| === encryptz is now known as atoponce | ||
| === tonyy is now known as tonyyarusso | ||
| === Varka_ is now known as Varka | ||
| === tonyy is now known as tonyyarusso | ||
| === atoponce is now known as encryptz | ||
| === asac_ is now known as asac | ||
| ardchoille | When is the next meeting to be held? | 05:56 |
|---|---|---|
| Palintheus | @now | 05:56 |
| ubotu | Current time in Etc/UTC: December 07 2007, 05:56:44 - Next meeting: Kubuntu Developers in 5 days | 05:56 |
| ardchoille | Palintheus: Ah, thanks | 05:56 |
| Palintheus | :) | 05:56 |
| kraut | moin | 06:27 |
| === Shely is now known as iE18 | ||
| === \sh_away is now known as \sh | ||
| === myriam_rs is now known as Mamarok | ||
| === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach | ||
| === _czessi is now known as Czessi | ||
| === Hobbsee_ is now known as Hobbsee | ||
| === doko__ is now known as doko | ||
| === \sh is now known as \sh_away | ||
| === nikolas_ is now known as nikolas | ||
| === x-spec-t is now known as Spec | ||
| persia | Right. Seems to be consensus that this is now the MOTU meeting, although it doesn't seem to have been scheduled anywhere :) | 20:07 |
| persia | No agenda though (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings), so it should be quick. | 20:08 |
| sistpoty | maybe we could use an announcement mail for next time (from anyone who remembers the date *g*) | 20:08 |
| persia | Any volunteers to take minutes? | 20:08 |
| sistpoty | ok | 20:08 |
| persia | sistpoty: Good idea. | 20:08 |
| persia | Any volunteers to send announcements (1 week before, 1 day before)? | 20:09 |
| * DktrKranz offersa | 20:09 | |
| DktrKranz | *offers | 20:09 |
| sistpoty | #startmeeting | 20:09 |
| MootBot | Meeting started at 20:09. The chair is sistpoty. | 20:09 |
| MootBot | Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] | 20:09 |
| sistpoty | #action sistpoty takes minutes | 20:09 |
| sistpoty | damn, what did I do wrong? | 20:10 |
| persia | [ACTION] sistpoty takes minutes | 20:10 |
| sistpoty | thanks | 20:10 |
| * persia isn't the chair, so please repeat the statement :) | 20:10 | |
| sistpoty | [ACTION] DktrKranz will send announcement mails | 20:10 |
| MootBot | ACTION received: DktrKranz will send announcement mails | 20:10 |
| sistpoty | [ACTION] sistpoty will write minutes | 20:10 |
| MootBot | ACTION received: sistpoty will write minutes | 20:10 |
| sistpoty | persia: can I hand over meeting chair to you? *g* | 20:11 |
| persia | sistpoty: I don't think so. If you did, I'd post a link to the topic, and call for any other business. | 20:11 |
| persia | Errr.. link to the agenda (to MootBot) | 20:11 |
| sistpoty | persia: damn... | 20:12 |
| ScottK | Are we having a MOTU meeting? | 20:12 |
| sistpoty | ScottK: yes | 20:12 |
| persia | ScottK: Trying :) | 20:12 |
| ScottK | Great. | 20:12 |
| proppy | hi ScottK, hi persia | 20:12 |
| DktrKranz | Here's the agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings | 20:12 |
| proppy | hi all :) | 20:12 |
| DktrKranz | Not very much to discuss, though | 20:12 |
| ScottK | Should be short. | 20:12 |
| sistpoty | [LINK]: agenda https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings | 20:13 |
| MootBot | LINK received: : agenda https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings | 20:13 |
| geser | that's a big agenda :) | 20:13 |
| sistpoty | ok, any business not on the agenda? *g* | 20:13 |
| proppy | *agree on date and time of next meeting* | 20:13 |
| Nafallo | lol | 20:13 |
| ScottK | Any feedback on using interdiff for upgrades? | 20:13 |
| sistpoty | [TOPIC] ScottK: feedback on using interdiff for upgrades | 20:13 |
| MootBot | New Topic: ScottK: feedback on using interdiff for upgrades | 20:13 |
| ScottK | Anyone? | 20:14 |
| persia | I've heard a few people complain, and have had a request to find something easier for sponsors. | 20:14 |
| * Nafallo didn't know we could :-) | 20:14 | |
| DktrKranz | I had a couple of reviews using interdiff, and I found it of great aid | 20:14 |
| ScottK | persia: Could we script something for interdiff to make it easier? | 20:15 |
| Nafallo | oh, we are talking about debdiff stuff :-) | 20:15 |
| persia | ScottK: I have a rough script at http://people.ubuntuwire.com/~persia/process-interdiff, but it needs a fair bit of work to be less fragile. | 20:15 |
| persia | (also, it calculates the same thing a couple different ways, which is wasteful) | 20:16 |
| sistpoty | [LINK]: http://people.ubuntuwire.com/~persia/process-interdiff | 20:16 |
| MootBot | LINK received: : http://people.ubuntuwire.com/~persia/process-interdiff | 20:16 |
| ScottK | persia: Maybe RainCT would work on it. He seems to like that kind of thing. | 20:17 |
| persia | Err... That's not a good home: if we stay with interdiff, someone (likely me) needs to fix it, and put it in ubuntu-dev-tools | 20:17 |
| persia | ScottK: Good idea. | 20:17 |
| ScottK | Plus he's not here, so he can't object if we assign him an action ;-) | 20:17 |
| sistpoty | [IDEA]: RainCT might want to work on interdiff for sponsoring | 20:17 |
| MootBot | IDEA received: : RainCT might want to work on interdiff for sponsoring | 20:17 |
| sistpoty | [IDEA]: move the script to ubuntu-dev-tools | 20:17 |
| MootBot | IDEA received: : move the script to ubuntu-dev-tools | 20:17 |
| ScottK | Once it's suitable for general use. | 20:18 |
| sistpoty | ok, more feedback to this topic? | 20:18 |
| ScottK | Not from me? | 20:18 |
| persia | cjwatson pointed out that the "full interdiff" isn't very interesting, and that the new diff.gz alone might be eaiser. I just haven't tested & evaluated that yet, but I think I agree. | 20:18 |
| ian_brasil | hi, what is interdiff? | 20:20 |
| persia | [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Interdiff | 20:21 |
| MootBot | LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Interdiff | 20:21 |
| ScottK | I think what is wanted is diff of the debian dir + diff from the new upstream. | 20:21 |
| persia | ScottK: A debdiff gets that, but they need to be evaluated separately. | 20:22 |
| ScottK | Agreed. | 20:22 |
| sistpoty | ok, let's move on, shall we? | 20:22 |
| persia | Moving on sounds good. I'll propose something else if I can meet all the good points that DktrKranz likes and make it easier for sponsors. | 20:23 |
| ScottK | Are there any MOTUs planning to support these packaging jams that Jono has proposed? | 20:23 |
| sistpoty | [TOPIC] supporting packaging jams | 20:23 |
| MootBot | New Topic: supporting packaging jams | 20:24 |
| Nafallo | what's that? | 20:24 |
| DktrKranz | ScottK, I proposed it to our LoCo, we are planning to have a meeting where we'll discuss about it | 20:24 |
| * ScottK looks for jono's blog | 20:24 | |
| persia | I tend to think of Packaging Jams as means to populate PPAs, and not to affect universe directly. | 20:24 |
| ian_brasil | i thought package jams were like install fests but for packaging | 20:25 |
| persia | [LINK] http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1082 | 20:25 |
| ScottK | http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1082 | 20:25 |
| MootBot | LINK received: http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1082 | 20:25 |
| DktrKranz | Scott's mail is good. Maybe focusing on bugfix (as Debian does) can be more helpful | 20:25 |
| persia | Even package updates would be better for us. | 20:25 |
| * ScottK is concerned he may be raising expectations urealistically. | 20:25 | |
| ScottK | That and focusing on what most MOTUs would view as the wrong problem. | 20:26 |
| * sistpoty thinks that it's a great idea, which could make LoCo teams more integrated to MOTU | 20:26 | |
| Nafallo | ah | 20:26 |
| ScottK | But how many LoCo teams have a local pet MOTU? | 20:26 |
| ian_brasil | not many i would say | 20:27 |
| DktrKranz | Hard to say | 20:27 |
| Nafallo | where local is the keyword :-) | 20:27 |
| sistpoty | ScottK: not many, and I'd hope that this would change | 20:27 |
| persia | sistpoty: We've already about 900 packages that are Ubuntu-local, with only about half receiving any maintenance. Can't we push them towards another means of integrating? Is there that much demand to be able to package new software? | 20:27 |
| ian_brasil | certainly in brazil we do not | 20:27 |
| Nafallo | Sweden HAD me, but we were all spread out. | 20:27 |
| jcastro | Packaging Jams don't have to be /new/ software. | 20:27 |
| Nafallo | maybe this is more the the city teams? | 20:28 |
| Nafallo | s/the/for/ | 20:28 |
| persia | jcastro: Ah. That's better then. All the information I'd seen gave that impression. | 20:28 |
| jcastro | I know the one local to me (michigan) covers things like debdiffs and workflow and stuff | 20:28 |
| imbrandon | i'm late :( | 20:28 |
| geser | Ubuntu Bug Parties? | 20:28 |
| sistpoty | persia: imho the goal is not (or should not be) to get new software into ubuntu, but rather to knot the ties between MOTU and LoCos | 20:28 |
| persia | "Packaging Jam" is a fine name, as long as it's not all about packaging new software. | 20:28 |
| jcastro | yes, what sistpoty said! | 20:28 |
| persia | sistpoty: Then we agree :) | 20:28 |
| ScottK | sistpoty: Reading Jono's blog, I don't think he agrees. | 20:29 |
| imbrandon | ScottK: he does, i talked to him a bit on jabber about it, it just wasent clear in the blog | 20:29 |
| ScottK | Did Jono discuss this with anyone before announcing it? | 20:29 |
| DktrKranz | NEW software is covered by frequent REVU days, so covering unloved packages will be good, especially if we save some bugs for these sessions. | 20:29 |
| persia | DktrKranz: REVU only happens 30 weeks a year, which can be frustrating for people uploading the other 22. | 20:30 |
| === neversfelde_ is now known as neversfelde | ||
| persia | ScottK: Jono at least pointed at Michigan as a good example: if the practice there is debdiffs & workflow, I'm not sure it's all bad. | 20:30 |
| sistpoty | ScottK: I guess this boils down to the question if new packages should generally be accepted/avoided as means of getting people involved, which I'd rather discuss as a separate topic | 20:31 |
| imbrandon | persia: we need to make REVU more dynamic in that it checks $time-of-year and displays a notice to that effect, should be easy nuff, right sistpoty ? | 20:31 |
| jcastro | I think that instead of "packaging" the word should be "maintain" or something instead | 20:31 |
| jcastro | clearly the goal of a Jam is to find more MOTUs | 20:31 |
| sistpoty | imbrandon: -ENOPARSE... what should revu do? | 20:31 |
| persia | sistpoty: I don't think it's related to that at all. Both are good, it's just that I (at least) would prefer bugfix as the default introduction. | 20:31 |
| persia | jcastro: I'd much prefer a goal to find more Contributors, who may become MOTUs. | 20:32 |
| jcastro | ah, good word. | 20:32 |
| imbrandon | sistpoty: check the time of the release ( maybe manualy set ) and display a notice about ..... i'll poke you after the meeting in #ubuntuwire | 20:32 |
| sistpoty | imbrandon: ok | 20:32 |
| ScottK | persia: I don't think it's that simple. I think if this does result in actual work getting done, it's better for Ubuntu that it be fixing/upgrading than new packages. | 20:32 |
| ScottK | So if we are going to support this initiative, I think it'd be good for it to focus on what we think most needs doing. | 20:33 |
| persia | ScottK: I agree with jcastro that the focus is education & recruitment, rather than generating work done. | 20:33 |
| imbrandon | persia: EXACTLY | 20:33 |
| sistpoty | persia, ScottK: but we can agree that getting more contributors via loco teams is good? I think the tasks we support more or less for new contributors are a topic that not only affects loco teams, right? | 20:34 |
| persia | I'd prefer bugfixing / upgrades, but I've seen a few people come from NEW who did good, so I won't shoot them. | 20:34 |
| persia | sistpoty: Yes. | 20:34 |
| jcastro | it doesn't say explicitly that jams are for new packages | 20:34 |
| sistpoty | [IDEA] jams are a means to get people involved for MOTU | 20:35 |
| MootBot | IDEA received: jams are a means to get people involved for MOTU | 20:35 |
| ScottK | sistpoty: I think that improving the MOTU/package ratio is good. It doesn't follow then that all ways of getting contributors are a positive. | 20:35 |
| persia | ScottK: Sure, but that's rightly a separate topic/ | 20:35 |
| imbrandon | it seems people are equating "packaging" to mean new packages only, maintaince of packages falls under "packaging" and thus "packaging jams" | 20:35 |
| ScottK | persia: I see it as core to how I feel about the idea. | 20:35 |
| persia | imbrandon: Yes. It's entirely nomenclature. | 20:36 |
| imbrandon | yay \0/ | 20:36 |
| ScottK | Well if you read the wiki about it, it's clearly orient towards new packages: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/RunningPackagingJam | 20:36 |
| sistpoty | ok, how about generalizing the current topic then to new packages vs. bug fixing for motu-hopefuls (or any better fitted title)? | 20:36 |
| ScottK | [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/RunningPackagingJam | 20:36 |
| MootBot | LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/RunningPackagingJam | 20:37 |
| imbrandon | ScottK: sure, because thats what most new contributors are intrested in, but that dosent mean they will stay with that 100% forever etc, i started in the NEW queue :) | 20:37 |
| persia | s/packagers/maintainers/, s/packaging/maintenance/ ? | 20:37 |
| sistpoty | persia: +1 | 20:37 |
| ScottK | imbrandon: I did too, but that isn't the best way I think. | 20:37 |
| persia | imbrandon: I disagree. Most people want to help, and don't have a lot of focus. | 20:37 |
| ScottK | persia: Will you take an action to revise that wiki page then? | 20:38 |
| imbrandon | ScottK: we should still support all ways and not FORCE a contributor to do somehing they arent intrested in, thats why we have a low ratio now | 20:38 |
| persia | ScottK: OK. | 20:38 |
| ScottK | imbrandon: I totally agree with that. | 20:38 |
| persia | imbrandon: Yes to not forcing, no to drawing conclusions therefrom | 20:38 |
| ScottK | imbrandon: But I also think we should focus on people where we think we need them to work. (focus, not force). | 20:39 |
| sistpoty | ok, can we agree on updating the wiki? and any volunteers to get it right? | 20:39 |
| imbrandon | ScottK: too much focus seems like forceage lately IMHO | 20:39 |
| ScottK | We already have more people plunking stuff onto REVU than MOTUs can handle. | 20:39 |
| * jonnymind is away: Sono occupato | 20:39 | |
| * persia volunteers to just change language, but doesn't promise "right". | 20:39 | |
| ScottK | imbrandon: I agree and so a balance is needed. | 20:39 |
| ScottK | persia: Sounds good. | 20:39 |
| sistpoty | [AGREED] persia to update the wiki about packaging jams | 20:40 |
| MootBot | AGREED received: persia to update the wiki about packaging jams | 20:40 |
| sistpoty | [TOPIC] new packages vs. bugfixing as a means to get hopefuls involved | 20:40 |
| MootBot | New Topic: new packages vs. bugfixing as a means to get hopefuls involved | 20:40 |
| persia | I like both. I would like to deemphasize NEW packaging post DIF though. | 20:41 |
| ScottK | We want people involved, but what we want to avoid is someone who is here to get $mypetpackage uploaded and vanishes. | 20:41 |
| sistpoty | ScottK: agreed | 20:41 |
| jcastro | those are the ones you push to ppas. | 20:41 |
| ScottK | or ignore. | 20:42 |
| proppy | getting a NEW package advocated take way more time that fixing a bug right ? | 20:42 |
| persia | ScottK: I'm not sure about that: there's a few upstreams who want to do Ubuntu packaging, and I don't mind if they maintain their packages, and don't otherwise do much. | 20:42 |
| sistpoty | what I'd really like to see is some stats on how many packages that made it through revu are well-maintained and how many not | 20:42 |
| persia | proppy: And it does. | 20:42 |
| imbrandon | ScottK: ignoring is bad, even in that sense | 20:42 |
| ScottK | persia: I totally agree with that. | 20:42 |
| ScottK | imbrandon: I'm thinking we have limited attention and can't properly attend to everyone, so we need to prioritize. | 20:42 |
| persia | sistpoty: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/uehs/ has a lot of your base data. About half are forgotten. | 20:42 |
| Nafallo | we need to go back to the first few cycles :-). pre REVU ;-) | 20:43 |
| jcastro | Plus, even if we get a small fraction of "packaging jam target people" becoming MOTU short term, chances are they'll work on more MOTU-oriented thing in the future when they get more comfortable | 20:43 |
| imbrandon | jcastro: exactly, thats my point | 20:43 |
| jcastro | "ok, you've done pet package, have you looked at doing a bite size bug?" etc. etc. | 20:43 |
| persia | ScottK: I think we should actively process in REVU order. For most packages, it only takes 10-20 minutes to draft a basic review of why it isn't ready. I'd rather leave a comment & forget than ignore. | 20:44 |
| sistpoty | persia: where exactly? packages not in sync doesn't tell too much :/. packages w.o. watch file don't need to be orphaned. | 20:44 |
| ScottK | Per maintainer lookups aren't exactly helpful in Ubuntu either. | 20:44 |
| persia | jcastro: Good idea. Perhaps REVU uploaders should be encouraged to subscribe to the packages they upload in Malone. | 20:44 |
| proppy | from an early contributor POV, when you fix a bug you get the positive feedback sooner | 20:44 |
| sistpoty | [IDEA] subscribe REVU uploader to packages in malone | 20:45 |
| persia | sistpoty: Look at packages w/o watchfile & the output of watchwiz for example. Further, between the three links is all the packages from REVU. | 20:45 |
| MootBot | IDEA received: subscribe REVU uploader to packages in malone | 20:45 |
| ScottK | What would be the purpose of this? | 20:45 |
| imbrandon | +1, this should be being done now anyhow as best practice | 20:45 |
| ScottK | I disagree. | 20:46 |
| imbrandon | ScottK: make the people that rovide $package get bugmail | 20:46 |
| ScottK | Ah. I see. I misunderstood | 20:46 |
| persia | ScottK: If someone packages & uploads, encouraging them to watch bugs in that package may encourage greater involvement. Not mandatory, just encouraged. | 20:46 |
| * ScottK was thinking you were referring to the needs-packaging bug. | 20:46 | |
| persia | No. No point really. | 20:46 |
| ScottK | persia: Yes, that's good. I just misundersood. | 20:46 |
| ScottK | The problem is that there's nothing to subscribe to until after the upload. | 20:47 |
| ScottK | So you have to ask them to do it after. | 20:47 |
| proppy | yep, maybe suscribe the dependencies :) | 20:47 |
| Nafallo | ScottK: there is nothing to apply a bug to before upload either :-) | 20:47 |
| imbrandon | ScottK: sure, you shouldent just $upload and forget about someone :) | 20:47 |
| persia | proppy: Less likely. Not everyone can debug e.g. glibc | 20:47 |
| imbrandon | so that shouldent be an issue | 20:47 |
| ScottK | OK. Good enough. | 20:47 |
| proppy | persia: nor python | 20:48 |
| persia | proppy: exactly | 20:48 |
| ScottK | Getting a bug point of contact (even if they can only triage) is a very good thing. | 20:48 |
| * persia hopes for the next topic, in anticipation of going back to sleep | 20:48 | |
| ScottK | I'm done. Anyone else have a topic? | 20:49 |
| sistpoty | ok, anyone disagrees with persia? | 20:49 |
| Nafallo | I think we have an agree here somewhere? :-) | 20:49 |
| sistpoty | hehe | 20:49 |
| sistpoty | any other business? | 20:49 |
| imbrandon | as long as its best practice and not manditiory :) | 20:49 |
| persia | imbrandon: No enforement mechanism, so no point in calling it "mandatory". | 20:49 |
| sistpoty | 3... | 20:50 |
| sistpoty | 2... | 20:50 |
| sistpoty | 1... | 20:50 |
| proppy | what do you think about MOTU helpfull revu others MOTU packages | 20:50 |
| proppy | ? | 20:50 |
| proppy | (sorry) | 20:50 |
| sistpoty | [TOPIC] having motu hopefuls review other MOTU packages | 20:50 |
| ScottK | proppy: As lolng as you make it clear you're not a MOTU, I think it's great. | 20:50 |
| MootBot | New Topic: having motu hopefuls review other MOTU packages | 20:50 |
| imbrandon | we have a bad habbit about making things "required" though before they are put into use for a while, unlike debian policys where they are used for a long time before they are policy | 20:50 |
| persia | proppy: It's good. It's encouraged, and no they can't have access to REVU to do it yet. | 20:50 |
| proppy | and MOTU reviewing you'r review | 20:50 |
| sistpoty | persia: they can, but only on a individual basis | 20:51 |
| ScottK | proppy: If you do the review interactively on #ubuntu-motu then that happens automatically. | 20:51 |
| Nafallo | imbrandon: agreed. | 20:51 |
| persia | sistpoty: Yes, but we can't distinguish Contributor comments from MOTU comments for sort order, so it breaks the MOTU review of Contributor comments part of the goal. | 20:51 |
| ScottK | sistpoty: That needs to be treated as a special case and not as a general capability right now. | 20:52 |
| persia | proppy: If you're worried about flooding the channel, use a pastebin to write the review, and post the link to #ubuntu-motu | 20:52 |
| sistpoty | persia: right. but I guess someone who does a good job for some time should get review rights... | 20:52 |
| proppy | persia: ok | 20:52 |
| sistpoty | ScottK: exactly, that's what I wanted to write | 20:52 |
| proppy | it was just a suggestion | 20:52 |
| Nafallo | sistpoty: shouldn't that person be a MOTU as well then? | 20:52 |
| DktrKranz | I like this proposal. A non-MOTU can provide useful feedbacks, reviewer will choose to follow these advices or not. | 20:52 |
| ScottK | proppy: It's a good one. | 20:52 |
| persia | sistpoty: I disagree. If someone is doing an excellent job of reviewing, they should be prodded to apply for MOTU. | 20:52 |
| proppy | maybe a threaded forum is more approriate for that than revfu | 20:52 |
| ScottK | persia: Think of it as a final exam. | 20:53 |
| sistpoty | Nafallo, persia: sure, but there are always delays, and I recall having someone grant review rights as a task of the application *g* | 20:53 |
| persia | ScottK: For some special cases, maybe. | 20:53 |
| sistpoty | I guess we all can agree that the real bug is in revu, which should get fixed, right?= | 20:54 |
| ScottK | And since we haven't mechanized a way to distinguish MOTU/non-MOTU comments, then a special case is all it can ever be until someone codes the changes in REVU. | 20:54 |
| persia | sistpoty: That might happen, but it's part of the application process, not a general case: Contributors should first prove their reviewing skills in #ubuntu-motu | 20:54 |
| sistpoty | persia: I guess we agree there :) | 20:55 |
| proppy | what about posting review in a mailing list then ? | 20:55 |
| sistpoty | proppy: that mailing list exists already: motureviewers@tauware.de ;) | 20:55 |
| proppy | then distingish between motu and non motu is just a matter of identify ? | 20:56 |
| persia | proppy: Be warned that not every uploader reads that list (nor every reviewer) | 20:56 |
| proppy | like an @ubuntu.com email ? | 20:56 |
| sistpoty | motu-reviewers even | 20:56 |
| ScottK | proppy: The trick is the data base schem needs changing. | 20:56 |
| persia | proppy: Essentially. It's not email, it's membership in ~ubuntu-dev | 20:56 |
| ScottK | proppy: Not all MOTUs use their ubuntu.com address. | 20:57 |
| sistpoty | ScottK: we could abuse the current scheme a little bit... I guess there's some space left which would require only minimal changes (but those with care *g*) | 20:57 |
| Nafallo | @ubuntu.com is for members, not developers. | 20:57 |
| proppy | ScottK: you mean not at all ? | 20:57 |
| proppy | ScottK: or not for reviewing business ? | 20:57 |
| ScottK | sistpoty: Excellent. | 20:58 |
| ScottK | proppy: I meant not at all. | 20:58 |
| proppy | ScottK: ok ne | 20:58 |
| * ScottK for example. | 20:58 | |
| * persia proposes the drafting of a spec for how non-MOTUs would comment, for general review | 20:58 | |
| sistpoty | [IDEA] fix revu to allow non-motu contributors | 20:58 |
| MootBot | IDEA received: fix revu to allow non-motu contributors | 20:58 |
| sistpoty | persia: that would be excellent, would you take care for this? | 20:58 |
| proppy | thanks for feedbacks | 20:58 |
| persia | sistpoty: I don't understand the problem well enough: I was happy using pastebin as a Contributor. | 20:59 |
| persia | proppy: Would you be up for drafting a spec for how Contributors would add REVU comments? | 20:59 |
| ScottK | proppy: How about you make a first draft? | 20:59 |
| proppy | persia: np | 20:59 |
| imbrandon | pastebin requires IRC :( | 20:59 |
| persia | proppy: Thanks. | 20:59 |
| proppy | persia: the difference betweend pastbin and revu | 20:59 |
| sistpoty | persia: it would be in place reviews... debian-mentors acts quite like this | 20:59 |
| persia | imbrandon: I don't consider that a downside. | 20:59 |
| proppy | persia: is that pastebin is live | 20:59 |
| proppy | persia: REVU is asynchronous | 21:00 |
| ScottK | proppy: It alse needs to talk about how it gets decided who can review. | 21:00 |
| sistpoty | (the mailing list, not the webpage= | 21:00 |
| imbrandon | persia: i do, i know many contributors i have worked with will NOT cone to IRC | 21:00 |
| imbrandon | come* | 21:00 |
| persia | proppy: True. I'll probably have more useful input when more awake :) | 21:00 |
| sistpoty | hehe | 21:00 |
| proppy | should I use the spec template ? | 21:00 |
| imbrandon | plus irc limits you to those that are in your timezone | 21:01 |
| imbrandon | or sleep/schedule | 21:01 |
| ScottK | imbrandon: Sleep is for the weak. | 21:01 |
| imbrandon | hehe | 21:01 |
| persia | proppy: That would be best. | 21:01 |
| sistpoty | proppy: I guess just informative text is nice.. of course you can do an "official spec" if you want ;) | 21:01 |
| proppy | persia: url ? | 21:01 |
| proppy | persia: I mean of the wanted spec | 21:01 |
| proppy | persia: not the template | 21:02 |
| imbrandon | ok i got to run, i trust someone will post the minutes to the ML ? | 21:02 |
| sistpoty | imbrandon: sure, I'll do | 21:02 |
| ScottK | Maybe sistpoty would volunteer to mentor proppy on spec writing.... | 21:02 |
| imbrandon | killer, thanks | 21:02 |
| * persia suggests https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ContributorREVU but thinks someone else might have a better suggestion. | 21:02 | |
| proppy | https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/NonMOTUReviewProcess ? | 21:02 |
| sistpoty | ScottK: /me needs the spare time for rewriting revu :P | 21:02 |
| persia | sistpoty: You don7t get to rewrite until there's a spec, no? ;) | 21:03 |
| proppy | I suck when it comes to choosing CamelCasedNames | 21:03 |
| DktrKranz | sistpoty, is source code available somewhere? | 21:03 |
| imbrandon | sistpoty: i just started proding the codebase too and did you see the staging site yet ? | 21:03 |
| persia | DktrKranz: In the LP project | 21:03 |
| DktrKranz | ah, I'll have a look, then | 21:03 |
| proppy | [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ContributorREVU | 21:03 |
| MootBot | LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ContributorREVU | 21:03 |
| sistpoty | DktrKranz: sure, https://code.launchpad.net/~revu-hackers/revu/trunk | 21:04 |
| sistpoty | imbrandon: no, not yet | 21:05 |
| sistpoty | ok, shall we move on? | 21:05 |
| * persia seconds | 21:05 | |
| Nafallo | sistpoty: if that means a countdown ;-) | 21:05 |
| sistpoty | 3 | 21:05 |
| sistpoty | 2 | 21:05 |
| sistpoty | 1 | 21:05 |
| sistpoty | any other business? | 21:05 |
| ScottK | Next meeting? | 21:06 |
| * persia proposes 12:00 UTC 21st December 2007 | 21:06 | |
| sistpoty | [TOPIC] next meeting | 21:06 |
| MootBot | New Topic: next meeting | 21:06 |
| DktrKranz | Sounds good to me | 21:06 |
| * persia proposes 12:00 UTC 21st December 2007 | 21:06 | |
| persia | (for MootBot) | 21:06 |
| Nafallo | I'm on a flight :-) | 21:06 |
| sistpoty | [IDEA] persia 12:00 UTC 21st December 2007 | 21:06 |
| MootBot | IDEA received: persia 12:00 UTC 21st December 2007 | 21:06 |
| ScottK | persia: I doubt we'll get much that close to Christmas | 21:06 |
| ScottK | How about 12/14 and then we skip a week? | 21:06 |
| persia | ScottK: True, but the week after is even worse :( | 21:06 |
| Nafallo | friday meetings is the rule? ;-) | 21:07 |
| * persia doubts much of an agenda pre-12/14 (and couldn't make it anyway) | 21:07 | |
| persia | Nafallo: Not the rule, but the practice. | 21:07 |
| ScottK | persia: Even without an advance agenda, meetings are good. | 21:08 |
| ScottK | I think today is an excellent example of that. | 21:08 |
| Nafallo | 4th then? :-) | 21:08 |
| sistpoty | official christmas break is "only" at 12/27 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyReleaseSchedule), so I'd favor 12/12 | 21:08 |
| sistpoty | 12/21 even | 21:08 |
| Nafallo | oh | 21:09 |
| Nafallo | it's m/dd | 21:09 |
| Nafallo | mm even | 21:09 |
| Nafallo | so? | 21:10 |
| * DktrKranz likes 12/21 | 21:10 | |
| ScottK | Whatever. | 21:10 |
| Nafallo | we got 14th, 21st and 4th proposed :-P | 21:10 |
| sistpoty | let's vote... didn't have the chance to do a MootBot vote yet *g* | 21:10 |
| sistpoty | [vote] meeting on 14 | 21:10 |
| MootBot | Please vote on: meeting on 14. | 21:10 |
| MootBot | Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot | 21:10 |
| MootBot | E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting | 21:10 |
| sistpoty | +0 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | Abstention received from sistpoty. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 | 21:11 |
| persia | -1 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | -1 received from persia. 0 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -1 | 21:11 |
| DktrKranz | -1 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | -1 received from DktrKranz. 0 for, 2 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -2 | 21:11 |
| Nafallo | -1 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | -1 received from Nafallo. 0 for, 3 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -3 | 21:11 |
| geser | -1 | 21:11 |
| imbrandon | -1 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | -1 received from geser. 0 for, 4 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -4 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | -1 received from imbrandon. 0 for, 5 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -5 | 21:11 |
| sistpoty | [endvote] | 21:11 |
| MootBot | Final result is 0 for, 5 against. 1 abstained. Total: -5 | 21:11 |
| sistpoty | [vote] meeting on 21 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | Please vote on: meeting on 21. | 21:11 |
| MootBot | Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot | 21:11 |
| MootBot | E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting | 21:11 |
| imbrandon | +0 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | Abstention received from imbrandon. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 | 21:11 |
| Nafallo | -1 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | -1 received from Nafallo. 0 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -1 | 21:11 |
| DktrKranz | +1 | 21:11 |
| MootBot | +1 received from DktrKranz. 1 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 | 21:11 |
| sistpoty | +1 | 21:12 |
| MootBot | +1 received from sistpoty. 2 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1 | 21:12 |
| geser | +1 | 21:12 |
| MootBot | +1 received from geser. 3 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 2 | 21:12 |
| persia | +1 | 21:12 |
| MootBot | +1 received from persia. 4 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 3 | 21:12 |
| sistpoty | [endvote] | 21:12 |
| MootBot | Final result is 4 for, 1 against. 1 abstained. Total: 3 | 21:12 |
| sistpoty | [vote] meeting on 4th | 21:12 |
| MootBot | Please vote on: meeting on 4th. | 21:12 |
| MootBot | Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot | 21:12 |
| MootBot | E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting | 21:12 |
| persia | 0 | 21:12 |
| DktrKranz | +0 | 21:12 |
| Nafallo | +1 | 21:12 |
| sistpoty | -1 | 21:12 |
| MootBot | Abstention received from DktrKranz. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 | 21:12 |
| MootBot | +1 received from Nafallo. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1 | 21:12 |
| MootBot | -1 received from sistpoty. 1 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0 | 21:12 |
| imbrandon | +1 | 21:12 |
| MootBot | +1 received from imbrandon. 2 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1 | 21:13 |
| persia | +0 | 21:13 |
| MootBot | Abstention received from persia. 2 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 1 | 21:13 |
| ScottK | +1 | 21:13 |
| MootBot | +1 received from ScottK. 3 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 2 | 21:13 |
| geser | +0 | 21:13 |
| MootBot | Abstention received from geser. 3 for, 1 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now 2 | 21:13 |
| sistpoty | [endvote] | 21:13 |
| MootBot | Final result is 3 for, 1 against. 3 abstained. Total: 2 | 21:13 |
| Nafallo | 21st then | 21:14 |
| sistpoty | yes, what time? (and please let's just make a time and not vote again *g*) | 21:14 |
| geser | which time? | 21:14 |
| DktrKranz | 12:00 UTC ? | 21:14 |
| imbrandon | 2100 UTC ? | 21:14 |
| ScottK | 2100UTC is good for me. | 21:14 |
| persia | 12:00 UTC so that people who aren't here now have a chance. | 21:14 |
| sistpoty | I'd agree with 12:00 UTC as that would be the usual shift | 21:14 |
| imbrandon | ok 1200 is ok also | 21:15 |
| imbrandon | with me | 21:15 |
| Nafallo | I'll miss it :-) | 21:15 |
| ScottK | Whatever you all decide. | 21:15 |
| Nafallo | but that's okay. | 21:15 |
| sistpoty | ok, can we agree on 12:00 UTC? | 21:15 |
| geser | +1 | 21:15 |
| DktrKranz | +1 | 21:15 |
| ScottK | Apparently | 21:15 |
| sistpoty | [AGREED] time is 12:00 UTC | 21:15 |
| MootBot | AGREED received: time is 12:00 UTC | 21:15 |
| * persia thought we agreed not to vote :) | 21:15 | |
| sistpoty | hehe | 21:16 |
| Nafallo | sistpoty: agreed on the date? :-) | 21:16 |
| DktrKranz | but that's not a vote :P | 21:16 |
| sistpoty | [AGREED] 21 | 21:16 |
| MootBot | AGREED received: 21 | 21:16 |
| geser | persia: we could have a vote to not vote the time :) | 21:16 |
| sistpoty | :P | 21:16 |
| Nafallo | lol | 21:16 |
| DktrKranz | :D | 21:16 |
| persia | geser: Yes. That would be proper procedure :) | 21:16 |
| sistpoty | ok, I guess we're done... | 21:16 |
| Nafallo | we could vote about ending the meeting ;-) | 21:16 |
| DktrKranz | let's put it on vote :P | 21:16 |
| sistpoty | [vote] end the meeting | 21:16 |
| MootBot | Please vote on: end the meeting. | 21:16 |
| MootBot | Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to MootBot | 21:16 |
| MootBot | E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting | 21:16 |
| sistpoty | +1 | 21:16 |
| MootBot | +1 received from sistpoty. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 | 21:16 |
| Nafallo | +1 | 21:16 |
| MootBot | +1 received from Nafallo. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 | 21:17 |
| DktrKranz | +1 | 21:17 |
| geser | +1 | 21:17 |
| MootBot | +1 received from DktrKranz. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 | 21:17 |
| MootBot | +1 received from geser. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4 | 21:17 |
| persia | +1 | 21:17 |
| MootBot | +1 received from persia. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5 | 21:17 |
| Nafallo | lol | 21:17 |
| imbrandon | heh | 21:17 |
| sistpoty | [endvote] | 21:17 |
| MootBot | Final result is 5 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 5 | 21:17 |
| Nafallo | I wasn't serious :-P | 21:17 |
| sistpoty | ok, meeting adjourned, thanks for coming! | 21:17 |
| * DktrKranz hopes no-one looks at the transcript | 21:17 | |
| Nafallo | thanks :-) | 21:17 |
| sistpoty | [endmeeting] | 21:17 |
| sistpoty | #endmeeting | 21:17 |
| MootBot | Meeting finished at 21:17. | 21:17 |
| persia | sistpoty: Thanks for chairing | 21:18 |
| sistpoty | persia: no problem, though it was merely by accident# | 21:18 |
| sistpoty | MootBot: where can I find your logs? | 21:18 |
| * Nafallo puts sistpoty and imbrandon (I think) in #ubuntuwire ;-) | 21:18 | |
| sistpoty | hehe... will be right there, just give me 5 minutes of "fresh" air *g* | 21:19 |
| === nixternal_ is now known as nixternal | ||
| === Adri20001 is now known as Adri2000 | ||
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!