[00:07] <karigor> #ubuntu
[10:34] <Laney> @schedule london
[20:51] <lukehasnoname> motu coming up?
[20:53] <siretart> I'd think so
[21:00]  * persia looks about for a volunteer chair
[21:03] <persia> No volunteers?  Who is here for the MOTU Meeting then?
[21:03]  * siretart 
[21:03] <mario_limonciell> i am, but i'm also in another meeting
[21:03] <siretart> ScottK: around?
[21:04] <ScottK> Yes
[21:04] <persia> ScottK: Willing to chair?
[21:04]  * ScottK thanks persia for volunteering
[21:04]  * persia has an agenda item
[21:04] <siretart> ;)
[21:04] <ScottK> Who else is here?
[21:04] <ScottK> I'll chair if someone else agrees to do the minutes?
[21:05] <persia> I'm happy to do minutes.
[21:05] <ScottK> Urgh.
[21:05] <ScottK> OK.  Anyone else around?
[21:06] <ScottK> It's 5 after, so I guess we start.
[21:06] <siretart> we
[21:06] <ScottK> Does someone have a link to the agenda?
[21:06] <siretart> well, there over 100 people lurking in this channel ;)
[21:06] <persia> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/
[21:06] <siretart> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings
[21:07] <ScottK> persia: Looks like you're up first.  Go.
[21:07] <persia> The Ubuntu Contributing Developer team doesn't have an emblem, which was one of the things we planned to offer when discussing the team.
[21:08] <persia> A couple of people have put together some possible candidates for an emblem at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Teams/Emblems
[21:08] <persia> I'd like to pick one, and put it in LP to show up on all the members emblem lists.
[21:09] <persia> So, there are two parts: to confirm we want an emblem, and to select one of the three on offer if we do.
[21:09] <ScottK> Neither mok0 nor sebner are here.  So I guess it's fair.
[21:10] <persia> So, on the first, does anyone have strong feelings that we should or should not have an emblem?
[21:10] <siretart> persia: are you sure that the motu meeting is the appropriate corpus to decide on this matter? I would expect it under the motu council's competence to decide on this matter
[21:10] <ScottK> siretart: I think it should come to the meeting.
[21:11] <ScottK> MC can execute policy, but not decide it.
[21:11] <persia> siretart: I tend to prefer things to come from MOTU Meeting unless specifically delegated to MOTU Council, but MC can do it if no decision is taken here.
[21:11] <ScottK> We can always vote to let the MC decide.
[21:12] <persia> Or even just get consensus without an explicit vote, although 3 is a small quorum for all of MOTU
[21:12] <siretart> ScottK: ah, so the council is only doing decision if they are asked for for one?
[21:13] <persia> siretart: As I read the charter, MC can take a decision if either asked or if MOTU is clearly unable to take the decision.
[21:13] <ScottK> siretart: The general framework we've been operating under is that MOTU as a whole are responsible for management of Universe.
[21:13] <ScottK> siretart: MC only has the power MOTU choose to delgate to it.
[21:13] <ScottK> Tech Board has also delgated some stuff to them, but that's a separate issue.
[21:14] <siretart> persia: okay. In this case I herby ask the council to make the decision because I don't see MOTU in general and this meeting in particular unnable to make a decision about this
[21:14] <ScottK> persia: You want to second the motion?
[21:15] <persia> ScottK: No, but I'll take it to MC on that basis if you don't have a specific preference.
[21:15] <ScottK> Any objections to taking it to MC?
[21:15]  * ScottK waits ...
[21:15] <ScottK> 5
[21:15] <ScottK> 4
[21:15] <ScottK> 3
[21:15] <ScottK> 2
[21:15] <ScottK> 1
[21:15] <ScottK> Without objection, so ordered.
[21:15] <ScottK> Next.
[21:16] <ScottK> siretart: Over to you.
[21:16] <siretart> As I've already done on the mailling list, I wanted to inform MOTU in this meeting that we have a new LP liason
[21:16] <siretart> I have been asked by LaserJock to take this over after some private conversations
[21:17] <siretart> and since I think that I'm qualified for this job, I accepted.
[21:18] <siretart> I wanted to point out in this meeting that I'm explicitly asking for help in this job
[21:18] <persia> siretart: What sort of help do you need?
[21:18] <siretart> I know that other people have volunteered as well, but they didn't contact me yet
[21:19] <siretart> persia: keeping track of motu related bugs, discussion their relevance, prioritizing them motu wise and writing up launchpad release reports for motu
[21:19] <siretart> basically what I summarized in my opening email
[21:21] <ScottK> Anything else?
[21:22] <siretart> well,
[21:22] <siretart> there is currently a ffmpeg transition going on
[21:22] <siretart> many packages in universe FTBFS because of some API changes
[21:23] <siretart> I would be very grateful if someone fixed the packages and notify me to forward relevant patches to debian
[21:24] <persia> How are we tracking transitions these days?  I know we've stopped using bugs, but I'm not sure what is replacing that.
[21:24] <ScottK> On that note, I'd like to add that most clamav rdepends are currently FTBFS and the Debian maintainers seem to be MIA.  I'll provide pointers if someone wants to work on that.
[21:26] <ScottK> I suspect mostly we aren't.
[21:26] <siretart> persia: I think by compiling a list of affected packages in a text file and mail them to ubuntu-motu@l.u.c
[21:26] <siretart> at least that's how we did that in the psat
[21:27] <siretart> and that procedure does work in debian as well
[21:27] <persia> siretart: OK.  I don't remember doing that before, but it was never clear to me how they were tracked between the wiki tracking period and the bug tracking period.
[21:28] <ScottK> siretart: Perhaps you would be willing to bring a proposal to the next meeting on how we ought to be doing it.
[21:28] <siretart> persia: well, I may be biased here a bit, because I actively refuse to track such things in wiki.
[21:28] <ScottK> Personally, I think if people could just unubscribe from individual bugs we could use the transition bugs just fine.
[21:28] <ScottK> Perhaps our LP liaison could take that up with them.
[21:28] <siretart> ScottK: I'm not sure if I understand. The 'how' is rather obvious: fix the package
[21:28] <ScottK> How to track it.
[21:29] <siretart> hm
[21:29] <ScottK> The problem with the mass affects bug is that you can't get away from the bugmail if you are subscribed to a package that was ever effected.
[21:29] <persia> ScottK: In the absence of that feature, it can get annoying though.
[21:29] <siretart> yes, that's rather unsuited.
[21:29] <ScottK> If people could just unsub from inidividual bugs, then we could use it.
[21:29] <ScottK> persia: I agree.
[21:29] <siretart> we could use lp tags for tracking these bugs
[21:30] <persia> siretart: Is that one already on your list?
[21:30] <siretart> and have a dedicated 'transition maintainer' to enforce the correct usage of that tag
[21:30] <ScottK> siretart: I think not.  Filing a pile of inidividual bugs is painful.
[21:30] <persia> siretart: Having one bug per package for a transition?  That's just a lot of bug churn, and makes it hard to script a set of changes when one does 10-15 in a day.
[21:30] <ScottK> With one also affects bug, it's one mail to LP and it's done.
[21:30] <ScottK> Yes.
[21:31] <siretart> persia: that would be bug #204980
[21:32] <persia> Yes, precisely.
[21:32] <siretart> ScottK: you can script filing individual bugs unsing the malone email interface. I imagine reviving the lpbugs.py script
[21:32] <siretart> IIRC, we used individual bugs to track merges
[21:32] <siretart> I don't remember why we stopped doing that
[21:32] <persia> Some of us still do.
[21:33] <ScottK> siretart: That's another long discussion.
[21:34] <persia> And one that ought be on the agenda, rather than in AOB, as it's been a heated subject of discussion in previous MOTU Meetings.
[21:34] <ScottK> Yes.
[21:35] <ScottK> siretart: Did you have anything else on MOTU/LP liaison?
[21:35] <siretart> ScottK: no. it was supposed to be a short informational item
[21:35] <ScottK> OK.
[21:36] <ScottK> I have one other short informational item.  Anyone else?
[21:36]  * ScottK starts.
[21:37] <ScottK> I just wanted to mention that motu-sru is having a meeting on Monday to integrate the new members and baseline where we are.
[21:37]  * ScottK expects something to come out of that meeting to be discussed at the next MOTU meeting.
[21:37]  * ScottK finishes
[21:37] <persia> Do you seek external attendance at the meeting?
[21:37] <ScottK> persia: We haven't sought it, but it's certainly not private.
[21:37] <ScottK> Personally, I think it would be useful.
[21:38] <persia> ScottK: It's at 21:00, right?
[21:38] <ScottK> Yes.
[21:38]  * persia will so note in the minutes
[21:38] <ScottK> Anyone have anything else?
[21:38] <persia> Next meeting is the 28th, 04:00 UTC
[21:39] <ScottK> OK.
[21:39]  * ScottK moves that the meeting adjourn.
[21:39]  * persia seconds, wondering why the chair is making a motion
[21:39] <ScottK> Because it's a small meeting.
[21:40] <ScottK> Any objections?
[21:40] <ScottK> Meeting adjourned.
[21:40] <siretart> thanks for chairing, ScottK!
[21:40] <ScottK> No problem.
[21:42]  * siretart is pretty sad that we don't have a better way of determining the common will of the MOTU other than MOTU meetings
[21:42] <persia> siretart: Any suggestions?
[21:42] <ScottK> That would be another good topic for discussion.
[21:43] <siretart> persia: well, my suggestion would be to elect delegates that act on behalf of MOTUs
[21:43] <persia> siretart: Well, we have MOTU Leaders, who take responsibility for various areas.
[21:43] <ScottK> siretart: I think we are a small enough community we can act directly on most policy decisions.
[21:44] <persia> My feeling is that they ought be able to do things pretty much as they like, subject to oversight by MOTU Meeting.
[21:44] <persia> (with MC as backstop if MM is unable to take a decision)
[21:45] <persia> I'd hope any of our leaders would be leading in a direction others follow, or that someone would speak up.
[21:45] <ScottK> siretart: My suggestion would be stuff gets announced on MOTU ML before a meeting.  Discussed at the meeting where someone gets selected to chair the discussion.  Minutes get published and the issue 'chair' askes for feedback on the ML.
[21:45] <siretart> ScottK: I'm not sure if I agree. See, in this meeting exactly 3 motus showed up, and I don't think this meeting is that special
[21:45] <ScottK> Then on the ML, the chair judges the rough consensus of the MOTU and declares a result.
[21:45] <persia> It's the least-attended MOTU Meeting I've attended in the past year, but that's not special in a good way.
[21:45] <ScottK> If someone thinks the chair is wrong they can appeal to the MC.
[21:46] <ScottK> That way everything gets confirmed on the ML and everyone can have a voice.
[21:46] <persia> ScottK: I'm not sure if I like pushing everything to ML, just from a time perspective.  I rather like the relative speed with which decisions can be taken at MOTU Meetings.
[21:46] <siretart> my feeling is that the motu community lacks guidance. like in someone that proactively identifies problems and makes suggestions to solve them
[21:47] <siretart> I currently feel that we are doing PDSD
[21:47] <siretart> (panic driven software development)
[21:47] <persia> With the strong precedent of discussion at two consecutive meetings for contentious issues, I think everyone has a chance to attend, if they wish.
[21:47] <siretart> persia: you raise an intersting point. I have the feeling that the motu meetings continuesly fail to make decisions when they are needed
[21:47]  * persia thinks motu-release is the body that ought be proactively identifying the things to be done.
[21:48] <siretart> ScottK: do you agree here?
[21:48] <persia> siretart: What decisions do you feel are not being made?
[21:48]  * persia puts on the MC hat, to consider decisions that are otherwise not taken
[21:48] <ScottK> persia: It's hard to say.  As a volunteer entity it's hard to say how overall release decisions can be made.
[21:49] <ScottK> People have to want to work on stuff.
[21:49] <persia> ScottK: Maybe, although I had a lot of success with my Hardy QA goals email.
[21:49] <ScottK> Anyone know off the top of their head which RFC tells me how to make a DNS packet?
[21:49] <persia> Things like that could provide strong hints for those who "just want to help out".
[21:49] <siretart> persia: I remember quite some published meeting minutes saying 'not enough opinions could be found in the meeting, so it was defered to the next meeting'. With all sort of variants why the point has been deferred
[21:50] <persia> ScottK: Isn't it 1035?
[21:50] <persia> siretart: There's heaps of those, but my memory is that for most of them a decision was taken at the following meeting.
[21:51] <ScottK> persia: Yes.  Thanks.
[21:51] <siretart> persia: I think at this point we'd need to do some statistics
[21:52] <persia> siretart: Agreed.  I'll take that possibility to the MC, and if there are things being missed, one of us will bring them back to MOTU Meeting to ensure that a decision is taken.
[21:52] <persia> (of course if someone else wants to also do a MOTU Meeting minutes review to check our work, that would be appreciated)
[21:54] <siretart> persia: it may perfectly be that I'm totally wrong here. it is rather a general feeling I have when rethinking the work I've done on and in ubuntu the last few years
[21:55] <ScottK> I agree that that happens on contentious issues.
[21:55] <siretart> and my feeling is that we are becoming more and more a medium sized group of developer, with a very silent majority that generally is not asked and does not actively participate in making decisions
[21:56] <ScottK> There are never enough MOTU at any one meeting that they feel comfortable deciding for the others.
[21:56] <persia> siretart: Feelings are important.  Regardless of whether you are correct, it's worth doing the statistics and publishing the results.
[21:56] <ScottK> That's why I think asking for consensus on the ML can get past some of that.
[21:56] <siretart> one problem is that we don't even have means to ask the whole motu community on their opinions on certain matters
[21:56] <siretart> of course everyone is free to post to the mailing list, but that's not a proper vote
[21:56] <persia> On the other hand, I'm against pushing things to mailing lists: I really don't like mailing lists as a means of making decisions.
[21:57] <persia> I also don't like delegating to people without a means of group oversight.
[21:57] <siretart> persia: no, mailing lists suck at making decisions. however they are great for soliciting and collecting opinions
[21:57] <siretart> persia: I agree
[21:57] <persia> Yeah.  Let's add "Making decisions in MOTU" to the next meeting agenda.
[21:58] <siretart> persia: MC or MOTU Meeing?
[21:58] <persia> ScottK: Would you be willing to write up something about sending to the ML before the meeting, etc.
[21:58] <ScottK> persia: Yes.
[21:58] <ScottK> I'm unlikely to be at the next meeting however.
[21:58] <persia> siretart: MOTU Meeting.  I want to try to transition within the existing rules, rather than change because MC said so without discussion.
[21:59] <ScottK> Actually me proposing it and then not being here for the decisioncould be considered a feature.
[21:59] <siretart> persia: yes, we should at least try that. However I don't have high expectations in that to succeed
[21:59] <persia> ScottK: OK.  I'll try based on your rough description above then.  Please update once it hits the agenda.
[21:59] <ScottK> OK.
[22:00] <persia> siretart: Understood.  MC will take it if the next meeting can't decide, but I don't want to grant all such decisions to MC unless we really can't do it as MOTU.
[22:00] <ScottK> persia: It's the IETF consensus process in a nutshell.
[22:00]  * persia has another meeting starting, so will be distracted, but will try to check backscroll frequently
[22:01]  * siretart need to go afk as well
[22:03]  * ScottK too.
[22:04] <persia> Right then.  We'll call it done, and maybe discuss in #ubuntu-motu before the next meeting
[23:03] <HardDisk> how does one apply on the https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership/RegionalBoards/EMEA ?
[23:04] <RainCT> HardDisk: Add yourself on the wiki page and come to the next meeting
[23:05] <RainCT> (and of course prepare your wiki page, ask your "fan club" to come to the meeting and all that stuff)
[23:05] <HardDisk> ah edit itself, ok I got you.
[23:05] <HardDisk> :)
[23:06] <HardDisk> hopefully current members will be able to attend, my timezone is very different to them
[23:06] <HardDisk> as I am in Egypt and they're in the US/Canada
[23:06] <HardDisk> thanks btw.
[23:06] <RainCT> HardDisk: well, if they can't a testimonial on your wiki should do (although it's not that impresive :))
[23:06] <RainCT> your welcome
[23:06] <HardDisk> I understand.
[23:06] <HardDisk> I will try.
[23:07] <RainCT> good luck
[23:08] <persia> HardDisk: Note that you don't have to attend the meeting in your region, if another region is more convenient time-wise for you and your sponsors.
[23:08] <persia> The idea is to have meetings at different times of day, which roughly maps to location, but variance is fine.
[23:09] <HardDisk> okie dokie :)