[14:59] <NCommander> #startmeeting
[14:59] <MootBot> Meeting started at 09:59. The chair is NCommander.
[14:59] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[15:00] <davidm> G'day NCommander
[15:00] <NCommander> monring
[15:00] <NCommander> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2011/20110728
[15:00] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MobileTeam/Meeting/2011/20110728
[15:00] <NCommander> [topic] Standing Items
[15:00] <MootBot> New Topic:  Standing Items
[15:00] <NCommander> [link] http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-armel.html
[15:00] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-armel.html
[15:01] <NCommander> [link] http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-armel-oneiric-alpha-3.html
[15:01] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://people.canonical.com/~platform/workitems/oneiric/ubuntu-armel-oneiric-alpha-3.html
[15:03] <NCommander> so it looks like we're making good progress on work items and progression towards A3
[15:03] <NCommander> beyond that, anyone else have anything to say?
[15:03] <GrueMaster> Still a lot to do, and A3 is next week.
[15:04] <davidm> Give me a minute
[15:05] <davidm> The burn down for A3 is not looking good
[15:06] <GrueMaster> We'll have to postepone all of ogra's workitems.
[15:06] <davidm> Yes, lets make that happen today please
[15:07] <davidm> He is on holiday, they should have been postponed when he left
[15:07] <NCommander> [action] NCommander to postpone ogra's workitems
[15:07] <MootBot> ACTION received:  NCommander to postpone ogra's workitems
[15:08] <NCommander> can I move on?
[15:08] <GrueMaster> persia: Any chance you will get to the encryptfs testing this week?
[15:08] <davidm> Another items we need to postpone?
[15:08] <davidm> persia, is in western europe this week so I doubt it, postpone
[15:09] <GrueMaster> I will need to postpone a couple.  The ipv6 test tools don't compile on linux yet.
[15:10] <davidm> OK GrueMaster adjust the workitems today please
[15:10] <davidm> NCommander, move on
[15:10] <GrueMaster> The encryptfs is something either I or mahmoh can knock out with a preseed.
[15:10] <GrueMaster> Will do.
[15:10] <davidm> OK
[15:11] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Server Status (NCommander, Daviey)
[15:11] <MootBot> New Topic:  ARM Server Status (NCommander, Daviey)
[15:12] <NCommander> w.rt to server status, I've good news that its possible to complete a headless install on OMAP4 enc to end once you PXE boot the installer
[15:12] <davidm> Nice
[15:12] <infinity> \o/
[15:12] <NCommander> Thank GrueMaster and mahmoh for testing.
[15:13] <NCommander> I got nothing else, Daviey ?
[15:14] <NCommander> [topic] Kernel Status (cooloney, ppisati)
[15:14] <MootBot> New Topic:  Kernel Status (cooloney, ppisati)
[15:15] <davidm> NCommander, I just added an item to the Meting page
[15:15] <davidm> make that meeting page
[15:16] <NCommander> davidm: k
[15:16] <NCommander> so looks like ppisati and cooleney aren't around so moving on
[15:16] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Porting/FTBFS status (NCommander, janimo)
[15:16] <MootBot> New Topic:  ARM Porting/FTBFS status (NCommander, janimo)
[15:17] <NCommander> made some progress on omcal on why it segfaults but no fix or workaround yet sadly
[15:17] <NCommander> did find ocaml is heavily thumb2 unsafe and shouldn't have been marked safe/no porting
[15:17] <davidm> Will is work in ARM mode?
[15:18] <NCommander> still failed when I tried it
[15:18] <NCommander> still investigatign deeper.
[15:19] <NCommander> anyone else?
[15:20] <infinity> I haven't done any FTBFS work this week, though I should do again soon.
[15:20] <NCommander> anyway, moving on
[15:20] <NCommander> [topic] ARM Image Status (ogra, NCommander)
[15:20] <MootBot> New Topic:  ARM Image Status (ogra, NCommander)
[15:22]  * NCommander has nothing new on this subject
[15:22] <NCommander> so moving on ...
[15:22] <GrueMaster> What is the status of iMX51/53 images?  Feature Freeze is coming in two weeks.
[15:22] <davidm> Good question
[15:22] <infinity> persia put some work into it, but then stalled on some kernel support issues.
[15:22] <mahmoh> I'd like to know if there should be a separate kernel for server, or separate boot args, I should think so.
[15:23] <infinity> I haven't had a chance to do anything here, and he hasn't forwarded me his stuff.
[15:23] <GrueMaster> I would think it would be critical to get an image building, even if it doesn't work.
[15:23] <persia> My stuff doesn't result in a usable machine at this stage.
[15:23] <davidm> infinity, lets take that up with Linaro early next week
[15:24]  * infinity nods.
[15:24] <cmagina> mahmoh: +1 on the server kernel image
[15:24] <davidm> I'll ship and Imx 52 to jani this week
[15:24] <davidm> boot args maybe extra kernel not at this point
[15:25] <mahmoh> ok, I think I have a bug to track it but who's going to look into it?
[15:25] <davidm> GrueMaster, we will likely need a FF exception for IMX53
[15:25] <davidm> mahmoh, what do you need turned on/off from standard kernel?
[15:26] <mahmoh> elevator=deadline  at least
[15:26] <GrueMaster> We should probably do some perfomance analisys on the server kernel boot args.
[15:26] <mahmoh> bug 814157
[15:26] <mahmoh> agreed GrueMaster
[15:26] <davidm> NCommander, ^^
[15:26] <mahmoh> it may or not make sense, but I don't want to lose track of it
[15:27] <cmagina> we will want to investigate the best scheduler for server workloads
[15:27] <davidm> NCommander, can you look into 814157 please
[15:27] <NCommander> k
[15:27] <infinity> I'm not sure if it's worth discussing until we have "server" hardware.
[15:27] <NCommander> mahmoh: server kenl on omap4 is pointless
[15:27] <davidm> GrueMaster, yes we should test differnet schedulers for perfomance
[15:28] <mahmoh> maybe so but someone should still look into it and verify that's true
[15:28] <NCommander> davidm: scheluders are heavily IO bound; numbers gleamed off a panda are useless IMHO
[15:28] <cmagina> we still need to be aware that it is highly likely to be necessary for when we get server hardware
[15:28] <davidm> We should set up tests to be rerun once server hardware aval
[15:28] <GrueMaster> mahmoh: Let's get together after the meeting to discuss testing.
[15:28] <davidm> Same as we are doing on all other tests
[15:29] <mahmoh> ack
[15:29] <NCommander> [topic] QA Status (GrueMaster)
[15:29] <MootBot> New Topic:  QA Status (GrueMaster)
[15:30] <GrueMaster> Most of the easy workitems for Alpha 3 have been completed and documented.  The remaining few will require some development work.
[15:30] <GrueMaster> Work on automating these tests for future execution has been slow, but progressing.
[15:30] <GrueMaster> Focus is currently on getting tests to run with good documentation so that they can be automated in the future.
[15:30] <GrueMaster> Spot testing the daily preinstalled image builds is looking good.  No glaring bugs on install.  Unfortunately, not a lot of app testing has happened yet, with all the focus on server.
[15:32] <GrueMaster> The remaining test workitems  for Alpha 3 will require some research to setup, and in the case of ipsec/ipv6, the only tests I have found are for freebsd and will need some coder work.
[15:32] <GrueMaster> The good side of that last, is these are the tools used for ipv6-ready certification testing.
[15:34] <GrueMaster> mahmoh: Anything to add to the QA stuff?
[15:34] <mahmoh> just focusing on automating the testing and so they're tested nightly
[15:35] <mahmoh> we're updating the wiki to make it more friendly
[15:35] <mahmoh> if others would like to contribute to typical server applications/loads, please discuss and feel free
[15:35] <mahmoh> if you've testing things and would like to add the results, please discuss and feel free
[15:36] <mahmoh> the more the merrier
[15:36] <mahmoh> that's it
[15:38] <GrueMaster> NCommander: move
[15:39] <davidm> NCommander, moving on.....
[15:41] <NCommander> [topic] Wiki updates by EOD Friday 29 July 2011 (Davidm)
[15:41] <MootBot> New Topic:  Wiki updates by EOD Friday 29 July 2011 (Davidm)
[15:42] <davidm> Folks we have to have the wiki updates in tomorrow without fail
[15:42] <NCommander> I did some work on this last night made some progresss on the landing and OMAP pages
[15:42] <davidm> I'm working with QA but willing to help anywhere
[15:42] <davidm> Review pages, if you don't like them or think they are out of date, please fix
[15:43] <davidm> very important
[15:43] <NCommander> anything else?
[15:43] <GrueMaster> Am I the only one that thinks any of our pages that require scrolling should have a TOC?
[15:43] <mahmoh> +1
[15:44] <davidm> +1
[15:44] <persia> GrueMaster: That's a good plan
[15:44] <davidm> hi persia
[15:45] <davidm> Make use of color where it makes sense in tables it really makes it easier to read and is easy to do
[15:45] <NCommander> Ill wokr more on this today
[15:45] <NCommander> can I move on?
[15:45] <davidm> Moving on
[15:45] <GrueMaster> Might also be useful to have an /Arm/Template
[15:46] <NCommander> [topic] AOB
[15:46] <MootBot> New Topic:  AOB
[15:47] <GrueMaster> The USB performance issues we are seeing on Panda may be more widespread than just OMAP3/4.
[15:48] <GrueMaster> I have heard mention of it effecting other dev boards, like the Tegra2.  Not sure on the babbage.
[15:48] <davidm> We need to poke at Linaro next week about this
[15:48] <davidm> Perhaps their Landing team can sort this
[15:49] <NCommander> qnything else or can I close?
[15:49] <davidm> OK to close by me
[15:50] <NCommander> #endmeeting
[15:50] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 10:50.
[17:54] <kees> \o
[18:03]  * kees looks around for more tb members...
[18:12] <sabdfl> hi folks, sorry to be late
[18:13] <kees> sabdfl: no problem; still hoping to get keybuk and mdz
[18:13] <kees> sabdfl: right now it's just the two of us. mdz said he'd likely be available in 10 minutes
[18:13] <sabdfl> ok
[18:13] <sabdfl> i'll step afk till then
[18:23] <mdz> kees, back now
[18:24] <kees> mdz: okay, excellent.
[18:24] <kees> I think this'll be pretty quick. sabdfl, you ready?
[18:25] <sabdfl> yup, hi
[18:25] <kees> #startmeeting
[18:25] <MootBot> Meeting started at 13:25. The chair is kees.
[18:25] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[18:25] <kees> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda
[18:25] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda
[18:26] <kees> [TOPIC] Action review
[18:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Action review
[18:26] <kees> * Set series RM to ubuntu-release (cjwatson)
[18:26] <kees> it looks like this still needs to be done (the bug is not closed)
[18:26] <kees> * Brainstorm review update
[18:26] <kees> I _think_ cjwatson said he'd work on this, but I can't find last meeting's summary. And there's nothing I saw in email, so I think this is still to be done as well.
[18:27] <mdz> kees, I think so as well
[18:27] <kees> [TOPIC] Policy proposal for extensions repository
[18:27] <MootBot> New Topic:  Policy proposal for extensions repository
[18:27] <kees> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PartnerRepositoryPolicy
[18:27] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PartnerRepositoryPolicy
[18:28] <kees> from what I understand, they would like some review of this document
[18:29] <mdz> IIRC, the last time this came up, it was written as a standalone document, and we asked that it be changed to be a delta relative to existing package policies
[18:29] <mdz> and it looks like that has happened (thanks!)
[18:29] <kees> yeah, that part has happened. it seems like there has been no further discussion in July on this. it probably needs some comment on the mailing list.
[18:29] <mdz> we also wanted to unify it with the ARB's policies
[18:29] <mdz> or rather, have them all fit into the same policy framework
[18:29] <kees> which they did too
[18:30] <kees> "This policy applies to software published through one of the extension repositories Extras, Partner, and Commercial"
[18:30] <mdz> I have been pretty bad with email the past 6 weeks
[18:31] <mdz> the structure looks great
[18:31] <kees> yeah
[18:31] <mdz> reading over the content now
[18:31] <kees> how about we all send some notes to the mailing list, CCing allison and nick?
[18:32] <sabdfl> do they mean copyright enforcement, rather than assignment?
[18:32] <mdz> I'm confused by the reference to 4.5 debian/copyright
[18:32] <mdz> but I don't have that section in front of me (there's no hyperlink)
[18:32] <kees> [ACTION] all to send some notes on the Extension Repository Policy proposal
[18:32] <MootBot> ACTION received:  all to send some notes on the Extension Repository Policy proposal
[18:33] <mdz> packages in the extension repositories should surely still have normal debian/copyright files
[18:33] <kees> let's take todo items each to review and send email. I think that would be more productive.
[18:33] <mdz> (esp. since they seem to often bundle free software)
[18:33] <mdz> kees, ok
[18:33] <mdz> that may significantly delay my response though ;-)
[18:34] <kees> I'll include anything that jumps out here in my email, if that helps :)
[18:34] <mdz> kees, I can't find the email to t-b@ requesting review
[18:34] <kees> mdz: Message-ID: <4E0C58FB.8090402@canonical.com>
[18:34] <mdz> kees, thanks
[18:35] <kees> mdz: ah, found it in archive too: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-June/000946.html
[18:35] <sabdfl> i think "board majority +1" is appropriate
[18:35] <kees> [LINK] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-June/000946.html
[18:35] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-June/000946.html
[18:35] <kees> [TOPIC] DMB voting procedure
[18:35] <MootBot> New Topic:  DMB voting procedure
[18:36] <kees> the most recent I can find on this thread is https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-July/000956.html
[18:36] <sabdfl> so, if there are not enough +1's in the meeting to reach that, it's enough to get the remainders via email
[18:37] <kees> right, I guess it's mostly about if they're voting +1 and -1 or +1 and 0. it sounds like they do +1 and 0.
[18:37] <maco> sabdfl: do you mean there need to be $board_majority +1s and then any number of +0 or -1  or do you mean the total must be +$board_majority?
[18:38] <kees> so, you just need enough "yes" votes, and the "no" do not count
[18:39] <maco> kees: there are sometimes -1s in the DMB. a vote in june where there was one is how that discussion got started
[18:39] <sabdfl> i think it's OK to appoint someone if a majority approve and a minority dissent
[18:40] <kees> maco: right, and I think the primary question is "is -1 allowed?"
[18:40] <sabdfl> i think dissention warrants discussion, not a veto
[18:40] <geser> kees: so a application with 4 +1 (4 members present) gets the same way accepteg like the theoretical case of 4 +1 and 3 -1 (7 members present)?
[18:40] <sabdfl> i think it's ok to say "you need the support of a majority of the board"
[18:40] <kees> geser: that's what I'm trying to understand. I'm not advocating, just trying to spell out the interpretations
[18:41] <kees> sabdfl: so, the expectation is "must have majority, with votes of +1, 0, and -1 allowed". then the question is "what are absent members' votes? forced to be 0?"
[18:41] <mdz> I'm glad that the DMB is considering this carefully, as I think the sensitivity of membership votes warrant it
[18:42] <mdz> but I think the KISS principle should apply as well
[18:42] <maco> kees: assumed 0, unless the +1s fall short, then we take it to the mailing list  <-- current procedure
[18:42] <cody-somerville> I think that if two members of the DMB feel an applicant isn't ready, it warrants deferral
[18:42] <sabdfl> ah, i didn't think a -1 counteracted a +1
[18:42] <maco> (oh, that's also "unless they sent a vote by email ahead of time")
[18:42] <cody-somerville> (which is what counting -1s does)
[18:43] <kees> right, if -1 doesn't counteract +1, then it's really a 0.
[18:43] <sabdfl> if a majority can bring up the confidence to +1, then that's sufficient for me
[18:43] <cody-somerville> In the current model, as described by myself and persia and agreed by the board in its first term, -1 'counteracts' a +1, yes.
[18:43] <sabdfl> i think -1's are a "i want to talk about this", not a "i'm reducing the vote by 1"
[18:43] <mdz> it looks like the vote is not public, so I don't see an issue with there being the possibility of -1 votes
[18:44] <maco> mdz: what do you mean not public?
[18:44] <mdz> as long as there is appropriate follow through with regard to the candidate, identifying the concerns and making a way forward
[18:44] <mdz> maco, that mail says "internal mailing list"
[18:44] <cody-somerville> mdz,
[18:44] <cody-somerville> votes are public
[18:44] <geser> mdz: the votes during the meeting are public, only the ones per mail are private
[18:44] <mdz> oh, sorry, i've misread
[18:45] <maco> geser: and even then, like with the last meeting, someone pipes up "oh, and Laney gave his +1 ahead of time"
[18:45] <mdz> isn't there a precedent for membership votes in other councils already?
[18:45] <cody-somerville> sabdfl, Since applicants are free to reapply immediately, I think the current models works as its effectively both "reducing the vote by 1" and "i want to talk about this".
[18:45] <sabdfl> cody-somerville, no, it really isn't
[18:45] <mdz> is there a need for DMB to be different in this regard?
[18:46] <Laney> didn't I vote on devel-permissions?
[18:46] <maco> mdz: im not sure it's standardised across boards. im also not sure the Americas RMB has had a single split vote since i joined it, so not sure what it'd do...
[18:46] <cody-somerville> sabdfl, Although we're not doing the best job at it, we'd like to follow-up with the candidate and help them resolve the concerns.
[18:46] <micahg> Laney: you did indeed :)
[18:46] <maco> Laney: you did
[18:46] <mdz> I'd like to refer this decision to the CC, and have it apply to all membership councils
[18:46] <geser> mdz: do the other councils have a good description how votes count?
[18:47] <sabdfl> cody-somerville, if you're saying "i want to talk about this", it's better to lay that out before folk vote, than -1 and hope that brings it under the threshold
[18:47] <kees> mdz: that seems like a good idea -- it strikes me that having different voting requirements is a bad idea :P
[18:47] <Laney> personally I think it should be as persia described, which is essentially that a majority is required
[18:47] <sabdfl> +1 to consistency
[18:47] <Laney> but yes, let's standardise
[18:47] <micahg> mdz: I think the DMB is different than most councils in that the result is the ability to affect all users
[18:47] <cody-somerville> sabdfl, Its very easy to bring under threshold since when someone votes -1 there is bound to be a number of +0s
[18:48] <cody-somerville> sabdfl, people are sometimes hesitant to vote -1 and instead vote +0, IMHO
[18:48] <mdz> micahg, true, but I don't think that warrants a different procedure for counting votes, tbh
[18:48] <maco> Laney: as persia described, you need a total of +4, after the -1s have subtracted away. with a 7 person board, a simple majority could be +4, -3
[18:48] <maco> but that total is only +1
[18:49] <sabdfl> micahg, i think any sphere of contribution can improve or be detrimental to all others
[18:49] <geser> but in that case it's better for a application when the board only reaches quorum as the is a chance that the non-present members vote +1 in case the application doesn't reach threshold
[18:49] <micahg> sabdfl: indeed, but a bad blog post on the planet compared to a broken upload to the archive are a big difference
[18:49] <cody-somerville> Laney, Thats not what persia described. What persia describes is that -2, +5 is enough to defer an application (which is what I think is controversial to some)
[18:49] <sabdfl> i've sat on quite a few boards
[18:49] <sabdfl> dissent is not a veto, for a reason
[18:50] <Laney> yeah, sorry I wasn't clear
[18:50] <geser> if more members are present the more likely is a vote which can't be affected by the non-present members
[18:50] <sabdfl> a proposal needs support of the majority, not consensus, and not majority-after-dissent
[18:50] <sabdfl> there's a reason for that, imo
[18:50] <sabdfl> it's too easy to make blocking the default
[18:50] <micahg> maco: you have your acceptance stats handy?
[18:50] <sabdfl> i'm concerned that the DMB's who've been firm about -1's have been overly slow to recognise the benefits of taking some chances on fresh contributors
[18:51] <sabdfl> jono mailed recently, and i thought he was correct, with that observation
[18:51] <cody-somerville> -1 is rather rare with the DMB
[18:51] <kees> seems like in the +1/-1 method, you'd want "above 0", but that's the same as "majority" in +1/0 method. Doing "majority" in the +1/-1 method would really raise the bar.
[18:51] <cody-somerville> +0 is probably the most common vote if not +1
[18:51] <cody-somerville> I see the necessity for the current model because +0 is so popular.
[18:52] <cody-somerville> If we no longer permit +0 without good reason, I'm fine to move to what sabdfl suggests.
[18:52] <sabdfl> cody, that would block another way
[18:52] <sabdfl> i'll say again: it should be enough to muster sufficient support
[18:53] <sabdfl> let's raise it with the CC and gather their views
[18:53] <geser> I vote -1 when I'm against the application at that time, +1 when I for it, and 0 when I'm not sure but don't want to block if other give their +1
[18:53] <kees> seems like simple majority is the way to go. if everyone votes +0, then the board isn't very excited about the candidate
[18:53] <maco> micahg: http://people.ubuntu.com/~maco.m/dmb_record_keeping.html is the link I sent to u-d@l.u.c  A bit concerning how few volunteer members of the community have applied, but overall acceptance rate does seem pretty high to me.
[18:53] <maco> geser: ditto
[18:54] <kees> so, take to CC, then?
[18:54] <Laney> but with +4 you /can/ block it
[18:54] <micahg> sabdfl: here are actual numbers with the current voting system on acceptance rate, it's pretty high ^^
[18:55] <cody-somerville> Indeed. Thanks for that link maco.
[18:55] <cody-somerville> I think it re-enforces with me that our current voting model works well.
[18:55] <cody-somerville> and permits us to be conservative when warranted
[18:56] <maco> (87% acceptance rate)
[18:56] <Laney> I don't think any of those three deferrals were unfair either.
[18:56] <mdz> kees, yes please
[18:57] <kees> my opinion would be that simple yes/not-yet voting to get a majority of "yes" is sufficient, and that people that really feel negative need to shop their opinion around to convince others not to vote "yes".
[18:57] <kees> but, since it sounds like this should go to CC, we'll defer it there.
[18:57] <kees> (also since we have 3 minutes left...)
[18:57] <Laney> So if you want to vote -1 you need to be more forceful
[18:57] <maco> kees: that sounds reasonable to me
[18:57] <micahg> what's the point of having a -1 available if it doesn't do anything?
[18:58] <Laney> which could end up with people being more negative than they would otherwise be
[18:58] <kees> micahg: right, I recognize that -- but most voting systems are yes/no. it's kind of an accident that we started the convention of +1/-1 and that then resulted in "0" meaning abstain
[18:59] <kees> but, yes, this needs to go the CC
[18:59] <kees> [ACTION] refer DMB voting to the CC (kees)
[18:59] <MootBot> ACTION received:  refer DMB voting to the CC (kees)
[18:59] <sabdfl> can we wrap this point on that... thanks :)
[18:59] <Laney> make clear that it's not just for the DMB please
[18:59] <kees> Laney: yeah, will do that
[19:00] <kees> [TOPIC] select chair
[19:00] <MootBot> New Topic:  select chair
[19:00] <kees> Keybuk is alphabetically next, iiuc
[19:00] <kees> I'll email him
[19:01] <kees> [TOPIC] other stuff
[19:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  other stuff
[19:01] <mdz> nothing from me
[19:01] <kees> we're out of time, but is there anything we should add to the agenda or quickly cover?
[19:01] <kees> okay, that's it then! thanks everyone!
[19:01] <kees> #endmeeting
[19:01] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 14:01.
[19:02] <mdz> thanks kees