[08:53] <glitchd_> anybody in here have teamspeak by chance?
[14:03] <tumbleweed> cody-somerville: dmb meeting?
[14:05] <tumbleweed> suppose I should ping everyone else, as I seem to be the only one who remembered...
[14:05] <tumbleweed> !dmb-ping
[14:05] <Laney> woah
[14:05] <Laney> oh, I did that, thought it was some bot wizardry
[14:06] <tumbleweed> heh
[14:06]  * micahg waves
[14:06] <tumbleweed> hrm, jbicha isn't online
[14:06]  * stgraber waves
[14:08] <tumbleweed> Laney: if cody-somerville doesn't turn up, I guess you are chair
[14:08] <Laney> i am not here enough to be able to drive i'm afraid
[14:09] <Laney> swap with whoever is next for next time?
[14:09] <tumbleweed> you :P
[14:09] <tumbleweed> micahg, after that
[14:09]  * micahg is barely awake ATM...
[14:10] <Laney> heh
[14:10] <stgraber> do we actually have anything to discuss with jbicha missing?
[14:10] <stgraber> I don't see any applicant or topics on the agenda that's not blocking on cody-somerville or jbicha
[14:10] <tumbleweed> there are also leftovers from the UDS discussion that never made it to our agenda (I guess they fell under cody)
[14:11] <Laney> i need to write down the package set process
[14:13] <Laney> micahg: are you still ok to ping the existing uploaders to get descriptions?
[14:13] <Laney> otherwise, don't see anything
[14:13] <Laney> we should ping jbicha to make sure he comes to the next one
[14:13] <tumbleweed> yeah
[14:13] <micahg> laney: yes
[14:13] <Laney> rock
[14:14] <micahg> sorry, will try to have that done for next time
[14:14] <Laney> np
[14:14] <Laney> wasn't finalised until recently anyway
[14:15] <tumbleweed> we discussed setting up a private IRC channel, at UDS (amongst other things) but the UDS discussion never made its way into our agenda
[14:19] <Laney> yeah we failed there
[14:19]  * tumbleweed can't even find discussion logs. Was the session unscheduled?
[14:19] <Laney> but we can easily try that if people think it might be useful
[14:19] <tumbleweed> cody was pretty convinced it would be, and sounded like the main driver for it
[14:21] <Laney> want to JFDI?
[14:23] <Laney> as in: I am updating the agenda — can I give it to you? :-)
[14:25] <Laney> silence. is. assent.
[14:25] <tumbleweed> heh, sure
[14:25] <Laney> updated
[14:25] <Laney> cheers all
[14:39] <micahg> are we done here?
[14:41]  * tumbleweed assumes so
[14:42] <tumbleweed> micahg: are you still tidying up team ownership?
[14:42] <micahg> ATM no, as a task, sure :)
[14:42] <micahg> oh, wait, yes, I keep trying, will have to poke harder :)
[14:43]  * bdrung waves.
[14:43] <bdrung> i forget that we already have winter time (utc+1 instead of utc+2)
[16:00] <ara> hello!
[16:01] <jedimike> hello!
[16:01] <roadmr> hy!
[16:01] <ara> OK, let's get started :)
[16:01] <ara> #startmeeting
[16:01] <brendand> hi
[16:01] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Nov 21 16:01:36 2011 UTC.  The chair is ara. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[16:01] <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
[16:01] <ara> Welcome to the UF Squad meeting
[16:01] <ara> The agenda today looks like:
[16:01] <ara> Do we want virtual machines to be able to submit to Ubuntu Friendly? (roadmr) - UF runs done on virtual machines aren't submitted to Launchpad, getting this to work would require some effort, we'd like to gauge community interest in this to determine if it's worth pursuing.
[16:01] <ara> Biweekly meetings - ara
[16:02] <ara> AOB - all
[16:02] <ara> As usual, type ".." when you've finished talking
[16:02] <ara> #topic Do we want virtual machines to be able to submit to Ubuntu Friendly? (roadmr)
[16:02] <ara> roadmr, all yours :)
[16:02] <roadmr> thanks!
[16:02] <roadmr> Last week we found out that UF runs done on virtual machines aren't submitted to Launchpad. This was verified on VirtualBox, and would have to be checked also for Xen, VMWare and KVM.
[16:03] <roadmr> The issue comes from the weird DMI information returned from virtual machines which means that checkbox is unable to generate a system_id, which in turn prevents submission to Launchpad.
[16:03] <roadmr> The question here is whether there is interest in having Ubuntu Friendly submissions from virtual machines. This depends on how likely are community members to want to test and submit a virtual machine.
[16:03] <ara> o/
[16:03] <roadmr> If there is no interest, then perhaps the work needed to get this working is not worthwhile, but if it's something that people will want, maybe it'd be interesting to do.
[16:03] <roadmr> ..
[16:04] <roadmr> ara, go
[16:04] <ara> I think the main interest of UF is to see how Ubuntu works on real hardware. I don't see the value on having a lot of submissions from virtual machines
[16:04] <ara> ..
[16:05] <roadmr> o/
[16:05] <ara> roadmr, go :)
[16:05] <brendand> o/
[16:05] <cr3> o/
[16:05] <roadmr> heheh :) so there's already a bug about this problem, one thing to do would be to mark it Won't Fix and point people who ask to that bug, and if someone ever comes up with a rationale as to why we should be testing VMs, we can revisit the decision
[16:05] <roadmr> ..
[16:06] <ara> brendand, your turn
[16:07] <brendand> i don't think we should mark the bug 'won't fix', since it is a bug. but we shouldn't prioritise it. i don't think VMs are in scope for testing with Ubuntu Friendly
[16:07] <brendand> ...
[16:07] <ara> cr3, your turn now
[16:08] <cr3> it should be possible to submit test results from virtual machines, even though it might not make sense to have them appear in UF
[16:08] <cr3> how this gets communicated to the user actually running the tests, so that they're not disappointed when their virtual machines does not appear in UF, I don't know
[16:08] <cr3> ..
[16:09] <ara> OK, so I guess the bug is valid, but not high priority :)
[16:10] <ara> we have to make sure that once we fix it, we change uf as well so they don't appear in uf
[16:10] <cr3> ara: agreed, in other words, it shouldn't be a "validation" error to submit from a virtual machine :)
[16:10] <ara> shall we vote? or we agree?
[16:10] <cr3> anyone disagree?
[16:11] <roadmr> so we're agreeing that the bug should be fixed at some point, correct?
[16:11] <cr3> roadmr: correct
[16:11] <roadmr> ok then, /me agrees :)
[16:11] <ara> roadmr, but that we need to avoid to show those submissions in UF
[16:12] <cr3> +1
[16:12] <ara> #action roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know
[16:12] <meetingology> ACTION: roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know
[16:12] <ara> cool!
[16:12] <ara> OK, moving on
[16:12] <ara> #topic Biweekly meetings - ara
[16:13] <jedimike> o/
[16:13] <ara> OK, so nobody outside the people who attended the meeting replied to the email in the ML
[16:13] <ara> jedimike, go ahead
[16:13] <jedimike> personally, i think it's better two have a lively biweekly meeting than a quiet weekly meeting
[16:14] <jedimike> just because if the meetings are quiet, as they are at the moment, they could be considered missable
[16:14] <jedimike> ...
[16:14] <brendand> o/
[16:14] <ara> brendand, your turn
[16:14] <brendand> i think we should try it once at least
[16:15] <roadmr> o/
[16:16] <ara> brendand, done?
[16:16] <brendand> we should also start thinking about why people don't feel the meetings are worth participating in
[16:16] <brendand> ...
[16:16] <ara> roadmr, go ahead
[16:16] <cr3> o/
[16:17] <roadmr> biweekly meetings are a bit harder to keep track of, so we should be careful to announce them in the mailing list - not everyone will have a calendar reminder set up so we should do that for the participants :)
[16:17] <roadmr> ..
[16:17] <ara> cr3, your turn!
[16:18] <cr3> I liked roadmr's argument sent to the mailing list but I also like jedimike's. however, I'm not convinced that making the meeting biweekly will necessarily make the discussions more lively
[16:18] <cr3> the reason is that having it biweekly may put the project out of mind and therefore might even result in less lively meeting
[16:18] <cr3> I don't know, tough decision
[16:18] <cr3> ..
[16:19] <cr3> how about we try every 1.5 weeks? :)
[16:19] <ara> hehehe
[16:19] <ara> or following the fibonacci series by week number
[16:20] <cr3> +1
[16:20] <ara> The only thing important is to make sure that any decisions about the project are still made in the open
[16:21] <cr3> o/
[16:21] <ara> on the ML or the meetings
[16:21] <ara> cr3, go ahead
[16:21] <cr3> ara: good point, having to wait a couple weeks in order to make a decision in the open might not be ideal
[16:21] <cr3> ..
[16:21] <roadmr> o/
[16:21] <ara> roadmr, go ahead
[16:21] <roadmr> I think relying on the ML a bit more for decision making is good, that way information comes to people
[16:22] <roadmr> as opposed to IRC where they have to come to the information - a bit more effort for everyone involved
[16:22] <roadmr> even though the ML is a bit slower...
[16:22] <roadmr> that may help in showing that decisions are open to the community
[16:22] <roadmr> and hopefully encourage more participation
[16:23] <cr3> +1
[16:23] <roadmr> and while I still think weekly meetings are less prone to losing momentum,
[16:23] <roadmr> maybe going biweekly is a good opportunity to prepare more interesting agendas,
[16:23] <roadmr> which will engage the community a bit more.
[16:23] <roadmr> ..
[16:23] <ara> what about keeping weekly and cancelling the meeting if there are no topics to discuss?
[16:23] <cr3> ara: +1
[16:24]  * cr3 is in an agreeing mood today
[16:24] <brendand> o/
[16:24] <ara> brendand, go ahead
[16:25] <brendand> we usually have at least *one* topic to discuss. the problem is that it's *only* one or two and maybe the topic(s) aren't that interesting to a wider audience
[16:26] <ara> o/
[16:26] <brendand> and if we hold up having a meeting until we have a 'good' agenda then the scheduling could end up quite random
[16:26] <brendand> which is annoying as someone participating externally
[16:27] <brendand> speaking from personal experience
[16:27] <cr3> o/
[16:27] <brendand> ...
[16:28] <ara> I think that if we have one topic, then we need to still have the meeting. If someone put it in the agenda is because it interest them :)
[16:28] <ara> ..
[16:28] <ara> cr3, go ahead
[16:28] <cr3> even if there's one agenda item, I would still hold a meeting because it might inspire other items for the next meeting.
[16:28] <cr3> ..
[16:29] <brendand> o/
[16:29] <ara> brendand, go ahead
[16:29] <brendand> i agree with that angle if the topic in question is proposed by the community
[16:30] <ara> but who are the community? because I am community :)
[16:31] <cr3> me too! I quit canonical for an hour just to attend these meetings :)
[16:31] <brendand> i'm also the community
[16:32] <brendand> let's say, outside of the meeting organizers
[16:32] <ara> but why? I don't understand the difference
[16:34] <ara> OK, so the options are:
[16:34] <ara> 1) Keep the weekly meeting, and cancel the meeting if there are no topics at all
[16:34] <ara> 2) Keep the weekly meeting, and cancel the meeting if there are no topics from people outside the meeting organizers (?)
[16:35] <ara> 3) Move to a biweekly meeting
[16:35] <ara> Any other options?
[16:35] <cr3> shall we vote?
[16:36]  * ara wonders if you can give options to the voting system...
[16:36] <ara> #vote meeting options
[16:36] <meetingology> Please vote on: meeting options
[16:36] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
[16:36] <ara> #endvote
[16:36] <meetingology> Voting ended on: meeting options
[16:36] <meetingology> Votes for:0 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[16:36] <meetingology> Deadlock, casting vote may be used
[16:36] <ara> it does not look like
[16:37] <ara> #vote Option 1 on the cadence
[16:37] <meetingology> Please vote on: Option 1 on the cadence
[16:37] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
[16:37] <ara> (this is for those that want option 1)
[16:37] <cr3> +1
[16:37] <meetingology> +1 received from cr3
[16:37] <ara> +1
[16:37] <meetingology> +1 received from ara
[16:37] <roadmr> +1
[16:37] <meetingology> +1 received from roadmr
[16:37] <ara> (vote 0 if it is not your chosen option, please)
[16:37] <brendand> 0
[16:37] <meetingology> 0 received from brendand
[16:38] <ara> jedimike, ?
[16:38] <jedimike> +1
[16:38] <meetingology> +1 received from jedimike
[16:38] <ara> #endvote
[16:38] <meetingology> Voting ended on: Option 1 on the cadence
[16:38] <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1
[16:38] <meetingology> Motion carried
[16:38] <ara> OK, I think we don't need to vote the rest of the options, unless anyone says we should
[16:39] <ara> #agree Meetings to be kept on a weekly cadence. The meeting would be cancel if no topics are on the agenda
[16:40] <ara> mmm, it didn't seem to work :)
[16:40] <ara> anyway
[16:40] <ara> Anything else on this topic?
[16:40] <ara> OK, let's move on
[16:41] <ara> #topic Any Other Business?
[16:41] <ara> Anyone?
[16:41] <jedimike> not me
[16:41]  * roadmr got nothing else :(
[16:41] <ara> OK, let's wrap up then
[16:41] <cr3> ditto
[16:41] <ara> #endmeeting
[16:41] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Nov 21 16:41:55 2011 UTC.
[16:41] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-11-21-16.01.moin.txt
[16:41] <ara> cool!
[16:42] <ara> thanks all!
[16:42] <roadmr> thanks :)
[16:44] <brendand> thanks
[17:59] <jdstrand> hi!
[17:59] <tyhicks> Hello
[18:00] <micahg> o/
[18:02] <jjohansen> \o
[18:02] <jdstrand> ok, let's get started
[18:02] <jdstrand> #startmeeting
[18:02] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Nov 21 18:02:33 2011 UTC.  The chair is jdstrand. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
[18:02] <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
[18:02] <jdstrand> The meeting agenda can be found at:
[18:02] <jdstrand> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting
[18:02] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Announcements
[18:03] <jdstrand> Short week for a lot of the team as Thursday is a national holiday for US employees and a lot of people are taking Friday off
[18:03] <jdstrand> mdeslaur, sbeattie, micahg, tyhicks, jjohansen: thank you for spending time getting your blueprints in order. I think everything is looking good on that front, especially when considering our commitment to essential work items (and best effort for high and lower).
[18:04] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report
[18:04] <jdstrand> I'll go first
[18:04] <jdstrand> I'm one of the ones with a short week (off thu and fri)
[18:04] <jdstrand> I'm on community this week
[18:05] <jdstrand> I've got one pending update that I hope to push this week: kdeutils. It involves quite a bit of testing, but I hope to push it out today, tomorrow at the latest
[18:05] <jdstrand> I've also got a few MIR audits
[18:06] <jdstrand> if I have any time, I hope to gather up some statistics on proactive and reactive work
[18:07] <jdstrand> I want to be able to look at all the time estimates we gave in the work items and look at if people have too much dev work, etc
[18:08] <jdstrand> hopefully, going forward I can have some processes that will better predict things such that at the next UDS we can continue to improve our planning
[18:08] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: you're up
[18:08] <mdeslaur> I'm currently pushing out a software-center update
[18:08] <mdeslaur> and I have a pidgin update to test and push
[18:09] <mdeslaur> and then I'll continue going down the list
[18:09] <mdeslaur> I'm in the happy place this week
[18:09] <mdeslaur> and I won't be eating turkey on thursday
[18:09] <mdeslaur> so I'll hold down the fort
[18:09] <mdeslaur> that,s it from me
[18:09] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: thanks! :)
[18:09] <mdeslaur> sbeattie: you're up
[18:10] <sbeattie> I'm also happy placing this week
[18:10] <sbeattie> and have a short-week planned
[18:10] <sbeattie> I'm working on a glibc update and monitoring for openjdk regressions from last week
[18:11] <sbeattie> I'm also exploring cgroups
[18:11] <sbeattie> I think that's it for me
[18:11] <sbeattie> micahg: tag
[18:12] <micahg> so, I think I have a full week this week and will also not be having Turkey on Thursday :)
[18:13] <micahg> so, unfortunately, last week ended up being a very short week for me, so I'm still trying to get the Mozilla updates out, after that I have chromium and a few other updates related to DigiCert
[18:13] <micahg> that's it for me
[18:13] <micahg> tyhicks: you're it
[18:13] <tyhicks> First off, I will be eating turkey on Thursday... lots of it :)
[18:13] <mdeslaur> \o/
[18:13] <tyhicks> I'll also be taking half a day off on Wednesday and Friday
[18:14] <tyhicks> I'm in the triage role this week
[18:14] <tyhicks> So I should still have plenty of time to get that role covered all week
[18:14] <tyhicks> Outside of that, I am going to move on to a libt1 update
[18:15] <tyhicks> and I intend to start the SRU process for a couple eCryptfs kernel patches for Oneiric
[18:15] <mdeslaur> tyhicks: after all that tryptophan, it's good that you're taking friday off :)
[18:15] <tyhicks> mdeslaur: Yes - I probably won't wake up until noon, anways :)
[18:15] <tyhicks> That's it for me - you're up jjohansen
[18:15] <jjohansen> thanks
[18:16] <jjohansen> well, yet again another short week here.
[18:17] <jjohansen> beside the regular kernel USN work,  I need to fix bug893232, that was discovered last week during testing, and continue getting the apparmor permission rework pushed through and the base of stacking
[18:17] <jjohansen> Also I need to release AppArmor 2.7 final some time this week
[18:18] <jjohansen> hrmm, I think that is it from me
[18:19] <jdstrand> thanks guys
[18:19] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Highlighted packages
[18:19] <jdstrand> The Ubuntu Security team will highlight some community-supported packages that might be good candidates for updating and or triaging. If you would like to help Ubuntu and not sure where to start, this is a great way to do so.
[18:19] <jdstrand> See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/UpdateProcedures for details and if you have any questions, feel free to ask in #ubuntu-security. To find out other ways of helping out, please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/GettingInvolved.
[18:19] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/bip.html
[18:20] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/gnucash.html
[18:20] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/conky.html
[18:20] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/unbound.html
[18:20] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/ardour.html
[18:20] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Miscellaneous and Questions
[18:20] <jdstrand> Does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss?
[18:22] <jdstrand> alrighty then
[18:22] <jdstrand> mdeslaur, sbeattie, micahg, tyhicks, jjohansen: thanks!
[18:23] <jdstrand> #endmeeting
[18:23] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Nov 21 18:23:02 2011 UTC.
[18:23] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-11-21-18.02.moin.txt
[18:23] <mdeslaur> thanks jdstrand!
[18:23] <jjohansen> thanks jdstrand
[18:23] <micahg> thanks jdstrand
[18:23] <tyhicks> Thanks jdstrand
[18:23] <sbeattie> jdstrand: thanks!