[10:59] <gpocentek> hello
[11:00] <ajmitch> hi
[11:00] <crimsun> 'lo
[11:00] <dholbach> hello :)
[11:01] <ajmitch> everyone can look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council/Meetings while we wait :)
[11:01] <dholbach> we'd have quorum :)
[11:01] <ajmitch> sistpoty went to bed about 5 hours ago, saying he'd try & be here :)
[11:02] <dholbach> ok, while we wait for sistpoty to run us through his items on the agenda... why doesn't one of us present the things we decided or looked at together until now.
[11:02] <ajmitch> aha!
[11:02] <ajmitch> welcome, sistpoty
[11:02] <dholbach> hello sistpoty
[11:02] <sistpoty> hi
[11:02] <gpocentek> hi sistpoty
[11:02] <dholbach> sistpoty: I was just saying: ok, while we wait for sistpoty to run us through his items on the agenda... why doesn't one of us present the things we decided or looked at together until now. :-)
[11:03] <sistpoty> hehe
[11:03] <dholbach> Ok... as some  of you might have gathered from lists or specs already: we decoupled the MOTU membership process from meetings completely.
[11:03] <ajmitch> so we've agreed so far on quorum (3), public list, what else?
[11:03] <ajmitch> yay
[11:03] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Hopeful/Recruitment describes the process for that
[11:04] <dholbach> it will all happen on a public mailing list, called motu-council@lists.ubuntu.com (which is not created yet, but I'm pestering the sysadmins)
[11:04] <ajmitch> ok, thanks
[11:04] <dholbach> we further thought that there should be no incentive in subscribing to yet another mailing list. We'll try to keep only applications and administrative discussions on motu-council@ but do everything else on ubuntu-motu@
[11:05] <dholbach> so it's up to you if you subscribe or not - you're not likely to miss anything
[11:05] <ajmitch> another list will just be a drop in the bucket
[11:06] <crimsun> right, I think that's a good idea (maintains the "one-stop" MOTU feel and transparency)
[11:06] <dholbach> Probably, but it's nice to have MOTU discussions in one place.
[11:07] <dholbach> The MOTU Council was formed to have a body that is capable of making decisions, we thought that with five members in the team, a quorum of 3, a simple majority and a timeout of 48h would make sense.
[11:07] <ajmitch> less bureaucracy is good
[11:07] <dholbach> We documented that on http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council and http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council/Meetings already
[11:07] <ajmitch> the timeout avoids waiting arounf for consensus or reply from everyone
[11:07] <dholbach> Are there any questions up until now?
[11:07] <ajmitch> s/arounf/around/
[11:08] <crimsun> no questions from me.
[11:08] <sistpoty> nope
[11:08] <gpocentek> ok for me
[11:08] <dholbach> Ok super - why don't we kick off the meeting? :)
[11:08] <dholbach> new packages policy for MOTUs (sistpoty, as deferred from MOTU-Meeting)
[11:08] <sistpoty> is someone doing the minutes?
[11:09] <crimsun> I'll do minutes.
[11:09] <sistpoty> cool thanks crimsun
[11:09] <dholbach> we should get the https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScribesTeam involved :)
[11:09] <sistpoty> :)
[11:09] <dholbach> sistpoty: your floor
[11:09] <sistpoty> ok, new packages policy: we've discussed this on the motu meeting already... so I'll just give a short sum up
[11:09] <sistpoty> currently motu's need to go through revu and need 2 reviews for a new package
[11:10] <sistpoty> I think it would be better to drop that requirement and just make it a recommendation instead
[11:10] <dholbach> What about NEW packages from MOTU Hopefuls?
[11:11] <ajmitch> keep the 2 ACKs on REVU for them
[11:11] <dholbach> Wasn't the proposal to make it 1 successful review?
[11:11] <dholbach> Oh ok.
[11:11] <ajmitch> do you think that dropping it to 1 would be good?
[11:11] <gpocentek> I'd prefer to keep the 2 acks
[11:11] <dholbach> I think I remember people discussing it.
[11:12] <gpocentek> I often miss something when I review
[11:12] <crimsun> I agree w/ keeping the 2 ACKs for new source packages from non-ubuntu-dev members.
[11:12] <sistpoty> iirc we discussed this on motu-ml, and quite a few ppl. didn't like to get down on 1 vote
[11:13] <ajmitch> saying that MOTUs don't need to go through REVU is probably just acknowledging what already happens
[11:13] <dholbach> Ok, fine with me.
[11:13] <sistpoty> other opinions?
[11:14] <dholbach> Me too... it was often part of my job to get things done - or I just asked seb128 to give it a quick review.
[11:14] <gpocentek> same for me (for xubuntu packages)
[11:14] <dholbach> I personally think that new MOTUs will often be happy enough to still get a review.
[11:14] <Amaranth> i thought the whole point of being a MOTU was not having to go through the review process :)
[11:15] <ajmitch> Amaranth: it is, but for people who are newly made MOTUs, they can still benefit from reviewing
[11:15] <sistpoty> as I brought up the proposal, +1 from me
[11:15] <ajmitch> eg I don't think I'd expect a new MOTU to go & package up FDS without getting some help ;)
[11:15] <ajmitch> +1 from here
[11:15] <sistpoty> ok, great... let's move on then ;)
[11:15] <crimsun> +1 for dropping the 2 ACK requirement for new source packages for ubuntu-dev members
[11:16] <dholbach> +1 from me also
[11:16] <gpocentek> and +1 from me
[11:16] <dholbach> nice... consensus on the first MOTU Council decision
[11:16] <ajmitch> alright, exceptions for new packages during feature freeze..
[11:16] <ajmitch> :)
[11:16] <sistpoty> :)
[11:17] <dholbach> What was the Universe FF intended to be in the first place?
[11:17] <ajmitch> no new packages
[11:17] <ajmitch> there are people who have packages 'almost done' on revu that don't want to miss out
[11:17] <ajmitch> & then there's packages like glassfish & beryl which are being pushed by others
[11:18] <dholbach> Ok. In past releases the Technical Board was of the opinion that NEW packages were seldom of any harm, since they couldn't break existing functionality.
[11:18] <ajmitch> the intent of universe FF was that we have time to focus on bugfixing, rather than packaging & reviewing
[11:18] <sistpoty> well, it takes resources to review them, which were spent better with qa
[11:19] <dholbach> I think that it should be responsibility of the motu-uvf team to ack such requests (if we'd allow them in), which requirements should they ask for?
[11:19] <dholbach> I think it's pretty hard to draw a line there.
[11:19] <ajmitch> how's the motu-uvf team going with requests?
[11:19] <cjwatson> I'd recommend simple-to-review and high-importance as starting points for metrics, personally
[11:19] <dholbach> We're on top of things.
[11:20] <cjwatson> if you're making exceptions they need to be worthwhile ...
[11:20] <ajmitch> hi cjwatson
[11:20] <cjwatson> hi
[11:20] <cjwatson> practice in main is to be pretty liberal near the start of a given freeze and gradually tighten up
[11:20] <ajmitch> true, I've got some packages here that are worthwhile, but they wouldn't be easy to review
[11:21] <dholbach> Ok, so the proposal is "after 2 ACKs on REVU, the uvf team checks if the NEW package is worthwhile or not."?
[11:21] <crimsun> I'd like to request that we consider FF exception requests up until beta freeze (~Mar 15). I know of Ardour2, at least, which is going through a fairly lengthy beta 11.1 -> beta 12 -> RC testing period.
[11:22] <ajmitch> so a 3 week final window for new packages with some scrutiny?
[11:22] <dholbach> Although it'll mean more work for the uvf team (and me), I can see the point in the request.
[11:23] <ajmitch> dholbach: 'worthwhile' is fairly subjective, I hope it doesn't just end up pushing out FF by 3 weeks
[11:24] <dholbach> ajmitch: I know it is... if you can propose different requirements....?
[11:24] <sistpoty> I guess the first thing would be that the package has already been given two acks (in case it's from a hopeful)
[11:25] <sistpoty> not that ppl. will come and want a review alongside with an FF exception from motu-uvf
[11:25] <dholbach> Yeah - we definitely should make that clear.
[11:26] <ajmitch> the uvf team shouldn't need to look at the packaging itself
[11:26] <dholbach> Are there objections regarding that "worthwhile" might be too subjective?
[11:26] <sistpoty> fine with me
[11:26] <dholbach> (I personally think that it can be a problem in every approval process.)
[11:26] <ajmitch> no, I think we can leave it up to the uvf team to decie
[11:27] <ajmitch> s/decie/decide/
[11:27] <sistpoty> uvf-team will certainly find a way ;)
[11:27] <crimsun> right, I concur with delegating that to motu-uvf
[11:27] <gpocentek> fine with me as well
[11:27] <sistpoty> +1 here
[11:27] <dholbach> Ok, let's cast our votes for "Until Beta Freeze the motu-uvf team will consider NEW packages after they went through successful reviews and decide if they're worthwhile to have or not."
[11:28] <dholbach> +1 from me too
[11:28] <crimsun> +1
[11:28] <ajmitch> +1
[11:28] <gpocentek> +1
[11:28] <dholbach> that's a majority :)
[11:28] <dholbach> deciding on a 'hard freeze' for universe in the last week of the feisty cycle (ajmitch)
[11:28] <ajmitch> we did this for edgy, and very few people uploaded any fixes in the last week
[11:29] <dholbach> Mithrandir: Are you there? This might require your input.
[11:29] <ajmitch> this is where every universe upload needed to be ACKed
[11:30] <dholbach> as the release managers want to have somebody who ACKed the upload (somebody who's responsible for Universe), we maybe should think about broadening the UVF team to have no delays, but a direct ACK or NACK
[11:30] <sistpoty> yep, I remember dapper, where we crushed bugs until the final minute
[11:31] <ajmitch> the uvf team is going to be busy
[11:31] <cjwatson> one concern about very late uploads is that they can end up clogging up the buildds for urgent uploads to main. It's only a problem for big packages of course
[11:31] <dholbach> I don't know if we have the technical requirements (in soyuz) to lock main and to leave Universe/Multiverse just open
[11:31] <cjwatson> dholbach: no, although the archive team can fake that by manual work if necessary
[11:32] <cjwatson> (and we generally do during freezes)
[11:32] <dholbach> cjwatson: ok, thanks
[11:33] <dholbach> so we'll have to play along the hard freeze - what do you think about broadening the uvf team and probably making the process less strict, like "ping on IRC, point to debdiff, get ACK and tell release managers that it's ok"?
[11:34] <crimsun> I'm fine w/ expanding motu-uvf members
[11:34] <sistpoty> +1 here as well
[11:34] <crimsun> would it require a certain number of ACKs? unanimous?
[11:34] <ajmitch> unanimous would take too much
[11:34] <dholbach> I personally think that one should be enough
[11:34] <ajmitch> just 1
[11:34] <gpocentek>  /me agrees
[11:34] <crimsun> right, I concur
[11:35] <dholbach> what about keeping the hard freeze process light?
[11:35] <ajmitch> so stick with the freeze, but make it easy?
[11:35] <dholbach> or shall we do the file-a-bug-with-a-diffstat-and-diff--dance for that too?
[11:35] <ajmitch> no need to file a bug
[11:35] <gpocentek> I think IRC is fine
[11:35] <sistpoty> I'd prefer the easy model
[11:35] <ajmitch> since all uploads should be fixing a bug anyway
[11:36] <crimsun> URL to debdiff on IRC should suffice IMO
[11:36] <ajmitch> iirc crimsun attached the relevant changelog entry to bugs for edgy
[11:36] <ajmitch> which was a real help when I was asked whether to ACK/NAK
[11:36] <dholbach> Ok cool, I think we all agreed on that now.
[11:36] <ajmitch> how many more in motu-uvf?
[11:36] <ajmitch> 1 or 2?
[11:37] <dholbach> we're 3 atm
[11:37] <dholbach> 5 would be nice to have, I think
[11:37] <crimsun> +1 for expanding motu-uvf to 5
[11:37] <dholbach> +1 for 5 too
[11:38] <sistpoty> +-0... I'm happy with 4 or 5 equally
[11:38] <ajmitch> ok, +1 on keeping the freeze process as we said & +1 on motu-uvf to 5
[11:38] <gpocentek> +1 for 5
[11:38] <dholbach> anybody here who'd like to step up for the task?
[11:38] <crimsun> I'm happy to join motu-uvf for this cycle
[11:39] <dholbach> thanks crimsun, thanks ajmitch
[11:39] <dholbach> I'll add you to the team
[11:39] <crimsun> ok, thanks
[11:39] <ajmitch> k
[11:39] <dholbach> (thanks for keeping the voting process slim this time around)
[11:40] <dholbach> welcome to the team
[11:40] <dholbach> ok... "motu team cleanup"
[11:40] <sistpoty> everybode read the mail?
[11:40] <dholbach> the ubuntu-dev and motu teams clash a bit and references to the LP 'motu' team should be purged
[11:40] <ajmitch> yep
[11:41] <dholbach> imho it'd be better to have a universe-bugs team and make sure that LP sends universebugs to that team by default
[11:41] <ajmitch> this also relates to the issues with lp creating people on uploads
[11:41] <dholbach> (but that's not on the agenda for now)
[11:41] <dholbach> ajmitch: how so?
[11:41] <ajmitch> since ubuntu-motu@l.u.c is a registered address for motumedia
[11:41] <ajmitch> & we wanted it as a contact address, but not bug address, for motu :)
[11:41] <ajmitch> (rather impossible at the moment)
[11:42] <ajmitch> but I think reducing the number of teams would be good
[11:42] <dholbach> ok
[11:42] <Mithrandir> dholbach: universe is your domain, as you know.  I'd recommend on concentrating on bug-fixing and not new shiny, but for package splits and such, NEW processing will obviously need to happen.
[11:43] <Mithrandir> dholbach: note that the archive admins are not likely to have much time for source NEW at least in the later stages of the release.
[11:43] <dholbach> Mithrandir: right... thanks
[11:44] <dholbach> I'd propose to ask the LP folks to purge the 'motu' team and (in another step) get a 'universe-bugs' team and fix the bug routing that way.
[11:45] <ajmitch> mdz's suggestion was to keep motu, & empty out ubuntu-dev, I think
[11:45] <sistpoty> yep... ubuntu-dev would then be (only) core-dev + motu
[11:45] <ajmitch> making universe-bugs would be good
[11:46] <dholbach> I'm happy with that too - we'd just need to make TB the owner and un-administrator everybody, right?
[11:46] <Mithrandir> dholbach: "your" as in "you lot's", not you personally, naturally. :-)
[11:46] <Mithrandir> (sorry about that not being clear. ;-)
[11:47] <ajmitch> but he's the face of MOTU, of course it's his :)
[11:48] <ajmitch> dholbach: yep, I don't think anyone would need to be kicked out, just added
[11:48] <sistpoty> and the expiry dates set
[11:48] <dholbach> ok... so who's in favour of what?
[11:49] <ajmitch> +1 for turning motu over to TB, and adding universe-bugs
[11:49] <sistpoty> +1 here for ajmitch's proposal
[11:49] <dholbach> +1 from me too - although universe-bugs needs more discussion
[11:50] <gpocentek> +& for me as well
[11:50] <crimsun> in terms of work required, does it require less work to keep ubuntu-dev and drop motu?
[11:50] <gpocentek> +1 even
[11:50] <ajmitch> crimsun: it's mainly for clarity
[11:50] <ajmitch> but it would take less work to drop motu
[11:51] <dholbach> maybe it's also discoverability
[11:51] <crimsun> it makes more sense [to me]  to drop motu, keep ubuntu-dev, and consider universe-bugs
[11:52] <dholbach> To be honest, I can live with both proposals.
[11:52] <crimsun> that would prevent adding work to TB and also maintains the current structure (which seems to make sense [to me] )
[11:52] <sistpoty> well, I wouldn't want that someone creates motu after we dropped it tbh. though the whole discussion seems more of an aesthetical nature to me
[11:53] <sistpoty> who's in favor for dropping motu?
[11:54] <sistpoty> -1 from me, though only a very weak -1
[11:54] <crimsun> we should use the existing vote, I think: (+4 for purging ubuntu-dev and using motu)
[11:55] <sistpoty> ok, anyone volunteering to do the cleanup?
[11:55] <ajmitch> I don't think it should so long as the ubuntu-dev team still exists in a fashion
[11:56] <sistpoty> if nobody volunteers, I'll do some clicking later today ;)
[11:57] <sistpoty> ok
[11:57] <sistpoty> let's move on, shall we?
[11:57] <ajmitch> yep
[11:57] <crimsun> right.
[11:57] <ajmitch> I added the next item, but dholbach replied on the wiki saying it was already agreed on?
[11:58] <ajmitch> aha
[11:58] <ajmitch> for daniel..
[11:58] <ajmitch> I added the next item, but dholbach replied on the wiki saying it was already agreed on?
[11:58] <dholbach_> sorry, something grabbed my keyboard input and I couldn't type anything any more
[11:58] <ajmitch> np
[11:58] <dholbach_> we can go through the discussion again, but I recall a decision was made on the topic already.
[11:59] <Amaranth> dholbach: running compiz? :)
[12:00] <ajmitch> generally we'd know if someone was active, but what if they'd been idle for ~2 months?
[12:00] <ajmitch> I guess letting them expire is fine, as long as they know how to ask to reapply
[12:00] <dholbach> I propose we prod people every half a year (if they have not been sufficiently visible), and ask them. They can always re-apply.
[12:01] <dholbach> (and we should keep the hurdle low.)
[12:01] <dholbach> Amaranth: no
[12:01] <ajmitch> will the TB get notification of upcoming expirys?
[12:02] <sistpoty> I guess it might make sense to contact them first and ask if they plan to do some work in the future. maybe we can thus even reactivate lost motu's ;)
[12:02] <ajmitch> yeah
[12:02] <dholbach> I like that idea too.
[12:03] <dholbach> and in the same mail we should point out that it's no problem to be "deactivated" for a while, as it helps us to understand where we stand, and that it's also no problem to re-apply
[12:04] <gpocentek> this sounds good to me
[12:04] <ajmitch> ok
[12:04] <sistpoty> yep
[12:04] <crimsun> +1 for daniel's proposal
[12:04] <sistpoty> +1
[12:04] <dholbach> nice
[12:04] <dholbach> Ok, I volunteer to go through the list - who wants to assist me?
[12:05] <dholbach> ajmitch now has the new responsibility of the uvf team :)
[12:05] <dholbach> thanks gpocentek :)
[12:05] <gpocentek> :)
[12:05] <ajmitch> hehe ok
[12:05] <dholbach> next meeting
[12:05] <dholbach> sistpoty: did you mean the MOTU meeting or the MC meeting?
[12:06] <sistpoty> MOTU meeting
[12:06] <sabdfl> hi all
[12:06] <dholbach> heya sabdfl
[12:06] <sistpoty> hi sabdfl
[12:06] <dholbach> sabdfl: we're on the last agenda point already :)
[12:06] <sabdfl> just wanted to say well done and welcome aboard as a council
[12:07] <ajmitch> hi sabdfl
[12:07] <ajmitch> thanks
[12:07] <sistpoty> thx sabdfl
[12:07] <dholbach> thanks :)
[12:07] <dholbach> sistpoty: shouldn't we do that on the list?
[12:07] <dholbach> what about the next MC meeting - shall we try "every 2 weeks"?
[12:08] <ajmitch> well, we suggested every 3 weeks for a MOTU meeting
[12:08] <dholbach> ok maybe we should have a rolling rhythm - so we have a MOTU* meeting every 1,5 weeks
[12:09] <gpocentek> I'm already late... I'll read the logs when I'm back
[12:09] <ajmitch> gpocentek: ok, thanks for helping :)
[12:09] <dholbach> see you gpocentek - thanks for being with us in the meeting
[12:09] <sistpoty> cya gpocentek
[12:09] <crimsun> thanks gauvain
[12:10] <ajmitch> dholbach: sounds fair, the MotuProcessesSpec also says 3 weeks for MC
[12:10] <sistpoty> fine with me
[12:10] <ajmitch> I think we chose that because of a 3 week MOTU cycle
[12:10] <dholbach> that'd be Tuesday 6th of March for the next MOTU meeting if I counted correctly
[12:10] <ajmitch> yep
[12:10] <dholbach> any time suggestions?
[12:10] <dholbach> crimsun: maybe you suggest one this time :)
[12:11] <ajmitch> I think if we get it regularly on the calendar, it'll help
[12:11] <dholbach> I
[12:11] <sistpoty> maybe with rotating times?
[12:11] <crimsun> (waiting on Evolution...)
[12:11] <ajmitch> sistpoty: yep :)
[12:11] <dholbach> just try to decide on a time this time - we can see how it works out and then maybe decide on a rolling rhythm
[12:11] <ajmitch> sistpoty: so that you can have your 2AM meeting :)
[12:11] <sistpoty> hehe
[12:11] <dholbach> I'm happy to mail ubuntu-motu@ and fridge-devel@, once we decided.
[12:12] <Amaranth> this meeting started at 4am for me
[12:12] <dholbach> Amaranth: that's why I suggested for crimsun to pick the time :)
[12:12] <crimsun> how is 20:00 UTC?
[12:13] <dholbach> works for me
[12:13] <sistpoty> fine with me
[12:13] <dholbach> alrighty.... Mar, 6th, 20:00 UTC MOTU meeting
[12:13] <dholbach> thanks everybody for a very good first MOTU meeting
[12:14] <dholbach> MOTU Council meeting
[12:14] <ajmitch> well we still have 2 fixed items
[12:14] <ajmitch> I put the todo lists in the fixed item area, and agreeing on a MC meeting time
[12:15] <dholbach> Mar 16th would be 3 weeks from now on
[12:16] <dholbach> shall we make that 10:00 UTC again?
[12:16] <crimsun> sure
[12:16] <ajmitch> fine by me, crimsun?
[12:16] <crimsun> (I can manage 5 AM ok :)
[12:17] <sistpoty> well... middle of the night, but ok *g*
[12:17] <ajmitch> hah
[12:18] <ajmitch> seems that we have silent consensus, so TODO lists?
[12:18] <dholbach> Ok, agreed on that. Let's add some quick suggestions to the TODO list.
[12:18] <ajmitch> MOTU/TODO redirects currently
[12:18] <ajmitch> we want people to be doing bugfixing, laserjock gave some good suggestions
[12:19] <dholbach> we should have a separate page for that - what do you think?
[12:19] <sistpoty> yep
[12:19] <dholbach>  * review Universe/Multiverse bugs with patches attached (add link here)
[12:19] <dholbach>  * review Debian RC fixes
[12:20] <dholbach>  * look at UnmetDeps list (maybe file bugs again)
[12:20] <ajmitch> ah yes
[12:20] <dholbach> (* ask for rebuild test - ask for transitions that have not happened yet -> ubuntu-devel-discuss@)
[12:20] <sistpoty> * packagtes that FTBFS (list from lucas)
[12:21] <dholbach>  * generally fix universe/multiverse bugs
[12:21] <dholbach>  * tag bugs as 'bitesize' and 'packaging'
[12:22] <dholbach> that's all I can think of for now
[12:22] <dholbach> if you want, I'll set up that page now.
[12:22] <sistpoty> that would be great dholbach
[12:22] <ajmitch> thanks
[12:22] <dholbach> excellent
[12:23] <sistpoty> but now we're done :)
[12:23] <ajmitch> excellent :)
[12:23] <crimsun> thanks everyone!
[12:23] <dholbach> crimsun: can you send me the minutes before you send them off? I'd like to have a MOTU/Council/Meetings... page that quickly lists our decisions
[12:23] <sistpoty> thanks for the first meeting :)
[12:23] <crimsun> dholbach: already made that page
[12:24] <dholbach> crimsun: that way we could add the link to the wiki page and send the mail to the TB as well and fulfil our reporting duty
[12:24] <dholbach> WOW :)
[12:24] <ajmitch> maybe whoever gets to UDS can have a beer together ;)
[12:24] <dholbach> thanks guys
[12:24] <ajmitch> thanks daniel!
[11:56] <nixternal> @schedule chicago
[11:56] <Ubugtu> Schedule for America/Chicago: 24 Feb 15:00: Ubuntu US LoCo Team Mentor | 25 Feb 11:00: LoCo Team | 26 Feb 17:00: Community Council | 27 Feb 14:00: Technical Board | 28 Feb 12:00: Accessibility Team | 28 Feb 14:00: Edubuntu