[16:32] <mdeslaur> \o
[16:32] <jdstrand_> hi!
[16:32] <jdstrand_> #startmeeting
[16:32] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Sep 30 16:32:42 2013 UTC.  The chair is jdstrand_. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[16:32] <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
[16:32] <jdstrand_> The meeting agenda can be found at:
[16:32] <jdstrand_> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Meeting
[16:32] <jdstrand_> [TOPIC] Weekly stand-up report
[16:32] <jdstrand_> I'll go first
[16:33] <jdstrand_> I'm in the happy place this week
[16:34] <mdeslaur> you do indeed look happy
[16:34] <jdstrand_> I'm working on an apaprmor-easyprof-ubuntu upload which should finish out all the policy/reserved vs common policy groups/etc. I'm waiting for bug #1231863 to be fixed before uploading
[16:34] <jdstrand_> heh
[16:34] <jdstrand_> I also am doing stuff with appstore reviews this week-- various updates for recent changes
[16:35] <jdstrand_> including working with SDK team on filing path bugs against apps now that they are fixed
[16:35] <jdstrand_> "now that they are fixed" referes to the path bugs being fixed in the sdk
[16:35] <sbeattie> \o/
[16:36] <jdstrand_> but apps are now broken-- so I am going to enumerate them
[16:36] <jdstrand_> also continue various followups on https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/+bugs?field.tag=application-confinement bugs
[16:36] <jdstrand_> I have some patch piloting to do
[16:37] <jdstrand_> and think there is a decent chance I might pick up an update this week
[16:37]  * jdstrand_ crosses fingers
[16:37] <jdstrand_> mdeslaur: you're up
[16:37] <mdeslaur> I'm on triage this week
[16:37] <mdeslaur> I have a short week as I'm off thursday and friday
[16:37] <mdeslaur> I'm about to push out a few USNs
[16:37] <mdeslaur> and I have a bunch more in our PPA that are in the testing phase
[16:38] <mdeslaur> I may get to a couple more before thursday
[16:38] <mdeslaur> that's about it
[16:38] <mdeslaur> sbeattie: you're up
[16:38] <sbeattie> I'm on apparmor again this week, trying to offload work from jjohansen
[16:39] <sbeattie> I'm poking at the very early ipc prototype kernel he got me, now that I finally got it booting :/
[16:39] <sbeattie> I also need to followup with jdstrand on the hardware apparmor policy proposal he had made earlier.
[16:40] <sbeattie> and I need to track down why the parser commits broke both my jenkins build and the daily apparmor ppa builds
[16:40] <tyhicks> uh oh
[16:40] <sbeattie> I think it's the newly added dependency on libapparmor for the parser build
[16:41] <sbeattie> (but we don't need to solve that here)
[16:41] <sbeattie> I think that's it for me; tyhicks, you're up
[16:41] <jjohansen> oh, yeah likely, sorry
[16:41] <tyhicks> I'm testing dbus, apparmor, and evince uploads that fix several bugs
[16:41] <tyhicks> One of the fixes in dbus-daemon looks like it may affect some of the dbus policy in apparmor-easyprof-ubuntu, so I'll need to coordinate w/ jdstrand
[16:41] <tyhicks> Then I've got an embargoed issue to work on
[16:41] <tyhicks> Then I've got one more dbus bug to fix (bug #1229280)
[16:42] <tyhicks> I think that's it for me
[16:43] <tyhicks> jjohansen: you're up
[16:44] <jjohansen> I'll be working on more apparmor IPC mediation this week
[16:45] <jjohansen> hrmm I think that is about it for me sarnold your up
[16:45] <chrisccoulson> jjohansen, oh, i've been looking at your earlier ping
[16:46] <jdstrand_> I'm not sure sarnold is here yet. chrisccoulson feel free to go ahead
[16:46] <sarnold> (hello :)
[16:46] <chrisccoulson> jjohansen, http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/comm-esr24/rev/16e20df57d08 is what removed the ability to set the Follow-Up header
[16:46] <chrisccoulson> anyway
[16:47] <jjohansen> chrisccoulson: thanks for looking
[16:47] <chrisccoulson> this week, i'll hopefully be getting back to my oxide bug / feature list :)
[16:47] <jdstrand_> sarnold: ah, didn't see you come in :)
[16:47] <sarnold> jdstrand_: heh, that was me coming in :) sorry.
[16:47] <jdstrand_> no need to be sorry
[16:47] <chrisccoulson> we've got pretty good test coverage for the actual API now, although i'm still adding bits (and fixing bugs as I find them)
[16:47] <chrisccoulson> i think that's me done
[16:48] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: any progress on the nss ftbfs?
[16:48] <mdeslaur> although I guess it's a little late now to get it in saucy
[16:49] <chrisccoulson> mdeslaur, oh, i need to get back to that. sorry. i've got my pandaboard all set up here again now so I've got a bit more flexibility with the test environment
[16:49] <mdeslaur> chrisccoulson: cool, thanks
[16:49] <chrisccoulson> i planned to roll back some of the recent updates to see when it fails. the main suspects are gcc, binutils and eglibc, which were all updated since the last time it worked
[16:51]  * mdeslaur rolls dice
[16:51] <mdeslaur> gcc!
[16:51] <chrisccoulson> heh
[16:51] <chrisccoulson> mdeslaur, it doesn't matter which one it is. they're all doko's packages anyway :)
[16:51] <chrisccoulson> that's why i picked them out as suspects ;)
[16:52] <chrisccoulson> (just kidding btw)
[16:52] <jdstrand_> heh
[16:52] <jdstrand_> chrisccoulson: did you have more to report?
[16:52] <mdeslaur> hehe
[16:53] <chrisccoulson> jdstrand_, no, i'm done
[16:53] <jdstrand_> sarnold: you're up
[16:53] <sarnold> I'm on community this week, and have two more MIR audits to finish up, MIR and open-vm-tools; I would very much like to do both of them this week, but Mir is a large and complicated codebase, I may not make enough progress to finish both this week.
[16:53] <sarnold> s/MIR and/Mir and/
[16:54] <sarnold> at least the unity-system-compositor was written in idiomatic c++11, which isn't one of my strong languages, so the going was slower than I'd like.
[16:54] <sarnold> but hey I'm getting to learn c++11 while I'm at it, and that's fun. :)
[16:55] <sarnold> I think that's it for me, jdstrand_ back to you
[16:55] <jdstrand_> :)
[16:55] <mdeslaur> sarnold: you've been redefining the word "fun" again, haven't you? :)
[16:55]  * jdstrand_ hugs sarnold 
[16:55] <chrisccoulson> sarnold, want to port chromium to c++11?
[16:55] <sbeattie> sarnold: when you're done, can you teach me those bits of c++11?
[16:56] <sbeattie> mdeslaur: he overloaded the fun operator.
[16:56] <mdeslaur> return True;
[16:56] <sarnold> mdeslaur: lol :) yes, just operator_fun() { ... } and away you go!
[16:56] <sarnold> chrisccoulson: nothanks :)
[16:56] <chrisccoulson> heh
[16:56] <jdstrand_> [TOPIC] Highlighted packages
[16:57] <chrisccoulson> i really want to be able to use final and override
[16:57] <jdstrand_> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/argyll.html
[16:57] <jdstrand_> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/passenger.html
[16:57] <jdstrand_> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/gridengine.html
[16:57] <jdstrand_> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/salt.html
[16:57] <jdstrand_> http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-security/cve/pkg/openswan.html
[16:57] <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.
[16:57] <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.
[16:57] <jdstrand_> [TOPIC] Miscellaneous and Questions
[16:57] <jdstrand_> Does anyone have any other questions or items to discuss?
[17:07] <jdstrand_> mdeslaur, sbeattie, tyhicks, jjohansen, sarnold, ChrisCoulson: thanks
[17:07] <jdstrand_> #endmeeting
[17:07] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Sep 30 17:07:54 2013 UTC.
[17:07] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-09-30-16.32.moin.txt
[17:07] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-09-30-16.32.html
[17:07] <jjohansen> thanks jdstrand_
[17:07] <sarnold> thanks jdstrand_ :)
[17:07] <mdeslaur> thanks jdstrand!
[17:08] <sbeattie> jdstrand: thanks!
[19:58] <pitti> stgraber, soren, kees, cjwatson: meeting in 2 mins?
[19:58] <stgraber> yep, I'll be there
[19:59] <cjwatson> Here
[20:01] <pitti> cjwatson chaired last time AFAICS, so kees today?
[20:01] <pitti> and as he seems absent, I guess it's my turn
[20:02] <pitti> #startmeeting
[20:02] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Sep 30 20:02:39 2013 UTC.  The chair is pitti. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[20:02] <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
[20:02] <mdz> pitti, hi
[20:02] <pitti> hey mdz, how are you?
[20:02] <mdz> busy! :-)
[20:03] <pitti> #topic action review
[20:03] <mdz> do we have quorum today?
[20:03] <pitti> Martin Pitt to contact Mark Shuttleworth to organise nominations and elections
[20:03] <pitti> done
[20:03] <pitti> mdz: 4 members, so yes
[20:03] <mdz> ah great
[20:03] <pitti> kees still wanted to review MREs, no visible progress there
[20:03] <cjwatson> re nominations
[20:04] <pitti> #topic TB elections
[20:04] <cjwatson> I guess the plan is to renew just those members who haven't declared an intent to stand down?
[20:04] <kees> o/
[20:04] <pitti> oh, hey kees
[20:04] <cjwatson> as in, temporarily extend terms pending elections
[20:04] <kees> yeah, so no progress on MRE review. still need to gather bug details. it is not trivial :)
[20:04] <pitti> cjwatson: I actually meant it "extend membership of the whole board for a month"
[20:04] <pitti> cjwatson: but if you want to leave now, that's fine too
[20:05] <pitti> I'm just concerned that suddenly nobody of us would have tb powers any more, which makes some things difficult
[20:05] <pitti> (cleaning up MPs and similar)
[20:05] <cjwatson> just wondering if I get to stop turning up to Monday evening meetings ... ;-)
[20:05] <cjwatson> cleaning up MPs - I think core-dev can do that now
[20:05] <cjwatson> given that ~ubuntu-branches > ~ubuntu-core-dev
[20:05] <pitti> cjwatson: well, you can :)
[20:06] <pitti> cjwatson: oh, good
[20:06] <cjwatson> I agree that the TB slots in Launchpad shouldn't be left unstaffed
[20:06] <cjwatson> I got infinity to add me to ~launchpad-buildd-admins, though, so I think that's the main TB power I use routinely
[20:06] <kees> do we need to have offset terms for the incoming folks?
[20:06] <cjwatson> If there are others, I would be interested to discover them :-)
[20:07] <cjwatson> kees: Seems unnecessary
[20:08] <pitti> ok, other than that I guess we need to wait on sabdfl's reply on a candidate list now, and the actual elections
[20:08] <pitti> #topic Requiring TB members to be Ubuntu core developers
[20:09] <pitti> just as some people already said by mail, I generally agree that TB members *should* be core devs
[20:09] <soren> o/
[20:09] <pitti> but I'm not even sure whether we can even instantiate that requirement
[20:09] <soren> Sorry I'm late.
[20:09] <pitti> given that ultimately sabdfl decides on the nominations
[20:09] <cjwatson> My feeling on this is that it can be left up to the good sense of the electorate, given (a) a reasonable slate of nominees and (b) a secret ballot so that there's no undue pressure
[20:09] <micahg-work> why should this be different than any other board?
[20:10] <pitti> we could, as a TB, give him a recommendation to consider core-devs only
[20:10] <pitti> micahg-work: how do you mean?
[20:10] <cjwatson> I agree that it's a reasonable default, but I can easily imagine exceptions, and indeed some were suggested
[20:10] <pitti> no other board is "core dev only"
[20:10] <kees> why not making it a requirement, and then if it needs to be violated, that can be discussed at the time.
[20:10] <stgraber> cjwatson: I did a milestone cleanup last week which IIRC requires TB privileges so we're good for a bit
[20:10] <micahg-work> well, to have prerequisites in terms of who can serve
[20:11] <cjwatson> stgraber: Yeah, that and I suspect that I may run into something with packagesets but we'll see
[20:11] <micahg-work> even the CC has a public nominations period
[20:11] <stgraber> cjwatson: oh yeah, good point, that's one TB-related right I use quite a bit
[20:11] <cjwatson> micahg-work: I think we can have recommendations and/or requirements
[20:11] <stgraber> (for those that aren't DMB owned)
[20:11] <cjwatson> stgraber: It might be ~ubuntu-archive.  I'll find out
[20:11] <micahg-work> sorry
[20:11] <pitti> it just feels odd to me that an existing board can restrict its own successors
[20:11] <micahg-work> getting 2 topics crossed here
[20:12] <cjwatson> What I mean is, I think we can have core-dev as a soft requirement / recomendation, without having to make it a rule and then argue about violations
[20:12] <pitti> micahg-work: that's fine, your's is the current one
[20:12] <micahg-work> no, I meant I was bringing up 2 topics :)
[20:12] <micahg-work> let's focus on the core dev issue first
[20:12] <cjwatson> pitti: heh, British constitutional principle
[20:13] <micahg-work> so, maybe I should ask the CC to make it a requirement if the TB doesn't feel it has the right to do so
[20:13] <pitti> by the same reason we coudl decide that members must only be "pitti", "cjwatson", "kees", and so on
[20:13] <soren> I still haven't understoo the motivation, to be honest.
[20:13] <cjwatson> micahg-work: In my case, it's not that I don't think the TB has the right, it's that I think it shouldn't make it a hard rule
[20:13] <cjwatson> micahg-work: Furthermore, the CC does not have authority over the TB
[20:13] <pitti> but still, if there's a very active MOTU with a good technical understanding and he gets a majority of ubuntu dev's trust, why not
[20:13] <micahg-work> I thought the CC has some authority as the ultimate community governance structure
[20:13] <cjwatson> The governance structure has the CC and TB at the same level, under sabdfl
[20:14] <soren> If sabdfl and the everyone who can vote wants someone to be in the TB who isn't a core-dev... Why not?
[20:14] <cjwatson> I was there when it was written
[20:14] <micahg-work> ok, I guess that's good to know then
[20:14] <soren> This is news to me, too. I thought CC>TB.
[20:14] <pitti> also, if someone is a very active, say ~ubuntu-desktopper
[20:14] <cjwatson> soren: Right, this is my "set general principle but let the electorate decide" preferred approach
[20:14] <mdz> cjwatson, I recall sabdfl remembering differently and/or wanting to change that, a while back
[20:14] <pitti> (we have package sets now)
[20:15] <soren> cjwatson: Right. That's what I tried to express in my e-mail as well, but you managed it much more eloquently :)
[20:15] <cjwatson> mdz: Well, if so, I don't think http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/governance implies that right now ...
[20:16] <cjwatson> (And I think it would be unfortunate)
[20:17] <mdz> cjwatson, I agree
[20:17] <pitti> micahg-work: under the circumstances (no majority for a requirement, and doubts that we even have the ability to make it a requirement), would you settle for the TB giving this as a reocmmendation to sabdfl?
[20:17] <mdz> at least on the former. I should probably be neutral on the latter
[20:18] <cjwatson> FWIW, the current set of nominees being tossed around in private mail doesn't include any non-core-devs, I believe; I don't know if sabdfl has other ideas
[20:18] <micahg-work> pitti, if that's the best I can get, I guess I"ll take it
[20:18] <micahg-work> but I was very concerned with the last election
[20:18] <micahg-work> it seemed to be too close for comfort
[20:18] <pitti> right, and admittedly I used ~core-dev/+members as input for my own recommendations
[20:18] <cjwatson> micahg-work: Was it really a problem, given that the electorate made its feelings clear?
[20:19]  * soren tries to recall the last election..
[20:19] <micahg-work> cjwatson, I don't want it to get to a point where it is a problem
[20:19] <mdz> I'm in favor of fewer rules where guidelines and judgment suffice
[20:20] <cjwatson> The non-dev candidates in the last election placed 10th and 13th
[20:20] <cjwatson> I don't recall exactly who was core-dev at the time but I think all the top 9 were
[20:20] <micahg-work> oh, hrm, I thought one placed 7th
[20:20] <micahg-work> if I"m misremembering, I guess it might be a non-issue after all
[20:20] <cjwatson> micahg-work: No, history from LP is clear that that wasn't the case
[20:20] <cjwatson> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_3896e483ca548c95 if anyone else wants to data-mine
[20:21] <micahg-work> ok, must have been thinking of something else then
[20:21] <cjwatson> Looks like all of 1-9, 11, 12 were core-dev at the top
[20:21] <micahg-work> then, I guess the recommendation will suffice
[20:21] <cjwatson> *time
[20:21]  * soren doesn't recall whether Clint was core-dev at the time, tbh.
[20:21] <micahg-work> I'm pretty sure he was
[20:22] <cjwatson> soren: He was, by a few months
[20:22] <cjwatson> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/+members has joining dates
[20:22] <soren> cjwatson: Are those trustworthy? It used to show the date when someone applied for membership, not when they were approved.
[20:23] <soren> Bah. It doesn't matter.
[20:23] <cjwatson> I'n not certain.  Could check, but not within meeting time :-)
[20:23] <micahg-work> ok, I think that suffices then, thank you all
[20:24] <cjwatson> soren: In Clint's case, -devel-announce archives confirm that it was approval date
[20:24] <pitti> so is everyone ok with an explicit recommendation about core-dev to sabdfl?
[20:24] <cjwatson> +1
[20:24] <pitti> or any new/other discussion aspects?
[20:24] <pitti> +1
[20:25] <pitti> soren, kees, mdz: opinions?
[20:25] <mdz> +0
[20:25] <pitti> (mdz is actually an interesting case as he voluntarily stepped out of core-dev)
[20:25] <mdz> I'll support the consensus
[20:26] <stgraber> +1
[20:26] <pitti> and collective wisdom via vote should do the rest :)
[20:26] <mdz> I think it's worth asking the question, it would be unusual I agree
[20:26] <soren> +1
[20:27] <cjwatson> unusual> Yes, I'm definitely in favour of it as a default and as a (strong) recommendation, just have qualms about it as a hard requirement
[20:27] <kees> +1
[20:28] <pitti> ack, thanks
[20:28] <pitti> #topic Provisional MRE Request For KDE Telepathy
[20:28] <pitti> (via email)
[20:29] <pitti> this seems rather obvious to me really, as these are now under the KDE microrelease policy
[20:29] <pitti> and don't influence other flavours
[20:29] <kees> yeah
[20:30] <pitti> any objections?
[20:30] <soren> Nope.
[20:30] <kees> nope; I'm for it.
[20:30] <pitti> ack, so granted (will do bureaucracy after meeting)
[20:31] <pitti> #topic ML scan
[20:31] <cjwatson> Oh, I thought I'd replied to that by mail
[20:31] <pitti> nothign else that I can see
[20:31] <cjwatson> I agree, the MRE looks like an easy signoff
[20:31] <pitti> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bugs?field.assignee=techboard -> zarro
[20:31] <pitti> #topic Select a chair for the next meeting
[20:31] <pitti> kees: would you do the honors?
[20:31] <pitti> kees: (as it would have been your turn today)
[20:32] <kees> yup!
[20:32] <kees> sorry about being late :(
[20:32] <pitti> np
[20:32] <pitti> #topic AOB
[20:32] <micahg-work> o/
[20:32] <pitti> micahg-work: go ahead
[20:33] <micahg-work> so, I was wondering why there was no public call for nominations for the TB this time around, ISTR one happening last time
[20:35] <pitti> I'm not sure whether there is a final nomination list already, so far Mark just asked for some recommendations from the current TB
[20:35] <micahg-work> right, I saw that
[20:35] <cjwatson> The nomination process is running rather behind, of course
[20:35] <cjwatson> I think partly because Mark was on holiday
[20:36] <micahg-work> ok, ISTR dholbach gathering nominations
[20:36] <micahg-work> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2011-September/000895.html
[20:38] <pitti> I'll forward that question to Mark, CC'ing the list (need to write him anyway for the core-dev recommendation)
[20:38] <micahg-work> the CC just had a public call for nominations as well: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/community-announce/2013-September/000013.html
[20:39] <cjwatson> I think it'd be a good idea, although bearing in mind that we're late
[20:40] <pitti> AOB 2?
[20:40] <pitti> going once..
[20:40] <pitti> twice..
[20:41] <pitti> #endmeetnig
[20:41] <pitti> #endmeeting
[20:41] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Sep 30 20:41:21 2013 UTC.
[20:41] <meetingology> Minutes (wiki):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-09-30-20.02.moin.txt
[20:41] <meetingology> Minutes (html):        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2013/ubuntu-meeting.2013-09-30-20.02.html
[20:41] <pitti> thanks everyone!
[20:41] <micahg-work> thanks pitti
[20:41]  * cjwatson waves
[20:41] <kees> thanks pitti!
[20:41] <stgraber> thanks!
[21:09] <pitti> ok, all mopped up I think
[21:09] <pitti> good night
[21:57] <u-k-i-t> Could a tech board member check the emails requiring moderation on their list. It did not make the meeting and does not appear on the web based list archive. Thanks.