[19:03] <jussi> o/
[19:03] <jussi> Whos turn to chair?
[19:03] <jussi> and tsimpson topyli around?
[19:03]  * tsimpson is here
[19:03] <jussi> @random tsimpson topyli
[19:03] <tsimpson> LIES
[19:03] <jussi> hehe
[19:04] <tsimpson> wait for topyli
[19:04] <jussi> I swear we shpould exclude ourselves from the random selection :P
[19:07] <topyli> o/
[19:07] <topyli> sorry i'm late
[19:08] <jussi> heya topyli
[19:09] <topyli> ah tsimpson was democratically made chair
[19:09] <jussi> tsimpson: want to get us started?
[19:09] <tsimpson> @reload Random
[19:09] <tsimpson> @random jussi topyli tsimpson tsimpson tsimpson tsimpson tsimpson tsimpson
[19:09] <jussi> hehe
[19:09] <topyli> cheater!
[19:09] <jussi> you cheated :P
[19:09]  * tsimpson looks all innocent
[19:09] <tsimpson> #startmeeting
[19:09] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:09. The chair is tsimpson.
[19:09] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[19:09] <jussi> your mistake was reloading here
[19:10] <tsimpson> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:10] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
[19:10] <jussi> All those here stick a hand in the air o/
[19:10] <tsimpson> o/
[19:10] <topyli> o/
[19:10] <jussi> wow, so many paying attention :/
[19:11] <tsimpson> ok, so previous actions
[19:11] <ikonia> I'm paying attention, I just thought you meant from the council
[19:11] <jussi> ahh, the bot records who attended by if you spoke duing the meeting time
[19:11] <tsimpson> [topic] remove idoru from #ubuntu for a 2 week trial and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen (nhandler)
[19:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  remove idoru from #ubuntu for a 2 week trial and see if heaven falls/bad things (tm) happen (nhandler)
[19:12] <tsimpson> (review)
[19:12] <IdleOne> o/
[19:12] <topyli> this has actually been 4 weeks now
[19:13] <jussi> nhandler said: For idoru, we have had several instances where it would have been useful to have it in channel. It works well in conjunction with (not in place of) the floodbots.
[19:13] <ikonia> I've not seen any problems without it
[19:14] <jussi> Personally from what I have seen, idoru did get some spammers (we have had a few that didnt get killed), but the number of false positives was too high for my liking.
[19:14] <topyli> so yeah, heaven did not fall
[19:15] <topyli> shall we keep idoru out for now then?
[19:15] <jussi> I would like a reconsider in 3-6 months after freenode have had a chance to review the code.
[19:16] <IdleOne> +1
[19:16] <tsimpson> the only issue(s) with having the floodbots dealing with the spam is that, 1) other channels don't get protected when a spammer hits #u (which isn't technically _our_ problem), and 2) that we have more bans/quiets in our list
[19:16] <jussi> I think in essence its a good idea, but the implementation is not quite there yet.
[19:16] <tsimpson> but those aren't show-stoppers, just something to note
[19:16] <jussi> tsimpson: the latter is more of an issue imho.
[19:16] <topyli> the former is more of a courtesy issue
[19:17] <jussi> I wonder if there peoples who would be willing to volunteer to regularly double double check the FB bans (although we all should be doing this anyway)
[19:17] <tsimpson> if/when idoru gets some channel specific config, so we can fine-tune it, I'd be for all it
[19:18] <tsimpson> we do have some ops that regularly check the FB bans/mutes
[19:18] <tsimpson> and I'm pretty sure ubottu can nag about FB bans in -ops (or where ever)
[19:18] <tsimpson> as it nags in /msg to real ops
[19:18] <jussi> right, but we had complaints last time we did that?
[19:18] <m4v> tsimpson: it can, but was disabled afk
[19:19] <jussi> yes, it certainly can.
[19:19] <tsimpson> we really should be keeping a closer eye on FB bans/quiets
[19:19] <IdleOne> if you can set ubottu to nag me in PM about the FB bans/mutes I am willing to look them over
[19:19] <tsimpson> just generally, regardless of idoru or not
[19:20] <m4v> note: I believe the nags are in NOTICE form, so ...
[19:20] <tsimpson> IdleOne: it can nag people, but it can just send those messages to a channel instead
[19:20] <IdleOne> I mean we should do it anyway nag or not but it would make it more usefull to me
[19:20] <tsimpson> m4v: I think we cleared up the NOTICE-hate on the ML, right?
[19:20] <IdleOne> I would be ok with notice to channel
[19:20] <tsimpson> s/we/you/
[19:21] <m4v> tsimpson: if the lack of input except for rww is "all cleared up", then yes.
[19:21] <jussi> Should we have it NOTICE the -ops-team channel? It would then only affect ops, not get to users
[19:21] <tsimpson> m4v: they can't say we didn't warn them ;)
[19:22] <IdleOne> jussi: that is a good idea also
[19:22] <tsimpson> jussi: I don't think NOTICES are logged anyway
[19:22] <jussi> tsimpson: oh, ok then
[19:22] <tsimpson> (that's kind of the point)
[19:22] <m4v> NOTICES aren't logged, that's the good thing about them
[19:22] <IdleOne> in that case we need to be stricter about the no idle policy in -ops
[19:22] <tsimpson> it may be more appropriate in -team, I don't think it makes a huge difference
[19:22] <jussi> Ahh, I thought it was just NOTICES as thats the rfc for bots in that situation iirc
[19:23] <UndiFineD> o/
[19:23] <IdleOne> if a user is in -ops they will see the notice
[19:23] <tsimpson> jussi: well, the IRC RFC says that nothing should "react" to a NOTICE
[19:23] <IdleOne> unless it notices only +users
[19:24] <jussi> topyli: you got an opinion here?
[19:24] <m4v> IdleOne: I don't think so, at least for these notices, as is just about bans ocurring in a public channels
[19:24] <IdleOne> put the notices in -ops-team and problem solved
[19:24] <topyli> i do have an opinion. let's have ubottu nag in -ops-team. it's not noise, it's relevant
[19:25] <jussi> tsimpson: shall we vote? Unless anyone wants to make a case against it?
[19:26] <ikonia> I'm tired of making a case against it
[19:26] <ikonia> the bot already pm's us
[19:26] <ikonia> now it has to message us in a channel
[19:26] <tsimpson> well it can't /msg the floodbots now can it?
[19:26] <IdleOne> not about the floodbot bans/mutes it doesn't
[19:26] <topyli> ikonia: the bot doesn't pm anyone when flootbots own the ban
[19:27] <ikonia> then stop the floodbots banning
[19:27] <ikonia> or make them clean up
[19:27] <ikonia> fed up of getting pm's from ubottu, now it's going to notice me in the channel
[19:28] <tsimpson> [vote] have ubottu nag -ops-team about floodbot bans/quiets
[19:28] <MootBot> Please vote on:  have ubottu nag -ops-team about floodbot bans/quiets.
[19:28] <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
[19:28] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:28] <topyli> taking care of your bans is part of the job
[19:28] <ikonia> just house keep the bans as individuals on a regular basis,
[19:28] <ikonia> topyli: yes, it is, getting hassled from the bot is not
[19:28] <jussi> Hrm, one solution may be to notice the -ops-monitor channel - then people who care get notices, others do not?
[19:28] <ikonia> I'm "ok" with the pm's but in the channel is not good
[19:28] <topyli> +1
[19:28] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:28] <ikonia> it used to message -ops and no-one liked it
[19:28] <tsimpson> jussi: if we get more people in -ops-monitor
[19:28] <ikonia> so why are we doing this again
[19:29] <CarlFK> +1
[19:29] <MootBot> +1 received from CarlFK. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:29] <jussi> CarlFK: please dont vote, only the ircc.
[19:29] <CarlFK> doh.
[19:29] <tsimpson> +1
[19:29] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:30] <tsimpson> we have had _many_ occasions of ban lists getting full or nearly full, the floodbots can't realistically manage it's own bans, that's the job of ops
[19:30] <IdleOne> So just to be clear the bot is going to /say in the channel and not /notice?
[19:30] <ikonia> tsimpson: fully accept that
[19:30] <ikonia> I don't need the bot to message the channel
[19:30] <topyli> i do
[19:30] <ikonia> does no-one remember when it messaged -ops ? and you ended up disabling it was annoying
[19:31] <m4v> IdleOne: all nags, when send to a channel, are NOTICES.
[19:31] <IdleOne> thing is that it is easy to forget/ignore the bans that floodbot's set
[19:31] <ikonia> sending a notice to the channel won't change that
[19:31] <ikonia> as I said, it was done before and we disabled it
[19:31] <m4v> something we can take note for the bantracker rewrite, instead of pm ops (or use a less annnoyin pm), keep a list of uncommented bans/quiets/removes, list that the op can review and make the comments.
[19:31] <ikonia> what's changed to make it not annoying now ?
[19:31] <tsimpson> so how about we just try it out in -ops-team, and see how things are at the next meeting?
[19:32] <ikonia> we've tried it before
[19:32] <jussi> tsimpson: If thats included, ok
[19:32] <ikonia> it failed
[19:32] <IdleOne> so we need an effective way of getting those bans removed to not clog up the ban list
[19:32] <ikonia> IdleOne: no disagreememnt at all
[19:32] <jussi> +1 (with the review in 2 weeks)
[19:32] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
[19:32] <IdleOne> ikonia: ok, well the bots can't do it themselves and we are not doing it enough, reminders are needed
[19:33] <tsimpson> [endvote]
[19:33] <MootBot> Final result is 4 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 4
[19:33] <ikonia> IdleOne: I'll state it once more for the record then drop it, jussi enabled this before, and we disabled it because it was worthless and annoying
[19:33] <ikonia> nothing has changed to make it less annoying, so I don't know why we are re-covering this
[19:33] <topyli> it's needed. live with it
[19:34] <ikonia> no
[19:34] <tsimpson> [topic] Take "Define ubuntu namespace limits" to the mailing list. (topyli)  (review)
[19:34] <MootBot> New Topic:  Take "Define ubuntu namespace limits" to the mailing list. (topyli)  (review)
[19:34] <jussi> Just a clarification, this is only the week nag? or the nag on ban/remove/quiet
[19:34] <tsimpson> jussi: should only be "old" bans/quiets iirc
[19:35] <jussi> tsimpson: ok, thats what I was hoping to hear
[19:35] <jussi> (the issue before was it was nagging on every quiet and ban, when it happened)
[19:35] <tsimpson> m4v: is it ^ isn't it?
[19:35] <jussi> anyway, over to you topyli
[19:35]  * tsimpson has a foggy mind
[19:36] <topyli> oh that is not done
[19:36] <ikonia> jussi: I disagree, but I'm told "live with it" so it's of no-point discussing it
[19:36] <topyli> iirc. if i did send mail, there's been no discussion. need to check
[19:36] <tsimpson> if it's on ban/quiet, we won't do it
[19:37] <topyli> ah i sent the mail but there's been no feedback
[19:37] <tsimpson> there were 3 replies, then it died
[19:38] <topyli> hrm. my search also fails
[19:39] <tsimpson> [topc] Add eir to #ubuntu (review)
[19:39] <tsimpson> (this is mine)
[19:39] <tsimpson> the plugin is pretty much ready, just need to test (in real channels) before going live
[19:39] <IdleOne> So, no info on the namespace linits?
[19:39] <tsimpson> this is being setup
[19:39] <tsimpson> IdleOne: feel free to restart the ML thread :)
[19:39] <IdleOne> also tsimpson you missed an i in [topic]
[19:40] <tsimpson> gerr
[19:40] <tsimpson> [topic] Add eir to #ubuntu (review)
[19:40] <MootBot> New Topic:  Add eir to #ubuntu (review)
[19:40] <tsimpson> so to summarise, testing over the next day or so, then hopefully we can get under way
[19:40] <topyli> wonderful
[19:41] <tsimpson> [topic] new bugs
[19:41] <MootBot> New Topic:  new bugs
[19:41] <jussi> So testing, then what happens - it goes into -ops-team and #ubuntu?
[19:41] <tsimpson> (running through as quick as I can)
[19:41] <tsimpson> jussi: if all is well, yep
[19:41] <tsimpson> it'll be a part of ubottu
[19:42] <tsimpson> I did file this: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/788503
[19:42] <topyli> we do have a new bug, the guidelines translation issue
[19:42] <jussi> ahh, this is important imho.
[19:42] <tsimpson> it has had some response so far, but I'd like more people to look at it too
[19:43] <tsimpson> to be clear, this one isn't about changing any policy/rules, but making the wording/content less specific to the #ubuntu channel
[19:43] <IdleOne> I think the guidelines are fine, any LoCo channels who want to modify can create a new wiki with the amendments they like.
[19:43] <jussi> I think this just needsw continued work - there isnt anything overly contentious here by the look of it
[19:44] <tsimpson> IdleOne: but, I really don't think starting the rules for all core channels with "The #ubuntu IRC channel..."
[19:44] <tsimpson> + is good
[19:44] <tsimpson> it's not just #ubuntu, we have other channels too
[19:44] <topyli> we might want to make it clear that translations need not be literal, as long as the message is the same
[19:44] <IdleOne> ok so we can change that part to "The Ubuntu IRC Core channels...
[19:45] <tsimpson> also, as it's linked to from the TOS, which we want heavily translated, it should be as easy to translate as possible
[19:45] <topyli> tsimpson: yes it might be a good time to review the language now that it's a hot topic
[19:45] <m4v> tsimpson: sorry, I had to leave for a while. I think we might have a issue there, I believe you can't have nags about week old bans/mutes without the nag about the comment setting a comment. But I think is fixable, I'll look.
[19:45] <jussi> m4v: thanks. ++
[19:45] <tsimpson> if, as a side-effect, that allows locos to use it, all the better
[19:46] <tsimpson> m4v: ok, we'll just hold off until we get it working
[19:46] <m4v> IdleOne: making a new wiki with the o channels who want to modify can
[19:46] <m4v> ops
[19:47] <ScottK> Consider this my pro-forma objection that the IRC Council owns anything in the Kubuntu namespace.  AFAIK you all are invited guests to help out with OPS, but they aren't IRCC controlled channels.
[19:47] <tsimpson> I've covered the first item on the agenda, so we'll go on to the second
[19:47] <tsimpson> [topic] Policy on extra-namespace trolling
[19:47] <MootBot> New Topic:  Policy on extra-namespace trolling
[19:47] <tsimpson> [link] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-April/001289.html
[19:47] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-April/001289.html
[19:47] <m4v> IdleOne: I mean, it consumes everyones time, when basically all you do is change the wording for the same rules.
[19:48] <jussi> nhandler says: For the policy item, I agree in principle, but don't like the idea of including every possible rule in the guidelines. I think this is probably covered by the existing rules we have in place.
[19:48] <jussi> I disagree, I think this is important to insert.
[19:49] <topyli> ljl's idea does duplicate some freenode policy, but i think it does fit in our guidelines and is more useful than expensive
[19:49] <tsimpson> what does freenode have in it's policy pages about it?
[19:49] <m4v> IdleOne: I *was* going to write our own rules for u-es, but then I thought, gee, every channel out there would need to do this. Why are these rules worded like this, it would be simpler if it was the same for everyone.
[19:49] <tsimpson> can we just link and say "follow freenode policy"?
[19:49] <CarlFK> I like "follow fn..."
[19:50] <IdleOne> m4v: I suppose you are right, making the guidelines a little more generic could be useful to the greater ubuntu community
[19:50] <tsimpson> because I see the point nhandler is trying to make there, but I also see why we would want to have something like that in the rules (as long as it's not duplication)
[19:51] <m4v> I proposed an example for a translated guidelines, dunno if somebody looked at it.
[19:51] <m4v> err
[19:51] <CarlFK> tsimpson: are you suggesting we need something more restrictive than the freenode policy?
[19:51] <m4v> not "translated", "reworded"
[19:52] <tsimpson> CarlFK: no, I'm asking if it's already written in fn policy, if it is we can just say "follow freenode policy...". if not, we should write it down
[19:52] <topyli> actually the best thing i can find in freenode policy quickly is that they don't tolearate incitement of racial or religious hatred, "or any other behaviour meant to deliberately bring upon a person harassment, alarm or distress."
[19:52] <topyli> http://freenode.net/policy.shtml#offtopic
[19:52] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://freenode.net/policy.shtml#offtopic
[19:53] <jussi> or any other behaviour meant to deliberately bring upon a person harassment, alarm or distress. We do NOT tolerate discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual preference or other lifestyle choices and run with a zero-tolerance policy for libel and defamation.
[19:53] <jussi> That pretty much covers it, no ?
[19:54] <topyli> in legalese it does :)
[19:54] <tsimpson> perhaps fn policy could be a little more explicit though
[19:54] <topyli> agreed
[19:54] <tsimpson> but that's something we can talk to them about
[19:54] <jussi> Yeah, I think maybe for now its useful for us to add it, until freenode become more explicit?
[19:55] <tsimpson> I'd go along with that
[19:55] <topyli> it doesn't hurt to mention it in our guidelines anyway
[19:55] <jussi> vote?
[19:55] <tsimpson> we all know fn doesn't tolerate troll-pits, they just need to actually say so :)
[19:55] <CarlFK> I don't think adding text about this will change anyones behavior.  It is handy for ops to have text they can reference when explaining to a user what is/isn't appropriate.
[19:56] <tsimpson> CarlFK: same can be said for any of the rules, but we still have them ;)
[19:56] <topyli> that can be said of the entire document
[19:56] <topyli> heh
[19:57] <tsimpson> we point people to the guidelines when they break rules, so they know what is/isn't acceptable, we don't want them to come back with "oh, but you didn't say I couldn't ...". we also don't want to have to write every little thing down either..
[19:58] <tsimpson> [vote] Amend the guidelines in reference to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-April/001289.html
[19:58] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Amend the guidelines in reference to https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-irc/2011-April/001289.html.
[19:58] <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
[19:58] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[19:58] <jussi> +1
[19:58] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[19:58] <topyli> +1
[19:58] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[19:58] <tsimpson> +1
[19:58] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[19:58] <tsimpson> #endvote
[19:58] <tsimpson> [endvote]
[19:58] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[19:58] <IdleOne> +1 for what it is worth
[19:58] <tsimpson> so who want's it?
[19:59] <topyli> i can take ljl's suggestion and try to translate it from legal to english
[19:59] <CarlFK> tsimpson: isn;t the coc have things not covered by fn policy?
[19:59] <tsimpson> ok
[19:59] <topyli> he's pretty much there
[19:59] <CarlFK> meh, too late, never mind.
[19:59] <tsimpson> [action] topyli to update the IRC Guidelines (until freenode policy includes it)
[19:59] <MootBot> ACTION received:  topyli to update the IRC Guidelines (until freenode policy includes it)
[20:00] <tsimpson> CarlFK: we have extra rules in addition to fn policy, but we think that this one is probably best in fn policy rather than in our policy
[20:00] <tsimpson> and we have covered the last item on the agenda too
[20:00] <CarlFK> tsimpson: that's what I was say-n :)
[20:00] <m4v> topyli: I filled an IRC Guidelines example in the bug report if helps.
[20:01] <topyli> m4v: grand, i'll have a look. thanks a lot
[20:01] <topyli> oh i even remember it
[20:01] <tsimpson> we should probably say this here too for those who don't know;
[20:01] <m4v> though I'm not sure anymore if we're talking about the same topic, got confused when I was away.
[20:02] <tsimpson> we have changed the time for the Saturday meetings to 11:00 UTC
[20:02] <topyli> m4v: not completely the same :)
[20:02] <m4v> topyli: ha I figured ;)
[20:02] <tsimpson> so any other business not covered?
[20:03] <IdleOne> if I may
[20:03] <tsimpson> go for it
[20:03] <jussi> Just a reminder to all that our next meeting time Has moved
[20:03] <tsimpson> jussi: I just said that ;)
[20:03] <topyli> jussi: tsimpson just... yeah :)
[20:03] <jussi> oh bah
[20:03] <IdleOne> I would like the IRCC to consider giving +o access to -ops to ikonia rww bazhang and perhaps a couple others by bypassing the application process in possible
[20:04] <IdleOne> s/in/if
[20:04] <IdleOne> They have been trusted members of the team long enough IMHO
[20:04] <topyli> oh it's true that more ops should have ops in -ops
[20:04] <tsimpson> what I don't understand is, when we opened the applications, we only had a couple of applicants
[20:04] <topyli> no-one just bothers to apply
[20:05] <tsimpson> it could be that the application process (for -ops) is a little too formal?
[20:05] <IdleOne> tsimpson: some of them are not keen on applying for something they cleary should already have. I tend to agree with them on this.
[20:05] <topyli> it's not hard to click a button on launchpad. the rest of the process can be quick because the applicants are (hopefully) well known
[20:06] <tsimpson> topyli: well, applicants to -ops must already be an op in one or more core channels
[20:06] <IdleOne> topyli: it's not that it is hard it's that it is hmm belittling (not sure that is the right word) but they don't feel they should have to apply and I agree.
[20:06] <jussi> Perhaps we can have a simple no need for application call for -ops, just simple approve/decline process?
[20:06] <topyli> tsimpson: indeed, so we don't need to go through the same scrutiny
[20:06] <topyli> jussi: just the "join the launchpad team" part
[20:07] <tsimpson> I'm thinking we make a very simple rule on who can and can't be an op in -ops
[20:07] <tsimpson> rather than having people apply at all, I mean
[20:07] <jussi> tsimpson: like?
[20:07] <tsimpson> jussi: that's the part I haven't really thought of ;)
[20:07] <topyli> heh
[20:07] <topyli> looks!
[20:07] <IdleOne> I think 6 months as a core op without major issue is a fair rule to get _o in -ops
[20:07] <tsimpson> maybe if you've been an (active) op for X amount of time, you get +o in -ops?
[20:07] <Tm_T> well, shouldn't someone have to do the click to get person to be member of the group in launchpad?
[20:07] <IdleOne> err +o
[20:08] <jussi> hrm, perhaps action yourself to come up with a proposaal for next meeting?
[20:08] <topyli> Tm_T: yes they should
[20:08] <jussi> And there may be some who dont feel ready or dont want the responsibility in there
[20:08] <topyli> hence i don't see why interested people won't click the "join group" button
[20:08] <Tm_T> I don't see how applying to be a group/team member is any reason to avoid doing it
[20:08] <IdleOne> jussi: those who don't want it don't have to use the +o
[20:09] <IdleOne> or can request it be removed
[20:09] <topyli> i'd rather see people who are not interested simply not join the launchpad team
[20:09] <jussi> Im all for the $time as a core op with out major issue, then you can apply and be approved.
[20:09] <IdleOne> imo it usurps the ops authority in other channels when they can't remove a problem user from -ops
[20:10] <topyli> IdleOne: that might be true
[20:10] <tsimpson> IdleOne: that's how -ops has been for a very, very, long time. not that it's how it should be, but that's how it is
[20:10] <IdleOne> if there isn't anyone around to do it it gives the problem user free rein to continue abusing
[20:11] <tsimpson> and -ops is a little special, as it can be _very_ tempting to abuse your +o in there
[20:11] <IdleOne> tsimpson: lots of things are "how it's been" time to fix some of them :)
[20:11] <tsimpson> especially in heated situations
[20:11] <topyli> the thing with ops is that most of the time there is a problem
[20:12] <Tm_T> "if you're involved and there's other ops around, let them do the action" as a guideline would help?
[20:12] <IdleOne> tsimpson: also why we are supposed to remove ourselves (back away) when we feel it getting personal
[20:12] <topyli> so you can't just remove people when there's a problem :)
[20:12] <IdleOne> catalysing is always the first step
[20:12] <IdleOne> but sometimes we just can't
[20:13] <IdleOne> even when other ops try to help
[20:13] <tsimpson> if you are getting worked up, take a break
[20:13] <tsimpson> even when it's in -ops
[20:13] <topyli> it is true that sometimes trolls just aren't removed when they should be
[20:13] <tsimpson> obviously you're the one who has to be convinced that <person> isn't going to continue to cause an issue in <channel>
[20:13] <IdleOne> tsimpson: agreed but not being able to take appropriate action can be what is causing some ops to get worked up.
[20:14] <tsimpson> and if things are getting bad in -ops, it's unlikely that process is going well
[20:14] <jussi> right, so how can we resolve this? does anyone have an issue with: [29-May-11 22:09:36] <jussi> Im all for the $time as a core op with out major issue, then you can apply and be approved.
[20:14] <IdleOne> I am +1 with that jussi
[20:14] <CarlFK> "IdleOne: if there isn't anyone around to do it it gives the problem user free rein to continue abusing" - if no one is around, can abuse happen?  (tree falls in woods...)
[20:14] <tsimpson> jussi: I think that's reasonable
[20:15] <topyli> it's a good proposal. those not interested simply won't apply
[20:15] <IdleOne> CarlFK: so we should just let the log readers have their fun in -ops?
[20:15] <jussi> So what will be the $time? 6 months?
[20:15] <CarlFK> IdleOne: doesn't bother me.
[20:15] <IdleOne> CarlFK: bothers me some.
[20:16] <IdleOne> we don't allow trolling in other channels why should we just let it happen in -ops
[20:16] <topyli> CarlFK: the issue is that there might be other ops trying to resolve an issue with a user. but since they don't have ops in -ops, they can't remove the distraction
[20:16] <IdleOne> jussi: I think that is fair and it should be auto for current ops with 6+ months under their belt
[20:16] <CarlFK> topyli: that's a problem.
[20:17] <tsimpson> jussi: 6/12 months, pick your favourite
[20:17] <IdleOne> those ops who don't want the flag can just poke one of the IRCC to remove it
[20:18] <topyli> even if we make it 12 months, we'll get a good number of new ops and the situation improves immediately
[20:18] <jussi> Well 12 might be better, as then people have had a good amount of time to settle, learn the ropesetc. but Im not terribly against 6.
[20:18] <Tm_T> those who want to have the flag, can go and click the "join team" in launchpad themselves
[20:18] <tsimpson> I'd still want people to apply, it's just that it gets "automatic" approval
[20:18] <jussi> tsimpson: ++
[20:18] <tsimpson> "apply" is really the wrong word there
[20:18] <topyli> "report for service" :)
[20:18] <IdleOne> ok we still need them to go click the button
[20:18] <CarlFK> IdleOne: personally I would rather let the troll burn up there time in an empty -ops than somewhere else. (empty taking into account people there that would be disturbed)
[20:19] <jussi> Shall we vote then?
[20:19] <Tm_T> IdleOne: ye, it's either the op or IRCC clicking the button, I don't see why IRCC should do the work for them/us
[20:19] <tsimpson> jussi: 6 or 12?
[20:19] <topyli> IdleOne: otherwise the other half will have to go and click "leave this group". what's the difference?
[20:19] <jussi> tsimpson: Id say 12.
[20:19] <Tm_T> +1 for 12
[20:19] <jussi> topyli: 6/12?
[20:19] <topyli> topyli> even if we make it 12 months, we'll get a good number of new ops and the situation  improves immediately
[20:20] <tsimpson> [vote] Allow "automatic" approval of +o in #ubuntu-ops after 12 months
[20:20] <MootBot> Please vote on:  Allow "automatic" approval of +o in #ubuntu-ops after 12 months.
[20:20] <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
[20:20] <MootBot> E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
[20:20] <topyli> so i say 12
[20:20] <tsimpson> +1
[20:20] <MootBot> +1 received from tsimpson. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
[20:20] <jussi> +1
[20:20] <MootBot> +1 received from jussi. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
[20:20] <topyli> +1
[20:20] <MootBot> +1 received from topyli. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
[20:20] <tsimpson> [endvote]
[20:20] <MootBot> Final result is 3 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
[20:20] <tsimpson> [agreed] "automatic" approval of +o in #ubuntu-ops after 12 months
[20:20] <MootBot> AGREED received:  "automatic" approval of +o in #ubuntu-ops after 12 months
[20:20] <jussi> We need to write this down somewhere.
[20:20] <IdleOne> Thank you IRCC
[20:20] <IdleOne> :)
[20:21] <tsimpson> so, if anyone wants ops, https://launchpad.net/~irc-ubuntu-ops-ops
[20:21] <topyli> where the rest of the application process is. we'll add a little section about the special procedure for -ops
[20:22] <tsimpson> I can put something down on the op requirements page
[20:22] <topyli> thanks
[20:22] <tsimpson> [action] tsimpson to edit the operator requirements wiki page regarding auto +o in #ubuntu-ops
[20:22] <MootBot> ACTION received:  tsimpson to edit the operator requirements wiki page regarding auto +o in #ubuntu-ops
[20:23] <tsimpson> any other other business?
[20:23] <jussi> :)
[20:23] <jussi> Im ok here :=)
[20:24] <topyli> i'm in the middle of disaster here, but that's not for this meeting :)
[20:24] <tsimpson> [action] tsimpson to do post-meetings tasks
[20:24] <MootBot> ACTION received:  tsimpson to do post-meetings tasks
[20:24] <tsimpson> #endmeeting
[20:24] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 14:24.
[20:24] <IdleOne> thank you all :)
[20:57] <j1mc> hey all
[20:57] <Captainkrtek> hey j1mc
[20:57] <j1mc> hi Captainkrtek
[20:57] <Captainkrtek> meeting in a few?
[20:57] <j1mc> yup
[20:58] <Captainkrtek> kk
[20:58] <DarkwingDuck> The doc meeting is in like 2 minutes right?
[20:58] <Captainkrtek> hey DarkwingDuck :-)
[20:58] <Captainkrtek> and yes
[20:58] <DarkwingDuck> Hey Captainkrtek
[20:59] <Captainkrtek> hows it going?
[20:59] <j1mc> hi DarkwingDuck
[20:59] <DarkwingDuck> Hey j1mc
[20:59] <j1mc> DarkwingDuck: i knew your name sounded familiar, but i wasn't sure why...
[20:59] <DarkwingDuck> Captainkrtek: it's been busy. Trying to get this thing finished for Tuesdays interview
[20:59] <j1mc> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkwing_Duck
[21:00] <DarkwingDuck> Yup
[21:00] <Captainkrtek> hehe
[21:00] <DarkwingDuck> LOL
[21:00] <Rocket2DMn> hey all
[21:00] <Captainkrtek> DarkwingDuck, very cool, im going to propose the merge of my lucid branch tonigh
[21:00] <DarkwingDuck> Then I find out today that I was elected onto the Kubuntu Council
[21:00] <Captainkrtek> oh wow :D
[21:01] <j1mc> DarkwingDuck: congrats
[21:01] <j1mc> we will give folks a few more minutes
[21:01] <Captainkrtek> k
[21:01] <BravoDeltaLima> Hi all
[21:01] <DarkwingDuck> j1mc: DarkwingDuck came off of my name, David Wonderly. I sign everything DW and DW was the nickname for Darkwing Duck in the show. So, it kinda stuck
[21:01] <Captainkrtek> hi BravoDeltaLima
[21:01] <j1mc> DarkwingDuck: nice
[21:01] <j1mc> hi BravoDeltaLima
[21:02] <j1mc> BravoDeltaLima: are you here for the docs team meeting?
[21:02] <DarkwingDuck> Hey BravoDeltaLima
[21:03] <BravoDeltaLima> jlmc, yes I am, I would like to contribute back to ubuntu and I thought I could start with documentation, because I don't do programming real well :-)
[21:03] <DarkwingDuck> Dang this Wiki takes foreeeeeeeeeeever to update
[21:03] <Captainkrtek> BravoDeltaLima, well welcome :-)
[21:03] <DarkwingDuck> BravoDeltaLima: Welcome to the club on non-devs working on Docs
[21:03] <DarkwingDuck> :D
[21:03] <BravoDeltaLima> DW thanks
[21:04] <Rocket2DMn> are we just waiting a few minutes for matthew?
[21:04] <DarkwingDuck> j1mc: I'll be lurking, I'm in 3 meetings at once right now.
[21:04] <DarkwingDuck> Hey Rocket2DMn
[21:04] <j1mc> hi Rocket2DMn ... glad to see you here.
[21:04] <j1mc> yeah, i was going to wait until 5 after
[21:05] <Rocket2DMn> cool sounds good
[21:05] <Captainkrtek> hey Rocket2DMn
[21:05] <j1mc> well, it's 5 after - let's all have a look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/SystemDocumentation/Tasks/Oneiric
[21:06] <j1mc> hi vt
[21:06] <j1mc> vtanthropologist  :)
[21:06] <j1mc> #startmeeting
[21:06] <MootBot> Meeting started at 15:06. The chair is j1mc.
[21:06] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[21:07] <j1mc> there's a lot that we can do for this cycle... lots of things to take care of.
[21:07] <Captainkrtek> sure looks like it :-)
[21:07] <j1mc> what do you think should be our biggest priorities?
[21:07] <issyl0> Hi all.
[21:08] <j1mc> hi issyl0 - we're just getting started
[21:08] <Captainkrtek> j1mc, how about the ondisk- web based topic?
[21:08] <j1mc> issyl0: we're taking a look at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/SystemDocumentation/Tasks/Oneiric and discussing priorities
[21:08] <Rocket2DMn> j1mc, i think the highest priority is making sure the docs for oneiric are up to date and available on time
[21:08] <issyl0> Brilliant.  I'll just let you know now then that I might only be around of half of this, but at least I'm here and eager.  :-)
[21:08] <Rocket2DMn> we clearly slipped on that for natty
[21:08] <j1mc> Rocket2DMn: right - so accurate and on-time docs.
[21:09] <Captainkrtek> agreed, I think we need to be done and ready to go on time
[21:09] <j1mc> Captainkrtek: the web-based help is certainly a big issue
[21:09] <issyl0> Mmmhmm.
[21:09] <Captainkrtek> yeah we need to decide which docs online and which offline
[21:09] <Rocket2DMn> j1mc, what about web based help? html export? wiki? making translations available?
[21:10] <Captainkrtek> yeah thats a good topic to start with
[21:10] <j1mc> #topic - discussing web-based help
[21:10] <j1mc> oops
[21:11] <j1mc> #topic discussing web-based help
[21:11] <Captainkrtek> hehe
[21:11] <j1mc> anyone know what i'm doing wrong?
[21:11] <Rocket2DMn> maybe it's case sensitive
[21:11] <j1mc> #TOPIC discussing web-based help
[21:11] <Captainkrtek> all caps
[21:12] <Captainkrtek> remove the hash?
[21:12] <j1mc> TOPIC discussing web-based help
[21:12] <Captainkrtek> well this is embarassing
[21:12] <issyl0> It's [TOPIC] isn't it?
[21:12] <Captainkrtek> oh
[21:12] <Captainkrtek> yes
[21:12] <Captainkrtek> [TOPIC]  discussing web-based help
[21:12] <j1mc> [TOPIC] discussing web-based help
[21:12] <MootBot> New Topic:  discussing web-based help
[21:13] <Captainkrtek> there
[21:13] <issyl0> (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScribesTeam/MootBot)
[21:13] <j1mc> thanks, all :)
[21:13] <issyl0> No worries.  Anyway...
[21:13] <Captainkrtek> Discuss on-disk vs. web-based help strategy, including plans for help.ubuntu.com
[21:14] <Captainkrtek> I think all topics should be online and only some essential on disk?
[21:14] <j1mc> we need to come up with a plan on this... i've made a simple mockup of something...
[21:14] <j1mc> but i'm sure i've skipped some steps in creating a mockup.
[21:14] <j1mc> http://min.us/mvfcYuY
[21:14] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://min.us/mvfcYuY
[21:15] <Captainkrtek> that looks good j1mc
[21:15] <j1mc> can you all see that?
[21:15] <vtanthropologist> I see it
[21:15] <issyl0> Yep.
[21:15] <BravoDeltaLima> i see it
[21:15] <j1mc> one cool thing is that we can output mallard to epub now
[21:15] <Captainkrtek> oh nice
[21:15] <vtanthropologist> I like the idea of an epub version
[21:15] <Captainkrtek> was talking to some of the Ubuntu-Manual guys, might do a kindle version next release
[21:15] <j1mc> Captainkrtek: cool
[21:16] <Captainkrtek> maybe release the help guide as a free kindle book?
[21:16] <j1mc> Rocket2DMn: you helped with some of the xslt stuff in getting help.ubuntu.com ready, right?
[21:16] <Rocket2DMn> just a few tweaks to our wrapper around the FOSS ones for docbook and mallard
[21:17] <j1mc> i have a feeling that... for this release, we'll need to focus on getting a decent foundation in place for help.ubuntu.com
[21:17] <j1mc> getting our strategy and infrastructure around it situated
[21:18] <j1mc> so that we can have a great site ready for 12.04 (which is an LTS)
[21:18] <j1mc> do any of you have experience with web development?
[21:18] <Captainkrtek> nope
[21:19] <BravoDeltaLima> nothing past basic HTML and using Wordpress
[21:19] <Rocket2DMn> nothing but some basics
[21:19] <vtanthropologist> I have a little, but are you thinking of creating a whole new site?  why not use the existing wiki?
[21:19] <j1mc> yeah, same here.
[21:20] <issyl0> Same.  :P
[21:20] <issyl0> Really...
[21:20] <j1mc> vtanthropologist: good question. help.ubuntu.com kind of sticks out as a sore thumb compared to the rest of ubuntu.com
[21:20] <j1mc> also... have a look at this: http://min.us/mvfcYuY
[21:20] <j1mc> oops
[21:21] <Rocket2DMn> all the branding and scheme is outdated, we dont have anybody with the experience to get it up to speed
[21:21] <j1mc> http://docs.openstack.org/
[21:21] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://docs.openstack.org/
[21:21] <issyl0> j1mc: Does responsibility for rebranding that lie with us?
[21:21] <issyl0> s/us/the docs team/
[21:21] <j1mc> issyl0: i think we'd need to work with the canonical web and design group, at least to a certain extent
[21:22] <Rocket2DMn> to my knowledge, it's been up to each team to update their own sites, but we should be able to get help
[21:22] <j1mc> Rocket2DMn: yeah
[21:22] <issyl0> Rocket2DMn: Yeah, I thought so too.
[21:22] <Rocket2DMn> i know the forums are still outdated, they are planning a big upgrade soon though
[21:22] <j1mc> one good thing about the openstack stuff is that they host all of their code on launchpad
[21:22] <issyl0> OK.
[21:22] <j1mc> and the woman who leads up openstack docs is really good and super friendly
[21:23] <j1mc> if you check out the browser view of that docs page...
[21:23] <Captainkrtek> looks very good
[21:23] <j1mc> that's all done with docbook and a gsoc project
[21:24] <j1mc> but... we'd need to talk this all out to get it well integrated, you know?
[21:24] <Rocket2DMn> looks like javascript is required
[21:24] <issyl0> Oooh, very nice.
[21:24] <Captainkrtek> yeah
[21:24] <Captainkrtek> that'd be a big jump from the current wiki
[21:24] <j1mc> Captainkrtek: we're talking about help.ubuntu.com, which isn't a wiki right now. (not help.ubuntu.com/community)
[21:25] <j1mc> the latter is a wiki, though
[21:25] <Captainkrtek> gotcha
[21:26] <j1mc> Rocket2DMn: what do you think? there would be a good amount to plan, but we'll just need to start on it.
[21:27] <Rocket2DMn> i think i got lost between the ePub and openstack stuff - these are differnet right?
[21:27] <Captainkrtek> yes
[21:27] <j1mc> well, yeah. the openstack stuff would actually be more for the server guide.
[21:27] <Rocket2DMn> and docbook can be converted to be displayed like this?
[21:28] <j1mc> like the openstack stuff?
[21:28] <Rocket2DMn> yeah
[21:28] <j1mc> yes, this whole setup is derived from dockbook sources: http://docs.openstack.org/cactus/openstack-compute/admin/content/
[21:29] <Rocket2DMn> it looks nice, we would have to get our hands on the transformation tool(s) and then write our own CSS for it to match the Ubuntu theme
[21:29] <Rocket2DMn> I don't have the time or experience to pull that off, but it could probably be done
[21:29] <j1mc> Rocket2DMn: right... the good news is that all of the build infrastructure and transform tools are already in launchpad.
[21:30] <Rocket2DMn> so you said, but i think you're asking the wrong person.  You really need to bounce this off of Adam
[21:30] <j1mc> i will do some initial work on that. i think i could do a test build of stuff over the weekend next weekend.
[21:31] <j1mc> i've talked with him about it already, and robbie williamson from the server group likes it.
[21:31] <Rocket2DMn> ok, sounds good
[21:32] <j1mc> [ACTION] Jim to do a test build of server docs using the openstack build setup
[21:32] <MootBot> ACTION received:  Jim to do a test build of server docs using the openstack build setup
[21:32] <j1mc> is there anyone from the group who is interested in working up plans for help.ubuntu.com
[21:32] <j1mc> in general?
[21:33] <Captainkrtek> I could in workin with someone else maybe?
[21:33] <Captainkrtek> working*
[21:33] <j1mc> the server docs are just one part, but we'll need a more comprehensive look at it
[21:33] <j1mc> Captainkrtek: yeah, i think it's too much to do with just one person
[21:33] <Captainkrtek> if someone else is onboard then sure :)
[21:34] <vtanthropologist> I'd be happy to help with that
[21:34] <j1mc> i would like to work on it, too
[21:34] <Captainkrtek> all 3 of us then :-)
[21:34] <j1mc> anyone else? i'm sure that we'll get more people later, but anyone else for now?
[21:35] <BravoDeltaLima> I could help out also
[21:35]  * issyl0 could do.  :-)
[21:35] <Captainkrtek> so the whole team ;-)
[21:35] <j1mc> heh
[21:35] <issyl0> Captainkrtek: That's a good thing!
[21:35] <Captainkrtek> yes it is :D
[21:36] <j1mc> we're all new to web stuff, so we'll see how it goes.
[21:37] <issyl0> Good good.
[21:38] <j1mc> we should schedule a time to meet about the website
[21:38] <Captainkrtek> yes
[21:38] <j1mc> and move on for now.
[21:38] <Captainkrtek> next sunday?
[21:38] <j1mc> we'll schedule it via doodle?
[21:38] <Captainkrtek> sure
[21:38] <Captainkrtek> that works too :-)
[21:39] <j1mc> [ACTION] set help.ubuntu.com meeting via doodle
[21:39] <MootBot> ACTION received:  set help.ubuntu.com meeting via doodle
[21:39] <j1mc> anything else on the website for now?
[21:40] <j1mc> [TOPIC]Bugs status report
[21:40] <MootBot> New Topic: Bugs status report
[21:40] <j1mc> Rocket2DMn: anything significant bugs that you could use help with?
[21:40] <Captainkrtek> I can help with any bugs
[21:41] <Captainkrtek> just need to finish some docs review tonight and I can do any bugs :-)
[21:41] <issyl0> Mmmm, bugs.
[21:41] <j1mc> mmmm  :)
[21:41]  * issyl0 likes killing bugs.  :-)
[21:41] <Rocket2DMn> nothing off the top of my head
[21:41] <Captainkrtek> brb 1 sec
[21:41] <Rocket2DMn> anybody is free to post patches or merge requests though :)
[21:42] <j1mc> Rocket2DMn: cool.
[21:42] <j1mc> ok - next topic
[21:43] <j1mc> we know we need to have docs done on time and accurate this time...
[21:43] <j1mc> and we know we need to work on help.ubuntu.com
[21:43] <j1mc> to me, other priorities are making sure we have good help for all of the default apps
[21:44] <j1mc> and building out our 'doc infrastructure' a bit...
[21:44] <j1mc> ... stuff like our team wiki, a style guide, documenting our workflows...
[21:44] <Captainkrtek> I will have a merge request tonight
[21:44] <j1mc> stuff like that.
[21:44] <Captainkrtek> whoops late :P
[21:44] <Rocket2DMn> yeah, the wiki always needs work...
[21:44] <vtanthropologist> that sounds like a lot of priorities for a small, part-time team
[21:45] <MichealH> j1mc: I could possibly do alot of work on XChat Documentation :P
[21:45] <j1mc> hey MichealH
[21:45] <MichealH> Hey j1
[21:45] <Rocket2DMn> the wiki is literally managed chaos
[21:45] <MichealH> *j1mc
[21:46] <j1mc> MichealH: cool. doing xchat docs would be good. i think it is best to focus on apps that are installed by default on ubuntu, but if you did docs for xchat, and maybe helped out on docs for another app, that would be cool.
[21:46] <j1mc> [TOPIC] Docs for default apps
[21:46] <MootBot> New Topic:  Docs for default apps
[21:46] <MichealH> j1mc: May I just ask wat this meeting is? I just walked in on it, i know ;)
[21:46] <MichealH> and there is nothing on the fridge ;)
[21:47] <j1mc> http://live.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/Tasks/ApplicationHelp
[21:47] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://live.gnome.org/DocumentationProject/Tasks/ApplicationHelp
[21:47] <j1mc> MichealH: you have just joined the documentation team. :P
[21:47] <issyl0> MichealH: The Ubuntu Documentation team.
[21:47] <MichealH> Cool!
[21:47] <MichealH> Im in...
[21:47] <j1mc> :)
[21:47] <j1mc> that link shows the status of gnome apps' documentation
[21:48] <Captainkrtek> MichealH, we only focus on the help guide primarely
[21:48] <Captainkrtek> primarily
[21:49] <j1mc> basically, if there's an app that you use... if we each just picked one to work on...
[21:49] <j1mc> even if we don't get all of the apps docs updated this release
[21:49] <j1mc> we'll be further along
[21:49] <MichealH> j1mc: You guys have a IRC?
[21:49] <j1mc> we can coordinate with gnome docs team, too
[21:50] <j1mc> MichealH: yes - #ubuntu-doc
[21:50] <MichealH> Oh wow... Really close to the Channel limit of 120 :/
[21:50] <issyl0> MichealH: I'm pretty sure you *don't* need to be in that many channels.  Even I'm not!  :P
[21:51] <j1mc> what do people think about that goal - updating docs for default ubuntu apps?
[21:51] <j1mc> does that seem doable?
[21:51] <Captainkrtek> yes j1mc
[21:51] <Captainkrtek> I could do a few
[21:51] <MichealH> issyl0: 118 channels is alot, It almost does not let my laptop attach that many....
[21:51] <Captainkrtek> I use a ton and know a lot about each
[21:51] <Captainkrtek> Im in 20 channels max
[21:52] <issyl0> I'm more of an editor than an author, so if any of you need editing help.  :-)
[21:52] <MichealH> j1mc: So its a conmplete re-write of docs or a bug revamp?
[21:52] <j1mc> MichealH: it depends. some apps might need a bigger rewrite than others
[21:52] <MichealH> Okies
[21:52] <Captainkrtek> j1mc, do we have any new undocumented apps?
[21:53] <j1mc> issyl0: that is cool. there are some apps, like banshee or empathy that can just use some updates
[21:53] <issyl0> Yep, I'm up for that.  :-)
[21:53] <j1mc> Captainkrtek: that page lists the status of many of the apps' docs
[21:53] <Captainkrtek> thanks
[21:53] <vtanthropologist> I'm probably better doing the updates as well if there are enough to share around
[21:53] <Captainkrtek> missed it when I ran for a sandwich
[21:55] <j1mc> as a note, there may be some default apps, like software center, where if you want to contribute docs to that app, you would need to sign the canonical contributor agreement.
[21:56] <j1mc> it's only necessar for canonical-type apps, and you don't have to work on those apps if you don't want to
[21:57] <j1mc> this is kind of a lower priority than the main docs work, but if we can contribute to this during this cycle...
[21:57] <j1mc> that will be good
[21:57] <MichealH> j1mc: Wait, what agreement?
[21:57] <MichealH> Link?
[21:57] <j1mc> sure
[21:58]  * MichealH thought the CoC was enough ;)
[21:58] <j1mc> http://www.canonical.com/contributors
[21:58] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://www.canonical.com/contributors
[21:58] <j1mc> ^^ only necessary if you want to write docs for the certain canonical apps, like software center
[21:58] <Rocket2DMn> I'd like to see us focus on core efforts that we can maintain moving forward, rather than working on a bunch of different things that may be fun but that we can't maintain
[21:58] <j1mc> not necessary for writing docs for something like banshee or gedit
[21:58] <Rocket2DMn> then we can ensure that we do those core efforts well
[21:59] <Captainkrtek> anyways, next topic?
[21:59] <Rocket2DMn> we're happy to help you get started on working with other projects' documentation though (like upstream Gnome and their apps)
[22:00] <MichealH> j1mc: Good to be safe than sorry, though ;)
[22:00] <j1mc> Rocket2DMn: good point - we'll need to be careful with our resources and make sure we don't spread ourselves too thin
[22:00] <j1mc> ok - we're up on our hour, so i want to wrap up in the next 5 min
[22:01] <j1mc> [TOPIC] Team wiki
[22:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  Team wiki
[22:01] <Captainkrtek> I can work on updating the wiki this summer
[22:01] <j1mc> as Rocket2DMn said, the team wiki needs some love
[22:01] <Captainkrtek> yeah haha
[22:01] <Rocket2DMn> let's not confuse the team wiki at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ with the community docs wiki at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/
[22:02] <Captainkrtek> this wiki https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DocumentationTeam/
[22:03] <j1mc> i have done some initial work on recording what all is there so that we can reorganize it and get rid of cruft
[22:03] <j1mc> but that isn't done yet.
[22:03] <j1mc> follow-up at the next meeting on that?
[22:03] <Captainkrtek> I gotta run, lunch, will continue this is the channel
[22:03] <Captainkrtek> in* the channel
[22:03] <Captainkrtek> #ubuntu-doc
[22:03] <j1mc> later, Captainkrtek
[22:05] <j1mc> i can follow-up on the list about that
[22:05] <j1mc> ... i know we didn't get to cover everything we might have wanted in this meeting...
[22:05] <j1mc> but any additional comments from folks for now?
[22:06] <Rocket2DMn> i guess we better plan to have another meeting soon
[22:06]  * j1mc nods
[22:06] <j1mc> is 2 weeks ok? i will be out next weekend.
[22:07] <vtanthropologist> I'm ok with that
[22:07] <Rocket2DMn> i'm unsure about my schedule this summer, i'll just have to play it as we go
[22:07] <j1mc> in general, do this time work for folks?
[22:08] <j1mc> s/do/does
[22:08] <Rocket2DMn> this time usually works out so people in Europe can attend without it being too late
[22:08] <vtanthropologist> it's a good time for me in Sydney
[22:08] <j1mc> great :)
[22:08] <BravoDeltaLima> works for me
[22:09] <j1mc> ok - we'll tentatively set the next one for two weeks from now, then.
[22:09] <j1mc> we can also have some convesations on the ML
[22:09] <j1mc> [ACTION] schedule next meeting for two weeks from today
[22:09] <MootBot> ACTION received:  schedule next meeting for two weeks from today
[22:09] <j1mc> anything else?
[22:10] <j1mc> #endmeeting
[22:10] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 16:10.
[22:10] <j1mc> ok - thanks for your time, everyone. i'll send the meeting minutes out to the ML
[22:10] <j1mc> have a good rest of your sunday!