02:03 <quentin9696[m]> <travier[m]> "quentin9696: This looks like..." <- I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but I got an access denied when I try to create a topic on the forum.

02:03 <quentin9696[m]> I already do the bot tutorial.

02:21 <quentin9696[m]> My bad, here is the link:

02:21 <quentin9696[m]> https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/issue-with-selinux-and-iscsiadm-inside-a-podman-container/30840/1

15:01 <jlebon> dustymabe: can you review the two top PRs in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-pipeline/pulls ?

15:01 <jlebon> fallout from the autolock work

15:01 <jlebon> and i'll review the NM patches

15:04 <dustymabe> jlebon: were there failures?

15:04 <jlebon> dustymabe: yes

15:10 <dustymabe> jlebon: reviewed

15:38 <dustymabe> anyone want to volunteer to run the IRC meeting today?

16:12 <jlebon> maybe bgilbert is interested? :)

16:12 <jlebon> otherwise, I can do it

16:12 <bgilbert> jlebon: go for it :-)

16:13 <dustymabe> luckily the process is well defined so anyone (even newer attendees) should be able to run it in the future

16:17 <jlebon> dustymabe: should some of the tickets in https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-desc+label%3Ameeting be untagged?

16:17 <dustymabe> I just untagged one of them

16:18 <dustymabe> I guess 1247 can be untagged, but we really should make progress on `2.` from https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1247#issuecomment-1261286872 soon

16:18 <dustymabe> let's make sure we discuss 1381 today

16:18 <dustymabe> maybe fifofonix will be around to help augment that discussion

16:19 <fifofonix> will be there.

16:30 <jlebon> aaradhak anthr76 davdunc dustymabe gursewak jaimelm jbrooks jcajka jdoss jlebon jmarrero lorbus miabbott nasirhm ravanelli saqali skunkerk walters

16:30 <jlebon> FCOS community meeting in #fedora-meeting-1

16:30 <jlebon> If you don't want to be pinged remove your name from this file: https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/blob/main/meeting-people.txt

17:31 <bgilbert> continuing the coreos-status discussion: historically we've used it for known specific actionable things. I'd like to get that CIFS bug to that point, but it sounds like we're not there yet

17:32 <jlebon> bgilbert: i think i agree. i initially argued for recommending to test on testing/next but the problem here is that there's node state involved, and we wouldn't want to ask them to rebase their stable nodes to next/testing

18:03 <fifofonix> jlebon: re /etc diff requested. i'm going to upgrade an affected node to latest next and before it crashes capture /etc. then downgrade. then i'll capture /etc from a working latest next node (albeit with some variation). sound right? if ok i will get on that and email to you if you're ok with that?

18:39 <dustymabe> jlebon: marmijo[m] ravanell_: FYI this new comment may aid in the investigation https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1373#issuecomment-1387546875

19:21 <jlebon> fifofonix: yes, that sounds good

19:52 <fifofonix> jlebon: sent

19:53 <jlebon> fifofonix: ack, thanks!