[05:34] <Christian> hello
[05:42] <Kilos-> hi
[17:30] <mapreri> mh, ddstreet, teward ? :)
[17:30] <teward> *yawns*
[17:30] <teward> *beats SSSD with a stick for reasons*
[17:31] <mapreri> *coffee*
[17:32] <ddstreet> o/
[17:32] <ddstreet> guess we have everyone, let's start
[17:32] <ddstreet> #startmeeting Ubuntu Backporters
[17:32] <meetingology> Meeting started at 17:32:46 UTC.  The chair is ddstreet.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[17:32] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[17:33] <ddstreet> #topic previous action items
[17:33] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over)
[17:33] <ddstreet> carrying over
[17:33] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over)
[17:33] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over)
[17:33] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet at next meeting, re-raise issue of non-participating member policy
[17:33] <ddstreet> guess i'm re-raising the issue now :)
[17:34] <mapreri> let's keep re-raising :3
[17:34] <ddstreet> lol
[17:34] <mapreri> also add a subtopic about formal delegation as rbasak asked, we should do that.  but peraps after it (and after my own related task)
[17:35] <ddstreet> i was thinking that it would probably be best to come up with a complete charter for the team which includes everything about the team
[17:35] <mapreri> (I have rbasak's mail stuck in my inbox, it won't be forgotten!)
[17:35] <ddstreet> if you two think that sounds ok, i'll write one up for discussion next meeting
[17:35] <mapreri> well, that's likely how it'll turn out even without proper planning anyway
[17:35] <ddstreet> exactly - this should be done all-in-one not piece-by-piece
[17:35] <mapreri> you think?
[17:35] <ddstreet> yep
[17:35] <mapreri> mh
[17:36] <mapreri> well, if you think you have cycles to draft something, I totally won't stop you from it :)
[17:36] <ddstreet> ack, i'll get a draft by next mtg
[17:36] <mapreri> after all, the hardest is always the first draft (for me, at least)
[17:36] <ddstreet> just for discussion
[17:36] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet draft a team charter for discussion
[17:36] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet draft a team charter for discussion
[17:37] <ddstreet> i'll keep the individual actions too until/if we decide to replace them with a full charter
[17:37] <mapreri> yap
[17:37] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet raise issue of non-participating member policy
[17:37] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet raise issue of non-participating member policy
[17:37] <mapreri> re-raise, re-raise
[17:38] <ddstreet> lol i need more raises in there
[17:38] <ddstreet> #subtopic rbasak send email to ML to clarify specific wording of team responsibilities, for proposal to TB for ratification
[17:38] <ddstreet> i believe this was done
[17:38] <mapreri> yes, that's what I mentioned
[17:38] <mapreri> btw
[17:38] <ddstreet> #link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/2022-February/022687.html
[17:39] <mapreri> I don't think ubuntu has a concept of "delegation" and "ratification" like debian does, does it?
[17:39] <ddstreet> so let's just add an action to review this, though it's possible the charter would replace it
[17:39] <mapreri> so what would that imply anyway?
[17:39] <ddstreet> i have no idea...AFAIK these mandates are coming from the TB
[17:39] <teward> ddstreet: you wanted more raises, right?  https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/B9WCZ536Hf/
[17:39] <teward> mapreri: there is a 'delegation of powers' concept
[17:40] <ddstreet> #action (unassigned) review delegation email on ML
[17:40] <meetingology> ACTION: (unassigned) review delegation email on ML
[17:40] <teward> higher boards can delegate certain powers to sub teams.
[17:40] <mapreri> yeah, but I never heard ot "TB delegations" in all my years, so I'm kind of eyebrow-raising right now
[17:40] <mapreri> I get the concept, sure, and approve it
[17:40] <mapreri> just the term is kind of new to me in this case…
[17:40] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri propose text for membership process to add to KB page (carried over)
[17:41] <ddstreet> carrying over as you mentioned
[17:41] <ddstreet> #action mapreri propose text for membership process to add to KB page (carried over)
[17:41] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri propose text for membership process to add to KB page (carried over)
[17:41] <mapreri> k
[17:41] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress)
[17:41] <ddstreet> i assume continue to carry over
[17:41] <mapreri> yeah
[17:41] <ddstreet> #action mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress)
[17:41] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress)
[17:41] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over)
[17:41] <ddstreet> and carry this one too?
[17:42] <mapreri> I had a chat with lechner about this… it's bothersome but I'm talking with him
[17:42] <ddstreet> #action mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over)
[17:42] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over)
[17:42] <ddstreet> #subtopic (unassigned) define details on handling members/leads who are no longer participating (carried over)
[17:43] <ddstreet> i think is is superceded/replaced by the previous actions
[17:43] <ddstreet> #subtopic (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over)
[17:43] <ddstreet> i assume nobody got this, so carrying over?
[17:44] <ddstreet> #action (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over)
[17:44] <meetingology> ACTION: (unassigned) get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over)
[17:44] <ddstreet> #subtopic (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over)
[17:44] <ddstreet> will carry this over as well unless anyone has made progress on it
[17:44] <ddstreet> #action (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over)
[17:44] <meetingology> ACTION: (unassigned) look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over)
[17:45] <ddstreet> that's all the previous items
[17:45] <ddstreet> #topic AOB
[17:45] <ddstreet> anyone have anything?
[17:45] <teward> nope
[17:45] <teward> not me, anyways
[17:45] <ddstreet> i did want to add an action item to remind us to review the 'no-bug-required' thread on the ML
[17:46] <ddstreet> #action (unassigned) reminder to review 'no-bug-required' backport exception email thread on ML
[17:46] <meetingology> ACTION: (unassigned) reminder to review 'no-bug-required' backport exception email thread on ML
[17:47] <ddstreet> in fact i should add an action item to update our agenda page with topic sections to review outstanding ML threads
[17:47] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet update agenda page with ML review topic item
[17:47] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet update agenda page with ML review topic item
[17:48] <ddstreet> and probably open bug review...
[17:48] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet update agenda page with open bug review topic item
[17:48] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet update agenda page with open bug review topic item
[17:49] <ddstreet> ok, i have nothing else, last call before we wrap?
[17:50] <ddstreet> #endmeeting
[17:50] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 17:50:25 UTC.  Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-02-23-17.32.moin.txt
[17:50] <ddstreet> thanks all! o/
[17:53] <rbasak> ddstreet: AFAIK these mandates are coming from the TB> it's not a mandate, and it's not coming from the TB. It was my suggestion, to try and help in the future. If you don't want to do it at all, then please say so.
[17:55] <rbasak> mapreri: I never heard ot "TB delegations" in all my years> it's not been done formally, no, but I think maybe it would have helped to have explicit what was implicit in the very long discussion it took to get the backports team rebooted.
[17:58] <rbasak> I mean: the issue of the backports team being stalled was first raised in Nov 2018. It took until Feb 2022 for that to be resolved from the perspective of uploaders. Surely everyone will agree that this was too long?
[17:59] <rbasak> I think it would help if it were possible to have objectively identified earlier that the previous team weren't able to meet their responsiblities. Having them written down would have helped with that, because that would have more easily opened the door to a faster replacement of that team I think.
[18:17] <mapreri> ddstreet, teward, rbasak: sorry sorry :(   - i got pulled away by an unexpected call :(
[18:18] <teward> rbasak: i also think that the process as it was initially was not scalable
[18:18] <teward> anyone could request
[18:18] <teward> and a small team had to do all the work.
[18:18] <teward> we've now got a more narrow view and such on what needs to be done and such,.
[18:19] <teward> which helps the process immensely.
[18:19] <mapreri> rbasak: I'm all for more a formalized structure, however I don't think it would have helped much in this case.  Everybody knew that the bpo team was non-existing, even before 2018.  But even then, what was missing was somebody willing to drive the change.
[18:19] <mapreri> basically, we were missing ddstreet :>
[18:21] <mapreri> rbasak: but if you'd like for TB to formalize such things, then I'd say that you (TB) should take the extra step to go an formalize all kinds of dev team (desktop, the various DEs, all teams that have some extra uploads powers to package sets, etc), and likely write them down properly, with links to formal TB delegations, etc.  in my mind such delegated team should also all have rules in place for nomination of new members and have those
[18:21] <mapreri> rules approved by TB too, etc.
[18:21]  * mapreri goes and piles more work on rbasak's plate
[18:21] <mapreri> :D
[18:48] <rbasak> mapreri: it wasn't just needing someone willing to drive reform I don't think. Before we had that, there was still resistance in just calling a spade and spade and fixing the docs to accept there was no functional backports process, in what I think was wishful thinking that people would appear (fortunately, two years later, they did).
[18:48] <rbasak> At that earlier point, I think it might have helped to be able to more definitively identify that the backporters team as it was then were no longer able to meet their responsibilities.
[18:50] <rbasak> On formalizing all the other teams, it'd be a huge amount of work agreeing on definitions and doing all the drafting and getting all the consensus required, because I don't think it would be appropriate for the TB to just impose it by fiat. So I'd prefer to just chip away at fixing things when they come up.
[18:50] <mapreri> I'm happy for the backports team to be the first… just please not let it be the only one forever :)
[18:50] <rbasak> In the case of backporters, it did come up, and right now I think everyone's in agreement with the draft I proposed, since that's where we started the reboot. So it seems like low hanging fruit to do it.
[18:51] <mapreri> sure.  but please before making it formal like that let's wait until we mange to get the rest of the team structure documents in place too, so it can be "attached" to it.
[18:51] <rbasak> To be clear, I don't intend to actively drive formalizing the other teams, unless an issue comes up. But I am in general in favour of doing it.
[18:51] <rbasak> Sure. No rush. I would like to wrap it up before too long, though.
[18:52] <rbasak> Also, I absolutely don't intend to impose anything by fiat. I want something that everyone agrees with.
[18:52] <rbasak> I just thought that we were basically there already in this case.
[18:52] <mapreri> as I said, I'm in favour of more formal things, as long as they don't stilt everybody (Which I don't think would in this case)
[18:52] <mapreri> so I'm not feeling imposed upon :)
[18:52] <rbasak> I tried to leave it as open as possible.
[18:53] <rbasak> I firmly believe that teams should have the latitude to decide how they want to approach doing their work for themselves.
[18:53] <rbasak> Good to know :)