[05:56] <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> :)
[06:27] <kraut> moin
[20:07] <persia> Right.  Seems to be consensus that this is now the MOTU meeting, although it doesn't seem to have been scheduled anywhere :)
[20:08] <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.
[20:09] <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
[20:10] <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
[20:11] <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)
[20:12] <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.
[20:13] <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
[20:14] <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
[20:15] <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.
[20:16] <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
[20:17] <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
[20:18] <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.
[20:20] <ian_brasil> hi, what is interdiff?
[20:21] <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.
[20:22] <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?
[20:23] <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
[20:24] <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.
[20:25] <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.
[20:26] <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?
[20:27] <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.
[20:28] <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 :)
[20:29] <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.
[20:30] <persia> DktrKranz: REVU only happens 30 weeks a year, which can be frustrating for people uploading the other 22.
[20:30] <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.
[20:31] <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.
[20:32] <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.
[20:33] <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
[20:34] <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
[20:35] <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.
[20:36] <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
[20:37] <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.
[20:38] <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
[20:39] <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.
[20:40] <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
[20:41] <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.
[20:42] <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.
[20:43] <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.
[20:44] <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
[20:45] <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
[20:46] <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.
[20:47] <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.
[20:48] <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
[20:49] <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".
[20:50] <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
[20:51] <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.
[20:52] <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
[20:53] <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.
[20:54] <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
[20:55] <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 ;)
[20:56] <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
[20:57] <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 ?
[20:58] <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
[20:59] <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
[21:00] <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 ?
[21:01] <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
[21:02] <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
[21:03] <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
[21:04] <sistpoty> DktrKranz: sure, https://code.launchpad.net/~revu-hackers/revu/trunk
[21:05] <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?
[21:06] <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 :(
[21:07] <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.
[21:08] <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
[21:09] <Nafallo> oh
[21:09] <Nafallo> it's m/dd
[21:09] <Nafallo> mm even
[21:10] <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
[21:11] <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
[21:12] <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
[21:13] <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
[21:14] <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
[21:15] <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 :)
[21:16] <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
[21:17] <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.
[21:18] <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 ;-)
[21:19] <sistpoty> hehe... will be right there, just give me 5 minutes of "fresh" air *g*