#ubuntu-meeting-2 2016-03-15
<mdeslaur> slangasek: hi
 * slangasek waves
<slangasek> sorry, I don't know who's supposed to be chairing today, the latest browser upgrade has brought some severe performance regressions for me
<infinity> Hey look, we still have a TB.
<mdeslaur> I don't know either, it says 2016-01-19 stgraber
<infinity> Did we skip that meeting, or did someone fail to update the agenda?
<mdeslaur> we've skipped a few I believe :P
<mdeslaur> I don't remember if we did that one
<infinity> Kay, so I say it's still stgraber.  If he's around.
 * stgraber waves
<mdeslaur> stgraber: tag, you're it
<slangasek> stgraber: hi, we seem to have agreed you're the chair because no one has updated the agenda page to say otherwise ;)
<stgraber> fine
<stgraber> #startmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting started Tue Mar 15 17:10:31 2016 UTC.  The chair is stgraber. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
<meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
<stgraber> #topic Do we have a TB yet?
<infinity> We still have the old one.
 * slangasek nods
<infinity> dholbach extended us again.
<stgraber> that's getting a bit ridiculous
<stgraber> #topic Action review
<stgraber> ACTION: slangasek to document juju exception on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Special_Cases
<slangasek> still outstanding
<infinity> I don't see juju there.
<stgraber> ACTION: infinity to follow up with maas SRU exception
<infinity> Also still outstanding.
<stgraber> ACTION: infinity to raise to sabdfl the proposal to reduce the number of TB members
<infinity> And not in the "wow, that's outstanding!" way.
<infinity> I'll dig through our IRC logs and send that mail today.
<infinity> Before I forget for another two weeks.
<stgraber> #topic revisit status at next meeting of server plans for docker in 16.04
<slangasek> well, that's a topic we can talk about, I think
<slangasek> since we have a new docker.io in
<stgraber> since we are at "next meeting" we probably should talk about it
<infinity> So, a contractor has been hired to keep docker up to date.
 * slangasek nods
<infinity> And I've specced out with them what that should look like.
<infinity> I need to revisit and review his work to make sure it meets my spec.
<infinity> But I think it's well in hand and we can take it off the agenda now.
<slangasek> infinity: is that spec published where the rest of the TB can see it?
<slangasek> (and/or the rest of the SRU team)
<infinity> slangasek: It was more a verbal best practices, but I can write something up later if we want a formal record.
<slangasek> infinity: I think that would be a good idea :)
<infinity> Probably needs to end up in the SRU#Special bit.
<infinity> So, change this topic to an ACTION for me to document that after I'm sure they're on the same page.
<infinity> Deal?
<slangasek> +1
<stgraber> #ACTION infinity to document the Docker SRU process
<meetingology> ACTION: infinity to document the Docker SRU process
<infinity> Ta.
<stgraber> #topic Next chair
<stgraber> that would be infinity
<infinity> Looks like me.
<stgraber> #topic AOB
<stgraber> anything?
<mdeslaur> nothing from me
<infinity> Can we task Steve with annoying Mark until we get an election, now that he's back at work?
<infinity> (Also, welcome back Steve, congrats on the spawn)
<slangasek> you can, if you want me to work on that instead of overdue performance reviews for the team
<slangasek> ;)
<infinity> Performance reviews are overrated.
<mdeslaur> infinity: I was going to suggest you, since you enjoy annoying people
<slangasek> hahaha
<infinity> mdeslaur: I don't necessarily enjoy it, I just play to my strengths.
<mdeslaur> hehehe
<stgraber> :)
<infinity> Has everyone standing for another term spammed Mark and the list?
<slangasek> by this point I think we can assume yes :)
 * infinity nods.
<infinity> Kay.  I can try to bug him between now and the next expiry. :P
<infinity> Or we can just declare a state of emergency and take control of the team.
<infinity> (heil vorlon)
 * slangasek raises an eyebrow
<infinity> stgraber: I think I just Godwinned the meeting, we must be done.
<stgraber> :)
<stgraber> #endmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Mar 15 17:21:47 2016 UTC.
<meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2016/ubuntu-meeting-2.2016-03-15-17.10.moin.txt
<stgraber> wiki updated
<mdeslaur> thanks everyone
<slangasek> infinity: sorry I have a bad earpiece I didn't hear you
<infinity> slangasek: I SAID HEIL VORLON.
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2017-03-14
 * slangasek waves
 * infinity grunts
<mdeslaur> hi
<slangasek> hello
<mdeslaur> sorry for not updating the agenda
<slangasek> #startmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting started Tue Mar 14 17:01:17 2017 UTC.  The chair is slangasek. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
<meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
<slangasek> :-)
<slangasek> [TOPIC] Apologies
<slangasek> none received on the mailing list
<slangasek> kees: are you here?
<slangasek> we have mdeslaur infinity slangasek; no sign of stgraber on channel
<slangasek> [TOPIC] Action review
<slangasek> ACTION: infinity to follow up with maas SRU exception
<slangasek> infinity: any news there?
<infinity> No news is good news?
<infinity> That's a thing, right?
<slangasek> well, that hardly stops the maas SRUs from coming in :)
<mdeslaur> heh
<slangasek> if you haven't made progress I'd like to suggest a path forward?
<infinity> I need to make some time to go back to what is and isn't documented and JFDI.  Said time has not been made.
<slangasek> I've recently started forcing people who are asking for SRU exceptions to do the work of preparing a wiki page like https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CurtinUpdates
<slangasek> and then once it's approved by a member of the SRU team, we update the main wiki page with a link to it
<slangasek> this puts the burden on the team that is asking for the SRU, which might work better than having you responsible for it
<infinity> That sounds not unreasonable.
<slangasek> infinity: would you follow up with the maas team and tell them to do this?
<infinity> *nod*
<slangasek> [ACTION] infinity to ask maas team to prepare SRU exception policy Ã  la https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CurtinUpdates
<meetingology> ACTION: infinity to ask maas team to prepare SRU exception policy Ã  la https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CurtinUpdates
<slangasek> cool, next
<slangasek> ACTION: infinity to play with seed/maint-check changes on dogfood to build a new xenial release pocket for support length auditing (ETA: 16.04.2 release)
<slangasek> I guess this didn't happen before 16.04.2 :)
<infinity> That ETA is clearly a lie now.  But another short deferral.
<infinity> This also dovetails into your email about custom kernel support that I need to reply angrily to.
<slangasek> hmm :)
<slangasek> ok
<slangasek> [ACTION] infinity to play with seed/maint-check changes on dogfood to build a new xenial release pocket for support length auditing
<meetingology> ACTION: infinity to play with seed/maint-check changes on dogfood to build a new xenial release pocket for support length auditing
<slangasek> ACTION: slangasek to investigate getting tagged ubuntu-community bugs automatically forwarded to technical-board, and if not feasible, fall back to DMB sending signed emails to list for ACL requests
<slangasek> in practice I guess we're already relying on the fallback
<slangasek> but I would still like to sort this out, it just hasn't been a high priority
<slangasek> anybody mind if I keep this todo on my list? :)
<mdeslaur> heh
<slangasek> hearing no objections...
<slangasek> [ACTION] slangasek to investigate getting tagged ubuntu-community bugs automatically forwarded to technical-board, and if not feasible, fall back to DMB sending signed emails to list for ACL requests
<meetingology> ACTION: slangasek to investigate getting tagged ubuntu-community bugs automatically forwarded to technical-board, and if not feasible, fall back to DMB sending signed emails to list for ACL requests
<slangasek> ACTION: slangasek to follow up to snapd-glib SRU exception request
<slangasek> I don't remember where this one got to
<slangasek> guess I just need to dig that out of the mail and reply to it, telling them to do the same thing as MAAS
<slangasek> will follow up today
<slangasek> [ACTION] slangasek to follow up to snapd-glib SRU exception request
<meetingology> ACTION: slangasek to follow up to snapd-glib SRU exception request
<slangasek> now, there's an item on the wiki page which I think was discussed last time and I failed to take it off?
<slangasek> also, sorry, I'm making a late add of an agenda topic... right now
<mdeslaur> yeah, we discussed that last week
<slangasek> on the email I just sent to the list re: walinuxagent
<slangasek> [TOPIC] walinuxagent
<slangasek> [LINK] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2017-March/002287.html
<slangasek> any chance either of you had time to read this mail, which was sent at 17:01 UTC? ;)
<mdeslaur> I read it
<slangasek> mdeslaur: questions/concerns/feedback?
<mdeslaur> I think the reasoning is sound, and I don't have any objections
<mdeslaur> my only concern is how the code which is pulled down is validated
<mdeslaur> I haven't looked at it at all, is it sane?
<slangasek> mdeslaur: the endpoint is secured with SSL; there's no code signing that I'm aware of
<infinity> How it's validated and/or how the source is validated.
<infinity> SSL works if it's a static host we're pulling from, and we're not ignoring SSL host mismatches in the code.
<slangasek> I have an email thread with MS about how control of publishing code to that endpoint is managed, I would need to check with them before sharing details; I'll just say it seems reasonable, and again I don't think we should be setting a higher security bar for that endpoint than we do for the cloud substrate itself
<slangasek> infinity: that mostly relies on the underlying python libraries to enforce, AIUI; but the endpoint itself is supposed to be not spoofable
<slangasek> (as in, no arp/dns spoofing allowed)
<infinity> Well, the libraries, and how you call the connect methods.
<mdeslaur> hrm, python 2 code...not sure how well ssl certs and hostnames are being checked
<infinity> But yes.
<slangasek> should be python3
<mdeslaur> ah, yes, it is
<mdeslaur> ok
<slangasek> could we take a vote on this, so there's a record of this agreement?
<mdeslaur> sure
<slangasek> [VOTE] Affirm the walinuxagent exception for out-of-band code updates on Azure guests https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2017-March/002287.html
<meetingology> Please vote on: Affirm the walinuxagent exception for out-of-band code updates on Azure guests https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2017-March/002287.html
<meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname)
<infinity> Anyhow, I'm not super fond of the idea, but if we can't get them to push all their stuff to the archive, we don't really have a choice either.
<slangasek> yeah, it's not very archive-able
<slangasek> +1
<meetingology> +1 received from slangasek
<mdeslaur> +1
<meetingology> +1 received from mdeslaur
<infinity> +1
<meetingology> +1 received from infinity
<slangasek> uh how do I end a vote again?
<slangasek> [ENDVOTE]
<meetingology> Voting ended on: Affirm the walinuxagent exception for out-of-band code updates on Azure guests https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2017-March/002287.html
<meetingology> Votes for:3 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
<meetingology> Motion carried
<slangasek> got it :)
<infinity> I could see this having more interesting use-cases in heterogenous clouds where the running software might want to change behaviour (or version) based on the compute node you're on.
<slangasek> [TOPIC] Mailing list archive
<infinity> So, as a general policy, it's not awful.
 * slangasek nods
<slangasek> mailing list, there's a request from bdmurray to extend cyphermox's DMB membership to allow coverage for a vote
<slangasek> this seems noncontroversial to me, any objection to me JFDI?
<infinity> Go nuts.
<mdeslaur> no objection from me
<slangasek> [ACTION] slangasek to extend cyphermox DMB membership to cover next election
<meetingology> ACTION: slangasek to extend cyphermox DMB membership to cover next election
<cyphermox> yes, please ;)
<slangasek> I see nothing else new on the mailing list
<slangasek> [TOPIC] community bugs
<slangasek> [LINK] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bugs?field.assignee=techboard
<slangasek> zarro boogs
<slangasek> [TOPIC] Select a chair for the next meeting
<slangasek> looks like stgraber, with infinity as backup?
<infinity> Yep.
<slangasek> [AGREED] next TB meeting Tuesday, March 28 @ 17:00 London Time; stgraber chair; infinity backup
<slangasek> [TOPIC] AOB
<slangasek> anything else?
<mdeslaur> nope
<slangasek> #endmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Mar 14 17:25:29 2017 UTC.
<meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2017/ubuntu-meeting-2.2017-03-14-17.01.moin.txt
<mdeslaur> thanks slangasek
<slangasek> mdeslaur, infinity, cyphermox: thanks!
<mdeslaur> thanks infinity
<cyphermox> thanks to you, I had just had a request for DMB stuff.
<slangasek> cyphermox: renewal done ;)
<cyphermox> there was an important comma there.
<cyphermox> ta
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2018-03-13
<tsimonq2> o/
<kees> \o
 * slangasek waves
<slangasek> kees: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda suggests that you are chairing today :)
<slangasek> otoh, mdeslaur sent regrets and I see no infinity or stgraber
<kees> yeah, sorry, got caught up in the xchat bug-reading
<kees> do we have enough folks?
<kees> slangasek: infinity idle 11 hours.
<kees> so... there's only 2 TB members here, we don't have quorum.
<slangasek> ack
<kees> slangasek: would it be valueable for us to discuss the xchat issue anyway, even though we can't have a binding decision?
<slangasek> kees: well, I failed to follow up on that before meeting because I was instead focused on the ubuntu-seeded-snaps topic which I considered more urgent
 * kees nods
<slangasek> kees: but IMHO there's no reason for xchat to be escalated to the TB at all at this point, it's squarely in the domain of the archive admins
<kees> that was my first reaction, yes. :P
<rbasak> o/
<rbasak> It wasn't obvious to me that it is within the domain of the archive admins, because it's at least in part a social decision.
<rbasak> But without a reply to my post on ubuntu-release@, nobody seemed to be making a decision.
<rbasak> This is why I added to the agenda.
<slangasek> it is clear to me that the archive admins have the authority, and escalating to the TB is not going to get a decision *faster* than letting the archive admins think it through and respond
<slangasek> any decision by the AA team can of course be reviewed by the TB
<rbasak> How long should we wait for an AA decision before re-escalating to the TB if we don't get one?
<rbasak> (since a lack of a decision before final freeze -ish is effectively a decision by default)
<slangasek> I would say a week should be the minimum
<kees> I would say just leave it on the agenda for the next TB meeting. if you get a resolution before then, remove it. :)
<slangasek> (and certainly longer than the time between the Thursday of an engineering sprint, and the Monday when a lot of people are swapped on travel)
<rbasak> I think (but it's not clear) that ~ubuntu-archive was subscribed when the bug was submitted which is over a week ago - but yeah, the engineering sprint didn't help.
<jbicha> (I filed lots of ubuntu-archive removal bugs that are still open)
<rbasak> But as I say I'm asking the TB because it (to me) wasn't clear it's an AA thing, and nobody said otherwise on the list. So I didn't want to wait weeks before being told that the AAs were ignoring it because they didn't see it as an AA decision.
<jbicha> (killing libgnome stuff, old webkitgtk, gksu, etc.)
<rbasak> kees: sure. Easy enough, thanks.
<slangasek> jbicha: yes, and I would spend some time on these if not for launchpad timing out on the bug list for ~ubuntu-archive
<rbasak> To be clear, I'm only trying to drive this because I think we owe it to the community as a project to be able to decide on this without letting it languish.
<slangasek> anyway, since we don't have quorum, we also don't really have a meeting
<kees> rbasak: yeah, I agree about avoiding a problem with a package living in LTS.
<slangasek> so I'm going to wander off from this discussion, and follow up to the mailing list threads as appropriate
<rbasak> kees: well, I'm not necessarily in favour of removal :)
<rbasak> I just think the project should have a very clear line to a decision, and I don't feel that it has right now.
<kees> rbasak: right, I mean "evaluating it" in case we have a solid concern to avoid it
<rbasak> Ah. Yes, I agree then :)
<jbicha> slangasek: for webkitgtk, the tricky one is still gnucash which I guess you're sort of following
<jbicha> looking at the links from https://bugs.debian.org/892177 there is supposed to be a 2.7.6 release any time now
<rbasak> Thanks for looking anyway.
 * rbasak EODs
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2020-03-10
 * vorlon waves
