[13:04] <rodrigo_> diwic, are we having the meeting?
[13:04] <diwic> rodrigo_, heh, wish I knew :-)
[13:04] <rodrigo_> ok :)
[13:05] <diwic> rodrigo_, seems like it's difficult to schedule a time that works for everybody
[13:05] <rodrigo_> yeah
[13:05] <diwic> ronoc, are you around?
[13:05] <ronoc> yup#
[13:05] <ronoc> yeah so I can do Monday evening
[13:06] <ronoc> diwic, rodrigo_ also I have installed the new pulse, seems to be fine, the dbus api isn't as advanced as I had hoped
[13:06] <ronoc> though
[13:06] <diwic> MootBot, help
[13:06] <rodrigo_> what is it missing?
[13:07] <ronoc> rodrigo_, well unless I'm missing something I cannot see the api for sink control, mute, set volume etc
[13:07] <diwic> [TOPIC] PulseAudio - stable-queue or master?
[13:07] <diwic> !topic PulseAudio - stable-queue or master?
[13:08] <diwic> so I was talking to Lennart last week at Plumber's
[13:08] <ronoc> how was that ?
[13:08] <diwic> long story short, going the "master" way is problematic
[13:09] <ronoc> oh
[13:09] <diwic> he's planning a major rewrite of some stuff there
[13:09] <diwic> we can't expect it to be stable enough in time for Natty
[13:09] <ronoc> okay
[13:09] <diwic> going the stable-queue is boring ;-)
[13:10] <rodrigo_> yes :)
[13:10] <ronoc> when is he expected to get back to working on pulse
[13:10] <diwic> ronoc, that's difficult to know. I might expect a release of stable-queue within the following two weeks
[13:11] <diwic> ronoc, other than that, nothing major the coming two months
[13:11] <diwic> ronoc, that's my qualified guess, Lennart hasn't really promised anything
[13:11] <ronoc> diwic, okay so is there anything you would like to see from master for natty ?
[13:12] <rodrigo_> well, then we go with stable :)
[13:12] <ronoc> does make your life easier :)
[13:12] <rodrigo_> yes, although a bit boring, as you said
[13:13] <diwic> ronoc, I'm not really sure. But if you don't have use for the d-bus API anyway there isn't really anything pressuring us to go with master
[13:13] <rodrigo_> btw, we have 0.9.22 in natty, but only 0.9.21 upstream, are those a git snapshot?
[13:13] <rodrigo_> ronoc, what do you want the dbus api for?
[13:14] <ronoc> rodrigo_, diwic I was going to rewrite the pulse communication for the sound server using the dbus api
[13:14] <ronoc> but as it turns out I think i will rewrite this using the vala bindings
[13:14] <ronoc> and the async api as I used for lucid and maverick
[13:15] <ronoc> My C from early last year is a bit all over the place to say the least
[13:15] <diwic> rodrigo_, both maverick and natty have 1:0.9.22~0.9.21+blahblah
[13:15] <rodrigo_> ronoc, if you need help on the C part, I can help you
[13:15] <diwic> rodrigo_, I don't know why the version is so strange, guess we'll have to ask Luke about that
[13:15] <rodrigo_> although vala is nicer
[13:16] <rodrigo_> diwic, ok
[13:16] <diwic> rodrigo_, but we're hoping for a 0.9.22 release based on stable-queue really soon.
[13:16] <rodrigo_> ok
[13:16] <ronoc> rodrigo_, thanks, I have it working, its not that complicated but I think i made a meal of it last February, I could rewrite this in vala quite easily i think
[13:17] <ronoc> might have time this cycle
[13:17] <diwic> ronoc, why do you want to rewrite C code into vala?
[13:18] <diwic> ronoc, are you planning improvements or do you just want to switch language because you like vala better?
[13:18] <ronoc> diwic, because a) the existing code needs major refactoring, b) maintainability C) testing and D) test the vapi bindings for further work
[13:18] <diwic> topic test
[13:18] <diwic> ok
[13:19] <diwic> would that be only for indicator-sound or gnome-volume-control as well?
[13:19] <rodrigo_> ronoc, in which package/module is that code?
[13:19] <ronoc> rodrigo_, indicator-sound -> src/pulsemanager.c pulsemanager.h
[13:20] <ronoc> diwic, just indicator-sound
[13:20] <diwic> ok
[13:20] <ronoc> diwic, the plan is to wait for the gnome control panel to land before we know what we want
[13:21] <rodrigo_> the new gnome-control-center panel?
[13:21] <diwic> ok, is this gnome 3 control panel?
[13:22] <rodrigo_> if so, I have master g-c-c running on a dev user, if you want me to look at anything
[13:22] <diwic> !startmeeting
[13:22] <rodrigo_> diwic, hmm, I think it's #startmeeting
[13:22] <diwic> #startmeeting
[13:23] <MootBot> Meeting started at 07:22. The chair is diwic.
[13:23] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[13:23] <rodrigo_> at least I've seen #endmeeting
[13:23] <diwic> #topic pulseaudio - master or stable-queue
[13:23] <diwic> [topic] pulseaudio - master or stable-queue?
[13:23] <MootBot> New Topic:  pulseaudio - master or stable-queue?
[13:24] <diwic> [agreed] to go with stable-queue for the time being as the d-bus API in master wasn't all that ronoc wanted, and since a rewrite is planned on master by Lennart.
[13:24] <MootBot> AGREED received:  to go with stable-queue for the time being as the d-bus API in master wasn't all that ronoc wanted, and since a rewrite is planned on master by Lennart.
[13:25] <ronoc> diwic, grand
[13:25] <diwic> [topic] any audio bugs we should have a closer look at during the coming week?
[13:25] <MootBot> New Topic:  any audio bugs we should have a closer look at during the coming week?
[13:26] <diwic> noone?
[13:27] <diwic> okay, moving on
[13:27] <ronoc> am I haven't seen any, only the pa-stream-writable failed
[13:27] <diwic> [topic] anything in particular done in the previous week?
[13:27] <MootBot> New Topic:  anything in particular done in the previous week?
[13:27] <ronoc> last week, got two sru's out for lucid and maverick
[13:27] <diwic> ronoc, for indicator-sound?
[13:27] <ronoc> and merged my UI natty work into trunk
[13:27] <rodrigo_> not much from me, was working on other desktop-related stuff
[13:27] <ronoc> yep
[13:27] <diwic> ok
[13:28] <diwic> For my own part, I was at plumber's
[13:28] <ronoc> today i'm working on a fading mute behaviour
[13:28] <ronoc> how was it ?
[13:28] <rodrigo_> we have some bugs though about porting indicator-* stuff to gsettings, gtk3 and gtkbuilder
[13:28] <ronoc> I must read your report
[13:28] <rodrigo_> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=gnome3-gtk3
[13:28] <rodrigo_> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=gnome3-gtkbuilder
[13:28] <diwic> I learned how to use the wakeup_rt tracer which can be important for tracking down xrun
[13:28] <rodrigo_> https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs?field.tag=gnome3-gsettings
[13:29] <rodrigo_> these will be fixed as soon as the new stack gets in (it's in a PPA for now)
[13:29] <ronoc> diwic, whats that
[13:29] <ronoc> rodrigo_, cool
[13:30] <diwic> ronoc, basically, if a kernel driver is blocking pulseaudio from being scheduled, it can help to show the troublesome areas
[13:30] <diwic> (or jack, for that matter)
[13:30] <ronoc> diwic, good to know
[13:31] <diwic> ronoc, what's fading mute behaviour?
[13:33] <ronoc> diwic, when someone chooses mute from the menu, it should fade exponentially the volume and slider to 0, unmuting should restore the slider to its original position
[13:33] <ronoc> diwic, a bug against indicator-sound for unity
[13:33] <rodrigo_> oh, that's cool
[13:33] <ronoc> yup should be pretty easy
[13:34] <diwic> cool, for absolute coolness you should also lower the sound frequency, but I guess that's much harder :-)
[13:34] <diwic> the question is whether that should be in PulseAudio or indicator-sound, really
[13:35] <ronoc> diwic, true
[13:35] <diwic> you're probably going to have to rewrite that once Lennart gets the volume envelope architecture working
[13:35] <rodrigo_> I guess PA, so that when you mute from other parts, it works the same
[13:35] <ronoc> diwic, whats the volume envelope architecture ?
[13:35] <ronoc> change
[13:36] <diwic> ronoc, some kind of way to apply a volume envelope to a sound
[13:37] <diwic> are you familiar with volume envelopes, e g ADSR envelopes?
[13:37] <ronoc> diwic, yes
[13:37] <ronoc> diwic, so that should cover what I'm currently doing
[13:37] <ronoc> but its not a biggie
[13:38] <diwic> so he merged something from Intel into master but then realized it was broken, so he wants to rip it out, which is part of the major rewrite planned for master
[13:38] <ronoc> and as you mentioned earlier no date has been set for when his work is to land
[13:39] <diwic> so as long as you're prepare to rewrite it in a year or two
[13:39] <ronoc> diwic, sure
[13:39] <ronoc> the nature of the ever revolving beast ...
[13:40] <ronoc> evolving even
[13:41] <diwic> [topic] anything you plan to do in the coming week?
[13:41] <MootBot> New Topic:  anything you plan to do in the coming week?
[13:41] <rodrigo_> for me, when the GTK3 stack lands in natty, probably start fixing the indicator-* bugs
[13:41] <ronoc> when is that rodrigo_ ?
[13:42] <rodrigo_> ronoc, should be soon, seb128 is going to do it soon
[13:42] <ronoc> remove dbus-glib bindings and use gdbus
[13:42] <ronoc> rodrigo_, grand
[13:42] <ronoc> hopefully this week
[13:42] <ronoc> and plan other indicator work
[13:42] <rodrigo_> well, dbus-glib is ok to be used, it's not on the deprecation list, but yes, it's a good idea to move to gdbus asap
[13:43] <ronoc> rodrigo_, yeah I think the plan is for all indicators, libindicate dependent stuff to be moved over for alpha 1
[13:43] <rodrigo_> ok
[13:43] <ronoc> i go on holidays on the 22 so need to do in the next two weeks !
[13:44] <ronoc> more than likely starting today
[13:44] <diwic> for myself, I want to process some backlog from the weeks I were at UDS and Plumber's, then try to get started on the apport troubleshooting stuff
[13:45] <rodrigo_> hey guys, I need to leave now for lunch, are we done? or should I read the backlog later?
[13:45] <diwic> I think we're done
[13:45] <ronoc> all good
[13:45] <rodrigo_> ok, I'll read the backlog later just in case :)
[13:45] <rodrigo_> bbl
[13:45] <diwic> cool, see you!
[13:45] <diwic> #endmeeting
[13:45] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 07:45.
[13:45] <ronoc> talk later robbiew
[13:45] <ronoc> talk later rodrigo_
[13:45] <rodrigo_> oh, btw, gtk3 has just been accepted
[13:45] <ronoc> oh okay
[13:46] <ronoc> lunch isn't a bad idea actually
[13:46] <ronoc> talk afterwards guys
[13:46] <rodrigo_> later
[18:04] <mdeslaur> kees, jdstrand, sbeattie: meeting?
[18:05] <jjohansen> \o
[18:05] <mdeslaur> whoops...forgot you jjohansen  :)
[18:05] <jjohansen> sure, I believe you "forgot" me :)
[18:05] <mdeslaur> hehe
[18:06] <sbeattie> heh
[18:07] <kees> \o
[18:08] <kees> mdeslaur: you start?
[18:10] <jdstrand> o/
[18:10] <mdeslaur> sure!
[18:10] <mdeslaur> so, this week I'm on community, and am working on the long list of mysql CVEs
[18:10] <mdeslaur> that should keep me busy
[18:10] <mdeslaur> that's it!
[18:10] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: your turn
[18:11] <jdstrand> I plan to test and push out chromium-browser today
[18:11] <jdstrand> there are 2 other updates I am looking at and may snag
[18:11] <jdstrand> I hope to get to my natty merges
[18:12] <mdeslaur> you nasty merges?
[18:12] <mdeslaur> :)
[18:12] <jdstrand> there is a libvirt regression for lucid (well it affects maverick and natty too, but the security update didn't introduce it)
[18:13] <jdstrand> I need to upload that to lucid-- upstream and I are still discussing it
[18:13] <jdstrand> and finally, I need to dive into the dbus/apparmor stuff
[18:13] <jdstrand> jjohansen: I've gotten your emails but don't have anything intelligent to say yet
[18:13] <jjohansen> jdstrand: np
[18:13] <jdstrand> that's it from me
[18:13] <jjohansen> its just an initial pass from me
[18:14] <kees> I'll go?
[18:14] <jjohansen> I'm sure I'll spew out more as I work on the interface
[18:14] <kees> I'm going to be trying to drum up support for upstream kernel hardening this week.
[18:14] <kees> there's some discussions started on oss-security and lkml so far.
[18:14] <kees> dan's sent some patches, etc
[18:15] <kees> I got the initial pass at apparmor repackaging done and haven't seen anything horrible yet
[18:15] <jjohansen> \o/
[18:15] <kees> now we can move forward more sanely on things like moving the cache directory, etc
[18:15] <kees> adding bindings
[18:16] <kees> I've upgraded to natty now as well, and am finding little glitches
[18:16] <jdstrand> kees: apparmor glitches?
[18:16] <jjohansen> what kind of glitches?
[18:16] <kees> I did a few merges last week, will continue with a few more this week
[18:16] <kees> jdstrand: no, natty glitches.
[18:16] <jjohansen> ah, yes it is really buggy atm
[18:16] <jdstrand> I've heard the natty kernel is less than ideal atm
[18:16] <kees> jdstrand: like, gnome-open suddenly stopped using the correct browser
[18:16] <kees> yeah, the natty kernel is unusable for me
[18:17] <kees> network storms using NFS, missing locking, wheee
[18:17] <kees> I'm on the maverick kernel with natty userspace
[18:17] <jdstrand> kees: see, you just need to stop using NFS and then the devel release will always work for you :P
[18:17] <kees> and I've got a few _large_ php audits I need to do
[18:17] <kees> jdstrand: yeah :(
[18:17] <kees> that's it from me, sbeattie, your turn
[18:17]  * jdstrand finds it odd how often NFS gets borked in the dev release
[18:18] <sbeattie> I'm on triage this week.
[18:18] <sbeattie> I'll also finish up reviewing the apparmor parser patches jjohansen sent out
[18:19] <jjohansen> thanks
[18:19] <sbeattie> and I'm hoping to test the maverick apparmor SRU as well.
[18:19] <sbeattie> I think that's all from me.
[18:19] <jdstrand> was it copied yet?
[18:19] <jjohansen> I'll have some more ugly patches for you this week
[18:19] <jdstrand> I should add that I will test the apparmor SRUs whenever they hit lucid and maverick proposed
[18:20] <sbeattie> jdstrand: not sure, I hadn't looked, but I was expecting we'd come out of linaro freeze this week.
[18:20] <jdstrand> I hope so...
[18:20] <jdstrand> sbeattie: it doesn't look like it. it is still 10.10.1 which ftbfs on the buildds
[18:20] <sbeattie> ah
[18:20] <jdstrand> (10.10.2 is in UNAPPROVED atm)
[18:21] <jdstrand> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=apparmor
[18:21] <jdstrand> and a new lucid upload is also in UNAPPROVED: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+queue?queue_state=1&queue_text=apparmor
[18:22] <jdstrand> well, new as of 4 days ago
[18:22] <sbeattie> cool. I'm also planning to test lucid's SRU whenever it gets approved.
[18:22] <jdstrand> I followed up with pitti, so now we just need to wait on his response to my followup
[18:23]  * jdstrand should have really mentioned all the apparmor SRU stuff during his time)
[18:24]  * jdstrand is done for the second time
[18:25] <sbeattie> alright, anyone else have anything for the security team? jjohansen?
[18:25] <jjohansen> hrmmm, well nothing immediate, I am just going to drop more parser patches this week, and setup an apparmor ppa
[18:26] <jjohansen> containing the newer stuff for testing purposes
[18:26] <jjohansen> I also expect the interfaces jdstrand needs for dbus to hit this week
[18:26] <sbeattie> jjohansen: cool, let me know if I can help with setting up the ppa.
[18:27] <jjohansen> sbeattie: will do, I haven't looked at userspace yet, I will get the kernel up first
[18:28] <jjohansen> I think I'm done unless you want more details of my crazy plans
[18:37] <kees> okay, sounds like we're all set. thanks!
[18:43] <jdstrand> thanks kees :)
[19:01] <bdrung> now dmb meeting?
[19:03] <geser> bdrung: didn't start yet
[19:04] <bdrung> geser: we are four minutes late. let's start it.
[19:04] <geser> cjwatson, persia, stgraber, cody-somerville, soren: DMB meeting?
[19:05]  * stgraber waves
[19:05] <cody-somerville> Isn't it in an hour?
[19:05] <bdrung> cody-somerville: nope. it's winter time.
[19:05] <geser> 19:00 UTC is now
[19:06] <cody-somerville> that it is
[19:08]  * geser counts 4 DMB members -> quorum
[19:08] <geser> who chairs?
[19:08]  * persia is semi-distracted by a plumbing problem and begs off
[19:10] <stgraber> #startmeeting
[19:10] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:10. The chair is stgraber.
[19:10] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:10] <stgraber> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda
[19:10] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda
[19:10] <stgraber> [TOPIC] Review of previous action items
[19:10] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review of previous action items
[19:11] <stgraber> ok, according to the wiki, we don't have any previous action items, though looking at the log of our last meeting, I see an action for geser to contact CC for help regarding Marco's request
[19:12] <stgraber> geser: was that an actual action item that we forgot to put on the agenda or did we choose to do something else instead (I don't really remember the details) ?
[19:12] <geser> stgraber: wasn't that sort of canceled later in the meeting again?
[19:13] <stgraber> geser: it may have, though if we did, I'm not really sure of where we are regarding Marco's request then
[19:13] <persia> From the log, I wasn't sure it was conclusive (although I'd like to see something done about Marco at some point relatively soon)
[19:13] <geser> persia: +1
[19:14] <stgraber> do we still want to get some help from the CC ? and if so, should we still have geser to bring it to the CC ?
[19:15] <geser> looking at the meeting log from last meeting we want to move the discussion about how to move on to the mailing list
[19:16] <geser> I remember writing an e-mail about it but didn't see any reaction to it
[19:16] <ScottK> What mailing list?
[19:17] <stgraber> ScottK: developer-membership-board@l.u.c
[19:17] <ScottK> stgraber: Thanks.
[19:18] <stgraber> should we try to revive this discussion on the mailing list with the goal of having an answer for the next DMB meeting ?
[19:18] <persia> Isn't that the just-us list, with devel-permissions@ being the wide-subscription list?
[19:18] <stgraber> persia: yes, I belive it's
[19:18] <geser> yes
[19:18] <ScottK> stgraber: This is a private list?
[19:19] <bdrung> ScottK: yes. subscription needs to be accepted.
[19:20] <ScottK> Seems to me like business that should be conducted in public.
[19:21] <bdrung> lifting the ban on Marco means that he can contribute to Ubuntu through a sponsor. right?
[19:21] <persia> stgraber, Please give me an action to ask the CC for assistance on this.  It's not clear whether the dispute aspects of the MC were inherited by the DMB (in practice, it hasn't mattered until this issue), so that needs sorting, and I think we've been dragging this out long enough we need help.
[19:21] <geser> ScottK: we are still at the point where we don't know how to move forward :(
[19:22] <persia> bdrung, Yes, and only that.  It does not grant him any specific rights to do so.
[19:22] <stgraber> [action] persia to ask the CC for assistance regarding Marco's request for unban
[19:22] <MootBot> ACTION received:  persia to ask the CC for assistance regarding Marco's request for unban
[19:22] <ScottK> geser: I would say that's exactly the time to be working in public.
[19:22] <bdrung> persia: did he had upload rights before he was banned?
[19:22] <ScottK> bdrung: No.
[19:23] <ScottK> Allowing him to contribute via a sponsor is the same as removing all restrictions.
[19:23] <stgraber> anything else that should be discussed now regarding this matter or should we wait for feedback from the CC ?
[19:24] <geser> ScottK: cody-somerville mentioned in the last meeting that he prefers not to draw to much attention with making it too public
[19:24] <persia> bdrung, He's an ubuntu member, and not an ubuntu developer (and never was).  He is not allowed to post to Ubuntu Development mailing lists or IRC channels, except as necessary for administration of his restriction.
[19:24] <ScottK> geser: That doesn't make it appropriate that it be decided in private.
[19:24] <persia> geser, Dragging it out as long as we have brings much more attention than any public/private concerns.
[19:25] <geser> I understand it, I just want to repeat some options which caused that we still don't know how to move forward
[19:25] <geser> opionions
[19:27] <persia> ScottK, I agree the decision must not be private.  I'm unconvinced that a council oughtn't be able to determine how to make a decision (or not make it) in private, presuming they do so in a timely manner, and make the decided means of decision public.
[19:27] <persia> (although in this case, I think the lack of action by the DMB in determining a method is essentially consensus-through-inaction that it ought be someone else's problem (so call on the CC))
[19:28] <ScottK> persia: I think deciding in private how this will be decided would substantially impair the legitimacy of the result in the minds of at least some community members.
[19:28] <geser> I guess that the best idea (ask the CC) to break the current dead-lock
[19:28] <bdrung> i don't see why it's an problem of the DMB. who spoke the ban back then?
[19:28] <persia> bdrung, The MC.
[19:28] <ScottK> bdrung: MOTU Council
[19:29] <geser> and the MC merged into the DMB
[19:29] <cody-somerville> Its important to me that this not be a popularity contest.
[19:29] <persia> geser, Well, kinda.  Complex that :)
[19:29] <bdrung> if the DMB can speak a ban, it should be able to lift the ban.
[19:30] <geser> as I see the problem, we (the DMB) want some more support (as requested in the ban) before we lift it, but we aren't sure how the support should look like
[19:30] <ScottK> cody-somerville: I agree with that.
[19:30] <cody-somerville> And it feels like the requirements for Marco to appeal his ban as set by the former MC make that difficult.
[19:30] <persia> cody-somerville, How do you mean?
[19:31] <ScottK> geser: I think putting it that way presupposes the ban should be lifted.  I object to that.
[19:31] <geser> ScottK: so you see no way for him to lift the ban at all?
[19:32] <ScottK> geser: It's my preference that it not be lifted.  I don't object to considering the question, but the way I read you comment seemed to me to presuppose an answer, not just ask a question.
[19:33] <cody-somerville> The requirements for Marco's ban to be lifted are as follows:
[19:33] <cody-somerville> 1. MOTUs supporting this wish actively.
[19:34] <cody-somerville> 2. A solid indication of changes in the work style.
[19:34] <bdrung> i have a concern: how can someone get support from other MOTUs if he/she can't show that he/she has changed?
[19:34] <cody-somerville> bdrung, bingo. My question too.
[19:34] <geser> bdrung: congrats, you found the dilema :)
[19:35] <ScottK> I think there are plenty of MOTU active in areas where he's not banned (most of Debian) for them to form an opinion.
[19:36] <bdrung> as alternative: a "soft" lift with not everything allowed?
[19:36] <persia> bdrung, Absolutely not.  There's no useful meaning of "soft".
[19:36] <bdrung> ok
[19:36] <stgraber> ok, we only have 25 minutes left for this meeting and still have two applications to review. For now persia has an action to ask the CC for help, so I suggest we carry this discussion to the next meeting.
[19:36] <persia> Several MOTU (interacting with him in Debian), have commented on his application.
[19:36] <geser> bdrung: how would that look like and still be different from any other non-MOTU?
[19:36] <persia> Our decision ends up being one of the following: 1) it's not our problem, 2) he has met the criteria, 3) he has yet to meet the criteria.
[19:37]  * persia agrees with stgraber
[19:37]  * micahg wonders why the meeting is 1 hr and not 2
[19:37] <geser> micahg: because it would be then 3 hours long
[19:37] <bdrung> geser: good question. maybe irc access to get in contact with motus?
[19:38] <stgraber> [TOPIC] PerPackageUploader Applications
[19:38] <MootBot> New Topic:  PerPackageUploader Applications
[19:38] <cody-somerville> maybe we should just lift the ban and see what happens?
[19:38] <geser> cody-somerville: I'm pretty sure ScottK will object to that idea
[19:38] <stgraber> mtaylor: around ?
[19:38] <bdrung> lift the ban for X month and evaluate it then?
[19:38] <persia> cody-somerville, No. That's outside our role.  We just have to determine whether he met the criteria.
[19:38] <mtaylor> stgraber: yup
[19:38] <persia> Anyway, we're on a new topic
[19:39] <stgraber> mtaylor: According to the wiki you apply for PPU rights for haildb and pandora-build
[19:39] <mtaylor> stgraber: yes indeed
[19:39] <stgraber> though you already seem to have upload rights on pandora-build
[19:39] <stgraber> and haildb doesn't seem to be in the archive ?
[19:39] <mtaylor> stgraber: oh really? great on pandora-build ... haildb should have just been synced
[19:40] <stgraber> stgraber@castiana:~/data/code/ubuntu-archive-tools$ python edit_acl.py query -p mordred | grep pandora-build
[19:40] <stgraber> Archive Upload Rights for mordred: archive 'primary', source package 'pandora-build'
[19:40] <mtaylor> excellent. that makes that easier
[19:40] <mtaylor> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/haildb
[19:40] <geser> does someone remember if we vote on this apps the last time? (and this is just to setup the permissions)
[19:40] <stgraber> geser: based on what I can find on the wiki, he already had PPU rights on a few packages and wants it extended to these two other packages
[19:41] <stgraber> http://pastebin.com/85cZ75Fe
[19:41] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://pastebin.com/85cZ75Fe
[19:42] <bdrung> i though he wants upload right for all apps listed in his application.
[19:42] <stgraber> bdrung: he already has, for all of thems except haildb (which is probably in the NEW queue at the moment)
[19:42] <geser> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/devel-permissions/2010-June/000076.html
[19:42] <geser> the results of his last application
[19:43] <mtaylor> sorry for the confusion - it's an ammended application - last time haildb wasn't in the archive yet. (and I thought the same for pandora-build, but I'm obviously wrong about that)
[19:43] <persia> haildb was source-NEWed, but no binaries are yet available.
[19:43] <bdrung> ? https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/haildb/2.3.1-1
[19:44] <geser> mtaylor: have you DM upload rights for haildb in Debian or upload through a sponsor?
[19:45] <mtaylor> geser: upload through a sponsor
[19:45] <mtaylor> been meaning to apply for DM for it
[19:45] <stgraber> I see that libhaildb was already part of the previous application and from what I can see is the binary package built from haildb. I guess we didn't vote on this one last time because it didn't exist in the archive and so we wouldn't have been able to set the PPU for it
[19:46] <cjwatson> argh, sorry, I had timezone confusion
[19:46] <geser> wasn't it more of not enough records on working on this package?
[19:48] <stgraber> geser: I'd be surprised considering he's the one listed in every single changelog entry in the debian changelog
[19:48] <stgraber> geser: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/h/haildb/current/changelog.txt
[19:48] <geser> which are all after June when we processed the application
[19:49] <cjwatson> haildb sounds like an easy one to add to mtaylor's list to me, considering
[19:49] <stgraber> geser: ok, so the package wasn't even in Debian at the time ?
[19:50] <geser> stgraber: no, looks it got NEWed in Debian 5 days ago
[19:51] <cjwatson> indeed
[19:51] <stgraber> ok, any other question or should we just go ahead and vote to add haildb to mtaylor's PPU list ?
[19:51] <bdrung> go ahead
[19:51]  * geser has no questions
[19:52] <cjwatson> go
[19:52] <stgraber> [VOTE] Add haildb to mtaylor's PPU list
[19:52] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Add haildb to mtaylor's PPU list.
[19:52] <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
[19:52] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:52] <stgraber> +1
[19:52] <MootBot> +1 received from stgraber. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:52] <bdrung> +1
[19:52] <MootBot> +1 received from bdrung. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:52] <cjwatson> +q
[19:52] <geser> +1
[19:52] <persia> +1
[19:52] <MootBot> +1 received from geser. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:52] <cjwatson> er
[19:52] <MootBot> +1 received from persia. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[19:52] <cjwatson> +1
[19:52] <MootBot> +1 received from cjwatson. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
[19:52] <cjwatson> (guess what keyboard I'm using)
[19:53] <cody-somerville> +1
[19:53] <MootBot> +1 received from cody-somerville. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6
[19:53] <stgraber> [ENDVOTE]
[19:53] <MootBot> Final result is 6 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 6
[19:53] <bdrung> cjwatson: it's not the NEO layout ;)
[19:53] <stgraber> cjwatson: should I give you the action of actually doing the change ?
[19:53] <cjwatson> sure
[19:53] <mtaylor> thanks all!
[19:54] <stgraber> [ACTION] cjwatson to add haildb to mtaylor's PPU list
[19:54] <MootBot> ACTION received:  cjwatson to add haildb to mtaylor's PPU list
[19:54] <stgraber> [TOPIC] MOTU Applications
[19:54] <MootBot> New Topic:  MOTU Applications
[19:54] <stgraber> micahg: around ?
[19:54] <micahg> stgraber: yes
[19:55] <stgraber> hmm, only 6 minutes left ... is there any meeting schedule in #ubuntu-meeting after DMB ?
[19:55] <stgraber> *scheduled
[19:56] <bdrung> no (according to the fridge)
[19:56]  * ajmitch wouldn't think it'd take more than 6 minutes to approve micahg 
[19:56] <geser> nothing on the fridge (not even the current DMB meeting)
[19:56] <persia> micahg, You say you don't like "The ability to easy switch between archive versions and PPA versions of select packages.", but you don't list any thoughts about fixing that.  Are you able to do so here?
[19:56] <micahg> persia: I was thinking of some type of selector in software center (a plugin that helped with pinning)
[19:57] <persia> So, is the problem that you can switch, or is the problem that it's not easy?
[19:57] <bdrung> micahg: is pinning enough? switching means to have a way for downgrading.
[19:57] <ari-tczew> micahg is building his career by reporting on another folks from IRC rofl
[19:58] <micahg> persia: that's it's not easy to switch back and forth
[19:58] <bdrung> micahg: are you aware of ppa-purge?
[19:58] <cjwatson> there's a command-line tool to do it, I think, which suggests that building UI pieces might not be so far off
[19:58] <micahg> bdrung: in some cases yes, but not all
[19:58] <micahg> bdrung: yes
[19:58] <cjwatson> I think ppa-purge is PPA granularity rather than package granularity though
[19:59] <micahg> cjwatson: right
[19:59] <cjwatson> mvo might have some thoughts on the UI side
[19:59] <persia> micahg, A package selector UI seems easy enough: how could one address the bit about maintainer scripts not being guaranteed safe for downgrades?
[20:00] <micahg> persia: well, there would have to be some way for a package to opt-in to this only in cases where it would be safe
[20:01] <micahg> possibly a field in d/control?
[20:01] <persia> Packages in PPAs declaring that they are suitable for safe install/remove?  How can we trust that when we can't necessarily trust PPA uploaders in general?
[20:01] <bdrung> isn't it better to make packages downgradable?
[20:02] <persia> bdrung, Heh, sure, but that's *hard*, because of how maintainer scripts work.
[20:02] <cjwatson> OTOH it's relatively rare for the sorts of changes in PPAs to be downgrade issues anyway
[20:02] <persia> True
[20:02] <micahg> persia: that's a more general problem and would have to do with the concept of *blessed* PPAs which seems to be less likely as time goes on
[20:02] <cjwatson> persia: if you can't trust the PPA then it might have failed when you switched *to* it
[20:02] <bdrung> maybe having a fallback if the downgrade doesn't work?
[20:02] <persia> cjwatson, Ah, that works.
[20:02] <cjwatson> so worrying about what happens when you switch away sort of seems like stable door and hose
[20:02] <cjwatson> horse
[20:03]  * persia has no more questions.
[20:03] <bdrung> micahg: interested in working on the sponsors queue?
[20:04]  * ScottK wants to be sure to through in a big +1 for micahg (my attention is needed elsewhere ATM) - I've interacted with him quite a bit at UDS and since and am convinced he'd be a great MOTU.
[20:04] <micahg> bdrung: yes, but my time for the next month is limited
[20:04] <stgraber> ready to vote ?
[20:04] <bdrung> yes
[20:05] <geser> micahg: why didn't you manage to find enough DMB members a UDS-M to process your application? :)
[20:05] <cjwatson> that was mostly our fault
[20:05] <stgraber> [VOTE] Micah Gersten's application for MOTU
[20:05] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Micah Gersten's application for MOTU.
[20:05] <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
[20:05] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:05] <bdrung> +1
[20:05] <MootBot> +1 received from bdrung. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:05] <cjwatson> we did assemble but were inquorate
[20:05] <persia> Entirely our fault
[20:05] <persia> +1
[20:05] <MootBot> +1 received from persia. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:05] <cjwatson> +1
[20:05] <MootBot> +1 received from cjwatson. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:05] <stgraber> +1
[20:05] <MootBot> +1 received from stgraber. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[20:05] <geser> +1
[20:05] <MootBot> +1 received from geser. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
[20:06] <stgraber> persia, cjwatson and I were in ready for the meeting at UDS, though soren was somewhere between his hotel and UDS and cody-somerville was probably still sleeping :)
[20:06] <ari-tczew> I don't trust that he will work on clean up sponsors queue
[20:06] <stgraber> cody-somerville: ?
[20:06] <cody-somerville> +1
[20:06] <MootBot> +1 received from cody-somerville. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6
[20:06] <stgraber> [ENDVOTE]
[20:06] <MootBot> Final result is 6 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 6
[20:06] <stgraber> [TOPIC] Select a chair for the next meeting
[20:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Select a chair for the next meeting
[20:06] <highvoltage> welcome to MOTU, micahg!
[20:07] <stgraber> any volunteer ?
[20:07] <bdrung> congrats micahg
[20:07] <stgraber> oh, and congrats micahg !
[20:07] <micahg> highvoltage: thanks, and thanks to all the DMB members and ScottK
[20:07] <persia> I'll volunteer.  I've missed it enough times.
[20:07] <stgraber> [ACTION] persia to chair next DMB meeting
[20:07] <MootBot> ACTION received:  persia to chair next DMB meeting
[20:07] <stgraber> anything else for this meeting ?
[20:07] <bdrung> can the chair listed on the agenda?
[20:08] <cjwatson> normally is
[20:08]  * micahg is just curious, are the meetings planned to be 1hr now?
[20:08] <persia> They were always supposed to be so.
[20:08] <stgraber> bdrung: when we've got one, it usually is
[20:08] <cjwatson> 1hr is usual if we can manage it, but it depends ...
[20:08] <geser> micahg: they we always 1 hour
[20:08] <stgraber> *he
[20:09] <geser> were*
[20:09] <micahg> geser: ah, ok
[20:09] <cjwatson> sometimes they run long if there's need and if there's nothing preventing it
[20:09] <geser> micahg: if we finish in 1 hour is a different question :)
[20:10] <bdrung> back to the Marco: can we get comments from all people who are working with Marco?
[20:10]  * bdrung fails in forming correct sentences.
[20:12] <stgraber> ok, I guess we're done for what had to be discussed in this meeting
[20:12] <stgraber> #endmeeting
[20:12] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 14:12.
[20:12] <cjwatson> re Marco, I think the action to work with the CC is the next step there - we can ask them to help with that
[20:13] <bdrung> ok
[20:14] <cjwatson> and, since I wasn't here at the start, welcome bdrung :)
[20:14] <stgraber> bdrung: I'd also suggest you read through the previous meeting logs as it feels like things we already discussed in the past. For now, I think it's best to wait for the CC and re-discuss in another meeting.
[20:14] <geser> bdrung: the aren't probably many as he is banned from working on Ubuntu dev, you would need to find those who are also active in Debian and see his work there
[20:15]  * cjwatson goes back to trying to convince a toddler to GO TO BED
[20:15] <bdrung> thanks cjwatson
[20:15] <ari-tczew> I'm not up-to-dated... who win - Laney or bdrung ?
[20:15] <cjwatson> bdrung
[20:15] <ari-tczew> love it!
[20:15] <ari-tczew> (that was not ironic)
[20:15] <cjwatson> by 8 votes or so I think
[20:15] <ari-tczew> what is the number of all votes?
[20:16] <cjwatson> low turnout, not that I'm one to talk since I forgot to vote :(
[20:16] <geser> ari-tczew: see my mail with the results to ubuntu-devel-announce
[20:16] <bdrung> the participation was very low (~ 50 votes)
[20:16] <geser> cjwatson: I wanted to mail a reminder after UDS but forgot it myself :( (to mail the reminder)
[20:17] <geser> IIRC 55 votes of 153
[20:21] <bdrung> stgraber: in which meetings was marco a topic? 2010-09-27 and others?
[20:21] <geser> bdrung: the last 2-3 meetings
[20:31] <bdrung> geser: do we have a link list to all previous meeting logs?
[20:37] <geser> no, perhaps I should do one like we had for MC
[20:37] <bdrung> geser: finding the old logs is hard. especially if the schedule is changed
[20:39] <geser> true