[13:53] <Delfino1983> hello people
[14:13] <Delfino1983> it's start o'clock?
[14:16] <TigerLuo> Hi
[15:02]  * skellat is ready and waiting for the first round of community roundtable this vUDS
[15:04] <dholbach> who wants to join the hangout?
[15:05] <skellat> o/
[15:05] <skellat> smkellat@gmail.com
[15:08] <dholbach> anyone else interested in joining in on the hangout?
[15:10] <dholbach> any more topics for the community roundtable?
[15:11] <rrnwexec> i can join too
[15:11] <rrnwexec> topic: Planet Ubuntu staleness
[15:12] <skellat> And my local broadband is deciding to fail on me so I'm out
[15:12]  * skellat trundles off to go deal with the networking and other plumbing & disengages from vUDS
[15:14] <rrnwexec> not seeing a link in G+
[15:14] <dholbach> rrnwexec, sent you the link in pm
[15:15] <dholbach> or PM me your email address and I'll invite you
[15:15] <ballock> I am interested to hear why Mark referred to Fedora and Tizen as 'being competition' and 'spreading FUD'.
[15:16] <dholbach> link to the bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community-website
[15:24] <Ampelbein> That sounds like you are participating from on board the ISS ;-)
[15:24] <dholbach> haha
[15:24]  * dholbach hugs Ampelbein
[15:25]  * Ampelbein hugs dholbach
[15:25] <dholbach> :)
[15:30] <linuxtech> Where are the slides, I wanted to see the detail on one of them?
[15:32] <ballock> ok, thanks
[15:34] <Ampelbein> When removing blogs I think the first question should be: Is the blog still relevant to Ubuntu? If yes, then keep it, despite the author is not a member.
[15:34] <rrnwexec> sorry guys, i'll try to type
[15:34] <rrnwexec> there are bloggers that have openly expressed their resignation
[15:35] <asomething> it would be pretty simple to parse http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~planet-ubuntu/config/main/view/head:/config.ini and check for ubuntu membership
[15:35] <rrnwexec> i would be happy to manually review the list, and/or ask people to re-opt-in to the Planet blogroll
[15:38] <dholbach> asomething, I can't remember what exactly the problem was, but I think there was something with Nick names or team blogs or some such
[15:38] <hggdh> beware of censorship, or looking like it.
[15:38] <dholbach> hggdh, +1
[15:41] <rrnwexec> this isn't censorship
[15:44] <rrnwexec> i have some notes on the etherpad on how we might make the decision
[15:48] <rickspencer3> tbh, I only get bummed out when people post negative stuff
[15:50] <hggdh> rickspencer3: but being negative, I think, is also important. It gives us a chance to think and review
[15:50] <hggdh> (I do not like it either, but I respect their opinion)
[15:50] <rickspencer3> hggdh, oh, if it's from an active community member, then I care what they think, negative or not
[15:51] <hggdh> rickspencer3: ack, and agreed :-)
[15:51] <rickspencer3> but if it's someone who has left the community, I don't really want to be exposed to their negativity
[15:51] <rickspencer3> if they aren't active and also not negative, their presence doesn't much bother me
[15:51] <cielak> I remember one particular post I read some longer time ago - don't remember whose it was - which was a very clear offensive FUD from someone who switched projects a long time ago
[15:52] <hggdh> if someone has left the community, then s/he should not be in Planet. The question, then, goes back to what is "left the community"
[15:52] <dholbach> asomething, yes, the problem is that "nick" is not necessarily Launchpad ID
[15:52] <hggdh> I guess I am a member of Planet, but I have never blogged (there or elsewhere)
[15:52] <linuxtech> Not all of us blog on a regular basis.
[15:53] <dholbach> asomething, but yeah, we could probably get a bit closer by using "name" and checking in the list of people in ~ubuntumembers
[15:53] <asomething> dholbach, i see but if nothing else it would give a shot list to look over
[15:53] <dholbach> yes, that's right
[15:54] <dholbach> asomething, let's have a chat about it later on
[15:54] <beuno> hggdh, it is very clearly defined that people who are no longer in the ubuntu members LP team, should not be on planet
[15:55] <beuno> there's just now automated cleanup process
[15:55] <beuno> it's manual, someone just does it whenever it itches
[15:57] <jono> ballock, hey
[15:57] <jono> ballock, you are running the enterprise roundtable?
[15:58] <ballock> jono: I can't run it with Google+ if that's what you mean, can only join.
[15:58] <ballock> but yeah, I'm there
[15:58] <jono> ballock, can you join the hangout session though?
[15:59] <jono> I am asking who is going to be on the hangout?
[15:59] <ballock> Hope so :)
[15:59] <ballock> there's Ove from my organization
[15:59] <jono> ballock, can you create a hangout on air session and I will add it to summit?
[15:59] <ballock> nope
[15:59] <jono> why?
[16:00] <ballock> my G+ account has no access to creating Google on air hangouts
[16:00] <ballock> some privacy stuff
[16:00] <jono> ballock, eh? all G+ accounts can create Google On Air hangouts
[16:00] <jono> go to https://plus.google.com/u/0/hangouts
[16:00] <jono> and click the Start a Hangout On Air button
[16:00] <ballock> not the corporate ones
[16:00] <jono> ok, but you can join a hangout?
[16:00] <ballock> those can be decided by the corporation
[16:01] <ballock> yup
[16:01] <jono> ok
[16:01] <jono> I will set it up in a few mins
[16:01] <jono> weird, we have a corporate G+ acct at Canonical and we can run hangouts on air
[16:01] <jono> ahhh so you mean corporate policy can turn them off
[16:01] <workingwriter> BTW, as a new person, I don't see how to become a member on the front page of community.ubuntu.com.
[16:01] <ballock> now you got it
[16:01] <jono> ballock, ahhh gotcha :-)
[16:02] <jono> ballock, join https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/edfad062d74d819880c39bfb05cf2aa674ea3420?authuser=0&hl=en
[16:03] <dholbach> jono, ballock: JFYI you're in community 2
[16:03] <jono> dholbach, yup
[16:03] <jono> moving there
[16:08] <CheeseBurg> Where is the etherpad?
[16:08] <rsalveti> http://pad.ubuntu.com/uds-1308-community-1308-app-story-hardware-requirements
[16:21] <dholbach> any more input from folks in here?
[16:25] <CheeseBurg> What if the user has multiple touch screens. Like a laptop where the keyboard is a touchscreen.
[16:25] <dholbach> fugue88, do you want to join in on the hangout - you seem to type a lot?
[16:26] <fugue88> dholbach: nah.
[16:26] <dholbach> fugue88, gotcha - I didn't even know you used this nick here :)
[16:27] <fugue88> :)
[16:28] <CheeseBurg> Ok a more realistic question, what about walcom tablet. Some of them have more features than a mouse so is that a special case?
[16:30] <fugue88> CheeseBurg: What extra features does a wacom tablet have that a mouse or touchscreen doesn't?
[16:32] <rickspencer3> the goal is to filter the list of apps to those which the user has the capabilties to run, right?
[16:32] <rickspencer3> I think that wacom tablet gets a bit fine grained
[16:32] <rickspencer3> like, you would never see the app if you didn't have the tablet plugged in
[16:33] <rickspencer3> I think at the highest level is phone vs. tablet vs. desktop
[16:33] <cjwatson> wacom is probably on the edge; I can imagine pro graphics tools that you really can't make use of without a proper tablet
[16:33] <rickspencer3> cjwatson, right, but you might not have it plugged in
[16:33] <cjwatson> I don't think it's a huge deal to get it exactly right up front as long as the schema is extensible
[16:33] <rickspencer3> when you are browsing apps
[16:33] <cjwatson> rickspencer3: Yep, dholbach raised the matter of removable devices earlier
[16:33] <rickspencer3> I think that you need know that the user is on a desktop, so *could* make use of a wacom tablet app
[16:34] <dholbach> would anyone like to join the hangout? :)
[16:34] <cjwatson> I said I'll need to look into the PackageKit API to see if there's a way that I can interpose a "you seem to be missing <hardware> - are you sure?" question, perhaps
[16:34] <fugue88> dholbach: What happens if we include an item in the schema, and later decide to remove it?
[16:34] <dholbach> maybe it'd be good not to list "needs: <some device>" but more something like "needs: <functionality>" (like 'pointing device' or 'drawing pad' or some such)
[16:34] <rickspencer3> o/
[16:34] <rickspencer3> I'd be happy to join
[16:35] <fugue88> fugue88: Okay, I'll join for a minute.
[16:35] <CheeseBurg> fugue88: The pen can have 3 to 6 button that do special command on applications like Photoshop. And the base has 3 - 7 with some fancy thingys. I don't use one but my artist friends do.
[16:35] <CheeseBurg> Also when I say walcom I mean any drawing tablets
[16:35] <cjwatson> Right, I think we should avoid being brand-specific if we can
[16:36] <CheeseBurg> Also what about TV apps?
[16:37] <dholbach> CheeseBurg, want to join in on the hangout too?
[16:37] <CheeseBurg> I wish lol. Unfortunately I am at work so I can't.
[16:37] <dholbach> (totally fine if you don't want to - just asking :-))
[16:37] <dholbach> ok, no worries
[16:37] <dholbach> :)
[16:39] <CheeseBurg> Most laptops have both touchscreens and gps now
[16:39] <CheeseBurg> Windows 8 laptops
[16:40] <ralsina_> screen size is not all that good to tell form factors apart. I have a phone and a notebook with the exact same screen size in pixels. Are we talking about screen sizes in cm/inches?
[16:42] <dholbach> ralsina_, want to join in on the call as well? :)
[16:42] <ralsina_> dholbach:my mic is in the fritz today :-(
[16:43] <dholbach> gotcha
[16:43] <ralsina_> dholbach:I am getting a new one later
[16:43] <dholbach> cool
[16:43] <ralsina_> Also, keyboards can be attached or detached at any point, they are not a device property
[16:47] <ralsina_> some developers may want to make the tablet version pay and the phone version free (I've seen it in android and iOS), so a maximum screen size may make sense
[16:58] <ralsina_> yay!
[17:01] <fugue88> o/
[17:01] <ralsina_> Ironic? ME???
[17:01] <fugue88> :D
[17:18] <istimsak> Why doesn't xubuntu have a Mac version
[17:20] <istimsak> Are there any online ubuntu locos? For those who don't have the luxury to travel.
[18:08] <jdstrand> dholbach: I think you have your youtube window up along with your google+-- massive looping
[18:08] <jdstrand> well, I don't know who does
[18:09] <jdstrand> oh, haha
[18:09] <jdstrand> it was me. durr
[18:09]  * dholbach hugs jdstrand
[18:09] <jdstrand> dholbach: sorry! :)
[18:09] <dholbach> jdstrand, want to join in?
[18:10] <lool> I think we at least need to be able to upload the app
[18:10] <lool> like, in case it's horribly broken or has security issues or something
[18:10] <lool> if it has any issue, it's part of an ubuntu image so we need to be able to fix it
[18:11] <lool> so we need some shared ownership for preinstalled apps
[18:11] <dholbach> can you all please help taking notes? http://pad.ubuntu.com/uds-1308-community-1308-policy-of-default-click-packages
[18:12] <asomething> if they'll be installed by default, it seems like there should be some kind of MIR-like check
[18:12] <rickspencer3> o/
[18:12] <lool> dholbach: if there's space left, happy to join a bit
[18:13] <ogra_> click on desktop will fall under the same restrictions
[18:13] <dholbach> jdstrand, I think you mic was a bit low
[18:13] <dholbach> mic volume
[18:13] <dholbach> but you only spoke very briefly, so I might be wrong :)
[18:14] <jdstrand> thanks. I don't know why it does that sometimes
[18:14] <jdstrand> (it was)
[18:14] <rsalveti> let me jump to the accessibility session for a while
[18:14] <rickspencer3> dholbach, can I join briefly? I think I can represent slangasek's concerns a bit until he gets here
[18:14] <rsalveti> we got enough people in here :-)
[18:14] <dholbach> rickspencer3, sure
[18:15] <ogra_> pitti, sw center packages dont need to be free sw
[18:16] <pitti> ogra_: right, but I thought this session is about the (small) subset which are installed by default?
[18:16] <ogra_> ah, right, indeed
[18:16] <lool> jdstrand: toolbox banner for your name?
[18:16] <pitti> but even if they aren't free, they still need to have a proper license and QA
[18:17] <ogra_> for the default image definitely
[18:26] <lool> I dont hear cjwatson
[18:26] <ogra_> i do
[18:26] <lool> for some strange reason I guess
[18:26] <ogra_> i dont see him
[18:26] <lool> out of all the streams, it's the onlyone I dont hear; weird
[18:26] <ogra_> well, i see him, but he is blue in the face and doesnt move at all
[18:27] <dholbach> ogra_, maybe he unplugged the webcam?
[18:27] <ogra_> ah, that turms people blue, right :)
[18:28] <dholbach> :)
[18:29] <pitti> ogra_: for the default image I'd require DFSGness really
[18:29] <ogra_> pitti, for the nexus image probably ...
[18:30] <ogra_> pitti, the majority of images we release will hopefully be for OEMs :)
[18:30] <pitti> ogra_: sure, but these aren't "ubuntu" images and thus not under our jurisdiction anyway
[18:30] <pitti> i. e. for those it's the OEM's job to ensure they have a license to ship their default apps
[18:31] <ogra_> i agree the freely installable nexus image needs to come in the same way a desktop iso comes
[18:31] <ogra_> but the policy we define here will affect OEM images as well
[18:31] <ogra_> and there might be something in the sw-center thats nonfree that they want to ship
[18:32] <xnox> slangasek: e.g. facebook is in Apple Store, yet it is still pre-installed as well.
[18:32] <slangasek> right
[18:32] <aquarius> Presumably if you decide to package my app in the default image (and I agree, and we have a good relationship) and then that relationship sours somehow, there is nothing stopping me publishing that app *again* in Ubuntu Software Centre under a different name?
[18:33] <beuno> aquarius, correct
[18:33] <aquarius> The "go back to the pre-installed version if you remove the updates" thing is how Android works with pre-installed apps, too -- if Facebook was pre-shipped on your phone, you can remove the updates to it but you can't remove *it*.
[18:33] <xnox> cjwatson: will that share data though, I'd be surprised to have to login again if this dual-app is facebook.
[18:34] <aquarius> This conversation seems to be about people who Ubuntu trust enough to have their stuff in the default image but have since decided that they're unhappy about that? (I mean, otherwise we'd just say "go ahead and publish updates to your pre-installed apps on your own schedule", which is (as far as I know) what other platforms do.)
[18:35] <aquarius> I love that Dropping Letters is the example of an uncooperative upstream. Thanks, dudes. ;-)
[18:37] <cjwatson> xnox: Yes
[18:38] <cjwatson> xnox: Data location is independent of app unpack location
[18:38] <cjwatson> aquarius: android> indeed, that's why I more or less assumed it would be an acceptable approach :)
[18:40] <cjwatson> aquarius: I don't think it's about having decided we or they are unhappy; but rather that we want to make sure that the testing (etc.) that goes into preinstalled apps pre-release also applies to updates
[18:41] <aquarius> cjwatson, but com.ubuntu.* is for stuff *written by* Ubuntu, not *blessed* by Ubuntu, right? I mean, will a default Facebook app (if one happens) be under com.ubuntu?
[18:41] <asomething> as for the social piece, is there any plans for including core app devs into ubuntu governance? obviously they qualify for membership, but is there anything like DMB for commit access to the core apps?
[18:42] <cjwatson> aquarius: Probably not.  I certainly don't think we should have a policy that goes "only stuff in com.ubuntu is eligible to be preinstalled"
[18:42] <cjwatson> So it's true that we don't have a namespacing in the app store that's exactly what pitti's getting at
[18:42] <cjwatson> To me that kind of thing seems more like a tag we might apply after the fact that would be searchable via solr
[18:43] <pitti> I'm less concerned about the mechanics of that, but I am concerned about having some way to mark apps as "meets ubuntu standards" (DFSG, QA) and only consider default apps from that pool
[18:44] <asomething> most of the current core apps also have "ubuntu" right in their names. so they certainly blessed by the project
[18:44] <ogra_> asomething, thats probably beyond the session topic, but surely a good question for #ubuntu-touch :)
[18:44] <pitti> I guess some kind of "ubuntu app archive" might be important for actually building the images (pulling from third-party servers might be tricky), but that's a technical implementation detail
[18:44] <slangasek> cjwatson: so in fact, I was seeing it the other way, that if com.ubuntu is the namespace for trusted apps, the way we get an app blessed for preinstallation is copying it into the com.ubuntu namespace
[18:44] <cjwatson> lool: wow.  you may not be able to hear me, but HOLY SHIT I can hear you
[18:44] <dholbach> lool, your mic volume is quite high
[18:45] <lool> sorry
[18:45] <dholbach> :-)
[18:45] <slangasek> haha
[18:45] <ogra_> lol
[18:45] <cjwatson> pitti: I think it needs to be a tag approach rather than a separate repository, really
[18:45] <pitti> sure
[18:46] <cjwatson> slangasek: I had certainly been envisaging the namespace as indicating origin rather than signed-off-by
[18:46] <slangasek> ok
[18:46] <beuno> yes, me too
[18:46] <slangasek> I don't feel strongly about this point
[18:46] <beuno> origin
[18:46] <pitti> I'd just like to have a reasonable interpretation of "official ubuntu images can only include stuff from ubuntu" for click
[18:46] <pitti> i. e. on the official ISOs we must not enable PPAs and similar
[18:46] <slangasek> I do think we need to preserve the upstream's capability of updating the app via a different "channel" than whatever is used for updates to the preinstalled app
[18:47] <pitti> likewise on touch images we mustn't include software which we haven't vetted
[18:47] <cjwatson> preinstallations currently happen via that hacky directory on people.c.c
[18:47] <ogra_> pitti, we try the same for touch ... but PPAs are so sticky nowadays
[18:47] <cjwatson> so we could just carry on doing something like that rather than preinstalling from the app store
[18:47] <cjwatson> and then it's basically a matter of copying known-good versions
[18:48] <cjwatson> although we don't update from there, so maybe that's no good
[18:48]  * slangasek nods
[18:48] <ogra_> well, as long as the updates then dont come with a different app with the same name ...
[18:48] <pitti> I do agree that they should be able to get updated just like any other click app
[18:49] <pitti> (cf. vetting the app and its upstream initially)
[18:50] <lool> cjwatson: +1
[18:52] <xnox> jono: we'll fork.
[18:54] <xnox> beuno: and more people upload updates.
[18:56] <xnox> beuno: we'd want to share the updates.
[18:57] <asac> i would prefer if upstream does the updates
[18:57] <asac> :)
[18:57] <xnox> asac: but i still want to be able to unbreak my phone as a core-dev.
[18:57] <asac> or at least allow them to care ontheir own if they want to
[18:57] <xnox> asac: yeah, not exclusive.
[18:59] <ogra_> xnox, pfft, who cares about you as a core-dev ... we are hopefully the smallest minority of ubuntu touch users soon :)
[18:59] <cjwatson> putting testing requirements in place isn't mutually exclusive with giving upstream control
[18:59] <xnox> ogra_: =)
[18:59] <cjwatson> we can give them control within a framework that requires quality
[19:00] <ogra_> we are currently already getting them to write tests ... we should just cultivate that habit more
[19:00] <asac> yeah true
[19:00] <ogra_> not necessarily through policy
[19:00] <slangasek> no, absolutely through policy :)
[19:00] <ogra_> but imho each app we have should at some point have its own tests
[19:00] <slangasek> maybe in other ways too, but it should be required by policy
[19:01] <ogra_> including the store apps from third parties
[19:01] <cjwatson> slangasek: agreed
[19:01] <lool> I kind of feel that if we say we'll review updates in a speedy manner, it's ok to gatekeep updates to preinstalled apps all the time and allow upstreams to
[19:01]  * xnox <3 community writting autopilot tests for ubiquity =))))
[19:01] <lool> easily push updates
[19:01] <lool> not as easily as to not preinstalled apps, but almost
[19:01] <cjwatson> lool: like I said, I don't know that the update gatekeeping has to be manual
[19:01] <cjwatson> depends on how much we decide we trust the testing rigour
[19:01] <lool> indeed
[19:02] <pitti> I think it's ok to just reserve the possibility to stop/block/fix them; not necessarily having to gatekeep each single update
[19:02] <jdstrand> there could be conditions that redflag for manual review but otherwise are automatic
[19:02] <cjwatson> something like that, yeah
[19:02] <ogra_> btw, do we have a rollback story for slipped through bad updates ?
[19:03] <jdstrand> well, we have a method to ship an empty package. we could just grab a known good package and rev the version
[19:03] <sergiusens> lool: ogra_ yes
[19:03] <ogra_> (beyond, grab the last click package from the author and upload it with a newer version)
[19:03] <sergiusens> ogra_: oh, then no
[19:03] <aquarius> cjwatson, surely Ubuntu would already have a pretty high confidence in the testing rigour of an app otherwise it wouldn't have qualified for the default image in the first place? :)
[19:03] <beuno> right,  what cjwatson said
[19:04] <beuno> we have a story to remove malicous apps
[19:04] <beuno> but not dowgrade
[19:04] <cjwatson> I don't think we have the same "versions must go forward" constraint for click packages
[19:04] <cjwatson> necessarily
[19:04] <sergiusens> ogra_: that was one of the topics discussed
[19:04] <cjwatson> I can't remember where that argument wound up :)
[19:04] <beuno> cjwatson, we've decided we do
[19:04] <rickspencer3> hi aquarius o/
[19:04] <cjwatson> beuno: ah, ok
[19:04] <beuno> to make it easier on the client
[19:04] <aquarius> heya rickspencer3 :)
[19:04] <cjwatson> (that was actually my preferred answer but I thought I'd been overruled)
[19:04] <cjwatson> aquarius: quite :)
[19:04] <jdstrand> cjwatson: oh interesting-- that is an assumption I had, but yes, we haven't defined what updates look like yet :)
[19:04] <rickspencer3> beuno, omg, does that mean it will be hard to revert click packages?
[19:05] <rickspencer3> please please please tell me it will be easy to revert
[19:05] <beuno> rickspencer3, you can uninstall an update easily
[19:05]  * lool coughs
[19:05] <beuno> this is more about the appstore pushing an older version and the client downgradng
[19:05] <ogra_> beuno, without uninstalling the app ?
[19:05] <beuno> ogra_, sure, the user can uninstall an upgrade easily
[19:05] <beuno> we keep arpound the folders for the previous versions
[19:05] <cjwatson> err
[19:05] <beuno> so it's just changing a symlink
[19:06] <beuno> unless things have changed?
[19:06]  * rickspencer3 braces
[19:06] <cjwatson> that's only because garbage-collection is unimplemented
[19:06] <aquarius> all previous versions are kept in perpetuity? I am surprised at that
[19:06] <rickspencer3> well, at least we could keep around the last version?
[19:06] <aquarius> aha, cjwatson is also surprised at it ;)
[19:06] <beuno> aquarius, not forever  :)
[19:06] <ogra_> aquarius, ++
[19:06] <beuno> we haven't done the work
[19:06] <cjwatson> we can't carry on keeping all old versions
[19:06] <ogra_> right
[19:06] <beuno> but garbage collection doesn't mean everything
[19:06] <rickspencer3> cjwatson, tell that to the kernel team
[19:06] <cjwatson> last version - maybe.  might depend on size since some apps are huge
[19:06] <beuno> we can keep the last one, we get to decide
[19:06]  * rickspencer3 ducks
[19:06] <beuno> right
[19:07] <ogra_> but will we keep the "last good" version around ?
[19:07] <ogra_> bah, beuno is to fast for me
[19:07] <aquarius> cjwatson, gotta sort of be prepared for that anyway with the multiuser case, though, no?
[19:07] <cjwatson> click has no idea what is good
[19:07] <jdstrand> well, last one is different then last known good
[19:07] <cjwatson> aquarius: multiuser's different
[19:07] <rickspencer3> my concern is that our inability to revert causes a lot of pain and slowness when things go badly
[19:07] <cjwatson> aquarius: in that case there are references for each user who has it installed
[19:07] <YokoZar> I believe you are in fact live jono
[19:07] <cjwatson> and we absolutely keep referenced versions
[19:07] <sethj> You're live
[19:07] <philipballew> Loud and clear Jono
[19:08] <cjwatson> anyway, yeah, we're being kicked out
[19:08] <beuno> rickspencer3, you mean like you get an update and it sucks, and you as a user want to go back to the previous version?
[19:08]  * ogra_ guesses we should move to #ubuntu-touch 
[19:08] <jono> community team feedback hangout: https://plus.google.com/hangouts/_/cce17ac5775c2cc2a27eb5dfb3e9f490155cf739?authuser=0&hl=en
[19:08] <rickspencer3> beuno, like we have a buggy update in the development release
[19:08] <jdstrand> rickspencer3: well, even if it is as bad as picking an old one and revving the version, it is still loads better than anything we have with deb because there aren't inter-app dependencies
[19:08] <rickspencer3> the dashboard turns red
[19:08] <rickspencer3> we can't just revert the package
[19:08] <jdstrand> but it would be nice to not have to do that
[19:08] <beuno> rickspencer3, you version forward
[19:09] <rickspencer3> I'm not sure what we care about in terms of applications already  on the device
[19:09] <beuno> right
[19:09] <cjwatson> what jdstrand said.  the reason you can't necessarily do that with .deb is that there might be things like automatic shlibdeps around
[19:09] <rickspencer3> right
[19:09]  * beuno moves to #ubuntu-touch
[19:10] <dholbach> any feedback on how the Canonical Community Team works?
[19:13] <rickspencer3> g+ and reddit both have tons of "community" content, but it tends to be outside the realm of the CoC
[19:17] <rrnwexec> perhaps the task of communicating with Ubuntu "consumers" ought to be delegated more to local groups
[19:17] <rrnwexec> (sorry i'm late)
[19:17] <asomething> not sure if I have any bright ideas for it, but one thing that might be worth thinking about is how to bring together people working on disparate aspects of ubuntu
[19:18] <asomething> most contributing packaging work for instance probably don't interact with touch core app devs
[19:18] <asomething> and touch core app devs might not know anyone working on say mir
[19:19] <rickspencer3> "unrelenting"?
[19:19] <rickspencer3> lol
[19:24] <rickspencer3> YokoZar o/
[19:24] <YokoZar> High five?
[19:24] <rickspencer3> do you think it makes a difference that Canonical has so many developers working on Ubuntu now?
[19:25] <jcastro> hi!
[19:25] <jcastro> can I join the hangout?
[19:25] <YokoZar> rickspencer3: I do think there's some selection effect where a good chunk of the people who were super into ubuntu core bits in the beginning are now Canonical employees ;)
[19:26] <rickspencer3> fair enough
[19:26] <rickspencer3> but I remember when I started at Canonical, the team of paid developers was much much smaller
[19:26] <rickspencer3> I can't help wonder how that impacts the community interactions
[19:26] <YokoZar> For sure.  My feeling is that Canonical has spread a bit more widely, doing lots of things with the extra staff rather than putting more staff on the same things
[19:27] <jcastro> dholbach: can I join the discussion in the G+?
[19:27] <YokoZar> So the perception is more "Canonical is doing more things" than "there's all these more canonical people on this one thing"
[19:27] <dholbach> jcastro, sure
[19:31] <hggdh> communications, communications, communications (following rrnwexec's comment)
[19:33] <linuxtech> I would like to see someone take the lead on making sure we have latest stable releases of some server software.  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2013-August/006703.html
[19:33] <linuxtech> Robie Basak agreed with me!
[19:53] <asomething> i though that was gotten rid of last uds?
[19:58] <dholbach> philipballew, and call it community-1308-<something>
[19:58] <philipballew> will do dholbach
[19:58] <dholbach> rock on