[01:25] please digg http://digg.com/linux_unix/An_Open_Letter_to_Filmmakers_that_Use_Linux === asac_ is now known as asac === _Czessi is now known as Czessi === ogra_ is now known as ogra === jpatrick is now known as jdavies === jdavies is now known as jpatrick === thekorn_ is now known as thekorn === mrevell is now known as mrevell-luncheon === ubotu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Current meeting: MOTU Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 16 Apr 21:00 UTC: Server Team | 23 Apr 21:00 UTC: Server Team | 30 Apr 21:00 UTC: Server Team [12:59] @schedule shanghai [12:59] Schedule for Asia/Shanghai: Current meeting: MOTU 17 Apr 05:00: Server Team | 24 Apr 05:00: Server Team | 01 May 05:00: Server Team [12:59] meeting? [12:59] supposedly [13:00] seems they forgot :) [13:00] <\sh> meeting today, right? [13:01] \sh: meeting now :) [13:01] * siretart hugs \sh [13:01] the topic show it is now [13:01] hiya [13:01] who will drive today's meeting? [13:01] It's meeting time. [13:01] * siretart is at work, and could need to leave at any time :( - sorry [13:02] * \sh is in the very same situation [13:02] * persia has an agenda item, and so shouldn't chair [13:02] * dholbach has an item on the agenda too: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings [13:02] hi all [13:03] Pici: freeflying: james_w: Any of you want to chair (or someone else)? [13:03] hey james_w! [13:03] I could, it's my first MOTU meeting though [13:03] hey siretart [13:03] persia: I haven't attendded quite long, don't know how :) [13:03] I'm not here ;), just wandering in and out. [13:04] ok, I'll do it then [13:04] #startmeeting [13:04] Meeting started at 14:04. The chair is dholbach. [13:04] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [13:05] [TOPIC] Who will write the minutes and publicise them? [13:05] New Topic: Who will write the minutes and publicise them? [13:05] * persia volunteers, if people are willing to wait ~24 hours [13:05] I think that's perfectly acceptable or does anybody else prefer to do it? [13:06] ok, seems that you won, persia :) [13:06] * siretart agrees [13:06] [ACTION] persia to take notes and publicise them. [13:06] ACTION received: persia to take notes and publicise them. [13:06] [TOPIC] Use, nomenclature, and requirements for the Universe Hackers (Ubuntu Contributing Developers) team [13:06] New Topic: Use, nomenclature, and requirements for the Universe Hackers (Ubuntu Contributing Developers) team [13:06] * persia puts away the magnets [13:07] persia: can you give a very quick summary of the plan or a link so everybody can dive into the topic? [13:07] OK. So, the Community Council gave us a new group with which we can grant membership, or other things, it got a name that didn't make everyone happy, and I did a poor job with the announcement. [13:07] So, I'd like to review and discuss the three aspects of the new team, so we can have agreement, and move forward. [13:07] Firstly, I'd like to discuss the use of the team. I think of it as a repository for various entitlements, but I'd like to hear from others. [13:08] Are there questions or suggestions at this point? [13:08] about what teams are we talking atm? [13:08] (there are so many of them that it gets a bit confusing..) [13:08] The ~ubuntu-hackers team. [13:09] ~universe-hackers :) [13:09] <\sh> So, when I understand it correctly, this new team is a subteam of ubuntu-members, and inherit the very same rights [13:09] \sh: that's correct. [13:09] \sh: Currently, yes. [13:10] so we want to use it to give people membership and recognise the contribution to MOTU, but without giving upload rights. [13:10] but members of that team are not necessarily given upload permission to the archive, right? [13:10] siretart, james_w: right [13:10] sounds like a good idea to me [13:11] siretart: Rather they are specifically not given upload permission to the archive (unless they get it from another team) [13:11] do we want to tie that in to other permissions, for instance REVU? [13:11] okay, so the team has some (sort of) awarding character, right? [13:11] siretart: Right. It's a restricted team, so MC needs to grant membership. [13:11] james_w: I don't think so, TBH [13:11] I think REVU is a bad idea as we want anyone to be able to propose a package don't we? [13:12] <\sh> james_w, yes [13:12] james_w: right, ubuntu-universe-contributors is open for all [13:12] james_w: Certainly. REVU is an open team, and should stay that way. [13:12] persia: on the mailing list a few additional points were raised [13:12] persia: e.g. should ~ubuntu-hackers be used for: a) bugs, b) bzr branches c) PPAs ? [13:13] however, persia's suggestion that, for instance, this team, rather than ubuntu-dev, could be considered for write access to a VCS is a good idea. [13:13] siretart: That's part of what I mean by use. I believe it could be useful for b), but not so much for a) or c). On the other hand, I'd like to hear and discuss more with others. [13:13] I think bugs may be a good idea, but we would want to discuss that with bugcontrol, who currently provide the easiest way to get that permission. [13:14] Err.. Rather I don't think it should be assigned or subscribed bugs. There may be other ways it could be used. [13:14] My guess is that they would be happy to kind of delegate the control of that to this team, as the members will have shown some competence. [13:14] persia: let me ask the other way round: do we need a restricted team for code? if not, we could use 'ubuntu-universe-contributors'? [13:15] siretart: we could (just as an example) use it for ubuntu-dev-tools [13:15] so people who proved themselves by means of good contributions could commit tools there [13:15] siretart: Depends on your viewpoint. There are a fair number of branches currently restricted to ~ubuntu-dev, rather than ~ubuntu-universe-contributors [13:15] they can not upload, just an award, then ubuntu membership can not suite? [13:15] siretart: I think for code in VCS etc. the idea is that it will still get review before upload, so lowering the bar may be useful. [13:16] however I'm not sure that an open team is great for that, as it decreases the trust you can have in the branches themselves. [13:16] <\sh> persia, but actually, we don't want non-granted-upload-rights-people to fiddle around with ~ubuntu-dev branches....because this is just as an upload, when something goes wrong,imho [13:16] persia: exactly. my point is that we do have the option of moving the branches from ~ubuntu-dev to ~ubuntu-univserse-contributors (which would be completely unrestricted then) [13:16] which might or might not be a good idea [13:17] I think in the end the decision will be that of the individual person who "maintains" or "looks" after that branch [13:17] \sh: as long as those branches don't get (semi-) automatically updated by uploads, I don't see too much of a problem there [13:17] \sh: Maybe. I'm not sure that there aren't people we'd be happy to have commit to a VCS for possible review, but for whom we'd be less happy with an upload. I may be wrong. [13:17] siretart: True. [13:17] dholbach: Good point. That is a branch manager decision. [13:17] siretart: true, but some people may like to run the bleeding edge by tracking the branches. [13:18] james_w: and who updates them? [13:18] Are there any other obvious entitlements or options that you see apart from the ones mentioned already? [13:18] * cody-somerville waves and apologizes for being late. [13:19] So, aside from VCS (which is managed by the branch manager, and not necessarily us), what other uses do people see for the team? How about social uses? [13:19] siretart: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. [13:19] james_w: well, most probably I didn't understand your point then :) [13:19] persia: you mean like having a party? :-) [13:20] james_w: Well, maybe, but also how people identify themselves and others, or interact. [13:20] siretart: if we allow an open team to commit to branches then you have to trust the branches less, I think allowing this new team access is a good idea, but not an open team. [13:20] The key bit is that this is a tool to provide MOTU-originated membership (and maybe other things), so I wonder if we want to use it for anything else, and if not, what MOTU-originated membership would be considered to mean. [13:21] james_w: okay, I agree to that! [13:21] james_w: That's exactly what I was thinking when I suggested it :) [13:21] what about PPAs? [13:21] persia: I think it's a good way to judge that you are dealing with someone fairly competent. [13:21] you could argue the same way for PPAs [13:21] Can a PPA owner allow others to upload to a PPA, or are there only team PPAs? In the former case, I think it would make sense. In the latter case, I'm much less sure. [13:21] you mean a new MOTU PPA? [13:22] * persia thinks a MOTU PPA is very far from ideal [13:23] As anyone can host there own PPA is there a need for a team one here? [13:23] To me it feels like the general use of PPA within MOTU teams (be it for testing or what not) could be discussed separately as we don't make use of it in any of our procedures. [13:23] siretart: but yes, I think that the same argument applies to branches and PPAs. [13:23] It feels to me like we keep wandering off my intended target, which either means it's already agreed, or that nobody understands what I'm asking. [13:24] Would everyone feel comfortable with the following description of use: [13:24] persia: I was happy with the structure of the original proposal fwiw [13:24] The new restricted team will represent MOTU-originated Ubuntu Membership, and may be used for other purposes, to be decided later, and as they come up. [13:25] * dholbach is perfectly happy with that [13:25] Does this require a vote or is there anyone who has objections? [13:26] persia: yes, I think further clarification that it would be useful in cases where we want to lower the barrier to entry, but where there would still be a review step before uploading. [13:27] In the absence of objection, let's move to the next question: nomenclature. [13:27] sorry, was on the phone [13:27] [AGREED] The new restricted team will represent MOTU-originated Ubuntu Membership (this does not include MOTU membership, which is part of the existing MOTU process), and may be used for other purposes, to be decided later, and as they come up. [13:27] AGREED received: The new restricted team will represent MOTU-originated Ubuntu Membership (this does not include MOTU membership, which is part of the existing MOTU process), and may be used for other purposes, to be decided later, and as they come up. [13:27] siretart: Let us know if you want to object [13:27] I think the structure of open team->restricted team->MOTU is a good thing. [13:28] [TOPIC] Nomenclature of the new restricted team. [13:28] New Topic: Nomenclature of the new restricted team. [13:28] persia: I don't really object, I just didn't understand what the problem with MOTU or ~universe-hackers PPA is [13:28] siretart: OK. I'll address that as #4, if Daniel doesn't mind waiting to start his topic. [13:28] persia: not at all [13:28] persia: sure [13:29] Do we have proposals regarding the name of the team? [13:29] So, There are three names for the team. The short name (LP group name), the long name (LP description), and the wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers name. [13:29] as for the naming, it is a bit unfortunate that we have used that name in this meeting so much, so the name seems more or less set [13:29] The third is "Ubuntu Contributing Developers", which should be safe for use in any formal context (as the other names on that page). [13:30] siretart: I'm sure that if a good name comes up, people will be able to readjust their brains - it's not been used for weeks or months yet. :-) [13:30] dholbach: ;) [13:30] The current short name is ~universe-hackers and the current long name is Ubuntu Universe Hackers. As the group doesn't have any members yet, it should be safe to change it. [13:31] what are the objections to that name? [13:31] Personally, I think the name doesn't matter so much, but I'm apparently wrong. Those who feel strongly about the name are encouraged to submit candidates for discussion. [13:31] persia: I don't think there were so much objections on that particular name, though... [13:32] \sh: Are you happy with that name? You were active in the email thread [13:32] * persia specifically excepts the use of "code monkeys" from discussion at this time [13:32] <\sh> persia, Ubuntu Contributing Developers is a nice one :) [13:32] \sh: and the lp name? [13:32] \sh: It's what's on the wiki. The dither is about the LP names. [13:32] that clashes a bit with -universe-contributors doesn't it? [13:33] james_w: good point [13:33] <\sh> persia, hmmm...thinking about james_w he has a point [13:34] The other official candidate names that were proposed by CC members were "Ubuntu Engineering Contributors" and "Ubuntu MOTU Members". I think the current compromise for the official name is the least confusing of the three. [13:34] Debian has "Developers" and then "Maintainers" [13:35] Also, yes, james_w does have a point, and I think it's worth solving, but the last "solution" wasn't the right one, and I think it's easier to solve that later. [13:35] though maintainers doesn't seem to fit universe that well [13:35] james_w: Yes, but Ubuntu specifically doesn't have maintainers [13:35] james_w: yes, but their usage is pretty special, since there is also a difference between "Debian Maintainers" and "Package Maintainers" [13:36] (the former one do have limited upload right, the later ones not) === mrevell-luncheon is now known as mrevell [13:36] Do we have any other suggetions? [13:36] persia: I object. we DO have maintainers. we don't have dedicated maintainers for most of our packages. [13:37] siretart: I recognise your objection, and have opinions about it, but am not prepared to discuss that now. [13:38] universe-helpers, but that sounds a little demeaning. [13:38] persia: I agree [13:38] persia: let's do that somewhen else [13:39] siretart: Sure :) [13:39] So, let's look at the three names again. [13:39] hmm.. 'associate developer'? [13:39] Does anyone feel strongly enough about the wiki name to change it? [13:39] yeah, universe-associates isn't too bad. [13:40] universe-apprentices? [13:40] sounds a bit like a company name .... universe-associates LTD. [13:40] heh [13:40] mornin'! [13:40] indeed [13:40] hi ogra, hey nixternal! [13:40] I don't much like "apprentices", as I think most who can be members are more senior. Maybe "journeymen" [13:40] universe-collaborators [13:40] "they sell you the world, we sell the universe" [13:40] :) [13:40] (yes, I have opened a thesaurus) [13:41] * Hobbsee waves [13:41] sounds like something from the french resistance [13:42] well, it seems that nobody objects too much about ~universe-hackers [13:42] the main point is that it is a bit close to ~ubuntu-universe-contributors. [13:43] a) is that really a problem? b) perhaps we could change the name of universe-contributors then [13:43] siretart: i'd like to raise the objection that a lot of people consider "crackers' to be hackers, and we'd probably prefer not to be thought of cracking our workplaces. [13:43] or be known as the conventional crackers [13:43] And it's a good point. Do we want to adjust the wiki name, or do we want to look again at adjusting ~ubuntu-universe-contributors (and perhaps to something less frivolous)? [13:44] Hobbsee: oh, I didn't think about that. right. [13:44] Hobbsee: Reasonable point. Do you have an alternate suggestion? [13:44] persia: What do you mean by "adjust the wiki name"? [13:44] siretart: i'm ashamed to say that the sydney paper got this wrong recently :( [13:44] persia: i've just gotten home, i've not read the meeting log [13:45] dholbach: We have three names. The wiki name ("Ubuntu Contributing Developers"), the LP Long Name ("Ubuntu Universe Hackers"), and the LP short-name ("universe-hackers"). [13:45] persia: i don't, so far, sorry. i've always been bad at names [13:45] * Hobbsee would go for 1, but.. [13:45] I think nobody is unhappy with the wiki name, but that Hobbsee raises a good point for the LP names. [13:45] novitiate? tyro? neophyte? greenhorn? [13:46] cody-somerville: Very much not so. These people have made significant and sustained contributions to the development community. They can be none of those. [13:46] .oO(universe-terraformers) [13:47] well, I don't think Hobbsee's point applies too much to the LP short-name, because the ppl using it are most likely to be aware of the meaning of 'hackers' [13:47] I don't the LP long name to be used too much either... [13:47] Well, MOTU gets used a lot, and it shows on people's LP pages, which google finds... [13:48] On the other hand, with the right descriptive paragraph, it might not be so bad. [13:48] james_w: then again, REVU is an excellent way of filtering whether people can read instructions or not. [13:48] What about sage? [13:48] MOTU is pretty special, since we use that name too much after all, IMO [13:48] james_w: it's disturbingly frequent that a person will throw a package at REVU, then never speak of it in ubuntu again (or at all), or get it uploaded another way, and never actually tell revu [13:49] siretart: Maybe true. At UDS MTV, I think everyone agreed to transition to "Ubuntu Developers", although after UDS Sevilla, we seem to have gone back to MOTU. [13:49] cody-somerville: Well, not quite that far :) [13:49] if we were to go with something along the lines of "Ubuntu Contributing Developers" for the team née as universe-hackers, it'd mean we'd have to rename ubuntu-universe-contributors - maybe it's easier to find a name for that team? [13:50] Anyway, I think we're not coming up with names now. Let's use "universe-hackers" and "Ubuntu Universe Hackers" for now, and if someone has a much better name, let's review in a future meeting. [13:51] dholbach: and also raises the question about wheter ubuntu developers do not contribute. [13:51] Hobbsee: it is indeed tricky [13:51] Ok, let's vote on persia's suggestion? [13:51] and gives no real idea about which levels are above or below the others [13:51] yes, it seems the people who raised an objection to that name are not in the meeting, so you could solicit feedback and suggestions on the list. [13:51] [VOTE] Use "universe-hackers" and "Ubuntu Universe Hackers" for now, and if someone has a much better name, let's review in a future meeting. [13:51] Please vote on: Use "universe-hackers" and "Ubuntu Universe Hackers" for now, and if someone has a much better name, let's review in a future meeting.. [13:51] 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 [13:51] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [13:52] +1 [13:52] +1 received from dholbach. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [13:53] 0 [13:53] +0 [13:53] Abstention received from siretart. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1 [13:53] +o [13:53] * persia suspects the vote to be not valid, as the number of abstentions is huge [13:53] +0 [13:53] Abstention received from Hobbsee. 1 for, 0 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 1 [13:53] -0.5 [13:53] pity that doesn't work [13:53] dholbach: Could you please end the vote? I think we'll need a name. [13:54] #endvote [13:54] erm.... [13:54] [ENDVOTE] [13:54] Final result is 1 for, 0 against. 2 abstained. Total: 1 [13:54] Unless anyone objects, I'd like to look at requirements, then PPA. then defer to the next topic, and then we can look at names again. [13:54] requirements of what? [13:54] (so please think up names while we cover the rest) [13:55] I feel we should not block on the naming of the team now - we all agreed that it's a good idea and that we should pursue it [13:55] Requirements for the new restricted team. [13:55] [TOPIC] Requirements for the new restricted team. [13:55] New Topic: Requirements for the new restricted team. [13:56] An initial set of requirements is set out in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-April/003523.html [13:56] let's quote that list: [13:56] * Have been working with Ubuntu development for some time, with a [13:56] number of bugs fixed in the archives [13:56] * Have a close working relationship with other members of the Ubuntu community [13:56] * Have a clear plan for future activity [13:56] The resulting threads didn't seem to address them. Are there any outstanding concerns? [13:56] * Have updated their wiki page to meet the criteria listed on [13:56] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewMemberHowto [13:57] I think the requirements are rather strict, but that depends on how they are applied [13:57] siretart: which of the points should be less strict you feel? [13:57] ScottK did suggest replacing the first with * Have been working with Ubuntu development for some time, with a record of of significant and sustained positive contribution [13:57] persia: i prefer scottk's version there [13:57] the 'for some time, with a number of bugs fixed...' and the 'clear plan for future activity' part [13:58] siretart: yeah. i'd fail the second test. [13:58] persia, Hobbsee: to me ScottK's suggestions sounds like something you'd say about a MOTU too [13:59] dholbach: well, i'm certainly a fan of the "sustained positive contribution" part [13:59] As most non-MOTU end up closing bugs with any upload (even new packaging), I'm fairly sure the bug closure part isn't that high a threshold. [13:59] dholbach: apart from that, eparse [13:59] if it were to vote, I'd vote for taking ScottK's variation and dropping point 3 [13:59] On the "clear plan for future activity", I'm not sure how that differs significantly from the "plans for the future" that are often required for a CC-based member application. [14:00] well, there is always a obvious plan: heling out in the universe! [14:00] Hobbsee: to me "significant and sustained positive contribution" sounded like something you'd expect from a MOTU applicant too - I wondered where to "draw a line" [14:01] which should suit the CC, but wouldn't the MC, AFAIUI [14:01] just in terms of the definition [14:01] siretart: Sure. It's more about writing it down and the process of thinking about it, than the actual plan, in my opinion. [14:01] dholbach: er, is this still the team where you don't have upload rights, but are otherwise similar to motu, or? [14:01] Hobbsee: the "universe-hackers" team would be member of ubuntumembers [14:02] Hobbsee: Developer member without upload. How similar to MOTU depends on other entitlements that have already been decided to be deferred. [14:02] persia: as said, it depends on how those rules are applied. [14:02] persia: right [14:02] dholbach: then i'd drop hte significant part. [14:02] siretart: Makes sense. I'm not opposed to Scott's wording, and I suspect the MC would take guidance from MOTU on application. [14:02] dholbach: if you have sustained good work, (rather than patchy good work, occasional bad work), then you fit that team. [14:02] right [14:02] Speaking only for myself, I'm much more likely to consider sponsor comments than the merits of the specific application for this team. [14:03] Hobbsee: this was just my gut feeling speaking, not being a native speaker I sometimes wonder if the wording isn't too strict [14:04] dholbach: right. [14:04] dholbach: ideally, i'd like to word it so we don't get kmos-type people fulfilling the requirements of the team. [14:05] Hobbsee: which is why sponsors' comments are so important [14:05] ok... are there any other points in the proposed text that need adressing? [14:06] persia: are you happy with the feedback? [14:06] dholbach: true. then again, all the good contributors would fit the extra clause without any extra effort, anyway [14:06] dholbach: I think so [14:06] shall we move on to the PPA discussion? [14:06] Just to make sure, am I correct in understanding that the consensus is to use the original suggestion, and modify with ScottK's change (excepting the doubled word)? [14:07] <\sh> grmpf..bad real life work [14:07] Hobbsee: how about a point that any motu may veto any applicant to that team? [14:08] siretart: I think that negative feedback is as appreciated as good feedback and that it's discussed in the mailing list thread [14:08] siretart: yeah. That would be a pretty good idea. [14:09] on the other hand, such a negative feedback could be understood as failing point 2 [14:09] siretart: Any MOTU? How about a discussion, and if one person can't agree, we move on? (on the other hand, if nobody argues against the negative feedback, I think it should stand as veto) [14:09] so we maybe we don't need to mention that specifically [14:09] to me a 'veto process' sounds like overkill, negative feedback should be discussed though [14:10] siretart: I prefer that interpretation. It allows us to disagree, yet still enforces cultural continuity [14:10] persia: ok, with that interpretation, I agree! [14:10] siretart: To the original set, or the original set plus ScottK's proposal? [14:10] perfect - let's move on then [14:11] * persia is happy either way, but wants to report the right thing in the minutes [14:12] persia: plus ScottK's proposal [14:12] Great! [14:12] Next is the extra point, about PPAs. [14:12] [TOPIC] PPA usage [14:12] New Topic: PPA usage [14:13] persia: i can't imagine people veto'ing lightly [14:13] My position is that a MOTU PPA is worse than useless. If MOTU are coordinating changes in several packages, these belong in the archive. [14:13] Hobbsee: YEs. [14:13] well, I wouldn't be too sure here [14:13] A universe-hackers PPA is possibly useful, but I expect ~200 members within six months, and that's a lot of coordination. Especially when most of it belongs in the archive anyway. [14:14] siretart: What's an example of something you would put in a MOTU PPA that you'd prefer to your own (or some MOTU's)? [14:14] ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I wanted to say that I could imagine a ~universe-hackers PPA being useful for testing transitions [14:14] persia: a large transition, to check fi it does work. [14:15] OK. I can see the use of a ~universe-hackers PPA for transition testing (especially near release time). [14:16] My fear is that people might use it because it was semi-official by semi-official people, and a transition-testing PPA is almost always guaranteed to break things. [14:16] that's a point [14:16] Maybe we should discuss the idea of transition testing in a mailing list thread? [14:16] dholbach: That sounds sensible. Maybe even result in a dedicated transition / NBS team [14:17] To me it sounds like the usage PPAs could be beneficial, but not a key part of the universe-hackers team. [14:18] Right. Anyone object to discussing the use of a shared PPA for transitions to the mailing list? If not, I'd like to defer to dholbach for the next topic on the agenda [14:18] What about the nomenclature? [14:18] persia: i'd like to add that they have to clean it out when they've uploaded the packages into the archive. [14:19] OK, let's do the MOTU Events team now then. [14:19] [TOPIC] MOTU Events team [14:19] New Topic: MOTU Events team [14:19] I'd like to add a new team to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Leaders [14:19] dholbach: "point of order" - is the naming of the code monkey teams still on the agenda? [14:19] the plan for that team would be: [14:20] * Team to organise and announce MOTU participation in events like UbuntuOpenWeek, UbuntuDeveloperWeek, Universe Bug Days, MOTU Meetings, MOTU Q&A sessions, etc. [14:20] * Liaise with speakers [14:20] * publicise and announce the event [14:20] * document the events [14:20] * help with organisation [14:20] siretart: It never was. I specifically excluded it, as I didn't think there were any code-monkey supporters left. [14:21] Does the idea of this team sounds sensible? Does anybody like to add points to the team description? [14:22] if everybody likes the idea, I'd add it to the MOTU/Leaders page and ask for initial members of the team until the next MOTU Meeting [14:22] Comments? [14:23] dholbach: do we already have people intereted in working in such a team? [14:24] there were people interested in running the Universe Hug Days and we had contributors to the Open Week and Developer Week [14:24] I think speakers for UbuntuOpenWeek and UbuntuDeveloperWeek, and MOTU Q&A sessions would fit well with other activities of MOTU School [14:25] what about Hug Days, announces of MOTU Meetings, general announces, liaison with people on the fridge, etc? [14:25] do you think the team is justified or should be merged with the MOTU School efforts? [14:26] james_w: what do you think? [14:26] If people would be willing to volunteer to take care of that steadily, I could see the use of a team [14:26] I'd join the team if it was created [14:26] I certainly have an interest too :) [14:26] james_w: Do you see value in separation of administrative matters from presentations or Q&A sessions, from a MOTU School branding perspective? [14:28] yes, I think there could be value, School as I see it is about education, rather than hug days and the like [14:28] though they are similar, so it could work. [14:28] the members of the team should not necessarily be the ones presenting [14:29] there hasn't been much interest in school, and I think experienced people may be put off from helping in a hug day if it is presented as a school thing. [14:30] james_w: one of the first aims of the team would be: more interest in MOTU School :) [14:30] Yes, but aside from the fact that I'm not likely to find time to spend on it, making my opinion weak, I'd like to see clearer and wider branding for MOTU School, as I think it is worthwhile, and not usefully confused with minutes, scheduling, general announcements, etc. (although the same people might be involved in both) [14:30] any other objections? things that should be improved in the proposal? === ubotu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 16 Apr 21:00 UTC: Server Team | 23 Apr 21:00 UTC: Server Team | 30 Apr 21:00 UTC: Server Team [14:31] dholbach: I think the proposal is good. [14:31] persia: ah now I understand - I think that makes sense [14:31] OK... seems we have no general objections on the MOTU Events team then [14:31] thanks for the feedback [14:31] persia: ready to get back to nomenclature of the team née as Universe Hackers? [14:32] Sure. Did anyone come up with any good names while we discussed other things? [14:32] [TOPIC] Name of the universe-hackers team. [14:32] New Topic: Name of the universe-hackers team. [14:33] no. but i managed to submit my assignment. [14:33] * Hobbsee curses evil, propriatery bits some more [14:33] Hobbsee: Excellent. Congratulations. Now you can turn your thoughts to nomenclature :) [14:34] What do you think about having a few minutes of collective brainstorming (everybody can +1/-1/+0 the suggestion - without long discussion) and once we have something that has at least 2 votes we can start to vote - the new members team is too important to get blocked on the name I feel [14:35] is here anybody who has a suggestion? [14:35] siretart, james_w, cody-somerville, Hobbsee, ogra, zul, \sh (and others)? [14:36] I don't see a much better name than 'universe-contributors' [14:36] sistpoty is currently next to me, he agrees [14:36] siretart: The issue there is the conflict with the current team. We can use that, but what do we do for the open team? [14:36] siretart: what about ubuntu-universe-contributors then? :) [14:36] let's rename that to 'revu-uploaders' [14:36] I disagree with that name. [14:36] cody-somerville: which? [14:36] cody-somerville: Which name? [14:37] ubuntu-universe-contributors for this new team [14:37] dholbach, i like universe-terraformers ... but thats probably to far off [14:37] People who upload to universe and who are not a member of that team are still ubuntu contributors [14:37] * persia agrees with cody-somerville after reading that argument [14:37] I think that ubuntu-universe-contributors should remain an open team which is used to sync revu keychain [14:37] The name of this new team should reflect their elevated status. [14:38] ogra: universe-transformers? [14:38] james_w, sounds cool as well :) [14:39] siretart: yeah, same here @ universe-contributors [14:39] The issue with "universe-terraformers" or "universe-transformers" is that they fall into the class of silly names that were part of the reason for the rejection of "code monkeys" last week. [14:39] men-at-arms (although a bit sexist) but it keeps with the motu theme [14:39] indeed [14:39] persia: yeah, I agree. [14:39] I still like the idea of sticking to universe-hackers (to not block the operation completely), but choose either a new name for ubuntu-universe-contributors or universe-hackers in the next meeting or by mail [14:40] cody-somerville: the suggestions is to rename it to 'revu-uploaders', which remains open and FFA [14:40] persia, monkey is more degrading than terraformer or transformer [14:40] that fits the purpose better anyways [14:40] ogra: Depends on viewpoint, but I think either fails ScottK's request that it be something that can be discussed in a business meeting without raising eyebrows. [14:40] persia, but generally thats right indeed [14:40] collect 15 banans to become a universe-contributors, collect further 30 bananas, to become MOTU... [14:41] yeah, lets replace karma ! [14:41] . o O { hmmm, Bananas... } [14:42] I don't see any traction behind any suggested new name right now - shall we defer the discussion to either mail or the next meeting and unblock the new member approval process? [14:42] perhaps we should really stick with ubuntu-hackers for now. as for revu-uploaders, I think we should do that anyways, but that needs further discussion with sistpoty and nixternal. [14:42] and is not the point right now. [14:43] I suggest we collect proposals until the next MOTU Meeting and vote then. [14:43] dholbach: The issue with unblocking is that new members of the team may be attached to their new status, or blog about it, etc. These people may be unhappy if we later change it. [14:43] if you go with the business meeting argument hackers is a really bad name [14:43] persia: we won't change the status of team membership - it's the name of the team [14:44] siretart, I don't object to renaming the team to revu-uploaders. Just naming this new one ubuntu-universe-contributors is not appropriate, IMHO. [14:44] dholbach: Sure, but it's about internalised identity in the members, not about the entitlements associated thereunto [14:45] How do do you feel about deferring the name decision? [14:45] I'd prefer not to defer, but in the absence of any candidates upon which we can agree, and given the meeting is overlength (and we still need to do "other businesss"), I'm willing to raise it again at the next meeting. [14:46] Ok. [14:46] I will solicit feedback on naming candidates in the meantime. [14:46] so we have a basis for discussion [14:46] Thanks :) [14:46] [TOPIC] Other business? [14:46] New Topic: Other business? [14:47] 3 ... [14:47] 2 ... [14:47] I have a question. [14:47] 1 ... [14:47] cody-somerville: shoot [14:47] there shall be no questions! [14:48] Are we going to be doing any brainstorming about the Ubuntu Developer team at UDS? If there are no current intentions, I'd like to see something organized. Either a team building activity or a discussion on how we can improve some of the standing complaints about morale, apathy, and the longevity of contributions once someone is approved as a developer. [14:49] cody-somerville: would you be happy to start a wiki page with "UDS topics" and solicit feedback? [14:49] cody-somerville: I don't know of any official plans, but that sort of thing has been discussed unofficially at at least the last two UDSs, and was official at the previous two. [14:49] Sure. [14:50] cody-somerville: thanks a lot [14:50] any other business? [14:50] * Hobbsee just hopes it gets input from those who are not at UDS, who are interested. [14:50]