=== asac_ is now known as asac === ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Current meeting: MOTU | Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 01 Jul 15:00 UTC: Server Team | 02 Jul 17:00 UTC: QA Team | 02 Jul 22:00 UTC: Platform Team | 03 Jul 13:00 UTC: Desktop Team | 04 Jul 16:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam [05:01] Is this the motu meeting? [05:03] JDCarroll: Why so it is. Thanks for the reminder. [05:04] This is my first one. I didn't know if they start on time or what. [05:05] JDCarroll: They usually do, although this one was poorly organised. Reviewing the minutes, it appears that this is my fault. [05:06] * ajmitch is around, but not really awake [05:06] Right. So, welcome to the MOTU Meeting. Who's here? [05:06] I am, but you kinda knew that. [05:07] * Hobbsee is, ish [05:08] * RAOF is. [05:08] * ScottK too. [05:08] So, let's get started then. [05:09] The agenda for the meeting is posted at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings [05:09] First up: ScottK [05:09] Crap. I've been tricked. [05:09] heh [05:10] Who all is here? [05:10] Respondees to attendance roll were JDCarroll, Hobbsee, RAOF, ajmitch, and ScottK [05:11] OK. So did all of you see my proposal on this (sent to the MOTU list)? [05:11] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-June/004060.html [05:12] Yes. This seems like a good idea in theory, but "rough consensus" seems a bit vague. Is it possible to define more precisely? [05:12] Not really. [05:13] It's not a specific number. [05:13] precisely because the baseline for rough consensus simply is a degenerate form of the current practice. [05:13] The idea is to keep working until you get something that most people are OK with. [05:13] crimsun_: I disagree with degenerate. I think it's better. [05:14] I think voting on everything is problematic. [05:14] I don't think you'd be worried about the worst case here; it seems the average case is better with rough consensus. [05:14] Rough consensus could also be described as 'almost everybody'. [05:15] Right. And we'll be using essentially an assumed-OK position (ie: not-OKness is determined by objections, not lack of OKness)? [05:16] Something like that. [05:17] I'm happy with that. I think that corresponds to the way motu@ is working. [05:18] I think it encourages taking initiative, but worry that it may delay decision in some cases. [05:19] legitimate worry to which I alluded. On the whole, it seems better than the current scheme. [05:20] It gives everyone a chance to get their view heard without limits due to timezones too. [05:21] Any more discussion? [05:22] wgrant pointed out possible bootstrapping issues of this proposal the day it was sent. [05:23] I can't speak for him directly, but I wonder if others have an opinion on that: given the current discussion of decision making processes, how should the decision to change the decision making process be taken? [05:23] The only way it can be taken is by using the existing process. [05:23] My thought was to vote and then mail the MOTU list and ask for objections. [05:23] Thus doing an abbreviated form of the new process. [05:23] Which would be the new process :) [05:24] I'd like to propose instead that rather than consider whether this is a good model forever and more, we decide whether we should use this model for the next two MOTU Meetings, with the ability to retain it permanently at one of those meetings if the process is found good. [05:25] How about revert to the old process if it's found to be bad? [05:25] Same idea, but different default. [05:26] I tend to be conservative, with default being current. Anyone else have a preference for one default over the other in terms of the decision we make today, or would prefer a different process to change the decision making process? [05:27] i would have thought that if there hadn't been much objection on the mailing list so far, the MC could make a decision that it was switched, based on the general consensus [05:28] Speaking personally, I'd much rather it be an MOTU decision than an MC decision. [05:28] Generally MC is the executer of policy, not the maker of it. [05:28] MC gets to step in to break deadlocks, but that's about it. [05:28] All power from the people!!! [05:28] or that you just go with the general consensus [05:28] Well, MC doesn't execute everything: more about handling applications and disputes. [05:29] persia: Yes, but if MOTU as a body asked MC to take on an additional duty, it would be in scope for them to do so. [05:29] ScottK: I suppose so, but we're off topic. [05:29] No one really objected, so I'd like to have a vote and move on. [05:29] either way, voting seems to be the old protocol, so we could just hold a vote, and bang, it's done, as it's already had it's talk on the ML. [05:29] * Hobbsee puts in a +1 [05:29] I don't really like votes: we've had lots of non-vote decisions in the meeting. [05:30] Instead I'll ask: are there any opposed to trialing the new process? [05:30] I'd like to just switch. [05:30] But a trial is better than nothing. [05:31] so as long as the rough consensus is present, then trial it? [05:31] Fine. [05:31] crimsun_: Roughly. We've had votes in MOTU Meetings, but often also used consensus amoung MOTU Meeting attendees as a decision criteria, which I've always preferred. [05:32] This is especially more interesting when there seems to be so little opposition. [05:32] which i suspect we've got both of, yes. [05:32] OK. Anything else about MOTU Decision Making process? [05:33] persia: apathy wins on the day [05:33] OK. Moving on: Does anyone have any other items they wish to raise at today's meeting? [05:34] What is the actual process, post-DIF for merges? [05:34] I'm personally in favour of either ignoring the "Freeze" as something needing exception or using the Hardy process. No decision has been forthcoming from the Release Manager. [05:35] That said, we ought get the rest of the merges done, and work on integration. [05:35] Yes. [05:36] * ajmitch always thought DIF was more of a guideline than a freeze [05:36] * ScottK suggests it doesn't mean anything other than autosync is turned off and some merges are now late. [05:36] that's pretty much what it's been in the past [05:36] * RAOF share's ScottK's impression. [05:36] Note that since we don't have a rule that the last uploader owns a merge, no one is actually responsible for being late. [05:36] Right. Does anyone feel constrained by DIF, or a need to constrain others? [05:37] No. [05:37] No. [05:37] Excellent then. Any other items? [05:38] I'm an aspiring MOTU and just wanted to say 'Hi' [05:38] 'Hi' [05:38] Hello JDCarroll [05:38] JDCarroll: Hi. [05:38] hello, have fun! [05:39] Welcome to a fairly typical MOTU meeting :) [05:39] Next up: The next MOTU Meeting will be 11th July 12:00 UTC. Could someone who remembers to send out announcements please volunteer to do so? [05:41] Right. I'll try again, but encourage anyone who notices the mail failing to be sent to do so, in case I forget again. [05:41] Thanks. [05:41] * ScottK hands persia cron. [05:41] Any volunteers to write up the minutes for today? [05:41] ;-) [05:43] ScottK: Would you, as your topic was the most discussed? [05:43] persia: Actually I think that makes me a poor candidate as I'm not neutral. [05:43] Plus a suck at meeting minutes. [05:43] a/I [05:44] persia: from what i've heard from the RM, the "freeze" is an incorrectly termed thing - people are supposed to think about if their changes are appropriate, but are to do that anyway. [05:44] ie, there is no change apart from teh autosync being off [05:44] (sorry, was afk for that bit) [05:44] Hobbsee: Right, there's been a fair bit of informal direction, just nothing clear. I'm hoping something gets written down in the RM procedure to avoid a repetition of the confusion for intrepid+1. [05:45] Hobbsee: And as a bonus, you get the minutes :) [05:45] Hobbsee: congratulations [05:45] oh, fudge. [05:45] well, that's a great way to ensure that the minutes won't get done :P [05:45] "Stuff was said, I think. Noone really objected" [05:45] * persia has supreme confidence in Hobbsee's get-it-done-ness [05:46] OK. Thanks everyone for coming to the MOTU Meeting. Remember to pre-announce your discussion items on the Mailing List for next week. [05:46] ScottK: Would you update https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings to have the right guidance to use this process? [05:47] Yes. Probably sometime this weekend. Feel free to ping me if it's not done on Monday. [05:48] ScottK: Thanks. === ianmcorvidae|alt is now known as ianmcorvidae === ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 01 Jul 15:00 UTC: Server Team | 02 Jul 17:00 UTC: QA Team | 02 Jul 22:00 UTC: Platform Team | 03 Jul 13:00 UTC: Desktop Team | 04 Jul 16:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam | 05 Jul 19:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam === greeneggsnospam is now known as jsgotangco === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach === vuntz_ is now known as vuntz === techno_freak is now known as parthan === parthan is now known as techno_freak === e-jat is now known as e-jat_ === e-jat_ is now known as e-jat === asac_ is now known as asac === riot_l1 is now known as riot_le === Rafik_ is now known as Rafik === asac_ is now known as asac === norsetto changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 27 June 20:00 UTC: Mentoring Reception | 01 Jul 15:00 UTC: Server Team | 02 Jul 17:00 UTC: QA Team | 02 Jul 22:00 UTC: Platform Team | 03 Jul 13:00 UTC: Desktop Team | 04 Jul 16:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam | 05 Jul 19:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam === ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 01 Jul 15:00 UTC: Server Team | 02 Jul 17:00 UTC: QA Team | 02 Jul 22:00 UTC: Platform Team | 03 Jul 13:00 UTC: Desktop Team | 04 Jul 16:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam | 05 Jul 19:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam === ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 27 Jun 20:00 UTC: MOTU Mentoring | 01 Jul 15:00 UTC: Server Team | 02 Jul 17:00 UTC: QA Team | 02 Jul 22:00 UTC: Platform Team | 03 Jul 13:00 UTC: Desktop Team | 04 Jul 16:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam === thekorn_ is now known as thekorn === leonel_ is now known as leonel === ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Current meeting: MOTU Mentoring | Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 01 Jul 15:00 UTC: Server Team | 02 Jul 17:00 UTC: QA Team | 02 Jul 22:00 UTC: Platform Team | 03 Jul 13:00 UTC: Desktop Team | 04 Jul 16:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam [21:03] porthose: ping [21:03] there I am [21:03] huats: pong [21:03] I am christophe [21:03] charlie [21:03] nice to meet you [21:03] you to looks like we are missing a few [21:04] still waiting for nxvl and norsetto [21:05] did you make contact with all the MOTU's? I managed to email everyone on the "status" list and have actually got two answers back [21:07] oh no [21:07] I haven't started yet [21:08] but I know most of them [21:08] it might help [21:08] I will contact them in the we [21:08] Stefano Forenza (tacone) and Hanno Stock (hefe_bia) have expressed that they are still very much interested [21:09] ok [21:09] great [21:11] I haven't understand which motus have you contacted ? [21:11] imbrandon (*) [21:11] slomo [21:11] raphink [21:11] seb128 (*) [21:11] ogra [21:11] mvo (*) [21:11] jr (*) [21:11] jcorbier [21:11] bluekuja (most probably he left the community) [21:11] jpatrick (*) [21:11] (which is the list of inactive motus cesare send) [21:12] or another list ? [21:12] Yea I think cesare wanted those motus contacted to see if the are still interested in mentoring [21:12] sure [21:12] but did you contact them [21:13] or is it the list I should contact ? [21:13] No I didn't I just worked on the status list [21:13] ok [21:16] holy $deity [21:16] my apologies, I had another meeting which lasted more than I thought [21:17] np take a breath and get organized [21:18] np, lets start [21:18] ok, so I guess you have seen my email, and started working on it already [21:18] norsetto: the meeting warrior [21:18] yep [21:18] I've seen huats is taking care of mentors and porthose of contributors [21:19] I could'nt contact the MOTUs so far [21:19] so far I have gotten 4 responses from the status list [21:19] but I will do by the we [21:19] huats: ok [21:19] huats: I think we really have to understand if they are willing to continue or not [21:20] norsetto: sure [21:20] I was planning to contact them by the WE [21:20] ... [21:20] * ogra would surely be willing, but like the other canonical employees on that list is swamped in work [21:20] it is clearly necessary [21:20] ogra: yeah, we all are [21:20] right [21:21] thanks ogra [21:21] ogra: I don't think mentoring is such an heavy activity though, its more beng there if it is needed [21:22] ogra: that also depends very much on the mentee, I think its a good idea to clarify from the very beginning how one wants to do it [21:22] norsetto, well, its also handlig , mail traffic (i get between 3-600 mails/day) and am currntly in my 12th working hour for today [21:23] it just adds up to the usual stuff and is the first thing i let fall over for higher prio things like fixing SRU bugs for example ... [21:24] i know thats evil, but thats how it is ... doent really make me feel comfortable [21:24] *doesnt [21:25] ogra: anyhow, what little we can do is anyhow appreciated, we really need to get more contributors, and more active contributors, exactly for these very reasons [21:25] right, thats why i didnt ask to be removed from that list, i'm generally willing to help out [21:26] ogra: I'm glad we can have this talk, and I'm even more glad to know that I can count on you :-) [21:27] porthose: you were mentioning you got feedback from 4 contributors already? [21:27] Yea let me dig up there names [21:28] bobby, lexen, hannon and tacone have said that they are still interested [21:30] do you know if they have been active? I have seen tacone but not the others [21:30] tacone=stefano [21:31] Hanno is in school and will not be avaiable for about 3 weed untill finals are over [21:31] *weeks [21:31] The other did not give any info [21:32] *others [21:32] ok, now do you think you can take care of coupling them with available mentors? [21:33] sure I'll give it a try [21:33] in general, try to avoid coupling mentors and mentee of the same mother tongue, we want to help integration in the international community [21:34] ok [21:34] it would also be advisable to have them as close as possible in the same time zone, so that they can coordinate easily on IRC [21:34] porthose: is there any mentee²available ? [21:35] lastly, see if they have any particular interest, and try to couple them with mentors with the same interests [21:35] how can I find out what the mentors interests are? [21:35] its in the reception list we have on bzr [21:36] for instance ogra prefer edubuntu people ;-) [21:36] got a link? [21:36] its in my email, let me fetch it again [21:36] I can look it up [21:37] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~motu-mentoring-reception/reception-data/main/annotate/norsetto%40ubuntu.com-20080626215124-121uzr6jn072gnil?file_id=reception.csv-20070522150041-lk3vm33dnskrzs2h-1 [21:38] you can find it in your code section, in LP [21:38] Ok cool [21:38] right now there is no MOTU I should contact online (or not responding on ping) [21:38] * porthose looks [21:38] porthose: you should also be able to upload, since you are in the team [21:39] porthose: you can also check the LP and wiki pages of the mentors and mentee to get an idea [21:39] good point didn't think about that [21:40] once you have suitable couples, just ask the mentor what he thinks about the mentee, give him all the info you have, if he agrees, just send an email to both and upload the change [21:41] also, pls. tell them to get you in the loop, and that you are available to help them to sort out things if need be [21:41] porthose: if you want, you can ask huats and nxvl if they are willing to help you out, so that you can share the load [21:42] norsetto: is there an email address for the mentor list ? [21:42] since it would be way better to ask people to write there [21:42] huats: for the ubuntu-motu-mentor mailing list? [21:42] (since it will help all of us to share the received emails) [21:42] norsetto: I mean the reception team [21:43] us :) [21:43] ah, not, what we did in the past was to CC other members of the team, and make sure that they are in CC to received answers (or copy them ourselves) [21:43] ok [21:44] makes sense to me [21:44] we keep the master record in bzr, so that we are all in sync [21:44] norsetto: sure for the master in bzr [21:44] what we don't have is a central record of all contributors that are asking for a mentor, thats mainly for privacy reasons [21:45] so far this was not a problem because the reception was mainly me, we have to see if this can become a problem, and eventually find ways to solve it [21:46] ok [21:46] ok, any questions so far? [21:46] an mail list non archived could be a good way to adress that [21:47] every wanabee mentee send a mail to that list [21:47] and we all receive it... [21:47] huats: good idea, where we are the only subscribers, do you think you could organise that? [21:48] I can make one on my own mail server [21:48] but I think it should be doable in LP [21:48] it might be a good idea to ask any LP administrator [21:48] :) [21:48] like mrevell [21:48] huats: yes, we should use, if possible, the same system as the other ubuntu m.l. [21:48] norsetto: I think it is needed [21:49] how can you tell if there are mentors available for mentee's [21:49] porthose: from the reception list on bzr [21:50] huats: ok, unless somebody oibjects I think you can be the administrator of the mentoring-reception m.l., once we have it we should make sure that wiki pages are updated with that info [21:50] ok [21:51] huats: and also the LP mentoring pages [21:51] but you could have been it too (privilege of the age and the experience) [21:51] which brings me to the final issue, we should really update our wiki pages [21:51] sure [21:52] how do you guys see them? [21:52] porthose: did I answer your question? [21:52] I thought they were pretty informative [21:52] yea [21:53] porthose: any problem you think we should correct? missing info? [21:53] so if I am reading this correctly there are several mentors available for mentee's [21:53] porthose: right now yes, for the first time ever!!! [21:54] will have to get my work flow down before I can figure out if there is any info missing [21:56] once we update the list with the latest info from huats, we should even be in a better state, at soime point in time he had like 5 request per month and no mentor available [21:57] ok [21:57] I will contact mrevell on monday [21:57] and the MOTUs I should contact [21:57] I'll let you all know as soon it is done [21:58] huats: ok, also, once we have some info about the missing contributors, please update the reception list on bzr [21:58] huats: sorry, I meant mentors, not contributors [21:59] norsetto: sure [21:59] :) [21:59] I understood [21:59] I will [21:59] ok, I think we covered all the topics I wanted to cover [22:00] please, let me know if you need any help, I'm more than available to help you in any way I can [22:00] I also think we should have this kind of discussion once in a while, what do you think? [22:00] yes [22:01] I would say once a month, or do you think we should have it more often? [22:01] sounds good to me [22:02] huats? [22:02] +1 [22:02] :) [22:02] ok, I will recap this and send an email to all of you for the record [22:03] great [22:03] cool [22:03] any other question? [22:03] well looks like it's time to get to work hehe :) [22:04] okki dokki then, thanks guys, its GREAT to have you onboard :-) [22:04] glad to help [22:04] thanks for having done such a good job norsetto [22:23] ok [22:23] I have to leave [22:23] see you soon all === ubottu changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | 01 Jul 15:00 UTC: Server Team | 02 Jul 17:00 UTC: QA Team | 02 Jul 22:00 UTC: Platform Team | 03 Jul 13:00 UTC: Desktop Team | 04 Jul 16:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam | 05 Jul 19:00 UTC: How to run a Bug Jam