[14:23] <huats> BlackZ, I should attend the meeting, but I might be a little late (like 20 minutes)
[14:23] <BlackZ> huats: so should we start without you?
[14:24] <huats> sure
[14:24] <BlackZ> OK, thanks for the info
[14:24] <huats> or you can wait for me if you want
[14:24] <huats> but not necessary !
[14:24] <huats> :)
[14:24] <huats> ttl
[16:00] <BlackZ> RoAkSoAx, statik, showard, it's the time to start
[16:00] <showard> ok
[16:01] <BlackZ> RoAkSoAx: are you there? statik ?
[16:02] <BlackZ> ok, no problem we can start BTW
[16:02] <BlackZ> #startmeeting
[16:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:02. The chair is BlackZ.
[16:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:02] <BlackZ> huats will be late, he said to start without him
[16:02] <showard> ok
[16:02] <BlackZ> [TOPIC] Developer mentoring reception meeting - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Mentoring/Reception/Meeting
[16:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Developer mentoring reception meeting - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Mentoring/Reception/Meeting
[16:03] <BlackZ> showard: do you want to start?
[16:03] <showard> sure, loading up the agenda
[16:03] <BlackZ> [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous sessions.
[16:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review ACTION points from previous sessions.
[16:03] <BlackZ> that's the first item
[16:04] <showard> the action points were to make the documentation on the wiki
[16:04] <BlackZ> OK, so we can go with the second item instead
[16:04] <BlackZ> can't we?
[16:04] <showard> trying to find the link
[16:04] <showard> yes
[16:04] <BlackZ> [TOPIC] Discuss and approve proposed mentoring program documentation
[16:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discuss and approve proposed mentoring program documentation
[16:05] <showard> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/MentoringReception/MentoringProposal
[16:05] <showard> [LINK]https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/MentoringReception/MentoringProposal
[16:05] <MootBot> LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/MentoringReception/MentoringProposal
[16:06] <BlackZ> well, I have reviewed that, seems OK
[16:06] <showard> OK, we can start floating it once we get an ok from hauts as well
[16:06] <BlackZ> any objection against it?
[16:06] <showard> I think it's just the two of us
[16:07] <BlackZ> OK, so we need almost huats for discuss of that and start the vote
[16:08] <BlackZ> showard: in the meanwhile we can talk about an interesting point and let that to discuss later
[16:08] <showard> ok
[16:08] <BlackZ> [TOPIC] Discuss with the packaging training coordinators the membership approval for our team
[16:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discuss with the packaging training coordinators the membership approval for our team
[16:08] <BlackZ> showard: what do you think about that?
[16:09] <BlackZ> according to https://lists.launchpad.net/packaging-training-coordinators/msg00095.html
[16:10] <showard> It's interesting, but I think it might be good to have two seperate teams still and have us individually apply (if interested). Kind of like how MOTUs still have to apply for bug-control
[16:11] <showard> mostly because they have their own system and I want us to be a part of that (especially since there are only 4 or so of us)
[16:11] <BlackZ> showard: we have to talk with huats and the others about that
[16:11] <BlackZ> (too)
[16:11] <showard> yes
[16:11] <BlackZ> yeah, but that would give a lot of benefits for the mentors
[16:11] <BlackZ> and the contributors
[16:11] <BlackZ> dholbach: are you there?
[16:11] <dholbach> yes
[16:12] <BlackZ> dholbach: can you start to say what do you think about that proposal?
[16:12] <showard> I'm not familiar with it, how to do you see our relationship with the training coordinators team working? could you guive some examples
[16:12] <BlackZ> showard: have you read the e-mail?
[16:13] <dholbach> showard: as far as I understand it, BlackZ wants to suggest to mentors to give sessions regularly or make their training activities with their mentees in a more public forum and ask them to run packaging training sessions
[16:13] <dholbach> I think it's a wonderful idea - we always need more packaging training sessions
[16:14] <BlackZ> yeah, that's what I want to say
[16:14] <BlackZ> showard: so are you +0 ?
[16:14] <dholbach> I think it should be good to include it in the documentation and in the initial mails you send mentors
[16:15] <BlackZ> dholbach: we have to wait huats, he will be late :(
 BlackZ, I should attend the meeting, but I might be a little late (like 20 minutes)
[16:15] <showard> Ok, I thought you wanted something else
[16:16] <dholbach> showard: what were you thinking of?
[16:16] <BlackZ> showard: what's your vote then?
[16:16] <showard> Yes, mentors should be able to help give sessions and coordinate - I thought you wanted the reception team to coordinate what training sessions were giving
[16:16] <showard> *given
[16:16] <dholbach> ah ok
[16:16] <showard> +1 for mentors being in the team
[16:16] <BlackZ> +1 from me too
[16:17] <showard> so BlackZ - we'd have a "Developerment Mentors" team which would be a member of Packaging Train. coordinatorS?
[16:17] <BlackZ> showard: yeah
[16:18] <showard> that sounds good
[16:18] <BlackZ> persia suggested something of that
[16:18] <BlackZ> and huats and others was agree
[16:18] <BlackZ> were*
[16:18] <showard> We should add that to our proposal page, could you do that after the meeting? under Mentor Workflow and Reception Workflow?
[16:19] <BlackZ> sure
[16:19] <BlackZ> [ACTION] BlackZ to set up this idea in the mentoring propostal page
[16:19] <MootBot> ACTION received:  BlackZ to set up this idea in the mentoring propostal page
[16:19] <BlackZ> proposal, argh
[16:19] <BlackZ> [ACTION] BlackZ to set up this idea in the mentoring proposal page
[16:19] <MootBot> ACTION received:  BlackZ to set up this idea in the mentoring proposal page
[16:20] <BlackZ> showard: can you send an e-mail to our mailing list for the absent people?
[16:20] <showard> yes, with the minutes
[16:20] <BlackZ> [ACTION] showard to send an e-mail of this meeting to the developer mentoring reception mailing list for the absent people
[16:20] <MootBot> ACTION received:  showard to send an e-mail of this meeting to the developer mentoring reception mailing list for the absent people
[16:21] <showard> so we need an email vote on the proposal
[16:22] <showard> then send the proposal to relevant lists for feedback?
[16:22] <BlackZ> showard: I'd say yes if huats will not be here
[16:22] <BlackZ> we can wait until 16:00 UTC
[16:22] <showard> lists: DMB, devel-discuss, MOTU, and the teams lists?
[16:23] <BlackZ> BTW I'd send it for the vote from absent people
[16:23] <BlackZ> yes
[16:23] <BlackZ> can you do that?
[16:23] <showard> Yes
[16:23] <BlackZ> [ACTION] showard to send an e-mail to (MOTU, Ubuntu core development team and delegated teams) for get feedback about our documentation
[16:23] <MootBot> ACTION received:  showard to send an e-mail to (MOTU, Ubuntu core development team and delegated teams) for get feedback about our documentation
[16:24] <BlackZ> [TOPIC] Discuss about the completely rename of the team and the mailing list
[16:24] <MootBot> New Topic:  Discuss about the completely rename of the team and the mailing list
[16:24] <BlackZ> well, I have said huats to rename the old LP team and he did but we still have ~motu-mentoring-reception as ID
[16:25] <BlackZ> it should be ~developer-mentoring-reception
[16:26] <BlackZ> and.. we should rename the mailing list
[16:26] <showard> We'd need a new team, I believe. We also need a team for ~developer-mentor, and a project "Ubuntu Developer Mentoring Project"
[16:26] <BlackZ> showard: I don't understand, can you be more clear?
[16:26] <BlackZ> a new team for what?
[16:26] <showard> sure, the Project is for the bug report applications
[16:27] <showard> the new team would be ~developer-mentoring-reception (I don't think you can rename LP teams)
[16:27] <BlackZ> yeah, it could be possible
[16:27] <BlackZ> AFAIK
[16:28] <showard> and we need a team for the mentors so they can be added to the Packaging Training Coordinators team
[16:28] <showard> or we could just manually add them
[16:28] <showard> although they might like having the icon for being a mentor
[16:28] <BlackZ> OK, so:
[16:29] <BlackZ> ~packaging-training-coordinators will add the ~motu-mentoring-reception team as a member
[16:29] <BlackZ> do we need a new team for the bug report? I'm still +0 about that
[16:29] <showard> the ~developer-mentoring-reception team would be the owner of "Ubuntu Developer Mentoring Project" so we are the only ones that can assign/triage bug reports
[16:29] <BlackZ> ah, hmm
[16:29] <showard> no to: ~packaging-training-coordinators will add the ~motu-mentoring-reception team as a member
[16:29] <showard> I thought we decided that the mentors get added, not the reception team
[16:30] <BlackZ> why that?
[16:30] <BlackZ> I think we could have the membership automatically, dholbach ?
[16:31] <dholbach> if you want to, you'd get on the mailing list then
[16:31] <dholbach> maybe you can talk to nhandler about it
[16:31] <BlackZ> dholbach: yeah, we have to
[16:31] <dholbach> great
[16:31] <BlackZ> isn't he here?
[16:31] <BlackZ> showard: so are you still +1 about that?
[16:32] <showard> so we're adding outhe reception team and the mentor team to the mailing list?
[16:32] <showard> mailing list= packaging training coordinators?
[16:32] <BlackZ> showard: no, they will add us as member and the mentors will get the membership automatically
[16:33] <BlackZ> if somebody is in the team that means he's good with the packaging-related tasks
[16:33] <BlackZ> am I wrong?
[16:34] <showard> I'm just thinking about implimentation, you're right about having them join  -- I was thinking that you have a mentor team, and the mentor team is a member of the packaging training coordinating team
[16:34] <BlackZ> clarified that point
[16:34] <showard> and we add people to the mentor team
[16:34] <BlackZ> they will get the packaging training coordinators membership automatically
[16:34] <BlackZ> according to my e-mail
[16:35] <showard> I'm trying to minimize work so that they don't have to be manually added to multiple teams, but that the mentoring team would do it automatically
[16:35] <BlackZ> once somebody is added to our team
[16:35] <showard> ahh that's the problem, I don't think new mentors are added to the reception team
[16:35] <showard> they are two seperate teams
[16:36] <showard> reception = coordination (don't even have to be MOTU), mentoring = actual mentoring
[16:36] <BlackZ> showard: yeah, they're: LP account -> our team -> membership in our team -> membership in the packaging training coordinators team
[16:36] <showard> but new mentors won't be on our team, I don't think
[16:37] <showard> I don't think all mentors should be in -reception
[16:37] <BlackZ> mentors are encouraged to join
[16:37] <BlackZ> and they should
[16:37] <BlackZ> we don't want what you said
[16:37] <BlackZ> *ALL* mentors should join the team
[16:38] <BlackZ> but that doesn't mean: "join the team or we will kill you"
[16:38] <showard> In the past that wasn't the case, but I think you're right - we could encourage it
[16:38] <showard> and those that want to join reception would be interested in packaging training - so that makes sense
[16:38] <showard> kill my "mentors" team idea
[16:38] <showard> and just have one team
[16:39] <BlackZ> showard: are you +1 then?
[16:39] <showard> the reception team
[16:39] <showard> another problem: if everyone is in the reception team, who assigns mentors?
[16:39] <huats> hello everyone
[16:39] <huats> siorry I am late
[16:39] <BlackZ> huats: \o
[16:39] <showard> it was seperate in the past to prevent self selection of mentors
[16:39] <showard> hey hauts
[16:40] <BlackZ> showard: mentors?
[16:40] <BlackZ> the people who wants to take part should send their application
[16:40] <showard> (*mentees) our current discussion is whether all mentors should be members of -reception or not
[16:40] <BlackZ> ah
[16:40] <BlackZ> I think they have to
[16:40] <huats> oh ok
[16:40] <BlackZ> huats: for you?
[16:40] <huats> I don't think so
[16:41] <showard> The pro side: encourages participation
[16:41] <huats> the reception is the team who is handling the mentors/mentee couples
[16:41] <showard> the con side: who chooses mentors/mentee pairs if everyone is a reception?
[16:41] <huats> I like to consider the reception like a desk where people go asn ask for something
[16:41] <BlackZ> OK huats
[16:42] <BlackZ> so we should do another team
[16:42] <huats> why do you think it will encourage participation ?
[16:42] <showard> huats has a point just because they are there doesn't mean that they will participate
[16:42] <BlackZ> the reception will take all decisions and assign mentee to mentors, but the mentors are BTW encouraged to talk with us
[16:42] <BlackZ> and take part of the decisions
[16:43] <huats> BlackZ, I think mentors are highly encouraged to talk to us
[16:43] <huats> and to take part of the decisions regarding thei (potential) mentee
[16:43] <BlackZ> huats: so we need another team
[16:44] <showard> Back to the original question: I think both teams should be members of packaging training coordinators (or have -reception be a member of mentors, and have mentors be a member of  PTC)
[16:44] <showard> The only reason why we need a mentors team is so that mentors can get on the PTC mailing list
[16:44] <showard> (I believe)
[16:44] <BlackZ> yeah showard
[16:44] <BlackZ> then we will approve the other team in our team
[16:45] <BlackZ> and they will be BTW members of packaging training coordinators
[16:45] <BlackZ> but I'm still confused on that, it's a chain
[16:45] <BlackZ> huats: according to https://lists.launchpad.net/packaging-training-coordinators/msg00095.html what do you think about that?
[16:46] <huats> BlackZ,  I have seen this email indeed
[16:46] <BlackZ> huats: what's your vote?
[16:47] <huats> hum honnestly I don't know
[16:47] <BlackZ> so are you +0 ?
[16:47] <huats> I haven't figured out all the pro and cons
[16:47] <huats> :)
[16:47] <BlackZ> we had a discussion with dholbach
[16:47] <huats> right now I would +0 but I might be convinced :)
[16:48] <showard> The pros: we and the mentors know what's being planned and can request specific topics (general training)
[16:48] <showard> the cons: more mail for us
[16:48] <BlackZ> huats: what's the balance for pass an idea? 5+ or 4+ ?
[16:48] <showard> the pros for them: some mentors (and us) might sign up for teaching some sessions
[16:49] <showard> there are 3 of us, so I'd like us to all agree if possible - if not we can shelve it until more people show up
[16:49] <BlackZ> showard: I was talking about the vote
[16:49] <BlackZ> surely according to first you will send an e-mail
[16:50] <BlackZ> and we will hear the feedback from other members
[16:50] <huats> showard, if it is only a few more mails... then go for it
[16:50] <huats> then  +1 for me
[16:51] <showard> yes for both mentors and us, but if mentors complain for some reason we can make it just -reception
[16:51] <huats> showard, sure
[16:51] <BlackZ> huats: another thing: we should decide how an idea can pass, with balance?
[16:51] <BlackZ> 4+ or 5+ seems enough
[16:51] <huats> showard, I think only reception might be better
[16:52] <huats> and if any mentors want to be part of that he can subscribe to  PTC
[16:52] <BlackZ> that will help in our next ideas
[16:52] <BlackZ> I think 4+ would be sufficient
[16:53] <BlackZ> showard, huats for you?
[16:53] <showard> How many "members" do we have?
[16:53] <BlackZ> 7
[16:54] <showard> we could do what other teams do: to vote you need 1/2+1 present, and to pass you need 1/2+1 of the vote
[16:54] <showard> so we'd need 4 present to vote
[16:54] <huats> I agree with showard
[16:54] <BlackZ> showard: send the e-mail then
[16:55] <BlackZ> write who's agree and that we want to hear a feedback from them
[16:55] <BlackZ> huats: last thing and we will close the today's meeting: what about the LP team rename and the documentation rename?
[16:55] <showard> so two topics to vote on: approval of the proposal before getting feedback from other teams and membership in PTC
[16:56] <huats> BlackZ, I have tried many times the LP team rename
[16:56] <BlackZ> also the mailing list, forgot
[16:56] <huats> without succes
[16:56] <huats> (I will try again tonigh)
[16:56] <BlackZ> huats: I will ping the guys in #launchpad
[16:56] <huats> BlackZ, I'll do that, it'll be easier
[16:56] <BlackZ> huats: for the mailing list?
[16:57] <BlackZ> I think we will need to do that as last point
[16:57] <huats> regarding the mailing list, I'll do that this week or the next one, since it is on my server and I am currently reorganising my email infrastucture
[16:57] <huats> I haven't worked on renaming the documentation yet
[16:57] <BlackZ> yeah huats, for the documentation after the feedback could we rename the pages?
[16:57] <huats> I think so
[16:57] <BlackZ> (if the feedback is positive)
[16:58] <BlackZ> OK, for me the meeting is over
[16:58] <BlackZ> any objections? ideas?
[16:59] <BlackZ> I will talk with the packaging training coordinators about us after we get 4+ votes
[16:59] <BlackZ> are you agree huats, showard ?
[17:00] <huats> +1 for me
[17:00] <BlackZ> OK, let's discuss about that in our ML
[17:00] <BlackZ> #endmeeting
[17:00] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 11:00.
[17:00] <BlackZ> thanks all
[17:00] <showard> thanks, good job blackz
[17:00] <BlackZ> showard: ^
[17:00] <BlackZ> have a nice day
[18:00] <kees> jdstrand, sbeattie, jjohansen: security team meeting?
[18:00] <jdstrand> yep
[18:00] <jdstrand> o/
[18:00] <sbeattie> Hey
[18:00] <kees> \o
[18:01] <mdeslaur> hello
[18:01]  * jjohansen \o
[18:01] <kees> mdeslaur: oh... were you hiding? my tab-complete didn't find you.
[18:01] <kees> #startmeeting
[18:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 12:01. The chair is kees.
[18:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[18:01] <kees> [topic] stand-up report
[18:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  stand-up report
[18:02] <kees> last week the kernel security updates were published.  besides the handled glitch with kvm in lucid, it seemed okay
[18:02] <kees> today i'll be publishing OOo, since that unembargoed on saturday
[18:02] <kees> spent some time last week looking at apparmor bugs, fixed one.
[18:03] <kees> this week I might start looking at packaging fixes
[18:03] <jjohansen> yeah I saw that thanks kees
[18:03] <kees> for a later topic: we should schedule a AA upstream meeting
[18:03] <kees> that's it from me.  jdstrand is up.
[18:03] <jdstrand> hey
[18:04] <jdstrand> would it be worthwhile to have aa commits go to apparmor-dev automatically?
[18:04] <kees> not sure.
[18:04] <sbeattie> jdstrand: I dunno, you can subscribe to them.
[18:04] <jdstrand> granted, it is a bit after the fact as we menioned before that non-distro specific stuff should get an ACK
[18:05] <jdstrand> yes, I am subscribed. it just occurred to me
[18:05] <jdstrand> anyway, we can discuss that in the apparmor upstream meeting
[18:05] <jjohansen> right
[18:05] <jdstrand> so
[18:06] <jdstrand> this week I am focusing on testing/publishing the firefox 3.6.4 update for hardy
[18:06] <jdstrand> jaunty and karmic will most likely be in a week or so more
[18:06] <jdstrand> last week I uncovered several issues and brought them up to the ubuntu-mozillateam, and they are addressing them
[18:06] <kees> is there a master checklist or something for all the steps/packages needed for the transition?
[18:07] <jdstrand> the most disconcerting is that I discovered that epiphany/webkit does not provide adequate feedback of certificate validation
[18:07] <kees> *facepalm*
[18:07] <jdstrand> upstream gnome has noticed and seem to be working to fix that
[18:07] <jdstrand> yeah. pretty bad
[18:07] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: did the non webkit version work properly?
[18:07] <jdstrand> it affects all versions of Ubuntu
[18:08] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: yes, gecko webkit gave a popup/confirmation type thingie
[18:08] <jdstrand> err
[18:08] <mdeslaur> d'oh
[18:08] <jdstrand> gecko epiphany
[18:08] <jdstrand> kees: the qa team has setup something for firefox, plugins and addons in the qa tracker
[18:09] <jdstrand> and there are wiki pages
[18:09]  * jdstrand goes to get it
[18:09] <sbeattie> http://mozilla.qa.ubuntu.com/ is the tracker
[18:09] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://mozilla.qa.ubuntu.com/ is the tracker
[18:09] <kees> jdstrand: I've seen the giant wiki page, but it didn't seem organized (at the time) like a "here are all the steps we need to do" page
[18:09] <jdstrand> there is one that I believe ara setup that is more clear
[18:10] <jdstrand> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/Firefox3.6.4Upgrade
[18:10] <jdstrand> firefox is in pretty good shape
[18:10] <jdstrand> with the exception of openjdk and the sun-java5 plugin, it worked fine
[18:11] <jdstrand> (in my testing)
[18:11] <kees> that's more of a test-plan than a list of what actions need to happen.  is it maybe just "flush the entire mozilla PPA to hardy" ?  that works, if it's true.
[18:11] <jdstrand> kees: oh, I have a personal list for the publication. is that what you mean?
[18:11] <nxvl> jdstrand: can i get that list?
[18:11] <kees> jdstrand: yeah, like "here are all the things we need to get into the archive", "here are all the current known caveats" etc
[18:11] <jdstrand> kees: ie, I have a list of packages that are arch 'any' and 'all'
[18:12] <nxvl> kees: http://paste.ubuntu.com/440456/ <- firefox rdepends
[18:12] <nxvl> Xulrunner rdepends: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/Specs/Lucid/FirefoxNewSupportModel/xulrunner-list
[18:12] <jdstrand> nxvl: yes I can get that to you
[18:13] <jdstrand> kees: well, it is basically just everything that is in mozilla ppa for hardy, yes (minus a couple of things)
[18:13] <kees> jdstrand: okay
[18:13] <kees> nxvl: thanks
[18:13] <jdstrand> I have also grouped things by USN
[18:13] <jdstrand> eg, firefox will have -1, it's extensions, etc will have -2
[18:13] <jdstrand> nss will have a different USN
[18:14] <jdstrand> and epiphany I am not publishing until there is a patch for the cert verification
[18:14] <nxvl> so it's not just 930-1?
[18:14] <jdstrand> (and by extension, webkit)
[18:15] <jdstrand> nxvl: 930-1 is for firefox
[18:15] <jdstrand> nxvl: that will be for hardy and lucid
[18:15] <kees> jdstrand: it sounds like you're in fine shape.  for us following along (at least me), I'd like to see some kind of list of tasks (publish all of mozilla ppa, fix epiphany, etc)
[18:16] <jdstrand> nxvl: 930-2 will be for all the rdepends
[18:16] <kees> jdstrand: but if it'll all be over sooner than such a list could be created, skip it
[18:16] <jdstrand> nxvl: 930-3 will likely be jaunty and karmic's 3.6.4
[18:16] <jdstrand> nxvl: though, if there are regressions, it might be higher
[18:16] <jdstrand> kees: I can write a quick page explaining it
[18:17] <nxvl> kees: i've been asking for that list since i jumped into the loop, still haven't got it
[18:17] <jdstrand> I also talked to them about publishing 24 later than upstream releases
[18:17] <nxvl> chrisccoulson told me he was going to make one, but still no luck
[18:17] <jdstrand> this is pretty normal for us (unless there is an earth shattering vuln)
[18:17] <jdstrand> upstream is still iterating on some stuff
[18:17] <kees> nxvl: it sounds like it's a large and complex set of things, which defies documentation.  :)
[18:18] <nxvl> kees: yup
[18:18] <jdstrand> so the ff build that is in the mozilla ppa is likely to change
[18:18] <jdstrand> I'll write it from my perspective and ask them to review it
[18:18] <nxvl> kees: but i kinda need it, i need to reproduce the entire update, but i'm specting to use the USNs to do so
[18:19] <jdstrand> nxvl: we can talk after the meeting
[18:19] <nxvl> jdstrand: :D
[18:19] <jdstrand> beyond the ff and friends update
[18:19] <jdstrand> I'm on community this week, and am following up on several embargoed issues
[18:20] <jdstrand> I have several items to bring up after mdeslaur and sbeattie
[18:20] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: you're next
[18:20] <mdeslaur> hello
[18:20] <mdeslaur> So, I'm still hacking away at mysql updates
[18:21] <mdeslaur> I'll be publishing them this week
[18:21] <mdeslaur> and I am on triage
[18:21] <mdeslaur> and will take a look at php5 next to see if there are patches available for the month of php bugs yet
[18:22] <mdeslaur> if that doesn't pan out, I might start trying to backport the maverick's webkit to earlier releases to fix all the CVEs
[18:23] <mdeslaur> that's it for me
[18:23] <sbeattie> I don't have much, I'm still in transition from QA
[18:24] <sbeattie> I set up what I think is a working sbuild/schroot environment (great docs, jdstrand)
[18:24] <jdstrand> \o/
[18:24] <sbeattie> This week I should probably test it out :-), start looking at cve triage, and generate a new gpg key to replace my current nearly expired one
[18:25] <sbeattie> (interviews for my QA replacement should start this week \o/)
[18:25] <kees> sbeattie: are you going to go the SHA2 route?
[18:25] <sbeattie> kees: I might as well, unless you guys think otherwise.
[18:26] <kees> sbeattie: I think it's a great opportunity to test it.  :)
[18:26] <sbeattie> kees: that was my thought as well. :)
[18:26] <mdeslaur> sbeattie: there's a blueprint to test the SHA2 keys with different email clients
[18:26] <jdstrand> yeah, we are each assigned one
[18:26] <jdstrand> I have kmail, but have not tested it yet
[18:27] <sbeattie> mdeslaur: right, poking at firegpg after I gen'ed a new key was on my todo list.
[18:27] <mdeslaur> cool
[18:27] <sbeattie> anyway, that's all I have that's relevant here.
[18:28] <kees> okay
[18:28] <kees> [topic] aa upstream meeting
[18:28] <MootBot> New Topic:  aa upstream meeting
[18:29] <kees> so, I'll propose a meeting on the aa mailing list.  any starting preferences?
[18:29] <sbeattie> Not particularly, +1 to having one.
[18:30] <sbeattie> Holding it at a time that's convenient to arekm on oftc would be helpful, IMO.
[18:30] <kees> IRC, likely early in the US day to get anyone from EU TZs in too.
[18:30] <jjohansen> no preferences from me either
[18:30] <kees> oh, where is arekm?
[18:30] <jjohansen> russia
[18:30] <kees> okay, noted.
[18:30] <jjohansen> or at least that is what I remember it as
[18:31] <kees> [topic] jdstrand topic #1 of "several"  ;)
[18:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  jdstrand topic #1 of "several"  ;)
[18:31] <ScottK> IIRC "Russia" only narrows it down to about 8 time zones.
[18:31] <kees> heh
[18:31] <jjohansen> :)
[18:31] <kees> jdstrand: whatcha got for us?
[18:31] <jdstrand> 1. usn publication
[18:32] <jdstrand> we need to either poke newz2000 about getting this to work like before, or define the interim procedues
[18:32] <jdstrand> procedures
[18:32] <jdstrand> we are behind a few atm
[18:32] <kees> I have now poked newz2000
[18:33] <jdstrand> oh heh
[18:33] <jdstrand> ok
[18:33] <kees> I have 3 different screen scrapers at this point ...
[18:33] <jdstrand> yeah, we have published 946-1, 947-1, 948-1 and 947-2
[18:33] <kees> and I built a new template for doing refreshes
[18:33] <kees> yeah
[18:34] <jdstrand> ETOOMANYSCREENSCRAPES
[18:34] <jdstrand> ok
[18:35] <kees> well, "different" is really just a few lines different, but yeah.
[18:35] <jdstrand> 2. I'd also like to discuss rotation duties
[18:36] <jdstrand> it came up this morning that mdeslaur set the topic to me as triager again. he did the right thing by looking at the scedule
[18:36] <jdstrand> but, because of vacation, I was triager last week, so it seemed odd
[18:37] <kees> the schedule was just a tool to help us plan into the future.  it should serve reality, rather than the other way around.
[18:37] <jdstrand> I'm not totally sure what the best solution is, and if it is 'honor thy schedule' then fine
[18:37] <jdstrand> but, I thought we could perhaps be more flexible with this, and always do a certain order
[18:37] <kees> i.e., I'm fine to ditch the schedule if it's a hassle to keep in sync with reality
[18:38] <jdstrand> kees: yes, but I didn't want to have to adjust the schedule after each vacation
[18:38] <jdstrand> ok cool
[18:38] <mdeslaur> so, how do we determine who does what?
[18:38] <mdeslaur> a rotation?
[18:39] <mdeslaur> monday morning, I'm pretty groggy, so it's got to be simple :)
[18:39] <jdstrand> so what if we did a rotation like: k:triager, j: community, m:happy, s:happy followed by k:community, j:happy, m:happy, s:tirager, ...
[18:39] <kees> mdeslaur: yeah, our standing rotation seems to be working, but if we want to keep the schedule, we just need to adjust it when vacations happen
[18:39] <jdstrand> ie, we always have the same 'ordering' of people
[18:39] <jdstrand> but on vacations we deviate and have flexibility to adjust
[18:40] <mdeslaur> ok
[18:40] <jdstrand> this is basically our current schedule, without actually maintaining it
[18:40] <sbeattie> that seems okay from here
[18:40] <jdstrand> (it is what I do when chaning the topic-- I never look at the schedule)
[18:41] <jdstrand> I can update the wiki to put this in terms that is easy to understand if we are all agreed
[18:41] <mdeslaur> fine with me
[18:42] <jdstrand> kees: ^
[18:42] <kees> jdstrand: +1
[18:42] <jdstrand> cool
[18:43] <kees> okay, sounds like we have a stable USN publication procedure now, though it requires a webadmin push a button each time.
[18:43] <jdstrand> 2.5. is it worth changing the /topic each week in #ubuntu-hardened for the above? at least for triager and community
[18:43] <kees> jdstrand: perhaps only for the community role?  kind of like IS's "vangaurd" role.
[18:44] <kees> who is on triage doesn't seem entirely interesting for #u-h audience.
[18:44] <jdstrand> kees: re usn pub> that is not totally satisfactory, since we publish at non-webadmin-available times. that said, if it has changed, can you update UpdateProcedures or somewhere else?
[18:44] <jdstrand> kees: re community> sure, that makes sense
[18:44] <kees> jdstrand: yup, I will.  gonna get the correct scraper ready and publish the missing ones, update docs, etc.
[18:45] <jdstrand> thanks
[18:45] <jdstrand> kees: is this an interim thing or what we can expect going forward?
[18:45] <jdstrand> kees: (usn)
[18:45] <kees> jdstrand: sounds like it's a going-forward thing.  which just means we get to push for an automatic USN-db-reading module, IMO.
[18:45] <jdstrand> agreed
[18:46] <kees> okay, other stuff, anyone?
[18:46] <jdstrand> I still have more
[18:46]  * kees notes that several != 2.5.  ;)
[18:46] <jdstrand> 3. we need to talk about task rotations at some point (ie security-m-task-rotation)
[18:47] <jdstrand> this is different than weekly duty rotations
[18:47] <jdstrand> this is rotating who does kernel, firefox, etc, etc
[18:47] <mdeslaur> why don't we talk about this now?
[18:47] <jdstrand> if we even want to do the rotation
[18:48] <jdstrand> (and I have two more related items)
[18:48] <jdstrand> well, related to each other, not this
[18:48] <kees> what are our areas of biggest need here?  kernel and firefox, yes?
[18:49] <kees> we have other stuff like moodle, php, but they're less common still
[18:49] <sbeattie> will chromium issues be growing to match?
[18:49] <jdstrand> those are the biggest, but others like webkit and poppler might be worth including
[18:49] <kees> sbeattie: probably, though both ff and chromium are changing shape, so no real idea
[18:49] <jdstrand> sbeattie: I imagine 'firefox' really means 'browser - webkit'
[18:50] <kees> jdstrand: ah yeah, webkit and poppler.
[18:50] <kees> so, I think there are two ways we could go: mentoring and rotation.
[18:50] <kees> rotation requires mentoring.
[18:50] <jdstrand> oo.o is also a big one, but happens infrequently and isn't that hard to get into if one follows the QRT docs
[18:51] <kees> the question would be "do we just train up the other people, or do we train them and start a full-blown rotation of publication duties" ?
[18:51] <jdstrand> kees: hold on. I'm not sure we are in agreement on whether task rotation is beneficial. mdeslaur?
[18:51] <kees> jdstrand: good point.
[18:51] <jdstrand> I for one, am in favor
[18:51] <jdstrand> (but still have an open mind)
[18:51] <mdeslaur> I think training is beneficial, I think rotation is detrimental
[18:51] <kees> I'm in favor of the procedures not being a dark art.  I'm not sure if rotation would reduce efficiency, though.
[18:52] <jdstrand> I don't think it would reduce efficiency either
[18:52] <jdstrand> but, it might reduce burnout, which could be a real concern
[18:52] <kees> well, let's start with cross-training first, since it's required.  and we can go from there?
[18:52] <jdstrand> and, I don't think a 'quick' training is really all that helpful
[18:53] <sbeattie> jdstrand: more like "pair usn publishing"?
[18:53] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: I'm all for task rotation if burnout is a problem
[18:53] <jdstrand> eg, kees showed me the kernel stuff a couple of times, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it except in an extreme emergnecy
[18:53] <kees> right, we'd need to have someone fully shadowing the lead.
[18:53] <kees> sbeattie: yeah
[18:54] <jdstrand> pair usn publishing would be a part of the training, certainly
[18:54] <jdstrand> but how long does that go on for?
[18:54] <jdstrand> ie, during training, we expect inefficiency since two people are doing it
[18:55] <jdstrand> if there is a rotation, then that iniefficiency is minimized, since it gets down to one person again
[18:55] <kees> maybe the output should be documentation?
[18:55] <jdstrand> kees: yes
[18:56] <mdeslaur> definitely
[18:56] <jdstrand> absolutely
[18:56] <kees> i.e. the shadow writes up documentation about that specific update methodology.
[18:56] <jdstrand> in fact, I think that is probably the most important aspect
[18:56] <jdstrand> we will get good docs out of the trainer, and the trainee
[18:56] <jdstrand> or the trainie/shadow writes it, sure
[18:57] <kees> and once that's "done", the shadow is done, and maybe someone else steps up to shadow, following the docs, and if they're happy with it, then 3 people know the routine, and we can talk about rotation at that point.
[18:57] <jdstrand> I still think that people doing it for a period of time is worthwhile... to internalize it
[18:57]  * kees nods
[18:57] <jdstrand> but sure
[18:57] <jdstrand> docs with shadowing first
[18:58] <jdstrand> as such, I don't think that poppler/webkit should be involved
[18:58] <kees> sounds good.
[18:58] <jdstrand> it is really just kernel/browsers that need docs, since the publication is only different for them
[18:58] <kees> so, given ff's transition, that should probably wait a bit?
[18:58] <jdstrand> certainly not this week ;)
[18:58] <kees> heh
[18:59] <jdstrand> but, soon is fine
[18:59] <kees> let's start with kernel then?
[18:59] <jdstrand> the whole rdepends fiasco is a one time deal
[18:59]  * kees nods
[18:59] <jdstrand> after that it is back to the old publication methods
[18:59] <jdstrand> and it isn't nearly as different as the kernel, so yes, I think the kernel first
[19:00] <kees> okay.  who wants to shadow first?  :)
[19:00] <jdstrand> well, actually, it is quite different in the publication parts... but the building is similar
[19:00] <jdstrand> kees: when is the next kernel update? next month?
[19:01] <kees> jdstrand: yeah, next month.
[19:01] <jdstrand> well, since I don't mind documenting, I can do it
[19:02] <jdstrand> I've also seen it a bit already...
[19:02] <jdstrand> unless someone else want it?
[19:02] <mdeslaur> oh god no :)
[19:02] <jdstrand> mdeslaur, sbeattie: ^
[19:02] <kees> cool.  Is another group waiting for this channel, or can we continue to go over our hour?
[19:02] <jdstrand> hehe
[19:03] <jdstrand> what I have left can go off this channel
[19:04] <kees> okay, let's switch to #u-h then.  anything else quickly?
[19:04] <jdstrand> not from me
[19:04] <kees> #endmeeting
[19:04] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 13:04.
[19:04] <kees> ok thanks!
[23:38] <czajkowski> robbiew: you rock!
[23:38] <robbiew> heh...I try ;)
[23:38] <Pendulum> robbiew: I'm just +1 what czajkowski said :)
[23:39] <robbiew> Pendulum: thnx....hopefully we can start nailing down locations much earlier too
[23:39] <robbiew> that's the next step
[23:39] <czajkowski> robbiew: finally, makes so much sense for community people to be able to plan and book annual leave or save up cash! thanks
[23:39] <robbiew> see...we hear you ;)
[23:39] <czajkowski> robbiew: we'll keep you!