[08:25] <kraut> moin
[08:35] <Balkhog> @now
[08:35] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: September 21 2007, 06:35:43 - Next meeting: MOTU Team in 5 hours 24 minutes
[01:59] <dholbach> welcome everybody to the MOTU meeting
[01:59] <dholbach> who wants to run it this time?
[02:00] <dholbach> who wants to take notes?
[02:00] <Fujitsu> Thanks TheMuso.
[02:00] <dholbach> TheMuso: you rock
[02:00] <dholbach> TheMuso: thanks again for sending out the reminder
[02:00] <TheMuso> np
[02:01] <dholbach> Ok, let me run it then....
[02:01] <ajmitch> hi
[02:01] <dholbach> Agenda is up at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings
[02:01] <\sh> moins
[02:01] <ajmitch> use MootBot?
[02:01] <zul> hey
[02:01] <ajmitch> hi seb128
[02:01] <dholbach> ajmitch: I don't know how to use it :)
[02:01] <seb128> hey ajmitch
[02:01] <ajmitch> oh dear :)
[02:02] <dholbach> forget it then... :-)
[02:02] <dholbach> First up is ScottK with "Sponsored merge workflow (PPA as a useful adjunct, but not a replacement)"
[02:02] <ScottK> OK.  The issue in question is the "alternative" process described here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess
[02:03] <ScottK> I believe that from a MOTU perspective we have had a good process and that PPA is, while useful, not an alternative.
[02:03] <dholbach> Do I understand correctly that the core of the problem is that you get a link to a .dsc file instead of a debdiff?
[02:03] <ScottK> I am specifically concerned about the integrity of our code base.
[02:04] <ScottK> Currently we trust Debian and so the MOTU responsibility is to evaluate the debdiff and understand it.
[02:04] <ScottK> Yes.  That's correct.
[02:04] <dholbach> I have that on my todo list and I agree with you, that it should be fixed
[02:04] <dholbach> I should file a bug on ubuntu-dev-tools to make that clear
[02:04] <persia> I much prefer a debdiff to a PPA sample - the .dsc seems fairly dangerous.
[02:04] <ScottK> I think that MUST come before it's an alternative.
[02:04] <ajmitch> why is it dangerous?
[02:05] <TheMuso> IMO PPA should not be used for sponsorship. Nuff said from me. :)
[02:05] <dholbach> ajmitch: because somebody might sneak in a different .orig.tar.gz, I guess
[02:05] <persia> ajmitch: Because it's really, really easy to just upload something without noticing a small change somewhere.
[02:05] <ScottK> ajmitch: What code is connected to that .dsc?
[02:05] <dholbach> TheMuso: the good thing is: it gets automatically built on all archs
[02:05] <ajmitch> but you'd be checking the diff anyway, right?
[02:05] <Fujitsu> dholbach: Where all != all.
[02:05] <TheMuso> dholbach: I don't doubt that, but I think it discourages local test building.
[02:05] <ScottK> ajmitch: That's the point is that I still have to make the debdiff and look at it.
[02:05] <TheMuso> Fujitsu: That too.
[02:06] <persia> ajmitch: Yes, but does everyone?
[02:06] <ajmitch> persia: I should hope so
[02:06] <ScottK> So the alternative process is actually more work for me as a MOTU then.
[02:06] <dholbach> TheMuso: that's something we can codify in the wiki describing the review process
[02:06] <Fujitsu> ajmitch: Same. If they don't... well, we're likely screwed anyway.
[02:06] <ScottK> Generally, I'm VERY concerned that this is now listed as an "alternative process" without any of this getting discussed before.
[02:06] <TheMuso> There is also the issue of having to change section and version info.
[02:06] <ScottK> TheMuso: Agreed.
[02:07] <persia> TheMuso: Good point.  That makes it safer.
[02:07] <dholbach> TheMuso: yes, we talked about that - we should make it an action point to ask the LP developers about their plans for that
[02:07] <ScottK> Except when someone forgets to change the version....
[02:07] <TheMuso> If we really want to get more MOTUs in, are we not for something that is proven, and takes less time to do?
[02:07] <ScottK> TheMuso: Which is that?
[02:08] <TheMuso> As we could get rather busy.
[02:08] <TheMuso> ScottK: IMO having to use a PPA also takes more time.
[02:08] <dholbach> ScottK: I updated the SponsorshipProcess page with your suggestion yesterday
[02:08] <persia> Also, would these be sponsored uploads, or collaborative uploads, in the changelog?  If the changelog is to be changed, it makes sense to use collaborative, but then the package doesn't show in the contributors package page.
[02:08] <TheMuso> YOu have to download the package, check MD5sum of orig tarball, perform a debdiff, etc.
[02:08] <seb128> I don't get the issue with uploads to ppa, what is dangerous there?
[02:08] <ajmitch> seb128: I see it more as less convenient to review rather than dangerous
[02:09] <TheMuso> The only time I think ppa may be useful, is for new upstream versions.
[02:09] <ScottK> dholbach: That's not a great difference in my view.
[02:09] <persia> seb128: Nothing dangerous about an upload to PPA, but rather I find it easier to review a debdiff to make sure the changes are sane than to download both and generate the debdiff myself.
[02:09] <seb128> ajmitch: I find it easier to apt-get source than to use REVU
[02:09] <ajmitch> TheMuso: and even then, no matter how it's sponsored, the orig.tar.gz should be getting checked
[02:09] <ScottK> dholbach: It should be removed from that page and on a different page for experimental process.
[02:09] <ajmitch> seb128: right, this is mainly for fixes to existing versions, which is usually a debdiff attached to a bug
[02:09] <ajmitch> (afaik)
[02:09] <seb128> persia: make them attach the debdiff to the bug then
[02:10] <pkern> It is possible to add more information on the revu pages (and check more points automatically) by modifying the available source code. On LP that won't be that easy (one needs to export it from there and check it somewhere else).
[02:10] <persia> seb128: In that case, why ask them to upload to PPA?
[02:10] <Hobbsee> oh, there's a meeting...
[02:10] <ajmitch> Hobbsee!
[02:10] <ScottK> seb128: This is about merges.  Nothing to do with REVU.
[02:10] <Hobbsee> started 10 mins ago?  rock on!
[02:10] <seb128> persia: because it's easier to get the source and to have binaries to test
[02:10] <dholbach> ScottK: if that's what you want, I can do that
[02:10] <Hobbsee> ajmitch!
[02:10] <ajmitch> Hobbsee: glad you survived work :)
[02:10] <dholbach> ScottK: I also filed bug 141488
[02:10] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 141488 in ubuntu-dev-tools "ppaput should have an option to generate a debdiff" [Undecided,New]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/141488
[02:10] <ScottK> dholbach: I think we need to have this process stuff worked out BEFORE we expose hopefuls to it.
[02:10] <ajmitch> ScottK: except that people often want to use REVU for that as well :)
[02:10] <pkern> seb128: `dget -x <URL to the dsc>' is easy with REVU.
[02:11] <dholbach> ScottK: we need to use it to spot problems
[02:11] <ScottK> ajmitch: Sure, but that's not the current topic.
[02:11] <seb128> pkern: I didn't say it was not possible
[02:11] <ScottK> dholbach: The way to experiment is to select a few reasonably experienced hopefuls and have them try it and they and their sponsors give feedback.
[02:11] <seb128> pkern: the issue is not to know what REVU does or not but rather what would not work with ppa
[02:11] <ScottK> Not just throw it out there.
[02:12] <ScottK> I do think "and I built it in my PPA, here's the results" is useful.
[02:12] <seb128> I think ppa is easy to use and provide handy access to the sources and binaries while being integrated in launchpad
[02:12] <ajmitch> ScottK: even though this is a proposed approach?
[02:12] <ScottK> I do NOT think it's a replacement.
[02:13] <pkern> If I would put a package on ppa I would suffix the version with ~ppaX, for uploads to REVU I won't do that, so those could be uploaded verbatim w/o having to again change the version.
[02:13] <ScottK> ajmitch: What's proposed is that instead, not as a supplement.
[02:13] <dholbach> ScottK: I think we discussed that already. I filed that bug on ubuntu-dev-tools
[02:13] <dholbach> and I intend to work on it
[02:13] <ScottK> dholbach: RIght.  Fix the bug and then we can use this process.
[02:13] <seb128> pkern: that's not true, ppa doesn't happen a prefix to the version
[02:14] <dholbach> Ok. Any more points to discuss about this?
[02:14] <ScottK> dholbach: Part of my major beef about process change is I'm here at a meeting AFTER this new process has already been kicked off.
[02:14] <seb128> s/happen/append
[02:14] <ScottK> This should all have been discussed before.
[02:14] <dholbach> ScottK: I wrote two 3 mailing lists about it
[02:14] <pkern> seb128: Correct. So people having my PPA won't update to the version officially built.
[02:14] <dholbach> ScottK: nobody bothered to reply
[02:14] <dholbach> ScottK: and I got good comments from users
[02:14] <dholbach> ScottK: I offered it as an alternative
[02:14] <ScottK> It's not yet suitable as an alternative.
[02:14] <dholbach> ScottK: What do you want me to do?
[02:15] <ScottK> Discuss it in a meeting.
[02:15] <dholbach> ScottK: I filed bugs and am altering the documentation
[02:15] <seb128> pkern: people should not use sponsoring ppas to update their system
[02:15] <dholbach> meetings only reach out to 5-6 people being there
[02:15] <pkern> *cough*
[02:15] <ScottK> dholbach: If it's on the agenda, then people have a chance to show up and discuss it.
[02:15] <TheMuso> I am willing to try working with PPAs for sponsorship.
[02:16] <dholbach> I created http://wiki.ubuntu.com/SponsorshipProcess/ppaput
[02:16] <TheMuso> Although I may not like it now, I am willing to change my POV.
[02:16] <seb128> ScottK: I don't get why you think that is not suitable as an alternative
[02:16] <pkern> seb128: So will there be *different* sponsoring ppas? Or will I need to upload to my own ppa?
[02:16] <ScottK> seb128: Because I need the debdiff to review.
[02:16] <ScottK> seb128: Currently that means I have to make it in the alternative process.
[02:16] <seb128> ScottK: that's an orthogonal issue
[02:16] <seb128> ScottK: people should still open bugs and attach the debdiff there
[02:16] <ScottK> seb128: Adding workload to sponsors is not a useful process improvement
[02:17] <TheMuso> We can ensure generated diffs are actually sane. :)
[02:17] <ScottK> seb128: That's not the process dholbach documented.
[02:17] <dholbach> We discussed the debdiff issue - can we please move on to other problems with this
[02:17] <TheMuso> I have worked with a lot of sponsors who haven't produced sane patches.
[02:17] <ScottK> dholbach: Was answering seb128's question.
[02:17] <dholbach> I think I also justified myself reasonably for the course of action I've taken, also we agreed on asking the LP developers for their plans for changelogs/sections - I'm willing to get in touch with them about that
[02:18] <dholbach> what other issues are we talking about here?
[02:18] <ScottK> dholbach: I do think we need to (not right now) have a meta discussion about how we achieve consensus on process change.
[02:18] <dholbach> ScottK: good
[02:18] <ScottK> dholbach: I also disagree that your actions are reasonable, but that's part of why we need the meta process change discussion.
[02:18] <persia> Looking at the SponsorshipProcess page again, it appears that a bug is being opened.  Am I understanding correctly that there is a bug filed (or can be filed) to generate a debdiff as part of this process?  In that case, does the inclusion of a PPA upload necessarily mean a difference for the sponsor?  It seems optional to me.
[02:18] <ScottK> We can move on.
[02:19] <dholbach> persia: the debdiff option still needs to happen - that's what bug 141488 is about
[02:19] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 141488 in ubuntu-dev-tools "ppaput should have an option to generate a debdiff" [Undecided,New]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/141488
[02:19] <dholbach> Ok great.
[02:19] <ScottK> persia: As it was written before there was no requirement for a debdiff, just a .dsc link.  That's what got me all fired up.
[02:19] <persia> dholbach: That's what I thought.  Thanks for the confirmation.
[02:19] <ScottK> But as I said, I think we can move on.
[02:19] <dholbach> Any other business?
[02:20] <dholbach> I'd personally like to draw attention to http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/TODO
[02:20] <ScottK> dholbach: It's not on the agdnda, but can we talk about the wiki reorganization?
[02:20] <ajmitch> dholbach: excellent :)
[02:20] <dholbach> I added includes to that page so we can easily draw attention to a few bugs selected for new contributors
[02:20] <TheMuso> I've been going through our pile of bugs and finding useful ones to triaj.
[02:20] <Hobbsee> ScottK: there are people here from so many countries - demanding that everything goes thru a meeting to change is utter arrogance on your part, and disrespectful for those not in your timezone.
[02:20] <dholbach> ScottK: I asked for other business and I won't take long
[02:21] <ScottK> Hobbsee: We need to decide how we decide on process change.
[02:21] <ScottK> That's a discussion that needs to be had.
[02:21] <dholbach> ScottK: ok, misunderstood you, nevermind
[02:21] <Hobbsee> ScottK: the reason for the mailing list is so that it *isnt* real time, so that everyone actually has a chance to rrespond.
[02:21] <Fujitsu> Yay, changing the process changing process.
[02:21] <Hobbsee> ScottK: indeed.  via ML, if anyone actually responds to it.
[02:21] <dholbach> these lists are really easy to update, but involve people tagging bugs as packaging or bitesize
[02:21] <Hobbsee> ScottK: if they dont respond to it, then it's their fault - they are regarded as approving via silence.
[02:22] <ScottK> Currently I feel like if I miss one out of the several hundred mails per day I get then I get told "you had your chance".
[02:22] <ScottK> Which is equally BS.
[02:22] <dholbach> I want to point out how important it is for us to tag those bugs
[02:22] <ScottK> But we need to have that discussion another time.
[02:22] <ajmitch> dholbach: great work, did you just create the table with a script using py-lp-bugs?
[02:22] <persia> I think the general practice has been to let a week or two pass between a mailing list post and a process change.
[02:22] <dholbach> ajmitch: yes
[02:22] <ajmitch> nice
[02:22] <dholbach> hey... can we have one discussion right now?
[02:22] <ajmitch> sorry, I thought we'd gone onto the TODO list discussion
[02:22] <Hobbsee> ScottK: i'm surprised you make the meetings.  the chance of you seeing a mail is still higher than the chance of you being at a rotating meeting - particularly if the meeting happens to be at 3am your time.
[02:23] <dholbach> I documented how to build those lists in wiki comments, that's the easy part
[02:23] <Hobbsee> dholbach: apologies, i got stuck reading backscroll.
[02:23] <dholbach> it'd just be nice if you helped out tagging bugs you come across and don't intend to fix in the next minutes
[02:23] <dholbach> there are lots of new contributors that ask me where they can help us out
[02:23] <ajmitch> hopefully that RC bugs list is still useful
[02:23] <ajmitch> considering that you can't delete a comment :)
[02:23] <dholbach> and it's good to have those lists handy
[02:24] <TheMuso> I think the rc bugs URL could be in the #ubuntu-motu topic if it isn't already.
[02:24] <Fujitsu> ajmitch: Are comments still per-package, and not per release/bug?
[02:24] <ajmitch> Fujitsu: yes, sorry
[02:24] <ajmitch> that should be easily changeable
[02:24] <dholbach> ok, that's all I wanted to say about MOTU/TODO :-)
[02:24] <ajmitch> I'm sure we can all come up with more things that need to be done before release
[02:24] <Fujitsu> 'cause if we fix one RC bug in a package, and another pops up, it'll be missed.
[02:24] <ajmitch> including installation/regression testing
[02:25] <dholbach> I think next up was ScottK who wanted to talk about the wiki reorganisation.
[02:25] <ajmitch> ok
[02:25] <ScottK> dholbach: Once again, I think this is proceeding too quickly.
[02:25] <ScottK> I have (this time) responded to one of your mails on the topic.
[02:26] <ScottK> I am concerned that we will end up either with further confusion or dead links.
[02:26] <dholbach> it has been under discussion even before Sevilla
[02:26] <ajmitch> with the wiki, we've tried several times to reorganise it in the past, and I for one am glad to see that it's getting done now
[02:26] <ajmitch> it's been under discussion for at least a year or more
[02:26] <dholbach> ScottK: what I did for now was remove stale links and 'tag' pages for actions
[02:26] <ScottK> Rather than done piecemeal, there ought to be planned out because if you get halfway and change plans, then it's an even further mess.
[02:27] <persia> ScottK: That's what the Spec in May was about
[02:27] <ScottK> dholbach: Are you executing the spec from May or a new plan?
[02:27] <dholbach> ScottK: I'm through most of the list now and I'm going to put those lists up for review for a couple of weeks before we take action
[02:27] <dholbach> ok
[02:27] <ScottK> dholbach: OK.  Fair enough.
[02:27] <dholbach> what I'm doing at the moment is:
[02:27] <dholbach>  - review all MOTU/Universe pages on the wiki
[02:27] <ScottK> I got the impression you are just about to move the specs.
[02:28] <dholbach>  - use CategoryMOTURemove CategoryMOTUUbuntuDevMerge, etc to tag pages and easily creates lists of them
[02:28] <dholbach>  - once I'm done, I'm going to ask for comments for a couple of weeks
[02:28] <dholbach>  - then take action with a couple of Doc Days, where I'd love you to help out
[02:28] <dholbach> ScottK: that I want to do to and I'm going to reply to your mail
[02:28] <dholbach> ScottK: that was something that occured to me while reviewing
[02:28] <ScottK> OK.  So the mail to ubuntu-devel about moving specs wasn't about something you are ready to execute?
[02:29] <dholbach> no
[02:29] <ScottK> OK.  Then I misunderstood.
[02:29] <dholbach> what I want to point out is: this is a huge lot of work and I'm not doing it for fun
[02:29] <dholbach> it's *crucial* to get our documentation sorted out
[02:30] <dholbach> we want to have more MOTUs in the team and they get confused by duplicated, old and wrong documentation
[02:30] <ScottK> I am deeply concerned that more than once recently I've seen people come back from a break with Ubuntu and think things have changed so much they aren't sure if they can contribute any more.
[02:30] <dholbach> that's why I want all of you to chime in, when I present those lists of wiki pages and let me know what you think
[02:30] <ScottK> I think that process churn is pushing experienced people away.
[02:30] <ajmitch> which is why it is imperative to have the wiki sorted out & cleaned up
[02:30] <ajmitch> hey ogra
[02:30] <ogra> yo
[02:31] <Hobbsee> ScottK: i'd say that the experienced people know that it's different - but in some ways, knows that it has to be.
[02:31] <ScottK> Hobbsee: OK, but I've seen people come back and be hesistant to jump in.
[02:31] <dholbach> ScottK: I seriously doubt that people will be stopping to be a MOTU just because the page they are looking up from their bookmark is a redirect
[02:31] <ScottK> dholbach: True, but this is but one aspect of the churn.
[02:31] <ScottK> I guess it's tied more to the meta discussion we aren't having right now.
[02:32] <dholbach> I think the meta discussion would benefit from being on the mailing list, with clear, addressable points
[02:32] <ScottK> Agreed.
[02:32] <dholbach> meta discussions on IRC tend to go on for ages, because it's easy to be mistaken in points
[02:33] <ScottK> No problem.  Let's move on.
[02:33] <dholbach> ok
[02:33] <dholbach> thanks
[02:33] <dholbach> any other business?
[02:33] <Balkhog> hi
[02:33] <dholbach> hi Balkhog
[02:34] <ajmitch> nope, I think we're probably about done
[02:34] <dholbach> ok, let's move on to the fixed agenda items then
[02:34] <dholbach> time and date of next meeting?
[02:34] <dholbach> in two weeks, different time?
[02:34] <ajmitch> we discussed at the last meeting whether to keep the +-12 hours
[02:34] <ajmitch> does it still work out alright for people that we know of?
[02:34] <dholbach> how much participation was there last time?
[02:34] <TheMuso> Yes for me.
[02:34] <dholbach> as much as here?
[02:35] <TheMuso> No, I don't think so.
[02:35] <ScottK> +14, -10 works better for me, but that shouldn't be the driver.
[02:35] <persia> Can we do 8 hours instead of 12?
[02:36] <ajmitch> it'll probably work, I guess
[02:37] <ajmitch> so next meeting would be fri 20:00, or 04:00 UTC?
[02:37] <ajmitch> (in 2 weeks)
[02:37] <dholbach> friday oct, 5th
[02:38] <dholbach> I won't be around on both times, I'll be in Vienna
[02:38] <ajmitch> getting close to release :)
[02:38] <ajmitch> lucky you!
[02:38] <dholbach> so? votes for 20:00?
[02:38] <TheMuso> 20:00 UTC?
[02:38] <ScottK> 20:00 is better for me.
[02:38] <ScottK> Yes
[02:39] <TheMuso> No, but its about time it suited some other people.
[02:39] <ajmitch> mmm, 9AM saturday for me, I'll be awake :)
[02:39] <TheMuso> It also means there is more chance that the minutes duty will be shared around. :p
[02:39] <ajmitch> but you always volunteer & do it so well! :)
[02:40] <dholbach> votes for 4:00?
[02:40] <TheMuso> I don't mind doing it.
[02:40] <Hobbsee> 2000 UTC is crap for all australians, and maybe new zealanders too
[02:40] <Hobbsee> which will be problematic if the decisions are only being made during the meeting.
[02:40] <persia> I prefer 04:00, although I can make 20:00
[02:40] <Fujitsu> Hobbsee: 7am isn't tooooo bad.
[02:40] <ajmitch> Fujitsu: you'll have daylight savings by then or not?
[02:40] <Fujitsu> Hm, good question.
[02:40] <TheMuso> 4:00 sounds good to me
[02:40] <Hobbsee> Fujitsu: i thought it was 6?
[02:40] <Fujitsu> End of October, I think it comes in.
[02:40] <Hobbsee> ah, so i wont make it to either meeting, on that basis.
[02:41] <Hobbsee> oh well.
[02:41] <Fujitsu> So, yes, 6am, sssssh.
[02:41] <Hobbsee> hehe
[02:42] <dholbach> we seem to have less than a handful of votes for both options
[02:42] <ajmitch> either time will probably work for me
[02:42] <dholbach> would it help to ask for input on the mailing list about that?
[02:42] <dholbach> or to have a timezone table on the wiki or something?
[02:42] <ajmitch> it'd be helpful for those who aren't here now
[02:42] <TheMuso> dholbach: I'm happy to do that, as I have meant to write to the list about meeting attendance anyway.
[02:43] <persia> dholbach: I suspect that part of that is that neither time is very good for asia-pacific, whereas this time is :)
[02:43] <dholbach> persia: right
[02:43] <Hobbsee> persia: but who really cares about asia-pac, if you're situated in the US?
[02:43] <dholbach> so if we do defer the decision we should make sure we have one by the end of next week
[02:43] <Hobbsee> persia: they dont even know where asia-pac *is* most of the time.
[02:43] <persia> Hobbsee: Exactly, and vice-versa.
[02:44] <ajmitch> dholbach: sounds fair, decide by thursday or so
[02:44] <Hobbsee> persia: no, most of us can pick the US off a map.
[02:44] <TheMuso> dholbach: Sure. I'll send a mail out in the next day or so, hopefully tonight.
[02:44] <dholbach> ok good, TheMuso: thanks for doing that
[02:44] <dholbach> next item: universe hug day
[02:44] <TheMuso> Do people find them useful?
[02:44] <dholbach> I added the MOTU/TODO snippets to the ubuntubugday page too (by using a simple include)
[02:44] <Fujitsu> Does anything ever happen on them?
[02:45] <zul> Hobbsee: canada is another matter isnt it eh?
[02:45] <dholbach> I think it'd help if we roll the universehugdays into the normal hugdays
[02:45] <ScottK> Hobbsee: I can pick Australia (and most of it's major cities) off a map.
[02:45] <persia> Is there a volunteer to run them?  the updated TODO seems much more useful.
[02:45] <ajmitch> zul: the 51st state?
[02:45] <TheMuso> dholbach: agreed
[02:45] <zul> ajmitch: exactly..
[02:45] <persia> dholbach: I'd agree that rolling them together makes sense.
[02:45] <dholbach> rock and roll
[02:45] <dholbach> for now, I'll remove the fixed agenda item from the meetings page
[02:46] <Hobbsee> zul: *g*
[02:46] <dholbach> if we decide to have dedicated universe hug days again, we should have a clear vision for them
[02:46] <dholbach> ... and people devoting time for that purpose
[02:46] <TheMuso> dholbach: I'll edit the header when I adjust meeting times, etc.
[02:46] <highvoltage> is that a MOTU meeting you're planning?
[02:46] <dholbach> TheMuso: thanks
[02:46] <Hobbsee> i havent seen the main hug days having much traction recently, let alone the univeres ones.
[02:46] <dholbach> bdmurray also mails ubuntu-motu@ about the hug day too, so we should all be aware of when it is
[02:47] <dholbach> ok, moving on
[02:47] <dholbach> "agree on date and time of next REVU DAY' - Gutsy +1"
[02:47] <dholbach> I think we don't need to discuss it
[02:47] <TheMuso> Gutsy + 1.
[02:47] <dholbach> "agree on date and time of next meeting MOTU Q&A sessions"
[02:47] <TheMuso> Agreed, and I think I indicated that as much in the header.
[02:47] <ScottK> dholbach: You can change it to Hardy.
[02:47] <dholbach> I think I'll run one next week at 12:00 UTC, if you don't mind
[02:47] <ajmitch> a week or two after UDS for first hardy REVU day
[02:48] <TheMuso> dholbach: Sure, re q&a.
[02:48] <ajmitch> once the archive has started to settle a bit with syncs
[02:48] <dholbach> super
[02:48] <dholbach> I think that's it
[02:48] <ajmitch> yay
[02:48] <dholbach> does anybody still have something on their mind?
[02:48] <ajmitch> group hug? ;)
[02:49] <pkern> ajmitch: :D
[02:49] <TheMuso> s/2448/24-48/
[02:49] <pkern> TheMuso: 102 days (=
[02:49] <dholbach> thanks everybody
[02:49] <ajmitch> thanks dholbach!
[02:49] <TheMuso> pkern: heh
[02:49] <pkern> Cheers.
[02:50] <Hobbsee> TheMuso: were you coming to slug next week?
[02:50] <TheMuso> Hobbsee: Need to see what talks are on.
[02:50] <ajmitch> alright, meeting over, time for sleep
[02:50] <TheMuso> night ajmitch
[02:50] <TheMuso> Hobbsee: -> -motu
[02:50] <persia> dholbach: Thanks for running the meeting.
[09:07] <Rinchen> @denver
[09:07] <Rinchen> @now
[09:07] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: September 21 2007, 19:07:30 - Next meeting: Screencast Team in 2 days
[09:07] <Rinchen> @rinchen is stupid
[09:08] <beuno> hahaha, ubotu must be broken  :p
[09:08] <Rinchen> or I broke it with the fridge updates
[09:09] <Rinchen> Seveas, ^^
[09:26] <Seveas> Rinchen, what did you break?
[09:39] <Rinchen> Hi Seveas
[09:39] <Seveas> hi
[09:39] <Rinchen> Seveas, I just wanted to touch base with you to see if the fridge feed to this channel (ubotu I guess) is working
[09:39] <Rinchen> I made some heavy changes yesterday
[09:40] <Rinchen> I didn't touch the feeds but...well, better to check with you to ensure that all is well
[09:40] <Seveas> is the topic broken?
[09:41] <Seveas> @topic
[09:41] <gnomefreak> topic looks right
[11:20] <okaratas> hello