=== jjohansen is now known as jj-afk === UndiFineD is now known as Guest12280 === Guest12280 is now known as undi === undi is now known as UndiFineD === jj-afk is now known as jjohansen === smb` is now known as smb === cjwatson_ is now known as cjwatson === soren_ is now known as soren === jjohansen is now known as jj-afk === doko_ is now known as doko === freeflyi1g is now known as freeflying === zul_ is now known as zul === smoser` is now known as smoser === bilalakhtar_ is now known as cdbs === Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-lunch === yofel_ is now known as yofel [14:58] hello [14:59] I didn't screw up the timezone, did I? I can never remember whether Google Calendar is an hour off or not [15:00] looks fine to me [15:00] \o [15:00] cjwatson: hi [15:01] Keybuk: around? [15:02] I have been having a frustrating day involving elusive VESA BIOS specifications and repeated reboots, so a meeting is almost a welcome relief :P [15:02] ok, we have quorum, Keybuk can join in if/when he notices [15:02] #startmeeting [15:02] Meeting started at 09:02. The chair is cjwatson. [15:02] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [15:02] [TOPIC] Action review [15:02] New Topic: Action review [15:02] cjwatson: I'm here [15:02] are there any actions? I saw none in the minutes from last time [15:02] IRC client wasn't bouncing loud enough [15:02] Keybuk: ah, hello [15:03] cjwatson: my day has been less frustrating [15:03] and there was christmas pudding [15:03] lucky you ;-) [15:03] I'll take it that there are no actions then [15:03] [TOPIC] Reorganizing drivers/owners/release managers permissions in Launchpad (Matt Zimmerman) [15:03] New Topic: Reorganizing drivers/owners/release managers permissions in Launchpad (Matt Zimmerman) [15:04] mdz: you have the floor [15:04] cjwatson: ok [15:04] so it's time to throw the switch [15:04] I want to make sure that we've told folks that this is happening, so that if there are rough edges, they know how to get them fixed [15:05] I've passed the word down within Canonical [15:05] but that's obviously not enough [15:06] nothing should actually change in practice [15:06] it's just cleaning up the disorganization in LP [15:06] agreed; can we use ubuntu-release for the "release manager" role? [15:07] that sounds appropriate; is that not already what's in the bug report? [15:07] if we can't, there woudl still be something wrong in LP [15:07] [link] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/174375 [15:07] LINK received: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/174375 [15:07] Ubuntu bug 174375 in Launchpad Registry "Distribution drivers permissions may need redesign" [Low,Triaged] [15:07] https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+bug/174375/comments/17 [15:07] mdz: you said "Create a new team to fill the 'release manager' role, and populate it appropriately (if we don't already have one)" [15:07] [link] https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+bug/174375/comments/17 [15:07] LINK received: https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+bug/174375/comments/17 [15:07] so I was just filling that in [15:07] cjwatson: right, if ubuntu-release is the right set of people for those permissions, then we just use that [15:08] if there should be some extra people in there for whatever reason, we should create a new team and put ubuntu-release into it [15:08] well, ubuntu-release is kind of informational/social, and I don't think it currently occupies any explicit slots in LP [15:08] oh [15:09] so if we need to extend that team we can just extend it, IMO [15:09] the other question is what to do with the 'maintainer' slot for Ubuntu [15:09] that's the one which can do things like administer mirrors [15:09] given the description in https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+bug/174375/comments/18, I think it would be appropriate for that to be techboard [15:09] Ubuntu bug 174375 in Launchpad Registry "Distribution drivers permissions may need redesign" [Low,Triaged] [15:09] and announcements [15:10] and AdminSpecification and EditSpecificationSubscription which sound like they should be ubuntu-drivers [15:10] hm, u-release actually sounds more appropriate for this to me [15:10] hm, well, announcements aren't all techboard [15:10] yeah, I agree with pitti on reflection [15:10] for both mirroring and annoucnements [15:10] I think blueprint stuff should -> ubuntu-drivers [15:10] ^ +1 [15:10] and announcements -> release manager [15:10] that's tech leads, team managers, track leads, etc. [15:10] the blueprint-fiddling folks [15:10] it might also make sense to add techboard to ubuntu-release [15:11] the more I think about it the less ready I feel... [15:11] out of interest, where in LP does one assign the ubuntu-archive team? [15:11] is that hardcoded? [15:11] somebody needs to make another pass over this and write it down in a comprehensible form [15:11] maintainer can do this, release series manager can do that, drivers can do this [15:11] pitti: ubuntu-archive has queueadmin privileges on components [15:12] you can see that with lp:ubuntu-archive-tools edit_acl.py [15:12] cjwatson: ah, thanks [15:12] mdz: do you still see something where we disagree? [15:12] pitti: who do you think should be the 'maintainer' of ubuntu? [15:12] mdz: ubuntu-release [15:13] ubuntu-release seems obvious [15:13] mdz: that's for announcements and mirrors, right? [15:13] pitti: and AdminSpecification and EditSpecificationSubscription and the other things in https://bugs.launchpad.net/launchpad-registry/+bug/174375/comments/18 [15:13] Ubuntu bug 174375 in Launchpad Registry "Distribution drivers permissions may need redesign" [Low,Triaged] [15:13] -release is the team most naturally involved with that day-to-day; I agree with mdz that the specification stuff there should be moved to drivers [15:13] so apparently people who need to be able to admin blueprints need to go in there [15:13] mdz: those would be ubuntu-drivers IMHO [15:13] pitti: they are currently inseparable [15:14] isn't the only admin being the targetting to releases? [15:14] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu has a separate "mirror admins", though [15:14] how about this [15:14] which already seems to be set correctly [15:14] we set it up so that there is a team for each slot [15:14] how about we create an ubuntu-maintainer team, which has ubuntu-release and ubuntu-drivers in it [15:14] ubuntu-drivers, ubuntu-maintainers, ubuntu-release-managers [15:14] ... is this GMTA? [15:14] write down in the description of each team what it can actually do [15:14] so that it's self-documenting [15:15] mdz: blueprints and announcements are inseparable? wasn't this the very thing that this bug was all about? [15:15] pitti: it was more about separating blueprint admin and bug supervision [15:15] pitti: if so, it's not fixed, according to comment #17 [15:15] though bdmurray said he thought it was done [15:16] we just passed the 3-year anniversary for this bug *sigh* [15:16] I'd like to withdraw the agenda item until I can work on it some more [15:16] unless someone wants to take it over from me [15:16] your suggestion of writing things in the description of each team sounds good to me [15:17] yeah, then all we need to do is get LP fixed...again [15:17] ubuntu-maintainers can be a temporary team until the last bits of separation get fixed [15:17] and it should be less damaging than the ubuntu-drivers conflation, and we'll actually more or less understand what it's for [15:17] ok, I'll propose that as the first phase then [15:18] except perhaps a better name than ubuntu-maintainers, since maintainer == developer for many people [15:18] ubuntu-owner [15:18] that might stir some emotional response [15:18] I chose that because the Launchpad page says 'maintainer' [15:18] but we could ask for that to be changed [15:18] ubuntu-leads [15:19] ubuntu-release-plus-drivers [15:19] since that's what it is. :) [15:20] and it's ugly enough to point out that it's a temporary team [15:20] I'll draft an email to t-b and launchpad-dev and turn the crank on this again [15:20] cjwatson: +1 :) [15:20] * kees nods [15:22] ok, are we done with this item for now then? [15:22] yes [15:23] [TOPIC] Appoint Ubuntu Launchpad stake holder [15:23] New Topic: Appoint Ubuntu Launchpad stake holder [15:23] there's no name next to this one? [15:23] persia [15:23] looks like it was pitti [15:23] it was sent to the ML [15:23] persia sent the mail to the list [15:23] and we forgot about it last time [15:23] I would like to clarify whether this is in addition to Marjo, or replacing him [15:24] I understood "in addition" when I was talking to him [15:24] I spoke to persia about this in Orlando, and we reached agreement then ... but I've forgotten what that agreement was [15:24] the few stray neurons I have that remember that conversation think that this was essentially somebody to represent Ubuntu-as-project separately from the Ubuntu platform team [15:25] I proposed Bryce, as he has written tons of scripts for Launchpad, and is also doing massive regular bug triage, and also has experience on LP hacking [15:25] this is for Ubuntu, as opposed to Ubuntu Platform (part of Canonical) [15:25] in that case my memory is accurate. OK. [15:25] is it ours to appoint? [15:25] should this be TB or CC? [15:26] how close an interaction does Bryce have with the wider Ubuntu community, beyond X? [15:26] kees: I certainly think the representative should come from the development community; it's not strictly a technical matter but the TB may be better placed to judge [15:26] it was definitely persia [15:27] he hangs out in #ubuntu-desktop and discusses integration matters there as well [15:27] Keybuk: since you're one of the people persia suggested, do you have any thoughts on this you'd like to share? [15:27] I think I got shanghaid on the basis I'm going to shortly be the only TB member who won't be working at Canonical [15:28] but I wasn't really clear on why that was important [15:28] or indeed, why we needed a new and different stakeholder to LP than the one we already have [15:28] I think the point was to have a strong voice who doesn't have a commercial bias/pressure [15:28] I'd vaugely thought that we just needed a bigger stake to stab them with [15:28] pitti: everyone has bias or pressure of some sort [15:29] my understanding was that the Launchpad stakeholder meetings tend to be somewhat commercial-stake-driven, and that an explicit project representative would find it easier to stand apart from that [15:29] right, they just need to average themselves out [15:29] Launchpad certainly used to solicit input from the platform team and the Ubuntu community somewhat separately [15:30] is this stake-holder position something the LP team has agreed to having show up? (also, AIUI, such a person would need to sign an NDA due to some of the topics being discussed at the meeting) [15:31] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-November/000571.html says that Francis agreed that this would be appropriate [15:31] okay [15:32] as overall Launchpad manager I assume that he's authoritative on this :) [15:32] do we need to reach agreement on whether this is an appropriate thing to do at all? [15:33] I support it [15:33] I think it's reasonable [15:33] my view is that I can't easily say whether it will definitely be useful, but since Marjo has asked us to try and Francis is receptive to it it seems worth a go [15:34] I would like to hear from each of the suggested candidates before trying to select someone, though. Does anyone feel that we should issue a wider call for nominations? [15:35] seems only fair -- if someone in ubuntu really wants to jump on this, we should give them a chance. === Joeb454_ is now known as Joeb454 [15:35] my gut feeling is that three candidates are enough, and we already confirmed their willingness to act for this role; and as there are no particular hard privileges assigned to this, I don't think we really need a democratic vote of teh community here [15:35] (not that I'd veto one, I just feel it's a bit overkill) [15:35] well, except I'm not really sure I'm the right person [15:35] I'm fine with that too [15:35] yet I ended up on the list ;) [15:35] so I'm not so sure about confirmed their willingness [15:35] :p [15:36] Keybuk: hmkay -- that's what Emmet wrote, anyway [15:36] sounds like a bit of chinese-whispers going on === Ursinha-lunch is now known as Ursinha [15:37] (not that I'm saying I'd be bad at it, I just suspect ENOTIME for the next several months) [15:37] this sounds to me as though it would be worth a quick call for anyone else who's interested, and in parallel ask the existing candidates to send in a short note to technical-board@ describing their plans? [15:38] Keybuk: would you like to explicitly excuse yourself, then? [15:38] cjwatson: yes, for now [15:38] OK [15:38] if the position was regularly chosen, I may well put myself up for it in future, for example [15:38] fair enough [15:39] so shall I do the above as part of writing up minutes for this meeting, then? === dholbach_ is now known as dholbach [15:39] cjwatson: fine by me [15:39] though we shouldn't wait too long [15:39] persia already canvassed and got volunteers [15:39] so we don't really need any more [15:40] but if someone is dying for the job I don't mind them coming forward [15:40] I agree, I was thinking no longer than two weeks [15:40] sure. could even go 1 week, just to avoid holidays, but yeah, 2 is fine. [15:41] one week is OK by me [15:41] [TOPIC] Schedule and chair (Matt Zimmerman) [15:41] New Topic: Schedule and chair (Matt Zimmerman) [15:41] I shall not be here on the 28th [15:41] just some points of order [15:42] I'll just paste from the wiki [15:42] Next meeting is scheduled for 28 December [15:42] Will we have quorum, or should we skip it? [15:42] Mark is unavailable to chair 11 January [15:42] will anyone else be absent the 28th? [15:42] I won't be online [15:42] I'm in a train on that day [15:43] will Mark be around on the 28th? [15:44] cjwatson: I don't know [15:44] I've negotiated with clan that she will tell me when he's unavailable for TB [15:44] I won't be here the 28th [15:44] so we don't end up without a chair [15:44] sounds to me as though we'll be at most barely quorate on the 28th, and probably inquorate [15:44] I'm unlikely to be available that day [15:44] so no pitti, no cjwatson, no kees, no keybuk [15:44] no quorum [15:45] ok, that's a definite no. next meeting on the 11th, then? [15:45] sounds like skipping then [15:45] so we just need a chair for the 11th [15:45] next in alpha sequence is kees [15:46] \o/ [15:46] I'll take that as a yes :) [15:46] :) [15:46] [TOPIC] Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed [15:46] New Topic: Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed [15:46] there are a few dangling items regarding SRUs and the like [15:46] 11th is the rally. [15:46] are any of them currently blocked on TB approval? [15:46] kees: I think we can probably manage, maybe with a time adjustment [15:47] we have: [15:47] bzr (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-December/000596.html [15:47] ) [15:47] xubuntu-docs (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-December/000599.html) [15:47] linux (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-December/000597.html) [15:49] pitti: do you know which of those if any are outstanding? [15:49] xubuntu and bzr are missing a few more votes [15:49] which could just be sent to the ML (should be straightforward), then I'll add them to the exception page [15:49] the kernel process has by and large been worked out now [15:49] there was some misunderstanding at first [15:50] but now it's by and large what we had before, just that we now copy from teh PPA instead of accepting from -proposed [15:50] although there are still some technical difficulties, it didn't change on a policy level === sommer__ is now known as sommer [15:51] I will follow up to xubuntu-docs and bzr then [15:51] ok [15:51] Check up on community bugs: no change from last time [15:52] [TOPIC] AOB [15:52] New Topic: AOB [15:52] I'd like to make a suggestion [15:52] that we ask for AOB at the start of the meeting, rather than at the end [15:52] so that if someone turns up with an issue, we can get it on the agenda and leave time for it if necessary [15:52] you have OB, don't you? ;-) [15:52] just that [15:53] doesn't seem unreasonable [15:53] I'm fine with that, I'll adjust the agenda [15:53] yeah [15:53] should be a call for additional points or something [15:53] so the first agenda item becomes "make sure the agenda is complete" [15:53] I've started doing this in my meetings and it's more effective [15:54] sounds like that's a wrap, then [15:55] #endmeeting [15:55] Meeting finished at 09:54. [15:55] oh, mdz: thanks for organising that brainstorm review, it seems to have been a success [15:55] cjwatson: indeed, the thanks goes to the folks who wrote the responses [15:57] thanks everyone [15:57] thanks! [15:58] ~ô~ [15:59] \0 [15:59] /o\ === jj-afk is now known as jjohansen [16:00] \o [16:00] o/ === pgraner is now known as pgraner-afk [16:00] ok. weell, its that time of day again [16:00] o/ [16:00] \O/ [16:00] err... week. [16:00] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/Meeting [16:01] smoser: take us out Mr. Sulu [16:01] how do i "start meeting " ? [16:02] you say startmeeting [16:02] or for some.. startmeeting [16:02] mmmm...hash [16:02] #startmeeting [16:02] Meeting started at 10:02. The chair is smoser. [16:02] Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE] [16:02] o/ [16:02] * robbiew will lurk today....call in 30min [16:02] \o [16:02] hm.. seems my clever trick to get someone else to scribe has failed. [16:03] smoser: nice try :-) [16:03] fyi, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScribesTeam/MootBot has such info [16:03] [TOPIC] Review ACTION points from previous meeting [16:03] New Topic: Review ACTION points from previous meeting [16:03] * ALL: please check the SRU tracker for 'needs-verification' bugs [http://people.canonical.com/~chucks/SRUTracker/sru-tracker-bugs.html] [16:04] Imre Gergely has been *heroic* in verifying server SRU's [16:04] it looks like i need to take a look at that. [16:04] and i will. [16:04] thanks to Imre [16:05] * ACTION: robbiew to review ServerTeam wiki [16:05] robbiew, ? [16:05] yeah..yeah...slowly but surely [16:05] keep it [16:05] damn it! [16:05] [ACTION]: robbiew to review ServerTeam wiki [carried over] [16:05] ACTION received: : robbiew to review ServerTeam wiki [carried over] [16:05] * ACTION: Kernel team to follow up on bug 661294 [16:05] Launchpad bug 661294 in linux (Ubuntu) "System lock-up when receiving large files (big data amount) from NFS server" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/661294 [16:06] jjohansen, smb ? [16:06] I added some potential debuuging steps today [16:06] Though that is the one I am not able to reproduce [16:07] smb: there are 2 users who are reproducing it consistently, right? [16:07] I think yes. A third one has opened another bug as he thinks it might be a too different setup [16:08] bug 688437 [16:08] Launchpad bug 688437 in linux (Ubuntu) "NFS load locks processes and mounts" [Undecided,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/688437 [16:08] smb: Would it help if we try and reproduce it? [16:08] Daviey, Sure, it helps to know what exactly triggers it [16:09] * Daviey will try this. [16:09] The second bug seems to have some vmware involved. (at least on a quick look) [16:09] Daviey, you want an action ? [16:09] smoser: Yeah... i have rouble with committment without an action item. [16:09] [ACTION] Daviey to try to reproduce bug 661294 [16:09] ACTION received: Daviey to try to reproduce bug 661294 [16:10] Launchpad bug 661294 in linux (Ubuntu) "System lock-up when receiving large files (big data amount) from NFS server" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/661294 [16:10] hope that helps your rouble. [16:10] smoser: Yeah, that has changed my life for the better... thanks :) [16:10] It sounds to me like smb has a handle on it. if anyone else can add reproduce, that would be nice. [16:11] * ACTION: JamesPage to arrange URL for Hudson CI Server [16:11] ^ done [16:11] Done: http://hudson.qa.ubuntu-uk.org:8080 [16:11] JamesPage, ^ [16:11] Cheers Daviey! [16:11] gracias. [16:11] hah [16:11] FWIW, I have seen other bugs with a hang on remote FS, and a kernel trace involving sys_sync [16:12] JamesPage: any reason that has to run on 8080 ? [16:12] SpamapS: only my lack of time to make it run on port 80 - will do by the end of the week [16:12] JamesPage: btw, that is amazing. ;) [16:13] SpamapS: not really, but now we have the firewall set, and I would rather not mess with it [16:13] to be fair, the subdomain only went live about 30 mins ago... give JamesPage a break :) [16:13] JamesPage: mind the firewall... [16:13] hggdh - will do [16:13] * ACTION: spamaps to talk to his friend to try and get more info on Bug 684304 [16:13] Launchpad bug 684304 in linux (Ubuntu Natty) "cciss module does not identify resources" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/684304 [16:13] btw it is not only cciss that has problems [16:14] just tried the options given by smb, but no luck (and a kernel trace) [16:14] smb: oh? [16:14] hggdh, yep just saw it [16:14] sadly no luck [16:14] I just spoke with him yesterday and he has the hardware in the rack but not hooked up to the network yet.. should be getting a DL360 G5 with ILO support to play with. [16:14] SpamapS, Yes, there is something odd going on here, all of the pcie root ports have msi not enabled and no drivers bound [16:15] so carry that one forward, but maybe carry it forward as "spamaps to confirm bug #684304 on borrowed DL360 G5" [16:15] Launchpad bug 684304 in linux (Ubuntu Natty) "cciss module does not identify resources" [High,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/684304 [16:15] smb: you are aware that you can play with the machines, right? [16:15] [ACTION] spamaps to confirm bug #684304 on borrowed DL360 G5 [16:15] ACTION received: spamaps to confirm bug #684304 on borrowed DL360 G5 [16:15] hggdh, No, you probably need to make me aware offline [16:16] ack [16:17] [ACTION] hggdh to tell smb about how to get at machines [16:17] ACTION received: hggdh to tell smb about how to get at machines [16:17] next is [16:17] * ACTION: zul to request feedback on the install-service blueprint to the mailing list [16:17] not done [16:18] smoser: Is that a topic shift, or a warning what is the next stop? [16:18] topic shift. [16:18] [ACTION] zul to request feedback on the install-service blueprint to the mailing list (carry over) [16:18] ACTION received: zul to request feedback on the install-service blueprint to the mailing list (carry over) [16:18] moving on [16:18] [TOPIC] Natty Development [16:18] New Topic: Natty Development [16:18] robbiew, are you leading this topic ? [16:19] I have one thing relevant under that topic.... [16:19] Did everyone see the FTBFS email? [16:19] Yep [16:19] Daviey: yup [16:19] sure...I'll start with I need someone to represent us in the weekly status meeting [16:19] ill do it [16:20] robbiew: rota? :) [16:20] Daviey: indeed, looks like there are a few still left. [16:20] Daviey: one question about that ... what's difference between that and Lucas Nussbaum's? that yours focuses on server packages, perhaps? [16:20] kirkland: mine is JUST the server seed. [16:20] Daviey: okay [16:20] zul: thnx [16:21] robbiew: what does that entail? [16:21] so everyone should take a look at that and see if they can't knock off a few ftbfs. [16:21] Daviey: as long as the rotation doesn't involve me...I'm fine with it [16:21] robbiew: heh. [16:21] kirkland: means keeping https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty up-to-date [16:21] robbiew: assume this is the release meeting? [16:21] ah yes. [16:21] mostly just tracking the bug stuff [16:21] robbiew: ah [16:21] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty/Detail is generated from a script [16:21] robbiew: okay cool; zul -- it's all yours :-P [16:21] and pulls into https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty [16:22] lol [16:22] zul: If you want a hand, lemme know. :) [16:22] Daviey: Server seed or server package set? [16:23] robbiew: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty/Detail doesn't exist [16:23] Daviey: ack [16:23] anything else here ? [16:23] SpamapS: add an "S" [16:23] ScottK: Seed [16:24] zul: (yeah, i'm happy to back you up too) [16:24] OK. I thought there were Universe packages in there, but OK. [16:24] SpamapS: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam/ReleaseStatus/NattyDetail [16:25] ah [16:25] * kim0 knocked off 2 ftbfss [16:25] anything else here ? [16:25] hggdh, you're on [16:25] [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh) [16:25] New Topic: Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh) [16:25] I am still dead in the water re. testing UEC === Pendulum_ is now known as Pendulum [16:26] hggdh: is this to do with that kernel bug [16:26] I have requested two machines to be set local, but right now I simply cannot test any [16:26] robbiew: yes [16:26] smb is supposed to be looking at it [16:26] the only machines I currently have access to -- the UEC test rig have not been working on Nattty [16:27]