(08:02:52 AM) Hobbsee: oh, what the hell, i'll chair if i actually have the agenda in front of me
(08:03:06 AM) persia: Hobbsee: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings
(08:03:16 AM) Hobbsee: thanks
(08:03:17 AM) ***Hobbsee looks
(08:03:21 AM) Hobbsee: okay, who's here?
(08:03:27 AM) ***persia is present
(08:03:31 AM) ***TheMuso is present.
(08:03:34 AM) Nafallo: .
(08:03:35 AM) ***StevenK isn't
(08:03:41 AM) Hobbsee: cool
(08:03:42 AM) Hobbsee: hiya ScottK
(08:03:47 AM) ScottK: Hello
(08:04:03 AM) Hobbsee: okay, so we have a few.  i believe dholbach is now gone
(08:04:16 AM) Nafallo: I'll be working at the same time though :-P
(08:04:21 AM) Hobbsee: no problem
(08:04:23 AM) Hobbsee: greetings seb128
(08:04:28 AM) ***man-di_ is here but doesnt count
(08:04:29 AM) Hobbsee: persia: you're up.
(08:04:32 AM) Hobbsee: man-di_: sure you do
(08:04:37 AM) ScottK: I'll be pretending to be working at the same time.
(08:04:41 AM) persia: When a contributor wishes to prepare an SRU for an issue already solved in the current development environment, it seems there is no easy way for this to be effectively tracked in a bug.
(08:04:42 AM) man-di_: Hobbsee: I'm no MOTU
(08:04:48 AM) seb128: hey Hobbsee
(08:04:49 AM) persia: The apparent workflow would be for the contributor to open a bug, mark it fix released, nominate for a previous release, and subscribe the sponsors to get approval for the nomination.  Unfortunately, such a bug will not appear in the default search lists, and so will not be easy to see for sponsors.
(08:04:54 AM) Hobbsee: man-di_: doesnt matter.  i'ts prospective ones too
(08:04:55 AM) persia: In previous discussion there were two suggested solutions: first, to publicise the alternate method of creating a task for a previous release, and secondly to encourage contributors to ask for nomination approval in #ubuntu-motu when creating the bug.
(08:05:04 AM) persia: Since nominations exist, the first seems a poor choice, but if we are to encourage nominations, we should have guidelines to indicate that nominations should be approved generally (unless it's crack), as separate from a request for sponsorship.
(08:05:13 AM) persia: Thoughts?  Opinions?
(08:05:35 AM) Hobbsee: i thought it did appear in the lists
(08:05:38 AM) ***TheMuso digests.
(08:05:41 AM) ScottK: persia: I think asking for nomination approval on IRC/mailing list is good
(08:05:55 AM) ***Hobbsee checks
(08:06:06 AM) ***ScottK also thinks if there's no way to search for pending nominations it's an LP bug.
(08:06:07 AM) Nafallo: persia: what about when packages are broken, not fixed in a new release other than a complete rework of the packaging system? :-)
(08:06:25 AM) persia: ScottK: Do you think we should just accept nominations reflexively, or would there be some obligation to care after having done so?
(08:06:47 AM) ScottK: I think whoever accepts them should decide the meet the SRU criteria.
(08:06:53 AM) persia: Nafallo: That's really more a question of whether an SRU applies.  I think that case is probably a regression.
(08:06:54 AM) Hobbsee: persia: oh, point, i see
(08:06:57 AM) ScottK: Are are at least close
(08:07:03 AM) ScottK: Or are ..
(08:07:11 AM) Hobbsee: that's...botched.
(08:07:25 AM) Nafallo: persia: it does, since in this case it's only a couple of deps that needs to be changed :-)
(08:07:40 AM) persia: Yep.  I'm tempted to advertise the workaround, but wonder if we shouldn't have a nominations guide.
(08:08:04 AM) Hobbsee: sorry, nominate?
(08:08:08 AM) ScottK: The one exception is for security issues.  What I tend to do is open a task for all releases and then mark which the bug applies to be "Invalid"ing the ones it doesn't, just to be clear.
(08:08:09 AM) Hobbsee: is this the nominate for release?
(08:08:14 AM) persia: Nafallo: Right.  Still, my question is how one appropriately requests sponsorship, rather than if it's an SRU.
(08:08:22 AM) persia: Hobbsee: Yes.  Nominate for Release.
(08:08:37 AM) Hobbsee: right.  which none other than -release actually has the power to approve or decline.
(08:08:45 AM) Nafallo: persia: ah, oki.
(08:08:52 AM) StevenK: I thought that changed again?
(08:09:03 AM) persia: ScottK: That's an ideal workflow, but it doesn't work well for bugs that are being addressed without MOTU participation, unless we have some guide for nominations.
(08:09:07 AM) StevenK: I remember doing an approval not long ago
(08:09:19 AM) Hobbsee: StevenK: maybe it did.  obviously, i wouldnt see the difference :)
(08:09:25 AM) persia: Hobbsee: That got fixed: any MOTU can approve.
(08:09:53 AM) ScottK: persia: That's were the ask on IRC/ML part is important.
(08:11:09 AM) ScottK: I know I can approve/nominate for Universe packages now.
(08:11:17 AM) persia: ScottK: OK.  That matches the basic model previously discussed.  I don't happen to have an edgy build environment: should I respond to an SRU approval request for edgy, or does approval of a nomination imply sponsorship?
(08:11:31 AM) StevenK: I don't think it does.
(08:11:42 AM) Hobbsee: i'm unsure where the nominate for release fits in though, as they dont show in the default listings either.
(08:11:42 AM) ScottK: I'd so it does not imply sponsorship, just agreement that the work is appropriate.
(08:11:56 AM) StevenK: "I have time to look over your proposal and approve it" != "I have time to test build and upload said package"
(08:12:06 AM) ScottK: +1
(08:12:33 AM) persia: OK.  I hear two more voices agreeing with the previous unofficial consensus :)  Anyone disagree that we should just approve nominations when requested, unless we clearly disagree with it being an SRU?
(08:12:34 AM) StevenK: Although, if people want to do both, excellent
(08:13:00 AM) ScottK: persia: I wouldn't go that far.
(08:13:25 AM) ScottK: "... unless we clearly disagree with it being an SRU?" is s broad brush.
(08:13:27 AM) persia: ScottK: No?
(08:13:42 AM) persia: ScottK: Understood.  Do you have a suggestion for better wording?
(08:13:47 AM) ScottK: Working
(08:14:20 AM) ScottK: Nominations should be approved if the MOTU believes that the issue meets, or may meet, the criteria for SRU.
(08:14:25 AM) ScottK: How's that?
(08:14:37 AM) ***persia is happy with that wording
(08:14:49 AM) ***TheMuso likes that
(08:14:50 AM) ScottK: Except it should be SRU/security...
(08:14:57 AM) ***ScottK just realized.
(08:15:02 AM) StevenK: I disagree
(08:15:13 AM) ScottK: Yes?
(08:15:15 AM) persia: I'd think it rather needs to be put on both the SRU and Security procedure pages on the wiki.
(08:15:17 AM) StevenK: There's a different procedure for SRU versus security
(08:15:39 AM) ScottK: They both still need task nomincations though.
(08:15:52 AM) StevenK: Ah, I see.
(08:16:07 AM) ScottK: nominations even.
(08:16:08 AM) StevenK: In that case I withdraw my disagreement. Carry on. :-)
(08:16:17 AM) ScottK: Cool.
(08:16:34 AM) persia: Anyone else think they disagree?
(08:17:34 AM) ScottK: BTW, just so everyone knows and while were are on the topic, with my ubuntu-backporters hat on I've been Won't Fixing backports requests when there are outstanding SRU worthy issues and telling them go get the SRU done and come back and ask again.
(08:18:12 AM) persia: That sounds good.  Does the wiki tell backporters to do that?  If not, I think it should.
(08:18:40 AM) ScottK: It tells backporters that backports is not for getting severe bugs fixed and they still ask anyway.
(08:19:23 AM) persia: I wonder if making it more explicit would reduce questions, but then again, it probably depends on the usage by the affected contributor.
(08:19:50 AM) ScottK: It's consistent with the existing backports policy and the guidance I understand the tech board gave when backports was legitimized.
(08:20:06 AM) ***ScottK is just rather more pedantic about it than has historically been the case.
(08:20:43 AM) ***persia looks to the chair (Hobbsee) to formalise these as decisions, and assign people to document them in the wiki (unless someone disagrees)
(08:21:43 AM) ScottK: Another thing I'll mention is that we still need help testing packages for the mass Dapper clamav backport.  Volunteers welcome (contact me on #ubuntu-motu after the meeting).
(08:21:50 AM) ***Hobbsee waves wet finger in the air
(08:21:53 AM) Hobbsee: i agree
(08:22:29 AM) Hobbsee: okay, who's up for testing the mass dapper clamav backport?
(08:22:53 AM) ***persia thought that was for #ubuntu-motu, after the meeting
(08:22:56 AM) Hobbsee: persia: i hearby nominate you to document this in the wiki, oh master documentor
(08:23:22 AM) Hobbsee: persia: was vaguely hoping to get a list of names of who was willing, to document them, and poke them if htey hadnt done it by the next meeting
(08:23:23 AM) persia: OK.  I'll update for the security and SRU pages.
(08:23:27 AM) Hobbsee: cool, thankyou
(08:23:35 AM) persia: ScottK: Could I ask for your help with the backporters guide?
(08:24:13 AM) ScottK: As long as help with != do, yes.
(08:24:32 AM) persia: ScottK: Ah.  In that case, I'll update that page as well :)
(08:24:58 AM) ScottK: Sorry, I'm pretty overloaded right now and reluctant to be the critical path on anything.
(08:25:03 AM) Hobbsee: next meeting in 2 weeks, anyone want to change the time?
(08:25:08 AM) persia: ScottK: No problems,
(08:25:16 AM) Hobbsee: that'll be the day after tribe 4
(08:25:21 AM) ***persia wonders about "other business"
(08:25:40 AM) ScottK: How have the Q&A sessions been going?
(08:26:57 AM) ScottK: That well, I see.
(08:27:05 AM) Hobbsee: ScottK: unsure if they're actually existing
(08:27:12 AM) ***ScottK too
(08:27:24 AM) ScottK: I recall a mention of one on #ubuntu-motu.
(08:27:48 AM) ***ScottK also vaguely recalls at the last meeting we were going to talk about doing away with them at this meeting if they didn't pep up.
(08:28:24 AM) persia: ScottK: AndyP sent a mail, but nobody put it on the agenda.  Perhaps we can remove it next time?
(08:28:37 AM) Hobbsee: ScottK: we seem to have a lot of new people putting packages up on revu.  are these people actually using these sessions?
(08:28:45 AM) ScottK: I have no idea.
(08:28:48 AM) Hobbsee: do they seem to be taking anything in from the documentation, and these sessions?
(08:28:54 AM) ***ScottK can never remember when they are.
(08:29:02 AM) ***persia hasn't actually seen an active session in over a month
(08:29:12 AM) ScottK: I'm hoping to kill them off and just say come ask in #ubuntu-motu
(08:29:16 AM) Hobbsee: ScottK: they're in -motu now
(08:29:23 AM) ScottK: Oh.
(08:29:37 AM) ScottK: Well then I don't think we've had one.
(08:29:54 AM) ***ScottK moves we just declare them dead and put the patient out of it's misery.
(08:30:11 AM) Hobbsee: ScottK: we could do that about a lot of MOTU stuff, but i'd prefer not
(08:30:15 AM) ScottK: OK.
(08:30:19 AM) ***persia thinks we should at least put it on the agenda before canceling, but approves of the idea.
(08:30:28 AM) ScottK: Open week worked, but not else.
(08:30:32 AM) Hobbsee: ScottK: on the other hand, we could declare them dead until anyone expresses further interest.
(08:30:35 AM) ScottK: OK.  Agenda sounds good.
(08:30:47 AM) ScottK: Hobbsee: perfect.   That'll amount to the same thing.
(08:31:05 AM) persia: I think the first few Q&A sessions worked well: it's just something that perhaps needs to be scheduled at certain parts of either the development cycle or the academic year in Europe, depending...
(08:31:08 AM) Hobbsee: it occurs to me that we're getting heaps of new packages in, heaps of reviews needed, a fair few patches - but often these new packages are wrong, in obvious ways.
(08:31:38 AM) TheMuso: And the fact that packages sit there for ages and not get updated.
(08:31:39 AM) Hobbsee: clearly, either our documentation isnt clear enough, doesnt exist, there arent enough examples, or people arent reading and understanding them.
(08:31:50 AM) ScottK: There are a lot of packages on REVU that have never been reviewed.
(08:31:53 AM) TheMuso: Or people just don't care about docs.
(08:31:55 AM) persia: I think that is partially a result of the semi-retirement of the maintainer of the Ubuntu packaging guide.  There was a call for a new maintainer, but I didn't see any volunteers.
(08:32:11 AM) Hobbsee: TheMuso: if they prove that, then go and throw htem off the uploaders
(08:32:20 AM) Hobbsee: er, uploaders list
(08:32:30 AM) persia: Hobbsee: We can't.  C-U-U is an open team.
(08:32:36 AM) ScottK: Well I went through all the stuff last touched in May last week and asked "are you still interested".
(08:32:49 AM) Hobbsee: persia: then we have a blacklist of who's stuff we dont review.
(08:33:01 AM) ***persia hasn't seen the blacklist
(08:33:07 AM) ScottK: If no one responds by next week (two weeks to respond) I'm going to archive.
(08:33:21 AM) ScottK: Hobbsee: I think everyone probably has their own list.
(08:33:39 AM) Hobbsee: persia: like ScottK says, we've got stacks of new packages which arent getting reviewed - we need to focus on the ones with potential, else we're wasting our time.
(08:33:41 AM) ScottK: There are still a number of packages uploaded in June that have never been reviewed.
(08:33:45 AM) Hobbsee: persia: unsure it exists yet
(08:34:03 AM) Hobbsee: ScottK: you may need toa ctually email those people - REVU doesnt automatically email uploaders, they'd have no reason to check REVU.
(08:34:04 AM) StevenK: I have my own personal blacklist.
(08:34:13 AM) StevenK: I'm quite happy to share it around. :-P
(08:34:32 AM) persia: TheMuso and I experimented with an alternate procedure recently, but I'm not sure it works yet.  Perhaps other experiments could find something better.
(08:34:36 AM) ScottK: Hobbsee: Well my theory is that if they don't look in and check/aren't subscribed to the mailing list, then they aren't interested.
(08:35:13 AM) ScottK: Archiving doesn't delete anything, so it's not something we need be particularly careful about.
(08:35:54 AM) ScottK: When I first uploaded a package as a contributor I joined the mailing list to make sure I didn't miss anything.
(08:35:56 AM) persia: ScottK: Perhaps, but I've seen a couple uploaders who don't check REVU, don't subscribe, and yet send mail to ubuntu-motu@ if they aren't given a response in #ubuntu-motu about why their package wasn't uploaded.
(08:36:30 AM) ScottK: It's a risk I'm willing to take.
(08:36:45 AM) Hobbsee: ScottK: i'm not on the ML.  i cant see why i would be
(08:37:01 AM) ScottK: You also aren't trying to get a package uploaded.
(08:37:14 AM) Hobbsee: even when i did, i thought the mailing list was for reviewers only
(08:37:31 AM) ScottK: We are talking about stuff that hasn't been touched in two months.
(08:37:31 AM) Hobbsee: persia: what did you and TheMuso do recently?  we do need to solve this
(08:37:34 AM) persia: That's certainly the impression given by the documentation.
(08:37:53 AM) ScottK: Odd.  I never thought that, but I think lots of stuff that's not true.
(08:38:14 AM) ***ScottK thought it was good to see the comments on other packages so I wouldn't screw the same stuff up.
(08:38:17 AM) Nafallo: so basically... the people who wants packages uploaded are on the ML, but the people who can upload aren't? ;-)
(08:38:20 AM) persia: Hobbsee: Rather than just running lintian/linda, we fixed a few things, and uploaded with additional comments that required upstream coordination for the original uploader to chase.  The issue is how to manage revs, etc.
(08:39:01 AM) persia: Nafallo: I'd rather suggest that all four possibilities of uploader/reviewer and subscribed/unsubscribed are represented.
(08:39:21 AM) Hobbsee: persia: right.  did tha tseem to work?
(08:39:42 AM) ScottK: It got that package uploaded relatively quickly.
(08:39:51 AM) ScottK: The question is, is that the goal?
(08:40:01 AM) ***ScottK watched on IRC while they did it.
(08:40:16 AM) TheMuso: Yet was it accepted? I can't remember.
(08:40:20 AM) persia: Hobbsee: Well, it got the package forwarded to ubuntu-archive within about 36 hours, but I'm not sure the original uploader learned much, and neither TheMuso nor I left traces to take blame for our mistakes.
(08:40:26 AM) ***ScottK thought it was uploaded.
(08:40:46 AM) ***ScottK was thinking along the same lines as persia.
(08:40:53 AM) persia: TheMuso: I don't remember seeing a rejection, but I haven't seen it in my apt-cache yet (not that I remember the name of the package offhand).
(08:41:04 AM) TheMuso: Me neither.
(08:41:41 AM) ScottK: If the goal is to get new packages shaped up and uploaded quickly, it was a success.
(08:41:51 AM) Hobbsee: the other thing is - were either of you two wanting to make sure that you keep it up to date?
(08:41:57 AM) ScottK: If the goal if to grow new MOTUs, I don't think it did much.
(08:41:57 AM) zul_ is now known as zul
(08:42:00 AM) persia: Hobbsee: Not really.
(08:42:19 AM) TheMuso: It was an experiment after all
(08:42:21 AM) ScottK: And if the goal was to make sure we get stuff in the repos that at least one person cares about, then I think it hurt.
(08:42:23 AM) persia: ScottK: Perhaps.  Personally, I think growing new MOTUs should be done with bugs, rather than new packages, but that's a different issue.
(08:42:34 AM) ***ScottK thinks one needs both.
(08:42:38 AM) Hobbsee: i'd like to see more bugfixing, etc, than new packages here too
(08:43:03 AM) ***ScottK ponders a "Go fix a bug and I'll review your package" policy.
(08:43:04 AM) ***persia agrees that having more packages with no Debian maintainer and no interested active party in MOTU is not best.
(08:43:40 AM) TheMuso: Another thing I'm worried about is the number of rejections.
(08:43:48 AM) Hobbsee: particularly due to licencing
(08:43:52 AM) ScottK: Yes.
(08:44:00 AM) TheMuso: we seem to miss a lot.
(08:44:11 AM) persia: There've been a lot of those recently.  I wonder if that prolongs NEW processing, as it's perhaps not as rewarding to reject things.
(08:44:13 AM) ***ScottK has certainly been more careful since we got thumped by Mithrandir on the topic.
(08:44:24 AM) TheMuso: persia: gafix it was, and it got in.
(08:44:28 AM) pygi: Hobbsee, for more fixes and such, you need people active in upstream projects
(08:44:32 AM) xxxxx1: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewPackageRequirements is a good documentation
(08:44:41 AM) Hobbsee: pygi: this is true - including filing bugs upstream.
(08:44:45 AM) persia: TheMuso: Cool :)
(08:44:53 AM) Hobbsee: persia: depends how sadistic the reviewer is :P
(08:44:55 AM) pygi: Hobbsee, well, tbh, we don't have much of those
(08:45:32 AM) persia: pygi: I'd disagree with that.  I've fixed a number of bugs, and only very rarely work with upstream.
(08:45:39 AM) Riddell: I don't think rejects prolong New processing (other than the package in question obviously)
(08:45:49 AM) pygi: persia, ok, and what's good in that?
(08:46:00 AM) ScottK: Hell there Riddell.
(08:46:03 AM) ScottK: Oops
(08:46:07 AM) ScottK: Hello I meant
(08:46:09 AM) persia: pygi: packaging bugs?  maintainer script bugs?  bugs flowing to Debian, and flowing upstream?
(08:46:14 AM) ScottK: Sorry.
(08:46:25 AM) StevenK: ScottK: I think I hear Freud tapping at your window.
(08:46:26 AM) pygi: persia, I meant the code bugs
(08:46:44 AM) pygi: most of the bugs are code bugs
(08:46:50 AM) ***ScottK just needs to suck down the coffee faster.
(08:47:20 AM) persia: pygi: This isn't the forum, but I'd be happy to debate with you later about that.
(08:47:30 AM) pygi: persia, sure
(08:48:07 AM) persia left the room.
(08:48:09 AM) pygi: persia, I'd surely be interested in the discussion
(08:50:21 AM) ***persia notices the time, and wonders if there is still "other business" to discuss.
(08:50:40 AM) pygi: <pygi> persia, I'd surely be interested in the discussion
(08:51:11 AM) ScottK: Well that was fun.
(08:51:18 AM) ***ScottK is thinking no other business.
(08:51:44 AM) Hobbsee: next meeting time?
(08:51:56 AM) xxxxx1: persia, about the rejections due to licensing. we have a good wiki write by pitti. maybe is useful point these for new revu'ers?
(08:52:12 AM) persia: xxxxx1: Yes.  Probably.
(08:52:21 AM) ScottK: xxxxx1: Link please?
(08:52:22 AM) TheMuso: xxxxx1: Whats the link for that BTW
(08:52:30 AM) xxxxx1: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NewPackageRequirements
(08:52:46 AM) TheMuso: thnaks
(08:53:19 AM) ***ScottK edits.
(08:54:44 AM) ***persia will add a link from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/Reviewing after the meeting.
(08:54:57 AM) xxxxx1: cool
(08:55:15 AM) Hobbsee: next meeting time, people?
(08:55:29 AM) Hobbsee: 2 weeks, same time, same place.  any objections?
(08:55:32 AM) persia: Regarding the next meeting time, I'll propose last meeting time +4 weeks (00:00 11th August).
(08:55:43 AM) persia: (UTC)
(08:56:18 AM) Hobbsee: 0400 UTC, 10 August?
(08:56:32 AM) ***ScottK done editing.
(08:56:47 AM) persia: 10 August is good for me.
(08:56:51 AM) TheMuso: sounds good to me
(08:56:54 AM) Hobbsee: cool
(08:57:01 AM) Hobbsee: voice any objections before the meeting ends...
(08:57:12 AM) ScottK: Don't change the time, but that's midnight for me, so I probably won't be there.
(08:57:12 AM) Hobbsee: oh, time for next revu day?
(08:57:31 AM) ***persia thinks Mondays are good.
(08:57:32 AM) TheMuso: Mondays is good.
(08:57:37 AM) Hobbsee: this monday?
(08:57:42 AM) persia: Every Monday :)
(08:57:44 AM) TheMuso: s/is/are/
(08:57:48 AM) Hobbsee: even better.
(08:57:55 AM) Hobbsee: who's volunteering to do the minutes?
(08:57:57 AM) Hobbsee: TheMuso?
(08:58:18 AM) TheMuso: Alright. They will be done this weekend.
(08:58:28 AM) Hobbsee: excellent.
(08:58:34 AM) Hobbsee: any more business?
(08:58:44 AM) Hobbsee: actually, i have one.
(08:58:45 AM) ***TheMuso doesn't feel like doing them tonight.
(08:58:50 AM) Hobbsee: that's fine
(08:58:58 AM) persia: Next meeting annoucements, HUG day
(08:59:09 AM) Hobbsee: this is homework for next meeting...
(08:59:21 AM) Hobbsee: oh, point
(08:59:33 AM) Hobbsee: who wants to write to the ML about the meeting annoucments and such?
(08:59:53 AM) ***TheMuso will, since I'll be reviewing minutes.
(09:00:00 AM) Hobbsee: cool
(09:00:02 AM) ***persia wonders where the last announcement was...
(09:00:04 AM) Hobbsee: next hug day?
(09:00:12 AM) Hobbsee: persia: didnt exist.  unsure who was supposed to write it
(09:02:02 AM) Hobbsee: right, it seems there's no interest in another hug day.
(09:02:06 AM) Hobbsee: there's planned to be a great MOTU drive
(09:02:13 AM) Hobbsee: but, for a piece of homework....
(09:02:39 AM) TheMuso: How will this drive be done?
(09:02:46 AM) Hobbsee: there's planned to be a great MOTU drive.  how can the current MOTU team become more effective in reviews, and making sure that things from new contributors are good enough to be *worth* reviewing.
(09:02:56 AM) Hobbsee: TheMuso: i believe it involves jono, dholbach, etc.
(09:03:03 AM) TheMuso: ok
(09:03:04 AM) Hobbsee: TheMuso: no idea on the details.
(09:03:28 AM) ***persia thinks the Great MOTU Drive is another name for Gutsy+1 OpenWeek, etc.
(09:03:30 AM) TheMuso: difficult question, as there are so few of us...
(09:03:42 AM) TheMuso: There is always stuff to do.
(09:03:43 AM) Hobbsee: this is true, so we need to spread ourselves in the most effective way possible.
(09:03:44 AM) ***ScottK ponders a motu-wannab team that can comment on REVU...
(09:04:05 AM) Hobbsee: and figure which areas to focus on, and which not to.
(09:04:10 AM) TheMuso: and its hard to make sure newcomers read the docs
(09:04:12 AM) persia: ScottK: That's just difficult.  Why not allow comments from all REVU users (currently C-U-U)
(09:04:24 AM) man-di_: just in case it matters, I would like to take a deeper look into all java packages
(09:04:31 AM) ScottK: Because then you get random junk comments from idiots.
(09:04:34 AM) Hobbsee: man-di_: great :)
(09:04:49 AM) ScottK: motu-wannab would be a restricted team.
(09:04:56 AM) TheMuso: I think one of the areas that seems the most difficult, is bug work
(09:04:59 AM) ScottK: Yes, man-di_, that's great.
(09:05:05 AM) Hobbsee: the other thing is, please vote if you havent already done so for the members of the uvf team.
(09:06:13 AM) persia: ScottK: Hmmm....  Why not just restrict C-U-U?  If we trust someone to make a new package, we should trust them to comment.  But perhaps that's a discussion for another meeting.
(09:06:37 AM) ScottK: You need an open entry point I think, but yes, for another meeting.
(09:07:02 AM) TheMuso: I also wonder whether now that many MOTUs are core dev, is their attension focused much more on main, than universe?
(09:07:12 AM) Hobbsee: TheMuso: that depends on what they're interested in
(09:07:25 AM) TheMuso: Yes, but that seems to be what I have witnessed.
(09:07:31 AM) TheMuso: Except for a few.
(09:07:31 AM) ***ScottK has not noticed Hobbsee less active in Universe.
(09:07:39 AM) persia: TheMuso: I'd suggest that that's just a question of scale.  Having many MOTUs become core-dev is good, but perhaps we need more dedicated MOTUs as well.
(09:07:42 AM) TheMuso: Hobbsee and StevenK being two of them
(09:07:51 AM) ***Hobbsee has been less active in universe for way longer than being in core dev.
(09:08:05 AM) ScottK: Right.  I meant since getting core-dev.
(09:08:09 AM) TheMuso: You have a good reason though.
(09:08:11 AM) Hobbsee: persia: it's also completely up to them, too
(09:08:13 AM) Hobbsee: ScottK: yes :)
(09:08:21 AM) Hobbsee: TheMuso: sorry, whcih was this?
(09:08:39 AM) TheMuso: Hobbsee: You have a good reason for not being as active as you'd like.
(09:08:49 AM) Hobbsee: TheMuso: uni, presumably
(09:08:52 AM) Hobbsee: fair enough
(09:08:53 AM) TheMuso: Yes
(09:09:10 AM) Hobbsee: anyway, unless anyone has any objections, meeting ends in....
(09:09:12 AM) Hobbsee: 5
(09:09:14 AM) Hobbsee: 6
(09:09:16 AM) Hobbsee: oops
(09:09:17 AM) Hobbsee: 5
(09:09:19 AM) Hobbsee: 4
(09:09:21 AM) Hobbsee: 3
(09:09:22 AM) Hobbsee: 2
(09:09:27 AM) Hobbsee: 1
(09:09:33 AM) Hobbsee: **** MEETING ENDS

MeetingLogs/MOTU/20070726 (last edited 2008-08-06 16:20:53 by localhost)