[11:13] <ctalkep> hi
[11:13] <ctalkep> what's going on with the meeting??
[11:16] <Seveas> ctalkep, see http://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[11:19] <ctalkep> Seveas, thanks, but when is 1600 UTC?
[11:20] <Seveas> in less then 7 hours
[11:20] <Seveas> it is now 09:20 UTC
[11:20] <ctalkep> Seveas, ok, thanks, how do i chek the utc time anyway?
[11:21] <Seveas> I alway just remember the difference between my local time and UTC
[11:21] <Seveas> :)
[11:21] <ctalkep> Seveas, doing it the hard way...:)
[11:22] <Seveas> http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?UTC/s/0/java
[11:23] <ctalkep> Seveas, waht MastersOfTheUniverse might be?
[11:23] <Seveas> I think that is about administering the "Universe" repository
[11:24] <ctalkep> Seveas, thanks a lot
[11:24] <Seveas> np
[02:09] <Gmail> what was the out come of last nights meeting?
[02:28] <Kamion> there was no one single outcome; it was a very long meeting involving going through all the hoary goals, deciding which to do and which to leave for later, allocating them to people, and debating some of the details
[02:29] <Gmail> gfx installer?
[02:29] <Kamion> not committing to it for hoary but we're going to start the work; may not land until grumpy
[02:48] <bluefoxicy> meeting is what 3 hours?
[02:48] <bluefoxicy> I've got 12:48UTC here
[02:53] <thom> yep, 3 hours looks right
[03:11] <daniels> yeah, 3h is right
[04:08] <Gmail> WEEEE
[04:08] <Gmail> am i on the wrong side of the netspilt?
[04:08] <Gmail> or not?
[04:11] <Seveas> depends on what you call good and wrong
[04:11] <Seveas> if you dan't want to be near me, you're at the wrong side obviously >:)
[04:30] <sparkes> could be a non productive meeting if this doesn't get sorted today
[04:54] <DacInBC> Do I have the right time?
[04:55] <asw> in one hour? 
[04:56] <DacInBC> damn I thought I was 5 minutes away, I seem to be off by an hour
[04:59] <Kamion> well, we have three community council members here, can't be that bad
[05:02] <asw> hi Kamion. I really enjoyed chatting with you the other day. 
[05:20] <bluefoxicy> o.x tired
[05:53] <jmchugh> quit
[05:58] <mdz> who is running the CC meeting today?
[06:00] <sivang> you maybe ? :)
[06:00] <sivang> sabdfl ?
[06:00] <ctalkep> hi guys
[06:00] <mdz> he'll join shortly
[06:01] <sivang> ProactiveSecurity is the first one?
[06:01] <sabdfl> hi all
[06:01] <sivang> hey sabdfl
[06:02] <Kamion> ProactiveSecurity isn't a CC matter; it should be discussed elsewhere, maybe ubuntu-devel and then the tech board if there's a controversial decision to be taken
[06:02] <johnlevin> hi sabdfl
[06:02] <johnlevin> hi sivang
[06:02] <sabdfl> Kamion: agreed, let me get things rolling
[06:02] <sabdfl> elmo, mako, around?
[06:02] <sivang> ok
[06:02] <mako> sabdfl: yep
[06:03] <sivang> so the new developers mentoring maybe?
[06:03] <Kamion> sabdfl: sorry to preempt, was mainly answering a question from sivang from just before you joined
[06:03] <sabdfl> noprob, was late, apologies
[06:03] <sabdfl> sivang: let's get elmo in here
[06:03] <sivang> Kamion : you did ? what did I ask?
[06:03] <Kamion> 17:01 < sivang> ProactiveSecurity is the first one?
[06:03] <sivang> :)
[06:03] <sivang> oh
[06:03] <sivang> :)
[06:03] <elmo> here
[06:03] <sivang> hey elmo
[06:04] <sabdfl> elmo: was just sms'ing a fly for the trout :-)
[06:04] <sabdfl> ok, let's get going
[06:04] <sabdfl> JohnMoser, around?
[06:04] <mdz> not here
[06:04] <sabdfl> not sure what his nick is on irc, but I agree with Kamion
[06:04] <Kamion> that's bluefoxicy I think
[06:04] <sabdfl> http://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[06:05] <Kamion> 16:54  * bluefoxicy yawns and tailwaves
[06:05] <Kamion> maybe gone to bed
[06:05] <mdz> ah
[06:05] <mako> five minutes before the meeting :)
[06:05] <bluefoxicy> huh?
[06:05] <bluefoxicy> hi
[06:05] <Kamion> ah, there
[06:05] <sabdfl> having said that, he did phrase it in a "what does the community want" sort of way, so let's address that
[06:05] <sabdfl> technical discussion is tech board's department
[06:06] <bluefoxicy> Yes, I'm sure it'll be a very short discussion
[06:06] <sabdfl> bluefoxicy: care to comment?
[06:06] <bluefoxicy> the tech board will be where the deep discussion occurs on proactive security.  :)
[06:06] <bluefoxicy> sabdfl:  about Proactive Security?  (*first time here*)
[06:06] <sabdfl> do we need to discuss this here? your hnt was intriguing but oblique
[06:07] <Kamion> actually I'd say the deep discussion should happen on ubuntu-devel; the tech board should take any hard decisions that aren't clear to the development community, I feel
[06:07] <sabdfl> bluefoxicy: this is the community council meeting
[06:07] <sabdfl> mainly, we are focused on how the ubuntu community organises itself
[06:07] <sabdfl> roles and responsibilities
[06:07] <sabdfl> appointments and policies
[06:07] <bluefoxicy> sabdfl:  Ah.  I know nothing.  :)
[06:07] <sabdfl> bluefoxicy: ok, then please read the governance section of the web site for future agenda items :-)
[06:07] <bluefoxicy> sabdfl:  Would it be appropriate to skip the topic altogether and move it to a more appropriate forum?
[06:08] <Kamion> is there a group of people interested in investigating this kind of issue, perhaps with the toolchain people?
[06:08] <sabdfl> bluefoxicy: yes, thanks
[06:08] <mdz> Kamion: I have a couple of names
[06:08] <sabdfl> let's move on to mentoring
[06:08] <Kamion> OK, maybe we can revisit this when there's some kind of appointment to be made
[06:09] <sivang> probably now ubuntu is laking manpower to do mentroing, IMHO
[06:09] <sabdfl> we haven't done a good enough job of mapping out a "new maintainer" process
[06:09] <sabdfl> maybethat's a good focus for discussion now
[06:09] <sabdfl> and will lead us nicely into the "masters of the universe" topic
[06:10] <sabdfl> can I throw it open for discussion on:
[06:10] <sabdfl>  - what sort of process we want for maintainer appointments
[06:10] <sabdfl>  - how we'll distinguish between universe and main maintainers, if at all
[06:10] <sabdfl>  - how mentoring can fit into that framework
[06:10] <sabdfl> ?
[06:10] <sabdfl> fire away
[06:10] <Kamion> before touching process, I think we need to know what criteria we expect maintainers to fulfil before accepting them
[06:10] <Henri1> Perhaps one should set up a list of 'Junior Jobs', like KDE has, which are easy dev tasks for beginners to start on. I think they do it in bugzilla in fact.
[06:11] <sabdfl> Kamion: also, need to define the responsibilities and authority, so we know how much good / damage a maintainer could do
[06:11] <mdz> at the BOF in Oxford, we outlined a scheme which involved a natural progression from someone who submits patches through being a team leader
[06:12] <T-Bone> sabdfl: what about gateways for say "people who are already debian maintainers"?
[06:12] <mdz> and what responsibilities would be involved at each level of commitment
[06:12] <mako> Kamion: a lot of those "answers" are up here: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/maintainers
[06:12] <sabdfl> t-bone: yes, this makes sense
[06:12] <sivang> T-Bone : this has already been used:) AFAIK
[06:12] <sabdfl> in a real sense a dd is already an ubuntu maintainer
[06:12] <Kamion> at the universe level, at least
[06:12] <sabdfl> because when we are in hotsync mode an upload to debian is effectively also an upload to ubuntu
[06:12] <Kamion> mako: ah, yes
[06:12] <T-Bone> sabdfl: good to know. Given how long the Debian NM process is, i'd rather not go through it twice ;)
[06:13] <mako> well, in a similar, so is an upstream.. but in relation to unierse, it is clearly the case
[06:13] <mako> T-Bone: i don't think the goal is to replicate NM :)
[06:13] <mako> at least, it's not my goal
[06:13] <sabdfl> t-bine in addition to this it makes sense to have a fast track for proven dd's
[06:13] <T-Bone> mako: *G* ;)
[06:13] <T-Bone> sabdfl: right
[06:13] <sabdfl> i'd like us to have fast track processes for people who are upstream
[06:14] <sabdfl> as mako points out, it's their code we are shipping
[06:14] <Kamion> there are upstreams and upstreams, of course
[06:14] <mako> i'd like us to fast track processes for anyone who has proven they are technical competant and socially capable :)
[06:14] <mako> and motivated enough to stick around :)
[06:15] <sabdfl> hmm... having written http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/maintainers i'm finding it hard to disagree with it :-)
[06:15] <T-Bone> mako: hehe; gonna make yourself a few friends ;)
[06:15] <sabdfl> Kamion: naturally :-)
[06:15] <mdz> and being an upstream does not usually qualify you to make packaging decisions
[06:15] <Kamion> worth noting that we've had an upstream come very close to trying to trojan Debian in the past
[06:15] <mako> if we know those things, and if the TB and CC can sign off on it, we're good to go
[06:15] <sabdfl> Kamion: not a risk we can mitigate from serious projects
[06:15] <T-Bone> both mdz and Kamion are right too
[06:15] <sabdfl> we agreed TB and CC both need to sign off on a new maintainer
[06:16] <mdz> most upstreams have zero experience with packaging, having relied on others to do it
[06:16] <sabdfl> so fast track is fine, given that we have a review process
[06:16] <mdz> what will the input to the review process be, though?
[06:16] <sabdfl> i think in the early days we will get by with track record and community credibility
[06:17] <sabdfl> i don't think we should decline Linus' request to maintain the kernel
[06:17] <sabdfl> should it come :-)
[06:17] <mdz> I think linus would be a fairly crap kernel package maintainer, to be honest :-)
[06:17] <T-Bone> sabdfl: you'll have to define "community credibility" tho, adn that's not gonna be trivial, i'm afraid
[06:18] <mako> mdz: well in your role on the TB, you'd be able to make that position heard IRT linus :)
[06:18] <sabdfl> t-bone, to a certain extent we can be brutal in the beginning
[06:18] <sivang> what is going to be done to allow new people into the NM / devel process? many want to assist and help in development, but don't know how to start.
[06:18] <Kamion> in the early days, do we expect to have enough CC bandwidth to review candidates individually?
[06:18] <T-Bone> sabdfl: agreed
[06:18] <mako> Kamion: yes
[06:18] <sabdfl> Kamion: i would rely heavily on peer assessment
[06:18] <mdz> what about people that we don't already know, either personally or by reputation?  that's where we need additional input into the process
[06:18] <mako> i mean sort of.. they will be mentored
[06:18] <mako> and will have done work
[06:18] <Kamion> I realise we won't, in the long run; but the experience will let us work out what we need from peer assessment
[06:19] <mako> mdz: we ask them to find a mentor and to work in the community until they we do know them
[06:19] <mako> mdz: until we do know them
[06:19] <Kamion> sabdfl: that's fine, I'm just trying to work out whether we can get away without trying to delegate an essentially undefined process right from the start :-)
[06:19] <sabdfl> we could think of this as an exercise in pipelining
[06:19] <Kamion> we can delegate once it's better-defined
[06:19] <sabdfl> we need to setup the pipeline, defining where people need to start
[06:20] <sabdfl> for example, have a page that lists work that needs doing
[06:20] <sabdfl> and a commitment to review submissions against that list
[06:20] <sabdfl> and keep track of who has done what
[06:20] <sivang> sabdfl : finally :)
[06:20] <sabdfl> as people progress up that list, we'll get a sense of their progress
[06:20] <mdz> who will do that bookkeeping?
[06:20] <Kamion> mdz: of course, we don't necessarily have to be as focused on packaging as Debian is; most of our wishlist is development more than packaging
[06:20] <sabdfl> so for absolute community newbies, they always know where they stand
[06:20] <mdz> Kamion: true
[06:21] <mako> so.. i guess my question is what is missing from the maintainers page now?
[06:21] <mdz> Kamion: in our progression, though, we defined a maintainer as someone who makes new releases of packages
[06:21] <sabdfl> i would very much like to keep an explicit test of packaging policy knowledge in the pipeline
[06:21] <mdz> which is firmly in packaging territory
[06:21] <T-Bone> sabdfl: looks like what you're defining is basically a BTS with assignement tracking
[06:21] <sabdfl> mdz: do you have a url for those stages?
[06:21] <mdz> sabdfl: I have a text file of my notes
[06:21] <mdz> could paste it here
[06:21] <sabdfl> t-bone: and a record of quality of work done
[06:22] <sabdfl> mdz: go for it
[06:22] <T-Bone> bugs are filed, with a "difficulty" markup, and assigned to volunteers
[06:22] <mdz> patcher
[06:22] <mdz>         makes changes in their own branches
[06:22] <mdz>         uses branches to submit their changes to committers and maintainers
[06:22] <mdz>         anyone can do this
[06:22] <mdz>         essentially unprivileged, but much more fun than the unprivileged mode
[06:22] <mdz>         of most projects
[06:22] <mdz> -> commit rights
[06:22] <mdz>         can merge their stuff into mainline
[06:22] <mdz>         granted by maintainer
[06:22] <mdz> -> maintainership
[06:22] <mdz>         can issue a new official release
[06:22] <mdz> -> team leadership
[06:22] <mdz> -> technical council & governance council
[06:22] <mdz>         include team leaders for decisions
[06:22] <mdz> this was jdub's BOF; I expected he would post notes to the wiki
[06:23] <mdz> so a patcher is essentially unprivileged, someone who is interested in doing work
[06:23] <mdz> but we provide means for them to trivially submit their changes to committers and maintainers
[06:23] <sabdfl> quite a lot of that depends on a good revision control system, which we do not have right ow
[06:24] <mdz> that sounds like the right place to start, where this review would take place
[06:24] <sabdfl> can we make this workable on a straight "flying patches" basis?
[06:24] <mdz> well, making it trivial requires that
[06:24] <mako> mdz: send that file to me and i will post it in the summary for the meeting
[06:24] <mdz> sending patches is more work, but we can streamline that process as well
[06:24] <mdz> mako: ok
[06:24] <mdz> mako: they're raw
[06:25] <sabdfl> ok. we have the MaintainerCandidates page on the wiki
[06:25] <mdz> we could provide a simple command line tool or two to manage a patch queue
[06:25] <sabdfl> mdz: ?
[06:25] <mdz> sabdfl: so I've downloaded the source for a package, and make some changes
[06:26] <mdz> sabdfl: we could make it easy to turn that into a patch and drop it someplace where it caneb reviewed
[06:26] <sabdfl> bts?
[06:26] <mdz> sabdfl: ah, that's because I was talking about doing this before revision control :-)
[06:26] <mdz> I would actually prefer that it be more streamlined than a BTS
[06:26] <mdz> that's part of the problem with the Debian contributor approach
[06:27] <sabdfl> mdz: would you like a dedicated system for tracking each of these patches, in a queue?
[06:27] <mdz> having to file a bug to submit something creates this negative ethos around the process
[06:27] <mdz> maintainers take it as criticism, contributors shy away from it
[06:27] <mdz> sabdfl: yes, but very very simple
[06:27] <sabdfl> mdz: ok
[06:28] <mdz> at its core it would take as input a source package and a working tree, and a description (log message)
[06:28] <mdz> and drop the patch into a directory where the maintainer can review it
[06:28] <sabdfl> i don't think i can add another project to the development queue and have it ready before the december conf
[06:28] <mdz> if the deadline is december, perhaps we can do better ;-)
[06:29] <sabdfl> i can definitely do better, but it will be a trade of this for the bug tracker, sooner
[06:29] <Kamion> it doesn't really want to be web-driven anyway, could just be mail triggered by a command-line tool
[06:29] <mdz> this shouldn't be contingent on implementation details, anyway; the important thing is the role
[06:29] <sabdfl> from my side we want to promise two things:
[06:29] <Gmail> as we are on the subject of package maintanor i wound like to add: can the package maintanor add the program to gnome menu and kde menu when it makes sence to like all games should be in the games menu or you can do what debian does and make a ubuntu menu. </my-2cents>
[06:29] <sabdfl>  - rapid review of patches, so candidates get steady, reliable feedback
[06:30] <sabdfl>   - an insititutional memory of the quality of work that was done, so candidates build up a track record
[06:30] <mdz> Gmail: that would be a technical decision to be made by the desktop team
[06:30] <mako> Gmail: i think that's a slightly different topic.. and perhaps more for teh technical board
[06:30] <sivang> sabdfl : insititutional <== maybe documented in some sort
[06:30] <sabdfl> yes
[06:31] <mdz> it screams revision control, doesn''t it?
[06:31] <sabdfl> i'd lke people to be able to point at a web page somewhere and say "that's my contribution to date"
[06:31] <mdz> s/"/'/
[06:31] <sabdfl> yes, and database
[06:31] <sabdfl> hmm.... :-)
[06:31] <sabdfl> ?
[06:31] <Gmail> isnt it the package manigers job to package stuff correctly? so it will be his job to package it that stuff gets added to the menu??
[06:31] <bob2> hehe
[06:31] <Henri1> A dedicated phpBB board where patchers write a short message describing their patch, and include it as an attachment?
[06:32] <elmo> sabdfl: damn, dude, I'm surprised you manage to have lunch without finding a reason to design a database for it :-P
[06:32] <sabdfl> elmo: it's already in the design: industrial karma, remember?
[06:32] <mdz> Gmail: it is the package maintainer's responsibility to follow the technical direction of the project
[06:32] <Henri1> Could be set up in hours and would track user participation
[06:32] <sabdfl> just not in the implementation  pipeline yet
[06:32] <mako> i don't think having a fully tracked full-blown database is necessary for determining if people do work to the point where they would make good maintainers
[06:32] <Kamion> Henri1: I don't think most people want to fire up a web browser just to send a patch ...
[06:33] <Kamion> Henri1: these people are already at the command-line doing work there
[06:33] <sabdfl> ok, simplest option is to have a place that the maintainers can write to that says "i agree, xxx did this work, it was good"
[06:33] <mako> i think we should insist on maintainers being mentored and trust that a lot.. and then expect maintainers to come forth with evidence of their continued and long-term good work :)
[06:33] <mako> sabdfl: yeah, provide links
[06:33] <Henri1> I guess I'm more gui and web based than most :)
[06:33] <sabdfl> ok, here's a proposal
[06:33] <elmo> is the maintainers for MOTU or something else, btw?
[06:33] <sabdfl> we put the cv tracking in the hands of the maintainer candidate
[06:34] <sabdfl> on the wiki
[06:34] <stvn> A
[06:34] <mako> sabdfl: a fully blown echelon system would be great, or even a little brother system, but it's a lot of work and not essential :)
[06:34] <sabdfl> so when someone has a patch accepted they add it to their wiki, with a comment from the mentor
[06:34] <mako> an "application" to the technical board should include evidence of work in ubuntu and/or debian over a period of time
[06:34] <mako> ergh. to the CC/TB
[06:34] <T-Bone> don't want to sound too dark here, but managing maintainers also includes managing their removal, which can happen for various reasons (among which stands self-retiring, and inactive maintainers)
[06:35] <mako> T-Bone: right, we've got automatic retiring if people don't renew it
[06:35] <sabdfl> t-bone: what mako said
[06:35] <T-Bone> i think elmo has some figures about how many inactive maintainers we have in debian already :}
[06:35] <mako> sabdfl: which i was less excited about last time but super excited about now having talked to some folks about the way it works in freebsd :)
[06:35] <Kamion> sabdfl: that works for me, puts the onus on the prospective maintainer, and we can do a quick check for truthfulness
[06:35] <T-Bone> mako: ok
[06:35] <sabdfl> yes
[06:35] <mako> T-Bone: tbm is the one who has done that research AFAIK
[06:35] <sabdfl> ok
[06:35] <sabdfl> here's another suggestion
[06:36] <sabdfl> let's use the existing bts's for tracking the status of the actual patch
[06:36] <sabdfl> so say a bug gets opened, and a candidate wants to hepl out
[06:36] <sabdfl> they put a note saying they are working on a patch
[06:36] <sabdfl> they attach the patch and then ask for a review
[06:36] <thom> sabdfl: like the mozilla review and superreview stuff?
[06:36] <mako> perhaps they cc a list
[06:37] <sabdfl> when the patch is accepted, they can ad that bug to their wiki cv
[06:37] <Kamion> thom: could be just by the maintainer in our case
[06:37] <sabdfl> thom: yes
[06:37] <Kamion> (which is kind of like mozilla sr I guess)
[06:37] <sabdfl> we should offer a promise of a review within a certain timeframe
[06:37] <thom> yeah, sr is the component owner, so =~ maintainer for us
[06:37] <sabdfl> 48 hours
[06:38] <sabdfl> so people don't work on patches that sit in limbo
[06:38] <sabdfl> but, at the same time, we don't have to promise to try to turn turds into diamonds
[06:38] <Kamion> perhaps 2 working days rather than 48 hours
[06:38] <thom> sabdfl: a week is probably more reasonable ; aim for 48 hours, promise a week
[06:38] <sabdfl> if the patch is b0rked, say so, 
[06:38] <sabdfl> and move on
[06:38] <sabdfl> with maybe a hint as to where to look for better results
[06:39] <sabdfl> ok, happy for mdz and his team to set the level of the commitment they are comfortable
[06:39] <sabdfl> with
[06:39] <sabdfl> is this sounding workable?
[06:40] <sivang> what about stuff other then docs that entails you to be called a maintainer? or is packaging most of it?
[06:40] <mdz> I think we can implement it, yes
[06:40] <Kamion> we haven't really done mentoring as such yet. perhaps mentors could act to review patches as well as the component maintainer?
[06:40] <Kamion> that seems like a reasonably straightforward way to go about it, and IIRC bugzilla has some support for that kind of thing
[06:40] <sabdfl> sivang: i'm open to suggestions as to how we can get doc writers to have full commit capability
[06:41] <sabdfl> i think mentoring here is the general process of "reviewing patches" 
[06:41] <sabdfl> hopefully people strike up personal relationships
[06:41] <mdz> there is much more to it than reviewing patches
[06:41] <sabdfl> if someone gets along well with an existing ubuntu maintainer, they will naturally ask them for guidance
[06:41] <hornbeck> sabdfl: I think if doc writers are to have permission to commit they need to be mentored by dev's first in the proper way of doing everythin
[06:41] <mdz> there should be some assistance given to the process of learning how the system is put together, in order to make effective patches
[06:41] <sabdfl> mdz: elaborate?
[06:42] <sabdfl> hornbecK: i would trust that a doc writer would not commit code changes, if that's part of the social structure and agreement
[06:42] <mdz> sabdfl: what will we provide in order to allow the contributor to get to the point of making effective patches?
[06:42] <hornbeck> sabdfl: true
[06:43] <mdz> probably a lot of documentation
[06:43] <mako> hornbeck: if we can't trust doc writers to not upload kernels they shouldn't be maintiners
[06:43] <hornbeck> mako: understood
[06:43] <sabdfl> mako: disagree
[06:43] <mako> being a maintainer is ultimately about trust
[06:43] <sabdfl> hmm... maybe agree, depending on how i interpret your words
[06:43] <mdz> sabdfl: I think he was agreeing with you
[06:43] <sabdfl> mako: yes, exactly
[06:43] <sivang> sabdfl : agreed
[06:43] <sabdfl> and that goes for docs as much as code
[06:43] <mako> sabdfl: i think i agreed with you, so i suspect i'm just being opaque :)
[06:43] <sabdfl> ok
[06:44] <mdz> one of the points of consensus from oxford was that we would promote social solutions over technical ones for problems like this
[06:44] <sabdfl> so an ubuntu maintainer is "someone with a track record of consistent, regular and excellent contributions to ubuntu"
[06:44] <sabdfl> "who has the ability to make changes to ubuntu packages without reference to other maintainers when outside of freeze"
[06:44] <sabdfl> sound good?
[06:44] <sabdfl> could be docs, design, code
[06:44] <sivang> sabdfl : how do we quantify that ?
[06:44] <hornbeck> sounds good to me
[06:45] <sabdfl> sivang: once you are in you are in
[06:45] <sabdfl> at least, all of the above makes sense for main
[06:45] <mdz> sabdfl: the key distinction of a maintainer from the governance BOF was that they can make new releases of a package
[06:45] <sabdfl> what about universe / multiverse?
[06:45] <mdz> that distinguishes them from someone with commit access who is not yet a maintainer
[06:45] <sabdfl> mdz: when we have commit without upload, that will be meaningful :-)
[06:46] <mdz> true enough
[06:46] <sabdfl> ok
[06:46] <sabdfl> mako, could you draw up a draft process
[06:47] <sabdfl> using bugzilla
[06:47] <sabdfl> how someone would flag a contribution for review
[06:47] <sabdfl> and the commitment we make to that pipeline
[06:47] <sabdfl> also, we need to discuss a test of knowledge of packaging policy
[06:47] <sabdfl> i think that's importand for -doc and -dev teams 
[06:47] <sabdfl> what's the best way to administer such a test?
[06:54] <sabdfl> mdz, kamion?
[06:54] <mdz> that's the NM problem
[06:54] <mako> sabdfl: i think the best test is just doing it
[06:54] <Kamion> I'd rather the test be based on what people have produced
[06:54] <T-Bone> heh, indeed
[06:54] <mdz> if there were a straightforward solution, NM wouldn't be such a mess :-)
[06:54] <Kamion> heh, mako> snap
[06:54] <sabdfl> agreed, past product is essential
[06:54] <sabdfl> but it's also useful to know if someone can actually give the right answer immediately without reference to the docs
[06:54] <Kamion> you can't really test that, though, not without being in the same room
[06:54] <mdz> having immediate recall is not all that important
[06:54] <mako> the point is, if you have producing debs for debian for the last 4 years, ubuntu for the last 4 months, there is no need to ask you 50 questions on packing :)
[06:54] <sabdfl> what about a telephone interview, answering 10 questions out of a possible 200?
[06:54] <mdz> it lets you work faster, but not more effectively
[06:54] <mako> sabdfl: i don't think that's important at all
[06:54] <mdz> I find that a far better indication of the quality of someone's work is that they know when to look in the docs or ask questions
[06:54] <Kamion> sabdfl: I'd much rather that somebody knew where to look in the docs than that they made up answers without looking
[06:54] <sabdfl> mako: we don't want to tell people to go somewhere else for 4 years
[06:54] <mako> sabdfl: in fact, knowing when to look at the docs
[06:54] <T-Bone> sabdfl: telephone interview implies that the candidate is fluent in its interviewer language, too
[06:54] <mako> sabdfl: that was an example of an overqualified applicatoin, not a suggestion for where the bar should be
[06:54] <sivang> sabdfl : this is the exact feeling I've been getting :(
[06:54] <sabdfl> Kamion: if they make up the answers, they are unlikely to get them right, ad they fail the test
[06:54] <Kamion> sabdfl: the Debian NM "answer enormous numbers of arbitrary questions with no relevance to your work" is one of its biggest flaws
[06:54] <mako> Kamion: AOL
[06:54] <sabdfl> Kamion: agreed, and tb/cc can see past that
[06:54] <Kamion> sabdfl: if the questions were relevant to their work, then the answers would already be demonstrably part of the work they've produced
[06:54] <sabdfl> but i still think we should know that a maintainer, doc or dev, has really read and taken on board those documents
[06:54] <Kamion> not to mention, experienced developers look up the documentation all the time
[06:54] <sabdfl> sure
[06:54] <Kamion> it's simply not a good use of brain cells to memorise them
[06:54] <mdz> agreed
[06:54] <sabdfl> and a reasonable answer might be "hell yes, i know that's in plicy under this section, i can't quite remember if it's this dir or that dir"
[06:54] <mako> if you haven't read policy, you make policy mistakes
[06:54] <Henri1> A telephone interview doesn't have to be standard questions, but could just rely on the interviewers judgement.
[06:54] <Kamion> ok, if that's to be considered an acceptable answer, then fine
[06:54] <sabdfl> but i feel strongly that an expectation of study and test is part of the process, if a small part
[06:54] <sivang> sabdfl : do we have an ubuntu policy already? or are we reverting to debia's ?
[06:54] <T-Bone> Henri1: still, there's the problem of language fluency
[06:54] <sabdfl> T-Bone: we would accommodate that
[06:54] <sivang> you could just being thoughtful for people who's english not their native tounge.
[06:54] <mako> sabdfl: i'm worried that it is in danger of repliucating the parts of NM i like are most flawed
[06:54] <sabdfl> sivang: eloquently put
[06:54] <Kamion> it inevitably does colour an interviewer's judgement
[06:54] <sivang> wait more for the answer, guide the person if he's on the right track
[06:54] <sabdfl> :-)
[06:54] <T-Bone> sabdfl: i honestly wonder how ;) Besides, people might not necessarily feel cumfortable in a telephone interview, though being potentially very good packagers...
[06:54] <sabdfl> irc
[06:54] <Henri1> People have to communicate to submit patches anyway
[06:54] <mdz> where possible, we should match candidates with mentors who can converse with them in the language where they are most comfortable
[06:54] <Kamion> IRC interviews are much superior to telephone interviews for our purposes
[06:54] <sabdfl> yes
[06:54] <T-Bone> right
[06:54] <Henri1> agree IRC sounds good
[06:54] <sabdfl> ok, i think we're on the same basic track
[06:54] <T-Bone> Henri1: it's much more easier to _write_ in a foreign language than to speak it fluently; for you have _time_ to consider what you're writing
[06:54] <Henri1> For most people :)  
[06:55] <T-Bone> and writings don't suffer from incomprehensible accents ;^)
[06:55] <sabdfl> people will start by submitting patches, for review, managed in the bts
[06:55] <sabdfl> they willkeep trak of actual work done
[06:55] <mako> i think there are some very nice things we can do in an irc interview and it's worth following up .. but i still don't really like the idea of expecting peopel to memorize policy and be tested.. 
[06:55] <sparkes> T-Bone, as someone with a strong accent I second that ;-)
[06:56] <sabdfl> they will progress to the point they want to be considered as a maintainer
[06:56] <sabdfl> they will understand that they will be tested, in an appropriate communications medium, on policy
[06:56] <sabdfl> mako, i think it's vital people see it as a real test of knowledge
[06:56] <sabdfl> you can be brilliant, and still clueless
[06:56] <Kamion> mako: we can leave the extent of the test up to the judgement of the tester, I think
[06:56] <T-Bone> absolutely right
[06:56] <Kamion> don't think the CC needs to prescribe that just yet
[06:56] <sabdfl> we'll have fast-track for people who can justify it
[06:57] <sabdfl> dd's, upstreams-not-on-crack
[06:57] <T-Bone> lol
[06:57] <Henri1> An open book IRC test, where people have a chance to look stuff up
[06:57] <sabdfl> judge's decision is final no correspondence will be entered into
[06:57] <Kamion> above all, don't waste people's time when they're clearly good, and don't waste our time on people who are clearly hopeless :-)
[06:57] <sabdfl> yes
[06:57] <sabdfl> we should NOT promise that anybody can be a maintainer
[06:58] <sabdfl> i won't be afraid to decline an application, i'll ask mdz to do the same
[06:58] <T-Bone> sounds good
[06:58] <hornbeck> thats the way it should be
[06:58] <sivang> Again I am still puzzled how we can quantify the issue, especially for doc writers.
[06:58] <mako> sabdfl: right, i see the argument for the test. i won't block consensus on it or anything but i'm not wild about it either, that's it
[06:59] <mdz> the trick is to decline in a way that doesn't discourage improvement and re-submission
[06:59] <sabdfl> sivang, we cant, but it's in our interests to try to build a healthy community of good people
[06:59] <sabdfl> mako: let's see how it goes and tweak process based on experience
[07:00] <sabdfl> ok, for a complete newbie, i expect the process to take... how long?
[07:00] <sabdfl> 4-12 months depending on ability?
[07:00] <sivang> that;s the question I was after..:)
[07:00] <sabdfl> Kamion, elmo, mdz?
[07:00] <mdz> hard to say
[07:00] <Kamion> sins
[07:00] <T-Bone> right
[07:00] <sivang> I'll give myself as an example,
[07:01] <Kamion> somebody who can code but doesn't know anything about Ubuntu? couple of months
[07:01] <sabdfl> ok, say someone who is a fast learner and puts in the time, knows linux well but not ubuntu or debian
[07:01] <mdz> sabdfl: a complete newbie to the process, or a complete newbie to Debian packaging?
[07:01] <mdz> hmm
[07:01] <Kamion> somebody who already has a good working knowledge of Linux and puts in the time? a month or so
[07:01] <sabdfl> ok, we'll just have to find out
[07:01] <sivang> Knowing some Debian and linux, knowing how to code
[07:01] <Kamion> but this is all finger-in-the-air made-up numbers :-)
[07:01] <mdz> it's much more a factor of their attitude and commitment than the time
[07:02] <sabdfl> ok
[07:02] <sabdfl> ok
[07:02] <sivang> having troubles with packaging though,
[07:02] <mdz> I know people who, even though they are completely ignorant of Debian packaging, I would trust them to begin work immediately, because I know that where they don't know the answer, they would seek it out
[07:02] <T-Bone> sabdfl: if that's just about "learning packaging practices", (someone who's definitely not a newbie then), i'd say that 1 month is a max
[07:02] <sabdfl> it will be hard to say no to some enthusiastic guys, but mdz is right, it's more a question of deferrment till the level of quality is right
[07:02] <DacInBC> here's another example: long time programmer, linux experience, no debian or ubuntu experience
[07:02] <mako> mdz: yesyesyes
[07:02] <Kamion> (took me about six months from starting to mess about with Debian packages to even applying, and that wasn't because I was put off by the process; admittedly I was doing finals at the time)
[07:02] <mdz> that is the kind of quality that I look for
[07:02] <sivang> sabdfl : meaning I should not ask, until i have _exhusted_ all other resources?
[07:03] <mako> mdz: right, me too
[07:03] <sabdfl> all other resources?
[07:03] <sivang> docs,howtos,
[07:03] <asw> I've used debian for years and GNU/Linux since forever but I thought package maintainers were some kind of gods... 
[07:03] <sivang> mailing lists (debian)
[07:03] <sivang> etc
[07:03] <Kamion> sivang: there's no sense wasting your time when you're clearly stuck and need guidance, but at the same time you shouldn't expect other people to read you the documentation
[07:03] <sabdfl> no, ask on -devel
[07:03] <sabdfl> but read whatever you are pointed to
[07:03] <sivang> Kamion : I wasn't expecting that. Just had time where I dind't know _what_ the docs are 
[07:04] <sabdfl> Kamion: snap
[07:04] <sivang> i mena, where to read
[07:06] <Kamion> sivang: certainly 'tis fair to ask for pointers
[07:06] <sivang> I mean, going over /doc at debian's sure has lots of inof,
[07:06] <sabdfl> ok, another thing we could do is publish a maintainers reading list :-)
[07:06] <sivang> info
[07:06] <mdz> in general, if I answer with a google URL which finds you the answer with some obvious keywords, you should have searched first :-)
[07:06] <sabdfl> ok
[07:06] <sabdfl> mako, could you also put together a set of url's to relevant docs for new maintainers?
[07:06] <sabdfl> hornbeck: this could also be a useful focus for the -doc team
[07:06] <mako> sabdfl: yes
[07:06] <asw> sabdfl, all: I think keeping an up-to-date reading list on the wiki is a great idea.  
[07:06] <sivang> mdz : ahh, I agree. I would contribute this to an overwhelmning enthusiasm. I am working to tame this , I think you've already felt that :)
[07:06] <sabdfl> great
[07:06] <mako> if the doc team wants it, that's be great
[07:06] <mako> my plate is brimming already :)
[07:06] <hornbeck> sabdfl: putting together some maintainer guides?
[07:06] <mako> hornbeck: yeah, we can talk after the meeting about it
[07:06] <hornbeck> sabdfl: or pointing to them
[07:06] <sabdfl> hornbeck: yes
[07:06] <sivang> mako : that'll be great
[07:06] <hornbeck> mako: will do
[07:06] <sabdfl> hornbeck: start with pointing, then write better ones?
[07:06] <sabdfl> i *think* that takes us to the masters-of-the-universe discussion
[07:06] <sivang> mdz : I apologize hereby for all those link questions :)
[07:06] <hornbeck> sabdfl: sounds great
[07:06] <mdz> sivang: :-)
[07:06] <mako> enrico: ciao
[07:07] <enrico> hello!
[07:07] <sabdfl> let me outline the goals:
[07:07] <sabdfl>  - the core team is focused on main
[07:07] <sabdfl>  - universe and multiverse for warty were largely just a frozen snapshot
[07:07] <sabdfl>    (with a bit of a nudge to build)
[07:07] <sabdfl>  - for hoary, we want a process where the community can garden universe and multiverse
[07:08] <sabdfl>   - mainly focused at sync from debian and other sources
[07:08] <sabdfl>  - aimed at closing rc bugs before the release, during the freeze
[07:08] <sabdfl> but this could be expanded to include:
[07:09] <sabdfl>  - uploads of brand new packages that don't exist elsewhere
[07:09] <sabdfl>  - uploads of fixes that are better than a sync to sid
[07:09] <sabdfl> phew
[07:09] <sabdfl> comments, thoughts, volunteers?
[07:09] <mdz> sounds about right
[07:09] <elmo> bear in mind that gardening of universe increases the merge load
[07:09] <mdz> elmo: gardening includes  merging :-)
[07:09] <pitti> As I already said on the ML, I think it would be good to focus primarily on sid
[07:09] <hornbeck> sabdfl: are you looking for a few people to sit for request and be the ones who work through them?
[07:10] <elmo> okay, as long as that's clear (to the gardeners
[07:10] <pitti> having sid packages will ease maintenance in the long run
[07:10] <asw> sabdfl: you know I'd like to do this: "uploads of brand new packages that don't exist elsewhere"
[07:10] <Kamion> particularly for uploads of brand new packages, I would like some (not necessarily all) of the mastersoftheuniverse to take responsibility for pushing what we do back to Debian, where appropriate
[07:10] <pitti> Kamion: +1 :-)
[07:10] <sabdfl> hornbeck: i would like the outcome of this discussion to be a process that can run itself largely without input from the core team
[07:10] <mako> Kamion: ++
[07:10] <sabdfl> it would be a major responsibility in that regard
[07:10] <DacInBC> sabdfl: Same here on the new packages, I want to develop some
[07:10] <hornbeck> sabdfl: alright
[07:10] <sivang> anyway, I have to go now people, I hope mako would summerize it all
[07:10] <pitti> a Master of the Universe should be a DD in all cases
[07:10] <sivang> mako : :)
[07:10] <mako> sivang: i will
[07:10] <Kamion> this isn't to say that people can't do work directly in hoary/universe, and there will be people who are interested who aren't Debian developers, and I think that's fair
[07:10] <asw> I think the "universe" could be a gentle path to becoming an ubuntu maintainer.  is that the idea? 
[07:11] <Kamion> pitti: I wouldn't go that far, although it depends what "Master" is
[07:11] <pitti> even if a package is not in Sid, being a DD ensures at least a minimal quality standard on audit
[07:11] <sabdfl> asw: yes
[07:11] <asw> kamion: absolutely (re pushing back to debian)
[07:11] <mako> pitti: not necessarily
[07:11] <pitti> Kamion: if a MOU wants to sponsor uploads to Debian, it will be good if he is a DD
[07:11] <lamont> pitti: MOTU should not require DD-hood
[07:11] <Kamion> pitti: there need to be some people taking responsibility for it, but it doesn't have to be all of them
[07:11] <pitti> The problem is, when we play around with our own universe only, the merging problem will aggravate badly over time
[07:11] <sabdfl> ubuntu is not a subset of debian
[07:12] <lamont> pitti: being a debian developer ensures that you can write lengthy answers to arcane questions.
[07:12] <lamont> it says nothing about package quality
[07:12] <pitti> lamont: :-)
[07:12] <mdz> we can make it very easy for Debian to incorporate our work
[07:12] <mdz> but we cannot do Debian's work for them
[07:16] <lamont> mdz ++
[07:16] <pitti> well, it's the same as a driver's license. Most drivers don't behave well anyway, but at least they (should) know what "good behavior" is
[07:16] <Kamion> mdz: I'd like us to be doing active liaison
[07:16] <mdz> Kamion: agreed, I am saying that we should not be doing package uploads as part of that process
[07:16] <Kamion> rather than just "here's a repository of stuff"
[07:16] <mako> Kamion: i think it's very important
[07:16] <mako> mdz: no
[07:16] <pitti> lamont: if I look at the packages my applicants presented me, it does make a difference to be a DD
[07:16] <mako> mdz: as in, i agree
[07:16] <Kamion> mdz: s/doing/requiring/ and I'd agree
[07:16] <Kamion> I think it's a useful optional step, and it will ease our merge load in the long run
[07:16] <pitti> I think pointing "Debian" (whoever that is) to a repo of stuff won't do anything
[07:16] <pitti> there's nobody in Debian who goes around and collects packages
[07:16] <Kamion> also if we do active liaison we increase the likelihood that Debian will take our packages rather than some other ones, further simplifying the merge load
[07:16] <pitti> Debian packages need a maintainer and they must be pushed into Debian, not pulled
[07:16] <mdz> I agree that active liaison is beneficial and appropriate
[07:16] <Kamion> if we don't do that, we're going to run into the situation where we have to choose between the packaging in Debian and the packaging in Ubuntu
[07:16] <Kamion> and version number / upgrade problems etc. will ensue
[07:16] <pitti> so we shouldn't enforce it, but encourage?
[07:16] <mdz> but I do not feel that uploading Ubuntu packages to Debian is appropriate, unless the Ubuntu maintainer is also a Debian maintainer and will fulfill the duties of that role
[07:16] <Kamion> mdz: that's why I said "responsibility" rather than anything else
[07:16] <pitti> mdz: if he is not willing to maintain the package, it is useless anyway
[07:16] <mdz> I do not want a Debian developer to sponsor uploads of a bunch of Ubuntu packages without anyone taking responsibility for them in Debian
[07:16] <pitti> IMHO we should avoid the situation that many people dump packages into universe and does not care about them any more
[07:16] <pitti> so they need a maintainer anyway
[07:16] <mdz> yes, an Ubuntu maintainer
[07:16] <mdz> but that person is not necessarily a Debian maintainer, and that will only become more common as time goes on
[07:16] <sivang> so basically, people maintaining universe would have to be DD first?
[07:16] <Kamion> let's try to avoid the situation where there are two entirely separate packagings of libfoo sharing the same version number space.
[07:16] <pitti> that can as well be the Debian maintainer, it's just another name for the same thing
[07:16] <sabdfl> sivang: no
[07:16] <mdz> sivang: absolutely not
[07:16] <asw> mdz: my understanding would be that a person could be an ubuntu "master of the universe" and NOT a DD.  They could not push to debian then.  However, it would be the intention (in the longer run?) of most Ubuntu Master of the universe to become Debian maintainers. 
[07:16] <Kamion> we can do that by monitoring Debian wnpp and pointing out our packaging to people who post intent-to-package notices
[07:16] <sabdfl> Kamion: i'd like to think that if someone in debian wants libfoo, they will open a line of communication to people who have done that work
[07:17] <pitti> asw: ++
[07:17] <sabdfl> and figure it out reasonably
[07:17] <mdz> asw: my feeling is that Debian maintainers and Ubuntu maintainers are two groups which have intersection
[07:17] <mdz> a relationship with one does not imply a relationship with the other
[07:17] <Kamion> sabdfl: it's not a reasonable expectation that somebody in Debian should have to look through the Ubuntu archive before making a change in Debian
[07:17] <mdz> Ubuntu maintainers who are not Debian maintainer must not be second-class
[07:17] <lamont> Kamion: for new packages
[07:17] <pitti> but Ubuntu maintainers can have their debian packages sponsored by a MOTU, they don't need to be DD themselves
[07:17] <Kamion> sabdfl: that's why I think active liaison is appropriate, monitoring the Debian new-packages list
[07:17] <asw> mdz: but I'm confused because there seems to be another group "Master of the universe" kind of a junior Ubuntu maintainer with fewer priv.
[07:22] <mako> i'm with Kamion on this
[07:22] <mdz> asw: approximately, yes. but the same principle applies
[07:22] <sabdfl> asw: in talking about the management of universe
[07:22] <sabdfl> we want to have a core team that manages it - the masters
[07:22] <sabdfl> but also a team of people who contribute to it
[07:22] <sabdfl> they would be like "maintainers in universe"
[07:22] <sabdfl> they can contribute uploads etc
[07:22] <Kamion> sabdfl: it's in our own interests to do this, because otherwise eventually upgrades from Debian will get more and more difficult if there are radically different packagings of stuff in universe sharing the same version number space
[07:22] <sabdfl> and the universe team gets to decide what goes in, and what does not
[07:22] <pitti> sabdfl: shall they be able to upload  on their own?
[07:22] <pitti> okay, that answers the question
[07:22] <Kamion> pitti: masters of the universe definitely have to
[07:22] <sabdfl> Kamion: we will always review the options and choose the better package
[07:22] <pitti> Kamion: no, I mean the contributors (the maintainers of the u)
[07:22] <asw> kamion: I think it will be easier if you train "maintainers in universe" then as they get good they will become DDs ... potential for gentler curve... 
[07:22] <Kamion> pitti: I think it would depend, might be different levels
[07:22] <sabdfl> the universe process is still uncertain
[07:22] <sabdfl> but i think we should leave it as flexible and open as possible
[07:22] <sabdfl> our default option should always be to look to see if there's a debian package for something
[07:22] <Kamion> do we have a set of people who are obvious candidates to coalesce into a core team?
[07:22] <sabdfl> but if we have someone who wants to do uploads to ubuntu with improvements, and the universe team likes it, then we will accept them
[07:23] <sabdfl> Kamion: not yet
[07:23] <asw> so the structure is: cc/tb for "main" are roughly equiv. to Master's of Universe for "universe/multiverse"
[07:23] <sabdfl> asw: no
[07:23] <sabdfl> the universe is still part of the community, and still must work according to the policies of the tb
[07:23] <Kamion> cc/tb are for Ubuntu
[07:24] <Kamion> as a whole
[07:24] <sabdfl> but the universe team gets to figure out how best to implement that within the universe
[07:24] <sabdfl> the primary focus of this, once again, is post-freeze
[07:24] <pitti> sounds like a good compromise
[07:25] <sabdfl> when we freeze hoary, and start working on main, we don't want universe to stagnate as much
[07:25] <sabdfl> we want to get new point releases, perhaps new packaging tweaks
[07:25] <sabdfl> and we want the "nudge to build" stuff taken care of by that team
[07:25] <sabdfl> so universe is useful throughout the release process
[07:25] <mdz> oh, you meant upstream point releases
[07:25] <sabdfl> not of the distro :-)
[07:26] <sabdfl> say, something 2.1.2 is in universe and there is a 2.1.3 release
[07:26] <sabdfl> the universe team decides whether or not that makes it in
[07:26] <Kamion> presumably we have to start accepting bug reports on universe, and assigning them to the masters or whoever's appropriate
[07:26] <mdz> a good entry level skill set for universe gardening is being able to fetch source packages from Debian, build and test them on Ubuntu
[07:26] <sabdfl> right
[07:26] <Kamion> are we going to attempt to do that in bugzilla?
[07:26] <mdz> we can fairly easily pick up candidates from the mailing list for that
[07:26] <sabdfl> Kamion: i don't know
[07:26] <mako> mdz: sure
[07:28] <mdz> I've been answering folks who ask for new stuff in universe to do exactly that
[07:28] <mdz> s/to do/by asking that they do/
[07:28] <Kamion> mostly worried about the component drop-down setting daniels' dialup on fire :-)
[07:28] <sabdfl> :-)
[07:28] <mdz> daniels has DSL now, don't pay him any mind
[07:28] <sabdfl> i *think* we'll have good infrastructure by  the hoary release
[07:28] <mdz> I think lamont is the most bandwidth-starved now
[07:28] <sabdfl> that will be dialup-safe
[07:28] <mdz> sabdfl: I'm pretty strongly against tracking universe bugs in bugzilla
[07:28] <mdz> at least, in the same bugzilla where we track main bugs
[07:28] <sabdfl> mdz: agreed
[07:29] <sabdfl> either a second bugzilla, or something else
[07:29] <mdz> works for me
[07:29] <sabdfl> ok
[07:30] <mdz> asw: it's a hierarchy more so than an inequality
[07:30] <sabdfl> asw: yes, that puts it nicely into focus
[07:30] <asw> mdz: that's helpful re. skills required.  (fetching source, build test...) 
[07:30] <sabdfl> MOTU should also be able to take a sane view on the benefits of an update vs the risks
[07:31] <asw> I like the name "gardners of Universe" ... 
[07:31] <sabdfl> and be able to review an update and assess whether or not it is likely to cause breakage elesewhere
[07:31] <sabdfl> ok, don't want this to turn into a much longer meeting
[07:31] <asw> MOTU = MASTER or MAINTAINER 
[07:32] <sabdfl> i'll draft something that outlines this and send it to -devel and -user
[07:32] <sabdfl> also, publish on the site
[07:32] <mdz> need to discuss the doc team still
[07:32] <Kamion> asw: master
[07:32] <hornbeck> mdz: please :-)
[07:32] <mdz> hornbeck, plovs: still here?
[07:32] <elmo> I HAVE THE POWER
[07:33] <elmo> sorry, carton-flashbacks
[07:33] <mdz> BY THE POWER OF GREYSKULL
[07:33] <T-Bone> lol
[07:33] <sabdfl> ok
[07:33] <asw> kamion: thanks. I definitely nominate the term GOTU (Gardner of the Universe) for the lesser role. 
[07:33] <sabdfl> next up
[07:34] <sabdfl> doc team?
[07:34] <hornbeck> yes
[07:34] <sabdfl> there's been some excellent work, thank you guys
[07:34] <mdz> agreed, kudos
[07:34] <sabdfl> sorry for the imposed wiki switch
[07:34] <hornbeck> :-)
[07:34] <sabdfl> should have happened before release
[07:34] <Kamion> asw: doesn't have the cartoon history to the name though :-)
[07:35] <sabdfl> nonetheless, we are testing a conversion script as we speak
[07:35] <sabdfl> we should have it all converted tonight, europe time
[07:35] <hornbeck> nice
[07:35] <sabdfl> when we start, we will lock the old wiki
[07:35] <mdz> we appreciate your patience during the transition; I truly believe it will be worthwhile in the long run
[07:35] <sabdfl> and the new one won't be widely announced till we've cleaned up the pieces of the conversion
[07:35] <hornbeck> sabdfl: we are all ready to get at it
[07:35] <sabdfl> ok
[07:36] <sabdfl> for the moment, pick the format that works best for you
[07:36] <sabdfl> the zwiki maintainer has been fantastic
[07:36] <sabdfl> and has implemented moin 
[07:36] <sabdfl> i think completely
[07:36] <hornbeck> yes he has been helpful in answering questions for us
[07:36] <mdz> sabdfl: does he scan the WikiWishlist?
[07:36] <sabdfl> ok
[07:36] <sabdfl> yes
[07:36] <mdz> great
[07:37] <sabdfl> he's actually helping with the setup etc
[07:37] <sabdfl> with stevea
[07:37] <sabdfl> so that should all be done soon
[07:37] <sabdfl> there are still some glitches relating to authentication (logging in)
[07:37] <sabdfl> and also to tracking changes, but we will get them all sorted out
[07:37] <hornbeck> good, that seems to be the biggest problem right now
[07:38] <sabdfl> ALL members of the community can create pages anywhere in the site
[07:38] <sabdfl> please use that very carefully
[07:38] <sabdfl> i'd prefer to keep all brainstorming in the wiki
[07:38] <sabdfl> then move content over to the main site
[07:38] <hornbeck> sounds good
[07:39] <sabdfl> since the main site uses ReST and StructuredText, it's beneficial to do the wiki the same way
[07:39] <sabdfl> for the conversion later
[07:39] <mdz> we should certainly convert the FAQs and How-Tos to the more structured plone documents
[07:39] <mdz> and maintain those outside of the wiki
[07:39] <hornbeck> mdz: that seems a problem right now with doc team
[07:39] <sabdfl> hmm.. i wonder how hard a command line moin->ReST tool would be?
[07:40] <mdz> hornbeck: in what way?
[07:40] <hornbeck> mdz: I will address in a second
[07:40] <mdz> ReST is crack
[07:40] <mako> sabdfl: perhaps not trivial
[07:40] <mako> mdz: i love ReST :)
[07:40] <sabdfl> hornbeck: go ahead
[07:40] <asw> mdz: is crack good or bad? 
[07:40] <elmo> asw: drugs bad mmk
[07:40] <hornbeck> I really wish more doc guys could have been here, first of all
[07:41] <hornbeck> good to see you sparkes
[07:41] <sabdfl> enrico_dinner: oh
[07:41] <hornbeck> sabdfl: we seem to be in need of some guidence
[07:41] <sabdfl> ok
[07:42] <amu> moins
[07:42] <hornbeck> everyone on the list seems to be infighting about which way to push forward
[07:42] <sabdfl> ok, what options have been put out there?
[07:42] <sparkes> I don't think infighting is the right word but we do have several options out there at the moment
[07:42] <hornbeck> well alot seem to want to go straight wiki for almost everything, while others wish to move alot off wiki
[07:42] <hornbeck> that is one
[07:43] <sparkes> hornbeck, true
[07:43] <hornbeck> another is whether or not to appoint a leadership role to push us in directions and to also talk between doc team and devs
[07:43] <hornbeck> there seems to be one on one conversations between doc people and devs but it is not getting back to doc people
[07:44] <hornbeck> I think someone is needed to rally the doc people in a direction
[07:44] <sabdfl> ok
[07:44] <hornbeck> I hope that is all right
[07:44] <sparkes> there is also the issues of what licence is good for ubuntu and upstream
[07:44] <hornbeck> yes
[07:45] <asw> I think forcing people to check two places the "real" FAQ (more nicely formatted) and the Wiki FAQ (more current) is a recipe for problems if not disaster. If ReST lets us maintain the FAQ in the Wiki I think that would be very, very nice.  But I don't know if it's practical.   
[07:45] <sabdfl> that's an easy one to solve
[07:45] <sabdfl> the faq's should go straight into the faq section
[07:45] <sabdfl> it's designed for it
[07:45] <hornbeck> I really feel we need a leadership role in the doc team to over see what is happening and to stop arguements
[07:45] <asw> sabdfl: agreed. 
[07:45] <sabdfl> and i've no problem with people putting new faq's straight in
[07:45] <mdz> I think they should be reviewed by the doc team
[07:46] <mdz> using the facility provided by plone
[07:46] <sabdfl> hornbeck: having an leader does not stop arguments
[07:46] <asw> mdz: does PLONE do revision control the doc team can check changes? Possibly ban users if they've been putting in Bogus answers to faqs?
[07:46] <sabdfl> asw: no
[07:46] <hornbeck> but that person can step in and push for a certain direction or have a final say, or take to CC and such
[07:47] <sabdfl> i've had some one on one conversations with different doc team members
[07:47] <asw> bummer. revision control is that's what makes the moinmoin wiki stuff work.  
[07:47] <sabdfl> enrico, hornbeck, sivang
[07:47] <sabdfl> asw: there is a zope-based revision management
[07:47] <sabdfl> but i' not sure how usable it is
[07:48] <mdz> asw: plone provides a framework where people can write new entries and submit them for review
[07:48] <mdz> asw: and then they can be published when they have been reviewed
[07:48] <asw> sabdfl: yeah I haven't followed zope too closefly I know too many OpenACS/ACS guys... 
[07:48] <mako> but that's workflow management, not revision control
[07:48] <mdz> but it is not as straightforward to manage changes to existing documents
[07:48] <sabdfl> once published, i think they can be edited and immediately published
[07:49] <sabdfl> and we don't have revision control that's as effective from that point onwards
[07:49] <mdz> right
[07:49] <sabdfl> we could create a group of trusted users who can edit the site
[07:49] <sabdfl> and let everyone else work in the wiki
[07:49] <mdz> but zwiki has a basic revision control facility like moin's
[07:49] <hornbeck> sabdfl: if not a leadership role a core type team of doc people who make choices
[07:49] <asw> sabdfl: so I just don't get it.  Why would you use a wiki that doesn't give you revision control (like wikipedia or moinmoin)
[07:49] <mdz> asw: the wiki does give you revision control
[07:50] <sabdfl> i think it's worth trying to open up the site to the whole community to see what happens
[07:50] <mdz> but the other parts of the site do not
[07:50] <sabdfl> mdz: actually they do
[07:50] <sabdfl> in the zope layer it stores every version of every object
[07:50] <sabdfl> you can pack the db, and lose those
[07:50] <mdz> ok, not visiible in the ui presented to me
[07:50] <sabdfl> and i think we will be doing that
[07:50] <sabdfl> i'm just not sure that plone exports the revisions as something useable
[07:51] <mako> sabdfl: AFAIK it does not
[07:51] <asw> mdz, sabdfl: so it's a matter of improving plone?  (that's do able I suppose...) 
[07:52] <sabdfl> asw: not the optimal strategy
[07:52] <mdz> asw: it would also be workable to continue to use the wiki as a staging area
[07:52] <sabdfl> plone is big and hairy and built on zope2, which is bigger and hairier
[07:52] <mdz> with the entire doc team behind it, things could be edited and moved into the FAQ much more quickly
[07:52] <sabdfl> zope3 is now out, which is not backwards compatible
[07:52] <sabdfl> the huge advantae of the new wiki is that the search will find data in the wiki
[07:52] <sabdfl> as well as in the faq
[07:53] <sabdfl> hornbeck: let's talk a bit further about leadership
[07:53] <sabdfl> who have been the main contributors so far?
[07:53] <hornbeck> sabdfl: in wiki or overall?
[07:53] <sabdfl> overall
[07:54] <hornbeck> sabdfl: the most vocal are myself, sivang, plovs, and now sparkes
[07:54] <sabdfl> ok, what role has enrico played?
[07:54] <hornbeck> BenEdwards is doing good stuff 
[07:54] <sparkes> sabdfl, Also Ben 
[07:55] <hornbeck> sabdfl: enrico, has poped in once in awhile
[07:55] <mako> i've seen a bunch of enrico posts to the mailing list
[07:55] <mako> with a lot of good stuff i thought.. although they didn't get a lot of reponse
[07:56] <hornbeck> enrico, has posted four times on new list, with all very good ideas
[07:56] <hornbeck> he does not seem to be very involved with everything though
[07:56] <mako> hornbeck: and a bunch of times to -devel
[07:56] <hornbeck> mako: true
[07:56] <sabdfl> ok
[07:57] <sabdfl> i've discussed with enrico having a "secretary"
[07:57] <sabdfl> for the doc team
[07:57] <sabdfl> someone to do 2-3 hours of work every day
[07:57] <sabdfl> keeping the team focused and momentum going
[07:57] <mako> like wiki gardening, etc?
[07:57] <sabdfl> cleaning up the wiki etc
[07:57] <hornbeck> that is what I am wanting to be in place
[07:58] <sabdfl> hornbeck: is that what you are wanting to do?
[07:58] <hornbeck> sabdfl: I would like to yes
[07:59] <sabdfl> you have certainly been very visible in your contribution
[08:00] <sabdfl> what needs to be done on a regular basis?
[08:00] <hornbeck> for starters we need to round up the docs that we want to make solid for Hoary
[08:01] <hornbeck> we also need to keep track of wiki
[08:01] <hornbeck> need to start setting up solid areas for people to work in, and getting certain doc writers doing certain docs
[08:01] <hornbeck> welcome back enrico
[08:01] <enrico> catching up
[08:01] <sabdfl> hi enrico, do you have scrollback?
[08:02] <hornbeck> we are all kinda out there right now
[08:02] <sabdfl> ok
[08:02] <hornbeck> need someone to keep people on those task and do it in a way that is encouraging to them and to keep them happy
[08:02] <enrico> sabdfl: I do, I caught up
[08:02] <hornbeck> and to make sure are docs are able to go back upstream
[08:02] <sabdfl> i definitely can see a role for a wiki gardener
[08:03] <sabdfl> i can also see a role for a "core team" that is responsible for decisions on documentation
[08:04] <sabdfl> how can we best organise this?
[08:04] <enrico> I haven't been much active because I didn't know how much time I could commit from now on
[08:04] <hornbeck> I think a solid doc team is as important as a solid dev team, because people will always look toward the docs and without solid easy to read docs they are lost
[08:04] <sabdfl> so far i've only heard from hornbeck
[08:04] <enrico> I don't like to take responsibility for things without knowing if I can commit to them
[08:05] <enrico> sabdfl: heard about what?
[08:05] <sabdfl> in this forum
[08:05] <enrico> sivan was here, but it got too late and he needed to head home
[08:05] <hornbeck> sabdfl: I think to organize this, we should at least set up a core team that can make decissions
[08:06] <sabdfl> ok
[08:06] <sabdfl> here are the big questions
[08:06] <hornbeck> sabdfl: we also could use someone who is always going to be reliable
[08:06] <sabdfl>  - how should doc budget be spent
[08:06] <hornbeck> doc budget?
[08:06] <sabdfl>  - how should appointments to that core team be made
[08:06] <sabdfl>  - do we need to appoint a specific team leader
[08:06] <hornbeck> I think yourself and main core team should appoint the doc core team
[08:06] <sabdfl>  - do we in addition need a secretary, or should they be the same role
[08:06] <enrico> There have been mails in the list that were cautious about having a team leader
[08:07] <hornbeck> we have made ourselves known and they mostly know us by now
[08:07] <sparkes> enrico, I think people wanted to adapt a wait and see attitude while the team was small
[08:08] <sabdfl> that makes sense
[08:08] <sabdfl> at the same time, this is largely volunteer effort
[08:08] <enrico> I once wrote that at the beginning, the Ubuntu Code of Conduct can be a good enough leader
[08:08] <hornbeck> sparkes: we are growing real fast on the list and to many random ideas are being thrown without peoples saying, lets do this
[08:08] <enrico> Ben today posted something ismilar
[08:08] <sabdfl> so i don't think a leader is going to be able to direct effort so much as help to coordinate
[08:08] <mako> sabdfl: yes
[08:09] <hornbeck> maybe it sould be said coordinater instead of leader
[08:09] <hornbeck> seems the term leader is throughing people off
[08:09] <enrico> hornbeck: we can see if just having a secretary that picks up and cleans the ideas thrown on the ground is enough for people to cherry pick them
[08:09] <sparkes> hornbeck, ;-)
[08:09] <asw> I'm listening.  Since I'm writing a book length project, and am (newly) maintaining some public faqs / communities ; I'm not sure what I have to contribute, yet. 
[08:09] <enrico> Although someone that tells when something is ready for release, for example, may be needed
[08:10] <sparkes> enrico, that's probally a better idea for the short/medium term
[08:10] <hornbeck> a secretary would be good
[08:10] <hornbeck> someone who can step in and make decissions
[08:10] <sabdfl> docs are generally best owned by one person
[08:10] <hornbeck> that is what I would like to see
[08:10] <sabdfl> i mean "a document" not "all the docs"
[08:11] <sabdfl> so  maybe we need to think of ledership of specific pieces of it
[08:11] <hornbeck> sabdfl: the concensus is no on that point from the doc team
[08:11] <sabdfl> for example, one person who is master of the faq's
[08:11] <sabdfl> and one person who takes a lead on the installer guide
[08:11] <sabdfl> etc
[08:11] <sparkes> sabdfl, this was brought up on the docs list before to a mixed responce
[08:12] <hornbeck> sabdfl: people hated that idea on the doc list
[08:12] <sabdfl> ok
[08:12] <sparkes> ;-) just to disagree with hornbeck again and make it look like we never aggree in public ;-)
[08:12] <enrico> It also depends on how the work is made
[08:13] <sabdfl> hornbeck: consensus?
[08:13] <asw> I think that doc maintainers and over-all project leaders can be complementary'
[08:13] <enrico> If things are "let's throw in", then nothing is needed
[08:13] <enrico> Then, we should see if it leads to enough quality
[08:13] <hornbeck> sabdfl: agreement
[08:13] <enrico> well, IMO a good piece of documentation needs a bit of planning, like identify a target, describing it throughly, stating a goal
[08:13] <sabdfl> i don't think that a doc maintainer means "this is my island get off it"
[08:14] <sabdfl> i just think that a body of work like that needs a certain amount of consistent care
[08:14] <enrico> And before release, there's a need for some quality assessment, and someone that says "ehy, this is good!  Let's check the commas and release it"
[08:14] <sabdfl> and that while everyone whould be free to contribute
[08:14] <sabdfl> it's still good to be able to say "xyz is our faq-master"
[08:14] <sparkes> sabdfl, agreed
[08:14] <enrico> But we can apply the "YouAintNeedingItYet" pattern and defer until such problems happen
[08:15] <sabdfl> ok, let's start with this:
[08:15] <enrico> (one point in which to introduce quality control is when one says what goes into Hoary, and that has a release deadline as well)
[08:15] <sabdfl> the initial doc team is hornbeck, sparkes, plovs, enrico, ben, asw
[08:16] <sabdfl> Henri1: would you  be interested in keeping an eye on docs from aa11y point of view?
[08:16] <Henri1> Sure
[08:16] <mako> did sivang have a hand in it?
[08:16] <enrico> sabdfl: sivan?
[08:16] <sabdfl> sivang too, didn't mean to leave anyone off who's contributed
[08:16] <enrico> "aa11y" ?
[08:16] <sabdfl> i will ask enrico to act as a secretary for the next few months while the team settles down
[08:17] <sabdfl> i'd like you each to find an area that you particularly care about and make that your showcase
[08:17] <Henri1> I guess I can just try to feed them aa11y stuff; or do you mean to look at all the docs from an accessibility point of view?
[08:17] <sabdfl> i'd like this team to come back to the next cc meeting with a list of doc priorities that we should publish for new people who come along and want to help with docs
[08:17] <enrico> sparkes: you're welcome to continue gardening
[08:18] <sabdfl> Henri1: contribute as you see fit, low hanging fruit first
[08:18] <enrico> ah!  Accessibility!
[08:18] <sparkes> enrico, no these are bespoke secretary gloves I had hand made for the chief gardner ;-)
[08:18] <Henri1> OK
[08:18] <sabdfl> gardening is much more fun in teams
[08:18] <enrico> sparkes: Wow!
[08:18] <asw> hornbeck has suggested a "Learning Ubuntu" O'Reilly style book. If it's an updated version of: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/debian/chapter/book/  With an equally liberal license I would be an eager participant. It might also be nice if we take care to mark the differences with Debian so that a debian user coiuld use the book too.  but that might be awkward.  
[08:18] <mako> :)
[08:18] <plovs> sabdfl, can somebody from upstream make a list of what they would like to see? Or it's just us?
[08:19] <sabdfl> hornbeck: great idea
[08:19] <sparkes> I would have prefered to use the debian user guide (progeny) but the concenus seems to be against taht one
[08:19] <asw> horbeck: did I get your suggestion right? (you suggested Learning Redhat Linux as example I think.)
[08:19] <sabdfl> you guys need to discuss it amongst yourselves and come up with the list
[08:20] <sabdfl> i can add some layering of priorities
[08:20] <sabdfl> but don't want to issue the list
[08:20] <hornbeck> asw: yes
[08:20] <hornbeck> sabdfl: thanks
[08:20] <sabdfl> i'm just very grateful for your contribution, and my role here is to try to help you feel like your contribution is most effective
[08:21] <asw> sparkes: if it's under a liberal license then we should build on it. (re debian user guide) I don't see why it would harm us to build and improve on what exists! 
[08:21] <sabdfl> i'm happy to use the most liberal licence o'reilly will go with, which makes the content available for debian, but don't want you to do extra work on that account
[08:21] <sparkes> asw, it's gpl
[08:22] <hornbeck> sparkes: we would have to rework that whole doc
[08:22] <plovs> under what license is the wiki?
[08:22] <hornbeck> sparkes: it would be easier to make that a different project
[08:22] <enrico> plovs: good question: it should be made explicit
[08:22] <sparkes> ok, hornbeck 
[08:22] <asw> sabdfl. at least one of my acquaintances published with oreilly. I can talk with them but I don't want to step on anyones toes.  This is hornbeck's idea. 
[08:22] <sparkes> plovs, this is something we need to sort out to stop probs later
[08:22] <hornbeck> asw: find out as much as you can about what we need to do
[08:23] <hornbeck> I am willing to get as much help as I can
[08:23] <plovs> do we have an ata for the new wiki? 
[08:23] <enrico> Now that I have the secretary gloves, I can take care of it
[08:23] <hornbeck> enrico: I agree
[08:24] <hornbeck> enrico: can you get me some coffee ? :-)
[08:24] <sparkes> lol
[08:24] <hornbeck> nice
[08:24] <hornbeck> you will be good at this job enrico
[08:24] <sabdfl> easy guys
[08:24] <hornbeck> nice, I like a secretary who's "hands on"
[08:25] <sabdfl> here we go
[08:25] <hornbeck> hehe
[08:25] <enrico> Ok, two things I'm taking care of: wiki license and documentation metapackage
[08:25] <sparkes> hornbeck, you don't want another human theme on our hands
[08:25] <sabdfl> alright, that's me done here. let's review in a few months
[08:25] <enrico> ...and hornback, of course ;)
[08:25] <enrico> ehm, hornbeck, sorry
[08:25] <sabdfl> worse and worse
[08:26] <sabdfl> what have i done
[08:26] <sabdfl> anyhow, workrave is screaming at me now
[08:26] <hornbeck> created a monster
[08:26] <plovs> nerds and secretaries don't mix
[08:26] <sparkes> plovs, they do here ;-)
[08:26] <mako> ok, i want to know if its possible to split the internal documentaiton issues and the stuff that the cc need sto do
[08:26] <sabdfl> go to it and enjoy
[08:26] <sabdfl> and thanks again
[08:26] <mako> :)
[08:26] <sabdfl> a big measure of your success will be the extent to which you can bring more guys into the team
[08:27] <sabdfl> cheers guys
[08:27] <enrico> sabdfl: bye!
[08:27] <hornbeck> thanks
[08:27] <sparkes> thanks all
[08:28] <asw> later
[08:29] <hornbeck> doc guys I will do a write up for the mailing list and send in alittle while
[08:29] <enrico> hornbeck: mako's making a summary
[08:30] <hornbeck> enrico: thats cool than
[08:30] <sparkes> afk bbl
[08:30] <enrico> I'll cut from mako's summary and post in the list
[08:30] <hornbeck> enrico: sounds good
[08:30] <hornbeck> I am back off to work, I snuck out to be here
[08:30] <hornbeck> :-)
[08:31] <plovs> hornbeck, thanks
[08:31] <hornbeck> plovs: no problem
[08:32] <plovs> btw just got a mail that we will have a lot of cleaning up to do after the wiki 'upgrade'
[08:32] <hornbeck> yes we will
[08:33] <plovs> the guy resposible is stevea  and he lives in #zwiki
[08:34] <Henri1> I guess that's the end of the meeting. We still didn't officially discuss setting up an Accessibility team.
[08:36] <asw> Henril: as in section 508?
[08:36] <Kamion> Henri1: hm, that was confusingly put on the agenda for the previous meeting?
[08:37] <Henri1> It was skipped then as well, due to the release
[08:37] <olafura> I watched a talk on the net about NX at the KDE conferece. They talked about it's itegration into KDE development. This brings an interesting option for Ubuntu. Because you support a release for 18 months and your developement model is supposed to be distribued.
[08:38] <Kamion> Henri1: please make sure it's actually on the agenda for next meeting so that we remember it
[08:38] <Kamion> sabdfl's gone so I don't think we can do it now
[08:39] <Henri1> Right, OK. I've got to get with the procedures :)  It was on the agenda a few days ago, before it got restructured
[08:39] <Henri1> Anyway, no rush
[08:39] <olafura> Hoary has a possible goal to have an NX support. But would it also be smart to have a machine to test things for those less adventures.
[08:40] <enrico> Who was the bugzilla guy again?
[08:40] <Henri1> I guess it needs CC approval to actually become a team, but there seems consensus that we want one.
[08:40] <Kamion> Henri1: ah, whoops
[08:40] <Kamion> Henri1: it doesn't need CC approval to start getting the people together and work out what you want to do
[08:40] <Henri1> Heh, no worries :)
[08:40] <Kamion> Henri1: if anything, it's better to have that in place early
[08:41] <Kamion> enrico: file a bug on Websites/Bugzilla
[08:41] <Henri1> Righ, and were doing that, so no problem#
[08:41] <enrico> Kamion: thanks
[08:41] <Kamion> Henri1: ok, good; if we're really blocking you, a special meeting may be possible, but I hope we're not
[08:42] <Henri1> No, it was actually Luke who wondered why we weren't listed on the main Ubuntu page as a team
[08:43] <Henri1> The reason is of course that it needs CC approval first, but again, no rush
[09:01] <KragenSitaker> is there a way to find out when these meetings are scheduled more than a day in advance?
[09:02] <Kamion> CC/TB meetings are alternate Tuesdays, but subscribe to the agenda wiki page
[09:03] <KragenSitaker> thank you!