[03:24] <svaksha> i learnt
[09:40] <amachu_> test
[09:40] <persia> success
[09:48] <amachu_> persia, which link should i try exactly to renew my membership?
[09:50] <persia> amachu_: That will take me a couple minutes.  Sorry :)
[09:57] <persia> amachu_: I *think* https*//launchpad.net/people/+me/+expiringmembership/ubuntumembers is the right link.
[09:57] <persia> Err, https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+expiringmembership/ubuntumembers
[10:00] <amachu_> persia, thank you
[10:01] <amachu_> elky, Hi
[10:01] <amachu_> lifeless, Hi
[10:01] <amachu_> freeflying, Hi
[10:01] <amachu_> all of us are here to go?
[10:04] <elky> just starting now?
[10:04] <elky> amachu, hi!
[10:05] <persia> amachu_: Seems to have worked for you :)  I get an error when I visit there, but it matches a pattern :)
[10:07] <amachu_> elky, yep
[10:10] <elky> By my calculations we have one applicant in the channel, unless the others are hiding under nicknames not listed on the wiki
[10:11] <elky> and then there were two. still lacking quorum though
[10:11] <elky> lifeless: ping?
[10:11]  * vish o/
[10:14] <amachu_> elky, who is that
[10:14] <elky> amachu, who is what? vish and om26er are applicants.
[10:14] <amachu_> duluu ?
[10:15] <elky> so far not in this channel
[10:15] <elky> nickserv claims to not have seen him since 3 weeks ago
[10:16] <elky> popey, or another RMB member around?
[10:16] <amachu_> freeflying, lifeless ping
[10:19] <elky> :(
[10:28]  * persia sends out other sorts of alerts to missing parties
[10:28] <amachu_> vish, om26er we are lacking quorum as yet
[10:28] <amachu_> let us see, if we could get few more Board Members to continue..
[10:28] <vish> :(
[10:28] <amachu_> preferable another 10 minutes
[10:33] <persia> I've been advised freeflying won't be able to make it.
[10:37] <amachu_> persia, on membership link problem, are you logged in
[10:38] <persia> amachu_: Yes, but my membership isn't currently expiring, which is my suspected culprit
[10:39] <amachu_> persia, ok
[10:40] <amachu_> persia, elky We shall sign it off today then..
[10:40] <amachu_> and schedule it to fourth Saturday..
[10:40] <elky> Yeah, i think anything else would be ambitious
[10:41] <elky> fourth what?
[10:41] <persia> Saturday?
[10:41] <amachu_> persia, Tuesday
[10:41] <amachu_> Sorry
[10:41] <persia> Right.
[10:41] <elky> much better :P
[10:42] <amachu_> vish, om26er: Thanks for joining. Sorry we couldn't take up your application, We lack quorum today
[10:42] <vish> np.. :)
[10:42] <amachu_> hoping to see you both, next meeting..
[10:42] <om26er> sure
[10:43] <amachu_> thank you every one for joining, if there isn't anything else to share..
[10:58] <SOLEIL> http://konkurranse.ps.no/vote/208http://konkurranse.ps.no/vote/208http://konkurranse.ps.no/vote/208http://konkurranse.ps.no/vote/208http://konkurranse.ps.no/vote/208http://konkurranse.ps.no/vote/208
[12:58]  * asac waves
[12:59] <NCommander> morning all
[12:59] <asac> ah ... there he is ;)
[13:00]  * cooloney waves back to all
[13:00] <NCommander> sorry that I'mlate
[13:00] <plars> nope, right on time :)
[13:00]  * NCommander is also dealing with a sticking spacebar
[13:00] <NCommander> #startmeeting
[13:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 07:00. The chair is NCommander.
[13:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[13:00] <cooloney> just in time
[13:00] <NCommander> give me a moment to get setup
[13:01]  * NCommander just got his laptop powered on
[13:01] <NCommander> morning dmart
[13:01] <NCommander> ugh
[13:01] <NCommander> the wiki is timing out
[13:01] <NCommander> can someone post the wiki page?
[13:02] <asac> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2010/20100209#preview
[13:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2010/20100209#preview
[13:02] <asac> oops
[13:02] <asac> well
[13:02] <asac> ;)
[13:02] <asac> review doesnt hurt
[13:03] <NCommander> thanks asac
[13:03] <NCommander> ugh
[13:03] <dmart> [LINK] http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/372469/
[13:03] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/372469/
[13:03] <dmart> Oh, did the preview link work?
[13:03] <asac> JamieBennett: GrueMaster: ogra: ping
[13:03] <NCommander> [topic] Action Item Review
[13:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Action Item Review
[13:03] <ogra> moop
[13:04] <NCommander> hey ogra
[13:04]  * NCommander is lagging very badly
[13:04] <JamieBennett> ere
[13:04]  * asac tries to find ericm
[13:04] <NCommander> [topic] * JamieBennett to complete imx51 backportng documentation on
[13:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  * JamieBennett to complete imx51 backportng documentation on
[13:04] <NCommander>        boot-speed.
[13:04] <JamieBennett> I suck
[13:04] <JamieBennett> need to do that still
[13:05] <NCommander> [topic]  cooloney to investigate lucid kernel patches that may need back-porting.
[13:05] <MootBot> New Topic:   cooloney to investigate lucid kernel patches that may need back-porting.
[13:05] <ogra> i think thats mostly implemented now
[13:05] <asac> yes
[13:05] <ogra> and we had a meeting where he presented a list
[13:05] <asac> cooloney: ?
[13:05] <asac> anything you still have in the pipeline for the backports?
[13:06] <cooloney> asac: i think some of them were merged
[13:06] <cooloney> and uploaded
[13:06] <ogra> today, yes
[13:06] <cooloney> such as modules.builtin
[13:06] <asac> cooloney: whats left?
[13:06] <cooloney> populate_rootfs
[13:06] <asac> or is all done?
[13:06]  * ogra is eager to see todays kernel :)
[13:06] <cooloney> ubuntu/ directory changes will be next
[13:07] <ogra> i thought there were no relevant ones
[13:07] <ogra> at least thats what i got in the meeting
[13:07] <cooloney> and AppArmor as soon as jj provide the git tree
[13:07] <cooloney> ogra: right,
[13:07] <ogra> so lets leave that out
[13:07] <ogra> which means only AA left
[13:07] <NCommander> [topic] ericm and NCommander to investigate what causes the gnome-panel crash/restart cycle.
[13:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  ericm and NCommander to investigate what causes the gnome-panel crash/restart cycle.
[13:07] <cooloney> all the candidates were listed in the wiki page
[13:07] <NCommander> oops, sorry
[13:08] <asac> i think thats all fixed by our kernel patch
[13:08] <asac> (gnome-panel etc.)
[13:08] <ogra> well, lets see how its on the real HW they release :)
[13:08] <NCommander> asac: gnome-panel? As far as we know,m but I didnt get to abuse the board :-)
[13:08] <asac> on the AA topic: i think it was said that AA backports are not needed, but good to have
[13:08] <ogra> that test board isnt really what we'll get, no ?
[13:08] <asac> i think its safe to assume its fixed
[13:09] <NCommander> I think we can say the same for the next action item
[13:09] <ogra> asac, well, before cooloney idles in front of his desk ... its nice to have the AA backports :)
[13:09] <asac> NCommander: gimme an action to tell ericm to smoke test the panel a bit
[13:09] <asac> cooloney: so yeah. please backport the bitgs
[13:09] <cooloney> ogra: right, and according to JJ, it is not very hard to do that
[13:09] <plars> I tested for the gnome-panel crash for a while over the sprint, and was unable to reproduce with the latest round of kernels
[13:09] <ogra> right
[13:09] <NCommander> [action] ericm to smoke-test gnome-panel on dove x0 with kernel patches
[13:09] <MootBot> ACTION received:  ericm to smoke-test gnome-panel on dove x0 with kernel patches
[13:09] <NCommander> asac, ericm, and NCommander to talk about Thumb2 issues after the meeting and report back.
[13:09] <asac> plars: thanks
[13:09] <NCommander> er
[13:09] <NCommander> [topic] asac, ericm, and NCommander to talk about Thumb2 issues after the meeting and report back.
[13:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  asac, ericm, and NCommander to talk about Thumb2 issues after the meeting and report back.
[13:10] <ogra> plars, on X0 or older HW ?
[13:10] <plars> no, on Y1
[13:10] <ogra> ah, very cool!
[13:10]  * ogra takes back his staement from above then
[13:10] <ogra> i thought we only had it gone on X0
[13:10] <plars> but since we didn't have a perfect way to reproduce, and it didn't happen every time, it's also possible that I just got lucky
[13:11] <NCommander> so on thumb2 issues, yX is hardware bugs and fubared. X0 with kernel patches is stable
[13:11]  * NCommander fixed his spacebar!
[13:11] <NCommander> woo
[13:11] <NCommander> [topic] cooloney to ping fsl for more reliable chip rev checking method.
[13:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  cooloney to ping fsl for more reliable chip rev checking method.
[13:12] <StevenK> Apologies, I thought I already was in the channel
[13:12] <cooloney> yeah, i think that is an old action
[13:12] <ogra> yeah
[13:12] <cooloney> i got confirmation from fsl already
[13:13] <ogra> i asked last meeting to have it dropped
[13:13] <cooloney> our patch about the chip rev is right.
[13:13] <NCommander> ok then
[13:13] <cooloney> and the uboot might have some patch to fix that
[13:13] <NCommander> [topic] cooloney to ping fsl about suspend
[13:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  cooloney to ping fsl about suspend
[13:13] <ogra> it has
[13:13] <ogra> same issue
[13:13] <ogra> i asked to drop it
[13:13] <ogra> works and all
[13:13] <NCommander> cool!
[13:13] <JamieBennett> woo
[13:13] <NCommander> [topic] NCommander to investigate ericm's xorg naming bug
[13:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  NCommander to investigate ericm's xorg naming bug
[13:14] <cooloney> suspend actually no further feedback from fsl,
[13:14]  * NCommander honestly has no idea what this AI was
[13:14] <cooloney> thanks ogra
[13:14] <NCommander> [topic] persia, asac, Gruemaster to discuss meeting rotation schedule and report back.
[13:14] <MootBot> New Topic:  persia, asac, Gruemaster to discuss meeting rotation schedule and report back.
[13:14] <cooloney> NCommander: lol
[13:14] <asac> we didint reach consent on that
[13:14] <asac> push forward
[13:14] <NCommander> asac: c/o?
[13:14] <asac> yes
[13:14] <NCommander> asac: right, carry over :-)
[13:15] <NCommander> [topic] Standing Items
[13:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  Standing Items
[13:15]  * persia failed completely, and sends out the appropriate email
[13:15] <NCommander> The burndown chart page seems to be broken (or old link)
[13:15] <GrueMaster> you have my full consent to move it to a more reasonable time for the PST timezone.
[13:15] <asac> that url is broken
[13:15] <NCommander> [topic] Kernel Status (cooloney, ericm)
[13:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  Kernel Status (cooloney, ericm)
[13:15] <asac> hey
[13:15] <NCommander> asac: whats the right URL?
[13:15] <asac> please start on top
[13:15] <JamieBennett> NCommander yes its broken, use the people.u.c link
[13:15] <cooloney> fsl kernel was uploaded today
[13:15] <cooloney> it includes some backport features.
[13:15] <asac> please use the last weeks wiki to start a new weeks wiki ;)
[13:16] <asac> last one was people already?
[13:16] <ogra> http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-mobile.html
[13:16] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-mobile.html
[13:16] <asac> sorry. lets continue with kernel
[13:16] <asac> because NCommander already started that
[13:16] <asac> we can go back afte3r that
[13:16] <asac> cooloney: go ahead
[13:16] <ogra> we're so greeeen
[13:16] <NCommander> ogra: green?
[13:16] <ogra> (back to kernel, yeah)
[13:16] <asac> heh
[13:16] <cooloney> i'm working on the USB issue
[13:17] <asac> great.
[13:17] <asac> mine?
[13:17] <cooloney> and ethernet issue
[13:17] <ogra> yeha, me wouls love to see bug 457878 fixed
[13:17] <asac> any ideas whats going on for the carrier thing?
[13:17] <ogra> *would even
[13:17] <asac> cooloney: do you need help from fsl on that?
[13:17] <cooloney> ogra: yeah, that is very annoy
[13:17] <cooloney> asac: yeah, please help me to ping them.
[13:17] <ogra> i personally think its not properly integrated with mii
[13:17] <asac> cooloney: i will raise the ethernet issue on todays call
[13:17] <cooloney> actually, i ping them before about this
[13:17] <ogra> lets bring it up on the call
[13:18] <cooloney> asac: cool
[13:18] <asac> cooloney: can you forward me the mail you sent last time?
[13:18] <asac> i will ensure they look
[13:18] <cooloney> asac: ok, will do soon,
[13:18] <cooloney> next time i will keep you in the loop
[13:18] <asac> thx
[13:18] <NCommander> ok to move onto burndown charts?
[13:18] <asac> anything else on kernel?
[13:18] <asac> ericm isnt here
[13:18] <ogra> please test todays imx upload extensively
[13:19] <NCommander> [topic] Burndown Chart
[13:19] <MootBot> New Topic:  Burndown Chart
[13:19] <asac> [LINK] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-mobile.html
[13:19] <NCommander> [link] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-mobile.html
[13:19] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-mobile.html
[13:19] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-mobile.html
[13:19] <ogra> we have some new features that were never tested before
[13:19] <asac> oops ;)
[13:19] <asac> [LINK] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-mobile-lucid-alpha-3.html
[13:19] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-mobile-lucid-alpha-3.html
[13:19]  * NCommander kicks his lagging
[13:19] <asac> so ... alpha-3 is what is our real goal
[13:19] <asac> the full cycle chart is a bit lying to us
[13:19] <asac> because stuff needs to be finishef by alpha-3
[13:19] <ogra> bah
[13:19] <ogra> but iots greener !
[13:19] <ogra> *its
[13:19] <NCommander> ugh
[13:20]  * cooloney is apt-get upgrading on his board
[13:20] <asac> yes. it gives us a false pov
[13:20] <ogra> pfft
[13:20] <NCommander> :-/
[13:20]  * ogra likes the more positive pov
[13:20] <StevenK> mobile-lucid-arm-une is waiting on everything else,
[13:20] <asac> StevenK: waiting on what in particular?
[13:20] <StevenK> Such as chromium, office suite, etc
[13:20]  * NCommander agrees with ogra 
[13:21] <asac> StevenK: those work items are in the other specs arent they?
[13:21] <asac> imo we can kill them there
[13:21] <asac>  GNOME games refactored and split: TODO
[13:21] <asac> whats up with that?
[13:21] <asac> can we set that to DONE?
[13:21] <StevenK> asac: Right, but -arm-une has a work item for "drive all the other specs to completion"
[13:21] <ogra> isnt that desktop team work anyway ?
[13:21] <asac> and coordinate with -desktop team on the rest?
[13:21] <asac> StevenK: document a high level summary of the arm UNE changes at the end of cycle: TODO
[13:21]  * ogra fuels up StevenK 
[13:22] <asac> that one should be targetted for lucid-beta-2
[13:22] <asac> or so
[13:22] <asac> let me do that
[13:22] <StevenK> Excellent
[13:22] <StevenK> I'll talk to seb about gnome-games tomorrow
[13:22] <StevenK> Or someone in his timezone can, I don't mind
[13:22] <asac> ok
[13:22] <StevenK> Personally, I fail to see the point, the armel UNE images are *tiny*&
[13:22] <asac> i am fine with setting that to done/postponed or assigning it to didrocks
[13:22] <StevenK> s/&//
[13:22] <asac> ok
[13:23] <NCommander> StevenK: how tiny?
[13:23] <asac> then lets set that to DONE
[13:23]  * NCommander can't get on cdimage.u.c
[13:23] <asac> in case we are happy with the current games
[13:23] <ogra> NCommander, 500something
[13:23] <asac> if not we might want to add more
[13:23] <NCommander> ogra: wow.
[13:23]  * NCommander wonders how much the langpacks are eating up though
[13:23] <asac> plars: mobile-lucid-bringup-testing
[13:23] <asac> is blocking on what?
[13:23] <StevenK> NCommander: dove is 491, imx51 is 520
[13:23] <StevenK> *tiny*
[13:23] <ogra> we'll get gnumeric and abiword in the next one though
[13:23] <ogra> that will grow a bit again
[13:24] <StevenK> Sure, but I'm guessing only to 550 or so
[13:24] <ogra> unless we keep out these changes
[13:24] <GrueMaster> What is our image size limit?
[13:24] <plars> asac: the implementation in checkbox is done, just need to do some testing of the images with it.  I will try to get to it this week, but I'm also hammering out other things
[13:24] <NCommander> ogra: I thought we were moving to google docs
[13:24] <StevenK> 1G
[13:24] <ogra> GrueMaster, img has 1G iirc
[13:24] <StevenK> In the code, anyway
[13:24] <StevenK> davidm has been saying as small as possible
[13:24]  * NCommander notes that can be changed if we have a valid reason to but IMHO, smaller images == doubleplusgood
[13:24] <plars> such as the suspend resume, some transitioning of pairwise testing to its own iso tracker space, and getting the une-armel images setup for iso tracker for A3
[13:24] <asac> ok
[13:25] <asac> NCommander: https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-lucid-arm-softboot-loader
[13:25] <asac> still has one item open
[13:25] <asac> kill or keep?
[13:25] <asac> Retest kexec() on dove and imx51 final [3 hours]: TODO
[13:25] <ogra> do we want to add as many langs to our images as possible btw ?
[13:25] <plars> asac: is there something else I should do to mark mobile-lucid-bringup-testing done?
[13:25] <NCommander> asac: need to poke someone with an imx51 board to test
[13:25] <ogra> if we have so much space
[13:25] <NCommander> asac: it failed on dove.
[13:25] <davidm> image needs to stay under 700M
[13:25] <NCommander> who wants the action item?
[13:25] <ericm_> cooloney, how's kexec on imx51?
[13:25]  * ogra will ask that later again in the image discussion
[13:25] <davidm> Needs to fit a CD
[13:25] <asac> NCommander: please give us instructions
[13:26] <ogra> davidm, huh ?
[13:26] <ogra> davidm, it cant
[13:26] <StevenK> davidm: I'm happy to tread on the code to enforce that
[13:26] <asac> plars: only what is left in the WIs
[13:26] <ogra> davidm, armel img ... SD card images ... CD doesnt make any sense
[13:26] <asac> plars: "Write a script to pull in arm specific system information (i.e. uboot version): TODO"
[13:26] <asac> if you cant do that, postpone
[13:26] <StevenK> Actually, it probably needs to be a little smaller, like 650, if you want to actually burn the .img itself to a CD
[13:26] <davidm> ogra, Cd is only cheap way to ship images that can then be installed to USB stick
[13:27] <persia> CD *does* make sense.  While not many boards can boot from CD, being able to put the image on a CD significantly eases distribution.
[13:27] <plars> asac: ah, well I was going to just mark that one done (forgot about it actually) since we're pulling in all we can right now.  We can revisit later if more things become available
[13:27] <ogra> davidm, DVD works too, no ?
[13:27] <NCommander> ogra: DVD blanks cost more
[13:27] <davidm> ogra, more expensive
[13:27] <asac> plars: ok. then its done - implemented
[13:27] <NCommander> and DVD burners are not ubiquious yet
[13:27] <cooloney> ericm_: i did not test yet, it is supposed to fail, heh
[13:27] <ogra> a few cents
[13:27] <dmart> IMHO, >= 650MB does not qualify as "as small as possible" --- so fitting on a CD should not be a problem
[13:27] <NCommander> cooloney: ouch. why?
[13:27] <persia> ogra: Adds up when multiplied by a very large number :)
[13:27] <asac> plars: i set it done
[13:27] <StevenK> davidm: Does 520 quality? :-)
[13:27] <cooloney> NCommander: oh, i got a bug about that.
[13:27] <StevenK> Er, qualify
[13:27] <ogra> dmart, its a question of languages we ship
[13:28]  * ogra would prefer to ship more langs
[13:28] <NCommander> cooloney: so can I kill to action item to test kexec on ARM?
[13:28] <StevenK> Sorry, I'm fading fast, not quite in the Australian timezone yet
[13:28] <cooloney> NCommander: just try to fix it, heh,
[13:28] <asac> we can ship 700M
[13:28] <ogra> sure
[13:28] <dmart> ogra, ~ how much space does each lang take?
[13:28] <ogra> its just a waste imho
[13:28] <asac> please fill it up with as many langs as possible
[13:28] <NCommander> cooloney: ENOIMX51HW
[13:28] <asac> StevenK: can you do that programatically?
[13:28] <StevenK> Roughly 15MB or so
[13:28] <NCommander> Can we take this off the meeting, and come back with a resolution?
[13:28] <cooloney> NCommander: ok, let me do it
[13:28] <ogra> dmart, depends on the language, but an average of 15M might be the number here
[13:29] <dmart> Filling up any space on a CD with langs is OK; its the size of the typical install we care about
[13:29] <StevenK> asac: No, it involes handwavy crap, and I need to make sure I don't step on the i386 image
[13:29] <cooloney> ericm_: it might be a common feature missing on ARM v7
[13:29] <ogra> i.e. chinese is a lot bigger than german
[13:29] <asac> StevenK: ok. so lets do that before beta and RC/final
[13:29] <ericm_> cooloney, someone reported a success on omap
[13:29] <StevenK> I can start doing that now
[13:29] <ogra> dmart, right thats below 600M anyway
[13:29] <StevenK> I can also fix the code to cry if it's above say, 600MB?
[13:29] <dmart> sure
[13:29] <ogra> for the live image
[13:29] <asac> [ACTION] StevenK to talk to pitti how to fill up armel img with langs without busting i386
[13:30] <StevenK> I don't need pitti
[13:30] <cooloney> ericm_: is that because they applied the patches from Tony you posted to me?
[13:30] <StevenK> I just need to do it
[13:30] <ogra> right
[13:30] <ericm_> cooloney, exactly
[13:30] <asac> StevenK: then skip the pitti part
[13:30] <ogra> just a simple seed change
[13:30] <asac> ;)
[13:30] <ogra> and a matter of us selecting which langs
[13:30] <StevenK> [ACTION] StevenK to fill up armel img with langs without busting i386
[13:30] <StevenK> NCommander: ^
[13:30] <cooloney> ericm_: good, so i think we can file are bug named kexec fails on ARM v7
[13:30] <NCommander> [ACTION] StevenK to fill armel image with lang packs without breaking i386/amd64
[13:30] <MootBot> ACTION received:  StevenK to fill armel image with lang packs without breaking i386/amd64
[13:30] <ogra> [action] team to discuss which langs we want to ship
[13:30] <ogra> NCommander, ^^^
[13:30] <ogra> :)
[13:30] <NCommander> anyway
[13:30] <cooloney> ericm_: then mark fsl, mvl and versatile v7 kexec bug as duplicated
[13:30] <ericm_> NCommander, maybe we'll wait cooloney to see the result to kill soft-boot-loader or not, most likely not able to get this into lucid
[13:31] <StevenK> We don't build UNE for amd64, fail
[13:31] <asac> ogra: thats a none issue
[13:31] <NCommander> [action] Team to discuss langs to ship on armel images by default
[13:31] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Team to discuss langs to ship on armel images by default
[13:31] <ogra> asac, why ?
[13:31] <NCommander> Ok, people
[13:31] <NCommander> we're getting off topic
[13:31] <asac> because we follow the same fill up algorithm that is used by desktoP/une
[13:31] <ogra> asac, we cant ship all, so we need to make a pick
[13:31] <StevenK> So, shall I also change the code for .img oversize?
[13:31] <asac> ogra: there are rules
[13:31] <ogra> asac, but we can ship a lot more
[13:31]  * StevenK votes for tlh
[13:31] <ogra> asac, there are
[13:31] <asac> ogra: there are rules ;)
[13:31] <NCommander> [topic] QA Status (GrueMaster, plars)
[13:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  QA Status (GrueMaster, plars)
[13:31] <ogra> ?
[13:32] <plars> The pairwise install testing has a place now on iso tracker
[13:32] <asac> ogra: lets discuss that offline.
[13:32] <ogra> yeah
[13:32] <asac> plars: great
[13:32] <GrueMaster> Not much to report image wise, as we haven't had a new image since last week.
[13:32] <plars> And has been announced on the mailing list
[13:32] <plars> but...
[13:32] <plars> it's moving (kinda)
[13:32] <asac> GrueMaster: ok
[13:32] <plars> [LINK] http://pairwise.qa.ubuntu.com/
[13:32] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://pairwise.qa.ubuntu.com/
[13:32] <plars> I just got that this morning
[13:32] <asac> GrueMaster: did you make progress on a standardized weekly QA report?
[13:33] <plars> so I'll be transitioning the tests over it today, most likely
[13:33] <GrueMaster> Not yet.
[13:33] <asac> GrueMaster: ok. just think about it. and maybe present it at next week meeting.
[13:33] <plars> once that's done, we can run the tests off of there full time, rather than having to tip-toe around milestone testing
[13:33] <GrueMaster> Since the image has changed from Desktop to UNE, testing will change quite a bit (other than install testing)
[13:33] <asac> plars: will the QA team also do that for other archs?
[13:34] <StevenK> asac: WRT -arm-une, there is no -beta-2 milestone
[13:34] <asac> StevenK: i used beta-1
[13:34] <ogra> there should be
[13:34] <asac> if i did a typo, please fix that
[13:34] <plars> asac: I haven't heard for certain what their plans are for that, for now, it's only on armel
[13:34] <plars> but that will still benefit all archs
[13:34] <asac> and yes, there is a beta-2
[13:34] <plars> to some degree at least
[13:34] <asac> plars: ok. lets show them how well it works
[13:34] <asac> ;)
[13:34] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Application status (JamieBennett, dyfet)
[13:34] <MootBot> New Topic:  ARM Application status (JamieBennett, dyfet)
[13:35] <JamieBennett> Looking fine, we have the 2D launcher UI (with a few bugs) and 33% faster live-cd boots ;) !
[13:35] <asac> \o/
[13:35] <StevenK> I have a drop-down for setting the milestone, and beta-2 isn't it
[13:35] <NCommander> \o/
[13:35] <asac> JamieBennett: can you make a few screenshots of both themes?
[13:35] <asac> i would like to blog about it
[13:35] <NCommander> JamieBennett: thats a win.
[13:35] <JamieBennett> asac: Will do
[13:35] <ogra> JamieBennett, did you find anything about the new casper issues ?
[13:35] <asac> thx
[13:35] <StevenK> We have failing images currently, due to new components from the DX team
[13:35] <JamieBennett> I'll blog about speedups too
[13:35] <ogra> yay
[13:36] <JamieBennett> ogra: no, started on it yesterday but got pulled into something else
[13:36] <asac> JamieBennett: are you on planet?
[13:36] <StevenK> Which is now blocked on mono
[13:36] <ogra> JamieBennett, you are on planet, right ?
[13:36] <ogra> heh
[13:36] <ogra> snap
[13:36] <JamieBennett> no
[13:36] <ogra> get there first !
[13:36] <JamieBennett> you have to be an ubuntu member no?
[13:36] <NCommander> ogra: he has to be an Ubuntu Member to be on planet I believe
[13:36] <ogra> hrm, right
[13:36]  * NCommander is hearing an echo in here this morning
[13:36] <JamieBennett> I'm on a few other planets
[13:36] <asac> ok
[13:36] <asac> just blog and let me know
[13:36] <asac> i can forward it
[13:36] <JamieBennett> OK
[13:37] <ogra> yeah, we can all link to it
[13:37] <JamieBennett> :)
[13:37] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Porting/FTBFS status (NCommander, dyfet)
[13:37] <MootBot> New Topic:  ARM Porting/FTBFS status (NCommander, dyfet)
[13:37] <asac> ok lightweight browser spec isnt decided yet
[13:37]  * ogra sees us all owning planet for a day all postin the same link :)
[13:37] <asac> NCommander: thanks for moving so quickly
[13:37] <StevenK> Ahhh, it's Ubuntu ubuntu-10.04-beta-2
[13:37] <asac> dmart: can we discuss the feature comparison?
[13:37] <asac> for lightweight browser?
[13:37] <NCommander> asac: I'm trying to organize chaos^W the meeting
[13:37] <dmart> asac, did you need more from me on lightweight browser?  I think I'd done all I can do for now...
[13:38] <asac> dmart: you sent startup time?
[13:38] <asac> comparison?
[13:38]  * asac has to make a wiki out of it
[13:38] <dmart> Hmmm, maybe not
[13:38] <dyfet> And I am working on mov related items in the ftbfs
[13:38] <dmart> asac, do you want to continue that one offline?
[13:38] <asac> dmart: startup time is an importnat one  ... would be great if you could get that
[13:38] <asac> dmart: yes
[13:38] <NCommander> python-qt4 was cleared last week
[13:38] <asac> dmart: lets dot hat after this meeting
[13:39] <dyfet> as was boost
[13:39] <NCommander> Which should unblock KDE which should make the FTBFS list a lot happier after 4.4 hits the archive
[13:39] <dmart> asac, OK
[13:39] <asac> NCommander: moving quickly doesnt help removing chaos
[13:39] <asac> NCommander: you just start a new topic
[13:39] <asac> while another is still ongoing -> more chaos
[13:39] <ogra> NCommander, where is my since two weeks promised likewise bug for the server team ???
[13:39]  * StevenK watches the mono build with interest
[13:39]  * ogra really just wants that bug
[13:40] <NCommander> ogra: still ongoing. I filed a bug on it
[13:40] <ogra> # ?
[13:40] <StevenK> You filed on a bug about that you need to file a bug?
[13:40] <ogra> heh
[13:40] <NCommander> ogra: don't have it handy (I'm having some connectivity issues, LP is going about as fast as molasses in winter ATM)
[13:40] <ogra> apparently
[13:40] <StevenK> Isn't that somewhat ... circular?
[13:40] <asac> on arm porting we finished all swp to thumb2 ports
[13:40] <asac> we are now moving to the "mov" bugs
[13:40] <asac> dyfet: are oyu on that?
[13:40] <dyfet> yes
[13:41] <NCommander> asac: maybe we should do another mass bug filing and then split the bugs up
[13:41] <asac> dyfet: want me to give you chunks or will you jus finish?
[13:41] <dyfet> well, if you want to assign specific ones to do first, that would be okay
[13:41] <ogra> is there any deadline when we *have* to have that ?
[13:41] <asac> dyfet: ok i will assign you a couple for today and tomorrow
[13:41] <dyfet> cool :)
[13:41] <asac> dyfet: i think getting the list down to just a couple this week should be possible
[13:42] <asac> and needed
[13:42] <asac> NCommander: we already have bugs for the porting stuff
[13:42] <asac> NCommander: want to help?
[13:42] <asac> i will assing you a couple of bugs if so
[13:42] <asac> guess makes sense as you cant really do much for dove atm
[13:42] <NCommander> asac: sure, although I'm limited to the porting box and dyfet's boards
[13:42] <asac> [action] asac to assign thumb2 porting bugs to team
[13:43] <asac> NCommander: thats ok
[13:43] <NCommander> [action] asaca to assign thumb2 porting bugs to team
[13:43] <MootBot> ACTION received:  asaca to assign thumb2 porting bugs to team
[13:43] <dmart> Related to this, I was wondering whether a kind of sprint on the Thumb-2 issues would be a good idea --- I tacked it on the end of the agenda.
[13:43] <ogra> didnt we have a spare babbage at the sprint ?
[13:43] <NCommander> dmart: we'll get to that at ABO
[13:43] <dmart> ok
[13:43] <NCommander> ogra: one was dead, and one went with StevenK
[13:43] <ogra> ah, i mean the dead one possibly
[13:43] <NCommander> ogra: TBH, I forgot where the dead one went
[13:43] <asac> dmart: you mean a real world sprint?
[13:44] <asac> or irc sprints?
[13:44] <dmart> asac, irc was my first thought
[13:44] <asac> yeah
[13:44] <JamieBennett> dead one went to GrueMaster
[13:44] <asac> we can do that
[13:44] <JamieBennett> StevenK took one and NCommander took one too
[13:44] <NCommander> JamieBennett: I didn't take one
[13:44] <NCommander> at least
[13:44] <NCommander> I don't think I did
[13:44] <StevenK> persia did
[13:44] <asac> [action] asac to organize couple of sprints on thumb2 porting issues and get team attend/contribute
[13:44] <ogra> dmart, asac, though a real world one around beta time would probably bee a good isea as well
[13:45] <persia> I received one: maybe that's the one NCommander took
[13:45] <ogra> *idea
[13:45] <asac> ogra: lets make that depending on how well we perform
[13:45] <JamieBennett> Ah persioa took the 2.5 then
[13:45] <ogra> yeah, indeed
[13:45] <asac> but yes. we can keep that option i think
[13:45] <dmart> ok, we can discuss further later
[13:45] <asac> 14:44 < asac> [action] asac to organize couple of sprints on thumb2 porting issues and get team attend/contribute
[13:45] <asac> NCommander: ^^
[13:45] <NCommander> [action] asac to organize sprints on thumb2 porting issues and get the team to attend/contribute
[13:45] <MootBot> ACTION received:  asac to organize sprints on thumb2 porting issues and get the team to attend/contribute
[13:45] <asac> ok
[13:45] <NCommander> got it
[13:45] <asac> next topic?
[13:46] <NCommander> [topic] Ubuntu Liquid
[13:46] <MootBot> New Topic:  Ubuntu Liquid
[13:46] <ian_brasil> we have been asked to stop public work on plasma-mobile..the reasoning went something like -> "The product is immature, and doesn't offer significant advancement over plasma-netbook at this time.  We expect significant improvements soon, and want to avoid bothering users with the incompatible transition.
[13:46] <asac> ok
[13:46] <asac> ian_brasil: so even not in univeres?
[13:46] <persia> So, while we might end up with some bits and bobs, it's not expected to have something installable for lucid.
[13:46] <asac> or just not an image?
[13:46] <persia> Not an image, and quite possibly not a -meta
[13:46] <persia> (still looking at alternatives)
[13:46] <asac> but all the bits and pieces?
[13:46] <ian_brasil> we wanted your opinions on what to do
[13:47] <ian_brasil> we thought about continuing in a PPA
[13:47] <asac> i would say that we should try to get all the bits and pieces in universe
[13:47] <NCommander> I say have a meta as a developers preview
[13:47] <asac> if thats possible
[13:47] <persia> Not necessarily, because upstream doesn't want some stuff shipped, and it messes up other stuff.
[13:47] <asac> but keep meta and image postponed
[13:47] <ogra> task would be cool
[13:47] <persia> Look for more with lucid+1, but for now, kubuntu-netbook is probably the closest thing.
[13:47] <ogra> then you could just use the alternate installer or rootstock
[13:47] <asac> task is probably not going to fly
[13:48] <asac> ian_brasil: so can you check if you can get all the individual pieces in? if not, we can do that in appa
[13:48] <asac> ppa
[13:48] <asac> i agree
[13:48] <asac> we can also think about -meta in ppa ... if thats ok
[13:48] <asac> -meta/task
[13:48] <ian_brasil> all the pieces minus plasma-mobile
[13:48] <persia> tasks in PPAs are hard, but metas are easy.
[13:49] <persia> We can do a meta with plasma-netbook, maybe.
[13:49]  * NCommander can assist with making a meta
[13:49] <ian_brasil> NCommander, great
[13:49] <ian_brasil> so we continue as normal just minus plasma-mobile?
[13:49] <asac> ian_brasil: right. so go ahead and get everything in that you can get in and do the rest in a ppa (if possible) ... document the location of that PPA in the spec
[13:50] <ogra> yeah, if done properly you just need to move the seeds later
[13:50] <ogra> to have the meta in the archive
[13:50] <ian_brasil> that sounds great
[13:50] <asac> ok good
[13:50] <asac> anything else on liquid?
[13:50] <ian_brasil> asac, no
[13:50] <NCommander> [topic] Any Other Business
[13:50] <MootBot> New Topic:  Any Other Business
[13:51] <StevenK> Sleep
[13:51] <asac> i think we already covered the sprint thing
[13:51] <NCommander> Just a headsup
[13:51] <asac> shoot
[13:51] <NCommander> I'm not going to be online this morning
[13:51] <ogra> i think we already covered everything in the chaos :P
[13:51] <ogra> NCommander, please send me that bug # before going afk
[13:51] <NCommander> I'll be in Boston for this afternoon and probably 1-2 days afterwords; long story.
[13:51] <asac> ok
[13:52] <dmart> asac: (i think we already covered the sprint thing) agreed - we can follow up after this meeting
[13:52] <asac> what does that mean?
[13:52] <asac> NCommander: so you take a few vacation days?
[13:52]  * NCommander is sitting in his car with his cell phone to be here
[13:52] <NCommander> asac: no, working as normal, just not home
[13:52] <asac> NCommander: working as normal with a cell phone?
[13:52] <NCommander> asac: I didn't make it to Boston yet. I tethered my laptop to my phone to sign into the meeting :-)
[13:52] <NCommander> Hence the lag.
[13:52] <asac> hmm
[13:53] <NCommander> and my laptop is propped up on the steering wheel
[13:53] <asac> please take vacation or swap day if you travel ;)
[13:53] <asac> anyway thanks for the heads iup
[13:53] <asac> NCommander: please add your AR
[13:53] <JamieBennett> :)
[13:53] <NCommander> asac: well, if everything went as planned, it would have been unnoticable
[13:53] <asac> everyone else ... please add your activity
[13:53] <NCommander> But I had a bit of car trouble
[13:53] <NCommander> That's why I'm out this morning (I'll be swapping it out)
[13:53] <asac> ok
[13:54] <asac> NCommander: remember to add your AR ...
[13:54] <asac> now
[13:54] <ogra> and the bug #
[13:54] <NCommander> asac: I'm doing so now
[13:54] <StevenK> NCommander: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/B000IZGIA8/ref=dp_otherviews_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&img=3
[13:54] <asac> everony else ... please add AR ... JamieBennett will send out the report in a few hours
[13:54] <asac> ;)
[13:54] <JamieBennett> will do
[13:54] <ogra> StevenK, heh, that need sa special steering wheel, no ?
[13:54] <asac> ogra: thougth you had frinished your AR ... where is it?
[13:54] <persia> StevenK: Please don't encourage that sort of thing :p
[13:55] <StevenK> ogra: Not that I've seen
[13:55] <ogra> in your inbox since pre-meeting ?
[13:55] <asac> ogra: kk
[13:55] <JamieBennett> asac: sent to me
[13:55] <NCommander> #endmeeting
[13:55] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 07:55.
[13:55] <asac> thanks all
[13:55] <ogra> thanks
[13:55] <StevenK> persia: Spoil all my fun
[14:56] <kees> \o
[14:57] <pitti> o/
[14:57] <kees> heya pitti
[14:58] <cjwatson> I'm here, just addressing an urgent coffee shortage but please start without me
[14:58] <pitti> heh
[14:59] <pitti> Keybuk: you were voluntold to chair today, are you here?
[15:02] <cjwatson> ...
[15:02] <pitti> ok, mdz is in the air
[15:02] <pitti> #startmeeting
[15:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:02. The chair is pitti.
[15:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:02] <pitti> so it's just the thee of us now
[15:03] <kees> whee
[15:03] <pitti> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda
[15:03] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda
[15:03] <pitti> [TOPIC] Archive reorganisation
[15:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Archive reorganisation
[15:03] <pitti> Review https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Specs/LucidMOTU
[15:04] <pitti> that was discussed in detail two weeks ago, wasn't it?
[15:05] <kees> the thought was that if anything came up about the docs between then and now, we could discuss it now
[15:05] <kees> afaik, nothing has come up, so this item is done.
[15:05] <pitti> cjwatson, ScottK: did anything new come up in the last two week?
[15:05] <pitti> kees: AFAICS yes, but let's check
[15:05] <kees> sure
[15:06] <pitti> * Confirm that DeveloperMembershipBoard  now hears applications for MOTU
[15:06] <pitti> that was officially moved over in last week's DMB meeting, which was the first with the new board
[15:07] <cjwatson> pitti: yes
[15:07] <cjwatson> wait, your statement there isn't quite accurate but let us go in order?
[15:07] <persia> Was it officially so moved?  My understanding was that the DMB was hearing the applications because MC doesn't have quorum.
[15:07]  * cjwatson can't type fast enough damnit
[15:07] <cjwatson> order
[15:07]  * pitti backs up
[15:08] <pitti> persia: I misunderstood it then
[15:08] <cjwatson> we revised LucidMOTU a bit, and presented it to the DMB for approval there; the details about motu-council have been split off for discussion among its constituency (i.e. MOTU)
[15:08]  * persia suspects all will become clear after the backup
[15:08] <cjwatson> the DMB approved it, but I'd like the TB to approve it as well just so that we're all absolutely clear
[15:10] <sabdfl> hello all, apologies for my tardiness
[15:10] <pitti> hey sabdfl
[15:11] <pitti> AFAICS https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Specs/LucidMOTU isn't very clear on whether approvals are handled by DMB or the MOTU body (or MC) themselves
[15:11] <cjwatson> hah, that's the next item on the agenda :)
[15:11] <cjwatson> 15:08 <cjwatson> we revised LucidMOTU a bit, and presented it to the DMB for approval there; the details about motu-council have been split off for discussion among its constituency (i.e. MOTU)
[15:11] <cjwatson> 15:08 <cjwatson> the DMB approved it, but I'd like the TB to approve it as well just so that we're all absolutely clear
[15:11] <cjwatson> sabdfl: ^-
[15:13] <sabdfl> hmmk... i'm +0 on this
[15:14] <pitti> it seems a bit strange to me that DMB would handle applications which have both more and less power than MOTUs (contributing developer, per-package-uploader, and core-dev)
[15:14] <Keybuk> pitti: I'm on leave (laundry day)
[15:14] <persia> My understanding was that the DMB handled all applications not otherwise delegated.
[15:14] <pitti> but if there's sufficient reason for this, I don't have a strong objection
[15:14] <Keybuk> which proves you should (a) check the calendar before volunteering someone and (b) actually tell them if you do :p
[15:15] <cjwatson> Keybuk: you don't read ubuntu-devel-announce? O:-)
[15:15] <Keybuk> cjwatson: not while I'm on leave
[15:16] <cjwatson> pitti: (in fact my understanding is that the DMB *does* approve MOTUs, but that is the next agenda item, not this one)
[15:16] <pitti> ok, since the topic merely says "review", not "approve", why not go to that then
[15:16] <pitti> [TOPIC] Confirm that DeveloperMembershipBoard  now hears applications for MOTU
[15:16] <MootBot> New Topic:  Confirm that DeveloperMembershipBoard  now hears applications for MOTU
[15:17] <sabdfl> the doc says:
[15:17] <persia> I'd have fully agreed with this item until the 22nd December DMB Meeting, when I was advised to document MOTU as a delegated team.
[15:17] <sabdfl> MOTU shall continue to fulfil the following functions:
[15:17] <cjwatson> so it was my understanding from doing the whole "invite everyone in motu-council to stand for the DMB if they want" thing that this was a fait accompli
[15:17] <cjwatson> but apparently there is some confusion about this
[15:17] <sabdfl>   o developer approvals (restricted to within MOTU)
[15:17] <cjwatson> sabdfl: err, hmm
[15:18] <sabdfl> which sounds like "we tend to our own flock", which is fine by me, but counter to what's being said here
[15:18] <pitti> at the same time, "MOTU Function Analysis" says
[15:18] <pitti> Developer approvals: distribute
[15:18]  * cjwatson wasn't at that meeting :-)
[15:18] <persia> pitti: In the old world, MC heard applications for Contributing Developers, MOTU, and core-dev.
[15:18] <sabdfl> pitti: my interpretation is that's not insistent
[15:18] <pitti> that's what I meant with "this document is not clear about approvals"
[15:18]  * cjwatson reads the log
[15:19] <sabdfl> i.e. MC get to approve new MOTU, DMB would hear from them when folks want explicit upload to core or another package set
[15:19] <sabdfl>  (or when they want to create a package set)
[15:19] <persia> Can we separate the package-set-creation bit from that for now?  I think there's confusion there as well.
[15:19] <pitti> so by default DMB does everything, and just like ubuntu-desktop or mythbuntu-dev, the MC has _also_ the power to appoint MOTU, since it's a delegated team?
[15:19] <dholbach> whatever the spec says I think it makes a lot of sense that the DMB takes care of all these applications, the "DMB/MC merge" wouldn't make much sense without that :)
[15:20] <cjwatson> from reading the meeting log, I do not get the impression that people were explicitly thinking that they were saying that the MC should continue to handle MOTU approvals
[15:20] <cjwatson> at least it doesn't read that way to me
[15:20] <cjwatson> the question was phrased in a rather more abstruse way :)
[15:20] <kees> my understanding as well was that DMB was doing the MOTU approvals now too
[15:21] <pitti> so it seems that persia, sabdfl, cjwatson, kees, and me all seem to agree on that
[15:21] <pitti> and that just some cleanup on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Specs/LucidMOTU is in order?
[15:21] <cjwatson> now that the DMB includes a large number of members with significant MOTU experience (more than TB historically had) it seems to me that now is an excellent time to fix the bug wherein core-dev and MOTU had to apply to different bodies
[15:21] <persia> pitti: I think the only point of confusion is as to whether MC is *also* delegated the right to do so.
[15:22] <pitti> persia: my gut feeling would say yes, to be consistent with other delegated teams; WDYT?
[15:22] <cjwatson> and that making MC and DMB both do approvals after putting a good deal of effort into making the latter the successor of the former for the purposes of developer approvals, seems odd to me
[15:22] <persia> pitti: That's my sense as well.  I don't think that's cjwatson's sense.
[15:22] <cjwatson> I would rather that the DMB took responsibility for both
[15:23] <cjwatson> (core-dev and motu)
[15:23] <sabdfl> i don't think it makes sense to do either/or
[15:23] <cjwatson> pitti: it is not my belief that the DMB has the power to appoint new members of ubuntu-desktop
[15:23] <sabdfl> in other words, it should be clear who can appoint new MOTU
[15:23] <cjwatson> my understanding is that the DMB is delegated specific authority by the TB for the purposes of appointing new core-dev members, and (subject to this discussion) MOTU
[15:24] <pitti> cjwatson: no, but ubuntu-desktop can appoint new developers
[15:24] <cjwatson> indeed ...
[15:24] <cjwatson> 15:19 <pitti> so by default DMB does everything, and just like ubuntu-desktop or mythbuntu-dev, the MC has _also_ the power to appoint MOTU, since it's a delegated team?
[15:24] <cjwatson> I'm disagreeing with "by default DMB does everything"
[15:24] <cjwatson> and I agree with sabdfl that there should be precisely one point of entry for each team
[15:26] <sabdfl> the original point was that MC and DMB would merge, and we wouldn't have MOTU
[15:26] <pitti> that condition doesn't contradict with MCs appointing (nor not) MOTUs
[15:26] <sabdfl> folks expressed a strong interest in keeping it, which is OK
[15:26] <kees> since MOTU is larger in function (similar to core-dev) than the other teams, it seems okay to me for DMB to be the single body doing MOTU appointments
[15:27] <sabdfl> but we want to avoid a situation where it becomes a source of tension
[15:27] <cjwatson> I haven't interpreted this as an actual point of tension
[15:27] <sabdfl> so, I'll come down firmly +1 on DMB for all developer applications
[15:27] <cjwatson> it seems to me that there is some confusion, but we don't have a situation where the old MC is saying "but we want to keep on approving MOTUs" or anything like that
[15:28] <cjwatson> it's more a "so how is this org chart *actually* laid out?" kind of conversation
[15:28] <sabdfl> the only upside to me with delegating MOTU is that i think there's an argument for taking more risk on new contributors in MOTU
[15:28] <sabdfl> and i think it will be hard for one body to get that right, i.e. be toughest on core-dev and generous on MOTU
[15:28] <pitti> sabdfl: that risk can be handled just as well in DMB, I think
[15:28] <cjwatson> I think the DMB can probably manage to get themselves into different headspaces for that - there's per-package uploaders to handle to, frex
[15:28] <pitti> it already needs to do that
[15:28] <sabdfl> if the DMB can handle that, so it doesn't block the flow of new talent into new parts of the platform, then i think we should consolidate around DMB
[15:28] <pitti> the bar should be much higher for an aspiring core-dev than a package uploader
[15:29] <pitti> ^ +1
[15:29] <sabdfl> ok, then +1 to DMB handling all permissions
[15:29] <kees> +1 on DMB-only
[15:29] <dholbach> I agree with cjwatson that the DMB should be able to handle it - while the MC did not have the final say on core-dev applications, they still reviewed member, motu and core-dev applications and there's lots of people on the board with lots of experience in the various developer communities
[15:29] <persia> kees: And abolish the other developer approval groups entirely?
[15:29] <cjwatson> all permissions> well, aside from ones we've already delegated, right?
[15:29] <cjwatson> like ubuntu-desktop, kubuntu, mythbuntu
[15:30] <cjwatson> for those a specialist body can do a better job
[15:30] <kees> persia: hrm? no, I meant core-dev and MOTU.
[15:30] <pitti> kees: (and per-package uploader)
[15:30] <kees> I meant "only" in the DMB vs MC context
[15:30] <kees> pitti: right
[15:31] <pitti> so,  hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB
[15:31] <pitti> ?
[15:31] <kees> +1
[15:31] <pitti> let's format that properly
[15:31] <pitti> [VOTE] Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB
[15:31] <cjwatson> pitti: we have a lot of crosstalk here - can we explicitly vote on something like "DMB to exclusively handle all ubuntu-core-dev, motu, universe-contributors, and per-package uploaders"?
[15:31] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB.
[15:31] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[15:31] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[15:32] <cjwatson> ok, that'll do for starters :)
[15:32] <cjwatson> +1
[15:32] <MootBot> +1 received from cjwatson. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[15:32] <kees> +1
[15:32] <MootBot> +1 received from kees. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:32] <pitti> +1
[15:32] <MootBot> +1 received from pitti. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[15:32] <sabdfl> hmm... that's interesting, i forgot, we've actually delegated management of those teams, to admins of those teams
[15:32] <cjwatson> sabdfl: right.  the situation of MOTU was in some question, hence this discussion
[15:32] <sabdfl> hmm. sorry. i need to think a sec.
[15:32] <persia> MOTU is potentiall "special".  Were it not special, we wouldn't need the discussion :)
[15:33] <persia> s/potentiall/potentially/
[15:33] <pitti> cjwatson: I thought restricting the vote to MOTU would make more sense, since DMB already exclusively approves core-dev and per-package uploaders
[15:33] <kees> that's my thinking as well.  core-dev and MOTU are special in the world of delegated teams.
[15:34] <sabdfl> cjwatson: there will be many potential entry points, then, DMB or any of the admins of the delegated teams?
[15:35] <pitti> sabdfl: right; wasn't that one of the main points of dsitributed teams?
[15:35] <persia> kees: "as well" may not be applicable, since I don't think MOTU needs to be special :)
[15:35] <cjwatson> for somebody seeking entrance to a given team, I think there should be precisely one entry point
[15:35] <sabdfl> and what's the argument for treating MOTU differently than, say, gnome-desktop?
[15:36] <persia> cjwatson: Shall we not have fallback in the case where some group is unable to follow the current process?
[15:36] <cjwatson> for somebody seeking entrance to Ubuntu development in general, I would say that it makes sense for the entry points to depend somewhat upon one's interests; the kubuntu team is much better able to judge the people they work with, because they're a smaller specialised team
[15:36] <cjwatson> but motu is (a) big and (b) general
[15:36] <sabdfl> so, MOTU and core-dev are both general and big
[15:36] <persia> cjwatson: For instance, if the ubuntu-desktop team is, for some reason, unable to reach a quorate state to accept a new member, fall back to the DMB?
[15:36] <kees> sabdfl: my thought is that gnome-desktop is very focused (as far as package upload rights), where as core-dev and MOTU are not.
[15:36] <cjwatson> the sorts of things that one judges in new members of each are essentially the same
[15:37] <cjwatson> the only difference is basically quantitative (experience level) rather than qualitative (type of experience)
[15:37] <sabdfl> persia: and your argument for delegating this too, is?
[15:37] <cjwatson> persia: an appeals board?  that's not something we'd discussed before.  I think CC/TB would be more appropriate there
[15:37] <persia> cjwatson: Works.  I just don't think single-point is necessarily sufficient.
[15:38] <pitti> if some of the delegated teams suddenly stop working, then I think this should be brought up to the TB
[15:38] <pitti> instead of worked around by redirecting an application
[15:38] <persia> sabdfl: The main reason I think it makes sense to allow the MC to do it is because it helps MOTU to have sense of self-governance.
[15:38] <pitti> since then we need to fix the entire delegation IMHO
[15:38] <sabdfl> persia: i don't think someone could reasonably expect DMB to put them into a gnome-desktop uploaders team. they could ask for either (a) the gnome-desktop admins to be changed, or (b) to be admitted to the core-dev team
[15:39] <cjwatson> persia: wait, so you do genuinely have a beef about taking this away from the MC?  from our IRL discussions last week, I got the impression that it was mainly a procedural question.
[15:39] <cjwatson> persia: or do you mean the appeals bit, not new applications?
[15:39] <sabdfl> persia: that self-governance has been both a good thing and a blocker in the past
[15:40] <persia> cjwatson: Two separate bits: 1) I think there is value to MC having self governance.  My apologies if I was not clear.  2) For appeals, I have less of an opinion on the appropriate body.
[15:40] <cjwatson> persia: so, as a member of the DMB, do you or do you not feel that the DMB should be voting on new MOTUs?
[15:41] <cjwatson> because you sure didn't mention this when voting on a MOTU last week :-)
[15:41] <persia> sabdfl: If it isn't the case that the DMB can oversee approvals to delegated teams, I think that it's worth making sure that it's well documented that the delegation to the delegated teams stems from the TB, rather than the DMB.
[15:41] <sabdfl> persia: i thought bringing the MC into the DMB so strongly was a good result, and am worried that we're setting ourselves up for more inconsistencies in future
[15:41] <dholbach> I think by having various ways to get upload rights, we miss an opportunity to simplify processes by merging and unifying (which is what we set out to do with permissions reorg) - it's not just the application process, but lots of other bits that diverged into different directions because of separated communities
[15:41] <cjwatson> (which vote incidentally is pending, not yet approved)
[15:41] <persia> sabdfl: I agree that the delegation to MC has been a blocker in the past, but I'd argue that this should have been considered an issue with the extant MC, rather than with the idea of an MC.
[15:41] <pitti> persia: hm, why did we unite the DMB in the first place then?
[15:41] <persia> dholbach: We already have lots of ways to get upload rights, through the delegated teams.
[15:42] <cjwatson> let's have different ways to get upload rights when it makes sense, and not when it doesn't
[15:42] <persia> pitti: I've never quite understood that, to be honest, although I did think that having Contributing Developers and Core Developers first apply to the MC was redundant.
[15:42] <dholbach> we're diluting more and more what permissions reorg set out to do
[15:42] <cjwatson> I don't think we need to be all Highlander about it, but there are some cases where people have to ask a few too many different groups for approval
[15:43] <persia> dholbach: I'm very confident that permissions reorg set out to delegate and separate to more people :)
[15:43] <cjwatson> permissions reorg set out to delegate where the delegation was valuable, and unite where the delegation was unnecessarily divisive
[15:43] <persia> People should *definitely* only have to ask one group to get their access.  The multiple group path is awkward and causes unnecessary delays.
[15:44] <sabdfl> cjwatson: if we delegate to MC for MOTU membership, then there's only one place for MOTU membership
[15:44] <pitti> well, the point was to move away from a main/universe split towards a topic/product based split, wasn't it? so the question would be if the MOTU activities are homogenous enough to fit into this "topic" schema
[15:44] <dholbach> I agree with cjwatson, the goal of permissions reorg was not to have a desktop-release team or a kubuntu-sru team or a separate sponsoring process for mythbuntu or a different idea of how NEW packages are dealt with in the server team
[15:45] <persia> pitti: Part of how I erad MOTULucid was an attempt to define that topic.
[15:45] <cjwatson> sabdfl: yes; that I think would be a good thing
[15:46] <persia> dholbach: I don't think anyone is arguing for a proliferation of release or sru teams.
[15:46] <pitti> well, the voting is pending on sabdfl's vote now (we don't have a quorum with the +1 yet)
[15:46] <pitti> persia: do you think the desire to appoint new MOTUs by the MC is representative of the MOTU crowd?
[15:46] <dholbach> persia: I'm just saying that permissions reorg didn't set out to separate people more
[15:47] <cjwatson> pitti: right, my feeling is based precisely on the fact that I feel the topic of MOTU and core-dev are the same, although they have different associated levels of experience
[15:47] <pitti> or should we rather ask the MC before we continue the vote here?
[15:47] <sabdfl> here's a straw man: we consolidate around DMB now, with a view to reviewing and delegating this if (a) the MOTU feels like DMB is blocking folks who would make good MOTU, or (b) the workload grows to the point that DMB wants MC to handle half of it
[15:47] <pitti> cjwatson: same for me
[15:47] <sabdfl> persia: ^?
[15:47] <cjwatson> (BTW if (b) happens at least in the next year or two then I think the DMB is failing somehow)
[15:47] <persia> pitti: I don't think that MOTU has completed discussion about MC.  Many of the individual MOTU with whom I have spoken have been disspritied about ArchiveReorg in general, and I think it will take some time for there to be an MC that represents MOTU.
[15:48] <cjwatson> I think people have been disspirited due to mixed messages
[15:48] <persia> sabdfl: I'd be very happy with that, if we could add 3) that MOTU defines an MC and applies to DMB to request administration (or applies to the TB, depending)
[15:48] <cjwatson> representing stuff that was discussed and discarded a year ago
[15:49] <persia> I don't think the current rump MC is either representative of a future MOTU nor a current suitable delegate.
[15:49] <persia> cjwatson: I think you're right.
[15:49] <pitti> I like that strawman, too
[15:49] <cjwatson> I am also fine with sabdfl's strawman, leaving aside my parenthetical comment
[15:49] <pitti> i. e. DMB handles them now, and if MC asks for that (if they want approvals back), DMB can delegate it again
[15:50] <cjwatson> particularly since that lets us move forward now in a non-irreversible way
[15:50] <kees> yeah, strawman plus persia's addition seems like a good way to move forward and have guidelines on changes in the future, if needed.
[15:50] <pitti> [ENDVOTE]
[15:50] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[15:50] <pitti> that didn't reach quorum
[15:50] <sabdfl> persia: would it help if we invited the MOTU to chat with the CC, or TB, or just me?
[15:51] <pitti> [VOTE] Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB, with the option of delegating it to the MC upon request and voting in the future
[15:51] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB, with the option of delegating it to the MC upon request and voting in the future.
[15:51] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[15:51] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[15:51] <sabdfl> i think ArchiveReorg should be empowering, and want a chance to make the case if it will help
[15:51] <cjwatson> +1
[15:51] <MootBot> +1 received from cjwatson. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[15:51] <kees> +1
[15:51] <MootBot> +1 received from kees. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[15:51] <pitti> ++1
[15:51] <cjwatson> empowering> yes!  I think that is a message I have failed to convey
[15:51] <persia> sabdfl: There's an action item outstanding from the DMB meeting for MOTU to discuss the future of MC.  IF that doesn't work, something organised with another body may help.  My main interest is to have a path for the future, rather than an immediate solution.
[15:51] <pitti> +1
[15:51] <MootBot> +1 received from pitti. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[15:52] <cjwatson> the whole point was to clear away unnecessary barriers, not to take away people's toys
[15:52] <sabdfl> persia: i'm happy to spend an hour in #motu answering questions. i'd like folks to be motivated, and want to understand what's got them down
[15:52] <cjwatson> (that is not intended to sound patronising; I hope people get the idea)
[15:52] <pitti> sabdfl: your vote?
[15:52] <persia> sabdfl: OK.  If there isn't some useful discussion soon, I'll see if I can organise a MOTU Meeting to discuss it.
[15:53] <cjwatson> I think we made a mistake in not reacting sufficiently quickly and clearly to the concerns about the earliest archive reorg models
[15:53] <sabdfl> persia: what do you mean by (3)? that MC would be formed and the request for delegation happen regardless of (a) and (b) ?
[15:53] <persia> sabdfl: That if there is an MC desired by MOTU, that that MC would be able to request delegation to approve MOTU.
[15:54] <cjwatson> the DMB certainly has not acquired all the functions of the historical MC, and there is currently a debate among MOTU about whether MC is still needed and if so in what form
[15:54] <cjwatson> I asked for that discussion to be split out from this one to avoid blocking it
[15:54] <persia> And yes, regardless of (a) and (b).  The request may not be approved, but I think it should be noted as available.
[15:54] <sabdfl> persia: the straw man says "we'll only do that if there is a problem". your (3) says "we plan to do that"
[15:54] <cjwatson> could I try to clarify the disagreement here?
[15:54] <persia> sabdfl: I'd prefer "we will hear such an application" to "we plan to do that".
[15:54] <pitti> and the current voting now explicitly mentions the option of delegating it back later on
[15:54] <persia> sabdfl: I don't assume that some future MC may be acceptable as a delegate.
[15:54] <cjwatson> the discussion about establishing (or revamping) the MC is not explicitly about delegating approvals to it
[15:54] <sabdfl> i don't want to merely defer the discussion. if folks go to the trouble of picking an MC, and sending in the request, they'll be committed to it. i would rather we only have to debate this again if the DMB concretely fails on (a) or (b)
[15:55] <kees> right, I voted based on "an option" not "it will happen"
[15:55] <cjwatson> it's about the other functions of MC, such as organisation, dispute resolution, etc.
[15:55] <sabdfl> persia: it would be very bad, socially, if the MOTU picked an MC, and the DMB then refused to delegate to it
[15:55] <dholbach> the "ongoing discussion about the necessity of an MC" has not started among MOTU yet, at least not on any mailing list
[15:55] <sabdfl> i would rather we commit to moving forward with DMB as the responsible admin for both core-dev and motu, and review if *that* fails
[15:55] <persia> sabdfl: I'd hope that it would be a temporary measure, asking for some cleanup on procedures or something, otherwise I'd agree.
[15:55] <cjwatson> whether the MC deals with MOTU approvals is a separate question, and not in my view intrinsically connected to whether the MC continues to exist
[15:55] <geser> sabdfl: a consistent picture of the imagined future (what is the "place" of each team) would be a good start. I've lost track where we are going with all the "redefinitions" (first it was talked that core-dev and motu get merged than not; was the dmb/mc merge a merge or more an election)
[15:55] <pitti> sabdfl: at least if MC expresses the desire to take up approvals
[15:56] <cjwatson> dholbach: oh, ok, ScottK was meant to do it
[15:57] <sabdfl> geser: the nominations were a merge, the poll gave us a good result
[15:57] <cjwatson> that said, I agree with sabdfl, even given a reconstituted MC, I think we should only debate redirecting MOTU nominations if the DMB is failing
[15:57] <sabdfl> and as i recall, MC folks did well in the poll
[15:57] <pitti> http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/12/08/call-for-nominations-ubuntu-developer-membership-board/
[15:57] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/12/08/call-for-nominations-ubuntu-developer-membership-board/
[15:57] <dholbach> pitti: I don't think that the majority of the last 7 MC members want to take motu approval away from the DMB.
[15:57] <sabdfl> i'm sensitive to concerns that the DMB *might* not get sufficiently into MOTU's head that it does a bad job of approving MOTU candidates
[15:57] <pitti> the vote was explicitly done under the annoucnement that the DMB unified the approval
[15:58] <sabdfl> and if that happens, we should fix it
[15:58] <cjwatson> sabdfl: agreed
[15:58] <sabdfl> it would not be a huge failure, it could happen just through normal "where is the focus" issues
[15:58] <persia> So the model would assume that if there is an MC, it would likely only make that request if the DMB was perceived to not be meeting needs?
[15:58] <geser> sabdfl: my first understanding of this merge was that also the powers/responsibilities get merged and not only the team members
[15:58] <sabdfl> but i think saying we *will* setup and MC and it *will* ask for delegation is setting ourselves up either for (a) delegating when we don't want to, or (b) refusing to delegate, and creating tension
[15:59] <sabdfl> so, -1 to persia's suggestion, though i appreciate the spirit in which it was put forward
[15:59] <sabdfl> can i ask that we revote on the straw man:
[15:59] <cjwatson> geser: that was also my understanding but with a slight refinement: the powers/responsibilities associated with developer approvals were merged
[15:59] <sabdfl>  - DMB will be admin for both core-dev and motu
[15:59] <persia> (and contributing developers and per-package uploaders9
[15:59] <sabdfl>  - if motu feel, after a few months, that good candidates are not making it through, they can ask for delegation to MC
[15:59] <sabdfl>  - if DMB feel that they want that, they can ask for it too
[16:00] <sabdfl>  - in both cases, the TB will hear the request
[16:00] <pitti> sabdfl: currently ongoing vote is "Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB, with the option of delegating it to the MC upon request and voting in the future."
[16:00] <cjwatson> that was what I believed I was voting on anyway, but OK
[16:00] <sabdfl> pitti: yes, but some of the +1's have been "with persia's mod"
[16:00] <pitti> sabdfl: (which has a +1 from cjwatson, kees, and me)
[16:00] <cjwatson> I don't mind revoting for clarity
[16:00] <sabdfl> (persia, i appreciate where you are coming from, but i think it just defers the question, and i'd rather settle the question now with the option to review based on results)
[16:01] <pitti> "Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB, with the option of delegating it to the MC upon request by MC or DMB, and approval by TB in the future."
[16:01] <pitti> that's more explicit?
[16:01] <cjwatson> (the TB unambiguously has power to revise its own decisions anyway ...)
[16:01] <persia> sabdfl: Understood.  I'd be more unsatisfied if there was an active MC asking for it, but given the current state, I'm fine with the result.
[16:01] <sabdfl> sorry, network
[16:01] <pitti> sabdfl "Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB, with the option of delegating it to the MC upon request by MC or DMB, and approval by TB in the future."
[16:01] <pitti> sabdfl: does that cover your concern?
[16:02] <sabdfl> pitti: yes
[16:02] <pitti> [ENDVOTE]
[16:02] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[16:02] <pitti> (no quorum reached)
[16:02] <sabdfl> +1 ...
[16:02] <pitti> [VOTE] Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB, with the option of delegating it to the MC upon request by MC or DMB, and approval by TB in the future
[16:02] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Hearing and approvals for MOTU will now be exclusively done by the DMB, with the option of delegating it to the MC upon request by MC or DMB, and approval by TB in the future.
[16:02] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[16:02] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[16:02] <pitti> +1
[16:02] <MootBot> +1 received from pitti. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[16:02] <sabdfl> +1
[16:02] <MootBot> +1 received from sabdfl. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[16:02] <kees> +1
[16:02] <MootBot> +1 received from kees. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[16:03] <pitti> cjwatson ?
[16:03] <cjwatson> +1
[16:03] <MootBot> +1 received from cjwatson. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[16:03] <pitti> [ENDVOTE]
[16:03] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[16:03] <pitti> thus approved
[16:03]  * persia will take an action to update the wiki to match this decision
[16:03] <pitti> we have a time out, so I propose to defer teh other agenda points to the next meeting
[16:03] <sabdfl> thanks persia, and thanks for making an eloquent case
[16:03] <cjwatson> pitti: seconded
[16:03] <pitti> but I  think it was better to discuss this through rather than revisiting it again next time
[16:03] <sabdfl> persia: let me know re chat-with-motu
[16:03] <pitti> [TOPIC] chair for next meeting
[16:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  chair for next meeting
[16:04] <persia> sabdfl: Certainly.
[16:04]  * pitti checks calendar for holidays :)
[16:05] <pitti> I'll volunteer Keybuk again
[16:05] <pitti> Keybuk: are you okay with leading the meeting next time? You aren't on vac then
[16:05] <pitti> I'll confirm that out of band
[16:05] <pitti> #endmeeting
[16:05] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:05.
[16:05] <pitti> thanks everyone
[16:07] <sabdfl> thanks all
[17:00] <bjf> Roll Call
[17:00]  * jjohansen waves
[17:00]  * cking here
[17:00]  * apw leans nonchalantly against the edge of channel
[17:00]  * amitk waves
[17:00]  * ogasawara waves
[17:00]  * smb here now
[17:00]  * manjo waves
[17:01] <bjf> #startmeeting
[17:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 11:01. The chair is bjf.
[17:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[17:01] <bjf> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting
[17:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting
[17:02] <bjf> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Lucid
[17:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Lucid
[17:02] <bjf> NOTE: '..' indicates that you are finished with your input.
[17:02] <bjf> [TOPIC] Open Action Item: amitk to meet with keybuk on automated boot tests
[17:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Action Item: amitk to meet with keybuk on automated boot tests
[17:02] <bjf> this is an old one
[17:03] <bjf> amitk, anything to report?
[17:03] <apw> i was expecting that to occur last week, but i didn't see it myself
[17:03] <amitk> I didn't really talk to keybuk about that in particular. But I now have the info necessary to start my own PXE booting automated installs
[17:03] <bjf> amitk, so can we call this action item closed?
[17:03] <amitk> yes
[17:04] <bjf> thanks
[17:04] <bjf> ..
[17:04] <bjf> [TOPIC] Lucid Release Status: Bugs (Release Meeting Bugs / RC Milestoned Bugs / Release Targeted Bugs
[17:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Lucid Release Status: Bugs (Release Meeting Bugs / RC Milestoned Bugs / Release Targeted Bugs
[17:04] <apw> JFo, ?
[17:05] <JFo> sorry 1 sec...
[17:05] <JFo> Release Meeting Bugs (2 bugs, 3 blueprints)
[17:05] <JFo> [17:05] <JFo> Alpha 3 Milestoned Bugs (35 bugs against all packages)
[17:05] <JFo>  * 1 linux kernel bugs
[17:05] <JFo>  * 2 linux-fsl-imx51 bugs
[17:05] <JFo>  * 0 linux-ec2 bug
[17:05] <JFo>  * 1 linux-mvl-dove bugs
[17:05] <JFo> [17:05] <JFo> Release Targeted Bugs (133 bugs against all packages)
[17:05] <JFo>  * 11 linux kernel bugs
[17:05] <JFo>  * 2 linux-fsl-imx51 bugs
[17:05] <JFo>  * 0 linux-ec2 bug
[17:05] <JFo>  * 1 linux-mvl-dove bugs
[17:05] <JFo> ..
[17:05] <bjf> [TOPIC] Lucid Release Status: Milestoned Features
[17:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Lucid Release Status: Milestoned Features
[17:06] <JFo> Milestoned Features -
[17:06] <JFo>  * 1 blueprint
[17:06] <JFo> ..
[17:06] <bjf> [TOPIC] Lucid Release Status: Bugs with patches (apw, JFo)
[17:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Lucid Release Status: Bugs with patches (apw, JFo)
[17:07] <JFo> Bugs with Patches Attached:107
[17:07] <JFo> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/csv-stats/bugs-with-patches/linux/
[17:07] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/csv-stats/bugs-with-patches/linux/
[17:07] <JFo> ..
[17:07]  * apw notes this is no longer a new topic, and hands it to jfo :)
[17:07] <apw> ..
[17:07] <bjf> apw, should we just combine those three topics into a single "Lucid Release Status" topic?
[17:08] <apw> feels that way to me
[17:08] <apw> Release Metrics perhaps
[17:08] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: kernel-lucid-bug-handling (JFo)
[17:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: kernel-lucid-bug-handling (JFo)
[17:08] <JFo>  * Arsenal scripts are currently running in dryrun mode daily. I am finishing up adding the -r option in each script to enable the actual run.
[17:08] <JFo>  * Reviewed the X debugging pages. I have started working up an outline of what we need to put in place and how we can use most of what we already have to do it.
[17:08] <JFo>  * I'm also making up a listing of what information needs to be updated on our wiki.
[17:08] <JFo> ..
[17:09] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: kernel-lucid-review-of-ubuntu-delta (apw)
[17:09] <bjf> [LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-review-of-ubuntu-delta
[17:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: kernel-lucid-review-of-ubuntu-delta (apw)
[17:09] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-review-of-ubuntu-delta
[17:09] <apw> Nothing to report
[17:09] <apw> ..
[17:09] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: kernel-lucid-kernel-config-review (apw)
[17:09] <bjf> [LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-kernel-config-review
[17:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: kernel-lucid-kernel-config-review (apw)
[17:09] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-kernel-config-review
[17:10] <apw> Testing for any boot-speed regression with the PATA and SATA disk controllers removed is ongoing.  We have also cleaned up those patches which were under discusssion, dropping a number of redundant patches.
[17:10] <apw> ..
[17:11] <bjf> apw, did we decide anything w.r.t. having builtin drivers vs. modules?
[17:11] <apw> that is part of what the first item there is about
[17:11] <bjf> apw, ack
[17:11] <apw> i am planning to test that, and use that to start an email discussion on kernel-team
[17:11] <apw> ..
[17:11] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: kernel-lucid-kms (sconklin)
[17:11] <bjf> [LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-kms
[17:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: kernel-lucid-kms (sconklin)
[17:11] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-kms
[17:12] <apw> Preliminary testing with nouveau has been pretty good.  An upload of the new Lucid LBM is pending in the New queue currently.
[17:12] <apw> ..
[17:12] <apw> oh one more thing ...
[17:12] <apw> actually there is some discussion starting that KMS on radeon may be not as good as it could be
[17:12] <apw> and we need to figure out what if anything we need to do there also
[17:12] <apw> ..
[17:12] <sconklin> ..
[17:12] <manjo> I am looking at backporting some patches
[17:12] <manjo> for radeon
[17:13] <manjo> that might fix some of the memory issues
[17:13] <manjo> that are being reported
[17:13] <manjo> ..
[17:13] <apw> ok keep me in the loop on that
[17:13] <manjo> ok
[17:13] <manjo> ..
[17:13] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: kernel-lucid-suspend-resume (manjo)
[17:13] <bjf> [LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-suspend-resume
[17:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: kernel-lucid-suspend-resume (manjo)
[17:13] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-suspend-resume
[17:13] <manjo> I have 2 patches, 1. prints a lot of info driver:device:resumetime 2. is based on tracepoints. I have tested patch #1, and I
[17:13] <manjo> am in the process of testing patch #2. I plan on tweaking patch #1 and carrying it as a sauce in Lucid.
[17:14] <manjo> ..
[17:14] <apw> is the first one the one which we're going to make only output on slow things?
[17:14] <manjo> yes
[17:14] <apw> ..
[17:15] <manjo> ..
[17:15] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: kernel-lucid-apparmor-development (jjohansen)
[17:15] <bjf> [LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-apparmor-development
[17:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: kernel-lucid-apparmor-development (jjohansen)
[17:15] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-apparmor-development
[17:15] <jjohansen> Removed an unused feature that is potential security vulnerability (other option
[17:15] <jjohansen> was complete the feature and do heavy code auditing).  The feature could allow privilege escalation when combined with change_profile.  No CVE as there is no way to exploit it with out it being explicitly used in policy, which has never happened except in experimentation.
[17:15] <jjohansen> finished up policy optimization, it provided a 50% reduction in size and 4x speedup, also laid the ground work for further improvements (table sharing, and faster table compression) in the future.
[17:15] <jjohansen> pam_apparmor update should be done later in the week.
[17:15] <jjohansen> Fixing locking deadlock.  The freeing of profiles has a race that can potentially deadlock.  This can occur when free_profile is triggered from an rcu callback that is occurring at the same time as a profile replacement/removal.
[17:15] <apw> most excellent news
[17:16] <jjohansen> ..
[17:16] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: kernel-lucid-boot-performance (apw, csurbhi)
[17:16] <bjf> [LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-boot-performance
[17:16] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: kernel-lucid-boot-performance (apw, csurbhi)
[17:16] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/kernel-lucid-boot-performance
[17:16] <apw> Boot is looking better, plymouth has been pulled back out of initramfs and we are below budget again.  We have one outstanding issue with khubd which seems to be hanging about, investigation is ongoing.  We have also pulled some of the boot speed improvements back to the ARM branches for lucid, they are under testing now.
[17:16] <apw> we look to be at about 1.8s to rootfs right now
[17:16] <apw> ..
[17:16] <bjf> [TOPIC] Other Release Tasks: Lucid Audio Support (bjf)
[17:16] <MootBot> New Topic:  Other Release Tasks: Lucid Audio Support (bjf)
[17:17] <bjf> nothing new here, wiki and bug work needing to be done
[17:17] <bjf> ..
[17:17] <bjf> [TOPIC] Other Release Tasks: Lucid Better Power Mgt (amitk)
[17:17] <MootBot> New Topic:  Other Release Tasks: Lucid Better Power Mgt (amitk)
[17:17] <amitk> I've been playing with CPU wakeups on a stock lucid isntall
[17:18] <amitk> got it down to 5-6 wake ups after using some laptop-mode-tools tricks, blacklisting modules, etc.
[17:18] <amitk> 5 wakeups/s
[17:18] <cking> disabled gnome terminal cursor?
[17:18] <amitk> now trying to figure out what parts of these hacks can be bundled with lucid
[17:18] <amitk> cking: yes done that
[17:19] <amitk> I hope to have atleast some scripts for pm-utils
[17:19] <bjf> amitk, anything you can writeup and have others try?
[17:19] <amitk> no plans for any kernel changes atm
[17:19]  * apw cheers
[17:19] <amitk> bjf: possibly
[17:20] <bjf> amitk, done?
[17:20] <amitk> yes
[17:20] <bjf> [TOPIC] Other Release Tasks: EC2 Lucid Kernel Status (jjohansen)
[17:20] <MootBot> New Topic:  Other Release Tasks: EC2 Lucid Kernel Status (jjohansen)
[17:20]  * amitk forgot about the ... code
[17:20] <jjohansen> updated to latest set of patches, and updated configs to more closely match -server (with exception of physical device drivers, which diverged even more).
[17:20] <jjohansen> need to look at linux-meta-ec2 package as it has been reported by smoser that it isn't updating to latest version of kernel.
[17:21] <apw> jjohansen, that would be my fault if its not
[17:21] <apw> poke me after so i can check
[17:21] <jjohansen> apw: will do
[17:21] <jjohansen> ..
[17:21] <bjf> [TOPIC] Status: Lucid (apw)
[17:21] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status: Lucid (apw)
[17:21] <apw> We have refactored the debian abstraction to reduce the separation and thereby increase commonality of the rules and scripts.  The kernel is currently being pulled up to v2.6.32.8 and should be uploaded today.
[17:21] <apw> Overall we are about half way through alpha-3 and we have completed about 58% of the milestoned tasks.  Much of what remains undone are investigation items.  We are making some progress to returning below the burn-down line:
[17:21] <apw> [LINK] http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-kernel-team.html
[17:21] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~pitti/workitems/canonical-kernel-team.html
[17:22] <apw> ..
[17:22] <bjf> [TOPIC] Security & bugfix kernels - Karmic/Jaunty/Intrepid/Hardy/Others (gnarl/smb)
[17:22] <MootBot> New Topic:  Security & bugfix kernels - Karmic/Jaunty/Intrepid/Hardy/Others (gnarl/smb)
[17:22] <smb> Dapper:     2.6.15-55.82 (security)
[17:22] <smb> Hardy:      2.6.24-27.65 (security)
[17:22] <smb>             2.6.24-27-66 (proposed)[just uploaded]
[17:22] <smb> Intrepid:   2.6.27-17.45 (security)
[17:22] <smb> Jaunty:     2.6.28-18.59 (security)
[17:22] <smb> Karmic:     2.6.31-19.56 (security)
[17:22] <smb>             2.6.31-20.57 (proposed)[1]  4/18 verifications done
[17:22] <smb> Security release is done. This time it included updates to fsl-imx51, mvl-dove
[17:22] <smb> and ec2 packages. The ports-meta will be refreshed as well.
[17:22] <smb> confirmation.
[17:23] <smb> A new upload to Hardy proposed is waiting for approval and will also be
[17:23] <smb> done for netbook-lpia.
[17:23] <smb> The Karmic proposed upload includes a few more patches than before and also
[17:23] <smb> fixes a regression through 2.6.31.9 that was catched before.
[17:23] <smb> -.. --- -. .
[17:23] <smb> ..
[17:23] <bjf> [TOPIC] Incoming Bugs: Regressions (JFo)
[17:23] <MootBot> New Topic:  Incoming Bugs: Regressions (JFo)
[17:23] <JFo> Incoming Bugs
[17:23] <JFo> 122 Lucid Bugs (up 21)
[17:23] <JFo> Current regression stats (broken down by release):
[17:23] <JFo> == regression-potential (up 4) ==
[17:23] <JFo> 39 lucid bugs
[17:23] <JFo> == regression-update (no change)==
[17:23] <JFo> 9 karmic bugs
[17:23] <JFo> 5 jaunty bugs
[17:23] <JFo> 2 intrepid bugs
[17:23] <JFo> 1 hardy bug
[17:23] <JFo> == regression-release (down 5)==
[17:23] <JFo> 56 karmic bugs
[17:23] <JFo> 22 jaunty bugs
[17:23] <JFo> 11 intrepid bugs
[17:23] <JFo> 4 hardy bugs
[17:23] <JFo> == regression-proposed (no change)==
[17:24] <JFo> 1 karmic bug
[17:24] <JFo> ..
[17:24] <bjf> [TOPIC] Incoming Bugs: Bug day report (JFo)
[17:24] <MootBot> New Topic:  Incoming Bugs: Bug day report (JFo)
[17:24] <JFo> I don't have the page prepared for today. I'd like to create the page and market it a bit. Is it ok to have it next week?
[17:24]  * JFo failed on that point
[17:24] <JFo> ..
[17:24] <apw> not sure we had a bug day to report on
[17:24] <ogasawara> yah, seeing as we skipped last weeks
[17:25] <apw> it would have been last tue i think, and was cancelled
[17:25] <apw> so no failure
[17:25] <apw> ..
[17:25] <ogasawara> seems fine to push it to next week
[17:25] <ogasawara> ..
[17:25] <bjf> [TOPIC] Open Discussion or Questions: Anyone have anything?
[17:25] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion or Questions: Anyone have anything?
[17:25] <amitk> bjf: I have one
[17:25] <bjf> amitk, go
[17:26] <amitk> I want to revisit our decision (dtchen's really) to turn off HDA power save mode off
[17:26] <apw> bjf i have one too
[17:26] <amitk> do we have any numbers on how many users were affected by the sound glitches
[17:26] <bjf> amitk, have you started a conversation with him about it?
[17:26]  * apw thinks that bjf should be involved in the discussion
[17:26] <amitk> haven't yet. But I can write email to kernel-team
[17:27] <amitk> but since you're the audio guy...
[17:27] <apw> it would be good to know what the issues were so we can revisit them to confirm if they are the same still or fixed
[17:27] <bjf> apw, amitk, I have no problem being involved in the discussion
[17:27] <cking> amitk, how much power does it save?
[17:27] <cnd> amitk, +1 on having glitches myself
[17:27] <cnd> but osx has glitches too
[17:27] <amitk> the better part of a watt in some cases
[17:28] <apw> i could have done with that on the plane
[17:28] <cnd> hmmm... I'm not sure I care enough about the glitches to consume an extra W
[17:28] <cking> that's significant enough in my books to warrant a revisit on this decision
[17:28] <amitk> we tweaked kirkland's laptop before he got on the plane with my crack
[17:28]  * kirkland high fives amitk 
[17:28]  * amitk takes that to mean that stuff mostly worked ;)
[17:29] <manjo> amitk, is your crack on a wiki ?
[17:29] <amitk> not yet, I'll try to put it there when I free up some time
[17:29] <bjf> amitk, I'll let you send out the initial email but I will jump in as well
[17:29] <amitk> ack
[17:29] <amitk> ...
[17:29] <manjo> amitk, I would like to see
[17:29] <manjo> what it does on Dell 10V
[17:29] <manjo> I have one
[17:29] <manjo> and its our benchmark
[17:29] <JFo> nice haiku manjo
[17:29] <amitk> manjo: this is all on a dell mini 10V
[17:30] <manjo> ok
[17:30] <manjo> ..
[17:30] <bjf> apw, you have something you'd like to get off your chest?
[17:30] <apw> Reminder that we are frezing the kernel on March the 11th, which means we have to have everything ready and in by March 8th.
[17:30] <apw> ..
[17:31] <jjohansen> there is a patch we might want to consider pulling in for lucid now that we have a preempt flavour (I haven't looked at this yet, beyond seeing it on the lsm)
[17:31] <jjohansen> http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/66155/
[17:31] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/66155/
[17:31]  * manjo notes that leaves little time for stuff to get done 
[17:31] <jjohansen> ..
[17:32] <bjf> anyone else have anything?
[17:32] <smb> Probably I also should note that Karmic SRU for the kernel are about to end as well.
[17:33] <smb> ..
[17:33] <bjf> that seems like the end
[17:33] <amitk> smb: meaning mass -stable tree updates?
[17:33] <smb> amitk, No meaning all non kitten-killer ones
[17:34] <amitk> aah
[17:34] <smb> amitk, We need to concentrate powers on Lucid
[17:34] <manjo> smb, lbm ?
[17:34]  * amitk nods
[17:34] <smb> manjo, Might be acceptable if you have something but better soon than late
[17:34] <manjo> ok
[17:34] <manjo> ..
[17:34] <smb> ..
[17:34] <bjf> thanks everyone
[17:34] <bjf> #endmeeting
[17:34] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 11:34.
[17:35] <cking> thanks bjf
[17:35] <JFo> thanks bjf
[17:35]  * smb hands bjf a virtual beer
[20:14] <kangarooo> so what about meeting?
[20:14] <cjohnston> thats what I was thinking
[20:24] <jono> sorry folks, I am in a last minute call
[20:24] <jono> completely missed the reminder
[20:25] <jono> jcastro, can you coordinate the meeting while I finish the call?
[20:25] <jono> cjohnston, kangarooo or can you run it
[20:25] <jcastro> what meeting?
[20:25] <jono> global jam
[20:25] <jcastro> ah, duh
[20:25] <jono> looks like there is not many people here for it anyway
[20:25] <jcastro> yeah
[20:25] <dantalizing> lies!
[20:25] <jcastro> who's around?
[20:25] <jono> thanks jcastro
[20:25] <cjohnston> hey dantalizing
[20:25] <kangarooo> can anyone just run it? i would like to if i knew what to do
[20:25] <jono> sorry again, bloody google calendar
[20:25]  * jcastro snags gavel and pushes people into chairs
[20:26] <cjohnston> ouch
[20:26] <jono> biab
[20:26] <dantalizing> morning cjohnston
[20:26] <cjohnston> :-)
[20:26] <kangarooo> 16min already wasted
[20:26] <jcastro> ok, let's come to order
[20:26] <jcastro> which locos are here?
[20:26] <cjohnston> FL
[20:26] <kangarooo> latvia
[20:26] <jcastro> each rep sound off please!
[20:26] <dantalizing> -fl
[20:26] <vojtech_t> czech
[20:26] <cyphermox> -qc? :D
[20:27] <jcastro> ok, please fire up this page: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGlobalJam
[20:27] <jcastro> once again we plan to have a "global jam" this cycle
[20:27] <jcastro> this one is at the end of march, 26-28 March
[20:27] <jcastro> this originally started out as the "Ubuntu Global Bug Jam"
[20:28] <jcastro> but then we had so much fun that we decided to just encompass all ubuntu development
[20:28] <kangarooo> doesnt bot needs to be started for meeting recording?
[20:28] <jcastro> so now LoCos can do whatever kind of jam they want.
[20:28] <jcastro> how many of you have already conducted a jam? global or otherwise?
[20:28] <dantalizing> o/
[20:28] <cyphermox> o/
[20:28] <kangarooo> 0
[20:29] <jcastro> heh, ok, so all but one then. Good, we should take this opportunity to spread our best knowledge then
[20:30] <kangarooo> why ask? if to get info how they did it then they should give links to jam meeting timetable
[20:30] <jcastro> so like this? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Jams
[20:31]  * dantalizing got pulled into a meeting .. sry afk
[20:31] <kangarooo> ok at least 1link :) this link needs more info with examples.
[20:31] <jcastro> well, usually your first step is, what kind of jam you want to do
[20:32] <jcastro> however, regardless what kind of jam it is, you should probably start looking for a venue soon
[20:32] <kangarooo> i someone could write example jam schedule i would post that example to wiki
[20:32] <jcastro> what do you mean by a jam schedule?
[20:32] <itnet7> also conducted a jam... sorry a little late
[20:32] <cjohnston> kangarooo: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGlobalJam/Events
[20:32] <jcastro> no worries, hi itnet7!
[20:32] <itnet7> Hey there jcastro !
[20:33] <jcastro> kangarooo: is that what you mean by schedule?
[20:33] <kangarooo> 10.00 intro meeting with linux ngo 10.30  goverment it minister 11.00 studies of bug fixing 12.00 bug fixing
[20:34] <cjohnston> kangarooo: there is no schedule
[20:34] <cjohnston> its what ever and whenever your loco decides to do it
[20:34] <jcastro> right
[20:34] <kangarooo> so jam without specific schegule. so jam is agile
[20:34] <jcastro> some locos just sit around and do bug work
[20:34] <cjohnston> kangarooo: yes...
[20:34] <jcastro> some do a scheduled set of sessions
[20:35] <jcastro> some even just drink beer and do no work. *whistles*
[20:35] <itnet7> ;-P
[20:35] <cjohnston> i need to join that loco
[20:35] <jcastro> but yes, it's up to your LoCo to jam how they see fit
[20:35] <jcastro> however, there are common things we can all do
[20:35] <jcastro> so first is seeing if you can actually have a jam
[20:35] <jcastro> this is usually a call to a mailing list, etc.
[20:35] <jcastro> "Are we jamming this cycle?"
[20:36] <jcastro> then people nod or complain
[20:36] <jcastro> depending on what they're doing that weekend or whatever
[20:36] <jcastro> the next step is surely securing a venue
[20:36] <jcastro> since this is time consuming
[20:36] <jcastro> depending on the size of your loco that can be easy or hard.
[20:36] <mhall119|work> oh man, I hope the new loco-directory is up in time for this
[20:37] <jcastro> but for example if you want to do classes for participants then you will need a venue that has a projector
[20:37] <jcastro> mhall119|work: indeed!
[20:37] <cjohnston> would sure be nice
[20:37] <kangarooo> whats new loco-directory?
[20:37] <jcastro> one new jam we have in place this time is the upgrade jam
[20:37] <jcastro> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Jams/Upgrade
[20:38] <jcastro> this is basically where people can just show up, upgrade to lucid, and report bugs.
[20:38] <mhall119|work> kangarooo: loco.ubuntu.com with event/venue tracking
[20:39]  * dscassel suggests asking #hackerspaces if there's a hackerspace in your town and they want to help.
[20:39] <jcastro> ok so I guess the first steps here are for those of us who have done this before to go ahead and ping our respective locos
[20:40] <jcastro> and then signing up on events: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGlobalJam/Events
[20:40] <jcastro> let's each of us take a work item to blog/tweet/dent when their loco signs up, or poke someone who can when their loco signs up so we can get the word out
[20:40] <kangarooo> ouh wow. i would like to make hackerspace in latvia as loco HQ
[20:40] <jcastro> usually what happens is a few locos start and then the deluge begins after
[20:41] <jcastro> yeah they just opened a hackerspace by me so I am keen on getting our loco in there!
[20:41] <jcastro> kangarooo: ok given the current docs and guidelines, do you have any questions?
[20:41] <itnet7> sounds good denting/tweeting
[20:41]  * jcastro is pretty sure the old timers know what they are doing by know
[20:42] <mhall119|work> buzzing
[20:42] <jcastro> by now even!
[20:42] <jcastro> ok, so action to take out of here for everyone is to get this page noticed on the internets: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuGlobalJam/Events
[20:42] <jcastro> also, the new "upgrade jam" should be fun for locos I think
[20:43] <itnet7> kangarooo: after some other teams put up what their plans are, you will be able to have a wide variety of choices in case you're not sure what you want to do at first
[20:43] <jcastro> a person can just bring their laptop and contribute, if anything having the hardware there will be a bonus
[20:44] <jcastro> ok, so let's each reach out to other locos as well
[20:44] <jcastro> so since I'm in michigan I'll bug the rest of the midwest folks, etc.
[20:44] <jcastro> mhall119|work: want to blog about it later tonight?
[20:44]  * jcastro will blog as well
[20:44] <mhall119|work> blog about it where?
[20:44] <kangarooo> yes all is fine. its esay to make jam then.
[20:44] <jcastro> oh, also
[20:45] <jcastro> you'll note that someone made little logos and banners; use them!
[20:45] <jcastro> mhall119|work: aren't you on planet?
[20:45] <mhall119|work> ubuntu-fl.org is
[20:45] <jcastro> ah ok
[20:45] <mhall119|work> one of us will post there
[20:45] <mhall119|work> qimo4kids.com might be, I'm not sure
[20:45] <jcastro> you guys had like 4 or 5 jams last time no?
[20:45] <jcastro> or was that release parties?
[20:45] <mhall119|work> we had some smaller ones
[20:46] <mhall119|work> it was right before FLS though
[20:46] <itnet7> I will blog tonight and will ask the rest of the team at our meeting tonight
[20:46] <mhall119|work> our release party was the big one
[20:46] <jcastro> rock, any questions?
[20:46] <jcastro> kangarooo: also, one thing we always forget to tell people
[20:46] <jcastro> kangarooo: you can jam whenever you want
[20:46] <kangarooo> ok
[20:46] <jcastro> so if you guys have a great time and want to do a bunch, feel free to just run with it
[20:48] <jcastro> kangarooo: just take a bunch of pictures, so we can put them on the wiki. People get intimidated when they want to run a jam and then they see the pics of what other people are doing and it gets them pumped up
[20:48] <kangarooo> yes
[20:49] <jcastro> and as always, if you have questions, I'm in #ubuntu-localteams idling most of the time
[20:49] <jcastro> any other questions?
[20:49]  * jcastro will blog about this right now
[20:51] <jcastro> dscassel: is there a web page for #hackerspaces?
[20:51] <akgraner> jcastro, did you mean #ubuntu-locoteams
[20:52] <jcastro> akgraner: yes I did, thanks!
[20:52] <dscassel> http://hackerspaces.org/wiki/
[20:52] <jcastro> ooh, on that.
[20:52] <mhall119|work> good eye akgraner
[20:53] <akgraner> mhall119|work, thanks :-)
[20:53] <dscassel> Different hackerspaces have different focuses, but a lot of them are programming/free software friendly.
[20:54] <jcastro> yeah ours is like a construction site
[20:54] <akgraner> jcastro, so we have an FAQ page?
[20:54] <jcastro> still, if this gets hackerspaces and locos together then woo.
[20:54] <akgraner> we not so
[20:54] <jcastro> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Jams
[20:54] <jcastro> is the FAQ basically, even though it's not called that
[20:55] <akgraner> ok  - I knew about that one :-)