20071109

Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2008-08-06 16:25:08
Size: 55410
Editor: localhost
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
Revision 3 as of 2008-08-06 17:00:18
Size: 55412
Editor: localhost
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 3: Line 3:
{{{(03:01:28 PM) siretart: #startmeeting {{{
(03:01:28 PM) siretart: #startmeeting

Log

tz utc -5

(03:01:28 PM) siretart: #startmeeting
(03:01:29 PM) MootBot: Meeting started at 20:01. The chair is siretart.
(03:01:29 PM) MootBot: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
(03:01:42 PM) ScottK: persia: I'd like to suggest we put my SRU process change first as it should just take a moment.
(03:01:44 PM) siretart: or does someone else chair this meeting?
(03:01:44 PM) ajmitch: joejaxx: I'm glad you do, you take my place
(03:01:51 PM) persia: ScottK: No objection there
(03:01:59 PM) ScottK: siretart: Go for it.
(03:02:08 PM) ***joejaxx switches places with ajmitch 
(03:02:18 PM) ScottK: siretart: Persia has agreed to let me go first on SRU process change.
(03:02:25 PM) ScottK: siretart: May we start?
(03:02:31 PM) siretart: ScottK: we already did
(03:02:35 PM) ScottK: OK
(03:02:46 PM) siretart: [TOPIC] SRU process change
(03:02:46 PM) MootBot: New Topic:  SRU process change
(03:02:51 PM) ScottK: SRU process change: Do we want to add the TEST CASE requirement that Main just added? See [WWW] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates?action=diff&rev2=71&rev1=69
(03:03:06 PM) siretart: [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates?action=diff&rev2=71&rev1=69
(03:03:07 PM) MootBot: LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates?action=diff&rev2=71&rev1=69
(03:03:08 PM) ***Fujitsu thinks it would be silly not to.
(03:03:10 PM) ScottK: This seems like an obvious good idea, so I'd like us to follow the main process change
(03:03:19 PM) ScottK: Any objection?
(03:03:39 PM) ScottK: Fujitsu: Agreed, I just want process change to be done in a meeting rather than just happen somehow.
(03:03:41 PM) siretart: [IDEA] Add TEST CASE requirement as now required for main
(03:03:41 PM) MootBot: IDEA received:  Add TEST CASE requirement as now required for main
(03:03:57 PM) Fujitsu: ScottK: Of course.
(03:04:12 PM) ScottK: siretart: There doesn't seem to be any objection.  How about if we go straight to a vote.
(03:04:41 PM) siretart: ScottK: I have a question: how do we enforce the TEST CASE requirement?
(03:04:45 PM) ScottK: OK
(03:04:54 PM) siretart: we don't seem to have any reviewing process for SRU right now at all
(03:05:06 PM) persia: We'd just not upload without TEST CASE by general agreement, no?
(03:05:07 PM) ScottK: This is true and something that I think ought to be discussed.
(03:05:07 PM) siretart: so I'm unsure how our decision will affect things
(03:05:10 PM) Fujitsu: The same way as we enforce any process at all.
(03:05:23 PM) siretart: Fujitsu: as in, not?
(03:05:35 PM) Fujitsu: siretart: Right.
(03:05:36 PM) ScottK: If the process requires a TEST CASE then the archive might reject such uploads.
(03:05:45 PM) ***persia doesn't think enforcement is as important as publication and voluntary compliance
(03:05:50 PM) siretart: sure
(03:06:06 PM) ScottK: siretart: My main concern is to have a documented set of expectations.
(03:06:06 PM) Fujitsu: If we can't get voluntary compliance, then we probably have bigger issues.
(03:06:10 PM) ScottK: Agreed.
(03:06:11 PM) siretart: I'm not saying that I want to really review and enforce policy on any upload
(03:06:37 PM) siretart: however what I noticed is that many uploads to -proposed come with a quite poor debian/changelog
(03:06:37 PM) ScottK: siretart: Sure, but we need to document what's the proper way.
(03:07:25 PM) siretart: so I'd like to see something I proposed on ubuntu-devel, guidelines for writing propoer debian/changelog for -proposed uploads
(03:07:30 PM) ScottK: siretart: I think that's a bigger issue than just following Main on TEST CASE.
(03:07:37 PM) persia: Part of my interest in TEST CASE is that I often don't know enough about a package to decide whether a patch should be sponsored.
(03:07:47 PM) Fujitsu: persia: Right.
(03:07:47 PM) ScottK: siretart: Sounds good, but bigger than what I'm proposing today.
(03:07:57 PM) siretart: ScottK: ok, then let's vote on the TEST CASE thing first
(03:08:08 PM) ScottK: Sounds good
(03:08:32 PM) siretart: [VOTE] shall we implement the TEST CASE requirement for universe/multiverse uploads to -proposed?
(03:08:33 PM) MootBot: Please vote on:  shall we implement the TEST CASE requirement for universe/multiverse uploads to -proposed?.
(03:08:33 PM) MootBot: Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
(03:08:33 PM) MootBot: E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
(03:08:37 PM) siretart: +1
(03:08:38 PM) MootBot: +1 received from siretart. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
(03:08:39 PM) ScottK: +1
(03:08:40 PM) MootBot: +1 received from ScottK. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
(03:08:40 PM) persia: +1
(03:08:40 PM) MootBot: +1 received from persia. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
(03:08:40 PM) Fujitsu: +1
(03:08:41 PM) MootBot: +1 received from Fujitsu. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
(03:09:01 PM) siretart: only 4 voters?
(03:09:05 PM) sistpoty: +1
(03:09:06 PM) MootBot: +1 received from sistpoty. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
(03:09:06 PM) ***Fujitsu notes that we have really good attendance this morning.
(03:09:21 PM) ajmitch: +1
(03:09:22 PM) MootBot: +1 received from ajmitch. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6
(03:09:24 PM) norsetto: +0
(03:09:24 PM) MootBot: Abstention received from norsetto. 6 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 6
(03:09:27 PM) ScottK: siretart: There was some discussion at UDS about adding a dch template for SRU much as was done for security uploads.  That in itself should help.
(03:09:40 PM) siretart: ScottK: indeed
(03:10:12 PM) ScottK: siretart: I suspect we need to have a disucsion about that (and have Main/Universe consensus) and most of the changelog problems will stop.
(03:10:19 PM) siretart: norsetto: any particular reason for the +0?
(03:10:24 PM) Fujitsu: ScottK: Oh, so there is a template. I've been doing that manually forever.
(03:10:29 PM) ***ScottK proposes ending the vote and moving on.
(03:10:35 PM) ScottK: Fujitsu: For security, yes.
(03:10:38 PM) siretart: ScottK: agree, so out of scope of this meeting. WFM
(03:10:46 PM) norsetto: siretart: not about the TEST case, is that right now I'm not particularly happy about SRUs
(03:11:01 PM) ScottK: norsetto: TEST CASE is all we are voting on right now.
(03:11:08 PM) ScottK: siretart: Agreed
(03:11:14 PM) norsetto: scottK: exactly, thats why I +0
(03:11:30 PM) ScottK: siretart: I propose we end the vote and move on.  We have a lot to cover.
(03:11:36 PM) sistpoty: ScottK: +1
(03:11:43 PM) Fujitsu: ScottK: Agreed.
(03:11:56 PM) siretart: #endvote
(03:12:07 PM) siretart: next topic?
(03:12:17 PM) persia: On the last REVU day, I noticed that there didn't seem to be a clear published set of guidelines showing what criteria a package must meet to receive a positive REVU.  As a result, a lot of the reviewing consists of running lintian, and packagers seem frustrated by the slow process.
(03:12:20 PM) persia: I'd like to propose https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/REVURequirements as a basis for review, to be published somewhere with a better URL, and used as reference by packagers and reviewers alike.  If anyone wants to change the conditions, that's fine with me, but let's discuss that as well.
(03:12:36 PM) siretart: [TOPIC] REVU requirements
(03:12:36 PM) MootBot: Vote is in progress. Finishing now.
(03:12:36 PM) MootBot: Final result is 6 for, 0 against. 1 abstained. Total: 6
(03:12:36 PM) MootBot: New Topic:  REVU requirements
(03:12:37 PM) persia: [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/REVURequirements
(03:12:40 PM) MootBot: LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/REVURequirements
(03:12:42 PM) ScottK: persia: Did you see my question on #ubuntu-motu about what MUST/SHOULD mean?
(03:12:54 PM) ***sistpoty needs to read first
(03:12:59 PM) ***bddebian too
(03:13:24 PM) persia: ScottK: I intended MUST/SHOULD to have those meanings, but I haven't reviewed the writeups a sufficient number of times to know I've gotten them right.
(03:13:30 PM) ScottK: OK
(03:13:51 PM) ScottK: persia: Comment: Contents of debian/ should be sane - SHOULD/MUST
(03:14:05 PM) ajmitch: 'sane' is vague
(03:14:20 PM) persia: ScottK: SHOULD due to ajmitch's reasoning.
(03:14:27 PM) ScottK: OK
(03:14:28 PM) bddebian: Could we add "package shouldn't be stupid" ?
(03:14:33 PM) siretart: ajmitch: yes, but that's not critical here, since we are discussion reviewing guidelines
(03:14:44 PM) ScottK: bddebian: Then what would you all day?
(03:14:47 PM) persia: bddebian: I thought that was part of Package must be advocated by at least two members of ubuntu-dev (the packager may count as one)
(03:14:54 PM) bddebian: Heh
(03:14:55 PM) ScottK: persia: Why "Package must not Conflict: with a package in main without an associated approved spec"
(03:14:56 PM) siretart: ajmitch: so it is up to the reviewer to assess on that, I think
(03:15:02 PM) ajmitch: siretart: but stating that something MUST be something vague isn't helping
(03:15:26 PM) ajmitch: it's just common sense that should fall into the other rules
(03:15:42 PM) bddebian: persia: Well admittedly I have advocated a package that I thought really had no sense going in the archive because I've never seen any good guidelines for what gets accepted besides "everything"
(03:15:43 PM) persia: ScottK: Because most packages that Conflict: with main can't be installed on a default system.  It's not that hard to write a spec (and it doesn't need to be approved), but I think packages like that need wider review and thought.
(03:15:53 PM) siretart: ajmitch: that part seem to be a should
(03:16:40 PM) siretart: persia: are we discussing the contents of the rules, or are we discussing on the location where we present them?
(03:16:48 PM) ScottK: persia: But I can avoid that rule by failing to add the proper conflicts and it doesn't get noticed.  Not everything in Main gets installed on every system.
(03:16:51 PM) sistpoty: while I believe that the ideas are certainly good items (apart from the watch file thingy) to look for when reviewing, I'd rather not have these as strict rules
(03:17:07 PM) ScottK: persia: I think the spec requirement just incentivizes incorrect packaging.
(03:17:17 PM) persia: siretart: contents mostly.  If you don't think the wiki is appropriate, I'd be curious where it should go.
(03:17:34 PM) Fujitsu: ScottK: Then we need to add another check which probably should be there: comparing the contents against Contents.
(03:17:40 PM) Fujitsu: There must be a tool to do that...
(03:17:44 PM) persia: ScottK: I'd hope reviewers were checking contents to catch that, but maybe.
(03:17:54 PM) siretart: persia: then I'd like to have a link to a needs-packaging bug in debian/changelog at least as a SHOULD HAVE
(03:17:56 PM) sistpoty: persia: the conflicts is indeed not sane, since conflicts means (only) file conflicts and *must* be added for these
(03:18:05 PM) persia: siretart: Sounds good to me.
(03:18:40 PM) ScottK: persia: How about we call these guidelines rather than requirements?  I think that the only "requirement" is that two MOTUs advocate.
(03:18:55 PM) persia: sistpoty: Do you mean "conflicts against main" is not a sane rule, or failing to conflict is not sane packaging?
(03:19:05 PM) sistpoty: persia: both ;)
(03:19:13 PM) persia: ScottK: "Guidelines" is fine with me.
(03:19:30 PM) persia: sistpoty: OK.  Why not "conflicts against main requires a spec"?
(03:19:50 PM) siretart: ScottK: I assume you cannot take those 'requirements' as real requirements in general sense, since we just agreed before that in a group of volunteers, enforcing processes isn't feasible anyway
(03:19:53 PM) ScottK: persia: If you must/should spec for conflicts on main, then I'm good.
(03:20:04 PM) ScottK: siretart: Agreed.
(03:20:08 PM) persia: sistpoty: Would that work for you?
(03:20:32 PM) ScottK: siretart: I'm trying to make sure we document hard core policy requirements versus here are good ideas.
(03:20:46 PM) siretart: so we have an agreement to rename the requirements as 'REVU Guidelines'?
(03:20:51 PM) ajmitch: persia: I think you'd find that there are many universe packages that conflict with something in main
(03:20:53 PM) ScottK: +1
(03:21:01 PM) persia: ajmitch: Sure, I just don't want more :)
(03:21:07 PM) sistpoty: persia: not too sure... if I'd rather write to not have a file conflict w.o. reason or s.th. (otherwise people might be deluded to not conflict when they must)
(03:21:39 PM) ***ajmitch wouldn't want to have to go through the pain of getting a spec drafted, reviewed & approved just because of some small conflict
(03:21:49 PM) persia: sistpoty: Ah.  Same reasoning as ScottK.  Makes sense.  I'll drop it until I can come up with better wording (and repropose that as a change).
(03:21:51 PM) siretart: how about dropping that point 3?
(03:21:53 PM) ajmitch: at that point I'd just give up & upload to debian :)
(03:22:01 PM) bddebian: doh
(03:22:09 PM) sistpoty: though I'm still not too sure what the big disadvantages of a conflict would be. imho most main "tasks" consist of recommends anyway, don't they?
(03:22:45 PM) siretart: [AGREED] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/REVURequirements to be implemented as REVU Guidelines
(03:22:46 PM) MootBot: AGREED received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/REVURequirements to be implemented as REVU Guidelines
(03:22:48 PM) persia: sistpoty: More about maintaining consistency than anything else.  I'm not opposed to dropping it.
(03:23:02 PM) norsetto: persia: I would consider adding best practices as a SHOULD : http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html
(03:23:03 PM) sistpoty: ok
(03:23:17 PM) siretart: [VOTE] Drop the Conflict point of REVURequirements
(03:23:18 PM) MootBot: Please vote on:  Drop the Conflict point of REVURequirements.
(03:23:18 PM) MootBot: Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
(03:23:18 PM) MootBot: E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
(03:23:18 PM) persia: norsetto: Good point.
(03:23:19 PM) siretart: +1
(03:23:20 PM) MootBot: +1 received from siretart. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
(03:23:24 PM) sistpoty: +1
(03:23:25 PM) MootBot: +1 received from sistpoty. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
(03:23:27 PM) persia: 0
(03:23:27 PM) ScottK: +1
(03:23:28 PM) MootBot: +1 received from ScottK. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
(03:23:29 PM) bddebian: +1
(03:23:30 PM) MootBot: +1 received from bddebian. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
(03:23:32 PM) zul: +1
(03:23:32 PM) MootBot: +1 received from zul. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
(03:23:42 PM) siretart: that seems to work faster :)
(03:23:44 PM) Fujitsu: +1
(03:23:45 PM) MootBot: +1 received from Fujitsu. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6
(03:23:55 PM) siretart: I think we have a majority
(03:23:58 PM) Fujitsu: persia: You need to +0
(03:23:59 PM) siretart: #endvote
(03:24:00 PM) sistpoty: persia: did you propose the spec on the motu-mailing list before?
(03:24:09 PM) ScottK: persia: How about you edit the document based on the discussion while I talk about comments and then we vote on the revised document?
(03:24:39 PM) persia: sistpoty: Spec?  Do you mean a requirement for a spec, or these guidelines?
(03:24:50 PM) persia: ScottK: Sure.
(03:24:50 PM) sistpoty: persia: that guidelines which looks like a spec to me ;)
(03:24:59 PM) persia: sistpoty: No.
(03:25:17 PM) ScottK: siretart: I have suggested to persia that we move on to my next item while he edits his proposal.
(03:25:22 PM) siretart: ok
(03:25:31 PM) persia: ScottK: Just skip "New Upstream" for now :)
(03:25:46 PM) siretart: [TOPIC] Review of new upstream versions
(03:25:46 PM) MootBot: Vote is in progress. Finishing now.
(03:25:46 PM) MootBot: Final result is 6 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 6
(03:25:46 PM) MootBot: New Topic:  Review of new upstream versions
(03:25:51 PM) ScottK: persia: OK
(03:25:56 PM) sistpoty: persia: maybe that would be a good idea to do (and then present the results in the next meeting to just vote on)?
(03:26:02 PM) ScottK: siretart: It should be new packages
(03:26:06 PM) ScottK: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-November/002675.html is the proposal
(03:26:28 PM) siretart: ScottK: not according the ordering of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings
(03:26:48 PM) ScottK: siretart: Right.  Persia and I just agreed to skip ahead to mine while he edits.
(03:26:58 PM) ScottK: I thought that's what you just said OK to.
(03:27:16 PM) siretart: aah, you're right
(03:27:27 PM) siretart: [TOPIC] New package review process
(03:27:27 PM) MootBot: New Topic:  New package review process
(03:27:32 PM) ScottK: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-November/002675.html is the proposal
(03:27:36 PM) sistpoty: +1
(03:27:39 PM) sistpoty: ;)
(03:27:43 PM) ScottK: Any discussion?
(03:27:52 PM) ScottK: I think it's the sanest solution for now.
(03:27:55 PM) siretart: [LINK] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-November/002675.html
(03:27:56 PM) MootBot: LINK received:  https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-November/002675.html
(03:28:13 PM) norsetto: scottK: its not clear to me what would be different to what we do now?
(03:28:13 PM) siretart: ScottK: I like the idea because it is very similar to what sistpoty and I worked out at UDS
(03:28:22 PM) ajmitch: it's pretty much just what's done now, isn't it?
(03:28:37 PM) ScottK: norsetto: The big difference is just that we stop piling comments into the LP bug once it's uploaded to REVU.
(03:28:42 PM) ScottK: ajmitch: Pretty much.
(03:28:42 PM) siretart: which can be found at [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ReviewProcessConvergence
(03:28:58 PM) siretart: sistpoty: I copied our gobby session unmodified to the wiki
(03:29:07 PM) siretart: [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ReviewProcessConvergence
(03:29:07 PM) MootBot: LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Spec/ReviewProcessConvergence
(03:29:10 PM) ajmitch: so new upstream versions probably need to be more visible than buried at the bottom of the page
(03:29:10 PM) sistpoty: siretart: :)
(03:29:14 PM) ajmitch: (on REVU)
(03:29:36 PM) Fujitsu: New upstream versions probably shouldn't be on REVU, but isn't that next?
(03:29:37 PM) persia: ajmitch: There are still a few cases where there is confusion from not uploading to REVU, or sending the needs-packaging bug to the UUS queue.
(03:29:39 PM) sistpoty: ajmitch: feel free to contribute :P
(03:29:49 PM) ScottK: Right.  This is a subset of what's in the process convergence spec that we can do right now.
(03:29:51 PM) persia: Fujitsu: That's next.  Ignore that part for now.
(03:30:19 PM) ScottK: Fujitsu: What persia said.
(03:30:36 PM) ajmitch: sistpoty: yeah, right
(03:30:45 PM) ScottK: My main thing is to be tracking in one and only one place at any given point in the packaging lifecycle.
(03:30:55 PM) Fujitsu: ScottK, persia: I was responding to ajmitch.
(03:30:58 PM) ScottK: Also to make it clear where there is room for process experimentation.
(03:31:04 PM) ScottK: Fujitsu: Ah.
(03:31:13 PM) ajmitch: Fujitsu: in the mail sent, it was stated that they should be on REVU
(03:31:20 PM) ajmitch: which I'm not a big fan of, but oh well
(03:31:29 PM) ScottK: ajmitch: I hadn't seen persia's proposal on that yet.
(03:31:35 PM) Fujitsu: `As long as the policy is that new upstream versions are uploaded to REVU'
(03:31:48 PM) siretart: we are not talking about new upstream versions (yet)
(03:31:59 PM) siretart: but rather on completely new packages
(03:32:07 PM) ***ajmitch goes back to his game :)
(03:32:19 PM) persia: Right.  My proposal didn't exist when ScottK wrote that mail.
(03:32:35 PM) sistpoty: [IDEA]: drop new upstream versions from the proposal
(03:32:36 PM) MootBot: IDEA received: : drop new upstream versions from the proposal
(03:32:46 PM) ScottK: Fine by me.
(03:33:08 PM) ScottK: It's actually just there on a contingent basis anyway.
(03:33:20 PM) ScottK: If the next item says they don't go on REVU, then it's gone.
(03:33:37 PM) ScottK: Any more comments/objections on what's there for New packages?
(03:33:47 PM) siretart: ScottK: one detail: sistpoty and I had the idea to set the bug tracking the package to 'triaged' as soon as it has one advocate
(03:33:48 PM) sistpoty: any other points that need discussion or should we go for a vote?
(03:33:50 PM) Fujitsu: All looks good to me.
(03:33:55 PM) persia: Just an an additional note to the proposal, I'd like to make it explicit that other sources are not preferred.  If someone has a package in a private repo or BZR branch, they should export to REVU, rather than asking a reviewer to do so.
(03:34:12 PM) siretart: I don't mind not having it, it's just a thought
(03:34:12 PM) bddebian: Amen
(03:34:23 PM) ScottK: siretart: I'd say not as that gets back into tracking in two places
(03:34:32 PM) siretart: ScottK: ok
(03:34:34 PM) ScottK: persia: Agreed.
(03:34:50 PM) ScottK: persia: When I export it to the wiki, I can make that clearer.
(03:35:08 PM) ***persia thinks the wiki is a good place to start, as editing is easier :)
(03:35:36 PM) siretart: [VOTE] shall we implement ScottK's STANDARD WORKFLOW proposal as found in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-November/002675.html?
(03:35:36 PM) MootBot: Please vote on:  shall we implement ScottK's STANDARD WORKFLOW proposal as found in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/2007-November/002675.html?.
(03:35:36 PM) MootBot: Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
(03:35:36 PM) MootBot: E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
(03:35:43 PM) sistpoty: +1
(03:35:44 PM) MootBot: +1 received from sistpoty. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
(03:35:44 PM) siretart: +1
(03:35:44 PM) Fujitsu: +1
(03:35:44 PM) MootBot: +1 received from siretart. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
(03:35:45 PM) MootBot: +1 received from Fujitsu. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
(03:35:45 PM) ScottK: +1
(03:35:45 PM) MootBot: +1 received from ScottK. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
(03:35:59 PM) persia: +1
(03:35:59 PM) MootBot: +1 received from persia. 5 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 5
(03:36:01 PM) ScottK: persia: The ML gives us a stable reference to what was voted on though.
(03:36:21 PM) persia: ScottK: Right, except we changed it :)
(03:36:27 PM) ScottK: Only very slightly.
(03:36:33 PM) sistpoty: hm... but I voted on what was revised right now *g*
(03:36:37 PM) ScottK: Sure
(03:36:47 PM) ScottK: ML + miuntes should be sufficient.
(03:36:57 PM) ScottK: miuntes/minutes
(03:37:09 PM) norsetto: +1
(03:37:09 PM) MootBot: +1 received from norsetto. 6 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 6
(03:37:40 PM) siretart: clear majority, and vote goes along pretty well with the REVU Guidelines from before. great work!
(03:37:49 PM) siretart: #endvote
(03:38:04 PM) siretart: persia: shall we proceed to the new upstream topic?
(03:38:11 PM) persia: Recently I've been reviewing new upstream versions for existing packages, and have found it difficult to differentiate and verify contributor effort without downloading three copies of orig.tar.gz and two copies of diff.gz.  I'd much prefer an interdiff, as documented at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview
(03:38:13 PM) persia: [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview
(03:38:14 PM) MootBot: LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview
(03:38:22 PM) siretart: [TOPIC] Review of new upstream versions
(03:38:23 PM) MootBot: Vote is in progress. Finishing now.
(03:38:23 PM) MootBot: Final result is 6 for, 0 against. 0 abstained. Total: 6
(03:38:23 PM) MootBot: New Topic:  Review of new upstream versions
(03:38:43 PM) siretart: please change the topic before posting links or actually discussing it
(03:38:44 PM) ***persia should really wait for official topic changes
(03:38:50 PM) siretart: [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview
(03:38:50 PM) ***ScottK will note that much of what's proposed here would be well done in REVU2....
(03:38:50 PM) MootBot: LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview
(03:39:04 PM) persia: ScottK: Sure, but until then...
(03:39:08 PM) ScottK: Agreed.
(03:39:14 PM) siretart: ScottK: help is really appreciated :)
(03:39:14 PM) ajmitch: ScottK: that mythical beast?
(03:40:25 PM) siretart: persia: I think point 2 is problematic
(03:40:37 PM) persia: siretart: Which point 2?
(03:40:49 PM) siretart: persia: not in every case it is really feasible to provide a watch file or a get-orig-source target
(03:40:59 PM) bddebian: ame
(03:41:01 PM) bddebian: +n
(03:41:04 PM) sistpoty: siretart: +1
(03:41:08 PM) siretart: persia: oh, the Differences from Patch / Merge Review part
(03:42:02 PM) persia: siretart: I think that case is rare, as get-orig-source can usually do almost anything that can be done manually, and I'm not sure about MOTU ability to maintain a package with no clear upstream: that seems a Debian target to me (dedicated maintainer).
(03:42:28 PM) ajmitch: persia: but considering this is new upstream version, it'll often be used for leapfrogging debian
(03:42:31 PM) siretart: persia: I wouldn't consider that case that rare, but I agree that YMMV
(03:42:53 PM) ajmitch: so that debian packages (without that rule) will end up having it added
(03:43:05 PM) persia: siretart: Really?  Can't one usually wget a magic URL (for which watch fails), and manipulate it?
(03:43:15 PM) sistpoty: right, so for debian originating packages, the packaging should only change as much as needed
(03:44:12 PM) sistpoty: persia: doing that stuff in a Makefile is usually horrible to read (of course it can be split off to a shell script)
(03:44:13 PM) persia: I'm mostly worried about contributor review.  If a MOTU wants to upload something, I shan't stop them, but I'm not convinced a non-MOTU is able to properly maintain a new upstream variation in the general case.
(03:44:51 PM) persia: sistpoty: Right.  debian/mangle-upstream :)
(03:45:25 PM) siretart: persia: so the proposal should make it clear that it covers only the case that a non-MOTU works on a new upstream version and needs to get that reviewed and sponsored, right?
(03:45:57 PM) siretart: persia: in that case I'd like to propose to rename it "Guidelines for reviewing new upstream versions of existing packages"
(03:46:06 PM) ScottK: Although the guidelines are generally good, the chances of a MOTU doing a drive-by upgrade are lower
(03:46:13 PM) persia: siretart: Is calling it a "review process proposal" in insufficient to make that explicit?
(03:46:36 PM) persia: siretart: Sure.  No problems with rename.
(03:46:37 PM) siretart: persia: no, not necessarily. it would have helped me to understand its scope
(03:46:46 PM) siretart: persia: it's now clear to me anyways
(03:47:08 PM) sistpoty: persia: with 7./proposed process, do you mean a .dsc to the binary or to the source package?
(03:47:43 PM) persia: sistpoty: A Debian Source Collection, with md5sums of the orig.tar.gz and diff.gz
(03:48:00 PM) siretart: persia: I have an addition: the guidelines should mandate a tag 'new-upstream' for the bugs
(03:48:14 PM) sistpoty: persia: ok, that's what I thought... maybe you should rename that to source package then ;)
(03:48:17 PM) Fujitsu: siretart: We've traditionally used `upgrade' for that.
(03:48:31 PM) siretart: Fujitsu: oh, fine by me.
(03:48:31 PM) persia: siretart: I'm disagree with that: often new upstreams are used to close other types of bugs that have been fixed upstream, but not yet in Debian.
(03:49:16 PM) sistpoty: so the review should be in place to an existing bug report?
(03:49:26 PM) siretart: persia: how do you want to assemble a list of the bugs covered by this then?
(03:49:59 PM) siretart: that part is important for batching work
(03:50:14 PM) persia: sistpoty: Depends on the reason for upgrade.  Existing bug can work for small upstream changes (liferea does this often).  New bug for I want a pony cases.
(03:50:44 PM) persia: siretart: Anytime a Contributor wishes to submit a new upstream (not a new package) for review, they would use the UUS queue with an interdiff
(03:50:46 PM) sistpoty: ok, nonetheless I guess adding a tag to the bug when subscribing sponsors wouldn't hurt, would it?
(03:51:06 PM) persia: sistpoty: Perhaps.  I don't think most sponsors sort by tag.
(03:51:19 PM) luisbg: so how does this differ from REVU?
(03:51:25 PM) siretart: persia: that seems pretty fuzzy to me. that's why I'd like to see a tag for that
(03:51:35 PM) siretart: shall we vote on that?
(03:51:38 PM) persia: luisbg: New upstream versions rather than new upstream packages.
(03:51:49 PM) luisbg: persia, oooh I see
(03:51:49 PM) sistpoty: luisbg: the discussion about the applicability is not done by comments on revu, but rather on a LP bug
(03:52:04 PM) luisbg: sistpoty, that would be much better
(03:52:28 PM) persia: siretart: OK.  I think it's orthogonal, and we already have difficulties with tags / bug status in the UUS queue, but I'm not opposed.
(03:52:52 PM) siretart: persia: what difficulties are that?
(03:53:28 PM) persia: siretart: Contributors not setting tags, or leaving the bug "New" and the like.  Not significant from a workflow perspective, but not ideal from a compliance perspective.
(03:54:16 PM) ***norsetto considers setting status as in-progress disruptive for the workflow too
(03:54:25 PM) sistpoty: persia: lesson them what to do ;)
(03:54:27 PM) ***persia notes the "upgrade" tag is already documented as appropriate for new upstream bugs
(03:54:38 PM) siretart: persia: agressive unsubscription plus a note about using tags should fix that quickly :)
(03:54:42 PM) persia: sistpoty: We do, but that's a different topic :)
(03:54:52 PM) sistpoty: hehe
(03:54:54 PM) persia: siretart: Well, for that contributor, and sometimes :)
(03:55:05 PM) persia: (we already do that for most cases)
(03:55:22 PM) sistpoty: back to topic, right?
(03:55:47 PM) persia: So, does anyone think that interdiff is not the right means to review new upstream candidates?
(03:56:13 PM) norsetto: persia: I'm using that already
(03:56:31 PM) sistpoty: not too sure... making the whole process too complicated might drive away people... but we'll know this only if we try it, so I'm not opposed
(03:56:48 PM) siretart: I think it highly depends on the package, but it is indeed useful in a lot if not in most cases
(03:57:20 PM) persia: sistpoty: I'm not sure it's harder to generate an interdiff than a debdiff.  Who do you think may be driven away?
(03:58:19 PM) persia: siretart: For what sort of package would you prefer a different format, and how would you like to receive it to decide to sponsor?
(03:58:24 PM) sistpoty: persia: well, rather by the two step process to need an ack for the interdiff first and then for the final package
(03:58:51 PM) persia: sistpoty: Ah.  I don't envision a two-step process.  If someone gives me an interdiff, and I like it, I'll upload the results.
(03:59:19 PM) sistpoty: ah, wasn't clear to me :)
(03:59:27 PM) norsetto: persia: hmmmm, and the tarball?
(03:59:31 PM) siretart: persia: things become difficult if the package is patching the source a lot. espc. if it doesn't use a patch system but a VCS like bzr
(03:59:39 PM) sistpoty: norsetto: right, that would have been my next question ;)
(03:59:48 PM) persia: norsetto: I need to get it from upstream, or I can't verify the md5sum anyway,
(03:59:53 PM) siretart: persia: applies to some of mine packages
(04:00:14 PM) norsetto: persia: ok, so I don't see that much of a speedup from doing the interdiff myself
(04:00:17 PM) persia: siretart: That all ends up in diff.gz, doesn't it?
(04:00:44 PM) siretart: persia: it does, however in oder to see if the patch has been adapted properly, I'd need the full context anyway
(04:01:05 PM) persia: norsetto: I just don't like downloading the current package, downloading from REVU, downloading from upstream, and then starting a review.  I want to see what someone is changing before I download everything.
(04:01:13 PM) siretart: persia: I don't say it is a bad idea, I rather mean that it is not sufficient in some cases. but that can be sorted out on an individual basis
(04:01:18 PM) siretart: probably :)
(04:01:33 PM) persia: siretart: Sure, but you can generate the full context from the current package, the watch file, and the interdiff.
(04:01:35 PM) siretart: I also agree that REVU doesn't help you much for new upstream version
(04:01:43 PM) siretart: persia: indeed
(04:01:56 PM) ScottK: persia: Is your first proposal revised and ready to vote on (as we are running out of time)?
(04:01:59 PM) norsetto: persia: well, you have to download upstream anyhow and the package too, you just save downloading from revu
(04:02:11 PM) sistpoty: yep, I'd say to go for it, in case you provide some notes to the mailing list how to apply that interdiff and when to get the new upstream tarball and stuff ;)
(04:02:19 PM) persia: ScottK: Revised.  I thought we already voted.
(04:02:46 PM) persia: sistpoty: Certainly.  I have some docs, and will generate some more for both contributors and reviewers, and widely announce it.
(04:02:47 PM) ScottK: persia: OK.  siretart?^^^
(04:02:56 PM) sistpoty: persia: excellent!
(04:03:27 PM) siretart: no, we haven't voted on the REVU Guidelines yet AFAICS
(04:03:55 PM) siretart: we have voted on dropping the conflicts requirement
(04:04:02 PM) ScottK: siretart: Since persia says they are revised, I'd like to propose a vote on that before we lose the meeting.
(04:04:04 PM) persia: Ah.  That was it.
(04:04:30 PM) norsetto: siretart: I would oppose a voting to something like that based on a draft that just circulated
(04:04:49 PM) siretart: norsetto: what do you suggest then?
(04:05:18 PM) norsetto: siretart: now that we all have a chance to look at it and comment on the wiki, I would say lets vote next MOTU meeting, whats the rush?
(04:05:21 PM) sistpoty: I'd also rather say to discuss it on the mailing list and call for a definite vote in the next meeting
(04:05:31 PM) siretart: ok
(04:05:47 PM) ScottK: How about we vote to use them experimentally now to be confirmed at the next meeting.
(04:05:55 PM) siretart: both for REVU guidelines and NEW Packages REVU Guidelines then?
(04:06:06 PM) siretart: ScottK: you mean as 'test' vote?
(04:06:15 PM) persia: This is different than other process notes I've proposed, where the meeting voted, and announcements were sent to the mailing lists, after which it was assumed accepted unless there was controversy.
(04:06:20 PM) ScottK: siretart: New packages was circulated on the mail list, so I think we count that approved.
(04:06:55 PM) ***ScottK is fine with voting the guidelines now.
(04:06:56 PM) siretart: ScottK: I think I missed that, but even better :)
(04:07:29 PM) norsetto: as long as we don't vote if we have to vote ....
(04:07:30 PM) siretart: test voting or real voting?
(04:07:43 PM) siretart: norsetto: agreed
(04:07:52 PM) ***persia prefers meeting discussion prior to mailing list annoucement: there are variations to the mailing list post that are only relflected in the meeting.
(04:08:24 PM) siretart: persia: we can discuss this to death. I agree with ScottK that we should vote and have it decided
(04:08:25 PM) sistpoty: let's test vote together with the note to have the final decision done in next meeting, ok?
(04:08:25 PM) ScottK: siretart: I'd prefer we vote it for real.
(04:08:39 PM) ***persia agrees with ScottK
(04:08:40 PM) siretart: if specific parts need adjustments, we can fix them in a flexible fashion
(04:08:45 PM) ScottK: Exactly.
(04:08:51 PM) Fujitsu: ScottK: Agreed.
(04:09:02 PM) siretart: [VOTE] Shall we implement the REVU Guidelines per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/REVURequirements
(04:09:02 PM) MootBot: Please vote on:  Shall we implement the REVU Guidelines per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/REVURequirements.
(04:09:02 PM) MootBot: Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
(04:09:02 PM) MootBot: E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
(04:09:10 PM) siretart: +1
(04:09:11 PM) MootBot: +1 received from siretart. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
(04:09:11 PM) ScottK: +1
(04:09:11 PM) persia: +1
(04:09:12 PM) MootBot: +1 received from ScottK. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
(04:09:12 PM) MootBot: +1 received from persia. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
(04:09:12 PM) Fujitsu: +1
(04:09:12 PM) MootBot: +1 received from Fujitsu. 4 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 4
(04:09:35 PM) sistpoty: -1
(04:09:35 PM) MootBot: -1 received from sistpoty. 4 for, 1 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
(04:11:34 PM) siretart: [VOTE] Shall we implement the REVU Guidelines for NEW packages per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview
(04:11:34 PM) MootBot: siretart, Either there isn't a meeting in progress, or there is already an active vote.
(04:11:44 PM) siretart: oh
(04:11:53 PM) siretart: #endvote
(04:11:57 PM) siretart: [VOTE] Shall we implement the REVU Guidelines for NEW packages per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview
(04:11:57 PM) MootBot: siretart, Either there isn't a meeting in progress, or there is already an active vote.
(04:12:14 PM) siretart: [ENDVOTE]
(04:12:14 PM) MootBot: Final result is 4 for, 1 against. 0 abstained. Total: 3
(04:12:19 PM) persia: For my other item, I'd like the vote to simply be "Should interdiffs be the preferred method of reviewing new upstream packages"
(04:12:22 PM) siretart: ah, that was it
(04:12:37 PM) siretart: persia: just call for vote for that :)
(04:12:42 PM) persia: The writeup was mainly for discussion, and I still have to write the documentation.
(04:12:50 PM) siretart: you should know the syntax by now ;)
(04:13:04 PM) persia: [VOTE] Should interdiffs be the preferred method of reviewing new upstream packages
(04:13:05 PM) MootBot: persia, Only the meeting chair can do that
(04:13:12 PM) Fujitsu: Hahaha.
(04:13:14 PM) siretart: argl
(04:13:15 PM) sistpoty: lol
(04:13:17 PM) persia: That's what I thought :)
(04:13:20 PM) siretart: [VOTE] Should interdiffs be the preferred method of reviewing new upstream packages
(04:13:21 PM) MootBot: Please vote on:  Should interdiffs be the preferred method of reviewing new upstream packages.
(04:13:21 PM) MootBot: Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
(04:13:21 PM) MootBot: E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
(04:13:28 PM) sistpoty: +1
(04:13:29 PM) MootBot: +1 received from sistpoty. 1 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 1
(04:13:29 PM) Fujitsu: +1
(04:13:30 PM) MootBot: +1 received from Fujitsu. 2 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 2
(04:13:33 PM) norsetto: +1
(04:13:34 PM) MootBot: +1 received from norsetto. 3 for, 0 against. 0 have abstained. Count is now 3
(04:13:34 PM) siretart: +0
(04:13:34 PM) MootBot: Abstention received from siretart. 3 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 3
(04:13:42 PM) persia: +1
(04:13:43 PM) MootBot: +1 received from persia. 4 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 4
(04:13:48 PM) luisbg: +1
(04:13:49 PM) MootBot: +1 received from luisbg. 5 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 5
(04:14:06 PM) ajmitch: +0
(04:14:07 PM) MootBot: Abstention received from ajmitch. 5 for, 0 against. 2 have abstained. Count is now 5
(04:14:14 PM) ScottK: +0
(04:14:14 PM) MootBot: Abstention received from ScottK. 5 for, 0 against. 3 have abstained. Count is now 5
(04:15:06 PM) siretart: [ENDVOTE]
(04:15:06 PM) MootBot: Final result is 5 for, 0 against. 3 abstained. Total: 5
(04:15:24 PM) siretart: seems a clear favor for it
(04:15:46 PM) siretart: let's vote on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview as well, for completeness, ok?
(04:16:01 PM) persia: I'll try to get the docs out this weekend, and probably ask for #ubuntu-motu review before sending announcements.
(04:16:11 PM) ***ajmitch wonders if themuso will be around
(04:16:24 PM) siretart: [VOTE] Shall we implement the REVU Guidelines for NEW packages per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview
(04:16:24 PM) MootBot: Please vote on:  Shall we implement the REVU Guidelines for NEW packages per https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview.
(04:16:24 PM) MootBot: Public votes can be registered by saying +1/-1/+0 in the channel, private votes by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0  to MootBot
(04:16:24 PM) MootBot: E.g. /msg MootBot +1 #ubuntu-meeting
(04:16:36 PM) siretart: +0
(04:16:37 PM) MootBot: Abstention received from siretart. 0 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0
(04:16:45 PM) norsetto: +1
(04:16:45 PM) MootBot: +1 received from norsetto. 1 for, 0 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1
(04:16:53 PM) sistpoty: -1 (as I'd like to see the tag in there)
(04:16:54 PM) MootBot: -1 received from sistpoty. 1 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 0
(04:17:14 PM) siretart: sistpoty: I think we agreed that the tag 'upgrade' will be used for that
(04:17:16 PM) persia: Um.  What are we voting on?
(04:17:26 PM) siretart: persia: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Meetings/2007-11-05/NewUpstreamReview.
(04:17:30 PM) luisbg: +1
(04:17:30 PM) MootBot: +1 received from luisbg. 2 for, 1 against. 1 have abstained. Count is now 1
(04:17:31 PM) sistpoty: siretart: yep... what persia wrote ;)
(04:17:41 PM) persia: I'm planning to delete that page in the next couple days, in favor of our last vote.
(04:18:06 PM) siretart: ok, so voting on that doesn't really make sense then
(04:18:10 PM) persia: Right.
(04:18:12 PM) siretart: [ENDVOTE]
(04:18:12 PM) MootBot: Final result is 2 for, 1 against. 1 abstained. Total: 1
(04:18:20 PM) norsetto: persia: aren't we voting the principle?
(04:18:21 PM) sistpoty: [CANCELVOTE]
(04:18:32 PM) sistpoty: [ARBITRARYCOMMAND] *g*
(04:18:37 PM) persia: norsetto: That was the previous vote on using interdiffs.  I need to write up some docs.
(04:18:52 PM) siretart: [AGREED] the vote about new packages REVU guidelines is to be canceled, at least for now
(04:18:52 PM) MootBot: AGREED received:  the vote about new packages REVU guidelines is to be canceled, at least for now
(04:18:55 PM) ***norsetto rolls his eyes
(04:19:13 PM) siretart: let's talk about Ubuntu Universe Sponsors Day, ok?
(04:19:23 PM) sistpoty: +1
(04:19:26 PM) siretart: hm. Luke doesn't seem to be around
(04:19:35 PM) siretart: [TOPIC] Ubuntu Universe Sponsors Day
(04:19:35 PM) MootBot: New Topic:  Ubuntu Universe Sponsors Day
(04:19:36 PM) persia: TheMuso doesn't seem to be around, but I've spoken with him, and would be willing to lead that.
(04:19:42 PM) siretart: thanks persia
(04:20:14 PM) siretart: persia: so what's the plan?
(04:20:34 PM) norsetto: +1 if it involves food and drinks
(04:21:01 PM) persia: Essentially, the UUS queue is fairly large, and there are some persistent bugs that the regular reviewers are not clearing.  The idea would be to have a regular sponsoring day where those who don't typically review would be encouraged to help zero the queue.
(04:21:02 PM) ajmitch: +1 if norsetto is supplied food & drinks
(04:21:06 PM) ajmitch: ;)
(04:21:23 PM) ajmitch: persia: you mean lazy people like me?
(04:21:28 PM) persia: This would be in addition to the daily sponsoring done by active sponsors, not a replacement in any way.
(04:21:32 PM) persia: ajmitch: Yes,
(04:21:48 PM) siretart: norsetto: lol
(04:22:22 PM) siretart: persia: who is to do the job?
(04:22:30 PM) persia: siretart: Which job?
(04:22:36 PM) ajmitch: does it need someone to lead it?
(04:23:04 PM) siretart: persia: the UUS queue maintenance, that's what the topic is about AFAIUI
(04:23:11 PM) persia: If you mean annoucements and organisation, Luke and I can handle that, although I suspect we'd get a lot of support from other regular reviewers.  If you mean the sponsoring, we'd be calling for all MOTUs.
(04:24:00 PM) persia: In terms of regular maintenance, the sponsoring team manages to push through 30-40 bugs a day now, and that seems to be doing a reasonable job of keeping the queue in shape, except for the special bugs, where more eyes might help.
(04:24:36 PM) persia: (more active sponsors are always welcome, but that's a different topic)
(04:24:51 PM) sistpoty: persia: what's the reason to have this done on special days instead of announcing those bugs on the mailing list?
(04:25:13 PM) ***ScottK thinks it's more a matter of someone tacking charge and kicking questionable fixes out of the queue.
(04:25:14 PM) persia: sistpoty: Luke thought it would be an encouragement to MOTUs who don't typically sponsor.
(04:25:21 PM) sistpoty: ah
(04:25:45 PM) luisbg: +1 to Luke's thought
(04:26:02 PM) persia: ScottK: At this point we're mostly down to rare-case SRUs that don't get cleared.  I think the initial wave is gone.
(04:26:08 PM) ScottK: OK
(04:26:23 PM) sistpoty: persia: so you really want to have more people look at the sponsors queue instead of getting the long-sitting bugs fixed, right?
(04:26:56 PM) norsetto: persia: damm, they discovered your well concocted plan
(04:27:00 PM) siretart: I think it would be more encouraging if a a list of open bugs needing review would be posted to the mailing list on a regular basis
(04:27:07 PM) persia: sistpoty: Either would be good.  More people looking gives the regular sponsors more time to dig into the hard ones.  More people looking also might be interested in the hard ones, and take care of them.
(04:27:45 PM) persia: siretart: It changes hourly, or more frequently,  I can post a list of the ones that take more time on a regular basis, but even these get cleared over time.
(04:27:51 PM) sistpoty: persia: for the first, I guess that siretart's idea would sounds more promising... for the second I agree
(04:28:10 PM) sistpoty: (or otherway round actually)
(04:28:43 PM) sistpoty: what are the peaks in waiting time?
(04:28:51 PM) persia: sistpoty: Dapper / Edgy SRUs
(04:29:01 PM) siretart: persia: oh, it seems that I have no idea about the queue then. you seem to indicate that most bugs are processed in very few days. is that correct?
(04:29:16 PM) persia: siretart: Most bugs get a first response within hours
(04:29:23 PM) sistpoty: persia: erm... rather how long do these bugs rot?
(04:29:44 PM) persia: sistpoty: Sometimes a couple weeks.
(04:29:55 PM) persia: (sometimes longer, when the bug is less clear)
(04:30:01 PM) bddebian: Heh if only REVU were even near that.. ;-)
(04:30:12 PM) ubotu has changed the topic to: Calendar: http://fridge.ubuntu.com/event | Logs: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MeetingLogs/ | No meetings scheduled
(04:30:21 PM) sistpoty: would it be possible to announce such bugs on the mailing list in an automated manner?
(04:30:35 PM) sistpoty: which would e.g. sit there for over a week?
(04:30:58 PM) persia: sistpoty: That's hard to do.  We could get auto-annoucement of all SRU candidates to a mailing list, but some get processed quickly, depending on the level of testing required.
(04:31:28 PM) persia: Ah.  One-week old queued bugs.  Maybe.  LP is a little funny about bugs that keep getting bounced out of queue and resubscribed.
(04:31:29 PM) sistpoty: and what overhead would it make to do it by hand?
(04:31:58 PM) persia: Not a lot of overhead.  I think there are only 8-10 old SRUs currently in queue.
(04:33:14 PM) sistpoty: ok, how about that proposal: 1) do UUS-days to get more MOTUs involved and also as a meeting point for sponsorees and sponsors and 2) announce sponsor-bugs older than a week on the mailing list to draw even more attention?
(04:33:32 PM) persia: sistpoty: You type faster than I :)
(04:33:37 PM) sistpoty: hehe
(04:34:24 PM) persia: I want to contact Luke before deciding on a day, but I suspect we can get out an announcement this weekend, if there is no objection.
(04:34:54 PM) persia: I'll also generate the "needs attention" list, and send it out soon.  Perhaps those get sent weekly?
(04:35:30 PM) siretart: sounds sane
(04:35:31 PM) sistpoty: excellent!
(04:35:46 PM) siretart: if you use tags here, those could be automated as well, I guess
(04:37:23 PM) persia: siretart: That's a good idea.  I don't think tags are right for queue management, but they would be good for the ones the regular sponsors don7t get uploaded quickly.
(04:37:25 PM) norsetto: scottK: refrain the urge, I know your fingers are itching
(04:38:14 PM) siretart: that point seems cleared now, right?
(04:38:21 PM) ScottK: norsetto: Not really.
(04:38:24 PM) siretart: any other buisness for the meeting?
(04:38:36 PM) sistpoty: for me, yes
(04:38:37 PM) norsetto: scootk: good :-)
(04:38:38 PM) ScottK: Standard agenda items at the end
(04:38:52 PM) norsetto: omg scoot ....
(04:38:54 PM) persia: I'm happy.  I can't speak entirely for Luke, but if we've permission to organise UUS days, I think he'll be satisfied.
(04:39:28 PM) siretart: persia: I think nobody has stated serious disagreement. do you want a vote for that?
(04:39:46 PM) persia: siretart: Not really.  If there's no opposition, I don't see the point.
(04:39:49 PM) siretart: ok
(04:39:52 PM) siretart: sistpoty: your topic?
(04:40:02 PM) sistpoty: siretart: ?
(04:40:19 PM) ***sistpoty don't have no topic not
(04:40:21 PM) ***persia thinks we're on FIxed topics
(04:40:23 PM) siretart: ah, I see
(04:40:29 PM) norsetto: I also have an AOB, a (I hope) very brief one
(04:40:39 PM) siretart: norsetto: what's up?
(04:41:06 PM) norsetto: well, I just wanted to express my surprise at the reaction from persia proposal about contributors
(04:41:24 PM) norsetto: do I understand it correctly nobody cares?
(04:41:52 PM) ***persia needs more context
(04:41:59 PM) sistpoty: same here
(04:42:08 PM) ***bddebian 3
(04:42:30 PM) sistpoty: the use pastebin for non-motus for REVU?
(04:42:34 PM) norsetto: the proposal persia sent to the ubuntu-motu and ubuntu-motu-contributors ml about the two stages approach for mentoring
(04:43:06 PM) persia: norsetto: I suspect that people were waiting for the mentoring committee to either decide to adopt or propose for vote.
(04:43:29 PM) norsetto: persia: what mentoring committee?
(04:43:30 PM) ***ScottK is waiting for someone to write patches for REVU
(04:44:11 PM) persia: norsetto: The people who actually have to manage the mentoring process, I think primarily yourself and dholbach
(04:44:36 PM) TheMuso: Sorry I'm late folks...
(04:44:39 PM) sistpoty: -contributors ml? (do we have that one or do you mean -mentors? slightly disoriented)
(04:44:47 PM) sistpoty: Hi TheMuso
(04:44:48 PM) bluekuja: hi guys, sorry for being late
(04:44:53 PM) norsetto: sistpoty: yes, that one
(04:44:55 PM) bluekuja: just went home
(04:44:57 PM) siretart: hey Luke!
(04:44:58 PM) sistpoty: hi bluekuja
(04:45:06 PM) bluekuja: heya sistpoty :)
(04:45:06 PM) siretart: hi bluekuja
(04:45:11 PM) persia: TheMuso: I covered your item.  We've approval to have UUS days, and will also be arranging a call-for-help list for the bugs that just don't get cleared.
(04:45:17 PM) bluekuja: siretart, heya reinhard :)
(04:45:24 PM) luisbg: hey TheMuso
(04:46:01 PM) sistpoty: norsetto: ah... it wasn't sent to -motu (at least from looking at the post on -mentors)
(04:46:20 PM) TheMuso: persia: rOk thanks.
(04:46:26 PM) norsetto: sistpoty: ok, this could (partly) explain it
(04:47:28 PM) ***norsetto looks at all the blank faces around him
(04:47:39 PM) persia: norsetto: What sort of feedback were you seeking?  If you are happy, why not just adopt and proceed?
(04:47:49 PM) sistpoty: well, not too sure on this one, imho it deals mainly with mentoring, so I guess that rather the mentor-team should have a say on it (or the government)
(04:47:58 PM) sistpoty: -)+of it)
(04:48:03 PM) ***persia agrees with sistpoty
(04:48:57 PM) siretart: k
(04:49:00 PM) sistpoty: in plain text: norsetto, you should decide :P
(04:49:16 PM) norsetto: fine
(04:50:26 PM) sistpoty: any opposition?
(04:51:03 PM) siretart: proceed?
(04:51:06 PM) sistpoty: ok, any further discussion/out of order points?
(04:52:04 PM) siretart: [TOPIC] next meeting
(04:52:05 PM) MootBot: New Topic:  next meeting
(04:52:46 PM) ***persia proposes 12:00 UTC on the 23rd
(04:52:46 PM) siretart: ideas?
(04:53:01 PM) siretart: would work for me
(04:53:12 PM) ***TheMuso actually notes that while he can make this time, he is more likely to make something like 12:00 UTC
(04:53:38 PM) ***Fujitsu is the same as TheMuso.
(04:53:58 PM) ***persia believes in rotation so everyone has a chance
(04:54:17 PM) persia: (but 04:00 UTC meetings are always very quiet)
(04:54:30 PM) sistpoty: hehe
(04:54:53 PM) sistpoty: any other proposals for meeting time?
(04:55:03 PM) sistpoty: 3
(04:55:04 PM) sistpoty: 2
(04:55:06 PM) sistpoty: 1
(04:55:11 PM) sistpoty: ok, settled
(04:55:27 PM) siretart: [AGREED] next meeting is at 12:00 UTC on the 23rd
(04:55:28 PM) MootBot: AGREED received:  next meeting is at 12:00 UTC on the 23rd
(04:55:55 PM) siretart: next REVU and Q&A days?
(04:56:11 PM) _czessi is now known as Czessi
(04:56:12 PM) ***persia proposes 12th and 19th November, Kiritimati to Alofi
(04:56:17 PM) persia: (for REVU)
(04:57:59 PM) sistpoty: again: any opposition?
(04:58:23 PM) sistpoty: 3
(04:58:23 PM) sistpoty: 2
(04:58:24 PM) sistpoty: 0
(04:58:30 PM) sistpoty: sorry, skipped 1
(04:58:51 PM) siretart: any other buisness?
(04:58:52 PM) sistpoty: [AGREED] next REVU days are 12th and 19th November
(04:59:00 PM) siretart: [AGREED] next REVU days are 12th and 19th November
(04:59:01 PM) MootBot: AGREED received:  next REVU days are 12th and 19th November
(04:59:11 PM) sistpoty: MootBot: so you don't like me :P
(04:59:17 PM) persia: Q&A session schedule?
(04:59:21 PM) persia: sistpoty: You're not the chair
(04:59:22 PM) siretart: sistpoty: you chair the meeting next time :)
(04:59:40 PM) sistpoty: no thanks, this is personal between me an MootBot :P
(05:01:33 PM) siretart: #endmeeting
(05:01:33 PM) MootBot: Meeting finished at 22:01.

MeetingLogs/MOTU/20071109 (last edited 2008-08-06 17:00:18 by localhost)