[15:59] \o [16:00] * slangasek waves [16:00] hello all [16:01] o/ [16:01] * pitti pung Stephane and Kees [16:01] I just dropped bacon on the floor. [16:01] This is the worst day of my life. [16:02] infinity: that pig's been in mud before, wash it off and get on with it [16:02] lol [16:02] * pitti catches up with the mail replies in the meantime [16:03] Oh, right, we have a mailing list. [16:04] pitti: Hrm. I had some points to make about your SRU proposal(s) a week or so ago but, of course, didn't mail them in, and am now to scatterbrained to recall. :P [16:04] pitti: just sent another reply, two minutes after the meeting start time [16:04] stgraber: salut [16:04] hey pitti [16:05] slangasek: ah, good call; should be kind of obvious, but explicit is better [16:05] ok, let's start [16:05] #startmeeting [16:05] Meeting started Tue Sep 15 16:05:32 2015 UTC. The chair is pitti. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. [16:05] Available commands: action commands idea info link nick [16:05] #topic action review [16:06] * pitti taps foot for meetbot [16:06] ACTION: slangasek to forward complaint to Canonical legal [16:06] as this has been quiet for so long, is this still actually relevant? [16:07] well [16:07] feel free to drop it from the carry-over actions so we don't have to keep spending time discussing the non-action? [16:08] ok; let's just silently bury that then :) [16:08] I think it should still be done but obviously it's not the top of my priority list for the reason you say [16:08] ACTION: slangasek to document maas, juju, docker exceptions on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Special_Cases [16:08] carry over :/ [16:08] this might actually get better resolved (or resolved by itself) after the changing of the policy? [16:08] I don't think so [16:08] I would hope not. [16:09] If the policy becomes so open that what the maas team does is "okay" without an exception, I think we've gone too far in the free for all direction. [16:09] those aren't "micro" :P [16:09] they're exceptions to the policy on updating existing features, and I don't think are covered by the proposed changes to policy? [16:09] TBH, I don't know how "special" these are; I was hoping that with the generalization, allowing new features and generally allowing new microreleases this would be covered [16:09] ah, ok [16:09] ACTION: Everyone to review pitti's SRU policy ammendments and +1/-1 on-list [16:10] we got feedback from mdeslaur for the first one, and from slangasek and stgraber for the second patch [16:10] pitti: Can we carry that for another cycle, if you're not in a rush to commit? I want to re-read, and read some IRC backscroll I had with ScottK and rebut a bit. [16:10] not sure if we interpret that as silent consent from the others now? [16:10] infinity: sure [16:10] oh, meant to +1 the second [16:10] Obviously, if I fail to respond sanely in the next 2 weeks, assume silent approval from me due to being a derp. :P [16:11] FWIW, I think ScottK's amendment is fine as it has been the existing policy so far anyway [16:11] Yeah, that wasn't the only discussion I had with Scott. We had a long, CoC-breaking drinking session one night. :P [16:11] lol [16:11] not sure about stgraber's addition -- the policy already states that any change must be present in the devel series first, so it woudl be redundant [16:11] (I don't mind adding it, though) [16:11] I need to distill that into something publicly-acceptable. [16:12] pitti: well, it's not just devel if it's a new feature [16:12] and slangasek's addition *should* be obvious, but I also don't mind adding that as a clarification [16:12] mdeslaur: how do you mean? [16:12] we wouldn't introduce a new featuer *only* into an LTS without it also landing in devel? [16:12] at least that's specifically not my intention [16:12] pitti: If it's a new feature in 14.04, it might be missing entirely in 15.04 as well, and upgrades need to be vaguely supportable. [16:13] pitti: if it's a new feature, rather than just a bug fix, we need to have it in interim releases also [16:13] pitti: So, it's not just about devel and stable, but devel and all supported stables in between your target and devel. [16:13] ah, I see [16:13] so this is not devel, it's for newer stables [16:13] stgraber proposed "preferably", this should maybe become stronger then? [16:13] Probably should, yes. [16:13] i. e. "should preferably" → "must"? [16:13] Do we properly use RFC language anywhere in that document? [16:13] Maybe we should start. [16:14] ah, yeah, stronger would be better [16:14] (Maybe we must start?) [16:14] yeah, we are using "should" a lot in the current policy which ought to be a "must" [16:15] infinity: I think you meant "Maybe we MUST start?" :) [16:15] ok, so I'll send a v2 of both amendments with the proposals and the above "strongification" [16:15] A must/should/may cleanup of whatever docs we're responsible for wouldn't go amiss. [16:15] #define should must [16:15] and I keep prodding infinity over the next two weeks :) [16:15] #define 2 1.999999 [16:15] #define must volatile [16:16] ok, I think we're done with this topic :) [16:16] hehe [16:16] no other agenda items [16:16] :) [16:16] nothing new on the ML [16:16] ah, for meetbot (if it works at all): [16:16] It works, it just doesn't have topic permissions on this channel. [16:16] #action pitti to update SRU policy amendment proposals and gather feedback [16:16] ACTION: pitti to update SRU policy amendment proposals and gather feedback [16:17] And no one's ever bothered to fix that. [16:17] ACTION: infinity to respond to that [16:17] zarro community bugs [16:17] ACTION: pitti to stop using ambiguous pronoun backreferences in actions [16:17] next chair is slangasek, then (or fallback) stgraber, ok? [16:17] * slangasek nods [16:17] fine with me [16:18] Glad we all agree about pitti's grammar. [16:18] (And the chair) [16:18] ACTION: infinity to replace his grammar lambastion with something much more peaceful, like a nice round of Halo or whatnot [16:18] pitti: :) [16:19] c'est ça, mes amis [16:19] #topic AOB? [16:19] "ça" - there you go with those dangling relative pronouns again [16:19] Oh, there's one thing I wanted to get an informal "yeah, that's sane" from people before I move on it. [16:20] At Plumbers, Kate stated that she was going to officially step down from ~ubuntu-release (I need to prod her about that) and, once she does, -release, -archive, and -sru will all be core-devs. [16:20] slangasek: J'écris "Je suis mauvais" 100 fois.. [16:20] infinity: yeah that's sane [16:20] I'd like to move to boith take over ownership of those teams by the TB where that's not currently true, and document a policy that teams that confer queue permissions shouldn't give people queue permissions more elevated than their upload rights. [16:20] oh sorry were you still talking [16:20] * pitti assumes that there's still some question coming? [16:20] (So, core-dev only for those teams) [16:21] big +1 [16:21] infinity: you said "should" [16:21] yeah, +1 from me [16:21] +1 [16:21] The reason for the strict permission match wording, rather than explicity "must be core-devs" is that it also opens the possibility of a motu-release with universe queue permissions or whatever. [16:21] mdeslaur: lol [16:22] +1 [16:22] mdeslaur: Right, so I did. s/should/must/ where I meant it. :P [16:23] Okay, so thanks for the informal vote. After I poke Kate and get her to deactivate (trying to avoid drama there by doing it myself), I'll move on the policy and owenership bits. [16:23] nice, thanks infinity [16:23] #action AOB, take II [16:23] ACTION: AOB, take II [16:23] err, #topic, sorry [16:24] Hahaha. [16:24] DRUNKEN MEEEEEETING! [16:24] #makethisend [16:24] I think we're done. :P [16:24] then, thanks everyone! [16:24] :) [16:24] #endmeeting [16:24] Meeting ended Tue Sep 15 16:24:29 2015 UTC. [16:24] Minutes: http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2015/ubuntu-meeting-2.2015-09-15-16.05.moin.txt [16:24] thanks! [16:24] thanks, all [16:25] thanks everyone! [16:26] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda updated