16:01:35 <amoloney> #startmeeting CentOS Stream Feature Request SIG weekly meeting 16:01:35 <centbot> Meeting started Tue Jun 1 16:01:35 2021 UTC. The chair is amoloney. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 16:01:35 <centbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 16:02:05 * rbowen waves 16:02:25 <bstinson> hey all 16:02:31 <alukoshko> Hi all 16:02:39 <dcavalca> ohai 16:03:04 <bexelbie> o/ 16:03:06 <bexelbie> .hello bex 16:03:42 <themayor> Hello friends 16:03:57 <amoloney> #agenda chair(s) assignment, meeting cadences, membership, feature process pipeline review, goals 16:04:10 <amoloney> welcome everyone! 16:04:44 <amoloney> This is this SIGs first call and we have a few items to establish first 16:05:02 <amoloney> so, who wants to be chair & co-chair? :) 16:05:25 <bstinson> i can help with that 16:05:46 <amoloney> Thanks Brian, I vote you too :) 16:05:56 <siddharthvipul> I nominate bstinson 16:06:09 <amoloney> also Im happy to help out as well 16:07:56 <amoloney> chair duties for this SIG are same as others? Scheduling, agenda creation, action item assignment and follow ups? 16:08:53 <amoloney> the wider group should have shared ownership on reviewing bugzillas and creating features in jira to be worked on 16:09:52 <amoloney> these are my 2c's, please disagree or add to them :) 16:10:16 <rbowen> +1 16:13:19 <amoloney> Im going to give 3 more mins for feedback on the SIG chair responsibilities and then take it as set as those items 16:13:24 <amoloney> in the interest of time 16:13:26 <bstinson> +1 from me 16:13:33 <bexelbie> +1 16:13:52 <rbowen> Yes, I think that's an accurate summary of chair responsibilities. Also, quarterly reporting. :) 16:14:16 <amoloney> thanks Rich, good spot! 16:14:34 <themayor> +1 sounds good 16:14:35 <amoloney> Next thing to get nailed down is to get agreement on the meeting cadences and times 16:14:51 <amoloney> my cryptonite (time) :) 16:15:50 <amoloney> ok, its 1715 so SIG chair responsibilities are confirm 16:15:59 <amoloney> #agreed bstinson is chair 16:16:34 <amoloney> #agreed chair will schedule meeting,put together agenda, assign actions and follow ups and report quarterly 16:17:38 <amoloney> #agreed there is shared responsibility among the SIG members to review bugzillas for feature requests and bring them to the SIG group meetings for discussion and decision to create a feature request in jira for Stream 16:18:08 <amoloney> #topic Meeting Times & cadences 16:18:22 <amoloney> are we all good with *this time* on Tuesdays every week? 16:18:38 <rbowen> I am fine with this date/time. Works for me. 16:18:45 <bstinson> i'm happy with it 16:18:50 <amoloney> its 5pm here in Ireland so whatever it is in your respective countries! 16:19:23 <amoloney> giving this until 17.25 for input 16:19:31 <amoloney> then running with the consensus 16:22:29 <bexelbie> +1 16:23:55 <jwboyer> apologies for being late 16:24:16 <jwboyer> this time mostly works for me, but i may have conflicts at the start from time to time 16:25:15 <amoloney> I think we can run with this time so 16:26:07 <amoloney> is this 1700 UTC+1? 16:26:20 <amoloney> timezone conversion is really not my thing 16:26:48 <rbowen> 1600 UTC 16:26:50 <rbowen> So, yes. 16:26:52 <amoloney> thanks :) 16:26:57 <rbowen> `date -d` is my friend. :) 16:27:01 <bstinson> yay offset math 16:27:14 <rbowen> `date -d "1600 UTC"` 16:27:28 <themayor> It’s currently 15:26 in UTC+1 16:27:37 <amoloney> #agreed SIG will meet on Tuesdays @ 1600 UTC+1 on #centos-meeting 16:27:44 <themayor> Sorry 17:26 16:27:45 <rbowen> And .... I'm confused again. Oh well. 16:27:47 <amoloney> can we not just say 5pm in Ireland 16:27:56 <amoloney> joking :) 16:28:01 <amoloney> ok next topic 16:28:12 <rbowen> FWIW, the calendar tool uses UTC, and so it's always weirdly offset for *someone* for a few weeks a year. 16:28:27 <amoloney> #topic Expanding Membership 16:29:38 <amoloney> How should we expand membership of this SIG? Does anyone have any ideas? 16:30:04 <amoloney> giving this until 17.45 as this is an important piece to discuss 16:30:05 <rbowen> By the "raise your hands if you want to be part of it" method, would be my vote. 16:30:17 <jwboyer> do we have a need to expand? 16:30:19 <bstinson> i think we need to maybe have a few sessions about expectations though 16:30:29 <rbowen> We have (at least?) three people who have showed up for this meeting who are not on the initial list. 16:30:42 <amoloney> so the first step is to attend the meetings 16:31:07 <amoloney> perhaps when we dig into the bz's there may be some action items members can take? 16:31:17 <bstinson> yes! attending meetings and participating in discussion is what we want 16:31:38 <rbowen> There's no "cost" associated with SIG members who aren't particularly active. But,yes, ideally, being active is the expectation. 16:31:41 <amoloney> or would there be tasks outside of 'the tech' that people can get involved in? 16:31:53 <bstinson> i will note that there will be a fair amount of shepherding things around with different teams in Red Hat, some of this is related to how we plan things internally 16:32:02 <bstinson> i do not expect non-Red Hatters to carry any of that burden 16:32:35 <rbowen> Mostly I'd expect SIG members to speak up loudly about the things they care about. 16:33:18 <bstinson> we should expect non-SIG members to do that too! 16:33:24 <amoloney> what about coordinating with a 'red-hat shepard' to report out to the CentOS community on progress of community requests? 16:33:55 <bstinson> that may be an additional responsibility of the chair(s) 16:34:55 <amoloney> true, but having someone with a vested interest to lightly pester the chair(s) for progress/updates to make sure community requests are prioritized could be very beneficial 16:35:07 <amoloney> and I stress, lightly :) 16:35:40 <themayor> fwiw, we have 3 folks from our team that would love to be involved and help in any way we can 16:35:52 <jwboyer> that sounds more like expanding participation, which is different to me than expanding membership 16:36:30 <rbowen> "SIG membership" is a largely undefined term. It means that you're in the AAA group, but beyond that, it's up to each SIG to define what membership signifies. 16:38:02 <rbowen> jwboyer: So, what does "membership" mean to you, then? 16:38:45 <amoloney> lets try establish that then, or at least get a start on what we think membership would mean 16:39:05 <jwboyer> the group of people responsible for reviewing, validating, and pushing feature requests through to completion 16:39:29 <jwboyer> aka "the people stuff gets assigned to for accountability" 16:39:52 <jwboyer> anyone can discuss or propose a feature. a member would take responsibility for getting an answer or action completed 16:40:49 <amoloney> I would agree with that 16:42:03 <rbowen> I just don't want to artificially keep anyone out because they have less time, or don't have a red hat. There's no cost to having an inactive member. 16:42:58 <jwboyer> if the default is "show up and talk about stuff", i can't imagine how we could keep anyone out 16:44:44 <bstinson> i think it's ok to keep our "membership" small so that we keep a focus on accountability 16:44:56 <bstinson> but there's no "you must become a member" ceremony to get your feature discussed 16:46:34 <rbowen> I suppose the opposite question is, what privilege/feature do you get when you're a 'member' that you don't otherwise. Which is also largely undefined for a SIG that doesn't produce packages. 16:48:00 <amoloney> do you think we need to spend a little more time on this one? 16:48:09 <bstinson> you get to pay attention to features as a whole and are accountable to provide an answer to the group and the community about those that you take on 16:48:30 <bstinson> more time on this would be good, /me makes a note for the next agenda 16:49:16 <amoloney> #agreed membership criteria needs more review - will be added to the next agenda 16:49:53 <themayor> #agreed 16:51:32 <amoloney> #topic verify the feature request process is in place 16:51:59 <amoloney> so is there anything were missing in the process thats blocking people to get something looked at? 16:53:46 <bstinson> https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/StreamFeatureRequest 16:53:49 <bstinson> this is a good start 16:54:11 <bstinson> by next week, i'll have a couple of bugzilla queries that we can use during our triage 16:54:43 <rbowen> I was going to say - having a few guinea pigs to test the process with would be a great start. 16:55:04 <amoloney> perfect, I wanted to make sure we hadnt a step missed in the docs 16:56:19 <themayor> So we have a feature (package) which we’d like to nominate for inclusion 16:56:47 <amoloney> I think we can call an action on that? 16:57:24 <bstinson> themayor: did you want to give us a preview of your nomination? 16:58:38 <themayor> Yes so we’d like to see open-vm-tools for aarch64 included 16:59:01 <themayor> Currently it’s not available and the relevant bz doesn’t offer much info 16:59:04 <themayor> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959167 17:00:15 <amoloney> I have to drop (right at the interesting part!) 17:00:57 <jwboyer> themayor, that's a product decision. as the bug says, we do not plan to support aarch64 at this time there 17:01:05 <bstinson> looks like the RHEL maintainers have closed this because they don't plan to support aarch64 17:02:36 <bstinson> if aarch64 is something the community would like to maintain, could we build this in a SIG? 17:03:40 <jwboyer> yeah, that's an interesting idea 17:04:42 <themayor> So just to clarify is this aarch64 in general? 17:05:00 <bstinson> sorry if that was unclear 17:05:21 <bstinson> aarch64 on open-vm-tools is not supported in RHEL 17:06:32 <themayor> Got it ok. Scared me for a sec 17:07:19 <themayor> So what’s the best way to go about it 17:07:29 <themayor> Should this be something done through EPEL? 17:07:47 <themayor> meaning what’s the line of demarcation between what we want to do here and what should be done there? 17:08:54 <jwboyer> it could be done in EPEL, but it would need to be done as a module because EPEL doesn't duplicate RHEL packages 17:09:05 <themayor> Right 17:10:10 <carlwgeorge> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages 17:10:27 <themayor> So what’s our path of least resistance? 17:10:30 <carlwgeorge> oh scratch that, not allowed for epel8 17:12:09 <bstinson> that package could also be built/maintained as an output of the Virt SIG. provided someone is willing to take that on 17:14:34 <bstinson> to round this out, and since we're 15 minutes over time...themayor: would you like to discuss this more next time? 17:16:03 <themayor> @ezamriy: I think we are comfortable with that 17:16:09 <kkeithley> meta question: re: that package could also be built/maintained as an output of the Virt SIG. Any ETA for when we'll be able to build packages in CBS for C9S? 17:16:10 <themayor> We can close the issue for now 17:17:13 <bstinson> kkeithley: i don't have a firm ETA for you at this time, but we're close to having what we need to get buildroots enabled 17:19:23 <kkeithley> okay 17:19:35 <bstinson> do we have any other business for today? i think we need amoloney to close out the meeting 17:20:38 <rbowen> Yes, I don't believe she made anyone else a chair. 17:20:46 <rbowen> #endmeeting 17:23:06 <rbowen> #endmeeting 17:23:09 <rbowen> :( 17:24:07 <jwboyer> frowny? 17:30:57 <nirik> FYI, owners of centbot should be able to do 'addchair #centos-meeting libera theirnick' 17:44:44 <Bahhumbug> @addchair rbowen 17:44:44 <centbot> Bahhumbug: (addchair <channel> <network> <nick>) -- Add a nick as a chair to the meeting. 17:45:14 <Bahhumbug> @addchair #centos-meeting rbowen 17:45:14 <centbot> Bahhumbug: (addchair <channel> <network> <nick>) -- Add a nick as a chair to the meeting. 17:45:32 <Bahhumbug> Gimme a second. 17:45:40 <Bahhumbug> 68 17:45:43 <Bahhumbug> networks 17:45:49 <Bahhumbug> @list network 17:45:49 <centbot> Bahhumbug: cmdall, command, connect, disconnect, driver, latency, networks, reconnect, uptime, whois, and whowas 17:46:04 <Bahhumbug> @networks 17:46:04 <centbot> Bahhumbug: libera: tungsten.libera.chat 17:46:25 <Bahhumbug> @addchair #centos-meeting libera rbowen 17:46:25 <centbot> Bahhumbug: Chair added: rbowen on (#centos-meeting, libera). 17:46:41 <rbowen> #endmeeting