[16:03]  * GrueMaster patently twiddles thumbs waiting for the meeting to start.
[16:04] <ogra_> patently or petanted ?
[16:04] <ogra_> lol
[16:04] <ogra_> *patented
[16:04]  * rsalveti waves
[16:04]  * ogra_ thinks a patent on thimb twiddling could make you rich :)
[16:05] <ogra_> *thumb
[16:05] <ogra_> sigh, i shouldnt type today
[16:05]  * GrueMaster grabs big stick, goes poking upstairs.
[16:05] <ogra_> you really need two cans and a string between your office and his room
[16:06] <GrueMaster> No, I need to wire his mattress with a remote cattle prod.
[16:06] <ogra_> LOL
[16:06] <NCommander> #startmeeting
[16:06] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:06. The chair is NCommander.
[16:06] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:07] <ogra_> thats clever, so you dont hear his shouting and screaming :)
[16:07]  * davidm is present
[16:07] <NCommander> No real need to link to the discussion as theres oneitem
[16:07] <NCommander> [topic] Specs!
[16:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Specs!
[16:07] <ogra_> there is one ?
[16:07] <ogra_> ah
[16:08]  * NCommander is not really sure what to discuss at this point which wasn't broughtup last week
[16:08] <ogra_> davidm, any news about the server stuff ?
[16:08] <ogra_> do we have any details, does the server team do most of them etc etc ?
[16:09] <davidm> It will be a mix of us and server team
[16:09] <davidm> we will be the arm side they have the server expertise
[16:09] <davidm> Should be interesting
[16:09] <ogra_> yeah, i was more intrested in... are there any specs yet ?
[16:09] <ogra_> :)
[16:09] <davidm> There are
[16:10] <davidm> under server
[16:10] <GrueMaster> I can dust off a few older systems to act as load generators.
[16:10] <ogra_> beyond that generic placeholder we currently have
[16:10] <davidm> server-o-openstack
[16:11] <ogra_> openstack ?
[16:11] <davidm> That has to be done on both x86 and arm
[16:11] <ogra_> hmm, intresting
[16:11]  * ogra_ is just wearing the t-shirt ... 
[16:11] <ogra_> funnily i dont know more about openstack than that they make good shirts :)
[16:12] <davidm> I'll make a list don't have it handy now
[16:12] <ogra_> ok
[16:12] <janimo> hello, sorry for the delay
[16:12] <ogra_> would be good to somehow have the team subscribed to them
[16:12] <ogra_> so we know where we have to go
[16:13] <ogra_> or at least make sure that in every arm relevant BOF at least one of us is present
[16:14]  * ogra_ doesnt really have anything else
[16:15]  * NCommander is currently planning to sit on the server BOFs
[16:15] <davidm> I';ll  make sure to subscribe the team to all of them
[16:18] <NCommander> is there anything we want to bring up pre-UDS?
[16:19] <NCommander> If there is nothing else, I"m going to close the meeting
[16:19] <NCommander> 3
[16:19] <NCommander> 2
[16:19] <NCommander> 1
[16:19] <ogra_> is there anything i need to bring since i come by car ?
[16:20] <NCommander> ogra_: yoruself ideally
[16:20] <ogra_> finish it !
[16:20] <ogra_> yeah, my car wont come without me, i'm sure
[16:20] <NCommander> #endmeeting
[16:20] <ogra_> :)
[16:20] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:20.
[18:01] <bdmurray> okay lets the bugsquad meeting started
[18:01] <bdmurray> #startmeeting
[18:01] <MootBot> Meeting started at 12:01. The chair is bdmurray.
[18:01] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[18:02] <bdmurray> [TOPIC] Updates of action items from previous meeting
[18:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Updates of action items from previous meeting
[18:02] <yofel> o/
[18:03] <bdmurray> yofel: do you have something?
[18:03] <yofel> nope, I wasn't assigned to anything last time
[18:03] <bdmurray> okay
[18:04] <bdmurray> nigelb said he is still working on edit bugsquad headers to be similar or link to each other appropriately at the end of the last meeting
[18:04] <bdmurray> bdmurray email bugsquad regarding #ubuntu-bugs channel watchers
[18:05] <bdmurray> After looking at #ubuntu-bugs channel logs I think we do a pretty good job of responding to people so did not do this.
[18:05] <bdmurray> bdmurray email bugsquad regarding making +karma more informative
[18:06] <bdmurray> That was done
[18:06] <bdmurray> micahg to research available meeting times in #ubuntu-meeting
[18:06] <hggdh> done also :-)
[18:06] <bdmurray> well, that was clearly done because here we are!
[18:06] <davidstrauss-nb> If I'd like to raise a topic, do I just use the [TOPIC] command?
[18:07]  * davidstrauss-nb is new to bot-moderated meetings
[18:07] <bdmurray> davidstrauss-nb: we have an open discussion section later in the meeting
[18:07] <bdmurray> davidstrauss-nb: I'll change the topic throughout the meeting
[18:07] <bdmurray> I've also put the next couple of bugsquad meetings on the fridge calendar
[18:08] <bdmurray> micahg to add multiarch as an official bug tag
[18:08] <bdmurray> that too was done
[18:08] <bdmurray> [TOPIC] Mentorship program discussion
[18:08] <MootBot> New Topic:  Mentorship program discussion
[18:09] <bdmurray> vish: Do you have any news or anything to discuss on that topic?
[18:09] <vish> oops!
[18:09] <vish> o/
[18:10] <hggdh> :-)
[18:10] <vish> so, we have been having some progress recently..
[18:10] <vish> but we are better than what we were 2 months ago
[18:10] <vish> sorry, forgot meeting :D
[18:11] <bdmurray> vish: no problem
[18:11] <vish> any one else have any other Questions..?
[18:11]  * hggdh will wait for UDS
[18:12] <bdmurray> hggdh: is there something setup for mentorship and UDS?
[18:12] <hggdh> bdmurray: no, I was considering only informal chats
[18:12] <bdmurray> ah okay
[18:13] <bdmurray> moving on
[18:13] <bdmurray> [TOPIC] New bug control members
[18:13] <MootBot> New Topic:  New bug control members
[18:13] <bdmurray> We have no new members this week but one application to review although it may need some work
[18:14] <hggdh> yeah, from Bjoern, right?
[18:14] <pedro_> is that the latest from Bjoern?
[18:14] <yofel> RedSingularity is new to BC
[18:14] <pedro_> heh hggdh was faster
[18:14] <hggdh> at last...
[18:14]  * vish has one concern about the hardware team application..
[18:15] <bdmurray> yofel: that's right! was just trying to confirm
[18:15] <bdmurray> congrats to RedSingularity!
[18:15]  * hggdh approved RedSingularity, and did not remember :-(
[18:15] <bdmurray> hggdh: did you send an announce e-mail regarding his joining?
[18:15] <hggdh> bdmurray: no, with all that was going on I forgot
[18:16] <hggdh> s/was/is/
[18:16] <bdmurray> hggdh: no problem, can you do it this week?  If not I can.
[18:16] <hggdh> yes
[18:16] <bdmurray> [ACTION] hggdh to announce RedSingularity joining ubuntu-bugcontrol
[18:16] <MootBot> ACTION received:  hggdh to announce RedSingularity joining ubuntu-bugcontrol
[18:16] <hggdh> vish: you have a concern, can you expand?
[18:17] <vish> hggdh: i dont think batch approving the hardware team is good, they will be touching every package
[18:17] <vish> not just a certain subset
[18:17] <vish> right now, they already have 2 BC members
[18:17] <yofel> ara said though that they'll review their own members
[18:17] <vish> right,
[18:18] <hggdh> and we will review their work
[18:18] <ScottK> Then it should be easy enough for them to get approved when they think they are ready.
[18:18] <vish> as I mention they already have 2 BC members, they can just +1
[18:18] <yofel> true
[18:18] <vish> and when the new members grow in that team, their numbers will grow, which makes it easier for review
[18:18] <hggdh> I do not think they will, this would be gaming the resutls
[18:19] <vish> batch approving is even worse ;)
[18:19] <hggdh> heh
[18:19] <bdmurray> Not more so then adding the whole team
[18:19] <vish> atleast if the go through the BC process others can review the work
[18:19] <hggdh> vish: team approval was considered as an option, but we still retain control
[18:20] <bdmurray> I think this topic, team mebership in bug control, really warrants a larger discussion at UDS
[18:20] <yofel> vish: then we need new evaluation criteria, as it stands now their applications is fine from our wiki point fo view on the matter
[18:20] <hggdh> in a certain sense the hardware team is upstream -- they are looking for future issues
[18:20] <hggdh> I would like, then, to propose we meet during UDS and rediscuss this
[18:21] <vish> yofel: from what i understand, the team process was when teams were handling their packages or a subset.. not whole Ubuntu
[18:21] <hggdh> (the process, not the HT itself)
[18:21] <vish> so maybe as bdmurray mentions this warrants a discussion or update of the wiki
[18:22] <yofel> having a specific subset isn't a criteria currently, +1 for UDS
[18:22] <hggdh> +1
[18:22] <vish> +1
[18:22] <hggdh> vish: be prepared to discuss during beer time also ;-)
[18:22] <bdmurray> So how about I set up a blueprint in Launchpad and email bug control about it?
[18:22] <vish> ;)
[18:22] <hggdh> good idea
[18:23] <bdmurray> I'll also email Ara since she has an opinion and a couple of other people I've talked to
[18:23] <bdmurray> Then we can discuss it at UDS
[18:23] <ScottK> bdmurray: Would you please subscribe me to the spec.
[18:23] <bdmurray> ScottK: of course
[18:23] <ScottK> Thanks.
[18:24] <bdmurray> [ACTION] bdmurray to draft a spec regarding criteria for (team) membership in ubuntu bug control
[18:24] <MootBot> ACTION received:  bdmurray to draft a spec regarding criteria for (team) membership in ubuntu bug control
[18:24] <bdmurray> [ACTION] bdmurray to email bug control about spec regarding bug control membership
[18:24] <MootBot> ACTION received:  bdmurray to email bug control about spec regarding bug control membership
[18:25] <bdmurray> [ACTION] bdmurray to subscribe ScottK to said specification
[18:25] <MootBot> ACTION received:  bdmurray to subscribe ScottK to said specification
[18:25] <bdmurray> are we all good there?
[18:25] <hggdh> and the rest of the gang?
[18:25] <hggdh> :-)
[18:25] <bdmurray> hmm, I hope that's in the API now then ;-)
[18:25] <yofel> just post a link to the bluepirint in the mail and we'll find it :P
[18:26] <hggdh> meanwhile could we refrain from deciding about the team request? With UDS looming, it does not make sense to decide any way
[18:26] <davidstrauss-nb> bdmurray, I have to leave in 5 min. Should I just plan to come back in a future meeting?
[18:26] <hggdh>  davidstrauss-nb: you can also add a topic on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BugSquad/Meeting (for future meetings)
[18:26] <davidstrauss-nb> hggdh, thanks
[18:26] <bdmurray> davidstrauss-nb: well its now time for open discussions
[18:26] <davidstrauss-nb> :-)
[18:27] <hggdh> heh
[18:27] <bdmurray> [TOPIC] Open Discussions
[18:27] <MootBot> New Topic:  Open Discussions
[18:27] <hggdh> davidstrauss-nb: go ahead, please
[18:27] <davidstrauss-nb> So, something happened yesterday on a bug I posted that I found no less than angering.
[18:27] <davidstrauss-nb> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/775842
[18:28] <davidstrauss-nb> It was marked as invalid in a sort of drive-by way
[18:28] <davidstrauss-nb> Not only does this sort of practice make little semantic sense (given the incomplete) option, it's also highly dismissive.
[18:29] <davidstrauss-nb> Third, it discourages anyone else from participating on the bug because it was preemptively judged "invalid."
[18:29] <yofel> hm
[18:29] <ScottK> I'd like to second davidstrauss-nb's concern.  While this might have made some vague sense before, now that we have automatic bug expiry, there's no reason not to use incomplete for this.
[18:29] <hggdh> this needs review, I agree with ScottK
[18:30] <pedro_> the workflow needs to be reviewed then
[18:30] <yofel> it's true that this was the old policy, since apport can't attach crashes to existing bugs, so we usually just closed it and used the new one
[18:30]  * vish actually finds that the comment has the reason why it was closed
[18:30] <yofel> though I personally agree this should be Incomplete
[18:30] <vish> "a new bug report which can then dealt with more efficiently."
[18:30] <pedro_> although crash reports needs to be filed with apport or provide/attach a good backtrace
[18:30] <hggdh> bdmurray: can we use the same blueprint, expanding it for this?
[18:31] <bdmurray> hggdh: no that's crazy
[18:31] <pedro_> specially for cases like this where the bug is not easy to reproduce
[18:31] <yofel> then again, a crash bug without any crash information is completely useless, so this bug would've been closed anyway
[18:31] <vish> yofel: exactly!
[18:31] <hggdh> and I also agree with pedro_ : crash reports without a crash are -- by definition -- unusable
[18:31] <ScottK> That doesn't make them invalid.
[18:31] <bdmurray> well there are steps to recreate it if you happen to have an imap server available
[18:31] <ScottK> It makes them incomplete.
[18:31] <hggdh> ScottK: I did not disagree with you, I just pointed the issues.
[18:32] <hggdh> so we may need to change the SOP *and* the docs
[18:32] <pedro_> bdmurray, tried that already, that's why I asked for the backtrace or i would get the backtrace myself like in other reports
[18:32] <davidstrauss-nb> Even though apport can't attach to old bugs, "incomplete" is still a better classification. Then, the bug can either be (1) augmented with a crash report (2) marked as a dupe of an apport bug, or (3) allowed to expire
[18:32] <vish> the problem here is maybe we can attach .crash files?
[18:32] <vish> like as in, just $attach *.crash and it adds the info
[18:32] <yofel> vish: not really, the retracer has to run, and you can't really make the bug private anymore
[18:33] <pedro_> marked it as a duplicate of the newest sounds better to me
[18:33] <bdmurray> pedro_: oh, perhaps davidstrauss-nb would feel better if he knew that?
[18:33] <davidstrauss-nb> ideally, apport would encourage you to mark any recent bugs you filed as a dupe of the apport bug
[18:33] <vish> err, meant "maybe we can't"
[18:34] <hggdh> davidstrauss-nb: when we have a stacktrace, we can do that -- and we indeed do it
[18:34] <davidstrauss-nb> bdmurray, What frustrates me is having my trouble report called "invalid" when you're actually just looking for more info.
[18:34] <yofel> davidstrauss-nb: doesn't make much sense having apport tell you that, we already do, and apport has no way of knowing that you already filed a bug about this issue
[18:34] <ScottK> If it's marked incomplete instead of invalid, the worst thing that can happen is it goes away in 60 days.
[18:35] <ScottK> That seems like a small price to pay to avoid the social cost of marking them invalid.
[18:35] <hggdh> +1
[18:35] <yofel> +1
[18:35] <vish> ScottK: worse it not fixing the bug ;)
[18:35] <vish> s/it/is
[18:35] <bdmurray> ScottK: I find that kind of ironic since all kubuntu bugs end up getting marked invalid in launchpad
[18:35] <ScottK> vish: I don't understand how that relates.
[18:36] <ScottK> bdmurray: wontfix might be better for that.
[18:36] <ScottK> yofel: ^^^ ?
[18:36] <vish> ScottK: simply closing the bug in 60 days, is not the worse thing :)
[18:36] <ScottK> vish: Right, but in comparison to marking it invalid.
[18:36] <yofel> hm... might be, requires BC rights of course then
[18:36] <hggdh> there is the perceived impact -- ScottK is absolutely correct there
[18:37] <yofel> yeah, Invalid is hardly ideal in many cases
[18:37] <davidstrauss-nb> I have to head off, but ScottK was present for my rant yesterday in #launchpad and can reflect my thoughts here.
[18:37] <davidstrauss-nb> :-)
[18:38] <vish> maybe we should be fixing this in apport; we can ask the user to apport-collect and if the APPNAME.crash is present it attaches files if not then apport closes the bug?
[18:38] <yofel> ScottK: agreed with Won't Fix, we need to think what to do about non-BC triagers though (not that we have any currently)
[18:39] <bdmurray> The problem in my mind with closing Kubuntu bugs is it increases the possibility of duplicate bugs coming in because its hard to find closed bugs.
[18:40] <yofel> vish: hm, maybe making apport close the bug would be an option, attaching the CoreDump isn't
[18:40] <yofel> apport won't be able to dup the report though
[18:40] <vish> yofel: cant apport also set the bug to private?
[18:40] <yofel> vish: yes, but you have to remove all 'also notified' persons from the subscriber list then
[18:40] <bdmurray> there are currently issues with transitioning bugs from public to private
[18:41] <yofel> as 'ubuntu-bugs' is always subscirbed making the bug pretty impossible to make private again
[18:41] <vish> hmm..
[18:41] <yofel> BC members can unsubscribe it though
[18:41] <bdmurray> it's not just ubuntu-bugs though
[18:41] <bdmurray> any structural subscriber stays subscribed
[18:41] <bdmurray> but lets get back on topic
[18:42] <vish> yea, back to topic "pedro_ sucks" ;p
[18:42] <vish> we need to update his version... pedro_2.0
[18:42] <bdmurray> I think the primary issue here is that invalidating bug reports does not make for a nice bug reporter experience
[18:42] <ScottK> Agreed.
[18:43] <bdmurray> With automatic bug expiration and the bug janitor we have ways to make this better
[18:43] <bdmurray> marginally but still
[18:44] <bdmurray> So we should review all bug workflows that result with an "Invalid" status and see if using "Incomplete" makes more sense
[18:44] <hggdh> yes
[18:44] <yofel> right
[18:45] <vish> btw, does anyone know why Opinion status still exists?
[18:45]  * vish thought it was a 3month experiment
[18:46] <bdmurray> Is there anybody who can volunteer to review the bug workflows?
[18:47] <hggdh> I will do it -- as long as it is not time-critical (will take a few days)
[18:47] <bdmurray> hggdh: okay thanks
[18:48] <bdmurray> [ACTION] hggdh to review all bug workflows that result with an "Invalid" status and see if using "Incomplete" makes more sense and email bugsquad regarding results
[18:48] <MootBot> ACTION received:  hggdh to review all bug workflows that result with an "Invalid" status and see if using "Incomplete" makes more sense and email bugsquad regarding results
[18:48] <bdmurray> vish: I'd check with deryck since he worked on that a fair bit
[18:48] <vish> ok
[18:49] <bdmurray> any other business?
[18:49] <hggdh> minimum we need to update the wiki, where it says opinion is temporary
[18:49]  * hggdh is done
[18:49]  * vish too , medium rare
[18:50] <hggdh> LOL
[18:50] <yofel> do we have blueprints for the bugsquad already? Didn't find much on launchpad yet
[18:52] <bdmurray> yofel: no, not really. is there something you had in mind?
[18:53] <yofel> not aside the general roadmap discussions, was just wondering
[18:54] <bdmurray> yofel: if you could set one up with some discussion ideas we can get it scheduled
[18:56] <bdmurray> okay, thanks everyone!
[18:56] <bdmurray> #endmeeting
[18:56] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 12:56.
[18:56] <yofel> I'll think about it, I'll ping you when I have something
[18:56] <yofel> and thanks for chairing  bdmurray :)
[18:56] <bdmurray> yofel: thanks
[18:59] <pitti> kees, mdz, Keybuk: TB meeting now?
[19:00] <Keybuk> I think so
[19:04] <pitti> so cjwatson sent an apology, mdz and sabdfl don't seem to be online, kees doesn't respond, hmm
[19:05] <Keybuk> I suspect at least some are in budapest being powerpointed to death?
[19:05] <pitti> the only thing on the ML that I can see is the status of Lubuntu, https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-April/000835.html
[19:05] <pitti> good point
[19:05] <pitti> Keybuk: hopefully Impressed, not Powerpointed, though :)
[19:06] <pitti> . o O { latex-beamer FTW }
[19:06] <Keybuk> as I was saying to slangasek, I went to no-hands once
[19:06] <Keybuk> around the time I decided to look for other jobs and leave Canonical
[19:06] <Keybuk> I'm not saying the two are related
[19:06] <Keybuk> but the inference is there
[19:07]  * slangasek chuckles
[19:07] <slangasek> kees is among the powerpointed, fwiw
[19:08] <pitti> so, same time in a fortnight?
[19:09] <Keybuk> sure
[19:10] <pitti> I updated https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda
[19:11]  * pitti waves good night then
[21:14] <kees> I was PDFed mostly