[00:08] <Bashing-om> ping diddledani
[15:58] <rbasak> o/
[15:58] <rbasak> Is the plan to have the backporters meeting in here?
[15:59] <rbasak> Ah yes - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Agenda said so
[15:59] <ginggs> o/
[16:00] <ddstreet> o/
[16:01] <ddstreet> let's give teward laney mapreri some time
[16:01] <ddstreet> i think they were planning to attend
[16:01] <mapreri> sorry, I'm on a call
[16:02] <teward> around but running a bit delayed due to FT job IT issues
[16:02] <teward> (damn Exchanhe servers...)
[16:03] <mapreri> give me 1 min
[16:04] <mapreri> ok, I'm here
[16:04] <ddstreet> ok let's get this going then
[16:05] <ddstreet> #startmeeting Ubuntu Backporters meeting
[16:05] <meetingology> Meeting started at 16:05:06 UTC.  The chair is ddstreet.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[16:05] <mapreri> what about laney ?
[16:05] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[16:05] <ddstreet> i did ping him above
[16:05] <ddstreet> he can catch up
[16:05] <mapreri> alright
[16:05] <ddstreet> so i created an agenda page, as rbasak linked above
[16:05] <ddstreet> i'll relink for the record
[16:06] <ddstreet> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Agenda
[16:06] <ddstreet> hmm hope that worked
[16:06] <mapreri> it did, #link is silent :)
[16:06] <rbasak> I think it does stay silent for those.
[16:06] <ddstreet> i'm happy to chair/guide this first mtg, but anyone please feel free to jump in at any time for anything
[16:07] <mapreri> right behind you, thank you in advance for chairing
[16:07] <ddstreet> on the agenda page, i put in some basic info and links
[16:08] <ddstreet> the main stuff i think is in the discussion topics section, unless anyone has objections i think we can get through the first couple items fairly quickly, even if we just create action items to discuss them more later
[16:08] <ddstreet> i think the bulk of the conversation will be around the process, at the end of the list
[16:08] <mapreri> yes, agreed
[16:08] <ddstreet> ok so first off, membership
[16:08] <ddstreet> #topic membership
[16:09] <ddstreet> the current list of members:
[16:09] <ddstreet> #link https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-backporters/+members
[16:09] <rbasak> o/
[16:09] <mapreri> I think we need to decide on whether to drop all of the old people in them?
[16:10] <ddstreet> agreed, let's decide that first
[16:10] <ddstreet> rbasak i think is typing
[16:10] <rbasak> I was, but let's do that first.
[16:10] <rbasak> My question was going to be about team leadership, which is in this section but can come last.
[16:10] <mapreri> (and deactivate the techboard, it doesn't need to be an active member, being owner is enough for them)
[16:10] <rbasak> deactivate the techboard> +1
[16:10] <ddstreet> yep agreed here as well
[16:11] <rbasak> I was going to JFDI before but I thought maybe better to wait for the meeting.
[16:11] <ddstreet> well specifically, i think we should drop all the old members, and inactivate the TB
[16:11] <rbasak> Anyone object to dropping all the old members?
[16:11] <ddstreet> seems unanimous, which is good :)
[16:11] <mapreri> very in favour of the matter, however I need to notice that
[16:11] <ddstreet> i do wish laney was here though
[16:11] <mapreri> scottk renewed his membership on oct 6th, which is weird
[16:11] <ddstreet> as he's the only old member who participated so far
[16:12] <mapreri> scottk never said anything in the mail threads right?
[16:12] <rbasak> I wonder if he has a script that does that :)
[16:12] <ddstreet> hmm maybe he just clicked on 'renew' without really thinking about it
[16:12] <rbasak> I had been unable to reach him.
[16:12] <mapreri> yeah, scottk has been quite unavailable as of late
[16:12] <rbasak> When I asked him to transfer ownership to ~techboard - before I asked Launchpad to do it.
[16:12] <mapreri> (as of late: last ~2 years, more or less)
[16:13] <ddstreet> well since laney isn't around, i suggest we just reach consensus of who's here; i'm not sure if we even need an official vote, as i don't hear any objections from anyone
[16:13] <rbasak> I propose that we proceed by removing everyone not present here today. Others can always be re-added later.
[16:13] <mapreri> rbasak: including laney?
[16:13] <ddstreet> +1 to that from me
[16:13] <ddstreet> it's trivial to add him back if he wants to be added back
[16:13] <mapreri> alright
[16:14] <mapreri> +1 as well
[16:14] <rbasak> mapreri: including laney because I think he specifically said in the ML thread that he wasn't able to participate in backport handling.
[16:14] <mapreri> (you can use #agreed instead of formal vote for these matters :P)
[16:14] <ddstreet> ah nice thanks :)
[16:14] <ddstreet> ok so
[16:14] <rbasak> Shall I do those things now then, to allow you to continue typing?
[16:15] <ddstreet> sure thanks
[16:15] <mapreri> please
[16:15] <ddstreet> i suppose for the record we should do an agreed
[16:15] <mapreri> please yes
[16:15] <ddstreet> #agreed remove (inactivate) all old members who are not present in the current meeting
[16:15] <meetingology> AGREED: remove (inactivate) all old members who are not present in the current meeting
[16:15] <mapreri> then, I think reject all pending members as well imho.  let's start clean?
[16:16] <ddstreet> yep i agree on that too
[16:16] <ddstreet> probably most of them aren't interested anymore anyway
[16:16] <ddstreet> no objections?
[16:16] <mapreri> I wonder what that person who requested on 2006-09-09 to join would say if we approve now lol
[16:16] <ddstreet> lol
[16:16] <ddstreet> "sorry for the delay!"
[16:16] <rbasak> There are also a bunch of pending members, but none of them have been a participant in the ML thread. Should I clean those up too?
[16:16] <mapreri> rbasak: we just agreed on that :P
[16:16] <ddstreet> yep i think we're agreed to reject all the pending members
[16:17] <rbasak> OK
[16:17] <ddstreet> #agreed reject all pending members
[16:17] <meetingology> AGREED: reject all pending members
[16:17] <mapreri> last, keep the current "moderated" team, or turn it to "restricted"?
[16:17] <ddstreet> rbasak you might need to add yourself before disabling the TB
[16:17] <mapreri> (I think we this we are over the "administrative" topics)
[16:17] <mapreri> ddstreet: not needed, since techboard stays the owner)
[16:17] <ddstreet> ah ok
[16:18] <ddstreet> mapreri it shows as 'restricted' now for me, did it just get changed?
[16:18] <mapreri> ah, it's already a "restricted" team now.  so probably those pending members were from before the change
[16:19] <mapreri> ddstreet: not sure, didn't look at before.  just assumed it was "moderated" due to the pending members.
[16:19] <rbasak> ddstreet: no we're good - team ownership gives me superpowers
[16:19] <mapreri> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-backporters/+members is not super clean ♥
[16:19] <rbasak> All agreed changes made I think
[16:19] <ddstreet> as far as moderated vs restricted, i don't have a preference; i suspect there won't be a mass of people applying even if it's moderated :)
[16:20] <mapreri> ime, moderated just lead to spam request more than anything *shrugs*
[16:20] <rbasak> IMHO, allowing people to apply via Launchpad just confuses things.
[16:20] <ddstreet> yeah i'm fine to stay restricted
[16:20] <rbasak> Nobody knows how to deal with that.
[16:20] <mapreri> instead, with restricted team, obviously the way to join is "go badger the team admin!" :P
[16:21] <ddstreet> so for future membership, do we need to define a process now? i'm thinking not
[16:21] <ddstreet> i don't expect many (or any) people to want to join anytime soon
[16:21] <rbasak> I agree that can be deferred.
[16:22] <mapreri> I think that is quite related to the actual backport process, but regardless I think we can defer for now, yes.  also we need to see how things go.
[16:22] <mapreri> and, looking at how nobody was interested to join via mail, well…
[16:22] <rbasak> What I'd like though is clarity on team leadership. Who can make decisions for the team? Specifically I mean administrative decisions, rather than individual review decisions. Making this clear would make it easier for the wider community to engage with you.
[16:22] <ddstreet> #agreed defer discussion to define membership application process
[16:22] <meetingology> AGREED: defer discussion to define membership application process
[16:22] <ddstreet> yes that's a good point
[16:23] <rbasak> I'm quite happy for that to just be ddstreet for now, FWIW.
[16:23] <mapreri> since I'm usually very easy to reach, I'd prefer on a process that is: somebody ask the team to decide something, ddstreet texts me, we discuss very quickly, ddstreet reports back?
[16:23] <rbasak> As he's the only one volunteering to do the driving anyway, I feel that he should have the authority to make decisions around the responsibility that he's taking.
[16:23] <mapreri> (easy to reach, except for ubuntu-dev-tools reviews, sorry !)
[16:23] <ddstreet> haha lol
[16:24] <rbasak> I would expect ddstreet to work with mapreri of course, but I'd like to put ddstreet in the position that he has the authority to resolve a disagreement if there is one.
[16:25] <mapreri> I'd say I'd be happy to place him on such place, I have enough disagreements to handle elsewhere anyway, and I trust him to be fair from the little I saw in the past.
[16:25] <ddstreet> how about in between regular meetings, any administrative decisions can be handled by me, with an expectation (but not requirement) that i try to reach the rest of the team for opinions
[16:25] <mapreri> having said this, I don't quite know what you might be referring to, rbasak.  what kind of situations are you imagining?
[16:25] <rbasak> mapreri: I want to avoid indecisiveness, which is IMHO part of what killed the old team.
[16:26] <mapreri> right.
[16:26] <mapreri> I don't think that could happen here anytime soon with this new 2-person team though.
[16:26] <rbasak> So things like "no I want to keep the status quo but I'm not going to help with delivering the team responsibilities under that status quo"
[16:26] <rbasak> I don't want that to block the team.
[16:26] <rbasak> Sure - hopefully that won't happen here.
[16:26] <mapreri> it's more likely that we just both dwindle down in motivation in a few years
[16:27] <ddstreet> ok so are we agreed to allow me (or current team admin/lead) to handle any administrative decisions?
[16:27] <rbasak> +1
[16:27] <mapreri> so yes, let me agree to give ddstreet ALL THE POWER
[16:27] <rbasak> And no objections, so it's done :)
[16:27] <mapreri> just try to get consensus if it's feasible, please.
[16:28] <rbasak> Of course
[16:28] <rbasak> The CoC mandates that
[16:28] <ddstreet> to be clear, i don't want to decide anything unilaterally, but i suspect 1) there won't really be a lot of stuff needed between meetings and 2) i'll talk to the team member(s) about everything when possible
[16:28] <mapreri> cool
[16:29] <rbasak> ddstreet: that is exactly the position I'd like you to take, so we're good :)
[16:29] <ddstreet> #agreed team lead/admin can make administrative decisions for the team, preferably with consultation with other team members
[16:29] <meetingology> AGREED: team lead/admin can make administrative decisions for the team, preferably with consultation with other team members
[16:29] <rbasak> Also #agreed ddstreet will, for now, be the sole team lead/admin
[16:29] <ddstreet> yes i suppose we should define the members
[16:30] <ddstreet> i'm the team lead, and the members are mapreri teward and, rbasak are you joining?
[16:30] <ddstreet> and possibly laney, if he does want to stay on/rejoin
[16:30] <rbasak> For now, I'm not joining, thanks. I'm just focused on trying to enable the people who _are_ volunteering.
[16:30] <ddstreet> ok so just me mapreri and teward
[16:31] <rbasak> And at that point I intend to step away.
[16:31] <mapreri> yeah, I can do with being able to say "I'm not in a lead position in this team" \o/  (which is what happens way too often in debian when I join a team -.-)
[16:31] <rbasak> :-)
[16:31] <ddstreet> #agreed current team lead will be ddstreet, current team members will be mapreri teward
[16:31] <meetingology> AGREED: current team lead will be ddstreet, current team members will be mapreri teward
[16:31] <rbasak> With the team revitalized and with a team lead defined, I think my job is done :-P
[16:31] <teward> this week's been chaotic so i mean :P
[16:31]  * mapreri notices that teward has been quite silent so fare in the meeting?
[16:32] <ddstreet> and no objections to allowing laney to rejoin if he would like to (since we don't yet have a process to join defined)?
[16:32] <mapreri> assuming he reads the minutes from the following discussion about the process, and he asks explicitly, yes, let's let him join.
[16:33] <mapreri> but so, should ddstreet add teward to the lp team?
[16:33] <ddstreet> #agreed to allow laney to rejoin the team if he requests to
[16:33] <meetingology> AGREED: to allow laney to rejoin the team if he requests to
[16:33] <rbasak> This is the point where I've stepped away. IMHO in a not voting away, it'd be useful if members committed to do whatever is defined that they should do, and otherwise they shouldn't be members. So maybe it doesn't really matter who is a member or not, for the time being, until that is defined or needs to be defined (eg. ACLs, or review roles, etc).
[16:34] <rbasak> in a not voting *way*
[16:34] <teward> mapreri: i've had nothing counter to any already stated items so far
[16:34] <teward> also still on via phone so insanely hard to type indepth replied
[16:34] <teward> replies*
[16:34] <mapreri> ah, that explains! (the phone)
[16:34] <teward> yup
[16:34] <ddstreet> my only concern with teward is i know you're strected super thin, being on several boards and heavy workload
[16:35] <teward> ddstreet: workload is getting a lot lighter at FT job.  Many large projects just finished and there's one rrmaining project on my radar of high importance
[16:35] <ddstreet> but personally i have no problem with you joining even if it's just for occasional work on the backports
[16:36] <teward> and the being on many teams and boards is why i stopped championing the redo of backports process
[16:36] <teward> hence "member of backporters" not leader/officer
[16:36] <ddstreet> ok
[16:37] <ddstreet> sounds fine to me - i did put 'agreed' on the current team above, though if anyone wants to have a vote of the people currently here i'm fine with that as well
[16:37] <ddstreet> otherwise i think we can let the new member list stand and continue
[16:38] <ddstreet> ok let's move to the meetings
[16:38] <ddstreet> #topic meeting schedule and location
[16:38] <mapreri> I'm also fine we teward.  let's just say, please all of us be sincere and drop out if you realize you can't contribute :)
[16:38] <mapreri> s/fine we/fine with/ (?)
[16:38] <ddstreet> yes very much agreed with that ^
[16:38] <teward> what mapreri said
[16:39] <mapreri> do we need regular meetings?
[16:39] <ddstreet> so for meetings, i assume we just hold them here?
[16:39] <ddstreet> long term, probably not, but i think at first it might be good to have some regular meetings
[16:39] <ddstreet> at least until we get going more smoothly
[16:39] <mapreri> alright
[16:40] <mapreri> (do we have a more in-topic irc channel?)
[16:40] <rbasak> Would it be worthwhile agreeing a rule that members inactive for (say) 2 years get removed? I suggest this now because it's socially easier to set this now, rather than when the problem arises again.
[16:40] <teward> we can probably get one made mapreri if needed
[16:40] <ddstreet> yeah we probably should have a irc channel
[16:40] <mapreri> teward: I'd ♥ to pls.  let's #ubuntu-backports @ libera?
[16:40] <rbasak> I suggest just using #ubuntu-devel until it becomes a problem.
[16:41] <rbasak> That helps with fostering involvement IMHO.
[16:41] <teward> rbasak: agreed to the rule provided theres procedure in place to handle if the lead is the AWOL one
[16:41] <mapreri> I'm fine as well.
[16:41] <ddstreet> rbasak i do agree with the expiration rule, but suggest we defer the specific details to a future meeting
[16:41] <rbasak> Sure
[16:41] <teward> ^^ that
[16:42] <mapreri> teward: procedure is: existing members vote and ask techboard to replace the lead.  easy.
[16:42] <mapreri> I think this can be part of the next meeting together with the definition of how to join
[16:43] <ddstreet> #action define details on handling members/leads who are no longer participating
[16:43] <meetingology> ACTION: define details on handling members/leads who are no longer participating
[16:43] <ddstreet> i think i forgot to add an action for defining the membership process?
[16:44] <ddstreet> #action define process/procedure for adding new members
[16:44] <meetingology> ACTION: define process/procedure for adding new members
[16:45] <ddstreet> so re: irc, should we use ubuntu-devel or try to get ubuntu-backports?
[16:45] <mapreri> let's keep with -devel for a while and see if we tend to have too many conversations (unlikely)
[16:45] <teward> we could use either, but lets keep with -devel for now
[16:45] <teward> unless we have a ton of things to discuss we should be OK with -devel
[16:46] <teward> (finally back at my computer, geez...)
[16:46]  * mapreri is just biased in collecting as many channels as possible (not visible in me anymore since the freenode move when I cleaned up the list…)
[16:46] <ddstreet> #agreed use #ubuntu-devel for normal team conversation
[16:46] <meetingology> AGREED: use #ubuntu-devel for normal team conversation
[16:46] <ddstreet> at least for now, can always change that later
[16:47] <ddstreet> for a schedule of regular meetings, i think at first we should probably try for fortnightly meetings? weekly meetings probably would be too much, but i think we do have stuff to go thru
[16:48] <ddstreet> i'm trying to get thru the administrative stuff, since we're not even at the real backports process yet and 45 minutes in :)
[16:49] <mapreri> ftr, I already have other fortnight meetings in the other cycle
[16:49] <mapreri> at the same time :P
[16:49] <ddstreet> well this balances it out perfectly then doesn't it xD
[16:49] <mapreri> so I'm good with fortnight, it'll just means I'll find myself a weekly cycle, one week in a channel, the other in another channel :3
[16:50] <ddstreet> let's start with fortnightly and re-evaluate it each following meeting, i'm sure we will get to the point where we can drop it down to monthly, or less
[16:50] <ddstreet> i'll schedule the next meeting in 2 weeks (after this one is over)
[16:50] <teward> +1
[16:51] <teward> ddstreet: send me an email reminder btw so i can add it in my schedule
[16:51] <mapreri> cool
[16:51] <ddstreet> #action schedule next meeting in 2 weeks, same location and time UTC
[16:51] <meetingology> ACTION: schedule next meeting in 2 weeks, same location and time UTC
[16:51] <mapreri> teward: are you in ubuntu-backports@luc right?  I guess ddstreet can call the meeting there.
[16:51] <teward> my recurrings for the stuff got thrown into the abyss during the work migration to MS365 so i don't have my recurring meetings anymore
[16:51] <teward> mapreri: probably not :p
[16:51] <mapreri> you should if you are joining :P
[16:51] <ddstreet> teward mapreri i'll create a google calendar event and include you both, if oyu use google calendar?
[16:51] <teward> no idea who's on that list anymore
[16:51] <ddstreet> well i mean you should get the invite even if you don't :)
[16:51] <teward> mapreri: true, i'll drop in.
[16:52] <mapreri> ddstreet: I use gcal yes  (and all my emails are associated to the google account, so it'll just come in whatever address you use)
[16:52] <rbasak> FWIW I think we've (you've) made great progress so far, and if it takes another couple of weeks to sort out the process stuff, that's absolutely fine.
[16:53] <rbasak> I think it's important to get the "constitutional" structure right, and that's done now, and I'm happy :)
[16:53] <ddstreet> thanks!
[16:53] <rbasak> I hope that this means that the previous problem won't recur.
[16:54] <ddstreet> so re: ubuntu-backports@luc, i just joined that (or requested to)...not sure if we need to do something to manage that list?
[16:54] <mapreri> for the ml mod, if that's needed, I'm happy to, since I already run `listadmin` regularly for another dozen MLs
[16:54] <rbasak> FWIW, I moderate enough Ubuntu MLs already that adding another won't make any difference to me. So if you'd like a moderator I'm happy to do that.
[16:54] <rbasak> Ah, snap :)
[16:54] <mapreri> who is jdong again u.u
[16:54] <ddstreet> i'll add an action to at least check if we need to take that list over
[16:55] <ddstreet> yeah i saw that too, no idea
[16:55] <ddstreet> #action take over ubuntu-backports@luc mailing list, or at least check if we need to manage it
[16:55] <meetingology> ACTION: take over ubuntu-backports@luc mailing list, or at least check if we need to manage it
[16:55] <mapreri> somebody who has been inactive long enough that all of their launchpad membership expired, apparently.
[16:55] <rbasak> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports lists an old member
[16:55] <rbasak> So I think you will need to take that over
[16:56] <mapreri> rbasak: do you have contacts with the lists.u.c admins?
[16:56] <mapreri> or is that canonical IS generically?
[16:56] <rbasak> Canonical IS can swap it for us.
[16:56] <rbasak> Right
[16:56] <mapreri> if you'd like I can write a ticket
[16:56] <rbasak> I expect ddstreet will be able to arrange it, but you have my TB hat support if you need it.
[16:56] <mapreri> or let ddstreet ask for it, as you wish.
[16:57] <ddstreet> mapreri if you are able to request the change then please do :)
[16:57] <mapreri> alright
[16:57] <ddstreet> #action mapreri request ownership change for ubuntu-backports@luc
[16:57] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri request ownership change for ubuntu-backports@luc
[16:57] <mapreri> ta
[16:58] <mapreri> (shall I ask them to just put my email in the list owner field?)
[16:58] <mapreri> (more like, do you mind or should we do it differently?)
[16:58] <ddstreet> ok so i *think* we are all thru the administrative part...there's only 3 minutes left in the hour though, i'm thinking we move the 'real' discussion of the process to the next meeting? 1 hour meetings are usually my max
[16:58] <ddstreet> re: ml, i think it's fine to just put your email
[16:59] <mapreri> I think I should have dinner in 30-60 minutes, so I'm fine going for a little longer.  but process is likely going to take more than that anyway, so…
[16:59] <ddstreet> yeah, we could start but i dont think we would make it far
[17:00] <ddstreet> i propose we adjourn this meeting and defer remaining discussion to the next one?
[17:00] <ddstreet> i know we didn't really get the to good stuff yet
[17:00] <ddstreet> but meetings tend to start falling apart after an hour-ish i think :)
[17:01] <mapreri> incidentally, I was thinking of dumping my points of what the process should look like (or, what we need to discuss of them) in the agenda page, would you mind?  I suppose you could dump your ideas as well.
[17:01] <ddstreet> ok sounds like no objections at least
[17:01] <ddstreet> absolutely, please feel free to put it into the agenda, update it however you'd like
[17:02] <mapreri> then we are good
[17:02] <mapreri> [08 07:00:04 PM] <mapreri> ack.
[17:02] <mapreri> I saw this fell out due to a network glitch on my side ↑
[17:02] <mapreri> (I recovered your messages from my bouncer)
[17:02] <ddstreet> i was also going to edit the agenda page with summary of today's meeting, and next mtg date, etc, but i'll make sure not to step on your edits
[17:02] <mapreri> not going to do that now
[17:03] <mapreri> if you give me a whole 2 weeks to prepare for the next meeting, be sure I won't write 2 weeks in advance :P
[17:03] <ddstreet> ack, i'll try to have the page updated by my EOD
[17:03] <ddstreet> lol
[17:03] <ddstreet> yeah no need to hurry :)
[17:03] <rbasak> I need to run now too. Thank you ddstreet both for chairing but more importantly driving this whole revitalisation!
[17:03] <ddstreet> ok let's call this then, thanks for a great first mtg all!
[17:04] <ddstreet> #endmeeting
[17:04] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 17:04:02 UTC.  Minutes at https://new.ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2021/ubuntu-meeting.2021-09-08-16.05.moin.txt
[17:04] <ddstreet> thanks rbasak mapreri teward, see you next meeting!
[17:04] <mapreri> ddstreet: btw, if you need to contact me very quickly, usually (not always) writing me on telegram works best.  you find me there under the @mattia username :)
[17:04] <mapreri> rbasak: thanks for overseeing the transition! :)
[17:04] <teward> ty all
[17:04] <ddstreet> mapreri ok thanks good to know
[17:05] <ddstreet> o/
[17:08] <mapreri> \\o
[17:10] <mapreri> ddstreet: for your tracking purposes, RT#36831 is the ticket for the ML takeover.
[17:10] <ddstreet> thanks!