=== freeflyi1g is now known as freeflying
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== xfaf is now known as zul
=== jjohansen is now known as jj-afk
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-lunch
=== oubiwann is now known as oubiwann_
=== oubiwann_ is now known as oubiwann
=== Ursinha-lunch is now known as Ursinha
=== dholbach_ is now known as dholbach
* skaet_ waves pedro_ charlie-tca 15:54
* charlie-tca waves back15:55
vanhoofmorning skaet_15:58
skaet_morning vanhoof,  zul15:58
zulhi Sarvatt15:58
zuldamn skaet_15:59
zulstupid tab completion15:59
skaet_zul, ??15:59
skaet_hi cjwatson15:59
skaet_cool,  looks like quorum is foruming15:59
skaet_lets get this started...15:59
MootBotMeeting started at 10:00. The chair is skaet_.16:00
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]16:00
skaet_To make the meetings be a bit more efficient, :) , would like us to follow the convention like some other teams are using ".." on separate line when you've finished typing.    If someone wants to comment on the last point, please "o/", so we know to wait.  Anyone object?16:00
skaet_Agenda for today can be found at:16:00
skaet_ok, giving folks a minute to look things up and raise hands, if they don't like the convention.16:01
skaet_[TOPIC] pending action items16:02
MootBotNew Topic:  pending action items16:02
skaet_any update on the pending action items?16:02
skaet_sconklin - will the next date for SRU on the interlock hold?16:03
cjwatsonI don't have anything specific on bug 642555.  I'm due to meet up with Scott and James in person soon for some upstart planning, so will make sure it's brought up then.16:03
sconklinWe're in a hold until the kenels are pocket copied into the -proposed pocket16:03
ubottuLaunchpad bug 642555 in Ubuntu Lucid "Services not starting on boot in 10.04.1 LTS" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/64255516:03
sconklinI have a detailed report, can save it for the agenda item16:04
skaet_cjwatson, thanks.  Will keep on agenda then.16:04
skaet_sconklin,  sounds good.16:04
skaet_anyone else have any updates from the pending actions?16:05
skaet_[TOPIC] Feature and Bugs Summary16:05
MootBotNew Topic:  Feature and Bugs Summary16:05
skaet_just wante to point out there's now a +/- on each of the bugs, so we can start to see the trends across the releases in terms of bugs open.16:06
skaet_This is just a prototype, and a bit more manual than I'd like, but is a staring point.16:06
victorpsorry skaet_ but some of the actions should now be closed by default .. like when is the next SRU16:06
skaet_victorp,  not necessarily, see comments from sconklin.   We'll get to that later though...16:07
skaet_[TOPIC] Long term support plan16:07
MootBotNew Topic:  Long term support plan16:07
skaet_s/plan/status/  sigh.16:08
skaet_Kernel team upate?16:08
sconklinno updates on the bug16:08
skaet_ok, thanks.16:08
skaet_Any update on the foundation bugs, cjwatson?16:09
cjwatsonI'm afraid I have nothing to report on the three foundations bugs on the agenda; I'll try to harass people into doing something in time for the next meeting.  Sorry about that.  The only one I think is actually critical for 10.04.2 is bug 607657.16:10
ubottuLaunchpad bug 607657 in base-installer (Ubuntu Lucid) "Lucid point release installer must support LTS backported Kernels" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/60765716:10
cjwatson(and I'll make sure we do something about that)16:10
skaet_Thanks cjwatson.16:10
cjwatsonI do have several bugs that have seen no validation work and need it:16:10
cjwatsonbug 54413916:10
ubottuLaunchpad bug 544139 in consolekit (Ubuntu Lucid) "Active VT tracking can fail at startup" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/54413916:10
cjwatsonbug 56391616:10
ubottuLaunchpad bug 563916 in plymouth (Ubuntu Lucid) "[details.so] No prompt for [S]kip or [M]anual recovery on server boot (or without "splash")" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/56391616:10
cjwatsonbug 60385416:10
ubottuLaunchpad bug 603854 in grub-installer (Ubuntu Lucid) "When installing onto fake raid grub still tried to install to /dev/sda" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/60385416:10
cjwatsonbug 56990016:10
ubottuLaunchpad bug 569900 in partman-base (Ubuntu Lucid) "partman sometimes creates partitions such that there is ambiguity between whether the superblock is on the disk device or the partition device" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/56990016:11
cjwatson(erm, actually, I'm not sure that that last one has been uploaded, I'll look at that)16:11
cjwatsonalso, there's a questionable validation result on bug 634554 which we need to look into16:11
ubottuLaunchpad bug 634554 in fuse (Ubuntu Lucid) "fuse mounts hang on xattr retrieval with auditd" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/63455416:11
skaet_thanks, cjwatson, will add into the agenda for next time, so we're tracking.16:12
skaet_anyone around for server?16:12
zulnothing new from us...we did a bunch of SRU testing this week it should be going to proposed this week16:12
skaet_cool.  anything on the radar for 10.04.2 that I didn't catch on the agenda?16:13
skaet_thanks zul.16:13
skaet_anyone around from desktop today?16:13
* skaet_ looks around16:14
skaet_... moving on then16:14
skaet_[TOPIC] Stable Release Update16:14
MootBotNew Topic:  Stable Release Update16:14
skaet_sconklin, can you give an update as to what the outlook is?16:15
davidmskaet_, hello sorry I'm late16:15
sconklinThe kernel team prepared new kernels for every supported16:15
sconklinUbuntu release. For the first time while using the new16:15
sconklinstable release cadence, this update contains non-critical16:15
sconklinsecurity fixes.16:15
sconklinBecause the release contains security fixes, changes in the16:15
sconklinbuild process have been implemented. These changes will16:15
sconklincontinue to be used for all stable kernel releases.16:15
sconklinStable kernels are now built in a non-virtualized PPA, so16:15
sconklinthat they can be built against the latest -security release16:15
sconklinand released into both the -security pocket and -updates16:15
sconklinpocket upon testing acceptance.16:15
sconklinBecause of the new process, uploaded kernels no longer16:15
sconklinrequire acceptance by an Archive Admin, but once they are16:15
sconklinbuilt they require manual copying to the -proposed pocket16:15
sconklinbefore the verification cycle can begin.16:15
sconklinThis is documented on the stable release cadence page here:16:15
sconklinhttps://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/StableReleaseCadence#Build PPA and process for pocket copying16:15
sconklinKernels for the current cycle were uploaded to the PPA16:15
sconklinand builds had completed by Friday. On Friday the archive16:15
sconklinadmins were notified that there were kernels to be copied to16:15
sconklin-proposed. The new process using the non-virtualized has16:15
sconklincaused some discussion about the new process among16:15
sconklinthe stable kernel team, Martin Pitt, and Kees Cook. The technical16:15
sconklinboard has been copied on part of the thread.16:15
sconklinDue to this discussion, they have not been pocket16:15
sconklincopied to -proposed yet. Verification testing can not begin16:15
sconklinuntil they are in -proposed, and verification is allocated16:15
sconklinone week. Therefore, we will not have kernels ready for16:16
sconklincertification and regression testing available on Dec 13th as16:16
marjo_sconklin: ack16:16
skaet_are we good for the 14th SRU releases?16:17
sconklinwe were going to have our SRU release for the kernel on 12/1616:17
victorpsconklin - any thoughts on how big will be the slip (days, week??)16:17
vanhoofsconklin: question answered :)16:17
sconklinWe require 7 days for verification testing, then a couple of days to respin the kernels after any reverts, then Victor starts testing16:18
vanhoofsconklin: realistically does the month of december still look positive?16:18
vanhoof(provided holidays, etc)16:18
sconklinIt's entirely dependent on the outcome of the current discussion between pitti, us, security, and the technical board16:18
marjo_sconklin: ditto16:18
victorplets put it that way, if it is later than the 20th we can do it16:18
sconklinpitti is the only Archive admin who deals with kernels in the archive, and he is not satisfied that the new process is correct (is my understanding)16:19
sconklinSo we are in an indefinite hold until that is resolved.16:19
cjwatsonactually other archive admins do deal with them, but I haven't been following the thread and in any case would want to satisfy pitti rather than overruling him16:20
victorpjust take into account that we are running into next year quickly16:20
cjwatson(though pitti does do the bulk of kernel SRUing)16:20
skaet_ack.   ok, we probably need to take an action here.16:21
sconklinI'm not advocating overruling anyone, I want us all to be satisfied with the process. But the reality is that the other AAs defer to pitti to do anything having to do with the kernel16:21
cjwatsonin general, once an admin objects we would defer to that person on the grounds that they've taken ownership16:21
cjwatsonthough I'm not sure that's written down anywhere :)16:21
sconklinas he is the most knowledgeable about the kernel issues16:21
skaet_we need to see if we can get through this blockage some how.  suggestions?16:22
victorpI am a bit confused on where we stand , can someone summarise in 2 lines what happens next?16:22
cjwatsonfind pitti/kees and have a real-time discussion about it16:22
cjwatson(I'd suggest - since e-mail seems to be plodding/stalled)16:23
sconklinWe can release 10-14 days after the kernels are copied to -proposed, depending on weekends, etc16:23
sconklincjwatson: agreed!16:23
victorpcjwatson sounds good16:23
skaet_[ACTION] pitti, kees, sconklin - get together and propose adjustments process if needed, then broadcast new dates16:24
MootBotACTION received:  pitti, kees, sconklin - get together and propose adjustments process if needed, then broadcast new dates16:24
victorpskaet - on that basis I propose to meet again this time next week16:24
sconklinthis may have been resolved easily if it had not occurred over a weekend16:24
apwskaet_, i suggest you involve yourself in the meeting to understand the issues for next time16:24
skaet_victorp,  if we don't have an email broadcast,  ok, lets meet again.16:24
skaet_apw, I wasn't on the thread it appears.16:24
victorpskaet_ we will still need to meet to understand the impact to the timing of whatever is agreed16:25
skaet_apw, ack, would like to be16:25
skaet_victorp, ok - will put this on calendar for this time next week, with this as only topic area16:26
victorpskaet_ ack16:26
sconklinI'll take the action to organize the meeting asap16:26
skaet_[ACTION] skaet call meeting to discussing outcome of sconklin's meeting with pitti and kees.16:26
MootBotACTION received:  skaet call meeting to discussing outcome of sconklin's meeting with pitti and kees.16:26
skaet_thanks sconklin16:26
skaet_ok,  I think we've got some actions, and next steps figured out,  so would like to see where we are on testing infrastructure.16:27
skaet_victorp,  any updates?16:28
victorpwe were all set for the testing so16:28
victorpwe are planning to work on the infrastructure during the test sprint16:28
victorphapenning now16:28
victorp(i.e this week)16:28
victorpwe would like to have by end of the week a test suite for both cert and regression16:29
victorp(marjo is sitting here with me and nodding his head)16:29
skaet_thanks marjo, victorp16:29
skaet_victorp,  any chance we can use the spare slot now to do the runs on the alpha1 images and gets some summaries?16:30
victorpthat was in the plan anyway16:30
victorpwe might just have more time to do so16:30
* skaet_ knows its not SRU related, but doesn't like seeing those machines idle ;)16:30
victorplets see what happens16:30
skaet_victorp,  cool.   thanks.16:30
skaet_victorp, marjo - should I add a summary of the testing sprint to the meeting next week from you both?16:31
marjo_skaet_ good idea16:31
skaet_ok,  will make sure its on the reduced agenda, and you can both summarize for your areas.16:31
skaet_ok, lets go on to other SRU planning then for the week, in terms of what's happening on the development side.16:33
skaet_sconklin,  any bugs/area16:33
skaet_you'll be focusing on for this next week, we should be aware of?16:33
sconklinwe have been processing upstream stable updates and security CVEs, and have not had time to looking at any actual bugs that have been reported.16:34
sconklinThere are more CVEs being opened16:34
sconklinSo our work load will continue to be high for these16:34
MootBotLINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/linux.html16:34
sconklinSo, I don't anticipate having a lot of debug time from our team.16:34
skaet_sconklin,  ack.   ok, will be looking to see if the CVE's will impact the cycle.  next week then I guess.16:35
skaet_cjwatson,  other than the bugs you highlighted above needing validation, anything else that the foundations team will be looking at?16:36
cjwatsonenabling the kernel backport is the main one, but OEM have been asking about bug 664115 too so we'll be sorting that out16:36
ubottuLaunchpad bug 664115 in parted (Ubuntu Maverick) "chroot loop devices stall for extremely long periods" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/66411516:36
cjwatsonI don't think there's anything else terribly vital16:37
skaet_cjwatson,  ok,  thanks!16:37
skaet_zul,  any thing to be concerned about from the server side?   any progress on the aging SRU ones?16:37
zulskaet_: nope we still have a couple need to be verified but no big deal i think16:38
skaet_any progress likely on some of the very old ones? >100 days?16:39
zulskaet: yes there was...i think for the openvpn one is to get a better testcase16:39
zulwhich is a todo item for me this week i think16:39
skaet_ok,  thanks for the update zul.16:40
skaet_any update on the SRU side from ARM team?   ogra?16:40
skaet_any one here from the desktop team?16:41
skaet_davidm,  do you have any SRU update issues from your team?16:42
davidmskaet_, no not at this time16:43
skaet_thanks davidm.16:43
skaet_vanhoof, any focus areas from the OEM side?16:43
skaet_hmm..   am thinking that we're winding down on issues, and folks to talk about things, so probably time to end the meeting for this week.16:45
vanhoofskaet_: sorry was looking elsewhere16:45
vanhoofskaet_: from a HWE perspective, everything we have has been commited (all maverick right now)16:45
skaet_lol, just in time16:45
vanhoofits just a matter of SRU release16:45
skaet_thanks vanhoof.   questions?16:46
skaet_[TOPIC] any other comments/concerns/etc. to raise?16:46
MootBotNew Topic:  any other comments/concerns/etc. to raise?16:46
vanhoofskaet_: just need to follow up on the meetings happening regarding process16:46
vanhoofskaet_: so nothing right this second16:46
skaet_vanhoof,  ack.   You're not alone on that.16:47
skaet_any one else?16:47
MootBotMeeting finished at 10:47.16:47
sconklinskaet_: thanks!16:48
skaet_Thanks sconklin, zul, vanhoof, marjo, victorp, cjwatson16:48
vanhoofhave a good one skaet_16:48
marjo_skaet: thx!16:48
charlie-tcaThank you, skaet_16:52
=== jj-afk is now known as jjohansen
=== yofel_ is now known as yofel
mdeslaurkees, sbeattie, jdstrand, robbiew: meeting?18:06
keesokay, well, I guess I'll start.18:09
mdeslaurhehe...I was trying to remember what the mootbot commands were :P18:09
keesbeen on vacation for 2 weeks, started catching up on friday. I'm on patch pilot with mdeslaur today18:09
keesI'm also on triage18:09
keeser, no, community18:09
keesI've got a huge backlog of email still that I'll be trying to make my way through as well.18:10
keesthat's really it from me. :)18:10
jdstrandshall I go?18:11
mdeslaurjdstrand: sure18:11
jdstrandso today is the week of testing for me18:11
jdstrandin addition to being on triage, mozilla releases a new firefox later this week18:11
jdstrandthey are also releases a new tbird, which will be the transition from 3.0 -> 3.1 on lucid18:12
jdstrandchromium builds finished over the weekend, so I will be testing that18:12
jdstrandand finally apparmor 2.5.1 is in lucid-proposed now, so I need to test that18:12
jdstrandI would encourage all lucid users to install the apparmor packages in lucid-proposed and give feedback in bug #66007718:13
ubottuLaunchpad bug 660077 in apparmor (Ubuntu Lucid) "update AppArmor to 2.5.1 (for upstream and backported maverick kernels)" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/66007718:13
jdstrand(positive or negative)18:13
jdstrandthat is it from me18:14
jdstrandmdeslaur: you're up18:14
mdeslaurI just finished doing my patch pilot duty18:14
mdeslaurThis week I need to test imagemagick and paste updates18:14
mdeslaurand have started working on fuse updates (which need util-linux fixes also)18:15
mdeslaurI may update to natty this week also18:15
mdeslaurthat's it from me!18:15
mdeslaursbeattie: tag, you're it18:15
jdstrandmdeslaur: you want to use a maverick kernel still (for kvm)18:16
mdeslaurjdstrand: argh, well I guess I won't be updating then18:16
mdeslaurkvm is broken in natty?18:16
jdstrandmdeslaur: I filed a bug on it today, and hallyn tells me it is fixed upstream though18:16
jdstrandmdeslaur: it works, you just can't stop the machine (it is unkillable :)18:17
mdeslaurjdstrand: do you have a bug #?18:17
jdstrandyes, hold on18:17
jdstrandbug #68599118:18
ubottuLaunchpad bug 685991 in linux (Ubuntu) "cannot kill kvm process that uses 'tap'" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/68599118:18
mdeslaurthanks jdstrand18:19
* sbeattie goes now.18:19
sbeattieI'm testing an openssl update I'm working on.18:19
sbeattieI also have a phpmyadmin fakesync'ed package in the ubuntu-security-proposed ppa that I'll release this week.18:19
sbeattieAnd I'll be helping out with the apparmor lucid sru testing (though I don't have any pieces of infrastructure left running lucid anymore)18:20
sbeattieMmm, I think that's it for me.18:20
sbeattieDoes anyone else have any issues for the security team?18:21
jdstrandwell, there is the business about the laptops for natty security testing18:21
keesmdeslaur and sbeattie both called "not it", so I'm happy to take one18:22
jdstrandwhich leaves me with one18:22
jdstrandwhich is fine, but it makes me wonder about desktop updates...18:22
sbeattiejdstrand: in what way?18:22
jdstrandthere is an implication that kees and I will be doing the updates that affect the desktop for natty18:23
jdstrandbut maybe I am reading too much into it18:23
mdeslaurjdstrand: yes, congratulations :)18:23
jdstrandapparently I was not reading too much into it :)18:23
robbiewjdstrand: they could be setup for remote access, right ;)18:24
jdstrandanyway, we know know who is getting them, and that is what's important for now18:24
ScottKsbeattie: There are now debdiffs in the clamav security bugs.18:24
sbeattiejdstrand: the reason I'mnot taking one is that I have hardware that (I believe) is capable of running unity and is mostly a test vmhost, but can be used for non-virtual testing as well.18:24
jdstrandrobbiew: I'm not letting those jokers on my LAN :P18:24
jdstrandseriously though, we'll figure it out18:24
* robbiew notes jdstrand and kees 18:25
robbiew...he's a making a list and checking twice..18:25
mdeslaurI can take one if someone wants to pay the duty and taxes to get it shipped here18:25
jdstrandif we are done with that, I also wanted to talk about sbuild/umt18:25
robbiewmdeslaur: canonical has a fedex account ;)18:25
sbeattieScottK: thanks, noted, either I or kees will handle it this week.18:25
mdeslaurok, if kees or jdstrand really want to opt out, I'll take one18:26
jdstrandI don't want to opt out18:26
jdstrandthere is nothing saying we can't rotate or give remote access18:26
mdeslaurjdstrand: what's with sbuild/umt?18:26
jdstrandiirc, only kees and I are running natty atm18:27
keesi'm worried that if I switch to a heavier load of auditing, I'll be in a weird position to do desktop testing, but I'm cool either way.18:27
jdstrand(from the team)18:27
keesjdstrand: I'm running natty with a maverick kernel.18:27
jdstrandkees: as am I18:27
sbeattiejdstrand: correct, though I was contemplating upgrading my build host.18:27
jdstrandso, there was an issue with sbuild preventing older releases from building but that is now fixed and in the archive18:28
jdstrandbut I noticed some odd stuff float by in builds, like:18:28
jdstrand/tmp/umt-EEdTRD: 35: cannot create /etc/apt/sources.list.new: Permission denied18:28
jdstrandSessions still open, not unmounting18:28
jdstrandkees: have you seen that ^ ?18:28
mdeslaurjdstrand: I get the "Sessions still open, not unmounting" on maverick18:28
keesjdstrand: I haven't, but I haven't built anything in 2 weeks, so who knows what's changed.18:28
jdstrandthen, let's just leave it at 'things seem to build, but keep an eye out for odd messages'18:29
* jdstrand is done18:29
mdeslaurjdstrand: the permission denied message is probably worth investigating though18:30
* jdstrand nods18:30
mdeslaurjdstrand: your sources list may not be getting censored properly18:30
jdstrandlooking at my todo list, I probably won't be building anything this week, so I'm not taking it for now. if someone wants to look at it, just mention it in #ubuntu-hardened18:30
keesokay, well, that's it, then. thanks everyone! :)18:33
jdstrandthanks kees!18:36
bdrungcjwatson, cody-somerville, geser, persia, soren, stgraber: dmb meeting in 5 minutes18:56
cjwatsonbut with a stinking headache so the shorter the better :P18:57
stgraberwill be available in 3 minutes ;) though might get disturbed by customers calling.18:57
stgraber(crazy day)18:58
* soren will be 5-10 minutes late :(18:59
bdrungpersia, cody-somerville: dmb meeting?19:00
bdrungshould we begin?19:01
cjwatsonwe're quorate19:02
bdrungok, let's begin19:02
cjwatson(you, me, geser, stgraber = 4)19:02
MootBotMeeting started at 13:02. The chair is bdrung.19:02
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]19:02
bdrung[TOPIC] Review of previous action items19:02
MootBotNew Topic:  Review of previous action items19:02
bdrung[TOPIC] Review outcome of Core Developer application for Ken VanDine19:04
MootBotNew Topic:  Review outcome of Core Developer application for Ken VanDine19:04
bdrunghe became core-dev and was added to the team, correct?19:04
cody-somervilleI'm here.19:06
cjwatsonLP says yes.  Was a notice sent to devel-permissions?19:06
bdrungso we can tick off this item19:08
bdrung[TOPIC] Review Marco Rodrigues participation in Ubuntu Development19:08
MootBotNew Topic:  Review Marco Rodrigues participation in Ubuntu Development19:08
bdrungany news on this topic since the last time?19:08
cody-somervilleI think at least one member of the CC commented on the issue19:09
cody-somervilleFeeling that we should be able to proceed forward on this matter19:09
cody-somervilleI haven't had a chance to respond to the thread myself.19:10
cody-somervilleHowever, if we really want to push forward on this I'm prepared to vote in favor or repealing Marco's ban.19:10
bdrungdigging in the mails i found dholbach's suggestion: if we say "here's X and Y who want to mentor Marco for the first month (or two)" I think we should let them work together and see how it pans out. That's the easiest fix I have to offer.19:11
cjwatsonI think it has to be strictly time-limited.  If some period of time expires without the improvement being obvious, we should be able to reinstate the prior ban without months of agonising.19:14
bdrungto follow this suggestion, we have to allow marco to participation in Ubuntu Development through a sponsor19:14
ScottKI think there are plenty of people who interact with Marco in other venues for there to be someone willing to speak for him without that.19:16
gesershould this be a "fixed" sponsor Marco subscribes to bugs or should he send mail to his mentor who forwards them to LP?19:16
ScottKI think the absence of such a person is sufficient for retaining the ban.19:17
geserScottK: would you consider feedback from DD based on his contribution to Debian eligible for considering lifting the ban?19:18
bdrungcjwatson: there are two ways to implement your idea: either lift the ban for a specific time period and evaluate the lift then or we lift the ban with an easy way to ban again19:18
ScottKgeser: I think Debian has very different social standards than Ubunut, so not if they weren't involved in Ubuntu development.19:18
ScottKbdrung: No such thing as an easy way to ban again.19:19
sorenI'm rather ambivalent. I very much remember the issues with Marco a couple of years ago, but I'm not generally in favour of perpetual bans. People /do/ change.19:19
cjwatsonScottK: well, there were people who spoke for him in his wiki page19:19
cjwatsonwe questioned those on the basis that they weren't in the context of Ubuntu19:19
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-brb
cjwatson(partly, anyway)19:19
bdrung[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarcoRodrigues/ParticipationApplication19:20
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarcoRodrigues/ParticipationApplication19:20
sorenWould it be fair to make it Marco's job to find this designated sponsor?19:20
* cjwatson can think of at least one example where somebody almost got banned from Debian development and became a very productive and well-respected developer a couple of years later19:21
ScottKcjwatson: I don't see any Ubuntu developers on his wiki page saying that they've worked with him and believe the ban should be removed.19:21
sorenScottK: Of course not. He's been banned.19:21
cjwatsonLucas Nussbaum's an Ubuntu developer, isn't he?19:21
gesersoren: sure if we can agree that's the way for him19:21
ScottKI tend to forget that.19:21
ScottKcjwatson: Good point.19:22
ScottKsoren: He's active in a number of projects where Ubuntu devs are also active (e.g. Debian), so I don't think it's necessary to unban him for Ubuntu developers to form an opinion.19:23
cjwatsonPerhaps we should ask Lucas (or perhaps Martin) if they're willing to be a dedicated sponsor?  That's a slightly higher level of commitment than a comment in a wiki page, but if they're keen on him returning then it ought to be a commitment they can make19:23
cjwatson(The only context in which I see Marco's work, FWIW, is from being CCed on bugs on unknown packages in Debian; he deals with closing out bugs on packages which have been removed.  On the one hand, that's a somewhat mechanical task; on the other hand, it's interesting that I don't remember seeing a single complaint about that, which is sort of impressive)19:25
cjwatson(I'd expect to see at least a certain amount of backscatter from mistakes)19:25
geserScottK: Marco didn't cause the same amount of trouble in Debian (in general) like in Ubuntu, so I'm not sure what do with feedback about his work in Debian19:26
bdrungcjwatson: good idea. one question will follow: how will the work through a sponsor look like?19:27
sorencjwatson: Ok, so we ask Lucas (and perhaps Martin) if they'd be willing to be Marco's dedicated sponsor. If not, we can ask Marco to find one on his own. If that fails, we can take it up again?19:27
ScottKgeser: He did in debian-games.19:27
geserScottK: I know, but that's only one part of Debian (or was it his complete contribution to Debian at that time?)19:28
ScottKgeser: I'm not sure.  I think it was his primary contribution at the time.  It was after he was kicked out of there he appeared in #debian-python.19:28
cjwatsonWhat has he been like in #debian-python?  The only comment I see about that is Piotr's short one.19:29
cjwatson(FWIW, I'm currently roughly 0 on this.  Not sure whether it's +0 or -0, for whatever difference that makes.)19:30
geserhe got kicked from debian-games? I don't remember anymore if he got kicked or was on the edge of getting kicked19:30
ScottKMy recollection is he was kicked, but I'm not involved and it was a long time ago.19:30
geseralmost 3 years ago19:31
cody-somervilleWe're now 30 minutes in19:32
cody-somervilleI'll be his dedicated sponsor.19:32
cody-somervilleLets implement a probation period of 90 days.19:32
cody-somervilleWe'll then take feedback at the end of the 90 days and vote to either reinstate the ban or let him contribute freely.19:33
bdrungcody-somerville: how should the sponsoring look like?19:33
gesershould he file bugs as usual and subscribe you or email you and you'll file them?19:33
cody-somervilleI'm fine with what ever you guys think is best and will be least disruptive for everyone.19:33
geserI've no preference but the later would be more in line with the ban19:34
bdrungi should be somehow public. then we can arrive our own conclusions19:34
* cody-somerville nods.19:35
cody-somervillebdrung, +119:35
cody-somervilleI think being able to see him interact as he will after the probation period is over (assuming he passes) will be most beneficial19:35
geserthat would be the advantage of the former but making him not more different than any other new contributor19:35
bdrungcody-somerville: a public ban-compliant solution would be that he communicates with you and you will file bugs and his comment and patches19:36
cody-somervilleIf he has a filter on him, how are you guys going to come to your own conclusions?19:36
bdrungvalid point19:37
cody-somervilleHow about we add a stipulation that the probation period can be terminated early at any time by a majority vote by this council?19:37
sorencody-somerville: We can ask you if you'd be willing to keep doing it for another three months. If yes, then he's probably doing OK :)19:37
cjwatsonWe could have a role address which goes to Cody and a developer-readable log file.19:37
cjwatsonFor auditing19:38
cjwatsonThat way Cody's responsible for everything that has the potential to bother developers, but people can independently check how much filtering work he had to do19:38
cody-somervilleWhatever works for you guys. I just want to see us unblocked on this issue and I don't think keeping him banned indefinitely is the right conclusion.19:39
bdrungcjwatson: role address?19:39
cjwatsoncody-somerville+marcolog@ubuntu.com, or rough equivalent19:39
gesercody-somerville: you could make your communication with Marco available to the DMB  as a mbox (or whatever export your mail client supports) (of cource notifing Marco that this will happen)19:39
cody-somervilleWill he be allowed on IRC channels?19:40
cody-somervilleI can't really filter that in real time19:40
cody-somervilleand I think that the IRC interactions were a part of the problem that we'll want to evaluate19:40
cjwatsonI don't remember the details of IRC interactions.  The ones I heard about were non-real-time19:40
* cody-somerville wonders why can't we just unban Marco? If he becomes a problem again, we'll just ask him to refrain from contributing again.19:42
geserI don't remember if banning him from IRC was connected to the MC ban or the IRC Coucil did it based on the MC ban19:43
cjwatsonI think because Marco demotivated developers who we already know are productive members of Ubuntu, and we want to minimise the risk of that happening again19:43
cjwatsonBut I have to admit I share the sentiment that permanent bans are very difficult to justify19:43
cody-somervilleMarco isn't malicious. His intentions are honorable. Its not within the Ubuntu spirit to be so vindictive. :(19:44
cody-somervilleThere is always going to be people that are annoying or that we don't like.19:44
ScottKcody-somerville: Wanting to be productive is not being vindictive.19:45
cody-somervilleScottK, Are you active in Debian?19:45
ScottKcody-somerville: I am.19:45
cody-somervilleScottK, Is it fair to say you contribute to Debian on a regular basis?19:45
ScottKcody-somerville: It is.19:45
cody-somervilleScottK, Do you feel you are a productive contributor to Debian?19:45
* cjwatson wonders where Cody's going with this19:46
cody-somervilleScottK, Marco contributes to Debian on a regular basis. Has his participation there been detrimental to your productivity in Debian?19:46
ScottKcody-somerville: It has not, but my contributions to Debian are much narrower than my contributions to Ubuntu and in the cases where there is overlap, I have specifically cautioned him not to make changes in packages I'm involved with.19:47
ScottKThat and based on his performance in Ubuntu and Debian Games, his work is closely monitored to make sure it doesn't go out of control.19:48
cody-somervilleScottK, When Marco was permitted to contribute to Ubuntu, was all of Marco's contributions detrimental to your productivity or only his work on certain packages that you work on in Ubuntu?19:48
ScottKcody-somerville: It was detrimental to general work in Universe.  At it's peak, we had several MOTU devoting substantial time to dealing with bad sync requests and things.19:49
ScottKBecause we don't have maintainers in Ubuntu it's completely different.19:50
cjwatsonI think this is a fair summary of my thought processes at the moment:  I hate the notion of making ScottK less productive in general.  On the other hand, I feel that in general when people just can't get on they should use killfiles and /ignore, and if necessary let other people deal with whatever fallout there is.19:50
cjwatsonAnd I have real trouble wrapping my conscience around a permanent ban in the absence of active malice.19:50
bdrung[IDEA] Unban Marco for a specific period of time (e.g. 3 month) then re-evaluate if the ban should be liftet completely.19:51
MootBotIDEA received:  Unban Marco for a specific period of time (e.g. 3 month) then re-evaluate if the ban should be liftet completely.19:51
cody-somervilleWhat if we unban Marco but ask him to refrain from certain behavior that we know caused the most amount of problems in the past?19:51
bdrungcody-somerville: good point19:51
cody-somervilleie. If sync requests were particularly disruptive, lets ask him to refrain from doing sync requests without asking a dedicated mentor like myself but let him contribute freely in other areas19:52
ScottKcjwatson: I understand that perspective and I think it's reasonable.  OTOH, I don't think the project misses much by the lack of his contribution, so why take the risk.19:52
cjwatsonThere is that, but this kind of thing has a habit of being taken as precedent19:52
cjwatsonHard cases make bad law, and all that19:53
ScottKcjwatson: I think the precedent that it can be permanent is not a bad one for encouraging the others.19:53
ScottKIt's possible he's changed, but we went through multiple iterations of agreement from him to not do certain thing and then he went and did them anyway after a short period.19:54
ScottKSo there's plenty of experience with "Just ask him not to..." not being effective.19:54
cjwatsonAnd this kind of thing is essentially why my vote is still an abstention :-)19:54
cjwatson(Which I know is kind of a cop-out.)19:54
cody-somervilleWe asked him not to contribute to Ubuntu and for the most part he has complied.19:55
cody-somervilleie. we didn't ban him from using Launchpad or anything like that.19:55
=== Ursinha-brb is now known as Ursinha
cody-somervilleAnyhow, we're now 55 minutes in and I have to leave on the hour.19:56
bdrungi think we should come to an conclusion about the direction that we want to go.19:56
cjwatsonI think consensus is unachievable and we should vote.19:56
cjwatson(I hope I'm wrong, but we've had multiple hour-long sessions on this.)19:57
cjwatsonI don't resent the time spent, because the hard cases are the interesting ones, but other people deserve our time too.19:57
bdrungi see three directions: 1. lift the ban completely 2. lift the ban for a specific period and allow him to participate through sponsor and re-evaluate and 3. keep the ban19:57
geserI've also the feeling that no consensus will be reached even it we talk the next 10 hours about it19:57
* ajmitch is just catching up on the decisions from 3 years ago19:58
* cody-somerville is in favor of parole.19:58
cjwatsonup/down voting is rubbish for this.   If I were voting Condorcet-style on bdrung's options, my vote would be 2=3 NOTA 1.19:59
geserafter 3 years I'm ready to re-evulate the ban, so I'd pick 2) even I'm not really happy with it to unblock the deadlock19:59
cjwatson(if you can decipher my syntax.)19:59
sorenI can't :(20:00
cjwatson[1] 2. [1] 3. [2] NOTA [3] 1.20:00
cjwatson"none of the above"20:00
sorenAh, /me now succesfully decipers NOTA20:00
soren2 3 1 NOTA, then.20:01
bdrung[1] 2. [2] 1. [3] 3. [3] NOTA20:01
geser2 NOTA 3 120:02
cjwatsonThat sounds as though Cody's going to have a busy few months, then.  I absolutely agree that the board should have the option to end the experiment if need be.20:02
bdrungi fail in calculating Condorcet, but it's obvious that 2. won20:03
bdrungnext thing to decide: how long should be the period?20:03
cody-somervillelets re-evaluate in 30 days20:04
cody-somervillelets decide then to unban, end, or extend20:04
gesercody-somerville: are you mentoring him over the xmas holidays?20:04
geserelse I'd propose 2011-01-3120:05
cody-somervilleGood point.20:05
bdrunganyone against 2011-01-31?20:06
stgraber[1] 2 [1] 3 [2] NOTA [3] 1 (sorry, was away and took me a while to parse the syntax ;))20:06
cjwatsonBTW: if this fails, it should be explicitly permanent20:06
cjwatson"one last chance"20:06
cody-somervilleI'm against permanent bans.20:06
cody-somervilleI'd rather set a time period20:06
cody-somervilleex. 5 years20:06
geserif I'd didn't miscalculate we have even a meeting on 2011-01-3120:07
cjwatsonAs long as I'm off the DMB by that time :-P20:07
* cody-somerville isn't against banning someone for a long time but I think everyone deserves another chance sooner or later.20:07
gesercjwatson: you could step down before this topic appears the next time on the agenda in 5 years :)20:07
bdrungnext: what will Macro be allowed? IRC? commenting on lp bugs? ...20:08
cjwatsonGiven that it's through a sponsor I think we need to leave the IRC ban in place.20:08
cjwatsonAs Cody said, he can't filter in real-time20:08
geserisn't IRC access the domain of the IRC council?20:08
cjwatsonThey'd take DMB recommendations for developer channels, I'm pretty ure20:09
cjwatsonand #ubuntu-devel is certainly delegated admin20:09
cjwatson(I don't know about #ubuntu-motu)20:09
bdrungso we are at email based sponsoring, which should be logged through an role address?20:10
cjwatsonI think I gave mine above ...20:13
bdrunganyone against the role address idea?20:14
cody-somervilleprovided someone besides me sets it up, I'm game for the idea20:15
bdrungwho wants to setup the role address?20:15
cjwatsoncody-somerville: because you don't have the means/time, or because you think it should be independent?  (I'm happy to trust you not to deliberately break it, personally)20:15
cody-somervillecjwatson, I don't really have the means.20:17
cjwatsonIf there are no quick volunteers I think we should leave it to the minutes, or perhaps you can ask IS?20:20
bdrungcjwatson: what do you mean with "leave it to the minutes"?20:20
cody-somervillemaybe ScottK could help out with this?20:21
cjwatsonput it in the minutes and ask somebody to help.20:21
cjwatson(anything to move on.)20:21
cody-somervilleI hear he is pretty good around an e-mail server20:21
bdrungcjwatson: with wich mootbot command?20:21
ScottKcody-somerville: I'm unwilling to expend effort on a volunteer basis for helping review the possibility of kmos contributing to Ubuntu.  I think the ban should be left and the project should move on.20:22
cjwatsonI don't remember.  Write it in by hand?20:22
bdrungcody-somerville: will you inform Marco about the outcome of this meeting?20:24
bdrung[AGREED] Allow Macro to participate in the Ubuntu development through an sponsor until 2010-01-31 and then evaluate the result.20:25
MootBotAGREED received:  Allow Macro to participate in the Ubuntu development through an sponsor until 2010-01-31 and then evaluate the result.20:25
cody-somervillebdrung, Yes.20:26
bdrung[ACTION] cody-somerville to inform Macro that he is allowed to participate in the Ubuntu development through an sponsor until 2010-01-3120:27
MootBotACTION received:  cody-somerville to inform Macro that he is allowed to participate in the Ubuntu development through an sponsor until 2010-01-3120:27
bdrung[ACTION] find someone who setups the role address for logging Marcos progress20:28
MootBotACTION received:  find someone who setups the role address for logging Marcos progress20:28
bdrungthen let's move on to the next topic20:28
bdrung[TOPIC] Review responsibilities and requirements of DMB delegates20:28
MootBotNew Topic:  Review responsibilities and requirements of DMB delegates20:28
bdrungcody-somerville: ^20:30
cody-somervilleWe need to defer that topic.20:31
* cody-somerville has to get back to work.20:31
geserdo we still have quorum for the applicants?20:32
bdrungwe should20:33
bdrung[TOPIC] Martin Pool's application for per-package upload rights for bzr and related packages20:33
MootBotNew Topic:  Martin Pool's application for per-package upload rights for bzr and related packages20:33
bdrung[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinPool/DeveloperApplication20:33
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinPool/DeveloperApplication20:33
stgraberI'm sorry but I also have to get back to work, customers calling :(20:34
bdrungcjwatson, geser, soren and me remain20:35
bdrungis Martin Pool here?20:36
geserpoolie doesn't seem to here. Too early for him?20:37
cjwatsonI have no complaints or questions but I know some people like to talk to applicants in person20:38
cjwatsonperhaps we can schedule a one-off at a convenient time?20:38
geserI've no problem with that20:39
bdrungme too (if it is really a timezone problem)20:39
cjwatsonhe's in .au20:39
bdrungcjwatson: do you want to take care of finding a convenient time?20:40
cjwatsonit's 7:40am there20:40
bdrung[ACTION] cjwatson to find a convenient time for a meeting for Martin Pool's application20:41
MootBotACTION received:  cjwatson to find a convenient time for a meeting for Martin Pool's application20:41
bdrung[TOPIC] Alexandros Frantzis' application for universe-contributor20:41
MootBotNew Topic:  Alexandros Frantzis' application for universe-contributor20:41
bdrung[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlexandrosFrantzis/UniverseContributorApplication20:42
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlexandrosFrantzis/UniverseContributorApplication20:42
alf_Hi! I am here.20:42
cjwatsonThanks for waiting20:42
cjwatson... Does anyone have any questions, or are they all still reading?20:45
* bdrung is still reading20:46
geserwhat's the connection between Linaro and Canonical? I don't remember seeing anything explaining the connection between those two (only regular mentioning of Linaro)20:46
alf_geser: Canonical assigns engineers to Linaro work20:47
alf_and many of the leaders within Linaro come from Canonical/Ubuntu20:48
bdrungalf_: do you have ideas to make the revu process less frustrating?20:49
alf_bdrung: the process itself is fine, the problem is the slow rate at which the process progresses, presumably due to lack of manpower20:50
cjwatson(Linaro also has a bunch of engineers from other companies, FWIW)20:50
geserand Linaro focus mainly on ARM?20:50
bdrungalf_: what's the status of getting your new packages into debian, too?20:53
alf_bdrung: I haven't yet had the time to look into it, but I plan to20:54
bdrungAny outstanding questions?20:55
bdrungotherwise let's vote20:56
bdrung[VOTE] Alexandros Frantzis to become universe-contributor20:57
MootBotPlease vote on:  Alexandros Frantzis to become universe-contributor.20:57
MootBotPublic votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot20:57
MootBotE.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting20:57
* cjwatson has nothing, it was a refreshing change to see somebody other than me working on germinate20:57
MootBot+1 received from bdrung. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 120:57
MootBot+1 received from cjwatson. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 220:58
MootBot+1 received from geser. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 320:58
cjwatson(still trying to get that change landed ...)20:58
gesersoren: still here?20:58
bdrungshould we continue the vote on the mailing list?21:00
geserif we lost soren too then we have to defer the voting to the mailing list21:00
* soren is back21:01
sorenHad a daughter that demanded attention :-/21:01
MootBot+1 received from soren. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 421:01
MootBotFinal result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 421:02
gesersoren: a high-priority uninteruptable task? :)21:02
bdrunggeser: the DMB meeting is a uninteruptable task :P21:02
sorengeser: something like that :)21:02
cjwatsonas any kernel hacker knows, uninterruptible tasks should be short :)21:03
bdrung[ACTION] Add Alexandros Frantzis to universe-contributor21:03
MootBotACTION received:  Add Alexandros Frantzis to universe-contributor21:03
bdrung[TOPIC] Select a chair for the next meeting21:04
MootBotNew Topic:  Select a chair for the next meeting21:04
bdrungwho volunteers?21:04
sorenI'll be on holiday and attempting to not operate machinery of any kind.21:04
cjwatsonI think I can do it21:04
bdrungcjwatson: you won :)21:04
* geser can't attend the 12 UTC meetings at all (I'm in the middle of a lecture at that time)21:05
bdrung[ACTION] cjwatson to be the next chair man21:05
MootBotACTION received:  cjwatson to be the next chair man21:05
MootBotMeeting finished at 15:05.21:05
alf_Thanks all, bye!21:06
bdrungalf_: congrats21:06
alf_bdrung: thanks!21:07
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!