[16:55]  * bdrung will be afk for some minutes
[17:04] <czajkowski> beuno: cprofitt shall we get started
[17:04] <beuno> sure thing
[17:04] <cprofitt> sure
[17:05] <czajkowski> which one of you would like to chair :)
[17:06] <czajkowski> #startmeeting
[17:06] <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Jul  5 17:06:33 2012 UTC.  The chair is czajkowski. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[17:06] <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
[17:06] <czajkowski> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[17:06] <czajkowski> todays agenda
[17:06] <czajkowski> welcome to the CC meeting
[17:07] <czajkowski> so who is here from the DMB ?
[17:07] <tumbleweed> !dmb-ping
[17:07] <tumbleweed> hi
[17:07] <micahg> hi
[17:07]  * stgraber waves
[17:07] <czajkowski> hey folks thanks for coming
[17:08] <czajkowski> so in past meetings and in the last cycle we've invited boards to come along and just give us an inforaml update on how things are going, any issues and if we can help in any way
[17:09] <czajkowski> so bdrung cody-somerville Laney micahg tumbleweed stgraber care to update us
[17:11] <micahg> so, overall, think we're doing ok, I think we've only missed quorum twice in the last 6 months
[17:11] <czajkowski> that's not bad at all.
[17:12] <beuno> apologies for the stupid question, but meeting how often?
[17:12] <tumbleweed> we limited the number of candidates per meeting, which also seems to have helped streamline things
[17:12] <micahg> beuno: once a fortnight
[17:12] <czajkowski> tumbleweed: oh nice idea. how does that work ?
[17:13] <tumbleweed> 2 per meeting
[17:13]  * bdrung is back
[17:13] <tumbleweed> our meetings used to run towards 2 hours each
[17:14] <czajkowski> tumbleweed: so limit the number of applicants and increase meeting frequency has worked?
[17:14] <tumbleweed> frequency has stayed the same
[17:14] <tumbleweed> but we used to have people hanging around, hoping we'd get to them
[17:14] <tumbleweed> now it's obvious before the meeting who is goin gto be processed
[17:14] <cprofitt> is there a backlog of applicants?
[17:15] <micahg> just DMB members at this point
[17:15] <tumbleweed> we wish :(
[17:15] <tumbleweed> applications are slowing
[17:16] <beuno> tumbleweed, why do you think that's happening?
[17:16] <tumbleweed> there haven't been many new contributors recently, that I've seen
[17:17] <beuno> anything that can be done to improve that?  does it need improving?
[17:18] <micahg> well, for a while it seemed like the MOTU community has stalled
[17:18] <tumbleweed> fortunately, that's outside our control (as a board) so we should probably concentrate on other issues
[17:18] <micahg> there were several sessions at UDS and I think we're hoping that the reinvigoration will lead to more applicants
[17:19] <micahg> dholbach has been a great help in getting these things going again
[17:19] <czajkowski> nods
[17:20] <czajkowski> are there any areas we the CC can help in ?
[17:21] <micahg> also, now that we have a smoother sponsorship process, as well as the number of contributors increasing, I'm hoping that in time we'll get more applicants
[17:21]  * ScottK thinks that over the long run things like PPAs and extras.ubuntu.com have reduced the incentive to get involved in the distro.
[17:21] <micahg> ScottK: yeah, well, the ARB is good about redirecting when appropriate
[17:22] <Laney> oops, this is now
[17:22] <ScottK> Yes, but it'd have been 100% redirect before (effectively).
[17:22] <Laney> hello :-)
[17:22] <micahg> and as for PPAs, I wanted to start talking to people running specific PPAs to see if they're interested in distro work
[17:22] <micahg> with backports being more active, that's a big help as well
[17:23] <ScottK> I've asked in the past and the response has generally been something like "why should I bother - the PPA solves my problem."
[17:23] <cprofitt> that sounds promising micahg and ScottK
[17:23] <bdrung> PPAs helped me when I started contributing to Ubuntu.
[17:24] <micahg> well, for the people doing stuff for themselves, you probably won't get traction, but for people trying to help others, they might be interested in reaching a larger audience, also with backports enabled by default in oneiric+, that's a big impetus to use backports vs PPAs
[17:25] <ScottK> bdrung: I'm not saying PPAs aren't useful.  They are very much so, but they also have their costs.
[17:25] <tumbleweed> I'm frequently amazed by the number of PPAs people use. There must be people there worth attracting
[17:25] <micahg> yeah, it should probably be the developer advisory board that follows up on the PPA people
[17:25] <bdrung> ScottK: Distro work requires sustainable contribution. PPA allow to just do one thing and then forget about it.
[17:25] <cprofitt> I rarely use PPAs
[17:25] <czajkowski> tumbleweed: indeed!
[17:25] <czajkowski> so many people use them
[17:26] <micahg> bdrung: well, no, people can do one off distro contributions as well if it suits their need
[17:26] <micahg> upload rights require sustained contribution
[17:26] <bdrung> blog post like http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/how-to-upgrade-to-the-latest-vlc-release-in-ubuntu-12-04 do not help
[17:27] <micahg> right, well, I didn't see a backport request for vlc 2.0.2 :)
[17:27] <bdrung> micahg: we are more interested in sustained contribution if someone wants to get a new package in the archive
[17:28] <micahg> bdrung: sure, but I think a lot of PPAs are just the newest version of foo in the archiv
[17:28] <bdrung> micahg: i want 2.0.2 in precise-security or -updates
[17:28] <micahg> bdrung: that probably won't happen unless you go for an MRE (but that's for another discussion)
[17:28] <bdrung> MRE?
[17:28] <micahg> MicroRelease Exception
[17:28] <ScottK> Micro Release Exception.
[17:29] <joshuahoover> ralsina: any ideas on how to help a 11.10 user who is showing this in the syncdaemon log: ubuntuone.SyncDaemon.StorageClient - INFO - Connection lost, reason:  [Failure instance: Traceback (failure with no frames): <class  'OpenSSL.SSL.Error'>: [('SSL routines',  'SSL3_GET_SERVER_CERTIFICATE', 'certificate verify failed')]
[17:29] <micahg> so, back to the CC, we were wondering about the 6 month requirement for membership with regard to contributing developer
[17:29] <czajkowski> so moving back to the DMB checkup, is there anything else you wish to say
[17:29] <czajkowski> joshuahoover: wrong channel!
[17:29] <micahg> joshuahoover: this is a meeting channel :)
[17:29] <joshuahoover> czajkowski, micahg: sorry about that!
[17:30] <czajkowski> micahg: do you want to increase or decrease it or what is the issue?
[17:30] <ralsina> joshuahoover: dobey's symlink trick?
[17:30]  * beuno slaps ralsina 
[17:30] <ralsina> beuno: oops
[17:30] <micahg> czajkowski: well, basically, is it a hard requirement or is it just a nice to have
[17:30] <ScottK> micahg: Isn't that more of a guidelane than a rule?
[17:30] <micahg> ScottK: that's what we're asking :)
[17:31] <ScottK> (Speaking as a Kubuntu Council member who decides such stuff I've always thought it was a guideline)
[17:31] <czajkowski> micahg: well has it helped or do you think your numbers would be higher if it were reduced or removed?
[17:31] <micahg> czajkowski: to be honest, we haven't had many applicants going for that
[17:32] <tumbleweed> ScottK: we do treat it as a guideline. But there are times when there is very little sustained contribution, but PPU still seems like a reasonable thing to grant
[17:32] <czajkowski> micahg: can you elaborate ?
[17:32] <cprofitt> where is the requirement for six months listed?
[17:32] <micahg> czajkowski: we don't get a lot of applicants for dev membership without upload rights
[17:33] <ScottK> tumbleweed: Personally I very uncomfortable with non-members being Ubuntu developers.
[17:33] <ScottK> I also think significant and sustained are important parts of the requirement.
[17:33] <micahg> ScottK: so, I take it you don't like the DM process?
[17:33] <ScottK> micahg: I'd feel better if PPU weren't part of ubuntu-dev.
[17:34] <tumbleweed> ScottK: which would make them not members
[17:34] <micahg> cprofitt: on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership, it says that it's rare for an application to be accepted with < 6 months of contributions
[17:34] <ScottK> Right, don't make them members without significant and sustained contributions.
[17:34] <micahg> ScottK: so would I :), that's the second point I wanted to bring up, but the DMB is still trying to find consensus on
[17:35] <cprofitt> micahg: how long does it take to get upload rights?
[17:35] <ScottK> I think having them not necessarily be ubuntu-dev/members makes PPU more like DM.
[17:36] <micahg> cprofitt: that depends on the second point which I wanted to bring up of decoupling upload rights from membership
[17:36] <cprofitt> micahg: I would think that getting several sponsored uploads would take a while... is it frequent that a person accomplishes this under six months?
[17:36] <micahg> cprofitt: it can be done in a matter of weeks
[17:36] <micahg> err..several sponsored uploads
[17:37] <ScottK> If one is already a DD, it could (technically) be very fast.
[17:37] <cprofitt> to be honest I am more concerned with sustained activity than anything
[17:37] <tumbleweed> ScottK: in that case, granting membership is more straightforward, I think
[17:37] <micahg> but upload rights require good working knowledge of what's being applied for, that can be either a short time or a long one depending on the person
[17:37] <cprofitt> I think we want to avoid a person who is really excited about 'package x' gets several uploads done... goes for membership and then loses the momentum
[17:38] <micahg> but generally, we want to see someone go through an entire dev cycle (6 months) to see how the freeze schedule works
[17:38] <ScottK> tumbleweed: I disagree.  I think granting upload rights for packages they maintain is pretty straightforward.  I don't think that also means membership is straightforward.
[17:38] <cprofitt> I agree there may be situations that merit things moving faster
[17:39] <bdrung> ScottK: that's where decoupled upload rights and membership is a benefit
[17:39] <ScottK> yes.
[17:39] <ScottK> (for PPU)
[17:40] <czajkowski> tumbleweed: micahg Laney is there anything you want to follow up post this meeting as we do seem to have gone off track here from the check up
[17:40] <tumbleweed> ScottK: yes. It does depend on the situation. I also recall debian people who care about their packages in Ubuntu and fix the bugs in debian, so there are few uploads but clear development-related involvement in our community
[17:40] <bdrung> the question is: are we allowed to grant PPU without membership?
[17:40] <czajkowski> what needs to be followed up on and posisbly reviewed
[17:41] <Laney> Sorry I forgot to pay attention as I was on the phone to the stupid gas company sorting out readings
[17:41]  * Laney grumbles
[17:42] <ScottK> bdrung: I suspect that's a TB question, but I'm not sure.
[17:42] <Laney> do we have a resolution?
[17:42] <Laney> I think membership is a CC thing.
[17:42] <Laney> I've come around to kind of liking the idea of decoupling it. People can apply for both simultaneously if they want.
[17:43] <micahg> exactly
[17:43] <beuno> so
[17:43] <beuno> conceptually
[17:43] <beuno> would we want casual contributors?
[17:43] <Laney> want for what?
[17:43] <bdrung> Laney: core-dev, MOTU should infer membership
[17:43] <beuno> as a healthy project
[17:43] <cprofitt> Laney: micahg: ScottK:
[17:43] <micahg> bdrung: yes
[17:43] <Laney> bdrung: yes
[17:43] <tumbleweed> beuno: sustained casual contributors seem to be candidates fro membership
[17:43] <tumbleweed> drive-by, not so much
[17:43] <beuno> right
[17:43] <micahg> beuno: of course, that's what the sponsorship process is for
[17:44] <cprofitt> I think you folks should discuss this and arrange to meet with the CC again about this issue
[17:44] <beuno> if they are sustained, then the qualify for membership
[17:44] <Laney> I think you should tell us if we're allowed to decouple it in principle and then we don't need to come back
[17:44] <micahg> +1
[17:44] <cprofitt> I think you should formulate a desired outcome and plan to achieve it and then have the CC take a look at it
[17:44] <cprofitt> there appears to be a great deal of depth in this topic
[17:44] <tumbleweed> I think the plan is very straightforward: Make PPU not imply membership
[17:45] <micahg> membership requires sustained contribution, upload rights require proficiency
[17:45] <Laney> It would make it easier to let us grant people PPU
[17:45] <beuno> but not sustained?
[17:45] <tumbleweed> currently we evaluate the PPU rights, and the membership goes along for free. But we don't think that's fair on the other members who had to prove themselves
[17:45] <Laney> just enough for us to be convinced that they know what they're doing
[17:45] <micahg> beuno: not necessarily (Debian Developers are the easiest example)
[17:46] <cprofitt> can we move to any other topics you have?
[17:46] <beuno> so, lets pick this up again
[17:46] <micahg> those 2 were it AIUI
[17:46] <Laney> So what we'd do is remove ~ubuntumembers from ~ubuntu-dev
[17:46] <beuno> schedule it
[17:46] <Laney> err, the other way around
[17:46] <beuno> I think it's absolutely worth discussing, if you guys feel it would help
[17:47] <Laney> Or, think about whether these people should be in ubuntu-dev at all.
[17:47] <beuno> just need to weigh in long-term effects a bit more
[17:47] <micahg> Laney: well, it's a little more complicated than that
[17:47] <Laney> Maybe /that/ is a question for the TB.
[17:47] <czajkowski> beuno: perhaps email as our schedule is done for a few weeks
[17:47] <tumbleweed> I don't know of any other pressing questions from our side
[17:48] <beuno> sure, email works
[17:48] <czajkowski> I think we should follow this up after the meeting via email to discuss this further
[17:48] <czajkowski> #action beuno to start a thread with the DMB and CC to discuss the topics that have come from todays meeting
[17:48] <meetingology> ACTION: beuno to start a thread with the DMB and CC to discuss the topics that have come from todays meeting
[17:48] <czajkowski> :)
[17:48] <beuno> look at that, I win a task!  :)
[17:48] <beuno> well played
[17:49] <czajkowski> hey I got landed with chairing I feel the need to share the love!
[17:49] <czajkowski> right moving on
[17:49] <czajkowski> #topic Juju Governance
[17:49] <czajkowski> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda/talk
[17:49] <czajkowski> jcastro: ping
[17:49] <jcastro> hi
[17:49] <czajkowski> really that link isn't helpful
[17:50] <beuno> https://juju.ubuntu.com/CharmReviewBoard
[17:50] <jcastro> sorry I didn't know how to link the header
[17:50] <jcastro> it's the top paragraph but it's not really as important as the link beuno just posted
[17:50] <czajkowski> #link  https://juju.ubuntu.com/CharmReviewBoard
[17:51] <beuno> thanks btw, Laney, micahg, tumbleweed, ScottK  :)
[17:52] <czajkowski> jcastro: so how did this idea come about
[17:52] <czajkowski> and who would it be aimed at
[17:52] <jcastro> right so the idea would basically be for juju to be like everything else in ubuntu
[17:52] <jcastro> since the charm store is analogous to an archive
[17:53] <jcastro> and has it's own policies and all that, then it would make sense to have it governed in the same way as ubuntu itself
[17:53] <jcastro> we've basically been doing that the entire time
[17:53] <jcastro> but there was no escalation process, nor a policy that was official or anything
[17:53] <jcastro> it was just a bunch of us kind of self-governing ourselves.
[17:54] <jcastro> which is fine when you're small, but at some point we needed to tighten things up and codify these things, hence this document
[17:54] <beuno> +1 from me, really. Makes a lot of sense, it's well layed out.
[17:54] <cprofitt> +1 from me as well... nice job to those who contributed
[17:54] <jcastro> it's mostly a clone of the existing forums process
[17:54] <jcastro> since I didn't want to be special, just another board. :)
[17:55] <czajkowski> jcastro: so would members have to be Ubuntu members and or juju developers?
[17:55] <jcastro> they would have to be ubuntu members
[17:55] <jcastro> and in order to even review charms they need to be in the ~charmers group
[17:56] <czajkowski> #link https://launchpad.net/~charmers
[17:56] <beuno> which is different from a juju dev, yes>
[17:56] <czajkowski> so there is atm 26 people and 4 pending
[17:56] <beuno> ?
[17:56] <jcastro> yes
[17:56] <beuno> right, makes sense
[17:56] <czajkowski> what's the difference as I'm unsure
[17:56] <ScottK> I see charms have listed maintainers.  Is that a strong maintainer like in Debian or more like a primary point of contact?
[17:56] <jcastro> primarily a POC right now
[17:57] <jcastro> we're trying to make it more of a strong maintainership
[17:57] <jcastro> but we didn't have maintainers when it started
[17:57] <jcastro> so when it came down to "claim your charm!" a few people bailed
[17:57] <ScottK> That's a bit different than we do in Ubuntu with package maintainership.
[17:57] <cprofitt> so if I get this right... there would be Juju devs, Juju reviewers and the Juju Council?
[17:58] <jcastro> it's a board
[17:58] <jcastro> so there are juju core devs
[17:58] <jcastro> who may or may not be ubuntu members
[17:58] <jcastro> and then the ~charmers, which are reviewers
[17:58] <cprofitt> so if I get this right... there would be Juju devs, Juju reviewers and the Juju Board... that is correct?
[17:58] <micahg> I thought juju was bigger than Ubuntu, is this not the case?
[17:58] <jcastro> and the review board would be made up of ~charmers
[17:58]  * cprofitt nods
[17:58] <jcastro> micahg: what do you mean?
[17:59] <micahg> jcastro: more encompassing
[17:59] <jcastro> sure, it can be
[17:59] <cprofitt> micahg: it is certainly bigger than Ubuntu, but there is also an Ubuntu part of it
[17:59] <jcastro> but we still need a process for say, escalation, etc.
[18:02] <beuno> sounds great to me
[18:02] <cprofitt> me as well jcastro
[18:02] <beuno> czajkowski?
[18:03] <czajkowski> it's intersting that;s fore sure
[18:03] <czajkowski> but there are only 3 of us here from the CC today
[18:03] <czajkowski> so I think we should follow up on this with the others via email
[18:04] <czajkowski> any other comments regarding the juju board?
[18:04] <micahg> shouldn't the Ubuntu/non-Ubuntu things be clarified since wouldn't the CC only have authority over the Ubuntu part of the ecosystem
[18:04] <czajkowski> micahg: yup thats one thing I want to clarify with the CC
[18:04] <czajkowski> but ther are only 3/8 here atm
[18:04] <czajkowski> sorry 3/7
[18:05] <czajkowski> grr 8
[18:05] <czajkowski> anything else folks?
[18:05] <micahg> either way, no quorum :)
[18:05] <czajkowski> micahg: bingo :)
[18:06] <beuno> I'm tempted to not have meetings with no quorum
[18:06] <beuno> but, the future
[18:06] <beuno> is that a wrap up?
[18:06] <czajkowski> yes
[18:06] <czajkowski> #endmeeting
[18:06] <meetingology> Meeting ended Thu Jul  5 18:06:35 2012 UTC.
[18:06] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-07-05-17.06.moin.txt
[18:06] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-07-05-17.06.html
[18:06] <beuno> czajkowski, so you'll take this one?
[18:06] <czajkowski> beuno: will do
[18:06] <beuno> cool
[18:06] <beuno> thank you everybody!
[18:06] <czajkowski> thanks folks
[18:07] <czajkowski> <-- dinner
[18:18] <micahg> thanks czajkowski, beuno
[21:58] <s-fox> ping negronjl  :)
[22:00] <negronjl> Hello
[22:00] <negronjl> s-fox: pong
[22:00] <s-fox> hey negronjl , we're just waiting for our quorum of 4. Seem to be thin on the ground at the minute. Sorry :)
[22:01] <negronjl> No worries.
[22:02] <s-fox> okay, i think we have 4... show of hands please for the  meeting
[22:02] <Pendulum> o/
[22:02] <hggdh> o/
[22:02] <s-fox> o/
[22:02] <iulian> ... and me.
[22:02] <s-fox> to be different ;)
[22:02]  * iulian nods.
[22:02] <hggdh> I almost gave my standard ~ô~
[22:03] <s-fox> #startmeeting
[22:03] <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Jul  5 22:03:38 2012 UTC.  The chair is s-fox. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[22:03] <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
[22:04] <s-fox> [TOPIC] Ubuntu Membership Board Meeting - 22:00 UTC
[22:04] <s-fox> Okay let's start :)
[22:05] <s-fox> negronjl is applying for ubuntu membership , can you please introduce yourself ?
[22:06] <negronjl> Hi all.  I am Juan Negron (negronjl).  I currently work for Canonical as a systems integrations engineer
[22:07] <s-fox> Thank you :)
[22:07] <s-fox> negronjl,  the membership board had a question: why are you applying to the community board and not the developer board?
[22:08] <negronjl> The devel board tgought it best to apply here so my juju contribs could be considered
[22:08] <hggdh> yes, I remember it
[22:09] <hggdh> (was fuzzy in the details, though)
[22:09] <hggdh> negronjl: can you please give us the links to your Wiki and LP pages?
[22:10] <negronjl> Wiki.ubuntu.com/JuanNegron
[22:11] <negronjl> lp:~negronjl
[22:12] <s-fox> Thank you :)
[22:12] <s-fox> [VOTE] negronjl for ubuntu membership?
[22:12] <meetingology> Please vote on: negronjl for ubuntu membership?
[22:12] <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)
[22:12] <s-fox> +1
[22:12] <meetingology> +1 received from s-fox
[22:13] <Pendulum> +1
[22:13] <meetingology> +1 received from Pendulum
[22:13] <hggdh> +1 without question! Of course, having the server team's testimonials did help ;-)
[22:13] <meetingology> +1 without question! Of course, having the server team's testimonials did help ;-) received from hggdh
[22:13] <iulian> +1
[22:13] <meetingology> +1 received from iulian
[22:13] <s-fox> sorry iulian is still reading :)
[22:13] <s-fox> [ENDVOTE]
[22:13] <meetingology> Voting ended on: negronjl for ubuntu membership?
[22:13] <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[22:13] <meetingology> Motion carried
[22:14] <s-fox> Congratulations negronjl  :)
[22:14] <hggdh> negronjl: welcome!
[22:15] <Pendulum> negronjl: congrats and welcome!
[22:15] <s-fox> Thanks for coming everyone
[22:15] <s-fox> [ENDMEETING]
[22:15] <meetingology> Meeting ended Thu Jul  5 22:15:52 2012 UTC.
[22:15] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-07-05-22.03.moin.txt
[22:15] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-07-05-22.03.html
[22:16] <hggdh> negronjl: frankly your work on Juju more than justified you being a member
[22:16] <s-fox> +1 hggdh
[22:16] <negronjl> Thank you all :)
[22:16] <s-fox> sorry for the slight delay negronjl :)
[22:17] <hggdh> negronjl: you are welcome, and -- if I did not make myslef clear so far, I am glad you applied
[22:18] <Daviey> negronjl: Well deserved !  Good to see you in.
[22:25] <s-fox> negronjl,  i just added you to the launchpad group :)
[22:51] <negronjl> Thanks again all ... glad to be here :)
[23:40] <IdleOne> Congrats negronjl :)