arrfab / centos /

Forked from centos/ 4 years ago
Blob Blame History Raw
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8">
<title>#centos-devel log</title>
<style type="text/css">
/* For the .log.html */
pre { /*line-height: 125%;*/
      white-space: pre-wrap; }
body { background: #f0f0f0; }

body .tm  { color: #007020 }                      /* time */
body .nk  { color: #062873; font-weight: bold }   /* nick, regular */
body .nka { color: #007020; font-weight: bold }  /* action nick */
body .ac  { color: #00A000 }                      /* action line */
body .hi  { color: #4070a0 }                 /* hilights */
/* Things to make particular MeetBot commands stick out */
body .topic     { color: #007020; font-weight: bold }
body .topicline { color: #000080; font-weight: bold }
body .cmd       { color: #007020; font-weight: bold }
body .cmdline  { font-weight: bold }


<pre><a name="l-1"></a><span class="tm">16:52:43</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="cmd">#startmeeting</span><span class="cmdline"></span>
<a name="l-2"></a><span class="tm">16:52:43</span><span class="nk"> &lt;centbot&gt;</span> Meeting started Fri May  9 16:52:43 2014 UTC.  The chair is filippoc. Information about MeetBot at
<a name="l-3"></a><span class="tm">16:52:43</span><span class="nk"> &lt;centbot&gt;</span> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
<a name="l-4"></a><span class="tm">16:53:07</span><span class="nk"> &lt;omarel&gt;</span> Are you trying to expand it to Small Business oriented as well?
<a name="l-5"></a><span class="tm">16:53:11</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="cmd">#meetingname </span><span class="cmdline">SLS-SIG</span>
<a name="l-6"></a><span class="tm">16:53:11</span><span class="nk"> &lt;centbot&gt;</span> The meeting name has been set to 'sls-sig'
<a name="l-7"></a><span class="tm">16:53:22</span><span class="nk"> &lt;JPP_kimsufi&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> if you need log of this conversation I would be able to provide
<a name="l-8"></a><span class="tm">16:54:12</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> omarel, we are small business oriented
<a name="l-9"></a><span class="tm">16:54:14</span><span class="nk"> &lt;JPP_kimsufi&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> but other than that no experience with meetbot
<a name="l-10"></a><span class="tm">16:55:04</span><span class="nk"> &lt;omarel&gt;</span> I'm still a bit confused, though. My "branding" issue is still there.  How would someone wanting a small business server find you?
<a name="l-11"></a><span class="tm">16:55:35</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> I don’t think that we need to, of necessity, be business oriented at all. Personally, I think the name presently reflects the nature of what we are trying to do. If simplified is used for business or for home or for hobby, it wouldn’t matter to me.
<a name="l-12"></a><span class="tm">16:56:18</span><span class="nk"> &lt;omarel&gt;</span> It may be 2 different gruops with some obvious overlap.  Perhaps dealing with th overlap is the issue.
<a name="l-13"></a><span class="tm">16:56:43</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="hi">daveloper:</span> next steps would involve mandatory collaboration from centos, i.e. importing packages in git, setting up the buildsys, etc
<a name="l-14"></a><span class="tm">16:57:24</span><span class="nk"> &lt;gsanchietti&gt;</span> <span class="hi">omarel:</span> the SLS SIG is a group of people with common interest. Probably more CentOS variant will born from the SIG. Each variant will have its own brand.
<a name="l-15"></a><span class="tm">16:57:27</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> I'm not sure that more than one group would be beneficial
<a name="l-16"></a><span class="tm">16:57:40</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> more variants are welcome to fill every niche
<a name="l-17"></a><span class="tm">16:57:44</span><span class="nk"> &lt;pcbaldwin&gt;</span> I think that a SIG can have a broad scope that covers both home and business.  The potential variants that come out of the SIG can be more focused.
<a name="l-18"></a><span class="tm">16:57:49</span><span class="nk"> &lt;JPP_kimsufi&gt;</span> small business oriented is an aspect, but it also adress to home users who wants an easily configurable home server. Thus the reference to what it provides, and not to whom it addresses. But good point to reference it to the public two IMOHA
<a name="l-19"></a><span class="tm">16:57:51</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> agreed, I think we’ve done what they’ve asked for as far as defining the scope of what this SIG is about. I’d hope that they would now follow through and make aspects of their buildsys available to us now.
<a name="l-20"></a><span class="tm">16:58:30</span><span class="nk"> &lt;gsanchietti&gt;</span> <span class="hi">pcbaldwin:</span> I agree
<a name="l-21"></a><span class="tm">16:58:53</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> I'm not up to date with recent centos decisions about repositories and such
<a name="l-22"></a><span class="tm">16:59:11 </span><span class="nka">* Arrfab</span> <span class="ac">sees activity and jumps in ...</span>
<a name="l-23"></a><span class="tm">16:59:14</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Filippoc said, “more variants are welcome to fill every niche”… I totally agree. The point of the SIG is collaboration and standards, not necessarily unification.
<a name="l-24"></a><span class="tm">16:59:17</span><span class="nk"> &lt;omarel&gt;</span> I think if there are people with special interests, it amounts to SIG.  It's a demographic issue.  If there's interest, and it's specialized, then the group of people decide.
<a name="l-25"></a><span class="tm">16:59:59</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">omarel:</span> in the CentOS ecosystem a SIG is a group of people looking to either curate or deliver something based on and around a technology
<a name="l-26"></a><span class="tm">17:00:03</span><span class="nk"> &lt;omarel&gt;</span> I think from my point of view, I'm not so much interesting in a broad target.  I'd rather narrowly target it to businesses and institutions.
<a name="l-27"></a><span class="tm">17:00:29</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> demographics can be a SIG, sure, but this SIG is about “[providing] a common platform for delivering turnkey CentOS-based solutions that are managed via a web and/or REST-based interface.”
<a name="l-28"></a><span class="tm">17:00:33</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> key being tech and code and deliver
<a name="l-29"></a><span class="tm">17:00:48</span><span class="nk"> &lt;omarel&gt;</span> I think personally I need to find other people with similar interests.  If the interest is there, we have another sig.
<a name="l-30"></a><span class="tm">17:00:49</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> ( this isnt orthogonal to what you were saying omarel, but i wanted to quantify that )
<a name="l-31"></a><span class="tm">17:02:01</span><span class="nk"> &lt;omarel&gt;</span> Remember, this is just me, and people have different points of view, but the issues I deal with on a daily basis are different than I think SLS is dealing with.
<a name="l-32"></a><span class="tm">17:02:07</span><span class="nk"> &lt;davidep&gt;</span> hi all
<a name="l-33"></a><span class="tm">17:02:28</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">omarel:</span> a SIG can deliver more than one end result :D
<a name="l-34"></a><span class="tm">17:02:39 </span><span class="nka">* alefattorini</span> <span class="ac">jumps in too</span>
<a name="l-35"></a><span class="tm">17:02:42</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> omarel, your idea is totally different from the SLS SIG proposal? Or similar and could be addressed with minor modifications to SLS?
<a name="l-36"></a><span class="tm">17:02:45</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> there is no reason why the Small business SIG cant be doing more than SLS - actually, every SIG would
<a name="l-37"></a><span class="tm">17:03:04</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> also, i dont think its going to be called SLS SIG, is it ?
<a name="l-38"></a><span class="tm">17:03:24</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> :-)
<a name="l-39"></a><span class="tm">17:03:27</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span>
<a name="l-40"></a><span class="tm">17:03:55</span><span class="nk"> &lt;omarel&gt;</span> Yes it can.  You know I need to sit down and write out what I have in mind and my motivation for it.  It's more than can be elaborated her in this chat format.
<a name="l-41"></a><span class="tm">17:03:55</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> ok, pretty sure its going to get rejected by the board
<a name="l-42"></a><span class="tm">17:04:09</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> also, you need to make sure it clearly states that this is a proposed SIG, not accepted as yet
<a name="l-43"></a><span class="tm">17:04:21</span><span class="nk"> &lt;Arrfab&gt;</span> <span class="hi">kbsingh:</span> also worth noting that it's still a proposal, indeed
<a name="l-44"></a><span class="tm">17:04:36</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> What criteria are we missing Karanbir?
<a name="l-45"></a><span class="tm">17:04:49</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> SIG's are interest and tech driven, not a specific deliverable
<a name="l-46"></a><span class="tm">17:04:54</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> eg. its not the XEN SIG - its the Virt SIG
<a name="l-47"></a><span class="tm">17:05:04</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> and its not the GLUSTER SIG- its the Storage SIG
<a name="l-48"></a><span class="tm">17:05:19</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> the virt-sig is already working with a upstream qemu onramp and openvz is making efforts in
<a name="l-49"></a><span class="tm">17:05:27</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> similarly the storage sig already includes ceph and gluster
<a name="l-50"></a><span class="tm">17:06:00</span><span class="nk"> &lt;pcbaldwin&gt;</span> The "tech" is moving from CLI and X-Windows based systems to API/REST-based interfaces.
<a name="l-51"></a><span class="tm">17:06:03</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> What specific technology are we advocating. I’m pretty sure the individual members all use different technologies to deliver a wide array of deliverables.
<a name="l-52"></a><span class="tm">17:06:22</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> For example, Filippo’s project doesn’t do what my project does and vice, versa.
<a name="l-53"></a><span class="tm">17:06:27</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> so in that mindsetup Simplified Linux Server does not fit into the larger model at all - a Small Office SIG can however work to deliver a simplified SOHO server install set ( as an example )
<a name="l-54"></a><span class="tm">17:07:35</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> things like this are far too ambigious "The SIG members are involved in the development and maintenance of turnkey solutions based on CentOS. "
<a name="l-55"></a><span class="tm">17:07:40</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="cmd">#action </span><span class="cmdline">modify sls wiki page -&gt; Status: proposal</span>
<a name="l-56"></a><span class="tm">17:07:59</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> what does that mean ? are you guys also working on the MIPS vlsi poc using centos in an embedded role for industrial automation ?
<a name="l-57"></a><span class="tm">17:08:03</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> SOHO seems to be more of a deliverable than Simplified Linux Server. For example, I can simplify the process for provisioning large directory services based on an array of different backends and that would not be a SOHO application. But it would still be ‘Simplified’ through a web UI.
<a name="l-58"></a><span class="tm">17:09:06</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> I don’t know about Filippo but we’ve discussed applying what we are doing to other architectures including MIPS.
<a name="l-59"></a><span class="tm">17:09:36</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> we'd like to have arm support, but we'll follow upstream
<a name="l-60"></a><span class="tm">17:09:59</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> my understanding of this sig is that the aim is to deliver a set of solutions for small business , new linux users doing entry level admin work in small offices / soho environs
<a name="l-61"></a><span class="tm">17:11:08</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> seondly, who is proposing the SIG to the board ? I dont see any of the CentOS Board guys on the who's involved list
<a name="l-62"></a><span class="tm">17:11:44</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> But the reason for bringing this together is to come up with common build needs and processes that are common among our technologies. For example, Filippo’s team and our team benefit from an accelarated path to getting newer PHP code. Others involved don’t need that but there are crossover needs at multiple levels.
<a name="l-63"></a><span class="tm">17:11:48</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> what i would recommend is actually working the proposal to include specific deliverables
<a name="l-64"></a><span class="tm">17:11:53</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> and remove stuff like "Software Maintenance - This SIG will co-ordinate maintenance of common upstream packages in order to avoid duplication and provide a better experience for all CentOS users. "
<a name="l-65"></a><span class="tm">17:12:16</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> and "Quality Assurance - This SIG provides solutions with tight integration amongst the various applications in CentOS. This provides a unique opportunity to provide additional QA testing (e.g. Samba + OpenLDAP). "
<a name="l-66"></a><span class="tm">17:12:26</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> basically, that deliverables section - someone needs to write one
<a name="l-67"></a><span class="tm">17:12:56</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="cmd">#action </span><span class="cmdline">expand Deliverables section</span>
<a name="l-68"></a><span class="tm">17:13:11</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Are we required to have board sponsorship in order to get a SIG approved. Who can we contact then to have an advocate?
<a name="l-69"></a><span class="tm">17:13:55</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">daveloper:</span> the list of board members is listed on the centos website - you should be ok to contact any / all of them if you want
<a name="l-70"></a><span class="tm">17:13:56</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> I hope that Evolution could help us
<a name="l-71"></a><span class="tm">17:14:06</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> i think he's i brazil at the moment
<a name="l-72"></a><span class="tm">17:14:07</span><span class="nk"> &lt;Arrfab&gt;</span> <span class="hi">daveloper:</span> well, the board needs to approve a SIG proposal during a board meeting, so if you don't ask, nothing will be discussed :-)
<a name="l-73"></a><span class="tm">17:14:53</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> correct, but karanbir seems to indicate that we need to have a board member on our SIG team in order for this to be a reality. I did not know that this was a requirement.
<a name="l-74"></a><span class="tm">17:15:03</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">daveloper:</span> it is
<a name="l-75"></a><span class="tm">17:15:24</span><span class="nk"> &lt;pcbaldwin&gt;</span> I thought it was a member of the dev team.  That's what's on the Wiki page.
<a name="l-76"></a><span class="tm">17:15:40</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> a completely mature SIG, is able to do their own  process work - but we esitmate a 2 yr span from going onboard to maturity for a highly organised sig
<a name="l-77"></a><span class="tm">17:15:42</span><span class="nk"> &lt;Arrfab&gt;</span> <span class="hi">daveloper:</span> but all Devteam members are on the board
<a name="l-78"></a><span class="tm">17:15:48</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> we probably need to "polish" the proposal before asking for approval
<a name="l-79"></a><span class="tm">17:16:22</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> stuff like Clam from EPEL - but does this sig have access to influence that build in EPEL ? if not, you are already creating deadends
<a name="l-80"></a><span class="tm">17:16:30</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> yes please
<a name="l-81"></a><span class="tm">17:16:36</span><span class="nk"> &lt;pcbaldwin&gt;</span> No matter.  At this stage, we're still trying to figure out the whole role/scope of a SIG.  Even looking through the wiki and centos-devel list, there seems to be a lot of unknowns.  That's expected given that it's the early days!
<a name="l-82"></a><span class="tm">17:16:45</span><span class="nk"> &lt;Bahhumbug&gt;</span> <span class="hi">Arrfab:</span> The web page probably needs to be cleared up in that regard.
<a name="l-83"></a><span class="tm">17:17:26</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span>
<a name="l-84"></a><span class="tm">17:18:30</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> so you need rsc to join the SIG
<a name="l-85"></a><span class="tm">17:18:48</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">pcbaldwin:</span> Bahhumbug: please submit patch
<a name="l-86"></a><span class="tm">17:18:56</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> or an issue report at
<a name="l-87"></a><span class="tm">17:19:06</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="hi">kbsingh:</span> probably a good idea
<a name="l-88"></a><span class="tm">17:19:45</span><span class="nk"> &lt;pcbaldwin&gt;</span> <span class="hi">kbsingh:</span> patch for the wiki page??
<a name="l-89"></a><span class="tm">17:20:02</span><span class="nk"> &lt;rsc&gt;</span> <span class="hi">kbsingh:</span> hm?
<a name="l-90"></a><span class="tm">17:20:07</span><span class="nk"> &lt;Bahhumbug&gt;</span> It's a wiki page.  It's a 30 second edit.
<a name="l-91"></a><span class="tm">17:21:56</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> submit patch, a community notion of saying 'come help fix that which needs attention, and since you have the attention..'
<a name="l-92"></a><span class="tm">17:21:56</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="hi">omarel:</span> could you write your ideas on a mail to centos-devel?
<a name="l-93"></a><span class="tm">17:22:20</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> daveloper: its also important to highlight what exactly is going to get done
<a name="l-94"></a><span class="tm">17:23:10</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> eg. the QA stuff might be : develop as a part of the SIG, a test suite that can be run on a nightly basis from to validate a spec ( also to be developed as a part of the SIG ) - QA test harness being a precursor to code development in the SIG
<a name="l-95"></a><span class="tm">17:23:19</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> we will release rpms
<a name="l-96"></a><span class="tm">17:23:22</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Looking at the requirements: We don’t have overlap with other SIGs so far as I can tell. We’ve opened a discussion topic and have solicited comments. Have we requested a new mailing list? We do have a wiki section. We will need version control setup. We are listed as a SIG on the SIG page. We need one Devteam member to join the team. Is there anything I missed?
<a name="l-97"></a><span class="tm">17:23:52</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> we will write a testsuite
<a name="l-98"></a><span class="tm">17:24:09</span><span class="nk"> &lt;rsc&gt;</span> kbsingh, filippoc: How can I help regarding RHBZ#1018312? Or what is with which SIG?
<a name="l-99"></a><span class="tm">17:24:10</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> davidep is already working on it
<a name="l-100"></a><span class="tm">17:24:11</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> quantifying that on the proposal will help
<a name="l-101"></a><span class="tm">17:24:44</span><span class="nk"> &lt;davidep&gt;</span> Arrfab, kbsingh: what about the CI platform for SIGs? any progress on it?
<a name="l-102"></a><span class="tm">17:24:45</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="hi">rsc:</span> sorry, it was an bad example to show that we work with epel
<a name="l-103"></a><span class="tm">17:24:52</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> also, who is going to run the SIG, what or how are you going to bring more members in, what licenses are you guys going to use - what is the downstream going to be etc.
<a name="l-104"></a><span class="tm">17:24:59</span><span class="nk"> &lt;reetp&gt;</span> Filippo, you may have seen that we have been got some basic testing working....
<a name="l-105"></a><span class="tm">17:25:13</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> get as much of this pre-done, better chances to get in through the board review
<a name="l-106"></a><span class="tm">17:25:29</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> rretp, I meant t_functional on ci.centos
<a name="l-107"></a><span class="tm">17:25:41</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> reetp sorry
<a name="l-108"></a><span class="tm">17:25:50</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> it does not need to be in t_functional. it can be a completely different suite
<a name="l-109"></a><span class="tm">17:26:03</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Which SIGs have already been approved?
<a name="l-110"></a><span class="tm">17:26:11</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> eg. the virt-sig is starting the t_xen.git suite
<a name="l-111"></a><span class="tm">17:26:21</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> I thought it was better trying to extend t_functional and improve ci.centos
<a name="l-112"></a><span class="tm">17:26:32</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> but ok
<a name="l-113"></a><span class="tm">17:26:34 </span><span class="nka">* kbsingh</span> <span class="ac">off, call time, back in a few hours</span>
<a name="l-114"></a><span class="tm">17:26:56</span><span class="nk"> &lt;reetp&gt;</span> Have a chat with Ian when you get a minute and see where they are at.
<a name="l-115"></a><span class="tm">17:26:59</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> thats ok as well - but ci.d.c.o can run more tests than just that
<a name="l-116"></a><span class="tm">17:28:28</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> daveloper, I'll try to exapnd the Deliverables section of our proposal
<a name="l-117"></a><span class="tm">17:28:59</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Thanks Filippo, I’ll work with you on that in the shared doc if you like.
<a name="l-118"></a><span class="tm">17:29:26</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> maybe I could simply list rpm packages from your web page
<a name="l-119"></a><span class="tm">17:29:53</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> I’m curious as to who already has been approved so we can know what to follow or emulate.
<a name="l-120"></a><span class="tm">17:29:57</span><span class="nk"> &lt;reetp&gt;</span> Can you share the doc with other members of our Board ? I can give you addresses
<a name="l-121"></a><span class="tm">17:30:21</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> only virt sig I think
<a name="l-122"></a><span class="tm">17:30:44</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="hi">reetp:</span> sure
<a name="l-123"></a><span class="tm">17:31:02</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> I'll give you full control
<a name="l-124"></a><span class="tm">17:31:53</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Are there any other objectives to cover here?
<a name="l-125"></a><span class="tm">17:32:02</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> mmh, we should probably start a new doc, that old one is already a wiki page
<a name="l-126"></a><span class="tm">17:32:03</span><span class="nk"> &lt;reetp&gt;</span> Thanks -I'm sure some of the others will chime in.
<a name="l-127"></a><span class="tm">17:32:11</span><span class="nk"> &lt;pcbaldwin&gt;</span> I have to head out.  At a fundamental level, it would be nice for all of us (NethServer, SME Server, ClearOS and potentially others) to have a working relationship with CentOS/RHEL.   We're part of the ecosystem and I personally have always felt like an outsider.  I'm certainly not getting the warm and fuzzies, but maybe that's just because it's IRC.  Or maybe there's a lot on the CentOS team's plate right now.  Oh well, I'll keep on
<a name="l-128"></a><span class="tm">17:32:16</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> agreed.
<a name="l-129"></a><span class="tm">17:32:36</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> agreed
<a name="l-130"></a><span class="tm">17:32:41</span><span class="nk"> &lt;pcbaldwin&gt;</span> keep on trucking = keep on trying to build the relationship
<a name="l-131"></a><span class="tm">17:32:50</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Thanks Peter. I get that sense as well.
<a name="l-132"></a><span class="tm">17:33:07</span><span class="nk"> &lt;reetp&gt;</span> We're agreed on something then :-)
<a name="l-133"></a><span class="tm">17:33:34</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Also a call would be good. I’ll try to set that up next week sometime.
<a name="l-134"></a><span class="tm">17:34:02</span><span class="nk"> &lt;reetp&gt;</span> An obvious note is that perhaps their documentation and expectation s are not really clear enough and they should address that. WE can only work to what they give us.
<a name="l-135"></a><span class="tm">17:34:06</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> I'll try to solicit comments to our sig proposal on the centos-devel ml
<a name="l-136"></a><span class="tm">17:34:39</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="cmd">#action </span><span class="cmdline">ask for comments on centos-devel</span>
<a name="l-137"></a><span class="tm">17:35:33</span><span class="nk"> &lt;reetp&gt;</span> I gotta go - only 45 mins late. Interesting and will look back through this later.
<a name="l-138"></a><span class="tm">17:35:48</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Filippo, have we formally requested version control for our SIG?
<a name="l-139"></a><span class="tm">17:36:22</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> not sure if we did formally
<a name="l-140"></a><span class="tm">17:36:37</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Also, we need to secure a mailing list for ourselves.
<a name="l-141"></a><span class="tm">17:36:43</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> we asked tough
<a name="l-142"></a><span class="tm">17:36:58</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> I’m not sure who we do that with on the centos team.
<a name="l-143"></a><span class="tm">17:38:21</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> keeping discussion on centos-devel for a while will probably be beneficial
<a name="l-144"></a><span class="tm">17:38:48</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> but I'm sure we need to have our ml sooner than later
<a name="l-145"></a><span class="tm">17:39:22</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> <span class="hi">filippoc:</span> you need to get approved first
<a name="l-146"></a><span class="tm">17:39:33</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="cmd">#action </span><span class="cmdline">talk to Jim for advice on a board member to sponsor the SLS SIG</span>
<a name="l-147"></a><span class="tm">17:39:34</span><span class="nk"> &lt;kbsingh&gt;</span> then the resources become available immediately
<a name="l-148"></a><span class="tm">17:39:49</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> got it
<a name="l-149"></a><span class="tm">17:40:37</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> Getting a mailing list is listed as a requirement before approval.
<a name="l-150"></a><span class="tm">17:40:48</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> seemed backwards to me too
<a name="l-151"></a><span class="tm">17:41:14</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> so then the only thing we need is a devteam member on our group and then we can present, yeah?
<a name="l-152"></a><span class="tm">17:41:25</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> We’ll clean up our proposal though first.
<a name="l-153"></a><span class="tm">17:43:43</span><span class="nk"> &lt;davidep&gt;</span> quoting kbsingh: "key being tech and code and deliver"
<a name="l-154"></a><span class="tm">17:45:06</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="hi">daveloper:</span> I will ask for editing permission for you on centos wiki
<a name="l-155"></a><span class="tm">17:45:18</span><span class="nk"> &lt;daveloper&gt;</span> thanks
<a name="l-156"></a><span class="tm">17:45:23</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> register and send me your username
<a name="l-157"></a><span class="tm">17:46:20</span><span class="nk"> &lt;gsanchietti&gt;</span> daveloper, filippoc: I think we also need to extend the section about how to join the SIG and who is in charge to evaluate new members
<a name="l-158"></a><span class="tm">17:46:40</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> I'll ask for permissions for you too
<a name="l-159"></a><span class="tm">17:46:59</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="hi">gsanchietti:</span> register and so on...
<a name="l-160"></a><span class="tm">17:48:42</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> I'd end this meeting, but I'd like to schedule next week
<a name="l-161"></a><span class="tm">17:49:38</span><span class="nk"> &lt;alefattorini&gt;</span> we have a lot of stuff to do:-)
<a name="l-162"></a><span class="tm">17:50:22</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> have a nice weekend
<a name="l-163"></a><span class="tm">17:50:28</span><span class="nk"> &lt;filippoc&gt;</span> <span class="cmd">#endmeeting</span><span class="cmdline"></span></pre>