20070305
Log
TZ UTC+6
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)