09:00   ajmitch hi
09:00   geser   hi
09:00   dholbach        heya
09:00   TheMuso Hey all.
09:00   siretart        hey folks!
09:00   lfittl  hello everybody
09:00   shawarma        Hi!
09:01   Lure    hi
09:01   Toadstool       heya!
09:01   morty   Hello
09:01   dholbach        Ok, let's start off with the meeting
09:01   dholbach        First point on the agenda: "SRU Policy evaluation. How can we make it more efficient an worthwhile?"
09:01   ajmitch Mithrandir had some suggestions about that
=== Mithrandir waves.
09:02   sistpoty        hi
09:02   dholbach        sistpoty added some suggestions for that at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings
09:02   ajmitch we have a lot of packages stuck in testing
09:02   ajmitch hi Mithrandir :)
09:02   sistpoty        erm... I didn't add the suggestions :P
09:03   sistpoty        however I agree that we have many pacakges stuck in testing... I actually wanted to do some figure for the next sru-report, but the trend seems obvious already
09:03   ajmitch "lots"
09:03   dholbach        how many are those?
09:03   sistpoty        dholbach: I don't have the figures yet...
09:04   ajmitch sistpoty: since your last report, do you know of any being let into -updates?
09:04   Mithrandir      dholbach: enough that people try to sneak in bugfixes as backports instead of going through the SRU dance.
09:04   sistpoty        ajmitch: at most one, but I don't remember exactly
09:04   Mithrandir      when people are trying to do that, it means doing the right thing (SRU) is harder than doing the wrong thing (backport)
09:04   crimsun one thing that has bugged me about universe SRU is that ours is apparently more stringent than main's. Requiring 5 ACKs seems a bit far-flung.
09:05   sistpoty        yep
09:05   sistpoty        do I read the first proposal right, to skip -proposed entirely?
09:05   Mithrandir      crimsun: agreed, that seems a bit over the top.  Especially given that you won't ever see core packages such as X or the kernel in a universe update.
09:06   crimsun I would not feel comfortable skipping release-proposed
09:06   sistpoty        (also there some really easy ones with trivial changes/or mere rebuilds)
09:06   Mithrandir      I think the ideas added there was from some suggestions I threw out without really thinking them through last night, so they might be crackful.
09:06   crimsun however, we should consider dropping the 5-ACK requirement
09:06   dholbach        Ok, we have the following suggestions:     * Just have motu-sru ack then upload to -updates
09:06   dholbach            * Go back to old policy where SRU didn't need approvals, just MOTU uploads. Perhaps still using -proposed for higher risk or high profile updates.
09:06   dholbach            * Form testing team to get testing done faster. The current bottleneck seems to be mostly in getting testing.
09:06   dholbach            * (ADDED) Reduce the number of ACKs.
09:06   siretart        crimsun: like in requiring 2 or 3 ACKs or dropping it entirely?
09:07   sistpoty        hm... ideally I'd like to see every motu being able to upload directly to -proposed, and have the checking done only prior to -updates
09:07   sistpoty        however that comes with another problem:
09:07   dholbach        Apart from reducing the number of ACKs, I think the testing team is a very good idea.
09:07   Mithrandir      the idea of the first one was to have the current process, but upload to -updates and not -proposed and thereby have -updates be the testing and the safe area.  It means we can get fixes in quite a bit quicker, but also that enabling universe -updates might open you to lightly/not tested fixes.
09:07   ajmitch sistpoty: I thought that's how it was meant to be now
09:07   sistpoty        ajmitch: no, it's still going through -proposed first
09:07   crimsun dholbach: / siretart: dropping a 5-ACK requirement seems like a good idea if we get an SRU verification team (similar to main's) in place
09:08   sistpoty        well the other problem we have is that most of the updates are not done by motu's but rather by motu-hopefuls
09:08   crimsun in essence, replacing the 5 ACKs with 1
09:08   Mithrandir      remember that creating another team does not magically increase the amount of manpower available.
09:08   ajmitch sistpoty: they have to be checked by 1 MOTU anyway then
09:08   ajmitch especially when you get the same people in 5 teams
09:09   sistpoty        ajmitch: yep... currently that's motu-sru doing the checks
09:09   sistpoty        ajmitch: however I'd also like to have *one* person responsible for an update, so that would probably suggest to transfer the responsibility to the motu sponsoring
09:09   sistpoty        (which could then as well be bad)
09:09   ajmitch that's what a sponsor should do anyway :)
09:10   \sh     sistpoty: how many StableReleaseUpdates do we have daily/weekly/monthly?
09:10   siretart        \sh: enough. really..
09:10   ajmitch \sh: and how many don't get done because of the long slow process?
09:10   crimsun right. I propose we drop the 5-ACK requirement and just have the sponsoring MOTU check it.
09:10   sistpoty        \sh: currently I'd say ~2 per week, with 26 currently ongoing
09:10   crimsun (we should be making this more lightweight instead of adding another team)
09:10   ajmitch crimsun: agreed
=== siretart feels some general concent to crimsun's propsal
09:11   sistpoty        \sh: however when we first introduced the policy, the numbers where far higher
09:11   siretart        consent, even.
09:11   ajmitch crimsun: so make -proposed open for all uploads, and have 1 signoff before it gets pushed to -updates?
09:11   Mithrandir      given that universe is so lightly covered before release, I think we will always have a fairly high amount of SRUs done to fix critical bugs there, so we should just plan for that.
09:12   dholbach        was the -proposed stage the bottleneck?
09:12   Toadstool       ajmitch: how do you determine whether it can be signed off or not? wait for someone to confirm there's no regression?
09:12   crimsun ajmitch: a step forward, yes. We should keep the minimum aging period, though.
09:12   Mithrandir      dholbach: many updates seem to get into -proposed, but never get uploaded to -proposed.
09:12   sistpoty        dholbach: currently it is (or rather the testing phase there)
09:12   ajmitch dholbach: it seems to be
09:12   Mithrandir      uh, never get uploaded to -updates
09:13   crimsun Toadstool: the minimum aging period combined with testing should alleviate that
09:13   dholbach        ok, so making -proposed open for all uploads does not really help the problem, right?
09:13   ajmitch Toadstool: having at least 1 person testing is helpful
09:13   ajmitch dholbach: depends if you still want motu-sru approving anything for -proposed
09:13   sistpoty        at which point would motu-sru then review the diffs? or not at all?
09:14   \sh     sistpoty: thinking about manpower and time: how many packages are tested and checked from the sru team during one week? (also thinking, that this work is lost from the normal motu work)
09:14   dholbach        I think that having an initial check is a good thing
09:14   sistpoty        \sh: sru-team currently doesn't test updates, but only reviews the debdiffs
09:14   sistpoty        \sh: and this happens (apart from a few exceptions) very timely
09:15   siretart        since we have enough members now, it seems.
09:15   crimsun motu-sru shouldn't block release-proposed IMO. Making fixes widely available via release-proposed ASAP seems like a good idea.
09:15   sistpoty        Mithrandir: is it possible from a lp side to have uploads to -proposed pass through as is?
09:16   sistpoty        crimsun: I agree
09:16   Mithrandir      sistpoty: it'd require manual action from an archive team member, but doing that either when prodded or on archive days would be fine.
09:17   \sh     siretart: well, but checking the debdiffs, doesn't mean that the package is alright. And if there are no users who are actively testing, it won't get uploaded to -updates, right? so the workload of checking debdiffs is useless somehow, until there is at least one user who tells us: "Package works for me" , or did I misunderstood something? :)
09:17   sistpoty        ok
09:17   ajmitch afaik there are 3 archive days a week no, so that's no blocker
09:17   sistpoty        \sh: right. because of that we have the stage in -proposed
09:18   sistpoty        \sh: however checking the debdiffs is not useless actually ;)
09:18   dholbach        requiring the sponsor to test and having a team of testers test it would help with that step, wouldn't it?
09:19   sistpoty        sure, it would, but also lowering the number of acks needed would as well
09:19   dholbach        that's what I meant: one sponsor ACK, one testing team ACK
09:20   dholbach        that's just a proposal - you guys who work on the motu-sru team know better than I do, if it makes sense.
09:20   sistpoty        how about the following: any motu can upload to -proposed. one member of sru needs to give green lights for -updates + 5 works for me within 5 days, 3 within 10 days and > 10 days needs another ack from motu-sru (to sort out simple stuff like rebuilds from tougher updates)?
09:20   Toadstool       dholbach: so motu-sru approval is not required anymore in your proposal?
09:20   \sh     sistpoty: you know what I mean, checking the debdiff, but no one to test, the package will not leave -proposed, so the work is "vertane zeit" ( I don't know the english translation)
09:21   crimsun Ok, so how does this proposal sound?  1) Remove the pre-upload-to-proposed ACK requirement (make -proposed open to ubuntu-dev without motu-sru approval).  2) The sponsoring ubuntu-dev member is responsible for gathering testing with 2 ACKs, which must be documented on the LP bug and in the final -updates changelog.  3) The minimum aging period of 7 days in -proposed remains.  4) motu-sru goes away.
09:21   sistpoty        \sh: hehe, you mean because no update actually makes it, right? *g*
09:21   \sh     sistpoty: yepp
09:21   sistpoty        \sh: sure
09:21   dholbach        Toadstool: that's a different question :)
09:22   Mithrandir      crimsun: sounds fine with me.
09:23   ajmitch crimsun: I like it
09:23   crimsun From my perspective in motu-sru, we've really only encountered a few true discussion-worthy ones. The remainders are trivial "oh, looks good, +1".
09:23   siretart        crimsun: how many testers do have to confirm the fix with your proposal?
09:23   Toadstool       crimsun: looks good.
09:23   dholbach        crimsun: I like it too.
09:23   crimsun siretart: two (including the ubuntu-dev sponsor and one tester)
09:23   Mithrandir      of course, people are allowed to ask for second opinions if they feel an update needs more review.
09:24   crimsun Mithrandir: precisely
09:24   rmjb    can ubuntu-qa assist with testing?
09:24   sistpoty        crimsun: I generally like to see normal motu's more involved in sru's and take more responsibility there. sounds great for me
09:24   dholbach        rmjb: we could ask ubuntu-bugsquad@ for help with that
09:25   crimsun anyone else have thoughts on the proposal given above, and/or can we "vote"?
09:25   sistpoty        let's vote
09:25   ajmitch +1 for crimsun's proposal
09:25   sistpoty        +1
09:25   \sh     crimsun +1 :)
09:25   dholbach        +1 too
09:26   TheMuso +1
09:26   crimsun +1
09:26   Toadstool       +1
09:26   ajmitch sounds like it's approved, what's next on the list? :)
09:26   sistpoty        how do we do the transition for this policy?
09:27   siretart        +1 and +1 :)
09:27   sistpoty        unsubscribe motu-sru from all bugs and subscribing universe-sponsors for the ones which don't have a motu as assignee?
09:27   ajmitch sistpoty: find everything with 2 ACKs & get it pushed to -updates
09:27   dholbach        We need to document it and announce it to the public, especially to the TB.
09:27   crimsun sistpoty: sounds good for starters
09:28   Mithrandir      ajmitch: somebody needs to actually do the uploads, though.
09:28   siretart        can we just remove the group 'motu-sru'?
09:28   ajmitch excellent one *less* team :)
09:28   ajmitch Mithrandir: ah true, they don't get manually shoved across, do they?
09:28   crimsun siretart: that sounds good
09:28   sistpoty        well, I'd like to see all SRU's from non-motus which have been sponsored by motu-sru being taken care for... then we can remove motu-sru ;)
09:29   sistpoty        but I guess I'll do some uploads to -updates after the meeting ;)
09:29   Mithrandir      ajmitch: they need to be uploaded.
09:29   dholbach        Nice. I'll update the Freeze Exception page and write an announcement.
09:29   sistpoty        great dholbach
09:29   sistpoty        ok, next item?
09:30   dholbach        jono asks: "From asking around, it seems the project needs help with (a) outreach and getting new people involved (b) getting people excited about MOTU and (c) defining some direction for the project. Is this a fair assessment?"
09:30   dholbach        I'm not sure it's a good idea to discuss it in a meeting, since we could spend quite some time in here talking about the topic.
09:31   dholbach        What do you think about having some minutes of brainstorming as 'data collection' for another meeting or discussion on the mailing list?
09:31   TheMuso dholbach: I would have to agree.
09:31   \sh     dholbach: I think a better question is: how are the other community driven projects solving this problems? mostly a hen and egg problem ;)
09:31   crimsun I propose we migrate that discussion ubuntu-motu@ .
09:31   dholbach        \sh: It's definitely another question. :)
09:31   sistpoty        I guess it might make sense to have jono here to actually discuss it, but brainstorming sounds good
09:31   crimsun +to
09:31   siretart        just one small point here:
09:32   siretart        this weekend, at chemnitzer linux tage, I had a talk about developer communities in ubuntu
09:32   dholbach        siretart: nice - you have some slides up somewhere? :)
09:32   siretart        the ppl were quite impressed about that we have so few developers for so many packages
09:32   siretart        and that ubuntu is such a young distro
=== ajmitch still feels we're constantly stretched
09:33   dholbach        I hope you all feel patted on the back.
09:33   siretart        dholbach: sure, get them at http://wiki.tauware.de/blog:clt2007 - directly: http://wiki.tauware.de/_media/blog:ubuntu_communities.odp?id=blog%3Aclt2007&cache=cache
09:33   \sh     siretart: regarding MOTU or complete ubuntu-dev?
09:33   siretart        german, though
09:33   siretart        \sh: both
09:33   ajmitch dholbach: most of the thanks should probably go to debian, though
=== rmjb would like to help... but is overwhelmed with all that is needed to be known
09:33   siretart        keep in mind it was a 30min talk, I couldn't go into details
09:34   ajmitch rmjb: that's part of what we need to discuss - how to get people involved that can't spend several hours a day on it :)
09:34   sistpoty        rmjb: #ubuntu-motu is a good starting place ;)
09:34   crimsun ajmitch: (right, given the ratio of merge to syncs)
09:34   siretart        however, I really think we have way too few developers, espc. in universe land. I  don't have concrete ideas however how to fix this
09:34   \sh     the difference is: doing OSS work for a living, and get money for it, or just do it as a hobby...
09:34   dholbach        ajmitch: MOTU is doing a very good job, but we're standing on the shoulders of giants. :-)
09:35   siretart        personal package archives could improve things. is there any news on this topic?
09:35   ajmitch siretart: we have quite a few developers, but most are inactive
09:35   ajmitch we talked recently about sending out a nice email to inactive motus inviting them to get involved again
09:35   crimsun testing for SRU in -proposed is a good way to get involved, too
09:35   siretart        ajmitch: right. I'm talking about 'active' developers. but it's quite hard to define 'active' contributors.
09:35   sistpoty        yep... and we need to make more things clear on the mailing lists imho... so that casual hopefuls know what's going on even if they're not on irc
=== ajmitch isn't particularly active
09:36   dholbach        ajmitch: gpocentek and I are working on that
09:36   TheMuso One thing I've noticed is that if one is out of the loop too long, it can take a while to catch up to the latest goings on.
09:36   dholbach        ok let's start to mention problems and possible solutions as bullet points for 3-4 minutes - try not to get too deep into discussions
09:36   TheMuso Because things change so fast.
09:36   Toadstool       true
09:36   sistpoty        TheMuso: right
09:36   ajmitch dholbach: great
09:36   crimsun As for one route to bring in hopefuls:  it would be nice to have instructions for setting up various release chroots to help with testing. I can work on that.
09:36   sistpoty        * motu-school sessions
09:37   dholbach        * activity on the mailing list
09:37   ajmitch * finding a place to start working
09:37   dholbach        * more patting on the back
09:37   Toadstool       (more hugs? :)
09:37   dholbach        * (a) outreach and getting new people involved
09:37   dholbach        *  (b) getting people excited about MOTU
09:37   TheMuso sistpoty: Thats the impression I've got a couple of times when I have been gone for a while in the past, and have come back to help out again, and found myself having to find out the latest happenings.
09:37   dholbach        ;-)
09:37   rmjb    there seem to be diff types of MOTU, mergers, bug fixsers, packagers, maybe different pages for these different types of tasks?
09:38   \sh     * spreading curiosity to the people / * why should I work on Ubuntu, and what are the benefits for me and my daily life
09:38   rmjb    at least to help hopefuls ease into tasks
09:38   dholbach        * better structured documentation
09:38   \sh     I mean it serious...those questions I get here in my office..."why are you working on ubuntu, if you don't earn money with it"
09:38   TheMuso Could the packaging guide possibly be improved?
09:39   ajmitch TheMuso: if there's someone willing to improve it, sure
09:39   dholbach        more (team work - not administrative) teams
09:39   TheMuso I have never really looked at it myself, but people may be daunted by it.
09:39   crimsun TheMuso: yes, and there's work on that
09:39   rmjb    the packaging guide is good... the end could have some tips and tricks though
09:39   sistpoty        * monthly summary of all policy changes + todo list on the mailing list?
09:40   Toadstool       sistpoty: that'd be great
09:40   dholbach        * more scheduled QA sessions
09:40   crimsun (random thought: why don't we turn the packaging guide into a cookbook, ala the O'Reilly series?)
09:40   xerosis * mentors to ease new people in
09:40   bddebian        We have mentors
09:41   sistpoty        xerosis: we have mentors already... maybe that's in a too less prominent place on the wiki`
09:41   sistpoty        ? even
09:41   dholbach        ok, maybe let's close the list here - this should be a good start for more discussions among our team and with jono - let's move on.
09:41   xerosis apologies
09:41   siretart        dholbach++
09:41   TheMuso I think some MOTUs that don't currently mentor should consider doing it at some point.
09:41   sistpoty        dholbach: +1
09:41   dholbach        Let's have a look at our TODO lists.
09:41   sistpoty        (and I should stop mentoring, as I'm a particular bad mentor :P)
09:41   dholbach        sistpoty mentions "what's missing (php4-transition? what else)"
09:42   dholbach        xerosis: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Mentors
09:42   sistpoty        dholbach: well, php4 is about to be removed... let me look at the mail back again
09:42   dholbach        https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/TODO
09:42   dholbach        didn't we have a unmetdeps list somewhere?
09:42   dholbach        or somebody who agreed to file a bunch of bugs on it?
09:42   \sh     php4-transition to 20050606+lfs?
09:43   dholbach        Is somebody here who'd like to do that?
09:43   \sh     I already uploaded many php4 packages to rebuild on latest php4 api change
09:43   dholbach        \sh: we're talking about removal
09:43   \sh     dholbach: ah
09:43   sistpoty        https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-February/001288.html
09:43   tonyyarusso     crimsun: (would it be able to cover everything that way?  Seems pretty good as is)
09:43   crimsun tonyyarusso: offband to -motu, please
09:44   dholbach        What's missing on  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/TODO ?
09:45   dholbach        Is somebody here who'd like to file a bunch of unmetdeps bugs?
09:45   ajmitch results of an archive rebuild (yet to come)
=== ajmitch was going to, but hasn't yet
09:45   dholbach        ajmitch: do you know what's the status there?
09:45   dholbach        ajmitch: (archive rebuild)
09:45   ajmitch no idea about archive rebuild
09:45   sistpoty        there was some smaller thing as well iirc, but I cannot remember exactly what it was
=== ajmitch could still do unmet deps bugs if you really wish
09:46   dholbach        that'd be nice
09:46   sistpoty        ajmitch: that'd be great
09:46   dholbach        http://daniel.holba.ch/bzr/massfile/
09:46   ajmitch yeah I have that checked out somewhere
09:46   dholbach        :)
09:46   dholbach        anything else we're missing on that list?
09:47   dholbach        did anybody spend some time to tag bugs as 'bitesize' or 'packaging'?
09:47   dholbach        should we call out a Universe HUG DAY or something?
09:47   bddebian        Probably a good idea
09:47   sistpoty        dholbach: sure... was just about to mention that ;)
09:47   dholbach        rock
09:47   dholbach        who does it? :)
09:47   crimsun dholbach: that would be a good idea, and it's an easy way to get people involved this week
09:47   TheMuso sorry guys, gotta run.
09:47   ajmitch dholbach can distribute hugs
09:48   dholbach        hehe :)
09:48   sistpoty        hehe
09:48   dholbach        ok, ajmitch will file unmetdeps bugs, I'll try to find out what's up with the rebuilds
09:49   dholbach        who'd join Universe HUG DAY to work through universe bugs?
09:49   dholbach        who'd announce it?
09:49   bddebian        I would try to join (work has been brutal lately)
09:49   crimsun I'm up for working on tagging universe bugs as bitesize/etc.
09:49   sistpoty        I'll try my best, but currently I need to cancel many tasks due to my thesis :(
09:50   dholbach        ok, I'd join in as well
09:50   dholbach        friday?
09:50   crimsun Friday sounds good
09:50   dholbach        I can write the announce
09:50   dholbach        anything else for the TODO list?
09:50   Toadstool       hmm, i'll try to join too
09:50   sistpoty        I guess everone should just add s.th. if he finds another thing, ok?
09:50   dholbach        ok
09:51   Toadstool       (quite busy at work though)
09:51   dholbach        siretart asks "What to do with broken packages we know about?"
09:51   ajmitch dholbach: blog it on planet :)
09:52   bddebian        dholbach / siretart: Like?
09:52   siretart        we had another example today: xserver-xgl:
09:52   dholbach        "there are packages, which we know that we won't be able to fix them before release. This includes e.g. unmet dependencies. Can we do better than leaving them in the release?"
09:52   bddebian        Ahh
09:52   Toadstool       dholbach: remove'em from the archive? :)
=== Toadstool hides
09:53   crimsun concerning xserver-xgl: I'll look at it tonight, since I have access to hardware that would be affected
09:53   siretart        bddebian: xserver-xgl got broken by the xorg 7.2 upload to main, and the diff to current git head is way too big to review
09:53   dholbach        I don't think we should try to find a too easy solution to the problem in five minutes of a meeting.
09:53   Mithrandir      Toadstool: that is painful when we next time sync from Debian.
09:53   siretart        bddebian: other packages include packages with unmet deps
09:53   Toadstool       Mithrandir: yeah I know, just kidding
09:53   Mithrandir      we've so far fixed unmetdeps in SRUs, which I think is sane enough.
09:54   ajmitch crimsun: thanks
09:54   sistpoty        yep... and sometimes contributors contribute fixes for sru's :)
09:54   siretart        I don't have any concrete proposal, I just find it sad that we release with so many broken package, and for many, we know that they are broken
09:54   dholbach        I'm not sure there's a general answer to the question.
09:54   crimsun we should really push to get those RC fixes from Debian in before feisty release
09:55   siretart        I compare with debian, where broken packages get removed before release. but that's not really applicable to ubuntu, I know
09:55   Toadstool       if the amount of really broken packages stays reasonably low, we can take care of them with SRUs, right?
09:55   sistpoty        I guess we should try to remove packages that are broken which have been removed from debian some time ago
09:55   crimsun unmet deps can be resolved via SRU, so I'm not really worried. Perhaps we should start with known _regressions_ from edgy first.
09:55   ajmitch siretart: that's because they're removed from testing, but can be left in unstable
09:55   Mithrandir      siretart: we don't have testing (as in the distribution)
09:55   siretart        ajmitch: right
09:56   Mithrandir      we could maybe remove the binaries..
09:56   dholbach        sistpoty: i think that happens regularly (debian-removed -> ubuntu-removed)
09:56   siretart        Mithrandir: we don't have some other solution either
09:56   siretart        Mithrandir: removing binaries sounds like a good idea to me!
09:56   sistpoty        dholbach: iirc there are some left... maybe if they have ubuntu changes?
09:56   dholbach        sistpoty: dunno
09:56   Mithrandir      siretart: it'll require binary NEW then, which is significantly less work than source NEW.
09:56   Mithrandir      siretart: I'd need to discuss it with the archive team.
09:56   ajmitch siretart: btw about xserver-xgl - the majority of the debdiff is the nasty bundled mesa copy
09:57   sistpoty        siretart: removing the binary sounds like a good idea
09:57   dholbach        ajmitch: that's info we need in the bug report :)
09:57   ajmitch dholbach: it's already in the diffstat :)
09:57   siretart        Mithrandir: I'd expect binary removals to happen really short before release. binary new shouldn't be too much of a problem at the beginning of the release cycle
09:58   Mithrandir      siretart: uh, have you looked at NEW when we start syncing from Debian?
09:58   siretart        Mithrandir: it's long, I assume :)
09:58   siretart        Mithrandir: but do you really do an extensive NEW review for every NEW package from debian?
09:59   dholbach        so there's only the possibility to remove binary packages as a reasonable measure it seems.
09:59   Mithrandir      siretart: I've done so so far at least, yes.  But as I said, binary NEW is a lot less work than source NEW.
09:59   siretart        I imagine
09:59   Mithrandir      (since it doesn't require checking all licences, just making sure the packages are somewhat sane)
10:00   sistpoty        ok, I guess we'll just wait for a resolution from ubuntu-archive on this one, right?
10:00   dholbach        right
10:00   ajmitch ok, so next meeting time?
10:00   dholbach        any other business?
10:00   ajmitch :)
10:00   sistpoty        Mithrandir: can you inform us of the result please?
10:00   bddebian        yeah, I need a raise ;-P
10:00   Mithrandir      sistpoty: yes.  Can you mail me reminding me to do so?
10:01   sistpoty        Mithrandir: sure, or I'll just ping you :P
10:01   dholbach        ok, no other business - how about in three weeks?
10:01   ajmitch ok, what time of day?
10:01   dholbach        so we keep on rolling with the MC meeting
10:01   sistpoty        erm... wasn't there some overlapping with TB meeting (or was that MC meeting)?
10:01   crimsun after 20:00 if in 3 weeks
10:02   ajmitch sistpoty: with TB
10:02   Mithrandir      sistpoty: sure, that's fine.  It's just that it's 22:00 here now and I was planning on heading to bed soonish, not work. :-)
10:02   crimsun because TB is at 20:00 in 3 weeks
10:02   ajmitch Mithrandir: I'll poke you about f-spot uvf tomorrow then :)
10:02   Mithrandir      ajmitch: sure
10:02   dholbach        let's do it before TB then
10:02   dholbach        :)
10:02   crimsun 18:00?
10:02   ajmitch dholbach: or +- 12 hours
10:02   dholbach        sounds good to me
10:03   ajmitch to allow people in australia to make it to the meeting
10:03   sistpoty        ajmitch: yep, rotating seems like a fair thing to do
10:03   sistpoty        8.00 UTC?
10:03   dholbach        fine with me too
10:04   ajmitch sounds fair
10:04   sistpoty        +1 here as well
10:04   sistpoty        <-- needs to get up really early then :P
10:04   Toadstool       late meeting but fair :) +1
10:04   ajmitch sistpoty: you'll live :)
10:04   sistpoty        hrhr
10:04   bddebian        heh
10:04   dholbach        WFM
10:05   dholbach        who writes the announce?
10:05   sistpoty        hm... WFM always reminds me of WTF *g*
10:05   sistpoty        I can do it
10:05   dholbach        ok, excellent
10:05   sistpoty        btw.: is anyone doing the minutes?
10:05   dholbach        thanks everbody for showing up to the meeting :)
10:06   ajmitch thanks
10:06   bddebian        Thanks.  Sorry I'm not as "involved" lately :'-(
10:07   crimsun sistpoty: I started but got volunteered for another meeting here. Can you do them?
10:07   sistpoty        crimsun: ok, will do
10:07   crimsun thank
10:07   crimsun +s
10:07   LaserJock       sorry guys, really late
10:07   dholbach        you ROCK
10:07   sistpoty        bddebian? you *not* involved? then I'm completely away from the project :P
10:08   bddebian        pfft :-)
10:08   bddebian        LaserJock: Just in time ;-P
10:09   LaserJock       all over?
10:09   Toadstool       yep
10:09   ajmitch LaserJock: yep, just finished

MeetingLogs/MOTU/20070305 (last edited 2008-08-06 17:00:19 by localhost)