[14:56] <slashd> o/
[14:56] <rbasak> o/
[14:56] <ricotz> o/
[14:56] <ddstreet> o/
[14:56] <sil2100> o/
[14:56] <waveform> o/
[14:58]  * ddstreet coffees b4 mtg
[15:00] <rbasak> #startmeeting Developer Membership Board
[15:00] <meetingology> Meeting started at 15:00:04 UTC.  The chair is rbasak.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[15:00] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[15:00] <rbasak> #topic Review of previous action items
[15:00] <rbasak> ddstreet edubuntu seed <-> pkgset (carried over)
[15:01] <rbasak> rbasak to reply to ML re: canonical-oem-metapackages packageset and owning team creation (carried over)
[15:01] <rbasak> This one's done
[15:01] <rbasak> rafaeldtinoco paperwork for paride permissions on serverdev and announce (done)
[15:02] <rbasak> rafaeldtinoco paperwork for eickmeyer permissions on MOTU and announce (done)
[15:02] <rbasak> So just need status from ddstreet please
[15:02] <ddstreet> sorry need to carry that over please
[15:03] <rbasak> #action ddstreet edubuntu seed <-> pkgset (carried over)
[15:03] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet edubuntu seed <-> pkgset (carried over)
[15:03] <rbasak> #topic Package Set/Per Package Uploader Applications
[15:03] <rbasak> #subtopic Dave Jones -- raspi-common seed related PPU, 2021-03-08
[15:03] <rbasak> Hello waveform!
[15:03] <waveform> Greetings!
[15:03] <sil2100> o/
[15:03] <rbasak> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DaveJones/PPUApplicationPi
[15:03] <sil2100> I have something
[15:04] <sil2100> So I see Dave applied for PPU, but I personally think he could try for core-dev as-is
[15:04] <sil2100> Though hm, I see he's a bit low on endorsements
[15:07] <waveform> I see you're trying to thwart my cunning plan for minimal responsibility?
[15:07] <sil2100> But even with that, maybe it would make sense to consider him for core-dev and, if not getting enough votes, then re-vote for the PPU?
[15:07] <sil2100> YES
[15:07] <sil2100> ;)
[15:08] <ddstreet> well waveform do you *want* to apply for core-dev?
[15:08] <ddstreet> it's free to apply, and no penatly if we vote no :)
[15:08] <rbasak> It will drag the meeting out longer though.
[15:09] <ddstreet> but personally i do prefer applicants to at least request what level of access they actually want
[15:09] <rbasak> (I don't mean to be negative; just laying it all out)
[15:09] <waveform> ddstreet, it would make certain things easier but at the same time sil2100's absolutely going to drag me into +1 maintenance
[15:09] <teward> (I'm here but late)
[15:09] <rbasak> So it depends on if waveform wants to deal with core-dev applicant type questions today or not
[15:10] <slashd> or we vote for the PPU and re-schedule him for coredev at next mtg (if interested) so it will give him time to get endorsement for the right application ?
[15:10] <waveform> (not convinced I know what I'm doing on that side of things - not that that's stopped me in the past, but still I'm not going to go actively seeking things to go o.O at)
[15:11] <rbasak> It sounds to me like you're not really prepared for a core dev application right now?
[15:12] <rbasak> Wearing my chair hat for a moment, to make progress, we need to decide if we're going to consider a core dev application or not.
[15:12] <waveform> slashd's proposal sounds good to me (I have little doubt after this sil2100 is going to whip me into gathering endorsements and re-submitting ;)
[15:12] <rbasak> If waveform wants to positively affirm he'd like us to consider that, then we can, and then vote.
[15:12] <rbasak> OK
[15:12] <rbasak> So let's proceed with PPU only
[15:13] <rbasak> Does anyone have questions for waveform for his PPU application?
[15:14]  * sil2100 has none for the PPU part
[15:14] <rbasak> I should declare that I'm a personal friend of waveform's, so I intend to do my usual "abstain except to make quorum if everyone else is unanimous" thing.
[15:15] <rbasak> If there are no questions, I guess we can move on to vote.
[15:16] <slashd> no question here, I read the wiki page and I'm have everything I need to take a decision.
[15:16] <rbasak> #vote Grant waveform PPU for  linux-firmware-raspi2, pi-bluetooth, rpi-eeprom, raspberrypi-userland (libraspberrypi0, libraspberrypi-bin), flash-kernel), and for u-boot
[15:16] <meetingology> Please vote on: Grant waveform PPU for  linux-firmware-raspi2, pi-bluetooth, rpi-eeprom, raspberrypi-userland (libraspberrypi0, libraspberrypi-bin), flash-kernel), and for u-boot
[15:16] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, -1 or +0 in channel (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1|-1|+0 #channelname')
[15:16] <slashd> +1
[15:16] <meetingology> +1 received from slashd
[15:16] <sil2100> +1
[15:16] <meetingology> +1 received from sil2100
[15:16] <ddstreet> +1
[15:16] <meetingology> +1 received from ddstreet
[15:17] <rbasak> teward: ?
[15:17] <teward> sorry cross-tasking today
[15:17] <teward> +1
[15:17] <meetingology> +1 received from teward
[15:18] <teward> rbasak: sorry i'm half-pulled left and right for server stuff and work stuff
[15:18] <rbasak> np, thanks
[15:18] <rbasak> I think that's everyone here
[15:18] <rbasak> #endvote
[15:18] <meetingology> Voting ended on: Grant waveform PPU for  linux-firmware-raspi2, pi-bluetooth, rpi-eeprom, raspberrypi-userland (libraspberrypi0, libraspberrypi-bin), flash-kernel), and for u-boot
[15:18] <meetingology> Votes for: 4, Votes against: 0, Abstentions: 0
[15:18] <meetingology> Motion carried
[15:18] <rbasak> Congrats waveform!
[15:18] <slashd> Congrats waveform
[15:18] <waveform> many thanks \o/
[15:18] <sil2100> Congrats!
[15:18] <rbasak> I can take the ACL and announcement actions - now that I can just do the TB end as well
[15:18] <ddstreet> congrats!
[15:19] <teward> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security
[15:19] <teward> oops sorry wrong window IGNORE
[15:19] <teward> 50 windows here
[15:19] <rbasak> #action rbasak to announce waveform's successful application
[15:19] <meetingology> ACTION: rbasak to announce waveform's successful application
[15:19] <waveform> sil2100, thanks - and yes, I'll start writing the next one... ;)
[15:19] <rbasak> #action rbasak to add waveform's PPU ACL items
[15:19] <meetingology> ACTION: rbasak to add waveform's PPU ACL items
[15:19] <sil2100> YES PLEASE! ;)
[15:19] <rbasak> #subtopic Rico Tzschichholz -- libreoffice PPU, 2021-03-08
[15:20] <rbasak> ricotz: o/
[15:20] <ricotz> hello :)
[15:20] <ricotz> see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ricotz/PPULibreofficeApplication :)
[15:20] <rbasak> Thanks
[15:20] <rbasak> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ricotz/PPULibreofficeApplication
[15:22] <rbasak> Does anyone have any questions for ricotz?
[15:23] <ddstreet> none from me
[15:23] <rbasak> I have a couple
[15:23] <rbasak> On your application page you say "Canonical offered me to take over the official maintainer-ship of the LibreOffice package in Ubuntu, which will deepen my involvement even further". What's your understanding of "maintainership" as it applies to packages in Ubuntu, as an Ubuntu developer?
[15:24] <sil2100> I have a 'standard' question
[15:25] <ricotz> rbasak, it means I am packaging it and working together with the debian maintainer
[15:25] <ricotz> rbasak, this is contract work for Canonical
[15:26] <rbasak> ricotz: what would be your position if a non-Canonical Ubuntu developer made an upload to the libreoffice package in Ubuntu, or if they proposed some changes that you don't like?
[15:28] <ricotz> rbasak, I would like to get some notification and maybe asked for reviewing the changes before an upload
[15:28] <ricotz> there are usually no-change uploads for library transitions which would be of no concern
[15:29] <sil2100> My 'standard' question: when uploading libreoffice to the devel series, what freezes should you take into consideration before performing the upload?
[15:29] <rbasak> ricotz: what if you found yourselves at an impasse - a non-Canoncial but established Ubuntu developer wants to change something one way, and you want it changed a different way? How would you expect to resolve the conflict?
[15:30] <ricotz> sil2100, I am working close together with the desktop team, and I am discussion new version uploads before doing so, same will apply for bug fixes
[15:31] <ricotz> sil2100, so I am looking the development schedule, e.g beta, RC deadlines
[15:32] <ricotz> rbasak, if the change proves to be equally efficient I would go with mine, but this seems to be a decision needs to be made case-by-case
[15:33] <teward> ricotz: here's a hypothetical I want to pose for you, and it'll take a few messages to get it out so i would like everyone to hold off messages for a few moments while I write this out.
[15:33] <ricotz> rbasak, I am usually following/proposing changes from/to debian
[15:33] <rbasak> OK, thanks. I have no further questions.
[15:34] <teward> I, an established Ubuntu Developer with core-dev privileges, am currently digging through the bug lists, and come across an unfixed High level bug that has patches prepped for it, and as a sponsor I sponsor the updates into the current dev release.  This affects a packate in your 'bailywick' currently.  It fixes a 'broken feature' and was fully pulled from upstream commits on the issue.
[15:34] <teward> This is uploaded, accepted, and lands in the repository.
[15:34] <teward> However, it was not reviewed/vetted by you.
[15:34] <teward> How would you respond in this case?
[15:34] <teward> assuming of course I"ve done reviews, testing, etc. that are normal for bug fixes to land.
[15:35] <teward> (as I do with anything I sponsor)
[15:36] <ricotz> teward, in my understand if a source package refers to a packaging git repository, such a change needs to be offered as merge request
[15:37] <teward> ricotz: assume per the hypothetical that me or someone else has JFDI and done a direct-to-repos push and not a git merge request (because sometimes a major feature breaking is handled by the Sponsors and some of us who may not be privy to all the repos for packaging and such would potentially push-to-repos
[15:37] <ricotz> so imho the core-dev didn't follow the usual advise
[15:37] <teward> rather than push-to-git or merge request
[15:37] <teward> ricotz: stay within the confines of the hypothetical please.  Assume in the case that ti's not me but anyone with upload privs who **are unaware of all the packages with git repos for packaging**
[15:38] <teward> which, TO BE FAIR, happens often.
[15:38] <slashd> ricotz, are you (or plan to) subscribe to all bugs in libreoffice in Ubuntu (launchpad) ?
[15:38] <teward> (i stepped on Kubuntu's toes accidentally pushing an update for something that unbroke Lubuntu/Calamares that needed kpmcore, whoops, but they were watchful and poked me for the future)
[15:39] <ricotz> teward, if I notice I will contact the uploader to discuss this
[15:40] <ricotz> slashd, I am already subscribed for some time
[15:42] <rbasak> Any more questions for ricotz?
[15:43] <teward> not from me
[15:43] <slashd> I'm good
[15:44] <ddstreet> none from me
[15:44] <sil2100> Good here
[15:44] <rbasak> #vote Grant ricotz PPU for libreoffice
[15:44] <meetingology> Please vote on: Grant ricotz PPU for libreoffice
[15:44] <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, -1 or +0 in channel (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1|-1|+0 #channelname')
[15:44] <rbasak> -1 reasons to follwo
[15:44] <meetingology> -1 reasons to follwo received from rbasak
[15:45] <slashd> +0
[15:45] <meetingology> +0 received from slashd
[15:46] <sil2100> +1
[15:46] <meetingology> +1 received from sil2100
[15:47] <teward> -1 reasons to follow as well, after rbasak posts theirs.
[15:47] <meetingology> -1 reasons to follow as well, after rbasak posts theirs. received from teward
[15:47] <ddstreet> +1 I'm happy with strong endorsements from existing desktop team members, and I have no reason to think future direct uploads would be any different from current sponsored uploads
[15:47] <meetingology> +1 I'm happy with strong endorsements from existing desktop team members, and I have no reason to think future direct uploads would be any different from current sponsored uploads received from ddstreet
[15:48] <ddstreet> so we're at a tie, of 0?
[15:48] <rbasak> #endvote
[15:48] <meetingology> Voting ended on: Grant ricotz PPU for libreoffice
[15:48] <meetingology> Votes for: 2, Votes against: 2, Abstentions: 1
[15:48] <meetingology> Motion carried
[15:48] <teward> as it stands, the vote does not pass, unless we want to poll for rafaeldtinoco via mailing list for their vote.
[15:49] <teward> i could poke tsimonq2 but he's... not available for another 12 hours.
[15:49] <rbasak> Right - it depends on the others
[15:49] <rbasak> Here's my reasoning for my -1 vote.
[15:49] <rbasak> I think you're going to find yourself in a different position given the nature of your involvement with libreoffice, Canonical and Ubuntu. To navigate this well, I think you need to have a good understanding of how Ubuntu development teams interact and how authority in Ubuntu is delegated. I think your understanding of this is mistaken in a few places.
[15:49] <rbasak> It's difficult for me to cover this in detail here without having a longer conversation. I think maybe we need to do that outside this meeting, and perhaps include the wider Ubuntu Desktop Team. I'd be happy to be involved, and I do appreciate your efforts in helping with libreoffice packaging in Ubuntu. Once this matter is resolved, I would welcome your reapplication.
[15:50] <rbasak> FWIW, it might well be that some members of the Desktop team have misunderstood this too
[15:50] <rbasak> But only your application was being considered here, so this might seem a bit unfair. Sorry about that.
[15:50] <rbasak> Let's get it resolved :)
[15:51] <rbasak> Which, FWIW, I think we should do anyway, regardless of the outcome of your application, which remains unresolved today as it needs an answer for the two other absent DMB members
[15:51] <sil2100> Let's try to reach out to them this week
[15:51] <ricotz> rbasak, I see, that is unfortunate for now, I am looking forward to a final decision
[15:51] <rbasak> +1
[15:52] <teward> My reasons, operating strictly on the DMB requirements for review of an application:
[15:52] <teward> I do not feel the applicant has an understanding at large of how Ubuntu Packaging is *not* necessarily driven by Canonical tasks.  My current interpretation of their response to Robie's message is "I'm paid to do work on this package as contract work and need upload rights" which I further extend to "I'm paid to do this and that fact is more important than all because Canonical pays me for this".  The larger universe of **Ubuntu
[15:52] <teward> Development** is NOT driven by the "Canonical Takes All" approach, as Canonical development alone does not drive Ubuntu package maintainership.
[15:52] <teward> Further, their response to the hypothetical I posed is basically "well the core dev is supposed to make a merge request to the packaging git, which means that if coredev uploaded direct to repos they did it wrong".  This mindset of behavior is not conducive to working well in the Ubuntu Project at large because this happens regularly, because **packaging repositories are not readily documented in one central place for coredevs or
[15:52] <teward> sponsors to look at for merge requests**.  Secondly, in the broader universe, there are packages with gits that sit *outside* Launchpad for packaging gits, and therefore cannot be 'merge requested' by developers.
[15:52] <teward> Also, in support and echo of Robie's comments, I would strongly urge that the Desktop Team get in touch with Robie, as I believe that a different position will be found for you in this matter.  The Desktop Team and Canonical employment as well as contract work on a given issue does not supersede the general Ubuntu Development rules and mindset, which is different than the Canonical paid position mindsets and is handled independently of
[15:52] <teward> Canonical contracts.
[15:52] <teward> bah damned IRC splits.
[15:52] <teward> that's my reasons.
[15:53] <teward> ... aaaaaaand Exchange server is exploding at FT job.  *openly cusses out Exchange as a mail server platform, and splits attention 75%-25% job to DMB because he has to fix the broken evil*
[15:53] <slashd> I took into consideration your strong endorsement, but I'm on the same page as rbasak's rationale above, hence why I +0
[15:53] <rbasak> I think my summary would be: we can do this, but first we should make sure everyone clearly understands the division of roles, responsibilities and authority.
[15:53] <teward> rbasak: sil2100: I suggest we reach out via internal lists to tsimonq2 and rafaeldtinoco and ask them to review and vote via the list.
[15:54] <teward> for the current vote
[15:54] <teward> and a discussion needs to happen with the teams, etc. on this matter
[15:54] <rbasak> Yep
[15:54] <rbasak> Anything else on this topic before we move on?
[15:54] <ricotz> teward, hmm, I guess this I came accross the wrong way from my side, of course I am not making decisions on my own and am discussing them with other packagers
[15:55] <teward> ricotz: my opinion stands.  I'm happy to reevaluate at a later date, but that requires the discussion rbasak has proposed to happen first
[15:55] <rbasak> FWIW, I haven't taken that from this discussion today.
[15:55] <ricotz> teward, I can see the burden it is to sponsor libreoffice caused by its size and complexity
[15:55] <teward> and i agree with rbasak, I ahven't taken that from your statements today.
[15:55] <rbasak> I have no reason to think that you wouldn't try and resolve things by reaching consensus first.
[15:55] <rbasak> However I think it's important that you understand the fallback position from that, and I don't think you do.
[15:55] <teward> i'm also going to put one additional echo into this:
[15:55] <teward> what if the security team makes this mistake of not merge requesting
[15:56] <teward> and simply pushes a security patch?
[15:56] <teward> from THAT perspective you aren't going to argue with the Security Team, you're just going to merge the changes into yoru repos accordingly
[15:56] <teward> because IIRC the SEcurity Team is one of the teams you don't really... argue much with... when a critical security patch goes out :P
[15:57] <teward> just saying
[15:57] <ricotz> correct, a CVE upload is another story for itself
[15:57] <teward> ricotz: but carries the same weight/problem as if a core dev or someone uploaded something to -updates
[15:57] <teward> wherein the point still stands: i think your thinking in the matter needs reviewed, because the way you responded to the initial hypothetical appeared argumentative overall
[15:58] <teward> and not conducive for Ubuntu Development
[15:58] <teward> as stated in my reasons (which stand and are not changing in this meeting at this time)
[15:58] <teward> ... unrelated: i'm here 75% again.  job just needed Exchange kicked >.<
[15:59] <rbasak> OK. Shall we move on? :)
[15:59] <rbasak> #topic Outstanding mailing list requests to assign
[15:59] <ricotz> thank you for your time
[15:59] <rbasak> I only see the request from Alex Murray which is a thread in progress
[16:00] <rbasak> I'll take the action to get a resolution on that (meeting venue/time agreed)
[16:00] <rbasak> #action rbasak to resolve Alex's request for an alternate meeting venue/time for his application
[16:00] <meetingology> ACTION: rbasak to resolve Alex's request for an alternate meeting venue/time for his application
[16:00] <rbasak> #topic Open TB bugs
[16:00] <rbasak> #info No open TB bugs
[16:00] <rbasak> #topic Any other business
[16:00] <ddstreet> o/
[16:00] <rbasak> Does anyone have anything to raise?
[16:01] <ddstreet> suggestion: maybe we should list the entire schedule of meeting times for each year instead of just the next 4 mtgs?
[16:01] <ddstreet> in light of the time mix-up
[16:01] <rbasak> Sure
[16:01] <rbasak> Do I hear you volunteering? :)
[16:01] <rbasak> There's also the fridge calendar
[16:01] <ddstreet> ack, i can update it if there are no objects
[16:01] <ddstreet> objections
[16:02] <ddstreet> i'm not sure if i'm able to edit the fridge calendar, i can check
[16:02] <rbasak> #action ddstreet to reduce the scope of meeting scheduling mistakes
[16:02] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet to reduce the scope of meeting scheduling mistakes
[16:02] <rbasak> (I'm deliberately leaving that open for you decide how to achieve that ;)
[16:02] <ddstreet> thanks :)
[16:02] <rbasak> Anything else?
[16:03] <rbasak> #endmeeting
[16:03] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 16:03:02 UTC.  Minutes at https://new.ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2021/ubuntu-meeting.2021-03-08-15.00.moin.txt
[16:03] <ddstreet> thanks all o/