[15:56] <evand> hello
[15:57] <robbiew> #startmeeting
[15:57] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:57. The chair is robbiew.
[15:57] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:57] <robbiew> hello evand :)
[15:58]  * robbiew starts early, so mootbot can grab all attendees
[16:00] <liw> hi
[16:00] <robbiew> howdy [):-)
[16:00]  * robbiew reads the onslaught of activity reports
[16:00] <robbiew> lol
[16:02] <Keybuk> _o/
[16:03] <robbiew> mvo, slangasek: here?
[16:04]  * mvo waves
[16:05]  * robbiew invokes the 5min rule...and begins meeting
[16:05] <robbiew> only have a few agenda items...and I apologize for not sending it out
[16:05] <robbiew> [TOPIC] UDS...fill in those Specs!!!
[16:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  UDS...fill in those Specs!!!
[16:06] <Keybuk> what's the deadline for that?
[16:06] <robbiew> heh...good question
[16:06] <cjwatson> before the Christmas break if at all possible
[16:07] <robbiew> in an ideal world, I'd like them ready for some cozy reading over break
[16:07] <cjwatson> the feature development cycle is short enough as it is :-/
[16:07] <robbiew> right
[16:08]  * mvo nods
[16:08] <cjwatson> also a minor plea
[16:08] <cjwatson> please remember to set the status of the spec to something other than Discussion
[16:08] <cjwatson> I was going through today looking for reviewable stuff and ended up just opening all the wiki pages
[16:09] <cjwatson> while there actually were a few that were worth reviewing
[16:10] <cjwatson> are there any session videos from UDS that I should particularly make an effort to watch? :-)
[16:10] <robbiew> all
[16:10] <robbiew> :P
[16:10] <liw> have any of the videos been made available yet?
[16:11] <robbiew> I doubt it
[16:11] <cjwatson> simple arithmetic suggests that all => about five weeks viewing time ;-)
[16:11] <cjwatson> (assuming I were to watch all the tracks, since not everything was on foundations ...)
[16:11] <Pici> Some of the videos are uploaded http://videos.ubuntu.com/uds/jaunty
[16:11] <cjwatson> even for just foundations I don't intend to spend a week watching them all ;-)
[16:11] <evand> Do note that there wasn't a video camera in every room.  The community rooms (where we held the Wubi and usb-creator discussions) did not have cameras.
[16:12] <robbiew> right...but those sessions were small enough, so that at least good notes should exist...somewhere
[16:12] <evand> And I don't recall there being one in the room next to Foundations, which is where we held the ubiquity session.
[16:12] <evand> indeed :)
[16:12]  * robbiew assumes...which isn't always good
[16:13]  * robbiew looks at videos
[16:14] <robbiew> hmm...too bad they don't stream
[16:14] <robbiew> in any case...I suppose we can move on
[16:15] <robbiew> [TOPIC] Holidays
[16:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  Holidays
[16:15] <robbiew> pretty simple...make sure you've spent your days :)
[16:15] <robbiew> I've just updated the Foundations google calendar
[16:15] <Keybuk> I have two days spare
[16:15] <robbiew> with what I have listed in the admin tool
[16:15] <Keybuk> well, one day of holiday spare
[16:15] <robbiew> ah
[16:15] <Keybuk> and the swap day from Sunday@FOSScamp
[16:16] <cjwatson> I have 1.5 I believe
[16:16] <Keybuk> err, Saturday@FOSScamp
[16:16] <liw> I should be all depleted
[16:16] <robbiew> ok
[16:16]  * mvo should be ok now too
[16:16] <robbiew> ;)
[16:16] <slangasek> robbiew: hi, sorry
[16:17] <robbiew> hi..np, I didn't send an agenda
[16:17] <robbiew> so no worries
[16:17] <robbiew> just covered getting spec in by christmas
[16:17] <robbiew> and onto making sure everyone fills in holiday requests
[16:17]  * evand is running on empty holidays (aside from the ones set aside for the required Christmas holiday)
[16:17] <Keybuk> actually, I think I snuck a couple of days extra off, but can't remember when
[16:18] <Keybuk> so I might keep my spare holiday just in case Claire remembers <g>
[16:18] <robbiew> lol...well it's documented now
[16:18] <robbiew> :P
[16:18] <robbiew> though I doubt she reviews mootbot logs
[16:19] <robbiew> that's all I really have
[16:19] <robbiew> [TOPIC] AOB
[16:19] <MootBot> New Topic:  AOB
[16:19] <cjwatson> do we believe that there is somebody explicitly responsible for drafting every spec?
[16:20] <cjwatson> I noticed a lot of them didn't have drafters set
[16:20] <robbiew> good point
[16:20] <cjwatson> (sorry to bang on about specs ...)
[16:20]  * robbiew has no problems randomly assigning >)
[16:20] <evand> I need to set myself as drafting on a few.
[16:21] <mvo> I will check the ones I'm involved with and make sure I'm drafter there
[16:21] <robbiew> I would assume that if you led the session, you should be the drafter...but I'm a newbie
[16:21] <robbiew> so that might not always be the case
[16:21] <slangasek> I was assuming that's the case for my sessions
[16:22] <cjwatson> that makes sense unless there was another secretary nominated
[16:22] <robbiew> no..we weren't that lucky
[16:23] <robbiew> [ACTION] All Specs ready by December 25th
[16:23] <MootBot> ACTION received:  All Specs ready by December 25th
[16:23] <Keybuk> though it means sometimes the person who led the session can't remember what they said :p
[16:24] <robbiew> well, I think the gobby session for boot performance has the main points from our session
[16:25] <robbiew> but I can't say they all are that well written ;)
[16:25] <slangasek> Keybuk: you're in luck, there are also unintelligible videos that you can strain to listen to because no one was pointing the camera in the right direction! ;)
[16:25] <Keybuk> heh
[16:26] <robbiew> yeah...I tried to in the small number that I recorded...but it was difficult
[16:26] <robbiew> viewer can get dizzy in the back and forth conversations across the room :P
[16:26] <robbiew> only took me 3 days to discover that I should move the camera...duh
[16:27] <robbiew> Thurs and Friday have better viewing angles...not sure about audio
[16:27] <robbiew> which is probably more important :P
[16:27] <robbiew> ok...thinking we can end this one
[16:27] <robbiew> #endmeeting
[16:27] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:27.
[16:27] <slangasek> ok, thanks
[16:28] <evand> thanks
[16:28] <liw> I'm not sure the videos are worth the effort and the impact they have on people by their presence... audio would work much better if done via several mics and without video
[16:28] <robbiew> right
[16:28] <liw> but thanks for the short meeting :)
[16:29] <cjwatson> the audio was actually surprisingly good
[16:29] <cjwatson> once the volume was turned up
[16:29] <Keybuk> liw: the original idea was that by having the camera, you'd get good audio out of it
[16:29] <cjwatson> I could follow that quite well remotely
[16:29] <Keybuk> at less of a cost than live mixing multiple mikes
[16:30] <mvo> yeah, the mic on the camera was pretty amazing
[16:30] <cjwatson> was the mic on the camera what I was listening to over icecast?
[16:30] <evand> Doesn't jokosher do live mixing?
[16:31] <Keybuk> you'd need someone with a laptop, and the multiple mikes plugged into it, etc.
[16:32] <liw> Keybuk, I'm in over my head on this, but it should be possible to set the mics up so they're mixed automatically (for streaming), and recorded individually (for later editing, if necessary), but one good mic that covers the whole room would work too, I guess
[16:33] <Keybuk> liw: the "one good mic" strategy has never worked for us
[16:33] <Keybuk> multiple mics just produce echo and distortion
[16:33] <Keybuk> or everyone sounds equally bad
[16:33] <Keybuk> having a directed mic actually seems to have been an improvement
[16:33] <Keybuk> with the disadvantage that someone has to point it at people
[16:33] <robbiew> right
[16:33] <robbiew> and those who don't want to be filmed...cannot be heard
[16:34] <Keybuk> yeah, the original plan wasn't to actually use the video feed
[16:34] <Keybuk> the camera was just so you could be sure who you were pointing it at (by looking in the display)
[16:34] <Keybuk> but jono went "ooh, camera, live streaming, RAH!"
[16:35] <robbiew> oh..didn't know that
[16:37] <cjwatson> I thought Mark had asked for full video
[16:37] <robbiew> i wonder if we can get access to videos.ubuntu.com...I'd be happy to rename videos to sessions
[16:38] <mvo> good idea
[16:39]  * robbiew checks to see if he can get access
[16:40] <Keybuk> cjwatson: no, video was never a Mark requirement
[16:41] <Keybuk> robbiew: it's rookery, isn't it?
[16:41] <robbiew> I dunno
[16:41] <robbiew> lol
[16:41] <robbiew> checking with Elmo now
[16:42] <Keybuk> /srv/video.ubuntu.com/uds/jaunty
[16:42] <Keybuk> err
[16:42] <Keybuk> /srv/video.ubuntu.com/www/uds/jaunty
[16:42] <Keybuk> warthogs seems to have write permission
[16:43] <robbiew> thnx
[17:00] <heno> hello!
[17:00] <davmor2> hi
[17:00] <pedro_> hey hey
[17:00] <schwuk> hi
[17:01] <bdmurray> hello
[17:01]  * ogasawara waves
[17:01] <cr3> yo
[17:01] <heno> ara, sbeattie: ping
[17:02] <sbeattie> hey!
[17:03] <heno> I don't see ara on IRC
[17:03] <heno> ok, let's start
[17:03] <heno> #startmeeting
[17:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 11:03. The chair is heno.
[17:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[17:04] <heno> Jaunty spec review - All specs should have drafters and assignees by the end of the meeting and we should aim to have them drafted and approved by Dec. 24th.
[17:04] <heno> working from http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-jaunty/bavorr/
[17:04] <schwuk> Are there any specs that didn't get covered at UDS?
[17:05] <heno> I want to check assignees, drafters, status (should be Drafting or better)
[17:05] <heno> schwuk: we should look for that too, at the end I think
[17:06] <heno> also we should take a view on whether the priority is about right
[17:06] <heno> * qa-upstream-kernel-bugs
[17:06]  * ogasawara is the drafter and assignee
[17:07] <cr3> I have just added myself as the assignee to: Elevate checkbox privileges with policykit
[17:07] <heno> and I guess some work has started, but it still needs some drafting?
[17:07] <cr3> bdmurray: you might like to have a look at: https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/qa-needs-packaging-bugs
[17:08] <heno> cr3: thanks, and schwuk is drafter, makes sense
[17:08] <ogasawara> heno: yes, I still need to clean up the spec/wiki
[17:08] <heno> in reality several people will coordinate the drafting and implementation of most of the specs
[17:09] <cr3> is it possible and/or does it make sense to have multiple drafters?
[17:09] <schwuk> cr3: I think it's intentional to ensure responsibility
[17:10] <heno> cr3: not in LP
[17:10] <heno> right
[17:10] <heno> * qa-cert-testing-proposed
[17:10] <heno> I'll help draft that one ^
[17:11] <heno> though the responsibility lies with cr3 ;)
[17:11] <cr3> heno: one implication we might want to consider, perhaps for the future, is when hardware specific drivers are updated that systems matching that hardware should be tested
[17:11] <heno> ogasawara has agreed to drive LP - can you set all these to drafting?
[17:12] <ogasawara> heno: so I just looked at https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/certify-web/+spec/qa-cert-testing-proposed and apparently I don't have the option to set the status
[17:12] <heno> * qa-needs-packaging-bugs
[17:13] <heno> ah, iz a checkbox project
[17:13] <cr3> heno: in the case of qa-cert-testing-proposed, should we make an exception and leave the status to "Started"
[17:14] <heno> for implementation status, yes - for definition status it should be Drafting
[17:15] <ogasawara> cr3: can you flip that from Discussion to Drafting?  Since apparently I don't have the permissions.
[17:15] <cr3> done for both definition and implementation status
[17:15] <heno> schwuk/cr3: can you drive status on the checkbox specs?#
[17:15] <schwuk> heno: sure
[17:15] <cr3> schwuk: just so that we don't step on each other's feet, mind if I set the status of all checkbox blueprints to drafting?
[17:16] <heno> we should move those over to be Ubuntu specs IMO
[17:16] <heno> that will simplify tracking too
[17:16] <schwuk> heno: I'm fine with that
[17:17] <heno> schwuk: ok, please go ahead with that
[17:18] <heno> * qa-needs-packaging-bugs
[17:18] <bdmurray> I believe its all set
[17:18] <ogasawara> yup, looks good
[17:18] <heno> no approver though
[17:19] <cr3> heno: you volunteering? :)
[17:19] <heno> I'll volunteer ;)
[17:19] <bdmurray> done
[17:19] <heno> JauntySchedule isn't a spec
[17:20] <heno> should have been just a UDS 'discussion' session
[17:20] <heno> * qa-expand-checkbox-coverage
[17:20] <heno> looks fine
[17:21] <heno> as does qa-portal
[17:21] <cr3> should qa-expand-checkbox-coverage somehow be linked as a dependency on the policy-kit spec?
[17:21] <cr3> err, "add dependency" I mean
[17:21] <heno> * jaunty-regression-management needs work
[17:22] <heno> cr3: makes sense
[17:22] <cr3> qa-checkbox-policykit is returning a page not found for me
[17:23] <cr3> both on edge and non-edge, someone renamed it?
[17:23] <heno> schwuk: can you update the wiki links too?
[17:23] <sbeattie> heno: right, that was mostly a discussion session, I tried to roll action items from that into the regression-tracker spec, but I'm double-checking our notes to see if there's anything there that should be separate.
[17:24] <cr3> weird, the url for qa-checkbox-policykit has changed from being under the "checkbox" project to the "launchpad" project. schwuk, did you change anything?
[17:24] <heno> some parts might go on the package spec too, but I think we need an overview spec
[17:25] <heno> the LDTP-checkbox spec is similar
[17:25] <heno> they can be 'informational' specs
[17:25] <schwuk> cr3: launchpad is being stupid - I retargeted the specs to ubuntu as requested by heno, and lp has attached them to Launchpad instead.
[17:25] <cr3> "add dependency" doesn't seem to find qa-checkbox-policykit :(
[17:26] <heno> it's useful for tracking our progress even if there is little code implementation to be done
[17:26] <schwuk> cr3: Probably because it's been moved.
[17:26] <cr3> schwuk: I'm using the "choose" menu, it should still find the keywords "checkbox" and "policykit"
[17:27] <schwuk> cr3: retargeted them to checkbox until I figure out what LP is doing wrong.
[17:28] <heno> ok
[17:28] <heno> * apport-retracer-maintenance is pitti's I guess
[17:28] <schwuk> cr3: you can't add dependecies outside of a project - until they are targetted to ubuntu, we won't be able to link them
[17:29] <cr3> schwuk: launchpad still can't seem to find it. not a huge deal, we'll survive without the dependency link
[17:29] <cr3> schwuk: ah, subtle, thanks for the insider info
[17:29] <heno> * package-status-pages
[17:30] <ogasawara> Definition should probably change from Discussion to Approved?
[17:30] <heno> bdmurray: ^ ?
[17:31] <heno> are all the changes speced and agreed upon?
[17:31] <bdmurray> Drafting again I think -> the discussion from UDS isn't there
[17:31] <ogasawara> ah true, I'll go through our gobby notes and update
[17:31] <bdmurray> nor the prioritization
[17:32] <heno> right
[17:32] <heno> ogasawara: sorry ;)
[17:32] <heno> (we recycled the spec so it will need some updating)
[17:33] <heno> * qa-jaunty-regression-tracker
[17:33] <sbeattie> needs a priority
[17:33] <sbeattie> do you want jaunty-regression-management to depend on this?
[17:33] <heno> sbeattie: yes
[17:34] <bdmurray> Then this one should probably be essential?
[17:34] <heno> sbeattie: can I set you as drafter?
[17:34] <sbeattie> heno: I've set that
[17:35] <heno> essential> I would agree
[17:35] <heno> * qa-bug-patch-workflow
[17:35] <heno> I'll be approver
[17:36] <ogasawara> done
[17:36] <heno> * qa-gnome-desktop-testing
[17:36] <ogasawara> Priority?
[17:36] <heno> High IMO
[17:37] <ara> heno: I am already the drafter, I think
[17:37] <heno> right
[17:37] <bdmurray> high sounds good
[17:37] <bdmurray> who is this mentor person?
[17:37] <ara> bdmurray: no idea, he has 0 karma
[17:38] <heno> does CheckboxTestDefinition have an LP entry?
[17:38] <cr3> a blueprint?
[17:38] <ara> qa-checkbox-test-definition
[17:39] <cr3> hm, that blueprint needs lots of info. shall I assign myself as the drafter and assignee, heno as the approver?
[17:40] <heno> cr3: please do
[17:41] <heno> * x-testing-infrastructure is bryce's
[17:41] <heno> * qa-checkbox-bug-filing
[17:42] <heno> Medium?
[17:42] <ara> yes, i was thinking that too
[17:42] <cr3> heno: can I be the assignee for that one?
[17:42] <cr3> I'd be inclined towards high priority, but I'm biased :)
[17:43] <ogasawara> schwuk, cr3:  can one of you set the Priority
[17:43] <ara> heno, btw, the qa track was unofficially called the checkbox track :D
[17:43] <heno> so I've been told :)
[17:44] <heno> cr3: I'm fine with assigning it to you; we'll let schwuk draft it though
[17:44] <heno> and I think Medium is fine
[17:44] <cr3> heno: agreed and priority set to medium
[17:45] <heno> * qa-jaunty-isotracker
[17:45] <heno> broken LP link as well
[17:46] <bdmurray> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu-qa-website/+spec/qa-jaunty-isotracker
[17:46] <heno> stgraber: around?
[17:47] <heno> he should be drafter and assignee IMO
[17:47] <heno> I can approve
[17:47] <heno> Medium priority
[17:47] <heno> stgraber: shout later if you disagree :)
[17:47] <bdmurray> heno: Medium really?
[17:48] <bdmurray> The isotracker hasn't seen any updates in quite a while
[17:48] <bdmurray> and some of the functionality discussed is rather important
[17:48] <heno> bdmurray: right, but it still works fairly well already
[17:48] <ara> on-progress feature!
[17:49] <ara> I am going to make a t-shirt
[17:49] <bdmurray> that doesn't change the priority of the improvements though
[17:50] <heno> Hm, let's get stgraber's view it - I'd be happy with High also
[17:51] <heno> * qa-hardware-test-result-publication
[17:52] <heno> schwuk: should this be assigned to you?
[17:52] <heno> It builds on the reporting work you did
[17:52] <schwuk> heno: yes
[17:52] <heno> ok, thx
[17:52] <heno> * qa-checkbox-hardware-reporting
[17:53] <cr3> schwuk: (by the way, heno and I had an idea that the report should provide a link to a directory where information dumps should as dmidecode should be made available. just something to keep in mind)
[17:54] <heno> schwuk: drafter and assignee for qa-checkbox-hardware-reporting as well?
[17:54] <schwuk> cr3: which spec was that in relation to?
[17:54] <schwuk> heno: please
[17:54] <cr3> schwuk: qa-checkbox-hardware-reporting
[17:55] <heno> * qa-sru-process-streamline
[17:55] <schwuk> cr3: got you
[17:55] <heno> I've asked pedro to draft this and sbeattie to implement
[17:55] <heno> should be High priority (at least)
[17:56] <heno> views?
[17:56] <pedro_> heno: agreed, i'll set the priority if no one else object
[17:56] <cr3> heno: agreed on the "at least" part too
[17:57] <heno> ok
[17:57] <heno> * hardware-certification-kvm-access
[17:58] <schwuk> The re-targeting to ubuntu problem has been determined to be a bug, and filed accordingly. I'm subscribed to it, and I've subscribed heno as well: https://bugs.launchpad.net/blueprint/+bug/309048
[17:58] <heno> should also be High IMO
[17:58] <ogasawara> +1
[17:59] <heno> * qa-testscase-wiki
[17:59] <heno> priority of that - Medium?
[18:00] <ara> heno: high? we have the wiki already, we need to start moving testcases and get people used to the new one
[18:01] <heno> ok, I can be persuaded of that too :)
[18:01] <heno> that's it for the scheduled list!
[18:01] <heno> there are also a few others
[18:01] <heno> pedro_, you are assigned to some on the community track?
[18:02] <heno> and we've mentioned the LDTP spec
[18:02] <heno> is that it for QA specs?
[18:03] <heno> (community track>making bug jams rock)
[18:03] <pedro_> heno: no that i know, but i'll follow up with dholbach since he was in charge of that session
[18:04] <bdmurray> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/smoketesting ?
[18:04] <davmor2> bdmurray: I was about to brink that one up :)
[18:05] <heno> excellent - I can be approver there too
[18:05] <heno> let's work on drafting this week and next for those who are around
[18:05] <bdmurray> Shouldn't the smoketesting one have some discussion?
[18:05] <heno> I'll approve between bites of Xmas turkey :)
[18:06] <davmor2> bdmurray: yes
[18:07] <heno> on the qa list perhaps
[18:07] <davmor2> although I hope I have explained it well enough for it to be a yes or no discussion
[18:07] <heno> davmor2: can you mention it there and ask for feedback?
[18:08] <davmor2> heno: no probs but I need to dash soon xmas bash
[18:08] <heno> any other business?
[18:09] <pedro_> just one
[18:09] <pedro_> from me at least
[18:09] <bdmurray> davmor2: If you could clarify whether you mean install from daily images or just running the devel release that would be helpful.
[18:09] <pedro_> jcastro just announced (few mins ago) the second Ubuntu Global Bug Jam: http://castrojo.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/announcing-the-next-ubuntu-global-bug-jam/
[18:10] <pedro_> it's going to happen between the 20 and 22 of February
[18:10] <heno> (should be installing from images)
[18:10] <heno> pedro_: cool!
[18:10] <pedro_> so start to contact your Loco Team and collect some ideas (easy tasks) for that day
[18:10] <pedro_> we're collecting easy bug lists here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/EasyTasks/
[18:11] <davmor2> either if you have the time install from scratch if you don't a quick-ish update was my thinking as long as before you run the test it is the latest daily release as a minimum
[18:11] <pedro_> feel free to start adding more there, it will be reflected on the GBJ page
[18:11] <heno> I guess this makes your spec 'started' :)
[18:12] <heno> let's wrap up the meeting
[18:12] <heno> #endmeeting
[18:12] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 12:12.
[18:12] <heno> thanks everyone!
[18:12] <pedro_> thanks you
[18:12] <ara> thanks
[18:13] <ara> sorry all about being late
[18:13] <davmor2> thanks