[08:27] <jussi01> !test > me
[20:59] <sistpoty> hi folks
[21:00]  * persia waves
[21:01] <sistpoty> ok, let's get started, shall we?
[21:02] <persia> Who wants to chair today?
[21:02] <cody-somerville> Hi folks
[21:03] <sistpoty> persia: if noone volunteers, I'd go for it
[21:03]  * cody-somerville voluntells sistpoty :)
[21:03] <persia> OK.  Who does minutes?
[21:03] <cody-somerville> I suppose I could
[21:03] <sistpoty> #startmeeting
[21:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 15:06. The chair is sistpoty.
[21:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[21:03] <persia> I'll do announcements then.
[21:04] <sistpoty> action cody-somerville to do minutes
[21:04] <sistpoty> #action cody-somerville to do minutes
[21:04] <sistpoty> arg...
[21:04] <sistpoty> [action] cody-somerville to do minutes
[21:04] <MootBot> ACTION received:  cody-somerville to do minutes
[21:04] <sistpoty> heh
[21:04] <sistpoty> [action] persia to do announcements
[21:04] <MootBot> ACTION received:  persia to do announcements
[21:04] <sistpoty> so welcome everyone to the motu meeting :)
[21:05] <sistpoty> looking at the agenda, it's pretty much empty. so anyone with a point right now?
[21:05] <norsetto> .
[21:05] <persia> Not that kind :)
[21:05] <sistpoty> norsetto: should I put the "." as an idea? :P
[21:05]  * norsetto take the point back
[21:05] <cody-somerville> :]
[21:06]  * cody-somerville raises his hand.
[21:06] <sistpoty> ok, how about the motu key teams thingy? seems like the discussion has stalled
[21:06]  * cody-somerville lowers his hand.
[21:06] <sistpoty> anyone a good idea how to unstall it?
[21:06] <sistpoty> or how to proceed?
[21:07] <cody-somerville> sistpoty, I think we need to have a concrete proposal.
[21:07] <cody-somerville> And then tell everyone "vote on it or be unhappy forever more"
[21:07] <sistpoty> *nod*
[21:07] <sistpoty> cody-somerville: would you like to take this into your hands?
[21:08] <cody-somerville> Well, not exactly. I think I've really carried this conversation thus far and I don't want to my idea of how things to be to be adopted just because I'm the only one interested enough
[21:08] <cody-somerville> *to have
[21:09] <sistpoty> ok, "." taken ;)
[21:09] <sistpoty> anyone else who'd like to volunteer?
[21:09] <persia> cody-somerville: It doesn't have to be your idea.
[21:09] <persia> We just need a proposal to move forward.  Currently, we don't have anything on which to debate.
[21:09] <cody-somerville> I think we do
[21:09] <cody-somerville> I divided it up,
[21:09] <sistpoty> persia: if we wouldn't, we'd have consensus already and could move on, couldn't we?`
[21:10] <cody-somerville> One person voiced that they didn't feel persia's idea would work for us
[21:10] <cody-somerville> but no one else stepped up to say anything more
[21:11] <persia> Right.  I phrased that badly.
[21:11] <sistpoty> well, I also think that this idea doesn't work too well (for various reasons), but iirc noone really was in favor of that idea... correct?
[21:11] <persia> There are issues outstanding.  There is contention.  I just have mostly seen different viewpoints, rather than anything on which we could agree or disagree.
[21:12] <sistpoty> well, we could e.g. come to a vote about the voting system used
[21:12] <persia> Certainly.
[21:12] <sistpoty> (though I still don't know about the subtle differences to be honest *g*)
[21:12] <persia> My feeling was more that a change in voting system wouldn't address the perceived issue: specifically that there are questions about the teams.
[21:13] <norsetto> seems to me that the voting system should be the least of our worries
[21:13] <sistpoty> persia: can you elaborate on these?
[21:13] <sistpoty> norsetto: but iirc it got the most attention ;)
[21:13] <norsetto> sistpoty: perhpas because people feel more confortable to talk about "technical"issues instead of "political" ones :-)
[21:14] <persia> sistpoty: My impression was that there was dissatisfaction with the composition and activity of the teams.
[21:14] <sistpoty> persia: hm... I seem to have failed to see this, any hints why you come to this conclusion?
[21:15] <sistpoty> or let's better phrase, anything in particular people are worried about?
[21:15] <sistpoty> hey LaserJock
[21:16] <LaserJock> hi!
[21:16] <LaserJock> is there a MOTU Meeting?
[21:16] <NCommander> hola Laney
[21:16] <NCommander> er LaserJock
[21:16] <nhandler> Yes LaserJock
[21:16] <persia> sistpoty: That was the impression I had from the initial mails on the subject.  Since then there's been discussion of voting methods.  If it's only about voting methods, maybe I misunderstood.
[21:16] <sistpoty> LaserJock: yep, you came right into it, we're just discussing motu key teams membership policy (and how to unstall it)
[21:17] <sistpoty> persia: imo there was dissatisfaction that there was no clear policy, but I may be wrong (and biased due to being on a key team as well)
[21:17] <LaserJock> sistpoty: ah thanks, I've been thinking a tad about that
[21:17] <sistpoty> LaserJock: maybe you have a good idea how to unstall the discussion and how to proceed?
[21:17] <LaserJock> sistpoty: sure
[21:17] <LaserJock> ;-)
[21:18] <sistpoty> then go ahead ;)
[21:18] <NCommander> sistpoty, what stalled the discussion in the first place?
[21:19] <LaserJock> don't vote unless you need to, communicate as often as possible, and favor working teams over beuracratically-laden hirearchies
[21:19] <sistpoty> NCommander: not too sure, I'd say that noone really felt responsible to lead the discussion into reaching a consensus, but YMMV
[21:19] <NCommander> sistpoty, well, what specifically is the issue then? (I'm sorry for arriving late)
[21:20] <sistpoty> NCommander: membership policy in motu key teams (motu-sru, motu-release)... (/me looks for the initial thread)
[21:20] <LaserJock> I think the voting method discussion, while interesting and useful, is really distracting from the intial goal
[21:20] <NCommander> I assume this was brought up due to the fact we just lost two motu-sru's?
[21:20] <sistpoty> NCommander: yep... it started with this: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-May/003919.html
[21:21] <NCommander> Well, I dunno what the existing policy is, but I'd recommend voting with just a signed email to a publically available list
[21:21] <sistpoty> LaserJock: *nod*
[21:22] <NCommander> What was decided thus far?
[21:22] <sistpoty> well, as written prior, we imho need someone to take response for the discussion and care to reach the initial goal... however would anyone volunteer?
[21:22] <NCommander> Ok
[21:22]  * NCommander steps up
[21:23] <NCommander> Lets simply go right down the list, and start with motu-sru
[21:23] <NCommander> Beyond being an MOTU, are there any specific requirements you MUST have to hold this position?
[21:23] <LaserJock> one of the key sticking points so far has been whether team membership requires a MOTU-wide refurendum or not
[21:23] <LaserJock> i.e. can we just take people who offer or do we need to vote every time a member is added
[21:24] <NCommander> I think it can be take people who offer UNLESS there is a reason to cap the number of available motu-sru seats
[21:24] <NCommander> Any arguements for or against?
[21:24] <sistpoty> NCommander: cody-somerville posted a pretty good summary of the discussion on ubuntu-motu, but I can't find the link right now
[21:24] <LaserJock> NCommander: there are good arguments for both :-)
[21:24] <persia> Well, when TB asked for the creation of MOTU SRU, it was intended to be a core group that had a high level of technical expertise for reviewing the impact of patches.
[21:24] <NCommander> If its already been discussed, maybe its time for a vote.
[21:25] <LaserJock> NCommander: is a vote needed?
[21:25] <NCommander> On deciding if motu-sru should be open to all, or capped to specific number that you have to be elected to
[21:25] <sistpoty> also the question is what exactly to vote upon? voting policy is one point that comes to my mind
[21:26] <persia> sistpoty: "voting policy" meaning to take a vote on policy, or to policy on how votes are taken?
[21:26] <NCommander> sistpoty, do I dare ask the current voting policy?
[21:26] <sistpoty> persia: what voting system should be used
[21:26] <LaserJock> do we need a vote on how to take a vote on voting on policy? :-)
[21:26] <NCommander> rofl
[21:26] <sistpoty> NCommander: there is no current policy, that's what started it all
[21:26] <NCommander> May I purpose then a voting system which is simple, clear, and accountable?
[21:27] <persia> LaserJock: If we are to adopt any given system, it only seems appropriate to select that system using that system as demonstration of how well the system works.
[21:27] <sistpoty> LaserJock: what other points do you see worth to discuss, that have been raised on the mailing list already?
[21:27]  * NCommander personally would recommend setting up devotee, and using MOTU/core-dev key rings for votes
[21:27] <sistpoty> persia: argh... you create bootstrapping problems :P
[21:27] <LaserJock> well, I personally would like to back the discussion up
[21:27] <persia> sistpoty: Well, perhaps, but then I've never been a fan of voting.
[21:27]  * NCommander nominates the Debian devotee system
[21:28] <LaserJock> I think perhaps the issues are more fundamental and we're gonna get stalled each time
[21:28] <NCommander> LaserJock, well, then someone needs to step up, and decide the matter
[21:28] <LaserJock> I'm fairly convinced that we should only be voting in rare cases
[21:28] <NCommander> I agree with LaserJock on this one
[21:29] <NCommander> I figure though if we keep getting stalled, then forcing a vote to get things moving probably the best option
[21:29] <LaserJock> *how* we vote is not so much the issue for me as *when* we vote
[21:29] <cody-somerville> That adds in a whole heck load of complexity.
[21:29] <persia> LaserJock: Can you describe "the issue"?  I'm also not feeling that the manner in which we vote is the core problem, but I'm not sure how to articluate it.
[21:29] <NCommander> LaserJock, when someone calls, and its seconded
[21:29] <LaserJock> well, it goes back to what I said earlier
[21:30] <sistpoty> NCommander: ah, found the summary FYI: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2008-July/004227.html
[21:30] <LaserJock> the question seems to me to be how we hold teams to be validated
[21:31] <LaserJock> do we *have* to vote on members for them to be valid?
[21:31] <NCommander> shit, someone just totalled my car
[21:31] <NCommander> Bbl
[21:31] <LaserJock> I think in the past ScottK has indicated that he believes they do
[21:32] <cody-somerville> I think voting is the simplest way to do that
[21:32] <LaserJock> so it seems to me that we need to figure out more clearly what our view of teams really is
[21:32] <sistpoty> LaserJock: given the last motu-sru probs, I think the focus should be to have working teams in the first place (but OTOH I got flamed quite hard for stating that voting is not necessary back then *g*)
[21:32] <persia> I think the simplest way is to just use the any-MOTU-can-veto model.
[21:33] <LaserJock> persia: I think that kind of hits at the heart of the matter
[21:33] <geser> persons for key positions (like ~motu-sru or ~motu-release) should somehow be "confirmed" by MOTU
[21:33]  * cody-somerville nods with geser.
[21:33] <cody-somerville> We have a hard enough time getting people to voice issues with approving new motus
[21:33] <LaserJock> do we say "you can only do what the MOTU tell you" or "you just can't do what the MOTU tell you you cant" :-)
[21:33] <sistpoty> persia: sounds like a plan... maybe combined with: "if veto then vote"
[21:33] <cody-somerville> How are we going to get people to "veto"
[21:34] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: "if there aren't any objections within 2 days I'm moving forward"
[21:34] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: if somebody has a problem they'll rais it
[21:34] <cody-somerville> LaserJock, but people won't do it
[21:34] <LaserJock> if they care they will
[21:34] <persia> sistpoty: Unless there's strong discussion to override a veto, or no other candidate, I'd rather not have someone voted who would have been rejected by any-MOTU-can-veto.
[21:34] <cody-somerville> and then we'll have silently grudging
[21:34] <cody-somerville> LaserJock, no, they won't
[21:34] <cody-somerville> We see that already
[21:34] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: why not?
[21:34] <cody-somerville> LaserJock, Because people don't like to cause drama or speak their mind
[21:34] <persia> Maybe that's the problem.  Why don't people complain in public?
[21:35] <cody-somerville> people don't complain like they used to
[21:35] <geser> if there is no veto does that mean that everybody is happy with the decision or just that nobody cared?
[21:35] <cody-somerville> we can't trust people to voice their real opinion anymore
[21:35] <cody-somerville> geser, the later
[21:35] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: probably because they feel like they'll just be out voted
[21:35] <LaserJock> :-)
[21:35] <cody-somerville> *latter
[21:35] <persia> geser: I'd like to believe that everybody is happy.  If nobody cares, the voting system really doesn't matter.
[21:35] <cody-somerville> LaserJock, we don't use the voting model now
[21:35] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: yes we do
[21:36] <LaserJock> for quite a few things
[21:36] <LaserJock> but it should be even more accentuated if a veto actually meant something
[21:36] <sistpoty> geser: either way, we need functional teams
[21:36] <persia> Let's focus on functional teams.
[21:36] <LaserJock> +1
[21:36] <persia> Without that, the rest doesn't matter.
[21:36]  * cody-somerville has to run.
[21:36] <persia> What do we need for functional teams?
[21:37] <norsetto> persia: I think the possibility to remove people that do not perform is essential
[21:37] <cody-somerville> Before I go, I'd like to note that none of the times these meetings occur are good for me.
[21:37]  * cody-somerville waves.
[21:37] <persia> norsetto: We have the mechanism to hear complaints now.  Could we just use that?
[21:37] <sistpoty> well, speaking as a member of motu-release, I guess we need a policy to confirm (or reject) current members... currently we have an unclear status, which is hindering to move on imho
[21:38] <sistpoty> cya cody-somerville
[21:38] <norsetto> persia: we could, it will be a good step in the right direction anyway
[21:38] <geser> cody-somerville: what meeting times do you prefer?
[21:38] <cody-somerville> geser, an hour later would be good
[21:38]  * cody-somerville thinks this topic will be a good UDS session :P
[21:39] <persia> cody-somerville: That's December though :(
[21:39] <sistpoty> norsetto: I think it's hard to find out if s.o. doesn't perform... or at least takes some guts (the motu-release post complaining about team colleagues wasn't one I did from the bottom of my heart)
[21:39]  * norsetto notes we never discuss MOTU stuff at UDS
[21:39] <cody-somerville> norsetto, we did quite a bit at the last one
[21:39] <norsetto> cody-somerville: off doors
[21:39] <geser> persia: I prefer to know when nobody cares instead of assuming everybody is happy
[21:40] <persia> Let's defer MOTU stuff at UDS for now: we can organise some sessions later, but it's well off topic for team issues.
[21:40] <LaserJock> ok, so can we look more at fundamentals?
[21:40] <sistpoty> LaserJock: +
[21:40] <sistpoty> 1
[21:40] <LaserJock> the way I look at it
[21:40] <cody-somerville> LaserJock, It seems to me we're always going back to "fundamental"? Why aren't we ever clearing that up?
[21:40] <LaserJock> if people are focused on doing the work of the team
[21:40] <persia> geser: I can understand that.  On the other hand, I've not seen any indication of anything else for a while, and would rather focus on working teams than everyone.
[21:40] <LaserJock> then we shouldn't get in the way
[21:41] <LaserJock> isn't it pretty much a fundamental MOTU philosophy to let people do as they please as long as they aren't violating some policy?
[21:41] <LaserJock> so if a person becomes keenly interested in SRUs
[21:41] <persia> Well, there's also the idea that we try to respect others goals and not interfere, but basically.
[21:41] <LaserJock> unless there is some obvious objection why should we get in their way?
[21:42]  * cody-somerville thinks maybe we need a fundamental MOTU philosophy wiki page or something.
[21:42] <LaserJock> if it's on a wiki page I'd venture to say it's no long fundamental ;-)
[21:42] <persia> TB has asked for a team of 5-7 members, so we ought limit the size to around that much.  As long as we don't have too many interested parties, we ought be fine.
[21:42] <LaserJock> or rather "if it  *has* to be on a wiki page"
[21:43] <cody-somerville> LaserJock, or maybe the barrier to MOTU has become too low
[21:43] <LaserJock> hmm, not sure on that one
[21:43] <LaserJock> again, if somebody I didn't think should be in MOTU SRU and I could back it up, I think I should be able to veto
[21:44] <persia> cody-somerville: There are others who complain the barrier is higher than it has ever been.
[21:44] <LaserJock> to me, the question with the leadership teams is not primarily about barriers, but about interests and activities
[21:45] <cody-somerville> IMHO, I think any MOTU should be qualified to fill the roles of those teams
[21:45] <LaserJock> we've had several "leadership teams" composed of very skilled people but the team basically didn't do anything
[21:45] <cody-somerville> And it is just a matter of selecting the highest preferred subset
[21:45] <persia> cody-somerville: TB has asked for MOTU to organise those best at those tasks to perform review.
[21:45] <sistpoty> persia: just OOI, when did TB do all that?
[21:46]  * cody-somerville nods.
[21:46] <sistpoty> (as in any links to logs/mails/discussions)? I recall there was a topic set once, but not the outcome
[21:46] <LaserJock> I just don't think all the voting and "selecting" get's us much of anywhere
[21:46] <persia> sistpoty: For MOTU SRU, it was around the end of gutsy / beginning of hardy I think.
[21:47] <persia> For MOTU Release, it was much earlier (I forget when).  Actually, MOTU Release may not be a TB mandate, but MOTU SRU was created specifically after a request by pitti to the TB.
[21:47] <sistpoty> ah, good to know
[21:47]  * persia doesn't have a working mouse right now, and hopes someone else can hunt the logs
[21:49] <sistpoty> ok, we've discussed this for quite a while now, let's try to come to some conclusions, shall we?
[21:49] <persia> For MOTU Release (then MOTU FFe or something) it might have been for Dapper?
[21:50]  * NCommander is back
[21:50] <cody-somerville> I'm in favour of confirmation via vote.
[21:50] <LaserJock> 1 of my conclusions is to unstall we need to get away from the voting method discussion
[21:50] <sistpoty> persia: not too sure, I recall that it was there for a very long time, but not when it was introduced ;)
[21:50]  * persia seconds LaserJock
[21:50]  * sistpoty agrees
[21:51] <cody-somerville> I'm in favour of confirmation via vote.... and I veto anyone who opposes :P
[21:51] <LaserJock> lol
[21:51] <persia> I really like the idea of accepting interested parties unless 1) there is disagreement or 2) the team is overfull (in which case we vote for who is the best)
[21:51] <LaserJock> I'm in favor of a simple guideline about how people can object to tings
[21:51] <LaserJock> *things
[21:52] <LaserJock> +1 to persia
[21:52] <sistpoty> ok, let me try to put this into actions... how about:
[21:52] <NCommander> +1 persia
[21:52] <cody-somerville> Lets just vote and there is no question about if there is disagrement or not
[21:52] <cody-somerville> The STV requires a quota to be met
[21:52] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: voting sucks, lets not do it unless we have to :-)
[21:53] <cody-somerville> LaserJock, We have to in this case
[21:53] <sistpoty> 1st: "agreed" that we should get away from the voting discussion (to focus on the real issue instead)
[21:53] <cody-somerville> We do it for CC and TB
[21:53] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: why?
[21:53] <cody-somerville> LaserJock, why not? :P
[21:53] <LaserJock> no, you are affirming we have to, it is your case to make
[21:53] <cody-somerville> Isn't the proof of burden on the opposition?
[21:53] <LaserJock> yes
[21:54] <LaserJock> and you are opposing doing nothing (the default)
[21:54] <cody-somerville> *burden of proof
[21:54] <cody-somerville> We already vote
[21:54] <cody-somerville> so not voting is the opposition, no?
[21:54] <sistpoty> 2nd: "action" persia to write proposal to motu list that interested parties should get accepted until disagreement or team is overfull
[21:54] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: no, we have no system currently
[21:54] <LaserJock> so I don't think voting is the default
[21:54] <persia> sistpoty: accepted
[21:55] <persia> cody-somerville: CC and TB and MC must be voted by their creation.  The other teams don't currently have policy.
[21:55] <LaserJock> do we have a "how to object" document anywhere?
[21:55] <sistpoty> 3rd: "action" LaserJock and cody-somerville to continue the discussion on the motu-list? *g*
[21:55] <LaserJock> perhaps that might be an interesting thing to have written up, in general
[21:55] <persia> LaserJock: We only have the document of how to complain about someone repeatedly behaving inappropriately.  Something with guidance for lighter cases would be good.
[21:56] <cody-somerville> I don't like this system.
[21:56] <persia> cody-somerville: What don't you like about it?
[21:56] <sistpoty> (where 3rd would unstall the discussion I hope)
[21:56] <cody-somerville> I rather speak up to show support then speak up to show opposition.
[21:56] <geser> cody-somerville: you can object :)
[21:56] <cody-somerville> I rather speak up to show support then speak up to show opposition.
[21:56] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: well, that becomes kinda sticky
[21:56] <persia> cody-somerville: If you only say things in support, shall we assume you object the rest of the time?
[21:57] <persia> Is this true for others?  Need we get all of us to commit to each action?
[21:57] <sistpoty> and maybe 4th: "action" that geser will play shephard and make sure the discussion stays on pace
[21:57]  * persia notes that no election in Ubuntu since Dapper has ever included a majority of those eligible voting
[21:58] <sistpoty> no, seriously everyone... the discussion right here is taking almost an hour, with different opinions voiced while nothing happened on the ml for quite some time.
[21:58] <sistpoty> that makes me a little bit sad actually
[21:58] <LaserJock> I think it's fundamentally more in line with Ubuntu/MOTU philosophy to let people have freedom to do what they want as long as there aren't objections
[21:58] <sistpoty> seems like s.th. is going fundamentally wrong outside of motu-key teams
[21:59] <norsetto> persia: thats a bit of an understatement
[21:59] <LaserJock> as oppposed to only letting people to do what is explicitly allowed
[21:59] <cody-somerville> Okay, lets get rid of -sru and -release
[21:59] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: why?
[22:00] <cody-somerville> People obviously don't care enough to have it.
[22:00] <geser> sistpoty: the problem is how to get an opinion from the majority of MOTU
[22:00] <cody-somerville> Lets just go pure-motu style and let everyone be in -sru and -release
[22:00] <persia> cody-somerville: We at least can't get rid of -sru.  It's mandated by TB.  I suspect the same is true of -release, but don't remember precisely.
[22:00] <sistpoty> geser: kind of, I'd even say the problem is that everyone wants to state her/his opinion but doesn't care too much in the end
[22:00] <cody-somerville> persia, I
[22:00]  * NCommander feels that has bad idea written all over it
[22:00] <LaserJock> cody-somerville: that seems a bit like a pendulum swing :-)
[22:00] <NCommander> It's a bootstrapping problem because this is the first serious issue that can't be cleaner resolved
[22:01] <persia> sistpoty: That seems like a good summation.  Any ideas as to how to address it?
[22:01] <NCommander> persia, I think we need to boil everything down to the basic choices, and then open voting up to every MOTU
[22:02] <sistpoty> persia: actually my action points weren't all kidding... if s.o. takes over the issue on the mailing list and really cares that an outcome will be reached, I think we'll come to a conclusion
[22:03] <sistpoty> it's just a bit to force people into stating their opinions, take on what there are different opinions and have some means (that's where a poll served quite well in the past) about these last bit of differences
[22:03] <persia> sistpoty: I think you're right, and given the time the other issue can be for another meeting.  I still think both the key teams issue and the who cares issue are worth addressing somehow.
[22:04] <sistpoty> ok, so who'd like to take over final responsibility over the motu-key team issue?`
[22:04] <LaserJock> well, is there really a separate issue?
[22:04] <LaserJock> I personally don't see one
[22:04] <NCommander> sistpoty, what does that entail specifically?
[22:04] <sistpoty> to make it more rewarding, I'd say he/she should get all the duties of a shephard and is able to call for a vote if needed
[22:05] <sistpoty> NCommander: it boils down to reading the summary from cody-somerville, see the follow up posts, look at what was discussed today, summarize it again call for other opinions and as soon as no objection or no agreemant can be reached to take action
[22:05] <sistpoty> so not too much of an issue :P
[22:06]  * NCommander steps forward if a non-MOTU is allowed to do so
[22:06] <LaserJock> I'd say we can call the motu-key team thing as a non-issue
[22:06] <persia> LaserJock: I disagree.
[22:06] <LaserJock> and move on to better things
[22:06] <persia> There seems sufficient interest in discussion that we ought resolve it.
[22:06] <LaserJock> persia: why? we have current teams, we don't need new members?
[22:06] <persia> LaserJock: Because it's an open item that should be closed.
[22:06] <LaserJock> the fundamental issue makes sense
[22:06] <sistpoty> NCommander: sure, maybe that would even help, since you're outside of motu and hence will server as someone unbiased?
[22:07] <LaserJock> but I don't see anything specific to motu-key teams
[22:07] <persia> LaserJock: Your recommendation which I'll write up based on interested parties.
[22:07] <LaserJock> so I think we're going around talking about the wrong thigns
[22:07] <geser> LaserJock: do you want to have this discussion when new members are needed again? I don't believe we have the time then to discuss first how new members are selected.
[22:07]  * NCommander pulls out a giant gong
[22:07]  * persia agrees with geser
[22:08] <LaserJock> geser: that's not what I'm saying!
[22:08] <LaserJock> I'm saying that if we take care of the root problem, then the key-team issue fixes itself
[22:08] <LaserJock> if we can figure out how to deal with decisions then the key-team thing is a non-issue
[22:08] <sistpoty> LaserJock: actually, what geser wrote is why I bring it up now: the motu-release discussion I started stalled, and I'd like to have a clear policy for membership rather sooner than later
[22:08] <LaserJock> sure
[22:09] <persia> LaserJock: Let's not stop working on this just because there are other things as well.
[22:09] <geser> LaserJock: then I misunderstood you
[22:09] <LaserJock> but key-teams is *not* the problem
[22:09] <LaserJock> our inability to make decisions *is* the problem
[22:09] <persia> LaserJock: Even if just a symptom, having some guidelines will reduce confusion in the future.
[22:09] <sistpoty> LaserJock: that's why I'm forcing you to come to s.th. right now... timer ticking :P
[22:10] <LaserJock> persia: I'm just worried about making decisions too quickly about regarding key-teams that we have to redo later
[22:10] <LaserJock> but whatever, if we can come up with something soon I'm all for it
[22:10] <LaserJock> I'll take something over nothing ;-)
[22:10] <persia> LaserJock: While I see your point, I also believe that taking a decision on this will be a step towards taking other decisions.
[22:10] <sistpoty> LaserJock: how about you write your conclusions to the motu mailing list (remember, motu-meeting doesn't make decisions any longer, otherwise I might have called for a vote already :P)
[22:11] <sistpoty> (LaserJock: and I'm quite happy to follow up if you do ;))
[22:11]  * persia misses the old efficient process
[22:11] <NCommander> sistpoty, is there a specific reason we can't simply have voting in the meeting?
[22:11]  * LaserJock misses the older more efficient process ;-)
[22:11] <sistpoty> heh, persia, seems like the old process did include votes :P
[22:12] <sistpoty> NCommander: we're trying out the new process atm.
[22:12] <LaserJock> ok, so let's wrap up with action points
[22:12]  * NCommander comes back in a week
[22:12] <sistpoty> ok, now I forgot my old points... let's start with
[22:12] <persia> sistpoty: Yes, but of the quick uncomplicated sort :)
[22:12] <LaserJock> NCommander: are you going to shepard our key-teams discussion?
[22:12] <sistpoty> [action]
[22:13] <MootBot> ACTION received:
[22:13] <NCommander> I'll do it
[22:13] <sistpoty> heh
[22:13] <sistpoty> not that
[22:13] <NCommander> Are we simply going to vote here on IRC< or are we going to do something formal?
[22:13] <persia> NCommander: Neither.
[22:13] <geser> is there a wiki page with current policies/guidelines? I never know what's current
[22:13] <sistpoty> "action" eveveryone to state her/his opinion again on the mailing list
[22:13] <persia> geser: ScottK was going to update MOTU Meetings, but hasn't yet.
[22:14] <sistpoty> "action" NCommander to play shephard with the motu-key teams discussion and makes sure it reaches a conclusion
[22:14] <NCommander> "accept" I take this responsibility
[22:14] <sistpoty> anything else or any objections?
[22:14] <sistpoty> 3
[22:14] <sistpoty> 2
[22:14] <LaserJock> wait
[22:14] <sistpoty> 1
[22:15] <sistpoty> hrmpf *g*
[22:15] <LaserJock> wasn't persia going to do something?
[22:15] <sistpoty> persia?
[22:15] <sistpoty> LaserJock: but any objections to the other points from you?
[22:15] <sistpoty> (so we could at least agree on a subset already *g*)
[22:15] <persia> I was going to write up the mail to propose accepting volunteers unless there was an objection or it would push the team oversize.  In the former case, we seek other volunteers.  In the latter case, we vote.
[22:16] <LaserJock> sistpoty: no, no objections from me
[22:16] <sistpoty> :)
[22:16] <sistpoty> [action] eveveryone to state her/his opinion again on the mailing list
[22:16] <MootBot> ACTION received:  eveveryone to state her/his opinion again on the mailing list
[22:16] <sistpoty> [action] NCommander to play shephard with the motu-key teams discussion and makes sure it reaches a conclusion
[22:16] <MootBot> ACTION received:  NCommander to play shephard with the motu-key teams discussion and makes sure it reaches a conclusion
[22:17] <sistpoty> [action] persia to write up the mail to propose accepting volunteers unless there was an objection or it would push the team oversize
[22:17] <MootBot> ACTION received:  persia to write up the mail to propose accepting volunteers unless there was an objection or it would push the team oversize
[22:17] <sistpoty> woohoo!
[22:17] <sistpoty> so I guess we can move on now?
[22:18]  * NCommander uses this opporunity to make sure I'm subscribed to ubuntu-motu
[22:18] <sistpoty> ok, anyone else got a point? if not, I'd like to raise another one, but this time hope it won't be that long
[22:18] <LaserJock> :-)
[22:19] <sistpoty> ok, then I just go ahead: ubuntu-universe-sponsors queue has grown again, today it was 118 bugs
[22:19] <sistpoty> please everybody go sponsoring :)
[22:19] <sistpoty> anyone got some details from the REVU front?
[22:20] <sistpoty> or any other tasks we also should be pursuing right now?
[22:20] <sistpoty> do we have the critical debian bugs script running atm?
[22:20] <NCommander> I've got one
[22:21] <sistpoty> NCommander: then go ahead
[22:21] <NCommander> A reminder about freeze policy; there was an issue with evince breaking freeze and then indirectly breaking xubuntu's livecd build
[22:22] <sistpoty> NCommander: freeze doesn't apply for universe, or let's rather say most parts of universe
[22:22] <LaserJock> NCommander: that generally doesn't affect Universe though
[22:22] <persia> sistpoty: most parts
[22:22] <NCommander> well, if I just didn't stick my foot in my mouth
[22:22]  * NCommander runs away
[22:22] <LaserJock> NCommander: np
[22:22] <sistpoty> heh
[22:22] <NCommander> still, its worth a reminder since some core-devs are here
[22:22] <LaserJock> I could just mention that the Ubuntu QA team is off to a pretty good start
[22:22] <sistpoty> NCommander: /me hides *g*
[22:22] <persia> NCommander: The upload didn't break the build: something else did a couple days previously (and silently).  The upload that broke it was outside the freeze period.
[22:23] <geser> sistpoty: NCommander doesn't get far with a broken car :)
[22:23] <LaserJock> and hopefully some of that work will definately be helping MOTU
[22:23] <sistpoty> heh
[22:23]  * NCommander drops his broken car on geser 
[22:23] <NCommander> don't get me started on my broken car
[22:23] <NCommander> or else you'll be victim to drive by insults
[22:23] <LaserJock> DktrKranz has been working on a transition tracker
[22:23] <sistpoty> LaserJock: does qa also take over running e.g. the rcbugs script (or later running archive rebuilds/piuparts test), or can you talk about plans?
[22:24] <sistpoty> LaserJock: cool
[22:24] <LaserJock> well, not sure about "take over"
[22:24] <LaserJock> but we're working on trying to get more unified/helpful scripts
[22:25] <LaserJock> wgrant has been awesome enough to put some of his ubuntuwire code in our bzr
[22:25] <LaserJock> we're collecting good QA code
[22:25] <LaserJock> and people ;-)
[22:25] <LaserJock> so one thing would be to give the rcbugs data a bit of a face lift
[22:26] <sistpoty> ah, and I can see right now, that rcbugs is working atm :)
[22:26] <LaserJock> and promote it more
[22:26] <LaserJock> also some work on rcbugs <-> LP interaction may be in the works
[22:26] <NCommander> LaserJock, I've done some work in getting data out of LP, I'd be glad to share what I learned
[22:27] <sistpoty> that's great new altogether :)
[22:27]  * NCommander actually has a second bit of news
[22:27] <sistpoty> then shoot ahead, NCommander
[22:28] <NCommander> REVU is currently in the process of having updates written, and pending the will of the revu-hackers, hopefully hit trunk somewhat soon. There is a blueprint against REVU (revu2) which lists purposed features.
[22:28] <NCommander> Currently on the list is single signon with LP (already coded), PPA import, apt-get'ble source archives, and perpahs as far as a buildd network
[22:29] <NCommander> If you have a feature suggestion, nows the time :-)
[22:29] <sistpoty> oh, just to confirm, I haven't seen so many updates to revu for quite a while that NCommander did this week... and I still hope that RainCT will review and merge them all *g*
[22:29] <NCommander> sistpoty, he deferred that to you and siretart
[22:29]  * RainCT hides :P
[22:30] <sistpoty> hrmpf... I haven't read revu code since ages *g*
[22:30] <LaserJock> well, perhaps I'm getting into deep water again
[22:30] <RainCT> sistpoty: but you still know it better than me ;)
[22:30] <LaserJock> but could the whole thing be a frontend to PPA?
[22:30] <NCommander> If anyone here feels like skinning things, please address the "REVU is ugly as hell" bug that I filed ;-)
[22:30] <sistpoty> RainCT: that's a rumor
[22:30] <LaserJock> seems like disk space is often an issue, and iff you want apt-get'ble source archives, and a buildd network ...
[22:30] <NCommander> LaserJock, we looked at it, but Soyuz doesn't give the necessary control, so rolling our own infrastructure is easier
[22:30] <LaserJock> what kind of control do you need?
[22:31] <NCommander> Well, apt-get source archives are easily
[22:31] <LaserJock> bandwidth and disk space isn't
[22:31] <NCommander> Its just generating valid source packages with a version number that isn't going to break things to high heaven
[22:31] <NCommander> Maybe its time we get a REVU mirror :-)
[22:32] <sistpoty> LaserJock, NCommander: actually disk space is an issue (bandwith not too much)... as we've got only 72Gb raid (and half of it is used atm by current data)
[22:32] <NCommander> sistpoty, ouch
[22:32] <sistpoty> NCommander: well, these are old scsi disks for sun, which aren't needed anywhere else in the university, so we could grab them *g*
[22:32] <NCommander> sistpoty, probably time to find mirrors, or run a Donate-Hardware drive
[22:32] <LaserJock> why do we need any more checks than what Soyuz does?
[22:32] <LaserJock> if it's good enough for a PPA shouldn't it be good enough for REVU?
[22:33] <NCommander> LaserJock, hence the PPA importer, however, PPAs don't build on all architectures, and they have other limitations w.r.t to superseeding and versioning
[22:33]  * RainCT agrees with LaserJock as in that we shouldn't need buildds for revu
[22:33]  * NCommander has heard arguements for and against
[22:34] <persia> What was the argument for?
[22:34]  * persia has never heard a good one
[22:34] <LaserJock> persia: for PPAs or for having REVU do it all?
[22:34] <sistpoty> well, if s.o. volunteers to write the code and maybe even has some server to run such a buildd on, I'd be the least to object *g*
[22:34] <NCommander> sistpoty, once we have an apt-get source repo going, getting buildds going is pretty trival
[22:35] <persia> LaserJock: For autobuilding REVU submissions.
[22:35] <NCommander> sistpoty, care to merge the openid code ;-)
[22:36] <RainCT> NCommander: btw, how far did you get with the e-mail verification?
[22:36] <LaserJock> persia: #1 for me is  because it tells you whether it even builds
[22:36] <sistpoty> persia: to run lintian on the .debs and to check if it builds in the first place?
[22:36] <NCommander> RainCT, you need to login with the username and password, and I folded lostpw.py into merge_accounts.py
[22:36] <RainCT> NCommander: and for people who don't have an old account or who get a new e-mail address?
[22:37] <NCommander> RainCT, not yet, but until we actually DO something with email addresses, I don't really see it as a priority
[22:37] <persia> Well, the submitter should have done both those things.  I'd rather discover the problem and instruct the submitter on best practices before upload than have an automated build that might build the expectation that an uploader shouldn't check locally.
[22:37] <sistpoty> erm... maybe we should continue the discussion about revu-development in #ubuntuwire?
[22:37] <persia> Heh.
[22:37] <sistpoty> (we're still in a motu-meeting, mind you *g*)
[22:37] <NCommander> (having the ability to have comments go to personal emails will go in later)
[22:37] <persia> Maybe just announce the next meeting time and end the meeting?
[22:37] <NCommander> woo, I completely derailed #u-meeting!
[22:38] <sistpoty> persia: that's what I wanted to propose right now... ;)
[22:38] <sistpoty> so when's the next meeting?
[22:38] <NCommander> anyone want to change their vote on making me shepard?
[22:38] <sistpoty> two weeks from now, +8 hours, right?
[22:38] <sistpoty> NCommander: no, that was already agreed on :O
[22:38] <sistpoty> :P even
[22:38] <NCommander> lol
[22:39] <persia> sistpoty: -16 hours I thought.
[22:39] <sistpoty> persia: heh, thinking in modulo 24 that should be the same? (but not thinking in calendar days of course *g*)
[22:40] <persia> sistpoty: Precisely :)
[22:40]  * persia fears a strict 334 hour rule would end up stomping other meetings after only a few months
[22:40] <sistpoty> so it would be Friday the 8th, 4utc, correct?
[22:40] <persia> I think so.
[22:40] <persia> s/334/344/
[22:41] <sistpoty> [ACTION] next motu meeting at Friday, 8th, 4 UTC
[22:41] <MootBot> ACTION received:  next motu meeting at Friday, 8th, 4 UTC
[22:41] <sistpoty> any last words from anyone?
[22:42] <LaserJock> no, please no!
[22:42]  * persia is glad to see more non-MOTU taking actions in the MOTU meeting again
[22:42] <NCommander> I'd like to close this meeting by beginnign with the opening sections of War and Peace
[22:42] <persia> (well, some actions)
[22:42] <sistpoty> NCommander: you're out :P
[22:42] <NCommander> persia, do I really count? I just don't know the meeting of "Shut up and watch" :-P
[22:43] <norsetto> I guess that was meaning
[22:43] <persia> NCommander: Yep.  For the past 3-4 months, we've not had so much non-MOTU contribution.  I think it's important to remember we are part of a larger development community.
[22:43] <sistpoty> ok, I propose to close the meeting, and since we haven't had a vote yet so far, vote with +1 to close the meeting *g*
[22:43] <sistpoty> [vote] close the meeting?
[22:43] <MootBot> Please vote on:  close the meeting?.
[22:43] <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
[22:43] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[22:43] <sistpoty> +1
[22:43] <MootBot> +1 received from sistpoty. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[22:43] <geser> +1
[22:43] <MootBot> +1 received from geser. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[22:43] <RainCT> +1
[22:43] <MootBot> +1 received from RainCT. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[22:43] <norsetto> +1
[22:43] <MootBot> +1 received from norsetto. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[22:43] <NCommander> +1 sistpoty
[22:43] <MootBot> +1 received from NCommander. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
[22:44] <NCommander> woo
[22:44] <sistpoty> [endvote]
[22:44] <MootBot> Final result is 5 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 5
[22:44] <sistpoty> with a result of 5 in favor: meeting adjourned :)
[22:44] <sistpoty> thanks for coming, and thanks for the patience :)
[22:44]  * persia considers always volunteering to chair when sistpoty is around to avoid the obligatory close-the-meeting-vote
[22:45]  * NCommander falls over
[22:45] <sistpoty> [endmeeting]
[22:45] <sistpoty> stopmeeting
[22:45] <sistpoty> persia: heh
[22:45] <persia> #endmeeting

[22:45] <RainCT> killall meeting
[22:45] <sistpoty> damn, we're doomed! *g*
[22:45] <NCommander> telint 0
[22:45] <sistpoty> #endmeeting
[22:45] <persia> No, really, Mootbot wants the # from sistpoty
[22:45] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:48.
[22:45] <NCommander> BTW, if you want to try something fun
[22:45] <NCommander> try: /join 0