[15:45] <greg-g> @now
[15:46] <greg-g> !now
[15:46] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: January 15 2008, 15:46:16 - Next meeting: IRC Council in 9 hours 13 minutes
[15:46] <ubotu> Sorry, I don't know anything about now - try searching on http://ubotu.ubuntu-nl.org/factoids.cgi
[15:46] <Hobbsee> @schedule sydney
[15:46] <ubotu> Schedule for Australia/Sydney: 16 Jan 12:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 23:00: Edubuntu meeting | 18 Jan 01:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 23:00: MOTU | 24 Jan 07:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 23:00: Edubuntu meeting
[16:19] <Seveas> @now
[16:19] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: January 15 2008, 16:19:13 - Next meeting: IRC Council in 8 hours 40 minutes
[16:19] <Seveas> @schedule Amsterda,
[16:19] <Seveas> @schedule Amsterdam
[16:19] <ubotu> Schedule for Europe/Amsterdam: 16 Jan 02:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting | 17 Jan 15:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 13:00: MOTU | 23 Jan 21:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting
[19:00] <mr_pouit> @schedule Paris
[19:00] <ubotu> Schedule for Europe/Paris: 16 Jan 02:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting | 17 Jan 15:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 13:00: MOTU | 23 Jan 21:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting
[19:36] <nxvl_work> @schedule Lima
[19:36] <ubotu> Schedule for America/Lima: 15 Jan 20:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 07:00: Edubuntu meeting | 17 Jan 09:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 07:00: MOTU | 23 Jan 15:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 07:00: Edubuntu meeting
[20:01] <emonkey> @now
[20:01] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: January 15 2008, 20:01:52 - Next meeting: IRC Council in 4 hours 58 minutes
[20:02] <Lure> @schedule Ljubljana
[20:02] <ubotu> Schedule for Europe/Ljubljana: 16 Jan 02:00: IRC Council | 16 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting | 17 Jan 15:00: Desktop Team Development | 18 Jan 13:00: MOTU | 23 Jan 21:00: Edubuntu meeting | 30 Jan 13:00: Edubuntu meeting
[20:03] <Keybuk> mdz: TB time?
[20:05] <mjg59> Evening
[20:06] <mdz> Keybuk: yep
[20:06] <mdz> #startmeeting
[20:06] <MootBot> Meeting started at 20:06. The chair is mdz.
[20:06] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[20:07] <mdz> sabdfl sent apologies
[20:07] <mdz> [TOPIC] Component status of Xubuntu (main vs. universe)
[20:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Component status of Xubuntu (main vs. universe)
[20:08] <mdz> there has been some discussion about whether it would be a good idea to build Xubuntu from main+universe rather than only main
[20:08] <mdz> meaning that Xubuntu-specific packages could move to universe
[20:09] <mjg59> Doing so would seem a fairly clear clarification of what's already the status-quo - Canonical don't support Xubuntu
[20:09] <Keybuk> the obvious advantage being that more people could work on Xubuntu-specific packages?
[20:09] <mdz> in my view, this would benefit the Xubuntu community by enabling more people to contribute (any MOTU), and benefit Canonical by clarifying its support status
[20:09] <mjg59> (Unless my misunderstanding is correct)
[20:09] <mjg59> Uhm.
[20:09] <mdz> mjg59: ...
[20:09] <mjg59> Understanding. Incorrect.
[20:09] <mdz> mjg59: your first message to this channel during the meeting is factually correct
[20:09] <Keybuk> mdz: that is it Evening? :)
[20:10] <Lure> Keybuk: depending on TZ
[20:10] <mdz> Keybuk: see a few lines below for the start of the meeting ;-)
[20:10] <mdz> anyway, I talked with mr_pouit and gpocentek in #ubuntu-devel before the meeting
[20:10] <mdz> I'm happy for them to chime in here if they have more to say
[20:10] <mdz> but here's what I got:
 mdz: mr_pouit is the leader, so I'd like to ear from him
 I don't have a strong opinion against that. If there are these facilities to build from universe, why not?
[20:12] <mdz> that's about it
[20:12] <somerville32> I'm a member of the xubuntu-team
[20:12] <somerville32> and I'd like to raise a few issues I see with migrating to Universe
[20:12] <mdz> somerville32: by all means
[20:12] <gpocentek> like mdz said, having xfce in main was mainly because universe iso builds were not supported
[20:13] <gpocentek> (during dapper dev cycle that was)
[20:13] <somerville32> I think the issue is bigger than just moving Xubuntu to universe. I have serious concerns about designating "main" as the archive that holds packages supported by Canonical.
[20:13] <mdz> indeed, I did raise the point that Xubuntu originally migrated from universe to main because our derivative-building system only worked that way.  that's now changed, and Ubuntu Studio is happily building from universe
[20:13] <mjg59> somerville32: That's always been the traditional distinction made
[20:13] <mjg59> In some cases it's been less true, due to technical issues with building releases that way
[20:14] <mdz> [LINK] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components
[20:14] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components
[20:15] <somerville32> To help set the stage, I'd like to ask a few questions to help validate my premise
[20:15] <somerville32> Ubuntu is a separate entity from Canonical, correct? Canonical is a third-party that supports the development of the Ubuntu distribution.
[20:15] <mdz> main means "will get critical fixes" and (with the exception of Xubuntu) "commercial support available from Canonical"
[20:16] <mdz> "will get critical fixes" is credible because Canonical provides them
[20:16] <somerville32> What if other companies wish to fill a similar role to Canonical? How would the Ubuntu developers facilitate that?
[20:17] <somerville32> Would their packages be promoted to main as well?
[20:17] <mdz> somerville32: Ubuntu is a project.  Canonical is a commercial company which provides backing for Ubuntu, and occupies a privileged position in the ecosystem because of that
[20:18] <mjg59> somerville32: Certain key parts of infrastructure are run by Canonical or only available to Canonical employees. As a result, as Matt says, their status is special
[20:18] <mdz> somerville32: I think that if there were such a company, we would need some way to distinguish their guarantees from Canonical's
[20:19] <mdz> "main" isn't specific enough in that scenario
[20:19] <mdz> e.g. if you buy a support contract from company X, it covers foo/bar/baz, but from Canonical it covers bleem/snue/etc.
[20:20] <mdz> and when a security vulnerability is found, who is expected to provide a fix?
[20:21] <gpocentek> I don't think that a company wants to xupport xubuntu now anyway
[20:21] <gpocentek> support*
[20:21] <mdz> somerville32: the way it works today, there are other companies which provide services for Ubuntu, but there has been no conflict in how they define their offerings
[20:21] <gpocentek> so it's maybe a bit OT
[20:21] <Lure> mdz: it would be good to improve this page: http://www.canonical.com/projects
[20:22] <Lure> mdz: it is still not clear what is supported in derivatives
[20:22] <mdz> Lure: I agree
[20:22] <Lure> and it would probably make sense to introduce "offical" derivatives - like approved by TB/CC side
[20:23] <Lure> xubuntu maybe being first candidate
[20:23] <mdz> Canonical offers "support" to the community developing Xubuntu, through hosting for example, but doesn't "support" Xubuntu (with commercial support contracts)
[20:23] <Lure> mdz: something like that
[20:23] <somerville32> My concern, the first of a small number, is that the main repository for Ubuntu, a community project, is actually a commercial company's repository. This concern asks me if maybe the model in which we do things (ie. see Keybuk's proposal to merge universe and main) needs to be re-thinked instead of moving Xubuntu to universe.
[20:23] <mdz> Lure: thanks for pointing that out; I will follow it up with the folks responsible for that site
[20:23] <Keybuk> somerville32: I haven't made a proposal yet, just a strawman
[20:23] <somerville32> s/proposal/strawman
[20:24] <mdz> [ACTION] mdz to follow up regarding http://www.canonical.com/projects
[20:24] <MootBot> ACTION received:  mdz to follow up regarding http://www.canonical.com/projects
[20:24] <Lure> mdz: I talked with cjwatson before, so he opened bug 172672
[20:24] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 172672 in canonical-website "http://www.canonical.com/projects claims that Xubuntu is supported by Canonical" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/172672
[20:24] <highvoltage> ~.
[20:25] <mdz> somerville32: I think there is definitely room for reconsidering how we organize the repository, but it is orthogonal to this issue
[20:25] <somerville32> It would seem more community orientated if the focus was taken off the commercial support that Canonical provides and more to the support the community is willing to provide when determining the taxonomy of our packages.
[20:25] <mdz> whether Xubuntu is built from main or universe, it won't matter if we reorganize the repository
[20:25] <somerville32> mdz, I'm just wondering if that issue should be tackled first before we decide to move Xubuntu to universe
[20:25] <Keybuk> somerville32: I don't see a particular ordering constraint hee
[20:25] <mdz> Lure: thanks
[20:25] <mdz> [LINK] https://launchpad.net/bugs/172672
[20:25] <somerville32> Because the rationale for moving Xubuntu to universe is that Canonical does not offer support for it
[20:25] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://launchpad.net/bugs/172672
[20:26] <Keybuk> somerville32: and that the move would allow more developers to work on it
[20:26] <mdz> somerville32: that is one half of the rationale
[20:26] <Lure> somerville32: what is your concern with the move - I see lots of benefits (motu's can contribute, less push on getting core-dev's)
[20:26] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 172672 in canonical-website "http://www.canonical.com/projects claims that Xubuntu is supported by Canonical" [Undecided,New]
[20:26] <mdz> Lure: no more MIRs...
[20:26] <_MMA_> Lure: Its not of a technical nature.
[20:27] <somerville32> As I said earlier, the standards level for Universe is not parallel to that of Main.
[20:27] <Keybuk> standards level?
[20:27] <gpocentek> *sigh*
[20:27] <Keybuk> universe is certainly supposed to be the same standard of package as main
[20:27] <gpocentek> wil we stop working on xfce packages because it's in universe?
[20:27] <mr_pouit> and we won't stop testing either
[20:27] <_MMA_> somerville32: Then as a team, I would challenge you guys to do QA on the packages you care about.
[20:27] <Lure> somerville32: being in main just raises expectations of commercial support that is not there
[20:28] <mdz> somerville32: while it's possible for us to define overlapping levels of commitment to different packages (commercial support, security updates, ...) we would much prefer to keep it simple, and have just "main" and "not main"
[20:28] <mjg59> somerville32: Unless you think people who were previously working on XFCE are going to drop their standards, I don't see this as a problem
[20:28] <mdz> and everyone agree on what that means
[20:28] <Lure> somerville32: or are you concerned that other non-xubuntu motu's would mess with your packages?
[20:29] <mdz> I think it's important for the services around Ubuntu to be easily understood by users
[20:29] <mdz> in many cases, it's already an uphill battle because in some cases, users need to understand the free software model
[20:29] <somerville32> There is a perception that Universe has lower standards and that it is okay to not test it like you would a package in main.
[20:29] <mdz> (one of those clauses could go)
[20:30] <somerville32> Do I think that the people contribution now will contribute at a lower level of quality, no
[20:30] <somerville32> But part of the rationale for the move is that more people can get involved.
[20:30] <somerville32> Do I really believe that MOTUs are you going to install the xubuntu-desktop so that they can properly test changes? No. If anything, people will just be trying to up their upload count like mr_pouit said.
[20:31] <mdz> somerville32: are you concerned that the quality of Xubuntu will change for the worse?
[20:31] <somerville32> I feel moving any package to Universe currently puts it's quality in question, unfortunately.
[20:31] <gpocentek> somerville32: that's something that can be handled by the xubuntu team, keeping the package in main just mean that we don't trust people
[20:32] <Lure> somerville32: if you think that, then we have more generic problem and should be solved
[20:32] <somerville32> Lure, i agree with you.
[20:32] <mdz> the only reason to be more relaxed about universe is that there is not a strong support and maintenance commitment behind it
[20:32] <mdz> and that's already not the case with Xubuntu
[20:32] <Lure> somerville32: personally I think that universe is as good as much as particular motus care about particular packages
[20:33] <Lure> somerville32: since xubuntu-team would still care for xubuntu packages, I do not see that this should mean lower quality though
[20:34] <mdz> we are discussing, for post-8.04, ways to classify packages in a finer-grained way
[20:34] <somerville32> Is Xubuntu the only packages in Main right now that do not have Canonical support?
[20:34] <mdz> e.g., this set of software is covered by a standard support contract, this (super)set carries a commitment to updates, this (super)set has active maintainers, etc.
[20:35] <somerville32> Because I heard from someone in Montreal that main has became populated with a number of packages that do not carry actual support.
[20:35] <mdz> somerville32: support isn't defined strictly in terms of packages
[20:35] <mdz> but the XFCE desktop is not covered
[20:36] <mdz> somerville32: we very much want to say that all of the software in main is covered
[20:36] <mdz> and we want to correct the small number of cases where that is not true
[20:36] <mdz> for 8.04 and beyond
[20:37] <somerville32> The stem of my argument comes from my disagreement that main should not be composed of packages supported by Canonical and instead by packages supported by core-dev
[20:37] <mdz> this is what I mean when I talk about making it simple for users
[20:37] <Lure> mdz: I think int would be good to clean it up then completely and not just xubuntu
[20:37] <Keybuk> somerville32: how would you instead define the difference between main and universe?
[20:37] <mdz> right now it's hard to understand what's covered and what's not, they need to talk to us about it
[20:37] <Lure> and probably there should be note on http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components about commercial support
[20:37] <mjg59> somerville32: I don't believe that's something the TB clearly have the power to change
[20:37] <mdz> somerville32: packages in main come with a guarantee
[20:39] <gpocentek> could we come to a decision about Xubuntu for the moment? :)
[20:40] <somerville32> And thats why I question the entire model at this time but since that is a tangent of this discussion, I can only say that perhaps you should move forward with moving Xubuntu to universe but I doubt that it will actual result in more contributors besides the odd individual looking to get their package count increased. mr_pouit and gpocentrek have been very responsive when dealing with the xubuntu related packages in the ubuntu-
[20:40] <somerville32> main-sponsors.
[20:40] <mdz> gpocentek: somerville32 has raised some concerns, and I would like to include him in the consensus
[20:40] <somerville32> so I don't see it as lowering the barrier
[20:40] <gpocentek> sure
[20:41] <somerville32> The only thing I see this move doing is satisfying Canonical's current model
[20:41] <Lure> somerville32: it makes it more clear also for users
[20:41] <mdz> somerville32: I commend them on their responsiveness, but in universe, any new developers who might want to work on Ubuntu would have an easier time joining MOTU than joining core-dev
[20:42] <somerville32> mdz, Yes, it would be beneficial to me in that regard as I move forward to apply for MOTU-ship in a few months
[20:42] <Lure> somerville32: currently, users might be mislead and expecting for something which is not there
[20:43] <somerville32> However, I'd ask that the TB do not drop the ball on evaluating the current model and usefulness of some of the strawmans that have been presented.
[20:43] <mdz> I think that the induction process for MOTU is strong, and enabling MOTU developers to contribute to Xubuntu is appropriate
[20:43] <mdz> do you object to allowing MOTU to upload XFCE packages?
[20:44] <mdz> somerville32: I definitely acknowledge that the model is confusing, and part of the justification for this proposal is that we want to simplify it
[20:44] <somerville32> It isn't so much allowing MOTUs to upload Xfce4 packages, it is the the current perception of some developers
[20:44] <mdz> I'm open to further discussion about how we organize and communicate about our commitments (as a project, and on behalf of Canonical)
[20:44] <mdz> but I do think it's a separate issue
[20:45] <mdz> what we're aiming for here is that users get what they expect
[20:45] <mdz> and it's much easier to change what we do to match their expectations than to change their expectations
[20:46] <somerville32> mdz, Are you saying that Canonical is frequently getting support requests for Xfce4 packages?
[20:46] <mdz> somerville32: not specifically, but we do get the question "what is supported and what isn't?"
[20:46] <mdz> which is a question which should have a simple answer
[20:47] <mdz> I don't know how often we get inquiries about Xubuntu specifically
[20:48] <somerville32> By fear, that I think is a true one, is that because there is a big push to distinguish certain packages as Canonical supported (ie. main) a stigma has developed for Universe
[20:48] <mdz> but I can say that it's very likely not enough to justify the cost of providing the support, or it would be offered
[20:48] <somerville32> By putting the expectation that main has high standards than Universe, Universe _will_ have lower standards
[20:48] <somerville32> s/By fear/My fear
[20:49] <Lure> somerville32: but having security patch commitment actually means higher standards
[20:49] <mdz> I think it's OK for universe to have less rigidity
[20:49] <mdz> developers should be able to work freely except where there is an overriding concern
[20:49] <Lure> somerville32: but it does not mean that you cannot provide security patches for xubuntu, afair
[20:49] <mdz> in the case of main, the overriding concern is that users demand a commitment
[20:49] <mdz> particularly commercial users
[20:50] <mdz> users do not demand such a commitment for all of the software in Ubuntu, only a subset
[20:50] <mdz> and we try to codify the subset for which that commitment is justified, in main
[20:50] <somerville32> Then to help keep the focus on community, I hope we move to a different model so that "main ubuntu packages" is not synonymous to "canonical support packages".
[20:51] <mdz> I sympathize with your position, but I think it's very difficult to tease apart "backed by a commitment from Ubuntu" with "backed by a commitment from Canonical"
[20:51] <mdz> because, fundamentally, someone needs to take commercial responsibility for that commitment
[20:52] <mdz> and presently, that is Canonical
[20:52] <somerville32> To me, I find that somewhat demoralizing as a _community_ contributor.
[20:53] <mdz> somerville32: how so?
[20:53] <somerville32> First off, I'm very thankful for Canonical's commitment and support to help make Ubuntu awesome
[20:53] <no0tic> @now
[20:53] <ubotu> Current time in Etc/UTC: January 15 2008, 20:53:42 - Next meeting: IRC Council in 4 hours 6 minutes
[20:53] <somerville32> But I take pride and ownership in Ubuntu too as a community contributor since Ubutnu is a community project.
[20:54] <mdz> when Canonical commits to support something, it means that even if it is abandoned by its maintainers, Canonical is prepared to devote resources to filling the gap
[20:55] <mdz> we owe a lot to the developers of Linux, but they simply don't care anymore about Linux 2.6.15.  Canonical, however, backports patches to it week after week, to ensure continuous maintenance for Ubuntu users
[20:55] <mdz> somerville32: as well you should!
[20:55] <somerville32> So I'm naturally concerned when things are shifted away from the community and into commercial hands
[20:56] <mdz> somerville32: but that doesn't mean that Ubuntu users can hold you responsible for everything you do
[20:56] <mdz> if they have a problem, and you can't help them, or don't want to, that's your choice
[20:56] <somerville32> Right
[20:57] <mdz> Canonical doesn't have that choice
[20:57] <Lure> somerville32: in which point you feel things are shifted from community to commercial?
[20:58] <mdz> and Canonical pays its staff to be on call to respond, 24x7
[20:58] <somerville32> If Ubuntu, the community, was able to give commitment to a number of packages (ie. main) and Canonical was easily able to tag packages/software solutions that they support, I feel the focus would still be on the community resolving my concerns
[20:58] <Lure> somerville32: fact is that Canonical has from its position (historical and present) more control over the project, but that does not mean it should impact community work much
[20:58] <mdz> that doesn't make the contributions of the community any less valuable
[20:58] <mdz> we wouldn't even have a product without the community
[20:59] <mdz> but the community can't have customers, while Canonical can
[20:59] <mdz> and the fact that Canonical exists to service those customers is a key part of the vision of Ubuntu
[20:59] <mdz> in some ways, Canonical is just another contributor to Ubuntu
[20:59] <mdz> but in other ways, it's a fundamental part of the project
[21:00] <somerville32> I see where you're coming from mdz and I think all your points are completely legitimate but my concern is with the focus on the "It is either supported by Canonical or it is not"
[21:00] <mdz> and there wouldn't be an Ubuntu without Canonical either
[21:00] <_MMA_> mdz: Then this is where it might be better to have 1 repo and a list of packages Canonical supports.
[21:00] <la_petite_Gogole> cody
[21:00] <Lure> mdz: + strong commercial support/funding by Canonical brings more trust to community that it worth contributing as there is some logivity expected behind
[21:00] <somerville32> la_petite_Gogole, ugh... yes?
[21:00] <mdz> _MMA_: and that is something we are actively looking at, but it is a long term idea
[21:01] <mdz> _MMA_: there's nothing we can do in that direction for 8.04
[21:01] <mjg59> somerville32: Rationalising the current situation doesn't prevent us from altering things in the long run
[21:01] <mdz> and decisions we make with 8.04 will be with us through 2013
[21:01] <mjg59> But with an LTS release coming up, we do need to make it clear what's supported now
[21:01] <_MMA_> mdz: Understandable.
[21:02] <mdz> _MMA_: Keybuk's proposal is a step in the right direction, and I'd like to see our repositories match the way we think about software
[21:02] <mdz> but we're stuck with main+universe for 8.04, and so the best we can do is make main+universe easy to understand
[21:02] <somerville32> fair enough
[21:03] <mdz> not that it's that bad
[21:03] <mdz> (or else I'd have myself to blame in no small part...)
[21:03] <Lure> mdz: ;-)
[21:04] <mdz> somerville32: would you feel more confident in this if we set an explicit goal to revisit how we define the repository for 8.10+?
[21:04] <mdz> when we have some freedom to make changes?
[21:04] <somerville32> mdz, Yes, very much so
[21:04] <_MMA_> Im honestly a little shocked to hear such a low opinion of Universe from Cody as all the Ubuntu Studio packages are there and I know the work we and other MOTU put into them. Id put 'em up aginst any Main package. :P
[21:05] <mdz> mjg59,Keybuk: would you be OK with us making such a commitment on behalf of the project?
[21:05] <somerville32> I think things are changing for the better, _MMA_
[21:05] <_MMA_> We've even found bugs in Main packages because our packages (based on Ubuntu-Main ones) were rejected by archive admins. :P
[21:05] <Keybuk> mdz: given rearranging the repository is my own pet mission, yes ;-)
[21:06] <mjg59> I'm unwilling to commit to it happening for 8.10 (or any specific release), but yes, I think this does need fixing
[21:06] <mdz> mjg59: for 8.10, we will hold a proper discussion about the right way to do it in the long term, and work toward that
[21:07] <mdz> we can't commit to reaching such a goal in one release cycle, I agree
[21:07] <mjg59> Sure
[21:07] <mdz> ok then
[21:07] <Keybuk> sounds like we have our first UDS ML session ;)
[21:07] <Keybuk> (ML: Mystery Location)
[21:07] <somerville32> :)
[21:08] <somerville32> That gives me a good reason to try and get there
[21:08] <somerville32> I'd be very interested in seeing us move forward with an innovative solution for this issue
[21:08] <somerville32> For now, moving Xubuntu to Universe I'm sure won't hurt too much ;]
[21:09] <somerville32> As _MMA_ and I already said, the situation for Universe _is_ improving.
[21:09] <somerville32> Especially with the recent additions of such MOTUs like Emmet Hickory
[21:10] <mdz> [VOTE] 1) packages seeded for Xubuntu are not required to be in main, 2) Xubuntu will continue to be built as usual but including packages from universe, and 3) in the Ubuntu 8.10 planning cycle (including UDS), we will discuss in depth how the repositories are organized with respect to project commitments and make plans to improve this
[21:10] <MootBot> Please vote on:  1) packages seeded for Xubuntu are not required to be in main, 2) Xubuntu will continue to be built as usual but including packages from universe, and 3) in the Ubuntu 8.10 planning cycle (including UDS), we will discuss in depth how the repositories are organized with respect to project commitments and make plans to improve this.
[21:10] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[21:10] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[21:10] <mdz> +1
[21:10] <MootBot> +1 received from mdz. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[21:10] <mjg59> +1
[21:10] <MootBot> +1 received from mjg59. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[21:11] <Keybuk> +1
[21:11] <MootBot> +1 received from Keybuk. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[21:11] <mdz> #endvote
[21:11] <mdz> eek, I'm lagged
[21:12] <mdz> [TOPIC] AOB
[21:12] <MootBot> Vote is in progress. Finishing now.
[21:12] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[21:12] <MootBot> New Topic:  AOB
[21:13] <Keybuk> --- Ping reply from mdz : 0.47 second(s)
[21:13] <Keybuk> no OB from me
[21:13] <mdz> --- Ping reply from mdz : 15.98 second(s)
[21:13] <Keybuk> you ping'd yourself? :)
[21:13] <mdz> note that there is a minor question about mailing lists from Corey Burger which I redirected to technical-board@
[21:13] <mdz> please have a look and weigh in
[21:14] <mdz> Keybuk: don't you?
[21:14] <mdz> ok, thanks everyone
[21:14] <mdz> #endmeeting
[21:14] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 21:14.
[21:14] <Keybuk> mdz: xchat-gnome does it all the time itself
[21:15] <somerville32> Is the TB still approving all the MC's MOTU application approvals?
[21:18] <pochu> somerville32: nope, the MC now approves them and changes the status in LP
[21:18] <somerville32> ok
[21:22] <somerville32> Awesome. Anyhow, thanks a bunch Keybuk, mdz, and mjg59 for hearing me out :)
[21:22]  * mdz catches up with TeamReporting
[21:22] <mdz> somerville32: thanks for your input
[22:45] <no0tic>  /j #quadratoufficiali
[22:45] <no0tic> sorryyy
[23:17] <LjL> no0tic: se non altro non ci hai dato anche la password
[23:18] <no0tic> LjL, non la conosco