Ubuntu Wiki

   1 [03:01] <pleia2> ok, let's get this rolling
   2 [03:02]  * Shakata|Home waves
   3 [03:02] <pleia2> agenda: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Meetings/11June19
   4 [03:02] <pleia2> looks like grantbow isn't here for the first item, we'll come back to it if he arrives
   5 [03:02] <pleia2> [TOPIC] Discuss changing the launchpad team from moderated to open.
   6 [03:02] <pleia2> DarkwingDuck: all yours!
   7 [03:02] <rww> o/
   8 [03:03] <DarkwingDuck> Okay, as it stands at the moment we have a policy for jioning the LP team.
   9 [03:03] <DarkwingDuck> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/LaunchpadMembership
  10 [03:04] <DarkwingDuck> I'm trying to understand why we have closed membership for our team
  11 [03:04] <DarkwingDuck> I would propose that we open our LP team
  12 [03:04] <DarkwingDuck> IMO Having a closed team sends the wrong message.
  13 [03:05] <rww> DarkwingDuck: Did you read the log from the meeting at which that was implemented? iirc, we went through the reasons for it there.
  14 [03:05] <pleia2> currently we ask that people applying get in touch with the team somehow, while this was a nice idea when it was proposed, in reality no one does it
  15 [03:05] <pleia2> so even if we had great reasons for it, the process as it stands now doesn't work
  16 [03:06] <DarkwingDuck> rww: You have a link to those logs by any chance?
  17 [03:06] <philipballew> i never got in touch. i was just accepted a hour later. so pleia2 is correct that it isn't implemented
  18 [03:07] <rww> DarkwingDuck: I'm looking. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Meetings/10June27 seems to be one of them, and I imagine the meetings around it probably have some discussion.
  19 [03:07] <pleia2> philipballew: I knew you :)
  20 [03:07] <rww> Data point: there are 37 pending memberships in the LP team right now.
  21 [03:07] <pleia2> philipballew: if I didn't know you I wouldn't have approved you, our approval queue is huge
  22 [03:07] <pleia2> yeah, 37 :(
  23 [03:08] <akk> We definitely don't want people applying and sitting in the queue. That's bad.
  24 [03:08] <pleia2> akk: *nod*
  25 [03:08] <DarkwingDuck> I'm just pointing out that it sends the wrong signals and messages. Not ones that I would assume that a friendly open group woudl like to send.
  26 [03:08] <philipballew> i never got in touch just to get accepted. 37... because were so popular!
  27 [03:09] <DarkwingDuck> Does anyone have objections to an Open team?
  28 [03:09] <pleia2> so I think we need to either: 1: open the team; 2: empower our admins to add people based on believing they are a human (this is what we did for pennsylvania) or 3: come up with a solution to make our process we have now work somehow
  29 [03:09] <rww> In my opinion, this is tied to what the LP team is actually used for. aiui, that's 1) determining who can vote in leadership elections, 2) determining who has access to write to the team bzr repository. I don't think that having both of these be unrestricted is a particularly good idea.
  30 [03:10] <akk> I remember those discussions of why people should have to renew (in the log rww referenced) -- but that doesn't answer why they should have to wait in a queue to join in the first place.
  31 [03:10] <pleia2> 3) adding things to the loco directory
  32 [03:10] <philipballew> i have wanted to be able to sign people up to the group at Ubuntu hours before. but didn't want the people to have to wait. it was just a though to implement if sd hour gets big.
  33 [03:10] <philipballew> it would help us grow possibly
  34 [03:10] <pleia2> rww: I've never really seen it abused in other teams
  35 [03:10] <pleia2> (and bzr has reverts! and a bunch of us keep an eye on loco directory)
  36 [03:11] <rww> pleia2: Neither have I, though the only other team I have experience with that's open is UW.
  37 [03:11] <akk> I can't imagine people joining our LP team in order to game our voting".
  38 [03:11] <pleia2> rww: honestly I think UW is the one where it would be most likely to be abused - of all the community teams in ubuntu
  39 [03:12] <rww> and all in all, people who don't put in enough effort to satisfy the membership criteria are unlikely to vote anyway
  40 [03:12] <akk> yeah, UW is much more of a target.
  41 [03:12] <pleia2> rww: there are active members who didn't follow the procedure, I like and respect these people now that I know them but even they didn't read the directions
  42 [03:12] <DarkwingDuck> So, does anyone have any issues with opening the team at all?
  43 [03:12] <aaditya> o/
  44 [03:13] <DarkwingDuck> yes aaditya?
  45 [03:13] <pleia2> so I don't really see it as "not putting in enough effort"
  46 [03:13] <rww> I think it's a little odd to propose and implement opening it without looking into why it was closed in the first place. Other than that, I'm pretty much apathetic either way.
  47 [03:13] <pleia2> people just don't expect it, so they don't look for joining rules on loco teams
  48 [03:13] <aaditya> I don't have any issues. Also, Hi!
  49 [03:13] <jbermudes> Is there a way to set permissions on LP so that people can join but aren't automatically granted those certain rights?
  50 [03:13] <DarkwingDuck> Ahhh, Hi :)
  51 [03:13] <pleia2> jbermudes: no
  52 [03:14] <pleia2> launchpad is not particularly flexible (you'll see this reflected in some teams having a half dozen launchpad teams to handle permissions, it's awful)
  53 [03:14] <akk> rww: Do we know why it was closed? That log you pasted is about requiring renewals, not about joining (unless I've missed something).
  54 [03:14] <rww> akk: I don't know, I only read the agenda right before the meeting started.
  55 [03:15] <akk> Seems like if nobody can come up with a good reason for it, that's a good argument for opening it.
  56 [03:15] <pleia2> if I recall correctly part of it was not having a launchpad team full of unactive people, and getting some kind of introduction so that new members could be contacted when there were events in their area
  57 [03:16] <pleia2> and weeding out spam bots
  58 [03:16] <pleia2> the wiki page DarkwingDuck linked says "To give us a chance to get to know you (and to weed out spam bots), we ask that you get in touch before we approve your join request."
  59 [03:16] <akk> Do we have introductions now, or any record of who lives where?
  60 [03:16] <jbermudes> Right, that was also the reasoning behind the renewal was to have some sort of way to keep a somewhat active roster
  61 [03:16] <akk> I know it's taken me a long time to figure out which IRC nicks are northern vs. souther.
  62 [03:16] <akk> n
  63 [03:17] <aaditya> Do we reach more people through the mailing list by allowing unactive and lazy people on the LP team?
  64 [03:17] <pleia2> all that's actually required is that they make some kind of contact somehow, even if it's just "hi"
  65 [03:17] <pleia2> we don't track where people are formally, and don't require them telling us
  66 [03:17] <pleia2> aaditya: the mailing list is completely unrelated to LP
  67 [03:18] <rww> Do you need to be in ~ubuntu-california to RSVP to LoCo Directory events? Something philipballew said earlier seems to imply you do, and I think that's relevant.
  68 [03:18] <rww> (as a reason to make it open, that is)
  69 [03:18] <pleia2> rww: nope
  70 [03:18] <rww> hrm
  71 [03:19] <pleia2> since people often go to other people's loco events when they're in town
  72 [03:19] <rww> because the other side of the coin is "what are we losing by keeping it restricted?"
  73 [03:19] <pleia2> in general trying to join a team and being stuck in a queue for months is demotivating
  74 [03:19] <akk> We're probably losing members who try to join, and get frustrated at waiting.
  75 [03:19] <rww> being in the LP team isn't a requirement for doing LoCo stuff, though :|
  76 [03:20] <DarkwingDuck> And just the appearence of having a restricted LP team.
  77 [03:20] <akk> Even if they eventually get approved, that probably makes them figure the team is pretty dead and not worth caring about.
  78 [03:20] <aaditya> Can we improve this process by not making them wait for that long?
  79 [03:20] <pleia2> and when people see so many people waiting they get the impression that it's closed, some people have told me in person they didn't apply because they assumed the admins were dead and not approving anyone
  80 [03:20] <jbermudes> So isn't that an issue with the people approving as opposed to a problem with the idea of approval?
  81 [03:20] <philipballew> does it have to be pleia2 who approves or can we off load to others?
  82 [03:20] <akk> Making them not wait that long sounds like it requires volunteers.
  83 [03:20] <rww> One thing I think we used to do is reject applications after some amount of times with an explanation of how the team works. I assume that doesn't happen now?
  84 [03:21] <eps> (1) Whatever we decide should be documented (and dated?) (2) This issue seems bigger than us ... is there a "best practices" we should be referring to?
  85 [03:21] <akk> It's easy to say "those dang people not doing their job! why don't <<they>> approve people faster?"
  86 [03:21] <rww> (which would prod people into actually doing it properly, and get rid of that "oh noes, 37 people are waiting, the team must be dead" thing)
  87 [03:21] <pleia2> philipballew: everyone in the leadership team does, we can add more, but that's not the bottleneck
  88 [03:21] <jbermudes> pleia2: then what's the bottleneck?
  89 [03:21] <pleia2> our policy
  90 [03:21] <rww> the bottleneck is that people who hit the join button aren't reading the "*** IMPORTANT NOTE:" and contacting an admin, aiui
  91 [03:22] <pleia2> we require people to introduce themselves somehow, if they don't we can't add them
  92 [03:22] <akk> They have to apply, then also send an email somewhere?
  93 [03:22] <aaditya> If they fail to provide enough info or otherwise prove that they're human, we could reject the membership and tell them to retry with relevant info.
  94 [03:22] <jbermudes> couldn't we do it via IRC? they have to come into the channel, say hi, and then Eureka can add them?
  95 [03:22] <rww> "Some ways of doing this are using our mailing list or IRC channel, coming to an event or meeting, or contacting one of our group administrators privately."
  96 [03:22] <rww> so yes, IRC works fine.
  97 [03:22] <pleia2> things I count as introducing: joining IRC with a name that's obviously tied to LP, emailing the list, coming to an event
  98 [03:22] <aaditya> However, the question boils down to: Should we require introductions?
  99 [03:22] <pleia2> but I have to know they are the same person joining, and sometimes I don't know
 100 [03:22] <pleia2> every time someone joins I search my IRC logs and mail for them
 101 [03:22] <philipballew> not all new people do irc
 102 [03:23] <pleia2> if I find them I add them, if not they stay in the queue
 103 [03:23] <rww> philipballew: which is why we wrote several options when making the policy
 104 [03:23] <philipballew> i did forms and still do mostly
 105 [03:24] <jbermudes> if it's an issue of not knowing that the queue is getting long, we could make Eureka alert us just like it does that the wiki has changed
 106 [03:24] <akk> It feels like setting up hoops to jump through, like the SRU or patch submittal processes.
 107 [03:24] <pleia2> so even with me searching email and trying to track down activity from these people... we have 37 in the queue
 108 [03:24] <akk> "Mwa ha ha, you may have done this step, but you missed that you also need THIS step! Denied!"
 109 [03:24] <pleia2> the process doesn't work
 110 [03:24] <rww> akk: right, and the question is whether the hoops are necessary given the benefits you get from joining the LP team (which boils down to voting rights)
 111 [03:25] <pleia2> I approve maybe 10% of people joining, and that's usually due to my effort in trying to see if they've been active
 112 [03:25] <akk> And if they're on IRC but their nick is different from LP, you probably wouldn't see them.
 113 [03:25] <aaditya> akk: imho, it works if we also make it clear that they can apply again immediately and need to provide XYZ.
 114 [03:25] <pleia2> akk: *nod*
 115 [03:25] <akk> (unless you're going to extraordinary effort)
 116 [03:25] <DarkwingDuck> But shouldn't anyone be able to vote?
 117 [03:25] <rww> pleia2: If we switch the team from Restricted to Open, does the renewal preference go away, or is that still applied?
 118 [03:26] <DarkwingDuck> it's not like this is Ubuntu Membership
 119 [03:26] <pleia2> rww: I'd say it's still applied
 120 [03:26] <pleia2> we have expiration for a different reason which I think is fine
 121 [03:26] <sn9> akk: irc nicks are listed on one's lp page, even if the lp name is different
 122 [03:26] <rww> pleia2: I meant technically, but yeah :)
 123 [03:26] <pleia2> rww: oh no, you can still set expirations on open teams :)
 124 [03:26] <rww> pleia2: yay
 125 [03:26] <akk> aaditya: Sort of, but it's demoralizing to keep having to reapply. That's why i've had patches sit in bugs for years ... I get tired of "no, submit it this way." "Okay, now we have that, but we also need this other format."
 126 [03:27] <akk> aaditya: After a while you decide it's not worth it.
 127 [03:27] <aaditya> DarkwingDuck: that'll be an issue if someone brings their 20 inactive friends, e.g., to vote in their favor.
 128 [03:27] <pleia2> even the ubuntu-women team hasn't had trouble with ballot stuffing
 129 [03:27] <akk> sn9: Assuming they listed their irc nick there, and the person on our end doesn't mind the extra step of looking for it.
 130 [03:28] <DarkwingDuck> I just didn't like the image a closed loco team sends.
 131 [03:28] <aaditya> akk: introduction isn't a big requirement. If they can't go through that much, maybe it's not worth it to them, which raises the question of whether or not we should let them in.
 132 [03:28] <sn9> akk: correct
 133 [03:28] <pleia2> aaditya: mostly it's just that people don't read the directions, there are active people in the team who didn't notice them until I pointed them out
 134 [03:28] <rww> I think opening the team and saying "Anyone who's been a member of the LP team for more than x days is eligible to vote in this election." may be a reasonable solution. x could equal 30.
 135 [03:29] <pleia2> I wouldn't put that against their character, humans are just lousy
 136 [03:29] <pleia2> rww: yeah, UW does that
 137 [03:29] <aaditya> pleia2: oh, fair enough.
 138 [03:29] <akk> aaditya: I don't mind groups where the Join page also has a section "tell us something about yourself." But if it's an extra step you have to notice, that's not so good.
 139 [03:29] <DarkwingDuck> That would assume that everyone has an LP account.
 140 [03:29] <aaditya> akk: agreed.
 141 [03:29] <DarkwingDuck> What about those who are on the ML but have no LP Account?
 142 [03:29] <philipballew> depends on what type of group we want to me.
 143 [03:29] <rww> DarkwingDuck: as I understand it, you currently need to have an LP account to vote in our elections currently. If you want to change that, that's a whole separate issue.
 144 [03:29] <aaditya> Can we limit voting to those who have been a member for, say, 6 months?
 145 [03:29] <rww> s/currently //
 146 [03:29] <rww> aaditya: yes
 147 [03:30] <pleia2> rww: yes, that's how it works now
 148 [03:30] <rww> well, yes it's technically possible. I think 6 months is too long.
 149 [03:30] <pleia2> I think 6 months is too long as well
 150 [03:30] <sn9> i find "humans are just lousy" to be more typing than "people suck"
 151 [03:30] <akk> I agree, 6 months is a long time.
 152 [03:30] <DarkwingDuck> 1-3 months is a better solution
 153 [03:30] <rww> yup ^
 154 [03:30] <aaditya> I would be inclined towards setting it to 3 months.
 155 [03:30] <akk> 3 months ++
 156 [03:30] <aaditya> (6 was just an example.)
 157 [03:31] <akk> (that's not "3 or more months", it's support for ==3 :)
 158 [03:31] <sn9> 6 months is one release cycle, to put it in perspective
 159 [03:31] <rww> How often are elections? I can't find the page I vaguely remember existing with these details :|
 160 [03:31] <DarkwingDuck> Yes.
 161 [03:31] <aaditya> Are 3 months enough for a new person to understand the team
 162 [03:32] <DarkwingDuck> 1 year?
 163 [03:32] <aaditya> ...team's general direction?
 164 [03:32] <DarkwingDuck> I believe?
 165 [03:32] <pleia2> 1 year
 166 [03:32] <DarkwingDuck> Last election was mid/end october 2010
 167 [03:32] <pleia2> should just be /Leadership
 168 [03:32] <pleia2> but the wiki is being horrible
 169 [03:32] <akk> I thought it was "whenever the team gets sufficiently annoyed with current leadership" :)
 170 [03:32]  * DarkwingDuck hates the wiki
 171 [03:32] <rww> oh, there it is. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/Leadership
 172 [03:32] <DarkwingDuck> LOL
 173 [03:33] <DarkwingDuck> assuming no one steps down.
 174 [03:33] <rww> akk: If the last election is anything to go by, the next one might be as controversial as the recent DPL election ;P
 175 [03:33] <aaditya> I got an HTTP 50x error on the leadership page a moment ago, and it worked after rww posted it.
 176 [03:33] <aaditya> Wiki sucks.
 177 [03:33] <rww> aaditya: yeah, the wiki has issues
 178 [03:33] <pleia2> they upgraded it last week, it hasn't been a particularly graceful upgrade
 179 [03:33] <pleia2> hoping they'll fix it when they get back into work tomorrow ;)
 180 [03:33] <aaditya> (I easily mistook it for a 404 done incorrectly.)
 181 [03:34] <rww> Anyways. Any objections to opening the team up, keeping renewal policy as it is, and requiring that voters in elections have been in the LP team for 90 days* prior to the election announcement?
 182 [03:34] <DarkwingDuck> I have no issues with that rww
 183 [03:34] <rww> * I personally like 30 better, but everyone else likes 90 so whatever.
 184 [03:35] <pleia2> rww: sounds perfect
 185 [03:35] <aaditya> rww++
 186 [03:35] <sn9> 60 :P
 187 [03:35] <pleia2> (I like 30 better too)
 188 [03:35] <aaditya> (pleia2: before I forget, we didn't do newbie introductions at the beginning of this meeting.)
 189 [03:35]  * DarkwingDuck is in favor of 30
 190 [03:35] <DarkwingDuck> Bugger
 191 [03:36] <pleia2> aaditya: we're been trying to do announcements and intros at the end, but I suppose introductions at the beginning do make sense
 192 [03:36] <pleia2> so maybe we should just do announcements at the end ;)
 193 [03:36] <aaditya> That works too. I thought we skipped it.
 194 [03:36] <sn9> jdeslip: 30 or 90? what say you?
 195 [03:37] <DarkwingDuck> I don't think jack is here is he?
 196 [03:37] <pleia2> no, he's not
 197 [03:37] <sn9> just in case
 198 [03:37] <DarkwingDuck> I'm not going to die if people vote 90 instead of 30
 199 [03:37] <pleia2> ok, well we have a couple months until voting, do we want to table that portion and add it to a meeting item next meeting so people who care can vote then?
 200 [03:37]  * aaditya murmurs 90 from a corner.
 201 [03:37] <pleia2> just go with "open team and keep renewal policy"
 202 [03:37] <DarkwingDuck> Why not vote via ML?
 203 [03:38] <pleia2> DarkwingDuck: I've never really seen that work well, but we can try
 204 [03:38] <DarkwingDuck> :D
 205 [03:38] <eps> I oppose using the ML for this
 206 [03:38] <rww> you could do a CIVS poll of everyone eligible to vote currently... *runs off giggling*
 207 [03:38] <sn9> why not vote with that voting thing used for the first geeknic(s)?
 208 [03:39] <sn9> i mean, what rww said
 209 [03:39] <pleia2> rww: don't make me cry :'(
 210 [03:39] <DarkwingDuck> rww: We could make an LP poll....
 211 [03:39]  * DarkwingDuck hides
 212 [03:39] <aaditya> I personally easily overlook emails on the ML, so I'd say ML--. Also, how hard would it be to make a tool that uses launchpad API to validate voters and allows them to vote?
 213 [03:39] <sn9> lp poll would make sense
 214 [03:39] <pleia2> LP has polls, and would work for something this simple
 215 [03:39]  * aaditya starts to scribble something on a piece of paper.
 216 [03:39] <aaditya> LP polls +1
 217 [03:40] <pleia2> so let's set up a poll, have it expire after our next meeting so we can remind people at the next meeting to vote real quick before it ends
 218 [03:40] <pleia2> and we'll email it to the list
 219 [03:40] <rww> would be useful as a demonstration of whether LP polls do in fact work, at least ;P
 220 [03:40] <pleia2> rww: indeed!
 221 [03:40] <sn9> and civs for the actual votes
 222 [03:41] <pleia2> yeah, CIVS for elections is tricky (we need to get jono to pull some strings), but we should use it
 223 [03:41] <DarkwingDuck> CIVS isn't so bad... We used it for our Kubuntu Council elections.
 224 [03:41] <pleia2> ok, so I think we're agreed: opening the team up, keeping renewal policy as it is, setting up LP poll to see how long you have to be a member before you're eligable to vote in an election
 225 [03:42] <rww> DarkwingDuck: the major hurdle is getting email addresses of people with email addresses hidden on LP. but yeah, it's doable.
 226 [03:42] <rww> pleia2: +1
 227 [03:42] <sn9> pulling the strings should not be difficult, considering the need for civs is ultimately due to a decision from up above
 228 [03:42] <DarkwingDuck> rww: That's what Scott Kitterman was going on about.
 229 [03:42] <DarkwingDuck> pleia2: +1
 230 [03:43] <akk> +1
 231 [03:43] <pleia2> DarkwingDuck: you need everyone's email address, not everyone makes their email address public, so you need to get a list from LP admins (which is Wrong but possible if you're jono) or use up all your daily allowance of "emailing people on LP" to contact them and get their email addresses
 232 [03:43] <pleia2> this usually takes several days and the result of all this effort is a couple people replying with their email address to be added to the poll, some people yelling at you, and mostly people ignoring you
 233 [03:43] <rww> this is probably obvious, but I'll note it for posterity: I assume that while opening the LP team, everyone currently pending will be added?
 234 [03:44] <pleia2> rww: yes, thanks for mentioning it
 235 [03:44] <DarkwingDuck> IIRC yes
 236 [03:44] <eps> Not everyone has an @ubuntu.com address, and not everyone wants non-@ubuntu.com addresses made public
 237 [03:45] <pleia2> eps: yep
 238 [03:45] <pleia2> ok, shall we move on?
 239 [03:45] <DarkwingDuck> Yes.
 240 [03:45] <pleia2> [TOPIC] Review Approval Application and discuss goals
 241 [03:45] <pleia2> I have a lot of non-ubuntu things to say about the wiki today
 242 [03:45]  * DarkwingDuck snickers
 243 [03:45] <pleia2> I had intended to finish the events portion of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/ApprovalApplication2011
 244 [03:45] <pleia2> but with the wiki practically unusable, I couldn't
 245 [03:46] <pleia2> so we'll have to finish reviewing those later, but for now I wanted to bring up that we need to write up some goals
 246 [03:46] <pleia2> for reference, our goals last time around are on our Approval App from 2009: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CaliforniaTeam/ApprovalApplication
 247 [03:47] <DarkwingDuck> Internal Server Error
 248 [03:47]  * DarkwingDuck snickers again.
 249 [03:47] <pleia2> indeed
 250 [03:48] <DarkwingDuck> So we are looking at our goals for the next year?
 251 [03:49] <pleia2> I'd call "short term" in the next 6 months, and "long term" the next two years (when we go through reapproval again)
 252 [03:49] <DarkwingDuck> I would like to see what "Bigger Programs" our LoCo woudl like to get involved with.
 253 [03:49] <pleia2> we don't need to decide upon goals right now, but I at least wanted to get the discussion rolling
 254 [03:50] <pleia2> DarkwingDuck: such as?
 255 [03:50] <DarkwingDuck> Italy does Laptop Testing Team
 256 [03:51] <DarkwingDuck> There are programs that we, as a LoCo can get involved with.
 257 [03:51] <pleia2> ah, that's a good one
 258 [03:51] <rww> I'd like us to look into whether there are more conferences/conventions/whatever than SCaLE we could be going to. OSCON moving northwards made a gap in the calendar :|
 259 [03:51] <pleia2> I did some xubuntu testing at the last global jam, that went really well
 260 [03:51] <DarkwingDuck> Are there any confereces in NorCal?
 261 [03:51] <rww> and yeah, what DarkwingDuck said. QA stuff always needs people.
 262 [03:51] <rww> DarkwingDuck: I don't know ;P
 263 [03:51] <philipballew> none really DarkwingDuck
 264 [03:51] <akk> DarkwingDuck: Not really. :(
 265 [03:51] <philipballew> unless i'm wrong
 266 [03:52] <DarkwingDuck> So, SCaLE is our yearly conference.
 267 [03:52] <akk> Well, lots of confs but no specifically linux-related or ubuntu-related ones.
 268 [03:52] <philipballew> oscon is in august
 269 [03:52] <philipballew> portland
 270 [03:52] <rww> It's just weird to me that there isn't one so I assumed there is. Maybe there isn't :|
 271 [03:52] <pleia2> yeah, the washington and oregon teams are doing oscon
 272 [03:52] <DarkwingDuck> Oh, I'm designing a booth for us at SCaLE. I'll upload and post the finished blueprint when it's done.
 273 [03:52] <DarkwingDuck> Anyway, that's for a SCaLE discuss.
 274 [03:53] <DarkwingDuck> If you would like I'll go through and find some good places and assemble a list.
 275 [03:53] <pleia2> ok, so these are both good goals - get involved in more QA stuff and put more effort into conferencey venues other than SCaLE
 276 [03:54] <DarkwingDuck> I know that soon there will be a QA Community person and maybe that person will have more stuff for Locos to do.
 277 [03:54] <pleia2> I've also been talking to the folks in Italy about their best practices for testing, so their ISO and Laptop stuff is pretty much ready to go
 278 [03:55] <DarkwingDuck> But, having something outside our state would be a good idea IMO
 279 [03:55] <rww> this is a little apropos, but Oneiric ISOs are now dd'able to USB sticks instead of needing that USB Creator thing, which might make ISO QA a little easier.
 280 [03:55] <akk> That'll be great.
 281 [03:55] <pleia2> nice
 282 [03:56] <pleia2> usb sticks really are the way to go about testing, and it's silly that ISO Creator required 2G sticks (I didn't actually own any that big until I bought some)
 283 [03:56] <akk> You can't buy anything smaller than 2G now.
 284 [03:56] <akk> But of course lots of people have old stuff.
 285 [03:56] <pleia2> yeah, most of mine are free-from-conferences kinds, which are all 256-1G
 286 [03:57] <rww> a non-technical end user brought an 8GB stick into work to backup about 100MB of stuff the other day, so I take it USB sticks are cheap ;P
 287 [03:57] <akk> ISO Creator also required a lot of stuff software-wise -- I've tried it on many different machines and never gotten it to work.
 288 [03:57] <akk> dd works from any linux machine.
 289 [03:57] <pleia2> I think I paid $10 for my 4G sticks
 290 [03:57] <rww> akk: or OS X, or Windows even
 291 [03:57] <rww> which is wonderful
 292 [03:57] <pleia2> nice
 293 [03:57] <akk> ah, didn't know windows had dd
 294 [03:57] <pleia2> ok, well I think this is good goal-wise for now
 295 [03:57] <rww> akk: well, there are programs that do it. they're a /lot/ less annoying than the previous way of doing it.
 296 [03:58] <akk> usually I see instructions like "if you're on linux, type this dd command. If you're on windows, follow the next two pages of instructions."
 297 [03:58] <pleia2> I'll add them to the wiki once that's possible, and hopefully by next meeting we'll have a more complete app to review :)
 298 [03:58] <pleia2> [TOPIC] Announcements, intros, other misc
 299 [03:59] <pleia2> so, anyone new here tonight who cares to introduce themselves? or anyone with announcements about upcoming events or anything?
 300 [03:59] <Skullz> I'm new here :3
 301 [03:59] <pleia2> welcome Skullz :)
 302 [03:59] <Skullz> Thank you. :)
 303 [03:59] <Skullz> Anything I should add? Aha.
 304 [04:00] <pleia2> only if you care to share, but whereabouts are you in the state? have you been to any events? any questions or expectations of the team?
 305 [04:01] <DarkwingDuck> Skullz, where are you from?
 306 [04:01] <DarkwingDuck> NM, Lyz beat me to it.
 307 [04:01] <pleia2> (this goes for anyone who is new :))
 308 [04:01] <DarkwingDuck> Oh, I'm David Wonderly and I'm in San Diego.
 309 [04:01] <Skullz> Ah. I am from San Francisco, and I've so far been to yesterday's geeknic. :)
 310 [04:01] <DarkwingDuck> Awesome. :)
 311 [04:01] <Skullz> Ah, yes, and my name is Dash.
 312 [04:01] <BrightAmbition> Oh
 313 [04:01] <pleia2> Skullz: me too! but I don't we formally met?
 314 [04:01] <BrightAmbition> ok
 315 [04:02] <BrightAmbition> I think i did meet him but i forgot what he looks like
 316 [04:02] <BrightAmbition> lol
 317 [04:02] <Skullz> I don't believe so, no.
 318 [04:02] <pleia2> ah, well next time then
 319 [04:02] <Skullz> Hopefully, if I can before I move :)
 320 [04:02] <DarkwingDuck> I need to make it up there for events.
 321 [04:02] <DarkwingDuck> Maybe if I get this job...
 322 [04:02] <Skullz> Meet who, BrightAmbition?
 323 [04:03] <BrightAmbition> Skullz: I was the person in the Linux Chicks shirt
 324 [04:03] <pleia2> looks like we're pretty sparse event-wise on the loco directory right now, but I'm sure that'll pick up once people add their monthly ubuntu hours
 325 [04:03] <pleia2> for july
 326 [04:03] <BrightAmbition> Skullz: I think i talked to you for a bit but i don't remember what you look like for some reason
 327 [04:03] <Skullz> Ahh.
 328 [04:03] <Skullz> I was the tall one, in the grey shirt with the rolled up sleeves.
 329 [04:03] <pleia2> we'll have at able at the linux picnic here in norcal in august, but that's a bit far out for an announcement :)
 330 [04:03] <pleia2> s/able/table
 331 [04:03] <BrightAmbition> Skullz: Short or long hair?
 332 [04:03] <Skullz> Ear length, brown.
 333 [04:04] <BrightAmbition> Skullz: Glasses or no glasses?
 334 [04:04] <Skullz> No glasses.
 335 [04:04] <pleia2> Skullz: oh, are you the one moving to an island?
 336 [04:04] <Skullz> Yes, yes I am.
 337 [04:04] <pleia2> we didn't formally meet, but I heard part of that conversation
 338 [04:04] <BrightAmbition> Skullz: What were you wearing for some reason i could now remember people by which color they were wearing but usually i remember by face
 339 [04:04] <Skullz> Ahh, oka :)
 340 [04:05] <aaditya> Skullz: Welcome to Ubuntu California!
 341 [04:05] <pleia2> anyway, we should wrap up this meeting so I can finish putting my office back together! ;)
 342 [04:05] <pleia2> anyone else have anything to add?
 343 [04:05] <BrightAmbition> sounds fun pleia2
 344 [04:05] <Skullz> BrightAmbition, I was wearing a grey, long-sleeve shirt with the sleeves rolled up. I had on tan cargo shorts as well, and white sneakers.
 345 [04:05] <BrightAmbition> Skullz: oh
 346 [04:05] <aaditya> Yes, Geeknic was a blast yesterday. Looking forward to the next one.
 347 [04:05] <BrightAmbition> I feel that same way aaditya
 348 [04:05] <Skullz> I was probably seen moving around my backpack a bit.
 349 [04:06] <pleia2> btw, we're planning the next one for July 16th down in los gatos
 350 [04:06] <BrightAmbition> Hopefully we could crash a wedding next time
 351 [04:06] <BrightAmbition> lol
 352 [04:06] <aaditya> yes!
 353 [04:06] <Skullz> Yeah, I'm disappointed I had to leave early.
 354 [04:06] <rww> I'm looking forward to there ever being a geeknic that doesn't conflict with my work schedule. Mainly so I can look at how time was bended to make that happen since I work constantly ;P
 355 [04:06] <aaditya> We'll be more prepared for crashing weddings next time.
 356 [04:06] <BrightAmbition> Awesome!
 357 [04:06] <rww> bended? bent. pah.
 358 [04:06] <BrightAmbition> lol
 359 [04:06] <pleia2> rww: I think you should have fewer jobs
 360 [04:06] <pleia2> :)
 361 [04:07] <DarkwingDuck> Any other buisness?
 362 [04:07] <pleia2> ok, let's wrap this thing up, thanks for coming everyone!