[19:00] <rbasak> o/
[19:00] <sil2100> o/
[19:01] <rbasak> #startmeeting DMB
[19:01] <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Mar 25 19:01:13 2019 UTC.  The chair is rbasak. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
[19:01] <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
[19:01] <rbasak> #topic Review of previous action items
[19:02] <rbasak> cyphermox to deal with PPU rights for Rosco2 and Eickmeyer
[19:02] <rbasak> sil2100 to send out announcements for Rosco2 and Eickmeyer
[19:02] <rbasak> cyphermox to fix the packageset-report script
[19:02] <rbasak> tsimonq2 to better document what we expect applicants to know (carried over)
[19:02] <rbasak> slashd to follow up on the APAC Ubuntu community coverage
[19:02] <rbasak> Follow up on the ubuntustudio packageset upload permissions for Rosco2
[19:02] <cyphermox> my PPU actions are done
[19:02] <rbasak> Thanks!
[19:02] <sil2100> cyphermox: \o/
[19:02] <sil2100> Announcements were sent as well
[19:03] <cyphermox> the packageset-report script is changed, too; though I haven't really had much of a feedback on it
[19:03] <rbasak> I had a glance and it seemed reasonable
[19:03] <sil2100> cyphermox: I didn't see the code changes yet, yes, but the packageset changes you sent were ok
[19:04] <slashd> o/ no update on the APAC, still figure it out stuff with my APAC contact who wants to eventually apply for contrib devel
[19:04] <cyphermox> then let's consider this done?
[19:04] <rbasak> tsimonq2: sends his apologies
[19:04] <rbasak> So the first three are done then.
[19:04] <rbasak> 4 is to carry over
[19:04] <rbasak> #action tsimonq2 to better document what we expect applicants to know (carried over)
[19:04] <meetingology> ACTION: tsimonq2 to better document what we expect applicants to know (carried over)
[19:05] <rbasak> 5 is to carry over
[19:05] <sil2100> o/
[19:05] <rbasak> #action slashd to follow up on the APAC Ubuntu community coverage
[19:05] <meetingology> ACTION: slashd to follow up on the APAC Ubuntu community coverage
[19:05] <rbasak> Who owned 6?
[19:05] <sil2100> No one, this was more like a whole-team toppic
[19:06] <sil2100> i.e. us voting on Rosco2's packageset upload permissions
[19:06] <rbasak> Oh, I see.
[19:06] <rbasak> Where are we with that?
[19:07] <sil2100> So, I guess that's something we should discuss now
[19:07] <sil2100> Do we want to re-start the vote? Did anyone change their minds after our recent discussions and packageset changes?
[19:08] <rbasak> I have synced with cyphermox and I think we now understand each others position better
[19:10] <sil2100> I guess that in overall, for clarity, I would propose re-starting the vote for granting Rosco2 PPU rights to the ubuntustudio packageset
[19:10] <rbasak> I'm quite happy to give Rosco2 upload access to things that affect Ubuntu Studio but not other flavours, as a step towards what I hope would eventually be MOTU.
[19:10] <sil2100> Since we had far too many votes open last time for that that didn't resolve the issue
[19:10] <cyphermox> can we please use the right nomenclature though?
[19:10] <rbasak> However we have some trouble with how that squares with the packageset
[19:10] <cyphermox> ie. if it's PPU, it's PPU, if it's packageset, it's packageset
[19:10] <sil2100> cyphermox: understood
[19:10] <rbasak> Nevertheless I believe that would satisfy the TB requirement.
[19:10] <cyphermox> mixing an matching makes it really hard to understand
[19:11] <cyphermox> rbasak: AFAIK right now the only overlap is xfce* packages
[19:11] <cyphermox> it can be trivially fixed
[19:12] <sil2100> That's basically what I meant, anyway, do we need Rosco2 around for questions? I assumed we all know what we need to know, just that we need to come to a conclusion
[19:12] <Rosco2> o/
[19:13] <sil2100> Rosco2: thanks for being around o/
[19:14] <rbasak> cyphermox: that would bring us back to approving the packageset including all future changes though, versus approving a specific set or narrow definition.
[19:14] <cyphermox> sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that
[19:14] <sil2100> Well, I guess we'd be voting to grant upload rights to the packageset, whatever contents it has now or in the future
[19:15] <sil2100> Packagesets change, sometimes even quite dynamically, and that's normal
[19:15] <cyphermox> that's undeed what we should do
[19:15] <cyphermox> (I think)
[19:15] <cyphermox> I mean, I can remove the overlap now, I don't think we need to block on whether that's done or not just now
[19:16] <cyphermox> (we just need to decide)
[19:16] <rbasak> Sure
[19:16] <cyphermox> my opinion is: there are other packagesets in the same boat, we shouldn't special case; but I'm not against it
[19:16] <rbasak> But my point was that I felt that approving only the "narrow" set was appropriate right now.
[19:17] <cyphermox> ack
[19:17] <cyphermox> by narrow you mean without xfce?
[19:17] <sil2100> Should we vote? Since I'm sure Rosco2 is dying from all the suspense ;)
[19:17] <Eickmeyer> ^so am I.
[19:17] <cyphermox> sil2100: what is your opinion? xfce in or out?
[19:18] <cyphermox> slashd: ^
[19:18] <rbasak> By narrow I mean "stuff seeded by the flavour but not any other flavor" which right now means without xfce, AIUI, but may not be this in the future, so it's not the same thing.
[19:18] <Rosco2> If it makes a difference - I promise not to touch xfce packages without consulting the xubuntu guys
[19:18] <cyphermox> rbasak: well, we can only deal with what is currently real, can't address what isn't a problem right now
[19:19] <sil2100> cyphermox: I don't have a strong opinion, although seeing how big the ubuntustudio packageset will be big anyway, due to the nature of the project
[19:19] <sil2100> That being said, I would really prefer not to block on that, as cyphermox mentioned
[19:20] <slashd> cyphermox, I'm mixed feeling, can't really say 'yes' or 'no' on with or without xfce
[19:20] <rbasak> cyphermox: the point of a packageset approval is to deal with future changes also.
[19:21] <cyphermox> rbasak: sure, but we can only action the right now
[19:21] <rbasak> cyphermox: since I'm specifically reluctant about the defined future changes, PPU for a larger set would be more appropriate IMHO.
[19:21] <rbasak> Say for example PPU to the current contents of the packageset less xfce
[19:21] <cyphermox> there are two separate decisions: is the ubuntustudio packageset what it should be;  and are we ready to give upload rights for what the packageset should be
[19:21] <rbasak> If that is implemented technically by packageset approval, then that's fine by me.
[19:21] <sil2100> I would really not want that
[19:22] <sil2100> eh, ok, I see we still don't have a solid decision here among the team
[19:22] <rbasak> No :-(
[19:22] <sil2100> My rationale for just voting on the 'packageset' upload rights is: question - should Rosco2, as the maintainer of Ubuntu Studio, have upload rights to the ubuntustudio 'packageset'
[19:22] <cyphermox> I feel it's unfair to special-case ubuntustudio; it should be handled (right now) as all the other packagesets. That is, everything that is on the seeds/image is in the packageset.
[19:23] <cyphermox> sil2100: +1
[19:23] <sil2100> My answer is: yes, just like the maintainers of Xubuntu have access to the xubuntu packageset, mate to mate etc.
[19:23] <rbasak> cyphermox: I'm not special casing ubuntustudioi though
[19:23] <cyphermox> if we think packagesets aren't what they should; it's a separate action / voting / whatever to address that
[19:23] <cyphermox> rbasak: no, if you want to do a special PPU you're not, but I feel that's extra work for very little benefit
[19:23] <sil2100> cyphermox: agreed
[19:24] <rbasak> cyphermox: sure, so pragmatically let's save the work and give him the packageset ACL.
[19:24] <sil2100> Regardless of whether the current ubuntustudio packageset is correct or not in our terms, this doesn't change the fact that Ubuntu Studio should not be treated differently from other flavors
[19:25] <sil2100> If it's not, we need to keep working on fixing it, but it's neither Rosco2's or anyone else's from Ubuntu Studio's fault
[19:25] <sil2100> *If it's not correct
[19:25] <cyphermox> rbasak: that was my point yes
[19:25] <cyphermox> aye
[19:26] <cyphermox> are we ready to vote on rosco2's application then?
[19:26] <rbasak> cyphermox: right, but the motion would be different.
[19:26] <rbasak> I propose that we "give Rosco2 upload rights that are the current set of packages in the ubuntustudio packageset less xfce"
[19:26] <sil2100> I would not want that
[19:27] <cyphermox> neither do I
[19:27] <sil2100> I just want a vote: "give Rosco2 upload rights to the ubuntustudio packageset"
[19:27] <rbasak> I think your proposal is to "give Rosco2 upload rights equivalent to the existing definition of ubuntustudio that may change in the future according to that definition"
[19:27] <cyphermox> rbasak: I think we really are in full understanding now; just absolutely disagreeing ;)
[19:27] <sil2100> rbasak: I want to give him the same upload rights as any other flavor maintainers
[19:27] <rbasak> OK. Well we can vote if you like.
[19:27] <rbasak> Though a couple of members have sent apologies
[19:27] <rbasak> So we might struggle.
[19:27] <cyphermox> yeah, that's really quite unfortunately
[19:27] <sil2100> But they have sent their votes
[19:27] <cyphermox> *unfortunate
[19:28] <sil2100> Ah, they actually did not, crap
[19:29] <cyphermox> jbicha did
[19:29] <sil2100> Anyway, I'd propose starting the vote
[19:30] <slashd> sil2100, so voting to give same upload rights as any other flavor maintainers as you said ?
[19:30] <rbasak> Oh I forgot I'm chair
[19:30] <rbasak> Sorry
[19:30] <sil2100> slashd: yes, basically giving him upload rigths to the ubuntustudio packageset - so to the current packageset and however it will look in the nearest future
[19:31] <rbasak> #vote give Rosco2 upload rights to the ubuntustudio packageset - so to the current packageset and however it will look in the nearest future
[19:31] <meetingology> Please vote on: give Rosco2 upload rights to the ubuntustudio packageset - so to the current packageset and however it will look in the nearest future
[19:31] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname)
[19:31] <rbasak> -1 for reasons already stated
[19:31] <meetingology> -1 for reasons already stated received from rbasak
[19:31] <cyphermox> +1
[19:31] <meetingology> +1 received from cyphermox
[19:31] <sil2100> +1
[19:31] <meetingology> +1 received from sil2100
[19:32] <slashd> +1
[19:32] <meetingology> +1 received from slashd
[19:32] <rbasak> That's everyone here I think?
[19:32] <sil2100> Let's see if tsimonq2 can vote remotely maybe?
[19:32] <rbasak> The motion cannot then pass right now but it can go to email if absent members can vote offline.
[19:33] <Rosco2> Thanks all
[19:33] <Eickmeyer> What was jbicha's vote?
[19:33] <rbasak> Only one further +1 is required
[19:34] <Rosco2> Crossing fingers and plowing on :-)
[19:34] <teward> sil2100: do you need me to ping tsimonq2, who may actually be busy?  (I sent him an unrelated semi-urgent Lubuntu-infrastructure-related ping to no response a few hours ago, so...)
[19:34] <sil2100> rbasak: I guess let's move on then, tsimonq2 seems to be out of terminal
[19:34] <teward> (I may be able to ping him in another mechanism)
[19:34] <sil2100> teward: no need, we'll just do this offline I guess, through e-mail
[19:34] <teward> mmkay :)
[19:34] <teward> *returns to lurking*
[19:34] <cyphermox> oh; jbicha has not mentioned his stance on that vote
[19:35] <sil2100> Sadly
[19:35] <sil2100> I also thought he did
[19:35] <cyphermox> we'll finish this by email then
[19:35] <rbasak> #action tsimonq2, jbicha and micahg to vote on "give Rosco2 upload rights to the ubuntustudio packageset - so to the current packageset and however it will look in the nearest future"
[19:35] <meetingology> ACTION: tsimonq2, jbicha and micahg to vote on "give Rosco2 upload rights to the ubuntustudio packageset - so to the current packageset and however it will look in the nearest future"
[19:35] <rbasak> #endvote
[19:35] <meetingology> Voting ended on: give Rosco2 upload rights to the ubuntustudio packageset - so to the current packageset and however it will look in the nearest future
[19:35] <meetingology> Votes for:3 Votes against:1 Abstentions:0
[19:35] <meetingology> Motion carried
[19:35] <Eickmeyer> :'(
[19:35] <teward> no it wasn't
[19:35] <rbasak> (correction: one further +1 required)
[19:36] <rbasak> #topic (rbasak proxying) Private request
[19:36] <rbasak> One moment please, in a private channel. I think this can be resolved quickly.
[19:43] <rbasak> Done
[19:43] <rbasak> #topic Package Set/Per Package Uploader Applications
[19:44] <rbasak> fossfreedom: o/
[19:44] <rbasak> Please could you introduce your application?
[19:47] <sil2100> hmmm
[19:47] <sil2100> I hope we have fossfreedom here
[19:47] <sil2100> In case not, to his defense: he did already introduce himself many meetings in the past
[19:47] <cyphermox> yup
[19:47] <rbasak> Let's move on, and we can come back later if he shows up. Unless we have some people who want to vote in his absence?
[19:48] <sil2100> rbasak: let's maybe continue, we can get back to this later or postpone to the next meeting
[19:48] <rbasak> acheronuk: are you here?
[19:48] <acheronuk> o/
[19:49] <rbasak> #info Deferred
[19:49] <rbasak> #topic MOTU Applications
[19:49] <rbasak> #subtopic Rik Mills (acheronuk)
[19:49] <rbasak> acheronuk: o/
[19:49] <rbasak> Please could you introduce your application?
[19:49] <acheronuk> I'm Rik Mills, the current mainly active Kubuntu developer
[19:50] <acheronuk> My application and reasons for applying can be found here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RikMills/Applications/MOTU#Why_am_I_applying.3F
[19:50] <rbasak> Thanks!
[19:50] <rbasak> Any questions for acheronuk?
[19:50]  * slashd reading his application page
[19:54] <slashd> acheronuk, If I see it right, you had ~10 sponsored upload in the past 3-4 month, how given you MOTU today will unblock you considering you don't have a huge amount of sponsored upload lately ?
[19:55] <sil2100> slashd: I suppose this was answered 'partially' in his application, I think
[19:55]  * sil2100 reads it up again
[19:55] <cyphermox> yes
[19:55] <cyphermox> specifically where his link is anchored ;)
[19:55] <acheronuk> slashd: it will allow me to do more that I might have hesitated to invest time in or bother people (sponsors with). It would also allow me to assit more in transitions and autotests where direct uploads are not the permission problem
[19:55] <sil2100> I guess he does mention that he wants delays to be shortened, probably regarding NEW pacakge uploads?
[19:56] <acheronuk> slashd: yes, subject obviously to as much scrutiny as AAs gave before
[19:57] <slashd> acheronuk, okay
[19:57] <acheronuk> just I would not have to MOTU hunt. That actually has not been as much a probelm lately, but these things come and go
[19:57] <rbasak> Any more questions for acheronuk?
[19:58] <rbasak> #vote Grant acheronuk MOTU
[19:58] <meetingology> Please vote on: Grant acheronuk MOTU
[19:58] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname)
[19:58] <rbasak> +1
[19:58] <meetingology> +1 received from rbasak
[19:58] <rbasak> I also have two proxy votes
[19:59] <slashd> +1
[19:59] <meetingology> +1 received from slashd
[19:59] <sil2100> +1 (I have seen a lot from acheronuk and was really happy with his work so far, I think he's "good for MOTU")
[19:59] <meetingology> +1 (I have seen a lot from acheronuk and was really happy with his work so far, I think he's "good for MOTU") received from sil2100
[19:59] <rbasak> tsimonq2: votes +1
[19:59] <rbasak> jbicha: votes +1
[19:59] <rbasak> cyphermox: would you like to vote?
[19:59] <cyphermox> +1
[19:59] <meetingology> +1 received from cyphermox
[19:59] <rbasak> Thanks!
[19:59] <rbasak> I think that's everyone who's here.
[20:00] <rbasak> #endvote
[20:00] <meetingology> Voting ended on: Grant acheronuk MOTU
[20:00] <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
[20:00] <meetingology> Motion carried
[20:00] <cyphermox> sorry; I got distracted by SRUs :/
[20:00] <sil2100> Darn SRUs
[20:00] <cyphermox> you bet!
[20:00] <rbasak> Congrtulations acheronuk!
[20:00] <sil2100> acheronuk: congrats!
[20:00] <cyphermox> pesky little SRUses
[20:00] <acheronuk> Thank you all!
[20:00] <Eickmeyer> Wooohooo acheronuk!!!
[20:00] <clivejo> Congrats Rik :)
[20:00] <acheronuk> clivejo: cheers
[20:00] <cyphermox> acheronuk: congrats
[20:00]  * acheronuk pours a Jack Daniels
[20:01] <rbasak> Any volunteers to sort him out according to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Actions_after_a_successful_application?
[20:01] <rbasak> #action rbasak to add acheronuk to MOTU
[20:01] <meetingology> ACTION: rbasak to add acheronuk to MOTU
[20:01] <rbasak> #action rbasak to announce acheronuk's successful MOTU application
[20:01] <meetingology> ACTION: rbasak to announce acheronuk's successful MOTU application
[20:02] <rbasak> Is fossfreedom around yet?
[20:02] <slashd> rbasak, I'll do it if not too late for the MOTU
[20:02] <rbasak> slashd: sure: do you want to take those two actions then?
[20:02] <rbasak> #undo
[20:02] <meetingology> Removing item from minutes: ACTION
[20:02] <rbasak> #undo
[20:02] <meetingology> Removing item from minutes: ACTION
[20:02] <slashd> rbasak, yup
[20:02] <rbasak> #action slashd to add acheronuk to MOTU
[20:02] <meetingology> ACTION: slashd to add acheronuk to MOTU
[20:03] <rbasak> #action slashd to announce acheronuk's successful MOTU application
[20:03] <meetingology> ACTION: slashd to announce acheronuk's successful MOTU application
[20:03] <rbasak> Would others prefer to vote in fossfreedom's absence or defer?
[20:03] <slashd> defer
[20:04] <rbasak> OK
[20:04] <rbasak> #topic AOB
[20:04] <rbasak> Anything?
[20:05] <rbasak> #endmeeting
[20:05] <meetingology> Meeting ended Mon Mar 25 20:05:07 2019 UTC.
[20:05] <meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2019/ubuntu-meeting.2019-03-25-19.01.moin.txt
[20:05] <sil2100> I think we're good for now, let's try resolving Rosco2's application though e-mail
[20:05] <sil2100> I suppose vorlon gave a deadline for Beta, so we'd have to do this this week
[20:05] <acheronuk> Thank you all again :)
[20:05] <sil2100> (IIRC)
[20:05] <sil2100> I'll continue pushing on that maybe
[20:05] <sil2100> rbasak: thank you for chairing o/
[20:06] <rbasak> yw!
[20:09] <vorlon> cyphermox: you think it's unfair to ubuntustudio to have their packageset defined more narrowly?  isn't it more unfair to leave ubuntustudio unreleasable because it has no approved uploaders?
[20:15] <cyphermox> vorlon: if a packageset is a flavour packageset, it should be maintained the same way we maintain all other flavour packagesets; that's all I'm saying
[20:16] <cyphermox> vorlon: there's no question that we want ubuntustudio releaseable, and I think we're still well on track for that; it's just unfortunately that some DMB members couldn't be around to vote
[20:17] <vorlon> ok, my skimming of the discussion made it seem like there was still an impasse
[20:17] <vorlon> and IMHO it would be better to get him upload access to a narrower set ASAP and then figure out later what the consensus is on the larger set
[20:17] <vorlon> in terms of fairness :)
[20:17] <cyphermox> only by missing a single +1 vote; because we were quorate but couldn't pass to motion
[20:17] <vorlon> ack
[20:18] <cyphermox> vorlon: I think we should just have it pass rfn as things as and forego extra work that would then have to be unwinded.
[20:18] <cyphermox> I can not type today