[13:52] <zul> morning
[13:53] <kane_> o/
[13:59] <nijaba> \o
[14:00] <ttx> o/
[14:00] <sommer> hey all
[14:00] <mjeanson> hi
[14:00] <kane_> hi there
[14:00] <alexm> o/
[14:01] <nijaba> ttx: not sure you noticed, but I just added an item about the server survey on the agenda.
[14:01] <smoser> hola
[14:01] <ttx> nijaba: I saw that
[14:01] <nijaba> ttx: cool, thanks
[14:01] <zul> testcase printHelloWorld()
[14:01] <zul>     print("Hello World!")
[14:02] <ttx> soren, mathiaz, mdz: ?
[14:02] <mathiaz> o/
[14:02] <soren> Oh, right.
[14:02] <ttx> kirkland: ?
[14:02] <soren> o/
[14:02] <nijaba> euca-run-instance meeting
[14:02] <kirkland> ttx: morning
[14:02] <Daviey> \o
[14:02] <ttx> xc2 meeting
[14:02] <EtienneG_home> for once, I will be hanging around!
[14:02] <kirkland> nijaba: -t m1.xlarge
[14:03] <soren> cloudctl create ec2 m1.xlarge ami-lets-just-get-on-with-it
[14:03] <ttx> ok, let's start
[14:03] <zul> EtienneG_home: yay!
[14:03] <ttx> #startmeeting
[14:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 08:03. The chair is ttx.
[14:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[14:03] <mdz> ttx, hi
[14:04] <ttx> First of all, let me introduce you to Jos Boumans, the new server team engineering manager.
[14:04] <kane_> o/
[14:04] <nijaba> Welcome Jos!
[14:04]  * kirkland high fives kane_ 
[14:04] <Daviey> hey Jos!
[14:04] <ttx> kane_: you didn't force your IRC client to submission yet ?
[14:04] <zul> hey kane_
[14:04] <kane_> ttx: not yet. ran out of CFT my first day @canonical ;)
[14:04] <soren> CFT?
[14:05] <kane_> Copious Free Time
[14:05] <ttx> kane might become jib in the future on Freenode
[14:05] <kane_> nice to see some familiar faces here from UDS though :)
[14:05] <zul> kane_, get use to the lack of thereoff from here on out
[14:05]  * mdz hands jib some round tuits
[14:05] <mdz> s/jib/jane_/
[14:05] <mdz> kane_, rather
[14:05] <nijaba> no wonders nobody knows what CFT is around here
[14:05] <soren> Heheh :)
[14:06] <mathiaz> kane_: o^25
[14:06] <ttx> I'll chait this meeting so that Jos sees how it goes, but will gladly hand over the cross to Jos next week :)
[14:06] <ttx> chair, even
[14:06] <mdz> haha
[14:06] <kane_> i, in turn, am very happy for ttx to chair
[14:06] <ttx> next...
[14:06] <ttx> [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[14:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[14:06] <ttx> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/Server/20091125
[14:07] <ttx> ACTION: ttx to review status of bugs 455625, 460085 and 461156 for any missing info
[14:07] <ttx> so I reviewed them... the first one is lacking some reproduction, the Eucalyptus team marked it invalid
[14:07] <ttx> the second one is missing some feedback from the Eucalyptus team, basically the results of their long-standing rampart tests
[14:08] <ttx> The third one is now fixed in Lucid, SRU pending
[14:08] <ttx> ACTION: mathiaz to compile a list of easy merges for publication
[14:08] <mathiaz> ttx: done - http://ubuntuserver.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/a-selection-of-easy-merges-from-the-ubuntu-server-team/
[14:08] <mdz> mathiaz, did that go out to the mailing list(s) as well?
[14:09] <ttx> arh
[14:09] <mathiaz> mdz: nope - I could send it there as well
[14:09] <mdz> mathiaz, I think it would be useful
[14:09] <ttx> mathiaz: I did a few days ago libcommons-attributes-java and libaopalliance-java
[14:09] <mdz> dholbach gave us some feedback that we should use the mailing lists more
[14:09] <ttx> mathiaz: and I wouldn't recommend the jruby1.2 one to the faint of heart
[14:09] <mathiaz> ttx: yeah - that's possible
[14:10] <mathiaz> ttx: I haven't looked at all the merge in details
[14:10] <ttx> Now on to this week's agenda
[14:10] <mathiaz> it's just a list  of suggestion - to get people started
[14:10] <ttx> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting
[14:10] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting
[14:10] <ttx> [TOPIC] Check blueprint status and progress for the week
[14:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  Check blueprint status and progress for the week
[14:11] <ttx> kane_: ?
[14:11] <kane_> We covered most of them during the 1:1s we've had this week, and those that could be approved are.
[14:11] <kane_> There are some that aren't on the alpha2 milestone, and it's on me to have those reviewed by next meeting (before featured definition freeze)
[14:11] <mdz> ttx, other-cloud-providers and vmbuilder-multiple-outputs are awaiting review
[14:12] <ttx> kane_: what about Feature definition freeze, and the remaining non-lucid-accepted-yet blueprints ?
[14:12] <ttx> mdz: Will look into it
[14:13] <kane_> mdz: the other cloud & vmbuilder aren't for alpha2 though, so we should have those done by next week
[14:14] <kane_> the minimum we do for non-alpha2 specs BEFORE feature definition freeze is to make sure we have the summary, rationale & user story in the spec, and any notes we took from UDS
[14:14] <kane_> that way we know what we're comitting to if/when we persue them in the next milestones
[14:14] <ttx> kane_: the minimum to make sure we don't lose the results of the UDS session
[14:14] <kane_> ttx: exactly
[14:15] <ttx> kane_: ok, what about "Discuss process for ongoing progress tracking" ?
[14:16] <kane_> feel free to summarize that one ttx
[14:16] <ttx> We'll use http://www.piware.de/workitems/server/lucid-alpha2/report.html for global tracking
[14:17] <ttx> Then for each alpha2 spec do a quick summary of status here ?
[14:17] <ttx> We'll skip for this week, unless someone wants to mention they are already raising flags on their assignments
[14:17] <kane_> yeah; there's a few easy ways to do this. I hope to cargo-cult on the other teams starting the next meeting.
[14:18] <nijaba> I don't see any of the community BP on this. Normal?
[14:18] <nijaba> I think ScottK and ivoks had some
[14:18] <ttx> nijaba: They appear on http://www.piware.de/workitems/server/lucid/report.html
[14:19] <ttx> they are not specifically targeted to alpha2 (good for them)
[14:19] <mathiaz> nijaba: they may not have been targeted for alpha2 though
[14:19] <nijaba> ah, ok, sorry
[14:19] <ScottK> Still working on drafting.
[14:19] <ScottK> Hope to finish shortly.
[14:19] <ttx> Anyone has questions on this topic ?
[14:19] <mathiaz> ttx: can we add WI to the whiteboard?
[14:19] <mathiaz> ttx: what happens if the content of a WI changes?
[14:20] <zul> for the canonical-application-support spec what if the packages are not approiate what should i put next to the TODO
[14:20] <ttx> mathiaz: you mean if you add new ones, it will look like feature creep on the burndown chart ?
[14:20] <mathiaz> ttx: yes
[14:20] <mathiaz> ttx: and IIUC this looks bad
[14:20] <smoser> good questions mathiaz
[14:20] <ttx> mathiaz: the chart will be reset at an arbitrary point in time
[14:20] <ttx> i'd suggest FeatureDefinitionFreeze
[14:21] <ttx> after that, added items will *really* be feature creep.
[14:21] <ttx> kane_, mdz: ^ ?
[14:21] <mathiaz> ttx: it seems that the list of WI should not be touched after Feature Definition
[14:21] <mdz> I believe pitti planned to reset the chart today-ish
[14:21] <ttx> mathiaz: well, it can, but then it really is considered feature creep.
[14:21] <kane_> the WI is a reflection of reality
[14:21] <mdz> but of course we can ask him to do it whenever it is appropriate for us
[14:21] <mdz> I would say no later than tomorrow
[14:22] <mathiaz> ttx: also I'm still tracking next things to do (may be the granularity is too small)
[14:22] <kane_> the tool is there to give us insight, not something that restricts us from planning
[14:22] <kane_> but ttx is right; if there's new (unforeseen) work popping up, that may be feature creep
[14:22] <mdz> zul, when you review the package, you should change the "review" work item to "DONE"
[14:22] <mdz> zul, if, once you have done that, it turns out there is nothing more to do, you should *delete* the other work items associated with that package
[14:23] <mdz> this will reduce the total number of work items in the chart
[14:23] <zul> mdz: gotcha
[14:23] <ttx> mathiaz: you mean work items are too small ?
[14:23] <ttx> mathiaz: not sure I get you
[14:24] <mathiaz> ttx: well - I guess I'm using Work Items and Next Action (in GTD) as the same thing
[14:24] <mathiaz> ttx: I think I understand myself - and we can move on
[14:24] <ttx> I've been translating my work items into GTD next actions
[14:24] <ttx> (manually, shame on me)
[14:24] <ttx> moving on
[14:24] <mathiaz> ttx: same here - but we can discuss this offline
[14:24] <ttx> [TOPIC] Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs
[14:24] <MootBot> New Topic:  Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs
[14:24] <ttx> [LINK] http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html
[14:24] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html
[14:25] <ttx> kane_: ?
[14:25] <ttx> nothing assigned to team
[14:26] <ttx> too many old bugs in that list to my taste, I think we should review what we should assign ourselves to
[14:26] <ttx> but we'll let it be for the moment
[14:26] <kirkland> ttx: +1
[14:26] <ttx> shouldn't be the list of things you might work on someday
[14:26] <ttx> but rather work in progress and what comes immediately after
[14:27] <ttx> but I'm open to discussion
[14:27] <ttx> it's just that the list as it stands is not very useful to review
[14:27] <kane_> i have an action point on me to pick this up with marjo; there's an expectation that comes with bug list and i need to be brought up to speed with it
[14:27] <zul> it isnt
[14:27] <ttx> anyone has comments on the bugs they are assigned to on this list ? Anything blocking ?
[14:27] <mathiaz> ttx: the date the bug was assigned is probably useful
[14:28] <mathiaz> ttx: to make sure bugs are not aging
[14:28] <ttx> We already discussed bug 460085, pending some eucalyptus upstream info
[14:28] <ttx> Nothing else ? OK, let's move on then...
[14:29] <ttx> [TOPIC] Weekly SRU review
[14:29] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly SRU review
[14:29] <Daviey> \o/
[14:29]  * ttx leaves the driver seat to mathiaz
[14:29] <ttx> (while the car is still running)
[14:29] <mathiaz> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html
[14:29] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html
[14:30] <mathiaz> ^^ any bugs SRU worthy on this list?
[14:30] <ttx> only high thing on the list id bug 454405, which is a karmic SRU already
[14:31] <zul> mathiaz: bug 485760
[14:31] <kirkland> ttx: what's the plan for rolling/uploading a new SRU candidate of eucalyptus to karmic-proposed?
[14:31] <mathiaz> no bugs nominated for dapper, hardy, intrepid, jaunty, karmic
[14:31] <ttx> kirkland: we need to get around the CLEAN=1 thing, then upload
[14:32] <ttx> kirkland: please see my comments on the related bugs and let me know what you think
[14:32] <kirkland> ttx: i think we should upload, and then get around to the CLEAN=1 thing
[14:32] <kirkland> ttx: yes, I'm on top of those
[14:32] <mathiaz> hm - there should be bug 489418
[14:32] <kirkland> ttx: i think it's better to have something in -proposed, and work on that incrementally
[14:32] <ttx> kirkland: I'm ok for release, I committed to the ubuntu-karmic branch already.
[14:33] <zul> mathiaz:i just nominated 485760
[14:33] <ttx> kirkland: and wrote the SRU report
[14:33] <mathiaz> which means that list of nominated bugs is not accurate :/
[14:33] <kirkland> ttx: okay
[14:33] <ttx> kirkland: I wanted to get the feedback on rampart first though
[14:33] <ttx> kirkland: but I'm ok either way
[14:33] <kirkland> ttx: okay
[14:34] <smoser> query ttx
[14:34] <ttx> smoser: that's me
[14:34] <kirkland> ttx: so the SRU is blocking on the CLEAN=1 bits, and rampart feedback?
[14:34] <smoser> yeah, i'm a dolt
[14:34] <czajkowski>  
[14:34] <mathiaz> let's move on
[14:34] <mathiaz> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/acceptedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html
[14:34] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/acceptedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html
[14:35] <ttx> kirkland: yes, but that doesn't prevent us from going to -proposed.
[14:35] <kirkland> ttx: absolutely agree
[14:35] <mathiaz> most of the SRU are related to eucalyptus
[14:36] <mathiaz> zul: how are other SRU's going?
[14:36] <mathiaz> And the list of bzr branch to review is empty for the server team
[14:36] <zul> mathiaz: i havent had a chance to look at them due to spec writing
[14:36] <mathiaz> https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-server/+activereviews
[14:37] <mathiaz> Anything else on the SRU front?
[14:37] <ttx> moving on...
[14:38] <ttx> [TOPIC] 2009 Server Survey announce
[14:38] <MootBot> New Topic:  2009 Server Survey announce
[14:38] <ttx> nijaba: ^
[14:38] <nijaba> I have just announced on Planet Ubuntu the release or the 2009 Server survey http://nicolas.barcet.com/drupal/en/2009-server-survey-announce
[14:38] <nijaba> Call for action:
[14:38] <nijaba> Last year this survey received a little bit less than 7000 full response and we hope to have at least that many this year.
[14:38] <nijaba> In order to do so, it would be very nice that, in addition to the announce I made and the banner that Matt Nuzum is about to put on http://ubuntu.com/server, any of you that can republish the announce on a loco planet or some other means do relay the info in the next couple weeks.  So far, the plan is to keep the survey up at least until mid-january.
[14:38] <nijaba> I will shortly send an email to the server ML with the same information.
[14:39] <nijaba> questions?
[14:39] <nijaba> suggestions?
[14:39] <ttx> nijaba: any major change in the questions asked ?
[14:40] <nijaba> quite a few changes, yes
[14:40]  * ttx admits not having completed the survey yet
[14:40] <nijaba> details on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Survey
[14:40] <ttx> ok
[14:40] <ttx> next is...
[14:40] <mathiaz> nijaba: have you send an email to ubuntu-server@?
[14:41] <ttx> [TOPIC] Open Discussion
[14:41] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion
[14:41] <nijaba> mathiaz: as I just said, I will shortly send an email to the server ML with the same information.
[14:41] <mdz> I believe there is still an open issue regarding the meeting time?
[14:41] <ttx> mdz: yes, problematic for kirkland, impossible for nurmi
[14:41] <mdz> who has the ball?
[14:41] <nijaba> ivoks is complaining that he cannot attend during his work hours
[14:41] <ttx> mdz: kirkland hasd to ping maria, I think
[14:42] <kirkland> mdz: ttx: yes, I need to talk to maria
[14:42] <mdz> maybe jos has some bandwidth to help, and he's in a nearby time zone to maria
[14:42] <ttx> mdz: ball is in kirkland side of the field, offense team is up.
[14:42] <kirkland> mdz: actually, I was sort of waiting on Jos to come on board, to make sure his availability was taken into account
[14:42] <mdz> kirkland also has blueprints to worry about ;-)
[14:43] <kane_> mdz: luckily i don't ;)
[14:43] <kane_> i'm happy to take this on -- i'll talk with kirkland seperately, figure out where it hurts and get a resolution
[14:43] <kirkland> kane_: one our later would suffice for both nurmi and i
[14:43] <kirkland> s/ our / hour /
[14:44] <kane_> kirkland: understood. that may bite with other calls though, so let's sort it seperately if you don't mind
[14:44] <kirkland> kane_: sure thing
[14:44] <ttx> Anything else anyone wants to bring up ?
[14:44] <Daviey> Spamassassin - 3.3.0 will hit beta "soon", i've emailed the DM to ask if he wants to work together to get the package updated.
[14:45] <mathiaz> Daviey: how stable is spamassassin 3.3.0 for an LTS?
[14:45] <ttx> mathiaz: kane_ volunteered to write the meeting minutes (since he will write them all soon) so could you get him up to date with the minutes publication process ?
[14:45] <mathiaz> ttx: sure
[14:46]  * kane_ thinks ttx may be taking this chairing thing very serious ;)
[14:46] <Daviey> mathiaz: well it's still not even beta :).. But for *supporting* the released version - upstream would likely be more receptive for the LTS period.
[14:46] <ttx> kane_: let me enjoy that position for the last time :P
[14:47] <ttx> [TOPIC] Agree on next meeting date and time
[14:47] <MootBot> New Topic:  Agree on next meeting date and time
[14:47] <ttx> Unless something else is announced, same time, same place, next week.
[14:47] <mdz> [action] jos?
[14:48] <ttx> [ACTION] jos to find out the best time for the meeting
[14:48] <MootBot> ACTION received:  jos to find out the best time for the meeting
[14:48] <Daviey> (if it is changed, update the fridge)
[14:48] <ttx> thanks everyone !
[14:48] <ttx> #endmeeting
[14:48] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 08:48.
[14:48]  * ttx opens the bar
[14:48] <mdz> just one last thing...
[14:48] <kane_> thanks guys
[14:49] <mdz> ttx, kane_ and I went over your blueprints with sabdfl yesterday
[14:49] <nijaba> thanks for hosting ttx
[14:49] <mdz> and he was very pleased with your work
[14:49] <mdz> well done
[14:49] <ttx> +1
[14:49] <Daviey> top banana
[14:49]  * smoser claps for ttx
[14:49] <kane_> (you guys)++
[14:50] <smoser> ah. thats funny. i read mdz's statement to say that mdz and kane_ and sabdfl talked about ttx's work
[14:50]  * kirkland high fives ttx
[14:50] <ttx> smoser: not.. really.
[14:50] <smoser> that "your" == ttx's . anyway. i'll be quiet now
[14:50] <kirkland> well done, ttx!
[14:50] <soren> Oh, that's what I thought as well. :)
[14:50] <alexm> congrats, ttx
[14:51] <ttx> well done everyone
[14:51] <ttx> stop congratulating me
[14:51] <ttx> "<mdz> (ttx, kane_ and I) went over team's blueprints with sabdfl yesterday"
[14:51] <smoser> (i'd just like to say, that ttx's work was good, but zul's had one of the best videos *EVER*)
[14:51] <zul> wha?
[14:52] <ttx> smoser: link
[14:52] <kane_> smoser++
[14:52] <ttx> I remember sabdfl congratulating smoser, though.
[14:53] <mdz> ah, sorry I was unclear...I mean "the server team's work"
[14:54]  * smoser was trying to make a joke about http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20302940_20304165,00.html
[14:54] <smoser> but should have said "of all time", not "EVER"
[14:56] <artir>  
[14:57]  * nealmcb opens a bleary eye and sees he wasn't up quite early enough for the server team :)
[15:03] <Daviey> early bird catches the worms.
[15:12] <mhall119|work> who wants worms anyway?
[15:12] <mhall119|work> the late bird gets the brunch specials
[15:16] <nealmcb> lol
[16:03] <cjwatson> foundations folks?
[16:03] <mvo> hi
[16:05] <ev> hi
[16:05]  * cjwatson works out the list to go round up
[16:06] <cjwatson> sorry I got back a little late
[16:06] <cjwatson> robbiew has a schedule conflict, and Keybuk is ill
[16:07] <cjwatson> james_w,lool,slangasek: ping?
[16:08] <james_w> hi
[16:08] <james_w> sorry
[16:08] <cjwatson> the only thing I have myself is the imminent feature approval deadline (TOMORROW)
[16:09] <james_w> indeed
[16:09] <cjwatson> the cronmail whine I get indicates that there are still nine specs without work items
[16:09] <cjwatson> foundations-lucid-daily-builds foundations-lucid-fix-iscsi-root foundations-lucid-multiarch-support foundations-lucid-puppet-installer foundations-lucid-ratings-and-reviews-in-software-center foundations-lucid-robust-python-packaging foundations-lucid-upstart-policy foundations-lucid-upstart-server-review foundations-lucid-user-contributed-metadata-for-software-center
[16:10] <cjwatson> I've asked mathiaz about foundations-lucid-puppet-installer, and I've asked Keybuk about foundations-lucid-upstart-policy and foundations-lucid-upstart-server-review
[16:10] <cjwatson> foundations-lucid-fix-iscsi-root is mine and I'll get it done today
[16:10] <cjwatson> so for the remainder:
[16:10] <cjwatson> james_w: foundations-lucid-daily-builds
[16:10] <cjwatson> slangasek: foundations-lucid-multiarch-support
[16:10] <james_w> yes
[16:10] <cjwatson> mvo: foundations-lucid-ratings-and-reviews-in-software-center foundations-lucid-robust-python-packaging foundations-lucid-user-contributed-metadata-for-software-center
[16:10] <james_w> and I think distributed-development
[16:11] <mvo> cjwatson: thanks, I work on that today, the first two are launchpad specs to a certain extend
[16:11] <cjwatson> there are some that don't show up in cronmail because they aren't targeted yet, or similar
[16:12]  * mvo will add work-items to the best of his knowledge for them
[16:12] <cjwatson> anyway, as Robbie already said, https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid?searchtext=foundations is the list of work he has discussed with Mark already
[16:12] <cjwatson> if you're planning anything NOT there, please shout ASAP
[16:12] <cjwatson> because otherwise we won't be taking it into account for how heavily loaded you are, which is not in your best interest :)
[16:13] <lool> (sorry had a phone call at the beginning of the meeting)
[16:13] <mvo> mpt wants to have a software-center-ui-changes spec
[16:14] <cjwatson> is there a laundry list of proposed changes already?
[16:14] <mvo> he has one, but its not written down anywhere yet AFAIK
[16:14] <cjwatson> ok, is there any hope of getting it written up by tomorrow?
[16:15] <mvo> I told him that the deadline is tomorrow
[16:15] <mvo> frankly with the load we have for s-c we will need help on this anyway
[16:15] <mvo> from DX or someone else
[16:15]  * slangasek waves
[16:15] <mvo> (especially since its not glade file changes)
[16:15] <mvo> aha, a volunteer ;) ?
[16:16] <cjwatson> mvo: one of the work items probably ought to be going to find dbarth, then. :)
[16:16] <tremolux> mpt mentioned to me that he expects to have all updates to the spec finished by tomorrow https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter?action=show&redirect=SoftwareStore
[16:16] <mvo> heh :)
[16:17] <cjwatson> tremolux: OK, that's good, although we'll probably need a broken-out one for the specific changes from karmic->lucid as well
[16:18] <cjwatson> unless there's already a section for that
[16:18] <mvo> agreed, I think we need to have them as work items
[16:18] <tremolux> mvo, cjwatson: right
[16:19] <tremolux> just meant it as an fyi  :)
[16:20] <cjwatson> james_w: you already have WIs for distributed-development, although they don't look complete :)
[16:21] <james_w> if only :-)
[16:23] <cjwatson> slangasek: foundations-lucid-multiarch-support needs work items written up, if you didn't see that in scrollback; will you have time to do that by the deadline tomorrow?
[16:23] <james_w> the distributed development spec is fundamentally carried over from karmic, so https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DistributedDevelopment/ImproveDebianImportSpecification mostly applies from last time
[16:24] <james_w> should I re-purpose that, or make a new spec?
[16:24] <slangasek> cjwatson: yep, will have it done today
[16:25] <cjwatson> james_w: re-purposing that is fine
[16:25] <james_w> thanks
[16:26] <cjwatson> relatedly, http://www.piware.de/workitems/foundations/lucid-alpha2/report.html is what we have to do for alpha2 (briefly, I think, things that are critical to product roadmaps) so if there's anything else you believe should be there then please either let robbiew or me know, or just milestone it
[16:27] <cjwatson> we'll be tracking pages such as that as we approach each milestone, along with the overall burndown list: http://piware.de/workitems/foundations/lucid/report.html
[16:27] <cjwatson> that "nobody" dude is a bit oversubscribed right now, so I think some work items need specific assignment :)
[16:28] <james_w> specs are targeted, not work items?
[16:28] <cjwatson> anyway, that's all I have
[16:28] <cjwatson> james_w: correct
[16:28] <james_w> ok
[16:28] <cjwatson> oh, also, welcome tremolux to the foundations team for this cycle!
[16:28] <cjwatson> (I can't remember whether we did that already, so making sure ;-) )
[16:28] <james_w> I'm not sure my specs will fit this scheme too well
[16:28] <james_w> welcome tremolux!
[16:28] <ev> welcome tremolux!
[16:28] <cjwatson> james_w: it's OK to register individual specs pointing to the same wiki pages, FWIW ...
[16:28] <cjwatson> although not entirely unconfusing
[16:28] <james_w> cjwatson: ah, interesting approach
[16:28] <tremolux> thanks!  :D  very glad to be here
[16:28] <cjwatson> you could use anchors
[16:28] <mvo> welcome
[16:29] <cjwatson> any other business?
[16:29] <ev> mvo: Are you comfortable with me assigning the work item for a slideshow in the release upgrader to Dylan McCall?  He's expressed a willingness to help create that.
[16:29]  * lool hugs tremolux 
[16:29]  * tremolux hugs look
[16:29] <tremolux> lool
[16:29] <tremolux> (jeez)
[16:30] <mvo> ev: sure, that is fine
[16:30] <ev> okay cool
[16:30] <ScottK> cjwatson: I have one issue.
[16:30] <mvo> ev: I'm happy to help him with that too, so that he has a easier time to find his way in the code etc
[16:30] <cjwatson> ScottK: go
[16:30] <ScottK> Currently qt4-x11 is FTBFS on armel due to an internal compiler error
[16:31]  * cjwatson looks up the log
[16:31] <ScottK> Debugging armel compiler bugs is a bit beyond the community to do.
[16:31] <cjwatson> I wonder if that's another of the -minternal-it=thumb bugs?
[16:31] <lool> I'd poke the mobile team, specifically NCommander was looking into kde-ish/qt-ish issues in the past
[16:31] <cjwatson> asac: ^- do you know what's going on there?
[16:31] <ScottK> It would be useful if we could get this fixed sooner rather than later as we can't really do anything towards getting KDE building on armel until it's fixed.
[16:32] <ScottK> lool: I already poked NCommander.  He saw it was an ICE and ran.
[16:32] <ev> mvo: cool, I'll let him know
[16:33] <cjwatson> cjwatson@jocote:~$ dchroot -c lucid
[16:33] <cjwatson> dchroot: pthread_mutex_lock.c:87: __pthread_mutex_lock: Assertion `mutex->__data.__owner == 0' failed.
[16:33] <cjwatson> Aborted
[16:33] <cjwatson> ^- doesn't help
[16:33] <lool> cjwatson: Yes, implicit-it= might help indeed
[16:33] <cjwatson> lamont: ^- is there any reasonable way to get at an armel lucid chroot right now?
[16:33] <lool> cjwatson: Where is this on?
[16:34] <lool> Hmm v7 porter machine
[16:34] <lool> (I was wondering whether it might have been the older v5 one)
[16:34] <ScottK> I know doko_ was on vacation last week and is sick now, but I wanted to highlight it as a significant foundations issue that we need some help on.
[16:34] <cjwatson> I am aware that a number of architectures have similar problems
[16:34] <cjwatson> ScottK: noted - I'll minute it and see what we can do about it. Thanks
[16:34] <ScottK> cjwatson: Thanks.
[16:35] <asac> cjwatson: try LANG=C dchroot ...
[16:35] <asac> thats the workaround
[16:35] <lool> ScottK: Not sure that's the issue, but the syntax of ARM assembly source changed, one compiler flag tells gas to parse the old style syntax -Wa,-implicit-it=thumb
[16:35] <asac> afaik qt/kde issues are not only thumb
[16:36] <cjwatson> asac: ah, thank you
[16:36] <asac> but its on our list to evaluate
[16:36] <cjwatson> except not
[16:36] <doko_> yes, I'll add this for the next upload, but the glib issue is unrelated to that
[16:37] <asac> ack
[16:37] <cjwatson> LC_ALL=C LANGUAGE= dchroot ... # same thing
[16:37] <asac> hmm
[16:37] <asac> LANG=C dchroot -clucid
[16:37] <asac> I: [lucid chroot] Running login shell: '/bin/bash'
[16:37] <asac> (lucid)asac@jocote:~$
[16:37] <cjwatson> ah, -clucid rather than -c lucid works
[16:37] <cjwatson> grr
[16:38] <asac> ;)
[16:38] <cjwatson> (it still aborts on logout, but hey)
[16:38] <ogra> cjwatson, its pretty sure one of the -minternal-it=thumb bugs
[16:38] <cjwatson> I'll test that out
[16:39] <cjwatson> AOB?
[16:39] <ScottK> We're close to uploading qt4-x11 4.6.0 final, so any arch specific compiler flags to try, please just let me know.
[16:39] <lool> Hmm no specific assembly in the source, it might not be implicit-it-thumb after all :-/
[16:40] <ogra> lool, the log seems to fail with assembler stuff
[16:40] <cjwatson> well, look, this is easily determined experimentally, we don't have to argue it from theory :)
[16:41] <lool> Actually I think it's a compiler internal structure, anyway #ubuntu-arm
[16:41] <lamont> cjwatson: LANG=C
[16:42] <lamont> just not sure what package to file the bug against...
[16:42] <ogra> lamont, you forgot to say your macro "patches accepted" ;)
[16:42] <lamont> LANG=C dchroot is fine, fwiw
[16:42] <cjwatson> anyway, end of meeting, I think we're done
[16:42] <cjwatson> thanks all
[16:42] <lamont> ogra: that was sepcial for you
[16:42] <ogra> ah :)
[16:42] <slangasek> thanks, folks
[16:42]  * ogra feels special now :)
[16:43] <lool> ScottK: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.4/+bug/490391
[16:43] <lool> (It's definitely thumb specific though)
[16:45] <ScottK> OK.  So should I add -Wa,-implicit-it=thumb for armel for our next upload?  This armel stuff is pretty well greek to me.
[16:45] <ogra> ScottK, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ARM/Thumb2 might help a little
[16:46] <cjwatson> ScottK: I'm going to test that out nowish
[16:46] <ScottK> cjwatson: Thanks.
[16:58]  * marjo waves
[16:58]  * ara waves
[16:59] <pedro_> hola!
[16:59]  * fagan waves
[16:59] <bdmurray> hey
[16:59]  * fader_ waves.
[16:59] <sbeattie> hey
[16:59] <marjo> fagan: glad you can join us
[16:59] <davmor2> hello
[16:59]  * fagan remembered this time :D
[17:00] <marjo> #startmeeting QA Team
[17:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 11:00. The chair is marjo.
[17:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[17:00] <marjo> Agenda:
[17:00] <marjo>     * SRU testing -- sbeattie (Steve Beattie)
[17:00] <marjo>     * Bugday highlights -- pedro
[17:00] <marjo>     * QA mailing list -- fader
[17:00] <marjo> Anybody want to add to the agenda?
[17:01] <marjo> [TOPIC] SRU testing -- sbeattie (Steve Beattie)
[17:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  SRU testing -- sbeattie (Steve Beattie)
[17:02] <sbeattie> SRU activity has slowed about, perhaps due to the US holiday last week.
[17:02] <sbeattie> SRU Activity report for the past week (since 2009-11-24):
[17:02] <sbeattie> * karmic: 11 new packages in -proposed (app-install-data-partner, conduit, devicekit-disks, evolution-indicator, iriverter, linux-firmware, muse, openafs, samba, telepathy-gabble, xorg-server) and 10 pushed to -updates (deja-dup, eucalyptus, gdm, kdeedu, kdeplasma-addons, treeline, tzdata, uim, ureadahead, xorg)
[17:02] <sbeattie> * jaunty: 2 new packages in -proposed (conduit, openafs) and 1 pushed to -updates (tzdata)
[17:02] <sbeattie> * intrepid: 1 new package in -proposed (pidgin) and 1 pushed to -updates (tzdata)
[17:02] <sbeattie> * hardy: 2 packages pushed to -updates (sun-java6, tzdata)
[17:02] <sbeattie> * dapper: 1 package pushed to -updates (langpack-locales)
[17:02] <sbeattie> Thanks to Morten Frisch, bluenibor, VPablo, Alastair Carey, Mario Limonciello, Pjotr12345,  Steve Dodier,  Zaar Hai, Evan Broder, Fabrice Coutadeur, Philip Muskovac, and Jonathan Thomas for testing proposed updates.
[17:04] <sbeattie> That's all I have on the topic for this week.
[17:04] <marjo> sbeattie: thx
[17:04] <marjo> [TOPIC] Bugday highlights -- pedro
[17:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Bugday highlights -- pedro
[17:05] <pedro_> Tomorrow we're having our first Bug Day after coming back from UDS
[17:05] <pedro_> the target will be Ubuntu Translations https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/20091203
[17:05] <pedro_> Thanks a lot to Victor Vargas (aka Kamusin) who organized mostly all of it
[17:05] <marjo> Kamusin: thx!
[17:06] <pedro_> Next Week we're having a Compiz bug day and we are looking for more hands to organize it
[17:06] <pedro_> so if you have some time and want to learn how to organize a bug day just drop your name on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBugDay/Planning
[17:07] <pedro_> also if you have some ideas about the next target don't be shy and add it to that page as well
[17:07]  * fagan will volunteer next week busy with college
[17:07] <pedro_> fagan, awesome! thanks
[17:07] <pedro_> marjo, that's all from here
[17:07] <marjo> fagan: thx; glad to know you have the right priorities!
[17:08] <fader_> marjo: I thought the right priorities were QA > sleep > food > studying
[17:08] <fader_> :)
[17:08] <pedro_> sleep? food? what for?
[17:08] <pedro_> :-P
[17:08] <fader_> Hehe
[17:08] <marjo> fader_: we need to talk privately :) for me to give you some needed advice
[17:08] <fagan> for me is food>college assignments>classes>everything else :D
[17:09] <marjo> [TOPIC] QA mailing list -- fader
[17:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  QA mailing list -- fader
[17:09] <fader_> So with our recent discussions around transparency and involving the community more, I have realized we don't have a good venue to discuss general QA topics
[17:10] <fader_> There is a QA team mailing list on LP, but it seems to be older and has some entry requirements:
[17:10] <fader_> (And I lost the URL, hang on :) )
[17:10] <fader_> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-qa
[17:10] <marjo> fader_ : lack of sleep...
[17:10] <fader_> stgraber is the owner of this, so I was hoping he might be able to tell us a bit about the rationale behind it being somewhat restricted
[17:11] <fader_> And to see if anyone else thinks it would be useful to have a general QA mailing list to discuss what needs tested and how to improve practices
[17:11] <bdmurray> I was looking at this last week or so
[17:11] <davmor2> ubuntu-qa@lists.ubuntu.com this one you mean
[17:11] <ara> fader_, the team is moderated, but the list is open https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/Ubuntu-qa
[17:11] <fader_> ara: Ah, I interpreted the team being moderated to mean the list was as well, thanks
[17:12] <bdmurray> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-qa/2008-July/000166.html
[17:12] <marjo> fader_ : so no need for yet another mailing list, right?
[17:12] <fader_> Is this something we can/should point people to when they are interested in helping to test Ubuntu?  I'd be happy to help point people there and make announcements as we need tests
[17:12] <marjo> fader_: yes, please
[17:12] <davmor2> marjo: no just utilise the one we already have :D
[17:12] <fader_> marjo: I'd say no, assuming everyone is happy using this existing list
[17:12] <fagan> isnt it because we own the sru tools
[17:13] <marjo> that should be part of our community outreach for testing
[17:13] <fader_> Excellent, I'll send people there whenever they look like they can be tricked into helping us test. :D
[17:13] <ara> for the testing team we are going to have ubuntu-testing mailing list
[17:14] <marjo> ok, so from now on, we will use that list to get the word out to a broad audience
[17:14] <fader_> ara: What is the goal of that list?  How is it going to be different from the QA team list?
[17:14] <marjo> ara: can't you also announce to the qa list we're talking about? more, the merrier, no?
[17:14] <fagan> Id like to have one main list rather than a QA list and a testing list
[17:15] <fader_> +1, unless ara has a legitimate reason to split the two
[17:15] <ara> I wanted to have a sense of team, as the bugsquad. ubuntu-testing for team discussions
[17:15] <fagan> Fragmentation is bad when the teams are small
[17:15] <marjo> fagan: i'm thinking of the QA list as covering a broader audience, while the testing list is for testing only
[17:16] <marjo> fagan: but we want to expand the community from small to bigger
[17:16] <fader_> Is there anyone interested in the QA list that would not be interested in testing?
[17:16]  * fagan doesnt think so
[17:16] <marjo> i ASSume QA list > testing list, no?
[17:16] <fader_> I'd hate to have to join two lists and post/see the same information twice :)
[17:16] <marjo> fader_: oic
[17:16] <fagan> I think we should revisit it when the testing team gets bigger
[17:17] <fader_> Again, maybe I'm missing a use-case, but I agree with fagan on this one
[17:17] <ara> fader_, but, again, we can keep ubuntu-testing as internal discussion of the team
[17:17] <fagan> Most of us are on IRC anyway
[17:17] <fagan> I see ara's point though
[17:18] <ara> fader_, not for announcements, but for things like, who is going to update the wiki for blah, blah, blah
[17:18] <fader_> Ahh, I see -- so have the QA list be very general for announcements and such, but the 'real work' gets done on the testing list?
[17:18] <ara> fader_, the testing work yes
[17:19] <fagan> Sure then
[17:19] <marjo> i thot one of the problems we were trying to solve was to announce things like ISO testing and want to reach a broad audience?
[17:19] <fader_> ara: I see.  That sounds reasonable :)  I'd still personally vote for starting with one list and splitting off a second if it's needed, but I won't fight too hard. :)
[17:19] <marjo> therefore, use the QA list in addition to testing list
[17:19] <sbeattie> marjo: sure, that's a typical thing to announce.
[17:20] <fagan> +1 then too
[17:20] <fader_> marjo: My worry is that anyone who will do ISO testing needs to be on the testing list anyway, to coordinate
[17:20] <marjo> fader_ : yes, of course
[17:20] <sbeattie> personally, I'd like to see the QA team list get more discussion traffic as well.
[17:20] <marjo> so, your concern is the dup of info, right?
[17:21] <fader_> marjo: So basically, everyone has to be on both lists anyway, right?  That's what I'm trying to avoid, having two lists that are interdependent; why have them?
[17:21] <ara> I don't mind using ubuntu-qa list, I just prefer the -testing term :)
[17:21] <fader_> Heh so maybe a name change is in order :)
[17:21] <ara> fader_, no, no worries
[17:22] <ara> fader_, if it is going to be a testing discussion on it, ubuntu-qa seems good to me
[17:22] <marjo> ara: if that's the case, let's just use ubuntu-qa list
[17:22] <davmor2> Very quickly I think the ubuntu-qa mailing list was one of laserjocks implementations to improve qa involvement
[17:22] <marjo> davmor2: well then we've just rediscovered the original intent which remains the same today!
[17:22] <marjo> brilliant!
[17:22] <ara> davmor2, yes, but now it is just a list of mails from people asking for CDs :D
[17:22] <sbeattie> davmor2: the list predated the team, the team was the "improve involvement" bit.
[17:23] <davmor2> ubuntu-testing ties into the main irc channel etc so it might be better to drop the qa in favour of the general testing
[17:23] <marjo> davmor2: no!
[17:23] <fader_> davmor2: Or use #ubuntu-quality more :)
[17:23] <fagan> davmor2: QA is the umbrella for testing
[17:24] <marjo> to me, QA includes bug management and testing
[17:24] <marjo> fagan: agree!
[17:24] <fader_> At any rate, I think there is agreement that we should at least be using the list we have now, and that we might need a second one in the future.  I propose that we try to use the existing list and encourage people to sign up for it and discuss this further on-list as warranted.
[17:25] <fagan> fader_: +1
[17:25]  * fader_ hustles off to sign up for the mailing list.
[17:25] <marjo> fader_: just to be sure, what "list we have now" are you proposing?
[17:25] <fader_> marjo: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-qa
[17:25] <fagan> ubuntu-qa marjo
[17:26] <marjo> ok, so the decision is:
[17:26] <marjo> Continue to use: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-qa for QA related announcements and discussions
[17:26] <marjo> everyone agree?
[17:26] <cr3> +1
[17:26] <fader_> +1
[17:26] <fagan> but we have to promote the list too
[17:27] <davmor2> +1
[17:27] <ara> +1
[17:27] <fagan> +1
[17:27] <fader_> fagan: Definitely! :)
[17:27] <on3_g> +1
[17:27] <bdmurray> +1
[17:27] <schwuk> +1
[17:27] <sbeattie> +1
[17:27] <pedro_> +1
[17:27] <marjo> fagan: yes, i think that was a major part of the problem; no promotion of the list, so it was not well used
[17:28] <marjo> anything else on this topic?
[17:28]  * fagan puts a planet post about the ubuntu-qa team on his todo list
[17:28] <fader_> marjo: Not from me; I'm happy.
[17:28] <fader_> fagan: Good idea; I'll blog about it as well.
[17:28] <marjo> fader_: thx for bringing it up and taking the lead
[17:28] <fader_> np
[17:29] <marjo> wow, such a lively discussion
[17:29] <marjo> i love it!
[17:29] <marjo> ok, any new topics for today?
[17:29] <davmor2> fader_, schwuk: should there be a quick link to the mailing list from the main ubuntu-qa page if there isn't one
[17:29] <fagan> I think for the launchpad team we should keep it moderated and maybe make a new team for beginners
[17:29] <fader_> davmor2: There's not now AFAIK...
[17:30] <fagan> Like what the docs team did a while back
[17:30] <on3_g> fagan: +1
[17:30] <schwuk> davmor2: ok
[17:30] <davmor2> it'll help promote it with a minimum of work
[17:31] <fader_> fagan: That might be a good topic to discuss on-list, as maybe someone can fill me in on the purpose of the group(s) there :)
[17:31] <on3_g> i think info for beginners is poor
[17:31] <marjo> fagan: can you please remind us of what the "docs team did"?
[17:31] <fader_> on3_g: +1
[17:31] <marjo> folks: remember one of the outcomes at UDS was:
[17:32]  * kamusin on3_g +1
[17:32] <marjo> make it simple for the community to get involved, step 1, 2, 3...
[17:32] <on3_g> and info for another distro flavors like xubuntu and kubuntu (especially) too
[17:32] <fagan> Well the documentations team has two parts the main team thats open and the commiters team for really active people it gives new contributes something to aim for
[17:32] <marjo> fagan: oic
[17:33] <on3_g> marjo: +1
[17:33] <marjo> and they find it to be effective?
[17:33] <fagan> Yep
[17:34] <fagan> Plus the moderated team can own SRU tools..etc
[17:34] <ara> in any case, I would keep the testing team for people willing to test
[17:34] <fagan> ara: thats a given
[17:34] <marjo> ara: agree
[17:34] <ScottK> Generally I  think it would be good if the QA team considers itself working on Ubuntu the project, not just Ubuntu the distro.
[17:35] <ScottK> That would encompass the other flavors as well (even if they get less resources from Canonical)
[17:35] <fagan> ScottK: we do test kubuntu and xubuntu as well
[17:35] <ScottK> fagan: I'm aware
[17:36] <ScottK> It's just that when you say it's the Ubuntu QA team, think of Ubuntu the project, not Ubuntu the distro.
[17:36] <davmor2> ScottK: I don't but I only had time to rewrite the ubuntu desktop/installer/server testing docs so none really exist for kubuntu etc yet :(
[17:36] <on3_g> fagan: but all the info is related to ubuntu the distro
[17:37] <fagan> on3_g: well im sure I saw on qa.ubuntu.com kubuntu isos to be tested
[17:38] <davmor2> on3_g: see above
[17:38] <on3_g> fagan: that's rigth but, is not just about iso testing
[17:39] <marjo> on3_g: the charter for the QA team is:
[17:39] <marjo> The Ubuntu QA team is focused on developing tools, policies, and practices for ensuring Ubuntu's quality as a distribution as well as providing general advice, oversight, and leadership of QA activities within the Ubuntu project.
[17:40] <fagan> I thought kde upstream has a very extensive qa process
[17:41]  * fagan has got to go for dinner but will pick up the logs from the rest of the meeting
[17:41] <fader_> Maybe improving some of these test cases would be a good starting point for people looking to help but who don't know where to start.
[17:42] <davmor2> 1 query I have about upgrades dapper is pretty much coming to end of support isn't it should we be looking at doing upgrade from dapper-server to hardy-server aswell as hardy->lucid?
[17:43] <on3_g> marjo: ok
[17:43] <sbeattie> davmor2: yes, that's part of the LTS upgrade testing plan
[17:44] <marjo> fader_ agree
[17:44] <sbeattie> davmor2: at least, walking through dapper -> hardy -> lucid, and finding issues anywhere along the path.
[17:44] <bdmurray> and we can start dapper to hardy testing now! ;-)
[17:45] <sbeattie> indeed! That's another excellent place for people to start.
[17:46] <davmor2> sbeattie: I just meant ensuring that dapper would upgrade to hardy still and separate hardy->lucid tests.  Being as if a user is still on dapper it's for a reason so they'll probably only want to upgrade to hardy rather than lucid
[17:47] <marjo> davmor2: you're probably right, so we should take that into account
[17:47] <marjo> for the upgrades test matrix
[17:49] <marjo> i think we have to be smart about upgrades testing because of the potentially humongous problem space
[17:49] <marjo> yet, aim for largest possible test coverage
[17:50] <davmor2> sbeattie: maybe me and you can get together tomorrow afternoon (for me) morning (for you) and trash out a plan?
[17:50] <ScottK> One problem we had Dapper -> Hardy was that most of the testing was done on Main upgrades, but Universe packages failing can affect the overall upgrade success.
[17:51] <marjo> ScottK: yes, that's part of the being smart concept
[17:51] <ScottK> Right, just mentioning it since a lot of the people here weren't around then.
[17:51] <on3_g> davmor2: for begginers something like http://live.gnome.org/GnomeLove wil be great
[17:51] <marjo> the challenge is to plan ahead of time which paths to take
[17:51] <sbeattie> davmor2: I unfortunately have conflicts tomorrow, but perhaps we can take it to email? I do want to explore this.
[17:51] <davmor2> sbeattie: no worries dude
[17:52] <marjo> ok, folks, we're down to 8 minutes
[17:52] <marjo> we should continue this sort of discussion as we solidify test plans for lucid
[17:53] <marjo> folks: anything else for today?
[17:54] <marjo> if not, i propose we adjourn the meeting
[17:54] <fader_> Just a reminder that A1 is next week... get ready for testing!
[17:54] <davmor2> not here
[17:54] <davmor2> working iso's would be good for that :)
[17:55] <fader_> davmor2: agreed :)
[17:55] <marjo> going once
[17:55] <marjo> twice
[17:55] <marjo> meeting adjourned
[17:56] <marjo> thx everyone for your participation!
[17:56] <cr3> cheerio folks!
[17:56] <ara> thanks!
[17:56] <marjo> see you next week
[17:56] <fader_> Thanks all!
[17:56] <sbeattie> thanks, everyone!
[17:56] <marjo> #endmeeting
[17:56] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 11:56.
[17:56] <davmor2> thanks all
[20:00] <popey> BONG!
[20:00] <jcastro> woo
[20:00] <popey> LoCo Council meeting time
[20:00] <keffie_jayx> :D
[20:00] <JanC> ☺
[20:00] <nizarus> oh the big BONG :)
[20:00] <huats> popey, I am :)
[20:01] <popey> czajkowski / huats / itnet7 Welcome! - new members of the Ubuntu LoCo Council!
[20:01] <huats> popey, thanks !
[20:01] <itnet7> Thanks!
[20:01] <czajkowski> thank you :)
[20:01] <popey> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncilAgenda is our agenda
[20:02] <popey> Ready to begin?
[20:02] <huats> popey, I am around at the beginning while I am eating
[20:02] <huats> ..
[20:02] <popey> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoTeamContact/ProposedAddition
[20:02] <huats> but I am ok
[20:02] <popey> Proposed addition to the loco team contact as clarification.. anyone got any comments about that?
[20:03] <popey> This came about after we discovered some LoCo teams actively _discouraged_ communication between the LoCo Contacts list and their own LoCo
[20:03] <popey> we want to discourage that discouragement :)
[20:03] <czajkowski> indeed!
[20:04] <huats> :)
[20:04] <itnet7> I think it's a great action!
[20:04] <itnet7> and really should have went without saying!
[20:04] <itnet7> :-)
[20:04] <JanC> loco contacts can decide if something is not useful for their team maybe, but all important info should be forwarded
[20:05] <popey> yeah, thats trickey, deciding what's important
[20:05] <popey> I propose that we add that to the wiki, then announce it on loco-contacts.
[20:05] <nizarus> JanC, I'm a loco contact and that's what I'm doing
[20:05] <czajkowski> you could also encourage your loco team members to join the list.
[20:06] <popey> huats / czajkowski / itnet7 / keffie_jayx / JanC - +1 or -1 on the change?
[20:06] <czajkowski> +1
[20:06] <itnet7> +1
[20:06] <JanC> +1
[20:06] <huats> +1
[20:06] <keffie_jayx> +1
[20:06] <popey> \o/
[20:06] <keffie_jayx> excellent
[20:06] <czajkowski> lovely jubbly
[20:07] <popey> Next we have "Introducing new members"...
[20:07] <popey> czajkowski / huats / itnet7 - Welcome again - want to give us one line about yourself for the minutes?
[20:08] <huats> (it might be better for me to get it last)
[20:08] <czajkowski> Aloha, I'm laura, based in Dublin Ireland and looking forward to getting involved in the loco council and helping where I can
[20:08] <popey> \o/ czajkowski
[20:08]  * itnet7 is team contact for FloridaTeam and glad to be here!!!
[20:08] <popey> \o/ itnet7
[20:08] <itnet7> :-)
[20:09] <huats> OK so, I am Christophe, a french little guy and I am really really hapy to be amongst you all :)
[20:09] <popey> you are _so_ not little!
[20:09] <huats> (even jono ;))
[20:09] <czajkowski> hardly little
[20:09] <popey> \o/ huats
[20:09] <itnet7> lol ;-P
[20:09] <czajkowski> ^5 itnet7 huats  :)
[20:09] <popey> I'm working on getting you guys on the mailing list
[20:09] <huats> thanks popey
[20:09] <keffie_jayx> he is the one from the 5000-attendee parties organized by the frech teams
[20:09] <popey> sorry it's not happened already
[20:09] <jono> hey huats
[20:09] <popey> keffie_jayx: you mean 20,000 attendees!
[20:10] <popey> (that number increases every time I see it)
[20:10] <keffie_jayx> popey:  right right 5000 is only in his home bash
[20:10] <huats> popey, ;)
[20:10] <popey> Ok, next keffie_jayx you have "Reproval process progress" on the agenda..
[20:10] <keffie_jayx> right...
[20:10] <huats> keffie_jayx, actually my hometown party is this weekend but it won't be that big :)
[20:11] <czajkowski> huats: only 500 :)
[20:11] <hollman> Hello all
[20:11] <huats> czajkowski, that is the aim :)
[20:11] <keffie_jayx> so as we know, we have been working on getting a reapproval process in the life of LoCo Teams to learn more from you and offer assessment
[20:11] <keffie_jayx> we declared some actions at the meet up at UDS
[20:11] <czajkowski> yes I've the action of writing this up :)
[20:12] <keffie_jayx> it is sane to seewere we stand with regards the reaproval process.
[20:12] <popey> ok
[20:12] <popey> I just grabbed the list out of gobby and pasted onto the wiki..
[20:12] <popey> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncil/ProposedTeamApprovalList
[20:12] <popey> I haven't checked the sanity of that list (my action - will do asap)
[20:12] <JanC> shit, we're on top  ;)
[20:13] <itnet7> JanC: we're not far below you
[20:13] <popey> JanC: no editing of the wiki and moving yourself!
[20:13] <popey> :)
[20:13] <nizarus> tunisian team is missing
[20:13] <popey> nizarus: no, it's not
[20:13] <huats> JanC, and we are not on the list :(
[20:13] <popey> nizarus: it's the _re_ approval list
[20:13] <keffie_jayx> nizarus: many teams are missing ;)
[20:13] <keffie_jayx> this is only 30
[20:13] <keffie_jayx> out of 60 something
[20:13] <JanC> nizarus: you were approved or reapproved not that long ago IIRC?
[20:14] <nizarus> popey, i know we should be reapproved on july
[20:14] <popey> not necessarily nizarus
[20:14] <nizarus> JanC, we was approved on july 2008
[20:14] <popey> teams will be reapproved when we get to them
[20:14] <popey> it might not be july
[20:14] <popey> but we'll let you know in advance :)
[20:14] <nizarus> okay
[20:15] <popey> ok, so keffie_jayx outstanding things are a) czajkowski documenting and b) me sanitising that list?
[20:15] <czajkowski> yup
[20:15] <keffie_jayx> no
[20:15] <popey> oh?
[20:15] <czajkowski> oh?
[20:15] <keffie_jayx> also, make sure awareness of this process happnes
[20:15] <popey> ok, but we can't do that till it's documented surely?
[20:15] <czajkowski> well that'll surely happence once A is done and the mailed out ?
[20:15] <keffie_jayx> exactly
[20:15] <czajkowski> popey: great minds!
[20:16] <popey> czajkowski: .. drink guinness
[20:16] <czajkowski> I have sense ;)
[20:16] <keffie_jayx> also decide on the schedules for each teams, would be nice
[20:16] <keffie_jayx> makes sense?
[20:16] <czajkowski> yup
[20:16] <popey> ok so 1) document, 2) publicise 3) schedule, 4) ??  5) profit!
[20:17] <czajkowski> 5) choclate :D white choclate and JanC is 1st on the list :p
[20:17] <huats> czajkowski, 6) share that chocolate
[20:17] <czajkowski> popey: keffie_jayx is this document started somwhere, or based on a document ?
[20:17] <huats> :)
[20:17] <czajkowski> huats: eh no :)
[20:18] <popey> I don't know.. keffie_jayx ?
[20:18] <keffie_jayx> czajkowski: it is only word of moth and some documentation is already available in gobby
[20:18] <keffie_jayx> like the emailing process
[20:18] <JanC> I'm happy to buy 1 kg of chocolate to share on FOSDEM  :P
[20:18] <popey> Ok, I can work with czajkowski on that
[20:18] <czajkowski> grand job
[20:18] <keffie_jayx> also
[20:19] <keffie_jayx> we agreed on doing this in meetings
[20:19] <popey> doing what?
[20:19] <popey> the re-approvals?
[20:19] <keffie_jayx> oposed to emailing the reaproval proposals no?
[20:20] <popey> we did?
[20:20] <keffie_jayx> popey: I though we had decided that emailingwas not working, but then again I might have misheard
[20:20] <popey> ah ok
[20:20] <huats> keffie_jayx, don't you think it will be really long in meeting
[20:21] <huats> from my understanding (at the previous UDS)
[20:21] <popey> no, we decided to mail the teams 3 times
[20:21] <JanC> I think in the past we agreeded that reapproval through mail if possible would make meetings shorter
[20:21] <popey> to let them know they're up for approval
[20:21] <popey> give them a month to reply/prepare and attend an online meeting
[20:21] <keffie_jayx> popey: and they email the reapproval aplication and that is it?
[20:21] <popey> if they don't turn up they get unapproved
[20:21] <keffie_jayx> ok
[20:21] <JanC> and teams could appeal during a public meeting if they don't agree with a decision
[20:21] <popey> yup
[20:21] <keffie_jayx> ok
[20:22] <popey> during a meeting is what we agreed
[20:22] <popey> the key thing is getting them to the meeting
[20:22] <popey> we need to word the mails carefully
[20:22] <popey> but firmly :)
[20:22] <keffie_jayx> definetelly, sorry for making you lose time
[20:22] <JanC> okay then
[20:22] <huats> popey, I agree
[20:22] <popey> no, it's fine, we all need to be on the same page
[20:22] <popey> so as part of the documentation we can come up with a template mail
[20:23] <popey> Dear $LOCO
[20:23] <czajkowski> that'd make sense
[20:23] <popey> Turn up or else.
[20:23] <popey> Love Loco council!
[20:23] <huats> but I think that if we just say the truth : a reapproval is not a blame but a normal process...
[20:23] <popey> yup huats
[20:23] <czajkowski> aye and point out, every loco at some point or another will go through this process
[20:23] <popey> yup
[20:23] <huats> popey, or your mail + asking for 1 kg of chocolate each :)
[20:23] <popey> :)
[20:23] <popey> I am easily bribed
[20:24] <popey> just putting that out there
[20:24] <popey> ok, so czajkowski and I will make a start on the documents, and run that past the mailing list okay?
[20:24] <popey> (loco-council)
[20:24] <popey> so everyone gets a chance to contribute
[20:24] <popey> and we'll also pass it by jono/jorge to make sure we're not doing anything dumb
[20:25] <czajkowski> heh smart move
[20:25] <popey> is that all we need to say about reapproval for now?
[20:25] <itnet7> does anyone think it would save time to look at the lists of re-approvals, and evaluate the teams by a loco council vote, on whether or not a team needs to do their re-approval in a meeting?
[20:25] <czajkowski> when do we hope to start
[20:26] <itnet7> and for those teams that are spot-on, we can do it through mail
[20:26] <popey> itnet7: what, pre-re-approve them if they're obviously great?
[20:26] <popey> I think it would be fairer if everyone had the same process
[20:26] <itnet7> ah
[20:26] <czajkowski> I think so to, make it the same across the board. For everyone loco to see
[20:26] <itnet7> agreed
[20:27] <popey> would be more open that way
[20:27] <popey> any other re-approval comments?
[20:28] <JanC> still, looking at & discussing their reapproval page beforehand might help meetings go faster
[20:28] <keffie_jayx> it would be good to have a timeline for things to happen
[20:28] <keffie_jayx> just to keep track.
[20:28] <keffie_jayx> this things tend to take sooo longgg
[20:28] <keffie_jayx> and emailing is not a nice tracker of time
[20:28] <popey> well we said 3 mails in a month, invite, if they dont turn up, unapprove
[20:29] <czajkowski> aye we did agree on that at UDS
[20:29] <keffie_jayx> but our roadmap to begin reaprovals should be nice
[20:29] <JanC> popey: 3 in a month, how many approved locoteams are there ?
[20:29] <keffie_jayx> I am being optimistic when I say we begin january next year
[20:29] <popey> no JanC
[20:29] <popey> 3 attempts to contact _one_ team in a month
[20:29] <popey> no keffie_jayx
[20:29] <JanC> ah, okay  ☺
[20:29] <popey> :)
[20:30] <popey> but we could re-approve two (or more) in one meeting
[20:30] <popey> it depends how prepared they are - and how good (or bad) they are
[20:30] <JanC> we'd need to, otherwise reapproval of all teams will take 10 years  ;)
[20:30] <popey> yeah, job for life :)
[20:30] <popey> ok, shall we move on?
[20:30] <JanC> k
[20:31] <keffie_jayx> wait
[20:31] <huats> keffie_jayx, we might each contact 1 team
[20:31] <huats> by month
[20:31] <huats> it will reduce the time...
[20:31] <keffie_jayx> so no estimated time for reaprovals yet
[20:31] <keffie_jayx> no estimated time for the actions popey and czajkowski have?
[20:32] <keffie_jayx> sorry If I am pushy about this
[20:32] <czajkowski> it shouldnt take long to document it, and then get some input and tweek it
[20:32] <czajkowski> popey: ?
[20:33] <popey> keffie_jayx: we dont have the documentation yet
[20:33] <popey> its not promoted, no teams even know about this process
[20:33] <keffie_jayx> this is key because if we have 30 teams to do in 6 months then time is not on our side
[20:33] <popey> (except maybe belgium)
[20:33] <keffie_jayx> popey:  right, is it safe to reduce the number of teams to reaprove for this cycle?
[20:33] <popey> keffie_jayx: what expectations do you have?
[20:34] <popey> keffie_jayx: no, I think it's good to have a target
[20:35] <keffie_jayx> popey:  my expectations are keep it simple
[20:35] <czajkowski> keffie_jayx: I think we shoul d aim for the 30 and I'm hopeful we shall reach the target and if we fall short, then it's a learning curve for us as it's not been done before.
[20:35] <popey> keffie_jayx: no, i meant your expectations of timescales
[20:35] <keffie_jayx> popey:  I said january, it is a nice way to start
[20:35] <keffie_jayx> it gives us a month to organize docs and promote the process
[20:35] <czajkowski> keffie_jayx: do you think we can get documentation and awareness out in time?
[20:35] <popey> sounds reasonable
[20:36] <keffie_jayx> czajkowski:  yes. it is really up to us and the teams
[20:36] <huats> sounds to me too
[20:36] <keffie_jayx> and once you email a team contact three times, you know we mean business ;)
[20:36] <czajkowski> okie dokie
[20:36] <keffie_jayx> it is really up to us being constant
[20:37] <popey> agreed
[20:37] <popey> shall we move on?
[20:37] <huats> ok for me
[20:38] <czajkowski> sounds goo d
[20:38] <popey> keffie_jayx / itnet7 / JanC ?
[20:38] <keffie_jayx> sure
[20:38] <JanC> +1 ☺
[20:38] <popey> "State of the LoCo Governance Docs"
[20:38] <popey> keffie_jayx - another one of yours :)
[20:39] <keffie_jayx> sure
[20:39] <keffie_jayx> LoCo Docs are probably the best pieces of docs on the Ubuntu wiki. but I think there are other general aspects that need to be documented
[20:40] <keffie_jayx> for instance. the LoCo Concil and its functions are not clearly detailed in the LoCoCouncil wiki page
[20:40] <keffie_jayx> this leaves the people a bit confused about what we do
[20:40] <keffie_jayx> and we do alot
[20:40] <keffie_jayx> So I take the initiative to document our actions
[20:40] <keffie_jayx> so that the community can have a better sense of what we do
[20:41] <keffie_jayx> I speak of this particularly https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncil
[20:41] <keffie_jayx> also
[20:41] <itnet7> popey: I agree sorry... work stuff
[20:42] <itnet7> +1
[20:42] <keffie_jayx> also our interaction with the LoCo Community should be documented
[20:42] <popey> ok, I agree completely
[20:42] <popey> what do you propose we do keffie_jayx ?
[20:42] <keffie_jayx> I took the initiative to blog about LoCo Team Contact changes
[20:43] <keffie_jayx> and we could make this a LoCo Council thing to do
[20:43] <keffie_jayx> and not only LoCo Contact Changes
[20:43] <keffie_jayx> once a new team is formed
[20:43] <keffie_jayx> once a new team is approved
[20:43] <keffie_jayx> onces a new team is reaproved
[20:44] <huats> keffie_jayx, it makes high sense to me
[20:44] <popey> ok
[20:45] <keffie_jayx> so documenting a bit on this will make sure people that follow after us
[20:45] <keffie_jayx> keep this little gestures of sympathy going long after we are gone
[20:46] <keffie_jayx> also there is a leadership code of conduct that we should make reference of in our docs
[20:46] <JanC> right
[20:46] <keffie_jayx> the LoCo Docs do not make reference to that and it would be healthy to add it
[20:46] <keffie_jayx> makes sense?
[20:46] <popey> yes
[20:46] <JanC> certainly
[20:47] <keffie_jayx> I can drive this documentation and open it up for coments
[20:47] <popey> That would rock
[20:47] <itnet7> sounds good keffie_jayx !
[20:47] <czajkowski> lovely
[20:47] <popey> it would also help the newbies :)
[20:47] <czajkowski> grin
[20:47] <czajkowski> any help is welcomed
[20:48] <keffie_jayx> ok
[20:48] <popey> keffie_jayx: you going to co-ordinate that on the mailing list?
[20:48] <keffie_jayx> I am done the, I will report via email my rpgress
[20:48] <popey> excellent stuff
[20:48] <keffie_jayx> yes, email and wiki on the Lucid Roadmap
[20:48] <popey> ok
[20:48] <popey> next up is nizarus
[20:49] <nizarus> هنا /o\
[20:49] <popey> :)
[20:49] <nizarus> hi
[20:49] <czajkowski> aloha
[20:49] <nizarus> so I'm from the tunisian LoCo Team
[20:49] <popey> nizarus: you were asking about setting up a legal entity to promote Ubuntu in Tunisia right?
[20:49] <nizarus> and we was approved on July 2008 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoCouncilAgenda/20080722
[20:50] <nizarus> yes popey
[20:50] <popey> ok, there was a reply from the cc, but I now see that you didn't see that..
[20:50] <popey> one moment.
[20:50] <nizarus> popey, haven't recieved it
[20:50] <popey> This is the reply from Mark Shuttleworth..
[20:50] <popey> "I agree with the sentiment that a legal entity is only appropriate in the most exceptional cases. Of course Canonical can't stop anyone from forming a legal entity: if you want to do that, and you have the required resources and competence, then go ahead. You would need a trademark agreement to call it an Ubuntu entity, but that can be granted using the template you have."
[20:51] <popey> "The most important thing to think about is how to wind down such an entity. Keeping a legal vehicle alive is a lot of work. It's a bit like a puppy - everyone wants one, not everyone is good at looking after the dog it grows into! Think carefully about it - there are real legal consequences for not responding to paperwork and administration in most countries if you are responsible for a legal entity, and Canonical cannot help."
[20:52] <nizarus> popey, we know the consequences and we are ready to do it
[20:52] <JanC> http://verein.ubuntu-de.org/files/agreement.pdf --> is an example of the agreement with Canonical you'll need to sign
[20:53] <nizarus> JanC, I got your document
[20:53] <JanC> (might be different but something like that)
[20:53] <huats> this is the document we (ubuntu-fr) have signed
[20:53] <JanC> maybe huats knows if the French agreement is on-line too
[20:53] <nizarus> since 2 monthes i contacted canonical for trademak agreement
[20:53] <nizarus> but no response
[20:53] <huats> JanC, actually it is not online afaik
[20:53] <nizarus> that's why i'm here
[20:54] <huats> but it was the same that was signed with ubuntu-fr
[20:54] <huats> (they both have been signed at the same time)
[20:55] <popey> nizarus: sadly the loco council cannot do anything about the responsiveness of the canonical trademark team
[20:55] <sshd> hi
[20:56] <nizarus> popey, I see, but if there is any tips
[20:56] <nizarus> :/
[20:56] <czajkowski> nizarus: tips on ?
[20:57] <nizarus> how to contact canonical and got fast response :)
[20:57] <popey> be patient and polite, thats my tip :)
[20:57] <JanC> maybe if we put what sabdfl said on the wiki so that you can reference it, that might make sense
[20:57] <nizarus> popey, patient for more 2 monthes ?
[20:57] <popey> nizarus: when did you last mail them?
[20:58] <popey> I believe the trademark 'team' is quite small
[20:58] <popey> and ubuntu is "quite big"
[20:58] <nizarus> popey, I used the trademark contact form since 2 mothes
[20:58] <czajkowski> and ~i'm sure it gets a lot queries
[20:58] <JanC> maybe we can ask Canonical how long people should expect to wait?
[20:58] <popey> nizarus: I would contact them again
[20:59] <popey> nizarus: simply ask for an update
[20:59] <nizarus> and i got a confirmation with an information that i will have a response in 48 hours
[20:59] <czajkowski> nizarus: as popey pointed out, there is nothing we can do about the responose of canonical. Perhaps mail asking for an update to the situation
[20:59] <JanC> and ask what details peopel should include in their mail to avoid losing time?
[20:59] <huats> nizarus, I have contacted the trademark team a few time
[20:59] <huats> and I have waited about 2 months already
[20:59] <ScottK> nizarus: I'd suggest reviewing the bugs here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community and filing one if you think it's needed.
[20:59] <nizarus> huats, you have a direct mail ?
[21:00] <huats> nope
[21:00] <nizarus> :/
[21:00] <huats> I have used the form too
[21:01] <popey> i emailed them directly
[21:01] <nizarus> popey, which adresse
[21:01] <popey> trademarks @ ubuntu dot com
[21:02] <nizarus> thank's popey
[21:02] <popey> when I asked, I got a reply same day :S
[21:02] <popey> that was over a year ago though
[21:02] <popey> things have changed since then
[21:02] <nizarus> I will resent my mail and cc you
[21:02] <popey> no need to cc me
[21:02] <popey> there's nothing the loco council (or I) can do about canonical trademark issues
[21:03] <popey> ok, we're over time
[21:03] <nizarus> ok
[21:03] <popey> jcastro...?
[21:03] <nizarus> thx all
[21:03] <huats> no pb nizarus
[21:04] <jcastro> yep
[21:04] <popey> "LoCo Week and LoCo Doc Day"
[21:04] <jcastro> popey, so basically
[21:04] <popey> is it quick?
[21:04] <jcastro> I have no time to do this this cycle
[21:04] <jcastro> and was wondering if we still want to do this
[21:04] <jcastro> and if anyone is interested in driving?
[21:04] <keffie_jayx> jcastro:  I am
[21:04] <czajkowski> jcastro: I'm not familiar with it ?
[21:05] <popey> can you mail the loco council about it?
[21:05] <popey> as we're already over time
[21:05] <jcastro> yep
[21:05] <huats> jcastro, same than czajkowski I don't know the idea
[21:05] <jcastro> no worries
[21:05] <keffie_jayx> jcastro:  there hasn't been a LoCo week ever, so this would be a first time
[21:05] <jcastro> right
[21:05] <keffie_jayx> jcastro:  LoCo Docs there was one in the Jaunty cycle
[21:05] <jcastro> it's one of those "been sitting on the backburner" ideas
[21:05] <jcastro> yeah
[21:05] <keffie_jayx> which was about a year ago
[21:05] <jcastro> I will send mails so I don't take up anymore time!
[21:06] <popey> jcastro: as czajkowski / huats / itnet7  aren't on the loco-council mailing list *hint* *hint* can you To: them too please
[21:06] <itnet7> :-P
[21:06] <keffie_jayx> jcastro:  I am interested in docs day, since one of my previous items was based on that
[21:07] <czajkowski> jcastro: thanks
[21:07] <popey> yeah, could be very helpful for that keffie_jayx
[21:07] <jcastro> popey, yeah
[21:07] <keffie_jayx> jcastro:  I think the LoCo Council needs to have clear what a LoCo Week is
[21:07] <jcastro> yeah
[21:07] <popey> can we take it to the mailing list
[21:07] <popey> tick tock
[21:07] <keffie_jayx> or what the horsemen
[21:07] <keffie_jayx> think
[21:07] <keffie_jayx> right right out of time
[21:07] <czajkowski> thanks folks
[21:07] <keffie_jayx> thanks
[21:07] <jcastro> \o/
[21:07] <keffie_jayx> great meeting
[21:07] <popey> woah.. hang on
[21:07] <czajkowski> oh
[21:08] <popey> we're over time and we have a team approval
[21:08] <czajkowski> popey: is there another meeting on now ?
[21:08] <huats> pfff it is my first ubuntu meeting that is almost on time :)
[21:08] <popey> drakulavich and sshd are here
[21:08] <popey> no czajkowski
[21:08] <czajkowski> I cna stay
[21:08] <yltsrc> yltsrc too
[21:08] <czajkowski> can others?
[21:08] <huats> I can stay too
[21:08] <czajkowski> itnet7: keffie_jayx huats JanC ?
[21:09] <JanC> no problem for me
[21:09] <keffie_jayx> I can stay
[21:09] <czajkowski> popey: ?
[21:09] <popey> ok
[21:09] <czajkowski> not to leave you out
[21:09] <czajkowski> ;)
[21:09] <popey> 30 mins past is the deadline
[21:09] <popey> so we have 20 mins
[21:09] <itnet7> I can stay
[21:09] <czajkowski> grand lets shoot
[21:09] <keffie_jayx> let's do it
[21:09] <popey> ok .. before we start
[21:10] <popey> it's probably best that one person leads this process, we don't want to have loads of questions bombarding the Belarus guys and gals..
[21:10] <popey> volunteer?
[21:10]  * czajkowski sits back and watches this time
[21:10] <popey> ok, keffie_jayx ?
[21:10] <huats> popey, may be an experience people might be better
[21:10] <keffie_jayx> me
[21:10] <huats> ..
[21:10] <popey> great!
[21:10] <keffie_jayx> alright
[21:10] <popey> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BelarusTeam
[21:11] <keffie_jayx> Anyone here from the Belarus Team?
[21:11] <yltsrc> yes :)
[21:11] <drakulavich> me too
[21:11] <sshd> and me )
[21:11] <keffie_jayx> great :D
[21:11] <keffie_jayx> do you have an approval aplication
[21:11] <keffie_jayx> ?
[21:12] <popey> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoGettingApproved is the process by the way
[21:12] <yltsrc> yes http://wiki.ubuntu.com/BelarusTeam/ApprovalApplication
[21:13] <keffie_jayx> ok
[21:13] <keffie_jayx> you have been doing release parties for how long?
[21:13] <develop7> me too
[21:14] <yltsrc> we have release parties till 8.10 release
[21:14] <yltsrc> * since :)
[21:14] <sshd> we have some release party
[21:14] <keffie_jayx> and it read that you have been participating with other lugs from the regions, can you describe further your itneraction with other teams in belarus
[21:15] <sshd> 8.04, 8.10, 9.04, 9.10
[21:15] <keffie_jayx> any pictures :P
[21:16] <sshd> keffie_jayx: in lvee, we connect with other lug from belarus
[21:16] <sshd> keffie_jayx: lvee.org
[21:16] <keffie_jayx> sshd:  what is your colaboration particularly
[21:17] <drakulavich> http://picasaweb.google.com/antono.vasiljev/LVEE2008#
[21:18] <JanC> LVEE sounds cool
[21:20] <keffie_jayx> I ask about lug colaboration becasue your resource site make no reference about being a LoCo Team
[21:20] <keffie_jayx> unless it is not your site, just a refrenece site from belarus?
[21:21] <keffie_jayx> anyone?
[21:22] <JanC> keffie_jayx means http://linux.by/
[21:22] <czajkowski> yltsrc: drakulavich sshd ?
[21:22] <keffie_jayx> ?
[21:22] <yltsrc> we have not lug site, but we have separated forum on http://linux.by
[21:22] <yltsrc> and http://ubuntu.ru
[21:23] <keffie_jayx> that's what I thought
[21:23] <yltsrc> because most of us russian-speaking and we provide support with russian team
[21:24] <keffie_jayx> how many active members are there, and how many have secured Ubuntu membership?
[21:25] <yltsrc> i am not sure, but all of us, who on http://launchpad.net/~belarus
[21:25] <yltsrc> and maybe more
[21:26] <keffie_jayx> yltsrc:  anyone seeking ubuntu membership that you know of?
[21:27] <yltsrc> what do you mean?
[21:27] <drakulavich> you mean ubuntu developers?
[21:27] <popey> Ok. I am going to have to say -1 for now. I'd like to see a more comprehensive application, one which meets the criteria set out in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoCoGettingApproved
[21:28] <keffie_jayx> yltsrc:  ubuntu membership is for individuals that have contirbuted considerably to the Ubuntu Community. http://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership
[21:28] <popey> It would be great if you could improve the application with more detail, reports and summaries of events before you come back to us for approval.
[21:28] <keffie_jayx> I agree with popey
[21:28] <czajkowski> I'm also going to say -1, and would like to see more Ubuntu participation evidence, but would love to see you come back in a few months.
[21:29] <itnet7> -1, I do really like what you all have started though, and would like to encouarge you to tread on
[21:29] <keffie_jayx> I think your team has strated the process of consolidating a team but you still need to make sure your team can be functional with it's own resources,
[21:29] <yltsrc> i think we haven't any ubuntu member
[21:29] <keffie_jayx> the work you have done n events seems fantastic
[21:29] <huats> Sorry guys but my vote is also -1. I'd like to have more pics, and a clearer view of how you are exchanging on a daily basis
[21:30] <itnet7> definitely, good work so far!
[21:30] <huats> I do think you have done a good start so far
[21:30] <keffie_jayx> yltsrc:  we hope to see you again in say 6 months time and we can evaluate your progress
[21:30] <huats> you need to continue !
[21:30] <drakulavich> thanx, guys. We'll be back :)
[21:30] <huats> drakulavich, we count on that !
[21:30] <keffie_jayx> keep it up belarus
[21:30] <keffie_jayx> :D
[21:30] <popey> sorry it ended up being so late for you guys!
[21:31] <czajkowski> drakulavich: good to hear
[21:31] <popey> ok, thats the end of our meeting
[21:31] <itnet7> no problem, can't wait to see good things in the future for belarus!
[21:31] <keffie_jayx> sorry for that too
[21:31] <popey> thanks keffie_jayx / czajkowski / JanC / itnet7 / huats
[21:31] <keffie_jayx> alrighty
[21:31] <keffie_jayx> minutes by me
[21:31] <itnet7> ty popey !
[21:31] <keffie_jayx> ;)
[21:31] <popey> thanks keffie_jayx
[21:32] <popey> keffie_jayx: you got the log?
[21:32] <czajkowski> lovely jubbly folks ;)
[21:32] <keffie_jayx> drakulavich, sshd, yltsrc see you agian friends.. :D
[21:32] <keffie_jayx> popey: yep
[21:32] <yltsrc> thanks, we'll be back :)
[21:33] <huats> thanks guys !
[21:33] <huats> that was a great first meeting :)
[21:33] <keffie_jayx> awesome
[21:33] <keffie_jayx> new council members rock
[21:33] <keffie_jayx> now
[21:33] <keffie_jayx> next meeting after the holidaysright
[21:33] <keffie_jayx> I suggest Europe friendly time
[21:33]  * popey goes to beg for forgiveness from his wife
[21:34] <czajkowski> popey: bring ice cream
[21:34] <popey> this time suits me fine, any time from 20:00 UTC onwards
[21:34] <keffie_jayx> popey:  good luck my friend, hope you don't end up in the couch tonight
[21:34] <popey> czajkowski: i just had some :)
[21:34] <popey> haha
[21:34] <popey> o/
[21:34] <czajkowski> popey: for your wife!
[21:34] <huats> it is good for me too
[21:34] <czajkowski> suits me grand
[21:35] <huats> the ONLY thing that might bother me is that the baby is expected at the end of january...so who knows...
[21:35] <huats> but I will let you know of course :)
[21:38] <czajkowski> huats: congrats !
[21:39] <huats> :)
[21:39] <huats> thanks czajkowski
[21:39] <czajkowski> huats: do you know if it's a girl or boy yet?
[21:39] <huats> czajkowski,  a little boy...
[21:40] <huats> so that I can train him to be a good rugby player
[21:40] <huats> ;)
[21:40] <huats> czajkowski, because I have seen your nice msg on facebook last week after the all blacks game ;)
[21:42] <czajkowski> heheh
[21:42] <czajkowski> #;d
[21:42] <czajkowski> yes
[21:42] <czajkowski> you did *ahem* get punished
[21:43] <czajkowski> however I had dan cater and chabal on the pitch, I was happy
[21:44] <huats> :)
[21:44] <huats> I haven't seen the game yet
[21:44] <huats> it was the night of the Ubuntu Party in Paris
[21:44] <huats> so I have taped it
[21:44] <huats> I think I'll have a look next week
[21:46] <czajkowski> do Ireland wasn't beaten once in 2009 :D
[21:48] <huats> czajkowski,  :)