.' > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development : No mention of how to > actually get to the packages that are under development. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraTesting : No mention of how to > actually get to the packages that are under development. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Testing : at least a mention that such > packages exist. It even says rawhide (oops). Forgets to mention *how > to get them*, though. Oops. > > So, again, maybe this information is somewhere, but it is ungoogleable > and unfindable, at least to a mildly persistent person like me. > > (And don't get me started on thl's 'we still say it eats babies' > email. I thought surely it was widely understood by now that a > development tree that is believed to regularly eat babies is a bad > thing? Yes, it needs warnings, but if no one runs it until test 3 > you'll always have this last minute crush of critical bugs that should > have been possible to discover and prioritize much earlier.) > > Luis > This is a great discussion. I had the same experience with the wiki. When I first became more involved in Fedora I was constantly confused by the terms "development" and "rawhide". Sometimes they seemed to be the same thing and other times they weren't. The classic use case was someone with lots of experience telling others to "go get that from 'rawhide'" which really meant to get it from in the "development" repo, but they always left the last part out. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say "I'm running 'development'" when answering the question of which release they are running. They usually say they are running "rawhide". Is there a way to close on this and change the name as most here seem in favor of? I'm guessing changing the name of the "development" repo to "rawhide" could cause more confusion at the mirrors and in /etc/yum.repos.d/. How big of problem is this and are there any big reasons not to change "development" to "rawhide"? Worth targeting for F8? John From notting at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 04:19:14 2007 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:19:14 -0400 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070612041914.GA8400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: > I'm guessing changing the name of the "development" repo to "rawhide" > could cause more confusion at the mirrors and in /etc/yum.repos.d/. How > big of problem is this and are there any big reasons not to change > "development" to "rawhide"? Worth targeting for F8? It's moving 50+GB of content and renaming rsync modules on the mirrors the release *after* we moved everything and said we were done changing. Yes, it's a problem changing it. :/ Bill From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 05:29:31 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:29:31 +0200 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <20070612041914.GA8400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> <20070612041914.GA8400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070612052931.GD13280@neu.nirvana> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 12:19:14AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > John Poelstra (poelstra at redhat.com) said: > > I'm guessing changing the name of the "development" repo to "rawhide" > > could cause more confusion at the mirrors and in /etc/yum.repos.d/. How > > big of problem is this and are there any big reasons not to change > > "development" to "rawhide"? Worth targeting for F8? > > It's moving 50+GB of content and renaming rsync modules on the mirrors > the release *after* we moved everything and said we were done changing. > > Yes, it's a problem changing it. :/ I agree this would be quite invasive, but the documenation can be rawhide'd (rawhidden? ;) For example the yum config files could look like [rawhide] name=Fedora - Development (rawhide) mirrorlist=... And any mention to the development repos could be replaced by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RawHide which would be the renamed and redirected /Development pages. This would make a better association of the /development/... paths and the name rawhide. All assuming we want to get the name "rawhide" back to its former glory, because - as said - FC1 was trying to phase it out for whatever reason (maybe someone back then thought that RHEL's internal development tree would keep that name?). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- 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 Tue Jun 12 05:42:16 2007 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:42:16 -0700 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> Max Spevack wrote: [snip] > Moving on to the next "decision making body" brings us to what was > previously the Fedora Extras Steering Committee and is now the Fedora > Engineering Steering Committee. > > What has FESCO historically been very good at? > > + Representing the voice of non-RH Fedora contributors. > + Building up and running Fedora Extras > - the "theory" of Fedora packaging (via packaging committee) > - the "practice" of Fedora packaging (the sponsor process, etc.) > - increasing the amount of software in the Fedora world. > > Similarly, there was the "Fedora Core Cabal" which handled (not as > openly as was required): > > + A general release schedule for Core. > + A feature list for a given release. > + Release engineering-type stuff. > + Release ready-ness. > > > These groups need to combine in the new Fedora world. They need to > combine in a way that ensures that discussions are all had in public, > but also in a way that can make sure that people who have expertise in > various areas listed above still have the ability to make sure those > parts of Fedora work well. For example, we're not going to create a > release engineering body that doesn't involve Jesse. > > > I propose a Fedora Engineering Steering Committee, that "reports" to the > Fedora Board and that "oversees" the following sub-groups I have a very primitive understanding of FESCo. Each time I try to understand it (asking on fedora-devel or searching the wiki) I have come up empty-handed. I'm not against FESCo, I simply do not understand what it is supposed to be or do. The overall impression I got from reading this complete proposal was that FESCo is a layer of "middle-management". Naturally, I find that hard to believe considering the spirit Fedora :) I doubt this is the case so I think being more explicit about FESCo's job would be a good thing for those less familiar. What FESCo is responsible for? We need a complete section that states exactly what FESCo is responsible for and what it does on a weekly basis. Stating what FESCo has historically been good at and what the Core Cabal did still does not explicitly explain the responsibilities and authority of FESCo going forward. The way it reads here is that FESCo's job is to oversee sub-groups. If that is its only responsibility, why don't the sub-groups report directly to the board and "cut out a level of management?" :) [snip] > > I think that the community at large has the maturity to appoint certain > people to FESCO, and to elect others, in order to ensure that these > various groups are all getting the right people involved in them, and > working properly. > This is vague and more of a commentary on the community as opposed to a direct proposal. 1) What is the specific proposal about how members of FESCo will be elected? 2) All elected by the community? 3) Minimum or maximum number of Red Hat members? > > The Fedora Board is going to do a better job of asking FESCO for > updates, and will also try to not micromanage. Why not have the sub-committees give status directly to the FAB? Why do they have to bubble up through FESCo? > Things like the release schedule can work as follows: > > The Fedora Board has said "we'd like to get as close to a Halloween/May > Day release cycle as possible." > > The Features and Release Engineering teams can discuss a potential > schedule that comes close to that, and present it to the Board for an > ack. As changes are needed to that schedule, they too can be presented > to the Board for an ack. Who is actively (more than once a month at the FAB) tracking and reviewing the project's progress against the project's approved schedule? If there is no immediate answer I'm willing to volunteer. > The Fedora Board's overall job remains the same: > - have a general plan for a release's timeframe and big goals > - handle the brunt of Red Hat's internal complaints. What does this mean and why is it listed here? It wouldn't make sense that non-Red Hat FAB members would answer to Red Hat about a complaint Red Hat had. > - manage FESCO/engineering parts of Fedora as needed > - be the point of contact for all other parts of Fedora that needs > to escalate issues upward. > How about a parallel section to summarize the overall job of FESCo? From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 06:10:46 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:10:46 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:42:16PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > > I have a very primitive understanding of FESCo. Each time I try to > understand it (asking on fedora-devel or searching the wiki) I have come > up empty-handed. I'm not against FESCo, I simply do not understand what > it is supposed to be or do. History is important here. fesco was the head of the Extras section and was in charge of all bits around it. The general Fedora direction was given by the board. As such fesco has been good at making technical decisions. After the merge it also changed its name to reflect that (making "extras" to "engineering"). The current model that Max targets is to document separation of o strategical or large scale political decisions, from the o execution and implementation thereof If you want to compare to other models, maybe the CEO/CTO model could apply next (although still very different). Or maybe the captain/executive officer model would also be comparable. The issue of middle-managemnt you named (but I already trimmed, sorry) is what is being tried to be avoided. Consider the many SIGs/subgroups etc. offsprings of fesco, e.g. fesco could theoretically harbor all of them inside fesco from the authoritative POV, but that would practically lead to chaos. So anything that looks larger and still self-contained is separated off fesco and attached beneath of it. That way the board has only vertical interface and can focus on its core tasks. So in short: The board gives the direction and fesco brings you there. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 06:33:33 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 08:33:33 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 08:10 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 10:42:16PM -0700, John Poelstra wrote: > > > > I have a very primitive understanding of FESCo. Each time I try to > > understand it (asking on fedora-devel or searching the wiki) I have come > > up empty-handed. I'm not against FESCo, I simply do not understand what > > it is supposed to be or do. > > History is important here. fesco was the head of the Extras section > and was in charge of all bits around it. The general Fedora direction > was given by the board. As such fesco has been good at making > technical decisions. After the merge it also changed its name to > reflect that (making "extras" to "engineering"). > > The current model that Max targets is to document separation of > > o strategical or large scale political decisions, > > from the > > o execution and implementation thereof > > If you want to compare to other models, maybe the CEO/CTO model could > apply next (although still very different). Or maybe the > captain/executive officer model would also be comparable. > > The issue of middle-managemnt you named (but I already trimmed, sorry) > is what is being tried to be avoided. Consider the many SIGs/subgroups > etc. offsprings of fesco, e.g. fesco could theoretically harbor all of > them inside fesco from the authoritative POV, but that would > practically lead to chaos. So anything that looks larger and still > self-contained is separated off fesco and attached beneath of it. That > way the board has only vertical interface and can focus on its core > tasks. > > So in short: The board gives the direction and fesco brings you there. Well, FExtraSCo also was meant to be a counterpart/weight to RH and representation of the community against RH. It being democratically elected was meant to emphasize its importance and to provide the community with means to identify with FESCo, and thereby provide better acceptance with their decisions. Unfortunately, current FESCo has degraded themselves into Engineering and left all strategic decisions to 100% RH controlled organs. IMO, i.e. FESCo has degraded from Fedora Extra's government to an administration bureau. As such I find a democratically FESCo superfluous, because such tasks are better performed by technical committees populated with dedicated specialists. FESCo isn't such an entity. Ralf From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 07:11:43 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:11:43 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:33:33AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > So in short: The board gives the direction and fesco brings you there. > > Well, FExtraSCo also was meant to be a counterpart/weight to RH and > representation of the community against RH. It being democratically > elected was meant to emphasize its importance and to provide the > community with means to identify with FESCo, and thereby provide better > acceptance with their decisions. But you have the same in the board itself, one part is nominated and one part elected. RH always has the last word, but is using it benevolently. This wasn't different in previous models - fesco could do as it pleased as long as it stayed in the given framework of the Fedora mandate/goals which were decided by the board. Same will be true for the future fesco. If you like, you could consider that some part of the fesco non-technical powers it once had have been elevated to the board, and vice versa the board dropped micro-managing into engineering related questions. Since you get to vote part of the board the community has not lost any powers. > As such I find a democratically FESCo superfluous, because such tasks > are better performed by technical committees populated with dedicated > specialists. FESCo isn't such an entity. Well, I think there is some little truth in the part that electing two organs may not be really sane, especially if one is above the other. But it will be done nonetheless to preserve tradition, installed legacy and the current community feeling. Maybe one day we'll be only voting a board which will be assigning fesco members. But that would assume that the board has become as community-popular as fesco, which can be considered one of the board's main goal. In fact community is one of the most important board topics. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 07:40:22 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:40:22 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:11 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 08:33:33AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > So in short: The board gives the direction and fesco brings you there. > > > > Well, FExtraSCo also was meant to be a counterpart/weight to RH and > > representation of the community against RH. It being democratically > > elected was meant to emphasize its importance and to provide the > > community with means to identify with FESCo, and thereby provide better > > acceptance with their decisions. > > But you have the same in the board itself, one part is nominated and > one part elected. RH always has the last word, but is using it > benevolently. This wasn't different in previous models - fesco could > do as it pleased as long as it stayed in the given framework of the > Fedora mandate/goals which were decided by the board. > Same will be true for the future fesco. Exactly this is the point I want to see changed in near future, and feel to be inevitable to be changed mid-term if Fedora wants to be a success. ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, which are not in the community's interest. > If you like, you could consider that some part of the fesco > non-technical powers it once had have been elevated to the board, and > vice versa the board dropped micro-managing into engineering related > questions. Since you get to vote part of the board the community has > not lost any powers. Well, I'd agree if this FESCo was to replace current FAB or if FAB was "just consulting FESCo". However, as I perceive it, Fedora actually is controlled by FAB, who leaves some "administrational peanuts" to FESCo - Pretty poor, IMO. > > As such I find a democratically FESCo superfluous, because such tasks > > are better performed by technical committees populated with dedicated > > specialists. FESCo isn't such an entity. > > Well, I think there is some little truth in the part that electing two > organs may not be really sane, especially if one is above the > other. But it will be done nonetheless to preserve tradition, > installed legacy and the current community feeling. > > Maybe one day we'll be only voting a board which will be assigning > fesco members. Hmm, my vision of a Fedora government is Fedora to be governed by a "parliament" populated with both RH and community delegates/representatives. How to label such a parliament (be it FAB or FESCo) is secondary. An alternative would be a classical "two chamber model", with e.g. FESCo as "parliament/government" drawing the actual decision and FAB as "second chamber" with veto/objection rights. However, both models would require something like a "constitution" defining detailed procedures. Ralf From aoliva at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 07:18:07 2007 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:18:07 -0300 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA In-Reply-To: <466C6AD4.5070802@redhat.com> (Warren Togami's message of "Sun\, 10 Jun 2007 17\:19\:16 -0400") References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <466C6AD4.5070802@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Jun 10, 2007, Warren Togami wrote: > "development" is too generic of a word. Searches will find too much > irrelevant information. We need to call it something unique or we > lose. fedup? fednext? fffedora? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 08:05:09 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:05:09 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:40:22AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > [about RH controlled board being above fesco] > Exactly this is the point I want to see changed in near future, and feel > to be inevitable to be changed mid-term if Fedora wants to be a success. Do you feel like Fedora is not a success due to that model? I think both that Fedora is a success and what is not working properly is not due to RH imposing any pressure. > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, which are > not in the community's interest. Very true, but I don't think there is a difference between community and RH here. My personal dark chamber blues are led by a community member. > > If you like, you could consider that some part of the fesco > > non-technical powers it once had have been elevated to the board, > > and vice versa the board dropped micro-managing into engineering > > related questions. Since you get to vote part of the board the > > community has not lost any powers. > > Well, I'd agree if this FESCo was to replace current FAB or if FAB was > "just consulting FESCo". (BTW I think FAB != board, FAB are the couple dozens of people on this list, while the board are 9 people) > However, as I perceive it, Fedora actually is controlled by FAB, who > leaves some "administrational peanuts" to FESCo - Pretty poor, IMO. You need a singular controlling instance in every scheme, be that a Linux distribution, a company, a goverment, or even a gang. > Hmm, my vision of a Fedora government is Fedora to be governed by a > "parliament" populated with both RH and community > delegates/representatives. How to label such a parliament (be it FAB or > FESCo) is secondary. But that's how the board will work, 4 people get elected (community) and 5 appointed from RH. You get the mix you mention. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 09:05:57 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:05:57 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 10:05 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 09:40:22AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > [about RH controlled board being above fesco] > > Exactly this is the point I want to see changed in near future, and feel > > to be inevitable to be changed mid-term if Fedora wants to be a success. > > Do you feel like Fedora is not a success due to that model? I think > both that Fedora is a success and what is not working properly is not > due to RH imposing any pressure. Well, IMO, Fedora Extras had been a success, Core had largely been a continuation of RHEL. To judge whether Fedora as whole had been a success, is up to the eye of the beholder. I don't see "overwhelming success" nor do I see "a Waterloo". No doubt, Fedora had been "quite usable", but I also think there can't be any doubt it could have been better. With the merger, things have changed substantially. The merger is _the_ opportunity for RH to improve the overall situation. From a non-RH's point of view, the key points to change would be "leadership" and a better "Core". > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, which are > > not in the community's interest. > > Very true, but I don't think there is a difference between community > and RH here. There is a substantial difference: Community members first must propose something, which will later be (more or less openly) discussed until some ("dark") powers decide, before they will take effect. RH "dark chamber" decisions in many cases first take effect, and are never discussed nor voted on. They are "divine", except for some rare occasions when one or more of these "divine creatures" has the grace to listen. ATM, I am seeing @RH's (esp. rel-eng) drawing arguable RH-centric decisions, which I consider to be spoiling large parts of the basis the former FE's success was based on. > > > If you like, you could consider that some part of the fesco > > > non-technical powers it once had have been elevated to the board, > > > and vice versa the board dropped micro-managing into engineering > > > related questions. Since you get to vote part of the board the > > > community has not lost any powers. > > > > Well, I'd agree if this FESCo was to replace current FAB or if FAB was > > "just consulting FESCo". > > (BTW I think FAB != board, FAB are the couple dozens of people on this > list, while the board are 9 people) Well, ... sigh ... > > However, as I perceive it, Fedora actually is controlled by FAB, who > > leaves some "administrational peanuts" to FESCo - Pretty poor, IMO. > > You need a singular controlling instance in every scheme, be that a > Linux distribution, a company, a goverment, or even a gang. I disagree - keyword: division of powers. Or fedora centric: Too many ninjas around. > > Hmm, my vision of a Fedora government is Fedora to be governed by a > > "parliament" populated with both RH and community > > delegates/representatives. How to label such a parliament (be it FAB or > > FESCo) is secondary. > > But that's how the board will work, 4 people get elected (community) > and 5 appointed from RH. You get the mix you mention. Well, I must have missed this. It's definitely better than nothing and a small move into the correct direction. However, I am still missing a "constitution". My initial points remain: I don't see any job left for FESCo and I am still seeing too much @RH. Ralf From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jun 12 09:13:55 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:43:55 +0530 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <466E63D3.5010708@fedoraproject.org> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > RH "dark chamber" decisions in many cases first take effect, and are > never discussed nor voted on. They are "divine", except for some rare > occasions when one or more of these "divine creatures" has the grace to > listen. > > ATM, I am seeing @RH's (esp. rel-eng) drawing arguable RH-centric > decisions, which I consider to be spoiling large parts of the basis the > former FE's success was based on. If you want things to improve you can't be throwing vague accusations. Rel Eng has non-RH members in it and can potentially accommodate more if they volunteer. >> But that's how the board will work, 4 people get elected (community) >> and 5 appointed from RH. You get the mix you mention. > Well, I must have missed this. It has been that way right from the start and several people have told you this in discussions before on and offlist. Rahul From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 09:49:24 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:49:24 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Well, IMO, Fedora Extras had been a success, Core had largely been a > continuation of RHEL. > > To judge whether Fedora as whole had been a success, is up to the > eye of the beholder. I don't see "overwhelming success" nor do I see > "a Waterloo". No doubt, Fedora had been "quite usable", but I also > think there can't be any doubt it could have been better. > > With the merger, things have changed substantially. The merger is > _the_ opportunity for RH to improve the overall situation. From a > non-RH's point of view, the key points to change would be > "leadership" and a better "Core". OK, if you identify things that need improvement (there always are), then you need to spell them out and see whether the lack of improvement was due to this model. You may be right or not, but a general "I think a different leadership would improve all" doesn't count w/o that analysis. > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, > > > which are not in the community's interest. > > > > Very true, but I don't think there is a difference between > > community and RH here. > There is a substantial difference: Community members first must > propose something, [...] I'm not talking theory, I talk out of experience. Prominent community members have been doing (and still do) just as much backstage talking as RH people. Anyway this is another story. > ATM, I am seeing @RH's (esp. rel-eng) drawing arguable RH-centric > decisions, which I consider to be spoiling large parts of the basis > the former FE's success was based on. There was a criticism to rel-eng and rel-eng is trying to improve. For some weeks there are meeting logs, and Max' model sees rel-eng attached to fesco, e.g. is reporting to fesco and fesco is going to be authorititive over rel-eng. Also rel-eng is open for anyone to join (with an RH lead, but still open). So, criticism is OK, it leads to better structures. But this doesn't mean that the whole structure is bad to start with. > > You need a singular controlling instance in every scheme, be that a > > Linux distribution, a company, a goverment, or even a gang. > I disagree - keyword: division of powers. division of powers is a different beast, even there you have the legislative in one place (usually). And if you like Fedora has division of powers: o legislative: board o excutive: fesco o judicative: users ;) > Or fedora centric: Too many ninjas around. Well, you criticise concentration of powers and diversity of powers in the same paragraph, which one is it? :) > My initial points remain: I don't see any job left for FESCo and I am > still seeing too much @RH. Let's rewind and see what Fedora is: It was lifted from RHL with RH resources and there was a unwritten "community contract" that RH would continue to invest resources into Fedora, but would remain in ultimate control of certain decisions. For example Fedora will not start becoming incompatible to RHEL or drop important to RHEL technology. This goes w/o saying since Fedora is the upstream for RHEL 4 and 5 and certainly 6 etc as well. This is a contract that the current community gladly accepted. And RH is trying to stay out of the radar, empowering the community to do the right thing as far as possible. This means that at the top of the decision making chain you will have a majority that is RH, which is the 5/4 ratio in the board. Whatever follows beneath is secondary and not relevant to the principal parts of the "community contract". There is lots to do for the new fesco (and its children groups): It will just concentrate on solving technical issues, which is what is was effectively doing anyway. The old fesco would not be able to decide to include into Extras closed source parts, firmwares or patent problematic parts. The new one cannot as well, but it is spelled out now. Or to rephrase it: What would you think is not possible anymore for fesco to do, which formerly was? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 11:42:50 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:42:50 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <466E63D3.5010708@fedoraproject.org> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466E63D3.5010708@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1181648570.3233.229.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 14:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > RH "dark chamber" decisions in many cases first take effect, and are > > never discussed nor voted on. They are "divine", except for some rare > > occasions when one or more of these "divine creatures" has the grace to > > listen. > > > > ATM, I am seeing @RH's (esp. rel-eng) drawing arguable RH-centric > > decisions, which I consider to be spoiling large parts of the basis the > > former FE's success was based on. > > If you want things to improve you can't be throwing vague accusations. > Rel Eng has non-RH members in it and can potentially accommodate more if > they volunteer. OK, in verbose: rel-eng has broken FE's workflow model into something I consider counter-productive and unusable to community contributors. rel-eng's deeds are throwing away all the points having made FE attractive. >> But that's how the board will work, 4 people get elected (community) >>> and 5 appointed from RH. You get the mix you mention. >> Well, I must have missed this. > >It has been that way right from the start and several people have told > you this in discussions before on and It's answers like these which lets appear Fedora-leadership at RH as they currently are perceived. > offlist. Nobody did. Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 11:51:26 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:51:26 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Well, IMO, Fedora Extras had been a success, Core had largely been a > > continuation of RHEL. > > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking effect, > > > > which are not in the community's interest. > > > > > > Very true, but I don't think there is a difference between > > > community and RH here. > > > There is a substantial difference: Community members first must > > propose something, [...] > > I'm not talking theory, I talk out of experience. Prominent community > members have been doing (and still do) just as much backstage talking > as RH people. Anyway this is another story. I know and don't see what would be wrong about it. > So, criticism is OK, it leads to better structures. But this doesn't > mean that the whole structure is bad to start with. The problem is "which structure"? We have been seeing new committees/groups with unclear competences violently taking over certain tasks and violently implementing new hurdles mushrooming almost on a weekly basis. IMO, Fedora leadership needs a structure, needs clearly defined "jobs", "groups", with clearly defined hierarchies, competences and monitoring. > > Or fedora centric: Too many ninjas around. > > Well, you criticise concentration of powers and diversity of powers in > the same paragraph, which one is it? :) No, I am criticizing the fact certain people are concentrating all powers on them and are seemingly "carelessly" using them. This contradicts diversion of powers and renders the thought of "monitoring/supervision" ad-absurdum. > > My initial points remain: I don't see any job left for FESCo and I am > > still seeing too much @RH. > This is a contract that the current community gladly accepted. And RH > is trying to stay out of the radar, empowering the community to do the > right thing as far as possible. Nobody denies giving RH credits for assigning resources etc., but when it comes to leadership, I perceive RH as granting the community the liberty of taking the bits/crumbs RH is not interested in. What RH still doesn't seem to want to accept: To the same extend the community depends on RH, Fedora and RH depend on the community. > This means that at the top of the decision making chain you will have > a majority that is RH, which is the 5/4 ratio in the board. Whatever > follows beneath is secondary and not relevant to the principal parts > of the "community contract". Frankly speaking, I think, most community contributors probably don't care at all what how RH, FESCo etc. do, as long as Fedora's infrastructure and objectives fit into their demands. For me, they increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the side-effects of the merger as obstacle. > There is lots to do for the new fesco (and its children groups): It > will just concentrate on solving technical issues, which is what is > was effectively doing anyway. The old fesco would not be able to > decide to include into Extras closed source parts, firmwares or patent > problematic parts. Ask yourself why FESCo couldn't. IMO, largely because nobody enabled them to do so. Or differently: * If FESCo had decided to allow "non-free firmware", they would have been shot by the community and/or RH, like the community/RH did on similar occasions. * FESCo can't decide on legal/patent matters, because they lack the knowledge. One escape would have been RH to provide them with legal advisors, or some volunteers to appear, but ... neither happened :( * FESCo can decide on "packaging matters" despite they lack the detailed knowledge, because FPC provides them with "recommendations". * FESCo could decide on "tactical matters/executive jobs" (e.g. fixing release dates, establishing committees, deciding on mailing lists), because this doesn't require detailed knowledge, ... in many cases this doesn't happen, because other "leaders" overruled them. > Or to rephrase it: What would you think is not possible anymore for > fesco to do, which formerly was? I don't see what they could decide what FAB can't and vice-versa. Both widely overlap. There is one difference: FESCo was supposed to be elected, while FAB is "RH proclaimed". Ralf From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Tue Jun 12 12:08:38 2007 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:38:38 +0530 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181648570.3233.229.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466E63D3.5010708@fedoraproject.org> <1181648570.3233.229.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <466E8CC6.4030805@fedoraproject.org> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > OK, in verbose: > > rel-eng has broken FE's workflow model into something I consider > counter-productive and unusable to community contributors. Do you mean rolling updates vs freeze and release or something else? rel-eng's deeds are throwing away all the points having made FE > attractive. Think of fixing problems in infrastructure as bug reporting exercises. If I filed a bug report as vague as these statements against of the packages maintained by you, would you be able to fix this issue? >>> But that's how the board will work, 4 people get elected (community) >>>> and 5 appointed from RH. You get the mix you mention. >>> Well, I must have missed this. >> It has been that way right from the start and several people have told >> you this in discussions before on and > It's answers like these which lets appear Fedora-leadership at RH as they > currently are perceived. Pointing out that you have ignored what has been told to you in several discussions isn't a matter of perception but facts. >> offlist. > Nobody did. I certainly did tell you that Fedora Board has non-RH folks possibly more than once. The underlying theme of Red Hat vs non-RH ignores the fact that employer doesn't decide community focus. Individual people do. Second, it ignores the fact that every governing body within Fedora has non-RH folks in it and if Red Hat sees individual Fedora contributors making a good difference it probably will want to hire them. That doesn't suddenly make them a non community member. Rahul From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 13:37:48 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:37:48 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:51:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking > > > > > effect, which are not in the community's interest. > > Prominent community members have been doing (and still do) just as > > much backstage talking as RH people. Anyway this is another story. > I know and don't see what would be wrong about it. So when RH talks behind your back it's wrong, but when non-RH does the same it's OK? > What RH still doesn't seem to want to accept: To the same extend the > community depends on RH, Fedora and RH depend on the community. I'm sure everybody is aware of this fruitful symbiosis. > Frankly speaking, I think, most community contributors probably don't > care at all what how RH, FESCo etc. do, as long as Fedora's > infrastructure and objectives fit into their demands. Well, that goes w/o saying. Same applies to your local goverment. And if the leadership is not visible then that speaks in favour of a project. > For me, they increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the > side-effects of the merger as obstacle. Which side-effects? There are obstructions on any new road, and these are being leveled out. Changes just break things, workflows etc, and we need to put things back together. But the net result is for the better, no doubt! > > There is lots to do for the new fesco (and its children groups): It > > will just concentrate on solving technical issues, which is what is > > was effectively doing anyway. The old fesco would not be able to > > decide to include into Extras closed source parts, firmwares or patent > > problematic parts. > Ask yourself why FESCo couldn't. IMO, largely because nobody enabled > them to do so. > > Or differently: > * If FESCo had decided to allow "non-free firmware", they would have > been shot by the community and/or RH, like the community/RH did on > similar occasions. > * FESCo can't decide on legal/patent matters, because they lack the > knowledge. One escape would have been RH to provide them with legal > advisors, or some volunteers to appear, but ... neither happened :( > * FESCo can decide on "packaging matters" despite they lack the detailed > knowledge, because FPC provides them with "recommendations". The FPC is part of fesco if you like. They are an subordinate group with many fesco members inside. > * FESCo could decide on "tactical matters/executive jobs" (e.g. fixing > release dates, establishing committees, deciding on mailing lists), > because this doesn't require detailed knowledge, ... in many cases this > doesn't happen, because other "leaders" overruled them. That just changed. > > Or to rephrase it: What would you think is not possible anymore for > > fesco to do, which formerly was? > > I don't see what they could decide what FAB can't and vice-versa. > Both widely overlap. There is one difference: FESCo was supposed to be > elected, while FAB is "RH proclaimed". -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 14:30:16 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:30:16 -0400 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200706121030.17225.jkeating@redhat.com> On Monday 11 June 2007 23:43:00 John Poelstra wrote: > I'm guessing changing the name of the "development" repo to "rawhide" > could cause more confusion at the mirrors and in /etc/yum.repos.d/. ?How > big of problem is this and are there any big reasons not to change > "development" to "rawhide"? ?Worth targeting for F8? I'm fine with changing our public marketing of this repo to be 'rawhide' Or codenamed 'rawhide'. The directory can stay development/ as the users rarely have to worry about what the directory is, so long as the mirror list returns correctly or the commented out baseurl functions. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 15:02:26 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:02:26 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:51:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking > > > > > > effect, which are not in the community's interest. > > > Prominent community members have been doing (and still do) just as > > > much backstage talking as RH people. Anyway this is another story. > > > I know and don't see what would be wrong about it. > > So when RH talks behind your back it's wrong, but when non-RH does the > same it's OK? Did I ever say this? > > What RH still doesn't seem to want to accept: To the same extend the > > community depends on RH, Fedora and RH depend on the community. > > I'm sure everybody is aware of this fruitful symbiosis. So let's shutdown Fedora -- Wakeup Axel, .... this is the core of it all !!! > > Frankly speaking, I think, most community contributors probably don't > > care at all what how RH, FESCo etc. do, as long as Fedora's > > infrastructure and objectives fit into their demands. > > Well, that goes w/o saying. Same applies to your local goverment. And > if the leadership is not visible then that speaks in favour of a > project. With one difference: If a democratic government does a bad job it won't be re-elected, a totalitarian regime tries to continue. > > For me, they increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the > > side-effects of the merger as obstacle. > > Which side-effects? koji, bodhi, rel-eng, fedora-testing, the ongoing passivity of Core wrt. fixing their bugs, ... > The FPC is part of fesco if you like. Not in my view. FPC is a technical committee, FESCO is a political one and therefore still has the final say. > They are an subordinate group > with many fesco members inside. This doesn't matter wrt. FPC, nor does your personal party membership nor religious belief matter. Technical qualification should matter. Ralf From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 15:06:30 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:06:30 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> On Tuesday 12 June 2007 11:02:26 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > This doesn't matter wrt. FPC, nor does your personal party membership > nor religious belief matter. Likewise employment. > Technical qualification should matter. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jun 12 15:15:17 2007 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: >>> For me, they increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the >>> side-effects of the merger as obstacle. >> Which side-effects? > koji, bodhi, rel-eng, fedora-testing... Those are some really bad examples. In contrast, I consider koji, bodhi, rel-eng, fedora-testing as shining examples of things done right: open dialog, open procedures, and open software solving difficult issues. -- Rex From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jun 12 15:15:17 2007 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:15:17 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: >>> For me, they increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the >>> side-effects of the merger as obstacle. >> Which side-effects? > koji, bodhi, rel-eng, fedora-testing... Those are some really bad examples. In contrast, I consider koji, bodhi, rel-eng, fedora-testing as shining examples of things done right: open dialog, open procedures, and open software solving difficult issues. -- Rex From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 15:36:00 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:36:00 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:06 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 12 June 2007 11:02:26 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > This doesn't matter wrt. FPC, nor does your personal party membership > > nor religious belief matter. > > Likewise employment. It would not matter if I felt @RH's were acting neutrally and unbiased. The opposite applies. Ralf From mmcgrath at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 15:42:50 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:42:50 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <466EBEFA.907@redhat.com> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:06 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> On Tuesday 12 June 2007 11:02:26 Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> >>> This doesn't matter wrt. FPC, nor does your personal party membership >>> nor religious belief matter. >>> >> Likewise employment. >> > It would not matter if I felt @RH's were acting neutrally and unbiased. > > The opposite applies. > I guess we're lucky your feelings don't dictate reality. -Mike From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 15:42:16 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:42:16 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 10:15 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > >>> For me, they increasingly diverge, I meanwhile consider the > >>> side-effects of the merger as obstacle. > >> Which side-effects? > > koji, bodhi, rel-eng, fedora-testing... > > > Those are some really bad examples. In contrast, I consider koji, > bodhi, rel-eng, fedora-testing as shining examples of things done right: > open dialog, open procedures, and open software solving difficult issues. > IMO, * bodhi, koji are immature, semi-functional, semi-cooked pieces of SW which still have to prove their longevity, but so far don't do anything but introducing bureaucracy and are almost strangling former FE. * rel-eng could have done much better. * fedora-testing is a nothing but a hoax close blinding yourself about QA - I consider it to be a dead born child. The best I can say about it is it causing delays in updates. Ralf From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 15:43:02 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:43:02 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070612154302.GE4233@neu.nirvana> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:02:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:51:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking > > > > > > > effect, which are not in the community's interest. > > > > Prominent community members have been doing (and still do) just as > > > > much backstage talking as RH people. Anyway this is another story. > > > > > I know and don't see what would be wrong about it. > > > > So when RH talks behind your back it's wrong, but when non-RH does the > > same it's OK? > Did I ever say this? Well, unless I'm reading the above wrongly, yes, you did. > > > What RH still doesn't seem to want to accept: To the same extend > > > the community depends on RH, Fedora and RH depend on the > > > community. > > > > I'm sure everybody is aware of this fruitful symbiosis. > So let's shutdown Fedora -- Wakeup Axel, .... this is the core of it all !!! Why shutdown Fedora??? There is a fruitful colaboration between a company and the community and both depend from as well as benefit from each-other. So we recognize this, why does that mean to shutdown Fedora? > > > Frankly speaking, I think, most community contributors probably don't > > > care at all what how RH, FESCo etc. do, as long as Fedora's > > > infrastructure and objectives fit into their demands. > > > > Well, that goes w/o saying. Same applies to your local goverment. And > > if the leadership is not visible then that speaks in favour of a > > project. > With one difference: If a democratic government does a bad job it won't > be re-elected, a totalitarian regime tries to continue. True, and that democratic government will need to tax you to sustain its structures. In the case of Fedora the bills go to Red Hat. And in the case of open source: If a project does a bad job people vote with their feet. If Red Hat messes up that much then people, users and developers alike would start leaving the boat, forking Fedora etc. So at the end of the day you do have the community having it their way. > > The FPC is part of fesco if you like. > Not in my view. FPC is a technical committee, FESCO is a political one > and therefore still has the final say. OK, we almost mean the same, as I wrote the FPC is attached beneath fesco. I was just contering your claim that the fesco has no say in packaging because they lack skills and need "recommendations" from the fpc. While the true analogon is that fesco has no time to deal with it and outsources part of its job to subgroups like the FPC. But fesco is not a political organ, it is an engineering group managing all technical issues in Fedora. The political organ is the board. > > They are an subordinate group with many fesco members inside. > This doesn't matter wrt. FPC, nor does your personal party > membership nor religious belief matter. Technical qualification > should matter. True, but I don't get the point. :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 15:55:07 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:55:07 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070612155507.GF4233@neu.nirvana> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:36:00PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > It would not matter if I felt @RH's were acting neutrally and unbiased. Neutral to what? Was there any topic where the community would say left and RH said right? > The opposite applies. Where? I think you are upset because some thing were a bit bumpy. And you looked at the leaders of the respective groups and saw @redhat.com there. There is no intention in Red Hat to sabotage Fedora, bigger changes have their cost and things break. Would it make any difference if the people in charge had no Red Hat affiliation? The people would probably make the same choices but w/o having a job that allows them to dedicate themselves to fix things, you would have seen much more broken bits and for a longer time. In a nutshell: Yes, the merger has some troubles - yes, it was expected due to the amount of changes involved. And no, Red Hat does not break Fedora on purpose. And finally: Who do you think was making pressure to finally do the merger? Yes, it was the community and Red Hat opened up all old Core structures to make it more community-like. And attacking Red Hat for doing that seems bizarre. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Jun 12 16:10:59 2007 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:10:59 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > * bodhi, koji are immature, semi-functional, semi-cooked pieces of SW > which still have to prove their longevity, but so far don't do anything > but introducing bureaucracy and are almost strangling former FE. But "good enough" to get the job done *now*. Could you provide constructive suggestions(1) on how to make things better? > * rel-eng could have done much better. Anything lacking now? rel-eng agendas, meetings, are open you know. > * fedora-testing is a nothing but a hoax close blinding yourself about > QA - I consider it to be a dead born child. The best I can say about it > is it causing delays in updates. I strongly disagree. Tis a good thing updates-testing is optional, you're welcome not to use it. -- Rex (1) And please, don't even suggest the Core/Extras merge should have waited on the tools being 100% golden first, those would be fighting words. From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Jun 12 16:16:49 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:16:49 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612154302.GE4233@neu.nirvana> References: <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612154302.GE4233@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1181665009.3233.280.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 17:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:02:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:51:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking > > > > > > > > effect, which are not in the community's interest. > > > > > Prominent community members have been doing (and still do) just as > > > > > much backstage talking as RH people. Anyway this is another story. > But fesco is not a political organ, it is an engineering group > managing all technical issues in Fedora. The political organ is the > board. In FE FESCo was a democratically elected political organ, now "the board" has taken over => FESCo is superfluous, the elections are superfluous. Ralf From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jun 12 16:20:54 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:20:54 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181665009.3233.280.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612154302.GE4233@neu.nirvana> <1181665009.3233.280.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070612162054.GH4233@neu.nirvana> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 06:16:49PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 17:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 05:02:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:51:26PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:49 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:05:57AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > > > ATM, I am seeing to many "dark room" decisions taking > > > > > > > > > effect, which are not in the community's interest. > > > > > > Prominent community members have been doing (and still do) just as > > > > > > much backstage talking as RH people. Anyway this is another story. > > > But fesco is not a political organ, it is an engineering group > > managing all technical issues in Fedora. The political organ is the > > board. > > In FE FESCo was a democratically elected political organ, now "the > board" has taken over => FESCo is superfluous, the elections are > superfluous. Not true, whatever fesco could do back then it can do now as well and much more. Or did fesco control the release process of Core in "the good old days"? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Jun 12 16:32:18 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:32:18 +0200 Subject: better documentation (was: Re: governance, fesco, board, etc.) In-Reply-To: <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <466ECA92.7060503@leemhuis.info> On 12.06.2007 18:10, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> * bodhi, koji are immature, semi-functional, semi-cooked pieces of SW >> which still have to prove their longevity, but so far don't do anything >> but introducing bureaucracy and are almost strangling former FE. > > But "good enough" to get the job done *now*. > Could you provide constructive suggestions(1) on how to make things better? Better documentation. A step by step guide: "how to update a Fedora package for dummies after the merge" or "The way of a package update: from cvs commit over koji and bodi into the proper repo". Linked on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers please. Lack of proper documentation (?) is the root problem of those techniques afaics and is responsible for most of the confusion and frustration about the merge. Example: today a long term contributor that started in the the fedora.us days and did some important stuff for Fedora in the past years send me a mail with round about this text "HELP! I need to get a package updated in Fedora 7 and I don't know how to do that". That IMHO shows that something seriously is wrong (?). CU thl (?) -- some tools like koji even have documentation, but how to use them is not written down properly (?) -- go to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers yourself; do you find a document on that page that describes how to update a package for Fedora 7? From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Jun 12 16:36:25 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:36:25 +0200 Subject: better documentation In-Reply-To: <466ECA92.7060503@leemhuis.info> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <466ECA92.7060503@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <466ECB89.3080905@leemhuis.info> On 12.06.2007 18:32, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 12.06.2007 18:10, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Better documentation. A step by step guide: "how to update a Fedora > package for dummies after the merge" or "The way of a package update: > from cvs commit over koji and bodi into the proper repo". Linked on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers please. BTW, sure everybody could write this. But nobody did -- so it's IMHO FESCo's responsibility now to find somebody do to it (now that F7 is out -- I can understand that there were more pressing issues until the release). CU thl From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 16:50:29 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:50:29 -0700 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <20070612052931.GD13280@neu.nirvana> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> <20070612041914.GA8400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20070612052931.GD13280@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1181667029.3469.691.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 07:29 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > I agree this would be quite invasive, but the documenation can be > rawhide'd (rawhidden? ;) > > For example the yum config files could look like > > [rawhide] > name=Fedora - Development (rawhide) > mirrorlist=... +1 > And any mention to the development repos could be replaced by > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RawHide which would be the renamed and > redirected /Development pages. Can we make it wiki/Rawhide? I hate UnNecessary CamelCase. :) > This would make a better association of the /development/... paths and > the name rawhide. Yes, let's just make it clear -- "rawhide is the permanent codename for wherever the development branch is". If you go into a CVS module, you'll find foo/FC-6, foo/F7, and foo/devel. You won't find foo/Zod, foo/Moonshine, and foo/rawhide. > All assuming we want to get the name "rawhide" back to its former > glory, because - as said - FC1 was trying to phase it out for whatever > reason (maybe someone back then thought that RHEL's internal > development tree would keep that name?). I don't know, but I always thought it was (ironically) about demystifying the development tree. It may have been "rebranding", not sure. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 katzj at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 16:55:01 2007 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:55:01 -0400 Subject: better documentation (was: Re: governance, fesco, board, etc.) In-Reply-To: <466ECA92.7060503@leemhuis.info> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <466ECA92.7060503@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <1181667301.31562.52.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 18:32 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 12.06.2007 18:10, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> * bodhi, koji are immature, semi-functional, semi-cooked pieces of SW > >> which still have to prove their longevity, but so far don't do anything > >> but introducing bureaucracy and are almost strangling former FE. > > > > But "good enough" to get the job done *now*. > > Could you provide constructive suggestions(1) on how to make things better? > > Better documentation. A step by step guide: "how to update a Fedora > package for dummies after the merge" or "The way of a package update: > from cvs commit over koji and bodi into the proper repo". Linked on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers please. Yes, this needs to happen. I've put it on the schedule for this week's FESCo meeting to discuss and hopefully find a volunteer other than myself to do the writing, but if no one else does, I'll do it. Because you're right, this is sorely needed and we're past the crunch which kept us from doing it from the get-go Jeremy From katzj at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 16:55:38 2007 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:55:38 -0400 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <1181667029.3469.691.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <20070610094901.GA19591@neu.nirvana> <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> <20070612041914.GA8400@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <20070612052931.GD13280@neu.nirvana> <1181667029.3469.691.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1181667338.31562.54.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 09:50 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 07:29 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > All assuming we want to get the name "rawhide" back to its former > > glory, because - as said - FC1 was trying to phase it out for whatever > > reason (maybe someone back then thought that RHEL's internal > > development tree would keep that name?). > > I don't know, but I always thought it was (ironically) about > demystifying the development tree. It may have been "rebranding", not > sure. Was just trying to make it more obvious. Definitely ironic how that's worked out. Jeremy From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Jun 12 16:59:38 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 18:59:38 +0200 Subject: better documentation In-Reply-To: <1181667301.31562.52.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <466ECA92.7060503@leemhuis.info> <1181667301.31562.52.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <466ED0FA.3050708@leemhuis.info> On 12.06.2007 18:55, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 18:32 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 12.06.2007 18:10, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>>> * bodhi, koji are immature, semi-functional, semi-cooked pieces of SW >>>> which still have to prove their longevity, but so far don't do anything >>>> but introducing bureaucracy and are almost strangling former FE. >>> But "good enough" to get the job done *now*. >>> Could you provide constructive suggestions(1) on how to make things better? >> Better documentation. A step by step guide: "how to update a Fedora >> package for dummies after the merge" or "The way of a package update: >> from cvs commit over koji and bodi into the proper repo". Linked on >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers please. > > Yes, this needs to happen. I've put it on the schedule for this week's > FESCo meeting to discuss and hopefully find a volunteer other than > myself to do the writing, but if no one else does, I'll do it. Because > you're right, this is sorely needed and we're past the crunch which kept > us from doing it from the get-go Thanks Jeremy. CU thl From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 18:03:54 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:03:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Or differently: > * If FESCo had decided to allow "non-free firmware", they would have > been shot by the community and/or RH, like the community/RH did on > similar occasions. I think if any group of people within Fedora decided they wanted to drastically revers the "freedom" stance of the distribution, they would find themselves shot down by the Fedora Board, and it wouldn't be some sort of 5-4 RH/community split vote. > * FESCo can't decide on legal/patent matters, because they lack the > knowledge. One escape would have been RH to provide them with legal > advisors, or some volunteers to appear, but ... neither happened :( Legal issues are one of the places where Red Hat's sponsorship of Fedora comes in. Red Hat's lawyers are Fedora's lawyers. There are plusses and minuses to that arrangement. Part of the nature of the legal work requires a lot of the interaction to flow through Red Hat people, since the lawyers need to be very careful about what they say on public mailing lists. > * FESCo can decide on "packaging matters" despite they lack the detailed > knowledge, because FPC provides them with "recommendations". And who's on the packaging committee? Looks to me like it's 4 RH folks and 5 community folks, and that's only because Toshio just got hired by Red Hat. The packaging committee is given significant autonomy. I can't remember an example of the Fedora Board meddling, changing, or telling the Packaging Committee what to do. Maybe Fesco has a more contentious relationship with the Packaging committee that I'm not aware of. > * FESCo could decide on "tactical matters/executive jobs" (e.g. fixing > release dates, establishing committees, deciding on mailing lists), > because this doesn't require detailed knowledge, ... in many cases > this doesn't happen, because other "leaders" overruled them. I think my initial post at the top of this thread discusses a new, more open, way for this sort of stuff to be handled. > I don't see what they could decide what FAB can't and vice-versa. Both > widely overlap. There is one difference: FESCo was supposed to be > elected, while FAB is "RH proclaimed". FAB??? There's no membership list for FAB. It's "whoever joins this mailing list, writes something, and hits send." You make your own reputation, and that will determine how much "authority" an email you send to Fedora Advisory Board has, and how much the various "leaders" who read FAB take stock in what you say. I think of FAB as a clearing house for people who have leadership positions throughout Fedora, to talk about higher-level issues in a single place. The goal of giving greater empowerment to FESCO is, as Axel put in one email, to give some level of separation between the strategic decision making from the day to day engineering decision making. --Max From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 18:12:09 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:12:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612155507.GF4233@neu.nirvana> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612155507.GF4233@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: > And finally: Who do you think was making pressure to finally do the > merger? Yes, it was the community and Red Hat opened up all old Core > structures to make it more community-like. And attacking Red Hat for > doing that seems bizarre. Thank you for this point, Axel. Fedora as a whole is MORE OPEN today than it was, say, when Fedora Core 5 came out. I don't really see how anyone can claim otherwise with a straight face. And whether you realize it or not, a lot of the "behind the scenes" stuff that you didn't see was a lot of the "evil @redhat.com folks" like Jesse, Jeremy, Bill, Greg, and me explaining to various other levels of management within Red Hat why it was important to merge everything, why it was important to have a "free" build system and compose tool, etc. Of course the overall drumbeat was coming from the community, but that community goal had strong advocates within Red Hat who were willing to use all of their "political capital" to GET THE RIGHT THING DONE. If "Red Hat hated Fedora" we'd still have a Core and Extras separation, we wouldn't have hired a few people from the Fedora community to various places within Red Hat in the past year to focus 100% on Fedora (mmcgrath works for me, skvidal and toshio work for Red Hat's CTO, Brian Stevens). Heck, if Red Hat hated Fedora, I wouldn't have a job, because Red Hat wouldn't think that it's important to have someone be the "public face/accountable figure" for the Project. I'm sure some of you think I suck at my job. But that's a different topic. The point is that Red Hat cares deeply about Fedora. I think the actions we've seen out of Red Hat over the past couple of releases demonstrate that. -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 18:15:47 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:15:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > * bodhi, koji are immature, semi-functional, semi-cooked pieces of SW > which still have to prove their longevity, but so far don't do > anything but introducing bureaucracy and are almost strangling former > FE. So you want all of the infrastructural changes to be developed in the open, but you don't want there to be any hiccups or growing pains as we start to use them? Doesn't the PROCESS ITSELF deserve any merit in your world? Of course it still has to prove its longevity. It's 3 weeks old! But at least it exists. 2 years ago, parts of it existed, but the end result was just a dream. Fedora eats its own dogfood. That dogfood will get tastier over time. And I question how semi-functional something like Koji is when an entire Linux distribution has built itself using it. Seems pretty functional to me. And I guess I should tell all the people I met at LinuxTag who have deployed Koji in their own environments, and told us how great it was, that they are wrong and it actually is a POS. --Max From matt at domsch.com Tue Jun 12 18:28:26 2007 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:28:26 -0500 Subject: rawhide and Fedora QA [was Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM] In-Reply-To: <200706121030.17225.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <2cb10c440706092047w49a778aey301775e9800a8ea1@mail.gmail.com> <2cb10c440706100658p25ad997aqd781cc89d442075e@mail.gmail.com> <466E1644.1010703@redhat.com> <200706121030.17225.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070612182826.GC23413@domsch.com> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 10:30:16AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 11 June 2007 23:43:00 John Poelstra wrote: > > I'm guessing changing the name of the "development" repo to "rawhide" > > could cause more confusion at the mirrors and in /etc/yum.repos.d/. ?How > > big of problem is this and are there any big reasons not to change > > "development" to "rawhide"? ?Worth targeting for F8? > > I'm fine with changing our public marketing of this repo to be 'rawhide' Or > codenamed 'rawhide'. The directory can stay development/ as the users rarely > have to worry about what the directory is, so long as the mirror list returns > correctly or the commented out baseurl functions. The mirrorlist already uses the name 'rawhide', and I've updated the publiclist mirror pages to say 'rawhide'. So, it's just a matter of changing the fedora-development.repo file to say [rawhide] instead of [development]. [development] name=Fedora - Development #baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/$basearch/os/ mirrorlist=http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=rawhide&arch=$basearch enabled=0 gpgcheck=0 We'll have another reason to change the fedora-release package soonish, to enable failovermethod=priority on the mirrorlist results, as soon as a couple changes land in python-GeoIP and mirrormanager. It would make sense to roll this rename into that update so as to not churn too many times. -Matt From kwade at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 18:36:35 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:36:35 -0700 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <466E8CC6.4030805@fedoraproject.org> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466E63D3.5010708@fedoraproject.org> <1181648570.3233.229.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466E8CC6.4030805@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1181673395.3469.721.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 17:38 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > if Red Hat sees individual Fedora contributors > making a good difference it probably will want to hire them. That > doesn't suddenly make them a non community member. "Prepare the Borg making equipment!" A person is like a software package. Adding the package to Fedora doesn't take away the upstream. Adding a community member to Red Hat doesn't assimilate them into a group consciousness that strips them of free-will making their every word now suspect. -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 kwade at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 18:47:02 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:47:02 -0700 Subject: better documentation (was: Re: governance, fesco, board, etc.) In-Reply-To: <1181667301.31562.52.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <466ECA92.7060503@leemhuis.info> <1181667301.31562.52.camel@erebor.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181674022.3469.724.camel@erato.phig.org> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 12:55 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > Yes, this needs to happen. I've put it on the schedule for this week's > FESCo meeting to discuss and hopefully find a volunteer other than > myself to do the writing, but if no one else does, I'll do it. Because > you're right, this is sorely needed and we're past the crunch which kept > us from doing it from the get-go When you write something up about that, drop a note to fedora-docs-list; some folks may be interested in helping write or edit. You would be surprised how quickly "non writers" and "writers" can collaborate on good enough community docs. :) - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Jun 12 18:54:19 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:54:19 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1181674460.17463.36.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 14:03 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > Or differently: > > * If FESCo had decided to allow "non-free firmware", they would have > > been shot by the community and/or RH, like the community/RH did on > > similar occasions. > > I think if any group of people within Fedora decided they wanted to > drastically revers the "freedom" stance of the distribution, they would > find themselves shot down by the Fedora Board, and it wouldn't be some > sort of 5-4 RH/community split vote. > > > * FESCo can't decide on legal/patent matters, because they lack the > > knowledge. One escape would have been RH to provide them with legal > > advisors, or some volunteers to appear, but ... neither happened :( > > Legal issues are one of the places where Red Hat's sponsorship of Fedora > comes in. Red Hat's lawyers are Fedora's lawyers. There are plusses > and minuses to that arrangement. Part of the nature of the legal work > requires a lot of the interaction to flow through Red Hat people, since > the lawyers need to be very careful about what they say on public > mailing lists. > > > * FESCo can decide on "packaging matters" despite they lack the detailed > > knowledge, because FPC provides them with "recommendations". > > And who's on the packaging committee? Looks to me like it's 4 RH folks > and 5 community folks, and that's only because Toshio just got hired by > Red Hat. The packaging committee is given significant autonomy. I > can't remember an example of the Fedora Board meddling, changing, or > telling the Packaging Committee what to do. Maybe Fesco has a more > contentious relationship with the Packaging committee that I'm not aware > of. Not at all. The FESCo/FPC relationship is hardly contentious. josh From bugs.michael at gmx.net Tue Jun 12 19:22:52 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:22:52 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20070612212252.e09f9d27.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:10:59 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > * fedora-testing is a nothing but a hoax close blinding yourself about > > QA - I consider it to be a dead born child. The best I can say about it > > is it causing delays in updates. > > I strongly disagree. Tis a good thing updates-testing is optional, > you're welcome not to use it. How? Please document it. Even the terminology around bodhi is confusing. I've had to "push" a package. After more than a week there hasn't been any feedback about the test update but another bug report about stock F7. Apparently in bodhi I could mark the package stable myself without an idea of what procedures I need to adhere to and saw an option to "unpush" it without any indication of whether that refers to the test update or from where it would withdraw the update. Apparently, announcements have been mailed, but without Cc, and I still think Test Updates for F7 shouldn't be announced on fedora-test-list, but on fedora-list. Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers On the same day this Wiki page was modified with heavy layout changes, I've lost the overview. I find this page increasingly difficult to read and navigate. The strange table layout makes it worse. Usually, when somebody asked me about where to find documents in the Wiki, I used to be able to help or look up an entry-section quickly. That doesn't work anymore. Meanwhile the page is crowded. Nobody with expertise on creating quality web page seems to have the final say about it. From bugs.michael at gmx.net Tue Jun 12 19:52:44 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:52:44 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070612215244.17da1956.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:15:47 -0400 (EDT), Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > * bodhi, koji are immature, semi-functional, semi-cooked pieces of SW > > which still have to prove their longevity, but so far don't do > > anything but introducing bureaucracy and are almost strangling former > > FE. > > So you want all of the infrastructural changes to be developed in the > open, but you don't want there to be any hiccups or growing pains as we > start to use them? "Growing pains"? Hopefully a typo. ;) "Gradual transition" is what has been missing. Too many changes at once and shortly before a final release of the distribution. Effectively, you've slammed a door into the faces of lots of Extras contributors. A new build system, undocumented changes in the procedures (e.g. buildroot "poisoning") and a dramatically changed work-flow. > And I question how semi-functional something like Koji is when an entire > Linux distribution has built itself using it. Seems pretty functional > to me. And I guess I should tell all the people I met at LinuxTag who > have deployed Koji in their own environments, and told us how great it > was, that they are wrong and it actually is a POS. That's a surprise, considering that the original release in rpm form did not even include support for importing the buildroot comps file and required patching the code or running lots of koji admin commands manually in addition to figuring out undocumented bootstrapping of the koji database tables. Are you sure these people really installed koji builders that could actually build packages from Fedora Core/Extras successfully? Don't misunderstand me. In general I think koji is great and superior compared with plague. Its roll-out came too suddenly, especially when there's still no rather safe way to mail important announcements to all package maintainers. From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 20:28:06 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612215244.17da1956.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612215244.17da1956.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: > That's a surprise, considering that the original release in rpm form > did not even include support for importing the buildroot comps file > and required patching the code or running lots of koji admin commands > manually in addition to figuring out undocumented bootstrapping of the > koji database tables. Are you sure these people really installed koji > builders that could actually build packages from Fedora Core/Extras > successfully? People said they were using Koji -- maybe not necessarily to build Fedora packages. But to build *something* -- maybe it was just whatever RPMs they were manufacturing in their own companies, groups, etc. Maybe they had to do a lot of black magic to get it working, but there were people who told us that they were actively using it, and others who said they were actively working to deploy it. But it was reasonably high-level conversations. -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Tue Jun 12 20:29:10 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:29:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612215244.17da1956.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612215244.17da1956.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: > "Gradual transition" is what has been missing. Too many changes at > once and shortly before a final release of the distribution. > Effectively, you've slammed a door into the faces of lots of Extras > contributors. A new build system, undocumented changes in the > procedures (e.g. buildroot "poisoning") and a dramatically changed > work-flow. I have heard that complaint. It is my understanding that there are active steps being taken to make this better (I wrote as much on LWN yesterday), especially at the FESCO level, which is one of the things that we want FESCO to be able to lead! Am I wrong? thanks for the email, Michael. --Max From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Jun 13 02:59:51 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:59:51 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1181703591.3233.344.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:10 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > * bodhi, koji are immature, semi-functional, semi-cooked pieces of SW > > which still have to prove their longevity, but so far don't do anything > > but introducing bureaucracy and are almost strangling former FE. > > But "good enough" to get the job done *now*. I disagree. It's bad enough to kill FE. > Could you provide constructive suggestions(1) on how to make things better? Kick this new workflow or at least simplify it. Don't force maintainers to use web-forms when maintaining packages. In a nutshell: The actual effect of bodhi and koji on maintainers condenses to: * eye-candy * much more complex workflow/more bureaucracy > > * rel-eng could have done much better. > > Anything lacking now? Well, _release_ means a point in time, i.e. most of their mistakes show effect at one point in time: release time (and install time). Issues having shown since the release: 1. releasing unsigned packages 2. releasing mal-packaged packages (cf. gprolog*.rpm) 3. ACLs 4. mock still lacking fedora-7-*.cfgs (effects local build on cvs check outs). 5. koji, bodhi are directly connected to rel-eng enforcing their (RH) visions violently. 6. Them refusing to acknowledge "Release early/release often". If they don't believe in it, so be it, but they should not hinder maintainers who are convinced in it (like me) from applying it, as they do now. 7. The server layout (Everything/Fedora). At least I fail to understand why there can't be one single repo, containing "all of Fedora" with a subset of the packages therein packaged as iso's. ... > rel-eng agendas, meetings, are open you know. 1) Mon. 19:00 UTC closes me out 2) I am not interested in directly participating in rel-eng. I am just contributing packages to Fedora and using Fedora as an ordinary user. As such am a "just victim" of their deeds. > > * fedora-testing is a nothing but a hoax close blinding yourself about > > QA - I consider it to be a dead born child. The best I can say about it > > is it causing delays in updates. > > I strongly disagree. Tis a good thing updates-testing is optional, > you're welcome not to use it. I already said everything needed on other occasions, but I'll try to recap: 1. One can only test, if one knows what and how to test for. A "testing group" doesn't have any possibility to have the knowledge, HW nor required infrastructure. 2. Nobody will ever be able to prove "a program's completeness/ correctness". A "testing group" is no exception. All one can test for is "has a particular bug been fixed". This already is the job of a package's maintainer. 3. So far neither the testing repo (for FC7) nor the testing group has provided any evidence to be functional. Mal-packaged packages have been released, maintainers continue to push update candidates through private repos. 4. The impact this kind of "testing" has on the workflow of contributors is unreasonable. It renders "cvs commit; make tag build" non-functional, but requires you to additionally launch a browser and wade through various web-pages. Can we please have a "make release"? 5. "Test to death" is the closed source way of thinking. "Release early/release often" and "fix ASAP/release fix ASAP" is the working principle having shown to be functional in OSS. FE and Core had been no exceptions. Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Jun 13 03:11:03 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:11:03 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612215244.17da1956.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <1181704263.3233.350.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 16:29 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > "Gradual transition" is what has been missing. Too many changes at > > once and shortly before a final release of the distribution. > > Effectively, you've slammed a door into the faces of lots of Extras > > contributors. A new build system, undocumented changes in the > > procedures (e.g. buildroot "poisoning") and a dramatically changed > > work-flow. > > I have heard that complaint. It is my understanding that there are > active steps being taken to make this better (I wrote as much on LWN > yesterday), especially at the FESCO level, which is one of the things > that we want FESCO to be able to lead! > > Am I wrong? Do yourself a favor an submit a package for review and try to maintain it afterwards. You'll then probably very soon experience what this all is about. I'd also propose Karsten to look over your shoulders during this. Ralf From matt at domsch.com Wed Jun 13 03:42:01 2007 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:42:01 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181703591.3233.344.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <1181703591.3233.344.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070613034201.GA7077@domsch.com> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:59:51AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > 7. The server layout (Everything/Fedora). At least I fail to understand > why there can't be one single repo, containing "all of Fedora" with a > subset of the packages therein packaged as iso's. > ... That's exactly what the Everything tree is. It's a single repo, containing every RPM in the release. It's this tree that yum pulls from. The specific "Fedora" and "Live" spins, proper subsets of "Everything", have their own directories with ISOs, and the "Fedora" directory also happens to have the tree of "Fedora spin" content exploded so you can see what's included, but that tree is hardlinked to the "Everything" tree, so there's no package duplication on-disk. > It renders "cvs commit; make tag build" non-functional, but requires you > to additionally launch a browser and wade through various web-pages. > > Can we please have a "make release"? It's in the works I've heard several times. Patches would be gladly reviewed... -Matt From mmcgrath at redhat.com Wed Jun 13 03:58:50 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:58:50 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181704263.3233.350.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612215244.17da1956.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1181704263.3233.350.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <466F6B7A.9020804@redhat.com> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 16:29 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> >> >>> "Gradual transition" is what has been missing. Too many changes at >>> once and shortly before a final release of the distribution. >>> Effectively, you've slammed a door into the faces of lots of Extras >>> contributors. A new build system, undocumented changes in the >>> procedures (e.g. buildroot "poisoning") and a dramatically changed >>> work-flow. >>> >> I have heard that complaint. It is my understanding that there are >> active steps being taken to make this better (I wrote as much on LWN >> yesterday), especially at the FESCO level, which is one of the things >> that we want FESCO to be able to lead! >> >> Am I wrong? >> > Do yourself a favor an submit a package for review and try to maintain > it afterwards. > > You'll then probably very soon experience what this all is about. I'd > also propose Karsten to look over your shoulders during this. > Put up or shut up Ralf. You think you're helping but your not. https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/bodhi Do yourself a favor and submit a patch for review and try to aid with changes afterwards . You'll then probably very soon experience what this is all about. I'd also propose you document your experience on the wiki for others to learn from. -Mike From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Jun 13 04:29:02 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:29:02 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070613034201.GA7077@domsch.com> References: <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <1181703591.3233.344.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070613034201.GA7077@domsch.com> Message-ID: <1181708942.2121.14.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 22:42 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:59:51AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > 7. The server layout (Everything/Fedora). At least I fail to understand > > why there can't be one single repo, containing "all of Fedora" with a > > subset of the packages therein packaged as iso's. > > ... > > That's exactly what the Everything tree is. It's a single repo, > containing every RPM in the release. It's this tree that yum pulls > from. It doesn't contain DVD/CD-iso's. They are (Were? ATM, I can't find them anymore ?!?) under Fedora/iso. > The specific "Fedora" and "Live" spins, proper subsets of > "Everything", have their own directories with ISOs, and the "Fedora" > directory also happens to have the tree of "Fedora spin" content > exploded so you can see what's included, but that tree is hardlinked > to the "Everything" tree, so there's no package duplication on-disk. OK, but "hardlinking" will only help those who fully mirror, but this is quite confusing and misleading to ordinary users who manually/partially mirror. I would bet many folks fell into the trap and were mistaken to download "Fedora/" until they noticed they actually want "Everything". In worst case they ended up with having downloaded Fedora 3 times (1. iso, 2. Fedora, 3. Everything). At least I would have expected a fully expanded Fedora/os tree accompanied with a Fedora/iso directory containing isos filled with a subset of the packages from the fully expanded Fedora/os tree. > > It renders "cvs commit; make tag build" non-functional, but requires you > > to additionally launch a browser and wade through various web-pages. > > > > Can we please have a "make release"? > > It's in the works I've heard several times. Patches would be gladly > reviewed... Providing patches is only possible for those who understand the new workflow and to those who are intimate with the koji-client - I.e. not me. Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Jun 13 04:50:00 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:50:00 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612155507.GF4233@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 14:12 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > > And finally: Who do you think was making pressure to finally do the > > merger? Yes, it was the community and Red Hat opened up all old Core > > structures to make it more community-like. And attacking Red Hat for > > doing that seems bizarre. > > Thank you for this point, Axel. > > Fedora as a whole is MORE OPEN today than it was, say, when Fedora Core > 5 came out. I don't really see how anyone can claim otherwise with a > straight face. Reality check - What has changed with the merger? * Before: Core packages were maintained by @RH Now: With very few exceptions, Core packages are maintained by @RH * Before: FE was open, everybody could fix other packages. Now: ACLs are in effect. * Before: Fedora consisted of free-OSS packages. Now: Non-free packages have been introduced. * Before: Fedora was controlled by FAB and FESCO Now: Fedora is still controlled by FAB and FESCO. * Before: Core+Extras was released by RH's rel-eng Now: Core+Extras was released by a rel-eng. * Before: FE had a functional work-flow, functional simple reviews, functional bugzilla, some bureaucracy, non-functional QA. Now: koji, bodhi, flagged-reviews, broken bugzilla, more bureaucracy, still non-functional QA. All in all, from a community contributor's view it's basically the same as before. > And whether you realize it or not, a lot of the "behind the scenes" > stuff that you didn't see was a lot of the "evil @redhat.com folks" like > Jesse, Jeremy, Bill, Greg, and me explaining to various other levels of > management within Red Hat why it was important to merge everything, why > it was important to have a "free" build system and compose tool, etc. > Of course the overall drumbeat was coming from the community, but that > community goal had strong advocates within Red Hat who were willing to > use all of their "political capital" to GET THE RIGHT THING DONE. Nobody denies this - but ... trivial as it might sound, RH had initiated Fedora, so non-RH folks take it for granted that RH wanted and still wants Fedora. > If "Red Hat hated Fedora" I don't think I ever said this. It's certain @RH's peoples attitude. Ralf From fedora at leemhuis.info Wed Jun 13 07:43:09 2007 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:43:09 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070612212252.e09f9d27.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <20070612212252.e09f9d27.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <466FA00D.3060902@leemhuis.info> On 12.06.2007 21:22, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:10:59 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers > > [...]The strange table layout makes it worse. Back then when I created it as draft there were lots of people that said "I like the new layout much better" so I made it the new front page. When I was FESCo chair I kept an eye on it, but I have enough to do with EPEL these days so I stopped. Anyway: > [...] Meanwhile the page is crowded. Yes, since then lot's of stuff got added, and it yet again needs somebody to clean up that mess. > Nobody with expertise on creating > quality web page seems to have the final say about it. I multiple times on the list proposed that we need one or two "wiki masters" with Packaging knowledge that coordinate the different efforts in Packaging/, PackageMaintainers/ and Extras/; but this is a volunteer based project and nobody stepped up afaics (and it seems FESCo doesn't care to much about it either these days). CU thl From bugs.michael at gmx.net Wed Jun 13 09:17:00 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:17:00 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <466FA00D.3060902@leemhuis.info> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <20070612212252.e09f9d27.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <466FA00D.3060902@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <20070613111700.89ce479f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:43:09 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 12.06.2007 21:22, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:10:59 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers > > > > [...]The strange table layout makes it worse. > > Back then when I created it as draft there were lots of people that said > "I like the new layout much better" so I made it the new front page. > When I was FESCo chair I kept an eye on it, but I have enough to do with > EPEL these days so I stopped. When I still edited the old main page in an attempt to keep relevant information easy to access, somebody else broke its basic structure a few times in disagreement. Hence I stopped keeping an eye on the page. > Anyway: > > > [...] Meanwhile the page is crowded. > > Yes, since then lot's of stuff got added, and it yet again needs > somebody to clean up that mess. "Too many cooks spoil the broth." (Zuviele K?che verderben den Brei.) What had started as the Fedora Extras home page has turnt into a strange mix of content somewhat related to packaging, but despite its page title starts with an out-of-date section "For Users". One cannot edit this main page anymore without looking up the individual "sub-pages" at the bottom and editing them instead of the main page. The individual pages that are included in the table are full of unstructured unsorted information, e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/MainPageDevelopers > > Nobody with expertise on creating > > quality web page seems to have the final say about it. > > I multiple times on the list proposed that we need one or two "wiki > masters" with Packaging knowledge that coordinate the different efforts > in Packaging/, PackageMaintainers/ and Extras/; but this is a volunteer > based project and nobody stepped up afaics (and it seems FESCo doesn't > care to much about it either these days). Historically, FESCo members have had to step forward and take some of the work-items on the agenda. Nowadays, there's a show of approval in IRC when somebody introduces eye-candy like a Wiki theme or a table-layout (which squeezes a page with 17 bullets into a narrow column), but the content itself is in a desolate state. From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Wed Jun 13 12:40:24 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:40:24 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612155507.GF4233@neu.nirvana> <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1181738424.1563.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Reality check - What has changed with the merger? Reality check - it's been a little over a month. It takes work to get to a final solution. > * Before: Core packages were maintained by @RH > Now: With very few exceptions, Core packages are maintained by @RH This will grow. > * Before: FE was open, everybody could fix other packages. > Now: ACLs are in effect. ACLs can be removed if the maintainer wishes to make the packages fully open again. > * Before: Fedora consisted of free-OSS packages. > Now: Non-free packages have been introduced. By this do you mean firmware, or something else? > * Before: Fedora was controlled by FAB and FESCO > Now: Fedora is still controlled by FAB and FESCO. > * Before: Core+Extras was released by RH's rel-eng > Now: Core+Extras was released by a rel-eng. No. Before: Core was released by RH's rel-eng. They didn't touch Extras. > * Before: FE had a functional work-flow, functional simple reviews, > functional bugzilla, some bureaucracy, non-functional QA. > Now: koji, bodhi, flagged-reviews, broken bugzilla, more bureaucracy, > still non-functional QA. I've seen you say this. I think I have seen other contributors agree with some of those points. We're addressing them as fast as we can. josh From matt at domsch.com Wed Jun 13 12:49:27 2007 From: matt at domsch.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:49:27 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181708942.2121.14.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <1181703591.3233.344.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070613034201.GA7077@domsch.com> <1181708942.2121.14.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070613124927.GA13136@domsch.com> On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 06:29:02AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 22:42 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:59:51AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > 7. The server layout (Everything/Fedora). At least I fail to understand > > > why there can't be one single repo, containing "all of Fedora" with a > > > subset of the packages therein packaged as iso's. > > > ... > > > > That's exactly what the Everything tree is. It's a single repo, > > containing every RPM in the release. It's this tree that yum pulls > > from. > It doesn't contain DVD/CD-iso's. They are (Were? ATM, I can't find them > anymore ?!?) under Fedora/iso. > > > The specific "Fedora" and "Live" spins, proper subsets of > > "Everything", have their own directories with ISOs, and the "Fedora" > > directory also happens to have the tree of "Fedora spin" content > > exploded so you can see what's included, but that tree is hardlinked > > to the "Everything" tree, so there's no package duplication on-disk. > OK, but "hardlinking" will only help those who fully mirror, but this is > quite confusing and misleading to ordinary users who manually/partially > mirror. > > I would bet many folks fell into the trap and were mistaken to download > "Fedora/" until they noticed they actually want "Everything". In worst > case they ended up with having downloaded Fedora 3 times (1. iso, 2. > Fedora, 3. Everything). rsync -H would have only downloaded the duplicate content of 2. Fedora and 3. Everything once. At least 30 of our public mirrors provide rsync of this content. > At least I would have expected a fully expanded Fedora/os tree > accompanied with a Fedora/iso directory containing isos filled with a > subset of the packages from the fully expanded Fedora/os tree. And that is exactly what is there. /pub/fedora/linux/releases/7 |-- Everything | |-- i386 | | |-- debug | | `-- os | |-- ppc | | |-- debug | | `-- os | |-- ppc64 | | |-- debug | | `-- os | |-- source | | `-- SRPMS | `-- x86_64 | |-- debug | `-- os |-- Fedora | |-- i386 | | |-- iso | | `-- os | |-- ppc | | |-- iso | | `-- os | |-- source | | |-- SRPMS | | `-- iso | `-- x86_64 | |-- iso | `-- os `-- Live |-- i386 `-- x86_64 From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Jun 13 13:00:21 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:00:21 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070613124927.GA13136@domsch.com> References: <20070612094924.GA4727@neu.nirvana> <1181649087.3233.235.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EB885.2050200@math.unl.edu> <1181662937.3233.276.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466EC593.7080908@math.unl.edu> <1181703591.3233.344.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070613034201.GA7077@domsch.com> <1181708942.2121.14.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070613124927.GA13136@domsch.com> Message-ID: <1181739622.2121.118.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 07:49 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 06:29:02AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 22:42 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 04:59:51AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > 7. The server layout (Everything/Fedora). At least I fail to understand > > > > why there can't be one single repo, containing "all of Fedora" with a > > > > subset of the packages therein packaged as iso's. > > > > ... > > > > > > That's exactly what the Everything tree is. It's a single repo, > > > containing every RPM in the release. It's this tree that yum pulls > > > from. > > It doesn't contain DVD/CD-iso's. They are (Were? ATM, I can't find them > > anymore ?!?) under Fedora/iso. > > > > > The specific "Fedora" and "Live" spins, proper subsets of > > > "Everything", have their own directories with ISOs, and the "Fedora" > > > directory also happens to have the tree of "Fedora spin" content > > > exploded so you can see what's included, but that tree is hardlinked > > > to the "Everything" tree, so there's no package duplication on-disk. > > OK, but "hardlinking" will only help those who fully mirror, but this is > > quite confusing and misleading to ordinary users who manually/partially > > mirror. > > > > I would bet many folks fell into the trap and were mistaken to download > > "Fedora/" until they noticed they actually want "Everything". In worst > > case they ended up with having downloaded Fedora 3 times (1. iso, 2. > > Fedora, 3. Everything). > > rsync -H would have only downloaded the duplicate content of 2. Fedora > and 3. Everything once. At least 30 of our public mirrors provide > rsync of this content. Well, no problem nor disagreement - But don't you think this is beyond "joe average's" scope? I think so. > > At least I would have expected a fully expanded Fedora/os tree > > accompanied with a Fedora/iso directory containing isos filled with a > > subset of the packages from the fully expanded Fedora/os tree. > > And that is exactly what is there. > > /pub/fedora/linux/releases/7 > |-- Everything > | |-- i386 > | | |-- debug > | | `-- os > | |-- ppc > | | |-- debug > | | `-- os > | |-- ppc64 > | | |-- debug > | | `-- os > | |-- source > | | `-- SRPMS > | `-- x86_64 > | |-- debug > | `-- os > |-- Fedora > | |-- i386 > | | |-- iso > | | `-- os > | |-- ppc > | | |-- iso > | | `-- os > | |-- source > | | |-- SRPMS > | | `-- iso > | `-- x86_64 > | |-- iso > | `-- os > `-- Live > |-- i386 > `-- x86_64 Sorry for not having been clearer, you seem to have misunderstood. I meant a directory hierarchy labeled "Fedora//{os,iso}" filled with the expanded tree which currently is under "Everything//os" and the isos which currently are under "Fedora//iso". Or conversely: Current "Fedora//os" to be populated with what currently can be found under "Everything//os" Ralf From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Jun 13 13:21:38 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:21:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612155507.GF4233@neu.nirvana> <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: Hi Ralf, A few of my thoughts: > Reality check - What has changed with the merger? > > * Before: Core packages were maintained by @RH > Now: With very few exceptions, Core packages are maintained by @RH My view of now: infrastructure is in place that allows, over time, for more and more old "Core" packages to be maintained by non-RH. What we should do is find out how much access to old Core packages has been granted as of TODAY, so that we can compare that number 6 months from now and actually PROVE whether or not any progress has been made. > * Before: FE was open, everybody could fix other packages. > Now: ACLs are in effect. My view of now: all packages are treated as the same. ACLs aren't a problem. If ACLs are *abused* then it becomes a problem. This is an area for FESCO to watch, and if there are problems, either FESCO or the Board will have to address them. But abusing ACLs to me seems like it would be a problem with PEOPLE and not with TOOLS. > * Before: Fedora consisted of free-OSS packages. > Now: Non-free packages have been introduced. Please explain. > * Before: Fedora was controlled by FAB and FESCO > Now: Fedora is still controlled by FAB and FESCO. I would say that Fedora is controlled by each individual person who chooses to contribute. Fedora Board, Fedora Advisory Board, FESCO are all various levels of organization that attempt to give guidance and direction to a large number of contributors. But "control" is a loaded word that means different things to different people. In a volunteer-driven community, control is a misnomer. You can have leaders that exert something that *feels like* control, but it is only as effective as the trust the community puts in the leadership. Break the trust -- be a malevolent, as opposed to benevolent, dictator, and your ability to influence a free software project drops to zero. > * Before: Core+Extras was released by RH's rel-eng > Now: Core+Extras was released by a rel-eng. Now: every rel-eng tools is open. A rel-eng team within Fedora has been doing good work in public, and anyone in the world can be their own release engineer if they want to. > * Before: FE had a functional work-flow, functional simple reviews, > functional bugzilla, some bureaucracy, non-functional QA. > Now: koji, bodhi, flagged-reviews, broken bugzilla, more bureaucracy, > still non-functional QA. First off, I wouldn't term our QA "non-functional" -- I think that's quite an extreme statement to make once, certainly twice in quick succession. But your general litany of complaints -- this will all improve over time. And it will improve organically from within the community, not because a SINGLE PERSON @RH insists that it be done in a certain way. We wanted a single repository of Fedora packages. We have it. There's some issues around it that need to be cleaned up. But give it some time, man. You can't lose sight of the larger achievement, which is represented (albeit with a few rough spots) in Fedora 7's new "developer/packager infrastructure". Fedora 8's development cycle is a good chance for us to sort out, clean up, and simplify these problems. So either offer some constructive advice in the appropriate places for each of your concerns, or if you don't have any, then sit quietly for a while and let the people who work on those areas every day do their thing, and make improvements. -- Max Spevack + http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MaxSpevack + gpg key -- http://spevack.org/max.asc + fingerprint -- CD52 5E72 369B B00D 9E9A 773E 2FDB CB46 5A17 CF21 From mspevack at redhat.com Wed Jun 13 13:41:27 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:41:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: be polite and respectful Message-ID: It's been a heated day or so on FAB. There's a lot of people who disagree with each other talking. Let's remember to be as civil and polite as possible in our emails, yes? Especially since many of the people participating in this extended thread are acknowledged leaders within the Fedora community. Your public service announcement of the day. We don't have written down Codes of Conduct in Fedora. But this is a Friendly Nudge of Conduct. :-) --Max From blizzard at redhat.com Wed Jun 13 14:14:45 2007 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:14:45 -0400 Subject: be polite and respectful In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1181744085.2668.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 09:41 -0400, Max Spevack wrote: > > It's been a heated day or so on FAB. There's a lot of people who > disagree with each other talking. Wow, sounds like I missed out on something exciting. --Chris From kwade at redhat.com Wed Jun 13 17:40:22 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:40:22 -0700 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181738424.1563.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612155507.GF4233@neu.nirvana> <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1181738424.1563.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1181756422.3469.825.camel@erato.phig.org> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 07:40 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > * Before: FE had a functional work-flow, functional simple reviews, > > functional bugzilla, some bureaucracy, non-functional QA. > > Now: koji, bodhi, flagged-reviews, broken bugzilla, more bureaucracy, > > still non-functional QA. > > I've seen you say this. I think I have seen other contributors agree > with some of those points. We're addressing them as fast as we can. And in support Ralf's point that we need to pursue releasing early and releasing often, thanks to rel-eng and QA for DOING EXACTLY THAT. We can't wait for the new QA system to be perfect before we start using it, can we? That is the Cathedral model. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 dennis at ausil.us Thu Jun 14 02:40:40 2007 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:40:40 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <200706132140.40881.dennis@ausil.us> Once upon a time Tuesday 12 June 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > * Before: Core+Extras was released by RH's rel-eng > Now: Core+Extras was released by a rel-eng. Before core was handled by RH rel-eng team and extras by two very hard working community members. I Personally would like to thank Michael Schwendt and Ville Skytt? who made it happen i really hope they join in the new community Release engineering team and continue there work Dennis -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu Jun 14 04:34:33 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:34:33 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181756422.3469.825.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <20070612133748.GD4233@neu.nirvana> <1181660546.3233.256.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706121106.31117.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181662560.3233.268.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612155507.GF4233@neu.nirvana> <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1181738424.1563.6.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> <1181756422.3469.825.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1181795674.2121.218.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 10:40 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 07:40 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > * Before: FE had a functional work-flow, functional simple reviews, > > > functional bugzilla, some bureaucracy, non-functional QA. > > > Now: koji, bodhi, flagged-reviews, broken bugzilla, more bureaucracy, > > > still non-functional QA. > > > > I've seen you say this. I think I have seen other contributors agree > > with some of those points. We're addressing them as fast as we can. > > And in support Ralf's point that we need to pursue releasing early and > releasing often, ... when something is "ready" and stable enough. > thanks to rel-eng and QA for DOING EXACTLY THAT. ... if they also apply "Fix early, fix ASAP" ... > We can't wait for the new QA system to be perfect before we start using > it, can we? That is the Cathedral model. Right, but ... prematurely deploying something and ignoring bugs/deficiencies etc. also doesn't help anybody. Ralf From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Jun 14 06:35:10 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:35:10 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <200706132140.40881.dennis@ausil.us> References: <1181710200.2121.36.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706132140.40881.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <20070614083510.52e261ce.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:40:40 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Once upon a time Tuesday 12 June 2007, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > * Before: Core+Extras was released by RH's rel-eng > > Now: Core+Extras was released by a rel-eng. > > Before core was handled by RH rel-eng team and extras by two very hard > working community members. I Personally would like to thank > Michael Schwendt and Ville Skytt? who made it happen i really hope they join > in the new community Release engineering team and continue there work Currently, the incentive to do that is low. It's not even known to me yet how they operate. There has been a lot of miscommunication [or lack of proper communication, respectively] about what the new tools would be capable of. And so far much of the stuff surrounding F7 Updates and Test Updates looks dilettantish. From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 11:28:10 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:28:10 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181795674.2121.218.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1181756422.3469.825.camel@erato.phig.org> <1181795674.2121.218.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 14 June 2007 00:34:33 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Right, but ... prematurely deploying something and ignoring > bugs/deficiencies etc. also doesn't help anybody. I have to call BS on this one. Reasonable bugs/complaints are being addressed as fast as they can, and rel-eng in particular is revisiting all aspects of the workflow that is causing pain to find a happy middle ground that is acceptable to all parties involved (rel-eng voted, FESCo ratified). Of course, snide comments dropped in the middle of long threads may not get addressed as they are lost easily. Bug reports, Trac tickets, call for topics in meetings these are addressed. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu Jun 14 12:01:37 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:01:37 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <1181756422.3469.825.camel@erato.phig.org> <1181795674.2121.218.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 07:28 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 00:34:33 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Right, but ... prematurely deploying something and ignoring > > bugs/deficiencies etc. also doesn't help anybody. > > I have to call BS on this one. Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working? Just today, a kernel without its infrastructure (broken deps) has been released. Yesterday, I found a bug in your new mock release candidate ... and wanted to reject this package of yours in bodhi, but I could not find any means to reject this package (seemingly pending something I presume to be a release queue). Now you come along an swear at me? Embarressed, Ralf From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 13:23:17 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:23:17 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:01:37 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > I have to call BS on this one. > > Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working? Yes, for many things and many cases things are working quite well. There are some rough spots, nobody is saying it's perfect, but to say that it's completely non-functional is just bologna. > Just today, a kernel without its infrastructure (broken deps) has been > released. Yes, dep checking on the updates tree is something that is in need of work. It is a feature that is yet to be implemented. Care to help? > Yesterday, I found a bug in your new mock release candidate ... and > wanted to reject this package of yours in bodhi, but I could not find > any means to reject this package (seemingly pending something I presume > to be a release queue). FESCo / QA / rel-eng has yet to create/approve any reasonable guidance for updates. There are many like /you/ that would prefer there were no roadblocks whatsoever and maintainers would be allowed to push whatever they want whenever they want. And yet now you're looking for a way to /stop/ an update? Why don't you help us figure out what a reasonable work flow is for creating update candidates, getting them into testing (the mock you tested wasn't even released to updates-testing yet, you snaked it from CVS), allowing or disallowing random maintainers from "blocking" a release, etc... You did the right thing this time by filing a bug report. You also could have left a comment in the Bodhi page for this update, however that isn't very well advertised as it isn't generally accepted that this is the proper way to gather input. We've released the tool and are making use of it in the best we can to get updates out for the release. Now that the tool is out there and usable, now is the time to get more input on how it should be fine tuned and how we can make the workflow better. If we had waited for every committee to hash out over every workflow item we'd still not have an update tool, let alone a release. Luke asked for feedback quite often and the bodhi code/test stuff has been up for a while, but as usual nobody yells until something goes into production. > Now you come along an swear at me? I'm sorry you don't like my abbreviated language. The rest of us don't like your un-abbreviated extremely rude and brash attitude. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Jun 14 13:54:40 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:54:40 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070614155440.91c10f4f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:23:17 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: [Jesse to Ralf] > I'm sorry you don't like my abbreviated language. The rest of us don't like ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This --> is extremely bad form unless you are the official spokesperson for "the rest of us". > your un-abbreviated extremely rude and brash attitude. > Yes, dep checking on the updates tree is something that is in need of work. > It is a feature that is yet to be implemented. Care to help? It has been an advertised feature for a very long time. Several comments on bodhi said it would be capable of rejecting packages with broken deps. Turns out it can't, because it's a feature that is not implemented. And of course, rel-eng (or whoever approves the updates) doesn't do any checking of broken deps at all. Imagine this: A package, which has been broken for almost half a year, has passed review and has been pushed into stable updates. No chance even to run extras repoclosure when updates-testing can be skipped so easily. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 14:22:07 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:22:07 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1181756422.3469.825.camel@erato.phig.org> <1181795674.2121.218.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <46714F0F.3030902@redhat.com> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 07:28 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> On Thursday 14 June 2007 00:34:33 Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> >>> Right, but ... prematurely deploying something and ignoring >>> bugs/deficiencies etc. also doesn't help anybody. >>> >> I have to call BS on this one. >> > Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working? > > Just today, a kernel without its infrastructure (broken deps) has been > released. > > Yesterday, I found a bug in your new mock release candidate ... and > wanted to reject this package of yours in bodhi, but I could not find > any means to reject this package (seemingly pending something I presume > to be a release queue). > > In this bodhi? https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/bodhi/browser That open source bodhi to which patches can be submitted? That bodhi? -Mike From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 15:01:47 2007 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 11:01:47 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070614155440.91c10f4f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <20070614155440.91c10f4f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <200706141101.47608.jkeating@redhat.com> On Thursday 14 June 2007 09:54:40 Michael Schwendt wrote: > It has been an advertised feature for a very long time. Several comments > on bodhi said it would be capable of rejecting packages with broken > deps. This was my fault, as I was basing this information on the earlier version of the tool we use to produce Fedora Core 6/5 updates. I had assumed bodhi would have this functionality out of the gate, but that didn't happen due to time pressures. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu Jun 14 17:35:22 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:35:22 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:01:37 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > I have to call BS on this one. > > > > Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working? > > Yes, for many things and many cases things are working quite well. There are > some rough spots, nobody is saying it's perfect, but to say that it's > completely non-functional is just bologna. Then let me ask directly: How could it happen that this kernel package was released? My interpretation of this incident: "system failure". Whatever this system is - be it automatic, be it human. IMO, EVR breakages and repo inconsistency are avoidable and would expect Michael to have scripts for this. > > Yesterday, I found a bug in your new mock release candidate ... and > > wanted to reject this package of yours in bodhi, but I could not find > > any means to reject this package (seemingly pending something I presume > > to be a release queue). > > FESCo / QA / rel-eng has yet to create/approve any reasonable guidance for > updates. There are many like /you/ that would prefer there were no > roadblocks whatsoever and maintainers would be allowed to push whatever they > want whenever they want. Sorry, I've always said I would like to see "automatic EVR consistency checks", maintainers to be equipped with means to "push releases" ("make release") and means to withdraw freshly built packages. I've also never questioned the usefulness of "a (public) package release candidate queue", as a means to equip people with means to check/review/test/approve/reject/withdraw packages (comprising maintainers approving their own packages and maintainers to reject their own packages == withdraw packages). I am questioning the current implementation and the usefulness of a "testing group", that's correct. > And yet now you're looking for a way to /stop/ an update? Yes, when a package is obviously malfunctioning like in this case? Isn't checking/testing, approval/withdrawal the core of testing? I thought this was the primary objective of the "testing" repos, the "testing group", bodhi and the changes to the workflow? > Why don't you help us figure out what a reasonable work flow is for creating > update candidates, getting them into testing I would expect a successful "make build" to automatically push a package into "testing". Then some sort of "review" should take place, until either a timeout happens or somebody (e.g. the package's maintainer) "approves/rejects" a package ("make release") A package then would enter a release queue, where some further automated rpm/packaging inspections and "repo state after push" checks, such as automatic EVR consistence checks, should take place. If a "set of package to be pushed" passes them, this set would be pushed (either manually or automatically, e.g. periodically). > (the mock you tested wasn't even > released to updates-testing yet, you snaked it from CVS), Right, I picked it up from CVS and rebuilt it locally, because the current FC7 mock doesn't work for me and was looking for an escape. Given all the attention bodhi currently has and you having closed the PR I was waiting for to be fixed, I first looked into bodhi, expecting to find a "fixed package". bodhi listed a particular version as update candidate, but I could not find an option to download the package. I then looked into the "testing" repo and could not find the package. In the end, I resorted to one of the "usual escapes" to work-around unfixed "fixed rawhide/upstream bugs": Picking a package up from CVS. After testing this version I informed you through bugzilla that this versions also doesn't work for me. My conclusion in this case: The effective situation didn't change with bodhi. Ralf From poelstra at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 17:58:20 2007 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 10:58:20 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2007-JUN-12 Message-ID: <467181BC.1020904@redhat.com> Please make corrections and clarifications to the wiki page. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2007-06-12 == Attendees == Paul Frields, Rex Dieter, Matt Domsch, Max Spevack, Greg DeKoenigsberg, Chris Blizzard, Bill Nottingham, Jeremy Katz, Spot Calloway, John Poelstra, and Karsten Wade. == Discussion of Secondary Arches == * Blizzard proposed ARM as a secondary Fedora architecture * Community run under FESCo following the same processes as other secondary arches * Additional discussion around whether PPC should remain a primary architecture * It is valuable to Fedora as a whole to have both big and small endian architectures in active use and testing. Decisions: * PPC will remain a primary architecture until: 1. secondary arch process is finalized 1. there are no other secondary architectures * Board approves and welcomes ARM as a secondary architecture == FUDCon F8 == * Location with will be Raleigh, North Carolina * Discussed pros and cons of two different dates: August 3rd to 5th or August 17th to 19th Decision: Max will check on location for both dates by June 15th. This may help to determine which date it actually happens on. Presently leaning towards August 3rd to 5th, *but no decision has been made*. == Fedora Advisory Board Membership == * Election nomination announcement posted by Max to fill three community seats == Documentation Update == * Update from Karsten Wade * Migration is under way from elvis.redhat.com (Red Hat's internal CVS for translation work) to Fedora CVS. * Jeremy and Bill assisting * Have ticket open with Red Hat engineering services to make sure process does not interrupt Red Hat's translation processes. == Features and Scheduling == * Board officially sanctioned John Poelstra to formulate and start the feature process for the next releases of Fedora. * John to circulate a proposed feature process to fedora-devel no later than June 21, 2007. * John to propose a feature freeze date and schedule in consultation with Fedora Release Engineering. * Schedule and feature process will be submitted to FESCO after public review and discussion on fedora-devel From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 18:26:47 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:26:47 -0500 Subject: mailing list reorganization In-Reply-To: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> References: <46683443.6090701@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <46718867.4020501@redhat.com> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Does that sound like a plan? > Just a followup on this. I'm going to work with GIT to determine what it would take to get an @fedoraproject.org setup. I have been denied access to directly create lists, there are just too many systems involved at present. -Mike From lmacken at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 19:36:44 2007 From: lmacken at redhat.com (Luke Macken) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:36:44 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070614155440.91c10f4f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <20070614155440.91c10f4f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20070614193644.GE4557@tomservo.rochester.rr.com> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 03:54:40PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:23:17 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > [Jesse to Ralf] > > > I'm sorry you don't like my abbreviated language. The rest of us don't like > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > This --> is extremely bad form unless you are the official spokesperson > for "the rest of us". > > > your un-abbreviated extremely rude and brash attitude. > > > Yes, dep checking on the updates tree is something that is in need of work. > > It is a feature that is yet to be implemented. Care to help? > > It has been an advertised feature for a very long time. Several comments > on bodhi said it would be capable of rejecting packages with broken > deps. Turns out it can't, because it's a feature that is not > implemented. And of course, rel-eng (or whoever approves the updates) > doesn't do any checking of broken deps at all. Imagine this: A package, > which has been broken for almost half a year, has passed review and has > been pushed into stable updates. No chance even to run extras repoclosure > when updates-testing can be skipped so easily. I implemented closure checking for bodhi a while back, but a week before F7 was released, we all decided to entirely change the way we create the updates repository; thus, we have to approach this issue differently now. luke From lmacken at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 20:06:58 2007 From: lmacken at redhat.com (Luke Macken) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 16:06:58 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181648570.3233.229.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466E63D3.5010708@fedoraproject.org> <1181648570.3233.229.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070614200658.GF4557@tomservo.rochester.rr.com> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 01:42:50PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 14:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > > > RH "dark chamber" decisions in many cases first take effect, and are > > > never discussed nor voted on. They are "divine", except for some rare > > > occasions when one or more of these "divine creatures" has the grace to > > > listen. > > > > > > ATM, I am seeing @RH's (esp. rel-eng) drawing arguable RH-centric > > > decisions, which I consider to be spoiling large parts of the basis the > > > former FE's success was based on. > > > > If you want things to improve you can't be throwing vague accusations. > > Rel Eng has non-RH members in it and can potentially accommodate more if > > they volunteer. > OK, in verbose: > > rel-eng has broken FE's workflow model into something I consider > counter-productive and unusable to community contributors. Over 400 package updates have been pushed out with our new infrastructure in the past couple of weeks since F7. That's fairly impressive for something that you consider to be 'unusable'. I'm not saying bodhi is perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. Hell, it hasn't even reached 1.0 yet, which is what I defined as 'Minimal functionality for Fedora 7'. When it came down to the home stretch, we made a ballsy choice to completely change the way bodhi pushes out updates, 1 week before the release. A few all-nighters later, and I was able to crank that code out and get it deployed before F7 was released. So now we have a working updates system deployed, that is getting better every day. The moral of the story is: workflows change. competent developers change with them. through rational discourse and development (neither of which you seem to be acquainted with), workflows become optimized. Things improve. (repeat) > rel-eng's deeds are throwing away all the points having made FE > attractive. By attractive, you mean that with a single command you can push out any changes to any package in FE to all Fedora users without even testing that the program even runs? I hate to tell you, but even Gentoo does more QA on packages than we ever did with FE. luke From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Jun 14 20:29:30 2007 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:29:30 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:35:22 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:01:37 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > I have to call BS on this one. > > > > > > Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working? > > > > Yes, for many things and many cases things are working quite well. There are > > some rough spots, nobody is saying it's perfect, but to say that it's > > completely non-functional is just bologna. > Then let me ask directly: How could it happen that this kernel package > was released? > > My interpretation of this incident: "system failure". > Whatever this system is - be it automatic, be it human. > > IMO, EVR breakages and repo inconsistency are avoidable and would expect > Michael to have scripts for this. As I don't completely understand that sentence, just to make one thing clear, I'm not involved in F7 update releases at all. Additionally, I'd like to point out that criticism and input, which sound negative, should not be seen as nothing else than complaints. The project used to be more open to feedback of all sorts. In some parts of the Fedora Project there's a growing tendency to meet criticism with phrases like "put up or shut up". Not desirable. Bodhi'n'stuff: There seem to be technical/design problems in the new update system workflow such as that bodhi currently cannot assist with publishing pending updates to a temporary repository. I believe it could be possible with another tag in koji, which a tool like mash can use to fetch unreleased packages from. Additionally, defining and pushing groups of packages doesn't seem to be possible yet either. With Extras (and its incomplete pushscript helper tools [1]) at least we *can* run repoclosure prior to and after release of new updates (and fortunately, blacklisting packages has not been difficult so far). For F7, apparently, this feature has been neglected completely. Still the release procedure has been modified so much that packagers are forced to push several knobs without that there is policy about it and additionally the bodhi admins need to approve update requests without that they can run any checks at all. Weird is also how broken deps in updates apparently are seen as normality instead of things that should be fixed quickly. [1] The next [experimental] step with Extras pushscripts and repoclosure might have been to add automation to the trivial step "no broken dep in needsign => push all", support for finding, checking and excluding groups of packages that break deps, and probably doing the multilib dance in the temporary repos created from needsign. From mmcgrath at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 20:46:29 2007 From: mmcgrath at redhat.com (Mike McGrath) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:46:29 -0500 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <4671A925.9070008@redhat.com> Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:35:22 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: >> >>> On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:01:37 Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>>>> I have to call BS on this one. >>>>> >>>> Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working? >>>> >>> Yes, for many things and many cases things are working quite well. There are >>> some rough spots, nobody is saying it's perfect, but to say that it's >>> completely non-functional is just bologna. >>> >> Then let me ask directly: How could it happen that this kernel package >> was released? >> >> My interpretation of this incident: "system failure". >> Whatever this system is - be it automatic, be it human. >> >> IMO, EVR breakages and repo inconsistency are avoidable and would expect >> Michael to have scripts for this. >> > > As I don't completely understand that sentence, just to make one thing > clear, I'm not involved in F7 update releases at all. > > Additionally, I'd like to point out that criticism and input, which sound > negative, should not be seen as nothing else than complaints. The project > used to be more open to feedback of all sorts. In some parts of the Fedora > Project there's a growing tendency to meet criticism with phrases like > "put up or shut up". Not desirable. > > I'm a firm believer that talk is cheap and that we need more workers. For those that aren't familiar with the idiom: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+up+or+shut+up I don't find Ralf criticisms to be constructive at all. Especially since many are just saying "I don't like it" and don't even attempt to suggest a fix much less actually provide a designed fix much less an actual working patch. Luke has been asking for feedback and testers for a very long time, I wonder how many he got. -Mike From lmacken at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 21:04:48 2007 From: lmacken at redhat.com (Luke Macken) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:04:48 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20070614210448.GA14190@tomservo.rochester.rr.com> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:29:30PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Additionally, I'd like to point out that criticism and input, which sound > negative, should not be seen as nothing else than complaints. The project > used to be more open to feedback of all sorts. In some parts of the Fedora > Project there's a growing tendency to meet criticism with phrases like > "put up or shut up". Not desirable. > > Bodhi'n'stuff: There seem to be technical/design problems in the new > update system workflow such as that bodhi currently cannot assist with > publishing pending updates to a temporary repository. I believe it could > be possible with another tag in koji, which a tool like mash can use to > fetch unreleased packages from. Additionally, defining and pushing groups > of packages doesn't seem to be possible yet either. Since bodhi uses mash to compose the update repos, there is no reason why it wouldn't be able to compose temporary repository. With regard to multi-build updates, I implemented this in my development branch and I'm in the process of writing test cases for it. You will see this feature in bodhi in the near future. > With Extras (and its incomplete pushscript helper tools [1]) at least we > *can* run repoclosure prior to and after release of new updates (and > fortunately, blacklisting packages has not been difficult so far). For F7, > apparently, this feature has been neglected completely. Still the release > procedure has been modified so much that packagers are forced to push > several knobs without that there is policy about it and additionally the > bodhi admins need to approve update requests without that they can run any > checks at all. Weird is also how broken deps in updates apparently are > seen as normality instead of things that should be fixed quickly. I hacked up repoclosure support into bodhi a while back, but when notting proposed mashing update repos instead of managing them by hand we had to weigh the cost of the transition: "old school" pushing in bodhi ============================= o still needed polish on depclosure checking (lots of false positives arose) o had no concept of multilib (other than the previous biarch.py file of DOOM, and we weren't planning on digging deeper into that hole) o had no mechanism of cleaning out old updates mashing ======= o handled multi-lib for us o gave us a clean repo every time o I was also under the impression that it did closure checking, but come to find out it needs more work. o needs new updateinfo.xml implementation So handing off all of this complexity to mash was definitely a good decision in my opinion, even if it left us with some missing functionality in the mean time. There is currently a thread on maintainers-list about the dependency checking for updates. Patches/suggestions are always welcome. luke From mspevack at redhat.com Thu Jun 14 21:07:22 2007 From: mspevack at redhat.com (Max Spevack) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 17:07:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: > My interpretation of this incident: "system failure". Whatever this > system is - be it automatic, be it human. I think it's time to bring this fight (and thread) to an end. Was there a bug in the infrastructure that allowed a bad kernel to be released? Yes. Is that a Bad Thing? Yes. Is it indicative of some Fundamental Flaw in Everything We Do in Fedora? No. Have people taken accountability? Yes. And that is the most important part. Do people need to be sacked over it? No. Does the process that let this happen need to be fixed? Yes. I think everyone has acknowledged that. Are people actively working on fixing it? Yes. So enough is enough. Let's all just keep going about our business. The level of defensiveness coming from all sides on this thread isn't healthy overall for Fedora. --Max From dgboles at gmail.com Thu Jun 14 21:17:59 2007 From: dgboles at gmail.com (David Boles) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:17:59 -0700 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <4671A925.9070008@redhat.com> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <4671A925.9070008@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4671B087.5080900@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mike McGrath wrote: On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:35:22 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> >> >> As I don't completely understand that sentence, just to make one >> thing clear, I'm not involved in F7 update releases at all. >> >> Additionally, I'd like to point out that criticism and input, >> which sound negative, should not be seen as nothing else than >> complaints. The project used to be more open to feedback of all >> sorts. In some parts of the Fedora Project there's a growing >> tendency to meet criticism with phrases like "put up or shut up". >> Not desirable. >> >> > I'm a firm believer that talk is cheap and that we need more > workers. For those that aren't familiar with the idiom: > > http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+up+or+shut+up > > I don't find Ralf criticisms to be constructive at all. Especially > since many are just saying "I don't like it" and don't even > attempt to suggest a fix much less actually provide a designed fix > much less an actual working patch. Luke has been asking for > feedback and testers for a very long time, I wonder how many he > got. > > -Mike (lurk mode off) I have followed this thread, and several others, since they started when Fedora 7 was released. I don't really belong here, I am not a developer, but I am an end user with an opinion. I agree with what Mike, and several other Fedora/Redhat, people have said. Criticisms made, it appears, to just complain does no good. I think that you are doing a great job. Really. I seldom, if ever, have a problem. I have not ever had a major problem. Most of the problems that I have seen on the fedora-list are Pebcak, or did not read the Release notes, or read the FAQ, or read the known problems/solutions, or a combination of the listed. Or all of the listed for that matter. I have had 'bumps' but never the _disaster_ that so many complain about there. Remember this Mr. Developer/Engineer/Maintainer. There are more people like me than there are of them. And we appreciate your efforts. If I have forgotten to mention anyone one - you count too. Again. Great job. (lurk mode on) - -- David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFGcbCHrItTyWRhT1YRAtfRAJ9fGUsHOKwDM9mSk7nnQqc5aIBLQgCfbkYp asxLLl1iz77VHrSSB7It0KA= =FAye -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From stickster at gmail.com Fri Jun 15 02:56:27 2007 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 22:56:27 -0400 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <1181673395.3469.721.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <466E3238.40706@redhat.com> <20070612061046.GA1607@neu.nirvana> <1181630013.3233.82.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612071143.GC1607@neu.nirvana> <1181634022.3233.106.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070612080509.GA3727@neu.nirvana> <1181639157.3233.159.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466E63D3.5010708@fedoraproject.org> <1181648570.3233.229.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <466E8CC6.4030805@fedoraproject.org> <1181673395.3469.721.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1181876187.6308.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:36 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 17:38 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > if Red Hat sees individual Fedora contributors > > making a good difference it probably will want to hire them. That > > doesn't suddenly make them a non community member. > > "Prepare the Borg making equipment!" > > A person is like a software package. Adding the package to Fedora > doesn't take away the upstream. Adding a community member to Red Hat > doesn't assimilate them into a group consciousness that strips them of > free-will making their every word now suspect. Catching up to email, forgive the lateness of the reply. Thank you for pointing this out, Karsten. And you know what? It cuts the other way too -- being @RH to start with doesn't make people soulless automatons either. I can tell you, as a non- at RH person, that there are PLENTY of times where the most vehement and cantankerous disagreements have often happened in Board meetings between two @RH persons. (Not any two in particular.) :-) The idea that somehow Red Hat people are constantly pulling us toward the reefs, and that only the efforts of the noble community will save this project, has become quite tiresome. For instance, I know for a fact that certain Red Hat board members take it on the chin quite regularly promoting community initiatives (and to internal Red Hat people. They're doing the work every day making sure the community project is driven by the community to the fulles possible extent. (That may be why we don't see them spending substantial quantities of time posting on lists, but they're certainly not shut behind locked doors, either.) Let's remember that the whole reason we're all doing this work is the same goals, the ones that show up on the front webpages. Part of teamwork is not downing your teammates who happen to wear ties instead of tennis shoes. (Admittedly, this is a tough metaphor given the lack of dress code, but my drift should be clear.) -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields 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 rc040203 at freenet.de Fri Jun 15 03:10:27 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:10:27 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <1181877028.2121.465.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 22:29 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:35:22 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:23 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Thursday 14 June 2007 08:01:37 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > I have to call BS on this one. > > > > > > > > Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working? > > > > > > Yes, for many things and many cases things are working quite well. There are > > > some rough spots, nobody is saying it's perfect, but to say that it's > > > completely non-functional is just bologna. > > Then let me ask directly: How could it happen that this kernel package > > was released? > > > > My interpretation of this incident: "system failure". > > Whatever this system is - be it automatic, be it human. > > > > IMO, EVR breakages and repo inconsistency are avoidable and would expect > > Michael to have scripts for this. > > As I don't completely understand that sentence, just to make one thing > clear, I'm not involved in F7 update releases at all. You have been posting reports of EVR breakages/broken package deps in FC+FE for a long time and therefore thought you to have scripts to perform such repo-consistency checks automatically. Running such a script on a repo + "the packages to be pushed" before pushing the new packages would have caught this case. Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Fri Jun 15 03:12:31 2007 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 05:12:31 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <46714F0F.3030902@redhat.com> References: <1181756422.3469.825.camel@erato.phig.org> <1181795674.2121.218.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <46714F0F.3030902@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1181877151.2121.469.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:22 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 07:28 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > >> On Thursday 14 June 2007 00:34:33 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> > >>> Right, but ... prematurely deploying something and ignoring > >>> bugs/deficiencies etc. also doesn't help anybody. > >>> > >> I have to call BS on this one. > >> > > Ask yourself. Is anything about this really working? > > > > Just today, a kernel without its infrastructure (broken deps) has been > > released. > > > > Yesterday, I found a bug in your new mock release candidate ... and > > wanted to reject this package of yours in bodhi, but I could not find > > any means to reject this package (seemingly pending something I presume > > to be a release queue). > > > > > In this bodhi? > > https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/bodhi/browser No, I am trying to do as directed and try to use the web-pages at bodhi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates > That open source bodhi to which patches can be submitted? That bodhi? Do you expect users to fix each and every issue with arbitrary packages? Ralf From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Fri Jun 15 09:06:09 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:06:09 +0200 Subject: governance, fesco, board, etc. In-Reply-To: <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20070614222930.9fb4e713.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20070615090609.GN30568@neu.nirvana> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:29:30PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > The project used to be more open to feedback of all sorts. Personally I've made the opposite experience (if I don't count EPEL to Fedora proper). Over time the project has been opening more and more, especially in the last year+. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Fri Jun 15 09:27:58 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 11:27:58 +0200 Subject: Thread getting off-topic? (was: governance, fesco, board, etc.) In-Reply-To: <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200706140728.11125.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181822498.2121.300.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200706140923.17774.jkeating@redhat.com> <1181842522.2121.450.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20070615092758.GO30568@neu.nirvana> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:35:22PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: [criticism about bodhi, bad kernel push, repoclosure missing etc.] I think this thread has gone off-topic and everyone has been part of doing so. The thread started with Max trying to define the roles of the board and fesco (and all subgroups etc). I think we should return to this part, e.g. to have a proper text to put somewhere on the wiki. Hopefully the constructive parts are not lost in the bad SNR of this thread. The points this thread have moved to are now by definition far from being the board's topic. Yes, there are bugs here and there, and tools need some fixing and so on - this is normal day-to-day business in Fedora, "a fast moving distribution" (wikipedia), and it's far better than the opposite direction, stability through stagnation. So please these topics belong to fedora-maintainers and perhaps fedora-infrastructure/buildsys. They are also clearly technical/engineering nature making them fesco business. Please move this discussion to the right places and only escalate to fesco and then to board if something is really in need to do so (like people not accepting patches to fix things). The current situation of bumpiness required due to many and large structural changes (the Core and Extras merger) has been blessed by all parties, be that the board, fesco, Red Hat or community or my wife's cats and bunnies. And it was known that it would be bumpy. Otherwise we'd have this merger with FC1 and not wait until F7. During FC1-6 we had a slow and stable convergence between Core and Extras, and perhaps if we would wait until FC25 in 2016 we'd have a smother integration. But no one wanted to wait any longer. I'm really glad we did that now and the bumpy aftermath is even smoother than I would have personally imagined (in fact I silently thought it would be a disaster looking at that many changes done last minute and was positively surprised how fast bugs and missing features were being added!). You can't eat the dog and feed the pie, too. Or was it vice versa? ;) Anyway, let's get the subthreads where they belong: fab list: some final wording about the organisational hierarchy and relation of entities among each other for the wiki fesco: overlooking buildsys, infrastructure, releng for smoothing up the aftermath buildsys&infrastructure: Suggestions, patches for koji, bodhi and friends maintainers: everything that doesn't fit the above. Perhaps the above is not the perfect mapping, if you have a better rerouting map, please fix the above. The main theme is to move technical discussions away from this list. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From caillon at redhat.com Thu Jun 21 19:18:01 2007 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:18:01 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] Message-ID: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Jochen Schmitt Subject: License issue with iText and releated packages Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:10:56 +0200 Size: 3806 URL: From notting at redhat.com Thu Jun 21 19:34:10 2007 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:34:10 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Christopher Aillon (caillon at redhat.com) said: > I have a special license issue with iText and related packages like > pdftk, which I want to discuss. > > For further information please look a BZ #236310, BZ #245222, BZ #236309 > > You should be aware, that the plain iText package offers in Fedora have > the same issue like > the packages with bundled iText implementations. Nuke them all. Bill From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Thu Jun 21 19:40:50 2007 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:40:50 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1182454850.2550.13.camel@hodge> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Christopher Aillon (caillon at redhat.com) said: > > I have a special license issue with iText and related packages like > > pdftk, which I want to discuss. > > > > For further information please look a BZ #236310, BZ #245222, BZ #236309 > > > > You should be aware, that the plain iText package offers in Fedora have > > the same issue like > > the packages with bundled iText implementations. > > Nuke them all. > +1 I'm glad it got caught, though. Kudos to Andrew Overholt and Kevin Kofler for finding these. -sv From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Jun 21 19:41:06 2007 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 14:41:06 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1182454866.11700.0.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Christopher Aillon (caillon at redhat.com) said: > > I have a special license issue with iText and related packages like > > pdftk, which I want to discuss. > > > > For further information please look a BZ #236310, BZ #245222, BZ #236309 > > > > You should be aware, that the plain iText package offers in Fedora have > > the same issue like > > the packages with bundled iText implementations. > > Nuke them all. Yes. josh From stickster at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 22:09:05 2007 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:09:05 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <1182454850.2550.13.camel@hodge> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1182454850.2550.13.camel@hodge> Message-ID: <1182463745.3449.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:40 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Christopher Aillon (caillon at redhat.com) said: > > > I have a special license issue with iText and related packages like > > > pdftk, which I want to discuss. > > > > > > For further information please look a BZ #236310, BZ #245222, BZ #236309 > > > > > > You should be aware, that the plain iText package offers in Fedora have > > > the same issue like > > > the packages with bundled iText implementations. > > > > Nuke them all. > > > > +1 > > I'm glad it got caught, though. > > Kudos to Andrew Overholt and Kevin Kofler for finding these. Given this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236309#c3 ...is there any merit in FPC asking package maintainers to go through their Java-including packages looking for similar issues? Or even just having FPC issue a statement reiterating the need for maintainers to check the code they're entering into the repos? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields 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 Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Thu Jun 21 22:28:34 2007 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:28:34 +0200 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <1182463745.3449.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1182454850.2550.13.camel@hodge> <1182463745.3449.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20070621222834.GB7596@puariko.nirvana> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:09:05PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:40 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > Christopher Aillon (caillon at redhat.com) said: > > > > I have a special license issue with iText and related packages like > > > > pdftk, which I want to discuss. > > > > > > > > For further information please look a BZ #236310, BZ #245222, BZ #236309 > > > > > > > > You should be aware, that the plain iText package offers in Fedora have > > > > the same issue like > > > > the packages with bundled iText implementations. > > > > > > Nuke them all. > > > > > > > +1 > > > > I'm glad it got caught, though. > > > > Kudos to Andrew Overholt and Kevin Kofler for finding these. > > Given this: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236309#c3 > > ...is there any merit in FPC asking package maintainers to go through > their Java-including packages looking for similar issues? Or even just > having FPC issue a statement reiterating the need for maintainers to > check the code they're entering into the repos? Well, the FPC is supposed to do the clean-room design for guidelines and not police the packages, or put in different words, the FPC discusses the framework and the day to day packaging issues (enforcing guidelines, punishing guideline outlaws, deciding on exceptions to guidelines) are still within fesco proper. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- 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 Jun 21 23:14:37 2007 From: kwade at redhat.com (Karsten Wade) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:14:37 -0700 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <20070621222834.GB7596@puariko.nirvana> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1182454850.2550.13.camel@hodge> <1182463745.3449.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070621222834.GB7596@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <1182467677.10205.142.camel@erato.phig.org> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:28 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > Well, the FPC is supposed to do the clean-room design for guidelines > and not police the packages, or put in different words, the FPC > discusses the framework and the day to day packaging issues (enforcing > guidelines, punishing guideline outlaws, deciding on exceptions to > guidelines) are still within fesco proper. Sounds reasonable to me. Either way, a reminder is definitely in order. Isn't there a cool new announce list to cover this? :) - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | 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 stickster at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 23:16:23 2007 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:16:23 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <20070621222834.GB7596@puariko.nirvana> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1182454850.2550.13.camel@hodge> <1182463745.3449.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070621222834.GB7596@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <1182467783.3449.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:28 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:09:05PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:40 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:34 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > > > Christopher Aillon (caillon at redhat.com) said: > > > > > I have a special license issue with iText and related packages like > > > > > pdftk, which I want to discuss. > > > > > > > > > > For further information please look a BZ #236310, BZ #245222, BZ #236309 > > > > > > > > > > You should be aware, that the plain iText package offers in Fedora have > > > > > the same issue like > > > > > the packages with bundled iText implementations. > > > > > > > > Nuke them all. > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > I'm glad it got caught, though. > > > > > > Kudos to Andrew Overholt and Kevin Kofler for finding these. > > > > Given this: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236309#c3 > > > > ...is there any merit in FPC asking package maintainers to go through > > their Java-including packages looking for similar issues? Or even just > > having FPC issue a statement reiterating the need for maintainers to > > check the code they're entering into the repos? > > Well, the FPC is supposed to do the clean-room design for guidelines > and not police the packages, or put in different words, the FPC > discusses the framework and the day to day packaging issues (enforcing > guidelines, punishing guideline outlaws, deciding on exceptions to > guidelines) are still within fesco proper. Failure on my part to conjure the right group name from my weary evening brain. Substitute FESCo for FPC in the suggestion -- comments? -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields 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 stickster at gmail.com Thu Jun 21 23:39:54 2007 From: stickster at gmail.com (Paul W. Frields) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <1182467677.10205.142.camel@erato.phig.org> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1182454850.2550.13.camel@hodge> <1182463745.3449.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070621222834.GB7596@puariko.nirvana> <1182467677.10205.142.camel@erato.phig.org> Message-ID: <1182469194.3449.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 16:14 -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:28 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Well, the FPC is supposed to do the clean-room design for guidelines > > and not police the packages, or put in different words, the FPC > > discusses the framework and the day to day packaging issues (enforcing > > guidelines, punishing guideline outlaws, deciding on exceptions to > > guidelines) are still within fesco proper. > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > Either way, a reminder is definitely in order. Isn't there a cool new > announce list to cover this? :) Disco. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PaulWFrields 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 overholt at redhat.com Fri Jun 22 12:21:27 2007 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:21:27 -0400 Subject: [Fwd: License issue with iText and releated packages] In-Reply-To: <1182463745.3449.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <467ACEE9.2030908@redhat.com> <20070621193410.GA6601@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1182454850.2550.13.camel@hodge> <1182463745.3449.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1182514887.6045.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 18:09 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Given this: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236309#c3 > > ...is there any merit in FPC asking package maintainers to go through > their Java-including packages looking for similar issues? Or even > just > having FPC issue a statement reiterating the need for maintainers to > check the code they're entering into the repos? In general we're all pretty careful. I think this is probably an isolated case because the excellent work done by both JPackage and our maintainers almost always results in clean packages -- both from a build and packaging granularity standpoint and from a licencing one. Andrew -------------- 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 poelstra at redhat.com Fri Jun 29 19:59:52 2007 From: poelstra at redhat.com (John Poelstra) Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:59:52 -0700 Subject: Fedora Board Recap 2007-JUN-26 Message-ID: <468564B8.2080207@redhat.com> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2007-06-26 == Attendees == Rex Dieter, Max Spevack, Bill Nottingham, Jeremy Katz, Seth Vidal, Karsten Wade, and John Poelstra. == Discussion of Secondary Arches == * Touched base. Nothing new to discuss == FUDCon F8 == * Unable to find a location so far * Concerned about cost and return on investment considering short time to plan FUDCon combined with short time frame of F8 release cycle * Possible locations for future FUDCons: * Stanford, Chicago, Portland, Boston, Raleigh, Toronto * There could be more--continue to brainstorm Decisions: * Unanimously agree that FUDCon F8 does not seem like a wise idea considering the circumstances * Start planning FUDCon F9 now--Max will lead effort. * Max will send out separate email explaining why. == Fedora Project Board Membership == * Nominations close in two days * More candidates than open seats which is a good thing Decision: None to make == Responsibilities of Fedora Board and FESCo == * Short discussion about Max's email and resulting thread * https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2007-June/msg00022.html * Concern that FESCo's current role and responsibilities are not clearly documented on the wiki Decision: Using the content from his original email, Max will make sure that a wiki page specific to FESCo's current role and responsibilities is present and accurate. == Future IRC meetings == * Will consider resuming once the new board is elected and in place