[14:56]  * gary_poster groans.
[14:56] <henninge> gary_poster: what?
[14:56] <gary_poster> bac: I didn't do my reviewers meeting item
[14:56] <gary_poster> henninge: ^^^ :-)
[14:57] <henninge> gary_poster: it could be worse, you could have missed the meeing completely ... ;-)
[14:57] <gary_poster> heh
[14:57] <henninge> or didn't I?
[14:58] <henninge> gary_poster: I didn't! got the time right ... :-D
[14:59] <gary_poster> henninge: oh, I see :-)
[14:59] <henninge> so I guess you can still do your item
[14:59] <henninge> arghh ....
[14:59] <bigjools> it should be renamed to the "I SUCK" section
[14:59] <noodles775> lol
[14:59] <gary_poster> bigjools: lol +1
[14:59] <henninge> gary_poster: now I now what you are talking about ....
[14:59] <gary_poster> :-)
[15:00]  * henninge sucks at grasping context sometimes.
[15:00] <bac> #startmeeting
[15:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:00. The chair is bac.
[15:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:00] <bigjools> we have people who regularly suck each week on Wednesday
[15:00] <gary_poster> me sucks
[15:00] <bac> Hi y'all -- who's here?
[15:00] <abentley> me
[15:00] <noodles775> me
[15:00] <henninge> me
[15:01] <danilo__> me
[15:01] <sinzui> me
[15:01] <bigjools> mmmeeeee
[15:01] <bac> EdwinGrubbs, gmb, flacoste, adeuring, BjornT: ping
[15:01] <flacoste> me
[15:01] <adeuring> me
[15:01] <gmb> me
[15:01] <EdwinGrubbs> me
[15:02] <bac> deryck sends his regrets
[15:02] <salgado> me
[15:02] <bac> mars is CHR (again!) so i assume he'll not be here
[15:02] <bac> who am i missing?
[15:03] <bac> is allenap working today?
[15:04] <adeuring> bac: no
[15:04] <al-maisan> me
[15:04] <bac> thanks adeuring
[15:04] <bac> [topic] agenda
[15:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  agenda
[15:05] <bac> gah, the agenda section has been removed from the wiki.  drat.
[15:05] <bac> * roll call
[15:05] <bac> * new items
[15:05] <bac> * action items
[15:05] <bac> * peanuts
[15:05] <bac> [topic] action items
[15:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  action items
[15:06] <bac> [topic] * gary_poster to do timing tests for try/except, examine current usage of check_permission, and we'll discuss again 24-Feb.
[15:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  * gary_poster to do timing tests for try/except, examine current usage of check_permission, and we'll discuss again 24-Feb.
[15:06] <bac> i hear gary_poster may be rolling this over...
[15:06] <gary_poster> started, then did something else
[15:06]  * bigjools grins
[15:06] <gary_poster> :-)
[15:06] <bac> [topic]  * salgado to update the wiki page to encourage reviews with sufficient context.
[15:06] <MootBot> New Topic:   * salgado to update the wiki page to encourage reviews with sufficient context.
[15:06] <salgado> I suck
[15:06] <gary_poster> we can take mine off for me to reinsert later if you like
[15:06] <salgado> haven't done it
[15:07] <bac> ok.  try for next week salgado?
[15:07] <bac> [topic] * bac to update wiki page to make clear community contributor landing responsibilities
[15:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  * bac to update wiki page to make clear community contributor landing responsibilities
[15:07] <salgado> bac, yeah, this time I'll do it
[15:07] <bac> i actually made the changes to the wiki and sent out email to the list...about an hour ago.
[15:08] <bac> the only other outstanding action item is the one for launchpadlib tests that are due 17-Mar
[15:09] <mars> bac, CHR, apologies
[15:09] <bac> again this week there are no new agenda items on the wiki
[15:09] <bac> thanks mars, i assumed so
[15:10] <bac> as i mentioned a few weeks ago, if there are no new items we should probably cancel the meeting
[15:10] <bac> i'll look at the wiki on tuesday EOD and send out a cancellation email if it seems appropriate
[15:10] <bac> [topic] peanut gallery -- any new topic?
[15:10] <MootBot> New Topic:  peanut gallery -- any new topic?
[15:11] <sinzui> has wgrant been invited to become a reviewer?
[15:11] <bac> not to my knowledge
[15:12] <bac> bigjools do you think we should do that and would one of your team volunteer to be his mentor?
[15:12] <bigjools> I think that should come after he get s commit rights
[15:13] <bigjools> whenever that is
[15:13] <bac> really?  they seem orthogonal to me, except for the reviewer lands community stuff issue
[15:13] <bigjools> just IMHO
[15:14] <sinzui> I do not think commit rights are important. I trust wgrants reviews (as he reports on bugs in emails). I think his insights should be acknowledged as a code review
[15:14]  * noodles775 would find it a pleasure, whenever the timing is settled :)
[15:14] <bigjools> I think that asking people to review w/o commit access is a little cheeky
[15:15] <bac> noodles775 thanks, i think that's be great if you think the time zone issues allow it
[15:15] <abentley> bigjools, if you think about it, commit rights are about whether someone can follow procedure.  Reviewership requires taste and grokking our guidelines.
[15:16] <abentley> bigjools, so arguably, commit rights should come first, because the bar is lower.
[15:16] <mars> makes sense
[15:16] <sinzui> We are seeking contributors to do UI reviews. These users may never right code, may never want to submit a branch.
[15:16] <sinzui> write
[15:16] <bigjools> which is my point ...
[15:17] <sinzui> bigjools: but commit rights steps into Canonical issues we cannot control. We do control who is a reviewer
[15:17] <bigjools> we need to trust both
[15:18] <bac> as a team we haven't had the discussion in full about commit rights for community.  thought you can argue it should come first it seems to be an unnecessary blocker to inviting wgrant to be a reviewer right now
[15:19] <bigjools> well I've stated my opinion but I'm not precious about it - if he wants to do it and you all think it's a good idea then fine.
[15:19] <abentley> bac, right.  Commit rights should ideally be easier to achieve and so usually come first, but if they aren't easier to achieve, then I don't think that ordering has to be enforced.
[15:19] <sinzui> bigjools: yes, I am most concerned that we are inviting him. leonardr declined the invitation for a year
[15:19] <bac> bigjools you have a closer working relationship with him so you could invite him.  or i'll do it, whichever you prefer
[15:20] <bigjools> let's take it to the list
[15:21] <bac> bigjools: take what to the list?  the invitation or the discussion of whether to do it?
[15:21] <bigjools> discussion
[15:21] <bac> right.
[15:21] <bac> [action] bigjools to start a list discussion about community members as reviewers
[15:21] <MootBot> ACTION received:  bigjools to start a list discussion about community members as reviewers
[15:22] <bigjools> cool, I get to suck next week too :)
[15:22] <bac> any other topics?
[15:22] <bac> i have a brief request:
[15:22] <bac> two actually
[15:22] <bac> 1) please indicate regrets on the wiki if you cannot make this meeting
[15:23] <bac> 2) team leads help in rounding up your team
[15:23] <bac> that is all
[15:23] <bigjools> how about everyone learns to use calendar reminders
[15:24] <bac> bigjools that'd be nice.  but when they don't it's easier for you to help round up a few people than me to remember everyone
[15:24] <bigjools> sure that's not a problem, but you'll notice it's the same people every week :)
[15:25] <bac> oh, one other thing
[15:25] <bac> the ASIAPAC meeting has moved to 2130UTC
[15:26] <bac> thanks for coming everyone
[15:26] <bigjools> thanks bac
[15:26] <bac> #endmeeting
[15:26] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:26.
[15:26] <noodles775> Thanks bac
[15:26] <mars> thank you bac
[21:30] <bac> thumper, mwhudson, rockstar: meeting
[21:31] <bac> #startmeeting
[21:31] <MootBot> Meeting started at 15:31. The chair is bac.
[21:31] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[21:31] <mwhudson> bac: ello
[21:31] <bac> anyone here?
[21:31] <bac> hi
[21:31] <thumper> hi
[21:31] <bac> is rockstar around?
[21:31] <bac> guess not
[21:32] <bac> so our AMEU meeting was pretty straightforward
[21:33] <bac> until we got to the end and sinzui brought up the topic of community reviewers
[21:33] <bac> which led to the discussion of giving community members commit access
[21:33] <thumper> I've been reading the emails
[21:33] <bac> after a while we decided to take it to the mailing list, which you may have seen
[21:34] <bac> it's an interesting topic
[21:35] <bac> we're a little different from a typical open source project but every time i try to think through that argument i get tied up
[21:35] <sinzui> One far more complicated then I imagined. wgrant could say no and the issue is moot for several months
[21:35] <thumper> personally I think due to the potential private information that is there
[21:35] <thumper> it is likely that we should hold the commit access to internal devs
[21:36] <thumper> reviewer I'm entirely happy with
[21:36] <thumper> it is more about the corporate business case
[21:36] <thumper> rather than trusting an individual
[21:36] <bac> thumper: that's where i'm leaning
[21:37] <sinzui> Indeed. I never imagined commit access could be granted (certainly not by us) so I did not include the issue in my orginal question: has wgrant been asked to become a reviewer
[21:37] <bac> of course a malicious person on any OSS could wreak lots of havoc
[21:38] <thumper> bac: yes, that is true
[21:38] <bac> sinzui: i think the answer is no.
[21:38] <thumper> bac: but an internal person can be disciplined (or fired)
[21:38] <thumper> bac: so has more to lose
[21:38] <bac> thumper: indeed
[21:38] <thumper> wgrant: want to be a reviewer?
[21:39] <thumper> bac: problem solved
[21:39] <bac> sinzui: so unless thumper has asked wgrant....well, there yougo
[21:39] <thumper> JFDI
[21:39] <sinzui> we are open source, and we are indebted to contributors who have identified security issue. That is not the issue with asking someone to help review
[21:39] <thumper> Just Freaking Did It
[21:39] <thumper> heh
[21:40] <bac> so, that was about all we discussed today, except the role call of the procrastinators
[21:40] <bac> er, roll call
[21:41] <bac> anyone have a topic to discuss?
[21:41] <thumper> not really
[21:42] <bac> mwhudson: ?
[21:42] <mwhudson> bac: nope
[21:42] <bac> ok, cool
[21:42] <bac> well, let's call it a meeting then
[21:42] <bac> #endmeeting
[21:42] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 15:42.
[21:42] <mwhudson> bac: thanks
[21:42] <thumper> bac: thanks too
[21:43] <bac> np
[22:00] <rockstar> Agh.  I forgot it was Wednesday.
[22:16] <wgrant> Hmmm.
[22:21] <wgrant> I thought the private data issue would probably be a problem, but ISD doesn't seem concerned enough to fix critical security issues until "the end of the week, if sysadmin availability allows", so it seems nobody actually cares.
[22:24] <wgrant> ISD doesn't seem to maintain I public presence so I can tell them that I am not amused :(
[22:24] <wgrant> s/I/a/