[19:59] <tsimonq2> o/
[19:59] <kees> \o
[20:00]  * slangasek waves
[20:03] <slangasek> kees: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda suggests that you are chairing today :)
[20:03] <slangasek> otoh, mdeslaur sent regrets and I see no infinity or stgraber
[20:03] <kees> yeah, sorry, got caught up in the xchat bug-reading
[20:03] <kees> do we have enough folks?
[20:05] <kees> slangasek: infinity idle 11 hours.
[20:06] <kees> so... there's only 2 TB members here, we don't have quorum.
[20:06] <slangasek> ack
[20:06] <kees> slangasek: would it be valueable for us to discuss the xchat issue anyway, even though we can't have a binding decision?
[20:07] <slangasek> kees: well, I failed to follow up on that before meeting because I was instead focused on the ubuntu-seeded-snaps topic which I considered more urgent
[20:07]  * kees nods
[20:07] <slangasek> kees: but IMHO there's no reason for xchat to be escalated to the TB at all at this point, it's squarely in the domain of the archive admins
[20:07] <kees> that was my first reaction, yes. :P
[20:08] <rbasak> o/
[20:08] <rbasak> It wasn't obvious to me that it is within the domain of the archive admins, because it's at least in part a social decision.
[20:08] <rbasak> But without a reply to my post on ubuntu-release@, nobody seemed to be making a decision.
[20:09] <rbasak> This is why I added to the agenda.
[20:09] <slangasek> it is clear to me that the archive admins have the authority, and escalating to the TB is not going to get a decision *faster* than letting the archive admins think it through and respond
[20:09] <slangasek> any decision by the AA team can of course be reviewed by the TB
[20:10] <rbasak> How long should we wait for an AA decision before re-escalating to the TB if we don't get one?
[20:11] <rbasak> (since a lack of a decision before final freeze -ish is effectively a decision by default)
[20:11] <slangasek> I would say a week should be the minimum
[20:11] <kees> I would say just leave it on the agenda for the next TB meeting. if you get a resolution before then, remove it. :)
[20:11] <slangasek> (and certainly longer than the time between the Thursday of an engineering sprint, and the Monday when a lot of people are swapped on travel)
[20:12] <rbasak> I think (but it's not clear) that ~ubuntu-archive was subscribed when the bug was submitted which is over a week ago - but yeah, the engineering sprint didn't help.
[20:13] <jbicha> (I filed lots of ubuntu-archive removal bugs that are still open)
[20:13] <rbasak> But as I say I'm asking the TB because it (to me) wasn't clear it's an AA thing, and nobody said otherwise on the list. So I didn't want to wait weeks before being told that the AAs were ignoring it because they didn't see it as an AA decision.
[20:13] <jbicha> (killing libgnome stuff, old webkitgtk, gksu, etc.)
[20:14] <rbasak> kees: sure. Easy enough, thanks.
[20:15] <slangasek> jbicha: yes, and I would spend some time on these if not for launchpad timing out on the bug list for ~ubuntu-archive
[20:15] <rbasak> To be clear, I'm only trying to drive this because I think we owe it to the community as a project to be able to decide on this without letting it languish.
[20:16] <slangasek> anyway, since we don't have quorum, we also don't really have a meeting
[20:16] <kees> rbasak: yeah, I agree about avoiding a problem with a package living in LTS.
[20:17] <slangasek> so I'm going to wander off from this discussion, and follow up to the mailing list threads as appropriate
[20:17] <rbasak> kees: well, I'm not necessarily in favour of removal :)
[20:17] <rbasak> I just think the project should have a very clear line to a decision, and I don't feel that it has right now.
[20:17] <kees> rbasak: right, I mean "evaluating it" in case we have a solid concern to avoid it
[20:18] <rbasak> Ah. Yes, I agree then :)
[20:21] <jbicha> slangasek: for webkitgtk, the tricky one is still gnucash which I guess you're sort of following
[20:22] <jbicha> looking at the links from https://bugs.debian.org/892177 there is supposed to be a 2.7.6 release any time now
[20:24] <rbasak> Thanks for looking anyway.
[20:24]  * rbasak EODs