I am a neophyte to pagure. I have managed to signon and see the list of issues. Issue #67 talking about Evaluating
Fedora Server Working Group. Is that where I cast my vote to approve/disapprove of membership changes? Or will there
be a separate ticket for each individual being proposed for a change in membership? If that is the proper place, do I
just put +1/0/-1 in a comment?
According to our 2022-04-20 IRC meeting I start the voting to enroll as new members of the Server Working Group (listed by surname):
Jason Beard (cooltshirtguy)
Davide Cavalca (dcavalca)
Stephen Daley (mowest)
Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman)
You can either vote for all four in one go by issuing
or by differentiating in the order of the list
[+1|0|-1 / +1|0|-1 / +1|0|-1/ +1|0|-1]
As an example, if you vote to accept all four in one go, issue just
If you want to differentiate
+1 / +1 / +1 / +1
You vote by adding a comment with just your vote (and nothing else added) to the ticket:
You need to be logged in with your FAS account.
Voting start now and is open until Thursday May 5, 0500 UTC according to our rules.
To accept we need at least three +1 and zero -1
(It's the first time we vote since out reestablishment last year)
For everyone's convenience, a brief summary of our IRC meeting today right here.
For greater details see meetbot
== Summary: ==
== Full log: ==
=== Follow up actions ===
DONE: withdrew Ben Williams from the list of approved members as he had wanted. Many thanks for his contributions.
DONE: Opened a discussion about Cockpit and the file-sharing update follow ups on mailing list.
DONE: Opened a discussion thread about a specification for a Server Edition VM on mailing list.
=== Planning for Fedora 37: Introducing a Server VM KVM virtual disk image ===
Agreed: WG decides to add a Fedora Server Edition VM image and to make a corresponding Change proposal.
Action: pboy creates a change proposal to add a Fedora Server Edition VM image
Agreed: WG decides to amend the PRD as proposed in ticket 83
Action: pboy edits the PRD to amend as in issue #83 and initializes the required processing
=== Evaluating Fedora Server Working Group ===
Agreed: WG agrees to open a voting on the admision of cooltshirtguy, dcavalca, eseyman and mowest in one go.
Action: pboy start a voting the admision of cooltshirtguy, dcavalca, eseyman and mowest in one go.
Agreed: WG agrees to withdraw nb and mhoungbo for the time being (#67). Many thanks to both of them for their willingness to work on the Server WG.
Action: Withdrawal of nb and mhoungbo from member list.
=== Discussion of a potential change to Fedora surrounding the default hostname ===
Agreed: salimma and Eighth_Doctor work with Dusty and probably others to explore the possibilities to get the old behaviour (pre f33) back.
=== Current discussion about withdrawal of BIOS boot for new installations in F37 ===
There was a longer discussion about the subject. And the largely unanimous position was that we still need bios boot for a longer time for various reasons. Everything must be done to find a technical solution that makes this possible under the condition of available resources.
Agreed: Davide Cavalca and Michel Alexandre Salim volunteer to work further on the subject.
I did some testing with beta-1.1 candidate
Went fine. /etc/resolv.conf a link again, no SELinux ACV messages with first boot any more.
The „Applications“ menu item still doesn’t list any installable applications
The list of installed applications doesn’t contain cockpit-filesharing update. Question is: is that expected or a bug?
@Matthew: When you select File Sharing you get a message "Failed to load NFS services. Is NFS installed or enabled?" (NFS) and "Samba must be configured to include registry. Add `include = registry` to the [global] section of /etc/samba/smb.conf“ (Samba)
Is that intended behaviour or should the rpm install do those adaptations?
And we are still missing localisation for cockpit-filesharing update
Installs flawlessly. The combo of qemu-kvm-core, libvirt, and virt-install now installs 104 packages on a fresh install, instead of 165 with beta 1.1 candidate. Either we will miss something or someone did a great job in housekeeping.
Split name resolution doesn’t work for the libvirt internal network. I’ve to inspect that issue further. Possibly the configuration is still deficient (and not any of the apps).
The meeting will take place
Fedora Server IRC meeting Wednesday, April 20 17:00 ==UTC==
Please, check your local time using "date -d ‚2022-04-20 17:00UTC‘"
The agenda is quite extensive. I added a proposal for most topics hoping to keep the discussion as strongly topic-centered as possible. Maybe that way we can focus the discussion to get everything done in time without sacrificing anything.
== Agenda ==
1. = Follow up actions =
2. = Discussion of a potential change to Fedora surrounding the default hostname =
We have currently no issue for this topic.
I welcome Dusty Mabe who asked for it.
3. = Planning for Fedora 37: Introducing a Server VM KVM virtual disk image =
#link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/53 (additional details)
#proposed WG decides to add a Fedora Server Edition VM image and to make a corresponding Change proposal according #79 and #53
Please add your options as comment to the ticket #79!
4. = Followup: Supplement to our Product requirements Document (PRD) =
#proposed WG decides to amend the PRD as proposed in ticket 83. pboy edits the PRD and initializes the required processing
Please add your options as comment to ticket #83!
5. = Evaluating Fedora Server Working Group =
#proposed WG agrees to open a voting on the admision of cooltshirtguy, dcavalca, eseyman and mowest.
Please add your options or additional candidates as comment to ticket #67!
6. = Current discussion about withdrawal of BIOS boot for new installations in F37 =
We have currently no ticket about this
#proposed Server WG rejects the Change proposal in its current form. This would practically force Server users to switch to another distribution.
#proposed A constructive solution to reduce the burden on maintainers must fully and unrestrictedly support the bios boot option for the next expected 5-8 years (release blocker).
7. = Open floor =
For any additions or changes, please reply to this email.