[14:44] <legreffier> thanks a lot :)
[19:03] <micahg> !dmb-ping
[19:03] <cyphermox> o/
[19:03] <rbasak> o/
[19:05] <bdmurray> mostly here, wasn't sure about TZ change
[19:06] <bdmurray> just need a moment to finish something
[19:09]  * bdmurray is ready
[19:11] <bdmurray> slashd: I don't see any endorsements in your application.
[19:12] <cyphermox> bdmurray: I can +1 slashd's work.
[19:13] <bdmurray> maybe caribou has an opinion too
[19:13] <cyphermox> in my opinion, the packages I've sponsored and other updates I've seen were high quality, and showed a good attention to detail and general willingness to ask questions when usure of what to do; just what I'd expect from someone wanting to get MOTU.
[19:14] <rbasak> That would still only be one endorsement though, and additionally I feel that endorsements should be written up.
[19:14] <bdmurray> cyphermox: can you put that in the historical document then?
[19:14] <cyphermox> we've very often accepted live endorsements without any issues.
[19:14] <rbasak> We have?
[19:14] <cyphermox> bdmurray: It's now in a historical document (the IRC logs), but I'll update the wiki page later
[19:15] <bdmurray> I've seen it happen but usaully when there are more than 0 endorsements in the application.
[19:15] <cyphermox> rbasak: AFAIK there's prior art
[19:15] <cyphermox> there's no denying that more endorsements would be welcome.
[19:15] <bdmurray> Maybe we should try meeting again in 45 minutes?
[19:16] <rbasak> Well, I'm opposed to that. We've also -1'd people due to "no endorsements". I feel that we should be consistent.
[19:16] <rbasak> slashd also has had a number of different sponsors according to the miner. I'd expect a selection of those to ensorse.
[19:16] <rbasak> endorse.
[19:17] <rbasak> If people aren't endorsing, then there might be good reason. Thus I feel that it's not too much to ask to get endorsements.
[19:17] <cyphermox> rbasak: what are you opposed to?
[19:18] <rbasak> I'm basically a -1 to applications without appropriate corresponding endorsements. Thus I'm opposed to proceeding with "live endorsements".
[19:19] <rbasak> We can proceed if you want, but I'd prefer to postpone. For my vote at least, it's a waste of slashd's time.
[19:21] <bdmurray> "A typical application will have three to five endorsements." from the Application Process wiki page
[19:21] <bdmurray> Anyway, given the low turn out maybe we should try again in 40 minutes?
[19:22] <micahg> I agree live endorsements can be good if questions come up about something, but in terms of the application, we usually let people know in advance that they should reschedule for after they've got the endorsements and I'm sorry that I didn't notice that before
[19:22] <rbasak> FTR, I appreciate that sometimes it's difficult if for example each sponsor has only sponsored one upload. But I think it's appropriate for them to say that in endorsements and then the DMB can consider them in aggregate.
[19:22] <slashd> rbasak, I ask for endorsement, but ppl tend to forget unfortunately or do not have time, I had a a few on previous application, if that could be still use
[19:24] <rbasak> Unfortunately endorsements are tied to what application you are being endorsed for. Endorsers may be happy with someone being a contributing developer but don't think that person is yet appropriate for core dev, for example.
[19:24] <slashd> rbasak, sure make sense
[19:25] <rbasak> Can you chase your potential endorsers? If you make it clear that this is blocking your application, then perhaps they'll do it.
[19:25] <slashd> rbasak, sure will do
[19:26] <rbasak> Personally, my main goal here is to make sure that the problem isn't that people aren't endorsing because they're actually a -1. I have no reason to believe that this is happening in your case, but I believe it has happened in the past with other applicants.
[19:26] <slashd> rbasak, yep I understand the situation, will re-apply later, how many endorsements is needed ?
[19:26] <rbasak> There isn't a fixed number, but see bdmurray's comment above.
[19:27] <slashd> rbasak, ok 3 to 5 I see it now
[19:27] <cyphermox> rbasak: clearly you haven't had to chase after people to write stuff to the wiki; it's often just a matter of being busy.
[19:27] <rbasak> If the endorsements are small (eg. "I sponsored one minor debdiff") then I'd expect more. Or for "I did major project X with this applicant" then fewer would be fine.
[19:28] <bdmurray> Do endorsers know our expections?  A tweet is fine, it doesn't need to be a short story.
[19:28] <rbasak> cyphermox: sure, it more often is just that. But I feel that we need some basis and to not just guess.
[19:28] <cyphermox> of course
[19:29] <cyphermox> what I'm saying is that three different people chiming up on IRC would be fine by me, it doesn't *have to* be endorsements on the wiki
[19:29] <rbasak> I do in part consider who the endorser is. They tend to have different standards, and I think we're probably all aware of this.
[19:29] <cyphermox> I think the expectations are clear in terms of what constitutes an endorsement.
[19:29] <cyphermox> yep
[19:30] <cyphermox> so, let's ajourn rather than keep beating this dead horse?
[19:30] <micahg> well, there's a difference, writing it on the wiki will usually involve some verification that it's deserved as many people will write about specific interactions, whereas IRC endorsements are usually based more on gut feeling IMHO
[19:30] <cyphermox> micahg: why?
[19:30] <cyphermox> my endorsement is no gut feeling, I've reviewed uploads for slashd.
[19:30] <micahg> human nature?
[19:31] <micahg> I'm not speaking about you specifically
[19:31] <cyphermox> sure, but writing about people generally seems like an unwarranted generalization
[19:31] <cyphermox> ie. the medium used has no bearing on the validity of the message.
[19:32] <cyphermox> an endorsement on IRC may be more conducive to further questions to the endorser as well.
[19:32] <rbasak> I would still prefer that all endorsements be on the wiki. I don't want DMB approvals to become a "friends only" club, and the way to avoid that is openness and consistency. Future applicants can very easily look through the devel-permissions archives and look at previous applications to gauge their own chance of success. Having other stuff out-of-band hides reasons for decisions and makes things
[19:32] <rbasak> look less impartial.
[19:33] <cyphermox> this isn't out of band though. all the meetings *are* logged.
[19:33] <rbasak> Participation in the application meeting itself is fine though.
[19:33] <rbasak> If in the actual application meeting, yes. That's a place where people would expect to look. But discussions in other channels or at other times will end up being effectively hidden.
[19:34] <cyphermox> I'm not expecting to see endorsements anywhere but here and in the wiki
[19:34] <rbasak> Ah, OK>
[19:34] <cyphermox> or maybe the mailing list.
[19:34] <rbasak> .
[19:34] <rbasak> Agreed.
[19:34] <cyphermox> anything else is indeed rather undiscoverable.
[19:34] <rbasak> Though it would still be useful to have endorsements in the wiki in advance. Endorsers supporting the application at the IRC meeting is useful too.
[19:35] <cyphermox> backchannel should be left to just those cases where you need to express concerns , for instance.
[19:37] <cyphermox> slashd: so, please come back in two weeks or so with more endorsements? I'll update your wiki page in a bit with mine.
[19:37] <slashd> cyphermox, sure tks
[19:44] <slashd> tks rbasak will re-apply in few weeks, I sent another email to my potential endorsers saying it is a stopper for my application, tks
[19:45] <rbasak> slashd: thanks! Do you want to update https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/Agenda to make sure you have a slot at the next meeting?
[19:46] <slashd> rbasak, will wait to get all the required endorsement before re-adding myself of the agenda
[19:46] <rbasak> slashd: I suggest you re-add yourself anyway. You can always remove it if needed. But you've already been delayed - we don't want to find that you can't get a slot if we get a bunch of other applicants at once.
[19:47] <slashd> rbasak ok
[19:47] <sil2100> Sorry for being late, daylight savings here in the EU made things a bit confusing
[19:48] <slashd> rbasak, I'll be travelling on nov 21st back home from a sprint, so I'll have to re-apply in december
[19:49] <rbasak> OK