[18:01] <jdstrand> hi!
[18:01] <jjohansen> o/
[18:02]  * sbeattie waves
[18:02] <jdstrand> #startmeeting
[18:02] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Feb 25 18:02:18 2013 UTC.  The chair is jdstrand. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[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] Weekly stand-up report
[18:02] <jdstrand> I'll go first
[18:02] <jdstrand> I hope to push thunderbird out today
[18:03] <jdstrand> there is a firefox regression so might have that to do this week and chromium-browser needs an update, so will be following up with chad on that
[18:03] <jdstrand> I plan to go through our blueprints this week too
[18:03] <jdstrand> mdeslaur: you're up
[18:03] <mdeslaur> I'm on community this week
[18:03] <mdeslaur> and am working on some updates
[18:04] <jdstrand> (oh yes, I am on triage)
[18:04] <mdeslaur> I need to take a look at the new touch sdk
[18:04] <mdeslaur> and I'll continue going down the updates list
[18:04] <mdeslaur> that's it from me...sbeattie, you're up
[18:04] <sbeattie> I'm focused again on apparmor this week
[18:05] <sbeattie> It'll be more work items for me.
[18:05] <sbeattie> Which is pretty much it; tyhicks?
[18:06] <tyhicks> I'm working on an embargoed item and then I'm trying to get the apparmor query interface patches to the kernel and libapparmor (which still need a bit of work) out to the mailing list for review
[18:06] <tyhicks> Short week for me. Off Thu and Fri.
[18:07] <tyhicks> I also need to get a small stack of eCryptfs kernel fixes sent out in a pull request before we get too late into the merge window
[18:07] <tyhicks> That's it for me
[18:07] <tyhicks> jjohansen: you're up
[18:08] <jjohansen> I am working on fixing an issue with apparmor stacking when the stacked profiles split across different namespaces, and hopefully I'll get back to the socket labeling to integrate and test with the dbus patches
[18:08] <jjohansen> thats it for me, sarnold you are up
[18:09] <sarnold> I'm in the happy place this week, though the term is relative as I'm still working on jj's patch 19 (rcu)
[18:09] <sarnold> I'm roughly 50% of the way through the text of the patch, so hopefully that means the end is in sight :D
[18:10] <sarnold> that's it for me, back to jdstrand :)
[18:10] <mdeslaur> sarnold: let me know when you're done, I'd like you to look at the python-django CVEs
[18:10] <jdstrand> tyhicks (and/or jjohansen): will you be uploading a raring kernel to the dbus ppa soon?
[18:10] <tyhicks> jdstrand: I will
[18:10] <mdeslaur> sarnold: if you run out of things to review before the end of the week
[18:11] <tyhicks> I'll work on that in the background today
[18:11] <jdstrand> tyhicks: thanks
[18:11] <sarnold> mdeslaur: aha, you anticipated my question well :D
[18:11] <mdeslaur> hehe
[18:13]  * jjohansen laughs at sarnold's hopefully there's an end in sight. Noting that he is on 19 and the queue is well past 50
[18:14] <sarnold> I picked a bad day to stop huffing glue
[18:14] <jdstrand> on that note
[18:14] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Highlighted packages
[18:14] <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.
[18:14] <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.
[18:14] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/xine-ui.html
[18:14] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/ccid.html
[18:14] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/dracut.html
[18:14] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/exif.html
[18:14] <jdstrand> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/sanlock.html
[18:15] <jdstrand> [TOPIC] Miscellaneous and Questions
[18:15] <jdstrand> Does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss?
[18:18] <jdstrand> #endmeeting
[18:18] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Feb 25 18:18:33 2013 UTC.
[18:18] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-02-25-18.02.moin.txt
[18:18] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-02-25-18.02.html
[18:18] <jdstrand> mdeslaur, sbeattie, tyhicks, jjohansen, sarnold: thanks!
[18:18] <sarnold> thanks jdstrand :)
[18:18] <mdeslaur> thanks jdstrand
[18:18] <jjohansen> thank jdstrand
[18:18] <sbeattie> jdstrand: thanks!
[18:22] <bdrung> !dmb-ping
[18:23] <bdrung> DMB meeting in 45 mins
[18:24] <tumbleweed> ah, hi
[18:28] <stgraber> I'll be there
[18:32] <LoganPhone> Hey. :)
[18:58] <bdrung> !dmb-ping
[18:59] <tumbleweed> ubottu?
[19:03] <micahg> #startmeeting
[19:03] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Feb 25 19:03:45 2013 UTC.  The chair is micahg. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[19:03] <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
[19:04] <micahg> welcome to the DMB fortnightly meeting
[19:04]  * stgraber waves
[19:04] <Logan_> Hey. :)
[19:04] <micahg> #topic review previous action items
[19:04] <micahg> #subtopic Micah to announce the poll results
[19:04] <micahg> not yet, will do after the meeting
[19:05] <micahg> #subtopic Iain to do the paperwork for the kernel PPU team delegation
[19:05] <micahg> as Laney is absent, we'll carry this forward as I don't see anything for it yet
[19:05] <micahg> #topic MOTU Applications
[19:05] <micahg> first up, wendar
[19:05] <wendar> hi
[19:06] <micahg> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AllisonRandal/MOTU
[19:06] <ScottK> \o
[19:06] <micahg> wendar: please introduce yourself
[19:06] <ScottK> dmb ping needs to be updated
[19:06] <micahg> ScottK: ubottu was offline :)
[19:08] <wendar> Not sure what to put in an introduction. I'll go with: Hi, I'm Allison Randal, I've been involved in Ubuntu in various ways since 2005.
[19:09] <wendar> I am an upstream developer on the Parrot project, so have always paid close attention to those packages.
[19:09] <wendar> But, mostly see Ubuntu as an integrated whole system. (And from that perspective, parrot plays a very small part.)
[19:10] <wendar> My packaging work is often in the area of battling complicated failures in C or Perl packages.
[19:10] <wendar> With a few Python packages mixed in.
[19:11] <wendar> I mostly avoid Java. :)
[19:11] <wendar> end-of-intro
[19:11] <tumbleweed> wendar: hi, yeah, just been looking through some of your recent uploads
[19:11] <tumbleweed> and https://launchpadlibrarian.net/87347747/syncmaildir_1.2.2-1_1.2.2-1ubuntu1.diff.gz caught my eye
[19:11] <tumbleweed> was that forwarded upstream? it's useful to add DEP-3 headers indicating things like that
[19:12] <tumbleweed> I see the upstream is essentially the debian maintainer, but I see no bug in the BTS
[19:13] <wendar> That was a while ago now, so I don't actually remember if I forwarded that one upstream.
[19:13] <wendar> Most of the fixes I made that month I did push up to Debian.
[19:13] <tumbleweed> ok, in that case this might be a reminder to bounce it to the Debian maintainer :)
[19:13] <wendar> It's possible I forgot on that one, or that it's already been integrated and closed.
[19:14] <wendar> I'll make a note and follow up on it.
[19:14] <tumbleweed> so any ideas on making sponsorship less painful?
[19:15] <wendar> I'm not sure it is painful for newbies.
[19:15] <bdrung> the build fix is not integrated in the Debian, yet
[19:16] <wendar> But, for me I think it boils down to 1) limited time from sponsors, and 2) I tend to work in areas that are quite complex C code, and not all sponsors can even understand the fixes.
[19:16] <tumbleweed> hah
[19:17] <micahg> well, if the patch is accepted upstream, it makes it easier for a sponsor
[19:17] <wendar> Following a normal progression, where you're new, and mostly work on typos and such, I think it's likely that you'd find plenty of ready sponsors.
[19:17] <barry> wendar: i wonder if patch pilots help much here or whether pilots tend to avoid complicated code in areas they don't know well
[19:18] <wendar> micahg: Yes, my conclusion over the past couple of months is that just working straight in Debian is often the right answer. Even if I found the problem through an Ubuntu FTBFS.
[19:18] <micahg> right, Debian or further upstream (if it exists)
[19:19] <wendar> barry: Patch pilots help enormously with the common case. But, perhaps not with more "advanced" sponsorship needs.
[19:19] <bdrung> i assume that it's not hard to find a sponsor for a patch that was accepted upstream
[19:19] <bdrung> even if the patch is complicated
[19:20] <wendar> bdrung: If it's not critical, I usually just leave the Debian fix to flow through to Ubuntu through normal means.
[19:20] <wendar> bdrung: So, yes, no effort at all :)
[19:20] <micahg> well, probably depends if there's an Ubuntu diff already or not and how different the package is on our platform
[19:20] <wendar> micahg: Fortunately, I find that most universe packages are very close to Debian.
[19:21] <micahg> well, I think we're a tad over 75%
[19:21] <wendar> (At least, in personal experience, I've never done a full package scan.)
[19:21] <micahg> https://merges.ubuntu.com/universe-now.png
[19:21] <tumbleweed> ^ I see Logan_ has been busy
[19:22] <tumbleweed> wendar: you are subscribed to ubuntu-devel-announce?
[19:22]  * ScottK has no questions.
[19:22] <wendar> micahg: sweet!
[19:22] <Logan_> :P
[19:22] <tumbleweed> wendar: and I assume we don't need to quiz you about the release schedule
[19:22] <wendar> tumbleweed: I think so...
[19:24] <wendar> tumbleweed: ah, yes, I filter it into the ubuntu-devel folder
[19:24] <tumbleweed> good. it's suprising how many applicants aren't
[19:24] <bdrung> wendar: there are only 13 uploaded packages listed on launchpad. most of your contribution doesn't seem to be visible there.
[19:24] <wendar> tumbleweed: :) we could get into a conversation about whether skipping alphas has been helpful, but that might be distracting
[19:24] <micahg> wendar: I've noticed limited activity in sponsored uploads aside from the +1 stint in 2011, can you speak to that point?
[19:25] <wendar> micahg: yes, I've been thinking about that since January
[19:25] <wendar> micahg: it basically boils down to "project benefit for time spent"
[19:26] <wendar> micahg: There are many areas I can contribute. And packaging is one I'm very good at.
[19:26] <wendar> Especially around nasty C/Perl failures.
[19:26] <wendar> But, when I spend 4 hours fixing a problem, and then 1-2 weeks getting the fix approved, it makes me wonder if that's the best use of my time.
[19:27] <wendar> And frankly, frustrates me to the point that I avoid it.
[19:27] <wendar> I can't say I'm proud of that fact, but it is a fact.
[19:27] <wendar> In Dec 2011 I had a dedicated sponsor, and zipped through a stack of tricky packages.
[19:27]  * ScottK completely understands.  I have had the same issue with trying to fix Ubuntu docs.
[19:28] <micahg> well, surely in most cases, the fix can be forwarded to Debian and then have  a sync requested to pull it in (otherwise, pinging the patch pilot if you need something to go in can be helpful)
[19:28] <micahg> I can certainly understand the frustration, but "sponsored" contributions are standard before any type of "commit" rights are given
[19:29] <wendar> Sure, but going through Debian is the "well, maybe it'll get applied, eventually" kind of fix.
[19:29] <ScottK> It's the same problem actually just substitute maintainer for sponsor
[19:29] <wendar> micahg: Indeed, and I think that natural progression is the right path.
[19:30] <bdrung> does it really take so much time to get the fix in? letting the patch sit in the sponsoring queue doesn't consume time.
[19:30] <micahg> and saying that one doesn't like the process and avoiding it for that reason doesn't seem right as most of us did have to go through that same process to get upload rights
[19:30] <wendar> micahg: I think that if you compress my "sponsored" uploads over the past 6 years, they add up to about what would be reasonable for an upload application.
[19:30] <micahg> I see 12 here: http://ubuntu-dev.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu-sponsorships.cgi?render=html&sponsor=&sponsor_search=name&sponsoree=allison+randal&sponsoree_search=name
[19:30] <wendar> micahg: I suspect most contributors would do that in 6 months, and then apply.
[19:31] <micahg> compared to our next applicant (who's number is a bit high) http://ubuntu-dev.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu-sponsorships.cgi?render=html&sponsor=&sponsor_search=name&sponsoree=logan+rosen&sponsoree_search=name
[19:33] <bdrung> so you can get 13 patches into the archive in four days
[19:34] <wendar> Logan_: well done!
[19:34] <Logan_> Thanks. :)
[19:34]  * ScottK thinks numbers are not very relevant.
[19:35] <wendar> michag: Sorry, was that a question?
[19:35] <micahg> #voters micahg ScottK stgraber Laney bdrung barry tumbleweed
[19:35] <meetingology> Current voters: Laney ScottK barry bdrung micahg stgraber tumbleweed
[19:35] <ScottK> +1
[19:36] <tumbleweed> ScottK: not quite yet
[19:36] <micahg> ScottK: hold on :)
[19:36] <ScottK> OK
[19:36] <micahg> #vote Please vote on Allison Randal (wendar) becoming MOTU
[19:36] <meetingology> Please vote on: Please vote on Allison Randal (wendar) becoming MOTU
[19:36] <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)
[19:36] <ScottK> +1
[19:36] <meetingology> +1 received from ScottK
[19:36] <barry> +1
[19:36] <meetingology> +1 received from barry
[19:36] <stgraber> +1
[19:36] <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber
[19:36] <tumbleweed> +1
[19:36] <meetingology> +1 received from tumbleweed
[19:37] <bdrung> +1
[19:37] <meetingology> +1 received from bdrung
[19:37] <micahg> +0 I would've liked more varied contributions beforehand
[19:37] <meetingology> +0 I would've liked more varied contributions beforehand received from micahg
[19:37] <micahg> #endvote
[19:37] <meetingology> Voting ended on: Please vote on Allison Randal (wendar) becoming MOTU
[19:37] <meetingology> Votes for:5 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1
[19:37] <meetingology> Motion carried
[19:37] <micahg> wendar: congratulations
[19:37] <Logan_> wendar: Congrats!
[19:37] <ScottK> wendar: Congratulations.
[19:37] <stgraber> for the record, Laney also gave a +1 by e-mail
[19:37] <wendar> thanks :)
[19:37] <barry> wendar: congrats!
[19:37] <tumbleweed> congrats
[19:37] <stgraber> wendar: congrats!
[19:38] <bdrung> welcome wendar
[19:39] <micahg> #subtopic Logan Rosen's MOTU application
[19:39] <micahg> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LoganRosen/MOTUApplication
[19:39] <micahg> Logan_: please introduce yourself
[19:39] <Logan_> Hey guys. I'm Logan Rosen, and I've been contributing to Ubuntu for a while now. I mostly work on bug triaging (as part of the Bug Squad), merging packages in from Debian, requesting syncs, and merging in new upstream releases of packages to Ubuntu.
[19:41] <Logan_> I applied for MOTU from the encouragement of a sponsor, who thought that my numerous contributions/sponsored changes were substantial enough to be a MOTU.
[19:41]  * ScottK thinks that's a very good reason to apply.
[19:42] <Logan_> Being a MOTU would allow me to push fixes to packages more quickly and reduce deltas between Ubuntu and Debian as much as possible, which is what I already do through sponsorship.
[19:43] <Logan_> I really enjoy working with people in the Ubuntu community, and they have all been very encouraging and helpful. Whenever I have a question, I can count on someone being on IRC to help me out.
[19:43] <tumbleweed> Logan_: I see you've been taking an interest in our ubuntu-only packages
[19:44] <tumbleweed> any ideas on how we can get other people to do so? they are often terribly unde-maintained
[19:44] <Logan_> I have - I feel that those are sometimes neglected (hence the neglected Ubuntu-only packages report on ubuntuwire).
[19:44] <tumbleweed> glad someone finds it useful
[19:45] <Logan_> I'm not sure exactly how to engage people in maintaining Ubuntu-only packages, but one way would be to publicize that report more, so that people see the packages that are left behind in the dust.
[19:45] <Logan_> At one point, I was going through a bunch of them and checking lintian for warnings/errors and fixing them accordingly - just one way to ensure package quality.
[19:46] <tumbleweed> hrm, so maybe providing reports on these packages is working to draw attention to them
[19:46] <tumbleweed> Logan_: what's happening with https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxsession-edit ?
[19:46] <micahg> UEHS is nice
[19:46] <tumbleweed> err I meant https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lxsession-edit/0.2.0-3ubuntu1
[19:47] <Logan_> Ah, yes. The issue is that I didn't realize at the time that lxsession-edit is provided by the lxsession source package in Ubuntu as well, so the migration scripts got angry, saying that a newer version (from git) was already in the archive.
[19:47] <tumbleweed> what are we gonig to do about it?
[19:48] <Logan_> I initially filed a bug against lxsession in Ubuntu, recommending that the lxsession-edit binary be removed (so that we can be in harmony with Debian), but they decided against that.
[19:48] <Logan_> It's possible that the lxsession-edit source package will just be removed from Ubuntu (and added to the blacklist, if necessary). I personally prefer minimizing the delta, but there are reasons behind that decision, I suppose.
[19:49] <tumbleweed> well, removing the binary wouldn't help users to downgrade to 0.2.... binary
[19:50] <Logan_> True, but we could then update lxsession-edit in Ubuntu to that git snapshot.
[19:51] <tumbleweed> right
[19:51] <tumbleweed> Logan_: you're subscribed to ubuntu-devel-announce?
[19:51] <Logan_> I just did, about half an hour ago.
[19:51] <tumbleweed> :)
[19:52] <bdrung> Logan_: do you want to join the sponsoring team?
[19:53] <Logan_> If you think that would be a good fit for me, then sure. :)
[19:55] <tumbleweed> Logan_: so, what stops you forwarding things to Debian?
[19:55] <bdrung> i think it makes sense to help newcomers after having benefited from the sponsors.
[19:55] <tumbleweed> yeah, keeping the sponsorship report down to 0 items is a valuable job
[19:56] <Logan_> tumbleweed: If it is an Ubuntu-specific change that wouldn't make sense in Debian, then I won't forward it.
[19:56] <bdrung> tumbleweed: i helped reaching it zero once, but then never got enough time to do it again
[19:57] <tumbleweed> bdrung: yeah, I used to sponsor a lot, when I had the time...
[19:57] <Logan_> (Such as something upstart-related, which usually tends to just be in Ubuntu.)
[19:57] <micahg> Logan_: WRT to the last point, I don't see a bug in the BTS for the remaining diff here: https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/tandem-mass/20121001-2ubuntu1/+merge/149920
[19:58] <tumbleweed> Logan_: right. there are debian maintainers who will accept ubuntu-specific changes if it means their package can be in sync on Ubuntu. They are quite rare, though
[19:59] <Logan_> micahg: Yeah - I figured there must have been a reason not to forward it at the time of the change, but I'll forward that to Debian (it might require a +dfsg?).
[19:59] <micahg> Logan_: well, that's one solution which I think Debian might prefer
[19:59] <micahg> but I think they certainly care about not from source binaries
[20:00] <Logan_> I also find UDD to be much more intuitive than forwarding debdiffs, although the submittodebian tool from ubuntu-dev-tools attempts to minimize the pain from that.
[20:00] <micahg> submittodebian is nice, /me hugs bdmurray
[20:01] <ScottK> As a DD though I sometimes seen bugs from submittodebian that are very confusing.
[20:01] <ScottK> You need to make sure what it produces is sensible/useful for the maintainer.
[20:01] <micahg> bdmurray: oh, sorry, I thought you had a hand in writing it for some reason
[20:01]  * barry usually extracts the diff and submits from a debian vm ;/
[20:02] <bdrung> micahg: Soren Hansen and Steve Langasek wrote it and tumbleweed did a lot about it lately
[20:02] <micahg> Logan_: sometimes people figure they'll file the bugs later and then forget about it
[20:03] <Logan_> Yeah, that's definitely happened to me.
[20:04] <Logan_> It would be nice if Debian used Launchpad (wishful thinking?).
[20:04] <bdrung> that's very unlikely to happen
[20:04] <micahg> Logan_: so, I remember at one point, you were non-maliciously hijacking merges without discussing with people, I was wondering if you indeed had a talk with the previous uploader about https://code.launchpad.net/~logan/ubuntu/raring/piuparts/0.49ubuntu1/+merge/149918 before proposing the merge
[20:06] <Logan_> I didn't discuss that one with Andrew, but, with the feature freeze coming up, and considering that the new Debian version came out over a month ago, I figured it would be safe to perform the merge myself.
[20:06] <Logan_> It was also a pretty simple merge.
[20:07] <stgraber> Logan_: how well do you know the Ubuntu release schedule?
[20:08] <Logan_> I'd like to say that I know it pretty well. I mostly focus on the Debian Import Freeze and the Feature Freeze dates, as those are the ones that affect what I do the most.
[20:08] <Logan_> I filed a number of FFEs in the Quantal cycle, I believe.
[20:08] <stgraber> are universe packages affected by milestone freezes?
[20:08] <Logan_> Yup.
[20:09] <stgraber> all of them or just a subset?
[20:10] <Logan_> Only the ones that are included on the CDs, as milestone freezes are for ISO testing, I believe.
[20:11] <Logan_> *DVDs (Quantal <3)
[20:11] <stgraber> correct
[20:11] <stgraber> how do you know whether a source is safe to upload or not?
[20:11] <Logan_> Sorry, in what context?
[20:12] <stgraber> milestone freeze
[20:12] <stgraber> how do you know whether something will affect what's on a media
[20:13] <Logan_> Check the reverse dependencies?
[20:14] <stgraber> that'd be a pretty tedius process to figure out whether something is on a media or not
[20:14] <stgraber> did you ever here of the seeded-in-ubuntu tool?
[20:14] <Logan_> I've seen it, but I'm not sure about its functionality. Isn't it one of the ubuntu-dev-tools scripts?
[20:15] <stgraber> it's
[20:15] <bdrung> s/here/heard/
[20:15] <stgraber> you can basically use it, passing the name of the source you want to upload and it'll tell you whether it's on a media
[20:15] <Logan_> Ah, gotcha.
[20:16] <tumbleweed> (figured out from the last daily build logs)
[20:16] <stgraber> now a tricky one, what about vlc, if we're in milestone freeze, can you upload it safely?
[20:17] <Logan_> Well, it looks like it's on the Mythbuntu ISOs...
[20:18] <stgraber> correct but is mythbuntu participating in standard releases?
[20:18] <Logan_> I actually learned last week while triaging bugs that Mythbuntu recently switched to only LTS releases of Ubuntu.
[20:18] <Logan_> So, I guess it depends on whether or not it is an LTS.
[20:19] <stgraber> correct
[20:19]  * Logan_ wipes his forehead.
[20:19] <stgraber> you can upload that package during any non-LTS release while in milestone freeze
[20:20] <bdrung> Logan_: don't worry, vlc is in my tight hands. ;)
[20:20] <Logan_> Haha, I'll leave vlc to you in that case.
[20:21] <bdrung> Logan_: you seem to be a generalist. will you stay that way or are you interested in specialising?
[20:22] <Logan_> I like being a generalist because it means that there's always work to do in Ubuntu, and I'm not restricted to a certain set of packages. If I were part of a team, though, I'd definitely consider specializing in certain packages.
[20:22] <micahg> Logan_: so, back to my point about merges, there are two things, one is to not duplicate work, the assumption is that if someone has a merge they'll do it or orphan it on merges.ubuntu.com, if you're worried about something getting in, a note is nice, the other thing is that there's no shortage of work to be done, so if someone is already taking "responsibility" for something, it's usually good to let them do that and find something neglected
[20:22] <micahg>  to fix, now there are merges left at the end of the cycle that aren't touched usually, I believe tumbleweed had a list somewhere of neglected merges
[20:23] <tumbleweed> yeah, on ubuntuwire somewhere
[20:23] <micahg> http://people.ubuntuwire.org/~stefanor/ubuntu-neglected-packages/
[20:24] <Logan_> micahg: Okay, I'll definitely make note of the merges I'm working on in the future.
[20:26]  * Logan_ hopes that someone will eventually take up Bug 611121.
[20:27] <bdrung> Logan_: patches welcome. :)
[20:27] <tumbleweed> patches are welcome
[20:27] <micahg> #vote Please vote on Logan Rosen becoming MOTU
[20:27] <meetingology> Please vote on: Please vote on Logan Rosen becoming MOTU
[20:27] <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)
[20:27] <tumbleweed> +1
[20:27] <meetingology> +1 received from tumbleweed
[20:27] <barry> +1
[20:27] <meetingology> +1 received from barry
[20:27] <ScottK> +1
[20:27] <meetingology> +1 received from ScottK
[20:27] <bdrung> +1
[20:27] <meetingology> +1 received from bdrung
[20:27] <micahg> +1
[20:27] <meetingology> +1 received from micahg
[20:27] <stgraber> +1
[20:27] <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber
[20:27] <micahg> #endvote
[20:27] <meetingology> Voting ended on: Please vote on Logan Rosen becoming MOTU
[20:27] <meetingology> Votes for:6 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[20:27] <meetingology> Motion carried
[20:27] <micahg> Logan_: congratulations
[20:27] <Logan_> Thanks so much!
[20:27] <ScottK> Congratulations Logan_.
[20:28] <bdrung> Logan_: congrats
[20:28] <barry> Logan_: congrats!
[20:28] <tumbleweed> welcome to MOTU
[20:28] <bdrung> tumbleweed: Logan_ bug reminds me to do a u-d-t release.
[20:28] <tumbleweed> bdrung: err, yeah
[20:28] <micahg> #topic Review of previous action items
[20:29] <micahg> #subtopic Iain to do the paperwork for the kernel PPU team delegation
[20:29] <micahg> I see Laney did this here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers#Ubuntu_Developers_.28from_delegated_teams.29
[20:29] <ScottK> He seems to have escaped.
[20:29] <Logan_> Gotta run - thanks again!
[20:29] <micahg> so that's done
[20:29] <micahg> #topic AOB
[20:30] <ScottK> Nothing from me.
[20:32] <micahg> #subtopic Decouple PPU from Ubuntu membership (what needs to be done?)
[20:33] <micahg> so, IIRC, the TB was ok with the concept, so I guess we need documentation + figuring out team changes?
[20:34] <micahg> s/changes/structure/
[20:35] <pleia2> micahg: I never did ask, will we be grandfathering in folks who already are PPU members? (which would probably mean directly adding them to the ubuntumembers team)
[20:36] <tumbleweed> I would say so
[20:36] <pleia2> would hate for people to be depending upon membership for some reason (or one of the benefits) and lose that without realizing what happened
[20:36] <micahg> pleia2: I think we'll still want a developer only membership without upload rights that recognizes contributions, but that the person isn't quite ready to work without a net, having said that, I think that yes, we'd grandfather those previous ubuntu-dev members in
[20:36] <bdrung> our changes should only affect future applications
[20:37] <tumbleweed> micahg: that's ~universe-contributors, isn't it?
[20:37] <bdrung> yes, that's ~universe-contributors. maybe we should rename that team
[20:37] <micahg> tumbleweed: yeah, I think we need to restructure all of this to bring it into the present though
[20:37] <pleia2> ok, great
[20:37] <tumbleweed> which has no reason to be universe-related
[20:38] <bdrung> it used to be universe-related, but isn't any more
[20:38] <tumbleweed> I can't think of a sane name for a team for ubuntu developers who are members
[20:38] <bdrung> Ubuntu Contributing Developers
[20:39] <tumbleweed> ok I like that
[20:39] <tumbleweed> although
[20:39] <stgraber> UCD makes sense, we've been using the name for a while now, it's just the team name that doesn't make any sense. We should just rename it and be done with it.
[20:39] <tumbleweed> ~universe-contributors isn't a member of ubuntu-dev
[20:40] <ScottK> I thought UCD were members who got membership via development, but weren't ready for upload rights yet?
[20:40] <micahg> ok, so can we get someone to draft the new team names/structures and someone to draft new documentation?
[20:40] <micahg> ScottK: correct
[20:40] <tumbleweed> those peolpe don't have upload rights so they don't get bug-control
[20:40] <tumbleweed> (etc.)
[20:40] <ScottK> So those are members without upload rights.
[20:40] <tumbleweed> yes, but we currently call that team Ubuntu Contributing Developers
[20:40] <ScottK> Don't we need somthing new for upload rights without membership?
[20:41] <tumbleweed> ubuntu-ppu ?
[20:41] <micahg> yeah, something like that
[20:41] <tumbleweed> upload rights without membership are only going to be PPU
[20:41] <ScottK> Yes.
[20:41] <barry> tumbleweed: +1
[20:41] <stgraber> hmm, it's going to get tricky...
[20:42] <stgraber> so we want PPU without membership to be part of some kidn of team so we can track them, yet not have any kind of membership
[20:42] <micahg> tumbleweed: no, I can see some packagesets fitting into that as well
[20:42] <stgraber> and those that have PPU + membership need to be somehow part of ~ubuntu-dev
[20:42] <stgraber> but UCD members shouldn't be part of ~ubuntu-dev
[20:42] <bdrung> what is ~ubuntu-dev used for?
[20:43] <stgraber> ~ubuntu-dev means you can vote for the DMB/TB/...
[20:43] <tumbleweed> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-dev/+participation
[20:43] <stgraber> and is probably used in a few more places for additional rights
[20:44] <micahg> I think we can have ~ubuntu-uploaders and ~ubuntu-contributing-developers as base teams for ubuntu-dev, the former has upload related teams (bug control and such), the later has membership related (cloak, planet)
[20:44] <barry> ~ubuntu-contributors is a subteam of ~ubuntumembers which is a "group of people who vote to confirm new appointments to the Ubuntu Community Council"
[20:45] <stgraber> barry: right, which isn't the same group as those voting for DMB+TB IIRC :)
[20:45] <micahg> ubuntu-dev inherits the permissions, and people can move there once they have both permissions
[20:46] <micahg> wait, does ubuntu-dev require general membership or dev membership?
[20:47] <ScottK> Yes
[20:47] <tumbleweed> so should ubuntu-ppu just be a separate team for people who get PPU without upload rights?
[20:47] <micahg> (i.e. can someone be a loco rockstar, get PPU and then be able to vote for TB/DMB)
[20:47] <tumbleweed> it doesn't sound like it cas easily fit into any tree
[20:47] <micahg> tumbleweed: yeah, I'd call the team ubuntu-uploaders as a base team
[20:47] <ScottK> micahg: Yes.  Membership is membership.  There's really no such thing as a developer membership.
[20:48] <ScottK> The current situation is that if you're PPU and have membership, you can vote for TB.
[20:48] <stgraber> micahg: member + some-kind-of-upload-right => ubuntu-dev (either directly for PPU or indirectly for motu/coredev/package-set)
[20:48] <ScottK> Now that's currently all PPU, but in the future, we probably have to retain that.
[20:48] <micahg> stgraber: right, that was my question, but I guess now that Debian has non uploading DDs, I guess the point isn't as valid
[20:49]  * ScottK wonders how that is relevant.
[20:49] <stgraber> yeah, not sure what's the relation with non-uploading DDs
[20:49] <micahg> the basis of the question was at what point does an uploader have enough experience to have a say in how development activities are done
[20:50] <micahg> (i.e. electing those people to decide those policies)
[20:51] <stgraber> when an uploader also becomes a member they're able to vote, not before that
[20:51] <stgraber> and members who can't upload don't get to vote for DMB/TB
[20:52] <tumbleweed> http://paste.ubuntu.com/5565892/ ?
[20:52] <micahg> right, I was wondering if the sustained development aspect was important (we in theory have this now)
[20:52] <ScottK> It's sustained contribution.
[20:53] <micahg> tumbleweed: I wouldn't put all packagesets under ubuntu-dev, the flavors for sure, not sure about the others
[20:53] <ScottK> If someone was already a member, you don't re-review that.
[20:53] <micahg> I guess that's true
[20:53] <tumbleweed> micahg: they're already there
[20:54] <tumbleweed> micahg: where do we put them then? are we not giving them automatic membership?
[20:54] <stgraber> any team giving upload rights, except for the special non-member-PPU needs to be a member of ubuntu-dev
[20:54] <stgraber> that's how it's currently and that's how it should stay
[20:55] <tumbleweed> we do tend to create a packageset for any non-trivial PPU application
[20:56] <tumbleweed> so argubly there'll be people who don't meet membership criteria
[20:56] <stgraber> I'd also restrict the non-member-PPU stuff to non-packageset PPU
[20:56] <micahg> tumbleweed: we are at the moment, I'm suggesting that be restructured as some packagesets might work better as PPU in that we don't look for sustained contribution (in fact, I think I'd prefer that to lower the bar, so that just ability is gaged)
[20:56] <tumbleweed> it can be hard to see ability without sustained contribution
[20:57] <tumbleweed> but yes, I'm fine with saying that this is for PPU only
[20:57] <ScottK> Isn't packageset versus individual package PPU a matter of administrative convenience?
[20:57] <micahg> this is what I was thinking: http://paste.ubuntu.com/5565912/
[20:57] <tumbleweed> ScottK: yes
[20:58] <tumbleweed> micahg: that's neater than mine
[20:59] <micahg> oops, that shouldn't say PPU people under contributing devs, but non-PPU dev members
[20:59] <tumbleweed> except that you got ppu members and ppu people the wrong way around
[20:59] <barry> micahg: that makes more sense ;)
[20:59] <micahg> must have seen something shiny while typing ;)
[21:00] <ScottK> If it's just an administrative convenience, we shouldn't make it more than that.
[21:00] <micahg> here's with it fixed: http://paste.ubuntu.com/5565921/
[21:00] <tumbleweed> ScottK: until the uploaders team for it has more than one member
[21:00] <bdrung> i like micahg team structure proposal
[21:01] <tumbleweed> micahg: surely line 3 is unecessary
[21:01] <tumbleweed> included via ubuntu-dev
[21:01] <stgraber> if we had a very good reason to give packageset upload to a non-member, we could create a second team for the packageset containing non-members
[21:01] <micahg> tumbleweed: hrm? line 3 is the PPU without membership
[21:02] <stgraber> that'd prevent them accessing branches owned by the main team though, so I certainly won't +1 any such application if there's an active team of members
[21:02] <tumbleweed> oh, I misread sorry
[21:03] <micahg> stgraber: I was thinking that non-flavor packagesets could be judged on ability only to lower the bar (i.e. cli-mono, input-methods)
[21:04] <tumbleweed> +1 micahg's scheme
[21:04] <micahg> whereas flavor packagesets are inherently membership based
[21:04] <stgraber> micahg: I certainly wouldn't want non-members being able to get kernel, server or desktop packageset rights
[21:04] <micahg> stgraber: kernel might be the exception here, but they're delegated now
[21:04] <micahg> everything else is a flavor
[21:05] <micahg> I'm fine grouping kernel with the flavor packagesets
[21:05] <ScottK> I think kernel uploaders should be members.
[21:05] <stgraber> micahg: what I mean is that I don't really care for non-seeded but I'm reluctant to give upload rights to seeded packages to non-members
[21:05] <micahg> stgraber: seeded = flavor :)
[21:06] <stgraber> micahg: to take a better example, I wouldn't give non-member upload rights to the ubuntuone set
[21:06] <micahg> oh, hrm
[21:06] <stgraber> micahg: nope, we have quite a few package sets containing seeded packages that aren't flavors
[21:06]  * stgraber grabs a list
[21:06] <ScottK> How can there be a seeded package that isn't in a flavor set (or core)
[21:06] <micahg> are we willing to give PPU for something seeded without membership?
[21:07]  * ScottK doesn't see how it matters.
[21:07] <micahg> I think the answer is yes (the membership aspect is about sustained contribution, not trust IMHO)
[21:07] <micahg> so, I don't see a problem with ubuntuone
[21:07] <stgraber> ScottK: packages can be in multiple sets
[21:07] <ScottK> Right, but to be in an image, it needs to be in at least one.
[21:08] <stgraber> ScottK: based on what micahg said before, he'd be fine granting someone upload rights to the xorg set for example without requiring membership. But all packages in the xorg set are in main and seeded on all media.
[21:08] <ScottK> Right.
[21:09] <ScottK> So that's core though.
[21:09] <stgraber> same goes for some stuff in bzr, input-methods, kernel, langpack, mozilla, ubuntuone and utouch
[21:09] <micahg> here's my example, some DD became proficient in Ubuntu One packages after introducing them into Debian and would like to have the packages flow through Debian where possible, we'd need to make sure that the person was obviously in touch with the Ubuntu U1 members and understands the release cycle, but I don't see why membership is needed
[21:09] <ScottK> Agreed.
[21:10] <barry> micahg: i agree.  ppu is about trust and competence.  membership is about sustained contribution (on top of that)
[21:10] <micahg> we won't grant PPU to begin with if we think someone is going to make a mess of things, image or not
[21:10] <ScottK> As another example, I've got no problem with giving some people who work on X in Debian PPU rights in Ubuntu as long as we make sure they know a few things.
[21:10] <ScottK> I don't see how seeded or not affects the decision.
[21:11] <ScottK> We've probably done about enough for one meeting.
[21:12]  * bdrung nods.
[21:12] <stgraber> I think we'll find that it's most often linked as "sustained" will often mean trusted and ready to contribute to core parts of Ubuntu.
[21:12] <ScottK> micahg: Could you write up your proposal and send it to the list?
[21:12] <micahg> ScottK: for the team structure, sure, could someone offer to write up the documentation proposal?
[21:12] <stgraber> but I guess I'm fine with not making it a requirement and will instead just -1 those applications until they'd be fine by me to be members too.
[21:12] <micahg> or is this all inclusive?
[21:14] <micahg> stgraber: well, with core areas of Ubuntu, I'm more concerned with ability and trust than sustained contribution TBH, though trust a lot of time manifests itself as sustained contribution, but are not necessarily one in the same
[21:15] <micahg> (not core-dev, PPU)
[21:16] <micahg> #action micahg to write up proposal for new team structure and send to DMB list
[21:16] <meetingology> ACTION: micahg to write up proposal for new team structure and send to DMB list
[21:16] <micahg> ok, so unless there's anything else, I'll end the meeting as we're at 2+ hours
[21:16] <stgraber> micahg: my experience is that you build trust over time, and it happens that the time I use to consider "sustained" and "trusted" happens to be pretty much the same ;)
[21:19] <micahg> stgraber: I can think of cases where they need not be one in the same and would prefer the flexibility to play it by ear
[21:19] <micahg> but we can take it to the ML
[21:20] <micahg> unless you think there's something more we can do right now
[21:20] <stgraber> nope, I'm happy to get back to work now, wasn't a terribly productive day for me so far ;)
[21:20] <micahg> heh, I can relate
[21:21] <micahg> next chair, Laney with stgraber as a backup
[21:21] <micahg> #endmeeting
[21:21] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Feb 25 21:21:11 2013 UTC.
[21:21] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-02-25-19.03.moin.txt
[21:21] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-02-25-19.03.html
[21:21] <barry> micahg: thanks!
[21:21] <micahg> thanks everyone, sorry we went a bit over
[21:22] <tumbleweed> phew
[21:22] <bdrung> "a bit" haha
[21:22] <micahg> a byte? ;)
[21:24] <bdrung> :D
[21:41] <ScottK> Kibi or Kilo?