[01:04] <dsmythies> tsimonq2: Thanks for your help with the serverguide.
[02:54] <tsimonq2> dsmythies: no problem :)
[21:00] <knome> GunnarHj, i've removed the community help wiki item from the agenda. i wish you the best of luck to be able to gather suggestions, run the session and find the volunteers to be able to do what is the best for the community help wiki.
[21:01] <knome> GunnarHj, because i know i won't be doing that without external guidance - i've seen where that has ended up before, and not willing to use more time in seeing the same happen again
[21:01] <knome> GunnarHj, i also thought the meeting is going to be held to talk about problems in the team
[21:02] <knome> GunnarHj, but apparently the community help wiki isn't one of those... or is it? *shrugs*
[22:02] <GunnarHj> knome: Just replied to the lists.
[22:03] <knome> the problem i see here is that you are asking for suggestions on the actions we want to take
[22:04] <knome> those have been made already, but then somebody disagreed, so no actions were carried
[22:04] <knome> i would imagine many people who are attending know those suggestions as well; they have been discussed on the mailing list and on the IRC channel
[22:04] <knome> and i'm not exactly suggesting the item as a technical discussion
[22:04] <knome> i would also like to hear what canonical thinks about the importance of the wiki etc.
[22:05] <knome> or in other words, if it makes sense to try to make it work again
[22:05] <knome> and i'm not saying we can't invite somebody external to an UOS session
[22:06] <knome> but from what i've seen before, i don't think that person is going to take the required position on the meeting as a mediator and/or leader in the discussion
[22:06] <knome> that is, considering anybody has time to attend the meeting
[22:06] <knome> david has scheduled his time now to hear about our problems, so i see this as the perfect opportunity to bring up the problems
[22:18] <GunnarHj> knome: I posted my ideas with no malice. My intention was to avoid yet another discussion on the topic leading to nowhere. But I won't persist - possibly I misunderstood the thoughts behind that agenda item.
[22:19] <knome> me too
[22:19] <knome> i've just seen enough of rambling around the wiki that i will always step down when somebody suggests more discussion instead of action
[22:20] <GunnarHj> knome: The funny thing is, IIRC, that you and I are basically agreed on the desired direction.
[22:20] <knome> not all are
[22:21] <knome> and tbh, i'm fine with most directions
[22:21] <GunnarHj> True.
[22:21] <knome> as long as it is done
[22:21] <knome> the current situation is the worst, limbo between existence and inexistence where nobody does anything for the wiki
[22:21] <knome> so it rots and rots more
[22:22] <GunnarHj> knome: Yep, that's how it is currently, unfortunately.
[22:23] <knome> so yeah, if i can get another pair of (fresh) eyes on the issue, let alone speaking it's somebody who can have good insight on the direction we should go to generally...
[22:23] <knome> i've taken the translation discussion to email with david too
[22:25] <GunnarHj> I liked the idea about the translation teams. Would be good to not need to involve Canonical when an owner of a translation team disappears.
[22:26] <knome> yep
[22:26] <knome> tbh, the coordinators team seems moot in a way
[22:26] <knome> if they aren't admins, the team does not have much more power than the regular user
[22:28] <GunnarHj> knome: It is. I'm the latest member... We do have some power (can't recall the details right now), but not the power to replace inactive admins/owners.
[22:28] <knome> yep
[22:28] <knome> i noticed you are
[22:55] <dsmythies1> tsimonq2:  I noticed you are pretty good with bzr.
[22:56] <tsimonq2> dsmythies1: how so?
[22:56] <tsimonq2> and I prefer git XD
[22:57] <tsimonq2> either way, I've written testcases before, so I'm pretty familiar with how stuff works :)
[22:58] <dsmythies1> tsimonq2:  (or anybody). When I accept a merge proposal and the want to commit and push back to the master. I have always done "bzr commit -m 'edits per MP: #123456; by whomever. However, what I really want is to just use the original commit message from the MP. Do you (or anybody) know how to do that?
[22:59] <dsmythies1> tsimonq2: I prefer git.
[22:59] <tsimonq2> I have no clue, sorry :)
[22:59] <dsmythies1> tsimonq2: O.K. thanks.
[22:59] <dsmythies1> tsimonq2:  I do not know what git XD is.
[23:00] <tsimonq2> dsmythies1: "XD" is a face, turn your head sideways and you will see it :)
[23:02]  * dsmythies1 seems to recall Benjamin (long since gone) used to know how to do such an MP accept and push back.
[23:14] <knome> dsmythies1, pull the external branch, then do bzr pull to main from that
[23:19] <dsmythies1> knome: O.K. thanks. And yes, I recall now that is what Benjamin did. However, I'm not wanting to do that. Why not? The branch is huge, and I prefer to deal with the little difference type stuff instead of an entire branch pull. So I guess I'm stuck doing what I have been doing.
[23:21] <knome> dsmythies1, yes, i agree, it's not often worth it