[16:40] <theunixgeek> When's the next meeting
[16:40] <theunixgeek> ?
[16:40] <pochu> @now
[16:40] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: December 15 2007, 16:40:29 - Next meeting: Server Team meeting in 2 days
[16:41] <theunixgeek> thank you
[21:00] <imbrandon> @now
[21:00] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: December 15 2007, 21:00:21 - Next meeting: Server Team meeting in 2 days
[21:00] <nixternal> @later
[21:00] <nixternal> :p
[21:00] <imbrandon> DktrKranz , LaserJock , ummm
[21:00] <imbrandon> whoelse we need ?
[21:01] <imbrandon> heya nixternal
[21:01] <DktrKranz> themuso and jdong
[21:01] <nixternal> wasabi...impromptu meeting?
[21:01] <imbrandon> nixternal: well kinda, we dident put it on the fridge but yea
[21:02] <imbrandon> afk one sec, ping me when all showup
[21:06] <somerville32> What meeting is this?
[21:07] <norsetto> the 3 of the Apocalypse
[21:07] <DktrKranz> wasn't is about some Sergio Leone's spaghetti western?
[21:07] <DktrKranz> s/is/it/
[21:08] <norsetto> yes
[21:08] <DktrKranz> I've seen them too many times I'dont even remember
[21:09] <norsetto> have you been cleaning the u-u-s queue recently? Seems to be getting back to a reasonable size again
[21:09] <DktrKranz> A couple of bugs, yes
[21:10] <norsetto> tell Mario that if he requests sponsoring for another desktop/icon file I'm personally going to find him in his house and burn it down
[21:10] <DktrKranz> LOL, why?
[21:11] <norsetto> its about time he starts doing something  ... hmmmm ... with more meat in it
[21:11] <somerville32> Mario who?
[21:12] <DktrKranz> norsetto, time for him to do something more "useful"
[21:12] <TheMuso> Sorry I'm late guys.
[21:12] <DktrKranz> Not at all :)
[21:12] <somerville32> lol
[21:13] <imbrandon> ok, TheMuso jdong DktrKranz  , how does this look https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/imbrandon
[21:13] <DktrKranz> we've just finished and uploaded almost everything
[21:13] <norsetto> well ... its not that what he did was not useful, at least it was for him, but after the 256785th one it gets on my nerves
[21:13] <DktrKranz> :P
[21:13] <imbrandon> ok shhhhh
[21:13] <imbrandon> please :) heh lets do the stuff at hand for the SRU team then we'll chit-chat :)
[21:13] <imbrandon> TheMuso: no worries :)
[21:13] <jdong> imbrandon: looking...
[21:14] <TheMuso> looking
[21:14]  * DktrKranz looks
[21:14] <imbrandon> basicly the changes i made were to 1) wipe out the old universe update proceedure and 2) make 2 amendments for universe , otherwise its exactly the same as main
[21:14]  * norsetto sleeps
[21:14] <TheMuso> imbrandon: where on the page should I look
[21:15] <TheMuso> ah ok
[21:15] <imbrandon> TheMuso: #universe
[21:15] <imbrandon> this way we can stay as close to main sru policy as possible, i realy dont see much of a reason to diverge, only we do the work vs the main sru team
[21:16] <imbrandon> splitting the workload etc
[21:16] <TheMuso> SOunds good.
[21:16] <jdong> imbrandon: yeah, sounds good to me, too -- I like how closely it follows the -main procedure
[21:16] <TheMuso> Likewise.
[21:17] <DktrKranz> there's another difference
[21:17] <DktrKranz> it's about verification
[21:17] <imbrandon> yea really we just add a few more "when" clauses
[21:17] <DktrKranz> in main, it is done by SRU verification team, in universe by two persons
[21:18] <imbrandon> we can also handle the verification, they do in main also its just not updated on the page
[21:19] <imbrandon> basicly verification is just bug triageing
[21:19] <imbrandon> if you look
[21:19] <TheMuso> How do we indicate an ack?
[21:19] <TheMuso> And what gets done when theres a second ack?
[21:19] <DktrKranz> so, no more "two works for me" ?
[21:19] <somerville32> I'd like to propose another exception
[21:19] <jdong> well the packages in -universe might not be as easy for team members to do as in main, IMO
[21:19] <jdong> i.e. we should let any ordinary Joe help with verification
[21:20] <jdong> but perhaps make ~motu-sru final say in whether or not we're satisfied with the verifications
[21:20] <imbrandon> TheMuso: just by one of us explisitly saying ACK on the bug
[21:20] <imbrandon> right
[21:20] <norsetto> tags should also be differents (motu-verification needed and motu-verification-done) ?
[21:20] <TheMuso> ok
[21:20] <DktrKranz> norsetto, indeed
[21:20] <DktrKranz> somerville32, which one?
[21:22] <somerville32> DktrKranz, Packages containing purely documentation
[21:23] <geser> I see that a reason for an SRU is also FTBFS. Does it only apply when old binaries exist or also when the packages FTBFS from the beginning?
[21:23] <imbrandon> that seems reasonable to me
[21:23] <imbrandon> geser: either
[21:23] <jdong> how is ~motu-sru notified of a proposal pending approval?
[21:23] <DktrKranz> is it a issue going for the NEW queue?
[21:24] <DktrKranz> (for new binaries)
[21:24] <jdong> does the nominate for $release functionality already ping us?
[21:24] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: no shouldent be a problem
[21:24] <imbrandon> jdong: huh?
[21:24] <imbrandon> no ~motu-sru is subscribed to the bug
[21:24] <imbrandon> e.g. email
[21:25] <jdong> imbrandon: ok, so the subscription is done manually by the filer. gotcha
[21:25] <DktrKranz> jdong, does that feature generate any bugmail? I was not aware of that
[21:25]  * TheMuso wonders whether we have anything else to discuss.
[21:25] <jdong> DktrKranz: apparently not. It would be nice if it did, though :)
[21:25] <TheMuso> I need to head off for a bit soon.
[21:26] <somerville32> Should I modify /imbrandon to state the doc exception?
[21:26] <imbrandon> ok so addition of the doc only packages, and motu specifc tags, anything else ?
[21:26] <imbrandon> somerville32: i got a lock on it
[21:26] <TheMuso> IMO if it can be as close to main as possible, thats a good thing
[21:26] <imbrandon> TheMuso: yup thats the goal
[21:26] <jdong> sounds great to me
[21:26] <DktrKranz> the only remaining issue is verification, then
[21:27] <TheMuso> somerville32: Mind explaining the doc exception?
[21:27] <DktrKranz> we need to diverge in some way
[21:27] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: verification is done by motu-sru as i said
[21:27] <somerville32> TheMuso, If a package contains only documentation, it is an exception to the SRU rational
[21:27] <DktrKranz> and we need to include it as well
[21:27] <TheMuso> somerville32: How so?
[21:27] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: sure
[21:28] <somerville32> TheMuso, ie. A package containing only documentation does not have to meet the normal rational for an SRU
[21:28] <imbrandon> somerville32: we need to check on that one, it might botch translations
[21:28] <TheMuso> somerville32: But what might need changing?
[21:28] <TheMuso> I'm not saying I don't agree, I'd just like some good reasoning as to why we should make it an exception.
[21:29] <somerville32> TheMuso, We've already had cases where we've needed to do an SRU for docs and Pitti said he had no problem approving them
[21:29] <TheMuso> somerville32: What needed changing?
[21:29] <somerville32> I would have to look up the changelog
[21:29] <imbrandon> somerville32: all we're asking is for an example
[21:30] <DktrKranz> somerville32, in that case, pitti uploaded packages straight to -updates?
[21:30] <imbrandon> i would also want to make sure it dosent botch translations to a stable release too
[21:30] <TheMuso> imbrandon: Agreed.
[21:30] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: no
[21:30] <somerville32> DktrKranz, No, it went through normal testing.
[21:30] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: exceptions mean tey are eligable for a sru
[21:30] <DktrKranz> ok, thanks
[21:31] <imbrandon> NOTHING goes right to -updates hehe
[21:31] <somerville32> Although this doesn't apply to Universe, I know that the server team wants to do an SRU for their docs
[21:31] <DktrKranz> imbrandon, and it's a great thing! :)
[21:31] <DktrKranz> I was worried :)
[21:32] <imbrandon> laser should be here in moments
[21:32] <TheMuso> ok I can't stay long though
[21:32] <imbrandon> anyhow i think we pretty much have it down pat
[21:32] <DarkSun88> Hi all
[21:32] <imbrandon> just those few changes
[21:32] <imbrandon> agreed? tag changes and those fre exceptions
[21:32] <imbrandon> few*
[21:32] <DktrKranz> +1
[21:33] <TheMuso> +1
[21:33] <somerville32> +1
[21:33] <jdong> +1 :)
[21:33] <nixternal> -1
[21:33] <nixternal> just wanted to be different, of course +1
[21:33]  * somerville32 slaps nixternal with a wet noodle
[21:33] <TheMuso> nixternal: lol
[21:33] <nixternal> hehe
[21:34] <imbrandon> LaserJock: just to recap, i have a working doc at wiki/SRU/imbrandon , basic changes are throw out any old universe sru policy and go with mains with only 2 exceptions, more SRU worthy updates ( noted on wiki ) and motu specific tags
[21:34] <DktrKranz> what about pending SRUs? do they follow old policy or should we take them into account?
[21:34] <imbrandon> its unamimous if you +1 it
[21:34] <DktrKranz> http://people.ubuntu.com/~ubuntu-archive/pending-sru.html
[21:34] <TheMuso> DktrKranz: I'd say keep them as is
[21:34] <DktrKranz> these --^
[21:35] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: the pending sru's on that page are already uploaded, ones in the QUEUE on LP should be updated to follow this meetings decision
[21:35] <LaserJock> imbrandon: it seems our policy really doesn't differ from Main, do we need a separate section?
[21:36] <TheMuso> LaserJock: For tags and our extra exceptions.
[21:36] <TheMuso> IMO
[21:36] <imbrandon> LaserJock: no i'm gonna update the page so it looks better, and intergrate it with one policy and just NOTE: sections for universe
[21:36] <imbrandon> after we all agree
[21:37] <imbrandon> that was just how the old page did it so i quickly updated it
[21:37] <imbrandon> durring the meeting
[21:37] <LaserJock> imbrandon: do we really have extra exceptions?
[21:37] <imbrandon> cleanup and beuitification can be done after :)
[21:37] <imbrandon> LaserJock: yes
[21:37] <DktrKranz> Do we keep minimum aging period? I think main does not have something like that
[21:37] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: yes they do
[21:37] <LaserJock> imbrandon: doesn't look like it to me
[21:38] <DktrKranz> imbrandon, yes, I overlooked :)
[21:38] <imbrandon> LaserJock: FTBFS, cannot install, and segfault on startup ( e.g. completely un-usable ), and documentaion only packages
[21:38] <LaserJock> I think those are all SRUable in Main
[21:38] <imbrandon> not currently
[21:38] <imbrandon> it widens it just a tad
[21:38] <somerville32> Whats written down and what actually happens is a bit different
[21:38] <LaserJock> ummm
[21:39] <imbrandon> e.g. not all FTBFS are regressions and such, so no not all those in main
[21:39] <LaserJock> Main only says high-impact bugs
[21:40] <imbrandon> right
[21:40] <LaserJock> FTBFS, segfault, uninstallable in general seem high-impact
[21:40] <imbrandon> not always in the eyes of the main sru team, this we are stateing them explisitly
[21:40] <imbrandon> if they do fall into some overlap no loss, we just adding some verbage
[21:41] <TheMuso> Ok guys, I gotta run.
[21:41] <imbrandon> TheMuso: cool
[21:41]  * TheMuso will leave this channel open and read later
[21:42] <DktrKranz> should we cover bugs similar to malone 176435? it renders package unusable
[21:42] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 176435 in twill "python-twill missing a dependency" [Undecided,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/176435
[21:42] <DktrKranz> this one is a missing dep
[21:42] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: that falls under uninstallable
[21:42] <imbrandon> correct?
[21:42] <LaserJock> well, I'm just worried if we have delta from Main
[21:43] <DktrKranz> imbrandon, it is installable, but not usable at all
[21:43] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: i would have to look closer but it seems like it would
[21:43] <LaserJock> I think we should agree on the kinds of things we think should be SRU internally
[21:43] <LaserJock> but I like vague language on the SRU wiki page
[21:44] <LaserJock> DktrKranz: that would be a regression
[21:44] <imbrandon> LaserJock: umm yea thats what the doc and meeting is about hehe, it seems we are all on the same page but imho DktrKranz needs a bit og hand holding as he is very green
[21:44] <imbrandon> no offense DktrKranz :)
[21:44] <DktrKranz> :)
[21:44] <imbrandon> s/og/of
[21:45]  * DktrKranz takes his gun and loads it with some bullets
[21:45] <imbrandon> anyhow LaserJock yes there would be a delta from main but pitti has already signed off on it as "ok" and the other sru team members, i dont think the delta is that large, infatc it is very very very small compared to even what pitti proposed on the ML
[21:46] <DktrKranz> indeed
[21:46] <LaserJock> I was thinking we should just s/~ubuntu-sru/~motu-sru/
[21:46] <LaserJock> does that not work?
[21:47] <imbrandon> yes it does, but in addition to ( since universe doesnt get as much QA ) we should have these
[21:47] <LaserJock> have what?
[21:47] <imbrandon> the extra SRU canidate rules
[21:47] <imbrandon> the only delta
[21:47] <LaserJock> but they aren't
[21:47] <imbrandon> but they ARE
[21:47] <LaserJock> the Main SRU policy would cover those
[21:48] <LaserJock> the only actual policy there is that it must be "high impact"
[21:48] <LaserJock> but what that actually means is up to us
[21:48] <imbrandon> LaserJock: not in the main sru teams eyes they arent, and not all of them are, we are hurting nothing by explisitly stating them if you think they overlap
[21:48] <LaserJock> so why not keep it that way?
[21:49] <imbrandon> plus there is no doc exception
[21:49] <LaserJock> well, my concern would be that people see that as saying that you *can't* do those types of SRUs in Main
[21:49] <LaserJock> which is just not true
[21:49] <imbrandon> no not at all, and either way its not our problem
[21:50] <imbrandon> main sru can choose to clarify too if they feel the need to
[21:50] <LaserJock> but why do we need to clarify? I guess that's my question
[21:51] <LaserJock> I don't really get why we need to explicitly mention those. Is it because people don't know they can?
[21:51] <imbrandon> ummm i explained this 3 or 4 times already , main sru team dosent ALWAYS acept those as canidates, we are explitily saying we will
[21:51] <LaserJock> hmm, I don't think we should *always* either
[21:51] <LaserJock> they should all be case-by-case
[21:52] <LaserJock> but in general yes, I would be all for those kinds of exceptions
[21:52] <LaserJock> s/exceptions/SRUs/
[21:52] <imbrandon> then whats the problem i dont get your reasoning
[21:52] <LaserJock> that we'd be creating needless diff and confusing the issue
[21:53] <LaserJock> the language is intentionally vague, IMO
[21:53] <imbrandon> ok then all i can say at this point is its been +1'd by all , propose your only changing the team name and see what everyone thinks, i personaly think this is a important verbage cahnge
[21:54] <LaserJock> well, that's what I'm trying to get at
[21:54] <LaserJock> obviously people like the change, so I'm trying to understand it
[21:55] <LaserJock> I'm not sure how the verbage is gonna change
[21:55] <imbrandon> well they like it because it does clairify the diffrence, your looking at it from a no diff, diff is "OK" if its minimal and servers seomthing, in htis case its both
[21:55] <LaserJock> well, I'm actually saying there really isn't any diff
[21:56] <LaserJock> I've seen every case we're talking about as "exceptions" done in Main
[21:56] <imbrandon> LaserJock: there IS, in your opinion there might not be, but not everyone will interret it the way you do so its GOOD to clarify
[21:57] <LaserJock> ok, so what if we talked to ~ubuntu-sru about these and perhaps expand the examples?
[21:57] <LaserJock> those are just examples, not an exhaustive list or anything
[21:57] <imbrandon> what does that matter to us?
[21:57] <LaserJock> because we have the same issues before us
[21:57] <LaserJock> an SRU really shouldn't matter if it's in Main or Universe
[21:58] <imbrandon> ugh no we dont inhaently we have very diffrent issues
[21:58] <imbrandon> sure it does
[21:58]  * TheMuso is back. Took less time than I thought
[21:58] <LaserJock> my experience is that Main does the same kinds of SRUs that Universe does
[21:58] <LaserJock> so why create diff where it doesn't really exist
[21:59] <imbrandon> ugh LaserJock ok my point here is we need to decide on a policy, if later someone wants to do the legwork and see if "upstream would like to merge" sweet , i'm all for it, but it should NOT be a blocker for us
[21:59] <LaserJock> imbrandon: right, I'm saying our policy is the same as Main's
[21:59] <LaserJock> but you're wanting to add some more examples
[22:00] <imbrandon> and i'm saying it is "alomst" and it needs to be clarified and these words added
[22:00] <LaserJock> which is fine, I agree with you there
[22:00] <LaserJock> alright, well whatever, it's not a biggie
[22:00] <imbrandon> and if you feel main would benifet from those changes too cool, propose them to them, but why does that stop us from doing it now
[22:00] <LaserJock> it doesn't
[22:01] <LaserJock> they're only freaking examples :-)
[22:01] <LaserJock> it's not policy
[22:01] <imbrandon> well thats the thing, this IS policy
[22:01] <LaserJock> well, that's what I was trying to say earlier
[22:01] <imbrandon> or is going to be
[22:01] <LaserJock> we should have internal polices of what we want to take
[22:02] <imbrandon> ?????????
[22:02] <imbrandon> i'm hearing you in circles now
[22:02] <LaserJock> but the SRU wiki page shouldn't have an exhaustive list of what we'll take
[22:02] <LaserJock> because then there's no point in having MOTU SRU
[22:02] <LaserJock> the whole point of having the team is that these need to be decided on a case-by-case basis
[22:03] <LaserJock> I'm sure there will be some high-impact bugs that we'll reject
[22:03] <LaserJock> because the changes are just to invasive for us to do
[22:03] <imbrandon> right if it falls into one of those categorys, its not an exasutive list it is a list of acceptable categorys
[22:03] <LaserJock> right
[22:04] <imbrandon> but the categorys have to be defined exastively
[22:04] <imbrandon> not "examples"
[22:04] <LaserJock> and I find that so trivial (and the same as Main) so I don't see why it justifies a diff
[22:04] <LaserJock> no
[22:04] <LaserJock> that's not true
[22:04] <LaserJock> those categories are examples
[22:05] <LaserJock> not exhaustive, even of types of SRU
[22:05] <LaserJock> as far as I understand
[22:05] <LaserJock> anyway, we can talk to Ubuntu SRU about that later
[22:05] <LaserJock> this is such a trivial thing we don't need to argue over it
[22:05] <imbrandon> i have no desire to talk to Ubuntu SRU about it, but feel free to, i'm here to solidify our policy
[22:06] <imbrandon> my point exactly
[22:06] <LaserJock> ok
[22:06] <LaserJock> so my question would be, are we gonna take SRUs that would not fall in those categories or do we want to talk them over?
[22:07] <imbrandon> if it dosent fall into one of those categorys , yes i think a consensus is needed, but that my 0.2c
[22:07] <LaserJock> seems reasonable
[22:07] <LaserJock> ok, any other diff?
[22:07] <imbrandon> motu specific tags
[22:08] <imbrandon> is the only other thing
[22:08] <LaserJock> why do we need motu specific tags?
[22:08] <imbrandon> i dident think so but the rest of the team did so i went with it, cant hurt, only makes it easier to seperate them on lp
[22:09] <LaserJock> hmm, I don't really see the point
[22:09] <TheMuso> imbrandon: Yes, there is the searching side of things that separates them a lot more easily.
[22:09] <LaserJock> seems like added confusion
[22:09] <imbrandon> because how else are we gonna find them LaserJock
[22:09] <DktrKranz> mh, that's a good point, is MOTU tags really needed?
[22:09] <LaserJock> you can do the same thing
[22:09] <LaserJock> you can search for the tag + Universe component
[22:09] <LaserJock> so we'd just have a tinyurl for that
[22:09] <LaserJock> that would do the same thing as a motu-specific tag no?
[22:10] <imbrandon> but is main gonna be "ok" filtering out our stuff from their searches
[22:10] <LaserJock> they're gonna have to be ;-)
[22:10] <LaserJock> this is the whole point of being able to do such searches
[22:10] <LaserJock> you can have a tag and then filter the specific responses you want
[22:11] <imbrandon> ok i have no opinion either way, either seems just as easy, so i'm +0 , yall ?
[22:11] <LaserJock> I seriously doubt Ubuntu SRU can claim exclusivity to "verification-needed"
[22:11] <imbrandon> heh
[22:12] <LaserJock> and really, the point is for people testing
[22:12] <imbrandon> yea seems eassy enough if we can also filter by component
[22:12] <LaserJock> and I don't see why they'd really care what component it's in
[22:12]  * TheMuso is not fussed either way
[22:12] <DktrKranz> I have no problem using the same tags, but we should update our links
[22:12] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: we will
[22:12] <DktrKranz> and eventually ask pitti to adjust his script
[22:13] <DktrKranz> I think it consider universe SRUs verified by looking at verification-motu-done
[22:13] <LaserJock> DktrKranz: what would he have to adjust?
[22:13] <imbrandon> DktrKranz: thats alll tech stuff that can follow policy, policy shouldnt follow tech :)
[22:13] <DktrKranz> of course :)
[22:15] <LaserJock> ok, so ...
[22:15] <imbrandon> okies we 're going just over an hoour here, i think we're all on the same page, we just add a few exmples ( and LaserJock can poke the main sru if they want them also ) and s/ubuntu-sru/motu-sru , other than that we stuck with main policy
[22:15] <LaserJock> darn, I messed everything up
[22:15] <imbrandon> everyone good with that ?
[22:15] <TheMuso> yep
[22:15] <LaserJock> imbrandon: do you have text for the exceptions?
[22:15] <DktrKranz> sure
[22:15] <imbrandon> LaserJock: give me 2 seconds and i will
[22:16] <LaserJock> I still don't like it but hopefully Ubuntu SRU would agree to absorb the changes
[22:16] <imbrandon> FTBFS, cannot install, and segfault on startup ( e.g. completely un-usable ), Documentation only packages
[22:17] <LaserJock> right, but I was actually thinking how we were gonna word the intro to those
[22:17] <LaserJock> but whatever, I'll get over it ;-)
[22:17] <imbrandon> ahh ummm
[22:17] <LaserJock> cause I can't really see how "In addition, for Universe the following examples:"
[22:18] <LaserJock> is gonna work
[22:19] <LaserJock> anyway, +1 from me
[22:19] <imbrandon> "In Universe ... also qualifies as high-impact-bugs " or similar
[22:19] <imbrandon> i would think
[22:19] <imbrandon> ... can also qualify as ...
[22:20] <LaserJock> yeah
[22:20] <LaserJock> I don't like the high-impact part as well though for doc-only SRUs
[22:20] <LaserJock> usually they aren't high-impact, more low-rish
[22:20] <imbrandon> ok so +1 from all but jdong and afaik he is afk, seems like he is outvoted either way, we'll note him as abstaining
[22:20] <LaserJock> *risk
[22:20] <jdong> imbrandon: aaah just got back
[22:20] <LaserJock> heh
[22:21] <imbrandon> hehe
[22:21] <DktrKranz> just in time :)
[22:21]  * jdong reads scrollback
[22:21]  * DktrKranz gotta go
[22:21] <jdong> or does someone wanna summarize for me?
[22:21] <LaserJock> yeah
[22:21] <DktrKranz> I'll read log later
[22:21] <imbrandon> everyone good with that ?
[22:21] <imbrandon> err
[22:21] <imbrandon> okies we 're going just over an hoour here, i think we're all on the same page, we just add a few exmples ( and LaserJock can poke the main sru if they want them also ) and s/ubuntu-sru/motu-sru , other than that we stuck with main policy
[22:21] <imbrandon> jdong: ^
[22:21] <DktrKranz> but, +1 for me
[22:22] <DktrKranz> see you
[22:22] <TheMuso> yeah +1 as I said
[22:22] <LaserJock> +1
[22:22] <imbrandon> +1
[22:22] <jdong> imbrandon: yeah, that sounds good to me
[22:22] <jdong> +1
[22:22] <LaserJock> \o/
[22:22] <DarkSun88> Good job. :)
[22:23] <imbrandon> \0/ , okies i'll have the page updated within ~20 minutes ( spellchecked hehe )
[22:23] <DarkSun88> See you.
[22:23] <jdong> yay, now back to this 24oz steak....
[22:23] <imbrandon> and someone is free to mail the ML if they want
[22:23] <imbrandon> *i dunt wanna* lol
[22:23] <LaserJock> oh, wondered if we wanted some sort of "goal" for turnaround
[22:23] <LaserJock> *I wondered
[22:23] <imbrandon> who and huh?
[22:23] <jdong> like turnaround time?
[22:23] <imbrandon> oh we
[22:24] <LaserJock> yeah
[22:24] <imbrandon> ummm i dont think we should try since we're all un-paid
[22:24] <imbrandon> imho
[22:24] <TheMuso> agreed
[22:24] <imbrandon> other than "best efforts"
[22:24] <LaserJock> just as a goal, so we're on the same page
[22:24] <jdong> I think 1 week for decision, 2-3wks for verification sounds reasonable as a GUIDELINE
[22:24] <jdong> but best effort otherwise
[22:24] <LaserJock> heh
[22:25] <LaserJock> I was thinking 1 day for straight approval, 2 if it takes discussion, but maybe that's unreasonable
[22:25] <jdong> LaserJock: wow, ambitious
[22:25] <LaserJock> well, there are 5 of us and it only takes 1
[22:25] <LaserJock> and all we need to do is "paperwork"
[22:26] <imbrandon> LaserJock: yea i think thats a bit ambisious, i think "best effort" is good , we're all not persia hhehe
[22:26] <LaserJock> lol, true that
[22:26] <jdong> most approvals should be a 10-minute deal on our part.... but it's best not to rush it with a time factor IMO
[22:26] <imbrandon> but one week is a fair "goal" as a guideline imho
[22:26] <jdong> if on average an approval takes more than a week, I think that's a warning flag that ~motu-sru isn't working well
[22:26] <imbrandon> thats even if we're all busy
[22:26] <LaserJock> as long as *we* aren't bottlenecking SRUs
[22:26] <TheMuso> Yeah
[22:26] <imbrandon> right
[22:27] <LaserJock> ok, so what's happening to the existing SRUs?
[22:27] <imbrandon> if things on avg are takin more than a week we'll get the MC to step in and get us some help
[22:27] <jdong> sounds good
[22:27] <imbrandon> LaserJock: well we agreed i think earlier that ones already with an uplaod will follow the old way, ones in the queue now on LP should be updated to the new policy
[22:27] <TheMuso> I still think best effort
[22:28] <TheMuso> realy, if it takes over a week, it takes over a week
[22:28] <imbrandon> TheMuso: yea
[22:28] <jdong> TheMuso: well.. yeah... not like the MC can come and put us in jail if we take too long
[22:28] <jdong> or suspend our paychecks :)
[22:28] <TheMuso> My point exactly.
[22:28] <jdong> but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a guideline for how long it should acceptably take
[22:28] <LaserJock> TheMuso: my only real problem with that is consistency, people start getting upset when their SRU took 2 weeks and somebody else's take 2 days
[22:28] <TheMuso> I know that I may not be able to get to them all all the time
[22:29] <LaserJock> I realize we're all volunteers and best effort is as good as we can do
[22:29] <TheMuso> LaserJock: So what. Seriously, we are all volunteers.
[22:29] <jdong> TheMuso: volunteers can still measure how well they are doing thier work
[22:29] <TheMuso> People need to get over it if something takes shorter than someting else
[22:29] <LaserJock> jdong: that was more my reasoning
[22:30] <jdong> TheMuso: the guideline will strictly be a way we can assess how well the team is working, and if we need to change the process or recruit, etc
[22:30] <LaserJock> if we have a goal and we're consistently not getting there then maybe we need an adjustment
[22:30] <jdong> TheMuso: it's not designed to be a hard deadline to punish us
[22:30] <TheMuso> jdong: I know that.
[22:30] <LaserJock> anyway, we sounds like we should try to take no longer than a week
[22:30] <jdong> a week is a reasonable guideline
[22:30] <LaserJock> unless of course it actually takes that long to get all the info, etc.
[22:31] <imbrandon> okies i got to run for ~30 minutes and then i'll update the wiki, i think we can officialy adjourn, no need for more special meetings do we other than regualr -motu meetings
[22:31]  * TheMuso should be right once he has the motu-sru bugmail sorted.
[22:31] <jdong> excpetions granted for less clear cases that need more time to evaluate
[22:31] <jdong> but at least a status update a week from ~motu-sru so that it doesn't seem like the bug's being abandoned
[22:31] <TheMuso> yep sounds good.
[22:32] <LaserJock> ok, done then?
[22:32] <TheMuso> yep I'd say so.
[22:32] <imbrandon> okies so we dont need any more special -sru meetings do we other than the normal -motu meetings ?
[22:32] <TheMuso> no
[22:32] <TheMuso> IMO
[22:32] <jdong> no
[22:32] <imbrandon> i dont think so persoanly
[22:32] <imbrandon> kk just makin sure we was all on the same page
[22:33] <LaserJock> yeah, totally
[22:33] <jdong> we're all regulars on IRC anyway, it's pretty easy to ad-hoc commuincate with each other if a problem arises
[22:33] <LaserJock> MOTU SRU should be fairly low key
[22:33] <TheMuso> jdong: agreed
[22:33] <imbrandon> okies great work everyone :)
[22:33] <TheMuso> thanks
[22:33] <imbrandon> glad we could all finaly hash something out hehe
[22:33] <LaserJock> thanks for the work imbrandon et al
[22:33] <TheMuso> imbrandon: yeah thanks heaps
[22:34] <imbrandon> i'm going afk for ~30-45 minutes, i'll grab the wiki update after that, but i would rather not compose a email to the list if one of you could it would rock, i hate writing emails
[22:34] <TheMuso> heh ok
[22:34] <imbrandon> :)
[22:34] <LaserJock> TheMuso: you gonna do it?
[22:34] <LaserJock> I can if not
[22:34] <TheMuso> I msut admit I'm not up to it either yet, as I need to see the updated wiki before I fully 100% understand whats happening
[22:35] <imbrandon> ok i'll update the wiki then ping you and LaserJock when i get back and you all can fight over who gets to email
[22:35] <imbrandon> hehe
[22:35] <LaserJock> hehe, sounds good
[22:35] <imbrandon> ok <detached>