TZ UTC +1
11:00 ajmitch hi 11:00 crimsun 'lo === ajmitch hopes sistpoty wakes up in time 11:00 dholbach hello :) 11:01 ajmitch everyone can look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council/Meetings while we wait :) 11:01 dholbach we'd have quorum :) 11:01 ajmitch sistpoty went to bed about 5 hours ago, saying he'd try & be here :) 11:02 dholbach ok, while we wait for sistpoty to run us through his items on the agenda... why doesn't one of us present the things we decided or looked at together until now. 11:02 ajmitch aha! 11:02 ajmitch welcome, sistpoty 11:02 dholbach hello sistpoty 11:02 sistpoty hi 11:02 gpocentek hi sistpoty 11:02 dholbach sistpoty: I was just saying: ok, while we wait for sistpoty to run us through his items on the agenda... why doesn't one of us present the things we decided or looked at together until now. :-) === sistpoty needs coffee 11:03 sistpoty hehe 11:03 dholbach Ok... as some of you might have gathered from lists or specs already: we decoupled the MOTU membership process from meetings completely. 11:03 ajmitch so we've agreed so far on quorum (3), public list, what else? 11:03 ajmitch yay 11:03 dholbach https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Hopeful/Recruitment describes the process for that 11:04 dholbach it will all happen on a public mailing list, called firstname.lastname@example.org (which is not created yet, but I'm pestering the sysadmins) 11:04 ajmitch ok, thanks 11:04 dholbach we further thought that there should be no incentive in subscribing to yet another mailing list. We'll try to keep only applications and administrative discussions on motu-council@ but do everything else on ubuntu-motu@ 11:05 dholbach so it's up to you if you subscribe or not - you're not likely to miss anything 11:05 ajmitch another list will just be a drop in the bucket 11:06 crimsun right, I think that's a good idea (maintains the "one-stop" MOTU feel and transparency) 11:06 dholbach Probably, but it's nice to have MOTU discussions in one place. 11:07 dholbach The MOTU Council was formed to have a body that is capable of making decisions, we thought that with five members in the team, a quorum of 3, a simple majority and a timeout of 48h would make sense. 11:07 ajmitch less bureaucracy is good 11:07 dholbach We documented that on http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council and http://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council/Meetings already 11:07 ajmitch the timeout avoids waiting around for consensus or reply from everyone 11:07 dholbach Are there any questions up until now? 11:08 crimsun no questions from me. 11:08 sistpoty nope 11:08 gpocentek ok for me 11:08 dholbach Ok super - why don't we kick off the meeting? :)
11:08 dholbach new packages policy for MOTUs (sistpoty, as deferred from MOTU-Meeting) 11:08 sistpoty is someone doing the minutes? 11:09 crimsun I'll do minutes. 11:09 sistpoty cool thanks crimsun 11:09 dholbach we should get the https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ScribesTeam involved :) 11:09 sistpoty :) 11:09 dholbach sistpoty: your floor 11:09 sistpoty ok, new packages policy: we've discussed this on the motu meeting already... so I'll just give a short sum up 11:09 sistpoty currently motu's need to go through revu and need 2 reviews for a new package 11:10 sistpoty I think it would be better to drop that requirement and just make it a recommendation instead 11:10 dholbach What about NEW packages from MOTU Hopefuls? 11:11 ajmitch keep the 2 ACKs on REVU for them 11:11 dholbach Wasn't the proposal to make it 1 successful review? 11:11 dholbach Oh ok. 11:11 ajmitch do you think that dropping it to 1 would be good? 11:11 gpocentek I'd prefer to keep the 2 acks 11:11 dholbach I think I remember people discussing it. 11:12 gpocentek I often miss something when I review 11:12 crimsun I agree w/ keeping the 2 ACKs for new source packages from non-ubuntu-dev members. 11:12 sistpoty iirc we discussed this on motu-ml, and quite a few ppl. didn't like to get down on 1 vote 11:13 ajmitch saying that MOTUs don't need to go through REVU is probably just acknowledging what already happens 11:13 dholbach Ok, fine with me. === ajmitch has uploaded a few packages without getting reviews 11:13 sistpoty other opinions? 11:14 dholbach Me too... it was often part of my job to get things done - or I just asked seb128 to give it a quick review. 11:14 gpocentek same for me (for xubuntu packages) 11:14 dholbach I personally think that new MOTUs will often be happy enough to still get a review. 11:14 Amaranth i thought the whole point of being a MOTU was not having to go through the review process :) 11:15 ajmitch Amaranth: it is, but for people who are newly made MOTUs, they can still benefit from reviewing 11:15 sistpoty as I brought up the proposal, +1 from me 11:15 ajmitch eg I don't think I'd expect a new MOTU to go & package up FDS without getting some help ;) 11:15 ajmitch +1 from here 11:15 sistpoty ok, great... let's move on then ;) 11:15 crimsun +1 for dropping the 2 ACK requirement for new source packages for ubuntu-dev members 11:16 dholbach +1 from me also 11:16 gpocentek and +1 from me 11:16 dholbach nice... consensus on the first MOTU Council decision
11:16 ajmitch alright, exceptions for new packages during feature freeze.. 11:16 ajmitch :) === dholbach brings on the champagne 11:16 sistpoty :) 11:17 dholbach What was the Universe FF intended to be in the first place? 11:17 ajmitch no new packages 11:17 ajmitch there are people who have packages 'almost done' on revu that don't want to miss out 11:17 ajmitch & then there's packages like glassfish & beryl which are being pushed by others 11:18 dholbach Ok. In past releases the Technical Board was of the opinion that NEW packages were seldom of any harm, since they couldn't break existing functionality. 11:18 ajmitch the intent of universe FF was that we have time to focus on bugfixing, rather than packaging & reviewing 11:18 sistpoty well, it takes resources to review them, which were spent better with qa 11:19 dholbach I think that it should be responsibility of the motu-uvf team to ack such requests (if we'd allow them in), which requirements should they ask for? 11:19 dholbach I think it's pretty hard to draw a line there. 11:19 ajmitch how's the motu-uvf team going with requests? 11:19 cjwatson I'd recommend simple-to-review and high-importance as starting points for metrics, personally 11:19 dholbach We're on top of things. 11:20 cjwatson if you're making exceptions they need to be worthwhile ... 11:20 ajmitch hi cjwatson 11:20 cjwatson hi 11:20 cjwatson practice in main is to be pretty liberal near the start of a given freeze and gradually tighten up 11:20 ajmitch true, I've got some packages here that are worthwhile, but they wouldn't be easy to review 11:21 dholbach Ok, so the proposal is "after 2 ACKs on REVU, the uvf team checks if the NEW package is worthwhile or not."? 11:21 crimsun I'd like to request that we consider FF exception requests up until beta freeze (~Mar 15). I know of Ardour2, at least, which is going through a fairly lengthy beta 11.1 -> beta 12 -> RC testing period. 11:22 ajmitch so a 3 week final window for new packages with some scrutiny? 11:22 dholbach Although it'll mean more work for the uvf team (and me), I can see the point in the request. 11:23 ajmitch dholbach: 'worthwhile' is fairly subjective, I hope it doesn't just end up pushing out FF by 3 weeks 11:24 dholbach ajmitch: I know it is... if you can propose different requirements....? 11:24 sistpoty I guess the first thing would be that the package has already been given two acks (in case it's from a hopeful) 11:25 sistpoty not that ppl. will come and want a review alongside with an FF exception from motu-uvf 11:25 dholbach Yeah - we definitely should make that clear. 11:26 ajmitch the uvf team shouldn't need to look at the packaging itself 11:26 dholbach Are there objections regarding that "worthwhile" might be too subjective? 11:26 sistpoty fine with me 11:26 dholbach (I personally think that it can be a problem in every approval process.) 11:26 ajmitch no, I think we can leave it up to the uvf team to decide 11:27 sistpoty uvf-team will certainly find a way ;) 11:27 crimsun right, I concur with delegating that to motu-uvf 11:27 gpocentek fine with me as well 11:27 sistpoty +1 here 11:27 dholbach Ok, let's cast our votes for "Until Beta Freeze the motu-uvf team will consider NEW packages after they went through successful reviews and decide if they're worthwhile to have or not." 11:28 dholbach +1 from me too 11:28 crimsun +1 11:28 ajmitch +1 11:28 gpocentek +1 11:28 dholbach that's a majority :)
11:28 dholbach deciding on a 'hard freeze' for universe in the last week of the feisty cycle (ajmitch) 11:28 ajmitch we did this for edgy, and very few people uploaded any fixes in the last week 11:29 dholbach Mithrandir: Are you there? This might require your input. 11:29 ajmitch this is where every universe upload needed to be ACKed 11:30 dholbach as the release managers want to have somebody who ACKed the upload (somebody who's responsible for Universe), we maybe should think about broadening the UVF team to have no delays, but a direct ACK or NACK 11:30 sistpoty yep, I remember dapper, where we crushed bugs until the final minute 11:31 ajmitch the uvf team is going to be busy 11:31 cjwatson one concern about very late uploads is that they can end up clogging up the buildds for urgent uploads to main. It's only a problem for big packages of course 11:31 dholbach I don't know if we have the technical requirements (in soyuz) to lock main and to leave Universe/Multiverse just open === ajmitch remembers the fun of motu-uvf for edgy 11:31 cjwatson dholbach: no, although the archive team can fake that by manual work if necessary 11:32 cjwatson (and we generally do during freezes) 11:32 dholbach cjwatson: ok, thanks
11:33 dholbach so we'll have to play along the hard freeze - what do you think about broadening the uvf team and probably making the process less strict, like "ping on IRC, point to debdiff, get ACK and tell release managers that it's ok"? 11:34 crimsun I'm fine w/ expanding motu-uvf members === ajmitch also 11:34 sistpoty +1 here as well 11:34 crimsun would it require a certain number of ACKs? unanimous? 11:34 ajmitch unanimous would take too much 11:34 dholbach I personally think that one should be enough 11:34 ajmitch just 1 11:34 gpocentek /me agrees 11:34 crimsun right, I concur 11:35 dholbach what about keeping the hard freeze process light? 11:35 ajmitch so stick with the freeze, but make it easy? 11:35 dholbach or shall we do the file-a-bug-with-a-diffstat-and-diff--dance for that too? 11:35 ajmitch no need to file a bug 11:35 gpocentek I think IRC is fine 11:35 sistpoty I'd prefer the easy model 11:35 ajmitch since all uploads should be fixing a bug anyway 11:36 crimsun URL to debdiff on IRC should suffice IMO 11:36 ajmitch iirc crimsun attached the relevant changelog entry to bugs for edgy 11:36 ajmitch which was a real help when I was asked whether to ACK/NAK 11:36 dholbach Ok cool, I think we all agreed on that now. 11:36 ajmitch how many more in motu-uvf? 11:36 ajmitch 1 or 2? 11:37 dholbach we're 3 atm 11:37 dholbach 5 would be nice to have, I think 11:37 crimsun +1 for expanding motu-uvf to 5 11:37 dholbach +1 for 5 too 11:38 sistpoty +-0... I'm happy with 4 or 5 equally 11:38 ajmitch ok, +1 on keeping the freeze process as we said & +1 on motu-uvf to 5 11:38 gpocentek +1 for 5 11:38 dholbach anybody here who'd like to step up for the task? 11:38 crimsun I'm happy to join motu-uvf for this cycle === ajmitch doesn't mind either way 11:39 dholbach thanks crimsun, thanks ajmitch 11:39 dholbach I'll add you to the team 11:39 crimsun ok, thanks 11:39 ajmitch k 11:39 dholbach (thanks for keeping the voting process slim this time around) === ajmitch wants to get to bed early :) 11:40 dholbach welcome to the team
11:40 dholbach ok... "motu team cleanup" 11:40 sistpoty everybode read the mail? 11:40 dholbach the ubuntu-dev and motu teams clash a bit and references to the LP 'motu' team should be purged 11:40 ajmitch yep 11:41 dholbach imho it'd be better to have a universe-bugs team and make sure that LP sends universebugs to that team by default 11:41 ajmitch this also relates to the issues with lp creating people on uploads 11:41 dholbach (but that's not on the agenda for now) 11:41 dholbach ajmitch: how so? 11:41 ajmitch since email@example.com is a registered address for motumedia 11:41 ajmitch & we wanted it as a contact address, but not bug address, for motu :) 11:41 ajmitch (rather impossible at the moment) 11:42 ajmitch but I think reducing the number of teams would be good 11:42 dholbach ok 11:42 Mithrandir dholbach: universe is your domain, as you know. I'd recommend on concentrating on bug-fixing and not new shiny, but for package splits and such, NEW processing will obviously need to happen. 11:43 Mithrandir dholbach: note that the archive admins are not likely to have much time for source NEW at least in the later stages of the release. 11:43 dholbach Mithrandir: right... thanks 11:44 dholbach I'd propose to ask the LP folks to purge the 'motu' team and (in another step) get a 'universe-bugs' team and fix the bug routing that way. 11:45 ajmitch mdz's suggestion was to keep motu, & empty out ubuntu-dev, I think 11:45 sistpoty yep... ubuntu-dev would then be (only) core-dev + motu 11:45 ajmitch making universe-bugs would be good 11:46 dholbach I'm happy with that too - we'd just need to make TB the owner and un-administrator everybody, right? 11:46 Mithrandir dholbach: "your" as in "you lot's", not you personally, naturally. :-) 11:46 Mithrandir (sorry about that not being clear. ;-) 11:47 ajmitch but he's the face of MOTU, of course it's his :) 11:48 ajmitch dholbach: yep, I don't think anyone would need to be kicked out, just added 11:48 sistpoty and the expiry dates set 11:48 dholbach ok... so who's in favour of what? 11:49 ajmitch +1 for turning motu over to TB, and adding universe-bugs 11:49 sistpoty +1 here for ajmitch's proposal 11:49 dholbach +1 from me too - although universe-bugs needs more discussion 11:50 gpocentek +& for me as well 11:50 crimsun in terms of work required, does it require less work to keep ubuntu-dev and drop motu? 11:50 gpocentek +1 even 11:50 ajmitch crimsun: it's mainly for clarity 11:50 ajmitch but it would take less work to drop motu 11:51 dholbach maybe it's also discoverability 11:51 crimsun it makes more sense [to me] to drop motu, keep ubuntu-dev, and consider universe-bugs 11:52 dholbach To be honest, I can live with both proposals. 11:52 crimsun that would prevent adding work to TB and also maintains the current structure (which seems to make sense [to me] ) 11:52 sistpoty well, I wouldn't want that someone creates motu after we dropped it tbh. though the whole discussion seems more of an aesthetical nature to me 11:53 sistpoty who's in favor for dropping motu? 11:54 sistpoty -1 from me, though only a very weak -1 11:54 crimsun we should use the existing vote, I think: (+4 for purging ubuntu-dev and using motu) === ajmitch wonders if it will affect bzr branches or not 11:55 sistpoty ok, anyone volunteering to do the cleanup? 11:55 ajmitch I don't think it should so long as the ubuntu-dev team still exists in a fashion 11:56 sistpoty if nobody volunteers, I'll do some clicking later today ;) === ajmitch guesses sistpoty just volunteered :) 11:57 sistpoty ok 11:57 sistpoty let's move on, shall we? 11:57 ajmitch yep 11:57 crimsun right.
11:57 ajmitch I added the next item, but dholbach replied on the wiki saying it was already agreed on? 11:58 ajmitch aha 11:58 ajmitch for daniel.. 11:58 ajmitch I added the next item, but dholbach replied on the wiki saying it was already agreed on? 11:58 dholbach_ sorry, something grabbed my keyboard input and I couldn't type anything any more 11:58 ajmitch np 11:58 dholbach_ we can go through the discussion again, but I recall a decision was made on the topic already. 11:59 Amaranth dholbach: running compiz? :) 12:00 ajmitch generally we'd know if someone was active, but what if they'd been idle for ~2 months? 12:00 ajmitch I guess letting them expire is fine, as long as they know how to ask to reapply 12:00 dholbach I propose we prod people every half a year (if they have not been sufficiently visible), and ask them. They can always re-apply. 12:01 dholbach (and we should keep the hurdle low.) 12:01 dholbach Amaranth: no === ajmitch would hate for someone to automatically expire & noone renews their membership until they were deactivated :) 12:01 ajmitch will the TB get notification of upcoming expirys? 12:02 sistpoty I guess it might make sense to contact them first and ask if they plan to do some work in the future. maybe we can thus even reactivate lost motu's ;) 12:02 ajmitch yeah 12:02 dholbach I like that idea too. 12:03 dholbach and in the same mail we should point out that it's no problem to be "deactivated" for a while, as it helps us to understand where we stand, and that it's also no problem to re-apply 12:04 gpocentek this sounds good to me 12:04 ajmitch ok 12:04 sistpoty yep 12:04 crimsun +1 for daniel's proposal 12:04 sistpoty +1 12:04 dholbach nice 12:04 dholbach Ok, I volunteer to go through the list - who wants to assist me? === ajmitch can === gpocentek raise his hand 12:05 dholbach ajmitch now has the new responsibility of the uvf team :) 12:05 dholbach thanks gpocentek :) 12:05 gpocentek :) 12:05 ajmitch hehe ok
12:05 dholbach next meeting 12:05 dholbach sistpoty: did you mean the MOTU meeting or the MC meeting? 12:06 sistpoty MOTU meeting 12:06 sabdfl hi all 12:06 dholbach heya sabdfl 12:06 sistpoty hi sabdfl 12:06 dholbach sabdfl: we're on the last agenda point already :) 12:06 sabdfl just wanted to say well done and welcome aboard as a council 12:07 ajmitch hi sabdfl 12:07 ajmitch thanks 12:07 sistpoty thx sabdfl 12:07 dholbach thanks :) 12:07 dholbach sistpoty: shouldn't we do that on the list? 12:07 dholbach what about the next MC meeting - shall we try "every 2 weeks"? 12:08 ajmitch well, we suggested every 3 weeks for a MOTU meeting 12:08 dholbach ok maybe we should have a rolling rhythm - so we have a MOTU* meeting every 1,5 weeks === gpocentek has to go 12:09 gpocentek I'm already late... I'll read the logs when I'm back 12:09 ajmitch gpocentek: ok, thanks for helping :) 12:09 dholbach see you gpocentek - thanks for being with us in the meeting 12:09 sistpoty cya gpocentek 12:09 crimsun thanks gauvain 12:10 ajmitch dholbach: sounds fair, the MotuProcessesSpec also says 3 weeks for MC 12:10 sistpoty fine with me 12:10 ajmitch I think we chose that because of a 3 week MOTU cycle 12:10 dholbach that'd be Tuesday 6th of March for the next MOTU meeting if I counted correctly 12:10 ajmitch yep 12:10 dholbach any time suggestions? 12:10 dholbach crimsun: maybe you suggest one this time :) 12:11 ajmitch I think if we get it regularly on the calendar, it'll help 12:11 dholbach I 12:11 sistpoty maybe with rotating times? 12:11 crimsun (waiting on Evolution...) 12:11 ajmitch sistpoty: yep :) 12:11 dholbach just try to decide on a time this time - we can see how it works out and then maybe decide on a rolling rhythm 12:11 ajmitch sistpoty: so that you can have your 2AM meeting :) 12:11 sistpoty hehe 12:11 dholbach I'm happy to mail ubuntu-motu@ and fridge-devel@, once we decided. 12:12 Amaranth this meeting started at 4am for me 12:12 dholbach Amaranth: that's why I suggested for crimsun to pick the time :) 12:12 crimsun how is 20:00 UTC? 12:13 dholbach works for me === ajmitch can probably make that 12:13 sistpoty fine with me 12:13 dholbach alrighty.... Mar, 6th, 20:00 UTC MOTU meeting 12:13 dholbach thanks everybody for a very good first MOTU meeting 12:14 dholbach MOTU Council meeting 12:14 ajmitch well we still have 2 fixed items 12:14 ajmitch I put the todo lists in the fixed item area, and agreeing on a MC meeting time 12:15 dholbach Mar 16th would be 3 weeks from now on 12:16 dholbach shall we make that 10:00 UTC again? 12:16 crimsun sure 12:16 ajmitch fine by me, crimsun? 12:16 crimsun (I can manage 5 AM ok :) 12:17 sistpoty well... middle of the night, but ok *g* === ajmitch wonders if crimsun actually sleeps :) 12:17 ajmitch hah
12:18 ajmitch seems that we have silent consensus, so TODO lists? 12:18 dholbach Ok, agreed on that. Let's add some quick suggestions to the TODO list. 12:18 ajmitch MOTU/TODO redirects currently 12:18 ajmitch we want people to be doing bugfixing, laserjock gave some good suggestions 12:19 dholbach we should have a separate page for that - what do you think? 12:19 sistpoty yep 12:19 dholbach * review Universe/Multiverse bugs with patches attached (add link here) 12:19 dholbach * review Debian RC fixes 12:20 dholbach * look at UnmetDeps list (maybe file bugs again) 12:20 ajmitch ah yes === ajmitch was going to do a mass bugfile for unmet deps 12:20 dholbach (* ask for rebuild test - ask for transitions that have not happened yet -> ubuntu-devel-discuss@) 12:20 sistpoty * packagtes that FTBFS (list from lucas) === ajmitch adds to tomorrow's TODO 12:21 dholbach * generally fix universe/multiverse bugs 12:21 dholbach * tag bugs as 'bitesize' and 'packaging' 12:22 dholbach that's all I can think of for now 12:22 dholbach if you want, I'll set up that page now. 12:22 sistpoty that would be great dholbach 12:22 ajmitch thanks 12:22 dholbach excellent 12:23 sistpoty but now we're done :) 12:23 ajmitch excellent :) 12:23 crimsun thanks everyone! 12:23 dholbach crimsun: can you send me the minutes before you send them off? I'd like to have a MOTU/Council/Meetings... page that quickly lists our decisions 12:23 sistpoty thanks for the first meeting :) === ajmitch would say it's time for a beer, but it's probably time for sleep instead 12:23 crimsun dholbach: already made that page 12:24 dholbach crimsun: that way we could add the link to the wiki page and send the mail to the TB as well and fulfil our reporting duty 12:24 dholbach WOW :) === dholbach hugs crimsun 12:24 ajmitch maybe whoever gets to UDS can have a beer together ;) 12:24 dholbach thanks guys 12:24 ajmitch thanks daniel!