[15:54]  * skaet_ waves pedro_ charlie-tca 
[15:55]  * charlie-tca waves back
[15:55] <pedro_> hello
[15:55] <skaet_> :)
[15:58] <zul> hello
[15:58] <vanhoof> morning skaet_
[15:58] <skaet_> morning vanhoof,  zul
[15:58] <zul> hi Sarvatt
[15:59] <zul> damn skaet_
[15:59] <cjwatson> hi
[15:59] <zul> stupid tab completion
[15:59] <skaet_> zul, ??
[15:59] <skaet_> hi cjwatson
[15:59] <skaet_> cool,  looks like quorum is foruming
[15:59] <skaet_> lets get this started...
[16:00] <skaet_> #startmeeting
[16:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is skaet_.
[16:00] <MootBot> Commands 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_> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseTeam/Meeting/2010-12-06-SR
[16:00] <skaet_> ..
[16:01] <skaet_> ok, giving folks a minute to look things up and raise hands, if they don't like the convention.
[16:02] <skaet_> ;)
[16:02] <skaet_> [TOPIC] pending action items
[16:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  pending action items
[16:02] <skaet_> any update on the pending action items?
[16:03] <skaet_> sconklin - will the next date for SRU on the interlock hold?
[16:03] <sconklin> no
[16:03] <cjwatson> 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] <sconklin> We're in a hold until the kenels are pocket copied into the -proposed pocket
[16:04] <sconklin> kernels
[16:04] <sconklin> I have a detailed report, can save it for the agenda item
[16:04] <skaet_> cjwatson, thanks.  Will keep on agenda then.
[16:04] <skaet_> sconklin,  sounds good.
[16:05] <sconklin> ..
[16:05] <skaet_> anyone else have any updates from the pending actions?
[16:05] <skaet_> ..
[16:05] <skaet_> [TOPIC] Feature and Bugs Summary
[16:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Feature and Bugs Summary
[16:06] <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] <victorp> sorry skaet_ but some of the actions should now be closed by default .. like when is the next SRU
[16:07] <skaet_> victorp,  not necessarily, see comments from sconklin.   We'll get to that later though...
[16:07] <skaet_> [TOPIC] Long term support plan
[16:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Long term support plan
[16:08] <skaet_> s/plan/status/  sigh.
[16:08] <skaet_> Kernel team upate?
[16:08] <sconklin> no updates on the bug
[16:08] <sconklin> ..
[16:08] <skaet_> ok, thanks.
[16:09] <skaet_> Any update on the foundation bugs, cjwatson?
[16:09] <skaet_> ..
[16:10] <cjwatson> 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] <cjwatson> (and I'll make sure we do something about that)
[16:10] <skaet_> Thanks cjwatson.
[16:10] <cjwatson> I do have several bugs that have seen no validation work and need it:
[16:10] <cjwatson> bug 544139
[16:10] <cjwatson> bug 563916
[16:10] <cjwatson> bug 603854
[16:10] <cjwatson> bug 569900
[16:11] <cjwatson> (erm, actually, I'm not sure that that last one has been uploaded, I'll look at that)
[16:11] <skaet_> ;)
[16:11] <cjwatson> also, there's a questionable validation result on bug 634554 which we need to look into
[16:11] <cjwatson> ..
[16:12] <skaet_> thanks, cjwatson, will add into the agenda for next time, so we're tracking.
[16:12] <skaet_> anyone around for server?
[16:12] <zul> yeah
[16:12] <skaet_> :)
[16:12] <zul> nothing new from us...we did a bunch of SRU testing this week it should be going to proposed this week
[16:13] <skaet_> cool.  anything on the radar for 10.04.2 that I didn't catch on the agenda?
[16:13] <zul> nope
[16:13] <skaet_> thanks zul.
[16:13] <skaet_> anyone around from desktop today?
[16:14]  * skaet_ looks around
[16:14] <skaet_> ... moving on then
[16:14] <skaet_> [TOPIC] Stable Release Update
[16:14] <MootBot> New Topic:  Stable Release Update
[16:15] <skaet_> sconklin, can you give an update as to what the outlook is?
[16:15] <davidm> skaet_, hello sorry I'm late
[16:15] <sconklin> The kernel team prepared new kernels for every supported
[16:15] <sconklin> Ubuntu release. For the first time while using the new
[16:15] <sconklin> stable release cadence, this update contains non-critical
[16:15] <sconklin> security fixes.
[16:15] <sconklin> Because the release contains security fixes, changes in the
[16:15] <sconklin> build process have been implemented. These changes will
[16:15] <sconklin> continue to be used for all stable kernel releases.
[16:15] <sconklin> Stable kernels are now built in a non-virtualized PPA, so
[16:15] <sconklin> that they can be built against the latest -security release
[16:15] <sconklin> and released into both the -security pocket and -updates
[16:15] <sconklin> pocket upon testing acceptance.
[16:15] <sconklin> Because of the new process, uploaded kernels no longer
[16:15] <sconklin> require acceptance by an Archive Admin, but once they are
[16:15] <sconklin> built they require manual copying to the -proposed pocket
[16:15] <sconklin> before the verification cycle can begin.
[16:15] <sconklin> This is documented on the stable release cadence page here:
[16:15] <sconklin> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/StableReleaseCadence#Build PPA and process for pocket copying
[16:15] <sconklin> Kernels for the current cycle were uploaded to the PPA
[16:15] <sconklin> and builds had completed by Friday. On Friday the archive
[16:15] <sconklin> admins were notified that there were kernels to be copied to
[16:15] <sconklin> -proposed. The new process using the non-virtualized has
[16:15] <sconklin> caused some discussion about the new process among
[16:15] <sconklin> the stable kernel team, Martin Pitt, and Kees Cook. The technical
[16:15] <sconklin> board has been copied on part of the thread.
[16:15] <sconklin> Due to this discussion, they have not been pocket
[16:15] <sconklin> copied to -proposed yet. Verification testing can not begin
[16:15] <sconklin> until they are in -proposed, and verification is allocated
[16:16] <sconklin> one week. Therefore, we will not have kernels ready for
[16:16] <sconklin> certification and regression testing available on Dec 13th as
[16:16] <sconklin> planned.
[16:16] <sconklin> ..
[16:16] <marjo_> sconklin: ack
[16:16] <victorp> ack
[16:16] <vanhoof> o/
[16:17] <skaet_> are we good for the 14th SRU releases?
[16:17] <sconklin> we were going to have our SRU release for the kernel on 12/16
[16:17] <victorp> sconklin - any thoughts on how big will be the slip (days, week??)
[16:17] <vanhoof> sconklin: question answered :)
[16:17] <sconklin> No.
[16:18] <sconklin> 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] <vanhoof> sconklin: realistically does the month of december still look positive?
[16:18] <vanhoof> (provided holidays, etc)
[16:18] <sconklin> It's entirely dependent on the outcome of the current discussion between pitti, us, security, and the technical board
[16:18] <marjo_> sconklin: ditto
[16:18] <victorp> lets put it that way, if it is later than the 20th we can do it
[16:19] <victorp> s/can/cant/
[16:19] <sconklin> 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] <sconklin> So we are in an indefinite hold until that is resolved.
[16:19] <sconklin> ..
[16:20] <victorp> ok
[16:20] <cjwatson> 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] <victorp> just take into account that we are running into next year quickly
[16:20] <cjwatson> (though pitti does do the bulk of kernel SRUing)
[16:21] <skaet_> ack.   ok, we probably need to take an action here.
[16:21] <sconklin> 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] <cjwatson> in general, once an admin objects we would defer to that person on the grounds that they've taken ownership
[16:21] <cjwatson> though I'm not sure that's written down anywhere :)
[16:21] <sconklin> as he is the most knowledgeable about the kernel issues
[16:22] <skaet_> we need to see if we can get through this blockage some how.  suggestions?
[16:22] <victorp> I am a bit confused on where we stand , can someone summarise in 2 lines what happens next?
[16:22] <sconklin> ..
[16:22] <cjwatson> find pitti/kees and have a real-time discussion about it
[16:23] <cjwatson> (I'd suggest - since e-mail seems to be plodding/stalled)
[16:23] <sconklin> We can release 10-14 days after the kernels are copied to -proposed, depending on weekends, etc
[16:23] <sconklin> cjwatson: agreed!
[16:23] <sconklin> ..
[16:23] <victorp> cjwatson sounds good
[16:24] <skaet_> [ACTION] pitti, kees, sconklin - get together and propose adjustments process if needed, then broadcast new dates
[16:24] <MootBot> ACTION received:  pitti, kees, sconklin - get together and propose adjustments process if needed, then broadcast new dates
[16:24] <victorp> skaet - on that basis I propose to meet again this time next week
[16:24] <sconklin> this may have been resolved easily if it had not occurred over a weekend
[16:24] <apw> skaet_, i suggest you involve yourself in the meeting to understand the issues for next time
[16:24] <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.
[16:25] <victorp> skaet_ we will still need to meet to understand the impact to the timing of whatever is agreed
[16:25] <skaet_> apw, ack, would like to be
[16:26] <skaet_> victorp, ok - will put this on calendar for this time next week, with this as only topic area
[16:26] <victorp> skaet_ ack
[16:26] <sconklin> I'll take the action to organize the meeting asap
[16:26] <skaet_> [ACTION] skaet call meeting to discussing outcome of sconklin's meeting with pitti and kees.
[16:26] <MootBot> ACTION received:  skaet call meeting to discussing outcome of sconklin's meeting with pitti and kees.
[16:26] <skaet_> thanks sconklin
[16:27] <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.
[16:28] <skaet_> victorp,  any updates?
[16:28] <victorp> we were all set for the testing so
[16:28] <victorp> we are planning to work on the infrastructure during the test sprint
[16:28] <victorp> hapenning now
[16:28] <victorp> (i.e this week)
[16:29] <victorp> we would like to have by end of the week a test suite for both cert and regression
[16:29] <skaet_> cool
[16:29] <victorp> (marjo is sitting here with me and nodding his head)
[16:29] <skaet_> thanks marjo, victorp
[16:29] <marjo_> ack
[16:30] <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] <victorp> that was in the plan anyway
[16:30] <victorp> 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] <victorp> lets see what happens
[16:30] <skaet_> victorp,  cool.   thanks.
[16:31] <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 idea
[16:31] <skaet_> ok,  will make sure its on the reduced agenda, and you can both summarize for your areas.
[16:32] <skaet_> ..
[16:33] <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/area
[16:33] <skaet_> you'll be focusing on for this next week, we should be aware of?
[16:34] <sconklin> 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] <sconklin> There are more CVEs being opened
[16:34] <sconklin> So our work load will continue to be high for these
[16:34] <sconklin> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/linux.html
[16:34] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/linux.html
[16:34] <sconklin> So, I don't anticipate having a lot of debug time from our team.
[16:34] <sconklin> ..
[16:35] <skaet_> sconklin,  ack.   ok, will be looking to see if the CVE's will impact the cycle.  next week then I guess.
[16:36] <skaet_> cjwatson,  other than the bugs you highlighted above needing validation, anything else that the foundations team will be looking at?
[16:36] <cjwatson> enabling the kernel backport is the main one, but OEM have been asking about bug 664115 too so we'll be sorting that out
[16:37] <cjwatson> I don't think there's anything else terribly vital
[16:37] <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?
[16:38] <zul> skaet_: nope we still have a couple need to be verified but no big deal i think
[16:39] <skaet_> any progress likely on some of the very old ones? >100 days?
[16:39] <zul> skaet: yes there was...i think for the openvpn one is to get a better testcase
[16:39] <zul> which is a todo item for me this week i think
[16:40] <skaet_> :)
[16:40] <skaet_> ok,  thanks for the update zul.
[16:40] <skaet_> any update on the SRU side from ARM team?   ogra?
[16:41] <skaet_> any one here from the desktop team?
[16:42] <skaet_> davidm,  do you have any SRU update issues from your team?
[16:42] <skaet_> ..
[16:43] <davidm> skaet_, no not at this time
[16:43] <skaet_> thanks davidm.
[16:43] <skaet_> vanhoof, any focus areas from the OEM side?
[16:45] <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] <vanhoof> skaet_: sorry was looking elsewhere
[16:45] <vanhoof> skaet_: from a HWE perspective, everything we have has been commited (all maverick right now)
[16:45] <skaet_> lol, just in time
[16:45] <vanhoof> its just a matter of SRU release
[16:45] <vanhoof> ..
[16:46] <skaet_> thanks vanhoof.   questions?
[16:46] <skaet_> [TOPIC] any other comments/concerns/etc. to raise?
[16:46] <MootBot> New Topic:  any other comments/concerns/etc. to raise?
[16:46] <vanhoof> skaet_: just need to follow up on the meetings happening regarding process
[16:46] <vanhoof> skaet_: so nothing right this second
[16:47] <skaet_> vanhoof,  ack.   You're not alone on that.
[16:47] <skaet_> any one else?
[16:47] <skaet_> #endmeeting
[16:47] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:47.
[16:48] <sconklin> skaet_: thanks!
[16:48] <skaet_> Thanks sconklin, zul, vanhoof, marjo, victorp, cjwatson
[16:48] <vanhoof> have a good one skaet_
[16:48] <zul> np
[16:48] <marjo_> skaet: thx!
[16:52] <charlie-tca> Thank you, skaet_
[18:06] <mdeslaur> kees, sbeattie, jdstrand, robbiew: meeting?
[18:06] <jdstrand> hi
[18:07] <sbeattie> hey
[18:07] <robbiew> o/
[18:07] <kees> hola
[18:09] <kees> okay, well, I guess I'll start.
[18:09] <mdeslaur> hehe...I was trying to remember what the mootbot commands were :P
[18:09] <kees> been on vacation for 2 weeks, started catching up on friday. I'm on patch pilot with mdeslaur today
[18:09] <kees> I'm also on triage
[18:09] <kees> er, no, community
[18:10] <kees> I've got a huge backlog of email still that I'll be trying to make my way through as well.
[18:10] <kees> that's really it from me. :)
[18:11] <jdstrand> shall I go?
[18:11] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: sure
[18:11] <jdstrand> so today is the week of testing for me
[18:11] <jdstrand> in addition to being on triage, mozilla releases a new firefox later this week
[18:12] <jdstrand> they are also releases a new tbird, which will be the transition from 3.0 -> 3.1 on lucid
[18:12] <jdstrand> chromium builds finished over the weekend, so I will be testing that
[18:12] <jdstrand> and finally apparmor 2.5.1 is in lucid-proposed now, so I need to test that
[18:13] <jdstrand> I would encourage all lucid users to install the apparmor packages in lucid-proposed and give feedback in bug #660077
[18:13] <jdstrand> (positive or negative)
[18:14] <jdstrand> that is it from me
[18:14] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: you're up
[18:14] <mdeslaur> I just finished doing my patch pilot duty
[18:14] <mdeslaur> This week I need to test imagemagick and paste updates
[18:15] <mdeslaur> and have started working on fuse updates (which need util-linux fixes also)
[18:15] <mdeslaur> I may update to natty this week also
[18:15] <mdeslaur> that's it from me!
[18:15] <mdeslaur> sbeattie: tag, you're it
[18:16] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: you want to use a maverick kernel still (for kvm)
[18:16] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: argh, well I guess I won't be updating then
[18:16] <mdeslaur> kvm is broken in natty?
[18:16] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: I filed a bug on it today, and hallyn tells me it is fixed upstream though
[18:17] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: it works, you just can't stop the machine (it is unkillable :)
[18:17] <mdeslaur> ah
[18:17] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: do you have a bug #?
[18:17] <jdstrand> yes, hold on
[18:18] <jdstrand> bug #685991
[18:19] <mdeslaur> thanks jdstrand
[18:19]  * sbeattie goes now.
[18:19] <sbeattie> I'm testing an openssl update I'm working on.
[18:19] <sbeattie> I also have a phpmyadmin fakesync'ed package in the ubuntu-security-proposed ppa that I'll release this week.
[18:20] <sbeattie> 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] <sbeattie> Mmm, I think that's it for me.
[18:21] <sbeattie> Does anyone else have any issues for the security team?
[18:21] <jdstrand> well, there is the business about the laptops for natty security testing
[18:22] <kees> mdeslaur and sbeattie both called "not it", so I'm happy to take one
[18:22] <jdstrand> which leaves me with one
[18:22] <jdstrand> which is fine, but it makes me wonder about desktop updates...
[18:22] <sbeattie> jdstrand: in what way?
[18:23] <jdstrand> there is an implication that kees and I will be doing the updates that affect the desktop for natty
[18:23] <jdstrand> but maybe I am reading too much into it
[18:23] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: yes, congratulations :)
[18:23] <mdeslaur> hehe
[18:23] <sbeattie> heh
[18:23] <jdstrand> apparently I was not reading too much into it :)
[18:24] <kees> heh
[18:24] <robbiew> jdstrand: they could be setup for remote access, right ;)
[18:24] <jdstrand> anyway, we know know who is getting them, and that is what's important for now
[18:24] <ScottK> sbeattie: There are now debdiffs in the clamav security bugs.
[18:24] <ScottK> bugs/bug
[18:24] <sbeattie> 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] <jdstrand> robbiew: I'm not letting those jokers on my LAN :P
[18:24] <robbiew> lol
[18:24] <jdstrand> seriously though, we'll figure it out
[18:25]  * robbiew notes jdstrand and kees 
[18:25] <robbiew> ...he's a making a list and checking twice..
[18:25] <mdeslaur> I can take one if someone wants to pay the duty and taxes to get it shipped here
[18:25] <jdstrand> if we are done with that, I also wanted to talk about sbuild/umt
[18:25] <robbiew> mdeslaur: canonical has a fedex account ;)
[18:25] <sbeattie> ScottK: thanks, noted, either I or kees will handle it this week.
[18:26] <mdeslaur> ok, if kees or jdstrand really want to opt out, I'll take one
[18:26] <jdstrand> I don't want to opt out
[18:26] <jdstrand> there is nothing saying we can't rotate or give remote access
[18:26] <mdeslaur> ok
[18:26] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: what's with sbuild/umt?
[18:27] <jdstrand> iirc, only kees and I are running natty atm
[18:27] <kees> 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] <jdstrand> (from the team)
[18:27] <kees> jdstrand: I'm running natty with a maverick kernel.
[18:27] <jdstrand> kees: as am I
[18:27] <sbeattie> jdstrand: correct, though I was contemplating upgrading my build host.
[18:28] <jdstrand> so, there was an issue with sbuild preventing older releases from building but that is now fixed and in the archive
[18:28] <jdstrand> but 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 denied
[18:28] <jdstrand> Sessions still open, not unmounting
[18:28] <jdstrand> kees: have you seen that ^ ?
[18:28] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: I get the "Sessions still open, not unmounting" on maverick
[18:28] <jdstrand> ok
[18:28] <kees> jdstrand: I haven't, but I haven't built anything in 2 weeks, so who knows what's changed.
[18:29] <jdstrand> ok
[18:29] <jdstrand> 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] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: the permission denied message is probably worth investigating though
[18:30]  * jdstrand nods
[18:30] <mdeslaur> jdstrand: your sources list may not be getting censored properly
[18:30] <jdstrand> 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] <kees> cool
[18:33] <kees> okay, well, that's it, then. thanks everyone! :)
[18:36] <jdstrand> thanks kees!
[18:37] <mdeslaur> thanks!
[18:56] <bdrung> cjwatson, cody-somerville, geser, persia, soren, stgraber: dmb meeting in 5 minutes
[18:56] <cjwatson> here
[18:57] <cjwatson> but with a stinking headache so the shorter the better :P
[18:57] <geser> o/
[18:57] <stgraber> will be available in 3 minutes ;) though might get disturbed by customers calling.
[18:58] <stgraber> (crazy day)
[18:59]  * soren will be 5-10 minutes late :(
[19:00] <bdrung> persia, cody-somerville: dmb meeting?
[19:01] <bdrung> should we begin?
[19:02] <cjwatson> we're quorate
[19:02] <bdrung> ok, let's begin
[19:02] <cjwatson> (you, me, geser, stgraber = 4)
[19:02] <bdrung> #startmeeting
[19:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:02. The chair is bdrung.
[19:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:02] <bdrung> [TOPIC] Review of previous action items
[19:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review of previous action items
[19:04] <bdrung> [TOPIC] Review outcome of Core Developer application for Ken VanDine
[19:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review outcome of Core Developer application for Ken VanDine
[19:04] <bdrung> he became core-dev and was added to the team, correct?
[19:06] <cody-somerville> I'm here.
[19:06] <cjwatson> LP says yes.  Was a notice sent to devel-permissions?
[19:07] <bdrung> yes
[19:08] <bdrung> so we can tick off this item
[19:08] <bdrung> [TOPIC] Review Marco Rodrigues participation in Ubuntu Development
[19:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review Marco Rodrigues participation in Ubuntu Development
[19:08] <bdrung> any news on this topic since the last time?
[19:09] <cody-somerville> I think at least one member of the CC commented on the issue
[19:09] <cody-somerville> Feeling that we should be able to proceed forward on this matter
[19:10] <cody-somerville> I haven't had a chance to respond to the thread myself.
[19:10] <cody-somerville> However, if we really want to push forward on this I'm prepared to vote in favor or repealing Marco's ban.
[19:11] <bdrung> 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] <cjwatson> 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] <bdrung> to follow this suggestion, we have to allow marco to participation in Ubuntu Development through a sponsor
[19:16] <ScottK> 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] <geser> 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] <ScottK> I think the absence of such a person is sufficient for retaining the ban.
[19:18] <geser> ScottK: would you consider feedback from DD based on his contribution to Debian eligible for considering lifting the ban?
[19:18] <bdrung> 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] <ScottK> geser: I think Debian has very different social standards than Ubunut, so not if they weren't involved in Ubuntu development.
[19:19] <ScottK> bdrung: No such thing as an easy way to ban again.
[19:19] <soren> 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] <cjwatson> ScottK: well, there were people who spoke for him in his wiki page
[19:19] <cjwatson> we questioned those on the basis that they weren't in the context of Ubuntu
[19:19] <cjwatson> (partly, anyway)
[19:20] <bdrung> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarcoRodrigues/ParticipationApplication
[19:20] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarcoRodrigues/ParticipationApplication
[19:20] <soren> 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] <ScottK> 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] <soren> ScottK: Of course not. He's been banned.
[19:21] <cjwatson> Lucas Nussbaum's an Ubuntu developer, isn't he?
[19:21] <ScottK> True.
[19:21] <geser> soren: sure if we can agree that's the way for him
[19:21] <ScottK> I tend to forget that.
[19:22] <ScottK> cjwatson: Good point.
[19:23] <ScottK> 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] <cjwatson> 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] <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)
[19:26] <geser> 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] <bdrung> cjwatson: good idea. one question will follow: how will the work through a sponsor look like?
[19:27] <soren> 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] <ScottK> geser: He did in debian-games.
[19:28] <geser> ScottK: I know, but that's only one part of Debian (or was it his complete contribution to Debian at that time?)
[19:28] <ScottK> 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] <cjwatson> What has he been like in #debian-python?  The only comment I see about that is Piotr's short one.
[19:30] <cjwatson> (FWIW, I'm currently roughly 0 on this.  Not sure whether it's +0 or -0, for whatever difference that makes.)
[19:30] <geser> he got kicked from debian-games? I don't remember anymore if he got kicked or was on the edge of getting kicked
[19:30] <ScottK> My recollection is he was kicked, but I'm not involved and it was a long time ago.
[19:31] <geser> almost 3 years ago
[19:32] <cody-somerville> We're now 30 minutes in
[19:32] <cody-somerville> I'll be his dedicated sponsor.
[19:32] <cody-somerville> Lets implement a probation period of 90 days.
[19:33] <cody-somerville> We'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] <bdrung> cody-somerville: how should the sponsoring look like?
[19:33] <geser> should he file bugs as usual and subscribe you or email you and you'll file them?
[19:33] <cody-somerville> I'm fine with what ever you guys think is best and will be least disruptive for everyone.
[19:34] <geser> I've no preference but the later would be more in line with the ban
[19:34] <bdrung> i should be somehow public. then we can arrive our own conclusions
[19:35]  * cody-somerville nods.
[19:35] <cody-somerville> bdrung, +1
[19:35] <cody-somerville> I think being able to see him interact as he will after the probation period is over (assuming he passes) will be most beneficial
[19:35] <geser> that would be the advantage of the former but making him not more different than any other new contributor
[19:36] <bdrung> cody-somerville: a public ban-compliant solution would be that he communicates with you and you will file bugs and his comment and patches
[19:36] <cody-somerville> If he has a filter on him, how are you guys going to come to your own conclusions?
[19:37] <bdrung> valid point
[19:37] <cody-somerville> How 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] <soren> cody-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] <cjwatson> We could have a role address which goes to Cody and a developer-readable log file.
[19:38] <cjwatson> For auditing
[19:38] <cjwatson> That 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 do
[19:39] <cody-somerville> Whatever 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] <bdrung> cjwatson: role address?
[19:39] <cjwatson> cody-somerville+marcolog@ubuntu.com, or rough equivalent
[19:39] <geser> cody-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)
[19:40] <cody-somerville> hmm...
[19:40] <cody-somerville> Will he be allowed on IRC channels?
[19:40] <cody-somerville> I can't really filter that in real time
[19:40] <cody-somerville> and I think that the IRC interactions were a part of the problem that we'll want to evaluate
[19:40] <cjwatson> I don't remember the details of IRC interactions.  The ones I heard about were non-real-time
[19:42]  * 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.
[19:43] <geser> I don't remember if banning him from IRC was connected to the MC ban or the IRC Coucil did it based on the MC ban
[19:43] <cjwatson> I think because Marco demotivated developers who we already know are productive members of Ubuntu, and we want to minimise the risk of that happening again
[19:43] <cjwatson> But I have to admit I share the sentiment that permanent bans are very difficult to justify
[19:44] <cody-somerville> Marco isn't malicious. His intentions are honorable. Its not within the Ubuntu spirit to be so vindictive. :(
[19:44] <cody-somerville> There is always going to be people that are annoying or that we don't like.
[19:45] <ScottK> cody-somerville: Wanting to be productive is not being vindictive.
[19:45] <cody-somerville> ScottK, Are you active in Debian?
[19:45] <ScottK> cody-somerville: I am.
[19:45] <cody-somerville> ScottK, Is it fair to say you contribute to Debian on a regular basis?
[19:45] <ScottK> cody-somerville: It is.
[19:45] <cody-somerville> ScottK, Do you feel you are a productive contributor to Debian?
[19:45] <ScottK> Yes.
[19:46]  * cjwatson wonders where Cody's going with this
[19:46] <cody-somerville> ScottK, Marco contributes to Debian on a regular basis. Has his participation there been detrimental to your productivity in Debian?
[19:47] <ScottK> cody-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.
[19:48] <ScottK> That 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-somerville> ScottK, 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?
[19:49] <ScottK> cody-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.
[19:50] <ScottK> Because we don't have maintainers in Ubuntu it's completely different.
[19:50] <cjwatson> I 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] <cjwatson> And I have real trouble wrapping my conscience around a permanent ban in the absence of active malice.
[19:51] <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] <MootBot> IDEA 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-somerville> What 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] <bdrung> cody-somerville: good point
[19:52] <cody-somerville> ie. 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 areas
[19:52] <ScottK> cjwatson: 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] <cjwatson> There is that, but this kind of thing has a habit of being taken as precedent
[19:53] <cjwatson> Hard cases make bad law, and all that
[19:53] <ScottK> cjwatson: I think the precedent that it can be permanent is not a bad one for encouraging the others.
[19:54] <ScottK> It'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] <ScottK> So there's plenty of experience with "Just ask him not to..." not being effective.
[19:54] <cjwatson> And 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.)
[19:55] <cody-somerville> We asked him not to contribute to Ubuntu and for the most part he has complied.
[19:55] <cody-somerville> ie. we didn't ban him from using Launchpad or anything like that.
[19:56] <cody-somerville> Anyhow, we're now 55 minutes in and I have to leave on the hour.
[19:56] <cjwatson> chair?
[19:56] <bdrung> i think we should come to an conclusion about the direction that we want to go.
[19:56] <cjwatson> I think consensus is unachievable and we should vote.
[19:57] <cjwatson> (I hope I'm wrong, but we've had multiple hour-long sessions on this.)
[19:57] <cjwatson> I don't resent the time spent, because the hard cases are the interesting ones, but other people deserve our time too.
[19:57] <bdrung> i 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 ban
[19:57] <geser> I've also the feeling that no consensus will be reached even it we talk the next 10 hours about it
[19:58]  * ajmitch is just catching up on the decisions from 3 years ago
[19:58]  * cody-somerville is in favor of parole.
[19:59] <cjwatson> up/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] <geser> after 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 deadlock
[19:59] <cjwatson> (if you can decipher my syntax.)
[20:00] <soren> I can't :(
[20:00] <cjwatson> [1] 2. [1] 3. [2] NOTA [3] 1.
[20:00] <cjwatson> "none of the above"
[20:00] <soren> Ah, /me now succesfully decipers NOTA
[20:01] <soren> 2 3 1 NOTA, then.
[20:01] <bdrung> [1] 2. [2] 1. [3] 3. [3] NOTA
[20:02] <geser> 2 NOTA 3 1
[20:02] <cjwatson> That 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.
[20:03] <bdrung> i fail in calculating Condorcet, but it's obvious that 2. won
[20:03] <bdrung> next thing to decide: how long should be the period?
[20:04] <cody-somerville> lets re-evaluate in 30 days
[20:04] <cody-somerville> lets decide then to unban, end, or extend
[20:04] <bdrung> ok
[20:04] <geser> cody-somerville: are you mentoring him over the xmas holidays?
[20:05] <geser> else I'd propose 2011-01-31
[20:05] <cody-somerville> Good point.
[20:06] <bdrung> anyone 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] <cjwatson> BTW: if this fails, it should be explicitly permanent
[20:06] <cjwatson> "one last chance"
[20:06] <cody-somerville> I'm against permanent bans.
[20:06] <cody-somerville> I'd rather set a time period
[20:06] <cody-somerville> ex. 5 years
[20:07] <geser> if I'd didn't miscalculate we have even a meeting on 2011-01-31
[20:07] <cjwatson> As long as I'm off the DMB by that time :-P
[20:07] <cody-somerville> lol
[20:07]  * cody-somerville isn't against banning someone for a long time but I think everyone deserves another chance sooner or later.
[20:07] <geser> cjwatson: you could step down before this topic appears the next time on the agenda in 5 years :)
[20:08] <bdrung> next: what will Macro be allowed? IRC? commenting on lp bugs? ...
[20:08] <cjwatson> Given that it's through a sponsor I think we need to leave the IRC ban in place.
[20:08] <cjwatson> As Cody said, he can't filter in real-time
[20:08] <geser> isn't IRC access the domain of the IRC council?
[20:09] <cjwatson> They'd take DMB recommendations for developer channels, I'm pretty ure
[20:09] <cjwatson> *sure
[20:09] <cjwatson> and #ubuntu-devel is certainly delegated admin
[20:09] <cjwatson> (I don't know about #ubuntu-motu)
[20:10] <bdrung> so we are at email based sponsoring, which should be logged through an role address?
[20:12] <bdrung> opinions?
[20:13] <cjwatson> I think I gave mine above ...
[20:14] <bdrung> anyone against the role address idea?
[20:15] <cody-somerville> provided someone besides me sets it up, I'm game for the idea
[20:15] <bdrung> who wants to setup the role address?
[20:15] <cjwatson> cody-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)
[20:17] <cody-somerville> cjwatson, I don't really have the means.
[20:20] <cjwatson> If there are no quick volunteers I think we should leave it to the minutes, or perhaps you can ask IS?
[20:20] <bdrung> cjwatson: what do you mean with "leave it to the minutes"?
[20:21] <cody-somerville> maybe ScottK could help out with this?
[20:21] <cjwatson> put it in the minutes and ask somebody to help.
[20:21] <cjwatson> (anything to move on.)
[20:21] <cody-somerville> I hear he is pretty good around an e-mail server
[20:21] <bdrung> cjwatson: with wich mootbot command?
[20:22] <ScottK> cody-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] <cjwatson> I don't remember.  Write it in by hand?
[20:24] <bdrung> cody-somerville: will you inform Marco about the outcome of this meeting?
[20:25] <bdrung> [AGREED] Allow Macro to participate in the Ubuntu development through an sponsor until 2010-01-31 and then evaluate the result.
[20:25] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Allow Macro to participate in the Ubuntu development through an sponsor until 2010-01-31 and then evaluate the result.
[20:26] <cody-somerville> bdrung, Yes.
[20:27] <bdrung> [ACTION] cody-somerville to inform Macro that he is allowed to participate in the Ubuntu development through an sponsor until 2010-01-31
[20:27] <MootBot> ACTION received:  cody-somerville to inform Macro that he is allowed to participate in the Ubuntu development through an sponsor until 2010-01-31
[20:28] <bdrung> [ACTION] find someone who setups the role address for logging Marcos progress
[20:28] <MootBot> ACTION received:  find someone who setups the role address for logging Marcos progress
[20:28] <bdrung> then let's move on to the next topic
[20:28] <bdrung> [TOPIC] Review responsibilities and requirements of DMB delegates
[20:28] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review responsibilities and requirements of DMB delegates
[20:30] <bdrung> cody-somerville: ^
[20:31] <cody-somerville> We need to defer that topic.
[20:31]  * cody-somerville has to get back to work.
[20:31] <bdrung> ok
[20:32] <geser> do we still have quorum for the applicants?
[20:33] <bdrung> we should
[20:33] <bdrung> [TOPIC] Martin Pool's application for per-package upload rights for bzr and related packages
[20:33] <MootBot> New Topic:  Martin Pool's application for per-package upload rights for bzr and related packages
[20:33] <bdrung> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinPool/DeveloperApplication
[20:33] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MartinPool/DeveloperApplication
[20:34] <stgraber> I'm sorry but I also have to get back to work, customers calling :(
[20:35] <bdrung> cjwatson, geser, soren and me remain
[20:36] <bdrung> is Martin Pool here?
[20:37] <geser> poolie doesn't seem to here. Too early for him?
[20:38] <cjwatson> I have no complaints or questions but I know some people like to talk to applicants in person
[20:38] <cjwatson> perhaps we can schedule a one-off at a convenient time?
[20:39] <geser> I've no problem with that
[20:39] <bdrung> me too (if it is really a timezone problem)
[20:39] <cjwatson> he's in .au
[20:40] <bdrung> cjwatson: do you want to take care of finding a convenient time?
[20:40] <cjwatson> it's 7:40am there
[20:40] <cjwatson> sure
[20:41] <bdrung> [ACTION] cjwatson to find a convenient time for a meeting for Martin Pool's application
[20:41] <MootBot> ACTION received:  cjwatson to find a convenient time for a meeting for Martin Pool's application
[20:41] <bdrung> [TOPIC] Alexandros Frantzis' application for universe-contributor
[20:41] <MootBot> New Topic:  Alexandros Frantzis' application for universe-contributor
[20:42] <bdrung> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlexandrosFrantzis/UniverseContributorApplication
[20:42] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlexandrosFrantzis/UniverseContributorApplication
[20:42] <alf_> Hi! I am here.
[20:42] <cjwatson> Thanks for waiting
[20:45] <cjwatson> ... Does anyone have any questions, or are they all still reading?
[20:46]  * bdrung is still reading
[20:46] <geser> what's the connection between Linaro and Canonical? I don't remember seeing anything explaining the connection between those two (only regular mentioning of Linaro)
[20:47] <alf_> geser: Canonical assigns engineers to Linaro work
[20:48] <alf_> and many of the leaders within Linaro come from Canonical/Ubuntu
[20:49] <bdrung> alf_: do you have ideas to make the revu process less frustrating?
[20:50] <alf_> bdrung: the process itself is fine, the problem is the slow rate at which the process progresses, presumably due to lack of manpower
[20:50] <cjwatson> (Linaro also has a bunch of engineers from other companies, FWIW)
[20:50] <geser> and Linaro focus mainly on ARM?
[20:50] <rsalveti> yes
[20:53] <bdrung> alf_: what's the status of getting your new packages into debian, too?
[20:54] <alf_> bdrung: I haven't yet had the time to look into it, but I plan to
[20:55] <bdrung> Any outstanding questions?
[20:56] <bdrung> otherwise let's vote
[20:57] <bdrung> [VOTE] Alexandros Frantzis to become universe-contributor
[20:57] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Alexandros Frantzis to become universe-contributor.
[20:57] <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
[20:57] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:57]  * cjwatson has nothing, it was a refreshing change to see somebody other than me working on germinate
[20:57] <bdrung> +1
[20:57] <MootBot> +1 received from bdrung. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:58] <cjwatson> +1
[20:58] <MootBot> +1 received from cjwatson. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:58] <geser> +1
[20:58] <MootBot> +1 received from geser. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:58] <cjwatson> (still trying to get that change landed ...)
[20:58] <geser> soren: still here?
[21:00] <bdrung> should we continue the vote on the mailing list?
[21:00] <geser> if we lost soren too then we have to defer the voting to the mailing list
[21:01]  * soren is back
[21:01] <soren> Sorry.
[21:01] <bdrung> great
[21:01] <soren> Had a daughter that demanded attention :-/
[21:01] <soren> +1
[21:01] <MootBot> +1 received from soren. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[21:02] <bdrung> [ENDVOTE]
[21:02] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[21:02] <geser> soren: a high-priority uninteruptable task? :)
[21:02] <bdrung> geser: the DMB meeting is a uninteruptable task :P
[21:02] <soren> geser: something like that :)
[21:03] <cjwatson> as any kernel hacker knows, uninterruptible tasks should be short :)
[21:03] <bdrung> [ACTION] Add Alexandros Frantzis to universe-contributor
[21:03] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Add Alexandros Frantzis to universe-contributor
[21:04] <bdrung> [TOPIC] Select a chair for the next meeting
[21:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Select a chair for the next meeting
[21:04] <bdrung> who volunteers?
[21:04] <soren> I'll be on holiday and attempting to not operate machinery of any kind.
[21:04] <cjwatson> I think I can do it
[21:04] <bdrung> cjwatson: you won :)
[21:05]  * 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 man
[21:05] <MootBot> ACTION received:  cjwatson to be the next chair man
[21:05] <bdrung> #endmeeting
[21:05] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 15:05.
[21:06] <alf_> Thanks all, bye!
[21:06] <bdrung> alf_: congrats
[21:07] <alf_> bdrung: thanks!