[03:40] <stdin> @unload Webcal
[14:00] <sistpoty|work> hi folks
[14:01] <sistpoty|work> let's start with motu-release organisational meeting? DktrKranz, ScottK?
[14:01] <jpds> Hey sistpoty|work.
[14:01] <sistpoty|work> hi jpds
[14:01] <iulian> Hiya
[14:01] <sistpoty|work> hi iulian
[14:01] <DktrKranz> hi *, I'm here in about five minutes
[14:01] <sistpoty|work> DktrKranz: ok, then just say once you're ready ;)
[14:01] <ScottK> \o
[14:05] <DktrKranz> back to business! :)
[14:05] <ScottK> o/
[14:06] <sistpoty|work> ok, let's get started... :)
[14:06] <ScottK> Welcome iulian.
[14:06] <ScottK> So we are 4 for this release it seems.
[14:07] <DktrKranz> unless no-one volunteers (or get drunk) in time
[14:07] <iulian> Thanks ScottK.
[14:07] <sistpoty|work> oh, did the key team member process result in iulian being a member in motu-release so far?
[14:07] <sistpoty|work> <- lost track (shame on /me)
[14:07] <ScottK> I don't recall the details of the process, but no one complained yet.
[14:07] <ScottK> I think for today's purposes we can assume it is/will be.
[14:08] <iulian> I thought we are going to discuss my application at this meeting as no one replied to that mail I sent.
[14:08] <DktrKranz> sistpoty|work, it requires two advocations, but I think they'll follow soon
[14:08] <ScottK> OK.
[14:08] <ScottK> Well let's grill iulian first then.
[14:08] <sistpoty|work> heh
[14:08] <iulian> Yikes.
[14:08] <sistpoty|work> go ahead ScottK ;)
[14:09] <ScottK> iulian: Why did you volunteer to be in motu-release?
[14:10] <iulian> Well, I've spoken with Luca some days ago about some things that are going on within this team.  There are great responsibilities of being a member of the release team and I would like to assume those.
[14:10] <iulian> I totally agree that this is not an easy job to do.
[14:10] <iulian> I have a lot of spare time and I would like to dedicate it to Ubuntu as mch as I can.
[14:11] <iulian> s/mch/much
[14:11] <ScottK> iulian: Are you going to be OK with telling people "No" and maybe they aren't happy?
[14:12] <iulian> ScottK: Of course.  I will try to answer their questions and explain them why I said "No".
[14:12] <ScottK> iulian: What's your background in Ubuntu (e.g. I do mostly KDE and mail server stuff, use Kubuntu and Ubuntu Server and have never run Gnome in my life)
[14:13] <iulian> ScottK: I focus mostly on Gnome package and some of the packages I use daily.  Now that I'm an official developer, I can easily upload patches, versions and so forth.
[14:14] <iulian> I'd also like to get involved with the Kernel team.
[14:14] <DktrKranz> having a second GNOME user is cool
[14:14] <sistpoty|work> heh
[14:15] <DktrKranz> last cycle it was just me :(
[14:15] <iulian> Honestly, I have never used KDE or any other desktop managers.
[14:15] <ScottK> This is fine.
[14:15] <iulian> That doesn't mean that I won't take a look at packages from KDE or XFCE.
[14:16] <sistpoty|work> iulian: some parts of motu-release work also consist of repetitive work, like pinging people to fill in required stuff for FFe's, seeing that nothing falls in between the cracks... are you fine with that as well?
[14:16] <iulian> sistpoty|work: Yup, I'm fine with that.
[14:18] <sistpoty|work> any further questions?
[14:18] <ScottK> iulian: Most of these decisions are based on judgement and not black and white.  Are you comfortable with subjective decision making and how would you go about considering to accept something?
[14:20] <iulian> ScottK: Yes, well, frankly I can be very picky when it comes to review patches and I think this is good, especially when someone depends on what you're doing, in this case being a release member.
[14:20] <ScottK> One last question ...
[14:21] <iulian> OK, go ahead.
[14:21] <ScottK> Sometimes as a member of motu-release you have to deal directly with very senior people in Ubuntu (i.e. Ubuntu Release team).  Are you up for that and are you worried about being intimidated?
[14:23] <iulian> ScottK: Actually I'm not intimidated when I'm talking with someone that has more responsibilities and so on.  If I'm sure about what I'm doing, I believe it won't be a problem.
[14:23] <ScottK> OK.
[14:23] <DktrKranz> iulian, sometimes you'll be tempted to accept a package which brings in a transition or something bigger than a single upload. You have to be prepared to follow the whole chain, just to make sure nothing is missed.
[14:23] <DktrKranz> just for the records :)
[14:23] <iulian> DktrKranz: OK, thanks for telling.  If I'm not sure about something, I will ask first.
[14:25] <sistpoty|work> further questions?
[14:26] <iulian> If there are no further questions I'd like to know if you guys agreed that we should get rid of diffstat.  If I recall correctly, that was agreed.  On the wiki page it still mentions about it, can we remove that part?
[14:26] <ScottK> I agree it goes
[14:26]  * sistpoty|work has no problem with seeing diffstat gone
[14:26] <iulian> I was talking about this wiki page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess#Exceptions%20for%20Universe/Multiverse
[14:26]  * DktrKranz too
[14:26] <ScottK> iulian: Feel free to fix it after the meeting.
[14:27] <DktrKranz> diffstat is quite simple to generate anyway
[14:27] <iulian> OK then, may someone remove that from the process or should I do it?
[14:27] <iulian> ScottK: OK, excellent.
[14:28] <sistpoty|work> ok, what else needs clearing... once again 2 acks for a FFe?
[14:28] <ScottK> Yes and we want to do delegations again I think.
[14:28] <sistpoty|work> yep
[14:28]  * DktrKranz agrees
[14:28] <ScottK> I'd also like to discuss the bi-weekly Ubuntu Release team meetings.
[14:29] <ScottK> I've been going as the MOTU Release rep and will continue, but all are welcome.
[14:29] <sistpoty|work> sounds like a good idea
[14:29] <ScottK> If you're aware of any big issues that would be of interest, please make sure you show up/I know about it.
[14:29] <ScottK> They are every other Friday @1500UTC here.
[14:30] <ScottK> Not this week, but next.
[14:31] <sistpoty|work> do we want a gradual freeze again? If so, maybe do we want to also show this via requirements for a FFe?
[14:31] <sistpoty|work> (e.g. we could start with one ack from another developer, to one ack from motu-release to two acks or s.th.)
[14:31] <sistpoty|work> but that's just a weird idea I got right now ;)
[14:31] <ScottK> I think for new packages we need to take a hard line.
[14:31] <sistpoty|work> ScottK: yep, agreed
[14:31] <sistpoty|work> ScottK: but apart from new?
[14:32] <DktrKranz> latest cycle we allowed some NEW to come in quite easily
[14:32] <ScottK> The one thing I feel I got burned on last release was approving cruft cleaner.
[14:32] <ScottK> DktrKranz: We did check with the archive admins first.
[14:32] <ScottK> I think we were too loose about it last time.
[14:32] <DktrKranz> I think so
[14:32] <DktrKranz> but this time we had a in-shape REVU
[14:33] <ScottK> Yes.
[14:33] <ScottK> I assume we're good with repeating the bugfix releases are OK rule?
[14:33] <sistpoty|work> hm... maybe we could have motu-sru call in for more opinions on new after freeze (or give them a right to veto)?
[14:33] <DktrKranz> so, I'd inclined to improve REVUing those days to relax after FF
[14:34] <iulian> There are still a lot of packages waiting for review though.
[14:34] <ScottK> iulian: Always the case.  The problem is that New packages take a LOT of time to review and the archive admins have other work.
[14:34] <DktrKranz> sistpoty|work, we used that for firefox-3.1 in intrepid
[14:34]  * iulian agreed
[14:35] <sistpoty|work> DktrKranz: yes... I'm just thinking to generally raise the barrier for NEW after FFe (finally people shall fix bugs, not introduce new ones after FF *g*)
[14:36] <iulian> ScottK: It's always better to fix the existing bugs rather than getting new ones, especially at this stage.
[14:36] <ScottK> BTW, on that front, I am an archive-admin now.  I don't know how much New I will do since I'm new, but it may be we are able to deal with some new packages self contained.
[14:36] <ScottK> Yes
[14:36] <sistpoty|work> hey, congrats ScottK
[14:36] <ScottK> Thanks
[14:36] <iulian> Oh, congratulations then.
[14:36] <ScottK> I'd also rather MOTU were fixing bugs than reviewing on REVU.
[14:36] <DktrKranz> I think we should allow NEW only to provide features discussed at UDS or which have a great impact on another part of the archive, no more.
[14:37] <iulian> I was going to say that, ScottK.  I've noticed that the u-u-s is getting bigger and bigger.
[14:37] <DktrKranz> ScottK, WOW! congrats
[14:37] <ScottK> Thanks all.
[14:37] <ScottK> DktrKranz: I'd generally agree with that.
[14:38] <sistpoty|work> so I guess we agree to pretty much lock down NEW as good as possible?
[14:38] <ScottK> Yes.
[14:38] <DktrKranz> iulian, indeed. I have a plan for it I'd expose later
[14:38] <ScottK> How about three votes for a New package needed?
[14:38] <DktrKranz> +1
[14:38] <sistpoty|work> +1
[14:38] <iulian> ScottK: Starting from now?
[14:38] <ScottK> Starting from Feature Freeze
[14:39] <iulian> +1 then.
[14:40] <sistpoty|work> ok, what else did we have? gradual freeze?
[14:40] <ScottK> I think gradual freeze is a matter of judgement.
[14:40] <ScottK> I don't think we can write a rule for it.
[14:42] <sistpoty|work> hm... actually that problem that I'd like to solve is the rush before FF, but I wouldn't really know a good way how... any ideas?
[14:42] <DktrKranz> there is no remedy against the rush, everybody wants to have things in, it's life! ;)
[14:43] <iulian> Yeah, I agree with DktrKranz.  I think we can't do much about it.
[14:43] <sistpoty|work> ok
[14:43] <DktrKranz> I'd like to sort things in the u-u-s queue by tagging them
[14:44] <DktrKranz> I did it latest cycle and things were smoother
[14:44] <DktrKranz> but people like to cheat :)
[14:44] <sistpoty|work> OOI: how's the u-u-s queue doing right now?
[14:44] <iulian> We currently have 143 bugs opened.
[14:45] <DktrKranz> growing... I count at least 99 packages
[14:45] <ScottK> We still owe a motu-release charter to MC.
[14:46] <sistpoty|work> right
[14:46] <sistpoty|work> any volunteers?
[14:46] <ScottK> There was a session at UDS asking if the Ruby Gems thing led people to believe we needed Ubuntu level policy changes.
[14:47] <ScottK> The conclusion was we did not.  Any developer has the right to revert and you don't revert a reversion, you take it to TB.
[14:47] <ScottK> So we were on firm ground as individuals.
[14:47] <ScottK> The question is what additional collective authority do we have (if any)
[14:49] <DktrKranz> we can't control the upload queues, so we can't have many to block an upload
[14:49] <ScottK> But we can do as we did last time.
[14:50]  * DktrKranz hopes not to see that again
[14:50] <DktrKranz> motu-release should have some vetos, at least we should be pinged before a intrusive change
[14:51] <DktrKranz> that's the "power" I need, just to figure out which packages to follow after a potentially harmful upload
[14:51] <ScottK> DktrKranz: Would you take a stab at an initial draft?
[14:52] <DktrKranz> I could
[14:53] <ScottK> Great.
[14:53] <DktrKranz> I'd gather some ideas and write down something, suggestions are welcome
[14:53] <ScottK> Any other issues?
[14:53] <DktrKranz> ScottK, I owe you haskell transition status
[14:53] <ScottK> I thought status was "Done"?
[14:53] <DktrKranz> everything is done, I'll have a round at some packages to see if they require a rebuild or not, but it's just a matter of no-changes right now
[14:54] <sistpoty|work> \o/
[14:54] <iulian> Nice.
[14:54] <DktrKranz> it had *two* transitions
[14:55] <DktrKranz> one we were not aware of
[14:55] <sistpoty|work> DktrKranz: hm?
[14:56] <ScottK> DktrKranz: I need to know before a week from Friday for the next Ubuntu Release meeting.
[14:56] <DktrKranz> sistpoty|work, several packages need to be rebuilt against hslogger
[14:56] <DktrKranz> s/need/needed/
[14:56] <sistpoty|work> DktrKranz: ah, I see
[14:57] <DktrKranz> AFAIK, only two are left, I'm testbuilding them in my PPA first
[14:57] <DktrKranz> so I can have this stuff done in some hours
[14:59] <sistpoty|work> ok, what else for motu-release should we discuss right now? delegations? or do we want to defer that for a later time?
[15:00] <DktrKranz> I identified three packages which we probably want in before FF
[15:00] <ScottK> sistpoty|work: Would you review the delegations and recommend to the team if they need changes?
[15:01] <DktrKranz> see bug #324635 and bug #324636
[15:01]  * iulian is looking.
[15:02] <sistpoty|work> ScottK: sure thing
[15:02] <ScottK> Great.  I think we're done then.
[15:03] <sistpoty|work> do we want to schedule another meeting before FF?
[15:03] <iulian> Yes, please.
[15:04] <sistpoty|work> how about somewhen in week 15 (feb 12 - feb 19)?
[15:05] <DktrKranz> no problem for me
[15:05] <DktrKranz> first part of the week, so we can share things with fellow MOTUs
[15:05] <ScottK> OK
[15:05] <sistpoty|work> yep
[15:06] <sistpoty|work> 17th? (Tuesday), same time? or different time?
[15:06] <iulian> I think I can't make it if is the same date.
[15:07] <iulian> 14:00 UTC I mean.
[15:07] <sistpoty|work> iulian: other suggestoins?
[15:07] <ScottK> This is fine.
[15:07] <iulian> 17:00 UTC?
[15:07] <iulian> If that's OK with you.
[15:07] <ScottK> Not next Tuesday.
[15:08] <ScottK> I need to be finished by then.
[15:08] <ScottK> Err two Tuesdays
[15:08] <sistpoty|work> hm... 17:00 UTC is bad for me as well... :/
[15:08] <iulian> Then, other suggestions?
[15:08] <sistpoty|work> either sooner or later would work for me
[15:08] <DktrKranz> 20 UTC?
[15:09] <iulian> That works for me.
[15:09] <sistpoty|work> for me as well
[15:09] <ScottK> I'm tied up the rest of the day.
[15:09] <sistpoty|work> hm... how about monday 16th?
[15:09] <sistpoty|work> 20:00 UTC?
[15:10] <DktrKranz> fine for me
[15:10] <iulian> I'm OK with that.
[15:10] <ScottK> I need the meeting to be over by 2030
[15:10] <sistpoty|work> then maybe 19 UTC?
[15:10] <iulian> Yup.
[15:11] <DktrKranz> fine too
[15:11] <ScottK> I'm fine with that.
[15:11] <sistpoty|work> \o/
[15:11] <DktrKranz> got it!
[15:11] <iulian> OK then.  Monday 16th - 19:00 UTC.
[15:11] <iulian> BRB - phone.
[15:12] <sistpoty|work> btw.: can someone book ubuntu-meeting (in the hope there isn't a meeting there yet)? I've heard that it works with a google account nowadays, which I sadly don't have :/
[15:12]  * ScottK doesn't have one either.
[15:12]  * DktrKranz has
[15:13] <DktrKranz> are there instructions?
[15:13] <sistpoty|work> DktrKranz: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Fridge/Calendar
[15:14] <DktrKranz> thanks
[15:15]  * iulian is back.
[15:15] <sistpoty|work> ok, I guess then the meeting is finished :) thanks everyone for coming
[15:16] <ScottK> Thanks.
[15:16] <iulian> Thank you.
[15:16] <DktrKranz> thanks!
[15:50] <ivoks> o/
[15:50] <zul> hello
[15:51] <sommer> yo
[15:54] <nijaba> o/
[15:57] <ScottK> \o
[15:59]  * mathiaz waves
[16:00] <nxvl> \o/
[16:00] <soren> -o-
[16:00] <kirkland> o/
[16:00] <soren> _o\
[16:00] <nijaba> ô
[16:00] <Koon>  /o\
[16:00] <ivoks> &o
[16:00] <soren> /o_
[16:00] <Koon> xOx
[16:00] <mathiaz> kids - let's get started
[16:00] <nealmcb> &&
[16:00] <soren> k
[16:00] <mathiaz> #startmeeting
[16:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is mathiaz.
[16:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:01] <mathiaz> Today's agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting
[16:01] <mathiaz> last week minutes: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20090127
[16:01] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] SRU for ebox
[16:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  SRU for ebox
[16:01] <mathiaz> sommer: what's the state of this?
[16:02] <sommer> mathiaz: I guess updated intrepid packages still need to be uploaded?
[16:02] <sommer> mathiaz: should be able to do that this evening
[16:03] <mathiaz> sommer: IIUC new debdiff should be prepared
[16:03] <mathiaz> sommer: and the relevant bugs updated
[16:03] <mathiaz> sommer: once that has been done, the pkg can be sponsored.
[16:04] <sommer> mathiaz: roger that
[16:04] <mathiaz> [ACTION] sommer to prepare new ebox debdiffs
[16:04] <MootBot> ACTION received:  sommer to prepare new ebox debdiffs
[16:04] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] ACL by default
[16:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  ACL by default
[16:05] <ivoks> that's me
[16:05] <mathiaz> ivoks: ^^ - did you create a wiki page to track of the work required to move things forward?
[16:05] <ivoks> so, i've found an old wiki page that has this topic covered
[16:05] <ivoks> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ACL-OnByDefault
[16:06] <ivoks> it's from the desktop point of view, but i added not-only-desktop packages (zip, tar, cpio)
[16:06] <ivoks> so, once acl is implemented in package, i'll remove it from the list
[16:07] <mathiaz> ivoks: great. Thanks for tracking the state of ACL in packages.
[16:07] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] DRBD in jaunty
[16:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  DRBD in jaunty
[16:07] <mathiaz> I've published a call for testing on the server blog
[16:07] <ivoks> oh, nice
[16:08] <ivoks> wiki is here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/Cases/UbuntuServer-drbd
[16:08] <mathiaz> http://ubuntuserver.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/call-for-testing-drbd-83-in-jaunty/
[16:08] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://ubuntuserver.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/call-for-testing-drbd-83-in-jaunty/
[16:08] <ivoks> i've tried creating howto to be as easier as possible to follow
[16:08] <mathiaz> This has been picked up by one of the upstream dev:
[16:08] <mathiaz> http://fghaas.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/ubuntu-users-please-test-drbd-83-for-jaunty/
[16:08] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://fghaas.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/ubuntu-users-please-test-drbd-83-for-jaunty/
[16:09] <mathiaz> so I'll relay the call for testing in the upstream community
[16:09] <mathiaz> ivoks: thanks - the wiki page is rather extensive
[16:09] <ivoks> i could post a message to their users mailing list
[16:10] <mathiaz> ivoks: thanks for taking the time to write this up
[16:10] <ivoks> np
[16:10] <mathiaz> ivoks: do you know if there is a drbd page on help.ubuntu.com/community/
[16:10] <mathiaz> ivoks: ?
[16:10] <ivoks> i don't think so
[16:10] <mathiaz> ivoks: ok
[16:11] <mathiaz> let's move if there isn't anything else to report on drbd
[16:11] <ivoks> this howto could be used for that
[16:11] <ivoks> nope, that's all
[16:11] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Screen profiles
[16:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  Screen profiles
[16:11] <mathiaz> kirkland: what's new on this front?
[16:11] <nealmcb> HOw about this: Screen is a window manager for terminal sessions, also good for use over ssh etc.  See https://launchpad.net/screen-profiles for status bars, clocks, notifiers (reboot-required, updates-Havailable) etc.
[16:12] <kirkland> nealmcb: +1
[16:12] <nealmcb> (drop that "H"...)
[16:12] <kirkland> nealmcb: sounds find for a 2 liner
[16:12] <kirkland> mathiaz: a few things ...
[16:12] <kirkland> mathiaz: a couple of uploads
[16:12] <mathiaz> nealmcb: works for me.
[16:12] <nealmcb> it's tough given how cool it is to use just two lines
[16:12] <kirkland> mathiaz: in main, now brought in by screen itself
[16:12] <mathiaz> nealmcb: could you take care of updating the factoids?
[16:12] <nealmcb> yup
[16:12] <kirkland> mathiaz: it provides a new "screen" wrapper script which divert's screen's itself
[16:13] <kirkland> mathiaz: which will ask you to select your profile of choice
[16:13] <mathiaz> [ACTION] nealmcb to update the screen factoids
[16:13] <MootBot> ACTION received:  nealmcb to update the screen factoids
[16:13] <kirkland> mathiaz: and then launches with the same args
[16:13] <kirkland> mathiaz: this was per ivoks' suggestion?
[16:13] <kirkland> mathiaz: easy to implement
[16:13] <kirkland> mathiaz: haven't gotten much feedback yet on the divert (yet)
[16:13] <kirkland> mathiaz: i expect more people will rejoice/complain very soon :-)
[16:14] <kirkland> mathiaz: there have been a few bugs
[16:14] <ivoks> kirkland: it's crucial that 'default' should be 'preselected', so that users don't just hit enter and find them selvs in something that's not what they expected :)
[16:14] <kirkland> mathiaz: closing those out as quickly as possible
[16:14] <kirkland> ivoks: default is "plain"
[16:14] <ivoks> great
[16:14] <kirkland> ivoks: if they just hit enter, they end up with screen's shipped default
[16:14] <kirkland> ivoks: and should never be bothered about it again
[16:14] <ivoks> that's great
[16:14] <kirkland> ivoks: changable later by select-screen-profile
[16:14] <ivoks> of course
[16:14] <kirkland> mathiaz: i think that's it for now?
[16:15] <kirkland> mathiaz: i'm working on an ec2 bill-meter for it :-)
[16:15] <nijaba> what about upgrades?
[16:15] <kirkland> mathiaz: nearly done
[16:15] <kirkland> nijaba: upgrades?
[16:15] <nijaba> 8.10 with screen update to jaunty?
[16:15] <ivoks> nijaba: don't change what people expect... rule #1 :)
[16:16] <ivoks> if they used plain screen untill now, let them use it in new version
[16:16] <kirkland> nijaba: well, the new screen package will recommend and install screen-profiles
[16:16] <nijaba> ivoks: I just want to make sure the case is correctly handled
[16:16] <ivoks> ... or that - even better
[16:16] <kirkland> nijaba: the first time they call screen there after, they will see:
[16:16] <kirkland> Select a screen profile:
[16:16] <kirkland>  1. plain
[16:16] <kirkland>  2. ubuntu-dark
[16:16] <kirkland>  3. ubuntu-light
[16:16] <kirkland> Choose:  1-3 [1]:
[16:16] <ivoks> kirkland: imho, that's superb!
[16:16] <kirkland> nijaba: we should verify that, i think
[16:16] <nijaba> kirkland: ok, same behaviour then
[16:17]  * kirkland high-fives ivoks   o/*\o
[16:17] <kirkland> nijaba: oui
[16:17] <kirkland> oh, there's also new support for disabling our keybindings
[16:17] <mathiaz> ok - seems that we're well done on the screen-profiles front
[16:17] <nxvl> and what about the customed screen profiles
[16:17] <kirkland> or choosing another set, should we provide one
[16:17] <nxvl> i mean if someone already modified his profile with his own changes
[16:17] <kirkland> .screenrc no longer contains a line that says "source ..."
[16:18] <kirkland> that broke people who's home or .screenrc was sync'd to other machines, perhaps without screen-profiles
[16:18] <kirkland> so now .screenrc is empty
[16:18] <kirkland> and the screen wrapper calls the real screen with the -c option, which identifies the the .screenrc-profile file (if it exists)
[16:19] <kirkland> the last thing that file does is sources your ~/.screenrc
[16:19] <kirkland> so anything you put in there will override anything above it
[16:19] <kirkland> that should be the expected/desired behavior, i believe
[16:19] <kirkland> btw, i've gotten good feedback on the dark theme
[16:19] <kirkland> seems most people prefer that
[16:19] <nijaba> lool will be happy :)
[16:19] <kirkland> that have spoken up :-)
[16:20] <kirkland> lool and i have reviewed a good bit of this
[16:20] <kirkland> he has one more important recommendation about the dpkg-divert
[16:20] <nealmcb> kirkland: but dark screens make reflections more visible....
[16:20] <kirkland> i'm still working that out
[16:20] <mathiaz> ok  let's move on
[16:20] <kirkland> cool, thanks
[16:21] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] EtcUnderRevisionControl status
[16:21] <MootBot> New Topic:  EtcUnderRevisionControl status
[16:21] <mathiaz> Koon: ^^
[16:21] <Koon> So I've converted the spec info a set of bugs. Some of them are in good shape (see my branch), some of them aren't... and I might not have enough time for this to land in Jaunty before FF
[16:21] <Koon> into, even
[16:21] <Koon> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/etc-under-revision-control
[16:21] <mathiaz> Koon: are bugs files against the etckeeper package?
[16:21] <Koon> anyone that wants to help is welcome to look at those bugs
[16:21] <Koon> not only. There is one bzr bug, but it's almost done
[16:21] <mathiaz> Koon: did you use the mentoring option?
[16:22] <Koon> they are all linked on the blueprint page
[16:22] <Koon> no, but I should
[16:22] <ScottK> Did anyone get an opinion from upstream on this?
[16:22] <Koon> ScottK: yes.
[16:22] <ScottK> Last I read they thougth bzr support was not ready.
[16:22] <Koon> ScottK: you read a long time ago then
[16:22] <ScottK> OK.
[16:22] <nxvl> ScottK: we had some bzr developers in the session at UDS
[16:23] <Koon> Jelmer has been integrating bzr support into etckeeper, and Joey is verfy much happy with it
[16:23] <ScottK> It seems an odd divergence to make a vcs used almost nowhere outside of Ubuntu development the default, but whatever.
[16:23] <Koon> He just prefers git because he is a git user, but he is very happy with us doing advanced bzr-based features
[16:24] <Koon> ScottK: it will make sense when we deliver features that will only be available for bzr
[16:24] <Koon> (integrating permissions/ownership differences directly into the diff output, for example)
[16:24] <mathiaz> ScottK: there is support for other vcs - so users can switch to their preferred vcs system easily
[16:24] <Koon> I agree that at this point it doesn't make alot of sense to change default VCS
[16:25] <ScottK> I think default should be based on what users use, not developers.
[16:25] <ScottK> But we can move on.
[16:25] <mathiaz> ok.
[16:26] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Encrypted private/home with filename encryption available
[16:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Encrypted private/home with filename encryption available
[16:26] <mathiaz> kirkland: ^^?
[16:26] <kirkland> mathiaz: worked with evand on it yesterday
[16:26] <kirkland> mathiaz: had to work through a number of kinks
[16:26] <mathiaz> I think you made a call for testing on your blog?
[16:26] <soren> ScottK: Very few users use VCS, fwiw.
[16:26] <ScottK> soren: True and most of the that do use svn.
[16:26] <kirkland> mathiaz: what he uploaded yesterday should be in the next round of iso's
[16:26] <soren> ScottK: And windows.
[16:26] <kirkland> mathiaz: i haven't blogged about it yet
[16:27] <kirkland> mathiaz: i need to test the iso myself first
[16:27] <kirkland> mathiaz: i expect a call for testing to cooincide with the alpha4 release
[16:27] <mathiaz> kirkland: ok - great.
[16:27] <mathiaz> [ACTION] kirkland to make a call for testing filename encryption via a blog post.
[16:27] <MootBot> ACTION received:  kirkland to make a call for testing filename encryption via a blog post.
[16:28] <ScottK> You might even get slangasek to include it in the release notes for Alpha 4.
[16:28] <kirkland> ScottK: cool, will do, thanks
[16:28] <mathiaz> ok. anything else to report on private encrypted directories?
[16:29] <kirkland> mathiaz: don't thinks so
[16:29] <mathiaz> ok. That's all I had from last week minutes
[16:30] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Update ServerGuide for Jaunty
[16:30] <MootBot> New Topic:  Update ServerGuide for Jaunty
[16:30] <mathiaz> sommer: how is this progressing?
[16:30] <sommer> mathiaz: coming along, I think most of the major new additions are done
[16:31] <ScottK> sommer: Did you catch the scrollback on the TLS cert issue we've been discussing?
[16:31] <sommer> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyServerGuide
[16:31] <sommer> ScottK: not all of it, but it's on my list
[16:31] <ScottK> OK
[16:31] <ScottK> I can confirm that the current docs don't work.
[16:31] <mathiaz> sommer: do the sections marked as Done need to be review?
[16:32] <sommer> mathiaz: ya a reviews would be great
[16:32] <slangasek> kirkland, ScottK: yes, please write it and I will happily not revert it ;)
[16:32] <kirkland> slangasek: ;-)
[16:33] <ScottK> slangasek: Do you have a link for the draft?
[16:33] <slangasek> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyJackalope/TechnicalOverview
[16:33] <ScottK> THanks.
[16:33]  * ScottK does some unrelated editing ...
[16:34] <mathiaz> sommer: looks good to me.
[16:34] <mathiaz> anything else to add on the documentation front?
[16:34] <sommer> mathiaz: don't think so at this point
[16:35] <mathiaz> sommer: great. Thanks for working on this!
[16:35] <sommer> np :)
[16:36] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] Open Discussion
[16:36] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion
[16:36] <mathiaz> anything else to add?
[16:36] <ScottK> mathiaz: Did you see my blog on DNSSEC, dkim-mitler, and unbound?
[16:36] <nijaba> Ubuntu Server Survey results have been sent to the participants
[16:36] <nijaba> a press release about it should be out this week
[16:36] <nealmcb> ScottK link?
[16:36] <ScottK> mathiaz: I'm not sure if it's worth republishing in the Server Team blog or not. http://www.kitterman.org/ScottK/2009/01/getting_ready_for_dnssec_one_s.html
[16:37] <mathiaz> ScottK: I saw it.
[16:37] <ScottK> I'm not sure how much readership outside planet.ubuntu.com the Server Team blog has.
[16:38] <mathiaz> ScottK: I don't know either.
[16:38] <nealmcb> ScottK way cool - thanks!   yeah - big headaches there
[16:38] <ScottK> We did manage to kill off  a libdb version recently.
[16:38] <mathiaz> Any ideas to increase that is welcomed!
[16:39] <ScottK> If someone would merge openldap from Experimental, then maybe 4.2 coud die too.
[16:39]  * ScottK isn't going to touch it.
[16:39] <ScottK> If that got done we'd have a shot at shipping Jaunty with just 4.6 and 4.7.
[16:40] <mathiaz> ScottK: from experimental?
[16:40] <nealmcb> I think republishing that blog on the server blog is a good idea.  quality content drives interest....
[16:40] <ScottK> mathiaz: Yeah.  Because of the Lenny freeze the latest is in Debian experimental.
[16:40] <ScottK> At least that's how I understand it.
[16:42] <ScottK> mathiaz: Just in case copyright weenies care to know, you have my permission to republish that article on the server team blog.
[16:42] <mathiaz> ScottK: hm - I don't see a new openldap package in experimental
[16:42] <ScottK> Odd.  Let me look into it.
[16:43]  * ivoks needs to go... take care
[16:44] <ScottK> mathiaz: OK.  Sorry about that.  Merge from experimental/package new upstream release then.
[16:45] <mathiaz> nealmcb: right - I'm not so interested to just cut-n-paste other  posts on the ubuntu server blog
[16:45] <mathiaz> I'd rather have original content.
[16:45] <mathiaz> we've discussing that with Koon and kirkland
[16:45]  * ScottK notes that if he had posting rights to said blog he'd have posted it there.
[16:45] <nealmcb> mathiaz: I'm saying that having something, even just a link to scott's post, would be good for interest level in server blog
[16:46] <kirkland> we've also been talking about making it more of a "server planet"
[16:46] <mathiaz> nealmcb: true - a feed could be easily added to the server blog
[16:46] <kirkland> aggregating interesting server-related material, from perhaps ScottK's blog, and others
[16:46] <mathiaz> ScottK: it would be easy to give you authoring access to the ubuntu server blog
[16:46] <nijaba> mathiaz: what about a bi weekly list of interesting post about Ubuntu Server on your blog?
[16:46] <ScottK> mathiaz: OK.  I'm interested.
[16:47] <ScottK> Last time I asked I was told it was Canonical only.  I'm glad to hear this has changed.
[16:47] <mathiaz> nijaba: another option.
[16:48] <mathiaz> kirkland has been proposing to use a planet-like system instaed.
[16:48] <Koon> gtg, sorry
[16:49] <nijaba> a dedicated to server aggregation?
[16:49] <nijaba> sounds like a good idea
[16:50] <mathiaz> nijaba: yes. So that anyone could publish on their own blog and we'd aggregate everything related to ubuntu-server to a blog
[16:52] <mathiaz> ok - anything else to add?
[16:53] <ScottK> mathiaz: Are you willing to look into openldap?  If so vorian and I can look at the other DB 4.2 users.
[16:54] <mathiaz> ScottK: yes - I'll look into updating to 2.4.13 which means we have to move to db 4.6
[16:54] <ScottK> Excellent.
[16:54] <mathiaz> [TOPIC] # Agree on next meeting date and time.
[16:54] <MootBot> New Topic:  # Agree on next meeting date and time.
[16:54] <mathiaz> next week, same time, same place?
[16:55] <sommer> o//
[16:55] <nijaba> +1
[16:57] <nealmcb> sommer: one person, one vote....
[16:57] <sommer> :)
[16:57] <mathiaz> ok - see you all next week
[16:58] <nealmcb> :)
[16:58] <mathiaz> same time same place
[16:58] <mathiaz> happy iso testing for Alpha4 due this week!
[16:58] <mathiaz> #endmeeting
[16:58] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:58.
[16:58] <sommer> thanks mathiaz, later on all
[21:17] <mako> greetings
[21:18] <jpds> Evening, doesn't look like there'll be a CC meeting tonight...
[21:18] <mako> did i miss a message?
[21:18] <mako> or is just that others have not showed up
[21:18] <jpds> The latte.
[21:18] <jpds> -r*
[21:18] <mako> a bunch of people replied to the message saying that they would be available
[21:18] <Technoviking> hello
[21:19] <Technoviking> looks like it did not get added to the fridge or ircbot
[21:19] <mako> ok
[21:19] <mako> well, sabdfl said he would make it. he and dholbach are at a sprint but said they could make it
[21:19] <mako> cory said he could make it
[21:20] <mako> and mdke said he would try
[21:20] <Technoviking> Claire just wrote and said Mark could not
[21:20] <mako> oh, i hadn't seen that one
[21:20] <mako> so it's you and me :)
[21:20] <mako> there's only one thing on the agenda
[21:21] <mako> from nathan handler
[21:21] <jpds> nhandler is not around at the moment.
[21:21] <mako> which is just asking for a status update that i don't think either of us can give
[21:21] <mako> "Several months ago, after an email from Emanuele Gentilli (emgent), Mark Shuttleworth, Matt Zimmerman, and James Troup decided that James would setup SFTP-based web page hosting for Ubuntu members. This discussion took place several months ago, and since then, there has been no visible progress. Is this still being worked on? If so, is there an estimated time that it will be implemented, or is there something holding it up?"
[21:22] <mako> i'm happy to poke james to find out
[21:22] <mako> i certainly don't know the status
[21:22] <Technoviking> ok, I know there are plans for more online services, maybe that has been made part of that
[21:23] <mako> i guess we can just ask for an update on an appropriate list, spec, etc
[21:24] <Technoviking> sounds like a plan
[21:24] <Technoviking> we can discuss this on the CC list also to move things along
[21:26] <mako> cool :)
[21:26] <mako> does anyone have any other business for the CC? :)
[21:26] <mako> or this small sample of it
[21:28] <Technoviking> ahh.. a happy community:)
[21:28] <mako> thanks everyone (anyone?) for coming :)