@mpearson filed Fedora-Council/tickets ticket #441. Discuss here and record votes and decisions in the ticket.
The request is straightforward to me and I see no reason why we should not vote on this ASAP. I made a +1 vote on the ticket.
About a process for how to do thisā¦ does it make sense for the Council to be the deciding body here? While some Council members might be more equipped than others to respond to things like this (e.g. @dcantrell as our FESCo rep), it feels like a decision that would have deeper insight and feedback from FESCo than Council. Iām wondering if we should drive a new Council policy here or if we should find some sort of load-sharing role here with FESCo, whose technical expertise feels more valuable on weighing in on cases like this.
1 Like
Itās right for the Council to make this decision, since itās essentially a trademark question.
But to your point, Iāll share what I said in email to Mark:
[T]his is a question that will arise in the future from other corners as well, particularly if weāre successful in our attempts to expand the availability of Fedora Linux pre-loaded on hardware. Iād
like to be able to have some kind of consistent basis for these sorts of decisions (and ideally, avoid folks having to file an issue in the first place)
This isnāt a technical decision so much as a āproductā decision: what can a distributor change and still call it āFedora Linuxā? Weāve previously said disabling SELinux is out of bounds, but there are a lot of other config changes that we wouldnāt object to. In the interests of not having to deal with this question every time, we should have some kind of policy. Whether we do that at the Council level or delegate it to FESCo to draft doesnāt particularly matter to me.
This is probably a split thing ā we should have some guidance for what we want conceptually at the Project / Council level, with specifics delegated to FESCo.
If the Council input is valuable, Iād prefer for this process to start with FESCo on the basis of the technical decision, and once approved, then flow to the Fedora Council for approval on the use of the trademark with the modified image. My perspective here is that I donāt think it is useful for the Fedora Council to muse on the technical details of modifications to the base image, and I feel that FESCo is competent to be a good steward of what kind of modifications are acceptable or unacceptable to a base image.
Does this make sense? If we went this route, we might need to create a policy that also delegates this authority to FESCo, because I imagine that FESCo might be hesitant to make this kind of call without support from the Council?
I personally would prefer to have the discussion about the rules (and if they get changed and how) separately from this specific request if possible.
Iām happy to be involved with that too, and offer insight from Lenovo perspective if that is helpful; but my intent with this request is that this is a one off exercise, and specific to this particular situation (that has been resolved āupstreamā). I think trying to design rules that safe-guard what is and isnāt allowed is a big, complicated (and likely controversial) topic that will take a long time to resolve - it shouldnāt be rushed.
FWIW - My recommendation (with only limited thought) is that any exception should be requested, justified, considered, and approved and shouldnāt be an easy process. But I appreciate Iām not the one making the decisions 
If itās possible to determine if there are any objections to the power setting change for these two platforms for Fedora 37, that would be really helpful. Right now the platforms have been blocked with Fedora and realistically if we canāt get this change into manufacturing quickly itās going to get lost in the wave of all the 2023 platforms that are about to happen and will take priority.
Thanks
Mark
1 Like
That makes sense. Given that this is a change already happening in F38, that it is required to pass the regulatory tests, and that it seems like a the right thing for the world, I think we should do a quick +1 to this specific exception at the Council level, and split out coming up with a general policy.
(I will record my vote for that in the ticket.)
Additionally, I propose that we defer asking for a policy until the second time this comes up. Because letās not over-policy. If this is a once every couple of years thing, looking individually seems fine.
Iām not opposed to that, but in the past, FESCo has asked for the opposite ā guiding principles from us, by which the technical policy can be established. (See the Updates policy, for example.)
The image is ready but theyāre hesitant to spend time putting it in the QA cycle if itās going to not be needed as all the new platforms are landing now - so there is some juggling.
If i say by end of the week is that OK? Iām guessing a bit as I donāt know what the QA team schedule really is - I just know Iām being nagged for a thumbs up or down (note - we do have to go and re-enter the certification with the new image too which will take a bit of time)
Ticket has been open for 5 days ā letās make it another 2 for a full seven and then call it official.
None from my end
1 Like
none from me either
Just checking - but as no objections are we good to go?
Thanks
Mark
Yes, sorry ā good to go on the simple approval of this immediate thing. Some bigger-picture issues to be resolved.
Thanks everybody - appreciate the help!
Mark