23:00 < dholbach> . o O { The bell tolls 11 times in Berlin... }
23:01 < sistpoty> hi everyone
23:01 < dholbach> does that mean we start without the smokers? :)
23:01 < ajmitch> hehe
23:02 < dholbach> Let's start off then
23:02 < sistpoty> I can live suppress my addiction for some time :P
23:02 < sistpoty> s/live//
23:02 < dholbach> I added a comment on "Need some advise about becoming MOTU of the claws-mail program! (?TuxCrafter)"
23:02 < dholbach> because I think we can deal with this pretty easily
23:02  * TheMuso vaguely remembers seeing that,
23:02 < dholbach> do we have anybody who'd like to be mentor for TuxCrafter and help him with getting things done?
23:02 < sistpoty> TuxCrafter around?
23:03 < TheMuso> Actually, I do remember seeing that.
23:03 < gpocentek> dholbach: I'll take care of this
23:03 < dholbach> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Council/Meetings is the agenda for everybody who's around
23:03  * ajmitch reloads the agenda
23:03 < dholbach> gpocentek: thank you very much
23:03 < gpocentek> it's Xubuntu related, so...
23:03 < sistpoty> yay, thanks
23:03 < dholbach> sistpoty and siretart wanted to discuss RFP bugs
23:04 < sistpoty> well, the Candidates page is a little bit messy imo, could we use lp bugs for it?
23:04 < sistpoty> s.th. like file against ubuntu, tag with RFP?
23:04 < dholbach> sounds good to me
23:04 < TheMuso> whT is rfp?
23:04 < gpocentek> I like the idea
23:04 < dholbach> TheMuso: request for package
23:04 < TheMuso> Oh.
23:04  * TheMuso practically never looks at that page. :)
23:04 < sistpoty> (that way we could also link to debian rfps/itps)
23:05 < dholbach> once assigned, we could regularly ping the assignee and track how it's going
23:05 < ajmitch> talk to laserjock about that please
23:05 < ajmitch> he's been talking with the LP guys about what would best be used there
23:05 < dholbach> ok, I'm going to announce the 'rfp' tag and the idea in general and link it from the bugs page
23:05 < sistpoty> ajmitch: yep, good idea
23:05  * imbrandon returns
23:05 < dholbach> neat-o :)
23:05 < dholbach> move on?
23:05 < ajmitch> in his role as LP contact :)
23:06 < ajmitch> ah, the charter
23:06 < imbrandon> ajmitch, rfp/itp ?
23:06 < sistpoty> ok, I'll contact laserjock, and see what he's for us... ok?
23:06 < dholbach> imbrandon: both - once it's turned into an itp, the bug would just have an assignee
23:06 < sistpoty> he has even
23:06 < siretart> dholbach: re: 'rfp' idea: this also means that the 'Candidates' Page gets removed from the wiki, right?
23:06 < imbrandon> dholbach, great
23:06 < dholbach> I'm happy to write some documentation on it
23:07 < dholbach> siretart: after a short while, I wouldn't want it to be just purged
23:07 < dholbach> ... just purged like that
23:07 < imbrandon> siretart, well not removed, but turned more into an explination of how to file a rfp on LP ;)
23:07 < siretart> dholbach: d'accord
23:07 < dholbach> also, we'd need to update Bugs/Responses
23:07 < siretart> imbrandon: jupp
23:07 < dholbach> I'll take care of that
23:08 < dholbach> ok, moving on to the charter
23:08 < sistpoty> maybe we could move to the last point... might make sense to have crimsun around for charter?
23:08 < dholbach> ok
23:08 < sistpoty> this is really just a silly question from my side, as I get bounces quite often... can we do s.th. and what?
23:08 < dholbach> regarding ml bounces, I deactivated sending mail to doomrunner and mailed him about it (found a different address in LP)
23:09 < dholbach> usually that's only for people whose mail account is full, etc
23:09 < sistpoty> ok, great :)
23:09 < dholbach> so after a few bounces you can take action on it
23:09  * ajmitch doesn't moderate often because the mailman folder is low down in the mutt config :)
23:09 < dholbach> it's manual, but easy to deal with
23:09 < dholbach> ajmitch: pffffft :)
23:09 < sistpoty> ok... I guess I'll look at the mailman thingy a little bit more in detail :)
23:09 < ajmitch> too easy to forget about the mail piling up...
23:10 < dholbach> sistpoty: in the membership page, just click the 'nomail' thingie for that person and you're set
23:10 < sistpoty> ah... cool. thx
23:11 < dholbach> ok, let's move on to KDE4 and the charter
23:11 < sistpoty> ok
23:11 < dholbach> i personally feel that they both describe problems with "where does the MC stand"
23:11 < dholbach> ... in the MOTU world
23:11 < sistpoty> yep
23:12 < dholbach> you might have read my latest response to the kde4 thread and I think we should have been quicker about escalaiting this to the TB
23:12 < dholbach> as the TB can do an ultimate decision and they approved the kde4 spec
23:12 < dholbach> Riddell: are you there?
23:12 < imbrandon> well not exactly, this should be treated just as any other UVFe request, only in that instead of one person asking for the UVFe you have a group
23:12 < Riddell> abend
23:13 < dholbach> imbrandon: what do you mean by "not exactly"?
23:13 < dholbach> Riddell: :-)
23:13 < sistpoty> hehe, just wanted to write that I also think we need some kind of escalation path, in case such problems occur later
23:13 < imbrandon> in either case MC shouldent have a say in what is or isnt in the universe imho, only if to grant a uvfe or not
23:13 < ajmitch> though motu-uvf gets its policy set by MC, etc
23:14 < ajmitch> 3 of the team overlap with the MC anyway :)
23:14 < imbrandon> right
23:14 < dholbach> what do you all think about moving the thread to ubuntu-devel and CC the TB?
23:14 < imbrandon> well my big thing here is why is this set of packages gettign diffrent treatment than any other set of packages asking for a UVFe ?
23:14 < dholbach> I think that will resolve the issue quickly and we can all move on
23:14 < dholbach> imbrandon: why a different treatment?
23:15 < dholbach> imbrandon: it was asked for a general exception for it
23:15 < ajmitch> we have't given out any general exceptions for a set of packages
23:15 < imbrandon> well all this "todo" about it , i mean it boils down to if you need more information to grant or deny the uvfe then ask, if not move on
23:15 < imbrandon> why all the TB etc
23:15 < ajmitch> because this was initially presented as "we're doing this, unless the MC overrides"
23:16 < ajmitch> confusion as to what team does what, etc
23:16 < dholbach> until now there was no decision yet, but people voiced their concerns/approval on a general exception
23:16 < imbrandon> right, i'm not saying it was presented in the best way, but alot of things arent, just like any bug, there is a "more info" choice
23:16 < imbrandon> ;)
23:16 < ajmitch> for every other package, it's being done on a package-by-package basis, for each version
23:16 < ajmitch> rather than a blanket exception for new packages & new versions
23:17 < sistpoty> actually I'm not too happy to continue this thread... it imo caused enough harm already. and since we've been unable to come to a decision (I guess that's kinda our fault) I'd say that means we didn't object
23:17 < ajmitch> so there's no precedent, hence the slow decision
23:17  * ajmitch would think that the best way to get them useful is to stick them in universe & aggressively update in feisty-backports
23:18 < imbrandon> agrees with ajmitch
23:18 < dholbach> to resolve the issue quickly, I'd suggest to contact the TB to get a final ACK and briefly mention the pros and cons that were pointed out, so we can move on
23:18 < imbrandon> and voiced or not i know that is the intentions of those of us that work on them
23:19 < sistpoty> dholbach: ok, with me
23:19 < imbrandon> dholbach, see thats just it, can the MC not grant a UVFe? why ........ never mind, i guess only the "easy" decisions are ...... /me shushes
23:19 < dholbach> imbrandon: can you elaborate?
23:19 < imbrandon> not without being so frank that i'm affraid to offend someone
23:20 < dholbach> move on, that's what we're all here for
23:20 < ajmitch> go ahead anyway
23:20 < sistpoty> imbrandon: better break toes know than kill persons later ;)
23:20 < dholbach> I'm sure we can make a rational decision and learn from the situation
23:20 < dholbach> Riddell: I guess you're quite busy atm, but what is your view on this?
23:20 < imbrandon> ok, then imho MC should stepup and say yes or no, dont fall back to TB because its a hard decesion, if the awnser is no then we have to deal with it, if you need more info , then ask
23:21 < ajmitch> imbrandon: that's hardly offensive :)
23:21 < imbrandon> but falling to the TB i feel is a step back for the MC
23:21 < imbrandon> not just this situation
23:21 < Riddell> my view is the same as that of the kubuntu council, the packages should go in.  there's no point in having development packages any older than we have to and they have already solved some significant problems upstream by having them
23:21 < ajmitch> the reason for falling back to the TB, so to speak, is to get a clear understanding of where our reponsibilities extend to
23:22 < ajmitch> ie whether other teams would need to go through the policies set by the MC for anything in universe
23:22 < ajmitch> in this case it was a preapproved spec that we'd be blocking if we didn't let it in
23:22 < imbrandon> ajmitch, right, and as i said, the KC is asking for a UVFe , not telling since the spec went over time
23:23 < imbrandon> but imho its justified
23:23 < sistpoty> and falling back to TB is sane if we end up with conflicting interests from teams
23:23 < ajmitch> imbrandon: right, but this is a different UVFe, up until release day :)
23:23 < sistpoty> (since I guess we also need a clear escalation path)
23:23 < imbrandon> ok
23:23 < dholbach> I agree with sistpoty - it'd be nice to hear what gpocentek and crimsun have to say
23:24 < dholbach> (crimsun might be a bit late)
23:24 < gpocentek> well...
23:24 < ajmitch> hopefully crimsun gets to the office (without a speeding ticket)
23:24 < sistpoty> hehe
23:24 < gpocentek> I'd be happy to see KDE4 in universe, but not really happy to see that it won't be maintained
23:24 < gpocentek> and I really understand why the Kubuntu wants it
23:24 < imbrandon> it will be maintained, through feisty-backports
23:25 < TheMuso> c/
23:25 < TheMuso> gah
23:25 < Riddell> why does Kubuntu want to help the development of the next version of our desktop?
23:25 < Riddell> seems pretty obvious to me
23:25 < dholbach> do apps in -backports build against libs in -backports?
23:25 < ajmitch> gpocentek: do you feel happy with letting the kubuntu guys do what they will with the KDE4 stuff in feisty, given that there's already some of it there?
23:25 < imbrandon> i'm both on the KDE team and -backports and will personaly see that it is backported in a timely manner
23:25 < imbrandon> dholbach, yes
23:25 < dholbach> good to know
23:26 < sistpoty> imbrandon: that's great to hear
23:26 < gpocentek> ajmitch: I'm sure they won't do "what they want"
23:26 < crimsun> (present, sorry for tardiness)
23:26 < gpocentek> Riddell: "I really understand"
23:27 < sistpoty> wb crimsun
23:27 < ajmitch> gpocentek: that's what's being asked for - permission for new packages (kde4 apps), and updating the snapshots until release time
23:27 < Riddell> gpocentek: ooh, oops, my bad
23:27 < ajmitch> crimsun: welcome
23:27 < imbrandon> wb crimsun
23:28 < gpocentek> we've gone with svn snapshot of Xfce until the last dapper development's day
23:28 < ajmitch> that was pre-4.2?
23:29 < dholbach> shall we do a tentative vote and see where we stand? how would the result look in +1, +0,5, 0, -0,5 and -1 votes?
23:29 < ajmitch> dholbach: you forgot complex numbers
23:29 < imbrandon> you might also note too that feisty+1 will likely see a stable release of kde4 , this will GREATLY help the next version stableize
23:30 < imbrandon> as we are pretty much one of the top KDE4 development platforms for upstream KDE
23:30 < sistpoty> dholbach: sure
23:30  * ajmitch puts in a +1
23:30 < ajmitch> imbrandon: that's interesting
23:30 < ajmitch> I didn't realise kubuntu was so popular now in the developer community
23:31 < imbrandon> in the kde developer community it is , 50/50 kubuntu/suse
23:31 < ajmitch> it used to be a lot of mandrake, back in the day :)
23:31 < imbrandon> :)
23:31 < dholbach> I'd vote with: +0,5 as I think that it's vaiuable and somewhat taken care of (through backports - bear in mind that not all people have activated them), but I'm not convinced that there will be enough manpower to feed those bugs upstream, to be really useful - also I think it's not good to have old delveopment snapshots
23:31 < sistpoty> +1... because imbrandon will take care for backports (which was my main opposition), and because UVF-team seemed happy with it (at least from my memory of the thread)
23:31 < gpocentek> (sorry, boken connection)
23:33 < crimsun> RE: KDE 4 snaps in feisty, precedence definitely has been set with Xfce for the past two stable releases in _main_. I've also already mailed about my feeling that the Kubuntu community wants these snapshots, and because they exist already in edgy, we really have no reason to not have such in feisty. Ultimately, however, I honestly don't feel the MC has the "powah" here to say yay or nay.
23:33 < dholbach> gpocentek: we were just conducting a tentative vote to see where we stand -- we're at +2,5 at the moment :)
23:33 < ajmitch> crimsun: right, the kubuntu guys seem happy for now if MC approves it :)
23:34 < dholbach> crimsun: I tend to agree with your last point and we should discuss that in the next agenda point, when it comes to the charter.
23:34 < gpocentek> dholbach: thanks
23:34 < gpocentek> +1 from if the backports are available
23:34 < crimsun> I'm happy to say +1 for it based not on "geez, enough already" but on precedence.
23:34 < dholbach> imbrandon: (and I guess that's why we ultimately lagged behind on making a decision)
23:34 < imbrandon> :)
23:35 < gpocentek> (My fear what to see a development snapshot quite unusable and not updated in the repos)
23:35 < dholbach> Ok, shall we move on, announce the outcome? Any conditions?
23:35 < dholbach> I don't think we need further discussion now.
23:35 < ajmitch> imbrandon: see, that was mostly painless ;)
23:35 < imbrandon> hehe yes
23:36 < ajmitch> no throwing chairs involved
23:36 < imbrandon> i just dident wanna step on toes but knew you all could pull it off
23:36 < ajmitch> part of the problem is what we'll discuss now
23:36 < ajmitch> what responsibilities MC has
23:36 < sistpoty> yep
23:37 < dholbach> what do you all think about having a weekly update on ubuntu-motu@ about how kde4 goes? what has been updated, what blockers are currently seen, etc?
23:37 < crimsun> (apparently I've traded one unstable connection for another, great. I'll lag momentarily.)
23:37 < imbrandon> ok just to be clear , we have a UVFe for KDE4 snapshots / programs ?
23:37 < dholbach> I think that'd be only fair to know what's going on and where we might want to step in if things break to awfully
23:37 < ajmitch> imbrandon: aiui, yes, since we know there's a defined set of programs there you'll be putting in
23:37 < imbrandon> dholbach, sure, and i'll be happy to be the "contact" for that if you wish , between the MC and the KDE team
23:37 < ajmitch> thanks
23:38 < dholbach> imbrandon: thanks a lot
23:38 < dholbach> we'll announce it like that and inform the TB about the decision
23:38 < sistpoty> yay, thanks
23:38 < dholbach> moving on
23:38 < dholbach> what lessons can we learn from this? shall we do a quick brainstorming on that?
23:39 < dholbach> i'd like to hear imbrandon and Riddell on that, because their input is quite valuable as "other teams who deal with the MC"
23:39 < ajmitch> we need to move faster on making a decision
23:39 < ajmitch> while keeping everyone involved
23:39 < dholbach>  * need clearer guidelines on what needs a MC decision and what not
23:40 < sistpoty> ajmitch++
23:40 < dholbach>  * don't start voting too early
23:40 < sistpoty> (sorry for that)
23:40 < dholbach> no problem - I'm very happy we're learning that fast
23:40 < ajmitch> some MOTUs feel like they're cut out now
23:40 < imbrandon> well on this feasico i have only 2 things i would have changed, imho , 1) the initial email might not have been in the form of a question but i would have requested that it was, or treated it as such ( e.g. asked for more info to grant/deny the UVFe ) and 2) ....
23:41 < crimsun> I think ultimately we need to be careful to not appear to decide _for_ MOTU as a whole but simply decide who becomes MOTU.
23:41 < ajmitch> crimsun: right, that's a matter of whether we should be making these decisions or not, no?
23:42 < crimsun> It can be confusing as quite a few of us (MC) straddle teams.
23:42 < crimsun> ajmitch: right
23:42 < imbrandon> tream other teams that come into your "domain" as any other person, it shouldent have been any diffrent that KC was asking or joe blow
23:42 < imbrandon> yea
23:42 < sistpoty> crimsun: that will leave the following problems: who could do this decisions then? how could decision be done in a timely matter?
23:42 < dholbach> I agree with crimsun there - the MC was envisioned as somebody being responsible for decisions, not making them as a clique - up until now we didn't do that many decisions and they've always been backed up by lots of MOTUs
23:43 < dholbach> imbrandon: how do you feel were you treated differently than joe blow?
23:43 < ajmitch> even for the SRU policy vote, which was done in a MOTU meeting, some MOTUs felt like their votes wouldn't count
23:43 < dholbach> we should point that out in the charter
23:43 < sistpoty> definitely
23:44 < imbrandon> i dont think it was really, but i was just saying, you were worried weather it was KC saying yes or MC saying yes, it should have been turned arround right away in the MC's head that someone was asking for a UVFe , not someone was demanding one
23:44 < crimsun> In the future, we should move quickly to delegate to the appropriate team. It's kinda unfortunate at the present overlap, but that will change in the next release. In this instance, IMO MC should have said "oh, this is motu-uvf material, *handoff*".
23:44 < dholbach> imbrandon: I personally don't feel that it was a KC vs MC decision. I feel that the problems at hand were discussed quite rationally
23:45 < imbrandon> e.g. if i came to the MC and said "i've decided i am granting a uvfe for apt-mirror because i maintain it" you would naturaly turn and ask "why" and explain the situation, not debate weatyher i had the "powa" todoso
23:45 < ajmitch> imbrandon: I think there was confusion about whether the MC would have authority to say no
23:45 < imbrandon> dholbach, i 100% agree
23:45 < dholbach> imbrandon: ok good :)
23:45 < imbrandon> here they were , i mean leading upto here
23:45 < imbrandon> just was an observation
23:45 < imbrandon> not a ohh no, kinda thing
23:45 < ajmitch> :)
23:45 < dholbach> :)
23:46  * ajmitch is becoming too much like dholbach, scary
23:46 < crimsun> personally there seemed to be a lot of "gut reaction" mixed with rational argument
23:46 < dholbach> I propose to point out in the Charter that the MC is responsible for decisions and that anybody can track them down for deciding in a certain way, but that they're not making the decision - merely making sure that a decision is reached (if there's a dispute)
23:47 < ajmitch> so we should try & keep as many decisions in the MOTU list & meeting as possible
23:47 < dholbach> that way people won't feel there's a clique who decides over them and blocks them - does that make sense?
23:47 < ajmitch> at what point would the MC step in & make a decision?
23:47 < imbrandon> right, the MOTU's as a whole
23:47 < crimsun> I concur there (to both Daniel and Andrew)
23:47 < gpocentek> dholbach: it does make sens
23:48 < ajmitch> eg we debated the kde stuff for a week or so
23:48 < sistpoty> hm... I'm not quite sure if it works out... since motu meeting (the only instance we came to decisions before MC) are scheduled only every 3 weeks
23:48 < imbrandon> we can step those up if needed
23:49 < crimsun> we should always be able to meet more frequently as necessary and certainly in urgent cases
23:49 < imbrandon> but i dont see a whole lot of decisions needeing to be made imho
23:49 < dholbach> should we make it a MOTU meeting every 1,5 weeks and just make sure that there's a MC quorum if things really get out of hand?
23:49 < ajmitch> making everything too democratic can slow things down a bit - see how GRs work in debian :)
23:49 < dholbach> and drop MC meetings
23:49 < dholbach> and tag agenda points as (POLICY) or something
23:49 < sistpoty> no... imo we should make more clear when MC will step in/what's the place of mc
23:50  * ajmitch doesn't think that every decision needs to be put before all the MOTUs
23:50 < dholbach> ajmitch: what do you mean by that?
23:50 < ajmitch> retaining the ability to make minor decisions quickly is important
23:50 < imbrandon> sistpoty, +1 , i only think the MC should step in where the MOTU's cant decide amongst themselfs , even on policy
23:51 < dholbach> I think it's good to have a MC quorum around, so it has the "sign off" effect and can inform the TB as the MC is supposed to
23:51 < dholbach> I'm not sure we need different meetings for that
23:51 < ajmitch> in debian the DPL can make a number of decisions, delegations etc
23:51 < dholbach> and I think that future agendas will be quite short
23:51 < ajmitch> but everyone can still vote by way of GRs
23:52 < imbrandon> ok let me pint this out, the MOTU made decisions before and when a decision couldent be reached it was taken to the TB , the MC is only taking the TB spot in this senerio , not the whole of the MOTU
23:52 < dholbach> ajmitch: what do you propose?
23:52 < sistpoty> well, I see it like that: MC should step in exactly where's need. if s.th. is working out already, it should not interfere. This would then mean that Motu meeting can do decisions on its own
23:52 < ajmitch> sistpoty: agreed
23:52 < sistpoty> if these are dumb... or if a decision needs to be done very quick, MC can jump in
23:52 < dholbach> do you think we need two "different" meetings?
23:52 < ajmitch> dholbach: I mean things like team delegations can take awhile if it's put to nominations, everyone voting, etc
23:53 < imbrandon> dholbach, no imho
23:53 < crimsun> OTOH, we need to be careful to not "cut off" any MOTU, so we're walking a thin line here.
23:54 < dholbach> crimsun: can you explain?
23:54 < ajmitch> jumping into a decision too quickly, not getting input from others
23:54 < dholbach> right
23:54  * ajmitch would hope that more MOTUs could attend the MC meetings
23:54 < crimsun> as Andrew stated
23:54 < ajmitch> unless we want to scrap them & have more MOTU meetings
23:55 < imbrandon> i think only one meeting is nessesary but  a quorum of MC members is needed at any MOTU meeting incase decision pop up
23:55 < ajmitch> we do need to talk about some MC-specific things, like how we're going with the new MOTU applications :)
23:56 < dholbach> I propose: having motu meetings every two weeks, everybody can vote (also on mailing lists if that's appropriate) and if there are policy decisions together with a MC quorum we can present it to the TB
23:56 < ajmitch> dholbach: sounds good
23:56 < TheMuso> Although not MC, I like the sound of that.
23:56 < gpocentek>  /me agrees with dholbach
23:56 < ajmitch> we'll need to rotate the meeting times a bit
23:57 < ajmitch> 3 of the MC members are (nominally) in european timezones :)
23:57 < crimsun> dholbach: as a way of removing MC meetings altogether?
23:57 < fernando> moin all
23:57 < dholbach> crimsun: yes, because my impression is that the topics are roughly the same in those meetings anyway
23:57 < dholbach> "the same"
23:58 < sistpoty> well, I still don't see the need why we would need MC quorum. Imo this sounds to me like taking away decisions from motu.
23:58 < ajmitch> gets more input into MC stuff from the rest of the MOTU crowd
23:58 < dholbach> sistpoty: only in the decisions we present to the TB - like BIG changes
23:58 < crimsun> sistpoty: right, I agree there. In MOTU meetings we are not MC but simply MOTU, IMO.
23:59 < sistpoty> crimsun: exactly
23:59 < ajmitch> so in the case that all of the MC members vote one way, while the rest of the MOTUs vote another way..?
23:59 < crimsun> (not that one can "simply" be MOTU, but ... semantics)
23:59 < ajmitch> majority rules, right?
23:59 < dholbach> can we agree that there are certain decisions that need "signing off" or need somebody who's "responsible"?
23:59 < sistpoty> ajmitch: yep
23:59 < crimsun> ajmitch: right, we should still be accountable to our body, so to speak
23:59 < ajmitch> sistpoty: ok, just wanted to make that clear :)
00:00 < sistpoty> dholbach: no
00:00 < dholbach> ok, maybe I meant being "accountable to our body" :)
00:00 < sistpoty> dholbach: I'd formulate it the other way round... if big decisions are really getting to be hosed, MC should *then* intervine, but not generally be needed if things work out
00:01 < sistpoty> was that english?
00:01 < crimsun> dholbach: the one that I can think of immediately is deciding who becomes MOTU. Beyond that, I really don't see our entity "intruding."
00:01 < dholbach> when do you think there needs to be a MC quorum?
00:01 < imbrandon> sistpoty, +5
00:01 < imbrandon> crimsun, +25
00:01 < dholbach> ok, that makes sense and is fine with me
00:02 < dholbach> we're getting quite good at formulating it the right way :)
00:02 < sistpoty> hehe
00:02 < ajmitch> ok, do you think the TB will agree?
00:02 < ajmitch> or is the TB expecting the MC to make decisions?
00:03 < dholbach> can somebody try to sum up the proposal?
00:03 < crimsun> AFAIK the TB has only delegated to MC the approval of new MOTU
00:03 < imbrandon> from what i recall in UDS , the TB is only expecting the laod to be off them generaly, so if we wouldent have taken it to the TB before then the MC shouldent be there
00:03 < imbrandon> e.g. only new members
00:04 < imbrandon> or "hard decisions that the motus cant agree on after much much debate"
00:04 < imbrandon> thats it
00:04 < sistpoty> dholbach: I can try to do it
00:04 < dholbach> ok
00:05 < imbrandon> ie kinda what i was getting at a while ago that the KDE4 thing was a motu-uvf decision not a MC one
00:05 < imbrandon> just as an example
00:05 < ajmitch> proposal: that all MOTUs vote on issues, the MC members having the same status as any other MOTU, with meetings being held every two weeks, replacing the 3 weekly cycle of MOTU/MC meetings
00:05 < ajmitch> and that if decisions are not being reached, then the MC steps in & makes a decision where needed
00:05 < ajmitch> what did I miss from that? :)
00:06 < imbrandon> ajmitch, looks like you have it imho
00:06 < sistpoty> yep
00:06 < dholbach> to me it sounds quite accurate
00:06 < crimsun> I would amend the last bit to be "if decisions are not being reached in a timely fashion" where timely fashion is clearly stated
00:07 < ajmitch> days? 1 week?
00:07 < ajmitch> or within the context of an irc meeting?
00:07 < imbrandon> or s/timely fassion/MOTU's bring it to the MC/
00:07 < dholbach> that always depends on all the facts being on the table
00:07 < imbrandon> ?
00:07 < sistpoty> imbrandon: sounds sane
00:08 < crimsun> we probably need to relax it a bit over our own 48 hrs
00:08 < crimsun> and since we don't well know that all facts have been presented...
00:08 < dholbach> yeah
00:08 < crimsun> 1 week would seem to drag. Does 3 days (72 hours) sound like a reasonable compromise?
00:08 < imbrandon> that and some MOTU's arent on for days at a time, even though they may be active
00:08 < sistpoty> crimsun: 3 days is fine with me
00:09 < gpocentek> (sorry guys, I have to leave)
00:09 < crimsun> see ya gauvain
00:09 < sistpoty> cya gpocentek
00:09 < ajmitch> bye gpocentek, thanks for helping out
00:09 < dholbach> bye gpocentek
00:09 < imbrandon> if we can wait 7 days for a package in -proposed , i think we can wait 7 days for MOTU input on a topic ( givein that both are in place for the same reason, to give everyone a chance to givce input )
00:10 < dholbach> ok, let's add something like "the MC has been called for a vote and a clear proposal has been made"
00:10 < sistpoty> I thought you mean about MC decisions now?
00:10 < dholbach> that will make it a lot easier
00:10 < sistpoty> dholbach++
00:10 < imbrandon> dholbach ++
00:11 < crimsun> yes, the distinction is necessary, and I concur
00:11 < dholbach> ok, let's add that to the charter
00:11 < dholbach> I'm quite happy with how quickly we resolved that and that we could all agree on it
00:11 < imbrandon> ok guys i know i'm non-MC but i must run ( just FYI ) back in ~45 minutes
00:12 < dholbach> feel all patted on the back :)
00:12 < sistpoty> hm... I'm not sure if it works out... sorry. let's try to replay the kde4 question how it would have ideally happened with the new charter, shall we?
00:12 < imbrandon> sistpoty, motu-uvf would ahve decided and MC would have never been involved, with this charter
00:12 < crimsun> sistpoty: we probably would have called for a vote right about the 1-wk mark
00:13 < sistpoty> crimsun: so that would have been 2 days ago
00:13 < dholbach> in an ideal world uploads wouldn't just have happened
00:13 < dholbach> but that we don't have control over
00:14 < sistpoty> hm... actually I'm not quite sure who would have made what decision with the current proposal. is anyone else feeling this way?
00:15 < sistpoty> because I think we should try to make that clear
00:15 < crimsun> sistpoty: KDE 4 should have been a motu-uvf decision
00:15 < ajmitch> with the current proposal, it would have been up to motu-uvf - but there's nothing about how long a team like -uvf could take to make a decision
00:16 < dholbach> I think we all became more concious of whose responsibility what is - nobody would expect a certain team to do a decision and maybe things wouldn't be in limbo
00:16 < sistpoty> ok... so Riddell would have asked, MC would have stayed quiet and motu-uvf have come up with a decision?
00:16 < sistpoty> and in case there weren't a reaction from motu-uvf, MC would ping them, right?
00:17 < ajmitch> yep
00:17 < dholbach> that sounds good to me
00:17 < crimsun> yes
00:17 < ajmitch> that would also cover things like that xgl update
00:17 < sistpoty> and if this still won't lead to a decision in a timely manner, MC steps in and makes one. agreed?
00:17 < crimsun> that sounds sane
00:17 < ajmitch> great
00:18 < sistpoty> ok, I guess I understand the notion of it now :)
00:18 < ajmitch> ok, for other timely decisions - we have 2 weeks to make decisions on new MOTUs
00:18 < ajmitch> I think Lutin's application is almost 2 weeks old
00:19 < sistpoty> good point
00:19 < ajmitch> is the timely decision thing in the charter for that?
00:19 < sistpoty> not yet I believe...
00:19 < ajmitch> since we should really call for votes in the last 2 days or so if it stretches out that long
00:20 < dholbach> what do you think about not letting such mails unanswered for more 24h? so one of us will either a) ask a question or b) step to do a vote
00:20 < crimsun> I think I'm going in invoke (to myself) the sabdfl's sentiment here regarding MOTU approval (back when TB was still approving MOTU), and that is we should give applicants the benefit of the doubt.
00:21 < sistpoty> not quite sure actually... I didn't make up my mind on one day but also didn't have an idea on the same day what to ask
00:21  * ajmitch usually doesn't have bright ideas of what to ask & reads the conversation
00:21 < sistpoty> but I like ajmitch's proposal
00:22  * sistpoty often asks around on #ubuntu-motu what other motus think
00:22 < crimsun> dholbach: I'm a bit uncomfortable with saying someone _must_ respond to email in 24 hrs
00:22 < dholbach> I was just trying to make some sort of commitment
00:22 < dholbach> I don't think it's the best proposal we can come up with either.
00:22 < sistpoty> how about calling for votes after 1 week?
00:23 < crimsun> 12 days seems reasonable
00:23 < crimsun> it's a bit longer than 1 week and still gives MC 48 hours.
00:23 < dholbach> after the application came in?
00:23 < sistpoty> yep
00:23 < crimsun> right
00:24 < ajmitch> for most, I suspect we'd make a decision within 3-4 days
00:24 < sistpoty> of course we can always do shorter, if everybody agrees right on the application ;)
00:24 < Hobbsee> argh, MOTU meeting
00:25 < Hobbsee> no, ubuntu dev
00:25 < TheMuso> Hobbsee: MC meeting actually.
00:25 < sistpoty> hi Hobbsee
00:25 < Hobbsee> oh.  oops
00:25  * Hobbsee stays quiet then
00:25 < Hobbsee> hey sistpoty
00:25 < dholbach> Hobbsee: noooooo, no need to be quiet :)
00:25 < crimsun> does 12 days seem acceptable?
00:26 < Hobbsee> dholbach: but i'm not in MC?
00:26 < ajmitch> crimsun: yep
00:26 < sistpoty> +1
00:26 < crimsun> (I have lecture in 15 minutes, so I need to begin wrapping up here)
00:27 < dholbach> I'm happy with that too
00:27 < sistpoty> ok, fine
00:27 < dholbach> Hobbsee: that shouldn't stop you :)
00:27 < dholbach> ok, we'll add that to the charter too?
00:28 < sistpoty> sure
00:28 < dholbach> super
00:28 < dholbach> any other business?
00:28 < ajmitch> meeting times
00:28 < sistpoty> I'd also suggest to have the charter ack'd during the next motu meeting
00:28 < ajmitch> TODO lists
00:28 < dholbach> ajmitch: meetings times: go with the next motu meeting
00:28 < crimsun> sistpoty: yes, let's bring that up
00:28 < ajmitch> dholbach: ok, when is that scheduled for?
00:29 < crimsun> the 27th of this month IIRC
00:29 < dholbach> 27th, 9 utc
00:29 < ajmitch> hm
00:29 < ajmitch> Tuesday, Mar 23rd, 8:00 UTC
00:29 < ajmitch> that's what the wiki page says
00:29 < ajmitch> tuesday is the 27th
00:29 < sistpoty> ajmitch: no 23rd is wrong. I couldn't count weeks when doing the minutes (and just followed the typo in mm)
00:29 < dholbach> hum... the fridge calendar says something else
00:29 < ajmitch> 8 or 9 UTC?
00:30 < dholbach> that'd be the usual 1,5 weeks
00:30 < dholbach> todo list: ajmitch: will you file those unmetdeps bugs?
00:30 < ajmitch> yeah, ran into problems with massfile
00:30 < ajmitch> and LP ignoring bugs I filed
00:30  * ajmitch has to chase that up
00:30 < dholbach> ajmitch: let's disucss that together outside the meeting
00:30 < ajmitch> ok
00:31 < dholbach> i'd also encourage each and everyone of you to tag bugs as 'bitesize' and 'packaging'
00:31 < dholbach> to me it seems like a bunch of them got fixed already
00:31 < ajmitch> you did a great job tagging all those
00:31 < dholbach> and it's easy enough for us to do
00:31 < dholbach> thanks
00:31 < sistpoty> bitesize really rocks!
00:31 < Hobbsee> guess you could tag all the unmet deps bugs as bitesize
00:31 < dholbach> most of them probably
00:31 < ajmitch> Hobbsee: not all of them are
00:31 < dholbach> we have a unmetdeps tag as well
00:32  * ajmitch doesn't know if he can tag by email yet
00:32 < dholbach> ajmitch: heno has something figured out for that - we can include him in the discussion
00:32 < ajmitch> maybe I should just file bugs by the web UI
00:32 < ajmitch> like apport does
00:32 < dholbach> universe hug day next thursday?
00:32 < dholbach> friday will be a regular one
00:33 < crimsun> that sounds good
00:33 < dholbach> perfect - let's adjourn then?
00:33 < ajmitch> sure, how regular shall our hug days & revu days be?
00:33  * ajmitch is happy to adjourn :)
00:33 < dholbach> i made 'universe hug days' a fixed agenda item :)
00:33 < ajmitch> ok
00:33 < dholbach> maybe we can revu days once feisty+1 opens
00:34 < sistpoty> sounds sane!
00:34 < ajmitch> we need all people in motu-uvf helping out
00:34 < imbrandon> firdays are revu days once feisty opens ;)
00:34 < ajmitch> for the bugs are starting to pile up
00:34 < dholbach> super... adjourned then - thanks everybody
00:34  * dholbach will mail about universe hug day
00:34 < imbrandon> fridays*
00:34 < ajmitch> thanks!
00:34 < crimsun> thanks everyone
00:34 < sistpoty> yay... thanks everyone

MeetingLogs/MOTU/20070316 (last edited 2008-08-06 16:36:10 by localhost)