AlmaLinux Wiki

# ALESCo Meeting Minutes (2024-10-02)

Minutes recorded by Cody Robertson.

Edited by Cody Robertson for publishing.

# Members

# ALESCo Member Attendees

  • Andrew Lukoshko
  • Cody Robertson
  • Elkhan Mammadli
  • Jonathan Wright
  • Neal Gompa

# Unable to attend

  • Ben Thomas

# Board Attendees

  • Alex Iribarren
  • benny Vasquez

# Community Attendees

  • No community attendees

# Decisions Adopted

  • Rebuilding EPEL for x86_64_v2
    • The motion to rebuild EPEL for x86_64 v2 was tabled to gather more data and revisit after the release of AlmaLinux Kitten.

# Minutes

# Rebuilding EPEL for x86_64 v2

  • Cody: Introduced the topic of rebuilding EPEL for the x86_64 v2 architecture. Noted that previous votes focused on v3 and there was ambiguity regarding v2.
  • Andrew: Expressed concerns about the potential workload and maintenance challenges.
    • Highlighted the need to adjust macro systems and spec files.
      • Did not want to maintain changes or forks on our side.
    • Jonathan: Clarified that the build system can reasonably supports this
      • Andrew: Yes, not a problem
      • Neal: Pointed out that Fedora still builds for v1 and EPEL packages are Fedora backports, so issues might be minimal.
      • Neal: Emphasized the importance of EPEL for the usability of RHEL-based distributions.
      • Neal: Suggested that releasing without EPEL support might hinder adoption.
      • Alex: Agreed with Andrew’s concerns.
    • Neal: Can do this in stages, thinks we should approve it and see demand to make further decisions
      • Jonathan: Proposed tabling the decision to gather more data on user demand and revisit the topic after the release of AlmaLinux Kitten.
      • Neal: Warned that releasing AlmaLinux 10 without EPEL support for x86_64 v2 could impede adoption/usage
        • Suggested that if they decide not to build EPEL for v2, they should consider not releasing the v2 variant at all.
      • Decision: The team agreed to table the motion and reassess after AlmaLinux Kitten is released.

# GitHub Repository for Official Changes/RFCs

  • Cody: Presented a PoC for a GitHub repository to manage Requests for Comments (RFCs) and official changes [1] (opens new window)
  • Inspired by ArchLinux and Rust RFC processes.
    • Neal: Suggested replacing the “Alternatives” section with a “Feedback” section to capture community input.
    • Neal: Emphasized that submitting an RFC does not obligate the ALESCo committee to implement it; contributors should be responsible for the work.
    • Neal: Proposed adding sections about the benefit to AlmaLinux and feedback from the community/marketing perspective
    • Jonathan: Agreed with the proposed changes
    • Jonathan: Discussed the possibility of mentoring contributors who might need assistance.
    • Jonathan: Suggested directing contributors to the appropriate SIGs (Special Interest Groups).
    • Cody: Agreed to incorporate the feedback and adjust the RFC template accordingly and share the updated template for further input
    • Cody: Mentioned the need for an example template using a past decision.
    • Neal: Jonathan and him can draft up the x86_64_v2 one as an example
    • All: Decided to use the existing ALESCo repository for managing meeting agendas and issues instead of creating a new one.

# Alternating Meeting Schedule

  • Cody: Brought up the idea of alternating meeting times to accommodate participants in different time zones.
  • Cody: Found it unfeasible at this time due to scheduling conflicts and global distribution of team members.
  • Cody: Proposed to reassess the possibility in the future.
  • All: Agreed to put the idea on the back burner and revisit it in a few months if meetings gain more traction.