/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2018/05/22/#ubuntu-meeting-2.txt

redter53!ops04:21
redter53!op04:22
redter53!ops04:22
redter53!ops04:24
re432!ops04:25
* slangasek waves19:02
* jbicha waves back19:03
infinityo/19:03
slangasekso technically, we do not have a seated TB at the moment19:03
slangasekbecause all of our terms have expired19:04
slangasekanyone have anything they want to chat about off the record? :)19:04
infinityOh, did they again?19:04
slangasekinfinity: oh, did you secure a renewal?19:04
slangasekoh ok, we've been extended until June 319:04
slangasekbut I haven't seen anyone call for an election yet19:04
infinityMight be time for another extension. :P19:04
infinityViva la democracy.19:05
infinityCan we just rename this body to the sabtbfl?19:05
slangasekok, well we could in theory have a meeting then19:06
slangasekbut currently only 2 of us are here19:06
infinityWe could do, but only with... That.19:06
slangasekhttps://community.ubuntu.com/t/open-discussion-meetings-quorum/596619:06
slangasek:)19:06
* stgraber waves19:06
slangasekok now there's 3 of us, I guess we might have to gavel in19:07
slangasek#startmeeting19:07
meetingologyMeeting started Tue May 22 19:07:27 2018 UTC.  The chair is slangasek. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.19:07
meetingologyAvailable commands: action commands idea info link nick19:07
stgrabersorry :)19:07
slangasek(I'll go ahead and chair; I think I ran the last one I attended, but also there were no logs because of someone vandalizing the bot, and no one updated the wiki page, so...)19:08
slangasek[TOPIC] Apologies19:08
slangaseknone recorded19:08
infinitystgraber beat that topic.19:08
slangasek[TOPIC] Action review19:08
slangasekinfinity: heh19:08
slangasekACTION: flexiondotorg To follow-up on-list with design review to address MATE Boutique security/consent concerns.19:08
slangasekoops, that needs amended19:09
infinityThat action seems old.19:09
slangasekACTION: Wimpress To follow-up on-list with design review to address MATE Boutique security/consent concerns.19:09
slangasekthere I fixed it19:09
mdeslaursorry19:09
slangasekinfinity: it's old but there still hasn't been any on-list follow-up19:09
slangasekWimpress said there is work in progress, but given that this was driven by TB concerns about security UX, I don't think it should fall off our nag list19:10
infinityCheck.19:10
slangasekACTION: infinity to call for confirmation of LTS status from all flavours.19:10
infinityDone.19:10
slangasekI'm hoping we can consider that done19:10
slangasekACTION: infinity to ask maas team to prepare SRU exception policy à la CurtinUpdates19:10
infinityCarry.19:10
slangasekinfinity: ok.  while sprinting earlier this month, there was a MAAS SRU referencing https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MAASUpdates; so it would be good to have that formalized19:11
slangasekACTION: slangasek and mdeslaur to more clearly define third party seeded snap security policy19:11
slangasekmdeslaur: did you do this when I wasn't looking? ;)19:11
mdeslauruh, no ;(19:11
slangasekok ;)19:11
slangasekso, carry19:11
slangasekACTION: tsimonq2 to email proposed policy for flavor-notification of daemons being added to all flavors (e.g. snapd into desktop-common)19:12
tsimonq2Darn it.19:12
slangasektsimonq2: ^^ I don't recall seeing an email about this, so here's a formal TB nag19:12
tsimonq2To be fair, flavor relationships have changed.19:12
tsimonq2I'll bring it up.19:12
tsimonq2Thanks.19:12
slangasektsimonq2: changed how?19:13
infinityWas it not discussed when it was added to desktop-common, and maybe lubuntu just opted out of the discussion because they were (incorrectly, IMO) not using -common at the time?19:13
infinityI absolutely stand by the assertion that desktop-common should be common to *all* *buntu desktops, so if we're adding things there, concensus should be found.19:13
tsimonq2slangasek:19:14
infinity(just as minimal and standard are common to all flavours)19:14
tsimonq2We communicate a lot more. #ubuntu-flavors among other things is now there, so we talk regularly now. I'll bring it up.19:14
slangasekinfinity: snapd was not discussed with the flavors before addition to desktop-common, no; we had a conversation at a previous meeting about why that was, and the outcome was for tsimonq2 to propose a policy on how to handle this19:14
infinityslangasek: Ahh, kay.  So this is an old action, not a result of my foisting desktop-common on lubuntu with the recent seed shuffle.  Kay.19:14
tsimonq2infinity: And with >= Cosmic, I do agree.19:14
slangasektsimonq2: #ubuntu-flavors is not the right venue for such a thing (and though my objection counts for little, I object to creating a new IRC channel for this); the proposal should happen on the existing central mailing lists19:15
tsimonq2I would (somewha19:15
tsimonq2grr /me returned early19:15
infinityI would also (somewha19:15
tsimonq2lol19:15
infinityFor the right price.19:15
slangasekI mean, discuss to your heart's content, but the proposed policy should go to techboard and ubuntu-release/ubuntu-devel19:15
infinityI definitely don't mind -release being used by flavour leads for inter-flavour policy, and obviously devel/devel-discuss when you want wider input than just fellow leads.19:16
tsimonq2I would agree that the IRC channel isn't the right place, but in general, conversation about how exactly to go about this needs to happen in a more formal place. I was just noting the IRC channel as an example of ways flavors are collaborating more nowadays.19:16
slangasekyes19:16
infinity-release is very low traffic, and I consider that on-topic with those hats on.19:16
slangasekmoving on19:17
tsimonq2slangasek: I'm agreed on where to send the policy.19:17
tsimonq2OK, thanks TB.19:17
slangasektsimonq2: ok, grand :)19:17
slangasek[TOPIC] Review of the seeded snaps policy19:17
slangasekthis is a carry-over on the agenda and probably doesn't need any discussion today, given mdeslaur's and my action item19:17
slangasekhowever I'm going to leave it on the agenda page for next time so that I have appropriate levels of guilt about getting that done19:18
slangasek[TOPIC]  LP: #1770748: Dropping patches added for main inclusion and delegation of maintainership19:18
jbichadoko_: are you around?19:18
slangasekthis was added to the agenda by doko_, who informed me earlier today that he would not be able to attend the meeting19:18
slangasekI don't know that we need to tackle this without all the parties to the discussion present19:18
slangasekunless some member of the TB is particularly keen to dive into the topic right now?19:19
jbichaI felt it was premature for a TB decision on the issues19:19
seb128I don't think there is much for the TB there either19:19
infinityI think it could have been settled by two adults in #ubuntu-devel without escalating, but maybe not. :P19:19
slangasekjbicha: fwiw I don't necessarily think the TB needs to decide on this; I redirected doko from myself to the TB because doko appeared to have invoked me to throw my weight around on the issue, and I declined to do so in a personal capacity19:20
jbichaI phrase the issues a bit differently than do_ko19:20
slangasekjbicha: if you and doko come to some sort of agreement that you're both happy with, that's fine.  I think there are also policy questions that are larger than the particular disagreement between you and doko, and we may still want the TB to provide guidance19:21
jbichaI see 2 issues: whether C++ libraries in main must have symbols files; and whether Foundations should "own" (or "maintain" or whatever) ilmbase19:21
infinityjbicha: FWIW, while I don't agree with his handling (and escalation) of the issue, I do agree that it you were tired of waiting around for him to merge, you probably should have merged with symbols files, not synced.19:21
jbichathe symbols file question is being discussed on the ubuntu-devel list19:22
seb128jbicha, I don't think the packages "ownership" is a TB matter19:22
infinityThe secondary question of the usefulness of symbols files in C++ projects (especially ones with questionable symbol visibility policies) is definitely not something I think the TB needs to weigh in on.19:22
jbichaI hear that Desktop & Foundations teams are going to have a meeting soon to discuss various issues so the ownership issue can be discussed there19:22
slangasekjbicha: the question of what team owns a package for purposes main is indeed not a TB question, since main is a matter of Canonical sponsorship19:22
slangasek"for purposes main" oh look I'm accidentally 18th century English19:23
mdeslaurheh19:23
infinityThat construct is back in vogue in 21st century en_GB.19:24
infinityYou're hip.19:24
infinityIn the wrong country.19:24
jbichainterestingly, acheronuk added a debdiff to the bug to add the symbols. Someone could upload that to resolve some of the issue or lower the urgency19:24
infinityjbicha: More importantly than re-adding the symbols files is actually auditing the changes between old and new, since that's the point of symbols files in the first place.19:25
infinityIf we're just going to effectively delete and regenerate them on each upload, they're entirely useless.19:25
jbichaI'm not interested in sponsoring it at this point because I'm interested in resolving the question of whether the symbols file is mandatory (for future uploads)19:25
mdeslaurbeing mandatory and removing them is two different things19:26
slangasekso I'm shying away from that question for the moment because I don't think we should have a partial discussion without all parties present19:26
infinityjbicha: I'm not deeply interested in diving into the list discussion, but I think making symbols files truly useful in Debian/Ubuntu C++ packages might first need some Debian library policy surrounding best practices for symbol visibility.19:26
jbichamdeslaur: it was Debian that removed the symbols file and do_ko added it back without discussion19:26
slangasekI mean, I can opine, but in the context of the current TB meeting I think we should postpone19:26
infinityjbicha: C++ symbols files can be quite clean if your project doesn't export a ton of pointless cruft it shouldn't.19:27
jbichahttps://launchpadlibrarian.net/371130484/restoresymbols.debdiff19:27
slangasekpoint of order ;)19:27
slangasekif we want to argue this as individual core devs instead of as the TB, could we defer it until after we close out this meeting?  or if you're disagreeing with me about postponing, then I'll dive full in19:28
jbicha+1 from me for postponing19:28
infinityRight, I'll shut up. ;)19:28
slangasekok :)19:28
slangasek[TOPIC] Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item)19:29
slangasek[LINK] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2018-May/thread.html19:29
slangasekDMB members stuff, strictly administrative, has been handled19:29
slangasekwxl's request for input on quorum - I followed up, I think my comments uncontroversial but https://community.ubuntu.com/t/open-discussion-meetings-quorum/5966/5 if anyone else wants to weigh in19:30
slangaseknothing else on list19:30
slangasek[TOPIC] Check up on community bugs (standing item)19:30
slangasek[LINK] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bugs?field.assignee=techboard19:30
slangasekzarro boogs19:30
slangasek[TOPIC] Select a chair for the next meeting19:30
slangasekis that stgraber, with infinity backup?19:31
infinity+119:31
stgraberfine :)19:31
slangasektechnically, we all expire the Sunday before that19:31
infinityWell, +0.519:31
infinityBecause I haven't made a short joke in MONTHS.19:31
slangasekwho wants to prod about extension + election?19:31
infinityslangasek: I'll get us extended again, if you promise to chase down sabdfl about an election.19:31
mdeslaurlol19:31
slangasek[ACTION] infinity to get TB terms re-extended19:32
meetingologyACTION: infinity to get TB terms re-extended19:32
slangasek[ACTION] slangasek to chase sabdfl / CC about election19:32
meetingologyACTION: slangasek to chase sabdfl / CC about election19:32
slangasek[AGREED] next TB meeting, 2018-06-05, 20:00 BST. chair stgraber, backup infinity19:33
slangasek[TOPIC] AOB19:33
slangasekanything else?19:33
slangasek#endmeeting19:34
meetingologyMeeting ended Tue May 22 19:34:29 2018 UTC.19:34
meetingologyMinutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2018/ubuntu-meeting-2.2018-05-22-19.07.moin.txt19:34
mdeslaurthanks everyone19:34
slangasekstgraber, infinity, mdeslaur, jbicha, seb128, tsimonq2: thanks!19:34
seb128thanks!19:34
infinityslangasek: Re-extension in progress.19:34
tsimonq2Thanks!19:35
tsimonq2slangasek: I forget, what was the rationale for defining the policy I'm drafting as daemons, not packages in general? I mean, how often is that file *really* updated?19:42
slangasektsimonq2: the reason was that snapd's daemonness was the bit problematic to flavors, and in general I don't think we need to get flavor signoff on individual packages added there19:43
tsimonq2slangasek: ACK.19:43
tsimonq2slangasek: wxl asked on the community hub post I made, so pinged you. Please elaborate if you could.19:58
slangasektsimonq2: url?20:09
tsimonq2slangasek: https://community.ubuntu.com/t/official-policy-for-adding-daemons-to-desktop-common/6086?u=tsimonq220:13

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!