On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> The next Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
> July 22, 2008. (Note: Normally, the FPC meets every other week, but this
> meeting was scheduled since we did not have quorum on July 15, 2008)

In case it wasn't clear to everyone already, sometimes, I'm an idiot.
I'll be in route to OLS during the time I scheduled for this meeting.
You guys are welcomed to have it without me, but if not, we'll push out
to next Tuesday... or we could try for Monday. FPC members, please chime
in.

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 23:20 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 13:25 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > The next Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting will be held on Tuesday,
> > July 22, 2008. (Note: Normally, the FPC meets every other week, but this
> > meeting was scheduled since we did not have quorum on July 15, 2008)
>
> In case it wasn't clear to everyone already, sometimes, I'm an idiot.
> I'll be in route to OLS during the time I scheduled for this meeting.
> You guys are welcomed to have it without me, but if not, we'll push out
> to next Tuesday... or we could try for Monday. FPC members, please chime
> in.

FYI: I am not sure, whether I'll be able to attend any meeting
throughout the next 4 weeks, because other higher commitments are likely
to interfere[1]. I.e. whether it'll be Monday or Tuesday doesn't really
matter much to me.

Though I'll try to join whenever meetings will be scheduled, it's
impossible for me to promise to be able to do so.

Ralf

[1] This already had happened this week. I had planned to attend, but
something "urgent" demanding "immediate action" had driven me AFK
shortly before the "scheduled meeting".


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 01:25:09PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> Items scheduled to be discussed:
[list not including MinGW]

> As a reminder, the process for getting items onto the FPC's agenda is
> documented here:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#Guideline_Change_Procedure

I edited this page a couple of week ago:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo
but the MinGW stuff doesn't appear in the list?

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>[list not including MinGW]

MinGW is blocked at FESCo at the moment (I think).

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:05:34AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >[list not including MinGW]
>
> MinGW is blocked at FESCo at the moment (I think).

Don't things go to FPC first? How do I find out its status at FESCo &
how to unblock it?

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 16:39 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 11:05:34AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 15:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >[list not including MinGW]
> >
> > MinGW is blocked at FESCo at the moment (I think).
>
> Don't things go to FPC first? How do I find out its status at FESCo &
> how to unblock it?

Well, in this case, I think the workflow is:

The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
specifics. (see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)

Once FESCo does this, the FPC will review the specific packaging bits
and approve the guidelines.

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
> a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
> the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
> specifics. (see:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)

This meeting wasn't announced in the normal way (by a posting "Plan
for tomorrows (DATE) ..." on fedora-devel-list), there are no IRC logs
anywhere, no one asked anyone in the MinGW SIG to attend (and so they
weren't there) and all we have is this fait-accompli message after the
fact ...

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:58:39PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > > The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
> > > a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
> > > the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
> > > specifics. (see:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)
> >
> > This meeting wasn't announced in the normal way (by a posting "Plan
> > for tomorrows (DATE) ..." on fedora-devel-list), there are no IRC logs
> > anywhere, no one asked anyone in the MinGW SIG to attend (and so they
> > weren't there) and all we have is this fait-accompli message after the
> > fact ...
>
> The Board meets (usually) every week on Tuesday. One meeting a month,
> that meeting is public (IRC):
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/
>
> This particular meeting was not public, thus, no one other than Board
> members were invited.

And IRC logs of this meeting ...?

I notice people were at the meeting who aren't in FESCo. OK, maybe
technically they just happened to be there and weren't "invited", but
I think it's in the interests of everyone to find out who said what,
in the open.

Rich.

--
Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my OCaml programming blog: http://camltastic.blogspot.com/
Fedora now supports 59 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)
http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
> > a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
> > the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
> > specifics. (see:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)
>
> This meeting wasn't announced in the normal way (by a posting "Plan
> for tomorrows (DATE) ..." on fedora-devel-list), there are no IRC logs
> anywhere, no one asked anyone in the MinGW SIG to attend (and so they
> weren't there) and all we have is this fait-accompli message after the
> fact ...

The Board meets (usually) every week on Tuesday. One meeting a month,
that meeting is public (IRC):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/

This particular meeting was not public, thus, no one other than Board
members were invited.

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:54 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:58:39PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-07-21 at 17:45 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:01:36PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> > > > The Fedora Board was asked to determine whether including MinGW bits was
> > > > a good idea. They said that it was, but that it should be separated from
> > > > the main Fedora repository, and that FESCo should determine the
> > > > specifics. (see:
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2008-07-15)
> > >
> > > This meeting wasn't announced in the normal way (by a posting "Plan
> > > for tomorrows (DATE) ..." on fedora-devel-list), there are no IRC logs
> > > anywhere, no one asked anyone in the MinGW SIG to attend (and so they
> > > weren't there) and all we have is this fait-accompli message after the
> > > fact ...
> >
> > The Board meets (usually) every week on Tuesday. One meeting a month,
> > that meeting is public (IRC):
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/
> >
> > This particular meeting was not public, thus, no one other than Board
> > members were invited.
>
> And IRC logs of this meeting ...?
>
> I notice people were at the meeting who aren't in FESCo. OK, maybe
> technically they just happened to be there and weren't "invited", but
> I think it's in the interests of everyone to find out who said what,
> in the open.

The Fedora Board is different from FESCo. The Fedora Board holds its
meetings over the telephone (except for the one monthly open IRC
meeting).

Again, to reiterate, the Board simply said that it was in support of
MinGW in Fedora, but it should be separated, and that FESCo should
handle the technical specifics.

~spot

--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging