=== 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 [15:54] * skaet_ waves pedro_ charlie-tca [15:55] * charlie-tca waves back [15:55] hello [15:55] :) [15:58] hello [15:58] morning skaet_ [15:58] morning vanhoof, zul [15:58] hi Sarvatt [15:59] damn skaet_ [15:59] hi [15:59] stupid tab completion [15:59] zul, ?? [15:59] hi cjwatson [15:59] cool, looks like quorum is foruming [15:59] lets get this started... [16:00] #startmeeting [16:00] Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is skaet_. [16:00] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [16:00] 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] Agenda for today can be found at: [16:00] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/2010-12-06-SR [16:00] .. [16:01] ok, giving folks a minute to look things up and raise hands, if they don't like the convention. [16:02] ;) [16:02] [TOPIC] pending action items [16:02] New Topic: pending action items [16:02] any update on the pending action items? [16:03] sconklin - will the next date for SRU on the interlock hold? [16:03] no [16:03] I 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] We're in a hold until the kenels are pocket copied into the -proposed pocket [16:03] Launchpad bug 642555 in Ubuntu Lucid "Services not starting on boot in 10.04.1 LTS" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/642555 [16:04] kernels [16:04] I have a detailed report, can save it for the agenda item [16:04] cjwatson, thanks. Will keep on agenda then. [16:04] sconklin, sounds good. [16:05] .. [16:05] anyone else have any updates from the pending actions? [16:05] .. [16:05] [TOPIC] Feature and Bugs Summary [16:05] New Topic: Feature and Bugs Summary [16:06] 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] This is just a prototype, and a bit more manual than I'd like, but is a staring point. [16:06] sorry skaet_ but some of the actions should now be closed by default .. like when is the next SRU [16:07] victorp, not necessarily, see comments from sconklin. We'll get to that later though... [16:07] [TOPIC] Long term support plan [16:07] New Topic: Long term support plan [16:08] s/plan/status/ sigh. [16:08] Kernel team upate? [16:08] no updates on the bug [16:08] .. [16:08] ok, thanks. [16:09] Any update on the foundation bugs, cjwatson? [16:09] .. [16:10] I'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] Launchpad bug 607657 in base-installer (Ubuntu Lucid) "Lucid point release installer must support LTS backported Kernels" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/607657 [16:10] (and I'll make sure we do something about that) [16:10] Thanks cjwatson. [16:10] I do have several bugs that have seen no validation work and need it: [16:10] bug 544139 [16:10] Launchpad bug 544139 in consolekit (Ubuntu Lucid) "Active VT tracking can fail at startup" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/544139 [16:10] bug 563916 [16:10] Launchpad 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/563916 [16:10] bug 603854 [16:10] Launchpad 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/603854 [16:10] bug 569900 [16:11] Launchpad 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/569900 [16:11] (erm, actually, I'm not sure that that last one has been uploaded, I'll look at that) [16:11] ;) [16:11] also, there's a questionable validation result on bug 634554 which we need to look into [16:11] Launchpad bug 634554 in fuse (Ubuntu Lucid) "fuse mounts hang on xattr retrieval with auditd" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/634554 [16:11] .. [16:12] thanks, cjwatson, will add into the agenda for next time, so we're tracking. [16:12] anyone around for server? [16:12] yeah [16:12] :) [16:12] nothing new from us...we did a bunch of SRU testing this week it should be going to proposed this week [16:13] cool. anything on the radar for 10.04.2 that I didn't catch on the agenda? [16:13] nope [16:13] thanks zul. [16:13] anyone around from desktop today? [16:14] * skaet_ looks around [16:14] ... moving on then [16:14] [TOPIC] Stable Release Update [16:14] New Topic: Stable Release Update [16:15] sconklin, can you give an update as to what the outlook is? [16:15] skaet_, hello sorry I'm late [16:15] The kernel team prepared new kernels for every supported [16:15] Ubuntu release. For the first time while using the new [16:15] stable release cadence, this update contains non-critical [16:15] security fixes. [16:15] Because the release contains security fixes, changes in the [16:15] build process have been implemented. These changes will [16:15] continue to be used for all stable kernel releases. [16:15] Stable kernels are now built in a non-virtualized PPA, so [16:15] that they can be built against the latest -security release [16:15] and released into both the -security pocket and -updates [16:15] pocket upon testing acceptance. [16:15] Because of the new process, uploaded kernels no longer [16:15] require acceptance by an Archive Admin, but once they are [16:15] built they require manual copying to the -proposed pocket [16:15] before the verification cycle can begin. [16:15] This is documented on the stable release cadence page here: [16:15] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/StableReleaseCadence#Build PPA and process for pocket copying [16:15] Kernels for the current cycle were uploaded to the PPA [16:15] and builds had completed by Friday. On Friday the archive [16:15] admins were notified that there were kernels to be copied to [16:15] -proposed. The new process using the non-virtualized has [16:15] caused some discussion about the new process among [16:15] the stable kernel team, Martin Pitt, and Kees Cook. The technical [16:15] board has been copied on part of the thread. [16:15] Due to this discussion, they have not been pocket [16:15] copied to -proposed yet. Verification testing can not begin [16:15] until they are in -proposed, and verification is allocated [16:16] one week. Therefore, we will not have kernels ready for [16:16] certification and regression testing available on Dec 13th as [16:16] planned. [16:16] .. [16:16] sconklin: ack [16:16] ack [16:16] o/ [16:17] are we good for the 14th SRU releases? [16:17] we were going to have our SRU release for the kernel on 12/16 [16:17] sconklin - any thoughts on how big will be the slip (days, week??) [16:17] sconklin: question answered :) [16:17] No. [16:18] We require 7 days for verification testing, then a couple of days to respin the kernels after any reverts, then Victor starts testing [16:18] sconklin: realistically does the month of december still look positive? [16:18] (provided holidays, etc) [16:18] It's entirely dependent on the outcome of the current discussion between pitti, us, security, and the technical board [16:18] sconklin: ditto [16:18] lets put it that way, if it is later than the 20th we can do it [16:19] s/can/cant/ [16:19] pitti 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] So we are in an indefinite hold until that is resolved. [16:19] .. [16:20] ok [16:20] actually 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 him [16:20] just take into account that we are running into next year quickly [16:20] (though pitti does do the bulk of kernel SRUing) [16:21] ack. ok, we probably need to take an action here. [16:21] I'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 kernel [16:21] in general, once an admin objects we would defer to that person on the grounds that they've taken ownership [16:21] though I'm not sure that's written down anywhere :) [16:21] as he is the most knowledgeable about the kernel issues [16:22] we need to see if we can get through this blockage some how. suggestions? [16:22] I am a bit confused on where we stand , can someone summarise in 2 lines what happens next? [16:22] .. [16:22] find pitti/kees and have a real-time discussion about it [16:23] (I'd suggest - since e-mail seems to be plodding/stalled) [16:23] We can release 10-14 days after the kernels are copied to -proposed, depending on weekends, etc [16:23] cjwatson: agreed! [16:23] .. [16:23] cjwatson sounds good [16:24] [ACTION] pitti, kees, sconklin - get together and propose adjustments process if needed, then broadcast new dates [16:24] ACTION received: pitti, kees, sconklin - get together and propose adjustments process if needed, then broadcast new dates [16:24] skaet - on that basis I propose to meet again this time next week [16:24] this may have been resolved easily if it had not occurred over a weekend [16:24] skaet_, i suggest you involve yourself in the meeting to understand the issues for next time [16:24] victorp, if we don't have an email broadcast, ok, lets meet again. [16:24] apw, I wasn't on the thread it appears. [16:25] skaet_ we will still need to meet to understand the impact to the timing of whatever is agreed [16:25] apw, ack, would like to be [16:26] victorp, ok - will put this on calendar for this time next week, with this as only topic area [16:26] skaet_ ack [16:26] I'll take the action to organize the meeting asap [16:26] [ACTION] skaet call meeting to discussing outcome of sconklin's meeting with pitti and kees. [16:26] ACTION received: skaet call meeting to discussing outcome of sconklin's meeting with pitti and kees. [16:26] thanks sconklin [16:27] ok, I think we've got some actions, and next steps figured out, so would like to see where we are on testing infrastructure. [16:28] victorp, any updates? [16:28] we were all set for the testing so [16:28] we are planning to work on the infrastructure during the test sprint [16:28] hapenning now [16:28] (i.e this week) [16:29] we would like to have by end of the week a test suite for both cert and regression [16:29] cool [16:29] (marjo is sitting here with me and nodding his head) [16:29] thanks marjo, victorp [16:29] ack [16:30] victorp, any chance we can use the spare slot now to do the runs on the alpha1 images and gets some summaries? [16:30] that was in the plan anyway [16:30] we might just have more time to do so [16:30] * skaet_ knows its not SRU related, but doesn't like seeing those machines idle ;) [16:30] lets see what happens [16:30] victorp, cool. thanks. [16:31] victorp, marjo - should I add a summary of the testing sprint to the meeting next week from you both? [16:31] skaet_ good idea [16:31] ok, will make sure its on the reduced agenda, and you can both summarize for your areas. [16:32] .. [16:33] ok, lets go on to other SRU planning then for the week, in terms of what's happening on the development side. [16:33] sconklin, any bugs/area [16:33] you'll be focusing on for this next week, we should be aware of? [16:34] we 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] There are more CVEs being opened [16:34] So our work load will continue to be high for these [16:34] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/linux.html [16:34] LINK received: http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/linux.html [16:34] So, I don't anticipate having a lot of debug time from our team. [16:34] .. [16:35] sconklin, ack. ok, will be looking to see if the CVE's will impact the cycle. next week then I guess. [16:36] cjwatson, other than the bugs you highlighted above needing validation, anything else that the foundations team will be looking at? [16:36] enabling the kernel backport is the main one, but OEM have been asking about bug 664115 too so we'll be sorting that out [16:36] Launchpad bug 664115 in parted (Ubuntu Maverick) "chroot loop devices stall for extremely long periods" [Medium,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/664115 [16:37] I don't think there's anything else terribly vital [16:37] cjwatson, ok, thanks! [16:37] zul, any thing to be concerned about from the server side? any progress on the aging SRU ones? [16:38] skaet_: nope we still have a couple need to be verified but no big deal i think [16:39] any progress likely on some of the very old ones? >100 days? [16:39] skaet: yes there was...i think for the openvpn one is to get a better testcase [16:39] which is a todo item for me this week i think [16:40] :) [16:40] ok, thanks for the update zul. [16:40] any update on the SRU side from ARM team? ogra? [16:41] any one here from the desktop team? [16:42] davidm, do you have any SRU update issues from your team? [16:42] .. [16:43] skaet_, no not at this time [16:43] thanks davidm. [16:43] vanhoof, any focus areas from the OEM side? [16:45] 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] skaet_: sorry was looking elsewhere [16:45] skaet_: from a HWE perspective, everything we have has been commited (all maverick right now) [16:45] lol, just in time [16:45] its just a matter of SRU release [16:45] .. [16:46] thanks vanhoof. questions? [16:46] [TOPIC] any other comments/concerns/etc. to raise? [16:46] New Topic: any other comments/concerns/etc. to raise? [16:46] skaet_: just need to follow up on the meetings happening regarding process [16:46] skaet_: so nothing right this second [16:47] vanhoof, ack. You're not alone on that. [16:47] any one else? [16:47] #endmeeting [16:47] Meeting finished at 10:47. [16:48] skaet_: thanks! [16:48] Thanks sconklin, zul, vanhoof, marjo, victorp, cjwatson [16:48] have a good one skaet_ [16:48] np [16:48] skaet: thx! [16:52] Thank you, skaet_ === jj-afk is now known as jjohansen === yofel_ is now known as yofel [18:06] kees, sbeattie, jdstrand, robbiew: meeting? [18:06] hi [18:07] hey [18:07] o/ [18:07] hola [18:09] okay, well, I guess I'll start. [18:09] hehe...I was trying to remember what the mootbot commands were :P [18:09] been on vacation for 2 weeks, started catching up on friday. I'm on patch pilot with mdeslaur today [18:09] I'm also on triage [18:09] er, no, community [18:10] I've got a huge backlog of email still that I'll be trying to make my way through as well. [18:10] that's really it from me. :) [18:11] shall I go? [18:11] jdstrand: sure [18:11] so today is the week of testing for me [18:11] in addition to being on triage, mozilla releases a new firefox later this week [18:12] they are also releases a new tbird, which will be the transition from 3.0 -> 3.1 on lucid [18:12] chromium builds finished over the weekend, so I will be testing that [18:12] and finally apparmor 2.5.1 is in lucid-proposed now, so I need to test that [18:13] I would encourage all lucid users to install the apparmor packages in lucid-proposed and give feedback in bug #660077 [18:13] Launchpad 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/660077 [18:13] (positive or negative) [18:14] that is it from me [18:14] mdeslaur: you're up [18:14] I just finished doing my patch pilot duty [18:14] This week I need to test imagemagick and paste updates [18:15] and have started working on fuse updates (which need util-linux fixes also) [18:15] I may update to natty this week also [18:15] that's it from me! [18:15] sbeattie: tag, you're it [18:16] mdeslaur: you want to use a maverick kernel still (for kvm) [18:16] jdstrand: argh, well I guess I won't be updating then [18:16] kvm is broken in natty? [18:16] mdeslaur: I filed a bug on it today, and hallyn tells me it is fixed upstream though [18:17] mdeslaur: it works, you just can't stop the machine (it is unkillable :) [18:17] ah [18:17] jdstrand: do you have a bug #? [18:17] yes, hold on [18:18] bug #685991 [18:18] Launchpad bug 685991 in linux (Ubuntu) "cannot kill kvm process that uses 'tap'" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/685991 [18:19] thanks jdstrand [18:19] * sbeattie goes now. [18:19] I'm testing an openssl update I'm working on. [18:19] I also have a phpmyadmin fakesync'ed package in the ubuntu-security-proposed ppa that I'll release this week. [18:20] And 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] Mmm, I think that's it for me. [18:21] Does anyone else have any issues for the security team? [18:21] well, there is the business about the laptops for natty security testing [18:22] mdeslaur and sbeattie both called "not it", so I'm happy to take one [18:22] which leaves me with one [18:22] which is fine, but it makes me wonder about desktop updates... [18:22] jdstrand: in what way? [18:23] there is an implication that kees and I will be doing the updates that affect the desktop for natty [18:23] but maybe I am reading too much into it [18:23] jdstrand: yes, congratulations :) [18:23] hehe [18:23] heh [18:23] apparently I was not reading too much into it :) [18:24] heh [18:24] jdstrand: they could be setup for remote access, right ;) [18:24] anyway, we know know who is getting them, and that is what's important for now [18:24] sbeattie: There are now debdiffs in the clamav security bugs. [18:24] bugs/bug [18:24] jdstrand: 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] robbiew: I'm not letting those jokers on my LAN :P [18:24] lol [18:24] seriously though, we'll figure it out [18:25] * robbiew notes jdstrand and kees [18:25] ...he's a making a list and checking twice.. [18:25] I can take one if someone wants to pay the duty and taxes to get it shipped here [18:25] if we are done with that, I also wanted to talk about sbuild/umt [18:25] mdeslaur: canonical has a fedex account ;) [18:25] ScottK: thanks, noted, either I or kees will handle it this week. [18:26] ok, if kees or jdstrand really want to opt out, I'll take one [18:26] I don't want to opt out [18:26] there is nothing saying we can't rotate or give remote access [18:26] ok [18:26] jdstrand: what's with sbuild/umt? [18:27] iirc, only kees and I are running natty atm [18:27] i'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] (from the team) [18:27] jdstrand: I'm running natty with a maverick kernel. [18:27] kees: as am I [18:27] jdstrand: correct, though I was contemplating upgrading my build host. [18:28] so, there was an issue with sbuild preventing older releases from building but that is now fixed and in the archive [18:28] but I noticed some odd stuff float by in builds, like: [18:28] /tmp/umt-EEdTRD: 35: cannot create /etc/apt/sources.list.new: Permission denied [18:28] Sessions still open, not unmounting [18:28] kees: have you seen that ^ ? [18:28] jdstrand: I get the "Sessions still open, not unmounting" on maverick [18:28] ok [18:28] jdstrand: I haven't, but I haven't built anything in 2 weeks, so who knows what's changed. [18:29] ok [18:29] then, let's just leave it at 'things seem to build, but keep an eye out for odd messages' [18:29] * jdstrand is done [18:30] jdstrand: the permission denied message is probably worth investigating though [18:30] * jdstrand nods [18:30] jdstrand: your sources list may not be getting censored properly [18:30] looking 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-hardened [18:31] cool [18:33] okay, well, that's it, then. thanks everyone! :) [18:36] thanks kees! [18:37] thanks! [18:56] cjwatson, cody-somerville, geser, persia, soren, stgraber: dmb meeting in 5 minutes [18:56] here [18:57] but with a stinking headache so the shorter the better :P [18:57] o/ [18:57] will be available in 3 minutes ;) though might get disturbed by customers calling. [18:58] (crazy day) [18:59] * soren will be 5-10 minutes late :( [19:00] persia, cody-somerville: dmb meeting? [19:01] should we begin? [19:02] we're quorate [19:02] ok, let's begin [19:02] (you, me, geser, stgraber = 4) [19:02] #startmeeting [19:02] Meeting started at 13:02. The chair is bdrung. [19:02] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [19:02] [TOPIC] Review of previous action items [19:02] New Topic: Review of previous action items [19:04] [TOPIC] Review outcome of Core Developer application for Ken VanDine [19:04] New Topic: Review outcome of Core Developer application for Ken VanDine [19:04] he became core-dev and was added to the team, correct? [19:06] I'm here. [19:06] LP says yes. Was a notice sent to devel-permissions? [19:07] yes [19:08] so we can tick off this item [19:08] [TOPIC] Review Marco Rodrigues participation in Ubuntu Development [19:08] New Topic: Review Marco Rodrigues participation in Ubuntu Development [19:08] any news on this topic since the last time? [19:09] I think at least one member of the CC commented on the issue [19:09] Feeling that we should be able to proceed forward on this matter [19:10] I haven't had a chance to respond to the thread myself. [19:10] However, if we really want to push forward on this I'm prepared to vote in favor or repealing Marco's ban. [19:11] digging 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. [19:14] I 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] to follow this suggestion, we have to allow marco to participation in Ubuntu Development through a sponsor [19:16] I 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] should this be a "fixed" sponsor Marco subscribes to bugs or should he send mail to his mentor who forwards them to LP? [19:17] I think the absence of such a person is sufficient for retaining the ban. [19:18] ScottK: would you consider feedback from DD based on his contribution to Debian eligible for considering lifting the ban? [19:18] cjwatson: 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 again [19:18] geser: I think Debian has very different social standards than Ubunut, so not if they weren't involved in Ubuntu development. [19:19] bdrung: No such thing as an easy way to ban again. [19:19] I'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] ScottK: well, there were people who spoke for him in his wiki page [19:19] we questioned those on the basis that they weren't in the context of Ubuntu === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-brb [19:19] (partly, anyway) [19:20] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarcoRodrigues/ParticipationApplication [19:20] LINK received: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarcoRodrigues/ParticipationApplication [19:20] Would it be fair to make it Marco's job to find this designated sponsor? [19:21] * 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 later [19:21] cjwatson: 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] ScottK: Of course not. He's been banned. [19:21] Lucas Nussbaum's an Ubuntu developer, isn't he? [19:21] True. [19:21] soren: sure if we can agree that's the way for him [19:21] I tend to forget that. [19:22] cjwatson: Good point. [19:23] soren: 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] Perhaps 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 make [19:25] (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] (I'd expect to see at least a certain amount of backscatter from mistakes) [19:26] ScottK: 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 Debian [19:27] cjwatson: good idea. one question will follow: how will the work through a sponsor look like? [19:27] cjwatson: 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] geser: He did in debian-games. [19:28] ScottK: I know, but that's only one part of Debian (or was it his complete contribution to Debian at that time?) [19:28] geser: 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. [19:29]