[07:15] <lifeless> hmm
[07:15] <lifeless> persia: are we meeting tonight?
[13:18] <mati75> hey
[15:58] <smoser> thank you zul
[15:58]  * smoser is heading out for 30 minutes.
[15:58] <zul> hi
[15:59] <zul> still 2 minutes according to my clock
[15:59] <RoAkSoAx> o/
[16:00] <zul> hi so lets get that started
[16:00] <zul> #startmeeting
[16:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is zul.
[16:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:00] <zul> [TOPIC]     Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[16:00] <MootBot> New Topic:      Review ACTION points from previous meeting
[16:00] <zul> since there is nothing in the last meeting we jump to
[16:00] <zul> [TOPIC] Natty Development
[16:00] <MootBot> New Topic:  Natty Development
[16:00] <zul> so alpha3 is going to be released on thursday
[16:01] <zul> your blueprints wi should be marked as postposted if they arent complete and carried over
[16:01] <zul> iso testing this week so please help out
[16:01] <zul> anything else?
[16:01] <Daviey> Sounds good to me.
[16:01] <hallyn> action + url for iso testign for the record?
[16:02] <zul> [ACTION] iso testing - everybody (http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com)
[16:02] <MootBot> ACTION received:  iso testing - everybody (http://iso.qa.ubuntu.com)
[16:02] <hallyn> :)
[16:02] <zul> is robbie around?
[16:03] <zul> if not we will move on...going once...
[16:03] <zul> okies then
[16:03] <zul> [TOPIC] Ubuntu Server Team Events
[16:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Ubuntu Server Team Events
[16:03] <zul> anyone have anything to add?
[16:04] <zul> UDS is soon and sponsorship is open now so if you want to be sponsored please sign up
[16:04] <ttx> cool ;)
[16:05] <zul> that means you ttx
[16:05] <RoAkSoAx> lol
[16:05] <zul> its in budapest this year in may
[16:05] <zul> nice and toasty
[16:05] <zul> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[16:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the QA Team (hggdh)
[16:05] <zul> hi hggdh
[16:06] <hggdh> yo
[16:06] <zul> anything to report?
[16:06] <hggdh> this is A3 week, we will probably need help
[16:06] <Daviey> Hggdh. Expect a news eucalyptus today.
[16:07] <zul> yay!
[16:07] <Daviey> New
[16:07] <hggdh> Daviey: so I will refrain from testing it until you ping me
[16:07] <Daviey> Cool
[16:07] <hggdh> that
[16:07] <zul> that it? ;)
[16:07] <RoAkSoAx> hggdh: so I guess when you start testing we can take a deeper look into the PowerNap issue then
[16:07] <hggdh>  's it
[16:08] <hggdh> RoAkSoAx: yes, certainly
[16:08] <zul> ok next
[16:08] <Daviey> Hggdh... Any comments on a3 testing?
[16:08] <zul> just need help right hggdh?
[16:09] <hggdh> new ISO seems better, but some bare-metal installs would help
[16:09] <hggdh> (we had an issue that only appeared in bare-metal)
[16:09] <Daviey> Groovy
[16:09] <zul> thanks
[16:09] <zul> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)
[16:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Kernel Team (smb)
[16:09] <zul> hi smb
[16:09] <smb> Hi there
[16:10] <zul> anything to report?
[16:10] <smb> So not much. A bit of ec2 testing fallout, some xfs regression that was reported and some nasty Lucid behavior in net namespace.
[16:11] <smb> bug 720095
[16:11] <zul> oh thats fun
[16:11] <smb> bug 725089
[16:11] <smb> bug 692848
[16:12] <zul> people shouldnt use ftp anyways ;)
[16:12] <zul> any questions?
[16:12] <smb> The seccomp panic "luckily" is no regression, just a race that sometimes happens
[16:12] <smb> ..
[16:12] <hallyn> smb: bug id for net ns lucid ?
[16:12] <smb> hallyn, Thats the vsftp bug
[16:13] <hallyn> ah
[16:13] <smb> Basically the problem is that the cleanup for clones of the net namespace hang around for a whole
[16:13] <smb> Upstream changed a lot between Lucid and Maverick to batch things
[16:14] <smb> Seems a bit much for backporting, so I try to find some smaller solution
[16:14] <smb> (not with much luck yet)
[16:14] <smb> ..
[16:14] <zul> thanks
[16:14] <hallyn> impressive root-cause finding ;)
[16:15] <zul> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team (sommer)
[16:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions for the Documentation Team (sommer)
[16:15] <zul> sommer around?
[16:15] <zul> im thinking no
[16:15] <zul> well come back to that one if needed
[16:15] <zul> [TOPIC] Weekly Updates & Questions from the Ubuntu Community
[16:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly Updates & Questions from the Ubuntu Community
[16:15] <kim0> o/
[16:15] <zul> hi kim0
[16:15] <kim0> the thing I wanna mention
[16:15] <kim0> is the .. drum roll
[16:16] <kim0> Ubuntu Cloud Days
[16:16] <kim0> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCloudDays/
[16:16] <kim0> basically very similar to UDW
[16:16] <kim0> everyone who's attending that meeting is a very good candidate to register a session
[16:16] <kim0> please choose one and write it in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuCloudDays/Timetable
[16:16] <zul> its just the two days right?
[16:16] <kim0> don't make me pick one for you
[16:17] <kim0> zul: well yes, unless I get flooded with volunteers
[16:17] <kim0> basically, I've written a blog post announcing it
[16:17] <zul> kim0: cool
[16:17] <kim0> but dont wanna publish it before you guys have added a few sessions
[16:17] <kim0> so please go go go
[16:17] <kim0> that's mostly it for me
[16:17] <zul> cool any questions?
[16:17] <kim0> nope
[16:18] <Daviey> Exciting
[16:18] <zul> any other questions for kim0
[16:18] <zul> [TOPIC] Open Discussion
[16:18] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion
[16:18] <zul> kirkland: around? how was scale
[16:19] <zul> or not
[16:19] <zul> so lxcguest
[16:20] <zul> we have been adding lxc containers support to openstack and we would like add lxcguest support to the uec-images
[16:20] <zul> i have discussed with smoser that it should be brought into main. does anyone see an issue with that?
[16:21] <zul> this would make testing images on openstack much more easier
[16:21] <hallyn> woot
[16:21] <zul> the work is already on the way to get it done
[16:22] <Daviey> How will mainly bed supporting generic.lxc?
[16:22] <Daviey> Who
[16:22] <zul> us
[16:22] <zul> or i missed the question
[16:22] <hallyn> I support lxc
[16:23] <Daviey> Hallyn, cool
[16:23] <zul> and the lxc support in openstack is done through libvirt so that is also hallyn :)
[16:23] <Daviey> Heh

[16:23] <zul> any other open discussion type things?
[16:24] <Daviey> Nah
[16:24] <zul> [TOPIC] Announce next meeting date and time
[16:24] <MootBot> New Topic:  Announce next meeting date and time
[16:24] <zul> Tuesday, March 8 2011 16:00 UTC
[16:24] <zul> thanks for comming
[16:24] <zul> #endmeeting
[16:24] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:24.
[16:24] <Daviey> Short and sweet
[16:35] <smoser> wow. short meeting
[16:59] <apw> o/
[16:59] <cking> \o
[16:59] <flag> o/
[16:59] <sforshee> \o
[16:59] <jjohansen> \o
[17:00] <JFo> o/
[17:00] <smb> \o
[17:00] <kamal> o/
[17:00] <sconklin> \o
[17:01] <bjf> #startmeeting
[17:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 11:01. The chair is bjf.
[17:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[17:01] <bjf> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting
[17:01] <bjf> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty
[17:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/Meeting
[17:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/ReleaseStatus/Natty
[17:01] <bjf> # Meeting Etiquette
[17:01] <bjf> #
[17:01] <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> #
[17:01] <bjf> [TOPIC] Release Metrics (JFo)
[17:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  Release Metrics (JFo)
[17:01] <JFo> Release Meeting Bugs (8 bugs, 9 Blueprints)
[17:01] <JFo> [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> [17:01] <JFo>  * 20 linux kernel bugs (down 3)
[17:02] <JFo>  * 0 linux-ti-omap bugs (no change)
[17:02] <JFo>  * 0 linux-meta-ti-omap bug (no change)
[17:02] <JFo> [17:02] <JFo>  * 7 blueprints (Including HWE Blueprints)
[17:02] <JFo> [17:02] <JFo>  * 60 Linux Bugs (down 3)
[17:02] <JFo> [17:02] <JFo>  * 94 Linux Bugs (no change)
[17:02] <JFo> [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] <JFo> ..
[17:02] <bjf> [TOPIC] Blueprints: Natty Bug Handling (JFo)
[17:02] <bjf> [LINK] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardware-kernel-n-bug-handling
[17:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Blueprints: Natty Bug Handling (JFo)
[17:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardware-kernel-n-bug-handling
[17:02] <JFo> * apport hook change item: POSTPONED
[17:02] <JFo> I 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:INPROGRESS
[17:02] <JFo> I 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:INPROGRESS
[17:02] <JFo> My thanks to those of you who have been working on this. The list continues to drop significantly
[17:02] <JFo> every week.
[17:02] <JFo> Other items in the list didn't get looked at this past week. I have time scheduled this
[17:02] <JFo> coming week to address them and, hopefully, close them out.
[17:02] <JFo> ..
[17:03] <bjf> [TOPIC] Status: General Natty (apw)
[17:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status: General Natty (apw)
[17:03] <apw> The 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 shou
[17:03] <apw> ld be imminent, planning to upload it as soon as freeze lifts.
[17:03] <apw> ..
[17:03] <bjf> [TOPIC] Status: Ecryptfs (jj)
[17:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status: Ecryptfs (jj)
[17:03] <jjohansen> No real progress - postponed for natty.  xattr version still waiting for review, some work on in header version
[17:04] <jjohansen> ..
[17:04] <bjf> [TOPIC] Status: Stable Kernel Team (sconklin / bjf)
[17:04] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status: Stable Kernel Team (sconklin / bjf)
[17:04] <sconklin> || We are in the middle of preparing kernels for a new cycle and uploading
[17:04] <sconklin> || them to our PPA. We had planned to complete this last week but were
[17:04] <sconklin> || delayed by a possible regression in the last set of kernels undergoing
[17:04] <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] <sconklin> ||
[17:04] <sconklin> ..
[17:04] <bjf> [TOPIC] Security & bugfix kernels - Maverick/Lucid/Karmic/Hardy/Dapper (sconklin / bjf)
[17:04] <MootBot> New 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                    || 2.6.31.307.6         ||                      ||      ||          ||
[17:04] <sconklin> || ---      linux-ports-meta                  || 2.6.31.22.18         ||                      ||      ||          ||
[17:04] <sconklin> || ---      linux-backports-modules-2.6.31    || 2.6.31.22.24         ||                      ||      ||          ||
[17:04] <sconklin> || ---      linux-fsl-imx51                   || 2.6.31-112.30        ||                      ||      ||          ||
[17:04] <sconklin> || ---      linux-meta-fsl-imx51              || 2.6.31.112-10        ||                      ||      ||          ||
[17:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-mvl-dove                    || 2.6.31.214.32        ||                      ||      ||          ||
[17:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-meta-mvl-dove               || 2.6.31.214.13        ||                      ||      ||          ||
[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                  || 2.6.32.28.21         || 2.6.32.29.22         ||    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               || 2.6.32.209.12        || 2.6.32.214.15        ||    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                        || 2.6.32.28.32         || 2.6.32.29.35         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[17:05] <sconklin> || ---      linux-meta-ec2                    || 2.6.32.312.13        || 2.6.32.313.14        ||    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               ||                      || 2.6.32.414.4         ||    0 ||        0 ||
[17:05] <sconklin> ||                                            ||                      ||                      ||      ||          ||
[17:05] <sconklin> ..
[17:05] <bjf> [TOPIC] Status: HW Cert. Team  (ara)
[17:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status: HW Cert. Team  (ara)
[17:06] <bjf> anyone from Cert. standing in for ara today ?
[17:06] <bjf> [TOPIC] Incoming Bugs: Regressions (JFo)
[17:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Incoming Bugs: Regressions (JFo)
[17:06] <JFo> Incoming Bugs
[17:06] <JFo>  182 Natty Bugs (up 2)
[17:06] <JFo>  1183 Maverick Bugs (down 2)
[17:06] <JFo>  1025 Lucid Bugs (up 6)
[17:06] <JFo> Current regression stats (broken down by release):
[17:06] <JFo> [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)
[17:07] <JFo> [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> [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] <JFo> ..
[17:08] <bjf> [TOPIC] Incoming Bugs: Bug day report (JFo)
[17:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Incoming Bugs: Bug day report (JFo)
[17:08] <JFo> Last week's bug day was a success. We had quite a number of bugs reviewed.
[17:08] <JFo> Many changed states. I had the opportunity to take a closer look at the
[17:08] <JFo> arsenal script we use to process these and there is some work continuing there
[17:08] <JFo> to make that script work better. The next bug day will be next Tuesday.
[17:08] <JFo> I had originally hoped to have one today, but I couldn't get everything ready
[17:08] <JFo> and announced in time, so I will announce for next week.
[17:08] <JFo> ..
[17:08] <bjf> [TOPIC] Triage Status (JFo)
[17:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Triage Status (JFo)
[17:08] <JFo> We have had quite a bit of interest in the periphery on bug triage. I have been
[17:08] <JFo> fielding a few requests in #ubuntu-bugs about the proper level of information needed
[17:08] <JFo> in bugs as well as the occasional private request. As always, I am recomending that
[17:08] <JFo> interested parties inquire in our channel on #ubuntu-kernel so that others
[17:08] <JFo> can benefit from the knowledge sharing.
[17:08] <JFo> ..
[17:09] <bjf> [TOPIC] Open Discussion or Questions: Raise your hand to be recognized (o/)
[17:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussion or Questions: Raise your hand to be recognized (o/)
[17:10] <bjf> thanks everyone
[17:10] <bjf> #endmeeting
[17:10] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 11:10.
[17:10] <JFo> thanks bjf
[17:10] <jjohansen> thanks bjf
[17:10] <kamal> thanks bjf
[17:12] <skaet_> wow bjf - 10 minutes...   new record for the kernel team?  ;)
[17:13] <bjf> heh
[17:13] <JFo> \o/ :-)
[18:00] <stgraber> ajmitch: ping
[18:01] <stgraber> can't find wendar or fagan ...
[18:02] <stgraber> I'll be back in 5 minutes, hopefully I won't be alone anymore by then ;)
[18:30] <ajmitch> stgraber: sorry, I'd forgotten it was this morning
[18:31] <ajmitch> stgraber: I think wendar said she'd be travelling & probably unavailable this week?
[18:32] <stgraber> I seem to remember something like this yes
[18:33] <ajmitch> given how late I've come in, & no fagan, I'm guessing we may have to skip it this week
[18:33]  * ajmitch has to head out in 10 minutes
[18:34] <ajmitch> I've been slack & not written up http://www.novarata.net/mootbot/ubuntu-meeting.log.20110215_1214.html
[18:35] <stgraber> ok, 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] <stgraber> so really nothing mouch to discuss this week
[18:35] <ajmitch> I think there was one new appliction submitted after the last meeting?
[18:37] <stgraber> it's possible, I don't remember seeing it though
[18:37] <ajmitch> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board/+bug/719694
[18:38] <ajmitch> & I was taking https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-app-review-board/+bug/718413
[18:40]  * ajmitch thinks we should probably take it to the mailing list then - minutes from 2 weeks ago should be sent there
[18:40] <stgraber> +1
[18:41] <ajmitch> ok then :)
[18:41]  * ajmitch shall run off to work now
[20:01] <highvoltage> Gooooooood afternoon!
[20:01] <highvoltage> *ahem*, evening, in EMEA zone at least :)
[20:03] <highvoltage> Any EMEA board members present? stgraber is on the phone but he should be here momentarily
[20:03] <highvoltage> is Rafael Laguna present?
[20:07] <highvoltage> Seems like today's meeting is a no-go. Next EMEA RMB meeting is on April 5th at 20:00 UTC.
[20:12] <drubin> highvoltage: Thanks for handling this.
[20:13] <highvoltage> drubin: you're welcome
[20:15] <Raydiation> -meeting already over?
[20:16] <pleia2> Raydiation: yes, there was only one applicant and they aren't around
[20:58] <mdz> is there a CC meeting happening here today?
[21:00] <highvoltage> according to the fridge there is!
[21:00] <Technoviking> mdz: yes, I think in a couple of minutes
[21:00] <jono> mdz, yes
[21:00] <mdz> thanks
[21:01]  * pleia2 waves
[21:01] <pleia2> #startmeeting
[21:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 15:01. The chair is pleia2.
[21:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[21:01]  * jono waves at pleia2
[21:01] <pleia2> ok, 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 them
[21:02] <pleia2> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[21:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[21:02] <jono> thanks for coordinating the session pleia2
[21:03] <pleia2> first off mdz is here to talk about the diversity statement he's been working on
[21:03] <pleia2> [TOPIC] Diversity statement: next steps
[21:03] <MootBot> New Topic:  Diversity statement: next steps
[21:03] <mdz> yes, so I'd like to know what the CC would like to happen next with this
[21:03] <sabdfl> evening all
[21:03] <pleia2> welcome sabdfl
[21:03] <sabdfl> how are you all?
[21:03] <Technoviking> hello sabdfl
[21:04] <jono> hey sabdfl
[21:04] <sabdfl> are we rolling, or should we start?
[21:04] <pleia2> so 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] <pleia2> sabdfl: we're going, on agenda item one "Diversity statement: next steps"
[21:05] <sabdfl> okdokey
[21:06] <mdz> I 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 community
[21:06] <sabdfl> i think we ack'd it previously, in essentially the same form
[21:06] <sabdfl> with the caveat that there should be discussion
[21:06] <mdz> yes
[21:06] <pleia2> since this is a community-developed document, I think the blessing by the CC should be sufficient to make it official
[21:06] <sabdfl> was there much commentary after your blog?
[21:07] <mdz> I summarized it to c-c@ a while back
[21:07] <pleia2> 40 comments on the blog entry
[21:07] <Technoviking> maybe an Ubuntu Values page should be created on ubuntu.com with this and the CoC just to make this easy to find for the community
[21:08] <mdz> there were a lot of suggested wording changes, some of which are reasonable but not urgently needed (wordsmithing)
[21:08] <sabdfl> re-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] <mdz> I actually have a code of conduct diff which goes along with this
[21:08] <mdz> and adds that
[21:08] <Technoviking> sabdfl: +1 for that
[21:08] <pleia2> oh, it was also shared on the ubuntu-women and ubuntu-for-all lists
[21:08] <mdz> I can send that diff to c-c@ if you like
[21:09] <mdz> it's small
[21:09] <Raydiation> voice test
[21:09] <sabdfl> that 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 one
[21:10] <jono> sounds great
[21:10] <mdz> let me send the diff and we can discuss it
[21:10] <pleia2> thanks mdz :)
[21:10] <mdz> I think they're complementary, but let's see
[21:10] <chuckf> so 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] <sabdfl> also, the nod to python and dreamwidth would probably be better in a footnote than the statement itself
[21:10] <mdz> consider it a footnote
[21:10] <mdz> given the CC-BY nature it shouldn't be forgotten, but certainly isn't central
[21:10] <sabdfl> ok, then +1 from me
[21:11] <Technoviking> +1 here
[21:11] <pleia2> +1
[21:11] <mdz> what should I do next?
[21:11] <mdz> 1. send the CoC diff
[21:11] <mdz> 2. ...
[21:11] <sabdfl> chuckf: i think that would be a different matter than harrassment
[21:11] <pleia2> I like Technoviking's idea of an Ubuntu Values page where this will go
[21:11] <sabdfl> mdz, since you've carried this, it's entirely appropriate for you to blog that the CC approved the statement
[21:12] <chuckf> sabdfl: but the member is offended, if not harrassed
[21:12] <sabdfl> if you want one of us to blog in support, that's easily arranged too
[21:12] <sabdfl> popey: thoughts?
[21:12] <jono> I am happy to spread the new statement across our community resources too
[21:12] <pleia2> popey said he'd be about a half hour late, so I don't think he's here yet
[21:12] <mdz> it probably needs to get formatted as HTML and put on the website
[21:13] <sabdfl> let's let mdz set timing, and then press go
[21:13] <mdz> ok
[21:14] <pleia2> ok, are we done with this agenda item then?
[21:14] <mdz> diff sent to c-c@
[21:14] <mdz> pleia2, yes, thank you
[21:14] <pleia2> great, thanks mdz
[21:14] <pleia2> is VincentUntz here?
[21:14] <jono> vuntz, ^
[21:14] <vuntz> yep
[21:14] <pleia2> grea
[21:14] <jono> :-)
[21:14] <pleia2> t
[21:14] <pleia2> [TOPIC] Amazon MP3 store in Natty & referral fees
[21:14] <MootBot> New Topic:  Amazon MP3 store in Natty & referral fees
[21:15] <vuntz> fwiw, I think nobody wants an endless discussion here, so I welcome ideas on how to organize it :-)
[21:15] <pleia2> vuntz: 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] <sabdfl> i would suggest we handle the related topic, "non technical changes" first
[21:15] <sabdfl> as that's the general case
[21:16] <pleia2> good idea
[21:16] <vuntz> sabdfl: makes sense
[21:16] <pleia2> [TOPIC] Non technical changes management
[21:16] <MootBot> New Topic:  Non technical changes management
[21:16] <joaopinto> hello
[21:17] <joaopinto> I have send an email to the community council requesting a process for non technical changes management
[21:17] <sabdfl> hi joaopinto
[21:17] <joaopinto> hi sabdfl
[21:17] <joaopinto> the reason is the increasing number of changes on different matters which directly affect Ubuntu, the product, and which are not properly identified or accountable
[21:18] <joaopinto> the most sensitive changes are those which are applied to upstream packages
[21:20] <joaopinto> IMHO changes should be properly identified, as soon there is an intent for implementation, communicated to the community, and formally approved
[21:20] <pleia2> joaopinto: 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?
[21:21] <joaopinto> this is not specific to Canonical, is about the ability to one to introduce non technical changes without any guidelines or assessment
[21:22] <sabdfl> thanks for raising this, joaopinto
[21:22] <joaopinto> s/one/anyone
[21:23] <sabdfl> i think there are a few different issues that need to be teased apart
[21:23] <sabdfl> one is a well-understood issue, of making changes available so others can benefit from them
[21:23] <sabdfl> we already have good practices and guidelines for that, both for sharing with Debian and with upstream projects
[21:24] <sabdfl> but i don't think that's the focus of your request
[21:24] <sabdfl> another issue is changes which may not be substantial technical changes (i.e. small patches) but which have a big user visible impact
[21:24] <sabdfl> like moving buttons around
[21:25] <highvoltage> or like adding "Sent from Ubuntu" to e-mail signatures :)
[21:25]  * cody-somerville grins.
[21:25] <joaopinto> highvoltage, that's one of the examples I have selected :)
[21:25] <sabdfl> and a third is changes, like the banshee revenue change, which are potentially issues where canonical has a conflict of interests
[21:26] <sabdfl> is that a reasonable summary?
[21:26] <joaopinto> sabdfl, yes
[21:26] <sabdfl> ok
[21:26] <sabdfl> when we were doing the branding work, we faced an interesting challenge
[21:26] <sabdfl> normally, brands are exclusive
[21:26] <sabdfl> you tightly restrict who has the right to speak for a brand
[21:26] <sabdfl> and you make sure nothing gets done which looks, or feels, "different"
[21:27] <sabdfl> we started out doing a brand for Canonical
[21:27] <sabdfl> but we quickly realised that many things that are interesting, cannot just be branded Canonical
[21:27] <sabdfl> and more importantly
[21:27] <sabdfl> we needed to be able to empower non-Canonical people to speak for those things two
[21:27] <sabdfl> we basically designed two brands that work really well together
[21:28] <sabdfl> either "all one" or "all the other" or a mixture of the two
[21:28] <sabdfl> where you can say "hmm, this is mostly canonical" or "hmm, this is mostly community" but still insert a taste of the other
[21:28] <sabdfl> this is a long way of saying:
[21:28] <sabdfl> Ubuntu is a shared effort between Canonical and the Ubuntu community
[21:29] <sabdfl> and of course, many members of Canonical are also members of the Ubuntu community
[21:29] <mdke> sorry I'm late
[21:29] <sabdfl> np mdke, good timing
[21:29] <sabdfl> the interesting question is "who owns Ubuntu"?
[21:30] <sabdfl> which has a hard but misleading answer: Canonical
[21:30] <sabdfl> it's misleading simply because lots of people feel ownership of Ubuntu, and rightly so
[21:30] <sabdfl> so
[21:30] <sabdfl> Canonical certainly has the right to make non-technical changes
[21:31] <sabdfl> but it's best when those changes are supported by a weight of non-Canonical views, too
[21:32] <sabdfl> in general, within Canonical, there's a reasonable sensitivity to the need to consult before a change is made which will be controversial
[21:32] <sabdfl> though there are lots of examples where controversy was not anticipated
[21:32] <vuntz> sabdfl: is there any way for the community to veto such a Canonical-made decision?
[21:32] <sabdfl> it has happened, but not through veto, rather through suasion
[21:32] <sabdfl> for example
[21:33] <sabdfl> i wanted to enable proprietary video drivers by default at one stage
[21:33] <sabdfl> on the basis that they would enable a lot more people to actually use Ubuntu
[21:33] <sabdfl> and 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 ;-))
[21:34] <sabdfl> but after discussing it with the CC, the change was not made
[21:34] <joaopinto> sabdfl, I don't think those changes are properly communicated, frequently such changes are known to the community from your communications or from upstream developers
[21:34] <sabdfl> the CC is the forum I would test, consult, or brief on a change, depending
[21:34] <sabdfl> joaopinto: it's always going to be the case that someone can argue they were not aware of a change
[21:35] <sabdfl> frequently, for example, i find myself learning of changes long after they've been made
[21:35] <sabdfl> strangely, people seem to feel empowered to Just Do Stuff without clearing it with me first all the time ;-)
[21:35] <joaopinto> sabdfl, that happens, because there is no clearly definition for which should be informed and how, about different type of changes
[21:35] <mdke> there's a big difference between that and clearly controversial changes being made without prior public discussion
[21:36] <sabdfl> well
[21:36] <sabdfl> consultation about a "clearly controversial change" will not result in consensus
[21:36] <sabdfl> so, a tough decision usually needs to be made about whether the change is worth trying despite the controversy
[21:36] <joaopinto> mdke, 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 timing
[21:36] <mdke> why not?
[21:37] <sabdfl> mdke: because it's human nature to have divergent opinions about complex issues
[21:37] <sabdfl> i think consultation is most appropriate when it can have a material impact on the outcome
[21:37] <vuntz> sabdfl: it's also human nature to prefer having been consulted, even if your opinion is not the winning one :-)
[21:37] <mdke> it can always have a material impact on the outcome
[21:37] <sabdfl> otherwise, it's dishonest
[21:38] <mdke> otherwise you don't believe in discussion as valuable at all
[21:38] <joaopinto> sabdfl, 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 feedback
[21:38] <sabdfl> vuntz: true
[21:38] <cody-somerville> Someone 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] <sabdfl> i did say "worth trying". i'm not aware of any changes which could not be un-done
[21:38] <joaopinto> compare that to, "We have already decided to do this..."
[21:39] <sabdfl> cody-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 Center
[21:40] <sabdfl> i think meritocracy implies a certain amount of permission to *make decisions*, knowing that those might be overruled
[21:40] <sabdfl> and that makes for effective progress
[21:40] <sabdfl> we just need to make sure that the best people are in position to make those decisions
[21:41] <sabdfl> joaopinto: well, consider the qt decision
[21:41] <joaopinto> sabdfl, permission should be used with transparency, otherwise it's an artificial meritocracy
[21:41] <sabdfl> joaopinto: none of these changes have been made in secret
[21:42] <sabdfl> back to qt
[21:42] <sabdfl> i've said "we'll do this"
[21:42] <sabdfl> but we're going to have a UDS between now and then
[21:42] <sabdfl> it might get talked down then
[21:42] <sabdfl> i could have said "we should talk about this"
[21:42] <sabdfl> and i would have used that language if I thought it was an interesting idea, not an urgent need
[21:43] <sabdfl> but it's better to use urgent language for an urgent need, so one signals appropriately
[21:43] <sabdfl> so let's come back to the agenda item
[21:44] <sabdfl> there's a request for a formal process for non-technical changes
[21:44] <sabdfl> we clearly can't have a formal process for every single change
[21:44] <sabdfl> and however we judge which changes might fall into the "needs process" category, someone will argue we missed some
[21:45] <sabdfl> so i don't believe this is warranted or achievable, though i understand the emotions that give birth to the request
[21:45] <joaopinto> sabdfl, 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 management
[21:45] <sabdfl> in 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 authority
[21:46] <sabdfl> joaopinto: we have guidance on that
[21:46] <sabdfl> i often have people ask me if a particular idea or change should be raised, and with whom
[21:46] <sabdfl> and more importantly, people often do consult on changes inside and outside the Ubuntu community, without asking me, they just do it
[21:46] <sabdfl> sometimes we get it wrong
[21:47] <sabdfl> and sometimes we piss people off with a change
[21:47] <vuntz> sabdfl: honest question (I don't know the answer): were there controversial non-technical changes that were discussed before being pushed?
[21:47] <sabdfl> and sometimes we make a change which is a mistake and have to revert it
[21:47] <joaopinto> so in summary you are the general change manager ?
[21:47] <sabdfl> joaopinto: no, there are tens of people who make calls on this stuff every release cycle
[21:47] <vuntz> sabdfl: if yes, it probably wouldn't hurt to remind them just to show that discussion does occur, even if it's not always the case
[21:48] <sabdfl> i never had sight of the "Sent from Ubuntu", though I was a supporter of the idea after I saw the controversy
[21:48] <pleia2> sabdfl: 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 frustration
[21:48] <sabdfl> well
[21:48] <sabdfl> everything is open to discussion
[21:49] <pleia2> maybe that's something that should be made more clear somehow
[21:49] <sabdfl> but at the same time, i do believe we need decisiveness and leadership and can't afford to be afraid of controversy
[21:49] <joaopinto> sabdfl, who and how are those calls made ? that's the entire point, you may know, most of the community does not know
[21:49] <sabdfl> it's us or android, folks
[21:49] <sabdfl> joaopinto: they are made in lots of places
[21:49] <cody-somerville> I'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] <sabdfl> think 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!
[21:50] <sabdfl> would you rather we were afraid to stand for something we believe in?
[21:50] <sabdfl> this is true of EVERYONE who takes on responsibility in the project
[21:50] <sabdfl> not just some secret Canonical cabal :-)
[21:50] <sabdfl> cody-somerville: that would imply that our right to revenue stems only from U1
[21:50] <sabdfl> which is not the case
[21:50] <vuntz> I don't think anybody is saying "decisions should be taken much more slowly"
[21:50] <joaopinto> sabdfl, 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 information
[21:51] <sabdfl> Ubuntu 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 pipe
[21:51] <vuntz> quick decisions are not incompatible with proper announcement/warning/whatever-you-want-to-call-it (which will lead to discussion, which is good)
[21:51] <pleia2> joaopinto: I believe the sounder mailing list was initially put together for discussions like this
[21:51] <sabdfl> joaopinto: we delegate a lot of responsibility, for a reason
[21:52] <pleia2> (it has since diverged a lot from that and just become general off-topic)
[21:52] <sabdfl> sounder worked when it was invite-only
[21:52] <sabdfl> i don't think that would work so well now :-)
[21:52] <popey> apologies for being late.
[21:52] <ogra> vuntz, but how do you decide whats worth that discussion from the 100s of changes we make every day ?
[21:52] <sabdfl> hey popey
[21:52] <joaopinto> sabdfl, you are missing my point, this is all about identifying responsibility and delegation
[21:53] <vuntz> ogra: you'll miss some for sure. But it's better to miss some than miss all :-)
[21:53] <sabdfl> joaopinto: all of the decisions you refer to *were* taken by the appropriate people, in my view
[21:53] <vuntz> ogra: (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] <mhall119> vuntz: the bigger problem will be a flood of things that aren't worth that discussion
[21:54] <sabdfl> and 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] <ogra> i mean my community i work with in some cases sees the world end ... its just a smaller scale but a similar thing
[21:54] <sabdfl> so one could slow everything down and still upset people :-)
[21:54] <vuntz> mhall119: I think it's fair to say that some decisions can be guessed as controversial, and there are not 100s of such decisions per week
[21:55] <vuntz> mhall119: again, some controversial decisions will be missed this way
[21:55] <sabdfl> vuntz: yes, and generally we try to consult appropriately
[21:55] <mhall119> vuntz: it's probably also fair to that this is already the case
[21:55] <sabdfl> and mistakes happen then, just like they would happen if the policy was "consult on everything"
[21:55] <joaopinto> sabdfl, 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 blogs
[21:55] <mhall119> that this was one of the "missed" ones
[21:55] <vuntz> sabdfl: sure, I'm fine with mistakes happening
[21:55] <sabdfl> joaopinto: rick spencer leads the Ubuntu platform team
[21:55] <sabdfl> mdz leads the TB
[21:55]  * ogra thinks the more important part is that there is openess for dicsussion *after* the change is being announced
[21:55] <sabdfl> the buck stops with me
[21:56] <ogra> and *before* the release is out
[21:56] <vuntz> ogra: the issue is that when it's after, people feel hurt
[21:56] <ogra> its not like such changes are decided on release day
[21:56] <sabdfl> there are other people - folks engaged with U1, and Launchpad, and of course people who lead stuff like kernel and toolchain
[21:56] <sabdfl> all of them have taken controversial decisions in the past
[21:56] <sabdfl> ask around
[21:56] <sabdfl> anyhow
[21:56] <ogra> vuntz, thats my point, its not *after* its *during*
[21:57] <ogra> release of natty is in april
[21:57] <ogra> the change was made now
[21:57] <vuntz> ogra: I meant "after the change is being announced", not "after the release is out"
[21:57] <ogra> and there was openess for discussing it before release
[21:57] <ogra> well, you have to release it somehow
[21:57] <ogra> but you cant announce every change
[21:57] <DarkwingDuck> for 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.
[21:58] <ogra> s/release/announce/ (sorry)
[21:58] <vuntz> ogra: nobody is asking for that :-)
[21:58] <huats> ogra, I think you mean "there IS openess" since as you said the release is in appril
[21:58] <sabdfl> vuntz: 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] <ogra> huats, well, to my knowledge the case is setteled so far
[21:58] <vuntz> sabdfl: oh, no
[21:58] <mhall119> vuntz: 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 change
[21:59] <joaopinto> DarkwingDuck, no, I did not suggest voting, neither I suggest that community approval was required, community awareness SHOULD BE required
[21:59] <vuntz> sabdfl: I can disagree on, say, "use shotwell instead of f-spot", but I have nothing to argue against it except personal taste
[21:59] <sabdfl> joaopinto: we don't do referendums on these sorts of changes
[21:59] <sabdfl> so awareness can come before during or after a decision
[22:00] <vuntz> sabdfl: so again, I don't feel everything has to go through consultation
[22:00] <sabdfl> and again, i'm not aware of ANY change which cannot be undone
[22:00] <DarkwingDuck> joaopinto: 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 for
[22:00] <sabdfl> i 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 question
[22:01] <ogra> vuntz, but the request is for a formal process ...
[22:01] <ogra> so where do you draw the line
[22:01] <vuntz> mhall119: 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 me
[22:01] <ogra> and how do you formalize that line
[22:01] <mhall119> vuntz: you the difference is the "what do you think" being thrown in at the end?
[22:01] <vish> joaopinto: 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?
[22:02] <sabdfl> mhall119: is it honest to throw that in, when sufficient consensus amongst leaders is in place to move on the decision?
[22:02] <vuntz> mhall119: 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] <joaopinto> vish, the delay was in the part that we were informed by an Banshee developer
[22:02] <pleia2> this 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 welcome
[22:02] <mhall119> sabdfl: I don't think so, personally
[22:02] <sabdfl> agreed
[22:02] <mhall119> vuntz: how about a day instead of a week?
[22:03] <mhall119> or an hour?
[22:03] <vuntz> mhall119: broken release process, I'd argue, if you need to implement the change within an hour
[22:03] <vish> joaopinto: jono also , blogged about it on the same day as the second proposal, considering the first one was just in the works....
[22:03] <joaopinto> vish, 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 decision
[22:03] <joaopinto> as if
[22:03] <mhall119> vuntz: broken decision process, I'd argue, if you have to wait when you're ready to implement
[22:03] <sabdfl> thanks pleia2
[22:03] <sabdfl> mdke? popey?
[22:04] <mdke> sorry, I had to step away
[22:04] <popey> I do worry that we dont learn from our mistakes
[22:04] <vuntz> mhall119: it can be implemented in a branch, in a ppa, in whatever. No need to wait
[22:04] <popey> we have track record of doing these things mid-cycle
[22:04] <mdke> but I pretty much disagreed with everything I read before then :(
[22:04] <pleia2> I think the design team blog is a wonderful example of a group which has learned from their mistakes
[22:04] <popey> causing a fuss, and then reverting things after 'consultantion' or 'backlash'
[22:04] <popey> indeed
[22:05] <DarkwingDuck> joaopinto: 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] <mhall119> vuntz: isn't that how the change was made?
[22:05] <ogra> popey, how often did that occur in 6 years of ubuntu
[22:05] <mhall119> it's not like they were changing the code right in the archives
[22:05] <vuntz> mhall119: I don't know, but it was not communicated this way
[22:06] <mdke> I 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] <mdke> If that is accepted, then it obviously follows that there should be a community governance team with overall supervision of such issues
[22:07] <mdke> there's no reason why such a team could not be sensitive to Canonical interests as we all are now
[22:07] <joaopinto> DarkwingDuck, 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 scope
[22:07] <popey> ogra: about once per release :)
[22:07] <joaopinto> mdke, I believed it was like that, until recently
[22:08] <ogra> nah, surely not that often
[22:08] <Technoviking> ogra: close to that
[22:08] <mdke> joaopinto: I think I stopped believing it a while before you then. But I haven't given up hope in the concept
[22:08] <ogra> i agree it got more in the recent releases
[22:08] <mdke> equally, in such a scheme, Canonical employees contributing to Ubuntu would follow the same principles of transparent and public work that volunteer Ubuntu developers follow
[22:09] <sabdfl> mdke: i appreciate that's a noble idea, but i don't believe it's workable
[22:09] <ogra> but i disagree that we had 12 such cases
[22:09] <mhall119> mdke: I don't think you want the community footing the bill for Ubuntu's development
[22:09] <joaopinto> IMHO we are moving from, Canonical supporting the Ubuntu community, to the Ubuntu community support Canonical
[22:09] <mdke> mhall119: please re-read what I said, it's nothing like that
[22:09] <sabdfl> pity ;-)
[22:10] <mhall119> mdke: you didn't say it, but your suggestion that Canonical would fund something that can't direct seems....odd
[22:10] <popey> ogra: yahoo/google search, buttons, font, spacial windows, calendar, fspot/shotwell decision, gimp removal decision..
[22:10] <mdke> mhall119: not really. Canonical can build a business plan around it
[22:10] <mhall119> mdke: isn't that what brought all this up?
[22:10] <ogra> popey, yeah, i dont get much more together as well
[22:11] <mdke> sabdfl: 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 demotivating
[22:11] <pleia2> mdke: it's the concept I keep hope in too and I think we should strive for, even if we end up making concessions for reality
[22:11] <mdke> mhall119: no, it's because Canonical is building a plan around your idea
[22:11] <mhall119> my idea?
[22:11] <vish> popey:  "fspot/shotwell decision, gimp removal decision".. iirc, these were taken during the UDS
[22:11] <ogra> popey, though i would exclude calendar here ;)
[22:12] <mdke> mhall119: I mean, the idea that Canonical can control the project
[22:12] <joaopinto> sabdfl, 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 brand
[22:12] <mhall119> mdke: well they did start it, they do fund it, they do market it and promote it....
[22:12] <mdke> mhall119: sorry if that was rather clumsily expressed
[22:12] <mdke> mhall119: I know that, and appreciate every penny
[22:13] <popey> I'm sorry, I'm being kicked out and as such am losing my net access.
[22:13] <mhall119> appreciation doesn't pay salaries
[22:14] <sabdfl> joaopinto: my point was that the branding should reflect ownership. canonical ultimately is responsible for the CD we publish - we stand behind it legally
[22:14] <Technoviking> popey: thanks, have a safe trip home
[22:14] <vuntz> mhall119: are you saying that all volunteers in the Ubuntu community should simply accept all Canonical decisions in all cases?
[22:14] <mdke> mhall119: 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 conceived
[22:14] <sabdfl> but "feeling ownership" is much more rich and complex than "legal ownership"
[22:14] <sabdfl> which is why the hard answer, while true, is misleading
[22:14] <mhall119> vuntz: volunteers vote with their time, Canonical knows this
[22:14] <sabdfl> i think mdke is saying that "people need to feel ownership to be interested"
[22:14] <sabdfl> and i agree
[22:14] <sabdfl> but we cannot ALL own the WHOLE
[22:14] <sabdfl> we'll drive each other nuts
[22:15] <mdke> sabdfl: you're right, I don't care too much about legal ownership here
[22:15] <joaopinto> sabdfl, I don't want to own anything, I just want to know who owns what, in what relates to product changes
[22:15] <sabdfl> the 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] <mdke> sabdfl: 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 meritocracy
[22:16] <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] <mdke> sabdfl: and where a community based council has ultimate supervision over non-technical as well as technical decisions
[22:16] <sabdfl> that's pretty motivating
[22:16] <mdke> you would still be the sabdfl :)
[22:16] <sabdfl> joaopinto: name a change, i can name the owner :-)
[22:16] <joaopinto> sabdfl, that's not efficient and does not scale
[22:16] <sabdfl> we've heard from just about everybody on this
[22:17] <sabdfl> joaopinto: well, name an area you care about, and i can tell you who to talk to, and if you shine, you can be the owner
[22:17] <sabdfl> how's that?
[22:18] <sabdfl> but 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 decision
[22:18] <mhall119> joaopinto: that information can probably be found in launchpad too, it's not just in sabdfl's head
[22:18] <joaopinto> why do would you prefer over transferring that knowledge to a public board ?
[22:18] <vuntz> sabdfl: can paid services be owned by non-Canonical people?
[22:18] <sabdfl> joaopinto: because it's dynamic, complex, fast moving
[22:18] <sabdfl> i promise, you can learn whatever you want just by asking
[22:18] <sabdfl> what you can't do is insist that it all be published in advance in a way which will pass the scrutiny of hindsight
[22:18] <sabdfl> now
[22:19] <sabdfl> this topic has taken enough of our time
[22:19] <sabdfl> pleia2: can we move on to the banshee topic please?
[22:19] <ogra> vuntz, why not ?
[22:19] <mhall119> it's time for me to go, but I appreciate having a chance to be heard
[22:19] <sabdfl> i have to wake up in 5 hours and be bendy not grumpy
[22:19] <pleia2> [TOPIC] Amazon MP3 store in Natty & referral fees
[22:19] <vuntz> ogra: I don't know, I'm just asking
[22:19] <MootBot> New Topic:  Amazon MP3 store in Natty & referral fees
[22:19] <sabdfl> as i blogged today, Canonical folks made several mistakes
[22:19] <mdz> vuntz, there is software in Ubuntu, tied to paid services, which has nothing to do with Canonical
[22:19] <sabdfl> first, we didn't deal with the money question at UDS
[22:19] <mdz> and every other major distribution for that matter
[22:20] <pleia2> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/611
[22:20] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/611
[22:20] <mdke> crickey, wasn't that the banshee topic?
[22:20] <sabdfl> i thought we had, but i didn't follow up on that
[22:20] <vuntz> mdke: nah, but that covered most of it, I guess
[22:20] <sabdfl> second, 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't
[22:20] <mdke> vuntz: guess so
[22:21] <sabdfl> mdke: we did the general one bout non-technical changes, first
[22:21] <sabdfl> all in all, that resulted in a much worse experience for banshee folk than should have
[22:21] <sabdfl> for which i apologise
[22:22] <sabdfl> i stand by the principle, though, that affiliate fees generated on ubuntu should benefit ubuntu first
[22:22] <sabdfl> and directing those to canonical is thus appropriate
[22:22] <sabdfl> and second, that we should figure out how to share the benefits of those with relevant upstreams
[22:22] <sabdfl> this was thought out when we founded canonical - these sorts of services were a key part of the rationale for doing so
[22:22] <sabdfl> we were a little ahead of the curve ;-)
[22:23] <chuckf> why are the banshee donations the only ones to be allocated to Canonical?
[22:23] <sabdfl> chuckf: i don't understand?
[22:23] <mdz> chuckf, what donations?
[22:24] <chuckf> for instance the VIM people ask that people donate to a particular charity if you find their software useful.
[22:24] <chuckf> Their links have never been changed
[22:24] <sabdfl> chuckf: this is different
[22:24] <chuckf> how?
[22:24] <mdz> chuckf, we are not talking about donations at all
[22:24] <sabdfl> in that spirit, though, we are adding the ability to donate straight to upstreams in the software center
[22:25] <charlie-tca> chuckf: you are never forced to pay that donation unless you decide to
[22:25] <chuckf> and I'm not forced to purchase from Amazon
[22:25] <rww> chuckf: 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] <jono> chuckf, affiliate fees are not donations, they are a part of the revenue generated
[22:25] <rww> ^
[22:25] <sabdfl> chuckf: the question really is this: who brought you to amazon? was it ubuntu? or was it banshee?
[22:25] <sabdfl> and the answer in our view is: a bit of both
[22:25] <chuckf> but 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 foundation
[22:26] <sabdfl> chuckf: you will have that option, of course
[22:26] <sabdfl> download and install the plugin, et voila
[22:26] <vuntz> sabdfl: would it be possible to have some open accounting, to ensure that the money benefits Ubuntu directly?
[22:26] <charlie-tca> um, you have the right to donate directly to banshee or gnome or anyone else, without canonical getting any money
[22:26] <sabdfl> vuntz: that's predicated on a distrust of canonical which i can't accept
[22:26] <ogra> charlie-tca, but then you dont get the music :)
[22:26] <charlie-tca> oh, well
[22:26] <vish> chuckf: for a better (graphical) understanding of this  > http://www.ndftz.com/nickelanddime.png by andy fitz
[22:27] <chuckf> the affiliate fees are the way the donation money is generated by the Banshee project.
[22:28] <sabdfl> no
[22:28] <sabdfl> if a person chooses to donate to banshee, banshee gets the money
[22:29] <sabdfl> if a person uses ubuntu to buy music from amazon, canonical gets the referral, and will share that with the upstream we think made that possible
[22:29] <chuckf> so if the banshee project collected the fees as donations to themselves you would not be changing the plugin?
[22:29] <sabdfl> firefox, or banshee, or rhythmbox, or the zsh maintainers
[22:30] <chuckf> I wouldn't use ubuntu to buy the music, I would use banshee
[22:30] <mdke> sabdfl: 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, etc
[22:30] <sabdfl> chuckf: i don't really understand what you're saying, but yes, i think we would change the plugin
[22:31] <sabdfl> mdke: floor's yours :-)
[22:31] <mdke> sabdfl: I just wanted to point out that people calling for that are not distrusting Canonical. I can't actually answer the question
[22:31] <pleia2> sabdfl: I think he's saying, for instance, a "donate to banshee" button inside of banshee, whether canonical would want a cut (I think not)
[22:32] <chuckf> I'm saying if the banshee group said 'purchase through this affiliate link to donate to the banshee project' would canonical want a cut?
[22:33] <pleia2> I would hope that upstream and downstream would have better relations than to have something come down to that :)
[22:34] <jono> chuckf, 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 cut
[22:34] <jono> for affiliate arrangements, I think the cut is fine to be higher
[22:34] <chuckf> another 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] <sabdfl> chuckf: 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 people
[22:35] <jono> chuckf, I believe it is 25% of the full amount
[22:35] <sabdfl> chuckf: we're willing to share 25% of this with the banshee folks, who say they would like that to go to gnome
[22:35] <rww> chuckf: 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.
[22:36] <chuckf> so out of a $1 affiliate fee .25 goes to banshee, .75 goes to Canonical and how much goes from Canonical to Gnome?
[22:37] <jono> can I ask what the goal of this agenda is vuntz?
[22:37] <mdke> none - it is banshee who are donating their 25% to gnome, as I have understood the above
[22:38] <vuntz> related 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] <rww> I 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] <vuntz> jono: most of this agenda item was actually covered during the discussion of the last item (which occurred before this one)
[22:39] <jono> vuntz, ok
[22:39] <joaopinto> The relevance of this discussion is based on actual results (which we don't have) and perceived values of distributions versus upstream
[22:39] <sabdfl> rww: 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 ;-)
[22:40] <sabdfl> look, we screwed up the engagement. this should have been crystal clear at UDS, and it wasn't
[22:40] <azeem> wait, you're saying if banshee people don't agree you'll just use the 25% share for whatever you like?
[22:40] <chuckf> so what is being said is that all donations to upstream projects should be filtered via Canoncial as a delivery fee?
[22:41] <azeem> chuckf: this is not about donations
[22:41] <sabdfl> azeem: if banshee don't want the money, hell yes we can use it!
[22:41] <vuntz> azeem: jono said "but for explicit donations it should be a smaller cut"
[22:41] <vuntz> azeem: which still implies a cut
[22:41] <jono> that would be my personal preference, vuntz
[22:41] <jono> I am not speaking for Canonical there
[22:41] <mdke> I'm going to have to quit I'm afraid. Interesting discussion and I hope there will be more along similar lines in due course
[22:42] <sabdfl> cheers mdke, thanks for weighing in
[22:42] <mdke> sorry I wasn't around long
[22:42] <pleia2> vuntz: 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] <mdke> ciao
[22:42] <chuckf> azeem: from what jono just said at 17:34:46 it sounds like they are talking about taking a cut of all donations
[22:42] <joaopinto> mdke, bye, thanks
[22:42] <jono> chuckf, <jono> that would be my personal preference, vuntz
[22:42] <jono>  I am not speaking for Canonical there
[22:42] <pleia2> vuntz: does mark's blog post saying "we made a mistake, we want to do better" help at all?
[22:43] <sabdfl> we are not here to negotiate all future permutations and combinations of possibilities, hmmmk ;-)
[22:43] <joaopinto> chuckf, just ask Mark , he knows about the changes ;)
[22:43] <sabdfl> indeed ;-)
[22:43] <azeem> vuntz: crazy
[22:43] <sabdfl> here's the important bit
[22:43] <vuntz> pleia2: re sabdfl's clarification, it actually doesn't clarify anything since it doesn't mention whether there's a cut or not ;-)
[22:43] <vuntz> pleia2: re sabdfl's post: I don't think it helped a lot upstream, to be honest
[22:43] <sabdfl> this is a real opportunity for free software projects to get consistent financial support without having to jump through impossible hoops
[22:44] <sabdfl> there are those who want to beat up on canonical and ubuntu
[22:44] <sabdfl> we simply cannot satisfy them
[22:44] <sabdfl> what we CAN do
[22:44] <sabdfl> is demonstrate a nice flow of income to banshee
[22:44] <azeem> is getting into the paypal business
[22:44] <sabdfl> and any other projects who are interested in this model
[22:44] <sabdfl> and i think that's fantastic
[22:44] <vuntz> or well, I'm sorry. I think acknowledging the communication issue does help a bit. But it won't change people's mind
[22:44] <sabdfl> vuntz: tough
[22:44] <chuckf> sabdfl: if its not done in an open manner it is hard to trust when it comes to someone else collecting money
[22:45] <pleia2> vuntz: what would in the immediate term?
[22:45] <sabdfl> chuckf: it's a lot more open than most other forms of indirect support
[22:45] <sabdfl> for example
[22:45] <sabdfl> how much of the revenue red hat makes from support contracts for apache get delivered as cash to apache.org?
[22:45] <sabdfl> go figure
[22:45] <sabdfl> this is clean, crisp, and transparent
[22:45] <sabdfl> yes, it's discretionary
[22:46] <sabdfl> but it's a share of revenue, not an occasional cheque for a conference or sprint
[22:46] <sabdfl> i think we're WAY better for free software projects than the other models i've seen
[22:46] <sabdfl> and on that basis, we're moving forward
[22:47] <vuntz> pleia2: 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 happen
[22:47] <sabdfl> vuntz: it will not
[22:47] <vuntz> and knowing that it won't happen actually makes things worse :/
[22:47] <jono> vuntz, can you articulate what will be made worse?
[22:47] <vuntz> sabdfl: right. I'm just trying to explain why upstream feels bad
[22:47] <sabdfl> i hope, in due course, you feel differently
[22:47] <charlie-tca> It would not be as controversial if it was not as open
[22:48] <vuntz> jono: it sounds like "no, we don't want to listen to you"
[22:48] <vuntz> jono: I'm not saying this is what it means. But it sounds like this
[22:48] <jono> vuntz, to who? Banshee?
[22:48] <joaopinto> sabdfl, why do you keep comparing RH business products? RH community product is Fedora, not RHEL
[22:48] <vuntz> jono: I can't talk for banshee people
[22:49] <jono> vuntz, so who do you feel it would the send the message of not listening to?
[22:49] <sabdfl> vuntz: 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] <vuntz> jono: but to the gnome community in general, that's how it sounded
[22:49] <sabdfl> joaopinto: Fedora is RHEL's open core
[22:49] <jono> vuntz, but this isnt really anything to do with the GNOME Community - it is an arrangement between Canonical and Banshee surely?
[22:50] <vuntz> jono: that's negating the fact that banshee people are close to gnome people and vice-versa
[22:50] <chuckf> From 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 Canonical
[22:50] <jono> vuntz, agreed, but the Ubuntu community is close to the GNOME community
[22:50] <vuntz> jono: not as close as the banshee one
[22:50] <jono> vuntz, my only point is that the views of the peanut gallery is not necessarily a reason to change things
[22:51] <jono> change should happen for reasonable reasons
[22:51] <vuntz> jono: I just explained the perception. I was not even advocating for a change here :-)
[22:51] <vuntz> jono: 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" though
[22:52] <jono> highvoltage, those with an opinion on the issue, who have little or nothing to do with either project
[22:52]  * chuckf nods to highvoltage's comment
[22:52] <maco> chuckf++
[22:52] <highvoltage> jono: that's fair enough
[22:52] <jono> btw, my view includes opinions from the peanut gallery in favor of the current revshare arrangement
[22:52] <jono> :-)
[22:52] <jono> Ubuntu has never been a popularity content, but I consider the views of the Banshee core devs as very important opinions to consider
[22:53] <jono> because they have contributed significantly to that experience in Ubuntu
[22:53] <vuntz> jono: and did you get positive feedback from banshee core devs?
[22:53] <joaopinto> chuckf, is not how you see it, is how it really is
[22:53] <jono> vuntz, some critical, some neutral
[22:54] <jono> the criticism was rightly around the mishandling of the discussions
[22:54] <joaopinto> business decisions are Canonical's business
[22:54] <jono> for which hey have every right to be frustrated
[22:55] <jono> in many of the discussions the core devs were respectful of the split, but chose to not support
[22:55] <jono> it
[22:55] <sabdfl> ok
[22:55] <jono> anyway, I have taken enough of the floor
[22:55] <jono> :-)
[22:55] <sabdfl> it's 1am here, i need to step away
[22:56] <pleia2> I need to get back to work, how do we want to wrap this up?
[22:56] <sabdfl> graciously?
[22:56] <pleia2> :)
[22:56] <vuntz> sabdfl: crazy you! ;-)
[22:56] <charlie-tca> sabdfl: thank you for listening
[22:57] <sabdfl> so my bankers tell me, every time i tell them about this "giving stuff away" thing
[22:57] <sabdfl> well, thanks to lots of people for commenting and helping to steer things forward
[22:57] <joaopinto> thanks for your time, a social pleasant meeting despite the void effectiveness
[22:57] <sabdfl> i really do hope, in a few years, this is seen as a positive trend we led, not a ghastly detour
[22:58] <sabdfl> but i will say this
[22:58] <highvoltage> goodnight sabdfl and thanks for all the explanation
[22:58] <sabdfl> ubuntu was built for exactly this
[22:58] <sabdfl> i think it's an awesome deal, for upstreams and people who participate and use ubuntu
[22:58] <sabdfl> and of course canonical
[22:58] <highvoltage> one day I hope I have enough money to go to cape town too whenever I feel like it :)
[22:58] <porthose> wow interesting indeed :)
[22:59] <pleia2> #endmeeting
[22:59] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:59.
[22:59] <jono> thanks for everyone's participation
[22:59] <sabdfl> thanks for chairing, pleia2
[22:59] <pleia2> sure thing
[22:59] <sabdfl> night all
[22:59] <sabdfl> well
[22:59] <jono> night sabdfl
[22:59] <vuntz> good night
[22:59] <joaopinto> good night
[22:59] <sabdfl> one last reboot for the new unity packages :-)
[22:59] <pleia2> good night :)
[23:02] <Technoviking> night