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 motu-council@lists.ubuntu.com (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 ubuntu-motu@l.u.c 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!

MeetingLogs/MOTU/20070223 (last edited 2008-08-06 16:24:08 by localhost)