=== 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
ardchoilleWhen is the next meeting to be held?05:56
ubotuCurrent time in Etc/UTC: December 07 2007, 05:56:44 - Next meeting: Kubuntu Developers in 5 days05:56
ardchoillePalintheus: Ah, thanks05:56
=== 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
persiaRight.  Seems to be consensus that this is now the MOTU meeting, although it doesn't seem to have been scheduled anywhere :)20:07
persiaNo agenda though (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings), so it should be quick.20:08
sistpotymaybe we could use an announcement mail for next time (from anyone who remembers the date *g*)20:08
persiaAny volunteers to take minutes?20:08
persiasistpoty: Good idea.20:08
persiaAny volunteers to send announcements (1 week before, 1 day before)?20:09
* DktrKranz offersa20:09
MootBotMeeting started at 20:09. The chair is sistpoty.20:09
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]20:09
sistpoty#action sistpoty takes minutes20:09
sistpotydamn, what did I do wrong?20:10
persia[ACTION] sistpoty takes minutes20:10
* persia isn't the chair, so please repeat the statement :)20:10
sistpoty[ACTION] DktrKranz will send announcement mails20:10
MootBotACTION received:  DktrKranz will send announcement mails20:10
sistpoty[ACTION] sistpoty will write minutes20:10
MootBotACTION received:  sistpoty will write minutes20:10
sistpotypersia: can I hand over meeting chair to you? *g*20:11
persiasistpoty: I don't think so.  If you did, I'd post a link to the topic, and call for any other business.20:11
persiaErrr..  link to the agenda (to MootBot)20:11
sistpotypersia: damn...20:12
ScottKAre we having a MOTU meeting?20:12
sistpotyScottK: yes20:12
persiaScottK: Trying :)20:12
proppyhi ScottK, hi persia20:12
DktrKranzHere's the agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings20:12
proppyhi all :)20:12
DktrKranzNot very much to discuss, though20:12
ScottKShould be short.20:12
sistpoty[LINK]: agenda https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings20:13
MootBotLINK received: : agenda https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings20:13
geserthat's a big agenda :)20:13
sistpotyok, any business not on the agenda? *g*20:13
proppy*agree on date and time of next meeting*20:13
ScottKAny feedback on using interdiff for upgrades?20:13
sistpoty[TOPIC] ScottK: feedback on using interdiff for upgrades20:13
MootBotNew Topic:  ScottK: feedback on using interdiff for upgrades20:13
persiaI'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
DktrKranzI had a couple of reviews using interdiff, and I found it of great aid20:14
ScottKpersia: Could we script something for interdiff to make it easier?20:15
Nafallooh, we are talking about debdiff stuff :-)20:15
persiaScottK: 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-interdiff20:16
MootBotLINK received: : http://people.ubuntuwire.com/~persia/process-interdiff20:16
ScottKpersia: Maybe RainCT would work on it.  He seems to like that kind of thing.20:17
persiaErr...  That's not a good home: if we stay with interdiff, someone (likely me) needs to fix it, and put it in ubuntu-dev-tools20:17
persiaScottK: Good idea.20:17
ScottKPlus 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 sponsoring20:17
MootBotIDEA received: : RainCT might want to work on interdiff for sponsoring20:17
sistpoty[IDEA]: move the script to ubuntu-dev-tools20:17
MootBotIDEA received: : move the script to ubuntu-dev-tools20:17
ScottKOnce it's suitable for general use.20:18
sistpotyok, more feedback to this topic?20:18
ScottKNot from me?20:18
persiacjwatson 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_brasilhi, what is interdiff?20:20
persia[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Interdiff20:21
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/Interdiff20:21
ScottKI think what is wanted is diff of the debian dir + diff from the new upstream.20:21
persiaScottK: A debdiff gets that, but they need to be evaluated separately.20:22
sistpotyok, let's move on, shall we?20:22
persiaMoving 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
ScottKAre there any MOTUs planning to support these packaging jams that Jono has proposed?20:23
sistpoty[TOPIC] supporting packaging jams20:23
MootBotNew Topic:  supporting packaging jams20:24
Nafallowhat's that?20:24
DktrKranzScottK, I proposed it to our LoCo, we are planning to have a meeting where we'll discuss about it20:24
* ScottK looks for jono's blog20:24
persiaI tend to think of Packaging Jams as means to populate PPAs, and not to affect universe directly.20:24
ian_brasili thought package jams were like install fests but for packaging20:25
persia [LINK] http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=108220:25
MootBotLINK received:  http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=108220:25
DktrKranzScott's mail is good. Maybe focusing on bugfix (as Debian does) can be more helpful20:25
persiaEven package updates would be better for us.20:25
* ScottK is concerned he may be raising expectations urealistically.20:25
ScottKThat 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 MOTU20:26
ScottKBut how many LoCo teams have a local pet MOTU?20:26
ian_brasilnot many i would say20:27
DktrKranzHard to say20:27
Nafallowhere local is the keyword :-)20:27
sistpotyScottK: not many, and I'd hope that this would change20:27
persiasistpoty: 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_brasilcertainly in brazil we do not20:27
NafalloSweden HAD me, but we were all spread out.20:27
jcastroPackaging Jams don't have to be /new/ software.20:27
Nafallomaybe this is more the the city teams?20:28
persiajcastro: Ah.  That's better then.  All the information I'd seen gave that impression.20:28
jcastroI know the one local to me (michigan) covers things like debdiffs and workflow and stuff20:28
imbrandoni'm late :(20:28
geserUbuntu Bug Parties?20:28
sistpotypersia: imho the goal is not (or should not be) to get new software into ubuntu, but rather to knot the ties between MOTU and LoCos20:28
persia"Packaging Jam" is a fine name, as long as it's not all about packaging new software.20:28
jcastroyes, what sistpoty said!20:28
persiasistpoty: Then we agree :)20:28
ScottKsistpoty: Reading Jono's blog, I don't think he agrees.20:29
imbrandonScottK: he does, i talked to him a bit on jabber about it, it just wasent clear in the blog20:29
ScottKDid Jono discuss this with anyone before announcing it?20:29
DktrKranzNEW 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
persiaDktrKranz: 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
persiaScottK: 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
sistpotyScottK: 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 topic20:31
imbrandonpersia: 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
jcastroI think that instead of "packaging" the word should be "maintain" or something instead20:31
jcastroclearly the goal of a Jam is to find more MOTUs20:31
sistpotyimbrandon: -ENOPARSE... what should revu do?20:31
persiasistpoty: 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
persiajcastro: I'd much prefer a goal to find more Contributors, who may become MOTUs.20:32
jcastroah, good word.20:32
imbrandonsistpoty: check the time of the release ( maybe manualy set ) and display a notice about ..... i'll poke you after the meeting in #ubuntuwire20:32
sistpotyimbrandon: ok20:32
ScottKpersia: 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
ScottKSo 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
persiaScottK: I agree with jcastro that the focus is education & recruitment, rather than generating work done.20:33
imbrandonpersia: EXACTLY20:33
sistpotypersia, 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
persiaI'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
persiasistpoty: Yes.20:34
jcastroit doesn't say explicitly that jams are for new packages20:34
sistpoty[IDEA] jams are a means to get people involved for MOTU20:35
MootBotIDEA received:  jams are a means to get people involved for MOTU20:35
ScottKsistpoty: 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
persiaScottK: Sure, but that's rightly a separate topic/20:35
imbrandonit seems people are equating "packaging" to mean new packages only, maintaince of packages falls under "packaging" and thus "packaging jams"20:35
ScottKpersia: I see it as core to how I feel about the idea.20:35
persiaimbrandon: Yes.  It's entirely nomenclature.20:36
imbrandonyay \0/20:36
ScottKWell if you read the wiki about it, it's clearly orient towards new packages: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/RunningPackagingJam20:36
sistpotyok, 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/RunningPackagingJam20:36
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/RunningPackagingJam20:37
imbrandonScottK: 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
persias/packagers/maintainers/, s/packaging/maintenance/ ?20:37
sistpotypersia: +120:37
ScottKimbrandon: I did too, but that isn't the best way I think.20:37
persiaimbrandon: I disagree.  Most people want to help, and don't have a lot of focus.20:37
ScottKpersia: Will you take an action to revise that wiki page then?20:38
imbrandonScottK: 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 now20:38
persiaScottK: OK.20:38
ScottKimbrandon: I totally agree with that.20:38
persiaimbrandon: Yes to not forcing, no to drawing conclusions therefrom20:38
ScottKimbrandon: But I also think we should focus on people where we think we need them to work. (focus, not force).20:39
sistpotyok, can we agree on updating the wiki? and any volunteers to get it right?20:39
imbrandonScottK: too much focus seems like forceage lately IMHO20:39
ScottKWe already have more people plunking stuff onto REVU than MOTUs can handle.20:39
* jonnymind is away: Sono occupato20:39
* persia volunteers to just change language, but doesn't promise "right".20:39
ScottKimbrandon: I agree and so a balance is needed.20:39
ScottKpersia: Sounds good.20:39
sistpoty[AGREED] persia to update the wiki about packaging jams20:40
MootBotAGREED received:  persia to update the wiki about packaging jams20:40
sistpoty[TOPIC] new packages vs. bugfixing as a means to get hopefuls involved20:40
MootBotNew Topic:  new packages vs. bugfixing as a means to get hopefuls involved20:40
persiaI like both.  I would like to deemphasize NEW packaging post DIF though.20:41
ScottKWe want people involved, but what we want to avoid is someone who is here to get $mypetpackage uploaded and vanishes.20:41
sistpotyScottK: agreed20:41
jcastrothose are the ones you push to ppas.20:41
ScottKor ignore.20:42
proppygetting a NEW package advocated take way more time that fixing a bug right ?20:42
persiaScottK: 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
sistpotywhat I'd really like to see is some stats on how many packages that made it through revu are well-maintained and how many not20:42
persiaproppy: And it does.20:42
imbrandonScottK: ignoring is bad, even in that sense20:42
ScottKpersia: I totally agree with that.20:42
ScottKimbrandon: I'm thinking we have limited attention and can't properly attend to everyone, so we need to prioritize.20:42
persiasistpoty: http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/uehs/ has a lot of your base data.  About half are forgotten.20:42
Nafallowe need to go back to the first few cycles :-). pre REVU ;-)20:43
jcastroPlus, 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 comfortable20:43
imbrandonjcastro: exactly, thats my point20:43
jcastro"ok, you've done pet package, have you looked at doing a bite size bug?" etc. etc.20:43
persiaScottK: 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
sistpotypersia: where exactly? packages not in sync doesn't tell too much :/. packages w.o. watch file don't need to be orphaned.20:44
ScottKPer maintainer lookups aren't exactly helpful in Ubuntu either.20:44
persiajcastro: Good idea.  Perhaps REVU uploaders should be encouraged to subscribe to the packages they upload in Malone.20:44
proppyfrom an early contributor POV, when you fix a bug you get the positive feedback sooner20:44
sistpoty[IDEA] subscribe REVU uploader to packages in malone20:45
persiasistpoty: 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
MootBotIDEA received:  subscribe REVU uploader to packages in malone20:45
ScottKWhat would be the purpose of this?20:45
imbrandon+1, this should be being done now anyhow as best practice20:45
ScottKI disagree.20:46
imbrandonScottK: make the people that rovide $package get bugmail20:46
ScottKAh.  I see.  I misunderstood20:46
persiaScottK: 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
persiaNo.  No point really.20:46
ScottKpersia: Yes, that's good.  I just misundersood.20:46
ScottKThe problem is that there's nothing to subscribe to until after the upload.20:47
ScottKSo you have to ask them to do it after.20:47
proppyyep, maybe suscribe the dependencies :)20:47
NafalloScottK: there is nothing to apply a bug to before upload either :-)20:47
imbrandonScottK: sure, you shouldent just $upload and forget about someone :)20:47
persiaproppy: Less likely.  Not everyone can debug e.g. glibc20:47
imbrandonso that shouldent be an issue20:47
ScottKOK.  Good enough.20:47
proppypersia: nor python20:48
persiaproppy: exactly20:48
ScottKGetting 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 sleep20:48
ScottKI'm done.  Anyone else have a topic?20:49
sistpotyok, anyone disagrees with persia?20:49
NafalloI think we have an agree here somewhere? :-)20:49
sistpotyany other business?20:49
imbrandonas long as its best practice and not manditiory :)20:49
persiaimbrandon: No enforement mechanism, so no point in calling it "mandatory".20:49
proppywhat do you think about MOTU helpfull  revu others MOTU packages20:50
sistpoty[TOPIC] having motu hopefuls review other MOTU packages20:50
ScottKproppy: As lolng as you make it clear you're not a MOTU, I think it's great.20:50
MootBotNew Topic:  having motu hopefuls review other MOTU packages20:50
imbrandonwe 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 policy20:50
persiaproppy: It's good.  It's encouraged, and no they can't have access to REVU to do it yet.20:50
proppyand MOTU reviewing you'r review20:50
sistpotypersia: they can, but only on a individual basis20:51
ScottKproppy: If you do the review interactively on #ubuntu-motu then that happens automatically.20:51
Nafalloimbrandon: agreed.20:51
persiasistpoty: 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
ScottKsistpoty: That needs to be treated as a special case and not as a general capability right now.20:52
persiaproppy: If you're worried about flooding the channel, use a pastebin to write the review, and post the link to #ubuntu-motu20:52
sistpotypersia: right. but I guess someone who does a good job for some time should get review rights...20:52
proppypersia: ok20:52
sistpotyScottK: exactly, that's what I wanted to write20:52
proppyit was just a suggestion20:52
Nafallosistpoty: shouldn't that person be a MOTU as well then?20:52
DktrKranzI like this proposal. A non-MOTU can provide useful feedbacks, reviewer will choose to follow these advices or not.20:52
ScottKproppy: It's a good one.20:52
persiasistpoty: I disagree.  If someone is doing an excellent job of reviewing, they should be prodded to apply for MOTU.20:52
proppymaybe a threaded forum is more approriate for that than revfu20:52
ScottKpersia: Think of it as a final exam.20:53
sistpotyNafallo, persia: sure, but there are always delays, and I recall having someone grant review rights as a task of the application *g*20:53
persiaScottK: For some special cases, maybe.20:53
sistpotyI guess we all can agree that the real bug is in revu, which should get fixed, right?=20:54
ScottKAnd 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
persiasistpoty: That might happen, but it's part of the application process, not a general case: Contributors should first prove their reviewing skills in #ubuntu-motu20:54
sistpotypersia: I guess we agree there :)20:55
proppywhat about posting review in a mailing list then ?20:55
sistpotyproppy: that mailing list exists already: motureviewers@tauware.de ;)20:55
proppythen distingish between motu and non motu is just a matter of identify ?20:56
persiaproppy: Be warned that not every uploader reads that list (nor every reviewer)20:56
proppylike an @ubuntu.com email ?20:56
sistpotymotu-reviewers even20:56
ScottKproppy: The trick is the data base schem needs changing.20:56
persiaproppy: Essentially.  It's not email, it's membership in ~ubuntu-dev20:56
ScottKproppy: Not all MOTUs use their ubuntu.com address.20:57
sistpotyScottK: 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
proppyScottK: you mean not at all ?20:57
proppyScottK: or not for reviewing business ?20:57
ScottKsistpoty: Excellent.20:58
ScottKproppy: I meant not at all.20:58
proppyScottK: ok ne20:58
* ScottK for example.20:58
* persia proposes the drafting of a spec for how non-MOTUs would comment, for general review20:58
sistpoty[IDEA] fix revu to allow non-motu contributors20:58
MootBotIDEA received:  fix revu to allow non-motu contributors20:58
sistpotypersia: that would be excellent, would you take care for this?20:58
proppythanks for feedbacks20:58
persiasistpoty: I don't understand the problem well enough: I was happy using pastebin as a Contributor.20:59
persiaproppy: Would you be up for drafting a spec for how Contributors would add REVU comments?20:59
ScottKproppy: How about you make a first draft?20:59
proppypersia: np20:59
imbrandonpastebin requires IRC :(20:59
persiaproppy: Thanks.20:59
proppypersia: the difference betweend pastbin and revu20:59
sistpotypersia: it would be in place reviews... debian-mentors acts quite like this20:59
persiaimbrandon: I don't consider that a downside.20:59
proppypersia: is that pastebin is live20:59
proppypersia: REVU is asynchronous21:00
ScottKproppy: It alse needs to talk about how it gets decided who can review.21:00
sistpoty(the mailing list, not the webpage=21:00
imbrandonpersia: i do, i know many contributors i have worked with will NOT cone to IRC21:00
persiaproppy: True.  I'll probably have more useful input when more awake :)21:00
proppyshould I use the spec template ?21:00
imbrandonplus irc limits you to those that are in your timezone21:01
imbrandonor sleep/schedule21:01
ScottKimbrandon: Sleep is for the weak.21:01
persiaproppy: That would be best.21:01
sistpotyproppy: I guess just informative text is nice.. of course you can do an "official spec" if you want ;)21:01
proppypersia: url ?21:01
proppypersia: I mean of the wanted spec21:01
proppypersia: not the template21:02
imbrandonok i got to run, i trust someone will post the minutes to the ML ?21:02
sistpotyimbrandon: sure, I'll do21:02
ScottKMaybe sistpoty would volunteer to mentor proppy on spec writing....21:02
imbrandonkiller, thanks21:02
* persia suggests https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ContributorREVU but thinks someone else might have a better suggestion.21:02
proppyhttps://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/NonMOTUReviewProcess ?21:02
sistpotyScottK: /me needs the spare time for rewriting revu :P21:02
persiasistpoty: You don7t get to rewrite until there's a spec, no? ;)21:03
proppyI suck when it comes to choosing CamelCasedNames21:03
DktrKranzsistpoty, is source code available somewhere?21:03
imbrandonsistpoty: i just started proding the codebase too and did you see the staging site yet ?21:03
persiaDktrKranz: In the LP project21:03
DktrKranzah, I'll have a look, then21:03
proppy[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ContributorREVU21:03
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ContributorREVU21:03
sistpotyDktrKranz: sure, https://code.launchpad.net/~revu-hackers/revu/trunk21:04
sistpotyimbrandon: no, not yet21:05
sistpotyok, shall we move on?21:05
* persia seconds21:05
Nafallosistpoty: if that means a countdown ;-)21:05
sistpotyany other business?21:05
ScottKNext meeting?21:06
* persia proposes 12:00 UTC 21st December 200721:06
sistpoty[TOPIC] next meeting21:06
MootBotNew Topic:  next meeting21:06
DktrKranzSounds good to me21:06
* persia proposes 12:00 UTC 21st December 200721:06
persia(for MootBot)21:06
NafalloI'm on a flight :-)21:06
sistpoty[IDEA] persia 12:00 UTC 21st December 200721:06
MootBotIDEA received:  persia 12:00 UTC 21st December 200721:06
ScottKpersia: I doubt we'll get much that close to Christmas21:06
ScottKHow about 12/14 and then we skip a week?21:06
persiaScottK: True, but the week after is even worse :(21:06
Nafallofriday meetings is the rule? ;-)21:07
* persia doubts much of an agenda pre-12/14 (and couldn't make it anyway)21:07
persiaNafallo: Not the rule, but the practice.21:07
ScottKpersia: Even without an advance agenda, meetings are good.21:08
ScottKI think today is an excellent example of that.21:08
Nafallo4th then? :-)21:08
sistpotyofficial christmas break is "only" at 12/27 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyReleaseSchedule), so I'd favor 12/1221:08
sistpoty12/21 even21:08
Nafalloit's m/dd21:09
Nafallomm even21:09
* DktrKranz likes 12/2121:10
Nafallowe got 14th, 21st and 4th proposed :-P21:10
sistpotylet's vote... didn't have the chance to do a MootBot vote yet *g*21:10
sistpoty[vote] meeting on 1421:10
MootBotPlease vote on:  meeting on 14.21:10
MootBotPublic votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot21:10
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting21:10
MootBotAbstention received from sistpoty. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 021:11
MootBot-1 received from persia. 0 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -121:11
MootBot-1 received from DktrKranz. 0 for, 2 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -221:11
MootBot-1 received from Nafallo. 0 for, 3 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -321:11
MootBot-1 received from geser. 0 for, 4 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -421:11
MootBot-1 received from imbrandon. 0 for, 5 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -521:11
MootBotFinal result is 0 for, 5 against. 1 abstained. Total: -521:11
sistpoty[vote] meeting on 2121:11
MootBotPlease vote on:  meeting on 21.21:11
MootBotPublic votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot21:11
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting21:11
MootBotAbstention received from imbrandon. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 021:11
MootBot-1 received from Nafallo. 0 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now -121:11
MootBot+1 received from DktrKranz. 1 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 021:11
MootBot+1 received from sistpoty. 2 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 121:12
MootBot+1 received from geser. 3 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 221:12
MootBot+1 received from persia. 4 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 321:12
MootBotFinal result is 4 for, 1 against. 1 abstained. Total: 321:12
sistpoty[vote] meeting on 4th21:12
MootBotPlease vote on:  meeting on 4th.21:12
MootBotPublic votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot21:12
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting21:12
MootBotAbstention received from DktrKranz. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 021:12
MootBot+1 received from Nafallo. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 121:12
MootBot-1 received from sistpoty. 1 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 021:12
MootBot+1 received from imbrandon. 2 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 121:13
MootBotAbstention received from persia. 2 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 121:13
MootBot+1 received from ScottK. 3 for, 1 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 221:13
MootBotAbstention received from geser. 3 for, 1 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now 221:13
MootBotFinal result is 3 for, 1 against. 3 abstained. Total: 221:13
Nafallo21st then21:14
sistpotyyes, what time? (and please let's just make a time and not vote again *g*)21:14
geserwhich time?21:14
DktrKranz12:00 UTC ?21:14
imbrandon2100 UTC ?21:14
ScottK2100UTC is good for me.21:14
persia12:00 UTC so that people who aren't here now have a chance.21:14
sistpotyI'd agree with 12:00 UTC as that would be the usual shift21:14
imbrandonok 1200 is ok also21:15
imbrandonwith me21:15
NafalloI'll miss it :-)21:15
ScottKWhatever you all decide.21:15
Nafallobut that's okay.21:15
sistpotyok, can we agree on 12:00 UTC?21:15
sistpoty[AGREED] time is 12:00 UTC21:15
MootBotAGREED received:  time is 12:00 UTC21:15
* persia thought we agreed not to vote :)21:15
Nafallosistpoty: agreed on the date? :-)21:16
DktrKranzbut that's not a vote :P21:16
sistpoty[AGREED] 2121:16
MootBotAGREED received:  2121:16
geserpersia: we could have a vote to not vote the time :)21:16
persiageser: Yes.  That would be proper procedure :)21:16
sistpotyok, I guess we're done...21:16
Nafallowe could vote about ending the meeting ;-)21:16
DktrKranzlet's put it on vote :P21:16
sistpoty[vote] end the meeting21:16
MootBotPlease vote on:  end the meeting.21:16
MootBotPublic votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot21:16
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting21:16
MootBot+1 received from sistpoty. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 121:16
MootBot+1 received from Nafallo. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 221:17
MootBot+1 received from DktrKranz. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 321:17
MootBot+1 received from geser. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 421:17
MootBot+1 received from persia. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 521:17
MootBotFinal result is 5 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 521:17
NafalloI wasn't serious :-P21:17
sistpotyok, meeting adjourned, thanks for coming!21:17
* DktrKranz hopes no-one looks at the transcript21:17
Nafallothanks :-)21:17
MootBotMeeting finished at 21:17.21:17
persiasistpoty: Thanks for chairing21:18
sistpotypersia: no problem, though it was merely by accident#21:18
sistpotyMootBot: where can I find your logs?21:18
* Nafallo puts sistpoty and imbrandon (I think) in #ubuntuwire ;-)21:18
sistpotyhehe... 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!