[14:30] <sarnold> good morning
[14:30] <joalif> o/
[14:31] <eslerm> good morning
[14:31] <dviererbe> Hello o/
[14:31] <didrocks> hello
[14:32] <cpaelzer> hello
[14:32] <cpaelzer> ok, geting things started
[14:32] <cpaelzer> #startmeeting Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status
[14:32] <meetingology> Meeting started at 14:32:48 UTC.  The chair is cpaelzer.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[14:32] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[14:32] <cpaelzer> Ping for MIR meeting - didrocks joalif slyon sarnold cpaelzer jamespage ( eslerm dviererbe )
[14:33] <cpaelzer> most are already here and waiting :-)
[14:33] <cpaelzer> #topic current component mismatches
[14:33] <cpaelzer> Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams
[14:33] <cpaelzer> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg
[14:33] <cpaelzer> #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg
[14:33] <cpaelzer> one day this will copy&paste an embarrassing buffer of mine :-)
[14:33] <cpaelzer> new is kea
[14:33] <cpaelzer> which is an approved MIR
[14:33] <cpaelzer> and intentional
[14:33] <cpaelzer> just needs to be acted on by an AA
[14:33] <cpaelzer> I've done a lot in this case and own the team doing it
[14:33] <cpaelzer> it felt odd to also promote
[14:34] <cpaelzer> didrocks: would you think you could have a look and promote if it LGTY ?
[14:34] <sarnold> we're far enough along in the process I think it's probably about time to promote yourself
[14:34] <didrocks> for sure!
[14:34] <sarnold> ah, if we've got another one to hand, that's fine then :)
[14:34] <cpaelzer> sarnold: I could and I have done so at times, but that doesn't have to be the common pattern :-)
[14:34] <cpaelzer> thanks didrocks
[14:34]  * didrocks will be the monkey key pusher :)
[14:34] <cpaelzer> nothing else in there
[14:34] <dviererbe> :D
[14:34] <cpaelzer> +1 credit to didrocks
[14:35] <cpaelzer> #topic New MIRs
[14:35] <cpaelzer> Mission: ensure to assign all incoming reviews for fast processing
[14:35] <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
[14:35] <cpaelzer> as seb128 warned us last week, dbus-broker will come
[14:35] <cpaelzer> and he mentioned to better do this in nearly 23.10 than late
[14:35] <cpaelzer> so here it is
[14:35] <slyon> I think I could do the review on dbus-broker, as I've already been involved with this in the past
[14:35] <sarnold> mir open before the cycle starts, impressive :)
[14:35] <cpaelzer> oh you were slyon, didn't realize that
[14:35] <cpaelzer> yeah sure
[14:36] <cpaelzer> thank you
[14:36] <cpaelzer> assigned
[14:36] <cpaelzer> sarnold: it is not a "first", all of pcs and a few more were early as well
[14:36] <sarnold> cpaelzer: heh, good thing too, that was big [tm]
[14:36] <cpaelzer> sarnold: and "early 23.10" is just 3-6 weeks away, so things are as urgent as always
[14:37] <cpaelzer> #topic Incomplete bugs / questions
[14:37] <cpaelzer> Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams
[14:37] <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
[14:37] <cpaelzer> one recent comment on cpdb-backend-file
[14:37] <cpaelzer> ok, that is no action on us
[14:38] <didrocks> yep :)
[14:38] <cpaelzer> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cpdb-libs/+bug/1747759 is on security
[14:38] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Launchpad bug 1747759 in cpdb-libs (Ubuntu) "[MIR] cpdb-libs" [High, Confirmed]
[14:38] <cpaelzer> good for the scope of this meeting
[14:38] <cpaelzer> all else is older
[14:38] <cpaelzer> #topic Process/Documentation improvements
[14:38] <cpaelzer> Mission: Review pending process/documentation pull-requests or issues
[14:38] <cpaelzer> #link https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pulls
[14:38] <cpaelzer> #link https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues
[14:38] <cpaelzer> we have landed a few small but helpful changes last week
[14:38] <cpaelzer> one more is up
[14:38] <cpaelzer> https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pull/16
[14:38] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Pull 16 in canonical/ubuntu-mir "Remove use of wiki specific url syntax" [Open]
[14:39] <cpaelzer> dviererbe: already commented there
[14:39] <dviererbe> I think we should wait until the owner responded
[14:40] <cpaelzer> ack
[14:40] <cpaelzer> that is my thought as well now reading it
[14:40] <cpaelzer> I'm sure seb128 will update once he has a chance to do so
[14:40] <cpaelzer> generally I think we all feel +1'ish
[14:40] <cpaelzer> #topic MIR related Security Review Queue
[14:40] <cpaelzer> Mission: Check on progress, do deadlines seem doable?
[14:40] <cpaelzer> #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/+bugs?field.searchtext=%5BMIR%5D&assignee_option=choose&field.assignee=ubuntu-security&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir
[14:40] <cpaelzer> Internal link
[14:40] <cpaelzer> - ensure your teams items are prioritized among each other as you'd expect
[14:40] <cpaelzer> - ensure community requests do not get stomped by teams calling for favors too much
[14:40] <cpaelzer> #link https://warthogs.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/SEC/boards/594
[14:41] <cpaelzer> I see all in the LP list also in jira
[14:41] <cpaelzer> seems to normally progress
[14:41] <cpaelzer> slyon: do you have context on the urgency of libheiff related things
[14:41] <cpaelzer> slyon: will that be 23.10 or ... ?
[14:42] <slyon> it's non-urgent and currently disabled in the packages
[14:42] <slyon> but would be a nice to have to support heif/heic images (e.g. iPhone images) in libgd2
[14:42] <slyon> I think it put the priorities accordingly in jira
[14:43] <slyon> i.e. it should be after cargo + depends
[14:43] <cpaelzer> thanks
[14:43] <cpaelzer> #topic Any other business?
[14:43] <joalif> i have a question
[14:43] <cpaelzer> ok, we finally reach the "end of cycle calmness" phase
[14:43] <cpaelzer> go joalif
[14:44] <joalif> i reviewed bug 1973031 , libwpe for jammy, that got a sec review for kinetic
[14:44] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Bug 1973031 in libwpe (Ubuntu Jammy) "[MIR] libwpe" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1973031
[14:44] <joalif> do i need to assign for sec review again ?
[14:44] <joalif> package is generally good
[14:44] <cpaelzer> that was the "now let us also consider for jammy" case
[14:45] <joalif> yup
[14:45] <cpaelzer> you'd want to also have security ack that
[14:45] <cpaelzer> so yes, assign them
[14:45] <cpaelzer> but
[14:45] <joalif> ok thanks cpaelzer
[14:45] <cpaelzer> we'd not expect another full review
[14:45] <joalif> ack
[14:45] <eslerm> I'll followup with the previous security reviewer for libwpe
[14:45] <slyon> jammy is shipping 1.12, which was also reviewed by security already..
[14:45] <cpaelzer> we expect them, to check the difference back then and comment if that should still be ok (or if not what needs to be adressed)
[14:45] <cpaelzer> I haven't looked
[14:45] <cpaelzer> even the same packaging version ?
[14:46] <slyon> "1.12.0-1 as checked into kinetic"
[14:46] <slyon> yes
[14:46] <slyon> so I think we should be fine...
[14:46] <sarnold> in this case I expect pretty much a rubber stamp; marc was liable to use it for the next security update anyway -- if I understand corrrectly, it's the only thing upstream supports anyway
[14:46] <cpaelzer> well then, I'd still want them to say yes - but sarnold can probably do that in a minute
[14:46] <cpaelzer> thanks for bringing it up joalif
[14:47] <cpaelzer> steps from here: 1. joalif to assign it to security 2. security giving it a glimps if that is really the same 3. ack 4. adding dependencies 5. promotion to main
[14:47] <slyon> Yes.. there might be some fixes that we'd want to cherry-pick: "The bugs discovered during review were immediately fixed by the upstream project and now waiting for upstream's input on assigning CVEs to some of them."
[14:47] <cpaelzer> ok, makes sense
[14:48] <cpaelzer> anything else ?
[14:48] <didrocks> nothing for me
[14:48] <cpaelzer> not from me or server-team
[14:48] <joalif> nothing else
[14:48] <sarnold> nothing from me
[14:48] <slyon> nothing from foundations
[14:49] <cpaelzer> I have actually a heif question, but after we close the official part
[14:49] <cpaelzer> #endmeeting
[14:49] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 14:49:41 UTC.  Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2023/ubuntu-meeting.2023-04-11-14.32.moin.txt
[14:49] <eslerm> o/
[14:49] <cpaelzer> didrocks: (or anyone) does the desktop be able to do HDR in 24.04 ?
[14:50] <cpaelzer> because able to read heif (among other things HDR) is only as shiny as we can display anyway
[14:50] <didrocks> I think there is a hackfest starting this at the end of the month on it
[14:50] <didrocks> so, it’s planned, but if you want more details, you can talk to trevhino
[14:50] <cpaelzer> is it https://www.phoronix.com/news/Red-Hat-2023-HDR-Hackfest ?
[14:50] <didrocks> yep
[14:51] <didrocks> we will have 2 members of the desktop team there
[14:51] <sarnold> people with black and white tvs still wanted to watch color tv programming when that was introduced; even if they don't look quite right, folks might still like to see them :)
[14:51] <didrocks> so, crossing fingers this pans out for the LTS :)
[14:51] <cpaelzer> awesome, best of luck & progress to them
[14:51] <cpaelzer> I'd really wish to have a reason to buy new screens :-)
[14:51] <sarnold> lol
[14:51] <didrocks> haha
[14:52] <sarnold> thanks cpaelzer, all :)
[14:52] <cpaelzer> yeah, see you all
[14:52] <cpaelzer> and thanks!
[14:52] <slyon> o/
[14:53] <didrocks> thanks!
[19:00] <amurray> o/
[19:00] <rbasak> o/
[19:01] <amurray> rbasak: do you know if seb128 is around? otherwise it might just be the two of us :)
[19:02] <seb128> o/
[19:02] <amurray> hey seb128 :)
[19:02] <seb128> hey :)
[19:02] <amurray> #startmeeting Ubuntu Technical Board
[19:02] <meetingology> Meeting started at 19:02:21 UTC.  The chair is amurray.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
[19:02] <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
[19:02] <amurray> #topic Apologies
[19:02] <seb128> vorlon, might be around, he was active on #ubuntu-release
[19:03] <amurray> vorlon and sil2100 both sent their apologies via the mailing list earlier
[19:03] <seb128> oh right, just saw that
[19:03] <amurray> #topic Action review
[19:04] <amurray> ACTION: amurray to propose amended Ubuntu Backporters Team Charter
[19:04] <seb128> I've a feeling that's going to be a quick one.. :-/
[19:04] <seb128> (not that item but the meeting)
[19:04] <amurray> I am not sure how to progress this - I think we need some input from other TB members
[19:05] <seb128> reading the past discussion that item is just confusing to me
[19:05] <amurray> #link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2023-March/002723.html
[19:05] <seb128> it feels like that should be a simple 'the TB delegate the backport team power to handle backports'?
[19:06] <seb128> why do we need drafts or suggestions there?
[19:06] <seb128> rbasak, I think you have the history/context and opinions on that one
[19:07] <rbasak> ...
[19:08] <rbasak> My original draft tried to cover what I think caused the previous failure that took a very long discussion over multiple attempts over multiple years (?) to try to resolve.
[19:08] <rbasak> The specific points I suggested in the draft directly spoke to what I perceived to have been previous sticking points.
[19:09] <rbasak> I'd also note that *everybody involved* at the time of the discussion in ubuntu-devel@ agreed with my draft, so it's really weird to me to get so much push back against it.
[19:09] <seb128> I feel like we should just do a reset and suggest the trivial version unless someone here feels like it's problematic or controversial
[19:10] <seb128> rbasak, do you perceive pushback here about your version?
[19:10] <rbasak> The trivial version seems like a no-op to me. It doesn't address the previous issues.
[19:10] <seb128> if so it's probably misunderstanding, I would be personnally fine with what you proposed
[19:10] <rbasak> The pushback is from the backporters team. And of course we need them on board for any progress to be useful.
[19:12] <amurray> I also liked your draft rbasak but I think we need to be pragmatic since I would rather have something which both the TB and backporters team can agree on than nothing (although I do also agree the current draft is a bit if a no-op and hence may not even be needed)
[19:13] <rbasak> Sorry I don't mean to imply any blocking of the current draft. This is just my opinion of it.
[19:14] <amurray> so we have 3 options here from what I can see - 1. push back to the backporters team with something more rigorous again, 2. go with the more trivial version or 3. drop the whole thing and leave it as is
[19:14] <rbasak> Maybe we should just accept Mattia's draft and call it done. Hopefully there will be no further issues. If there are, then I fear that they will drag on again as they did last time, but that'll be how it
[19:14] <seb128> do you have a pointer to Mattia's draft?
[19:14] <rbasak> how it'll have to be I guess.
[19:15] <rbasak> Message-ID: <Y/9tpRmwCMlZ0sN3@mapreri.org>
[19:15] <rbasak> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 16:22:13 +0100
[19:15] <seb128> thanks
[19:15] <amurray> (it is also at the bottom of the link I posted earlier assuming I quoted it correctly in my reply)
[19:16] <rbasak> FWIW, I think that the third point partially crosses over into terrority I don't think it's up to the TB to dictate either. Specifically to define a set of rules to handle its internal structures and members' responsiblities.
[19:17] <seb128> I would be fine giving a  +1 to those 3 bullet points
[19:17] <rbasak> However, requiring them to have a policy on team membership is important, because anybody should be able to join their team if they are appropriately qualified.
[19:17] <rbasak> But, to make progress, I don't think that's important enough to block either.
[19:17] <seb128> it's basically 'the backport team is in charge or handling the backport pocket and free to define they processes and membership rules'
[19:17] <seb128> which seems fair to me
[19:18] <seb128> I would trust them to accept qualified contributors
[19:18] <amurray> my preference is to go with this since this issue has dragged on for too long at this point
[19:18] <rbasak> Indeed - but the precise problem with the previous team was that they did not (through their absence) and that was a blocking issue.
[19:19] <rbasak> amurray: +1
[19:19] <amurray> let's presume good-faith with the new team and hope there won't be similar issues this time around
[19:20] <rbasak> Oh to be clear I am also absolutely assuming good faith.
[19:20] <seb128> no policy is going to fix a lack-of-people issue
[19:20] <rbasak> I was just looking for a clearer path to a reset should difficulties arise again in the future - but hopefully they won't.
[19:20] <seb128> I'm +1 as well to go with ^
[19:21] <amurray> ok, so should I perhaps respond to that email thread and ask the backporters team to more formally acknowledge Mattia's draft?
[19:21] <rbasak> We're quorate here I believe.
[19:21] <seb128> +1
[19:21] <amurray> #action amurray to follow up with backporters team on Mattia's draft charter proposal
[19:21] <meetingology> ACTION: amurray to follow up with backporters team on Mattia's draft charter proposal
[19:21] <rbasak> So how about we agree that if the backporters team agree, then Mattia's draft becomes final?
[19:22] <amurray> sounds good to me
[19:23] <amurray> ACTION: seb128 to help draft an exception to the "must build on all architectures" requirement for snaps
[19:23] <seb128> I didn't have time for any of my item with Lunar release get closing
[19:23] <amurray> will carry it over
[19:23] <seb128> but it's getting better so I hope to have updates by the next meeting
[19:23] <seb128> thanks
[19:23] <amurray> #action seb128 to help draft an exception to the "must build on all architectures" requirement for snaps
[19:23] <meetingology> ACTION: seb128 to help draft an exception to the "must build on all architectures" requirement for snaps
[19:23] <seb128> carry over...
[19:23] <amurray> ACTION: seb128/amurray/sil200 to help drafting the snap-store Ubuntu-specific tracks usage
[19:24] <seb128> also I guess
[19:24] <amurray> I took a quick stab at this yesterday
[19:25] <amurray> out of interest, is this document already public?
[19:25] <rbasak> Thanks!
[19:25] <rbasak> Yes - it's public.
[19:25] <rbasak> I'd like to clean it up some more, then post it to ubuntu-devel@ for wider consultation.
[19:26] <amurray> ok so perhaps if you could take a quick look at what I wrote their rbasak and let me know your thoughts
[19:26] <amurray> s/their/there/
[19:26] <rbasak> ack
[19:27] <rbasak> It'd be good to get a review from those who know what actually happens.
[19:27] <amurray> I'll leave this on the agenda as it was from last time though since I think it would be useful to get seb128 and sil2100 to provide feedback as well if they have time
[19:27] <rbasak> Please, thanks
[19:27] <amurray> #action seb128/amurray/sil200 to help drafting the snap-store Ubuntu-specific tracks usage
[19:27] <meetingology> ACTION: seb128/amurray/sil200 to help drafting the snap-store Ubuntu-specific tracks usage
[19:27] <seb128> yes, I will block time before the next meeting
[19:27] <amurray> ACTION: rbasak to raise any on-going blockers with third-party seeded snap security policy
[19:27] <rbasak> (I just mean that I definitely *don't* know exactly what happens :-)
[19:27] <rbasak> I'm not aware of any.
[19:28] <rbasak> (except for these two action items we have already, and pending my cleanup)
[19:28] <amurray> ok, I'll drop it from the agenda then for next time and we can revisit it if we have to
[19:28] <amurray> ACTION: sil2100 to start a draft summarizing the OEM archive portion of the meeting which x-nox and TB will review, edit, and ratify before we move on to figuring out the next step
[19:28] <amurray> carry over as sil2100 is unavailable today
[19:28] <amurray> #action sil2100 to start a draft summarizing the OEM archive portion of the meeting which x-nox and TB will review, edit, and ratify before we move on to figuring out the next step
[19:28] <meetingology> ACTION: sil2100 to start a draft summarizing the OEM archive portion of the meeting which x-nox and TB will review, edit, and ratify before we move on to figuring out the next step
[19:29] <amurray> ACTION: rbasak to draft a proposal of the DMB-proposed inactivity expiration policy for TB ratification
[19:29]  * vorlon waves
[19:29] <rbasak> Carry over again please
[19:29] <amurray> #action rbasak to draft a proposal of the DMB-proposed inactivity expiration policy for TB ratification
[19:29] <meetingology> ACTION: rbasak to draft a proposal of the DMB-proposed inactivity expiration policy for TB ratification
[19:29] <vorlon> sorry I couldn't be here from the start
[19:29] <rbasak> Welcome!
[19:29] <amurray> hey vorlon :)
[19:29] <amurray> ACTION: rbasak to create initial bugs against the LP techboard project to track third party repo and DMB expiration policies
[19:30] <rbasak> Done! https://bugs.launchpad.net/techboard
[19:30] <amurray> awesome - thanks rbasak :)
[19:30] <rbasak> Perhaps long standing action items should move to the bug tracker instead
[19:30] <rbasak> And perhaps we could use Triaged status or a tag to track them or something.
[19:31] <rbasak> Now that we're using the bug tracker.
[19:31] <rbasak> Anyway, just thoughts. No action needed right now I guess.
[19:31] <amurray> yes I think that was the intent - the only thing that would meet this criteria at this point is the backporters charter but I hope this will progress this week so hopefully won't be needed to be added to the bug tracker
[19:32] <amurray> ACTION: sil2100 to follow up on the Ubuntu Cinnamon flavor addition thread and announce their official status
[19:32] <amurray> this was done https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2023-March/002725.html
[19:33] <amurray> #topic Mailing list review
[19:34] <amurray> I don't see anything here other than your announcement of the git-ubuntu-import annoucement rbasak
[19:34] <amurray> #topic Bug review
[19:35] <amurray> nothing new here either :) (but thanks again for creating the techboard bugs rbasak)
[19:37] <amurray> next meeting will be during the product roadmap sprint - and you would be chair rbasak as per the rotation
[19:37] <seb128> I think we should skip that one in advance
[19:37] <seb128> realistically most of us will decline
[19:37] <rbasak> Yes it seem unlikely many of us will be able to make that
[19:38] <amurray> fair enough - next meeting will be on the 9th May with rbasak as chair and seb128 as back-up
[19:38] <seb128> +1
[19:38] <amurray> #topic AOB
[19:39] <seb128> nothing from me
[19:39] <amurray> nothing from me either
[19:41] <amurray> ok I think we are done then :)
[19:41] <seb128> \o/ :)
[19:41] <rbasak> Thank you for chairing amurray!
[19:41] <amurray> #endmeeting
[19:41] <meetingology> Meeting ended at 19:41:14 UTC.  Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2023/ubuntu-meeting.2023-04-11-19.02.moin.txt
[19:41] <seb128> thanks amurray for chairing !
[19:41] <amurray> no worries
[19:42] <vorlon> thanks!