=== pushkarnk1 is now known as pushkarnk [13:42] slyon: didrocks: RM planning makes me unavailable this and next week - would you be around to drive the meeting later? [13:56] cpaelzer: as usual, I have a conflict and will not be available [14:12] cpaelzer: I can drive it today [15:30] o/ paelzer is no available today. I'll run the MIR meeting. [15:30] #startmeeting Weekly Main Inclusion Requests status [15:30] Meeting started at 15:30:34 UTC. The chair is slyon. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology [15:30] Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick [15:30] Ping for MIR meeting - didrocks joalif slyon sarnold cpaelzer jamespage ( eslerm dviererbe ) [15:30] #topic current component mismatches [15:30] Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams [15:30] #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.svg [15:30] #link https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.svg [15:30] o/ [15:31] good morning [15:32] for c-m: We got trace-cmd seeded while the MIR is not yet fully ready. But It's beeing worked on. I linked the most recent MIRs for libtraceevent and libtracefs this morning [15:32] libtraceevent is making some progress (patch adding tests needs review & sponsoring), libtracefs is stuck currently reaching out for help from the Foundations system squad [15:33] c-m-proposed: we have a bunch of new stuff in here.. [15:33] gst-plugins-good1.0 and roc-toolkit are desktop-packages. So I'd like to ask didrocks to investigate those (later on) [15:34] jaraco.text and python-openstacksdk are ubuntu-openstack packages, for jamespage to look into. [15:34] Everything else seems known/explained [15:34] will look [15:34] thx! [15:34] #topic New MIRs [15:34] Mission: ensure to assign all incoming reviews for fast processing [15:34] #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 [15:35] bug #2056099 [15:35] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Bug 2056099 in tree (Ubuntu) "[MIR] tree" [Undecided, New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2056099 [15:35] was this discussed last week? (I wasn't here) [15:36] looks like foundations agreed to own the package. So it could go through MIR review. [15:36] I think last week we decided to see if foundations would accept it [15:36] Hello, this has been discussed last year and a owner was missing but foundation is actually willing to take it. [15:36] and the last comment suggests that they have :) [15:36] last week* [15:36] do we have any volunteers? (I'd like to abstain, as this will be foundations owned) [15:36] joalif or cpaelzer maybe? [15:37] slyon: I can take it [15:37] thank you! [15:37] assigned. [15:37] #topic Incomplete bugs / questions [15:37] Mission: Identify required actions and spread the load among the teams [15:37] #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 [15:39] there are two *trace* updates (bug #2051916 & bug #2051925) that I explained earlier. Nothing actionable for the MIR team, yet. [15:39] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Bug 2051916 in libtraceevent (Ubuntu) "[MIR] promote libtraceevent as a trace-cmd dependency" [Undecided, Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2051916 [15:39] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Bug 2051925 in libtracefs (Ubuntu) "[MIR] promote libtracefs as a trace-cmd dependency" [Undecided, Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2051925 [15:39] Finally, bug #2054480 [15:39] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Bug 2054480 in nbd (Ubuntu) "[MIR] nbd-client" [Undecided, Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2054480 [15:39] * slyon reading... [15:40] MIR reviewer asked for additional/improved testing. Upstream developers are involved. So this is correctly set to "Incomplete" and back to the reporter for now until resolved. [15:40] Nothing to do for us [15:41] #topic Process/Documentation improvements [15:41] Mission: Review pending process/documentation pull-requests or issues [15:41] #link https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pulls [15:41] #link https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues [15:42] https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/52 which is related to the `tree` MIR above [15:42] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Issue 52 in canonical/ubuntu-mir "Suggested owner should provide a confirmation from the owning team" [Open] [15:42] being addressed via https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/pull/53 [15:42] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Pull 53 in canonical/ubuntu-mir "Rationale and ownership" [Open] [15:43] let's put our +1 or suggestions for improvement on GitHub, so paelzer can mere once ready [15:43] merge* [15:44] Then we have eslerm's https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/51 [15:44] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Issue 51 in canonical/ubuntu-mir "cargo vendor adds unnecessary crates" [Open] [15:45] consensus seems to be adding per-package hacks in debian/rules to delete unnecessary vendored crates. Which was my understanding, too. [15:46] This is not nice, but probably better than shipping (and reviewing) lots of unused code. [15:46] I brought the cause up with the Foundations toolchaing squad. They are currently busy, so we should not expect a centralized solution soon. I'll try to push it for next cycle's roadmap, though. [15:47] so I guess that it's mostly for didrocks to look into fixing/cleaning up his package manually [15:47] #topic MIR related Security Review Queue [15:47] Mission: Check on progress, do deadlines seem doable? [15:47] Some clients can only work with one, some with the other escaping - the URLs point to the same place. [15:47] #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 [15:47] #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-security/+bugs?field.searchtext=[MIR]&assignee_option=choose&field.assignee=ubuntu-security&field.bug_reporter=&field.bug_commenter=&field.subscriber=ubuntu-mir [15:47] Internal link [15:47] #link https://warthogs.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/SEC/boards/594 [15:47] sarnold: what's the security-team's status? [15:49] bug #2055434 looks like it needs a `sec-*` tag [15:49] -ubottu:#ubuntu-meeting- Bug 2055434 in pemmican (Ubuntu) "[MIR] pemmican" [Undecided, Confirmed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/2055434 [15:49] slyon: I belivee that we're still doing alright, but some departures from the team may impact our velocity if we have late additions in the cycle [15:50] The number of new MIRs has been relatively low (or rather balanced before feature freeze) this cycle. Let's hope it stays this way and we don't get a lot of late additions. [15:50] there we go, https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/SEC-3971 [15:50] sweet thanks! [15:51] #topic Any other business? [15:51] yeah, it's felt very calm .. a little too calm .. *harmonica music* [15:51] sarnold: wrt https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/SEC-3971 it may not need a sec review after all [15:51] none here (well, I've got a very small nagging feeling that I've forgotten something. sigh. but if I can't remember it now...) [15:53] joalif: that's because it's not a root daemon? [15:53] joalif: it sounded a bit like it's got a root daemon and a client of some sort, but I couldn't quickly tell if non-root was supposed to be able to use it, etc .. [15:53] if non-root processes are communicating with a root daemon as part of the task, then it's probably worth a quick look [15:54] well it's not a deamon, and th i spent quite some time if this needs a sec review and decided to play on safe side and put it for sec review [15:55] ok lemme discuss it with waveform on the bug and if need be i'll remove it from sec review [15:55] thanks joalif! [15:55] nice, thanks :) [15:56] If nothing else, that's all for today. [15:56] nothing else from me [15:56] thanks all! [15:56] #endmeeting [15:56] Meeting ended at 15:56:10 UTC. Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2024/ubuntu-meeting.2024-03-12-15.30.moin.txt [15:56] thanks slyon, all:) [15:56] thanks slyon, all :) [19:58] * vorlon waves [19:59] o/ [20:02] hey [20:02] hey seb128 [20:02] amurray: wiki says you're chair? [20:03] ah right - yep [20:03] #startmeeting Ubuntu Technical Board [20:03] Meeting started at 20:03:08 UTC. The chair is amurray. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology [20:03] Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick [20:03] #topic Apologies [20:03] rbasak sent his apologies earlier [20:03] #topic Action review [20:03] ACTION: seb128/amurray/sil2100 to help drafting the snap-store Ubuntu-specific tracks usage [20:04] carry over again I guess [20:04] yep [20:04] #action seb128/amurray/sil2100 to help drafting the snap-store Ubuntu-specific tracks usage [20:04] ACTION: seb128/amurray/sil2100 to help drafting the snap-store Ubuntu-specific tracks usage [20:04] ACTION: seb128 to organize a meeting to unblock the draft of the tracks usage section [20:05] rbasak took over this one as we planned to squeeze also that topic in the meeting he is organizing [20:05] will carry-over since we will try again once rbasak is feeling better [20:05] which was supposed to be today but got postponed [20:05] #action rbasak to organize a meeting to unblock the draft of the tracks usage section [20:05] ACTION: rbasak to organize a meeting to unblock the draft of the tracks usage section [20:05] will carry over rbasak's items then too [20:06] #action rbasak to draft a proposal of the DMB-proposed inactivity expiration policy for TB ratification [20:06] ACTION: rbasak to draft a proposal of the DMB-proposed inactivity expiration policy for TB ratification [20:06] #action rbasak to follow up on finding consensus on question of test plans for third party apps [20:06] ACTION: rbasak to follow up on finding consensus on question of test plans for third party apps [20:06] #action rbasak to open wider discussion on third-party repo policy [20:06] ACTION: rbasak to open wider discussion on third-party repo policy [20:06] ACTION: seb128 to continue working with SRU, AA, Release, Backporters and Security teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations [20:06] carry over please [20:07] I wanted to ask a quick question on this - I have the process ready for the security team but just wasn't sure where to post it? any ideas? discourse / wiki? [20:07] either is fine I think [20:08] people seem to prefer discourse nowadays [20:08] ok - will go with that then - thanks [20:08] ACTION: seb128 to follow-up with ubuntu cinnamon on 24.04 request [20:08] great :) [20:08] oops forgot to carry over the other one [20:08] #action seb128 to continue working with SRU, AA, Release, Backporters and Security teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations [20:08] ACTION: seb128 to continue working with SRU, AA, Release, Backporters and Security teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations [20:09] please carry this one also over again but I will handle it tomorrow, feature freeze and proposed stated had been time sinks [20:09] #action seb128 to follow-up with ubuntu cinnamon on 24.04 request [20:09] ACTION: seb128 to follow-up with ubuntu cinnamon on 24.04 request [20:09] ACTION: vorlon to look into scripting for packages in flavor-specific overlays [20:09] sorry, haven't gotten to this yet [20:10] I guess if we're voting yes on Kubuntu now it's not urgent? [20:10] but I would still like to keep the action, to do before 24.04, unless someone else wants to learn about this stuff from me and work on it [20:10] not urgent but I would still like to see them finalise their list before the LTS goes out [20:10] indeed [20:11] hmm also should there be an action item on me for the kubuntu LTS request? [20:11] I don [20:11] 't see anything - will add one [20:11] #action amurray to follow-up with kubuntu on 24.04 LTS request [20:11] ACTION: amurray to follow-up with kubuntu on 24.04 LTS request [20:12] #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item) [20:12] #link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2024-March/thread.html [20:12] nothing new [20:12] #topic Check up on community bugs and techboard bugs [20:12] #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bugs?field.assignee=techboard [20:12] #link https://bugs.launchpad.net/techboard [20:13] nothing here either [20:13] #topic Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members) [20:13] looks like its rbasak with seb128 as backup [20:13] #agreed next meeting chair: rabask, backup: seb128 [20:13] AGREED: next meeting chair: rabask, backup: seb128 [20:14] ack [20:14] #topic AOB [20:14] one item for AOB [20:14] I noticed when doing a "census" from the Release Team side of our LTS qualifications [20:14] that Ubuntu MATE doesn't appear to have applied yet for LTS status [20:14] does someone want to reach out to them and find out if they plan to? [20:14] right, that was discussed yesterday during the flavors sync call [20:14] (it's fine if they don't do LTS, of course) [20:15] seb128: oh ok - what's the news? [20:15] someone took an action item to reach to Martin to ask [20:15] but the few people who had feedback said that the MATE team seems mostly inactive recently [20:16] ok [20:16] ah, someone was Mauro [20:16] that's fine then [20:16] (just checked the meeting note) [20:16] I just didn't want this to slip by unnoticed [20:16] there is a topic over in their discourse but I don't see anything definitive there [20:16] since the MATE team's communications preferences seem misaligned with the Release Team's and the Tech Board's these days [20:16] #link https://ubuntu-mate.community/t/plans-for-24-04-lts/27110/4 [20:17] amurray, right, I think that one was used as a basis for the claim that the dev team isn't responsive/around much recently [20:19] I'll ask in that thread as well and tag Martin as well [20:19] amurray, thanks (and maybe check first with Mauro if he already did since he took an action about it yesterday) [20:19] well I mean reaching out to them [20:20] though I guess a public post wouldn't hurt in any case [20:20] Martin *did* come to the Ubuntu Summit so it's not entirely moribund? [20:20] yeah I think its fine for the TB to enquire for our own purposes - it would definitely be a shame for MATE to not be part of the LTS [20:20] again, it's fine if a flavor doesn't want to do LTS support [20:21] right, well let's see what they reply [20:21] just don't want to make sure that's a conscious decision (or the outcome of an assessment of the flavor's capacity), not an accident of timing [20:21] s/don't// [20:21] agreed [20:21] thanks for raising it vorlon [20:22] anything else? [20:22] nothing else here [20:22] nothing from me [20:22] easy - thanks folks [20:22] #endmeeting [20:22] Meeting ended at 20:22:59 UTC. Minutes at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2024/ubuntu-meeting.2024-03-12-20.03.moin.txt [20:23] thanks! [20:23] seb128, amurray: thank you! [20:24] likewise :)