[17:23] <pangolin> 30 minutes until IRC team meeting?
[17:49] <io> pangolin: 7
[18:00] <jussi> o/
[18:01] <nhandler> o/
[18:01] <Tm_T> o7
[18:01] <jussi> oh we have nhandler! excellent!
[18:02] <jussi> nhandler: since you are here, I'd say its about your turn to chair, wouldnt you agree?
[18:02] <pangolin> o/
[18:02] <topyli> o/
[18:03] <topyli> hi nhandler :)
[18:03] <ryanakca> o/
[18:03] <pangolin> hello everybody!
[18:03] <nhandler> jussi: I can chair, but it will take me a while to get to the post-meeting stuff
[18:03]  * pangolin hugs nhandler 
[18:03] <pangolin> good to see you dude :)
[18:03] <jussi> nhandler: no probs, as long as its within about a week we should be good
[18:03] <topyli> nhandler: that's fine
[18:05] <jussi> nhandler: so, shall we get this show on the road ?
[18:05] <nhandler> #startmeeting Ubuntu IRC Team Meeting
[18:05] <meetingology> Meeting started Sun Oct 30 18:05:03 2011 UTC.  The chair is nhandler. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[18:05] <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
[18:05] <nhandler> #topic Review Bugs
[18:05] <jussi> Right, so we have a new bug
[18:06] <jussi> bug 883119
[18:06] <topyli> it's an effort to open up stuff and empower the team more
[18:07] <nhandler> My one concern would be that we will end up with long discussions for each task (sort of like the ML), making it harder to get stuff done
[18:07] <Seeker`> nhandler: surely you want input from people though?
[18:08] <topyli> it does require us to decide at some point that we have enough information and make a decision
[18:08] <nhandler> Seeker`: Input to an extent it good and constructive. However, it sometimes reaches the point of two many people trying to weigh in on an issue, making it hard to take any action
[18:09] <pangolin> The bug report says the point is to be more open. I would think that means more input as well.
[18:09] <Seeker`> nhandler: so having no input from the community, and no way of anyone outside the IRCC tracking progress on any IRCC issues is better?
[18:09] <jussi> yes, I think it encourages us to be decisive. However it also requires the community to play their part and accept the decisions that get made.
[18:10] <Seeker`> because in the past, when there hasn't been a public way of seeing that things are being done, the IRCC just sits on issues for 9 months
[18:10] <nhandler> Seeker`: There is a difference (and should be) between a bug for tracking a task and an open discussion for gathering feedback. We don't want the two to become too merged
[18:10] <topyli> when we discussed our need for an issue tracker originally, we opted against using launchpad just because some issues are sensitive. we now have our own tracker where the sensitive issues can be handled, so we could use launchpad for all the rest really
[18:10] <Seeker`> nhandler: why spread the information out futher than it needs to be?
[18:11] <topyli> nhandler: true, not everything is suitable to be handled as a bug
[18:12] <Seeker`> you could have a mailing list thread and a bug for each issue, but there isn't a particularly good for having two unrelated streams of conversation about the same topic, when the information about progress of the bug is mainly given through status changes, and discussion done though commenting
[18:12] <Seeker`> *particularly good reason
[18:12] <topyli> Seeker`: each lauchpad bug is automatically a "mailing list thread" for interested people already
[18:13] <Seeker`> topyli: I mean the comments section of the bug is fine for discussing the bug, why make a seperated only-related-by-name thread for discussion on the mailing list
[18:14] <topyli> there is a rationale for that too. archives are better in one place
[18:14] <Seeker`> which seemed to be what nhandler was saying
[18:14] <topyli> but still...
[18:15] <jussi> In any case, I think at least some of the bugs - many of the items that got sent to the ircc ML previously could have been bugs.
[18:15] <jussi> (on LP)
[18:15] <ikonia> can you give an example of a bug ?
[18:15] <ikonia> (or what would be used as a bug)
[18:15] <jussi> ikonia: No policy for shell providers in #ubuntu
[18:15] <jussi> for example
[18:16] <ikonia> so you're treating it as issues/action items
[18:16] <ikonia> just trying to fully differentiate the using the word bug
[18:16] <topyli> ikonia: pretty much. bug is just a word
[18:16] <ikonia> totally
[18:16] <ikonia> just checking that
[18:16] <ikonia> if you meant "bugs" or "the word bug"
[18:17] <nhandler> Yes. (Which is in a sense hwhat most items discussed in meetings and on the ML are)
[18:18] <nhandler> So it looks like we tend to agree that using LP is fine for most of the tasks. We just aren't quite sure on the full details
[18:18] <Tm_T> +1 from me too about using LP for the tasks/issues
[18:18] <pangolin> +1
[18:18] <topyli> i'd use the launchpad bug i created to test if making decisions that way works. meta! :)
[18:18] <nhandler> It might be useful to trial this with a bug or two and sort out the details based on a bit of trial/error
[18:19] <topyli> nhandler: agreed
[18:19] <jussi> nhandler: yeah, trial and error through this one.
[18:20] <nhandler> #agree Perform some trial/error of using LP to track some tasks to determine the details of how this will work
[18:20] <jussi> nhandler: +d
[18:20] <nhandler> Hmm...Wiki says #agree is an alias ;)
[18:20] <nhandler> #agreed Perform some trial/error of using LP to track some tasks to determine the details of how this will work
[18:20] <topyli> we can move an issue or two more there for testing when something suitable comes along
[18:21] <pangolin> the bot is not super verbose
[18:21] <nhandler> +1 topyli
[18:21] <pangolin> you might not see anything from it but it did pick it up
[18:21] <jussi> For all those attending, if you have a bug, let have it! :)
[18:22] <nhandler> #topic Review Last Meeting Action Items
[18:22] <ikonia> ok - I have a query regarding the bug ?
[18:22] <topyli> report bugs against ubuntu-community and assign to ubuntu-irc council, no?
[18:22] <ikonia> I agree and think it's a great think to have a public tracking tool like launchpad
[18:22] <jussi> ikonia: I was going to report the FB bug, but feel free to if you want.
[18:22] <ikonia> I'm pleased
[18:22] <ikonia> however - query, will the bugs be looked at and addressed or will they just be ignored
[18:22] <jussi> ikonia: we go through them every meeting, so I hope so.
[18:22] <nhandler> ikonia: They will get reviewed at the start of each meeting (fixed action item)
[18:22] <ikonia> eg: if I put a comment on there - is it going to be taken on board or will it just be ifnored
[18:23] <ikonia> jussi: with respect, that's currenlty not happening
[18:23] <jussi> (like we are doing now)
[18:23] <ikonia> I just want to know if it's worth my effort to do work with them, or not
[18:23] <topyli> i think we'll also get mail when new bugs are assigned to us
[18:23] <ikonia> being honest - not trying to be a pain
[18:23] <jussi> ikonia: We will look at them.
[18:23] <nhandler> ikonia: We might not publically discuss each and every comment, but they will be read (and the bug will be discussed)
[18:23] <ikonia> topyli: again - with respect, mail does not work well with the council
[18:23] <Seeker`> jussi: are the currently any bugs filed on the private IRCC tracker?
[18:23] <topyli> ikonia: mail works, reply time varies :(
[18:23] <jussi> Seeker`: only the one open one I just mentioned
[18:24] <ikonia> nhandler: no, I don't expect a public discussion on them, but I expect feedback as to what's being going on
[18:24] <ikonia> the lubuntu ops issue is a real cause for concern and I see no feedback or involvement coming back on that
[18:24] <Seeker`> jussi: sorry, whichwas that?
[18:25] <jussi> Seeker`: floodbots not being open. Theres also the lubuntu issue pending, but thats not actually in the tracker last time I looked, Its on the ML.
[18:25] <ikonia> so if I was to log a bug around that, I want to know if I put options on there they will be on the agenda, or if they will just be ignored, as is current
[18:25] <Seeker`> so nhandler progressed the meeting prematurely?
[18:25] <ikonia> jussi: I will raise the floodbot bug
[18:25] <topyli> ikonia: we'll announce a call for #lubuntu-* ops soon enough. it's not the most urgent thing, they're doing fine afaik
[18:25] <ikonia> topyli: did you hear what the concerns are ?
[18:25] <Seeker`> jussi: also, how long has the floodbot issue been on the private tracker?
[18:26] <ikonia> why as there been no feedback to the concerns
[18:26] <topyli> should be done so they can fully integrate with the team
[18:26] <ikonia> what is the point of raising these concerns if it's just ignored
[18:26] <topyli> ikonia: yes i have heard the concerns
[18:26] <ikonia> this is the issue I'm raising as part of the bug tracker
[18:26] <ikonia> what is the point of raising a bug if it's ignord
[18:26] <ikonia> ignored
[18:26] <topyli> no point in rising such a bug
[18:26] <ikonia> (I am using that issue as an example, not the be-all-end-all)
[18:26] <ikonia> right - so thank you, raising bugs is pointless
[18:27] <nhandler> See	I have a bit of lag, and ikonia raised a new point as I changed the topic ;)
[18:27] <ikonia> glad that's confirmed
[18:27] <topyli> hard to say beforehand what is going to be fixed and what will be "wontfixed", better just file the bug anyway
[18:27] <ikonia> no, sorry
[18:27] <ikonia> won't fix is the same as not-hearing-taking-action
[18:27] <ikonia> which is where we currently are
[18:27] <ikonia> so it's another pointless process
[18:27] <jussi> ikonia: the fact is, they are public, everyone, including the CC can see if the job is being done. If its not, I assume you, the other ops and eventually the CC will be on our backs.
[18:27] <ikonia> instead of ignoring issues, you can just mark them as "won't fix"
[18:27] <ikonia> jussi: clearly not
[18:28] <Seeker`> jussi: how long has the floodbot issue been on the private tracker?
[18:28] <jussi> Seeker`: not that long, why ?
[18:28] <Seeker`> can you give a date?
[18:29] <pangolin> going to guess since they were first started
[18:29] <topyli> 19th this month, Seeker`
[18:29] <pangolin> but I don't see why the floodbots need to be open
[18:29] <ikonia> pangolin: they don't
[18:30] <pangolin> So what is the issue with them?
[18:30] <topyli> the problem is they're dependent on one person
[18:30] <Seeker`> How on earth can the IRCC claim to be effective if its own members don't even know what has been raised as a bug or not?
[18:30] <ikonia> pangolin: I'll raise the bug - and you can view it all in detail there
[18:30] <topyli> Seeker`: where did that come from?
[18:31] <topyli> ikonia: you did it before, you can do it again :)
[18:31] <pangolin> Can we please try to get through one discussion at a time.
[18:31] <Seeker`> I refer you to topyli's email to the irc list on the 28th october: 'I'm aware of the floodbots ownership and implementation being less
[18:31] <Seeker`> than optimal, but I was not aware it has been raised as an issue.
[18:31] <jussi> right, so how about the next bug
[18:31] <Seeker`> Hopefully, we can liberate the bots someday.'
[18:31] <topyli> Seeker`: right. i hadn't looked at it
[18:31] <ikonia> topyli: did what ?
[18:32] <Seeker`> 9 days after it appeared on the IRCC issue tracker, topyli still wasn't aware of it
[18:32] <topyli> "the ircc" was aware, i wasn't
[18:32] <ikonia> (sorry if I've lost track)
[18:32] <jussi> can we move on to bug 788503 ?
[18:32] <ikonia> jussi: why ?
[18:32] <ikonia> jussi: why are we moving on in the middle of a discussion
[18:32] <topyli> Seeker`: we don't all have to be on every issue, and i specifically do not deal with technical stuff
[18:32] <Seeker`> topyli: there is currently only one issue on the private tracker.
[18:32] <topyli> i know
[18:33] <Seeker`> so how can you not be aware of the single bug that has been filed. To ignore it you must have at least looked to see if there was anything there, to know it was technical.
[18:33] <Seeker`> and then you'd be aware that it was filed
[18:34] <topyli> i've probably seen it and ignored as it's not my "department"
[18:34] <jussi> Seeker`: that issue is something that is my peice, and I know topyli was aware of it, Im almost certain he has just forgotten.
[18:34] <topyli> if you want to press me personally about that, let's do it after the meeting
[18:34] <Tm_T> I agree with topyli on that
[18:35] <Tm_T> (we have only certain amount of time for the meeting)
[18:35] <Seeker`> members of the IRCC should at least be aware of the issues raised against the IRCC, even if they aren't actively part of dealing with it. Its not that big a job to remember the entire 1 issue.
[18:36] <topyli> jussi and i finally did have a look at m4v's guidelines draft, and while it still needs a little love, it's a great step forward
[18:36] <topyli> it does a good job removing the #ubuntu-centric pieces of the guidelines and makes them more useful. i'm sure well have a good draft for team review soon
[18:37] <ikonia> has the topic just changed ?
[18:37] <nhandler> ikonia: We moved on to the other open bug
[18:37] <jussi> We have an etherpad open with it on - you can take a look yourselves and "chat" there about suggestions etc for it: http://notes.kde.org/ubuntuguidelines
[18:38] <topyli> even jussi's etherpad is kde :(
[18:38] <jussi> hehe
[18:39] <nhandler> Thanks for the great work topyli and jussi
[18:39] <jussi> SO hopefully we can have this draft finished for voting on by the next meeting - I hope that many of you can get over there and chip in
[18:39] <nhandler> Anything else to say about this issue for now?
[18:40] <jussi> nhandler: nothing except hopefully most people will have a look and input
[18:40] <ikonia> I didn't even know it was being re-written
[18:40] <nhandler> Alright, so *really* moving on to old actions
[18:40] <jussi> ikonia: bugs been open for a while :)
[18:40] <nhandler> I only see one action
[18:40] <topyli> ikonia: it's a bug on launchpad :)
[18:41] <nhandler> This is the one about the #lubuntu ops list
[18:41] <nhandler> topyli: Want to give a brief update?
[18:42] <jussi> right, lubuntu ops list. Ive created the LP groups, topyli has been liasing a bit with the lubuntu people.
[18:42] <topyli> well, the lubuntu folks hoped for a post-release breathing space, but we should issue a call for ops on the lubuntu channels
[18:42] <ikonia> topyli: if this going to be a genuine selection process, or rubberstamping to tick boxes ?
[18:42] <topyli> hopefully many the existing ops will re-apply and maybe we'll get more even
[18:43] <topyli> ikonia: just like any other call for ops
[18:43] <ikonia> topyli: great, so it's going through the standard process ?
[18:43] <jussi> yes
[18:43] <ikonia> excellent
[18:43] <topyli> yeah
[18:44] <pangolin> How do the current lubuntu ops feel about having to re-apply for ops?
[18:44] <jussi> pangolin: we had reaction for that last time, at least some of them are ok with that, and expect it.
[18:44] <pangolin> I mean what is the general feedback you got from them if any?
[18:45] <topyli> variably, to be honest. but that's to be expected. however, it's hot a huge effort especially if you're already a well respected op on a channel
[18:45] <topyli> s/hot/not/
[18:45]  * knome giggles
[18:45] <Seeker`> why do they have to reapply?
[18:46] <jussi> Seeker`: read the logs from last ircc meeting :)
[18:46] <Tm_T> long and complicated story so ^
[18:46] <Seeker`> dothe people that will be assessing them for membership actually know the lubuntu ops?
[18:47] <pangolin> My concern is that perhaps a currently respected op might not get approved and that will/could alienate some of the lubuntu people.
[18:47] <topyli> these people are the ircc, and they will have to consult the lubuntu team
[18:48] <ikonia> if it's the standard process, you can feedback when the public call is given
[18:48] <topyli> pangolin: that's a valid concern
[18:48] <Seeker`> unless the ircc have spent a significant amount of time interacting / watching the ops, are they 'qualified' to make judgement to who should/shouldn't be an op. The lubuntu team has clearly chosen their current ops for a reason
[18:48] <nhandler> Seeker`: And they are able to provide feedback.
[18:48] <topyli> Seeker`: the ircc is qualified for choosing ops for the ubuntu channels, yes
[18:49] <Seeker`> but surely the lubuntu team feel that their current ops are suitable ops, or they wouldn't have chosen them
[18:49] <jussi> Seeker`: I think we have been through this pretty well at the last meeting.
[18:49] <Seeker`> topyli: I would expect the ircc to be active in channels under their remit enough to know likely candidates for ops, and therefore have enough information about individuals to make a balanced judgement about their suitabiliy for ops
[18:50] <topyli> Seeker`: impossible
[18:50] <topyli> which is why we have open calls for operators
[18:51] <Seeker`> how can you know whether someone is suitable to be an op without actually seeing them active in channels?
[18:51] <pangolin> bioterror: You have any input on the issue?
[18:51] <topyli> Seeker`: magic, logs, and asking around
[18:51] <pangolin> by asking other ops what they think
[18:51] <Seeker`> (that applies in general, not just to lubuntu ops it would seem)
[18:52] <nhandler> Seeker`: We do look over some logs, we See	We look over logs, talk to other people in the channel, and use our personall exeperiences of interacting with the people to make decisions (among other factors)
[18:52] <bioterror> I noticed we have some operators there on the lists, that has never gained the status from chanserv, so hard to say how they act when the situation requires some actions
[18:52] <topyli> Seeker`: you probably should have been around when the current operator approval process was (very carefully) discussed and decided
[18:52] <Myrtti> pardon me for being ignorant
[18:52] <Myrtti> but how can an op not have gained the operator status from chanserv, bioterror
[18:53] <jussi> Myrtti: ie. added to the ops list but never used it
[18:53] <Myrtti> sorry, but just asking to get a clear picture
[18:53] <bioterror> yeah, never used them
[18:53] <Myrtti> right
[18:53] <bioterror> but as you've seen, we hardly have need for it ;)
[18:53] <bioterror> we've been lucky, so far
[18:54] <Seeker`> topyli: sadly, I can't be on irc 24/7, due to real life issues. Which is why I haven't applied for any leadership positions.
[18:55] <topyli> right
[18:55] <nhandler> Alright, we are about out of time. I don't see any items on the agenda, but are there any other quick items we should discuss?
[18:56] <Seeker`> didn't jussi want to bring up his mailing list idea?
[18:56] <jussi> Seeker`: I will let it be discussed and thought about till next meeting - its not an urgent item
[18:56] <topyli> Myrtti also had an idea worth thinking about, but i think both can continue on the ML for now
[18:56] <ikonia> I have a quick one as nhandler and tsimpson are here
[18:57] <ikonia> is the council going to be returned to a 5 man team shortly ?
[18:57] <topyli> good question :)
[18:57] <Myrtti> ikonia: tsimpson isn't
[18:57] <ikonia> sorry, I thought I saw him earlier
[18:57] <nhandler> ikonia: I might not be around on IRC much, but I am following all mailing list discussions, bugs, and checking up on IRC.
[18:58] <jussi> ikonia: yes, because both those members terms finish next month
[18:58] <ikonia> nhandler: ok - so you are saying your %100 active/effective
[18:58] <ikonia> jussi: that doesn't mean they can't re-join for another 2 years
[18:58] <ikonia> (or shouldn't)
[18:58] <Myrtti> s/re-join/nominate themselves/
[18:59] <pangolin> I can't wait to see who nominates themselves for the IRCC next election
[18:59] <nhandler> ikonia: No, I am not as active as I was (due to some other obligations), but I am still around and completing my actions.
[18:59] <ikonia> nhandler: sorry, bad wording, you're still effective
[18:59] <nhandler> And yes, I am keeping that in mind with my term coming to an end
[18:59] <ikonia> nhandler: and it's not a critisism, but there is a perception that we have been 2 men down for some time
[18:59] <ikonia> it seems a reasonable question to ask
[18:59] <Seeker`> nhandler: how many irc meetings have you been present at in the last, say, 2 months?
[19:00] <nhandler> Seeker`: I can't make one meeting per month due to timezones. I've missed maybe 1 meeting that I can normally attend
[19:00] <nhandler> And I think I am going to end the meeting now, we can discuss this stuff later if desired
[19:00] <nhandler> Thanks for coming everyone
[19:00] <nhandler> #endmeeting
[19:00] <meetingology> Meeting ended Sun Oct 30 19:00:49 2011 UTC.
[19:00] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-10-30-18.05.moin.txt
[19:01] <topyli> thanks everyone
[19:01] <pangolin> thank you.
[19:02] <jussi> thanks! see you all next time and lets see those bugs if you havem, as well as contributions and suggestions to the netherpad.