=== vanhoof_ is now known as vanhoof
=== doko_ is now known as doko
=== oubiwann` is now known as oubiwann
=== kenvandine_ is now known as kenvandine
lifelesspersia: are we meeting tonight?07:15
=== leoquant is now known as Guest58687
=== lag` is now known as lag
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
=== zul__ is now known as zul
=== fader_` is now known as fader_
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-lunch
=== s1aden is now known as sladen
=== zul__ is now known as zul
smoserthank you zul15:58
* smoser is heading out for 30 minutes.15:58
zulstill 2 minutes according to my clock15:59
zulhi so lets get that started16:00
MootBotMeeting started at 10:00. The chair is zul.16:00
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]16:00
zul[TOPIC]     Review ACTION points from previous meeting16:00
MootBotNew Topic:      Review ACTION points from previous meeting16:00
zulsince there is nothing in the last meeting we jump to16:00
zul[TOPIC] Natty Development16:00
MootBotNew Topic:  Natty Development16:00
zulso alpha3 is going to be released on thursday16:00
zulyour blueprints wi should be marked as postposted if they arent complete and carried over16:01
zuliso testing this week so please help out16:01
zulanything else?16:01
DavieySounds good to me.16:01
hallynaction + url for iso testign for the record?16:01
zul[ACTION] iso testing - everybody (http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com)16:02
MootBotACTION received:  iso testing - everybody (http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com)16:02
zulis robbie around?16:02
zulif not we will move on...going once...16:03
zulokies then16:03
zul[TOPIC] Ubuntu Server Team Events16:03
MootBotNew Topic:  Ubuntu Server Team Events16:03
zulanyone have anything to add?16:03
zulUDS is soon and sponsorship is open now so if you want to be sponsored please sign up16:04
ttxcool ;)16:04
zulthat means you ttx16:05
zulits in budapest this year in may16:05
zulnice and toasty16:05
zul[TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)16:05
MootBotNew Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)16:05
zulhi hggdh16:05
zulanything to report?16:06
hggdhthis is A3 week, we will probably need help16:06
DavieyHggdh. Expect a news eucalyptus today.16:06
hggdhDaviey: so I will refrain from testing it until you ping me16:07
zulthat it? ;)16:07
RoAkSoAxhggdh: so I guess when you start testing we can take a deeper look into the PowerNap issue then16:07
hggdh 's it16:07
hggdhRoAkSoAx: yes, certainly16:08
zulok next16:08
DavieyHggdh... Any comments on a3 testing?16:08
zuljust need help right hggdh?16:08
hggdhnew ISO seems better, but some bare-metal installs would help16:09
hggdh(we had an issue that only appeared in bare-metal)16:09
zul[TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)16:09
MootBotNew Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)16:09
zulhi smb16:09
smbHi there16:09
zulanything to report?16:10
smbSo not much. A bit of ec2 testing fallout, some xfs regression that was reported and some nasty Lucid behavior in net namespace.16:10
smbbug 72009516:11
ubottuLaunchpad bug 720095 in linux (Ubuntu) "vsftpd causes a vmalloc space leak in Lucid" [Medium,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/72009516:11
zuloh thats fun16:11
smbbug 72508916:11
ubottuLaunchpad bug 725089 in linux (Ubuntu) "SECCOMP causes kernel panic on EC2 AMD64 image" [High,Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/72508916:11
smbbug 69284816:11
ubottuLaunchpad bug 692848 in linux (Ubuntu Karmic) "Regression between 2.6.32-27 and 2.6.32-26 xfsdump SGI_FS_BULKSTAT errno = 22" [Medium,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/69284816:11
zulpeople shouldnt use ftp anyways ;)16:12
zulany questions?16:12
smbThe seccomp panic "luckily" is no regression, just a race that sometimes happens16:12
hallynsmb: bug id for net ns lucid ?16:12
smbhallyn, Thats the vsftp bug16:12
smbBasically the problem is that the cleanup for clones of the net namespace hang around for a whole16:13
smbUpstream changed a lot between Lucid and Maverick to batch things16:13
smbSeems a bit much for backporting, so I try to find some smaller solution16:14
smb(not with much luck yet)16:14
hallynimpressive root-cause finding ;)16:14
zul[TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team (sommer)16:15
MootBotNew Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team (sommer)16:15
zulsommer around?16:15
zulim thinking no16:15
zulwell come back to that one if needed16:15
zul[TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions from the Ubuntu Community16:15
MootBotNew Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions from the Ubuntu Community16:15
zulhi kim016:15
kim0the thing I wanna mention16:15
kim0is the .. drum roll16:15
kim0Ubuntu Cloud Days16:16
kim0basically very similar to UDW16:16
kim0everyone who's attending that meeting is a very good candidate to register a session16:16
kim0please choose one and write it in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCloudDays/Timetable16:16
zulits just the two days right?16:16
kim0don't make me pick one for you16:16
kim0zul: well yes, unless I get flooded with volunteers16:17
kim0basically, I've written a blog post announcing it16:17
zulkim0: cool16:17
kim0but dont wanna publish it before you guys have added a few sessions16:17
kim0so please go go go16:17
kim0that's mostly it for me16:17
zulcool any questions?16:17
zulany other questions for kim016:18
zul[TOPIC] Open Discussion16:18
MootBotNew Topic:  Open Discussion16:18
zulkirkland: around? how was scale16:18
zulor not16:19
zulso lxcguest16:19
zulwe have been adding lxc containers support to openstack and we would like add lxcguest support to the uec-images16:20
zuli have discussed with smoser that it should be brought into main. does anyone see an issue with that?16:20
zulthis would make testing images on openstack much more easier16:21
zulthe work is already on the way to get it done16:21
DavieyHow will mainly bed supporting generic.lxc?16:22
zulor i missed the question16:22
hallynI support lxc16:22
DavieyHallyn, cool16:23
zuland the lxc support in openstack is done through libvirt so that is also hallyn :)16:23
zulany other open discussion type things?16:23
zul[TOPIC] Announce next meeting date and time16:24
MootBotNew Topic:  Announce next meeting date and time16:24
zulTuesday, March 8 2011 16:00 UTC16:24
zulthanks for comming16:24
MootBotMeeting finished at 10:24.16:24
DavieyShort and sweet16:24
smoserwow. short meeting16:35
=== dholbach_ is now known as dholbach
MootBotMeeting started at 11:01. The chair is bjf.17:01
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]17:01
bjf[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting17:01
bjf[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty17:01
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting17:01
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty17:01
bjf# Meeting Etiquette17:01
bjf# NOTE: '..' indicates that you are finished with your input.17:01
bjf#       'o/' indicates you have something you'd like to add (wait until you are recognized)17:01
bjf[TOPIC] Release Metrics (JFo)17:01
MootBotNew Topic:  Release Metrics (JFo)17:01
JFoRelease Meeting Bugs (8 bugs, 9 Blueprints)17:01
JFo==== Beta 1 Milestoned Bugs (71 across all packages (up 15)) ====17:01
JFo * 5 linux kernel bugs (up 1)17:01
JFo * 0 linux-ti-omap bugs (no change)17:01
JFo * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap bug (no change)17:01
JFo==== Release Targeted Bugs (271 across all packages (up 6)) ====17:01
JFo * 20 linux kernel bugs (down 3)17:01
JFo * 0 linux-ti-omap bugs (no change)17:02
JFo * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap bug (no change)17:02
JFo==== Milestoned Features ====17:02
JFo * 7 blueprints (Including HWE Blueprints)17:02
JFo==== Maverick Updates Bugs ====17:02
JFo * 60 Linux Bugs (down 3)17:02
JFo==== Lucid Updates Bugs ====17:02
JFo * 94 Linux Bugs (no change)17:02
JFo==== Bugs with Patches Attached:77 (down 21) ====17:02
JFo * [[https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bugs?field.has_patch=on | Bugs with Patches]]17:02
JFo * [[http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ogasawara/csv-stats/bugs-with-patches/linux/ | Breakdown by status]]17:02
bjf[TOPIC] Blueprints: Natty Bug Handling (JFo)17:02
bjf[LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardware-kernel-n-bug-handling17:02
MootBotNew Topic:  Blueprints: Natty Bug Handling (JFo)17:02
MootBotLINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardware-kernel-n-bug-handling17:02
JFo* apport hook change item: POSTPONED17:02
JFoI will not likely get to this before UDS, but if I do, I will update the status then.17:02
JFo* develop process for handling, validation & closure, and document in the wiki:INPROGRESS17:02
JFoI still have a bit of work to do on this. I didn't have the time over the past week to complete it.17:02
JFo* drive existing bugs with patches list to zero and keep it there:INPROGRESS17:02
JFoMy thanks to those of you who have been working on this. The list continues to drop significantly17:02
JFoevery week.17:02
JFoOther items in the list didn't get looked at this past week. I have time scheduled this17:02
JFocoming week to address them and, hopefully, close them out.17:02
bjf[TOPIC] Status: General Natty (apw)17:03
MootBotNew Topic:  Status: General Natty (apw)17:03
apwThe natty kernel is now at v2.6.38-5.32 (v2.6.38-rc6 based).  Overall we have most of our development out of the way, with just the ecryptfs long filename work ongoing.  We are currently concentrating on bug squashing for Natty.  One area of concern is an interaction between vesafb and drmfb during boot, in some cases we are triggering gpu hangs; upstream says "don't do that".  We are currently in freeze for Alpha-3.  We are waiting on -rc7 which shou17:03
apwld be imminent, planning to upload it as soon as freeze lifts.17:03
bjf[TOPIC] Status: Ecryptfs (jj)17:03
MootBotNew Topic:  Status: Ecryptfs (jj)17:03
jjohansenNo real progress - postponed for natty.  xattr version still waiting for review, some work on in header version17:03
bjf[TOPIC] Status: Stable Kernel Team (sconklin / bjf)17:04
MootBotNew Topic:  Status: Stable Kernel Team (sconklin / bjf)17:04
sconklin|| We are in the middle of preparing kernels for a new cycle and uploading17:04
sconklin|| them to our PPA. We had planned to complete this last week but were17:04
sconklin|| delayed by a possible regression in the last set of kernels undergoing17:04
sconklin|| testing. This turned out not to be a regression, and we are free to proceed.17:04
sconklin|| We plan to have all the remaining packages uploaded today.17:04
bjf[TOPIC] Security & bugfix kernels - Maverick/Lucid/Karmic/Hardy/Dapper (sconklin / bjf)17:04
MootBotNew Topic:  Security & bugfix kernels - Maverick/Lucid/Karmic/Hardy/Dapper (sconklin / bjf)17:04
sconklin|| Package                                    || Upd/Sec              || Proposed             ||  TiP || Verified ||17:04
sconklin||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| dapper   linux-source-2.6.15               || 2.6.15-55.93         ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta                        || 2.6.15-56            ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| hardy    linux                             || 2.6.24-28.86         ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta                        || 2.6.24-28.30         ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| karmic   linux                             || 2.6.31-22.73         ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta                        || 2.6.31-22.35         ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-ec2                         || 2.6.31-307.27        ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta-ec2                    ||         ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-ports-meta                  ||         ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-backports-modules-2.6.31    ||         ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-fsl-imx51                   || 2.6.31-112.30        ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta-fsl-imx51              ||        ||                      ||      ||          ||17:04
sconklin|| ---      linux-mvl-dove                    ||        ||                      ||      ||          ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta-mvl-dove               ||        ||                      ||      ||          ||17:05
sconklin||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||17:05
sconklin|| lucid    linux-ec2                         || 2.6.32-312.24        || 2.6.32-313.26        ||    8 ||        6 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-ports-meta                  ||         ||         ||    0 ||        0 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-mvl-dove                    || 2.6.32-211.27        || 2.6.32-214.30        ||    6 ||        6 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta-mvl-dove               ||        ||        ||    0 ||        0 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-lts-backport-maverick       || 2.6.35-23.41~lucid1  || 2.6.35-25.44~lucid1  ||    0 ||        0 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-backports-modules-2.6.32    || 2.6.32-28.27         || 2.6.32-29.28         ||    0 ||        0 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux                             || 2.6.32-28.55         || 2.6.32-29.58         ||    6 ||        6 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta                        ||         ||         ||    0 ||        0 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta-ec2                    ||        ||        ||    0 ||        0 ||17:05
sconklin||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||17:05
sconklin|| maverick linux-mvl-dove                    ||                      || 2.6.32-414.30        ||    4 ||        4 ||17:05
sconklin|| ---      linux-meta-mvl-dove               ||                      ||         ||    0 ||        0 ||17:05
sconklin||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||17:05
bjf[TOPIC] Status: HW Cert. Team  (ara)17:05
MootBotNew Topic:  Status: HW Cert. Team  (ara)17:05
bjfanyone from Cert. standing in for ara today ?17:06
bjf[TOPIC] Incoming Bugs: Regressions (JFo)17:06
MootBotNew Topic:  Incoming Bugs: Regressions (JFo)17:06
JFoIncoming Bugs17:06
JFo 182 Natty Bugs (up 2)17:06
JFo 1183 Maverick Bugs (down 2)17:06
JFo 1025 Lucid Bugs (up 6)17:06
JFoCurrent regression stats (broken down by release):17:06
JFo==== regression-update ====17:06
JFo  * 40 maverick bugs (up 1)17:06
JFo  * 75 lucid bugs (down 2)17:06
JFo  * 7 karmic bugs (no change)17:06
JFo  * 0 hardy bugs (no change)17:06
JFo==== regression-release ====17:07
JFo  * 73 natty bugs (up 3)17:07
JFo  * 237 maverick bugs (no change)17:07
JFo  * 218 lucid bugs (up 10)17:07
JFo  * 38 karmic bugs (no change)17:07
JFo  * 2 hardy bugs (no change)17:07
JFo==== regression-proposed ====17:07
JFo  * 0 natty bugs (down 1)17:07
JFo  * 0 maverick bugs (down 2)17:07
JFo  * 0 lucid bugs (no change)17:07
JFo  * 0 karmic bug (no change)17:07
bjf[TOPIC] Incoming Bugs: Bug day report (JFo)17:08
MootBotNew Topic:  Incoming Bugs: Bug day report (JFo)17:08
JFoLast week's bug day was a success. We had quite a number of bugs reviewed.17:08
JFoMany changed states. I had the opportunity to take a closer look at the17:08
JFoarsenal script we use to process these and there is some work continuing there17:08
JFoto make that script work better. The next bug day will be next Tuesday.17:08
JFoI had originally hoped to have one today, but I couldn't get everything ready17:08
JFoand announced in time, so I will announce for next week.17:08
bjf[TOPIC] Triage Status (JFo)17:08
MootBotNew Topic:  Triage Status (JFo)17:08
JFoWe have had quite a bit of interest in the periphery on bug triage. I have been17:08
JFofielding a few requests in #ubuntu-bugs about the proper level of information needed17:08
JFoin bugs as well as the occasional private request. As always, I am recomending that17:08
JFointerested parties inquire in our channel on #ubuntu-kernel so that others17:08
JFocan benefit from the knowledge sharing.17:08
bjf[TOPIC] Open Discussion or Questions: Raise your hand to be recognized (o/)17:09
MootBotNew Topic:  Open Discussion or Questions: Raise your hand to be recognized (o/)17:09
bjfthanks everyone17:10
MootBotMeeting finished at 11:10.17:10
JFothanks bjf17:10
jjohansenthanks bjf17:10
kamalthanks bjf17:10
=== dholbach_ is now known as dholbach
skaet_wow bjf - 10 minutes...   new record for the kernel team?  ;)17:12
JFo\o/ :-)17:13
=== drubin_ is now known as drubin
stgraberajmitch: ping18:00
stgrabercan't find wendar or fagan ...18:01
stgraberI'll be back in 5 minutes, hopefully I won't be alone anymore by then ;)18:02
ajmitchstgraber: sorry, I'd forgotten it was this morning18:30
ajmitchstgraber: I think wendar said she'd be travelling & probably unavailable this week?18:31
stgraberI seem to remember something like this yes18:32
ajmitchgiven how late I've come in, & no fagan, I'm guessing we may have to skip it this week18:33
* ajmitch has to head out in 10 minutes18:33
ajmitchI've been slack & not written up http://www.novarata.net/mootbot/ubuntu-meeting.log.20110215_1214.html18:34
stgraberok, I'm fine skeeping this one. I only have one package assigned to me and the packager will send a new version for review.18:35
stgraberso really nothing mouch to discuss this week18:35
ajmitchI think there was one new appliction submitted after the last meeting?18:35
stgraberit's possible, I don't remember seeing it though18:37
ubottuUbuntu bug 719694 in Ubuntu Application Review Board "Application Review Request: Tibesti 1.2.7" [Undecided,New]18:37
ajmitch& I was taking https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board/+bug/71841318:38
ubottuUbuntu bug 718413 in Ubuntu Application Review Board "Application Review Request: schedio 2.0.0-0ubuntu1" [Undecided,New]18:38
* ajmitch thinks we should probably take it to the mailing list then - minutes from 2 weeks ago should be sent there18:40
ajmitchok then :)18:41
* ajmitch shall run off to work now18:41
=== zul_ is now known as zul
=== debfx_ is now known as debfx
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
highvoltageGooooooood afternoon!20:01
highvoltage*ahem*, evening, in EMEA zone at least :)20:01
=== neversfelde_ is now known as neversfelde
highvoltageAny EMEA board members present? stgraber is on the phone but he should be here momentarily20:03
highvoltageis Rafael Laguna present?20:03
highvoltageSeems like today's meeting is a no-go. Next EMEA RMB meeting is on April 5th at 20:00 UTC.20:07
drubinhighvoltage: Thanks for handling this.20:12
highvoltagedrubin: you're welcome20:13
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
Raydiation-meeting already over?20:15
pleia2Raydiation: yes, there was only one applicant and they aren't around20:16
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
mdzis there a CC meeting happening here today?20:58
highvoltageaccording to the fridge there is!21:00
Technovikingmdz: yes, I think in a couple of minutes21:00
jonomdz, yes21:00
* pleia2 waves21:01
MootBotMeeting started at 15:01. The chair is pleia2.21:01
MootBotCommands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]21:01
* jono waves at pleia221:01
pleia2ok, I'm not sure we will have quorum today (a few members can't make it) and the last minute agenda items may be tricky to cover, but we can talk about them21:01
pleia2[LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda21:02
MootBotLINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda21:02
jonothanks for coordinating the session pleia221:02
pleia2first off mdz is here to talk about the diversity statement he's been working on21:03
pleia2[TOPIC] Diversity statement: next steps21:03
MootBotNew Topic:  Diversity statement: next steps21:03
mdzyes, so I'd like to know what the CC would like to happen next with this21:03
sabdflevening all21:03
pleia2welcome sabdfl21:03
sabdflhow are you all?21:03
Technovikinghello sabdfl21:03
jonohey sabdfl21:04
sabdflare we rolling, or should we start?21:04
pleia2so far the time line on the diversity statement has been: mdz proposed in the fall, came out with a draft with the CC approved last month, and posted on his blog for community review: http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2011/02/07/a-diversity-statement-for-ubuntu/21:04
pleia2sabdfl: we're going, on agenda item one "Diversity statement: next steps"21:04
mdzI consider it more or less "done" in terms of the document, and would like to see it move forward to become an official statement and put into practice in the community21:06
sabdfli think we ack'd it previously, in essentially the same form21:06
sabdflwith the caveat that there should be discussion21:06
pleia2since this is a community-developed document, I think the blessing by the CC should be sufficient to make it official21:06
sabdflwas there much commentary after your blog?21:06
mdzI summarized it to c-c@ a while back21:07
pleia240 comments on the blog entry21:07
Technovikingmaybe an Ubuntu Values page should be created on ubuntu.com with this and the CoC just to make this easy to find for the community21:07
mdzthere were a lot of suggested wording changes, some of which are reasonable but not urgently needed (wordsmithing)21:08
sabdflre-reading the text, i wonder why we don't have the paragraph on taking responsibility in the code of conduct?21:08
sabdfl"Whenever any participant has made a mistake, we expect them to  take responsibility for it. If someone has been harmed or offended, it  is our responsibility to listen carefully and respectfully, and do our  best to right the wrong."21:08
mdzI actually have a code of conduct diff which goes along with this21:08
mdzand adds that21:08
Technovikingsabdfl: +1 for that21:08
pleia2oh, it was also shared on the ubuntu-women and ubuntu-for-all lists21:08
mdzI can send that diff to c-c@ if you like21:08
mdzit's small21:09
Raydiationvoice test21:09
sabdflthat would be great. i wouldn't block on this, but if the plan is to integrate that bit into the CoC, let's take it out of this one21:09
jonosounds great21:10
mdzlet me send the diff and we can discuss it21:10
pleia2thanks mdz :)21:10
mdzI think they're complementary, but let's see21:10
chuckfso if someone is offended that Cannonical makes public private information of a member and does nothing to right the wrong, how should that be handled?21:10
sabdflalso, the nod to python and dreamwidth would probably be better in a footnote than the statement itself21:10
mdzconsider it a footnote21:10
mdzgiven the CC-BY nature it shouldn't be forgotten, but certainly isn't central21:10
sabdflok, then +1 from me21:10
Technoviking+1 here21:11
mdzwhat should I do next?21:11
mdz1. send the CoC diff21:11
mdz2. ...21:11
sabdflchuckf: i think that would be a different matter than harrassment21:11
pleia2I like Technoviking's idea of an Ubuntu Values page where this will go21:11
sabdflmdz, since you've carried this, it's entirely appropriate for you to blog that the CC approved the statement21:11
chuckfsabdfl: but the member is offended, if not harrassed21:12
sabdflif you want one of us to blog in support, that's easily arranged too21:12
sabdflpopey: thoughts?21:12
jonoI am happy to spread the new statement across our community resources too21:12
pleia2popey said he'd be about a half hour late, so I don't think he's here yet21:12
mdzit probably needs to get formatted as HTML and put on the website21:12
sabdfllet's let mdz set timing, and then press go21:13
pleia2ok, are we done with this agenda item then?21:14
mdzdiff sent to c-c@21:14
mdzpleia2, yes, thank you21:14
pleia2great, thanks mdz21:14
pleia2is VincentUntz here?21:14
jonovuntz, ^21:14
pleia2[TOPIC] Amazon MP3 store in Natty & referral fees21:14
MootBotNew Topic:  Amazon MP3 store in Natty & referral fees21:14
vuntzfwiw, I think nobody wants an endless discussion here, so I welcome ideas on how to organize it :-)21:15
pleia2vuntz: this is your agenda item, so feel free to introduce it and we can go from there (I certainly agree about avoiding endless discussion!)21:15
sabdfli would suggest we handle the related topic, "non technical changes" first21:15
sabdflas that's the general case21:15
pleia2good idea21:16
vuntzsabdfl: makes sense21:16
pleia2[TOPIC] Non technical changes management21:16
MootBotNew Topic:  Non technical changes management21:16
joaopintoI have send an email to the community council requesting a process for non technical changes management21:17
sabdflhi joaopinto21:17
joaopintohi sabdfl21:17
joaopintothe reason is the increasing number of changes on different matters which directly affect Ubuntu, the product, and which are not properly identified or accountable21:17
joaopintothe most sensitive changes are those which are applied to upstream packages21:18
joaopintoIMHO changes should be properly identified, as soon there is an intent for implementation, communicated to the community, and formally approved21:20
pleia2joaopinto: just so we're clear, is the presumption here that Canonical would not make agreements upstream about changes without the go-ahead of the tech board, but there is no such process for non-technical changes?21:20
joaopintothis is not specific to Canonical, is about the ability to one to introduce non technical changes without any guidelines or assessment21:21
sabdflthanks for raising this, joaopinto21:22
sabdfli think there are a few different issues that need to be teased apart21:23
sabdflone is a well-understood issue, of making changes available so others can benefit from them21:23
sabdflwe already have good practices and guidelines for that, both for sharing with Debian and with upstream projects21:23
sabdflbut i don't think that's the focus of your request21:24
sabdflanother issue is changes which may not be substantial technical changes (i.e. small patches) but which have a big user visible impact21:24
sabdfllike moving buttons around21:24
highvoltageor like adding "Sent from Ubuntu" to e-mail signatures :)21:25
* cody-somerville grins.21:25
joaopintohighvoltage, that's one of the examples I have selected :)21:25
sabdfland a third is changes, like the banshee revenue change, which are potentially issues where canonical has a conflict of interests21:25
sabdflis that a reasonable summary?21:26
joaopintosabdfl, yes21:26
sabdflwhen we were doing the branding work, we faced an interesting challenge21:26
sabdflnormally, brands are exclusive21:26
sabdflyou tightly restrict who has the right to speak for a brand21:26
sabdfland you make sure nothing gets done which looks, or feels, "different"21:26
sabdflwe started out doing a brand for Canonical21:27
sabdflbut we quickly realised that many things that are interesting, cannot just be branded Canonical21:27
sabdfland more importantly21:27
sabdflwe needed to be able to empower non-Canonical people to speak for those things two21:27
sabdflwe basically designed two brands that work really well together21:27
sabdfleither "all one" or "all the other" or a mixture of the two21:28
sabdflwhere you can say "hmm, this is mostly canonical" or "hmm, this is mostly community" but still insert a taste of the other21:28
sabdflthis is a long way of saying:21:28
sabdflUbuntu is a shared effort between Canonical and the Ubuntu community21:28
sabdfland of course, many members of Canonical are also members of the Ubuntu community21:29
mdkesorry I'm late21:29
sabdflnp mdke, good timing21:29
sabdflthe interesting question is "who owns Ubuntu"?21:29
sabdflwhich has a hard but misleading answer: Canonical21:30
sabdflit's misleading simply because lots of people feel ownership of Ubuntu, and rightly so21:30
sabdflCanonical certainly has the right to make non-technical changes21:30
sabdflbut it's best when those changes are supported by a weight of non-Canonical views, too21:31
sabdflin general, within Canonical, there's a reasonable sensitivity to the need to consult before a change is made which will be controversial21:32
sabdflthough there are lots of examples where controversy was not anticipated21:32
vuntzsabdfl: is there any way for the community to veto such a Canonical-made decision?21:32
sabdflit has happened, but not through veto, rather through suasion21:32
sabdflfor example21:32
sabdfli wanted to enable proprietary video drivers by default at one stage21:33
sabdflon the basis that they would enable a lot more people to actually use Ubuntu21:33
sabdfland we had already taken the social beating for being tolerant of those drivers, from folk who felt that was inappropriate (even though they themselves often used the drivers ;-))21:33
sabdflbut after discussing it with the CC, the change was not made21:34
joaopintosabdfl, I don't think those changes are properly communicated, frequently such changes are known to the community from your communications or from upstream developers21:34
sabdflthe CC is the forum I would test, consult, or brief on a change, depending21:34
sabdfljoaopinto: it's always going to be the case that someone can argue they were not aware of a change21:34
sabdflfrequently, for example, i find myself learning of changes long after they've been made21:35
sabdflstrangely, people seem to feel empowered to Just Do Stuff without clearing it with me first all the time ;-)21:35
joaopintosabdfl, that happens, because there is no clearly definition for which should be informed and how, about different type of changes21:35
mdkethere's a big difference between that and clearly controversial changes being made without prior public discussion21:35
sabdflconsultation about a "clearly controversial change" will not result in consensus21:36
sabdflso, a tough decision usually needs to be made about whether the change is worth trying despite the controversy21:36
joaopintomdke, I actually see that at the same light, you don't discuss because there is no process in place to bring those changes into the community with a proper timing21:36
mdkewhy not?21:36
sabdflmdke: because it's human nature to have divergent opinions about complex issues21:37
sabdfli think consultation is most appropriate when it can have a material impact on the outcome21:37
vuntzsabdfl: it's also human nature to prefer having been consulted, even if your opinion is not the winning one :-)21:37
mdkeit can always have a material impact on the outcome21:37
sabdflotherwise, it's dishonest21:37
mdkeotherwise you don't believe in discussion as valuable at all21:38
joaopintosabdfl, the goal is not consensus, imagine some tell you that they are evaluating to implement something and would like your oppinion, but they made very clear that you don't have a decision, you just want their feedback21:38
sabdflvuntz: true21:38
cody-somervilleSomeone told me that Canonical asked the CC for permissions to integrate the Ubuntu One store into rhythmbox but they didn't with regards to the banshee change and thats why they felt this situation was different. I'm curious if this is actually the case.21:38
sabdfli did say "worth trying". i'm not aware of any changes which could not be un-done21:38
joaopintocompare that to, "We have already decided to do this..."21:38
sabdflcody-somerville: no, we consulted with the CC on how best to integrate Ubuntu One, and had meaningful debates (i.e. that did influence outcome, or could have done so) about branding of things like the Software Center21:39
sabdfli think meritocracy implies a certain amount of permission to *make decisions*, knowing that those might be overruled21:40
sabdfland that makes for effective progress21:40
sabdflwe just need to make sure that the best people are in position to make those decisions21:40
sabdfljoaopinto: well, consider the qt decision21:41
joaopintosabdfl, permission should be used with transparency, otherwise it's an artificial meritocracy21:41
sabdfljoaopinto: none of these changes have been made in secret21:41
sabdflback to qt21:42
sabdfli've said "we'll do this"21:42
sabdflbut we're going to have a UDS between now and then21:42
sabdflit might get talked down then21:42
sabdfli could have said "we should talk about this"21:42
sabdfland i would have used that language if I thought it was an interesting idea, not an urgent need21:42
sabdflbut it's better to use urgent language for an urgent need, so one signals appropriately21:43
sabdflso let's come back to the agenda item21:43
sabdflthere's a request for a formal process for non-technical changes21:44
sabdflwe clearly can't have a formal process for every single change21:44
sabdfland however we judge which changes might fall into the "needs process" category, someone will argue we missed some21:44
sabdflso i don't believe this is warranted or achievable, though i understand the emotions that give birth to the request21:45
joaopintosabdfl, I am sorry, but you also dont have a formal process for every technical changes, there are reasonable aspects to classify a change as being brought to change management21:45
sabdflin terms of "who has the right to make the call", i don't think any of the changes made, and referenced in this conversation, have been made without authority21:45
sabdfljoaopinto: we have guidance on that21:46
sabdfli often have people ask me if a particular idea or change should be raised, and with whom21:46
sabdfland more importantly, people often do consult on changes inside and outside the Ubuntu community, without asking me, they just do it21:46
sabdflsometimes we get it wrong21:46
sabdfland sometimes we piss people off with a change21:47
vuntzsabdfl: honest question (I don't know the answer): were there controversial non-technical changes that were discussed before being pushed?21:47
sabdfland sometimes we make a change which is a mistake and have to revert it21:47
joaopintoso in summary you are the general change manager ?21:47
sabdfljoaopinto: no, there are tens of people who make calls on this stuff every release cycle21:47
vuntzsabdfl: if yes, it probably wouldn't hurt to remind them just to show that discussion does occur, even if it's not always the case21:47
sabdfli never had sight of the "Sent from Ubuntu", though I was a supporter of the idea after I saw the controversy21:48
pleia2sabdfl: I think the breakdown here is that you're getting those questions, there seems to be impression that decisions that are made and not open to discussion (particularly when Canonical is involved), even if they wanted to people don't know where that discussion should happen, so it ends up on blogs with a lot of misinfermation and frustration21:48
sabdfleverything is open to discussion21:48
pleia2maybe that's something that should be made more clear somehow21:49
sabdflbut at the same time, i do believe we need decisiveness and leadership and can't afford to be afraid of controversy21:49
joaopintosabdfl, who and how are those calls made ? that's the entire point, you may know, most of the community does not know21:49
sabdflit's us or android, folks21:49
sabdfljoaopinto: they are made in lots of places21:49
cody-somervilleI'm curious. Is there any particular reason why the Ubuntu One store wasn't integrated into banshee instead of changing the referral code? Wouldn't that avoid this issue and provide a more integrated experience? Is it more complicated than that? If this was already discussed and there are good reasons feel free to just point me at the spec.21:49
sabdflthink how many tough decisions are made in #ubuntu-devel or -devel which we KNOW are going to infuriate someone in Debian but which we believe to be the right decision!21:49
sabdflwould you rather we were afraid to stand for something we believe in?21:50
sabdflthis is true of EVERYONE who takes on responsibility in the project21:50
sabdflnot just some secret Canonical cabal :-)21:50
sabdflcody-somerville: that would imply that our right to revenue stems only from U121:50
sabdflwhich is not the case21:50
vuntzI don't think anybody is saying "decisions should be taken much more slowly"21:50
joaopintosabdfl, wouldn't it be  beneficial to bring them to a single place ? Those lot of places result in lot of places for discussion later, based on lack of information, because there is no single place to gather such information21:50
sabdflUbuntu service revenue rightfully belongs with Canonical, and we are committed to (and have demonstrated in practice) sharing that with projects which are in the relevant pipe21:51
vuntzquick decisions are not incompatible with proper announcement/warning/whatever-you-want-to-call-it (which will lead to discussion, which is good)21:51
pleia2joaopinto: I believe the sounder mailing list was initially put together for discussions like this21:51
sabdfljoaopinto: we delegate a lot of responsibility, for a reason21:51
pleia2(it has since diverged a lot from that and just become general off-topic)21:52
sabdflsounder worked when it was invite-only21:52
sabdfli don't think that would work so well now :-)21:52
popeyapologies for being late.21:52
ogravuntz, but how do you decide whats worth that discussion from the 100s of changes we make every day ?21:52
sabdflhey popey21:52
joaopintosabdfl, you are missing my point, this is all about identifying responsibility and delegation21:52
vuntzogra: you'll miss some for sure. But it's better to miss some than miss all :-)21:53
sabdfljoaopinto: all of the decisions you refer to *were* taken by the appropriate people, in my view21:53
vuntzogra: (which is the current feeling at the moment)21:53
* ogra makes many decisions during a work week, sometimes unpopular ones for the community i work with ... which is the ARM comminty and really small, would you expect me to consult sabdfl and the community for each of them ?21:53
mhall119vuntz: the bigger problem will be a flood of things that aren't worth that discussion21:53
sabdfland the fact that, whenever anyone is upset about any decision, they could argue that "this should have been consulted on, on the basis of that policy"21:54
ograi mean my community i work with in some cases sees the world end ... its just a smaller scale but a similar thing21:54
sabdflso one could slow everything down and still upset people :-)21:54
vuntzmhall119: I think it's fair to say that some decisions can be guessed as controversial, and there are not 100s of such decisions per week21:54
vuntzmhall119: again, some controversial decisions will be missed this way21:55
sabdflvuntz: yes, and generally we try to consult appropriately21:55
mhall119vuntz: it's probably also fair to that this is already the case21:55
sabdfland mistakes happen then, just like they would happen if the policy was "consult on everything"21:55
joaopintosabdfl, again, I don't know who is the "appropriate people", it would help me to contact the right people if I knew, instead of resorting to blogs21:55
mhall119that this was one of the "missed" ones21:55
vuntzsabdfl: sure, I'm fine with mistakes happening21:55
sabdfljoaopinto: rick spencer leads the Ubuntu platform team21:55
sabdflmdz leads the TB21:55
* ogra thinks the more important part is that there is openess for dicsussion *after* the change is being announced21:55
sabdflthe buck stops with me21:55
ograand *before* the release is out21:56
vuntzogra: the issue is that when it's after, people feel hurt21:56
ograits not like such changes are decided on release day21:56
sabdflthere are other people - folks engaged with U1, and Launchpad, and of course people who lead stuff like kernel and toolchain21:56
sabdflall of them have taken controversial decisions in the past21:56
sabdflask around21:56
ogravuntz, thats my point, its not *after* its *during*21:56
ograrelease of natty is in april21:57
ograthe change was made now21:57
vuntzogra: I meant "after the change is being announced", not "after the release is out"21:57
ograand there was openess for discussing it before release21:57
ograwell, you have to release it somehow21:57
ograbut you cant announce every change21:57
DarkwingDuckfor those who want to disscuss everything in the community before its implimented, what forum would you want, how much talking is needed and how many of the hundreds of changes are you looking for? if the idea is that the community votes on changes then a 6 month release cycle will be hard if not impossible to work with.21:57
ogras/release/announce/ (sorry)21:58
vuntzogra: nobody is asking for that :-)21:58
huatsogra, I think you mean "there IS openess" since as you said the release is in appril21:58
sabdflvuntz: i take it you just want to be sure there was consultation on all the things you're going to have a divergent opinion from the decision maker on? ;-)21:58
ograhuats, well, to my knowledge the case is setteled so far21:58
vuntzsabdfl: oh, no21:58
mhall119vuntz: I don't quite understand what the difference is between announcing that they intend to make a change, and announcing that they are discussing the fact that they intend to make a change21:58
joaopintoDarkwingDuck, no, I did not suggest voting, neither I suggest that community approval was required, community awareness SHOULD BE required21:59
vuntzsabdfl: I can disagree on, say, "use shotwell instead of f-spot", but I have nothing to argue against it except personal taste21:59
sabdfljoaopinto: we don't do referendums on these sorts of changes21:59
sabdflso awareness can come before during or after a decision21:59
vuntzsabdfl: so again, I don't feel everything has to go through consultation22:00
sabdfland again, i'm not aware of ANY change which cannot be undone22:00
DarkwingDuckjoaopinto: isnt that excatly what is happening though? we are 2 month from a release and talking about it. this (imo) is why the feture freeze is for22:00
sabdfli don't feel there is a definitive outcome on this topic, but i'd like to invite CC members to weigh in, then move on to the Banshee question22:00
ogravuntz, but the request is for a formal process ...22:01
ograso where do you draw the line22:01
vuntzmhall119: between "hey, this is what we're doing, bye" and "hey, this is our plan, we'll implement it this week, what do you think?", there's a big difference to me22:01
ograand how do you formalize that line22:01
mhall119vuntz: you the difference is the "what do you think" being thrown in at the end?22:01
vishjoaopinto: as ogra mentioned, Natty is *not yet* out.. there is still nearly 2months to release in a 6month cycle.. it is still in development and the communication is going on now, where was the delay?22:01
sabdflmhall119: is it honest to throw that in, when sufficient consensus amongst leaders is in place to move on the decision?22:02
vuntzmhall119: it's part of the difference. But even saying "this is our plan, we'll implement it this week" is slightly better than "we're doing this"22:02
joaopintovish, the delay was in the part that we were informed by an Banshee developer22:02
pleia2this certainly is a difficult problem, without major policy changes I think the best which can be done right now is make dicision makers aware that they should be as open as possible during their decision process, and make sure the community knows that discussion is allowed and welcome22:02
mhall119sabdfl: I don't think so, personally22:02
mhall119vuntz: how about a day instead of a week?22:02
mhall119or an hour?22:03
vuntzmhall119: broken release process, I'd argue, if you need to implement the change within an hour22:03
vishjoaopinto: jono also , blogged about it on the same day as the second proposal, considering the first one was just in the works....22:03
joaopintovish, also also, in the part the that Banshee developer was eager to know what would be the Ubuntu community feedback, as we had any relevance on the decision22:03
joaopintoas if22:03
mhall119vuntz: broken decision process, I'd argue, if you have to wait when you're ready to implement22:03
sabdflthanks pleia222:03
sabdflmdke? popey?22:03
mdkesorry, I had to step away22:04
popeyI do worry that we dont learn from our mistakes22:04
vuntzmhall119: it can be implemented in a branch, in a ppa, in whatever. No need to wait22:04
popeywe have track record of doing these things mid-cycle22:04
mdkebut I pretty much disagreed with everything I read before then :(22:04
pleia2I think the design team blog is a wonderful example of a group which has learned from their mistakes22:04
popeycausing a fuss, and then reverting things after 'consultantion' or 'backlash'22:04
DarkwingDuckjoaopinto: okay, we were informed by the devs... had we been informed by canonical then the banshee devs would be getting kicked because they were not being "open" about it...22:05
mhall119vuntz: isn't that how the change was made?22:05
ograpopey, how often did that occur in 6 years of ubuntu22:05
mhall119it's not like they were changing the code right in the archives22:05
vuntzmhall119: I don't know, but it was not communicated this way22:05
mdkeI don't like reading that Canonical owns Ubuntu. I'd like to see a concept where Ubuntu is a community driven project, with Canonical as the major funder and employee of many developers.22:06
mdkeIf that is accepted, then it obviously follows that there should be a community governance team with overall supervision of such issues22:06
mdkethere's no reason why such a team could not be sensitive to Canonical interests as we all are now22:07
joaopintoDarkwingDuck, I don't have any relation with the Banshee devs, I do have with the Ubuntu community, I am sure the Banshee have their own rules of communication, which is not in our scope22:07
popeyogra: about once per release :)22:07
joaopintomdke, I believed it was like that, until recently22:07
ogranah, surely not that often22:08
Technovikingogra: close to that22:08
mdkejoaopinto: I think I stopped believing it a while before you then. But I haven't given up hope in the concept22:08
ograi agree it got more in the recent releases22:08
mdkeequally, in such a scheme, Canonical employees contributing to Ubuntu would follow the same principles of transparent and public work that volunteer Ubuntu developers follow22:08
sabdflmdke: i appreciate that's a noble idea, but i don't believe it's workable22:09
ograbut i disagree that we had 12 such cases22:09
mhall119mdke: I don't think you want the community footing the bill for Ubuntu's development22:09
joaopintoIMHO we are moving from, Canonical supporting the Ubuntu community, to the Ubuntu community support Canonical22:09
mdkemhall119: please re-read what I said, it's nothing like that22:09
sabdflpity ;-)22:09
mhall119mdke: you didn't say it, but your suggestion that Canonical would fund something that can't direct seems....odd22:10
popeyogra: yahoo/google search, buttons, font, spacial windows, calendar, fspot/shotwell decision, gimp removal decision..22:10
mdkemhall119: not really. Canonical can build a business plan around it22:10
mhall119mdke: isn't that what brought all this up?22:10
ograpopey, yeah, i dont get much more together as well22:10
mdkesabdfl: I believe that unless you open up to a concept like that one in due course, eventually Ubuntu will lose attraction to volunteers entirely. The alternative is very demotivating22:11
pleia2mdke: it's the concept I keep hope in too and I think we should strive for, even if we end up making concessions for reality22:11
mdkemhall119: no, it's because Canonical is building a plan around your idea22:11
mhall119my idea?22:11
vishpopey:  "fspot/shotwell decision, gimp removal decision".. iirc, these were taken during the UDS22:11
ograpopey, though i would exclude calendar here ;)22:11
mdkemhall119: I mean, the idea that Canonical can control the project22:12
joaopintosabdfl, you used a nice example, about branding, you have a clear distinction there, we don't have such clear distinction about changes on Ubuntu, they do not have a brand22:12
mhall119mdke: well they did start it, they do fund it, they do market it and promote it....22:12
mdkemhall119: sorry if that was rather clumsily expressed22:12
mdkemhall119: I know that, and appreciate every penny22:12
popeyI'm sorry, I'm being kicked out and as such am losing my net access.22:13
mhall119appreciation doesn't pay salaries22:13
sabdfljoaopinto: my point was that the branding should reflect ownership. canonical ultimately is responsible for the CD we publish - we stand behind it legally22:14
Technovikingpopey: thanks, have a safe trip home22:14
vuntzmhall119: are you saying that all volunteers in the Ubuntu community should simply accept all Canonical decisions in all cases?22:14
mdkemhall119: we're going around in circles. As I said, Canonical can still operate as a business in my concept of the Ubuntu project. Indeed that was how I understand Canonical was conceived22:14
sabdflbut "feeling ownership" is much more rich and complex than "legal ownership"22:14
sabdflwhich is why the hard answer, while true, is misleading22:14
mhall119vuntz: volunteers vote with their time, Canonical knows this22:14
sabdfli think mdke is saying that "people need to feel ownership to be interested"22:14
sabdfland i agree22:14
sabdflbut we cannot ALL own the WHOLE22:14
sabdflwe'll drive each other nuts22:14
mdkesabdfl: you're right, I don't care too much about legal ownership here22:15
joaopintosabdfl, I don't want to own anything, I just want to know who owns what, in what relates to product changes22:15
sabdflthe meritocratic approach says "hey, demonstrate competence in something, demonstrate commitment and classiness and social skills, and we'll give you responsibility for that part of things"22:15
mdkesabdfl: I'm not arguing for a community where everyone is consulted on every decision; but rather simply a meritocracy based community where being employed by Canonical doesn't grant automatic meritocracy22:15
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha
sabdfl"and you'll get to make real decisions. you'll probably be accountable to some folk, but you generally get to move forward quickly the way you think is best"22:16
mdkesabdfl: and where a community based council has ultimate supervision over non-technical as well as technical decisions22:16
sabdflthat's pretty motivating22:16
mdkeyou would still be the sabdfl :)22:16
sabdfljoaopinto: name a change, i can name the owner :-)22:16
joaopintosabdfl, that's not efficient and does not scale22:16
sabdflwe've heard from just about everybody on this22:16
sabdfljoaopinto: well, name an area you care about, and i can tell you who to talk to, and if you shine, you can be the owner22:17
sabdflhow's that?22:17
sabdflbut what also does not scale, is a framework where anybody (especially people who do not contribute) can challenge people who ARE empowered to make decisions, on every decision22:18
mhall119joaopinto: that information can probably be found in launchpad too, it's not just in sabdfl's head22:18
joaopintowhy do would you prefer over transferring that knowledge to a public board ?22:18
vuntzsabdfl: can paid services be owned by non-Canonical people?22:18
sabdfljoaopinto: because it's dynamic, complex, fast moving22:18
sabdfli promise, you can learn whatever you want just by asking22:18
sabdflwhat you can't do is insist that it all be published in advance in a way which will pass the scrutiny of hindsight22:18
sabdflthis topic has taken enough of our time22:19
sabdflpleia2: can we move on to the banshee topic please?22:19
ogravuntz, why not ?22:19
mhall119it's time for me to go, but I appreciate having a chance to be heard22:19
sabdfli have to wake up in 5 hours and be bendy not grumpy22:19
pleia2[TOPIC] Amazon MP3 store in Natty & referral fees22:19
vuntzogra: I don't know, I'm just asking22:19
MootBotNew Topic:  Amazon MP3 store in Natty & referral fees22:19
sabdflas i blogged today, Canonical folks made several mistakes22:19
mdzvuntz, there is software in Ubuntu, tied to paid services, which has nothing to do with Canonical22:19
sabdflfirst, we didn't deal with the money question at UDS22:19
mdzand every other major distribution for that matter22:19
MootBotLINK received:  http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/61122:20
mdkecrickey, wasn't that the banshee topic?22:20
sabdfli thought we had, but i didn't follow up on that22:20
vuntzmdke: nah, but that covered most of it, I guess22:20
sabdflsecond, when it did come up, someone who wasn't in a good position to be handling that conversation, suggested there was a choice to be made, which there wasn't22:20
mdkevuntz: guess so22:20
sabdflmdke: we did the general one bout non-technical changes, first22:21
sabdflall in all, that resulted in a much worse experience for banshee folk than should have22:21
sabdflfor which i apologise22:21
sabdfli stand by the principle, though, that affiliate fees generated on ubuntu should benefit ubuntu first22:22
sabdfland directing those to canonical is thus appropriate22:22
sabdfland second, that we should figure out how to share the benefits of those with relevant upstreams22:22
sabdflthis was thought out when we founded canonical - these sorts of services were a key part of the rationale for doing so22:22
sabdflwe were a little ahead of the curve ;-)22:22
chuckfwhy are the banshee donations the only ones to be allocated to Canonical?22:23
sabdflchuckf: i don't understand?22:23
mdzchuckf, what donations?22:23
chuckffor instance the VIM people ask that people donate to a particular charity if you find their software useful.22:24
chuckfTheir links have never been changed22:24
sabdflchuckf: this is different22:24
mdzchuckf, we are not talking about donations at all22:24
sabdflin that spirit, though, we are adding the ability to donate straight to upstreams in the software center22:24
charlie-tcachuckf: you are never forced to pay that donation unless you decide to22:25
chuckfand I'm not forced to purchase from Amazon22:25
rwwchuckf: Affiliate revenue and donations are rather different. This is more akin to, e.g., changing the default search engine because another search company offered revenue share. It's not a direct donation.22:25
jonochuckf, affiliate fees are not donations, they are a part of the revenue generated22:25
sabdflchuckf: the question really is this: who brought you to amazon? was it ubuntu? or was it banshee?22:25
sabdfland the answer in our view is: a bit of both22:25
chuckfbut if I do so via Banshee I should have the option to use their plugin and support them in the manner they desire, which is to have their monies go to the Gnome foundation22:25
sabdflchuckf: you will have that option, of course22:26
sabdfldownload and install the plugin, et voila22:26
vuntzsabdfl: would it be possible to have some open accounting, to ensure that the money benefits Ubuntu directly?22:26
charlie-tcaum, you have the right to donate directly to banshee or gnome or anyone else, without canonical getting any money22:26
sabdflvuntz: that's predicated on a distrust of canonical which i can't accept22:26
ogracharlie-tca, but then you dont get the music :)22:26
charlie-tcaoh, well22:26
vishchuckf: for a better (graphical) understanding of this  > http://www.ndftz.com/nickelanddime.png by andy fitz22:26
chuckfthe affiliate fees are the way the donation money is generated by the Banshee project.22:27
sabdflif a person chooses to donate to banshee, banshee gets the money22:28
sabdflif a person uses ubuntu to buy music from amazon, canonical gets the referral, and will share that with the upstream we think made that possible22:29
chuckfso if the banshee project collected the fees as donations to themselves you would not be changing the plugin?22:29
sabdflfirefox, or banshee, or rhythmbox, or the zsh maintainers22:29
chuckfI wouldn't use ubuntu to buy the music, I would use banshee22:30
mdkesabdfl: it's not distrust at all. There must be plenty of other answers you could have chosen to vuntz's question that are more convincing than that! Like the difficulty in ring-fencing funding for free vs non-free projects, confidentiality as against business competitors, etc22:30
sabdflchuckf: i don't really understand what you're saying, but yes, i think we would change the plugin22:30
sabdflmdke: floor's yours :-)22:31
mdkesabdfl: I just wanted to point out that people calling for that are not distrusting Canonical. I can't actually answer the question22:31
pleia2sabdfl: I think he's saying, for instance, a "donate to banshee" button inside of banshee, whether canonical would want a cut (I think not)22:31
chuckfI'm saying if the banshee group said 'purchase through this affiliate link to donate to the banshee project' would canonical want a cut?22:32
pleia2I would hope that upstream and downstream would have better relations than to have something come down to that :)22:33
jonochuckf, I believe Canonical have a right to take a cut as it invests so heavily in delivering the technology - but for explicit donations it should be a smaller cut22:34
jonofor affiliate arrangements, I think the cut is fine to be higher22:34
chuckfanother question I have about this is I keep seeing that Canonical is taking a 75% cut and sending 25% of the revenue to Gnome. Is that 25% of the total or 25% of Canonical's 75%?22:34
sabdflchuckf: the way you describe it, we would make the change, yes. the way pleia2 describes it, no, we would actually try to make that easier for people22:34
jonochuckf, I believe it is 25% of the full amount22:35
sabdflchuckf: we're willing to share 25% of this with the banshee folks, who say they would like that to go to gnome22:35
rwwchuckf: The way Amazon affiliation works is that n% of sales go to the affiliate. 75% of that n% will go to Canonical. 25% of that n% go to GNOME.22:35
chuckfso out of a $1 affiliate fee .25 goes to banshee, .75 goes to Canonical and how much goes from Canonical to Gnome?22:36
jonocan I ask what the goal of this agenda is vuntz?22:37
mdkenone - it is banshee who are donating their 25% to gnome, as I have understood the above22:37
vuntzrelated to this topic, and something we haven't covered yet: the current situation didn't improve the relationship between one upstream and Ubuntu, while the Ubuntu community itself had no real word in the decision. This might happen again in the future. Is there anything that can be done to prevent the Ubuntu community being a collateral damage?22:38
rwwI was under the impression it was going directly Canonical -> GNOME. If Banshee's getting money out of this, I'm conflating and please s/GNOME/Banshee/ above.22:38
vuntzjono: most of this agenda item was actually covered during the discussion of the last item (which occurred before this one)22:38
jonovuntz, ok22:39
joaopintoThe relevance of this discussion is based on actual results (which we don't have) and perceived values of distributions versus upstream22:39
sabdflrww: in our view, banshee is entitled to a share. they have indicated they want *any* revenue to support the gnome foundation. so, if they agree, that's where we'll send it. if they stick fingers in ears and tongues out, we'll put it to good use ourselves ;-)22:39
sabdfllook, we screwed up the engagement. this should have been crystal clear at UDS, and it wasn't22:40
azeemwait, you're saying if banshee people don't agree you'll just use the 25% share for whatever you like?22:40
chuckfso what is being said is that all donations to upstream projects should be filtered via Canoncial as a delivery fee?22:40
azeemchuckf: this is not about donations22:41
sabdflazeem: if banshee don't want the money, hell yes we can use it!22:41
vuntzazeem: jono said "but for explicit donations it should be a smaller cut"22:41
vuntzazeem: which still implies a cut22:41
jonothat would be my personal preference, vuntz22:41
jonoI am not speaking for Canonical there22:41
mdkeI'm going to have to quit I'm afraid. Interesting discussion and I hope there will be more along similar lines in due course22:41
sabdflcheers mdke, thanks for weighing in22:42
mdkesorry I wasn't around long22:42
pleia2vuntz: sabdfl clafiried in "the way pleia2 describes it, no, we would actually try to make that easier for people" (my description was an explicit donate button)22:42
chuckfazeem: from what jono just said at 17:34:46 it sounds like they are talking about taking a cut of all donations22:42
joaopintomdke, bye, thanks22:42
jonochuckf, <jono> that would be my personal preference, vuntz22:42
jono I am not speaking for Canonical there22:42
pleia2vuntz: does mark's blog post saying "we made a mistake, we want to do better" help at all?22:42
sabdflwe are not here to negotiate all future permutations and combinations of possibilities, hmmmk ;-)22:43
joaopintochuckf, just ask Mark , he knows about the changes ;)22:43
sabdflindeed ;-)22:43
azeemvuntz: crazy22:43
sabdflhere's the important bit22:43
vuntzpleia2: re sabdfl's clarification, it actually doesn't clarify anything since it doesn't mention whether there's a cut or not ;-)22:43
vuntzpleia2: re sabdfl's post: I don't think it helped a lot upstream, to be honest22:43
sabdflthis is a real opportunity for free software projects to get consistent financial support without having to jump through impossible hoops22:43
sabdflthere are those who want to beat up on canonical and ubuntu22:44
sabdflwe simply cannot satisfy them22:44
sabdflwhat we CAN do22:44
sabdflis demonstrate a nice flow of income to banshee22:44
azeemis getting into the paypal business22:44
sabdfland any other projects who are interested in this model22:44
sabdfland i think that's fantastic22:44
vuntzor well, I'm sorry. I think acknowledging the communication issue does help a bit. But it won't change people's mind22:44
sabdflvuntz: tough22:44
chuckfsabdfl: if its not done in an open manner it is hard to trust when it comes to someone else collecting money22:44
pleia2vuntz: what would in the immediate term?22:45
sabdflchuckf: it's a lot more open than most other forms of indirect support22:45
sabdflfor example22:45
sabdflhow much of the revenue red hat makes from support contracts for apache get delivered as cash to apache.org?22:45
sabdflgo figure22:45
sabdflthis is clean, crisp, and transparent22:45
sabdflyes, it's discretionary22:45
sabdflbut it's a share of revenue, not an occasional cheque for a conference or sprint22:46
sabdfli think we're WAY better for free software projects than the other models i've seen22:46
sabdfland on that basis, we're moving forward22:46
vuntzpleia2: I guess most people would like Canonical to reconsider the whole thing to come to a middle ground; but my understanding is that it won't happen22:47
sabdflvuntz: it will not22:47
vuntzand knowing that it won't happen actually makes things worse :/22:47
jonovuntz, can you articulate what will be made worse?22:47
vuntzsabdfl: right. I'm just trying to explain why upstream feels bad22:47
sabdfli hope, in due course, you feel differently22:47
charlie-tcaIt would not be as controversial if it was not as open22:47
vuntzjono: it sounds like "no, we don't want to listen to you"22:48
vuntzjono: I'm not saying this is what it means. But it sounds like this22:48
jonovuntz, to who? Banshee?22:48
joaopintosabdfl, why do you keep comparing RH business products? RH community product is Fedora, not RHEL22:48
vuntzjono: I can't talk for banshee people22:48
jonovuntz, so who do you feel it would the send the message of not listening to?22:49
sabdflvuntz: it says "we believe we have a fair and equitable model that can work wonders for you and other projects, if you don't want to engage on that basis, we respect that, if you do, where should we send the cheque?"22:49
vuntzjono: but to the gnome community in general, that's how it sounded22:49
sabdfljoaopinto: Fedora is RHEL's open core22:49
jonovuntz, but this isnt really anything to do with the GNOME Community - it is an arrangement between Canonical and Banshee surely?22:49
vuntzjono: that's negating the fact that banshee people are close to gnome people and vice-versa22:50
chuckfFrom where I sit, as a member of the community, I see this as yet another 'Community, we have the right to do this leagally so we're doing it' decision from Canonical22:50
jonovuntz, agreed, but the Ubuntu community is close to the GNOME community22:50
vuntzjono: not as close as the banshee one22:50
jonovuntz, my only point is that the views of the peanut gallery is not necessarily a reason to change things22:50
jonochange should happen for reasonable reasons22:51
vuntzjono: I just explained the perception. I was not even advocating for a change here :-)22:51
vuntzjono: I can start advocating for a change, but I don't think it'd be useful ;-)22:51
* highvoltage wonders who exactly jono considers part of the "peanut gallery" though22:51
jonohighvoltage, those with an opinion on the issue, who have little or nothing to do with either project22:52
* chuckf nods to highvoltage's comment22:52
highvoltagejono: that's fair enough22:52
jonobtw, my view includes opinions from the peanut gallery in favor of the current revshare arrangement22:52
jonoUbuntu has never been a popularity content, but I consider the views of the Banshee core devs as very important opinions to consider22:52
jonobecause they have contributed significantly to that experience in Ubuntu22:53
vuntzjono: and did you get positive feedback from banshee core devs?22:53
joaopintochuckf, is not how you see it, is how it really is22:53
jonovuntz, some critical, some neutral22:53
jonothe criticism was rightly around the mishandling of the discussions22:54
joaopintobusiness decisions are Canonical's business22:54
jonofor which hey have every right to be frustrated22:54
jonoin many of the discussions the core devs were respectful of the split, but chose to not support22:55
jonoanyway, I have taken enough of the floor22:55
sabdflit's 1am here, i need to step away22:55
pleia2I need to get back to work, how do we want to wrap this up?22:56
vuntzsabdfl: crazy you! ;-)22:56
charlie-tcasabdfl: thank you for listening22:56
sabdflso my bankers tell me, every time i tell them about this "giving stuff away" thing22:57
sabdflwell, thanks to lots of people for commenting and helping to steer things forward22:57
joaopintothanks for your time, a social pleasant meeting despite the void effectiveness22:57
sabdfli really do hope, in a few years, this is seen as a positive trend we led, not a ghastly detour22:57
sabdflbut i will say this22:58
highvoltagegoodnight sabdfl and thanks for all the explanation22:58
sabdflubuntu was built for exactly this22:58
sabdfli think it's an awesome deal, for upstreams and people who participate and use ubuntu22:58
sabdfland of course canonical22:58
highvoltageone day I hope I have enough money to go to cape town too whenever I feel like it :)22:58
porthosewow interesting indeed :)22:58
MootBotMeeting finished at 16:59.22:59
jonothanks for everyone's participation22:59
sabdflthanks for chairing, pleia222:59
pleia2sure thing22:59
sabdflnight all22:59
jononight sabdfl22:59
vuntzgood night22:59
joaopintogood night22:59
sabdflone last reboot for the new unity packages :-)22:59
pleia2good night :)22:59
=== Ursinha is now known as Ursinha-afk
=== Ursinha-afk is now known as Ursinha

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