[04:21] <redter53> !ops
[04:22] <redter53> !op
[04:22] <redter53> !ops
[04:24] <redter53> !ops
[04:25] <re432> !ops
[19:02]  * slangasek waves
[19:03]  * jbicha waves back
[19:03] <infinity> o/
[19:03] <slangasek> so technically, we do not have a seated TB at the moment
[19:04] <slangasek> because all of our terms have expired
[19:04] <slangasek> anyone have anything they want to chat about off the record? :)
[19:04] <infinity> Oh, did they again?
[19:04] <slangasek> infinity: oh, did you secure a renewal?
[19:04] <slangasek> oh ok, we've been extended until June 3
[19:04] <slangasek> but I haven't seen anyone call for an election yet
[19:04] <infinity> Might be time for another extension. :P
[19:05] <infinity> Viva la democracy.
[19:05] <infinity> Can we just rename this body to the sabtbfl?
[19:06] <slangasek> ok, well we could in theory have a meeting then
[19:06] <slangasek> but currently only 2 of us are here
[19:06] <infinity> We could do, but only with... That.
[19:06] <slangasek> https://community.ubuntu.com/t/open-discussion-meetings-quorum/5966
[19:06] <slangasek> :)
[19:06]  * stgraber waves
[19:07] <slangasek> ok now there's 3 of us, I guess we might have to gavel in
[19:07] <slangasek> #startmeeting
[19:07] <meetingology> Meeting started Tue May 22 19:07:27 2018 UTC.  The chair is slangasek. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[19:07] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[19:07] <stgraber> sorry :)
[19:08] <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] Apologies
[19:08] <slangasek> none recorded
[19:08] <infinity> stgraber beat that topic.
[19:08] <slangasek> [TOPIC] Action review
[19:08] <slangasek> infinity: heh
[19:08] <slangasek> ACTION: flexiondotorg To follow-up on-list with design review to address MATE Boutique security/consent concerns.
[19:09] <slangasek> oops, that needs amended
[19:09] <infinity> That action seems old.
[19:09] <slangasek> ACTION: Wimpress To follow-up on-list with design review to address MATE Boutique security/consent concerns.
[19:09] <slangasek> there I fixed it
[19:09] <mdeslaur> sorry
[19:09] <slangasek> infinity: it's old but there still hasn't been any on-list follow-up
[19:10] <slangasek> Wimpress 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 list
[19:10] <infinity> Check.
[19:10] <slangasek> ACTION: infinity to call for confirmation of LTS status from all flavours.
[19:10] <infinity> Done.
[19:10] <slangasek> I'm hoping we can consider that done
[19:10] <slangasek> ACTION: infinity to ask maas team to prepare SRU exception policy à la CurtinUpdates
[19:10] <infinity> Carry.
[19:11] <slangasek> infinity: 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 formalized
[19:11] <slangasek> ACTION: slangasek and mdeslaur to more clearly define third party seeded snap security policy
[19:11] <slangasek> mdeslaur: did you do this when I wasn't looking? ;)
[19:11] <mdeslaur> uh, no ;(
[19:11] <slangasek> ok ;)
[19:11] <slangasek> so, carry
[19:12] <slangasek> ACTION: tsimonq2 to email proposed policy for flavor-notification of daemons being added to all flavors (e.g. snapd into desktop-common)
[19:12] <tsimonq2> Darn it.
[19:12] <slangasek> tsimonq2: ^^ I don't recall seeing an email about this, so here's a formal TB nag
[19:12] <tsimonq2> To be fair, flavor relationships have changed.
[19:12] <tsimonq2> I'll bring it up.
[19:12] <tsimonq2> Thanks.
[19:13] <slangasek> tsimonq2: changed how?
[19:13] <infinity> Was 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] <infinity> I 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.
[19:14] <tsimonq2> slangasek:
[19:14] <infinity> (just as minimal and standard are common to all flavours)
[19:14] <tsimonq2> We communicate a lot more. #ubuntu-flavors among other things is now there, so we talk regularly now. I'll bring it up.
[19:14] <slangasek> infinity: 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 this
[19:14] <infinity> slangasek: 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] <tsimonq2> infinity: And with >= Cosmic, I do agree.
[19:15] <slangasek> tsimonq2: #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 lists
[19:15] <tsimonq2> I would (somewha
[19:15] <tsimonq2> grr /me returned early
[19:15] <infinity> I would also (somewha
[19:15] <tsimonq2> lol
[19:15] <infinity> For the right price.
[19:15] <slangasek> I mean, discuss to your heart's content, but the proposed policy should go to techboard and ubuntu-release/ubuntu-devel
[19:16] <infinity> I 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] <tsimonq2> I 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] <slangasek> yes
[19:16] <infinity> -release is very low traffic, and I consider that on-topic with those hats on.
[19:17] <slangasek> moving on
[19:17] <tsimonq2> slangasek: I'm agreed on where to send the policy.
[19:17] <tsimonq2> OK, thanks TB.
[19:17] <slangasek> tsimonq2: ok, grand :)
[19:17] <slangasek> [TOPIC] Review of the seeded snaps policy
[19:17] <slangasek> this is a carry-over on the agenda and probably doesn't need any discussion today, given mdeslaur's and my action item
[19:18] <slangasek> however I'm going to leave it on the agenda page for next time so that I have appropriate levels of guilt about getting that done
[19:18] <slangasek> [TOPIC]  LP: #1770748: Dropping patches added for main inclusion and delegation of maintainership
[19:18] <jbicha> doko_: are you around?
[19:18] <slangasek> this was added to the agenda by doko_, who informed me earlier today that he would not be able to attend the meeting
[19:18] <slangasek> I don't know that we need to tackle this without all the parties to the discussion present
[19:19] <slangasek> unless some member of the TB is particularly keen to dive into the topic right now?
[19:19] <jbicha> I felt it was premature for a TB decision on the issues
[19:19] <seb128> I don't think there is much for the TB there either
[19:19] <infinity> I think it could have been settled by two adults in #ubuntu-devel without escalating, but maybe not. :P
[19:20] <slangasek> jbicha: 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 capacity
[19:20] <jbicha> I phrase the issues a bit differently than do_ko
[19:21] <slangasek> jbicha: 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 guidance
[19:21] <jbicha> I see 2 issues: whether C++ libraries in main must have symbols files; and whether Foundations should "own" (or "maintain" or whatever) ilmbase
[19:21] <infinity> jbicha: 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.
[19:22] <jbicha> the symbols file question is being discussed on the ubuntu-devel list
[19:22] <seb128> jbicha, I don't think the packages "ownership" is a TB matter
[19:22] <infinity> The 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] <jbicha> I hear that Desktop & Foundations teams are going to have a meeting soon to discuss various issues so the ownership issue can be discussed there
[19:22] <slangasek> jbicha: the question of what team owns a package for purposes main is indeed not a TB question, since main is a matter of Canonical sponsorship
[19:23] <slangasek> "for purposes main" oh look I'm accidentally 18th century English
[19:23] <mdeslaur> heh
[19:24] <infinity> That construct is back in vogue in 21st century en_GB.
[19:24] <infinity> You're hip.
[19:24] <infinity> In the wrong country.
[19:24] <jbicha> interestingly, acheronuk added a debdiff to the bug to add the symbols. Someone could upload that to resolve some of the issue or lower the urgency
[19:25] <infinity> jbicha: 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] <infinity> If we're just going to effectively delete and regenerate them on each upload, they're entirely useless.
[19:25] <jbicha> I'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)
[19:26] <mdeslaur> being mandatory and removing them is two different things
[19:26] <slangasek> so I'm shying away from that question for the moment because I don't think we should have a partial discussion without all parties present
[19:26] <infinity> jbicha: 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] <jbicha> mdeslaur: it was Debian that removed the symbols file and do_ko added it back without discussion
[19:26] <slangasek> I mean, I can opine, but in the context of the current TB meeting I think we should postpone
[19:27] <infinity> jbicha: C++ symbols files can be quite clean if your project doesn't export a ton of pointless cruft it shouldn't.
[19:27] <jbicha> https://launchpadlibrarian.net/371130484/restoresymbols.debdiff
[19:27] <slangasek> point of order ;)
[19:28] <slangasek> if 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 in
[19:28] <jbicha> +1 from me for postponing
[19:28] <infinity> Right, I'll shut up. ;)
[19:28] <slangasek> ok :)
[19:29] <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.html
[19:29] <slangasek> DMB members stuff, strictly administrative, has been handled
[19:30] <slangasek> wxl'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 in
[19:30] <slangasek> nothing else on list
[19:30] <slangasek> [TOPIC] Check up on community bugs (standing item)
[19:30] <slangasek> [LINK] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bugs?field.assignee=techboard
[19:30] <slangasek> zarro boogs
[19:30] <slangasek> [TOPIC] Select a chair for the next meeting
[19:31] <slangasek> is that stgraber, with infinity backup?
[19:31] <infinity> +1
[19:31] <stgraber> fine :)
[19:31] <slangasek> technically, we all expire the Sunday before that
[19:31] <infinity> Well, +0.5
[19:31] <infinity> Because I haven't made a short joke in MONTHS.
[19:31] <slangasek> who wants to prod about extension + election?
[19:31] <infinity> slangasek: I'll get us extended again, if you promise to chase down sabdfl about an election.
[19:31] <mdeslaur> lol
[19:32] <slangasek> [ACTION] infinity to get TB terms re-extended
[19:32] <meetingology> ACTION: infinity to get TB terms re-extended
[19:32] <slangasek> [ACTION] slangasek to chase sabdfl / CC about election
[19:32] <meetingology> ACTION: slangasek to chase sabdfl / CC about election
[19:33] <slangasek> [AGREED] next TB meeting, 2018-06-05, 20:00 BST. chair stgraber, backup infinity
[19:33] <slangasek> [TOPIC] AOB
[19:33] <slangasek> anything else?
[19:34] <slangasek> #endmeeting
[19:34] <meetingology> Meeting ended Tue May 22 19:34:29 2018 UTC.
[19:34] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2018/ubuntu-meeting-2.2018-05-22-19.07.moin.txt
[19:34] <mdeslaur> thanks everyone
[19:34] <slangasek> stgraber, infinity, mdeslaur, jbicha, seb128, tsimonq2: thanks!
[19:34] <seb128> thanks!
[19:34] <infinity> slangasek: Re-extension in progress.
[19:35] <tsimonq2> Thanks!
[19:42] <tsimonq2> slangasek: 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?
[19:43] <slangasek> tsimonq2: 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 there
[19:43] <tsimonq2> slangasek: ACK.
[19:58] <tsimonq2> slangasek: wxl asked on the community hub post I made, so pinged you. Please elaborate if you could.
[20:09] <slangasek> tsimonq2: url?
[20:13] <tsimonq2> slangasek: https://community.ubuntu.com/t/official-policy-for-adding-daemons-to-desktop-common/6086?u=tsimonq2