/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2005/02/05/#ubuntu-meeting.txt

=== jiyuu0 [~jiyuu0@219.95.215.63] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== fabbione [~fabbione@port49.ds1-van.adsl.cybercity.dk] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== Treenaks [martijn@facecrime.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== jiyuu0 [~jiyuu0@218.111.42.70] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== jbailey [~jbailey@CPE000ded9d787c-CM014260028338.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== opi [~emil@ar2.tpnets.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== smurfix [~smurf@run.smurf.noris.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== ogra_ [~ogra@p508EB8FD.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== zul [~chuck@198.62.158.205] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== mako [mako@micha.hampshire.edu] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
opihi makpo04:38
opis/makpo/mako04:38
makoopi: hey there04:40
opimako, I've made it ;>04:40
opimako, not like the last time04:40
zulhi everyone04:43
makoso, if people want to take a look at my draft stuff for the nm process, i've got it online here:04:43
makohttp://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMembersMaintainersDraft04:43
makohttp://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMemberProcessDraft04:43
makoi'm finishing the maintainer once right now04:43
opimako, sounds very similar to MOTU draft04:44
zulmako: looks easy enough to follow 04:44
opimako, if I had to include my posting to ubuntu-*@lists.ubuntu.com, I would have to quit my job ;-)04:45
fabbioneguys.. i am sorry i won't be at the CC meeting04:45
fabbionemako: if there is something important about the announce i am sure you will be wise enough to handle it properly :-))04:46
opifabbione, no worry, Mako will do raport anyhow ;))04:46
fabbionecya04:46
opita-ta04:46
jbaileymako: Wow, this is so much clearer than the jumble of conflicting stuff that was there before.04:47
opijbailey, it sounded like: work for use, if you'll be lazy, off with your head :)04:47
crimsunexcellent, mako.04:47
opis/for use/for us04:48
jbaileyopi: The gnome foundation also has a similar policy to that.  They review your status every couple of years, and if you're behind they contact you saying yuo have a year to start contributing again.04:49
jbaileyThat way folks to dissapear for a year to have a kid, travel, etc. don't come back to find themselves removed.04:49
opijbailey, sounds ok04:49
opimako, I have already signed for Mentro program ;)04:50
opimako, it's semimentroprogramiinventedmyself :)04:50
makoalso here: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMaintainerProcessDraft04:51
opimako, Kubuntu guys agreed to crashtest my packages04:51
makojbailey: i just added "Membership lasts for two years, and is renewable. If you don't renew your status as a maintainer you will join the "inactive memberas" list. Membership can be reactivated at any time after it has lapsed."04:52
opiIt was there before, IIRC :)04:52
jbaileymako: Nice.04:53
jbaileymako: In NewMaintainerProcessDraft: "While many aspire to selection as an Ubuntu maintainer, only a few will be selected."  It would be interesting to see in a year if this statement is actually true.04:53
makoeverything here has been talked about and agreed to before.. nobody wrote it al in one place yet04:53
=== mako needs to look through that page more carefully
makoi took most of that page from the current maintainer page on the website04:54
makowhich is what we're replacing because it's highly "maintains packages" oriented, etdc04:54
jbaileymako: NewMaintainerProcessDraft says "The Community Council will not appoint someone as a maintainer until..." but NewMembersMaintainersDrag says "Must be approved by the Ubuntu Technical Board"04:56
makojbailey: the first one is off04:58
makoi'll fix04:59
KamionAre we expecting sabdfl today?04:59
=== mdz [~mdz@69-167-148-207.vnnyca.adelphia.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
makoKamion: i should call him04:59
makobut we should give him a couple minutes first05:00
makomdz: look over the drafts linked from the agenda :)05:00
Kamionpinged elmo05:00
=== amu [~amu@amu.developer.debian] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
mdzmako: sabdfl said he was writing stuff, too, did you guys combine your efforts?05:01
=== seb128 [~seb128@ANancy-151-1-22-109.w83-194.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== elmo [~james@83-216-141-215.jamest298.adsl.metronet.co.uk] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== silb1 [~sbsm0084@host81-154-101-203.range81-154.btcentralplus.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
makomdz: no.. i had been working on this for a while05:02
mdzmako: NewMembersMaintainersDraft is missing the elmo clause05:03
makomdz: go ahead and add it05:03
Kamionthe elmo clause?05:03
mdzthat the member->maintainer process should go through the CC as well as TB05:04
makowait.. that is there05:04
=== mvo_ [~Michael@ip181.135.1511I-CUD12K-01.ish.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
makomdz: it says all maintainers must be members05:05
makomdz: membership is a cc thing, maintainership is a tb thing05:05
elmomako: that's not what we originally discussed05:05
mdzmako: right, which is not what we agreed upon in Mataro05:06
Kamionerm, confused. how does that differ from what we agreed?05:06
makoi built that from the mataro notes05:06
mdzNewDevelopersAndMaintainers says that maintainers are approved by both05:06
makoso i think there is some confusion05:06
makoah, ok05:07
makoso you are saying that maintainers should be approved by the CC twice?05:07
mdzpoint being that the CC's approval of someone as a member is not the same as approving them as a maintainer05:07
Kamionthat's a fair point, but I'm not sure how the TB's approval isn't adequate05:08
mdzwell, I I think I'm trying to state elmo's position from the last meeting, but I think I should rather leave it to him at this point05:08
makoelmo: is that something you feel strongly about? having maintainers approved by the CC after membership?05:08
elmomy concern is that the TB has one person who's actively involved, day-to-day in distro, to the degree where they'll be able to independently and adqueately judge a maintainer's worth05:09
elmoTB+CC has 305:09
elmoand it was always my understanding that's how we were going to do stuff, unfortunately I was ill the day of the maintainer discussions in mataaro05:09
=== haggai [~halls@i-83-67-20-196.freedom2surf.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
elmomako: I feel reasonably strongly about it, but OTOH, if everyone else disagrees I'm happt to shut up05:10
makoi think if the tb is not adequately well suited to approve people based as maintainers for the distro, that's a problem that should be solved in the TB05:10
makobut i suspect that they are05:10
mdzI agree; in the current process, a majority of the TB is going to be lacking information about the candidate05:11
elmomako: how are the TB meant to judge candidates?05:11
makohmm..05:11
mdzevery time05:11
elmoother than reviewing the work they've done?05:11
makoelmo: the work they've done, recommendations/testimonials, cc approval for membership05:12
elmoI don't think it's appropriate to insist the TB is staffed by people who follow the distro so closely they'd be able to tell that for any given maintainer05:12
elmomako: dude membership is so far removed from maintainership, it's not even funny05:12
mdzapproval for membership is an entirely different thing05:12
elmomaintainer means global write to anything in main - essentialy unpeer-reviewed05:12
makoright, i undrestand that05:12
makobut its one piece that implies a certain level of sanity, that's why i mentioned it in a list05:13
elmoso the CC approval for membership is _irrelevant_ when it comes to maintainership05:13
elmoif I, as part of CC approve someone for membership, I sure as heck don't want to take that as implicit approval when the TB come to review someone as a maintainer05:13
mdza member could (and should, easily) be someone who helps out on the mailing lists or whatever05:13
elmos/take/taken/05:13
mdzand doesn't actually write code at all05:13
Kamionso the CC are essentially being co-opted as known-sane adjuncts to the TB for purposes of an extra check on maintainership approvals?05:13
Kamionrather than it being a function of the CC as such05:14
elmoKamion: dude, this is NOT co-opting05:14
elmothis is what we originally discussed05:14
Kamionum, whatever, I don't think I meant what you thought I meant. :)05:14
elmoi.e. pre-mataro.. I'm not suggesting something new here05:14
mdzpart of the concern stems from how TB and CC happen to be composed at present05:14
makomdz: right, i understand that05:14
Kamionelmo: yes, I understand05:14
Kamionwhat I was trying to say is that it doesn't sound like an intrinsic function of the CC, but the people on the CC happen to be useful to make the maintainership approval more robust05:15
makoelmo: no, i understand that05:16
Kamionat least that's what I'm getting from the above05:16
Kamion(note I don't object, just trying to understand rationale)05:16
makoelmo: the idea was always that maintainers would be approved by both, but that was also before we had membership pre-mataro05:16
makoelmo: so when we introduced members, i was under the impression that the job of the two groups was sort of split. cc looked at membership stuff and the tb looked only at maintainer specific things05:17
elmoKamion: yes, basically05:17
opibrb05:17
makoelmo: so all mainainters still need approval by both groups05:17
makoelmo: just at different stages05:17
mdzwe'll need to address the issue of the TB lacking information regardless05:18
makomdz: yes, of coursse05:18
Kamionmako: I see what elmo means though, when somebody applies to be a member I'm not applying very strict criteria when I say yes05:18
elmoif both the TB and CC are both not actively involved in the distro we still lose, but if we get to that stage, I think the whole idea needs revisited05:18
makoKamion: yes05:18
mdzexactly05:18
Kamionindeed05:19
elmo(and by actively invovled, I'm not meaning to be denegrating (sp?) in anyway to the people who I think aren't)05:19
=== mako thinks
=== opi [~emil@ar2.tpnets.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
opire05:21
mdzgiven the written scope of the CC, it doesn't sound like they're inherently meant to be working day-to-day on the distribution05:21
elmoor the TB?05:21
mdzpoint05:21
elmomaybe the "cleanest" solution is a delegated board of folks who do?05:21
elmospecificaly for this task05:21
mdzwe'll just call them the New Maintainer team05:22
=== mdz gasps!
KamionI'm a bit worried about committee overload though05:22
makoi'm happy saying that even if we can't trust the TB to spend all of their time doing this, we should be able to trust them to ask or find out05:22
makothat may be asking folks on the TB, etc05:22
makothat is the whole "recommendations, etc" step05:22
mdzKamion: I think a good way to avoid that is to move the responsibility to the candidate05:23
=== ogra [~ogra@p508EB8FD.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
mdzthey should come equipped with recommendations/testimonials/etc. from people with direct experience of their work05:23
elmomako: due respect, that sounds like dodging the issue to me05:23
elmo"the TB aren't equipped to do this", "well they can ask the folks who are"05:23
mdztbh, approving new people is more a community issue than a technical issue05:23
makomdz: approving new people to upload into the distribution is what we're talkinga bout05:24
silb1without considering the current membership of the TB, in an ideal world is that where the function belongs?05:24
mdzmako: and that's also what I meant05:24
makomdz: you think?05:24
mdzsilb1: I'm starting to think no05:24
mdzit's a character judgement, not a technical one05:24
elmothere's technical stuff involved, e.g. review a candidates work?05:24
elmothe problem is, I think it straddles both domains05:25
silb1same question for the CC (ignore current membership of CC). Is that where it ideally belongs?05:25
mdztechnical ability is needed in order to understand their work, sure05:25
elmowhich is why it should, IMHO, either be in the domain of both committees or a dedicated one05:25
opiI'm not a in a point for taking my voice, but anyone who want to be Maintainer, could be aproved by both. But not by the CC directly. CC would be asked by TB about this candidate.05:25
makoelmo: well that's not *really* the problem. the problem is straddles both domains in such a way that has a different social requirement than just membership05:25
elmoopi: again that seems like a run-around - if that's going to happen, why not make it explicit?05:26
mdzopi: I think it is certainly a problem at this point to have to arrange to attend both meetings in order to proceed, but we can address that once we've decided who should be involved05:26
elmomdz: understand and judge?05:26
silb1mako: if that's the problem, then that is also the sol'n. A joint decision, wholly different than membership05:26
makosilb1: which is what elmo is suggesting, and i think he's convincing. i'm sort of trying to avoid death by committee but if it's worth it, it's worth it05:27
elmoyes, I think it should be entirely divorced from membership, other than membership being  a prerequiste05:27
mdzelmo: do you think that copies of their last 10 uploads should be brought to the meetings? ;-)05:27
mdzelmo++05:27
mdzmaintainership and membership have very different criteria and need to be explicitly separate decisions05:27
makomdz: they always have been05:27
mdzmako: yes, but then we've taken CC approval for members and used it as CC approval for maintainers05:28
elmomdz: I think if  the candidate's last 10 uploads got REJECTed, heck yes05:28
silb1I don't think this needs to be as difficult as it is getting.  It seems people agree on where the function sits, and we have appropriate committess to to solve that (TB and CC). If issue is meeting overload, then let's work on process (i.e, does it have to happen in real time in a mtg?)05:28
makomdz: the only issue is how many stamps we need on the maintainers forms before they get an account05:28
=== doko [doko@dsl-082-082-208-002.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
mdzsilb1: I think there's definitely value in having the committee members discuss with each other05:29
Kamionother thing from a practical point of view is that occasionally we like to approve somebody known all the way up to maintainership in a single meeting05:29
Kamionso if there were a separate NM group then they'd have to attend CC meetings too05:29
makoKamion: except that unless we have the tb there.. that can be tricky05:29
mdzit's usually not a problem to have majorities of both committees in both meetings05:29
mdzthis one seems to be an exception05:29
Kamionespecially with sabdfl on both ;)05:30
makoKamion: i'd prefer cc+tb approval rather than a new committee05:30
mdzmako: agreed05:30
KamionI think I agree05:30
makoso that sorta kinda seems like rough conensus05:30
makoelmo: you win :)05:31
elmoFLAWLESS VICTORY!!!05:31
=== opi [~emil@ar2.tpnets.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
opire, *sigh*05:32
elmo(sorry - can't help that; it's an instinctive reaction to 'you win')05:32
makothere ya go: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMembersMaintainersDraft05:32
mdzmako: I think we should make the role of maintainer as mentor an explicit responsibility05:32
mdzotherwise, no one will find time for it05:32
ograMOTU = mentor05:33
elmohmm, sorry, really not  trying to be awkard, but this doc seems to miss out the MOTU process?05:33
makook.. i updated both pages with the added CC approval05:33
makomdz: as in, all maintainers should be mentors?05:33
mdzmako: as in, part of being a maintainer is to mentor people who want to learn05:34
elmomako: the memembers URL has a typo "ubuntlinux.org"05:34
makomdz: yes, ok05:34
elmo[I know it's a wiki, but locking etc.] 05:34
mdzzwiki uses the OHSHIT locking technology05:34
ogramako: i think all MOTUs should be mentors....to keep the core team on its actual work05:34
makoelmo: it implies MOTU05:35
ograore team should be last resort here05:35
ogracore even05:35
mako"Many Ubuntu maintainers will, especially initially, be limited in their ability to upload packages to a component. Many developers will be universe maintainers which will allow them to upload into universe but not into the main supported distribution. The extent of upload capacity will be decided by the Technical Board.05:35
elmomako: don't we need to document the whole MOTU-approved universe-maintainers can be approved by only two CC members etc.?05:35
makoelmo: that's a temporary hoary only thing05:36
elmo*blink* it is?  ok, wasn't aware05:36
makoelmo: it's documented elsewhere.. these are pages i want to move into the core website05:36
elmok05:36
makoelmo: its fine if it goes there.. but i know i will forget to remove it :)05:37
haggaimako: if this is going to be the canonical guide it still needs a brief mention, with a note that it only applies pre-hoary05:37
makohaggai: alright05:37
mdzmako: why should new maintainers add themselves to MaintainerCandidates, and members to the CC agenda?  those should be similar processes05:37
mdzmako: we currently have confusion as to whether the committees should be checking a separate list of candidates, or whether candidates should be on the agenda05:38
makoelmo, haggai: i'll add a mention05:38
makomdz: i think it should be on the agendas05:38
makobecause that's what we've worked off in the past :)05:38
mdzthen MaintainerCandidates is pointless and confusing05:38
mdzpeople add themselves to there and then are ignored and wonder why05:39
makook, so we should remove that?05:39
makoi'm fine w/ that05:39
ogramake it MOTU candidates (which implys to be a member before)05:39
mdzI'm fine either way, 1) committees have a permanent agenda item to review the list of candidates, or 2) candidates add themselves directly to the agenda (and _show up_)05:39
haggaiit's probably better to get them to add themselves to the agenda to make sure they know they have to turn up on that date05:40
mdzmako: the member process says you should come to the meeting05:40
mdzmako: the maintainer process says something about submitting an application05:40
Kamioneventually I'd prefer for candidates not to have to show up at the meeting; it's not going to scale well and we'll end up with monster meetings05:41
Kamionplus timings are never going to be convenient for all candidates05:41
makoin the past, we've not approved people who we didn't know about and who were not there05:42
makoKamion: giving a heads up, if they won't be there, is easy enough and enough i think05:42
makoand showing up is a nice gesture05:42
mdza nice gesture?05:42
mdzit seems essential to me05:42
Kamionmdz: not everyone is going to be able to make 16:00 UTC05:42
haggai4pm GMT must be in the middle of the night somewhere in the world05:42
mdzKamion: we should be rotating the time, but that's a separate matter05:43
Kamionif people have to turn up, then we have to start cycling meeting times and therefore people might not be able to make it for up to six weeks05:43
elmowe should disable timezones, period05:43
Kamionwhich seems unacceptably long05:43
jbaileyOr in the middle of the day when someone doesn't have access to outside 'net access through the corporate firewall.05:43
Kamionand therefore I think it should be decoupled from meetings05:43
mdzwe need to be rotating the times anyway05:43
haggaielmo: can we drop all translations too then05:43
mdzbecause people need to be able to come and discuss things05:44
mdznon-member/maintainer agenda items05:44
Kamionmdz: yes, but as said I don't think it'll help. we should allow people to come and discuss things outside meeting times05:44
elmohaggai: YES!  I keep telling the rosetta folks this, but all they do is glare at me05:44
mdzjdub needs to be able to come once in a while05:44
ograhaggai: esperanto linux ?05:44
elmo[good thing they're tree-hugging hippies and not violent-types, I guess] 05:44
makomdz: ok.. i changed http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMaintainerProcessDraft05:44
makomdz: no mention of application explicitly and it talks about meeting agendas only05:44
makoi think that addresses your concerns05:45
mdzok05:45
mdzso it is implicitly the TB and CC members' responsibility to go out and find information about the candidate?05:45
makolet me drop the come to teh meeting thing05:45
mdzif so, I think we need to address that scalability problem05:45
haggaiit would probably help to have a checklist that the candidates can go through, including a list of stuff to put on their wiki page perhaps?05:46
makohaggai: there is a rough list of suggested stuff.. i think a few example pages would be great05:46
ograhaggai: i think things like this are already on the MaintainerCandidates page05:47
makoi dropped the attending meetings thing05:47
makoare there other critical issues?05:47
ograso people just have to look at already approved MOTUs wiki pages05:47
makoshort of the missing reference to MOTU process which we agreed upon last meeting and i put in the summary for the meeting05:48
makothe hoary-specific process05:48
makoi can include a reference to that05:48
mdzmako: my main concern is that both TB and CC end up with useful information about the candidate as part of the documented process05:49
haggaiogra: the list on MaintainerCandidates is maybe not specific enough to help TB and CC members collect information they need quickly05:49
haggaimaybe something like 'links to your last 10 uploads' or something05:49
makomdz: absolutely05:49
haggai(to motu)05:49
mdzmako: maybe an explicit list of things that they should link from / documented on their wiki page application?05:50
ograhaggai: good idea05:50
haggaimdz: yes, that's what I'm thinking too05:50
makomdz: do you think examples/templates would help05:50
makoi don't want to make requirements we are going to ignore05:50
makobecause we get super competant/trusted people we all know05:50
mdzexamples, yes, rather than required items05:50
makomdz: ok, agreed completely then05:51
mdzhow about an explicit statement in the process like "provide enough information so that the CC and TB members, who may not know anything else about you, have something to go on"05:51
mdzexamples of helpful information: foo, bar, baz05:51
makomdz: alright05:52
mdzshould the 'testimonials' be a formal thing?05:52
makomdz: we've got something like this for membership. are you talking explictly about maintainers or both?05:52
mdzmako: both05:52
mdzprobably members should keep this stuff around, and add to it when they apply for maintainership05:53
makomdz: yes, alright05:53
opimay I ask, what should be exposed in a testemonial? Is there a possibility that someone highly skilled without social skill will be rejected, and someone who has charm and medium skill will be in?05:54
opiI know being a member is more social, and being a MOTU more tachnical thing05:54
mdzelmo: can we make it easy for the committee members to pull a bunch of each candidate's uploads to review?05:54
ograopi: MOTU requires member.....05:55
elmomdz: umm - if they're still in the archive, yah05:55
mdzopi: for a member, testimonials should reflect participation and contribution to the community05:55
opiogra, oh, ok05:55
elmoand signed by their key05:55
Kamionopi: we don't want to approve people who will disrupt the community05:55
mdzelmo: but not superseded ones?05:55
makomdz:    Your wiki page should include enough information about you that the05:55
mdzlots of people will maintain one package or something05:55
mako   CommunityCouncil and TechnicalBoard members, who may not know05:55
mako   anything else about you, have enough information to approve you.05:55
mdzmako: sounds good, thanks05:56
Kamionopi: we also don't want to approve people who won't pull their weight - but we do expect a range of skill levels05:56
=== mako sighs
Kamionthe less-skilled people will be doing fewer important things, which is fair enough05:56
mdzopi: for a maintainer, testimonials would be more focused on technical ability05:56
makook, it's added05:56
elmomdz: not as easily no - the katie DB doesn't remember stuff once it's no longer in the archive; I have the .changes, but nothing pre-existent to trawl through and find .changes +files-in-morgue for a given key05:56
mdzelmo: right, so punt to the arch team then? ;-P05:57
ograhmm hoary-changes has an archive....05:57
mdzhoary-changes has no code05:57
makoso short of added reference to the MOTU process and examples templats, are people happy with the draft process05:57
mako(it can/will change of course)05:57
Kamionogra: those are the .changes files, but you still have to map them to stuff in the morgue that you can download05:57
mdzthough that would be a slick feature, to just attach the diff if it's < 10k or something05:57
elmomdz: haha05:57
mdzelmo: yeah, right after you finish sending notifications for syncs to -changes05:58
haggainow that would be cool05:58
mako?05:58
elmomdz:I was haha-ing at your ohsobitter arch team remark :P05:58
Kamionopi: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMaintainerProcessDraft mentions both factors05:58
makoi don't want to be the party pooper or anything thing but we have a number of other things on teh agenda :)05:58
elmoand besides I wrote a chunk of the notification stuff when I was getting my carswindscreen replaced05:58
opiKamion, ok, I'm ready to not apply :-)05:58
KamionI'm happy enough with the drafts05:59
opisince JDub's not here, I guess my Kubuntu-ml agenda will be off :|05:59
Kamionmailing list stuff can be sorted out and given to jdub to implement later05:59
makoi'd like to get some sort of consensus on the maintainer stuff now05:59
mdzI think the drafts are pretty reasonable05:59
mdzI'd like to try to address some of the practical problems06:00
mdzonce there's consensus on the content06:00
makoright, is there consensus06:00
mako?06:00
makoelmo, Kamion: ?06:00
elmoon which sorry? the discussions drifted?06:00
mdzelmo: mako's process documentation06:00
makothen we can let sabdfl at it and have it completely redone :)06:00
ograhehe06:00
makoelmo: yeah.. 06:01
makoi'm really just trying to document what we have agreed to in the past but not had written down06:01
mdzmako: oh, another thing06:01
elmomako: yeah, that's ok06:01
mdzmako: we have said in the past that members shouldn't be required to be able to manage a GPG key06:02
mdzoh, the paper thing is there, nm06:02
makomdz: yes06:02
=== mako raises a fist victoriously
elmoI know we're behind, so feel free to ignore me - are we going to beef up the testimonial's section?06:02
makoelmo: i can do that, yes06:02
elmoIME with Debian, useful recommendations can be super-helpful to speed things up06:03
makoelmo: no, i *completely* agree06:03
mdzmako: it's a bit awkward having the guidelines for membership/maintainership on a different page from the steps to take to become one06:03
makomdz: we can merge it into a monster page :)06:03
mdzthose guidelines should apply to the content of testimonials06:03
mdzso I think we've already written about what testimonials should be06:03
makoKamion: what do you think?06:04
Kamionmako: count me for consensus06:04
makolets move on!06:04
makook, we tabled the ml thing for jdub06:05
makoFun Issue Of The Week06:05
makoreply-to issues on ubuntu-users06:05
Kamionaargh American vs. British English meaning of "tabled"06:05
makohah06:05
mdzhow do you spell it, tabloed?06:05
Kamionno, they're exact opposite meanings06:05
mdzoh, I read 'meaning' as 'spelling'06:06
Kamionanyway, that aside06:06
makodid people have a chance to look over the reply-to stuff?06:06
elmoyes :(06:06
makome too06:06
Kamiondamn, I forgot to read the thread, give me a sec06:06
makopeople are pissed06:06
mdzmy opinion on the reply-to thing, fwiw, is that there seems to be a clear consensus among the user population that they want reply-to set.  they don't, as a rule, use mail clients which are smart about the difference between a list-reply and a poster-reply, and they shouldn't really need to care06:06
ograunfortunately06:06
Kamionmy main question is whether people will be equally pissed off with the other default06:07
mdzI don't think they will, honestly06:07
Kamionpeople who are happy with the current situation tend not to say anything, as a general rule06:07
ograwhat about cross posting then ? (in regard to the kubuntu-ml)06:07
opihappy people are quiet, mad people are loud06:07
elmomy opinion is that: if a majority of users want reply-to on ubuntu-users we should do it.  but I think the people demanding it, should be the ones putting the work in to do an actuall poll and prove  they're not just a vocal minority06:07
mdzthe arguments against reply-to are inscrutable to most users06:07
makomdz: i tend to agree06:08
opiI'm with Elmo06:08
mdztechnical pedantry is fine for the developer community, but it shouldn't be forced on users06:08
opithey should prove admin wrong06:08
opiby majority06:08
ograyup06:08
opibut it only goes for -users06:08
mdzI think that's process overkill06:08
ogra2/306:08
elmomdz: which?  a poll?06:08
mdzthis is such a trivial thing, we can try it for a week and see if it's better or worse06:08
mdzyeah06:08
makonow i suspect sabdfl was going to suggest that we just make sure we add teh functionality to reply-to-list to any client we ship taht doesn't already have it06:09
silb1mdz: I agree. Plus you'll still only get the unhappy people voting (as noted above).06:09
mdzit's not like we're making some decision which we'll have to live with for years06:09
mdzit's trivial to change06:09
opimako, only Thunderbird lack here06:09
makoopi: right, that was my impression06:09
Kamion(catching up) with respect I really don't think it's technical pedantry06:09
Kamionanyhow, what about the cross-posting thing ogra brought up?06:09
Kamionmails delivered through ubuntu-users get Reply-To: and others don't, I guess06:10
opiKamion, -users tend not to crosspost06:10
mdzin regard to kubuntu, or reply-to?06:10
ogramdz: both06:10
opiKamion, that's why I suggest to leave things as it is for -devel releated lists06:10
makoi say we try it for two weeks06:10
Kamionopi: absolutely06:10
haggaiI think the mail client reply-to-list would be much more useful if reply automatically replied to the list, and reply-to-list became reply-to-poster06:10
makoand put this on the agenda for two weeks from now06:10
mdzI think it's fine for reply-to to point to -users only06:10
Kamionhas anyone done a quick survey of how many people on ubuntu-users are currently using Reply-To: for its original intended purpose?06:10
elmomdz: no, but I think the people who _don't_ want a Reply-To should be given the chance to say so without being compared to slavers06:10
mdzthat'll discourage cross-posting06:10
mdzelmo: I think we won't hear from them until we actually do it anyway06:11
Kamioni.e. From: set to one e-mail address and Reply-To: set to another because you can't change your From: for whatever reason06:11
mdzeven if we took a very careful survey, people would bitch and moan about not knowing what was going on06:11
opimdz, annouce it on -users06:11
makoKamion: very view06:11
makoKamion: very few06:11
mdzwhereas if it's changed for a week, and you don't notice or don't complain, then you can be considered to have been counted, imo06:11
elmomdz: silence is assent?06:12
makoso mdz says change it for a week, i say two (just to conincide with the meeting)06:12
opielmo, those who are not here, rise your hand :-)06:12
mdzelmo: yes.  if you aren't participating in the list enough to notice, then your opinion doesn't count for much06:12
mdzthe people who are actually using the list on a daily basis should have more weight06:13
mdztoo many people are just regurgitating opinions they read on the web06:13
elmomdz: I'll remember that, next time you bitch at me for assuming consent from you06:13
mdzelmo: we're talking about a trivial thing here06:13
ograthat we could decide without the listmaster ?06:14
elmoogra: listmaster delegated it to CC06:14
ograah, good06:14
mdzelmo: if you email me asking me "is it ok to rm -rf the archive?" and I don't answer, don't assume consent06:14
elmobtw, quick visual scan does show people using different Reply-To's and From's06:14
elmonot many, but there are some06:15
mdzelmo: but if you email me about a typo on some wiki page, and I don't answer, assume I don't care06:15
=== mako sighs
elmomdz: dude, I don't really care about your consent or not, I just think it's an entirely bogus argument.  some of the pro-reply-to people were insanely OTT and flamey, so much so that anyone sane is either outright ignoring the thread or at least certainly scared away from replying06:16
elmoin those conditions, I don't think it's fair to take a silence is assent stance, but *shrug* whatever06:16
mdza quick visual scan shows only one person actually using different from and reply-to in my current -users mailbox06:16
Kamionwell, I don't see a majority on the list, I see a vocal and flamy minority; still, I'd rather the list weren't full of flames so if changing the default will make the list more palatable I'll approve of it06:16
mdza lot of people using From == Reply-To, oddly enough06:16
makodo we have consensus to make a temporary change or should we wait?06:16
Kamionbut I don't think we should describe the change as "due to user consensus" or anything like that06:16
opiI'm for a test-change06:16
Kamionbecause I don't see such a consensus06:17
mdzelmo: I don't care as much about the flamage as I do about the dozens of people who reply to me off-list every week06:17
elmokamion++06:17
makoKamion: make it very explicit that it's test06:17
mdzelmo: who I need to reply to and remind them that they need to take some explicit and different action in order to get their mail client to do the thing which is sane by default06:17
makohow about this for a proposal:06:17
ograit think the flameages were nearly beyond the CoC ....06:17
Kamionogra: well beyond, dude06:17
Kamionwe should fix the mail clients anyway, of course06:18
elmomdz: fine, but I think by ostriching about the flamage, all you're doing pandering too it and encouraging it in the future06:18
Kamionit's something which will be useful in a number of communities06:18
ograwhich is why i vote against a change atall06:18
makoWe make the change temporarily announcing that it's a test and not due to consensus. We collect complaints, etc. and revisit this in two weeks.06:18
makoAt which point, we should be able to more adequately justify movement on this.06:18
elmo"hey, let's call them slavers; it got us our reply-to"06:18
Kamionmako: ack06:18
mdzelmo: agreed. but likewise, we can't use flamage as a reason to ignore an issue, because usually there's a legitimate issue there, and that penalizes the reasonable people too06:18
Kamionhow about we also ban the totally unreasonable flamers?06:19
Kamioncode of conduct etc.06:19
makoKamion: yeah, they are banned....06:19
opithat would be good, too, Kamion :-)06:19
Kamionmako: already?06:19
elmomdz: I'm not suggesting ignoring it; I'm suggesting shifting the burden onto the vocal minority to prove they're not.. and when it's proven there's a consensus, we're making the change for the right reasons06:19
ograelmo +++06:19
opiagree06:19
makoelmo: are you not comfortable with a test?06:19
opithey are vocal, they should prove us wrong06:20
opiit was less that 15 users that flamed06:20
mdzconsensus is inherently difficult to prove because it's fuzzy06:20
ograhow many are subscribed currently ?06:20
opiogra, that was my next question :)06:20
makoopi: right, but it's been raied 4-5 times already06:20
mdzanyway, there's a vote on the table I think06:20
elmomdz: let me ask you this, if we did a poll and there was a strong majority against it, would you still want to do it?06:20
mdzbut not "tabled"06:21
=== mjg59 [mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
elmos/it/adding 'reply-to'/06:21
mdzelmo: I cannot think of any poll we could do which would be meaningful06:21
makoopi: roughly once a month06:21
mdzideally we could poll members, but we don't have enough yet06:21
elmos/poll/vote/ whatever.  how is a vote not meaningful?06:21
mdzwho gets a vote, and how do we determine what their vote is?06:21
mdzand besides, sabdfl doesn't like votes ;-)06:21
elmoI bet you sabdfl's response would be "fix the clients" :P06:22
opiand that would be unlimate solution06:22
opi,,no we won't change it, use reply-to-mailinglist feature''06:22
elmomdz: that's why I suggested offloading the work onto the people who want the change06:22
elmo*shrug*06:22
mdzelmo: give them an impossible task and hope they go away?06:22
mdzthis isn't Debian :-P06:23
elmomdz: dude, don't be obtuse, holding a vote is pretty far from an impossible task06:23
elmoit's going to turn INTO Debian if we encourage people to behave like they did in that thread06:23
elmoI seriously see that as much of a threat than any problems that result from a lack of reply-to06:23
elmomuch more06:23
makoi think we can make it clear that this is not what is going on06:23
makobut this is a real concern for many people06:24
makoit's raised almost monthly and it bothers many people06:24
mdzI don't think that kind of negative reinforcement helps to encourage good behaviour06:24
mdza better solution is to ignore the flames and consider the sane viewpoints06:24
KamionI give the various people who say "hm, I'm confused, what just happened to my mail?" a lot more weight than the flamers personally06:24
Kamionthe question for me is how to put that across06:25
Kamionand I think aggressively banning people who violate CoC on the lists is a good way to do so06:25
opiis there a option to let users set rules on -users?06:25
mdzwe can't punish an idea because it's the subject of some moron's flaming06:25
makothings that people feel strongly tend to turn into flamewars06:25
opinot set, per se06:25
makoand this has been brought up half a dozen times outside of a flamewar06:25
elmomdz: if you discount the flamers, how many people were asking for Reply-To?06:25
mdzmako: I agree, re: make it clear06:25
Kamionwe have a new community here, there's no reason why CoC can't be strongly applied06:25
ograbut do we need to encourage bad behavior ? 06:26
mdzelmo: as I said, my POV is based on people that I have interacted with personally, and not on the flames06:26
makoKamion: we do need to be better about doing this06:26
ograi.e. "i flamed and they changed it....i'm a hero !!"06:26
mdzmako: in the announcement, point out that the people who were flaming about it have been banned, and a decision made to do foo, based on bar and baz?06:26
makoelmo: we get to spin this and we can make the role of the flamers (i.e., a counterproductive one) very clear06:26
makomdz: right..06:27
Kamion"despite the comparisons to slavery, ..."06:27
makoand we're only suggestion its a test06:27
makoKamion: heh06:27
opiI guess we could try to ,,fix'' mailman. A user could set a reply-to/no-reply-to per account06:28
elmomako: *shrug* ok, fine06:28
makoif you're prefer, we can run this by sabdfl before implement it06:28
Treenaksopi: that'd give you a whole lot of NEW bugs when they switch mail clients06:29
Kamionsabdfl's away all this week isn't it?06:29
makowoot06:29
Treenaksopi: "It doesn't work as advertised"06:29
Kamioner, isn't he?06:29
mdzthe result of that tends to be that all the discussion we have had is either discarded, or needs to be retraced06:29
makois it? :)06:29
elmomako: we've got 3/4 CC, if we agree, doesn't really matter, does it?06:29
opiTreenaks, I'm just think out loud :)06:29
makoelmo: no, we can go ahead06:30
makoalright then.. lets do this06:30
makoi'll talk to jdub06:30
mdz(that == seeking an opinion from someone who couldn't be present for the discussion)06:30
elmohang on, is kamion okay with it?06:30
makoelmo: it was his idea06:30
elmooh, ok06:30
elmosorry, thought he was arguing against it :)06:30
Kamionhalf of it was my idea06:30
makoah, ok06:30
makoKamion: so are you ok with it?06:30
Kamionthe "test for two weeks" was mako's06:31
=== lamont tries to remember if we're talking about breaking another mailing list, or fixing a broken one...
makolamont: breaking one :)06:31
ogralamont: first one06:31
Kamionmako: yes, it's fine with me provided that we really *do* revisit it rather than waving it through in two weeks' time06:31
lamontmako: I promise to try to remember to not send private comments to the mailing list, then,06:31
Kamionwill there be a clear contact point for complaints about the new setup?06:31
mdzKamion: easy enough, add it to the agenda for the next meeting06:31
elmo(and let's try and bullt sabdfl into being here next meeting)06:31
makowe'll add it right away06:32
makoi'll add it when i reset the agenda after this meeting06:32
makoalright!06:32
makothe rest is easier06:32
makosmurfix: around?06:32
Kamioncan we go back to the kubuntu item?06:32
Kamionit got skipped somehow06:32
makoKamion: yes06:32
mdzdoes anyone know if we include a pointer to the CoC in the welcome email for the mailing lists?06:32
Kamionopi: did jdub ask you to come to the CC with that list proposal?06:32
makomdz: IIRC, no but that can be fixed06:32
opiKamion, nope, sorry06:33
mdzmako: if we don't, it's a bit underhanded to ban people based on it06:33
opiKamion, it did it myself :/06:33
opiKamion, I thought he'll be there, and I could ask him for that06:33
Kamionopi: in general the listmaster's responsible for new lists; can you take this to him, unless there's something controversial about it? if he asks you to come back to us then I apologise for giving you the run-around06:33
haggaier, if this is about kubuntu[-deve] @lists I already asked jdub to create the lists and he said he would06:33
elmomdz: underhanded is what we slavers do best</bitter> ;-P06:33
Kamionlistmaster == jdub06:33
opiKamion, sure I do06:33
ograi think he wrote something about it anywhere06:33
Kamionopi: ah, see what haggai said then, so we can scratch that item and move on06:34
ograthat its needed and should be in place soon06:34
=== mako nods
mdzmako: if you write a paragraph, I can make the mailman change, and we can send a copy to -users for existing subscribers06:34
Kamionmdz: I think people know fine well for themselves what's acceptable and what isn't; I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "you didn't tell me I wasn't allowed to call people slavers!" line of argument06:34
makomdz: that sounds fine06:34
Kamionalso, bans can be temporary, == cooling-off period06:35
=== ogra thinks of a certain IRC person.....
makoopi: have you already been approved for a pl team by smurf06:35
mako?06:36
mdzKamion: is that what's happening?  has someone mailed the banned people and explained that it's temporary, or something like that?06:36
makoopi: because technically, you don't need CC approval06:36
opimako, not officialy, me thinks06:36
mdzsmurfix: ?06:36
opimako, I'm doing my job, and if I should give it to someone else, I'll :)06:36
makoi highly doubt this will be a problem :)06:36
makoopi: you've been very active/visible doing this so far06:36
makoso i'm happy saying welcome and encouraging you to follow up with smurfix when he comes back06:37
opimako, flamer're loud, too. :)06:37
makosames goes with andrea06:37
opithank you :)06:37
makoopi: perhaps we can put together a good example webpage and get you confirmed a member at teh next meeting06:38
mdzit's not clear from the agenda whether crimsun is proposing himself, or ogra is proposing him06:38
ograi proposed him on behalf...(i think) :)06:38
opimako, sure, but I'm still at work, and I'll have to take few things before that06:38
Kamionmdz: I don't know, all I know about any banning is an aside from mako which he didn't expand upon06:39
crimsunI'm proposing, but ogra filled out the name.06:39
mdzogra: I hope he gave his consent ;-)06:39
opimako, can we do it tom. from morning or today, at night?06:39
ogramdz: done :-P06:39
makoKamion: i am not even sure if/who we can ban someone but i suspect it's possible.. i haven't looked into it too much yet06:39
makowell, i'm happy approving crimsun as a member right now06:40
Kamionack crimsun as member06:40
makoelmo: ?06:41
elmoack06:41
makocrimsun: are you looking for universe maintainership or full maintainership06:41
elmomako: eh06:41
makocrimsun: i wasn't clear06:41
opimako, will it be requied for Leaders to be a members? Or it's gets automagiclly?06:42
makoopi: no, not required06:42
elmodoesn't agenda say just member?  (I'm not necessarily objecting, just confused)06:42
mdzyes, it does06:42
crimsunmako: eventually full, but as I understand it MOTU can be part of the process.06:42
makosorry.. i was reading the heading06:42
mdzjbailey, though, is applying for full maintainership, though it doesn't say06:42
makocrimsun: yes06:42
crimsunmako: my current aim is to assist as part of MOTU.06:43
makocrimsun: cool. you can move ahead with that work and we'll revisit that soon then :)06:43
haggaiI've got a patch from crimsun in my mailbox I still need to review for MOTU06:43
makojbailey: then06:43
jbaileymdz: I had understoof membership to be a pre-requisite.  I'm thankful that it's being made clearer. =)06:43
makohaggai: sounds good06:43
makowell, jbailey is fine by me as a member06:43
mdzjbailey: that's the subject of the documentation we were working out earlier in this meeting06:43
makoand a maintainer for that matter06:43
jbaileymdz: Ayup.  I offered some other comments to Mako before the meeting, too.06:43
mdzat any rate, it should be entirely possible to get both approvals in one CC meeting06:44
mdz(practically speaking)06:44
elmomdz: no keybuk tho?06:44
mdzno :-/06:44
mdzelmo: I meant both CC/member and CC/maintainer06:44
elmooh, I see06:44
makoright, the TB stuff will have to wait06:44
makoKamion, elmo: jbaily member/maintainer?06:45
elmoI'm happy to ack jbailey as CC/member and CC/maintainer.. purely on basis of his Debian work (can we do that?)06:45
=== Mithrandir [~tfheen@vawad.err.no] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
makoelmo: yes06:45
mdzis keybuk not likely to be awake?06:45
makoelmo: we have in the past06:45
elmomdz: at nearly 6 in the evening?  I'd hope he is - shall I ring him?06:45
haggaikeybuk's on jabber06:46
silb1keybuk was taking today off to build furniture. Or something like that.06:46
Kamionyes, what elmo said, ack jbailey as member/maintainer06:46
Kamionnoting for the avoidance of doubt that jbailey is a Canonical employee, but having dealt with him for some time in Debian I'd be happy to approve him notwithstanding that06:46
makowoot!06:46
mdzI don't see him on jabber06:47
makojbailey: process-wise you still need to get checked off by the TB06:47
ograso may i change my suggestion for crimsun to member/maintainer too ?06:47
mdzogra: I think crimsun needs to be the one to do that06:47
crimsunmdz: acked.06:47
=== haggai sends keybuk a msg
makoogra: i'd prefer we had haggai and etc come back after we've had some of theo patches accepted a bit of work done06:47
jbaileymako: Yup, thanks.06:47
ogramdz: just wanted to correct my agenda item ;)06:47
elmoI'll call him - worse case he'll tell me to go away06:47
elmoanswerphone06:48
makoalright!06:48
mdzdo you guys think that CC/TB approvals should be required to happen during public meetings?06:48
makono, i don't06:48
mdzor can we meet in smoke-filled rooms and get approvals to accelerate the process?06:48
makomdz: i think we require full consensus if it's outside of a meeting06:49
opiI can leave :-)06:49
elmowe could have them happen in public, just not scheduled06:49
haggaias long as the meetings are publicly archived06:49
mdzopi: the issue is getting everyone together at the same time, not publicity06:49
mdze.g., keybuk isn't around right now, but he likely will be at some point before the next TB meeting06:49
mdzbut it won't be as part of a public, archived meeting06:50
Kamionseems a bit underhand not to, but we can call extraordinary meetings for the purpose of approving people if it's more convenient to do so06:50
Kamione.g. announce meeting a day in advance at $TIME06:50
mdzcertainly approvals should go on public record06:50
mdzif they can happen outside of meetings06:51
makopeople can just join this channel.. it's archived06:51
mdzI don't think it's particularly important to schedule them; it shouldn't make a difference if others are present06:51
elmoor we could use a non-realtime medium like mailing lists?06:51
elmoas an alternative for approvals06:51
haggaimdz: I think it does make a difference because it's a chance for non-TB/CC people to speak up if they know a reason not to approve06:51
mdzwe should probably start requiring that approvals be authenticated somehow anyway06:51
mdzhaggai: hmm, good point06:51
elmo"Dear Scott, please approve Jeff.  kthxbye"06:51
Kamioneverything here is logged, anyway ...06:52
Kamionso they should always be in #ubuntu-meeting06:52
mdzthings here are logged, but not particularly well authenticated06:52
mdzanyway, it was just a thought06:52
haggaiIRC is great for going back and forth in a discussion without ending up with a long drawn out thread including possible flames etc06:53
mdzI'll try to call a TB mini-meeting to follow up with any TB decisions from this meeting06:53
Kamion"if any of you know just cause or impediment why this person should not be an Ubuntu maintainer, speak now or forever hold your peace"06:53
ograheh06:53
=== mako likes sabdfl's "security, PSHAW, i've see too many certificates in my life already" attitude
haggaior forever be flamed for not speaking up ;)06:53
ograKamion: practicing ?06:53
mdzare we finished with the agenda?06:54
makoyes06:54
makowe are06:54
makothanks everbody06:54
opilet's have a drink06:54
mdzoh, crimsun is to be consisdered for MOTU status06:54
Kamionogra: it might be slightly on my mind06:54
opi(or work:)06:54
ogramdz: yeah.....06:54
makomdz: you and haggai can do that alone06:54
mdzmako: me??06:55
ograheh06:55
=== mvo_ has to leave now to go to hockey training
Kamionfollowing up crimsun's references, I have no issues06:55
mdzI'm neither MOTU nor CC, and those are the two bodies that have authority on the issue06:55
makomdz: yeah, remember the fastrack MOTU procedure you suggested at the meeting two weeks ago?06:55
makoi thought it was tb members too06:56
makobut i can check my notes06:56
makoin any case, it's not difficult06:56
Kamioncrimsun: although could you add a source package for your bzflag package to http://sh.nu/~crimsun/?06:56
mdzcrimsun: is your key in the strongly connected set?06:56
crimsunKamion: certainly.06:56
crimsunmdz: no06:56
Kamionhm, and backports should ideally have decreased version numbers, not increased06:57
mdzmako: hmm, there is nothing in NewMaintainerProcessDraft about keys06:57
mdzmako: and I think there should be06:57
Kamion(looking at http://sh.nu/~crimsun/qsynaptics/qsynaptics_0.22.0-1ubuntu1.diff.gz)06:57
crimsunKamion: 0.22.0-0ubuntu1?06:57
mdzmako: ah, it's on NewMembersMaintainersDraft06:57
makomdz: yeah, it should be06:57
makomdz: that's an oversight06:58
mdzmako: you said they could be merged anyway, I think that's probably the right thing06:58
Kamioncrimsun: yeah, that would be better, it makes upgrades work more sanely06:58
Kamioncrimsun: i.e. maintain a warty < hoary invariant06:59
makoi have a short list of changes: (A) reference to motu fastrack process (b) example templates (c) testimonial sections beefed up (d) info on keys in the newmaint section (e) merge it all06:59
makothanks everyone!06:59
crimsunKamion: acked, will correct along with the remaining packages there.06:59
ogramako: did you already put up the signable CoC.txt ?07:00
Kamioncrimsun: thanks07:00
Kamionare existing MOTUs here happy with crimsun's work?07:01
ograabsolutely :)07:01
ograriddell ?07:01
makoogra: not linked up yet07:01
ogramako: got it still here: http://www.grawert.net/CoC.txt07:01
crimsunmako: is it adequate if I simply copy and paste from http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/conduct/ , or shall I use ogra's url?07:02
makocrimsun: either is adequate07:02
crimsunmako: thanks.07:02
makoohh07:02
makoNEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 1st!07:02
opino, the date of doom07:03
opiif my system won't start at 1st, I can stay longer, because I'll be fired :)07:03
makowait07:03
makothat's wrong07:03
makothat's the TB meeting07:03
mdzmako: did anyone call for additional items not on the agenda?07:03
makoi think i asked07:04
makomaybe i just thought about asking07:04
makomdz: do you have something?07:04
haggaiI have something07:04
mdzmako: it should be a standard part of the agenda to ask for other business, I think07:04
makomdz: yes07:05
makohaggai: go ahead07:05
mdzI try to do it at TB, and have added a note to the wiki as a reminder07:05
makomdz: i'll add a note07:05
haggaiabout mMOTU, proposing ogra to help07:05
haggaihe's been pretty active already and helpful with the community side07:05
makothat's fine with me07:05
mdzthere was consensus at a previous CC meeting that MOTU should be a proper Ubuntu team, with leadership roles07:05
haggaisince chrish can't help because he doesn't have the time, I need some more help07:05
makoogra: are you alright with that?07:06
mdzI believe haggai accepted, but chrish (the other nominee) had to decline due to time constraints07:06
makoKamion, elmo: if you're still around...07:06
haggaiogra doesn't have the same packaging / debian connections but I can handle that side07:06
haggaimdz: yes correct07:06
ograposting form a private chat with haggai: <ogra> i have no prob with being he-mans right hand ;)07:06
makohaggai, ogra: right.. i'm happy to let you guys work out the division of labor07:06
Kamionyes, ogra is fine with me if he's happy asking for help with packaging bits when needed07:06
ograi certainly will :)07:07
haggaiand I'd appreciate someone to bounce opinions off straight away too07:07
makohaggai: opinions of what sort?07:07
haggaimako: oh just thoughts, nothing specific07:08
elmowhat kamion said07:08
mdzogra has done good work already in helping people get into the process of joining MOTU, etc., and I think he would do well in an official capacity of that nature07:08
haggaiI mean wrt to ogra helping, maybe that wasn't clear07:08
=== ..[topic/#ubuntu-meeting:mako] : Tuesday 08 February 2005 16:00 UTC: Community Council meeting -- https://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/CommunityCouncilAgenda | Tuesday 01 February 2005 1600UTC: Technical Board --
Kamionmdz: agreed07:08
he-mans_little_hhelper....grr07:09
=== mdz tries not to make a dirty joke
opiwho's the tiger? :)07:09
haggaiback to normal then ;)07:09
opiI'd like to take a role of Skeleton07:09
=== ..[topic/#ubuntu-meeting:mako] : Tuesday 08 February 2005 16:00 UTC: Community Council meeting -- https://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/CommunityCouncilAgenda || Tuesday 01 February 2005 1600UTC: Technical Board -- http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/TechnicalBoardAgenda. || This is NOT #ubuntu, nor #ubuntu-devel
makoany other items/issues?07:10
mdzmeeting times?07:10
opi16:00 I guess07:10
mdzI'm inclined to propose a time change for TB next week07:10
makoi had assumed that the 16UTC worked07:10
makomdz: go ahead07:10
makomdz: the old tb time was last week07:10
makomdz: so that's up to you07:10
mdzI wouldn't *cough* mind if CC were different too07:11
mdzI think jdub would like to be able to attend as well07:11
makoit would be fun if hte CC could set the TB's time and vice versus07:11
mdzI was thinking that it might make more sense to have TB and CC on Tue and Wed or something like that07:11
haggaibah he-man is already taken by someone :)07:11
mdzrather than alternate Tuesdays07:11
mdzanyway, we can discuss it offline07:12
=== sivang [~sivang@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
makomdz: what like, weekley meetings?07:12
sivanghi all07:12
makono more items?07:12
mdzmako: still alternate weeks, but in the same week instead of different ones07:12
=== sivang regrets missing the meeting, had to attend something
makothe meeting that would not die is.....07:12
makodead07:12
mdzthis is nothing compared to an Ubuntu development meeting07:12
makomdz: i know :)07:13
makomdz: the hoary feature goals meeting was insantiy07:13
makoor was it the kickoff meeting07:13
makoi think the kickoff meeting07:13
makoyikes07:13
sivangmako: anything interesting I missed ? ;-/07:13
makosivang: it will be in the summary, don't worry07:14
ograsivang: there are logs....07:14
=== mako goes to get lunch/tea
sivangogra: sure, how long was it this time?07:18
ograstarted about 2hrs ago....07:18
sivangwow07:19
=== azeem [~mbanck@socks-out.lrz-muenchen.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
sivangand adjurned now right?07:19
sivangogra: you have a log ? ;-)07:20
ograsivang: fabio07:21
sivangogra : eh right07:21
=== maskie [~maskie@196-30-108-51.uudial.uunet.co.za] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
sivangogra: ah reading some more...looks like the nm process is starting to get rougher.07:42
sivang(there are logs in chrish' server)07:42
ograah, ok07:42
=== silb1 [~sbsm0084@host81-154-101-203.range81-154.btcentralplus.com] has left #ubuntu-meeting []
smurfixFamily emergencies are a pain :-(07:46
ograyou had one ?07:46
smurfixYeah, my mother managed to break her hand. On holiday. In India. :-(07:54
Mithrandirsmurfix: your family has this thing about breaking hands.07:55
ograweird07:56
=== jiyuu0 [~jiyuu0@219.94.82.28] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has left #ubuntu-meeting []
=== ogra [~ogra@p508EB8FD.dip.t-dialin.net] has left #ubuntu-meeting ["Verlassend"]
=== doko [doko@dsl-082-082-189-073.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!