=== tdaitx_ is now known as tdaitx [19:59] o/ [19:59] \o [20:00] * slangasek waves [20:03] kees: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda suggests that you are chairing today :) [20:03] otoh, mdeslaur sent regrets and I see no infinity or stgraber [20:03] yeah, sorry, got caught up in the xchat bug-reading [20:03] do we have enough folks? [20:05] slangasek: infinity idle 11 hours. [20:06] so... there's only 2 TB members here, we don't have quorum. [20:06] ack [20:06] slangasek: would it be valueable for us to discuss the xchat issue anyway, even though we can't have a binding decision? [20:07] 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] 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] that was my first reaction, yes. :P [20:08] o/ [20:08] 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] But without a reply to my post on ubuntu-release@, nobody seemed to be making a decision. [20:09] This is why I added to the agenda. [20:09] 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] any decision by the AA team can of course be reviewed by the TB [20:10] How long should we wait for an AA decision before re-escalating to the TB if we don't get one? [20:11] (since a lack of a decision before final freeze -ish is effectively a decision by default) [20:11] I would say a week should be the minimum [20:11] 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] (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] 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] (I filed lots of ubuntu-archive removal bugs that are still open) [20:13] 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] (killing libgnome stuff, old webkitgtk, gksu, etc.) [20:14] kees: sure. Easy enough, thanks. [20:15] 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] 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] anyway, since we don't have quorum, we also don't really have a meeting [20:16] rbasak: yeah, I agree about avoiding a problem with a package living in LTS. [20:17] so I'm going to wander off from this discussion, and follow up to the mailing list threads as appropriate [20:17] kees: well, I'm not necessarily in favour of removal :) [20:17] 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] rbasak: right, I mean "evaluating it" in case we have a solid concern to avoid it [20:18] Ah. Yes, I agree then :) [20:21] slangasek: for webkitgtk, the tricky one is still gnucash which I guess you're sort of following [20:22] 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] Thanks for looking anyway. [20:24] * rbasak EODs