=== RoAk is now known as RoAkSoAx === lukjad007 is now known as ShadowChild === WelshDragon is now known as YDdraigGoch === Quintasan_ is now known as Quintasan === lifeless_ is now known as lifeless === mvo is now known as mv === mv is now known as mvo === bof_ is now known as ButterflyOfFire [13:11] @schedule london [13:11] bah === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach [14:55] @schedule === evanrmurphy_ is now known as evanrmurphy [15:00] cjwatson: keybuk: whose turn to chair? [15:00] I think it might be me [15:00] hi all [15:00] * ogra thinks that was the word last time [15:00] (unless i skipped one TB) [15:00] #startmeeting [15:00] Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is mdz. [15:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [15:01] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda [15:01] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda [15:01] agenda is: [15:01] * Per-package upload application for Charlie Smotherman ([[CharlieSmotherman/PerPackageUploaderApplication|Application]] [[https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2009-May/002115.html|MOTU Council recommendation]]) [15:01] * Core developer application from Thierry Carrez (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ThierryCarrez/CoreDevApplication) [15:01] * Canonical support for education applications (JordanMantha, JonathanCarter, StephaneGraber) [15:01] * Clamav update policy, [[ClamavUpdates|proposal]] (ScottKitterman) [15:01] * Mono (ScottJamesRemnant) [15:01] * Developer application board (ScottJamesRemnant) [15:01] * Select a chair for the next meeting [15:01] * Summarize the meeting for TeamReports [15:01] cjwatson: keybuk: are you here? [15:01] * ScottK-laptop wrote this morning to ask if the clamav topic could come early in the meeting as I have to leave no later than 1440 UTC. [15:01] yes [15:01] I chaired last week [15:02] ScottK-laptop: sorry, I hadn't seen that yet [15:02] will we have sabdfl? [15:02] ScottK-laptop: how much time do you think it requires? [15:02] cjwatson: seems unlikely [15:02] mdz: I am here ;) [15:02] cjwatson: will we have Keybuk? [15:02] ok [15:02] just making my lunch, so reading and typing for a few minutes ;) [15:02] and not typing, even [15:02] mdz: Anywhere between 5 minutes and two days. It depends on if people have considered the proposal and how much discussion it generates. [15:03] I'm hoping not long. [15:03] I've considered the proposal and you spoke to it at UDS as well [15:03] I've read it, and saw your presentation at UDS [15:03] I hadn't yet thought about who we would want input from beyond the TB [15:03] release team and security team perhaps? [15:03] sabdfl gave it a +1 via email. [15:03] The security team endorsed it before i sent it to the TB. [15:03] anyway, let's go ahead and dive into that since you requested it [15:04] for the most part I think it falls under the general principle we've been evolving that we should permit updates outside the usual run of things when the driver is primarily external events [15:04] [TOPIC] Clamav update policy [15:04] New Topic: Clamav update policy [15:04] http://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClamavUpdate is the proposal [15:04] LINK received: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClamavUpdate is the proposal [15:04] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClamavUpdates [15:04] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClamavUpdates [15:04] (is there an echo in here? ;-) ) [15:04] have you encountered much in the way of trouble with rdepends of the library package? [15:04] There are a mix of issues getting to something we think is ready for the archive. [15:05] So far once we've decided to push to -updates/-security there have been almost none. [15:05] ScottK-laptop: good (re: security team). do you have input from the release team? [15:05] mdz: No. I didn't think to coordinate with them. [15:05] if not, is there a member of the release team here other than cjwatson? :) [15:06] For packages where upstream isn't dead it's mostly a lot of coordination, patching, and testing. [15:06] well, the release team already consented to the past updates [15:06] though I don't think I was much involved with that myself [15:06] We (slangasek actually) pushed clamav 0.95.1 and redepends to dapper/hardy/intrepid-backports yesterday. [15:07] of course if these are going through -security then AFAIAC the primary signoff requirement is from the security team [15:07] There's is the hardest bit. [15:07] so I'm pleased to see them involved in regression testing [15:08] I have no problems with the proposal, and if the security and release teams are happy with it, I'm happy to endorse it [15:09] Likewise [15:09] sounds like agreement to me [15:10] should we vote on this? [15:10] [VOTE] endorse ClamavUpdates contingent on the support of the security and release teams [15:10] Please vote on: endorse ClamavUpdates contingent on the support of the security and release teams. [15:10] 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 [15:10] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [15:10] +1 [15:10] +1 received from cjwatson. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:10] +1 [15:10] +1 received from mdz. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [15:10] Keybuk: ? [15:11] +1 [15:11] +1 received from Keybuk. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [15:11] [ENDVOTE] [15:11] Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3 [15:11] ScottK-laptop: anything else on this topic? [15:11] ScottK-laptop: please go ahead and edit StableReleaseUpdates to reflect this when you have a chance [15:11] Nope. I'll go get those endorsements. [15:11] cjwatson: Will do. [15:11] ScottK-laptop: ok, thanks for making time to talk with us about it [15:11] [TOPIC] Per-package upload application for Charlie Smotherman [15:11] New Topic: Per-package upload application for Charlie Smotherman [15:12] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CharlieSmotherman/PerPackageUploaderApplication [15:12] Not a problem. Thanks for the flexibility on schedule. [15:12] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CharlieSmotherman/PerPackageUploaderApplication [15:12] [LINK] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2009-May/002115.html [15:12] LINK received: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2009-May/002115.html [15:12] is Charlie Smotherman here? [15:12] * porthose waves [15:13] yes [15:13] porthose: hello, thanks for coming [15:13] glad to be here [15:13] porthose: can you tell us a bit about the ampache packaging - anything particularly unusual about it? [15:14] nothing really unusual about it other than I put it together from scratch [15:15] note that this is a bit unusual, in that we haven't previously granted per-package upload rights to packages in universe before [15:15] but with archive reorg on the horizon, it seems appropriate to start doing this [15:15] :) [15:15] I suggest we treat this as we would the creation of a developer team for ampache [15:16] ok [15:16] we don't have a procedure for that yet, do we? :) [15:16] nope [15:16] now seems as good a time as any [15:16] the main question is, who would be the administrator of said team? [15:16] the TB [15:16] I'd suggest that until there is some reason to change, the TB should be the administrator. [15:17] ok, no argument from me [15:17] me neither [15:17] and the list of packages would be? [15:17] (I thought I'd already suggested that as standing procedure, BTW) [15:17] per the application, ampache, ampache-themes, coherence [15:18] cjwatson: sorry [15:18] I was just searching the application to try to find that, and didn't see it [15:18] porthose: are ampache and coherence related? [15:18] mdz: oh, it's in the motu-council mail [15:18] it is in the motu council's recommendation though [15:19] Keybuk: in a way, you can use coherence + ampache + rhythmbox [15:19] or any other player that supports DAAP [15:19] ok, makes sense to keep them grouped then [15:19] porthose: is coherence useful with servers other than ampache? [15:19] just curious, you mentioned that coherence uses ampache's XML API - I notice it doesn't seem to have any dependency or build-dependency relationship. Does it just talk the API by hand? [15:20] mdz: as far as other servers I'm not sure about, but there are a number of devices are supported by coherence [15:20] ampache use it's XML api to communicate with coherence [15:20] anyway, I've got no problem with porthose's application given motu-council's endorsement, AFAIK this is just figuring out how to best express it in LP :) [15:21] mdz: do we need a team for a single person, incidentally? [15:21] python's standard library includes an XML-RPC client [15:21] I was under the impression that we would generally only bother once there were multiple people involved [15:21] cjwatson: I don't think we do, no [15:21] though I think there is some advantage to making a team [15:22] it means that if someone else comes along and wants to help with ampache, it's obvious where to go [15:22] I'm open to either configuration, though [15:22] it's easily switched over later [15:22] are we ready to vote on granting the rights to porthose in any case? [15:23] I am [15:23] cjwatson: yes, though once there are many of these ,we'll need to remember to check for existing ACLs on a package before granting one to another individual, and convert it into a team [15:23] right [15:23] I agree, but generally think we should create structure when we need it rather than before [15:23] anyway, readyy [15:23] [VOTE] grant upload rights to Charlie Smotherman (porthose) for packages: ampache, ampache-themes, coherence [15:23] Please vote on: grant upload rights to Charlie Smotherman (porthose) for packages: ampache, ampache-themes, coherence. [15:23] 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 [15:23] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [15:23] +1 [15:23] +1 received from Keybuk. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:23] +1 [15:23] +1 [15:23] +1 received from cjwatson. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [15:23] +1 received from mdz. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [15:23] [ENDVOTE] [15:23] Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3 [15:24] cjwatson: will you take care of the ACL setup? [15:24] yep [15:24] the branch of ubuntu-archive-tools I was using seems to have vanished [15:24] porthose: cjsmo in LP, right? [15:24] bzr+ssh://mdz@bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Ekamion/%2Bjunk/ubuntu-archive-tools/ [15:24] cjwatson: correct [15:24] cjwatson: yes [15:24] oh yes, your application says that [15:24] [TOPIC] * Core developer application from Thierry Carrez (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ThierryCarrez/CoreDevApplication) [15:24] New Topic: * Core developer application from Thierry Carrez (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ThierryCarrez/CoreDevApplication) [15:24] ttx: HERE? [15:24] mdz: that's obsolete - use lp:~ubuntu-archive/ubuntu-archive-tools/trunk [15:24] er, here? [15:24] mdz: yes. [15:24] ttx: hello [15:25] hello everyone. [15:25] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ThierryCarrez/CoreDevApplication [15:25] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ThierryCarrez/CoreDevApplication [15:26] I have some direct experience of Thierry's work, and have also heard from his colleagues and manager on the server team [15:26] porthose: done, you can upload those freely now modulo the release schedule [15:27] ttx: what do you think is the main aspect on which you need to improve? [15:27] cjwatson: thank you [15:27] and the TB [15:27] Keybuk: I would say broaden general knowledge over some packages. There are things I know, and things I don't know [15:28] I would be interested to hear from people on other key development-related teams (like the release team, the archive admin team, etc) if he's worked with them [15:28] ttx: can you think of an example offhand? [15:28] Keybuk: I'm working on it by imposing specific periods during the week where I look over new things [15:28] ttx: do you have experiences working with people beyond the server team in your capacity as an Ubuntu developer? [15:28] Keybuk: hmm... iSCSI support ? [15:29] mdz: my work on java packaging was mostly done in interaction with the ubuntu JavaTeam [15:29] and MOTU. [15:29] I've worked with ttx occasionally, but it's been more doing things on request than lots in the way of active sponsorship [15:29] ttx: have you ever requested a freeze exception? [15:29] Most of my work is done with upstream interaction [15:30] ttx: (iSCSI support as an example of something you don't know and would like to?) [15:30] mdz: yes, I did. For Likewise-Open, and (iirc) eucalyptus [15:31] cjwatson: something I've not hands-on experience with. I know FC SANs but not so much the iSCSI toolset [15:31] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/likewise-open/+bug/323601 [15:31] Ubuntu bug 323601 in likewise-open "[FFe] Upgrade to likewise-open 5 for Jaunty" [Wishlist,Fix released] [15:32] and...I think... [15:32] https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/eucalyptus/+bug/358541 [15:32] ttx: eucalyptus is somewhat close to my heart at the moment - how are you planning to mitigate the fact that we know we're dependent on upstream work in order to meet some release goals? [15:32] though the latter (apart from saying "ffe") doesn't look much like a freeze exception request [15:32] Ubuntu bug 358541 in eucalyptus "[FFe] Missing populate_arp.pl" [Undecided,Fix released] [15:32] the latter is not especially mine, either :) [15:32] ttx: (and, when you're ready) have you worked at all with those parts of Ubuntu that are currently in bzr, or with James' branches that are in progress, to evaluate how those feel to you? [15:33] cjwatson: it's tricky. I'm trying to get tentative dependency lists so that I rate the quantity of work left correctly [15:33] ttx: I didn't find any other freeze exception request regarding eucalyptus [15:33] cjwatson: both euca-in-main and euca-on-cd unfortunately depend on the final dependency list [15:33] but the likewise-open one is a good example [15:33] ttx: depend for completion, yes, but it's not entirely obvious that they depend on that for getting started ...? [15:34] cjwatson: yes, my work on etckeeper is done through bzr packaging [15:34] and some git-bzr goodness from jelmer [15:34] ah, etckeeper is native so that dodges a lot of the problems [15:34] cjwatson: they surely don't depend on that to be started. I'd say half the work on euca-on-cd is done [15:35] euca-in-main is trickier, since you don't really want to MIR something that ends up not being necessary. [15:35] especially when you have ~80 packages to MIR :) [15:36] * ttx tries to make sure he didn't miss one question in the question storm... [15:36] ttx: is the work which has been done evident in the archive right now? [15:36] (on euca-on-cd) [15:37] mdz: yes. I've done dependency fixes in universe packages. [15:37] mdz: plus a few main things that cjwatson sponsored :) [15:37] ok, no more questions from me [15:37] right, ttx and doko came to an agreement at UDS on some Java dependency rearrangement [15:37] mdz: all should be linked from the blueprint for your review. [15:38] let me know when you're ready to vote [15:38] cjwatson: yes, the dreaded -gcj recommendations. [15:39] I think I'm OK to go [15:39] me also [15:40] [VOTE] Application from Thierry Carrez for Ubuntu Core Developer [15:40] Please vote on: Application from Thierry Carrez for Ubuntu Core Developer. [15:40] 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 [15:40] E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting [15:40] +1 [15:40] +1 received from mdz. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1 [15:40] +1 [15:40] +1 received from Keybuk. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2 [15:41] +1 - I think ttx's knowledge of the sorts of things he's working on at the moment is now pretty sound, and he's working on a broad enough range of things that it seems to me to justify core-dev [15:41] +1 received from cjwatson. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3 [15:41] [ENDVOTE] [15:41] Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3 [15:41] ttx: congratulations and welcome [15:41] thanks everyone ! [15:41] * mdz updates Launchpad [15:41] congrats ttx [15:41] [TOPIC] Canonical support for education applications (JordanMantha, JonathanCarter, StephaneGraber) [15:41] New Topic: Canonical support for education applications (JordanMantha, JonathanCarter, StephaneGraber) [15:42] sorry, I'm in another meeting at the moment but will try to quickly discuss it [15:42] LaserJock, highvoltage, stgraber: ping? [15:42] so basically at the last TB meeting it was discussed that Edubuntu will have some packages from universe [15:42] there's no link associated with this item, so I'm not sure what it's about [15:42] currently according to Canonical's website Edubuntu is supported as an officially supported derivative [15:43] and I'd have like to know what's going to happen and what's the actual current status of that [15:44] 15:49 I guess we'll add another agenda item for the next TB meeting to discuss Canonical support for education apps as AFAIK it's still advertised as supported somewhere on ubuntu.com [15:44] was where this came from, in the last meeting [15:44] stgraber: just to be clear, are you asking whether Canonical will offer technical support services (i.e. support contracts) for educational applications? [15:44] mdz: pong [15:44] right, currently as it's advertised Canonical is supposed to offer paid support for Edubuntu [15:45] and so was wondering what's happening with that in regard of Edubuntu's current situation [15:45] I'm not sure that this is something the Ubuntu Technical Board can decide, Canonical's offer of commerical support for any given release is up to Canonical [15:46] Keybuk, I get the impression stgraber is just looking to know where things stand today [15:46] right, this isn't up to the TB [15:46] Keybuk: I thought that Canonical supports everything in main, also, would the archive re-organisation have an effect on what canonical supports? [15:46] but I've asked the corporate services folks to get you an authoritative answer anyway [15:47] ok that could work [15:47] the answer is that they are willing to offer such a service, but to date there has been no interest in it [15:47] Just as a point of policy, should developers raise this class of issues to the TB for redirection, or should they be sent to Canonical individually and directly? [15:47] highvoltage: the archive reorganisation may make it easier to explain what Canonical supports, but should not in and of itself change it [15:47] I would much rather people contact Canonical sales representatives if they have questions about Canonical products and services [15:47] persia: ^^ [15:48] I am happy to help out in making connections as necessary [15:48] it's just more expedient to ask directly than to come via an Ubuntu community channel [15:48] mdz, Thanks. Just wondered if it was a TB-speaks-for-the-developers thing. [15:48] stgraber: does that resolve your question? [15:49] I'm fine with that [15:49] ok, moving on then. 10 minutes to go [15:49] [TOPIC] Mono (ScottJamesRemnant) [15:49] New Topic: Mono (ScottJamesRemnant) [15:49] persia: from a community POV, our goal has always been to allow other companies than Canonical to offer commercial support - and thus not single out Canonical for special treatment by the board [15:49] mdz: I have proposed a position statement on Mono [15:49] Keybuk, Right. [15:50] last week, Scott proposed a position statement [15:50] shall I post it to a wiki page so others can read it? [15:50] which I'm ashamed to say I haven't read yet [15:50] I *just* did [15:50] (oops) [15:51] I have read it now [15:51] it seems like a more direct phrasing of basically the same kinds of things that were in the last minutes I sent out [15:51] and I think it sounds perfectly reasonable [15:51] and as such I'm fine with it [15:51] I propose that we send it to the developer mailing lists, directly replies to the TB list [15:51] Keybuk: I think you should post it to ubuntu-devel-announce@ so others can read it, then ;-) [15:51] u-d-a or u-d? [15:51] I think Keybuk's statement sounds reasonable [15:52] jono was liaising with Canonical PR on this as well, since there had been an inquiry [15:53] where are we on the patent policy? iirc I sent some feedback and Scott sent a +1 [15:53] it would be nice to be able to refer to that when talking about Mono [15:53] jono: ? [15:53] agreed [15:53] the patent policy is waiting with the TB [15:53] I don't think the full TB has reviewed it [15:53] jono: you've received feedback from 2/4 members of the TB. do you want something from everyone? [15:53] I sent over the proposed policy quite some time ago [15:53] if so, I think you'll need to chase the rest [15:54] ok, will do [15:54] I doubt sabdfl has looked at it [15:54] I think sabdfl needs to [15:54] do we want to push something out re: mono before that? [15:54] particularly as Canonical would be liable [15:54] I've failed to read the patent policy draft properly - I will do so promptly [15:54] mdz, Gerry said regarding the PR issue, that it has ended now and a piece has been written [15:54] [ACTION] Colin to read the draft patent policy and provide feedback [15:54] ACTION received: Colin to read the draft patent policy and provide feedback [15:54] [ACTION] jono to chase Mark for feedback on the draft patent policy [15:54] ACTION received: jono to chase Mark for feedback on the draft patent policy [15:55] but we still need a final Mono statement [15:55] do we want to go ahead with an announcement on Mono before the patent policy is settled? [15:55] mdz, do we need an announcement? nothing changed? [15:55] jono: the change has been a sudden increase in anti-Mono discussion, we'd like to boldly remind everyone of our existing technical position ;) [15:56] jono: we (the board) discussed it and felt it would be useful to make a statment of some kind, given the level of unrest over it [15:56] ok, sounds reasonable [15:56] the statement uses text from the patent policy draft, but doesn't specifically refer to it [15:56] I would say the draft you wrote Keybuk, serves that well [15:56] so do we: a) go ahead with it as-is, or b) wait until the patent policy is in place? [15:56] I'm happy either way [15:57] I think it's worthwhile getting the statement out sooner [15:57] I honestly expect that the patent policy will mainly be cleanup and wordsmithing from here [15:57] mdz, I think the two are disconnected [15:57] I agree with Keybuk [15:57] I would say go ahead [15:57] it's based pretty directly on Mark's guidance presented at a TB meeting, so I don't expect him to want to change the fundamentals [15:57] ok, sounds like we go ahead [15:57] [ACTION] Scott to publish Mono position statement [15:57] ACTION received: Scott to publish Mono position statement [15:57] good stuff [15:57] [TOPIC] Developer application board (ScottJamesRemnant) [15:57] New Topic: Developer application board (ScottJamesRemnant) [15:58] this is waiting feedback from cjwatson [15:58] this week I suck, apparently [15:58] Mark gave a +1, there's been minor tweaking of text since then but no substantive changes [15:58] Scott (who has apparently been very active with TB stuff lately) also made a proposal for a new governing board [15:58] though we should agree on the process for the DAB, and whether we should describe that in our mail to the CC [15:58] to separate the "processing developer applications" aspect of the TB from the rest [15:58] I think I'd like us to say something about direction wrt motu-council [15:59] cjwatson, agreed [15:59] we don't have time to discuss it here, just to agree actions [15:59] [ACTION] Colin to review Scott's DAB proposal and provide feedback [15:59] ACTION received: Colin to review Scott's DAB proposal and provide feedback [15:59] I will write up a suggested extra paragraph [15:59] to be fair, Scott just drafted the current text ;) for the sake of correctness, it should be pointed out that it's something that mdz, cjwatson and I discussed over dinner last week [15:59] jono: have you reviewed it yet? [15:59] mdeslaur, not yet [16:00] mdz, not yet [16:00] [ACTION] Jono to review Scott's DAB proposal and provide feedback [16:00] ACTION received: Jono to review Scott's DAB proposal and provide feedback [16:00] I am not sure I recieved it [16:00] jono: forwarded it to you [16:00] I will check [16:00] Keybuk: please send jono a copy if you haven't already [16:00] thanks Keybuk [16:00] [TOPIC] AOB [16:00] New Topic: AOB [16:00] no time for AOB [16:00] #endmeeting [16:00] Meeting finished at 10:00. [16:00] wow, that was swift [16:00] a TB in fast forward :) [16:00] we covered a lot of ground [16:00] well done, all [16:01] keeping the meetings under control is one reason why we want to create the DAB [16:01] nearly german with your timing today :) [16:01] indeed [16:01] solution for excessively long meetings: MOAR MEETINGS [16:01] *ahem* [16:01] cjwatson, hah [16:01] OK, who is here for the server team meeting ? [16:01] o/ [16:01] o/ [16:02] yo [16:02] come on, don't be shy, speak up :) [16:02] meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee [16:02] o/ [16:02] Our beloved mathiaz is trapped in a parallel dimension^W meeting, so I'll do the last-minute lousy replacement [16:03] Let's get started [16:03] #startmeeting [16:03] Meeting started at 10:03. The chair is ttx. [16:03] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [16:03] Today's agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting [16:03] * nijaba signals that ttx just got approved as a core dev less than 20min ago... [16:03] Last week minutes:https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20090623 [16:04] congrat :)! [16:04] * ttx passes the champagne bottle around [16:04] congrats, ttx [16:04] [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting [16:04] New Topic: Review ACTION points from previous meeting [16:05] * ivoks to work on providing DRBD package using dkms [16:05] ivoks: around ? [16:05] does not seem to be [16:06] ok, we'll pass [16:06] * ttx to write down his hadoop analysis in a wiki page [16:06] ttx: around ? [16:06] o/ [16:06] :D [16:06] I've published my anaylsis notes so far on a draft spec document [16:07] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HadoopPackagingSpec [16:07] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HadoopPackagingSpec [16:07] There is the dependency analysis and the cloudera packaging review === rgreening_ is now known as rgreening [16:08] This, as well as the related blueprint (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-karmic-hadoop) is free for interested people to take over [16:08] since I don't expect to havce any free time left in Karmic to make this happen. [16:08] have, even [16:09]