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