[15:59] <mdeslaur> \o
[16:00]  * slangasek waves
[16:00] <pitti> hello all
[16:01] <infinity> o/
[16:01]  * pitti pung Stephane and Kees
[16:01] <infinity> I just dropped bacon on the floor.
[16:01] <infinity> This is the worst day of my life.
[16:02] <slangasek> infinity: that pig's been in mud before, wash it off and get on with it
[16:02] <pitti> lol
[16:02]  * pitti catches up with the mail replies in the meantime
[16:03] <infinity> Oh, right, we have a mailing list.
[16:04] <infinity> 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] <slangasek> pitti: just sent another reply, two minutes after the meeting start time
[16:04] <pitti> stgraber: salut
[16:04] <stgraber> hey pitti
[16:05] <pitti> slangasek: ah, good call; should be kind of obvious, but explicit is better
[16:05] <pitti> ok, let's start
[16:05] <pitti> #startmeeting
[16:05] <meetingology> 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] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[16:05] <pitti> #topic action review
[16:06]  * pitti taps foot for meetbot
[16:06] <pitti> ACTION: slangasek to forward complaint to Canonical legal
[16:06] <pitti> as this has been quiet for so long, is this still actually relevant?
[16:07] <slangasek> well
[16:07] <slangasek> 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] <pitti> ok; let's just silently bury that then :)
[16:08] <slangasek> 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] <pitti> ACTION: slangasek to document maas, juju, docker exceptions on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#Special_Cases
[16:08] <slangasek> carry over :/
[16:08] <pitti> this might actually get better resolved (or resolved by itself) after the changing of the policy?
[16:08] <slangasek> I don't think so
[16:08] <infinity> I would hope not.
[16:09] <infinity> 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] <mdeslaur> those aren't "micro" :P
[16:09] <slangasek> 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] <pitti> 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] <pitti> ah, ok
[16:09] <pitti> ACTION: Everyone to review pitti's SRU policy ammendments and +1/-1 on-list
[16:10] <pitti> we got feedback from mdeslaur for the first one, and from slangasek and stgraber for the second patch
[16:10] <infinity> 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] <pitti> not sure if we interpret that as silent consent from the others now?
[16:10] <pitti> infinity: sure
[16:10] <mdeslaur> oh, meant to +1 the second
[16:10] <infinity> 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] <pitti> FWIW, I think ScottK's amendment is fine as it has been the  existing policy so far anyway
[16:11] <infinity> Yeah, that wasn't the only discussion I had with Scott.  We had a long, CoC-breaking drinking session one night. :P
[16:11] <mdeslaur> lol
[16:11] <pitti> 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] <pitti> (I don't mind adding it, though)
[16:11] <infinity> I need to distill that into something publicly-acceptable.
[16:12] <mdeslaur> pitti: well, it's not just devel if it's a new feature
[16:12] <pitti> and slangasek's addition *should* be obvious, but I also don't mind adding that as a clarification
[16:12] <pitti> mdeslaur: how do you mean?
[16:12] <pitti> we wouldn't introduce a new featuer *only* into an LTS without it also landing in devel?
[16:12] <pitti> at least that's specifically not my intention
[16:12] <infinity> 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] <mdeslaur> pitti: if it's a new feature, rather than just a bug fix, we need to have it in interim releases also
[16:13] <infinity> pitti: So, it's not just about devel and stable, but devel and all supported stables in between your target and devel.
[16:13] <pitti> ah, I see
[16:13] <pitti> so this is not devel, it's for newer stables
[16:13] <pitti> stgraber proposed "preferably", this should maybe become stronger then?
[16:13] <infinity> Probably should, yes.
[16:13] <pitti> i. e. "should preferably" → "must"?
[16:13] <infinity> Do we properly use RFC language anywhere in that document?
[16:13] <infinity> Maybe we should start.
[16:14] <mdeslaur> ah, yeah, stronger would be better
[16:14] <infinity> (Maybe we must start?)
[16:14] <pitti> yeah, we are using "should" a lot in the current policy which ought to be a "must"
[16:15] <stgraber> infinity: I think you meant "Maybe we MUST start?" :)
[16:15] <pitti> ok, so I'll send a v2 of both amendments with the proposals and the above "strongification"
[16:15] <infinity> A must/should/may cleanup of whatever docs we're responsible for wouldn't go amiss.
[16:15] <mdeslaur> #define should must
[16:15] <pitti> and I keep prodding infinity over the next two weeks :)
[16:15] <infinity> #define 2 1.999999
[16:15] <slangasek> #define must volatile
[16:16] <pitti> ok, I think we're done with this topic :)
[16:16] <mdeslaur> hehe
[16:16] <pitti> no other agenda items
[16:16] <stgraber> :)
[16:16] <pitti> nothing new on the ML
[16:16] <pitti> ah, for meetbot (if it works at all):
[16:16] <infinity> It works, it just doesn't have topic permissions on this channel.
[16:16] <pitti> #action pitti to update SRU policy amendment proposals and gather feedback
[16:16] <meetingology> ACTION: pitti to update SRU policy amendment proposals and gather feedback
[16:17] <infinity> And no one's ever bothered to fix that.
[16:17] <pitti> ACTION: infinity to respond to that
[16:17] <pitti> zarro community bugs
[16:17] <infinity> ACTION: pitti to stop using ambiguous pronoun backreferences in actions
[16:17] <pitti> next chair is slangasek, then (or fallback) stgraber, ok?
[16:17]  * slangasek nods
[16:17] <stgraber> fine with me
[16:18] <infinity> Glad we all agree about pitti's grammar.
[16:18] <infinity> (And the chair)
[16:18] <pitti> ACTION: infinity to replace his grammar lambastion with something much more peaceful, like a nice round of Halo or whatnot
[16:18] <infinity> pitti: :)
[16:19] <pitti> c'est ça, mes amis
[16:19] <pitti> #topic AOB?
[16:19] <slangasek> "ça" - there you go with those dangling relative pronouns again
[16:19] <infinity> Oh, there's one thing I wanted to get an informal "yeah, that's sane" from people before I move on it.
[16:20] <infinity> 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] <pitti> slangasek: J'écris "Je suis mauvais" 100 fois..
[16:20] <slangasek> infinity: yeah that's sane
[16:20] <infinity> 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] <slangasek> oh sorry were you still talking
[16:20]  * pitti assumes that there's still some question coming?
[16:20] <infinity> (So, core-dev only for those teams)
[16:21] <pitti> big +1
[16:21] <mdeslaur> infinity: you said "should"
[16:21] <mdeslaur> yeah, +1 from me
[16:21] <slangasek> +1
[16:21] <infinity> 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] <slangasek> mdeslaur: lol
[16:22] <stgraber> +1
[16:22] <infinity> mdeslaur: Right, so I did.  s/should/must/ where I meant it. :P
[16:23] <infinity> 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] <pitti> nice, thanks infinity
[16:23] <pitti> #action AOB, take II
[16:23] <meetingology> ACTION: AOB, take II
[16:23] <pitti> err, #topic, sorry
[16:24] <infinity> Hahaha.
[16:24] <infinity> DRUNKEN MEEEEEETING!
[16:24] <pitti> #makethisend
[16:24] <infinity> I think we're done. :P
[16:24] <pitti> then, thanks everyone!
[16:24] <stgraber> :)
[16:24] <pitti> #endmeeting
[16:24] <meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Sep 15 16:24:29 2015 UTC.
[16:24] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2015/ubuntu-meeting-2.2015-09-15-16.05.moin.txt
[16:24] <stgraber> thanks!
[16:24] <slangasek> thanks, all
[16:25] <mdeslaur> thanks everyone!
[16:26] <pitti> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda updated