[08:01] <freeflying> @schedule Shanghai
[08:01] <Ubugtu> Schedule for Asia/Shanghai: 07 Mar 02:00: Mozilla Team | 07 Mar 04:00: MOTU meeting | 07 Mar 20:00: Edubuntu | 09 Mar 00:00: Ubuntu Development Team | 11 Mar 18:00: LoCo Team | 13 Mar 02:00: Derivative Team
[08:01] <sid> @schedule New_York
[08:01] <Ubugtu> Schedule for America/New_York: 06 Mar 13:00: Mozilla Team | 06 Mar 15:00: MOTU meeting | 07 Mar 07:00: Edubuntu | 08 Mar 11:00: Ubuntu Development Team | 11 Mar 06:00: LoCo Team | 12 Mar 14:00: Derivative Team
[12:00] <Hobbsee> @schedule sydney
[12:00] <Ubugtu> Schedule for Australia/Sydney: 07 Mar 05:00: Mozilla Team | 07 Mar 07:00: MOTU meeting | 07 Mar 23:00: Edubuntu | 09 Mar 03:00: Ubuntu Development Team | 11 Mar 21:00: LoCo Team | 13 Mar 05:00: Derivative Team
[12:08] <emonkey> @schedule zurich
[12:08] <Ubugtu> Schedule for Europe/Zurich: 06 Mar 19:00: Mozilla Team | 06 Mar 21:00: MOTU meeting | 07 Mar 13:00: Edubuntu | 08 Mar 17:00: Ubuntu Development Team | 11 Mar 11:00: LoCo Team | 12 Mar 19:00: Derivative Team
[12:33] <daviey> @schedule london
[12:33] <Ubugtu> Schedule for Europe/London: 06 Mar 18:00: Mozilla Team | 06 Mar 20:00: MOTU meeting | 07 Mar 12:00: Edubuntu | 08 Mar 16:00: Ubuntu Development Team | 11 Mar 10:00: LoCo Team | 12 Mar 18:00: Derivative Team
[06:58] <gnomefreak> are we ready? and who is chairing?
[06:59] <dfarning> im ready
[06:59] <dfarning> for once
[06:59] <dfarning> I thought alex was
[07:00] <Admiral_Chicago> he won't be back until 18.30
[07:00] <gnomefreak> me too
[07:00] <asac> ready
[07:00] <tonyyarusso> Have an agenda link handy?
[07:00] <gnomefreak> Admiral_Chicago: what to chair?
[07:00] <gnomefreak> tonyyarusso: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Meetings
[07:01] <Admiral_Chicago> gnomefreak: no thank you, i have to be in and out due to school reponsibilities
[07:02] <dfarning> gnomefreak, you are the one with experience;)
[07:02] <AlexLatchford> meh?
[07:02] <gnomefreak> thanks but im in middle of something atm if someone wants to start
[07:02] <gnomefreak> dfarning: your up first anyway iirc
[07:02] <AlexLatchford> Okay ill chair
[07:02] <gnomefreak> ty AlexLatchford
[07:02] <dfarning> ty
[07:03] <AlexLatchford> dfarning: Approve MozillaTeam/Governance
[07:03] <dfarning> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Governance
[07:03] <gnomefreak> btw we dont have council page so i changed it
[07:03] <dfarning> Wanted to formally approve this
[07:03] <gnomefreak> but i see you found out :)
[07:03] <dfarning> ty
[07:04] <AlexLatchford> Personally I have no problems with the Council at the moment
[07:04] <AlexLatchford> the document as it stands is great
[07:04] <gnomefreak> +1
[07:04] <AlexLatchford> Maybe the whole 2 weeks meeting should be changed to monthly
[07:04] <gnomefreak> oh crap
[07:04] <asac> monthly is better i guess
[07:05] <dfarning> ok things were busy busy last month;)
[07:05] <dfarning> 1 per month
[07:05] <Admiral_Chicago> +1
[07:05] <AlexLatchford> well we can call one if we need one in between
[07:05] <gnomefreak> +1 unless needed otherwise
[07:05] <AlexLatchford> +1
[07:05] <AlexLatchford> who is on the Council so we know?
[07:05] <dfarning> nominate asac, john, alex, and freddy
[07:05] <AlexLatchford> I nominate dfarning
[07:06] <AlexLatchford> do we need CC approval?
[07:06] <Admiral_Chicago> i would nominate hilario
[07:06] <asac> don't know
[07:06] <dfarning> talk to johno we are ok
[07:06] <Admiral_Chicago> err i nominate hilario as well
[07:06] <gnomefreak> no we wouldnt really
[07:06] <dfarning> talked
[07:06] <dfarning> very clear we are under cc
[07:06] <gnomefreak> correct
[07:06] <AlexLatchford> hmm okay
[07:07] <gnomefreak> we need to decide on couuncil since 
[07:07] <dfarning> ??
[07:07] <gnomefreak> wow wtf was that
[07:07] <Admiral_Chicago> So to be clear, the council would take effect immedietly?
[07:08] <Admiral_Chicago> and last until feisty+1 came out?
[07:08] <dfarning> yes until feisty comes out in a couple of wee
[07:08] <gnomefreak> Admiral_Chicago: not as of now with new nominations
[07:08] <AlexLatchford> erm, well we have nominations for dfarning, AlexLatchford, gnomefreak, Admiral_Chicago, asac and hjmf
[07:08] <dfarning> I fine with that
[07:09] <AlexLatchford> cool, anyone know if hjmf has a problem with this?
[07:09] <Admiral_Chicago> ditto
[07:09] <gnomefreak> thats fine. has anyone checked with hjmf?
[07:09] <AlexLatchford> as I dont believe he is here
[07:09] <gnomefreak> he left a little while ago
[07:09] <dfarning> he is pretty busy with school
[07:09] <Admiral_Chicago> hes afk.
[07:09] <Admiral_Chicago> from what i recalll
[07:09] <AlexLatchford> aha okay, ewll we can include him and if his status changes we can rethink
[07:09] <AlexLatchford> +1 on all candidates
[07:09] <dfarning> +1
[07:10] <gnomefreak> i say we finish that up on ML
[07:10] <asac> +1 (though a pretty large group imo) :)
[07:10] <Admiral_Chicago> +1
[07:10] <dfarning> ok finish on ML
[07:10] <AlexLatchford> okay, dfarning can you make a new LP.net team and add the various members?
[07:11] <dfarning> yes
[07:11] <gnomefreak> if i remember i will send out a post to list
[07:11] <AlexLatchford> okay, thanks john
[07:11] <gnomefreak> yw
[07:11] <AlexLatchford> Next: Approve MozillaTeam/Membership
[07:11] <dfarning> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Membership
[07:11] <AlexLatchford> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Membership
[07:12] <dfarning> I would like to postpone until i talk more with jono
[07:12] <dfarning> new person friendly vs QA is hard;(
[07:12] <AlexLatchford> yeah you have a point there
[07:13] <gnomefreak> agreed dfarning you gonna handle talking to jono?
[07:13] <dfarning> I will do so
[07:13] <gnomefreak> i may have something else for you to run by him if i cant find elkbuntu
[07:13] <dfarning> ok
[07:13] <AlexLatchford> okay
[07:13] <dfarning> next?
[07:14] <AlexLatchford> -1 on Membership Wiki, postpone to next meeting
[07:14] <AlexLatchford> you again david
[07:14] <AlexLatchford> Approve MozillaTeam/Upstream
[07:14] <Admiral_Chicago> -1
[07:14] <Admiral_Chicago> err membership
[07:14] <dfarning> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Upstream
[07:14] <AlexLatchford> lol Freddy
[07:15] <asac> postpone
[07:15] <asac> ups
[07:15] <asac> late :)
[07:15] <gnomefreak> why -1?
[07:15] <asac> about membership ;)
[07:15] <dfarning> asac, what are your thoughts?
[07:16] <gnomefreak> im happy with postponing it until david speaks with jono
[07:16] <asac> the document is good, but i don't know if we need a official policy for that
[07:17] <dfarning> I would like to set a standard of behavior
[07:17] <dfarning> that other can depend on
[07:17] <dfarning> others
[07:17] <dfarning> so they know we will not send crap/spam
[07:17] <asac> ah ok
[07:18] <dfarning> exactly;(
[07:18] <asac> patches should only be pushed upstream as well as bugs
[07:18] <asac> after being reviewed by someone experienced imo
[07:18] <asac> if that is in that document then its fine
[07:18] <asac> its important not to stress upstream relationship ... as you said with "crap/spam"
[07:19] <AlexLatchford> Personally I feel the document needs a little more work before it should be approved
[07:19] <dfarning> i'll add that
[07:19] <dfarning> AlexLatchford, what other work?
[07:19] <gnomefreak> lets get up with jono see what he says than add it to agenda after wiki is fixed in jonos idea of it
[07:19] <AlexLatchford> Saying who to contact to confirm patches, I am on the team but do not know much about Patches
[07:20] <AlexLatchford> for instance..
[07:20] <Admiral_Chicago> i think we need to be more visible so people don't do work outside of our policies
[07:20] <gnomefreak> asac: would be the contact maybe david also?
[07:20] <AlexLatchford> Admiral_Chicago: True
[07:21] <Admiral_Chicago> for example, having to go and undo peoples tagging after we set a tag library
[07:21] <dfarning> I have been trying to be an admin contact letting you guys do all the tech stuff
[07:21] <gnomefreak> dfarning: tagging closing remarking ect...
[07:21] <asac> gnomefreak: contact for upstream bug review?
[07:22] <dfarning> ok with this in mind i'll rewrite and ask for more feed back on ML
[07:22] <AlexLatchford> +1 on dfarning's suggestion
[07:22] <gnomefreak> remarking example = after full crash report is attached people are "please install -dbg and run backtrace" or " not enough info closing..."
[07:22] <asac> ok .... action: improve upstream directions
[07:23] <Admiral_Chicago> +1 to a rewrite as well
[07:23] <AlexLatchford> Yes, it still needs a bit more discussion in my eyes
[07:23] <AlexLatchford> on the mailing list
[07:23] <dfarning> next?
[07:23] <asac> Admiral_Chicago: about the visibility
[07:23] <asac> there is a general debuggingprocedures page
[07:23] <asac> which links to our policy
[07:23] <AlexLatchford> Next: Extension / Theme policy - Admiral_Chicago
[07:24] <Admiral_Chicago> doesn't mean people read it
[07:24] <asac> bug triagers should read that page from time to time ... though they probably don't do
[07:24] <Admiral_Chicago> i mean in the community
[07:24] <asac> yes
[07:24] <AlexLatchford> maybe we can link it in from the Bugsquad page..
[07:24] <gnomefreak> they dont they are using -bugs responces
[07:24] <asac> i am working on convincing lp folks for adding special hints for packages
[07:24] <Admiral_Chicago> well i put this agenda item to be clear about which themes / extensions we can support
[07:25] <asac> like: bugs for this package are processed following procedures on http://xxx
[07:25] <gnomefreak> so far only what we have afaik
[07:25] <Admiral_Chicago> as I know of, we have a handful of themes and extensions in the repositories
[07:26] <dfarning> I did have enough tech knowledge to determine why we were packaging certain extensions
[07:26] <dfarning> did not
[07:26] <gnomefreak> asac: should we get a list and go one by one down list to see what ones would be worth adding for feisty+1 (somehow i doubt they will end up in feisty)
[07:26] <asac> please lets not add more to feisty
[07:26] <asac> others that crash
[07:26] <Admiral_Chicago> so i suggest we build a library of supported packages
[07:26] <asac> feisty is pretty late
[07:26] <gnomefreak> asac: thats why i said feisty+1 :)
[07:26] <asac> sorry :)
[07:26] <asac> sure
[07:27] <asac> anyway, i guess there are only a few extensions are valid candidates
[07:27] <AlexLatchford> Well, which extensions are we going to include, how do we decide?
[07:27] <Admiral_Chicago> once we get a valid bug report, those would have to be pushed upstream
[07:27] <gnomefreak> Admiral_Chicago: get a list of what you are thinking we support and add it to agenda for future meeting (IMHO) i have one nad asac had one we were looking into
[07:27] <dfarning> I am thinking remove unless there is a good reason to keep
[07:28] <asac> yes ... good reason: extension is really popular; ubuntu specific; or uses native component
[07:28] <dfarning> asac,  +1
[07:28] <AlexLatchford> +1 for me
[07:28] <gnomefreak> dfarning: i would rather in respect to community add some extensions/themes but only ones that can erally provide help and are throughly checked out
[07:28] <asac> native components are really rare ... so there should be only a handful in the end
[07:28] <dfarning> not becaue a MOTU thinks it would be a good place to start packaging
[07:28] <dfarning> ;(
[07:29] <asac> dfarning: imo we cannot do much, but deny that we will take care for them
[07:29] <gnomefreak> colorzilla == popular but imho crap since it is cause of alot of crashes
[07:29] <AlexLatchford> so what action are we taking?
[07:29] <asac> if they add such packages, packagers have to take care on bug triage alone
[07:29] <Admiral_Chicago> could we assign them back to the packager?
[07:29] <asac> colorzilla qualifies by "native component" which is why it crashes :)
[07:29] <gnomefreak> ah
[07:29] <asac> however colorzilla has not been released under free license
[07:30] <asac> so not yet a valid candidate
[07:30] <AlexLatchford> so what action are we taking?
[07:30] <dfarning> I'll post something to MOTU ML for consideration
[07:30] <asac> Admiral_Chicago: yes you can assign back to packager
[07:30] <AlexLatchford> are we going to make a list of extensions that are working, etc..
[07:30] <Admiral_Chicago> no i mean, let them deal with the bug reports
[07:30] <asac> don't know ... document which extensions qualify for mozilla team support
[07:30] <gnomefreak> mine has but i dont know where to even think about beginning on that one since i couldnt find the files we were looking for and i think i have since made it go away
[07:30] <asac> e.g. by guidelines i posted above
[07:30] <Admiral_Chicago> AlexLatchford: i was hoping we could get a list of extensions we support.
[07:31] <dfarning> would can do the list
[07:31] <gnomefreak> Admiral_Chicago: i would say start there
[07:31] <AlexLatchford> Admiral_Chicago: could you flesh out a wiki page and then post it to the ML for discussion?
[07:31] <Admiral_Chicago> AlexLatchford: can do chief
[07:31] <asac> Admiral_Chicago: i think we should decide if request pops up ... we can of course screen what is currently in archive and say "yes or no"
[07:31] <AlexLatchford> ta
[07:31] <gnomefreak> maybe on your rounds in irc look for what people like and use but try not to ask in support channels
[07:32] <Admiral_Chicago> yes
[07:32] <AlexLatchford> well look for bug reports, only package extensions that do not work without it
[07:32] <gnomefreak> im guessing we have a bit of time on that but would be good to have around feisty's release
[07:32] <Admiral_Chicago> i'll get a wiki going, send it to the ML, maybe post on the planet about it
[07:32] <gnomefreak> k
[07:32] <AlexLatchford> good idea
[07:32] <asac> k
[07:32] <dfarning> Admiral_Chicago, +1
[07:33] <AlexLatchford> Next: Greasemonkey script maintainer wanted - asac
[07:33] <gnomefreak> lol
[07:33] <asac> its just a request
[07:33] <asac> if someone knows .js
[07:33] <asac> and wants to improve life for us all :)
[07:33] <AlexLatchford> meh fair enough
[07:33] <gnomefreak> +1 for asac as maintainer ;) j/k
[07:33] <AlexLatchford> thought I would link it
[07:33] <asac> otherwise, i will try to do at some point
[07:33] <AlexLatchford> lol
[07:33] <Admiral_Chicago> i know a little java but not too much
[07:33] <gnomefreak> i havent looked at it yet
[07:33] <gnomefreak> Admiral_Chicago: its JS not so much java
[07:33] <asac> its just javascript
[07:33] <asac> like you do in html pages
[07:33] <gnomefreak> JS is easier
[07:34] <Admiral_Chicago> eh.
[07:34] <asac> maybe lets open a task page :) ... to add such jobs that still have no owner :)
[07:34] <gnomefreak> i remember bits and peices from classes i took in java. we had to work with some JS
[07:34] <AlexLatchford> asac: +1
[07:34] <gnomefreak> asac: +1
[07:34] <dfarning> got one on /Roadmap
[07:34] <AlexLatchford> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Roadmap
[07:35] <AlexLatchford> add it to the Roadmap Tasks
[07:35] <gnomefreak> btw everyone stay i have something to ask at end of meeting :)
[07:35] <Admiral_Chicago> will do gnomefreak
[07:35] <AlexLatchford> okay, next?
[07:35] <dfarning> next?
[07:35] <asac> ok maybe make another table for tasks that need a maintainer?
[07:35] <Admiral_Chicago> wait, we skipped AlexLatchford 's big
[07:35] <asac> i think we are through
[07:35] <Admiral_Chicago> bug*
[07:35] <asac> oh
[07:35] <AlexLatchford> Next: Dapper / Fx 2.0 policy [WWW]  Bug 89704 - Admiral_Chicago
[07:35] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 89704 in firefox "No backport of Firefox 2.o to Dapper" [Undecided,Needs info]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/89704
[07:36] <AlexLatchford> Admiral_Chicago: yeah we are not going in order, my points are not High on the list
[07:36] <gnomefreak> thats stated in bug
[07:36] <Admiral_Chicago> asac: maybe you can say something about out 1.5 policy
[07:36] <gnomefreak> there isnt much we can do with it
[07:36] <Admiral_Chicago> our*
[07:36] <dfarning> Asac can you write a faq on why we can build 2.0 on dapper
[07:36] <AlexLatchford> Yes I read the response from cjwatson
[07:36] <asac> ah
[07:36] <dfarning> cann't
[07:36] <asac> look at the bug
[07:36] <gnomefreak> dfarning: the upgrade page shouyld be fine for htat
[07:36] <asac> its already done
[07:36] <gnomefreak> that
[07:36] <asac> we posted official wiki page
[07:37] <asac> that states how we approach dapper long term security
[07:37] <dfarning> where, I missed that;(
[07:37] <asac> see comment from colin
[07:37] <Admiral_Chicago> looking now
[07:37] <gnomefreak> http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DapperFirefoxSupport
[07:37] <Admiral_Chicago> the Beta LP page is slower than molasses
[07:37] <asac> yes thats the content
[07:38] <gnomefreak> Admiral_Chicago: yes i know but i think because everyone went looking at it
[07:38] <dfarning> reading
[07:38] <AlexLatchford> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/FAQ
[07:38] <AlexLatchford> have added this for now
[07:38] <asac> good
[07:39] <AlexLatchford> So this issue is sorted...
[07:39] <Admiral_Chicago> alright
[07:39] <dfarning> sound good
[07:39] <asac> should be ... official statement exists
[07:39] <AlexLatchford> Next: Accessibility testing and issues, where we can help...
[07:39] <asac> e.g. canonical statement
[07:39] <Admiral_Chicago> gnomefreak: no, i think in general
[07:39] <AlexLatchford> This is more of a 'Be Aware' than a discussion point
[07:40] <Admiral_Chicago> the beta page is just slow...
[07:40] <gnomefreak> Admiral_Chicago: its not slow for me anymore
[07:40] <Admiral_Chicago> maybe its my network, i'll test at home
[07:40] <gnomefreak> agreed in most cases is
[07:40] <gnomefreak> moving on?
[07:40] <AlexLatchford> Next: Accessibility testing and issues, where we can help...
[07:40] <AlexLatchford> This is more of a 'Be Aware' than a discussion point
[07:40] <asac> i have no idea about accessibility
[07:41] <dfarning> me neither;(
[07:41] <asac> i don't like this
[07:41] <AlexLatchford> Basically the Accessibility Team has been working hard on Orca in Firefox to make sure it actually works
[07:41] <gnomefreak> me neither to both comments
[07:41] <asac> but someone who knows should setup some introduction on something
[07:41] <dfarning> I'll look into in
[07:41] <asac> e.g. what tools are used for what
[07:41] <asac> etc.
[07:41] <AlexLatchford> well Orca is the main program
[07:41] <AlexLatchford> currently they are implementing colour filters for the colour blind I believe
[07:41] <gnomefreak> AlexLatchford: is it orcas issues or ff?
[07:41] <dfarning> I'll ask the ocra guy for a introduction to the issues
[07:41] <Admiral_Chicago> afaik, orca has a lot of problems building
[07:41] <AlexLatchford> Well it is Orca issues that will probably be reported to Firefox
[07:42] <asac> if its a firefox specific issue, someone who knows should probably come up with some details
[07:42] <gnomefreak> IMHO orca should be filed against orca
[07:42] <AlexLatchford> Well, this is what we are trying to discover, we need to work closely with them as sometimes it is their bug and sometimes it is ours
[07:43] <dfarning> I'll start the discussion
[07:43] <asac> sure ... they should just join us :) ... at least from time to time
[07:43] <AlexLatchford> but if you see a bug that you believe is Accessibility related, say if it only occuring with Orca enabled
[07:43] <AlexLatchford> yeah, i will invite Henrik to the next meeting
[07:43] <Admiral_Chicago> he was at our last one iirc.
[07:43] <AlexLatchford> ..then tag it 'Accessibility' and also subscribe the Accessibility Team to the bug
[07:43] <asac> haven't seen any ... maybe orca people can do us a favor and search our bts for orca issues?
[07:43] <AlexLatchford> Admiral_Chicago: yes he was
[07:44] <gnomefreak> my point being we have more than enough bugs to spread out to 35 teams and still not be fixed by end of year why add more if its not related to fx or tb
[07:44] <AlexLatchford> gnomefreak: this is what I am saying, we need to reassign it when it is an issue..
[07:44] <asac> yes ... if its not related, its not our problem
[07:44] <asac> reassign
[07:44] <AlexLatchford> as we cannot fix it
[07:45] <AlexLatchford> it is more of a be aware of this problem
[07:45] <AlexLatchford> than what we need to do
[07:45] <asac> ok :)
[07:45] <gnomefreak> AlexLatchford: you have the link to them as tagged still on the tags wiki right?
[07:45] <AlexLatchford> Believe so
[07:45] <AlexLatchford> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Bugs/Tags
[07:45] <gnomefreak> dfarning: who are you planning on talking to?
[07:46] <gnomefreak> btw ther eis only 1
[07:46] <AlexLatchford> Well I have emailed the Accessibility list
[07:46] <dfarning> who ever know anything about accessability:)
[07:46] <AlexLatchford> and they are kind of aware of the problem, the response I got back was a little quiet
[07:46] <gnomefreak> lol dfarning
[07:46] <gnomefreak> ok who has free time this week
[07:46] <AlexLatchford> ill investigate this more
[07:46] <gnomefreak> lets kill all birds ;) with this
[07:46] <AlexLatchford> as I started it
[07:47] <dfarning> ubutnu accessability, firefox accessibilty, ...
[07:47] <AlexLatchford> Okay.. moving on?
[07:47] <gnomefreak> asac: any patches/testing need to be done this week?
[07:47] <gnomefreak> AlexLatchford: one sec please
[07:47] <AlexLatchford> okay
[07:48] <dfarning> did the apport patch make it?
[07:48] <asac> gnomefreak: not yet :)
[07:48] <asac> ^^ about patches/testing that needs to be done
[07:48] <gnomefreak> asac: ok i need someone else with me on bug triaging this week. start at one end and work your way through tagging them and assigning them
[07:49] <AlexLatchford> I have added the testing repository to my sources.list
[07:49] <gnomefreak> s/asac/everyone
[07:49] <asac> it might be a bit tricky to install testing repository versions for the first time
[07:49] <gnomefreak> it seems like we got caught up with other things nad forgot about it
[07:49] <asac> after that they should automatically upgrade
[07:49] <gnomefreak> dfarning: thats fine.
[07:49] <gnomefreak> dfarning: ill be here most of day during week
[07:50] <asac> okay ... are we through
[07:50] <asac> ??
[07:50] <dfarning> sounds good
[07:50] <gnomefreak> dfarning: just remember crash report/edgy/coredump please assign to me
[07:50] <dfarning> ok
[07:50] <AlexLatchford> Next: GUI Consistency. [WWW]  Bug 42263
[07:50] <Ubugtu> Malone bug 42263 in firefox "Toolbar display should be "Icons and text" for consistency" [Wishlist,Confirmed]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/42263
[07:50] <gnomefreak> ick still on that one
[07:50] <AlexLatchford> meh?
[07:51] <AlexLatchford> well there is an option to turn it off
[07:51] <gnomefreak> hover mouse over it and text is there
[07:51] <AlexLatchford> agreed, but it is more for consistency
[07:51] <dfarning> we may want to postpone this one
[07:51] <dfarning> talk of mozilla starting a linux gui group
[07:51] <AlexLatchford> Really?
[07:52] <gnomefreak> you can add text fairly easy
[07:52] <Admiral_Chicago> yes postpone it.
[07:52] <dfarning> so all distros can work together to improve interface on gtk kde
[07:52] <AlexLatchford> gnomefreak: I know, but it is more of a consistency across the desktop
[07:52] <AlexLatchford> TB, Nautilus, gEdit all use Text too
[07:53] <Admiral_Chicago> Konqueror doesn't
[07:53] <AlexLatchford> *rolls eyes*
[07:53] <gnomefreak> asac: ?
[07:54] <Riddell> Admiral_Chicago: doesn't what?
[07:54] <AlexLatchford> Personally it wouldn't bother me too much if the change was made
[07:54] <gnomefreak> Riddell: have text and icons
[07:54] <Riddell> gnomefreak: it does in KDE 4
[07:54] <AlexLatchford> as default?
[07:54] <Riddell> yes
[07:54] <gnomefreak> yes
[07:55] <AlexLatchford> well if we are after consistency I really think the change needs to be made, but whether or not we wait until Feisty+1 for it if we need more debate time..
[07:55] <gnomefreak> we should beablet o change it with very little feedback from mozilla but im opposed to the change personally. it just adds one more thing to slow fx down
[07:55] <asac> sorry ... have no time ... tel conference
[07:56] <gnomefreak> asac: k
[07:56] <Admiral_Chicago> i meant in 3.5.6.
[07:56] <gnomefreak> ok lets posepone this than wait for asac feedback on it
[07:56] <dfarning> ok
[07:56] <AlexLatchford> gnomefreak: agreed
[07:56] <gnomefreak> Admiral_Chicago: text is off there
[07:56] <Admiral_Chicago> i know that is one thing that has been worked on
[07:56] <gnomefreak> it should be as simple as a option in rules during ./configure
[07:57] <gnomefreak> but im not positive on that
[07:57] <AlexLatchford> just fired up OOo and it doesn't use text
[07:57] <Admiral_Chicago> to be fair, we have to realize we are packaging from MF, it is really up to them
[07:57] <AlexLatchford> maybe this is a decision the TechBoard should take
[07:57] <Admiral_Chicago> the best we can do is file upstream
[07:57] <gnomefreak> MF? and please dont say what i think you mean
[07:57] <Admiral_Chicago> Mozilla Foundation...
[07:58] <gnomefreak> oh ok good :)
[07:58] <Admiral_Chicago> haha.
[07:58] <dfarning> this it for meeting?
[07:58] <gnomefreak> but again ITS A UBUNTU CHANGE afaik
[07:58] <gnomefreak> not mozillas
[07:58] <AlexLatchford> well that change will never be included in Firefox default, but we can change it in Ubuntu Firefox
[07:59] <Admiral_Chicago> really? hmm, we may need to look at that
[07:59] <gnomefreak> we had one more i think
[07:59] <dfarning> all ubuntu changes need mozilla approval
[07:59] <dfarning> to keep trademark
[07:59] <AlexLatchford> gnomefreak: we have done everything on the list
[07:59] <gnomefreak> dfarning: its provided as a ./configure option i think
[07:59] <gnomefreak> AlexLatchford: ah ok goodie
[07:59] <AlexLatchford> lol what do you have to say..
[07:59] <dfarning> ok
[07:59] <gnomefreak> ok anyone going through bugs please assign edgy retraces to me
[08:00] <dfarning> ok
[08:00] <AlexLatchford> okay
[08:00] <gnomefreak> i want to get them out asap
[08:00] <AlexLatchford> We have any news of Thunderbird-dbg
[08:00] <gnomefreak> and since i cant always be here that doesnt mean im not infront of pc
[08:00] <gnomefreak> dfarning: thats your department
[08:00] <gnomefreak> what email was i going to write? :(
[08:00] <gnomefreak> council?
[08:01] <dfarning> Are we still missing the latest build -dbgsym
[08:01] <Admiral_Chicago> gnomefreak: will do if i see any
[08:01] <dfarning> for tb
[08:01] <gnomefreak> dfarning: we have no tb-dbg or dbgsym for edgy at all there is a dbg-sym for feisty i think
[08:01] <AlexLatchford> dfarning: I am running Feisty and there is no Thunderbird-dbg package
[08:01] <dfarning> ill follow up with martin
[08:02] <AlexLatchford> maybe I am looking in the wrong place..
[08:02] <gnomefreak> mozilla-thunderbird-dbgsym in feisty
[08:02] <gnomefreak> AlexLatchford: add universe and multiverse restricted to pittis repo :)
[08:03] <gnomefreak> its in main
[08:03] <AlexLatchford> I need pitti's own repository?
[08:03] <tonyyarusso> What is dbgsym?
[08:03] <gnomefreak> for the dbgsym you do
[08:03] <AlexLatchford> gnomefreak: aha okay, this is probably why it is not showing
[08:03] <gnomefreak> they are debugging symbols for packages
[08:03] <tonyyarusso> ah
[08:03] <gnomefreak> AlexLatchford: its not dbg so you cant get backtrace with it
[08:04] <dfarning> they are the debug symbols striped out of the executables
[08:04] <AlexLatchford> hmm okay
[08:05] <gnomefreak> ok are we done i need a smoke
[08:05] <AlexLatchford> Meeting Closed I guess
[08:05] <AlexLatchford> thanks guys
[08:05] <gnomefreak> :)
[08:05] <gnomefreak> ty
[08:05] <dfarning> adjourn
[08:59] <\sh> moins
[09:00] <ajmitch> hi
[09:00] <geser> hi
[09:00] <dholbach> heya
[09:00] <TheMuso> Hey all.
[09:00] <siretart> hey folks!
[09:00] <lfittl> hello everybody
[09:00] <shawarma> Hi!
[09:01] <Lure> hi
[09:01] <Toadstool> heya!
[09:01] <morty> Hello
[09:01] <dholbach> Ok, let's start off with the meeting
[09:01] <dholbach> First point on the agenda: "SRU Policy evaluation. How can we make it more efficient an worthwhile?"
[09:01] <ajmitch> Mithrandir had some suggestions about that
[09:02] <sistpoty> hi
[09:02] <dholbach> sistpoty added some suggestions for that at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings
[09:02] <ajmitch> we have a lot of packages stuck in testing
[09:02] <ajmitch> hi Mithrandir :)
[09:02] <sistpoty> erm... I didn't add the suggestions :P
[09:03] <sistpoty> however I agree that we have many pacakges stuck in testing... I actually wanted to do some figure for the next sru-report, but the trend seems obvious already
[09:03] <ajmitch> "lots"
[09:03] <dholbach> how many are those?
[09:03] <sistpoty> dholbach: I don't have the figures yet...
[09:04] <ajmitch> sistpoty: since your last report, do you know of any being let into -updates?
[09:04] <Mithrandir> dholbach: enough that people try to sneak in bugfixes as backports instead of going through the SRU dance.
[09:04] <sistpoty> ajmitch: at most one, but I don't remember exactly
[09:04] <Mithrandir> when people are trying to do that, it means doing the right thing (SRU) is harder than doing the wrong thing (backport)
[09:04] <crimsun> one thing that has bugged me about universe SRU is that ours is apparently more stringent than main's. Requiring 5 ACKs seems a bit far-flung.
[09:05] <sistpoty> yep
[09:05] <sistpoty> do I read the first proposal right, to skip -proposed entirely?
[09:05] <Mithrandir> crimsun: agreed, that seems a bit over the top.  Especially given that you won't ever see core packages such as X or the kernel in a universe update.
[09:06] <crimsun> I would not feel comfortable skipping release-proposed
[09:06] <sistpoty> (also there some really easy ones with trivial changes/or mere rebuilds)
[09:06] <Mithrandir> I think the ideas added there was from some suggestions I threw out without really thinking them through last night, so they might be crackful.
[09:06] <crimsun> however, we should consider dropping the 5-ACK requirement
[09:06] <dholbach> Ok, we have the following suggestions:     * Just have motu-sru ack then upload to -updates
[09:06] <dholbach>     * Go back to old policy where SRU didn't need approvals, just MOTU uploads. Perhaps still using -proposed for higher risk or high profile updates.
[09:06] <dholbach>     * Form testing team to get testing done faster. The current bottleneck seems to be mostly in getting testing.
[09:06] <dholbach>     * (ADDED) Reduce the number of ACKs.
[09:06] <siretart> crimsun: like in requiring 2 or 3 ACKs or dropping it entirely?
[09:07] <sistpoty> hm... ideally I'd like to see every motu being able to upload directly to -proposed, and have the checking done only prior to -updates
[09:07] <sistpoty> however that comes with another problem:
[09:07] <dholbach> Apart from reducing the number of ACKs, I think the testing team is a very good idea.
[09:07] <Mithrandir> the idea of the first one was to have the current process, but upload to -updates and not -proposed and thereby have -updates be the testing and the safe area.  It means we can get fixes in quite a bit quicker, but also that enabling universe -updates might open you to lightly/not tested fixes.
[09:07] <ajmitch> sistpoty: I thought that's how it was meant to be now
[09:07] <sistpoty> ajmitch: no, it's still going through -proposed first
[09:07] <crimsun> dholbach: / siretart: dropping a 5-ACK requirement seems like a good idea if we get an SRU verification team (similar to main's) in place
[09:08] <sistpoty> well the other problem we have is that most of the updates are not done by motu's but rather by motu-hopefuls
[09:08] <crimsun> in essence, replacing the 5 ACKs with 1
[09:08] <Mithrandir> remember that creating another team does not magically increase the amount of manpower available.
[09:08] <ajmitch> sistpoty: they have to be checked by 1 MOTU anyway then
[09:08] <ajmitch> especially when you get the same people in 5 teams
[09:09] <sistpoty> ajmitch: yep... currently that's motu-sru doing the checks
[09:09] <sistpoty> ajmitch: however I'd also like to have *one* person responsible for an update, so that would probably suggest to transfer the responsibility to the motu sponsoring
[09:09] <sistpoty> (which could then as well be bad)
[09:09] <ajmitch> that's what a sponsor should do anyway :)
[09:10] <\sh> sistpoty: how many StableReleaseUpdates do we have daily/weekly/monthly?
[09:10] <siretart> \sh: enough. really..
[09:10] <ajmitch> \sh: and how many don't get done because of the long slow process?
[09:10] <crimsun> right. I propose we drop the 5-ACK requirement and just have the sponsoring MOTU check it.
[09:10] <sistpoty> \sh: currently I'd say ~2 per week, with 26 currently ongoing
[09:10] <crimsun> (we should be making this more lightweight instead of adding another team)
[09:10] <ajmitch> crimsun: agreed
[09:11] <sistpoty> \sh: however when we first introduced the policy, the numbers where far higher
[09:11] <siretart> consent, even.
[09:11] <ajmitch> crimsun: so make -proposed open for all uploads, and have 1 signoff before it gets pushed to -updates?
[09:11] <Mithrandir> given that universe is so lightly covered before release, I think we will always have a fairly high amount of SRUs done to fix critical bugs there, so we should just plan for that.
[09:12] <dholbach> was the -proposed stage the bottleneck?
[09:12] <Toadstool> ajmitch: how do you determine whether it can be signed off or not? wait for someone to confirm there's no regression?
[09:12] <crimsun> ajmitch: a step forward, yes. We should keep the minimum aging period, though.
[09:12] <Mithrandir> dholbach: many updates seem to get into -proposed, but never get uploaded to -proposed.
[09:12] <sistpoty> dholbach: currently it is (or rather the testing phase there)
[09:12] <ajmitch> dholbach: it seems to be
[09:12] <Mithrandir> uh, never get uploaded to -updates
[09:13] <crimsun> Toadstool: the minimum aging period combined with testing should alleviate that
[09:13] <dholbach> ok, so making -proposed open for all uploads does not really help the problem, right?
[09:13] <ajmitch> Toadstool: having at least 1 person testing is helpful
[09:13] <ajmitch> dholbach: depends if you still want motu-sru approving anything for -proposed
[09:13] <sistpoty> at which point would motu-sru then review the diffs? or not at all?
[09:14] <\sh> sistpoty: thinking about manpower and time: how many packages are tested and checked from the sru team during one week? (also thinking, that this work is lost from the normal motu work)
[09:14] <dholbach> I think that having an initial check is a good thing
[09:14] <sistpoty> \sh: sru-team currently doesn't test updates, but only reviews the debdiffs
[09:14] <sistpoty> \sh: and this happens (apart from a few exceptions) very timely
[09:15] <siretart> since we have enough members now, it seems.
[09:15] <crimsun> motu-sru shouldn't block release-proposed IMO. Making fixes widely available via release-proposed ASAP seems like a good idea.
[09:15] <sistpoty> Mithrandir: is it possible from a lp side to have uploads to -proposed pass through as is?
[09:16] <sistpoty> crimsun: I agree
[09:16] <Mithrandir> sistpoty: it'd require manual action from an archive team member, but doing that either when prodded or on archive days would be fine.
[09:17] <\sh> siretart: well, but checking the debdiffs, doesn't mean that the package is alright. And if there are no users who are actively testing, it won't get uploaded to -updates, right? so the workload of checking debdiffs is useless somehow, until there is at least one user who tells us: "Package works for me" , or did I misunderstood something? :)
[09:17] <sistpoty> ok
[09:17] <ajmitch> afaik there are 3 archive days a week no, so that's no blocker
[09:17] <sistpoty> \sh: right. because of that we have the stage in -proposed
[09:18] <sistpoty> \sh: however checking the debdiffs is not useless actually ;)
[09:18] <dholbach> requiring the sponsor to test and having a team of testers test it would help with that step, wouldn't it?
[09:19] <sistpoty> sure, it would, but also lowering the number of acks needed would as well
[09:19] <dholbach> that's what I meant: one sponsor ACK, one testing team ACK
[09:20] <dholbach> that's just a proposal - you guys who work on the motu-sru team know better than I do, if it makes sense.
[09:20] <sistpoty> how about the following: any motu can upload to -proposed. one member of sru needs to give green lights for -updates + 5 works for me within 5 days, 3 within 10 days and > 10 days needs another ack from motu-sru (to sort out simple stuff like rebuilds from tougher updates)?
[09:20] <Toadstool> dholbach: so motu-sru approval is not required anymore in your proposal?
[09:20] <\sh> sistpoty: you know what I mean, checking the debdiff, but no one to test, the package will not leave -proposed, so the work is "vertane zeit" ( I don't know the english translation)
[09:21] <crimsun> Ok, so how does this proposal sound?  1) Remove the pre-upload-to-proposed ACK requirement (make -proposed open to ubuntu-dev without motu-sru approval).  2) The sponsoring ubuntu-dev member is responsible for gathering testing with 2 ACKs, which must be documented on the LP bug and in the final -updates changelog.  3) The minimum aging period of 7 days in -proposed remains.  4) motu-sru goes away.
[09:21] <sistpoty> \sh: hehe, you mean because no update actually makes it, right? *g*
[09:21] <\sh> sistpoty: yepp
[09:21] <sistpoty> \sh: sure
[09:21] <dholbach> Toadstool: that's a different question :)
[09:22] <Mithrandir> crimsun: sounds fine with me.
[09:23] <ajmitch> crimsun: I like it
[09:23] <crimsun> From my perspective in motu-sru, we've really only encountered a few true discussion-worthy ones. The remainders are trivial "oh, looks good, +1".
[09:23] <siretart> crimsun: how many testers do have to confirm the fix with your proposal?
[09:23] <Toadstool> crimsun: looks good.
[09:23] <dholbach> crimsun: I like it too.
[09:23] <crimsun> siretart: two (including the ubuntu-dev sponsor and one tester)
[09:23] <Mithrandir> of course, people are allowed to ask for second opinions if they feel an update needs more review.
[09:24] <crimsun> Mithrandir: precisely
[09:24] <rmjb> can ubuntu-qa assist with testing?
[09:24] <sistpoty> crimsun: I generally like to see normal motu's more involved in sru's and take more responsibility there. sounds great for me
[09:24] <dholbach> rmjb: we could ask ubuntu-bugsquad@ for help with that
[09:25] <crimsun> anyone else have thoughts on the proposal given above, and/or can we "vote"?
[09:25] <sistpoty> let's vote
[09:25] <ajmitch> +1 for crimsun's proposal
[09:25] <sistpoty> +1
[09:25] <\sh> crimsun +1 :)
[09:25] <dholbach> +1 too
[09:26] <TheMuso> +1
[09:26] <crimsun> +1
[09:26] <Toadstool> +1
[09:26] <ajmitch> sounds like it's approved, what's next on the list? :)
[09:26] <sistpoty> how do we do the transition for this policy?
[09:27] <siretart> +1 and +1 :)
[09:27] <sistpoty> unsubscribe motu-sru from all bugs and subscribing universe-sponsors for the ones which don't have a motu as assignee?
[09:27] <ajmitch> sistpoty: find everything with 2 ACKs & get it pushed to -updates
[09:27] <dholbach> We need to document it and announce it to the public, especially to the TB.
[09:27] <crimsun> sistpoty: sounds good for starters
[09:28] <Mithrandir> ajmitch: somebody needs to actually do the uploads, though.
[09:28] <siretart> can we just remove the group 'motu-sru'?
[09:28] <ajmitch> excellent one *less* team :)
[09:28] <ajmitch> Mithrandir: ah true, they don't get manually shoved across, do they?
[09:28] <crimsun> siretart: that sounds good
[09:28] <sistpoty> well, I'd like to see all SRU's from non-motus which have been sponsored by motu-sru being taken care for... then we can remove motu-sru ;)
[09:29] <sistpoty> but I guess I'll do some uploads to -updates after the meeting ;)
[09:29] <Mithrandir> ajmitch: they need to be uploaded.
[09:29] <dholbach> Nice. I'll update the Freeze Exception page and write an announcement.
[09:29] <sistpoty> great dholbach
[09:29] <sistpoty> ok, next item?
[09:30] <dholbach> jono asks: "From asking around, it seems the project needs help with (a) outreach and getting new people involved (b) getting people excited about MOTU and (c) defining some direction for the project. Is this a fair assessment?"
[09:30] <dholbach> I'm not sure it's a good idea to discuss it in a meeting, since we could spend quite some time in here talking about the topic.
[09:31] <dholbach> What do you think about having some minutes of brainstorming as 'data collection' for another meeting or discussion on the mailing list?
[09:31] <TheMuso> dholbach: I would have to agree.
[09:31] <\sh> dholbach: I think a better question is: how are the other community driven projects solving this problems? mostly a hen and egg problem ;)
[09:31] <crimsun> I propose we migrate that discussion ubuntu-motu@ .
[09:31] <dholbach> \sh: It's definitely another question. :)
[09:31] <sistpoty> I guess it might make sense to have jono here to actually discuss it, but brainstorming sounds good
[09:31] <crimsun> +to
[09:31] <siretart> just one small point here:
[09:32] <siretart> this weekend, at chemnitzer linux tage, I had a talk about developer communities in ubuntu
[09:32] <dholbach> siretart: nice - you have some slides up somewhere? :)
[09:32] <siretart> the ppl were quite impressed about that we have so few developers for so many packages
[09:32] <siretart> and that ubuntu is such a young distro
[09:33] <dholbach> I hope you all feel patted on the back.
[09:33] <siretart> dholbach: sure, get them at http://wiki.tauware.de/blog:clt2007 - directly: http://wiki.tauware.de/_media/blog:ubuntu_communities.odp?id=blog%3Aclt2007&cache=cache
[09:33] <\sh> siretart: regarding MOTU or complete ubuntu-dev?
[09:33] <siretart> german, though
[09:33] <siretart> \sh: both
[09:33] <ajmitch> dholbach: most of the thanks should probably go to debian, though
[09:33] <siretart> keep in mind it was a 30min talk, I couldn't go into details
[09:34] <ajmitch> rmjb: that's part of what we need to discuss - how to get people involved that can't spend several hours a day on it :)
[09:34] <sistpoty> rmjb: #ubuntu-motu is a good starting place ;)
[09:34] <crimsun> ajmitch: (right, given the ratio of merge to syncs)
[09:34] <siretart> however, I really think we have way too few developers, espc. in universe land. I  don't have concrete ideas however how to fix this
[09:34] <\sh> the difference is: doing OSS work for a living, and get money for it, or just do it as a hobby...
[09:34] <dholbach> ajmitch: MOTU is doing a very good job, but we're standing on the shoulders of giants. :-)
[09:35] <siretart> personal package archives could improve things. is there any news on this topic?
[09:35] <ajmitch> siretart: we have quite a few developers, but most are inactive
[09:35] <ajmitch> we talked recently about sending out a nice email to inactive motus inviting them to get involved again
[09:35] <crimsun> testing for SRU in -proposed is a good way to get involved, too
[09:35] <siretart> ajmitch: right. I'm talking about 'active' developers. but it's quite hard to define 'active' contributors.
[09:35] <sistpoty> yep... and we need to make more things clear on the mailing lists imho... so that casual hopefuls know what's going on even if they're not on irc
[09:36] <dholbach> ajmitch: gpocentek and I are working on that
[09:36] <TheMuso> One thing I've noticed is that if one is out of the loop too long, it can take a while to catch up to the latest goings on.
[09:36] <dholbach> ok let's start to mention problems and possible solutions as bullet points for 3-4 minutes - try not to get too deep into discussions
[09:36] <TheMuso> Because things change so fast.
[09:36] <Toadstool> true
[09:36] <sistpoty> TheMuso: right
[09:36] <ajmitch> dholbach: great
[09:36] <crimsun> As for one route to bring in hopefuls:  it would be nice to have instructions for setting up various release chroots to help with testing. I can work on that.
[09:36] <sistpoty> * motu-school sessions
[09:37] <dholbach> * activity on the mailing list
[09:37] <ajmitch> * finding a place to start working
[09:37] <dholbach> * more patting on the back
[09:37] <Toadstool> (more hugs? :)
[09:37] <dholbach> * (a) outreach and getting new people involved
[09:37] <dholbach> *  (b) getting people excited about MOTU
[09:37] <TheMuso> sistpoty: Thats the impression I've got a couple of times when I have been gone for a while in the past, and have come back to help out again, and found myself having to find out the latest happenings.
[09:37] <dholbach> ;-)
[09:37] <rmjb> there seem to be diff types of MOTU, mergers, bug fixsers, packagers, maybe different pages for these different types of tasks?
[09:38] <\sh> * spreading curiosity to the people / * why should I work on Ubuntu, and what are the benefits for me and my daily life
[09:38] <rmjb> at least to help hopefuls ease into tasks
[09:38] <dholbach> * better structured documentation
[09:38] <\sh> I mean it serious...those questions I get here in my office..."why are you working on ubuntu, if you don't earn money with it"
[09:38] <TheMuso> Could the packaging guide possibly be improved?
[09:39] <ajmitch> TheMuso: if there's someone willing to improve it, sure
[09:39] <dholbach> more (team work - not administrative) teams
[09:39] <TheMuso> I have never really looked at it myself, but people may be daunted by it.
[09:39] <crimsun> TheMuso: yes, and there's work on that
[09:39] <rmjb> the packaging guide is good... the end could have some tips and tricks though
[09:39] <sistpoty> * monthly summary of all policy changes + todo list on the mailing list?
[09:40] <Toadstool> sistpoty: that'd be great
[09:40] <dholbach> * more scheduled QA sessions
[09:40] <crimsun> (random thought: why don't we turn the packaging guide into a cookbook, ala the O'Reilly series?)
[09:40] <xerosis> * mentors to ease new people in
[09:40] <bddebian> We have mentors
[09:41] <sistpoty> xerosis: we have mentors already... maybe that's in a too less prominent place on the wiki`
[09:41] <sistpoty> ? even
[09:41] <dholbach> ok, maybe let's close the list here - this should be a good start for more discussions among our team and with jono - let's move on.
[09:41] <xerosis> apologies
[09:41] <siretart> dholbach++
[09:41] <TheMuso> I think some MOTUs that don't currently mentor should consider doing it at some point.
[09:41] <sistpoty> dholbach: +1
[09:41] <dholbach> Let's have a look at our TODO lists.
[09:41] <sistpoty> (and I should stop mentoring, as I'm a particular bad mentor :P)
[09:41] <dholbach> sistpoty mentions "what's missing (php4-transition? what else)"
[09:42] <dholbach> xerosis: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Mentors
[09:42] <sistpoty> dholbach: well, php4 is about to be removed... let me look at the mail back again
[09:42] <dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/TODO
[09:42] <dholbach> didn't we have a unmetdeps list somewhere?
[09:42] <dholbach> or somebody who agreed to file a bunch of bugs on it?
[09:42] <\sh> php4-transition to 20050606+lfs?
[09:43] <dholbach> Is somebody here who'd like to do that?
[09:43] <\sh> I already uploaded many php4 packages to rebuild on latest php4 api change
[09:43] <dholbach> \sh: we're talking about removal
[09:43] <\sh> dholbach: ah
[09:43] <sistpoty> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-February/001288.html
[09:43] <tonyyarusso> crimsun: (would it be able to cover everything that way?  Seems pretty good as is)
[09:43] <crimsun> tonyyarusso: offband to -motu, please
[09:44] <dholbach> What's missing on  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/TODO ?
[09:45] <dholbach> Is somebody here who'd like to file a bunch of unmetdeps bugs?
[09:45] <ajmitch> results of an archive rebuild (yet to come)
[09:45] <dholbach> ajmitch: do you know what's the status there?
[09:45] <dholbach> ajmitch: (archive rebuild)
[09:45] <ajmitch> no idea about archive rebuild
[09:45] <sistpoty> there was some smaller thing as well iirc, but I cannot remember exactly what it was
[09:46] <dholbach> that'd be nice
[09:46] <sistpoty> ajmitch: that'd be great
[09:46] <dholbach> http://daniel.holba.ch/bzr/massfile/
[09:46] <ajmitch> yeah I have that checked out somewhere
[09:46] <dholbach> :)
[09:46] <dholbach> anything else we're missing on that list?
[09:47] <dholbach> did anybody spend some time to tag bugs as 'bitesize' or 'packaging'?
[09:47] <dholbach> should we call out a Universe HUG DAY or something?
[09:47] <bddebian> Probably a good idea
[09:47] <sistpoty> dholbach: sure... was just about to mention that ;)
[09:47] <dholbach> rock
[09:47] <dholbach> who does it? :)
[09:47] <crimsun> dholbach: that would be a good idea, and it's an easy way to get people involved this week
[09:47] <TheMuso> sorry guys, gotta run.
[09:47] <ajmitch> dholbach can distribute hugs
[09:48] <dholbach> hehe :)
[09:48] <sistpoty> hehe
[09:48] <dholbach> ok, ajmitch will file unmetdeps bugs, I'll try to find out what's up with the rebuilds
[09:49] <dholbach> who'd join Universe HUG DAY to work through universe bugs?
[09:49] <dholbach> who'd announce it?
[09:49] <bddebian> I would try to join (work has been brutal lately)
[09:49] <crimsun> I'm up for working on tagging universe bugs as bitesize/etc.
[09:49] <sistpoty> I'll try my best, but currently I need to cancel many tasks due to my thesis :(
[09:50] <dholbach> ok, I'd join in as well
[09:50] <dholbach> friday?
[09:50] <crimsun> Friday sounds good
[09:50] <dholbach> I can write the announce
[09:50] <dholbach> anything else for the TODO list?
[09:50] <Toadstool> hmm, i'll try to join too
[09:50] <sistpoty> I guess everone should just add s.th. if he finds another thing, ok?
[09:50] <dholbach> ok
[09:51] <Toadstool> (quite busy at work though)
[09:51] <dholbach> siretart asks "What to do with broken packages we know about?"
[09:51] <ajmitch> dholbach: blog it on planet :)
[09:52] <bddebian> dholbach / siretart: Like?
[09:52] <siretart> we had another example today: xserver-xgl:
[09:52] <dholbach> "there are packages, which we know that we won't be able to fix them before release. This includes e.g. unmet dependencies. Can we do better than leaving them in the release?"
[09:52] <bddebian> Ahh
[09:52] <Toadstool> dholbach: remove'em from the archive? :)
[09:53] <crimsun> concerning xserver-xgl: I'll look at it tonight, since I have access to hardware that would be affected
[09:53] <siretart> bddebian: xserver-xgl got broken by the xorg 7.2 upload to main, and the diff to current git head is way too big to review
[09:53] <dholbach> I don't think we should try to find a too easy solution to the problem in five minutes of a meeting.
[09:53] <Mithrandir> Toadstool: that is painful when we next time sync from Debian.
[09:53] <siretart> bddebian: other packages include packages with unmet deps
[09:53] <Toadstool> Mithrandir: yeah I know, just kidding
[09:53] <Mithrandir> we've so far fixed unmetdeps in SRUs, which I think is sane enough.
[09:54] <ajmitch> crimsun: thanks
[09:54] <sistpoty> yep... and sometimes contributors contribute fixes for sru's :)
[09:54] <siretart> I don't have any concrete proposal, I just find it sad that we release with so many broken package, and for many, we know that they are broken
[09:54] <dholbach> I'm not sure there's a general answer to the question.
[09:54] <crimsun> we should really push to get those RC fixes from Debian in before feisty release
[09:55] <siretart> I compare with debian, where broken packages get removed before release. but that's not really applicable to ubuntu, I know
[09:55] <Toadstool> if the amount of really broken packages stays reasonably low, we can take care of them with SRUs, right?
[09:55] <sistpoty> I guess we should try to remove packages that are broken which have been removed from debian some time ago
[09:55] <crimsun> unmet deps can be resolved via SRU, so I'm not really worried. Perhaps we should start with known _regressions_ from edgy first.
[09:55] <ajmitch> siretart: that's because they're removed from testing, but can be left in unstable
[09:55] <Mithrandir> siretart: we don't have testing (as in the distribution)
[09:55] <siretart> ajmitch: right
[09:56] <Mithrandir> we could maybe remove the binaries..
[09:56] <dholbach> sistpoty: i think that happens regularly (debian-removed -> ubuntu-removed)
[09:56] <siretart> Mithrandir: we don't have some other solution either
[09:56] <siretart> Mithrandir: removing binaries sounds like a good idea to me!
[09:56] <sistpoty> dholbach: iirc there are some left... maybe if they have ubuntu changes?
[09:56] <dholbach> sistpoty: dunno
[09:56] <Mithrandir> siretart: it'll require binary NEW then, which is significantly less work than source NEW.
[09:56] <Mithrandir> siretart: I'd need to discuss it with the archive team.
[09:56] <ajmitch> siretart: btw about xserver-xgl - the majority of the debdiff is the nasty bundled mesa copy
[09:57] <sistpoty> siretart: removing the binary sounds like a good idea
[09:57] <dholbach> ajmitch: that's info we need in the bug report :)
[09:57] <ajmitch> dholbach: it's already in the diffstat :)
[09:57] <siretart> Mithrandir: I'd expect binary removals to happen really short before release. binary new shouldn't be too much of a problem at the beginning of the release cycle
[09:58] <Mithrandir> siretart: uh, have you looked at NEW when we start syncing from Debian?
[09:58] <siretart> Mithrandir: it's long, I assume :)
[09:58] <siretart> Mithrandir: but do you really do an extensive NEW review for every NEW package from debian?
[09:59] <dholbach> so there's only the possibility to remove binary packages as a reasonable measure it seems.
[09:59] <Mithrandir> siretart: I've done so so far at least, yes.  But as I said, binary NEW is a lot less work than source NEW.
[09:59] <siretart> I imagine
[09:59] <Mithrandir> (since it doesn't require checking all licences, just making sure the packages are somewhat sane)
[10:00] <sistpoty> ok, I guess we'll just wait for a resolution from ubuntu-archive on this one, right?
[10:00] <dholbach> right
[10:00] <ajmitch> ok, so next meeting time?
[10:00] <dholbach> any other business?
[10:00] <ajmitch> :)
[10:00] <sistpoty> Mithrandir: can you inform us of the result please?
[10:00] <bddebian> yeah, I need a raise ;-P
[10:00] <Mithrandir> sistpoty: yes.  Can you mail me reminding me to do so?
[10:01] <sistpoty> Mithrandir: sure, or I'll just ping you :P
[10:01] <dholbach> ok, no other business - how about in three weeks?
[10:01] <ajmitch> ok, what time of day?
[10:01] <dholbach> so we keep on rolling with the MC meeting
[10:01] <sistpoty> erm... wasn't there some overlapping with TB meeting (or was that MC meeting)?
[10:01] <crimsun> after 20:00 if in 3 weeks
[10:02] <ajmitch> sistpoty: with TB
[10:02] <Mithrandir> sistpoty: sure, that's fine.  It's just that it's 22:00 here now and I was planning on heading to bed soonish, not work. :-)
[10:02] <crimsun> because TB is at 20:00 in 3 weeks
[10:02] <ajmitch> Mithrandir: I'll poke you about f-spot uvf tomorrow then :)
[10:02] <Mithrandir> ajmitch: sure
[10:02] <dholbach> let's do it before TB then
[10:02] <dholbach> :)
[10:02] <crimsun> 18:00?
[10:02] <ajmitch> dholbach: or +- 12 hours
[10:02] <dholbach> sounds good to me
[10:03] <ajmitch> to allow people in australia to make it to the meeting
[10:03] <sistpoty> ajmitch: yep, rotating seems like a fair thing to do
[10:03] <sistpoty> 8.00 UTC?
[10:03] <dholbach> fine with me too
[10:04] <ajmitch> sounds fair
[10:04] <sistpoty> +1 here as well
[10:04] <sistpoty> <-- needs to get up really early then :P
[10:04] <Toadstool> late meeting but fair :) +1
[10:04] <ajmitch> sistpoty: you'll live :)
[10:04] <sistpoty> hrhr
[10:04] <bddebian> heh
[10:04] <dholbach> WFM
[10:05] <dholbach> who writes the announce?
[10:05] <sistpoty> hm... WFM always reminds me of WTF *g*
[10:05] <sistpoty> I can do it
[10:05] <dholbach> ok, excellent
[10:05] <sistpoty> btw.: is anyone doing the minutes?
[10:05] <dholbach> thanks everbody for showing up to the meeting :)
[10:06] <ajmitch> thanks
[10:06] <bddebian> Thanks.  Sorry I'm not as "involved" lately :'-(
[10:07] <crimsun> sistpoty: I started but got volunteered for another meeting here. Can you do them?
[10:07] <sistpoty> crimsun: ok, will do
[10:07] <crimsun> thank
[10:07] <crimsun> +s
[10:07] <LaserJock> sorry guys, really late
[10:07] <dholbach> you ROCK
[10:07] <sistpoty> bddebian? you *not* involved? then I'm completely away from the project :P
[10:08] <bddebian> pfft :-)
[10:08] <bddebian> LaserJock: Just in time ;-P
[10:09] <LaserJock> all over?
[10:09] <Toadstool> yep
[10:09] <ajmitch> LaserJock: yep, just finished
[10:09] <ajmitch> sistpoty: don't worry, I'm not even remotely in touch with the project :)
[10:10] <sistpoty> haha
[10:10] <LaserJock> :(
[10:10] <LaserJock> I didn't get volunteered for anything did I?
[10:10] <ajmitch> bddebian: yes?
[10:10] <ajmitch> LaserJock: only a little bit
[10:11] <sistpoty> wohoo I don't need to do motu-sru reports any longer :)
[10:11] <Toadstool> heh
[10:11] <bddebian> ajmitch: Just for fun, sorry :-)
[10:11] <LaserJock> sistpoty: what's the new policy?
[10:12] <ajmitch> 09:21 < crimsun> Ok, so how does this proposal sound?  1) Remove the pre-upload-to-proposed ACK requirement (make -proposed open to ubuntu-dev without
[10:12] <ajmitch>                  motu-sru approval).  2) The sponsoring ubuntu-dev member is responsible for gathering testing with 2 ACKs, which must be documented on the
[10:12] <ajmitch>                  LP bug and in the final -updates changelog.  3) The minimum aging period of 7 days in -proposed remains.  4) motu-sru goes away.
[10:12] <ajmitch> bah, that pasted *really* badly
[10:13] <sistpoty> poor ajmitch
[10:13] <sistpoty> ;)
[10:13] <ajmitch> stuck in windows at work
[10:13] <crimsun> sistpoty: yes, that was the nefarious plan =)
[10:13] <bddebian> PuTTY r0x j00
[10:13] <Toadstool> uh
[11:53] <daviey> @schedule london'
[11:53] <daviey> @schedule london
[11:53] <Ubugtu> Schedule for Europe/London: 07 Mar 12:00: Edubuntu | 08 Mar 16:00: Ubuntu Development Team | 11 Mar 10:00: LoCo Team | 12 Mar 18:00: Derivative Team | 13 Mar 16:00: Forum Council | 13 Mar 20:00: Technical Board