[08:22] <fheimes> I would like to leave a quick comment to the DMB meeting this Monday:
[08:22] <fheimes> Hi @utkarsh2102 and @rbasak - well, is there really a rule in place that says it's an option to decline an application in such a case? That sounds a bit odd to me.
[08:22] <fheimes> I would really appreciate to wait for Brian's @bdmurray decision, hoping he finds a min to look at the application, package list and maybe remembers some of my work.
[08:22] <fheimes> (Since I work in my day-to-day job more with Foundations than with the Server team, I would like to hear one more decision from that side.) Thx
[08:23] <utkarsh2102> fheimes: of course. Sounds good. We decided to wait for another week.
[08:24] <utkarsh2102> and afaik, there was a rule or at least a guideline that said something along those lines. I can find that in sometime if you’d like. But hey, we all want your application to get all the votes. So we’d definitely wait a bit more.
[08:32] <fheimes> Okay - thank you - appreciate it!
[15:57] <ddstreet> o/ getting coffee before mtg
[15:57] <mapreri> o/
[16:00]  * ddstreet back
[16:00] <ddstreet> hi mapreri
[16:00] <ddstreet> teward[m] around for mtg?
[16:00] <mapreri> fwiw, I have no news, but since I failed to write the email about the charter, I'll write here (for now?)
[16:00] <ddstreet> sounds good :)
[16:00] <teward> *burps*
[16:00] <ddstreet> ok let's go ahead and start! :)
[16:00] <ddstreet> #startmeeting Ubuntu Backporters Team
[16:00] <meetingology> Meeting started at 16:00:53 UTC.  The chair is ddstreet.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[16:00] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[16:01] <ddstreet> i think the main topic today will be the charter, but let's run thru the previous action items first
[16:01] <mapreri> yes please
[16:01] <ddstreet> #topic previous action items
[16:01] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over)
[16:01] <ddstreet> all my items are getting carried
[16:01] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over)
[16:01] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet update tooling, requestbackport, backportpackage (carried over)
[16:02] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over)
[16:02] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet get DEB_VENDOR=ubuntu dch --bpo to DTRT pls (carried over)
[16:02] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over)
[16:02] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over)
[16:02] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet look at reviewer tooling such as 'queue' or other tools for reviewing/accepting/rejecting uploads, and closing the corresponding bugs (carried over)
[16:02] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet update charter/policies from mapreri review email, send new email asking for review again
[16:03] <ddstreet> this is done, as we're discussing it later this mtg
[16:03] <mapreri> ack
[16:03] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet schedule next mtg nov 16 at 16:00 UTC (done)
[16:03] <ddstreet> also done :)
[16:03] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress)
[16:03] <mapreri> carried over
[16:03] <ddstreet> i assume carry all your items also?
[16:03] <ddstreet> #action mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress)
[16:03] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri upload (more of) all the tools (carried over, in progress)
[16:03] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over)
[16:03] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Debian bug 1001399 in lintian "lintian: adjust backports-upload-has-incorrect-version-number for ubuntu" [Normal, Open]
[16:04] <mapreri> i haven't prodded the maintainer recently, I probably should… (carried over)
[16:04] <ddstreet> #action mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over)
[16:04] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri fix lintian to not complain about ~bpo suffix (https://bugs.debian.org/1001399) (carried over)
[16:04] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor (carried over)
[16:04] <mapreri> ditto
[16:04] <ddstreet> #action mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor (carried over)
[16:04] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri review wiki page to see how we can highlight that backport requestors need to do the backport work and find a sponsor (carried over)
[16:04] <bG9s> wow
[16:04] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri start thread on ML about how to use bug status to define meaing in process (carried over)
[16:04] <ddstreet> #action mapreri start thread on ML about how to use bug status to define meaing in process (carried over)
[16:04] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri start thread on ML about how to use bug status to define meaing in process (carried over)
[16:04] <teward> mapreri: I thought Lintian has no maintainer anymore?
[16:04] <mapreri> teward: it has been adopted
[16:04] <teward> at least in Debian
[16:05] <teward> ack
[16:05] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri poke unit193 about yt-dlp dep on dh-python
[16:05] <ddstreet> do we want to keep this one?
[16:05] <mapreri> I poked, I don't remember what he said, too long ago
[16:05] <ddstreet> let's just drop it, i dont think it's important enough, yeah?
[16:05] <mapreri> mind keeping it, perhaps turning into "mapreri to look into backporting dh-python (see unit193 and yt-dlp)"
[16:05] <ddstreet> ok sure, will do
[16:06] <ddstreet> #action mapreri to look into backporting dh-python (see unit193 and yt-dlp)
[16:06] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri to look into backporting dh-python (see unit193 and yt-dlp)
[16:06] <mapreri> I'm pretty sure having the new pybuild would be quite nice
[16:06] <ddstreet> #subtopic ddstreet update charter/policies from mapreri review email, send new email asking for review again
[16:06] <ddstreet> this was done
[16:06] <ddstreet> #subtopic mapreri review ubuntu-dev-tools patches for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1959115
[16:06] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 1959115 in ubuntu-dev-tools (Ubuntu) "update backportpackage and requestbackport scripts to behave according to new backport process" [High, New]
[16:07] <mapreri> it's also duplicated, you already wrote it 4 minutes ago
[16:07] <mapreri> carry over pls
[16:07] <ddstreet> hah lol, it was in both our sections
[16:07] <ddstreet> #action mapreri review ubuntu-dev-tools patches for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1959115
[16:07] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri review ubuntu-dev-tools patches for https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-dev-tools/+bug/1959115
[16:07] <ddstreet> ok that's all previous action items
[16:07] <mapreri> that's already 2 screenful of irc logs u.u
[16:08] <mapreri> we should really shave this backlog
[16:08] <teward> six here maprero (i'm on mobile irccloud >.<)
[16:08] <ddstreet> i hope once we get the charter stuff finished we can tackle some of the backlog
[16:08] <teward> mapreri*
[16:08] <ddstreet> the next section is ML threads, which would include charter talk, but can we go over bugs first?
[16:09] <mapreri> teward: I could move the workspace to the TV, then it would probably be "only one" :>
[16:09] <mapreri> ddstreet: let's do bugs quickly first yes
[16:09] <ddstreet> #topic open bugs
[16:09] <ddstreet> i have one to briefly discuss
[16:09] <ddstreet> #topic elfutils
[16:09] <ddstreet> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/elfutils/+bug/1997189
[16:09] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 1997189 in elfutils (Ubuntu Jammy) "[BPO] elfutils/0.188-1 from Lunar" [Undecided, New]
[16:09] <mapreri> I haven't read that yet tbh, should I quickly do it?
[16:09] <ddstreet> i reviewed this and it seems fine
[16:10] <ddstreet> do read it briefly if you want, it's short
[16:10] <ddstreet> i dont see any issues with accepting the backport, but since it's a widely used lib i wanted to at least mention it here before accepting
[16:10] <mapreri> read.
[16:10] <mapreri> elfutils really shouldn't be a problem for me, imho.
[16:11] <teward> ddstreet: i dont have a problem with it but it seems by the description its dependent on another thing that hasnt been prepared
[16:11] <mapreri> besides, it's already in bpo in jammy?
[16:11] <teward> we can accept it but it was one of the 'clarify this bit' comments from me is all :)
[16:11] <mapreri> of course, before proceeding, since they want 0.188, that has to migrate from -proposed into release
[16:11] <ddstreet> teward[m] i may have missed that, what does it dep on?
[16:12] <mapreri> but since there is already a bpo in jammy, no reason to stop it for sure
[16:12] <ddstreet> mapreri ah right definitely does need to get out of lunar-proposed first
[16:12] <mapreri> teward: I don't think this requires anything new, does it?
[16:13] <teward> laggggg
[16:13] <teward> bug mentions debuginfod
[16:13] <mapreri> debuginfod is built from src:elfutils
[16:14] <teward> > I intend to update Ubuntu's debuginfod instance to use this new package in the near future.
[16:14] <ddstreet> i think he means ubuntu's running public debuginfod instance
[16:14] <teward> it sounded like it depended on something else as written
[16:14] <mapreri> nah
[16:14] <mapreri> it's saying that he wants to use this package for debunginfod.ubuntu.com
[16:15] <mapreri> or whatever was the address now
[16:15] <teward> wouldnt that require some approvals from a higher team?  not sure they like using backports stuff in prod
[16:15] <mapreri> BTW, the current bpo in jammy was also done by sergio, so really, imho no reason to block it, besides waiting for the migration to complete.
[16:15] <teward> not a blocker on our end as i said already
[16:15] <mapreri> teward: that's a problem for IS :>  I would really appreciate if they do, however
[16:16] <mapreri> after all, from my POV that's exactly what we are working for…
[16:16] <teward> *shrugs* I'm not IS so :P
[16:16] <ddstreet> i'll add a comment to the bug stating it looks ok but needs to migrate out of lunar-proposed first
[16:16] <mapreri> ack.
[16:16] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet comment in elfutils bug, needs to exit -proposed
[16:16] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet comment in elfutils bug, needs to exit -proposed
[16:17] <teward> in either case i said no problems with it, we just have to wait on it leaving proposed
[16:17] <mapreri> next bugs?  IMHO we need to talk about all the currently open bugs
[16:17] <teward> while we're at it, instruct sergio on how to properly bump topics for updates
[16:17] <ddstreet> #subtopic ipmictl
[16:17] <ddstreet> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/+source/ipmctl/+bug/1968076
[16:17] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 1968076 in ipmctl (Ubuntu Focal) "[BPO] ipmctl with support for CPS hardware" [Undecided, New]
[16:17] <teward> just saying "ping" isnt acceptable
[16:17] <ddstreet> i think this was waiting for teward[m] to sponsor?
[16:17] <mapreri> teward: are you ever going to sponsor this?
[16:17] <mapreri> :3
[16:18] <teward> i'll do that today - so much crap on the radar lately
[16:18] <ddstreet> #action teward[m] sponsor lp: #1968076
[16:18] <meetingology> ACTION: teward[m] sponsor lp: #1968076
[16:18] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 1968076 in ipmctl (Ubuntu Focal) "[BPO] ipmctl with support for CPS hardware" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1968076
[16:18] <ddstreet> thanks!
[16:18] <ddstreet> #subtopic man-db
[16:18] <ddstreet> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/man-db/+bug/1992163
[16:18] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 1992163 in man-db (Ubuntu) "[BPO] man-db/2.10.2-1 from jammy" [Medium, Incomplete]
[16:18] <mapreri> should we finally reject this and make it wontfix?
[16:19] <teward> *reads*
[16:19] <ddstreet> it does seem more like a (performance) bugfix, not really something backports is intended for
[16:19] <mapreri> well, it's already "This bug report will be marked for expiration in 13 days if no further activity occurs. (find out why)", but I think it would be nicer to formally reject it
[16:19] <ddstreet> i'm fine with rejecting it
[16:20] <teward> i would reject it imo
[16:20] <ddstreet> ok anyone want to volunteer to do the rejection?
[16:20] <mapreri> good, I'll close it
[16:20] <teward> i will
[16:20] <teward> or not
[16:20] <ddstreet> lol
[16:20] <teward> mapreri has just volunteered
[16:20] <teward> :P
[16:20] <teward> mobile irc is slow >.<
[16:21]  * mapreri wants to appear evil to all our contributors, VERY happy to do it
[16:21] <ddstreet> #action mapreri reject lp: #1992163
[16:21] <meetingology> ACTION: mapreri reject lp: #1992163
[16:21] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 1992163 in man-db (Ubuntu) "[BPO] man-db/2.10.2-1 from jammy" [Medium, Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1992163
[16:21] <ddstreet> i think that's all the open bugs, any i missed?
[16:21] <mapreri> yep
[16:22] <ddstreet> ok movign to ml threads
[16:22] <ddstreet> #topic open mailing list threads
[16:22] <teward> back in 2 min switching to pc
[16:22] <ddstreet> #subtopic clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions
[16:22] <ddstreet> i think this is carried still right
[16:22] <mapreri> carry on for now
[16:22] <ddstreet> #action clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions
[16:22] <meetingology> ACTION: clarification on specific wording for no-bug-required backport exceptions
[16:22] <mapreri> "action"?
[16:23] <mapreri> this is not actioning anybody, so it really shouldn't be imho
[16:23] <ddstreet> it makes it show up in the minutes, easier for me to cut n paste into the agenda
[16:23] <mapreri> as you prefer, happy to leave the chairing to you here :)
[16:23] <ddstreet> #subtopic charter/policies
[16:23] <ddstreet> you have the floor mapreri
[16:23] <ddstreet> :)
[16:24] <mapreri> so so
[16:24] <mapreri> I had a IRC chat with Robie (very nice really, much better than IRC :>) during the summit.
[16:24] <ddstreet> IRL?
[16:25] <mapreri> right s/a IRC/a IRL/
[16:25] <mapreri> He basically told me that he really wants to establish a charter, and from there continue and do it for many other teams.  However, he doesn't want to have anything that is remotely tied to team internal rules to be in there
[16:25] <mapreri> (will use '.' when I'm done)
[16:26] <mapreri> So, looking at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter what he want is only point 1 and 2; everything else is superfluous for him
[16:26] <mapreri> even point 3 that mentions that TB can override us, he feels like it's excessive, as it's implicit in how ubuntu development works (or, well, how the LP teams are structured, at the very least)
[16:27] <mapreri> I kind of managed to talk him into at least let us link the Policies page into the Charter, as in his opinion that's also something that doesn't belong there, just to say...
[16:28] <mapreri> Personally, I'm kind of conflicted, because I would appreciate having a team more rule-bound, but he seems to actually want less boundaries...
[16:28] <mapreri> .
[16:28] <rbasak> o/
[16:28] <rbasak> Well, you set your own rules, and that's fine.
[16:28] <rbasak> And document whatever you want as you see fit, including the rules, etc.
[16:28] <mapreri> do you have an highlight on "Robie"? :P
[16:28] <rbasak> But the text that the TB actually ratifies should be minimal.
[16:28] <rbasak> No I just happened to notice :)
[16:28] <teward> mapreri: he was was watching ;)
[16:29] <teward> *may or may not have given him a heads up his concerns were being addressed in meeting*
[16:29] <teward> ;)
[16:29] <ddstreet> re: keeping sections 1 and 2, obviously i'm fine with that :)
[16:30] <ddstreet> i think section 3 should be kept to make the fact explicit
[16:30] <mapreri> (OT: OOI, does ubuntu have any document similar to Debian's constitution that clarifies the role of the TB?)
[16:30] <rbasak> Section 3 is useful documentation to have, but it's superfluous in terms of what the TB would actually define to be the delegation to the backporters team
[16:30] <teward> mapreri: i think you mean this?  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard
[16:30] <rbasak> To be clear, I'm not saying you need to change that page.
[16:31] <rbasak> I'm just saying that it's out of scope of the delegation text that I want to arrange between the TB and the backporters team.
[16:31] <mapreri> teward: right, but that's more like shared documentation rather than anything community-voted or somesuch, right?
[16:32] <mapreri> ddstreet: possibly I guess I can live with moving section 4 and 5 into Policies and replace them with just a reference.
[16:32] <teward> i think TB is an ages old thing and any such 'voted upon' process is nonexistent
[16:32] <rbasak> But also, there's stuff I think should be added to 1 and 2, to cover the previous unfortunately events that I think we should try to avoid happening in the future.
[16:32] <teward> semi-bureaucracy not total democracy
[16:32] <rbasak> That's covered in my previous emails already.
[16:33] <mapreri> that should be the mail on april 5th btw
[16:33] <ddstreet> i think there are 2 perspectives on this: 1) the backporters team needs a defined, agreed on set of rules that we can operate on, and 2) the TB wants specific wording in the charter
[16:34] <mapreri> I don't think the TB wants any "specific wording"?  what are you referring to?
[16:34] <ddstreet> by "specific woding" i mean anything other than what's in the doc now
[16:35] <ddstreet> #1 has been pending, in dicussion, for almost a year - i really want to have a set of rules without much more delay
[16:35] <ddstreet> #2, IMHO, is entirely up to the TB and really they can mandate whatever they want in our charter at any time
[16:35] <rbasak> What if we view those two things as orthogonal - as long as they're compatible?
[16:35] <mapreri> according to what Robie wrote in those mails (correct me if I'm wrong), he would like to see something written about delivery expectation from us?  Something like a SLA?
[16:35] <teward> can i put a third perspective in
[16:35] <teward> my perspective is as follows:
[16:36] <rbasak> 1) You define your own rules. The TB doesn't care unless someone escalates a complaint to us.
[16:36] <ddstreet> what i'd like is to come to team agreement on our rules by EOY, then the TB is free to come up with whatever charter wording they feel is appropriate for us
[16:36] <rbasak> 2) We agree a separate text between the backporters team and the TB. As long as you can work within them (ie. they're compatible), it should matter what you do in your own rules.
[16:36] <rbasak> Would that work for you?
[16:37] <rbasak> Sorry, *shouldn't* matter
[16:37] <teward> ddstreet: i think we already *have* agreement on our rules though, within the team
[16:37] <teward> so the issue is only whether they need to be defined in the charter, which I don't think they have to
[16:37] <teward> we can do that as simple as this:
[16:37] <ddstreet> of course, as the current charter draft says, the TB governs the team - we operate under whatever set of guidelines or rules the TB provides to us which the TB can change at any time
[16:38] <teward> 3: Rules - The Backporters team defines its own rules of operation within the rules set forth by any TB governance or decisions.  This is defined in an internal Backporters document.
[16:38] <ddstreet> teward[m] yeah but unofficial agreement isn't good enough...rules are meant to be used during disagreements, which means the rules need to be official
[16:38] <teward> Then we keep a Backporters team document for our agreed upon rules
[16:38] <rbasak> I think maybe we're getting tied up in the meaning of "charter".
[16:38] <teward> ^^
[16:38] <ddstreet> sure i dont care if all the charter wording is moved to our policies page
[16:39] <ddstreet> but in that case, we're not creating our own charter, the TB is creating a charter for us
[16:39] <ddstreet> which again, is fine, they govern us
[16:39] <teward> lets start over at the base definition of "charter".  per oxford dictionary: "a written grant by a country's legislative or sovereign power, by which a body such as a company, college, or city is founded and its rights and privileges defined.".  TB wants us to draft a charter that they can approve, they don't want to write it themselves.  This does *not* however need to include a rules/policies section, it's simply a declaration of
[16:39] <teward> delegation
[16:39] <ddstreet> 99% of my goal on this is to prevent a year-long delay from ever happening again, like this ;-)
[16:40] <teward> what TB wants is something that declares our scope and what we cover, that they can approve
[16:40] <teward> i.e. sections 1 and 2
[16:40] <ddstreet> i'm not sure what we are talking about
[16:40] <teward> we can define rules with internal agreement independent from TB without TB needing to OK those rules
[16:40] <ddstreet> what's the proposal?
[16:40] <teward> ddstreet: stop talking for a bit and let me speak
[16:40] <teward> **I have the talking stick now**
[16:40] <rbasak> they don't want to write it themselves> well, I did propose a draft, written back in July 2021, and proposed in Feb 2022.
[16:41] <rbasak> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2021-July/041559.html
[16:41] <rbasak> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/2022-February/022687.html
[16:41] <rbasak> But apart from that, yes, I agree.
[16:41] <teward> there's two forms of the propsal pending.  firstly what Robie has sent back in the past with drafts, and secondly what we have in our charter draft document on the wiki
[16:42] <teward> my understanding of what the TB has said about "We just want the charter, not your rules, etc. for our ratification" is they *simply* want us to specify our mission statement, and the delegation of authority for the TB to approve.  Because the TB in the governance chain sits under the CC/Mark (delegated powers for technical decisions in the Ubuntu world) and in turn any delegation by the TB to another team is in turn governeed by the
[16:42] <teward> TB
[16:43] <teward> section 3 is 'extraneous' because of the delegation of the governance tree as it stands
[16:43] <teward> section 4 the TB doesn't want to ratify because if the TB ratifies those rules then it implies the TB defines our rules, which is not what the TB wants - they want us to define our rules **which we can approve independently of the TB ratification of the charter and privilege delegation**
[16:44] <teward> it's implied already by the governance tree that the BT (Backporters Team for shorthand now) will obey any TB decision because of the governance tree
[16:44] <teward> so to solve section 4 with the rules:
[16:45] <teward> we can simply put in the 'charter' if we're insistent about it that "The Backporters Team defines its own rules and policies for handling its delegated powers, which is defined in publicly-visible documentation [here](link)"
[16:45] <teward> and while we're at that, waiting for the TB to process the charter, we officially *vote* on the rules and policies for the BT
[16:45] <teward> as we're still building out the full rules for how a package qualifies for backports, that's independent from the BT rules of operation/procedures
[16:46] <teward> so there's really three separate things being comingled here
[16:46] <teward> (1) basic charter requirements (see my notes)
[16:46] <teward> (2) BT rules of operation and policy.
[16:46] <teward> (3) definition of backports and how they work
[16:46] <teward> we've pretty much done #3
[16:46] <teward> we simply need a vote on #2
[16:47] <teward> and with my notes on sections 3 and 4 we simply need to simplify our existing draft to the bare minimum of what a charter is - specify our mission and what we're delegated to do by the TB.
[16:47] <teward> rbasak: am I missing something in my assessment?
[16:47] <teward> (sorry that i have to assert the talking stick but the crosstalk wasn't working)
[16:48] <rbasak> That's pretty close to my thinking, thanks.
[16:48] <teward> now i'm done with my monologue.
[16:48] <teward> comments?
[16:48] <teward> questions/concerns with my assessment?
[16:49] <rbasak> You shouldn't feel blocked by the TB on achieving (2).
[16:49] <teward> *goes to make coffee because he desperately needs a third cup*
[16:49] <ddstreet> if i understand right, then let's do the (maybe?) easy part; first proposal is to move sections 4 and 5 of our charter doc into https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Policies
[16:49] <ddstreet> right?
[16:49]  * genii twitches at the mention of coffee, follows teward
[16:49] <mapreri> ack (moving sections 4/5)
[16:49] <teward> ddstreet: essentially, yes, move sections 4 and 5 from charter to Policies in internal documentation
[16:50] <rbasak> No objection from me, if you're asking me? From my perspective, that kind of thing is entirely up to BT and not a concern of the TB.
[16:50] <ddstreet> ok with no objection, i'll action that
[16:50] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet move charter sections 4 and 5 into policies wiki page
[16:50] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet move charter sections 4 and 5 into policies wiki page
[16:50] <ddstreet> ok next, charter section 3 should be removed, correct?
[16:50] <mapreri> then, about #1, there is probably stuff to add from https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/2022-February/022687.html ?
[16:50] <rbasak> (to be clear, unless someone escalates a complaint, but that hasn't happened and iss a standing exception with everything of course)
[16:50] <teward> ddstreet: i think it can be left there, but the TB's concern is that it's superfluous.  I have no objection to it staying or being removed either way
[16:51] <ddstreet> i dont care either, but we should be able to agree now on either way i think
[16:51] <ddstreet> unless there is objection, i'll remove it
[16:51] <rbasak> There's what we end up agreeing between TB and BT, and what's on the wiki page. I only care about the former.
[16:51] <rbasak> IOW, I think it's up to you how you want to arrange the wiki documentation, for example.
[16:51] <teward> no objections here.
[16:51] <mapreri> ddstreet: after teward's essay, I'd probably reword it as part of the delegation.  "TB delegates this and taht..." (and so, it's obvious that's the body governing us)
[16:52] <ddstreet> mapreri you think we should keep it?
[16:52] <rbasak> But you seem to be aiming at making that page the agreed text between TB and BT.
[16:52] <teward> mapreri: sorry but i've been reviewing policy like hell lately with CC tasks so, dissecting policy proposals is a thing I just do now xD
[16:52] <ddstreet> mapreri i'd prefer to remove it to avoid any future discussion on it
[16:53] <mapreri> ack then, I don't really feel strong about it
[16:53] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet remove charter section 3
[16:53] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet remove charter section 3
[16:53] <rbasak> OTOH, I am aiming at making some paragraphs the agreed the text between the TB and BT, and assume that you'll be documenting that in a subset of a wiki page somewhere, so that you can put explanation and helpful links around it.
[16:53] <rbasak> How that ends up in your wiki is up to you
[16:53] <ddstreet> ok on to the main event, sections 1 and 2
[16:54] <ddstreet> so, if this particular wiki page isn't important to the TB, as you indicated rbasak, i think we should simply drop it completely
[16:54] <ddstreet> and then i think the backports team can assume the TB will generate and maintain a charter for us somewhere, right?
[16:55]  * mapreri goes find a ML-based charter generator
[16:55] <ddstreet> so, assuming all that is left on our charter wiki page is sections 1 and 2, then mapreri teward[m] do either of you think we need to keep that page?
[16:56] <rbasak> There are some other conversations with other teams that are needing some kind of formal delegation text from the TB (ie. "charter" if you like) for their own reasons. I expect that the TB will want to have a central page with these documented somewhere, right.
[16:56] <ddstreet> right, the TB is going to centralize subteam charter documentation
[16:56] <ddstreet> so that isn't something our team should even bother with
[16:56] <ddstreet> if i understand right
[16:56] <rbasak> Whatever text we come up with for the backporters team (well, I have come up with a text!), I'd like to make sure you're happy with it. That's why I'm here :)
[16:57] <rbasak> If you would prefer, I can just ask the TB to consider my draft, and say that's your preference.
[16:57] <ddstreet> ok so as a next proposal, mapreri teward[m] i think we should completely remove our charter page https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports/Charter
[16:57] <rbasak> But if you don't think that'll work for you, then this is the time to adjust it.
[16:57] <ddstreet> any disagreement?
[16:57] <mapreri> ddstreet: if you are feeling like telling rbasak to go with https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/2022-February/022687.html - then I'd like to change a few words here and there?
[16:57] <mapreri> I think we could replace the text in that page with this and re-evaluate that?
[16:57] <ddstreet> well i disagree with rbasak's proposal in that email
[16:58] <ddstreet> as i said in my response on the ML
[16:58] <ddstreet> my main goal at the moment is simply getting our team's rules/policies through this process
[16:59] <teward> which we can do independent of the charter.
[16:59] <ddstreet> i'm happy to focus on discussion with the TB about our charter AFTER we have offcial rules/policies
[16:59] <mapreri> I think after moving sections 4 and 5 into Policies we can go ahead and vote on that and be done with the policies
[16:59] <ddstreet> sounds good
[16:59] <ddstreet> so i have actions for that, can we also agree for me to remove our charter wiki page?
[16:59] <mapreri> … but for the charter I fear we are still quite in disagreement duh.
[16:59] <ddstreet> yeah let's defer charter discussion with the TB
[17:00] <rbasak> I'm disappointed that you're deferring this. It's been nine months.
[17:00] <ddstreet> we have 1 minute left in our hour, as well
[17:00] <mapreri> well, unless you want to the TB to write the text themselves, and I fear they will just take rbasak's text, then yes, we should work on this more.
[17:00] <teward> rbasak: i have a hard stop now at noon so
[17:00] <teward> (phone call with CEO @ Day Job RE: Network Security)
[17:00] <rbasak> Maybe I can work with mapreri to find an agreement between us, and you can delegate your wishes to him?
[17:00] <ddstreet> no objection to removing our charter page? that doesn't mean we can't discuss the details with TB later
[17:00]  * mapreri will read slowly again the past mail thread…
[17:00] <ddstreet> rbasak no the discussion should happen with our whole team
[17:00] <mapreri> ddstreet: please leave it there, perhaps blank.
[17:00] <ddstreet> but after we have rules/policies
[17:01] <ddstreet> mapreri ack, so leave the page, but remove sections 1 and 2
[17:01] <ddstreet> yeah?
[17:01] <ddstreet> the wiki history will of course still be available
[17:01] <mapreri> together with all the other sections :>
[17:01] <mapreri> so yes
[17:01] <ddstreet> yep
[17:01] <ddstreet> #action ddstreet remove charter sections 1 and 2 (but leave page)
[17:01] <meetingology> ACTION: ddstreet remove charter sections 1 and 2 (but leave page)
[17:01] <mapreri> exactly to have the history, for now at least
[17:01] <ddstreet> ok we're at time now
[17:02] <ddstreet> #topic AOB
[17:02] <mapreri> none from me
[17:02] <ddstreet> ok, as we're beyond time, let's call it then, thanks all o/
[17:02] <ddstreet> #endmeeting
[17:02] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 17:02:22 UTC.  Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2022/ubuntu-meeting.2022-11-30-16.00.moin.txt
[17:02] <mapreri> thank you
[17:02] <mapreri> this was likely the longest meeting in this team since last year or so duh
[17:02] <mapreri> impressive
[17:02] <mapreri> oh, next meeting?
[17:02] <ddstreet> ah crap
[17:02] <ddstreet> lol
[17:02] <mapreri> 28th?
[17:03] <mapreri> or do you want to skip the holidays?
[17:03] <mapreri> I'm fine with the 28th
[17:03] <ddstreet> yeah let's either do week before, or week after
[17:03] <ddstreet> dec 21?
[17:03] <mapreri> mh
[17:03] <mapreri> the week before is too early imho
[17:03] <mapreri> jan 4th?
[17:04] <ddstreet> i'd like dec 21 just so we can vote on our (updated) policies wiki page
[17:04] <ddstreet> if that's ok
[17:04] <mapreri> ack
[17:04] <ddstreet> ok i'll send out mtg invite
[17:04] <ddstreet> thanks!
[17:04] <mapreri> I'm ok, however that day I have a meeting at 6 CET, so I can't have it overrun like today (when I have nothing better to do)
[17:04] <mapreri> just fyi
[17:05] <ddstreet> right i think we should skip all other sections (previous actions, bugs, etc) and just discuss policies
[17:05] <ddstreet> i can note that as well
[17:05] <mapreri> well, bugs is very quick if there is nothing to do :>
[17:05] <ddstreet> right :)