[14:54]  * xnox goes to grab a coffee
[15:00]  * slangasek waves
[15:00] <mhall119> hello
[15:00]  * mvo waves as well
[15:00]  * barry wavers
[15:01] <jodh> o/
[15:01] <slangasek> #startmeeting
[15:01] <meetingology> Meeting started Thu May 15 15:01:48 2014 UTC.  The chair is slangasek. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[15:01] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[15:01] <slangasek> [TOPIC] lightning round
[15:01] <slangasek> $ echo $(shuf -e barry doko stgraber jodh bdmurray slangasek cjwatson xnox caribou infinity mvo)
[15:01] <slangasek> barry caribou bdmurray stgraber infinity mvo jodh doko xnox slangasek cjwatson
[15:02] <barry> \o/
[15:02] <barry> mostly working on debian bug #732703.  i have a full working stack, discussed with debian pythonistas on various forums, and ready to be applied and uploaded.  currently writing some documentation, and then will release new debian packages for DPMT maintained packages, with bugs and diffs for non-team maintained packages.  should have all this finished today, modulo interacting with maintainers and nmus.
[15:02] <barry> other: patch piloted. debian bug #744300 + SRU'd to trusty.  LP: #1317660.  scripttest 1.3-1.  python-pip 1.5.5-1.
[15:02] <barry> meet with q/a folks re: system-image testing for utopic.  need to get nose2-conv packages in debian (debian bug #740195) so that i can capture coverage output for q/a dashboard.
[15:02] <barry> todo: triage and planning utopic work for system-image.
[15:02] <barry> done
[15:02] <caribou> * makedumpfile 1.5.6 now published in Debian unstable
[15:02] <caribou> * Worked on adding remote kernel dump functionality to Debian/Ubuntu. Now working with SSH & NFS
[15:02] <caribou> * Worked on Bug 1313602 now waiting for merge proposal
[15:02] <caribou> * Started initial work for PPU application to the DMB
[15:03] <caribou> done
[15:03] <bdmurray> research into successfully retried retaces by the error tracker
[15:03] <bdmurray> research into indicator-sound retracing failures
[15:03] <bdmurray> updated the daisy retracer to be more informative when failing to retrace
[15:03] <bdmurray> irc discussion regarding RecoverableProblem duplicate signatures
[15:03] <bdmurray> reported apport bug 1319099 regarding whoopsie-upload-all not uploading RecoverableProblems
[15:04] <bdmurray> reported apport bug 1319477 regarding whoopsie-upload-all waiting period
[15:04] <bdmurray> replied to mailing list thread regarding the error tracker
[15:04] <bdmurray> research into phased-update of nautilus (manually set to 100%)
[15:04] <bdmurray> helped infinity tracker down errors made by the phased updater
[15:04] <bdmurray> testing of whoopsie on the nexus 4
[15:04] <bdmurray> reported bug 1319213 regarding android dual boot and files in /var/crash/
[15:04] <bdmurray> submitted apport merge proposal fixing bug 1316841
[15:04] <bdmurray> submitted merge proposal with fixes for bugs 1319099, 1316763
[15:04] <bdmurray> SRU verification of bug 1277706 (failed?)
[15:04] <bdmurray> SRU verification of apport upload to trusty-proposed
[15:04] <bdmurray> uploaded apport fix for bug 1235436
[15:04] <bdmurray> bug bot modifications for mythbuntu installer bug, flightgear upgrade failure
[15:04] <bdmurray> added 13.10 iso verification code to the bug bot
[15:04] <bdmurray> ran bug bot against ubiquity bugs for 13.10 isos
[15:04] <bdmurray> updated pMRE report for vlc, sent email to tech board
[15:04] <bdmurray> patch pilot
[15:04] <bdmurray> ✔ done
[15:05] <slangasek> stgraber is off today, so presumably not reporting despite being in the channel
[15:06] <slangasek> looks like mvo is next
[15:06] <mvo> Shorter week, 2*0.5 days off
[15:06] <mvo> Did:
[15:06] <mvo> - click: bug triage, create some feature/bugfix branches, ride the CI train for the first time (yeah!)
[15:06] <mvo> - hwe-eol: work on corner cases in detection script
[15:06] <mvo> - merges: look at some old-merges
[15:06] <mvo> - misc: explore unity8 in the desktop
[15:06] <mvo> - apt: work on abi-break branch, bugfix/ensure-optional-targets, bugfix/update-progress-reporting, bugfix for robustness on corrupted Translation-$lang files
[15:06] <mvo> Todo:
[15:06] <mvo> - hwe eol
[15:06] <mvo> - sprint preparing
[15:06] <mvo> (done)
[15:06] <mvo> slangasek: no infinity today?
[15:06] <jodh> * foundations-1305-upstart-work-items:
[15:06] <slangasek> mvo: I've pinged him, but he's not in the channel so go ahead
[15:06] <jodh>   - cgroup+async support:
[15:06] <jodh>     - wrote a new test to ensure jobs not auto-started until cgmanager available.
[15:06] <jodh>     - Fixed a async re-exec issue.
[15:06] <jodh>     - Currently working on another re-exec issue whilst
[15:07] <jodh> * other:
[15:07] <jodh>   - Out tomorrow and Monday.
[15:07] <jodh> Ꜯ
[15:08] <jodh> Oops! '- Currently working on another re-exec issue whilst working with xnox on async branch re-jiggling' :)
[15:08] <doko> - work on GCC warning regressions PR 61106 and 61126
[15:08] <doko> - work on GCC 4.8.3 updates before the upstream release
[15:08] <doko> - fix gnat link issues on AArch64
[15:08] <doko> - openjdk-8 packaging
[15:08] <doko> (done)
[15:08] <xnox> * upstart/async:
[15:08] <xnox>  - completing refactoring async branch
[15:08] <xnox>  - all/most code is merged into lp:upstart/async staging branch
[15:08] <xnox>  - everything is synchronous in that branch at the moment, next
[15:08] <xnox>  starting flipping to async process-by-process
[15:08] <xnox> * gcc-4.9:
[15:08] <xnox>  - trianged / sent patches for 10 FTBFS bugs
[15:08] <xnox> * python2/autopilot:
[15:08] <xnox>   - DONE autopilot1.5 has landed
[15:08] <xnox>   - TODO camera, gallery, sudoku apps declare py3 compat in their
[15:08] <xnox>   trunks, but not on the images yet.
[15:08] <xnox>   - TODO make python2-autopilot depend on python2-evdev.
[15:09] <xnox> * insserv/systemd:
[15:09] <xnox>   - ongoing in-distro init systems improvements, e.g. UPSTART_SESSION
[15:09] <xnox>   in the environment should no longer affect package
[15:09] <xnox>   configuration/installation. Progressing with pitti/vorlon to enable insserv.
[15:09] <xnox> * was off mon-wed
[15:09] <xnox> ..
[15:09] <slangasek>  * short week, out sick this past Monday
[15:09] <slangasek>  * Java engineer hired, starts Monday
[15:09] <slangasek>  * prepping for Malta
[15:09] <slangasek>  * discussing UEFI on arm64 with the hyperscale and server teams
[15:09] <slangasek>  * TODO:
[15:09] <slangasek>   * look at systemd integration with nfs-utils and rpcbind (Debian bug #622394)
[15:09] <slangasek>   * more malta prep
[15:09] <slangasek> (done)
[15:09] <barry> xnox: image #29 is still pulling in py2.
[15:09] <cjwatson> livefs in LP:
[15:09] <cjwatson>  - Worked on a scheme to pass additional arguments through.  I've uploaded the livecd-rootfs part of this, although I'm holding off on my Launchpad code for now since it probably wants separate review and isn't needed for the initial deployment.
[15:10] <cjwatson>  - Finished writing browser tests and pushed https://code.launchpad.net/~cjwatson/launchpad/livefs-browser/+merge/219505.
[15:10] <cjwatson>  - Got initial cdimage code working.
[15:10] <cjwatson>  - Did a successful end-to-end ubuntu-touch build with local cdimage and Launchpad instances!
[15:10] <cjwatson>  - Released and got webops to deploy launchpad-buildd bug fixes.
[15:10] <xnox> barry: correct, as it should.
[15:10] <cjwatson> A few merges.  Synced r-base, which unblocked a pile of stuff.
[15:10] <cjwatson> Reviewed some of Michael's click changes, although he is currently outpacing me.  Helped with some CI Train handling.
[15:10] <slangasek> xnox: why did you send patches for the gcc-4.9 bugs instead of NMUing? :)
[15:10] <cjwatson> Fixed libfreehand/ppc64el FTBFS.
[15:10] <cjwatson> To do before Malta: finish cdimage/Launchpad integration; experiment with autopilot on x86 emulator; respond to any LP review feedback; sort through some more of Michael's click branches
[15:10] <cjwatson> ..
[15:11] <xnox> slangasek: because they ain't yet RC. And i've been told off about 0-day NMU for "good" reasons, when it's "not RC yet".
[15:11] <barry> xnox: hmm. didn't the ap changes to remove py2 land in #29?
[15:11] <slangasek> xnox: ah, well, that's what delayed NMUs are for, then.. .but ok :)
[15:11] <xnox> slangasek: joined Debian GNOME team to do "team uploads" of my pending patches. Most of gcc-ftbfs are not team managed packages =(
[15:11] <slangasek> xnox: python2> what do we need to do to drive this to completion?  how do we get these apps from trunk to image?
[15:12] <xnox> slangasek: i was expecting for that to just happen whilst i was away. but it didn't.
[15:12] <xnox> slangasek: will poke people about it.
[15:12] <slangasek> ok, cool
[15:12] <ogra_> note that i just dropped the thos python2 packages in touch
[15:13] <xnox> barry: so in autopilot-touch metapackage, i still explicitely hold on to py2, because i can only drop that once all clicks on the image correctly declare their py3 alignment.
[15:13] <ogra_> (test image is building right now)
[15:13] <ogra_> *the two
[15:13] <slangasek> ogra_: so you're breaking the click apps that are still missing their py3 declarations?
[15:13] <ogra_> python2-autopilot and python2-evdev
[15:13] <ogra_> slangasek, i had three independed people ping me to drop these two packages today
[15:13] <barry> maybe we can talk about this after the meeting?
[15:14] <xnox> ogra_: you will fail autopackage tests in gallery-app, sudoku-app and camera-app. As well as breaking all the deb based python2 autopackage tests.
[15:14] <ogra_> which i now did
[15:14] <xnox> ogra_: well, you should talk to TIL first.
[15:14] <ogra_> robru even with high urgency
[15:14] <ogra_> referring to barry
[15:14] <slangasek> ok, deep topic, let's take this out of the meeting :)
[15:14]  * ogra_ is in meetings for the next 2h and then gone 
[15:15] <slangasek> but we definitely should not be pulling python2 off the images before the click packages are all resolved per https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/core-1311-python3-roadmap
[15:16] <slangasek> [TOPIC] AOB
[15:17] <slangasek> anything else here?
[15:17] <slangasek> everyone ready for the sprint?
[15:18]  * mvo nods
[15:18] <doko> GCC bug squashing tomorrow and Saturday!
[15:19] <slangasek> reminder to put sprint agenda items on https://wiki.canonical.com/UbuntuEngineering/Sprints/ClientSprint-May2014/Foundations please
[15:19] <doko> yep
[15:20] <slangasek> ok then
[15:21] <slangasek> short meeting - thanks all, now let's get the python sorted on the phone images :0
[15:21] <slangasek> #endmeeting
[15:21] <meetingology> Meeting ended Thu May 15 15:21:55 2014 UTC.
[15:21] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-05-15-15.01.moin.txt
[15:21] <mvo> thanks
[15:21] <jodh> thanks!
[15:21] <barry> thanks!
[15:21] <caribou> thanks
[17:00] <valorie> hi pen
[17:00] <pleia2> o/
[17:00] <s-fox> o/
[17:00] <pleia2> #startmeeting Community Council
[17:00] <meetingology> Meeting started Thu May 15 17:01:09 2014 UTC.  The chair is pleia2. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[17:00] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[17:00]  * pleia2 rounds up usual suspects
[17:01] <mhall119> o/
[17:01] <s-fox> o/
[17:01] <valorie> hi lyz, michael
[17:01] <elfy> o/
[17:01] <pleia2> #chair elfy cprofitt dholbach czajkowski
[17:01] <meetingology> Current chairs: cprofitt czajkowski dholbach elfy pleia2
[17:01] <Pendulum> Hiya :)
[17:01] <dholbach> hiza
[17:01] <pleia2> #chair mhall119
[17:01] <meetingology> Current chairs: cprofitt czajkowski dholbach elfy mhall119 pleia2
[17:01] <pleia2> there we go
[17:02] <pleia2> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda
[17:02] <mhall119> oh, that was unexpected
[17:02] <mhall119> oh, we're all chair, ok then
[17:03] <mhall119> who's up first?
[17:03] <pleia2> so first up on our agenda is Membership Board
[17:03] <pleia2> #topic Membership Board catch up
[17:03] <pleia2> I see Pendulum and s-fox here from the board, anyone else?
[17:04] <Pendulum> IdleOne might be coming (I've just poked him to check)
[17:04] <mhall119> good to see you again Pendulum, haven't chatted with you in a long time :)
[17:05] <dholbach> how have things been going on the Membership Board? :)
[17:05] <s-fox> Generally okay, few items we'd like to go over with the cc though
[17:05] <Pendulum> In general things have been pretty good.
[17:05] <pleia2> shall we talk about quorum?
[17:05] <cjohnston> oh hi
[17:06] <mhall119> yeah, quorum seemed to be the biggest obstacle
[17:06] <s-fox> sure,  okay
[17:06] <mhall119> that is, membeship meeting without enough people to actually vote on the applicants
[17:07] <Pendulum> In general, I think that's been improving.
[17:07] <cjohnston> I don't think that's the issue.. I think the issue is how many votes are required for an approval
[17:07] <s-fox> it has been improving, but we're finding it hard to decide if someone is approved or not.
[17:07] <mhall119> cjohnston: that's really dependent on how many people are there to vote though
[17:07] <dholbach> some of us were chatting a bit about it since you last brought it up, and I can't remember who brought up the idea, but one approach we talked about was that we could ask applicants to hand in their application earlier (let's say a few days), so members of the board who can't make it could send in their vote by mail
[17:07] <s-fox> for example if everyone votes +0 and then someone goes +1 it is technically approved.
[17:08] <s-fox> it just doesn't look right with the lack of support
[17:08] <dholbach> another idea was that if there weren't enough members of the board around to make a decision during the meeting, the vote could be taken to mail
[17:08] <dholbach> ... which is what the DMB has been doing
[17:08] <cjohnston> If we do the voting by mail, we might as well not have meetings and just do all voting by mail
[17:08] <Pendulum> We have been moving applications when there isn't quorum to e-mail
[17:08] <dholbach> the advantage of both ideas is that we wouldn't get into voting arithmetics :)
[17:08] <mhall119> so let's tackle these one at a time, quorum first then what technically consitutes approval
[17:08] <mhall119> Pendulum: so the voting and discussions continue over email after the meeting?
[17:09] <dholbach> cjohnston, I disagree - it's always worth having a chat and resolving questions which might be not answered on the wiki
[17:09] <Pendulum> mhall119: If there isn't quorum it does
[17:09] <pleia2> cjohnston: no, DMB still has public meetings so people can apply in public and everything is recorded
[17:09] <cjohnston> dholbach: in that case, the people who have already voted have voted without those answers
[17:09] <mhall119> Pendulum: out of the number of times the discussion and voting went to email, how often was a final vote taken?
[17:09] <dholbach> cjohnston, some might already know that person, etc
[17:10] <cjohnston> It could sway my vote, but was never given the opportunity to sway someone elses vote
[17:10] <pleia2> cjohnston: afaik on list voting happens after the meeting
[17:10] <elfy> pleia2: +1
[17:10] <cjohnston> pleia2: that wasn't dholbach's suggestion
[17:10] <Pendulum> mhall119: I think we have had final votes on all of them. Very few in those situations have been rejected
[17:10] <mhall119> ok, so that's been effective then, that's good to hear
[17:10] <Pendulum> We do have some meetings where a member who isn't going to make it has let us know in advance either on IRC or the mailing list what their vote would be.
[17:11] <Pendulum> We also, I think, have really mostly been making qorum
[17:11] <mhall119> cjohnston: dholbach was suggesting votes via email as a fallback when you can't attend the meeting, not at the preferred method
[17:11] <dholbach> mhall119, thanks for clarifying this
[17:11] <mhall119> and it sounds like that's already been happening
[17:12] <s-fox> Things have improved a lot in recent meetings, especially with regards to voting on the mailing list in advance if you are likely to be able to unattend
[17:12] <pleia2> so it sounds like quorum typically isn't the issue, mostly it's a numbers thing, if quorum to hold a meeting is 4 does three +1s and one -1 equal approval
[17:12] <IdleOne> here
[17:12] <Pendulum> My impression is that it's the 12:00 UTC board that is having more problem, but that may just be due to my being on that board :) (the members who never show on that board are among those expiring at the end of the month)
[17:12] <Pendulum> pleia2: exactly
[17:12] <mhall119> so do we need to officially endorse email votes as a fallback, or can we just say "carry on" with doing it?
[17:12] <cjohnston> "ask applicants to hand in their application earlier (let's say a few days), so members of the board who can't make it could send in their vote by mail"  what is the point of turning them in earlier if the voting doesn't start until later?
[17:12] <cjohnston> mhall119: ^
[17:12] <elfy> cjohnston: so people have longer time to read them
[17:13] <pleia2> cjohnston: I read that as voting by mail after the meeting, not before
[17:13] <cjohnston> then they don't need to turn them in earlier.
[17:13] <mhall119> cjohnston: shouldn't applicants already submit their application early enough for board members to review before the meeting?
[17:13] <cjohnston> I believe there already is a requirement
[17:13] <elfy> currently it's 24 hours on the wiki
[17:13] <pleia2> so they have time to read app, read meeting, send in vote; I think the only time there would be an exception is if they know something specific about the applicant that would make them reject them regardless
[17:13] <mhall119> so then there's no change to what's happening, just making what's happening officially approved
[17:14] <Pendulum> that sounds good to me :)
[17:14] <s-fox> i do a review roughly 3 or 4 days before the meeting in my own time.  i have been known to be a slow reader and also be sure i understand the applicant
[17:14] <mhall119> pleia2: or when they would approve them regardless
[17:14] <pleia2> mhall119: yeah
[17:14] <pleia2> anyway, quorum
[17:15] <pleia2> my impression was always that it was 4 to hold a meeting, then a majority of those folks had to +1
[17:15] <mhall119> a majority had to vote +1, or the the final tally had to be >= +1?
[17:15] <cjohnston> We all agree on the 4.. it's the latter part as mhall119 says
[17:15] <pleia2> majority had to vote +1
[17:15] <IdleOne> so +3-1 would be approved?
[17:16] <mhall119> or a minimum of 4 +1's regardless of final tally
[17:16] <pleia2> but when I was on the board it wasn't usually an issue because we had a back channel where we typically came to a consensus
[17:16] <pleia2> if someone felt really strongly about a -1, we all took that pretty seriously
[17:16] <cjohnston> we end up with +0 and +1 normally in this situation
[17:16] <Pendulum> In most cases we do come to consensus
[17:16] <mhall119> cjohnston: is that because of a lot of +0s, or because of a balance of +1 and -1?
[17:16] <s-fox> Unless I am mistaken we had an applicant who was technically approved on the 22:00 UTC meeting but we were concerned by lack of +1's from the board and went to the mailing list.  Can any of the board remember who it was?
[17:17] <cjohnston> so is 2 +0's and 2 +1's approved?
[17:17] <cjohnston> s-fox: are you refereing to the Canonical employee?
[17:17] <pleia2> cjohnston: a majority of 4 would mean 3 :)
[17:17] <IdleOne> We do have a back channel. The question in my mind is do we need a majority in favor regardless of the number of voting members. or do we need a minimum of positive votes
[17:17] <mhall119> if the rule is "majority of votes are +1" then 4 votes would require 3 +1s
[17:17] <s-fox> No cjohnston , i think it was after that.
[17:17] <cjohnston> pleia2: I understand majority.. but that wasn't the only thing thrown out
[17:17] <sabdfl> hi folks, sorry to be late
[17:17] <pleia2> welcome sabdfl
[17:18] <s-fox> hello
[17:18] <mhall119> it seems there was some confusion as to what the actual rule on approval was
[17:18] <mhall119> hi sabdfl
[17:18] <shadeslayer> hiya, sorry I was late
[17:18] <elfy> hi shadeslayer sabdfl
[17:18] <cjohnston> mhall119: correct. and that's what we need defined
[17:18] <mhall119> pleia2: so the rule is "majority of votes are +1", regardless of final tally, and a quorom of 4, is that correct?
[17:18] <pleia2> mhall119: that's always been my understanding
[17:19] <mhall119> so 3 or more +1s, depending on how many votes are cast
[17:19] <elfy> that would make sense to me
[17:19] <s-fox> The bot does give a verdict for us, but sometimes it just feels wrong.
[17:19] <mhall119> then we should put this in writing somewhere
[17:19] <s-fox> Can the bot be reworked?
[17:19] <IdleOne> yes it can
[17:19] <pleia2> I think the bot does math, becasue that's how some teams do it
[17:19] <IdleOne> !meetingology
[17:19] <meetingology> ubottu: Error: "is" is not a valid command.
[17:20] <mhall119> lol
[17:20] <mhall119> bot fight
[17:20] <dholbach> ok... shall we talk about the nominations as well?
[17:20] <mhall119> can we tell meeting-ology about the decisions so far recarding quorum and approval rules?
[17:21] <mhall119> so it's in the minutes
[17:21] <Pendulum> mhall119: it says there's a way to tell it a minimum number of +1s to pass
[17:21] <mhall119> Pendulum: the bot does?
[17:21] <elfy> Pendulum: per session?
[17:21] <mhall119> ah, yes, # votesrequired, nice
[17:21] <IdleOne> the bot has a command to set #requiredvotes
[17:22] <mhall119> Pendulum: you just have to know how many votes will be cast ahead of time and calculate the majority value
[17:22] <cjohnston> so I just want to be clear.. to be approved it is 1/2 of the voters +1, correct?
[17:22] <cjohnston> mhall119: ^
[17:22] <IdleOne> that is not the issue though, what we would like defined is what that number is
[17:22] <mhall119> cjohnston: 50%+1
[17:22] <cjohnston> ack
[17:22] <s-fox> can this be tested with the bot?
[17:22] <pleia2> s-fox: yep, #meetingology is the playground for that
[17:23] <mhall119> does anybody mind if I tell the bot about what's been agreed to so far about getting quorum via email votes when it's not achieved in the meeting?
[17:23] <pleia2> mhall119: please do
[17:23] <mhall119> #agreed when quorum is not reached in a meeting, votes can continue via email until quorum is reached
[17:24]  * mhall119 assumes the bot got that
[17:24] <pleia2> yeah, it doesn't echo anymore
[17:24] <mhall119> now, on that note, does voting via email automatically stop when quorum is reached?
[17:24] <s-fox> Would you like us to test and come back to the CC, or is this something you will be looking into yourself ?
[17:24] <pleia2> mhall119: I'd say so
[17:24] <mhall119> pleia2: that wouldn't allow everybody to vote then
[17:24] <pleia2> mhall119: nope, it's as it's always been
[17:25] <IdleOne> We can set a time limit for email voting
[17:25] <IdleOne> 1 week?
[17:25] <elfy> IdleOne: that works for me
[17:25] <mhall119> if there are 3 people at the meeting, there is no quorum, so it goes to email, then the very next person to vote would end the voting
[17:25] <pleia2> I like seeing folks walk away from a meeting with an answer, not wait on email voting unless there is an issue
[17:25] <dholbach> agreed
[17:26] <elfy> pleia2: that's ideal - but not what always happens
[17:26] <mhall119> dholbach: agreed to which?
[17:26] <dholbach> mhall119, sorry, what pleia2 said before
[17:26] <pleia2> elfy: hence "unless there isan issue" :)
[17:26] <mhall119> pleia2: I think we're all on the same page there, the preference is to have quorum at the meeting and give people a yes or no answer then and there
[17:26] <mhall119> the question now is how to handle where there isn't quorum at the meeting
[17:27] <elfy> then it goes to e-mail
[17:27] <pleia2> I think typically the meeting isn't held if there isn't quorum, or they grab CC members to fill in
[17:27] <mhall119> if there are, say, 3 board members who are absent and it goes to email, do we wait for all 3 to vote or do we end voting as soon as quorum is reached and the others don't get a chance?
[17:27] <dholbach> speaking of going to email: shall we move some of the discussion to mail? I'm just raising this because we're meeting up with the kubuntu folks today as well
[17:28] <IdleOne> mhall119: I think the best thing is to set a time limit on the email voting. Those members who get the vote in on time get counted.
[17:28] <pleia2> IdleOne: but only if there isn't quorum at the meeting, right?
[17:28] <Pendulum> pleia2: correct
[17:28] <elfy> mhall119: if it goes to e-mail I see no reason why not just wait the week as IdleOne suggests and use all the votes
[17:28] <IdleOne> correct
[17:28] <pleia2> wfm
[17:29] <elfy> and me
[17:29] <dholbach> cool :)
[17:29] <IdleOne> if there is quorum (4 voting members) at the meeting there is no need for email votes
[17:29] <pleia2> great
[17:29] <mhall119> #agreed if voting goes to email for quorum, board members will be given a deadline of one week to cast their vote
[17:30] <mhall119> can I note down the approval rule as agreed to?
[17:30] <mhall119> "majority of votes cast must be +1"?
[17:30] <IdleOne> please do
[17:30] <pleia2> so the other thing with membership boards should be pretty quick - we don't have enough applicants for the spaces available on the boards
[17:30] <dholbach> it looks like we're lacking some nominations for the 12UTC meetings, so it probably might make sense to extend the time on the board for the expiring members and have another call for help? maybe ask the EMEA people on the loco contacts list?
[17:30]  * pleia2 nods
[17:30] <mhall119> #agreed applicants are approved when a majority of votes cast are +1, regardless of the final total, as long as quorum is reached
[17:31] <Pendulum> Quite honestly, only 1 of the expiring members on 12UTC has shown up for meetings for at least a year
[17:31] <pleia2> :\
[17:31] <dholbach> Pendulum, is the time popular among applicants?
[17:31] <pleia2> that time zone region has always been tough to staff
[17:32] <s-fox> I tried to stimulate getting this resolved by changing the time.  It was generally not received well and people were saying they would struggle even more.
[17:33] <Pendulum> Part of what happened is that most of the 12UTC board is actually people on the East Coast of the US. So moving it earlier makes it more difficult for us, but moving it later means that the A/O folks can't make it
[17:33] <mhall119> is it worth having a 12UTC board then?
[17:34] <Pendulum> My impression was that when we had 3 boards and that one met at 10UTC, there was even more trouble reaching quorum than we have at 12UTC
[17:34] <mhall119> if it's difficult for the board, surely it's difficult for applicants too
[17:34] <s-fox> It is a shame that time is in the middle of the working day in europe.
[17:34] <Pendulum> We do get applicants who would not be able to make 22UTC
[17:34] <elfy> mhall119: I think that it's more that it's difficult to get the board there rather than applicants from what I've seen
[17:35] <Pendulum> exactly
[17:35] <pleia2> mhall119: we want more APAC applicants, I fear removing the board spot would make it harder for them and prepetuate the imbalance
[17:35] <s-fox> We have never had a problem with applicants. the list is usually well populated
[17:35] <elfy> s-fox: thanks
[17:35] <s-fox> the problem is the board voting.
[17:35] <Pendulum> I do think we've gotten better with getting quorum for 12UTC
[17:35] <mhall119> and is that because it's in the middle of their work day and they can't attend?
[17:36] <mhall119> or too early in the morning/late at night to attend?
[17:36] <dholbach> can we try to mail locos in those regions?
[17:36] <Pendulum> mhall119: it's more because it's either really early or really late. I don't think there's anyone from EMEA on that board
[17:36] <pleia2> dholbach: that's what I'm thinking
[17:37] <dholbach> ok... I'll send a mail to the CC and membership board to organise this
[17:37] <Pendulum> I'm not actually sure if there are many, if any, EMEA folks on either board these days.
[17:37] <Pendulum> dholbach: thank you :)
[17:37] <pleia2> dholbach: thanks :)
[17:37] <s-fox> I would look to get myself put  on that board, except it conflicts with my work day
[17:37] <mhall119> is there anything else for membership boards, before we run out of time to sync with kubuntu folks?
[17:38] <valorie> thank you, mhall119
[17:38] <s-fox> Pendulum,  i think this is the time to mention the renewals
[17:38] <Pendulum> mhall119: That's it :)
[17:38] <pleia2> #agreed extend nomination period for membership boards so we can reach out to locos to find more for 1200 slot
[17:38] <s-fox> lol
[17:38] <dholbach> I'd like to thanks everyone on the Membership Boards for their hard working and stepping in when other board members couldn't make it. It's fun to get to chat with aspiring Ubuntu members, but it's also hard to make a decision. So thanks a lot everyone! :)
[17:39] <pleia2> #topic Kubuntu catch up
[17:39] <yofel> o/
[17:39] <valorie> \o/
[17:40] <valorie> hi folks, we took notes in advance of this meeting: https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Kubuntu/CCmeeting
[17:40] <dholbach> hello everyone!
[17:40] <mhall119> yay notes!
[17:40] <valorie> however I can put in the items one at a time so they are here in the backlog
[17:40] <valorie> first, thank you for asking to catch up with us
[17:40] <valorie> it's lovely to meet with y'all
[17:41] <valorie> so, since we last met, we've encountered some issues. Summing up:
[17:41] <shadeslayer> heya
[17:41] <valorie> Since last year, the threats of legal action against Mint and other derivative distributions have upset our community. We were disappointed in the reaction of the CC -- it seemed to us that the CC was just doing as Canonical directed, rather than work with Mint to bring them into the community.
[17:42] <valorie> comments?
[17:42] <mhall119> first I'd like to say that the CC intesely discussed this for months trying to A) understand it and B) come to consensus on it
[17:43] <valorie> we don't expect a change, frankly
[17:43] <valorie> but we're disappointed about that
[17:43] <mhall119> it's a complex issue that has little to do with technology or community, and a lot to do with vague legal precedence and laws
[17:44] <valorie> from our pov, legal issues never had to come into it, if a friendly hand had been extended
[17:44] <mhall119> extended to whom?
[17:44] <valorie> the mint community
[17:44] <mhall119> I believe the Mint community is statisfied with what was offered and how it was offered
[17:44] <valorie> cool
[17:45] <mhall119> we never heard anything from them, despite multiple requests for their input on the subject
[17:45] <valorie> I don't want to bang on about this, but as far as we know, their first contact was vague legal threats
[17:45] <mhall119> speaking personally, I requested advice on this subject for Qimo and was given a similar trademark usage license from Canonical
[17:45] <valorie> rather than friendliness
[17:46] <shadeslayer> I'm still quite fuzzy on how this works for ubuntu derivatives btw, does this mean trademarks are enforcable on packages just because the version has the string "ubuntu" in it?
[17:46] <mhall119> valorie: we know there were many contacts, and again we never heard anything back from the mint community on it
[17:46] <pleia2> we don't have control over what Canonical legal did, we didn't even know about this until after and thats when we attempted many times to make friendly contact
[17:46] <valorie> well, you are already rather friendly with ubuntu and canonical michael!
[17:46] <mhall119> shadeslayer: no, it's much more complex and legally than that
[17:46] <pleia2> we really did the best we could, for months, it was agonizing
[17:46] <mhall119> valorie: doesn't matter to the legal team :)
[17:46] <shadeslayer> or does this only extend to art assets and code specifically from Canonical which can be mis interpreted as being representative of the ubuntu trademark
[17:46] <valorie> pleia2: yeah, we realize that
[17:47] <shadeslayer> mhall119: oh my :(
[17:47] <valorie> anyway, water under the bridge
[17:47] <mhall119> the tl;dr of the whole story is that Mint was on questionable legal grounds with what they were doing, and the license offered to them firmed that up for them
[17:48] <valorie> OK. next item: We continue to feel apprehension over Wayland/Mir situation, which has brought the Ubuntu brand into controversy, and has caused a lot of bad feelings from our upstream. We hope for peace and technical excellence.
[17:48] <shadeslayer> mhall119: okay, does this also extend to other ubuntu derivatives?
[17:48] <shadeslayer> or was it something specific to Mint
[17:48] <pleia2> we can make our input known to Canonical, and they do typically respond to us, but at the end of the day Canonical owns the trademarks and handles the legal team
[17:48] <valorie> sorry, shadeslayer
[17:48] <pleia2> shadeslayer: as mhall119 said, his distro also approached legal and got a similar agreement offer
[17:48] <mhall119> shadeslayer: it depends on whether what they are doing falls under an existing license grant or not
[17:49] <shadeslayer> so anyone who doesn't sign the license grant could potentially face legal action?
[17:49] <mhall119> for Qimo, because we weren't just a remix of packages in the archives, we didn't get the existing grant that covered the archives
[17:49] <dholbach> valorie, are there specific technical points right now which are seen as problematic right now and should be raised anywhere?
[17:49] <valorie> oh, technical -- you are asking the wrong person
[17:49] <shadeslayer> or am I mis interpreting :)
[17:49] <mhall119> shadeslayer: Canonical isn't sueing people over this, we're giving them a cheap or free license that guarntees that we can't sue them over it
[17:49] <valorie> right now, things are OK
[17:49] <valorie> Mir isn't released
[17:49] <dholbach> valorie, or anything concrete which needs to be resolved right now?
[17:49] <shadeslayer> mhall119: roger
[17:50] <valorie> dholbach: as I understand it, as long as there is a libwayland
[17:50] <sabdfl> shadeslayer, yes, it does, which is why we have the remix framework to support people doing pretty much what they want
[17:50] <sabdfl> in other words, we went to a lot of trouble to enable freedom of remixing, both legally and in practice with supporting tools, processes and resources
[17:50] <valorie> we'll be fine
[17:50] <mhall119> IIRC, there was some technical concerns about how we would support both Mir and Wayland compositors on the same system, especially if Mir was also running as a system-level-compositor
[17:51] <ScottK> The technical point re Mir is really about Wayland support.
[17:51] <shadeslayer> re Mir situation, I think the big concerns are patching things like mesa, drivers and how difficult/easy will it be for Kubuntu and KDE to use wayland since that's what our upstream is pushing for
[17:51] <mhall119> with the move to SystemD and logind, I'm not sure if we're still going to have a system-level compositor or not, but that's out of scope for this meeting anyway
[17:51] <valorie> yes, I can only speak for the community concerns
[17:51] <ScottK> If Wayland doesn't work well, we're in trouble.
[17:51] <shadeslayer> right ^^
[17:52] <valorie> I don't like the tone of the controversy
[17:52] <dholbach> in any case we'd be happy to help bring people to a table together to resolve these technical issues and find solutions
[17:52] <mhall119> ScottK: so is the concern over the amount of support and QA we'll give Wayland?
[17:52] <valorie> and it has made things touchy with our upstream people
[17:52] <sabdfl> we have very pointedly not been going around threatening people with legal action
[17:52] <sabdfl> however, we also would not be serving the community interest by failing to point out the rules of the community itself
[17:52] <sabdfl> we all feel good when the GPL is enforced, that depends on amongst other things respect for laws and rights
[17:53] <mhall119> as far as I know, there's nothing to stop KDE and Kubuntu from using a Wayland compositor on Ubuntu
[17:53] <ScottK> And the degree to which distro patches for Mir support hurt Wayland or upstream willingness to consider issues on our platform.
[17:53] <valorie> that sounds good, and I'm hoping for the best
[17:53] <mhall119> ScottK: distro patches to what?
[17:54] <dholbach> ScottK, are there current technical issues you're aware of? or is this about potential issues in the future?
[17:54] <ScottK> Mesa etc.
[17:54] <sabdfl> ScottK, you can count on us to go beyond even reasonable lengths to accommodate alternative views of the world
[17:54] <ScottK> Potential.
[17:54] <mhall119> ScottK: so what exactly is the concern, than an upstream will refuse Mir patches, and they refuse to support KDE on a system that carries those patches?
[17:55] <sabdfl> in other words, we are not going to prejudice something on Wayland just because we like Mir
[17:56] <dholbach> I think I speak for us all, that if there's ever a concrete issue regarding, the CC will be happy to help bring the right people together to find a solution
[17:56] <sabdfl> we have always managed to cross these bridges between the people who cared and were willing to do the work
[17:56] <yofel> dholbach: it's mostly that we would like people to be aware that no matter how well mir shold be integrated at least we'll need a system where mir stays out of the way, and the next CC/Kubuntu meeting will likely be after the time where issues might pop up
[17:57] <mhall119> yeah, I think we can firmly state that both Mir and Wayland should be fully supported in Ubuntu, and if for any reason they are not then action should be taken (by the CC or others as appropriate) to correct that
[17:57] <mhall119> ScottK: so, tl;dr, Wayland compositors will not be treated like second-class citizens in Ubuntu
[17:57] <dholbach> yofel, if you are that concerned about a specific future issue, we should probably discuss it at the next UDS
[17:57] <sabdfl> mhall119, modulo that you can't bind others to do the work, you could reasonably say it would be anti-social to BLOCK someone doing the work
[17:57] <dholbach> sorry, UOS
[17:57] <dholbach> which is just in a few weeks
[17:57] <ScottK> It's s challenge for Kubuntu because we've always leveraged Canonical work on the display stack and it's going to get harder for us to an unknown degree.  That's good to hear.
[17:57] <mhall119> sabdfl: yes, and also we can encourage people do help do the work
[17:58] <valorie> which brings me to our next point: we are missing our face-to-face UDS meetings with the rest of the Ubuntu community. Last year and again this year we've arranged a Kubuntu meeting at the KDE yearly meeting, Akademy. Last year we met in Bilbao, this year it will be held in Brno, in the Czech Republic. However, we really miss being able to touch base with the rest of the Ubuntu community.
[17:58] <dholbach> 10th – 12th June 2014
[17:58] <mhall119> valorie: I think we all miss that
[17:58] <sabdfl> valorie, we miss you too!
[17:58] <valorie> Brno is beautiful, I hear.....
[17:58] <valorie> :-)
[17:58] <sabdfl> :)
[17:59] <czajkowski> valorie: as is everyone also :)
[17:59] <sabdfl> i'll be called to another commitment shortly, here's an update on the legal front
[17:59] <shadeslayer> ofcourse, open invitation to anyone who wants to come and help kubuntu btw ;)
[17:59] <yofel> dholbach: ok, thanks, we'll try to bring things up there too so it's not forgotten :)
[17:59] <czajkowski> Czech should be nice :)
[17:59] <dholbach> yofel, rock and roll! :)
[17:59] <sabdfl> we've worked through our public trademark, copyright and patent policy with SFLC
[17:59] <sabdfl> we will make some clarifications based on their advice
[17:59] <shadeslayer> sabdfl: sounds excellent :D
[18:00] <shadeslayer> much appreciated
[18:00] <yofel> that'll be great :)
[18:00] <valorie> ok, on to the present
[18:00] <sabdfl> the exact position of who can assert what is not simplistic - it varies a lot based on package, license, toolchain, jurisdiction
[18:00] <valorie> We have our own webserver now, at Kubuntu.co.uk. Kubuntu.org will be moved there soon.
[18:00] <valorie> we hope
[18:00] <valorie> still in the moving and testing phase
[18:01] <sabdfl> when folks have made sweeping assertions about "what can be claimed" they are quite obviously not aware of that complexity
[18:01] <shadeslayer> sabdfl: I think that's primarily because things were quite vague in the beginning
[18:01] <sabdfl> the net position is this: if you are making a binary derivative of Ubuntu, including lots / most of the packages and pointing to Ubuntu repo's, you do in practice need to have an agreement with Canonical
[18:02] <ScottK> People also get can and should mixed up.
[18:02] <sabdfl> we have made a "public agreement" in the form of the remix guidelines
[18:02] <mhall119> valorie: will you be able to migrate your wiki docs to the new server?
[18:02] <sabdfl> that says "join the project and work in the archive and you can pretty much do what you want just call it a remix"
[18:02] <sabdfl> that's got good social karma - participate and benefit
[18:03] <valorie> mhall119: we're now using the KDE wikis to develop our user docs, and some community wiki pages. Moin moin is just not reliable. We've gained some more translations this way for the documentation. We ran out of people who were experts in Docbook, which is why we started using the MM wiki. http://userbase.kde.org/Kubuntu is for writing; when docs are done they are moved to the website.
[18:03] <sabdfl> Mint took the view that they did not have to contribute, breaking the social contract
[18:03] <valorie> that's what we did for Trusty and it worked ~pretty well
[18:03] <mhall119> ok
[18:03] <shadeslayer> re moin moin not being reliable, this is what I get when I tried to login today : http://imgur.com/Mcpajig
[18:03] <sabdfl> it's important for us to be clear that this is not acceptable, for me, or hopefully for anybody else too
[18:04] <valorie> moinmoin just got harder and harder to use
[18:04] <mhall119> shadeslayer: ew, openid errors, that's not good
[18:04] <mhall119> shadeslayer: did you file a bug?
[18:04] <valorie> which is what we used for saucy
[18:04] <shadeslayer> mhall119: not yet, I just got it when I tried to use it after a long time today :P
[18:04] <czajkowski> sabdfl: thank you for the clarification
[18:04] <dholbach> shadeslayer, valorie: it might be worth raising this in #canonical-sysadmin as well
[18:05] <valorie> yes, we've filed some tickets with them
[18:05] <shadeslayer> mhall119: But it's just a pain to use with all it's timeouts and what not, the KDE MediaWiki instances is such a breeze to use :)
[18:05] <ScottK> sabfl: Will you define what contribute means?
[18:05] <sabdfl> nonetheless, we didn't exactly beat Mint over the head with a lawyer, we asked them to sign an agreement that would enable them to keep doing what they do without contributing, though it did limit commercial activity
[18:05] <ScottK> I think it shouldn't be just about packages.
[18:05] <shadeslayer> mhall119: which is primarily we now house documentation and policies there
[18:05] <sabdfl> ScottK, upload to the archive, build from there
[18:06] <ScottK> We had one derivative sponsor a sprint.
[18:06] <mhall119> ScottK: mint has a lot of packages that don't get submitted to the archives, and changes to packages without those changes being submitted to the archive
[18:06] <czajkowski> valorie: shadeslayer can we  follow what sabdfl is sayig right now and come back to wiki in a moment
[18:06] <sabdfl> and ScottK we have traditionally been generous in interpreting that, because sometimes you can't strictly build from the archive even if you are generally contributing / uploading there
[18:06] <czajkowski> it's getting lost in the conversation
[18:06] <shadeslayer> ok
[18:06] <sabdfl> Mint is not doing this. There have been a fewother MUCH BIGGER companies that tried to do the same thing
[18:06] <ScottK> Right.  I'm not too worried about Mint per se.
[18:06] <sabdfl> ok
[18:07] <sabdfl> i am sure we'll work something out with Mint
[18:07] <ScottK> We have a derivative that wanted 12.04 plus current KDE.
[18:07] <mhall119> ScottK: it's impossible to make one blanket statement when there are so many ways for derivatives to operate, we cover the specifics we can clearly define (pure remixes) and take others on a case-by-case basis (Mint and Qimo)
[18:07] <ScottK> Can't do that in the archive.
[18:08] <sabdfl> but it would help if there were a wider appreciation for the fact that Mint are fundamentally outside our social constructs
[18:08] <ScottK> It'd be nice if that kind of derivation were clearly allowed.
[18:09] <mhall119> ScottK: again though, "that kind" isn't a specific enough definition to give a license grant to
[18:09] <sabdfl> ScottK, we do allow for it in practice, we've never even raised an issue with folks doing an external build of stuff the way you describe
[18:09] <sabdfl> especially if "current KDE" is in a PPA or the main archive
[18:09] <sabdfl> in other words, if other members of the community can benefit from it
[18:09] <sabdfl> ok, have been called away
[18:09] <mhall119> ScottK: the question isn't "what is allowed", it's "what is covered under an existing grant"
[18:09] <ScottK> Agreed, but absent that understanding the discussion about Mint concerns others.
[18:10] <elfy> sabdfl: thanks :)
[18:10] <sabdfl> cheers
[18:10] <dholbach> I will need to rush out now as well. Thanks a lot everyone!
[18:10] <mhall119> ScottK: there was a fair amount of fear-mongering around that issue too, nobody was up in arms about Qimo needing a similar grant :)
[18:10] <mhall119> we're 10 minutes over time, is there anything else before we wrap up?
[18:10] <valorie> well, Peppermint is for sale; you don't sell Qimo
[18:11] <valorie> yes, I was trying to finish....
[18:11] <mhall119> valorie: depends on how much you're offering :)
[18:11] <valorie> final present point: We are wondering about the state of donations. On the donations page, a report is promised, but we've not seen one, and none are linked to. http://community.ubuntu.com/help-information/funding/
[18:11] <czajkowski> valorie: pleia2 has asked Jono for this
[18:12] <czajkowski> we'll ask him again for it.
[18:12] <mhall119> as have I, and I will ask him again
[18:12] <valorie> so far, when we've asked for funding, we've gotten it
[18:12] <jono> my apologies, I will get this out this week
[18:12] <shadeslayer> ^^ Thanks alot for that
[18:12] <czajkowski> a lot of people are asking about it so it would be good for once and for all to get a post out about it
[18:12] <mhall119> thank you jono!
[18:12] <shadeslayer> \o/
[18:12] <valorie> so this isn't a complaint, just an ask for a report
[18:12] <czajkowski> jono: thank you!
[18:12] <jono> terribly sorry for the delay
[18:12] <valorie> cool
[18:12] <czajkowski> jono: no worries we understand
[18:12] <jono> thanks
[18:12] <shadeslayer> yep :)
[18:12] <czajkowski> valorie: I'm glad to hear though people use it
[18:12] <valorie> as for the future: Discussing how to handle KDE's new Frameworks and Plasma Next. In 14.10 we'll be rather conservative, and offer the newest stuff being released this summer in PPA. We may be able to spin an ISO of this software; we are still pondering our best path forward.
[18:12] <elfy> jono: thanks - with my Xubuntu hat on too ;)
[18:12] <czajkowski> it seems some people still don't know about it existing
[18:12] <shadeslayer> czajkowski: it's been immensly useful
[18:12] <jono> elfy, :-)
[18:13] <mhall119> valorie: bringing that back around, if anybody in the Kubunu community needs sponsorship to attend Akademy to represent Kubuntu, they can apply for that
[18:13] <valorie> I've done so!
[18:13] <valorie> \o/
[18:13] <mhall119> valorie: "newest stuff" being KDE stuff or Qt stuff?
[18:14] <valorie> both
[18:14] <shadeslayer> especially seeing how plasma next and frameworks will have short cadence cycles to get things stabalized initially, we'll have to figure out how that plays with the Ubuntu archive policy
[18:14] <mhall119> are Kubuntu and the SDK teams talking to each other to sync up on Qt dependencies?
[18:14] <valorie> we're sort of doing this one step at a time
[18:14] <valorie> mhall119: I think ScottK just wrote about that
[18:14] <shadeslayer> mhall119: we are working with the ubuntu team in general, ScottK sent an email to discuss having 5.3 in Utopic
[18:14] <mhall119> ok
[18:15] <ScottK> mhall119: Not very effectively so far.
[18:15] <mhall119> the SDK in particular should be involved in that discussion too
[18:15] <ScottK> We'll see how it goes
[18:15] <ScottK> We had a session last UDS.
[18:15] <mhall119> ScottK: let me know if you need me to grease any wheels there
[18:15] <czajkowski> ScottK: is there any way we can help imrprove that ?
[18:15] <mhall119> the SDK team just *loves* hearing me ask for more things :)
[18:16] <ScottK> Someone answer the mail I sent to u-devel (although I didn't check today if someone already did).
[18:17] <yofel> I haven't seen one either
[18:17] <shadeslayer> not that I'm aware of ^^
[18:17] <mhall119> also, FWIW, I made a website to combine Qt API docs with Ubuntu UI Toolkit API docs: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu-api-website which the KDE and/or Kubuntu projects are welcome to use if they want to do something similar
[18:18] <elfy> ScottK: I've not seen a reply to the mail
[18:18] <ScottK> We'd use the upstream Qt5 docs.
[18:18] <shadeslayer> mhall119: fwiw one of my colleague's who's working on plasma components is quite impressed with Ubuntu's Qt components, so kudos for that :)
[18:19] <mhall119> shadeslayer: I saw on G+ :)
[18:19] <shadeslayer> ;)
[18:19] <mhall119> even had the performance metrics widget ported
[18:19] <valorie> mhall119: you might follow the frameworks folks after awhile -- they may save you some work
[18:19] <shadeslayer> yep
[18:19] <ScottK> But it doesn't help the FOSS ecosystem until it's upstream.
[18:19] <ScottK> Gotta go.
[18:20] <mhall119> ok, is that a wrap then?
[18:20]  * valorie needs to go as well
[18:20] <valorie> thank again for asking us to catch up
[18:20] <mhall119> thanks everyone
[18:20] <valorie> thanks, I mean
[18:20] <yofel> pretty much all from us for now
[18:20] <mhall119> and keep up the fantastic work
[18:20] <pleia2> thanks for bringing up these issues in such an organized way, hooray for wiki prep :)
[18:20] <yofel> thanks everyone for the time
[18:20] <valorie> :-)
[18:20] <shadeslayer> cheers :), have a fun evening
[18:20] <mhall119> you can always ping us anytime if one of these issues need more immediate attention from us
[18:21] <elfy> thanks everyone :)
[18:21] <pleia2> #topic Any other business
[18:21] <mhall119> or email rather, that would be better
[18:21] <pleia2> real quick, anything else?
[18:21] <mhall119> not from me
[18:21] <elfy> nor me
[18:21] <pleia2> ok, thanks everyone :)
[18:21] <pleia2> #endmeeting
[18:21] <meetingology> Meeting ended Thu May 15 18:22:10 2014 UTC.
[18:21] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2014/ubuntu-meeting.2014-05-15-17.01.moin.txt
[18:23] <mhall119> dang, doesn't look like my #agreed did anything