=== jono is now known as Guest74174 === Guest46086 is now known as jpds === doko__ is now known as doko === fabo_awa1 is now known as fabo [16:30] hello [16:30] \o [16:30] hi === chrisccoulson_ is now known as chrisccoulson [16:30] hi! [16:30] hi [16:30] #startmeeting [16:30] Meeting started Mon Jul 15 16:30:50 2013 UTC. The chair is jdstrand. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. [16:30] 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 [16:30] The meeting agenda can be found at: [16:30] [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting [16:31] [TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report === meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Weekly stand-up report [16:31] I'll go first [16:31] last week was more work on apparmor (application lifecycle, click and application confinement) [16:31] I had hoped to get openjdk-7 out, but testing took longer than expected. that should go out today [16:32] I am preparing openjdk-6 uploads now [16:32] cause of the above, I postponed patch piloting again, so I'll give it another shot this week [16:33] I have some july work items, particularly getting the evil app together for the IoM demo, and trying to drive the conversations that affect us related to that demo to conclusion [16:33] I upgraded to saucy on my main system over the weekend, and have a number of bugs to file/investigate [16:33] mdeslaur: you're up [16:34] I'm in the happy place this week [16:34] I just published a couple of USNs [16:34] and am currently working on php5 updates [16:34] I have a couple of other things to test and will probably release them this week [16:34] after that, I'll continue picking stuff from the CVE list [16:34] that's it for me [16:34] sbeattie: you're up [16:35] I'm working on apparmor stuff this week [16:35] I'm currently working on getting the click hook prototype implementation far enough along to help drive the hook discussion to completion. [16:36] I also upgraded to saucy over the weekend, and have a couple of bugs of my own to file. [16:36] I think that's it for me. [16:37] tyhicks: you're up [16:37] I'll be updating the apparmor parser according to the DBus/IPC syntax that we decided on last week [16:38] I upgraded to saucy and need to take a look at some new AA dbus denials [16:38] Then content-hub should be at a good place for me to start on the Content Handler work items [16:39] I also need to find a little time for ecryptfs patch reviews [16:39] that's it for me [16:39] jjohansen: you're up [16:39] I am working on apparmor WIs this week, I am going to try and get some parser cleanups (and fixes collisions with tyhicks work) and changes for ipc out this week, before my long weekend (I'm off M,T next week). [16:41] I also need to start pushing the apparmorfs changes upstream (for 3.12) now that the merge window for 3.11 has closed [16:42] I think thats it for me chrisccoulson your up [16:42] hi :) [16:43] note, i've just had a couple of short weeks (was away last monday, and the last 2 days of the week previous) [16:43] i got another flash update out last week [16:44] also attended a call to talk about the UA string for the mobile browser. we're going to have a further call with someone from mozilla soon [16:44] did some more work on oxide (what i've got is actually buildable now!) [16:44] i'm hoping to have it sort-of working sometime next week [16:45] i'm going to arrange a meeting for all stakeholders of that this week [16:45] \o/ [16:45] re oxide building> woo! [16:45] i think that's me done [16:45] [TOPIC] Highlighted packages === meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Highlighted packages [16:46] 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. [16:46] 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. [16:46] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/libuser.html [16:46] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/gnucash.html [16:46] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/salt.html [16:46] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/alien-arena.html [16:46] http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/php-letodms-core.html [16:46] [TOPIC] Miscellaneous and Questions === meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Miscellaneous and Questions [16:46] Does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss? [16:56] mdeslaur, sbeattie, tyhicks, jjohansen, chrisccoulson: thanks! [16:56] #endmeeting === meetingology changed the topic of #ubuntu-meeting to: Ubuntu Meeting Grounds | Calendar/Scheduled meetings: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/calendar | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs | Meetingology documentation: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology [16:56] Meeting ended Mon Jul 15 16:56:21 2013 UTC. [16:56] Minutes (wiki): http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-07-15-16.30.moin.txt [16:56] Minutes (html): http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-07-15-16.30.html [16:56] thanks jdstrand! [16:56] thanks [16:56] thanks jdstrand [16:57] thanks jdstrand === toddyhb is now known as toddy [19:01] * Laney shines the DMB's logo into the sky [19:01] (it's a turtle) [19:02] \o [19:03] What's on the agenda for today? [19:03] Only actioning someone who will do it to write up the proposal [19:04] Or we could take the time to do some of it right now [19:04] * tumbleweed sees we are due for a CC catch-up this week [19:04] * stgraber waves [19:04] since we're all free for an hour, yes? [19:04] right now has my vote (better than never) [19:04] someone set us up the pad [19:08] Now is good. I'm on vacation this week, so my IRC will be very intermittent and I'm here now. [19:08] I just sat down outside with $beer and $laptop and now I have to go and find $yubikey [19:08] * Laney slaps SSO [19:10] OK, let's just use the existing one then: http://pad.ubuntu.com/dmb-ppu-membership-proposal [19:33] Dinner's beeping [19:33] someone take over what I was writing for 5 minutes? [19:34] * ScottK need to take a short break too. [19:37] OK [19:39] Back [19:42] I'm not sure if this paragraph actually represents the consensus [19:42] please sanity check it [19:42] (the last one I've written) [19:43] I think it reflects the vote, I'm not sure it reflects consensus [19:43] haha [19:43] Like, should we enumerate the initial list of sets [19:43] or is it "packages on any media"? [19:43] or ...? [19:43] oh, surely [19:43] to enumeration [19:44] no, I don't think packages on any media should be a requirement [19:44] Is there such a thing as "non-uploading dev members"? [19:44] ScottK, yes, formerly universe contributors [19:44] Line 42 now. [19:44] Ah, right. [19:44] They are members, but not ubuntu-dev. [19:45] right [19:45] I [19:45] omg [19:45] I don't know what to write [19:45] approve/???? [19:45] * Laney fails at english [19:45] approve/disapprove sounds weird to me [19:45] * ScottK rewords [19:46] thanks [19:46] Not sure we're on the same thing. [19:46] oh, the thing about asking the TB to do something with it [19:47] Laney: "adopted or revised"? [19:47] I reworded it to not make me have to decide :P [19:48] :) [19:48] There. [19:48] * ScottK fixed it harder [19:48] ta [19:49] that's me more or less out of steam [19:49] so feel free to improve it from here [19:49] ssh laney; sudo apt-get install steam [19:49] heh [19:50] I had to /remove/ that because my SSD ran out of space [19:50] (because I've given over half of it to GameOS for steam... :P) [19:52] Who's in favor of these proposed amendments? [19:52] o/ [19:53] vaguely in favour of 1. fairly ambivilant about 2 [19:54] I'm strongly against #1. [19:54] I'm against both [19:54] non-developers shouldn't be voting for the DMB/TB. [19:54] ScottK, #2 is for developers without upload rights [19:55] I'm at least slightly ambivalent about that one. [19:55] re #1, these are developers, just not uploaders [19:55] I'm mostly against though. [19:55] i'm against #2 [19:55] oops, did I get my number wrong [19:55] I meant 1 [19:55] If UCD can vote for DMB, then they can also vote for/against the DMB people that will approve their eventual dev application. [19:56] it seems like #1 should be in favor though, right? members even if they're not developers, should get a vote? [19:56] That's pretty backwards. [19:56] ScottK: s/UCD/PPU/ and does it actually change anything? [19:56] barry: membership gets you a vote in the CC election. [19:56] UCD can't vote to DMB/TB now. [19:56] ScottK, why can't you say the same about PPU? according to that, only core-dev should vote for DMB/TB [19:58] Someone with PPU + membership has a combination of assessed technical capability and sustained contribution to the project that make it appropriate, IMO, for them to vote for TB/DMB. [19:58] Neither PPU without member nor UCD have both those. [19:58] Neither should vote for DMB/TB. [19:58] ScottK, why is it any different from a non-uploading DD having a vote in project elections [19:58] Project elections are more like the CC vote, where they do have a vote. [19:59] GRs can be technical though? [20:00] True. [20:00] UCD aren't equivalent to non-uploading DDs (nwhich is a horrible term) [20:00] We don't have an equivalent of a GR though. [20:00] they got membership through devolpment, just not upload rights [20:01] non-uploading DDs don't need upload rights because they aren't developers [20:01] Changing who votes for TB/DMB isn't needed to solve the problem of separating membership from PPU. [20:02] agreed [20:02] true [20:02] Since it is controversial, I propose we drop it for now and focus on only the changes we really need to accomplish this goal. [20:02] +1 [20:02] +1 [20:05] ok, I removed it, I'll mull it over a bit more, if I feel it's worth doing, I'll make a proposal once this is done [20:05] For the core-packages/membership question, I think it's fair to have a rule that says they generally do, but there may be exceptional cases. [20:06] well, I think it should be the exceptional case where membership is required, if we don't trust the person to be uploading, then we don't trust them [20:07] For individual packages, I can see that. [20:07] on the whole, our actively involved developers should be members [20:07] bleh, let me not start down that road [20:07] No, I agree with that. [20:08] I don't see the membership thing as a trust thing [20:08] right, the goal isn't the build an army of non-member developers here, but rather to let them start helping if they have the skills on the path to membership IMHO [20:08] but I guess some people do [20:08] right [20:08] micahg-work: One can help without upload rights. [20:09] Generally core packages won't be the "DD who has a vague interest in making sure his packages work on Ubuntu" case [20:11] right, but it could be a DD who also uses Ubuntu and wishes to help keep things running smoothly [20:12] If that's the case, they'll probably usually qualify for membership. [20:12] not necessarily [20:13] I was hoping the vote would mean we didn't have to reopen this question [20:14] I think we can decide on a case by case basis if it's needed or not. [20:15] core has a bunch of stuff that seemingly doesn't belong, but I guess those are bugs [20:16] Or reasonable cases for exceptions. [20:16] Can we avoid seeming arbitrary and/or confusing if there are exceptions? [20:20] Either way, I don't think we should block on getting this exactly right. [20:21] No, but so what. [20:22] Any time the DMB applies judgment, some will see it as being arbitrary. [20:22] It's not an avoidable problem. [20:22] yeah [20:22] so, are we done? [20:23] Can someone who's not me or micahg-work write something in there about discretion about if core package PPU needs membership or not? [20:23] Then I think we're done. [20:24] I suppose it's not so bad if we're not expecting people to explicitly say they want membership all the time [20:25] I'd expect to discuss it with the applicant if there was doubt. [20:30] * ScottK has to go. [20:31] OK I added a ()sentence about it [20:32] everyone read it over and I'll send it some time this week [20:32] Laney: thanks [20:32] yeah [20:32] Laney, thanks [20:33] * tumbleweed will re-read tomorrow. knackered, going to bed [20:33] nn === elopio_ is now known as elopioo === elopioo is now known as elopio