[15:57] <NCommander> Morning all, who's around?
[16:00] <NCommander> #startmeeting
[16:00] <MootBot> Meeting started at 10:00. The chair is NCommander.
[16:00] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[16:00] <ogra_> moop
[16:01] <NCommander> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2011/20110519
[16:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2011/20110519
[16:01]  * NCommander pokes ogra_'s moop
[16:01] <ogra_> ouch !
[16:01] <ogra_> dont you touch my moop !
[16:02] <NCommander> [topic] Standing Items
[16:02] <MootBot> New Topic:  Standing Items
[16:02] <NCommander> [link] http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-armel.html
[16:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-armel.html
[16:02] <NCommander> [link] http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-armel-oneiric-alpha-1.html
[16:02] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-armel-oneiric-alpha-1.html
[16:02] <NCommander> None of my specs are showing up ...
[16:02]  * ogra_ isnt done yet with spec writing 
[16:03] <NCommander> Oh right, it has to be approved, doesn't it
[16:03] <NCommander> bah
[16:03] <ogra_> NCommander, lets go over them to see if everything is set right (accepted etcd)
[16:03] <ogra_> after meeting
[16:03]  * davidm is happy bp are getting done
[16:03] <ogra_> but its good to see the tracker work
[16:04] <ogra_> doesnt look like as much hassle for me as last round
[16:04]  * NCommander likes our '2.0' blueprints for A1 :-)
[16:04] <NCommander> Right
[16:04] <NCommander> so moving on
[16:05] <NCommander> if my web browser didn't force quit ...
[16:05] <NCommander> [topic] Unity 2D Status
[16:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Unity 2D Status
[16:05] <ogra_> use an ac100, its more stable :P
[16:05] <ogra_> i think we can drop that
[16:05] <ogra_> desktop team takes over now
[16:06] <ogra_> i talked to didrocks in budapest
[16:06] <davidm> I think it's DX team and desktop team
[16:06] <NCommander> cool
[16:06]  * NCommander brings dead to this standing item
[16:06] <ogra_> well, i think upstream is still the same
[16:06] <ogra_> not DX afaik
[16:06] <NCommander> [topic] Kernel Status (cooloney, rsalveti)
[16:06] <MootBot> New Topic:  Kernel Status (cooloney, rsalveti)
[16:06] <ogra_> heh
[16:06] <ogra_> NCommander, ppisati
[16:06] <rsalveti> :-)
[16:07] <ogra_> and we should probably include the linaro platform guys that work on kernel bits in that
[16:07] <ogra_> do you have any ?
[16:07] <rsalveti> send an SRU for bug 770679
[16:07] <NCommander> rsalveti: won't that require an item respin of natty, no?
[16:07] <rsalveti> still waiting for comments
[16:07] <rsalveti> NCommander: in theory yes
[16:08] <rsalveti> but we can just publish a new kernel file somewhere and update the wiki
[16:08] <rsalveti> like we did with maverick
[16:08] <ogra_> well, we can alsways provice replacement uInitrd and uImage
[16:08] <rsalveti> yeah, that's what we did with maverick
[16:08] <ogra_> right
[16:08] <rsalveti> but no other update
[16:08] <rsalveti> ti-omap4 kernel is kind of the same
[16:09] <rsalveti> will be sending another SRU for the drm driver next week
[16:09] <ogra_> do you have anyone in your team that should be included in the topic ping ?
[16:09] <rsalveti> now that I got that sorted out with linaro kernel
[16:09] <rsalveti> ogra_: that depends on what exactly we want to discuss
[16:09] <ogra_> same for any other of the standing topics :)
[16:09] <rsalveti> sure, we can solve this offline
[16:10] <ogra_> yeah
[16:10] <rsalveti> that's all for me
[16:10] <ogra_> ppisati, everything fine in your world ?
[16:11] <rsalveti> NCommander: put an action for you to include ppisati at this topic :-)
[16:11] <NCommander> rsalveti: I already edited the wiki
[16:11] <ogra_> well, seems he isnt around ... neither is cooloney
[16:11] <ogra_> so move :)
[16:12] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Porting/FTBFS status (NCommander, janimo)
[16:12] <MootBot> New Topic:  ARM Porting/FTBFS status (NCommander, janimo)
[16:12] <ogra_> its horrid
[16:12] <NCommander> fpc was bootstrapped on armel but beside that not much to add as the buildds drain
[16:12] <ogra_> yeah, will still need a while to lighten up
[16:12]  * NCommander isn't going to touch it until the build queue is close to empty
[16:13] <ogra_> i occasionally go over them and give back what looks like being worth it
[16:13] <ppisati> ogra_: let me read...
[16:14]  * ogra_ wonders where jani is 
[16:14] <ogra_> still jetlagged from the 100km train ride probably :)
[16:14] <GrueMaster> heh
[16:14] <NCommander> ogra_: :-P
[16:14] <NCommander> can I move on?
[16:15] <ogra_> yeah
[16:15] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Image Status (ogra, NCommander)
[16:15] <MootBot> New Topic:  ARM Image Status (ogra, NCommander)
[16:15] <ogra_> well ...
[16:15] <ogra_> waiting for live-build to be implemented for x86
[16:15] <ppisati> ah k :)
[16:15] <ogra_> i guess then we have a very small window to make it work for A1
[16:16] <ogra_> the risk is high that we wont make A1 though
[16:16] <GrueMaster> Always is.
[16:16] <NCommander> Yeah
[16:16] <ogra_> in other news i worked the week on preparing everything for the ac100 image
[16:16] <NCommander> right now all CD image work is depwait A1, though cjwatson said if we implement stuff in livecd-rootfs, then he'll migrate it to livehelper
[16:16] <ogra_> the bits from https://launchpad.net/~ac100/+archive/ppa will land in oneiric next week
[16:17] <ogra_> so that we can start rolling images
[16:17] <ogra_> look, its a jani :)
[16:17]  * NCommander throws a pokeball at wild janimo 
[16:17] <janimo> sorry, forgot what time it was
[16:17] <NCommander> :-P
[16:17] <ogra_> well, thats all about images atm ... toboin ?
[16:18] <ogra_> anything to say about nook ?
[16:18] <ogra_> GrueMaster, ^^
[16:18] <GrueMaster> Not yet.  Main focus has been on usbboot for panda.
[16:18] <ogra_> yeah, thought so
[16:18] <ogra_> though you had lots of converation going on about nook images in the channel :)
[16:18] <GrueMaster> Although one user has gotten some work towards making it boot natty.
[16:18] <ogra_> *conversation
[16:19] <NCommander> can I move on?
[16:19] <ogra_> go
[16:19] <NCommander> [topic] QA Status (GrueMaster)
[16:19] <MootBot> New Topic:  QA Status (GrueMaster)
[16:20] <GrueMaster> Hey, that's me!
[16:20] <ogra_> wohoo !
[16:20] <GrueMaster> My focus this week has been gitting panda to boot via usb blob from a host system.
[16:20] <ogra_> for automated image testing ;)
[16:21] <janimo> GrueMaster, this means no SD card needed at all?
[16:21] <ogra_> yeah
[16:21] <GrueMaster> This will help a lot for the new buildd deployment, and also help to build an image automation framework.
[16:21] <janimo> sweet
[16:21] <GrueMaster> No SD card was harmed in the making of thisproduction.
[16:21] <ogra_> lol
[16:21] <janimo> some SD cards deserve to be harmed though
[16:21] <ogra_> hehe
[16:22] <GrueMaster> Currently I am hung on getting the usb & network ports initialized.  I have a working kernel & initrd.
[16:22] <GrueMaster> Reviewing x-loader & u-boot code tosee what they do to enable them.
[16:22] <ogra_> i'll get you the initrd bits until monday
[16:23] <NCommander> GrueMaster: seems like a lot of it is hte board just isn't happy coming up OTG. could be an issue of whats being iniialized vs what isn't?
[16:23] <GrueMaster> I'm using the headless image as a test base.   I have the rootfs on a USB drive andam pushing down the kernel with a modified initrd.
[16:23] <GrueMaster> Yes.
[16:24] <GrueMaster> Not sure if it is the otg port getting in the way,but it shouldn't as they are completely separate circuits.
[16:24] <ogra_> NCommander, well, its the decision of putting half the board init code into x-loader and u-boot
[16:24] <NCommander> well yes
[16:24] <ogra_> if it would live in the kernel as it should, there wouldnt be any probs
[16:24] <GrueMaster> btw:  u-boot doesn't appear to support usb.
[16:24] <ogra_> GrueMaster, rsalveti is working on it
[16:25] <GrueMaster> yes, I know.
[16:25] <rsalveti> GrueMaster: u-boot supports usb now ;-)
[16:25] <ogra_> and martyn told me yesterday that the PXE support patch landed upstream
[16:25] <rsalveti> and TFTP
[16:25] <GrueMaster> Hopefully we can work together today and get a solution.
[16:25] <rsalveti> on my branch
[16:25] <GrueMaster> Nice.
[16:25] <rsalveti> but I still prefer to jump into the kernel directly
[16:25] <ogra_> \o/
[16:25] <ogra_> ++
[16:26] <ogra_> but at least we have something even if that doesnt work
[16:26] <rsalveti> anyway, just working with GrueMaster to see what we can get
[16:26] <rsalveti> yup :-)
[16:26] <GrueMaster> The aboot->kernel method is much cleaner, but what ever it takes to get forward progress is semi-acceptable.
[16:26] <ogra_> the good thing is that we could even use it in the images and boot *way* faster
[16:26] <rsalveti> let's spend some more time trying to get this to work
[16:27] <ogra_> we should inspect that
[16:27] <GrueMaster> once I get this working (critical priority), I'll focus on blueprint refinement and nook color.
[16:27] <rsalveti> yeah, can add that at my u-boot tftp bp
[16:27] <rsalveti> I'll be changing it to "alternatives to boot ubuntu images"
[16:27] <rsalveti> something like that
[16:27] <rsalveti> omap4boot
[16:27] <ogra_> cool !
[16:27] <rsalveti> u-boot with TFTP and PXE
[16:27] <rsalveti> and u-boot with fastboot
[16:28] <rsalveti> that should cover most of the cases, if not all
[16:28] <GrueMaster> That's all from me.  Questions?
[16:28] <ogra_> not here
[16:29] <NCommander> [topic] Specification Status
[16:29] <MootBot> New Topic:  Specification Status
[16:29] <NCommander> probably a good idea to go over this
[16:30] <NCommander> I have two spcs drafted, one reviewed, one I mostly completed then handed off, and one that still needs a writeup
[16:30]  * ogra_ has nothing to report yet ... mine will be ready by monday
[16:31] <ogra_> janimo, GrueMaster ?
[16:31] <janimo> I have work items more or less written up on my specs
[16:31] <janimo> but no other work. Drafting means filling up the wiki template?
[16:31] <ogra_> (and anyone else having specs on the team tracker :) )
[16:31] <ogra_> janimo, yeah
[16:31] <GrueMaster> I think NCommander has been plastering me with work items.  I have been toofocused to check.
[16:31] <janimo> team tracker == burndown charts?
[16:31] <ogra_> you dont need all topics from the tamplate, only what makes sense in your context
[16:32] <ogra_> yeah team tracker == burndown
[16:34] <NCommander> [topic] ABO
[16:34] <MootBot> New Topic:  ABO
[16:34]  * NCommander has nothing
[16:34] <GrueMaster> ABO???
[16:34] <ogra_> ABO ?
[16:34] <ogra_> OBA ?
[16:34] <NCommander> [topic] AOB
[16:34] <MootBot> New Topic:  AOB
[16:34] <ogra_> BOA ?
[16:34] <GrueMaster> BOA?
[16:34]  * NCommander beats ogra_ 
[16:34] <ogra_> BAOBAB
[16:34] <GrueMaster> BAO?
[16:34] <ogra_> BLAH :)
[16:34]  * ogra_ doesnt have anything for this topic
[16:34] <NCommander> I'm guessing we don't
[16:35] <NCommander> closiging the meeting in 3
[16:35] <NCommander> 2
[16:35] <NCommander> 1
[16:35] <NCommander> #endmeeting
[16:35] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:35.
[18:59] <pitti> cjwatson, mdz, kees, Keybuk: TB meeting now?
[18:59] <Keybuk> present
[19:02] <kees> \o
[19:02] <sabdfl> o/ ?
[19:02] <sabdfl> ;-)
[19:02] <kees> I have a hard-stop in 30 minutes, though
[19:04] <Keybuk> who is chair today?
[19:04] <kees> agenda says mdz
[19:04] <pitti> sent SMS to mdz and cjwatson
[19:05] <sabdfl> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda
[19:05] <sabdfl> should we just dive in?
[19:05] <sabdfl> do we have anything like a quorum?
[19:05] <pitti> four people should be enough?
[19:05] <kees> yeah, we have 4
[19:06] <sabdfl> ok, i'll take the chair, i'm somewhat overdue
[19:06] <sabdfl> MootBot: #startmeeting
[19:06] <sabdfl> sigh
[19:07] <sabdfl> help
[19:07] <pitti> without the mootbot: I think
[19:07] <persia> Don't highlight MootBot when starting
[19:07] <sabdfl> #startmeeting
[19:07] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:07. The chair is sabdfl.
[19:07] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:07] <cjwatson> hi, I'm here now
[19:07] <sabdfl> [TOPIC] Status of Lubuntu
[19:07] <MootBot> New Topic:  Status of Lubuntu
[19:08] <sabdfl> we had a session or two at UDS on this
[19:08] <cjwatson> I think Lubuntu was adequately resolved at UDS, yes
[19:08] <cjwatson> it is blocked on more disk on antimony + cdimage.ubuntu.com internal mirrors, but that is in train
[19:08] <sabdfl> cjwatson: elmo says np to bigger disks on cdimage
[19:08] <cjwatson> right
[19:08] <cjwatson> blocked as in that-hasn't-happened-yet, not as in we-need-to-convince-people
[19:08] <sabdfl> okdokey
[19:09] <sabdfl> so, the status is it will be official as soon as we have the new space, and that's approved, just not actioned
[19:09] <kees> sounds good to me
[19:09] <cjwatson> https://rt.admin.canonical.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=45727, for Canonical folks
[19:09] <sabdfl> i'll document that in the meeting report, i don't think we need to announce anything till we actually have a release
[19:09] <Keybuk> cool
[19:09] <cjwatson> agreed - it'll be easy to turn on once we have headroom
[19:09] <sabdfl> i'm sure the Lubuntu folks will take the opportunity to raise their banner
[19:10] <sabdfl> ok, wrapped
[19:10] <pitti> shoudl we follow up to Julien on the list?  or was that already resolved at UDS?
[19:10] <sabdfl> [TOPIC] ffmpeg vs libav
[19:10] <MootBot> New Topic:  ffmpeg vs libav
[19:10] <sabdfl> pitti: i think it's resolved, but feel free to send him this snippet of IRC?
[19:10] <pitti> sabdfl: sure
[19:11] <cjwatson> pitti: yeah, Julien knows
[19:11] <kees> so, it's not just Ubuntu -- Debian did the ffmpeg -> libav thing too, but that masks a bit that it's the same maintainer
[19:11] <sabdfl> hmm.. why are we not listed at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Teams ?
[19:12] <sabdfl> i was looking for the team report page
[19:12] <cjwatson> good question
[19:13] <sabdfl> ok, will find that later
[19:13] <cjwatson> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard/TeamReports
[19:13] <sabdfl> kees, so we are de-facto diverged from debian, for lack of consensus on this within ubuntu?
[19:13] <pitti> would be intersting to hear siretart's side of the storey
[19:13] <pitti> story
[19:13] <cjwatson> libav is currently waiting in NEW IIRC
[19:13] <cjwatson> not due to any particular archive admin animus that I'm aware of, but just post-oneiric-opening/UDS backlog
[19:14] <cjwatson> oh, wait, I stand corrected
[19:14] <cjwatson> libav is in oneiric
[19:14] <cjwatson> so we are not at present diverged from Debian, except by an Ubuntu delta to the libav package
[19:14] <cjwatson> which is small: http://patches.ubuntu.com/liba/libav/libav_4:0.7~b1-1ubuntu1.patch
[19:14] <kees> libav is even in _natty_
[19:15] <kees> and their versioning is charging ahead.
[19:15] <sabdfl> is there any certainty that libav will be a more cohesive community?
[19:15] <cjwatson> you're right, I must have been thinking of binary NEW
[19:15] <sabdfl> for example, will they take a more dev-friendly approach to sonames?
[19:15] <cjwatson> personally I'm extremely reluctant to take any view at all on this without hearing both sides - has anyone been in touch with Reinhard about this?
[19:16] <cjwatson> libav has what looks like actual versions rather than datestamps
[19:16] <kees> sabdfl: that's my question too. I don't feel like I have all the information I need to form an opinion
[19:16] <cjwatson> oh, blah, so did our ffmpeg packages
[19:16] <kees> cjwatson: I haven't heard from siretart
[19:17]  * micahg is a little sore about breaking BC in the libavcodec52 to libavcodec53 transition, but idk what that's worth
[19:17] <cjwatson> it's clear to me that there's a social split in the community, but I don't think we should be attempting to judge that
[19:17] <sabdfl> is there an active thread on -tb? is this something that needs a private conversation, if it's about social dynamics that are already stressed upstream?
[19:17] <pitti> no active thread AFAICS
[19:17] <cjwatson> we should be taking a decision on technical merit, which probably to some extent needs to include the views of the developers willing to work on this in Debian/Ubuntu (although not necessarily be dominated by that)
[19:18] <cjwatson> much of the impetus for the mail sent to us seems to be social
[19:18] <pitti> realistically, if we'd decide for ffmpeg instead of libav, we'd need someone else to maintain it, though
[19:18] <cjwatson> (though there is some technical content)
[19:19] <kees> yeah, if the Debian and Ubuntu maintainer chose libav, that does carry a fair bit of weight
[19:19] <cjwatson> micahg: BC?
[19:19] <kees> binary compat
[19:19] <micahg> cjwatson: backwards compatability
[19:19] <kees> oh
[19:19] <kees> heh. I thought you meant ABI
[19:19] <cjwatson> in a sense stronger than what usually happens when you change soname?
[19:19] <cjwatson> was it an API break as well?
[19:19] <micahg> cjwatson: yes
[19:20] <kees> owch
[19:20] <cjwatson> ok, well - that does happen sometimes, I'm not sure that should be determining without details
[19:20] <cjwatson> if we never allowed API breaks there wouldn't be much in the platform :-)
[19:20] <kees> right
[19:20] <kees> but to do it so "soon" after a fork makes things almost more painful.
[19:21] <cjwatson> I'm feeling very low on facts here
[19:21] <micahg> some of it was cleaning up namespaces
[19:21] <cjwatson> can somebody take an action to catch up with siretart and get his side?
[19:21] <kees> I'll take that
[19:22] <cjwatson> sorry, I'm back-seat-chairing, I should stop that
[19:23] <sabdfl> it's very helpful when it's helpful :-)
[19:23] <sabdfl> [ACTION] kees, invite siretart to comment on TB list, or in private, as appropriate
[19:23] <MootBot> ACTION received:  kees, invite siretart to comment on TB list, or in private, as appropriate
[19:23] <cjwatson> I was about to say that we should have somebody with relevant expertise go off and produce an impartial report, but one might reasonably argue that that's the TB's job :-P
[19:24] <sabdfl> [TOPIC] Follow up on https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/451390 (mdz)
[19:24] <MootBot> New Topic:  Follow up on https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/451390 (mdz)
[19:25] <pitti> hm, fixed a week ago
[19:25] <cjwatson> that bug is apparently closed in LP, but I have not got round to finding somebody with the right set of privileges to real-world-test it
[19:25] <pitti> I can take that
[19:25] <kees> cjwatson: we could maybe try bjf?
[19:25] <pitti> we have plenty of non-core-devs in the desktop team
[19:25] <kees> he was most recently added to ubuntu-drivers for the nominations purpose
[19:25] <micahg> I tested it, I can now approve stuff in main that I can upload even though I"m MOTU
[19:25] <kees> micahg: ah! even better, thanks!
[19:26] <pitti> ah, good
[19:26] <sabdfl> so, that's fix confirmed?
[19:26] <pitti> so we can also close the community task then
[19:26] <kees> we probably need another action to purge ubuntu-drivers of people that were added there as a work-around for this bug
[19:26] <sabdfl> pitti: can you take care of that?
[19:27] <pitti> sabdfl: no, because I already did it :)
[19:27] <sabdfl> :-)
[19:27] <sabdfl> it's that time machine of yours, pitti
[19:27] <sabdfl> do we all have admin on ubuntu-drivers?
[19:27] <sabdfl> do we know who was added just for that purpose?
[19:27] <pitti> sabdfl: yes, TB owns it
[19:28] <pitti> jasoncwarner is the latest member, I think that was done at UDS
[19:28] <pitti> so that he could shuffle around the summit schedule
[19:28] <sabdfl> i doubt that's for this case, though
[19:28] <pitti> right
[19:28] <pitti> it was for blueprint handling
[19:28] <pitti> I only overheard it, though
[19:29] <sabdfl> we could of course just purge -drivers and add those who notice :-)
[19:29] <sabdfl> were all such additions documented in TB meetings, or ad-hoc?
[19:29] <pitti> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-drivers/+members doesn't look unreasonable, though
[19:30] <pitti> pretty much the tech leads, and folks who should be able to approve/change blueprints
[19:30] <sabdfl> josh hoover?
[19:30] <kees> it's been ad-hoc, afaik. I have removed bjf, as he was one I added and documented in the nominations bug report
[19:30] <pitti> sabdfl: U1 team uses ubuntu blueprints for their work
[19:30] <sabdfl> ok, let's consider that done
[19:30] <sabdfl> [TOPIC] Action review
[19:30] <MootBot> New Topic:  Action review
[19:31] <kees> I have to go now; I'll check backscroll when I'm back.
[19:31] <sabdfl> cheers kees
[19:31] <sabdfl> Action: rickspencer3 will bring up the state of unity on the -desktop list for public review and discussion
[19:31] <sabdfl> done
[19:32] <sabdfl> I asked for a review between TB and DX and Desktop on Natty/Unity at UDS, but failed to get to it myself.
[19:32] <sabdfl> I saw good dialogue between DX and Platform-Desktop about how to improve processed for Oneiric
[19:32] <sabdfl> but figured TB would have useful commentary and critique
[19:33] <sabdfl> did anyone here get to that session?
[19:34] <pitti> not me unfortunately
[19:34] <pitti> oh, except if that was the session where everyone brought up their pet bugs
[19:34] <pitti> (and praises)
[19:34] <pitti> I was in that one
[19:34] <sabdfl> no, i think that was the Unity design review
[19:34] <pitti> right
[19:35] <sabdfl> from a governance point of view, i thought the debate / discussion about unity-by-default was healthy
[19:35] <pitti> on -devel@? I agree
[19:35] <sabdfl> however, i think it flagged a lack of clarity on responsibilities and delegation
[19:35] <cjwatson> I think I was in that session - http://summit.ubuntu.com/uds-o/meeting/community-o-natty-retrospective/
[19:36] <sabdfl> from my perspective, TB is on the hook for technical decisions, the health of the developer community, quality, across the whole archive
[19:36] <pitti> ah, now I remember, thanks cjwatson for the link
[19:36] <cjwatson> there was a lot of discussion about when people felt it appropriate to involve the TB in things, and some fairly obvious disconnect
[19:36] <sabdfl> i think the TB could rightly have provided guidance and critique on freezes, testing, dependencies, delivery
[19:36] <cjwatson> also discussion about the role of the TB versus the release team
[19:37] <sabdfl> i think teh release and desktop teams, however, need to feel they have a mandate too
[19:37] <cjwatson> I think I view the release team as sort of the "ordinary" authority on these matters, and the TB is an appeals/escalation body as well as sort of wider policy setting
[19:37] <sabdfl> right
[19:37] <ScottK> I was in the session and expressed views similar to cjwatson
[19:37] <pitti> that mainly clarified the status quo of reactive "where the buck stops" dispute resolution (TB) vs. "day-to-day exception processing and archive consistency" (release)
[19:38] <sabdfl> i felt we undermined the desktop team a little by leaving the scope of the conversation so wide
[19:38] <cjwatson> in my view the unity-by-default debate should probably have involved the release team more than it did, but at the time, bouncing things around between groups would have been unnecessary bureaucracy
[19:38] <cjwatson> given the short timescales involvd
[19:38] <sabdfl> i hoped the natty retro would give the TB an opportunity to set tighter guidelines on things which define the quality of the release, while also strengthening the desktop teams ability to make in/out calls
[19:38] <pitti> TBH the discussion about unity or not wasn't really a good release team matter anyway, as this is was a major project-wide decision
[19:39] <sabdfl> right - we'll likely only ever see micro-versions of that debate in future
[19:39] <cjwatson> we talked about the way the TB is quite reactive, and I mentioned that a while back we started trying to deal with something proactively every now and again, but it kind of fizzled out
[19:39] <sabdfl> and those are unlikely to get kicked up
[19:39] <cjwatson> somebody suggested having a secretary to the TB whose job it is to keep track of the kinds of things we ought to be discussing, which I think is a great idea
[19:39] <cjwatson> was that ScottK?
[19:39] <ScottK> That was me.
[19:40] <sabdfl> i think it would help if we had non-Canonical representation in the desktop team
[19:40] <sabdfl> however, such folk will certainly feel pressure, possibly unfairly, from all quarters
[19:40] <cjwatson> I'm slightly cautious of fighting the last war (if you'll excuse the martial metaphor)
[19:40] <cjwatson> the next debate of this king may not be anything to do with the desktop
[19:40] <cjwatson> *kind
[19:41] <sabdfl> right, but the underlying principle should hold
[19:41] <pitti> *cough* systemd *cough*
[19:41] <persia> Encouraging teams to consist of members from several viewpoints is likely useful regardless of the conflict.
[19:41] <sabdfl> well, that one may well be for the TB, as it's hardly desktop OR Server OR kubuntu OR ...
[19:41] <pitti> (as a totally random example of what might come up as a similar discussion)
[19:43] <sabdfl> but is there any difference of opinion about the TB as guardian of quality, of talent and code, delegating decisions like in/out app selections to teams like -desktop?
[19:43] <ScottK> Also for technical dispute resolution.
[19:44] <sabdfl> that too
[19:44] <cjwatson> sabdfl: I don't think anyone is of the opinion that the TB should be micromanaging day-to-day (or even month-to-month) decisions
[19:44] <sabdfl> Keybuk: as a non-Canonical voice, what say you?
[19:44] <persia> For consistency with the ReleaseManifests, I'd prefer if the TB delegated those decisions to the Product Managers, but in practice, it's nearly the same thing.
[19:44] <cjwatson> which is good because I don't think we could if we wanted to :-)
[19:45] <Keybuk> sabdfl: I think as long as things are discussed in Ubuntu forums, it's ok
[19:45] <Keybuk> e.g. UDS is a great place to have those kinds of technical discussions
[19:45] <Keybuk> likewise the Ubuntu mailing lists
[19:45]  * pitti has some difficulty with answering that question about the unity example, as the desktop team (and me) was quite biased
[19:46] <sabdfl> agreed
[19:46]  * ScottK died a little inside when Keybuk said "Ubuntu forums" as a place for technical discussions.  Thanks for clarifying.
[19:46] <Keybuk> I think we only have a problem if technical decisions for Ubuntu are made entirely within Canonical, and that's an appropriate juncture for the TB to step in, at least if only to bring the community back into the mix
[19:46] <Keybuk> ScottK: the lowercase "f" was deliberate
[19:46] <sabdfl> the English sense of "forum" :-)
[19:46] <cjwatson> Ubuntu fora, to distinguish ;-)
[19:46]  * cjwatson hides
[19:46] <sabdfl> the Latin sense of fora :-)
[19:46] <sabdfl> alright
[19:46] <sabdfl> let's stop buggering around
[19:46] <Keybuk> cjwatson: fora, forii or foruum?
[19:46]  * ScottK knew, but it was too funny to leave there.
[19:47] <sabdfl> Action: mdz to attach missing patches for debian bugs 151820 308832 35325 and 326677
[19:47] <Keybuk> pitti: I think there will always be bias, humans are biased things
[19:47] <Keybuk> but another word for bias is passion ;-)
[19:47] <pitti> from my POV, the TB was quite the right place to resolve that question of "unity by default", modulo sabdfl decision
[19:47] <pitti> Keybuk: that's what I really meant, I guess
[19:47] <Keybuk> and I think if one person is particularly passionate about something, and the opposing side can't drum up equivalent amounts of passion to debate
[19:48] <Keybuk> then meh, passion wins :)
[19:48] <pitti> and I can't really claim that I have always been 100% objective in my appraisals for unity by default
[19:48] <cjwatson> the second and third of those Debian bugs have been dealt with
[19:48] <cjwatson> or at least in progress
[19:48] <cjwatson> I don't see action on the first and fourth, though I know mdz is tracking this as part of DEX and perhaps we don't need to track it hre
[19:48] <pitti> Keybuk: fair enough
[19:48] <cjwatson> but how about we leave it on the list 'til mdz's next here to answer
[19:49]  * Keybuk has to run in a minute
[19:49] <sabdfl> ok
[19:49] <sabdfl> [TOPIC] Mailing items outstanding
[19:49] <MootBot> New Topic:  Mailing items outstanding
[19:50] <cjwatson> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-May/000857.html is the biggest one
[19:50] <Keybuk> there's the item from Evan, but since neither Evan or Steve are here to debate it, we should probably defer
[19:50] <cjwatson> I don't know if we can do it justice in ten minutes, anyway
[19:50] <cjwatson> let's apologise and properly agenda-ify it for next time, maybe?
[19:50] <sabdfl> this is brand new, isn't it?
[19:50] <sabdfl> yes
[19:50] <cjwatson> it is
[19:50] <sabdfl> ok, we should give it some email air
[19:51] <sabdfl> [TOPIC] Community bugs
[19:51] <MootBot> New Topic:  Community bugs
[19:52] <sabdfl> anything of note?
[19:52] <cjwatson> mdz has assigned https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/252368 to us
[19:52] <cjwatson> (the other one is old)
[19:53] <sabdfl> sounds like something for the stakeholders meeting, or a call-for-a-patch
[19:53] <cjwatson> but I'm not clear what he wants to discuss there - it seemed to me that Debian had already offered some suggestions and it was just that it wasn't easy to do in LP?
[19:53] <sabdfl> sounds entirely scriptable with LP's API
[19:53] <pitti> the "if" is (hopefully?) not much of a debate, or does anyone think this shouldn't be done for some reason?
[19:54] <sabdfl> iirc, this was something we wanted to do at the start, so no debate here
[19:54] <pitti> so, "Triaged"?
[19:55] <sabdfl> does it being assigned to us mean we need to do something beyond raise it on the stakeholders discussion with LP?
[19:55] <sabdfl> sure
[19:55] <micahg> just to clarify, this is only for e-mail access and not soyuz, right?
[19:55] <pitti> that's how I understand it; for actions in emails to be effective you need to gpg sign
[19:55] <pitti> like " status fixcommitted"
[19:56] <persia> Unless someone does something special, it would work for soyuz as well (but is unrelated to upload rights to Ubuntu: initially affects Soyuz through PPAs)
[19:56] <sabdfl> ok. i think that's a wrap
[19:56] <sabdfl> next meeting? and chair?
[19:56] <cjwatson> I have one AOB
[19:56] <cjwatson> just briefly?
[19:56] <sabdfl> go ahead of course
[19:57] <cjwatson> somebody (I forget who, sorry) asked me at UDS about the status of appointing an Ubuntu community representative on the Launchpad stakeholders meeting
[19:57] <cjwatson> I remembered that we discussed it but couldn't remember how far we got
[19:57] <sabdfl> elected by the non-Canonical contributors to LP? ;-)
[19:57] <cjwatson> does anyone remember the status, or shall I put it on the agenda for next time?
[19:58] <cjwatson> no, somebody to put forward the interests of the Ubuntu community as opposed to Ubuntu Platform Engineering
[19:58] <pitti> I think we discussed something like this in Orlando, but back then it wasn't "non-Canonical"
[19:58] <persia> I don't remember getting any feedback to my mail to the TB from some time back: I asked for the TB to appoint someone, without restrictions on the person the TB selected.
[19:58] <sabdfl> i'm sure Francis would be happy to entertain it
[19:58] <pitti> just "someone who is credibly speaking for the ubuntu community"
[19:58] <cjwatson> sabdfl: yes, he was, and we discussed it in the TB
[19:58] <cjwatson> what I have no idea about, stateless automaton that I am, is how far we got :-)
[19:59] <cjwatson> how about I do some homework on it and follow up next time, then
[19:59] <sabdfl> i was only partly joking about picking from the pool of contributors
[19:59] <pitti> a year ago we had three candidates on the table, IIRC
[19:59] <sabdfl> some familiarity with processes, scale, pace of change, complexity would be helpful if that person wants real influence
[19:59] <pitti> Keybuk, bryce, sladen were proposed back then
[19:59] <persia> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-November/000571.html
[20:00] <sabdfl> bryce has certainly climbed in with both feet
[20:00] <pitti> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-November/000571.html
[20:00] <pitti> ah
[20:01] <sabdfl> i'd be +1 bryce
[20:01] <cjwatson> anyway, I realise we're out of time, so I'll chase down the discussions I'm sure I remember beyond that mail
[20:01] <persia> It's probably worth reconfirming with the nominees that they would still be willing to serve.  I haven't spoken to any of them about it in ~6 months.
[20:01] <sabdfl> persia, will you chat to bryce about it?
[20:01] <sabdfl> next meeting is...
[20:01] <persia> Sure.  I can re-canvass, and send another mail.
[20:01] <sabdfl> and chair... mdz?
[20:02] <cjwatson> seems like his turn
[20:02] <sabdfl> anyone know the date?
[20:02] <sabdfl> then we can wrap :-)
[20:02] <persia> 2nd June (UTC)?
[20:02] <sabdfl> ok, done. thank you all!
[20:02] <sabdfl> #endmeeting
[20:02] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 14:02.
[20:02] <pitti> thanks everyone!
[20:03] <cjwatson> cheers