FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-15-2008, 03:10 AM
John Poelstra
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-12

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-02-12

== Roll Call ==

Attendees: Paul Frields, John Poelstra, Chris Aillon, Mike McGrath,
Steve Dickson, Matt Domsch, Dennis Gilmore, Karsten Wade, Jef Spaleta,
Seth Vidal, Bill Nottingham, Bob McWirther


== Followup to Previous Business ==

=== fedora-board-list (2008-02-06) ===
* Recalibrating list membership to only include Fedora Project Leader,
current board members, and board secretary
* Make sure conversations involving others happen on
fedora-advisory-board-list

* OWNERS: Max Spevack & Paul Frields
* RESOLUTION: completed

=== Publican (documentation-devel) Update (2008-01-13) ===
* IRC meeting on 2008-02-13 with Red Hat Docs team and Fedora Docs team
* Demo of what publican can do and how Fedora might want to use it
* 2008-02-14 02:00 UTC
* freenode.net #fedora-docs
* OWNERS: John Poelstra and Paul Frields

=== Status of FUDCon Survey ===
* Results available at http://www.keysurvey.com/report/185839/-1/2bea
* OWNER: Paul Frields
* ACTIONS:
* Other types of analysis are available upon request
* Paul will add information about the survey to the wiki at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Marketing/Surveys
* Paul to work with Community Architecture Team (Greg, Max, and
Jack) to create a survey in advance of FUDCon Boston 2008 that it can be
administered at the event


=== Fedora Account System (2008-02-06) ===
* Discussion with Mike McGrath
* Ricky and Mike are working on FAS2
* Targeting completion before Fedora 9 beta
* User authentication
* using ldap at this point being as ldap neutral as possible
* exploring and keeping options open for an openID implementation in
the future

* Using turbogears
* signing the CLA will done through a web page if pending legal
approval that this is sufficient
* Discussed CLA and need for ssh and gpg keys and if a lighter weight
approach is possible in the future
* Infrastructure needs a design document if we are able to go that
route in the future

* OWNER: Paul Frields
* ACTIONS
* Review past legal guidance on CLA usage
* Meet with legal if deemed necessary

=== Timeliness & Format of Board Minutes (2008-01-29) ===
* Will seek to alleviate concerns raised on
fedora-advisory-board-list@redhat.com by holding public meetings

* Once each month
* Targeted start date March 2008.
* ACTIONS:
* Talk to Mike McGrath and Infrastructure team to determine
technical hurdles

* Engage community to help overcome technical hurdles
* OWNER: Paul Frields
* 'FOLLOWUP on 2008-02-12'
* Mike McGrath attended board meeting
* Still need to get kinks out of Asterisk service before having a
large town hall meeting
* If want to meet March 2008 date would need to re-prioritize
tasks of infrastructure team

* RESOLUTION:
* Board voted to hold IRC based town hall meeting on 2008-03-18
* Board voted to revisit possibility of an audio town meeting for
2008-04-15, though this could be impacted by upcoming release of Fedora 9


=== Post-release updates of custom spins (2008-01-29) ===
* Should the board have to approve them?
* We will hosts as many spins as we have space for
* Need to determine the hosting requirements and limits
* How long will spins stay around?
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/SpinsProcess
* ACTION: Jef to review Rahul's proposal and report back to board
* OWNER: Jef Spaleta
* 'FOLLOWUP on 2008-02-12'
* Jef is waiting for feedback from Jeremy Katz on release
engineering's perspective
* Reference:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/Meetings/2008-feb-11
* People are still not clear on exactly what is required to create
an official "Fedora Spin"
* Need a clear list of guidelines of what a spin owner is
responsible for and what they are required to test
* Hoping a test will come from Jeremy Katz as part of feedback
from release engineering
* We are only talking about spins that use GA packages, thus testing
for GA should have given us enough comfort that risk is minimized
* We only need to be concerned with new combination of packages
that a spin would present

* ACTIONS & OWNERS:
* Paul Frields--followup with Fedora Release Engineering and QA
contingent to discuss testing requirements
* Jef Spaleta to formulate specific guidelines for review prior
to or at next board meeting (dependent on feedback from release engineering)


== New Business ==

=== LWN 10th Birthday ===
* Board voted to make contribute to LWN in commemoration of its 10th
birthday
* Contribution went toward purchasing 75 subscriptions which start on
March 1, 2008
* In the future (when there is more lead time) look into ways to use
things like this as rewards for strong Fedora leadership and community
participation

* OWNER: Jef Spaleta
* ACTION: Jef to followup Max Spevack who made original arrangements
and then post to fedora-advisory-board list soliciting feedback on the
best way to create a lottery to give these out to Fedora people who can
use them.


=== Meeting Quality ===
* How are we doing?
* Tracking previous business is a positive improvement that helps us
focus on things that need to get done
* Sometimes get too carried away discussing the implementation details
of technical topics



== Future Business (discuss at a future meeting) ==

=== Google Start Page ===
* Project has changed ownership within Red Hat to Greg Dekoenigsberg
* Update on status of the project and where it goes from here
* OWNER: Paul Frields
* ACTION: Invite Greg to next meeting, currently scheduled for
2008-02-19 at 14:00 EST


=== Next Meeting ===
* TIME: 14:00 EST
* DATE: Tuesday, 2008-02-19

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2008, 05:25 PM
Josh Boyer
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-12

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:10:52 -0800
John Poelstra <poelstra@redhat.com> wrote:

> === Post-release updates of custom spins (2008-01-29) ===
> * Should the board have to approve them?
> * We will hosts as many spins as we have space for

Still wondering if there is some kind of hierarchy or priority for
spins.

> * Need to determine the hosting requirements and limits
> * How long will spins stay around?

I suggested EOL along with the base they are on. Any thoughts on that?

> * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/SpinsProcess
> * ACTION: Jef to review Rahul's proposal and report back to board
> * OWNER: Jef Spaleta
> * 'FOLLOWUP on 2008-02-12'
> * Jef is waiting for feedback from Jeremy Katz on release
> engineering's perspective
> * Reference:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/Meetings/2008-feb-11
> * People are still not clear on exactly what is required to create
> an official "Fedora Spin"
> * Need a clear list of guidelines of what a spin owner is
> responsible for and what they are required to test
> * Hoping a test will come from Jeremy Katz as part of feedback
> from release engineering

I think this should have said "...test matrix.." ?

> * We are only talking about spins that use GA packages, thus testing
> for GA should have given us enough comfort that risk is minimized
> * We only need to be concerned with new combination of packages
> that a spin would present

This isn't quite true. Spins are done against the repos that exists on
the day they are generated. So if there are issues/bugs in the
base+updates repos on that day, there will be bugs in the spin. For
example, the recent Xfce spin we sort of lucked out that it pulled in a
kernel with the security fixes for the vmsplice vulnerability.

(Not quite sure what you meant by "GA", so we may be saying similar
things.)

josh

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 02-15-2008, 05:59 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-12

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still wondering if there is some kind of hierarchy or priority for
> spins.

There is no ordering or ranking...as of yet. I'm not going to propose
that at the Board level until there is an expressed need for it. If
people working on the spins.fp.org site presentation want to organize
things, we can talk about it. Right now, we're simply trying to fix
bottlenecks in the spin creation and blessing process.

>
> > * Need to determine the hosting requirements and limits
> > * How long will spins stay around?
>
> I suggested EOL along with the base they are on. Any thoughts on that?

'stay around' was more in the context of allowing spinners to do re-spins.
The big issue really is hosting. Is it okay for us to bless a spin
and but tell the spin maintainer that we don't have the space to host
this on our stuff. Is it okay for us to host a spin one release and
then not offer that spin hosting for the next release cycle, to make
room for something else? I hope to never have to be in that
situation, but I'd rather have people know upfront, how we are going
to handle it, instead of pissing valuable contributors off later by
making time-sensitive judgments as to resource consumption.

> This isn't quite true. Spins are done against the repos that exists on
> the day they are generated. So if there are issues/bugs in the
> base+updates repos on that day, there will be bugs in the spin. For
> example, the recent Xfce spin we sort of lucked out that it pulled in a
> kernel with the security fixes for the vmsplice vulnerability.

The goal here is to lower the bar as much as possible and to prevent
the technical review from being off-base with what we need for a new
spin review. We still need to be explicit about where the bar is.
Part of the problem right now is both releng and the spin creators
like Rahul are feeling out the technical vetting process pretty much
on their own. Neither side has a clear idea of what should be and
should not be a part of this. So we go back, and based on the
experience so far trying to get spins through the process, and we
define specific goals (and non-goals) that the technical review is to
accomplish. And we figure out what a spin creator needs to bring to
the table as part of that process.

-jef

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org