[05:58] <hyperair> sb levelclear -level clientcrap,crap,joins,parts,quits,nicks,clientnotice
[06:02] <nigelb> hyperair: did you forget a / ;)
[08:34] <hyperair> nigelb: yeah i did =((
[08:34] <hyperair> nigelb: i did /foreach window, so every channel got it >_<
[15:31] <skaet> reminder SRU/LTS meeting will start in 1/2 hour.
[15:56]  * marjo waves to skaet
[15:57] <marjo> hi pedro_
[15:57] <pedro_> hola hola
[15:58] <hggdh> oi oi
[15:59] <sconklin> \o/
[16:00] <skaet> hi all
[16:00] <skaet> #startmeeting
[16:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is skaet.
[16:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:01] <skaet> SRU/LTS bi-weekly synch meeting.
[16:01] <skaet> Reminder, please follow the convention  of using ".." on a separate line when you've finished typing.    Also, If someone wants to comment on the last point, please "o/", so we know to wait.
[16:01] <skaet> .
[16:01] <skaet> [TOPIC] End of Life - Karmic, Hardy-Desktop
[16:01] <skaet> Just a reminder that April 2011 will see end of life of Karmic Koala (9.10), and Hardy Heron (8.04) Desktop.
[16:01] <skaet> Note will be going out this week, for the one month warning.
[16:01] <skaet> .
[16:01] <skaet> Dapper Drake (6.06) Server will end of life in June 2011.
[16:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  End of Life - Karmic, Hardy-Desktop
[16:01] <skaet> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
[16:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
[16:01] <skaet> .
[16:01] <skaet> Any concerns or issues to flag with the approaching EOL?
[16:01] <skaet> ..
[16:02] <skaet> [TOPIC] Kernel SRU status - sconklin, bjf
[16:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Kernel SRU status - sconklin, bjf
[16:02] <sconklin> In order to sync the kernel cadence schedule back up
[16:02] <sconklin> with the master interlock schedule, I've proposed
[16:02] <sconklin> that we take the kernels which have been in
[16:02] <sconklin> |
[16:02] <sconklin> The end result of this is that any changes to kernels which were
[16:02] <sconklin> approved after week before last will not show up in -proposed until April 29th
[16:02] <sconklin> ..
[16:02] <sconklin> did that all make it?
[16:02] <bjf> no
[16:02] <ara> no :(
[16:02] <marjo> sconklin: no
[16:03] <sconklin> ok, here goes again
[16:03] <sconklin> In order to sync the kernel cadence schedule back up
[16:03] <sconklin> with the master interlock schedule, I've proposed
[16:03] <sconklin> that we take the kernels which have been in
[16:03] <sconklin> -proposed for a week and just treat them as
[16:03] <sconklin> if they were uploaded last Friday.
[16:03] <sconklin> |
[16:03] <sconklin> This is effectively just putting the kernel cadence on hold for a week.
[16:03] <sconklin> |
[16:03] <sconklin> The end result of this is that any changes to kernels which were
[16:03] <sconklin> approved after week before last will not show up in -proposed until April 29th
[16:03] <sconklin> (five weeks from now), and will not be released until May 19th (almost
[16:03] <sconklin> eight weeks from now).
[16:03] <sconklin> ..
[16:03] <ara> o/
[16:04] <skaet> go ara
[16:04] <ara> I agree with the resync
[16:04] <ara> but I would like to keep the Maverick cadence if possible
[16:05] <ara> there are a lot of fixes the the HWE team needs to release
[16:05] <ara> and 8 weeks is too long time for them to wait
[16:06] <ara> so my proposal would be
[16:06] <sconklin> o/
[16:06] <ara> * Resync with QA schedule. This is, keeping this kernel two more weeks
[16:06] <ara> in -proposed, so QA can test it next week.
[16:06] <ara> * Keep the cadence for Maverick (uploading new ones April 8th, April 22nd)
[16:06] <ara> * Start again with the 2 week cadence after UDS (uploading kernels for
[16:06] <ara> all the releases on May 20th)
[16:06] <ara> ..
[16:06] <skaet> sconklin go
[16:07] <marjo> ara: that would work well for QA, allows us to concentrate on beta-1 this week
[16:08] <skaet> marjo,  what would be one with the April 8th kernels?   does the QA team have bandwidth to test them along with the final Natty testing?
[16:08] <sconklin> ara, that's fine with the stable kernel team. I think we can meet that, and it would serve some needs that are pretty critical. In general if we're going to split out some series for a different schedule, I;d like to have a good display of what those schedules are, but that's a different problem
[16:08] <bjf> o/
[16:09] <skaet> bjf, let ara respond and then you go.
[16:09] <ara> skaet, kernels for April 8th and 22nd would only be for Maverick
[16:10] <ara> skaet, so, if QA could test those, that would help a lot the HWE team
[16:10] <sconklin> .. (forgot)
[16:10] <ara> ..
[16:10] <bjf> does that mean the current cycle started last Thursday ? it's kind of confusing to start cycles mid week.
[16:10] <bjf> ..
[16:11] <marjo> skaet, ara: the problem w/ kernels for April 8 is conflict w/ testing for beta-2 week of April 11
[16:11] <skaet> ara, yes,   April 22 should probably work out ok  (QA testing first week of May),  but I'm a bit concerned about April 8th proposal.
[16:11] <skaet> heh
[16:11] <ara> marjo, I understand, but if they uploda the kernel on Friday, you guys have Friday, Monday and Tuesday for Maverick kernel
[16:12] <marjo> and week of april 25 is final release testing
[16:12] <ara> marjo, it is very unlikely that the Beta testing start before Tuesday
[16:12] <marjo> ara: sure, very risky imho
[16:12] <skaet> ara,  uploaded kernels are tested by week after by QA  (validation week first)
[16:13]  * JackyAlcine will be right back.
[16:13] <ara> skaet, sorry?
[16:13] <skaet> s/validation/verification
[16:13]  * skaet sorry
[16:14] <ara> skaet, then it is perfect, it is the week in between :)
[16:14] <skaet> ara,  not quite,  we've got holidays that week, and last updates.
[16:15] <ara> skaet, but, why don't we try?
[16:15] <ara> skaet, the only thing that can go wrong is that finally we don't have time for the SRU, and it does not get uploaded (as per the kernel team policy)
[16:15] <bjf> ara, +1
[16:16] <skaet> ara,  I'm just worrying about the QA team's bandwidth.
[16:16] <skaet> for the month of april.
[16:16] <marjo> skaet: thx; see above comments
[16:16] <skaet> we'll be doing one cycle already this month,  and then one in early may.
[16:17] <skaet> what is the pressure for the fixes to motivate the risk to Natty?
[16:17] <skaet> ara,  vanhoof, ^^  ?
[16:17] <marjo> skaet: i have the same question; posed to vanhoof
[16:19] <sconklin> o/
[16:19] <sconklin> (when this topic has closed)
[16:19] <skaet> ..
[16:19] <marjo> ,,
[16:20] <marjo> ..
[16:20] <ara> ..
[16:20]  * skaet looking around for comments from vanhoof?
[16:21] <ara> skaet, I think vanhoof is on swap day today
[16:21] <ara> :(
[16:21] <skaet> ahh, ok,  we'll stop waiting then.
[16:21] <skaet> sconklin go, while I try to summarize where we are with the interlock.
[16:22] <sconklin> Brad's question went unanswered - Why do schedules start mid-week? It would work much better for us if uploads to -proposed were on Monday and not Friday
[16:22] <sconklin> I meant Thursday
[16:23] <sconklin> Monday not Thursday
[16:23] <skaet> sconklin,  pattern was followed for interlock with development release schedules
[16:23] <skaet> however,  the reason for indicating the -proposed (date)
[16:24] <skaet> was to clarify when things were available
[16:24] <skaet> similarily with -update(date) which doesn't happen on thursdayse either.
[16:24] <skaet> interlock, is because testing happens with other teams work on that schedule.
[16:24] <skaet> we can certainly revisit this, and resetting expectations at UDS.
[16:25] <skaet> key is that we have to look at it from the overall viewpoint to keep things sane for the teams that have to work between stable, and development.
[16:25] <sconklin> ok, not trying to change anything today but let's open a discussion among the teams about it
[16:25] <sconklin> ..
[16:26] <skaet> ok.
[16:26] <skaet> moving on then since I was busy typing ;)  will summarize at the end.
[16:26] <skaet> [TOPIC] QA status - marjo
[16:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  QA status - marjo
[16:26] <marjo> hi folks
[16:27] <marjo> Dapper completed on March 21. No regressions. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/KernelSRU-dapper-2.6.15-57.94
[16:27] <marjo> Hardy completed on March 25. No regressions. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/KernelSRU-hardy-2.6.24-29.88
[16:27] <marjo> New LUB, LBM and LRM installed correctly too.
[16:27] <marjo> skaet: given the previous discussion, are you still interested in possible test plans for this week, or not?
[16:28] <skaet> marjo,  am interested in test plans for next week.
[16:28] <marjo> it's getting late on a monday...
[16:28] <marjo> ah ok
[16:28]  * skaet notes the kernel available should be in verification this week, testing next
[16:29] <marjo> so, next week (week of April 4), the QA team is available for testing Lucid and/or Maverick kernels
[16:29] <marjo> ..
[16:30] <skaet> thanks marjo.
[16:31] <skaet> any question?
[16:31] <skaet> [TOPIC] HW certification - ara
[16:31] <MootBot> New Topic:  HW certification - ara
[16:31] <ara> We are waiting for the verification phase to finish to start testing
[16:31] <ara> sconklin, when are you guys expecting the patches to be verified?
[16:31] <ara> how is the verification going?
[16:31] <ara> ..
[16:31] <sconklin> one sec
[16:33] <sconklin> it looks like we have a couple of bugs left to be verified for lucid and maverick, but if we're resetting the schedule so that verification effectively started Friday, then we should be able to easily get those
[16:33] <sconklin> I expect in the next day or so if I start harassing people
[16:33] <sconklin> ..
[16:33] <ara> sconklin, sounds good, let us know when that happens, please
[16:33] <ara> ..
[16:33] <sconklin> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/reports/sru-report.html
[16:33] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/reports/sru-report.html
[16:33] <sconklin> latest status is always here
[16:33] <sconklin> ..
[16:34] <skaet> sconklin,  let me summarize to make sure I'm understanding...
[16:35] <skaet> you'll fiinish off the verifications in next day or two,  and then send email to the list.
[16:35] <skaet> at that time QA and HW cert (as their other schedules permit)  can start.
[16:35] <skaet> with starting no later than this Friday.
[16:36] <skaet> sconklin, ara, marjo - does that match your understanding too?
[16:36] <ara> yes
[16:36] <sconklin> Yes, that's the way I read the Nattyinterlock schedule, and that's what we're targeting.
[16:36] <marjo> skaet: why, "no later than this Friday"?
[16:37] <marjo> skaet: usually, QA testing starts on Mondays
[16:37] <skaet> marjo,  beta-1 will be out, and code will be ready.
[16:37] <marjo> skaet: ack
[16:37] <skaet> thanks marjo.
[16:37] <sconklin> ..
[16:37] <skaet> any other questions?
[16:38] <skaet> [TOPIC] general SRU status - pitti
[16:38] <MootBot> New Topic:  general SRU status - pitti
[16:38] <pitti> still need to schedule a training session with SpammapS
[16:38] <pitti> last time we had one the queues were empty, and then the beta-1 rush came in the way
[16:39] <pitti> there is a high-urgency bind9 update which we need to rush through, for bug 651875
[16:39] <pitti> (Daviey is on it now)
[16:39] <pitti> otherwise, business as usual
[16:39] <pitti> ..
[16:39] <skaet> thanks pitti
[16:40] <skaet> any one have questions?
[16:40] <skaet> [TOPIC] OEM priorities
[16:40] <MootBot> New Topic:  OEM priorities
[16:40] <skaet> any one around to represent OEM since vanhoof is out?   smagoun?
[16:40] <smagoun> skaet: I'm here
[16:41] <skaet> any issues to flag, and priorities we need to be aware of?
[16:41] <smagoun> skaet: I confess I've not been following the meeting though - is this specifically OEM priorities for Natty?
[16:41] <skaet> smagoun,  for maverick, lucid, and other stable releases
[16:41] <skaet> (everything except natty ;) )
[16:41] <smagoun> skaet: The SRU cycle has been preempted by 11.04 testing, which has caused a bit of fuss in OEM but we've worked around it.
[16:42] <smagoun> skaet: We have a couple of bugs in the -proposed kernel, we do want them to see the light of day eventually ;)
[16:43] <skaet> smagoun,  the fixes in proposed will be going through in week after this one.
[16:43] <smagoun> skaet: I think the (natural) tension of having 1 team test new development (11.04) and maintenance needs to be addressed organizationally, which makes it a good topic for the UDS timeframe
[16:43] <skaet> smagoun,  agreed
[16:44] <smagoun> skaet: Going through, as in released to -updates?
[16:45] <skaet> smagoun,  per the interlock, that's targeted for 4/7.
[16:45] <skaet> after that next window for fixes to go to updates is end of first week of may.
[16:46] <skaet> all changes for that one will need to be in -proposed by 4/22.
[16:46] <smagoun> skaet: ok, thanks. A couple people around here interpreted bjf's mail as there being nothing new into -updates from now until May. Glad to hear that's not the case.
[16:46] <skaet> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NattyReleaseInterlock
[16:46] <smagoun> ..
[16:46] <skaet> thanks smagoun
[16:46] <skaet> any other questions?
[16:47] <smagoun> not right now, thanks
[16:47] <skaet> I meant anyone else have questions for you ;)   will move on though since I don't see any hands
[16:47] <skaet> [TOPIC] Support priorities - martins
[16:47] <MootBot> New Topic:  Support priorities - martins
[16:48]  * skaet not seeing martins in the channels though today.
[16:48] <skaet> anyone have concerns from support?  representing martin?
[16:48] <skaet> [TOPIC] New business, last chance for general questions? - all
[16:48] <MootBot> New Topic:  New business, last chance for general questions? - all
[16:49] <skaet> does anyone want me to summarize what the plan is for the next month,  or is it pretty clear now from the discussions?
[16:49] <ara> summary! summary! go skaet, go!
[16:50] <skaet> :)
[16:50] <skaet> kernel  (maverick, lucid) -> proposed  3/25
[16:50] <skaet> verification in progress this week
[16:51] <skaet> hw cert/qa   - 4/1-4/7
[16:51] <skaet> kernel (maveric, lucid) -> update 4/7
[16:51] <skaet> kernel ( maverick, lucid?)-> proposed 4/22
[16:52] <skaet> verification 4/25-4/29
[16:52] <skaet> hw cert/qa - 4/29 - 5/5
[16:53] <skaet> kernel (maverick, lucid? ) to update 5/5
[16:53] <skaet> after that we're at UDS, and revisit the cycle for the rest of Oneiric.
[16:53] <marjo> skaet: ack
[16:53] <ara> sounds good to me
[16:54] <skaet> sconklin, bjf - ok?
[16:54] <sconklin> reading
[16:55] <sconklin> yes, I think that matches everything that we talked about earlier, and I'm happy to see the possibility that Lucid will get through also
[16:55] <sconklin> ..
[16:55] <skaet> ok,  thanks all.   I think we've got this sorted then.
[16:55] <skaet> good meeting.
[16:55] <marjo> skaet: thx
[16:55] <skaet> next meeting is 4/11.
[16:56] <skaet> #endmeeting
[16:56] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:56.
[16:56] <skaet> thanks marjo, ara, bjf, sconklin, pitti, smagoun
[16:56] <sconklin> Thanks skaet!
[16:56] <ara> thanks skaet!
[16:58] <pitti> thanks all
[18:06] <mdeslaur> hello
[18:06] <jdstrand> hi
[18:06] <jdstrand> let's get started
[18:06]  * sbeattie waves
[18:07] <jdstrand> #startmeeting
[18:07] <MootBot> Meeting started at 12:07. The chair is jdstrand.
[18:07] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[18:07] <jdstrand> The meeting agenda can be found at:
[18:07] <jdstrand> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting
[18:07] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Review of any previous action items
[18:07] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting
[18:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review of any previous action items
[18:08] <jdstrand> sbeattie uploaded apparmor 2.6.1. great work sbeattie, thanks!
[18:08] <sbeattie> jdstrand: thanks for sponsoring!
[18:08] <jdstrand> I (finally) got arround to looking at blackhat/defcon registration, and that is underway now
[18:08] <jdstrand> sbeattie: sure thing :)
[18:09] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report
[18:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly stand-up report
[18:09] <jdstrand> I'll go first
[18:09] <jdstrand> so, last week I didn't get to a bunch of stuff I thought I would, and this week is a short week for me
[18:09] <jdstrand> I will be off friday and then next monday and tuesday
[18:10] <jdstrand> I am on triage this week
[18:10] <jdstrand> I hope to finish testing the openldap and libvirt updates
[18:10] <jdstrand> and I expect some archive admin work for beta
[18:10] <jdstrand> I'll try to get to the other stuff I said I'd do last week as I have time
[18:11] <jdstrand> that's it from me
[18:11] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: you're up
[18:11] <mdeslaur> I am currently testing packages for a bunch of security updates I've prepared last week
[18:11] <mdeslaur> I'll be publishing them this week if all goes well
[18:11] <mdeslaur> beyond that, I'll go down the list
[18:11] <mdeslaur> oh, and if this is beta week, I'll do some iso testing also
[18:11] <mdeslaur> that's it from me.
[18:12] <mdeslaur> -> sbeattie
[18:12] <sbeattie> I was on community last week, sponsored a couple of packages (dtc, loggerhead)
[18:12] <sbeattie> I'm in the happy place this week, so I'm looking for updates to pick up (was thinking postfix)
[18:13] <sbeattie> I think that's all for me.
[18:13] <sbeattie> Oh, yeah, iso testing.
[18:13]  * sbeattie has one system left to upgrade to natty as well.
[18:14]  * sbeattie -> micahg
[18:14] <micahg> so, as jdstrand added to the wiki, I'm cleaning up after the comodo mess
[18:15] <micahg> nss, qt4-x11, ca-certificates (maybe)
[18:15] <micahg> there's a chromium update, but we're blocked on an upstream regression
[18:15] <micahg> and I have ISO testing
[18:15] <jdstrand> micahg: is there a workaround for that? ie, can we just fallback to the previous behavior?
[18:16] <micahg> jdstrand: well, there's a workaround, but it's flaky IMHO
[18:16] <micahg> was going to discuss with you further after the meeting
[18:16] <jdstrand> micahg: right, --detect=auto or something. I meant something where we can just have the old upstream behavior
[18:16] <jdstrand> s/upstream//
[18:17] <micahg> jdstrand: well, I have to see exactly what the old behavior was to answer that :)
[18:18] <jdstrand> micahg: ok. as you know, fta can probably help there. I don't think we can publish chromium in good conscience with that regression
[18:18] <micahg> so, possibly, fta mentioned possibly working around it
[18:18] <jdstrand> micahg: alternatively, I wonder if we can snag fta's previous update for the comodo fixes and push that into the archive
[18:18] <jdstrand> micahg: then wait for upstream to fix the regressino
[18:19] <jdstrand> (assuming there isn't a good way to deal with the current version that has the additional security fixes)
[18:20] <micahg> I'll look into that
[18:21] <jdstrand> ok
[18:22] <jdstrand> micahg: did you have anything else?
[18:22] <micahg> no, I think that's it for me
[18:22] <jdstrand> thanks
[18:22] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Miscellaneous and Questions
[18:22] <MootBot> New Topic:  Miscellaneous and Questions
[18:23] <jdstrand> Looks like self-evaluations are done. I need to do my part now (I have a couple weeks)
[18:23] <jdstrand> all work items tied to natty's release are completed. Great job everyone! :)
[18:24] <jdstrand> that's all I have
[18:24] <jdstrand> does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss?
[18:24] <micahg> o/
[18:24] <jdstrand> micahg: go ahead
[18:25] <micahg> when does the review for the testing libraries (QRT) start? next week?
[18:25] <jdstrand> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/ReleaseCycle#Regression%20Testing
[18:26] <micahg> yep, ok :)
[18:26] <jdstrand> ^ that says kernel and glibc should be happening now
[18:26] <jdstrand> the rest fall port-beta
[18:26] <jdstrand> s/port/post/
[18:27] <jdstrand> kees and/or sbeattie have traditionally done the kernel/glibc ones
[18:27] <jdstrand> and I'm pretty sure they have been done all the way along
[18:28] <jdstrand> any other questions?
[18:28] <jdstrand> ok. thanks everyone!
[18:28] <jdstrand> #endmeeting
[18:28] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 12:28.
[18:28] <micahg> thanks jdstrand
[18:30] <mdeslaur> thanks jdstrand!
[18:31] <jdstrand> sure! :)
[19:58] <SpamapS> any chance DMB will get quorum today?
[19:59] <Laney> I am partially here
[19:59]  * stgraber too
[19:59] <stgraber> just got out of a meeting and have quite a lot of stuff to do now but will follow the meeting for votes and stuff
[20:00] <stgraber> that's if we manage to get quorum
[20:00]  * bdrung_ is here, but very tired.
[20:00] <SpamapS> bdrung_: as long as you're not cranky.. thats ok. ;)
[20:01] <stgraber> maco, cody-somerville, persia, geser: ping
[20:01] <Laney> :)
[20:02] <bdrung_> SpamapS: not cranky, just slow and unemotional
[20:02] <cody-somerville> Hi.
[20:02] <ScottK> I would propose not approving SpamapS so we still get to make him do useful stuff in exchange for sponsorship.
[20:02] <ScottK> ;-)
[20:03] <Laney> :-)
[20:03] <Laney> who wants to chair?
[20:03] <cody-somerville> Wow. 8 applications? Geez. I dunno if we'll get through them all.
[20:03] <Laney> I am on my phone and in a pub so no good.
[20:03]  * geser waves
[20:04] <SpamapS> please do not pay attention to scottk he is a master extortionist ;)
[20:05] <geser> ScottK: will SpamapS do useless stuff if he gets upload rights?
[20:05] <ScottK> extorionist/efficient distorbutor of necessary work.
[20:05] <SpamapS> ScottK: all a matter of perspective. :)
[20:05] <ScottK> geser: No, but I'll lose leverage to get him to work on my stuff.
[20:06] <SpamapS> geser: I will occasionally still play Angry Birds if I have upload rights.. ;)
[20:06] <hrw> hi
[20:06] <Laney> can we get started?
[20:06] <cyphermox> hrw, hey
[20:06]  * cody-somerville volunteers to chair.
[20:06]  * hrw just arrived at home - 21:07 here
[20:07] <Laney> ty
[20:07] <cody-somerville> Do we have quorum?
[20:07] <stgraber> yep
[20:07] <Laney> yes
[20:07] <cody-somerville> #startmeeting
[20:07] <MootBot> Meeting started at 14:07. The chair is cody-somerville.
[20:07] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[20:07] <cody-somerville> [TOPIC] Review of previous action items
[20:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review of previous action items
[20:08] <cody-somerville> * Emmet Hikory to organise the selection process for DMB renewal
[20:08] <Laney> done
[20:08] <cody-somerville> Ack.
[20:08] <cody-somerville> [TOPIC] Administrative Matters
[20:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Administrative Matters
[20:09] <cody-somerville> [TOPIC] Administrative Matters: Review progress of probationary period of Marco Rodrigues
[20:09] <geser> is the mailing lists admin issue now resolved?
[20:09] <MootBot> New Topic:  Administrative Matters: Review progress of probationary period of Marco Rodrigues
[20:09] <cody-somerville> So, I've unfortunately dropped the ball on this. It had been my intention to have already sent an e-mail report out weeks ago.
[20:10] <Laney> geser: mostly, I think someone from the tb sould sort out the dmb admin soon
[20:10] <Laney> mailed today.
[20:11] <cody-somerville> I still intend to send an e-mail. To summarize however, I'm unsure if the probation period has been entirely effective.
[20:11] <cody-somerville> Though there were a few occasions early on where Marco did not follow the agreement by participating in discussions in #ubuntu-motu.
[20:12] <cody-somerville> And I've not yet processed anything he has submitted to me that I was actually able to sponsor due to problems.
[20:12] <geser> what kind of problems?
[20:13] <cody-somerville> He requested a sync but did not test build it in Ubuntu. It turned out the package FTBFS in Ubuntu. I later found there was even already a bug report open regarding it.
[20:14] <cody-somerville> Furthermore, doing an actual debdiff resulted in additional delta not mentioned in the package changelog and that was not mentioned in his request.
[20:15] <cody-somerville> It appears the decision to request the sync was based entirely on examination of the package changelogs.
[20:17] <cody-somerville> [TOPIC]  Administrative Matters: Membership renewal policy for delegated teams
[20:17] <MootBot> New Topic:   Administrative Matters: Membership renewal policy for delegated teams
[20:17] <geser> how many requests from Marco did you had to review?
[20:18] <cody-somerville> oops
[20:18] <cody-somerville> geser, It submitted 5 in total. The last one sent to me was January 25th.
[20:18] <cody-somerville> *He
[20:19] <cody-somerville> He sent me an e-mail February 7th regarding one of the requests I had not yet processed. The request was sufficiently old to ping me about it.
[20:20] <bdrung_> did you had any problems besides technical issues?
[20:21] <bdrung_> did he repeat mistakes?
[20:21] <geser> I guess we can discuss this after your detailed report per mail, let's move to the next topic as the agenda is long
[20:22]  * bdrung nods.
[20:22] <ScottK> He's been involved in Ubuntu development since 2007, IIRC.  Basic stuff like test building he should know by now.
[20:22] <Laney> currently the members of delegated teams need to have their membership renewed by an admin. I don't see what the point of this is, seems to be busy work to me. I suggest we allow members of delegated teams to renew themselves.
[20:22] <Laney> sorry for being terse again, on phone
[20:22] <bdrung> i am fine with this change.
[20:23] <geser> ScottK: true, and this sound like the kind of the problems in the past
[20:23] <cody-somerville> bdrung, He participated in #ubuntu-motu a few times even after reminder that it violated the agreement.
[20:23] <Laney> shall we just vote?
[20:23] <bdrung> yes
[20:24] <ScottK> geser: Agreed.
[20:24] <cody-somerville> greping my logs I actually see he said something to Laney on the 20th of January even
[20:24] <cody-somerville> (in #ubuntu-motu)
[20:24] <cody-somerville> Jan 20 13:03:39 <Kmos>	Laney: check collab-qa for udd scripts, there is a rcbugs for debian -> ubuntu, it could be adapted easily.
[20:24] <cody-somerville> Laney, on the renewal policy?
[20:24] <Laney> yes
[20:25] <cody-somerville> Aye.
[20:25] <cody-somerville> [VOTE] Allow members of delegated teams to renew themselves.
[20:25] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Allow members of delegated teams to renew themselves..
[20:25] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[20:25] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:25] <bdrung> +1
[20:25] <MootBot> +1 received from bdrung. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:25] <Laney> +1
[20:26] <MootBot> +1 received from Laney. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:26] <stgraber> +1
[20:26] <MootBot> +1 received from stgraber. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:26] <cody-somerville> +1
[20:26] <MootBot> +1 received from cody-somerville. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[20:27] <geser> +1
[20:27] <MootBot> +1 received from geser. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
[20:27] <cody-somerville> #endvote
[20:27] <cody-somerville> [endvote]
[20:27] <MootBot> Final result is 5 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 5
[20:27] <cody-somerville> [AGREED] Allow members of delegated teams to renew themselves
[20:27] <MootBot> AGREED received:  Allow members of delegated teams to renew themselves
[20:27] <cody-somerville> [TOPIC] Administrative Matters: New meeting time
[20:28] <MootBot> New Topic:  Administrative Matters: New meeting time
[20:28] <Laney> i'll have an action to update them
[20:28] <cody-somerville> [ACTION] Laney to update delegated teams to allow members to renew their memberships themselves.
[20:28] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Laney to update delegated teams to allow members to renew their memberships themselves.
[20:29] <Laney> we sometimes have issues achieving quorum
[20:29] <Laney> I hope someonhe else can pesent this better)
[20:29] <hrw> Laney: like 2 weeks ago?
[20:29] <cody-somerville> Particularly at the earlier meeting time, right?
[20:30] <Laney> There was a discussion on the ML about changing one or both of our times
[20:30] <Laney> cody-somerville: yeah, I believe it doesnt work so well for those of us in the americas
[20:30]  * cody-somerville nods.
[20:30] <Laney> I think there was broad approval to move the earlier meeting 1 hour later
[20:30] <cody-somerville> Agreed.
[20:31] <Laney> but this slot seems to work OK
[20:31] <cody-somerville> Agreed.
[20:31] <Laney> does anyone have a problem with that?
[20:31] <bdrung> looking at the meeting logs shows that we had problems only with the early meeting time (3x in the last half year)
[20:32] <bdrung> moving the meeting won't change anything for me
[20:32] <stgraber> moving the early meeting an hour later would make it a lot easier for me, still not perfect as it's a Monday morning and I tend to be busy with other things, but as it's once a month I should be able to make it
[20:32] <geser> I can't make the early meeting at all (if that's a problem to reach quorum)
[20:32] <cody-somerville> If anyone does have a problem, please feel free to e-mail the DMB mailing list. Otherwise I think its safe to say we'll move forward with the changes Laney described.
[20:33] <cody-somerville> [TOPIC] MOTU Application: Sylvestre Ledru - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/SylvestreLedruMOTU
[20:33] <MootBot> New Topic:  MOTU Application: Sylvestre Ledru - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/SylvestreLedruMOTU
[20:34] <cody-somerville> I'm not sure if Sylvestre is here or not - lp page doesn't list IRC nick.
[20:35] <cody-somerville> However, I'm happy to move forward with voting based on the contents of the application.
[20:35] <Laney> I think we ought to give him a chance to respond to the comment
[20:36] <cody-somerville> My vote would be the same even if the comment wasn't there.
[20:37] <Laney> OK
[20:37] <cody-somerville> The comment was also made on the 12th. In other cases where there was negative commentary on an application, applicants would often comment on the comment in-line.
[20:38] <Laney> I'm keen not to hold up those who are here
[20:38] <Laney> so however you wish to move forward
[20:39] <bdrung> i prefer to talk to him before voting
[20:40] <cody-somerville> [TOPIC] Ubuntu Core Developer Application: Clint Byrum - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClintByrum/DeveloperApplication
[20:40] <MootBot> New Topic:  Ubuntu Core Developer Application: Clint Byrum - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClintByrum/DeveloperApplication
[20:40] <ScottK> BTW, I'd say -1 based on reviewing a disasterous upload from him during Maverick final freeze ...
[20:40] <SpamapS> o/
[20:40] <ScottK> (that was for Sylvestre)
[20:40] <Laney> ScottK: could you elaborate on the application?
[20:41] <ari-tczew> Sylvestre doesn't build package before uploading and then he comments on bug what I should to do to fix his FTBFS - funny... his bad upload, his fix - easy.
[20:41] <Laney> SpamapS: hi
[20:42] <Laney> how are you? :-)
[20:42] <SpamapS> Very well thanks. No more jet lag this time.
[20:44] <ScottK> Laney: I'll try to remember.  I'm on the way out the door right now.
[20:44] <ScottK> +1 on SpamapS, BTW.
[20:44] <ScottK> Gotta run.
[20:45] <SpamapS> ScottK: ty!
[20:45] <Laney> I see you commented on a lack of clarity around the application criteria - do you have any suggestions on how we can improve?
[20:46] <geser> SpamapS: oh, did you accept enough tasks from ScottK that he changed his mind? :)
[20:46] <SpamapS> I'd like to see a very clear pool of mentors established. The debian mentoring process seems stronger, and its very clear that your mentor will help guide you to the next step.
[20:47] <SpamapS> geser: Yes I will have to shovel his sidewalk next time I'm in Baltimore. ;)
[20:48] <Laney> We have a mentorship programme, but I agree that it's not very active right now...
[20:48] <cody-somerville> SpamapS, Would you consider yourself familiar with Ubuntu development procedures and policies? Would you be able to advise a new contributor on them?
[20:48] <SpamapS> Its also not exactly clear if I've "done enough" for core dev. Many of my colleagues tell me that I have, but there's no authoritative source that says yes.
[20:49] <SpamapS> cody-somerville: I think in my brief time I've become quite familiar with the lower level of development; packaging, bug triage, patch forwarding, etc. With that, yes I think I would definitely be able to walk a new contributor through the process, and in fact, have been mentoring one such person just recently.
[20:49] <BlackZ> Laney: we're *slowly* reorganizing it
[20:50] <cody-somerville> SpamapS, How about in relationship to performing an SRU? Freezes? Freeze Exceptions?
[20:50] <SpamapS> cody-somerville: to the point of higher level ubuntu policies, such as releases , MIR's, SRU's, etc., I'd say I am at an intermediate level, and still have a lot to learn, especially around the actual stable release process.
[20:50]  * highvoltage wants to through in some cheerleading for SpamapS since he's very much present and involved in #ubuntu-motu and is helpful and interactive with the larger community (and in my opinion that means a lot)
[20:51] <SpamapS> cody-somerville: I've actually begun the process of training with Martin Pitt to join the SRU team. :)
[20:51] <cody-somerville> SpamapS, Are you a MOTU?
[20:51] <SpamapS> that is something I just started two weeks ago, and have not added to my developer app yet.
[20:51] <SpamapS> cody-somerville: no I am not a MOTU.
[20:51] <cody-somerville> SpamapS, Is there a particular reason you haven't applied to be a MOTU?
[20:52] <SpamapS> cody-somerville: by the time my application was ready, and I showed it to a few people, they said I should skip MOTU / server package set, and go for core dev.
[20:53] <cody-somerville> SpamapS, have you had any uploads sponsored by a community member before?
[20:54] <SpamapS> cody-somerville: Not sure I understand the question. I've had quite a few sponsored uploads to Ubuntu.
[20:55] <cody-somerville> SpamapS, Have had any uploads sponsored by someone you don't work with? :)
[20:55]  * tumbleweed has sponsored uploads for SpamapS
[20:55] <tumbleweed> ( I think)
[20:55]  * broder too
[20:55]  * micahg sponsored some pre-canonical
[20:55] <SpamapS> cody-somerville: to Ubuntu.. I don't know. Maybe ScottK has done a few uploads for me. I have had some things uploaded to Debian by people I don't work with.
[20:56]  * SpamapS is ashamed that he doesn't remember all of his sponsors. :/
[20:56] <broder> we really need a script for looking sponsorship info up
[20:56]  * broder goes to see how quickly he can throw one together
[20:56] <tumbleweed> broder: I have one somewhere
[20:57]  * cody-somerville has no further questions.
[20:57] <micahg> broder: I filed a bug to ask for it to be integrated into LP
[20:57] <Laney> me neither.
[20:57] <stgraber> I'm really sorry but I have another meeting in 3 minutes, so I'd appreciate it if we could vote on SpamapS. Then I'll have to leave you.
[20:57] <broder> tumbleweed: sounds like that would be an awesome ubuntu-dev-tools addition, but let's take this elsewhere
[20:57] <cody-somerville> [VOTE] Ubuntu Core Developer Application: Clint Byrum
[20:57] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Ubuntu Core Developer Application: Clint Byrum.
[20:57] <MootBot> Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
[20:57] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:57] <cody-somerville> +1
[20:57] <MootBot> +1 received from cody-somerville. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:57] <bdrung> broder: i agree on both points
[20:58] <Laney> +1
[20:58] <stgraber> +1
[20:58] <MootBot> +1 received from Laney. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:58] <MootBot> +1 received from stgraber. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:58] <bdrung> +1
[20:58] <MootBot> +1 received from bdrung. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[20:59] <geser> +1
[20:59] <MootBot> +1 received from geser. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
[20:59] <cody-somerville> [endvote]
[20:59] <MootBot> Final result is 5 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 5
[20:59] <stgraber> congratz SpamapS
[20:59] <cody-somerville> SpamapS, Congratulations.
[21:00]  * SpamapS bows humbly
[21:00] <cyphermox> congrats SpamapS
[21:00] <Laney> \o/
[21:00] <broder> congrats
[21:00] <SpamapS> thanks so much to all. :)
[21:00]  * SpamapS does a little dance at his desk
[21:00] <cody-somerville> I also have to go now unfortunately.
[21:00] <Laney> me too.
[21:01] <Laney> We'll get through more applications next time.
[21:01] <Laney> thanks all!
[21:01] <geser> then we lost quorum?
[21:01] <bdrung> SpamapS: you can continue that dance at UDS ;)
[21:01] <cyphermox> appears so
[21:01] <stgraber> geser: with 3 of us leaving out of the 5 present at the meeting, it seems so
[21:01] <hrw> so 28 April
[21:01] <cody-somerville> #endmeeting
[21:01] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 15:01.
[21:06] <hrw> have a nice rest of day