[14:26]  * cpaelzer is lighting the MIR campfire
[14:26] <cpaelzer> pre-ping sarnold didrocks slyon doko_ ddstreet jamespage
[14:30] <ddstreet> o/
[14:30] <cpaelzer> hi
[14:30] <cpaelzer> #startmeeting Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status
[14:30] <meetingology> Meeting started at 14:30:09 UTC.  The chair is cpaelzer.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[14:30] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[14:30] <slyon> o/
[14:30] <cpaelzer> given that it is release week, we'd hope to not have any urgent MIR acticity
[14:30] <cpaelzer> but the one for next cycle might start :-)
[14:30] <cpaelzer> #topic Review of previous action items
[14:31] <cpaelzer> As promised I have started the unification of rules/templates on our wiki
[14:31] <cpaelzer> a first suggestion is available for your review at https://github.com/cpaelzer/ubuntu-mir/pull/2
[14:31] <cpaelzer> #topic current component mismatches
[14:31] <cpaelzer> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg
[14:31] <cpaelzer> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg
[14:32] <didrocks> (hey)
[14:32] <cpaelzer> jamespage: with cherrypy3->python-cheroot and python-oslo.metrics not being ready they wont make it in 21.10 as it seems
[14:32] <cpaelzer> is that a problem?
[14:33] <cpaelzer> Not sure is jamespage is around to see this, as backup pinging coreycb
[14:34] <cpaelzer> we will go on with our agenda, but if there are answers to the above please chime in and let us knows
[14:34] <cpaelzer> the rest of the mismatches looks as-usual no new entries AFAICS
[14:34] <cpaelzer> #topic New MIRs
[14:34] <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/?field.searchtext=&orderby=-date_last_updated&field.status%3Alist=NEW&field.status%3Alist=CONFIRMED&assignee_option=none&field.assignee=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir
[14:34] <cpaelzer> There is one new entry
[14:34] <cpaelzer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vulkan-tools/+bug/1946359
[14:35] <cpaelzer> anyone having the cycles to work on that (I'm on PTO soon, then planning sprint; so not me this time :-/ )
[14:35] <coreycb> cpaelzer: we need oslo.metrics but we could probably back out to an old oslo.messaging as a last resort. the security team made it through one of the two packages I think.
[14:35] <slyon> I can take on that.
[14:35] <cpaelzer> thanks slyon
[14:36] <cpaelzer> slyon: assigned
[14:36] <cpaelzer> coreycb: yes .messaging is done
[14:36] <cpaelzer> coreycb: do you know if secruity aware that the deadline for this is essentially days/hours now?
[14:36] <cpaelzer> sarnold isn't here today
[14:36] <cpaelzer> I'd ask you coreycb and jamespage to get in touch with security Team to make sure this is resolved by Impish release
[14:37] <coreycb> cpaelzer: yes, I chatted with him last week - I don't think there was a guarantee
[14:37] <coreycb> cpaelzer: ok I'll touch base over there
[14:37] <cpaelzer> because even if you would "back out to an old oslo.messaging" that would still be uploads and migration - and we are in final freeze
[14:37] <cpaelzer> thank you coreycb
[14:37] <cpaelzer> this isn't anything the MIR team can help, but we can push you to help youself :-)
[14:38] <cpaelzer> #topic Incomplete bugs / questions
[14:38] <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/?field.searchtext=&orderby=-date_last_updated&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITH_RESPONSE&field.status%3Alist=INCOMPLETE_WITHOUT_RESPONSE&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir
[14:38] <cpaelzer> Two recent updates
[14:38] <cpaelzer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/opensc/+bug/1892559 seems to be re-started but not yet for us to review
[14:39] <cpaelzer> And https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lua5.4/+bug/1909665 also might be 22.04 or later material (to switch to a newer lua verion some day)
[14:39] <cpaelzer> but it doesn't need MIR team attention so far
[14:39] <cpaelzer> #topic Any other business?
[14:39] <cpaelzer> nothing from me except asking again for review of the PR that updates the rules in the wiki
[14:39] <didrocks> yeah, will do :)
[14:40] <sarnold> good morning, sorry I'm late
[14:40] <slyon> I will have a look at your PR as well!
[14:40] <slyon> Nothing else from my side.
[14:40] <cpaelzer> hi sarnold
[14:41] <cpaelzer> np to be late, but please see the above question on https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-prometheus-client/+bug/1943143
[14:41] <cpaelzer> slyon: AFAICS that needs to happen more or less "now" since the fallback by the OS team also would take some time
[14:41] <sarnold> cpaelzer: can you repaste the question?
[14:41] <cpaelzer> sarnold: sure
[14:41] <sarnold> (it'll be half an hour or something before the logbot gets to it)
[14:42] <cpaelzer> the package python-prometheus-client still awaits security review
[14:42] <cpaelzer> for the MIR in https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-prometheus-client/+bug/1943143
[14:42] <cpaelzer> This is 21.10 material
[14:42] <cpaelzer> And release is in two days
[14:42] <cpaelzer> So the openstack team (jamespage / coreycb) will need to know asap if this will be reviewed (and be ok)
[14:43] <cpaelzer> or if they need to do last minute changes to fall back to an alternative
[14:43] <cpaelzer> I guess that summarizes the question
[14:44] <sarnold> cpaelzer: thanks; prometheus_client looks short enough that I can get through it asap...
[14:44] <sarnold> I suggest we continue under the assumption it'll be fine
[14:44] <cpaelzer> coreycb: ^^
[14:44] <cpaelzer> awesome
[14:45] <cpaelzer> if the two of you sarnold + coreycb (jamespage) could sort that out today it could then be promoted tonight/tomorrow
[14:45] <coreycb> sarnold: thanks for looking!
[14:45] <cpaelzer> ok, I guess that covers the "other topics"
[14:45] <cpaelzer> I'd close unless there is anything else ???
[14:45] <sarnold> nothing from me
[14:46] <slyon> thank you o/
[14:46] <didrocks> thanks cpaelzer
[14:46] <cpaelzer> Final FYI next week I'd be on PTO, if someone else could drive this then that would be great.
[14:46] <sarnold> nice, enjoy :)
[14:47] <cpaelzer> Or you can all let the archive reopening ruin -proposed and idle a week until things look reasonable :-)
[14:47] <cpaelzer> #endmeeting
[14:47] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 14:47:13 UTC.  Minutes at https://new.ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2021/ubuntu-meeting.2021-10-12-14.30.moin.txt
[14:47] <sarnold> thanks cpaelzer, all :)
[14:47] <didrocks> yeah, I don’t think there is a need for a meeting next week
[14:47] <didrocks> other opinions?
[14:50] <cpaelzer> That is the one week I won't care since I'm off :-)
[18:57] <cyphermox> o/
[18:58] <sarnold> hey cyphermox :)
[18:58]  * vorlon waves
[18:59] <cyphermox> hey sarnold
[18:59] <cyphermox> I'm here, but actually currently doing maintenance in a DC, I might be slow to respond
[19:01] <vorlon> I may have failed to update the agenda after last meeting?  Checking chairs
[19:01] <rbasak> o/
[19:03] <vorlon> so sil2100 is primary chair, and he may be buried under the release; mdeslaur is backup but sent regrets
[19:04] <rbasak> I can chair
[19:04] <rbasak> #startmeeting Technical Board
[19:04] <meetingology> Meeting started at 19:04:53 UTC.  The chair is rbasak.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[19:04] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[19:05] <rbasak> #topic Apologies
[19:05] <rbasak> #info mdeslaur sends his apologies
[19:05] <rbasak> #info sil2100 may be unavailable due to the imminent Ubuntu release
[19:05] <rbasak> #topic Action review
[19:05] <rbasak> ACTION: rbasak to communicate the TB's MATE resolution to the MATE flavour leads.
[19:06] <rbasak> I just did this, and Wimpy said to expect a response in a couple of weeks. Thanks Wimpy!
[19:06] <rbasak> ACTION: formal ratification of third party seeded snap security policy, depends on:
[19:06] <rbasak> ACTION: vorlon to circle around with store, snapcraft, et all, and revise the snap source revision policy to be more clear with regards to rebuildability and GPL compliance.
[19:06] <vorlon> carry-over
[19:06] <rbasak> #action formal ratification of third party seeded snap security policy, depends on:
[19:06] <meetingology> ACTION: formal ratification of third party seeded snap security policy, depends on:
[19:06] <rbasak> #action vorlon to circle around with store, snapcraft, et all, and revise the snap source revision policy to be more clear with regards to rebuildability and GPL compliance.
[19:06] <meetingology> ACTION: vorlon to circle around with store, snapcraft, et all, and revise the snap source revision policy to be more clear with regards to rebuildability and GPL compliance.
[19:06] <rbasak> #action vorlon to reply to seeded snap upload permissions question on list
[19:06] <meetingology> ACTION: vorlon to reply to seeded snap upload permissions question on list
[19:07] <vorlon> carry-over
[19:07] <rbasak> #action vorlon to reply to seeded snap upload permissions question on list
[19:07] <meetingology> ACTION: vorlon to reply to seeded snap upload permissions question on list
[19:07] <rbasak> FWIW, I'm not sure what that item is referring to exactly
[19:07] <rbasak> ACTION: sil2100 to start a draft summarizing the OEM archive portion of the meeting which xnox and TB will review, edit, and ratify before we move on to figuring out the next step
[19:08] <rbasak> I assume we will carry this as sil2100 isn't here.
[19:08] <rbasak> #action sil2100 to start a draft summarizing the OEM archive portion of the meeting which xnox and TB will review, edit, and ratify before we move on to figuring out the next step
[19:08] <meetingology> ACTION: sil2100 to start a draft summarizing the OEM archive portion of the meeting which xnox and TB will review, edit, and ratify before we move on to figuring out the next step
[19:08] <rbasak> ACTION: all TB members to "vote" or explain what they do not like of a proposal on https://pad.ubuntu.com/third-party-repository-requirements
[19:09] <rbasak> Does everyone consider their input on this complete?
[19:10] <vorlon> I see there's an ongoing discussion at the bottom of the document
[19:10] <vorlon> I've given feedback on everything up to that point
[19:10] <rbasak> I have an answer for the next related action item, so let's carry this I guess.
[19:11] <rbasak> #action all members to continue discussion at https://pad.ubuntu.com/third-party-repository-requirements
[19:11] <meetingology> ACTION: all members to continue discussion at https://pad.ubuntu.com/third-party-repository-requirements
[19:11] <rbasak> ACTION: rbasak to draft refined rules for the proposed "stability" requirement for third-party software repositories
[19:11] <sil2100> o/
[19:11] <rbasak> I just drafted this
[19:11] <rbasak> o/
[19:11] <rbasak> Let me paste it into the pad
[19:11] <sil2100> Sorry everyone, got distracted
[19:12]  * vorlon finds it, look for --BEGIN---
[19:13] <vorlon> rbasak: thanks.  I think we should take some time to digest this rather than trying to decide on it this meeting (at least, I need time to digest :)
[19:14] <rbasak> Sure.
[19:15] <rbasak> I think the next agenda item will suffice to track the general goal of sorting this out.
[19:15] <rbasak> #topic Erich Eickmeyer via the mailing list: DisplayCAL in the archive as a deb that pulls in a Flatpak, and its inclusion in Ubuntu Studio by default. See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2021-July/002562.html and https://pad.ubuntu.com/third-party-repository-requirements
[19:15] <rbasak> Any specific next steps here? Is everyone happy to continue digesting/feedbacking?
[19:17] <Eickmeyer> I don't want to crash the meeting, but can I say something about this (got a ping)?
[19:18] <rbasak> Sure, please do
[19:18] <Eickmeyer> Ok, well, considering the feedback I got from vorlon, I'm willing to drop this and have been working on a snap.
[19:18] <Eickmeyer> Unfortunately, that has been quite the struggle, so I'm going to be enlisting some help on this.
[19:19] <Eickmeyer> At the appropriate time, I hope to make it a seeded snap
[19:19] <sil2100> \o/
[19:20] <Eickmeyer> However, I agree that the technicality of being able to include a flatpak of *something* has merit, but I'm no longer pursuing it for this particular application.
[19:20] <rbasak> OK. Thank you for the update!
[19:20] <Eickmeyer> No problem. I hope that helps. :)
[19:20] <rbasak> Where do we want to go from here then?
[19:20] <sil2100> I think it's still good to work out an official policy for such cases
[19:21] <cyphermox> +1
[19:21] <rbasak> Should we archive the current discussion until/unless it's raised again by someone else with a similarly credible request? Or as sil2100 says, should we carry on anyway?
[19:21] <cyphermox> well, aren't we with the third party repo requirements pad?
[19:22] <vorlon> I think archiving it carries the risk of retread the next time it comes up :)
[19:22] <rbasak> Personally I'm in favour of solidifying this anyway, as we are continuing with seeded snaps which would I think be expected to comply with these generic requirements anyway
[19:22] <rbasak> OK, so I think we're agreed that we carry on?
[19:22] <sil2100> My apologies for not finishing my comments for that one, but I think we should be continuuing, especially that I feel it's 'close' to being all properly defined
[19:24] <rbasak> #agreed We will continue working on defining the third party repo requirements even though Eickmeyer has withdrawn his request for the DisplayCAL case, as we think it'd be useful to have anyway
[19:24] <meetingology> AGREED: We will continue working on defining the third party repo requirements even though Eickmeyer has withdrawn his request for the DisplayCAL case, as we think it'd be useful to have anyway
[19:25] <rbasak> So there remains an action item for everyone to continue working on the pad, so I'll leave that there, and I'll adjust the agenda item to make this request generic
[19:25] <sil2100> +1
[19:25] <rbasak> Anything else for this topic for now?
[19:25] <rbasak> #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item)
[19:26] <rbasak> #info No recent communication on the public mailing list
[19:26] <rbasak> However there was a private communication that needs a response I think, but should probably remain private for now.
[19:26] <rbasak> Is there somewhere private the TB can go to discuss this now? Or do we need to use private email or something?
[19:26] <vorlon> private email is pretty much it
[19:27] <rbasak> OK. I'll start that thread after the meeting.
[19:27] <rbasak> #topic Check up on community bugs (standing item)
[19:27] <rbasak> #info No open community bugs
[19:27] <rbasak> #topic Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members)
[19:27] <sil2100> Me o/
[19:28] <sil2100> Since I was supposed to be chairing today, right?
[19:28] <rbasak> #info Next chair will be sil2100 with mdeslaur as backup
[19:28] <rbasak> Yup, makes sense.
[19:28] <rbasak> #endmeeting
[19:28] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 19:28:23 UTC.  Minutes at https://new.ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2021/ubuntu-meeting.2021-10-12-19.04.moin.txt
[19:28] <vorlon> thanks, all!
[19:28] <sil2100> Thank you rbasak for chairing!
[19:28] <sil2100> And thanks for the meeting o/