Board meeting 2012-10-03

Attendees

Toshio will be contacting the nominees as submitted on the ticket, asking if they're even interested in participating.

Similar to the fedora-jboss-as project on github that we did grant
Is this a RH project or is this more of a Fedora-community project?
Why not fedorahosted? (what does github provide)
What about this makes it a Fedora effort?
- For example, is this being talked about with the Fedora Cloud SIG?
- Are the Fedora packagers currently working on packaging Openstack involved?
Also a desire to make generic TM guidelines for using the trademark in github projects

Schedule -- Bump submission to legal back a week [DATE]
Make the vetting process more public this time?
We'll have a week for the Board to vet this time. So procedure:
- We'll divide up the list at one Board Meeting and work on it that week.
- if we have no questions when we vet => move to a new table of vetted names
- if we do have questions or don't get to it => leave on the original table
- On the Board meeting day, we'll vet any names that are still in the original table as a group

Would be an incredible amount of work to make Koji work with a new process allowing public/private builds.
No philosophical problem with having private builds where the source and binary packages are subsequently made public at the same time
Some would like to limit to CVE/Security embargoed items
Proposal: The Board has no philosophical issue with private builds for security embargoes. If someone is willing to work with infrastructure and releng to do it, that's fine. To be clear, the Board is not requiring that infra and releng work on this -- someone needs to work with them if they want it.
- Conditions: When the build is released, both source and binary must go out at the same time
- Some Fedora group will need to have the ability to approve that a specific package can make private builds for a certain issue. The ability to create the private builds should not be for every packager.