[16:58] <zkriesse> Ubuntu Youth Team Meeting in three minutes
[16:58] <zkriesse> Show your hand if you're here for said meeting
[16:59] <hakimsheriff> here
[16:59] <Mkaysi> o/
[16:59] <Mkaysi> Oops, too soon.
[17:00] <zkriesse> #startmeeting
[17:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 11:00. The chair is zkriesse.
[17:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[17:00] <zkriesse> [Topic] Welcome to the Ubuntu Youth Team Meeting
[17:00] <MootBot> New Topic:  Welcome to the Ubuntu Youth Team Meeting
[17:01] <zkriesse> Ok, show your hands if you're here for the Ubuntu Youth Team meeting
[17:01] <serfus> o/
[17:01] <zkriesse> If we only get a few I'm going to cancel said meeting here and just move it over to #ubuntu-youth
[17:01] <nisshh> here
[17:01] <Mkaysi> Oops, too soon.
[17:01] <Mkaysi> o/
[17:02] <serfus> i know AndrewMC is in camp, so he will not attend
[17:02] <zkriesse> Yes i know
[17:02] <nisshh> 4 people? is that it?
[17:02] <zkriesse> anyone else?
[17:03] <nisshh> dont think so
[17:03] <zkriesse> Frack
[17:03] <zkriesse> Ok, let's end this here and move to #ubuntu-youth
[17:03] <zkriesse> Rather not tie up the channel here
[17:03] <zkriesse> #endmeeting
[17:03] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 11:03.
[17:03] <nisshh> agreed
[17:05] <hakimsheriff> im here
[17:05] <Mkaysi> hakimsheriff: #ubuntu-youth
[17:49] <JackyAlcine> o/
[19:01] <topyli> time for the ircc meeting. who's around?
[19:01] <nhandler> o/
[19:02] <tsimpson> I'm here
[19:02] <topyli> alright. afaik we shouldn't expect the others today. we have quorum
[19:03] <topyli> [startmeeting]
[19:03] <nhandler> topyli: #startmeeting
[19:03] <topyli> @startmeeting
[19:03] <topyli> yah
[19:03] <topyli> #startmeeting
[19:03] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:03. The chair is topyli.
[19:03] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:03] <topyli> when i said i can chair, i didn't mean it. just that i'm willing
[19:04] <topyli> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:04] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:04] <topyli> i see no new bugs
[19:04] <topyli> one of these days we should close the "ubuntu too busy" bug one way or another
[19:05] <nhandler> Agreed topyli. There realy isn't a good solution to that at this time imo
[19:06] <topyli> i would close it as wontfix. i don't agree that it's too busy anyway
[19:06] <topyli> or notabug, do we have such a resolution available?
[19:06] <tsimpson> [link] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/392799
[19:06] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/392799
[19:06] <nhandler> topyli: That would be 'invalid'
[19:06] <topyli> ah yes
[19:07] <ScottK> That actually looks like opinion.  First valid use of that state I think I've seen.
[19:07] <tsimpson> I think the support guys do a good job of directing uses to more specific channels when appropriate anyway
[19:07] <nhandler> I agree it is busy, but I'm not sure I agree that it is a bug. But I can see why some people do.
[19:08] <nhandler> ScottK: I forgot they added that status. I agree
[19:08] <nhandler> tsimpson: +1
[19:08] <topyli> agreed
[19:08] <nhandler> I think the 'opinion' status might be the best "solution" to this bug at this time
[19:09] <topyli> yeah
[19:09] <topyli> we can leave it there, people can add comments if they have any. it's been quiet though
[19:09] <tsimpson> you can't "delete" a bug anyway
[19:10] <topyli> yep
[19:10] <topyli> ok
[19:11] <topyli> action items. i did the ubottu bug chattiness stats
[19:11] <nhandler> I don't think jussi got to his item (and he is on vacation now)
[19:11] <tsimpson> we still have https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/680052 which I think is inactive
[19:11] <tsimpson> and there's really nothing _we_ can do about it
[19:12] <topyli> true
[19:12] <nhandler> tsimpson: Probably best to just unassign us from it
[19:13] <nhandler> Back to action review, I took care of the IRC Members team action
[19:14] <nhandler> topyli: Did you update the wiki?
[19:14] <topyli> elky sent the mail about the bug parsing
[19:14] <topyli> nhandler: oh yes. i did
[19:15] <nhandler> tsimpson: Is the private logging of -ops-team also sorted (I know the channel was setup)
[19:15] <tsimpson> I have ubottu currently logging there
[19:15] <tsimpson> in a secret place while I try and integrate LP into authentication
[19:15] <nhandler> Great. So besides jussi's one item, everything appears to be done
[19:15] <topyli> we rock
[19:16] <topyli> so about the bug logging in #ubuntu, its chattines averages at 3.8 lines per day so it's not a problem IMO
[19:17] <nhandler> topyli: I agree. We had some complaints at first, but 3.8 lines is a VERY small percent of the daily chat that takes place in there
[19:18] <nhandler> tsimpson: Thoughts?
[19:18] <tsimpson> I think ~4 lines per day is worth it
[19:18] <nhandler> Looks like we are in agreement then
[19:19] <topyli> someone also referenced several X bugs within a few minutes, so i think it was useful to figuring out a problem in that case
[19:19] <topyli> (i didn't have time to actually study the logs to see the context properly)
[19:20] <nhandler> It is also fairly trivial to disable this feature in the future if it starts being abused or anything like that
[19:20] <topyli> yes
[19:21] <topyli> so we agree to leave it enabled?
[19:21] <nhandler> Yep
[19:21] <tsimpson> I don't see any reason to not
[19:21] <topyli> [AGREED] leave the ubottu bug feature enabled in #ubuntu
[19:21] <MootBot> AGREED received:  leave the ubottu bug feature enabled in #ubuntu
[19:21] <topyli> [topic] Add eir to #ubuntu
[19:21] <MootBot> New Topic:  Add eir to #ubuntu
[19:22] <tsimpson> didn't we already discuss the eir item last time?
[19:22] <topyli> we did. i thought there's some new development on the issues since it's on the agenda :)
[19:22] <topyli> issue
[19:23] <nhandler> I kept it on the agenda, as we still had some issues to sort out (which I was hoping we would have done by now)
[19:23] <nhandler> I'm still having some difficulty finding the arguments for/against ubottu's channel notices in -ops. This is making the topic of eir's notices hard to address
[19:23] <nhandler> If anyone could find and tell me when/where to find those arguments, it would be very useful
[19:24] <nhandler> As for the ubottu changes needed for eir, I don't believe anything has changed since the last meeting
[19:24] <tsimpson> I think the main objection to it is the generalization that "notices are bad"
[19:24] <topyli> it would be useful to know how many actually think so, though
[19:25] <nhandler> Well, I would disagree with that generalization. Notices are actually appropriate for certain types of messages (and IRC clients should respond to them appropriately)
[19:25] <tsimpson> I'm tinkering with getting ubottu to understand comments to eir, the main issue is that the bot needs to know which ban ID to associate the comment with
[19:26] <tsimpson> nhandler: sure, but lots of our ops were taught that "channel notices are a banable offence", hence the feeling
[19:27] <nhandler> tsimpson: That is mainly because most of those notices are spam and not sent in appropriate situations
[19:27] <nhandler> tsimpson: As for the ubottu issue, it is rather nasty, but ubottu could query eir to figure out the ban string a certain eir id represents. It could then take that ban string to find the right ban in the BT
[19:28] <nhandler> But there really isn't much more to discuss on this topic right now. We need to find the old arguments so we can see whether they are even still applicable in this situation
[19:29] <topyli> maybe we leave the item standing while the technicalities are figured out
[19:29] <nhandler> topyli: Yep. And maybe a general ACTION for the Ubuntu OPs to help us find those old arguments? ;)
[19:30] <topyli> [action] ops to datamine for arguments against notices in -ops
[19:30] <MootBot> ACTION received:  ops to datamine for arguments against notices in -ops
[19:30] <topyli> :)
[19:30] <topyli> [topic] Review #ubuntu-ops-team
[19:30] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review #ubuntu-ops-team
[19:30] <topyli> from what i see, -ops-team works
[19:31] <nhandler> I haven't seen it being overly necessary (from the discussions taking place there), but I also haven't seen it being used in an inappropriate way. I'd be willing to keep it open and review it again further down the road
[19:31] <tsimpson> it hasn't turned into a troll-pit yet, that's a good sign ;)
[19:32] <tsimpson> and there's already been some inter-ops team work done in there from what I see
[19:32] <topyli> yes it's not -ops-rant, at least yet
[19:33] <topyli> if anything, i'd like to see many of the discussions taking place in -ops move there
[19:33] <topyli> (i don't want to push that though, just a thought)
[19:33] <tsimpson> obviously it'll take some time for people to get used to using the channel
[19:34] <nhandler> I'm not sure what discussions you are talking about topyli, so I can't really respond to that. I still like the idea of things being open and transparant when possible
[19:34] <tsimpson> we tried open and transparent, our ops were targeted for it
[19:34] <topyli> nhandler: some disagreements on specific cases mostly
[19:35] <topyli> better off unlogged imo
[19:35] <nhandler> tsimpson: Note the 'when possible'
[19:35] <serfus> who does qualify for this channel? i remember not only core ops, right?
[19:36] <tsimpson> nhandler: I still expect -ops to be the main channel for our ops to communicate
[19:36] <nhandler> So do we want to just add a 'review -ops-team' item to the agenda for a month or two down the road?
[19:36] <topyli> serfus: some ops from big non-core channels are invited as well
[19:36] <tsimpson> nhandler: yeah, I think it should be continuously reviewed for a while yet
[19:36] <topyli> agreed. let's keep it and review it from time to time
[19:37] <nhandler> Maybe add that to the calendar so we don't forget?
[19:37] <tsimpson> sure, monthly is probably a good time-frame
[19:37] <topyli> monthly at first perhaps?
[19:37] <topyli> heh
[19:37] <tsimpson> eventually we'll get annoyed with reviewing it, and we'll know it's a success ;)
[19:38] <topyli> so we have a success metric too. perfect!
[19:38] <topyli> [agreed] keep -ops-team, review it monthly for an undefined while
[19:38] <MootBot> AGREED received:  keep -ops-team, review it monthly for an undefined while
[19:38] <topyli> i can action the calendar
[19:39] <topyli> should we have a chat about it on meetings?
[19:39] <topyli> s/on/in
[19:40] <topyli> like every second meeting we see if the channel is okay
[19:40] <tsimpson> well, if we review it monthly it would be every second meeting anyway
[19:41] <topyli> yeah but it could happen outside meetings too
[19:41] <tsimpson> we can just state in the meeting that we continue to approve it, and only go into details if we have concerns
[19:41] <topyli> good
[19:42] <topyli> it's more open that way too
[19:42] <tsimpson> we should probably add it to the fixed agenda items so we don't forget
[19:42] <tsimpson> well, add it temporarily
[19:42] <nhandler> Or at least [ACTION] it so we review it when we review outstanding actions
[19:42] <tsimpson> nhandler: then we'd be actioning it every month, rather than just once
[19:43] <topyli> i'd add it to the fixed items for now. if we're unsure whether it's time, we can check the calendar :)
[19:43] <tsimpson> I know it's not exactly a "fixed" item, but it will be one of the first things we see when we look at the agenda
[19:44] <topyli> actually this is more complicated than just say whether the channel is ok or not in every meeting :)
[19:46] <topyli> ok, solution: i'll add a fixed item saying we'll review -ops-team if it's a saturday
[19:48] <topyli> anything else?
[19:48] <nhandler> Nope
[19:49] <tsimpson> that's it
[19:49] <topyli> alright
[19:49] <topyli> [action] topyli to do post-meeting stuff
[19:49] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to do post-meeting stuff
[19:49] <topyli> #endmeeting
[19:49] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 13:49.
[19:49] <topyli> thanks guys
[19:50] <topyli> 13:49?
[19:51] <tsimpson> it's local time where ever MootBot is
[19:51] <topyli> the bot must be running on an unconfigured win95 box, they default to tijuana time