20091125

Revision 1 as of 2009-11-26 03:06:06

Clear message

Agenda

Items we will be discussing:

Minutes

Agree on next meeting date and time

Next meeting will be on Wednesday, December 2nd at 14:00 UTC in #ubuntu-meeting.

Log

[14:02] <mdz> #startmeeting
[14:02] <MootBot> Meeting started at 08:02. The chair is mdz.
[14:02] <MootBot> Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
[14:02] <mdz> kirkland, smoser, ping
[14:04] <mdz> Dustin said he would be here
[14:04] <mdz> I think smoser may be on holiday
[14:05]  * nijaba waves
[14:05] <mdz> let's get started
[14:05] <mdz> [topic] Review ACTION points from previous meeting (ttx)
[14:05] <MootBot> New Topic:  Review ACTION points from previous meeting (ttx)
[14:05]  * ttx scrambles the list
[14:05] <ttx> kirkland to add a recipe covering virsh to https://help.ubuntu.com/community/KVM/VirtManager: Done
[14:05] <mdz> I wasn't able to attend the previous meeting
[14:06] <ttx> hm
[14:06]  * ttx tries again
[14:06] <ttx> ACTION: nurmi to help investigate/validate/fix bugs 455625, 460085 and 461156
[14:06] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 455625 in eucalyptus "Eucalyptus Loses Public IP Address" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/455625
[14:06] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 460085 in eucalyptus "memory leak; rampart_context not freed (memory leaked per connection)" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/460085
[14:06] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 461156 in euca2ools "User data is not parsed correctly by Eucalyptus in some cases" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/461156
[14:06] <ttx> nurmi is not around
[14:06] <ttx> I didn't have time to check progress on those bugs yet
[14:06] <mdz> 455625 has been marked invalid upstream
[14:07] <mdz> 461156 is Fix Committed upstream
[14:07] <mdz> 460085 is Fix Committed in Ubuntu
[14:07] <ttx> 460085 still needs a fix on eucalyptus side
[14:07] <mdz> so it looks like they have all been dealt with upstream
[14:07] <mdz> hmm, ok
[14:07] <mdz> I didn't look at that one
[14:08] <ttx> I'll look into that last one before tomorrow
[14:08]  * stgraber waves
[14:08] <jmdault> o/
[14:08] <ttx> to be sure to communicate to Eucalyptus anything we might be missing.
[14:08] <ttx> [ACTION] ttx to review status of bugs  455625, 460085 and 461156 for any missing info
[14:08] <mathiaz> ttx: does that mean we're preparing another SRU for UEC in karmic?
[14:09] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 455625 in eucalyptus "Eucalyptus Loses Public IP Address" [Medium,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/455625
[14:09] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 460085 in eucalyptus "memory leak; rampart_context not freed (memory leaked per connection)" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/460085
[14:09] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 461156 in euca2ools "User data is not parsed correctly by Eucalyptus in some cases" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/461156
[14:09] <ttx> beh, can't action :)
[14:09] <mdz> [ACTION] ttx to review status of bugs  455625, 460085 and 461156 for any missing info
[14:09] <MootBot> ACTION received:  ttx to review status of bugs  455625, 460085 and 461156 for any missing info
[14:09] <ttx> mathiaz: yes. The memory leak and the userdata are still on the list
[14:09] <mdz> mathiaz, we can discuss that on tomorrow's conf call
[14:09] <mdz> any other actions from last time?
[14:09] <ttx> yes
[14:09] <ttx> ACTION: mathiaz to compile a list of easy merges for publication
[14:10] <mathiaz> mdz: I'm almost done on generating the list of easy merges for publication
[14:10] <mathiaz> I've finally figured out how to do that with bzr and package branches
[14:10] <mdz> [action]  mathiaz to compile a list of easy merges for publication
[14:10] <MootBot> ACTION received:   mathiaz to compile a list of easy merges for publication
[14:10] <ttx> that's all.
[14:10] <mdz> ok
[14:10] <mdz> [topic] Check blueprint status and progress for the week (mdz)
[14:10] <MootBot> New Topic:  Check blueprint status and progress for the week (mdz)
[14:10] <kirkland> ttx: i have covered Virsh and Virt-Manager in the documentation
[14:10] <mdz> the list I'm using for this is:
[14:10] <mdz> [link] https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+specs?searchtext=server-lucid-
[14:10] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+specs?searchtext=server-lucid-
[14:10] <ttx> kirkland: yes, that action was already completed last meeting
[14:11] <kirkland> mdz: i'm here now
[14:11] <ttx> kirkland: bringing it up was a cut/apste error, sorry about that
[14:11] <mdz> this is not ideal, because it has some false positives (desktop and foundations blueprints)
[14:11] <mdz> but it has all of ours as well
[14:12] <mdz> if anyone knows a better way to get this out of LP, let me know
[14:13] <mdz> in my, er, spare time, I'm working on the blueprints API ;-)
[14:13] <ttx> also the assignee can be different from the drafter, so you should check https://blueprints.launchpad.net/~YOURNAMEHERE/+specs?role=drafter
[14:13] <mdz> all of the server-lucid-* blueprints on that list should be moved into Drafting status
[14:13] <mathiaz> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/~YOURNAMEHERE/+specs?role=drafter&searchtext=server-lucid-
[14:13] <mathiaz> ^^ this is even better :)
[14:14] <ttx> s/check/cross-check/
[14:14] <mdz> ttx, there is some way to do that with a universal URL, /+me or something
[14:14] <ttx> right
[14:15] <mdz> mathiaz, yes
[14:15] <mdz> many of them are still New or Discussion, so please update yours
[14:16] <mdz> kirkland, I reviewed what you submitted and sent feedback
[14:16] <mdz> the others, I'm waiting for you to tell me they're ready for review
[14:16] <mdz> you can do that by setting them to Review status when you're ready
[14:16] <mdz> I've sent email explaining what I'm looking for in the completed blueprints
[14:17] <kirkland> mdz: thank you
[14:17] <kirkland> mdz: i'm fixing up now
[14:17] <mdz> all of them should be completed by the end of this week
[14:17] <ttx> smoser: o/
[14:18] <kirkland> mdz: i clearly "missed" on the user stories ... do you have a favorite blueprint that has intriguing user stories?
[14:18] <mdz> does anyone feel they have too much to finish in that time?
[14:18] <zul> not I
[14:18] <soren> Hmm..
[14:18] <soren> I think I'll manage.
[14:18] <ttx> mdz: I do, but we already discussed that.
[14:19] <mdz> kirkland, I don't have a blueprint to hand, but you can look at the stories on the requirements pages
[14:19] <mdz> I mentioned them in the email
[14:19] <kirkland> ttx: mdz: I see that I'm the drafter of UEC-testing, mathiaz is the assignee ... I didn't realize I was responsible for drafting that one until just now
[14:19] <mdz> where there is an internal requirement behind the blueprint, I've already written the user stories for you
[14:19] <mdz> as a means of capturing the requirement
[14:19] <kirkland> mdz: right, I thought i followed that closely enough;  i'll try again
[14:20] <kirkland> https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-lucid-uec-testing
[14:20] <mdz> there are also loads of articles to be found with google about how to write user stories
[14:20] <mdz> kirkland, right, I believe that's because mathiaz couldn't be in the session, but you were
[14:21] <mathiaz> kirkland: yes - I wasn't in the session dealing with UEC testing
=== robbiew_ is now known as robbiew
[14:21] <mdz> if you can't get it done, now is the time to mention it, because we could find someone else who was there
[14:21] <mdz> I know you're off the rest of the week
[14:22] <kirkland> mdz: i was planning on fixing up the 2 I did write, writing up my year-end-review results, and enjoying the rest of my day off
[14:22] <mdz> who else was in the UEC testing session on Friday?
[14:22] <ttx> mdz: I was, I think soren was as well
[14:22] <mdz> this is on the critical path, so it still needs to be done this week
[14:22] <mdz> soren, can you take it?
[14:23] <kirkland> mdz: ttx: I'll do it
[14:23] <mdz> soren, ayt?
[14:24] <mdz> kirkland, OK, you can negotiate with soren separately if you find you need to hand it off
[14:24] <mdz> any other questions or considerations regarding blueprints?
[14:25] <mdz> otherwise, I'll expect everything to be ready for review first thing Monday morning
[14:25] <mdz> [topic] Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
[14:25] <nijaba> mdz: should "community" blueprient be following the same process as well?
[14:26] <MootBot> New Topic:  Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
[14:26] <soren> Sorry, someone was at the door..
[14:26]  * soren catches up
[14:26] <mdz> nijaba, all blueprints should follow the same process
[14:26] <nijaba> mdz: I know ScottK and maybe ivoks had a few
=== imlad is now known as imlad|away
[14:27] <mdz> [link] Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
[14:27] <MootBot> LINK received:  Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
[14:27] <soren> Um... Yeah, I think I was in the UEC testing session. Think.
[14:27] <mdz> nothing assigned to the team at the moment
[14:28] <mdz> there are a bunch of bugs there which are still targeted to Karmic
[14:28] <mdz> looks like they're all Eucalyptus related
[14:29] <mdz> so I assume those are SRU candidates, as opposed to 9.10-targeted bugs which slipped
[14:29] <mdz> probably they should be targeted for LL as well, but I don't think it's too important
[14:29] <ScottK> What's the link to the process we're supposed to be using for spec tasks?
[14:29] <ttx> some of those aren't candidates for SRUs -- I'll clean up
[14:30] <ttx> hmm, they show up wrongly in the list... they are wontfix for karmic
[14:30] <mdz> ScottK, do you mean the work items?
[14:30] <mdz> ttx, ah, ok
[14:30] <ScottK> mdz: Yes.
[14:30] <ttx> bug 438631 and bug 455816
[14:30] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 438631 in eucalyptus "eucalyptus-nc needs an upstart job" [Wishlist,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/438631
[14:30] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 455816 in eucalyptus "When installing a UEC cluster, the prompt for the private interface is displayed after the "Installation complete" dialog" [Medium,Won't fix] https://launchpad.net/bugs/455816
[14:30] <ScottK> I heard something about using bugs for burndown charts, but haven't seen specifics on how this process is supposed to work.
[14:31] <mdz> ScottK, it's working the same way as in karmic for the moment, I don't think the bugs-as-work-items bit is completed yet
[14:31] <ScottK> mdz: OK.  Thanks.
[14:31] <mdz> i.e. the work items go in the status whiteboard
[14:32] <soren> I had never heard of this until Rick Spencer demoed it at UDS. This was in widespread use in Karmic?
[14:32] <mdz> nothing else jumps out at me from the bug list
[14:32] <ttx> soren: the desktop team was using it
[14:32] <kirkland> mdz: i'm also trying to verify the eucalyptus SRU
[14:32] <soren> ttx: Ok.
[14:32] <mdz> and the mobile team has adopted it as well
[14:33] <mathiaz> soren: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WorkItemsHowto gives an overview of this process
[14:33] <mdz> mathiaz, ah, thanks, I was trying to find that link
[14:33] <kirkland> I reinstalled my UEC yesterday;  i have some strange behavior that I emailed nurmi about; i'm not ready to approve/decline the SRU package yet, though.
[14:33] <mdz> [topic] work item tracking
[14:33] <MootBot> New Topic:  work item tracking
[14:33] <kirkland> mathiaz: ^
[14:33] <mdz> [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WorkItemsHowto
[14:33] <MootBot> LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/WorkItemsHowto
[14:33] <soren> mathiaz: Neat, thanks.
[14:33] <mdz> any other questions about work items?
[14:34] <mathiaz> mdz: some work items can't be defined in some of my blueprints
[14:34] <mathiaz> mdz: example: write MIR for the list of agreed packages
[14:34] <mathiaz> mdz: which depends on agreeing on the list of packages first
[14:35] <mdz> mathiaz, I suggest creating work items for each of the proposed changes
[14:35] <mathiaz> mdz: that means that the list of work items will probably evolve over time
[14:35] <ttx> mathiaz: and adding it later will make it look like feature creep
[14:35] <ScottK> mathiaz: The list will evolve over time.
[14:35] <mathiaz> mdz: are we trying to get all work items defined now?
[14:35] <mdz> e.g. "discuss moving foobar to universe" would be one work item, and "move foobar to universe (if agreed)" would be a second work item
[14:35] <mdz> mathiaz, yes, as closely as we can estimate up front
[14:35] <ScottK> Last cycle on desktop stuff where I used this the tasks started out a few high level ones and got broken into more detail over time.
[14:36] <mdz> if some of them can be skipped, it's easy to skip them later, but we don't want to forget any
[14:36] <mathiaz> mdz: hm - ok. Does this mean there can be 20+ more work items in one blueprint?
[14:36] <mdz> it is possible to add them later, but usually this indicates that work was overlooked
[14:37] <mdz> mathiaz, you can add as many as you like, up to whatever the limit is for the status whiteboard
[14:37] <mdz> it's definitely >20
[14:37] <mathiaz> mdz: well - in this situation is that more investigation needs to be conducted in order to define more WI
[14:37] <mdz> mathiaz, if there are natural groupings, you could group them
[14:37] <ttx> mathiaz: I'd do 4 sets
[14:38] <mdz> e.g. discuss the package changes related to backup, then make the agreed changes for those packages
[14:38] <mdz> but it needs to be more than one work item, because even having the discussion will take more than 1-2 days
[14:38] <ttx> mathiaz: obvious, potentially harmful, etc
[14:38] <ttx> then have one WI to delimitate the sets
[14:38] <mathiaz> mdz: ok
[14:38] <ttx> and discuss / MIR for each set ?
[14:38] <mdz> we'll learn from this as we go, since this is our first time through this process
[14:39] <mdz> find out what works best, and adopt that for next time
[14:39] <ttx> mdz: ideally work items could be weigthed
[14:39] <mathiaz> ttx: well - not knowing how many packages will be considered makes it hard to define the number of set
[14:39] <mdz> the most important thing is that the list is at approximately the right level of granularity, so that we make steady progress through the list
[14:39] <mdz> it will never be perfect
[14:39] <ttx> mathiaz: it's still slightly more accurate than defining nothing.
[14:39]  * mathiaz agrees
[14:40] <ttx> that's how I did it for the java dependencies
[14:40] <mdz> ttx, if you can't think of any other way, you can split them up arbitrarily
[14:40] <ttx> last cycle
[14:40] <mdz> e.g. if something is probably 4 days work, you could do "implement foo #1", "implement foo #2", etc.
[14:40] <mdz> but we should only do that as a last resort
[14:40] <ttx> mdz: yes.
[14:41] <mdz> mathiaz, remember, it just needs to fit into a 1-2 day chunk of work
[14:41] <mdz> they don't all need to be exactly the same size
[14:41]  * mathiaz nods
[14:41] <mathiaz> I'll update the list of work items with your suggestions
[14:41] <mdz> the errors should average out
[14:41] <mdz> i.e. we're just as likely to overestimate as to underestimate, we hope :-)
[14:42] <mdz> ok, anything else on this topic?
[14:43] <mdz> [topic] Weekly SRU review (mathiaz)
[14:43] <MootBot> New Topic:  Weekly SRU review (mathiaz)
[14:44] <kirkland> (whoops)
[14:44] <mathiaz> there is one bug nominated for hardy
[14:44] <mathiaz> bug 426813
[14:44] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 426813 in net-snmp "snmpd dies after requests with snmpwalk" [Medium,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/426813
[14:44] <mdz> kirkland, whoops?
[14:45] <kirkland> mdz: i was discussing the Eucalyptus SRU earlier
[14:45] <mdz> kirkland, that's OK
[14:45] <mathiaz> zul: ttx: seems like a good candidate for an SRU?
[14:45] <kirkland> mdz: I see that conversation belongs here
[14:45] <zul> mathiaz: looking
[14:45] <zul> mathiaz:yep
[14:45] <ttx> mathiaz: yes
[14:46] <zul> mathiaz: im going to start tagging them so they are easily searchable in launchpad
[14:46] <mathiaz> bug accepted for hardy
[14:46] <mathiaz> zul: well you can use LP searches
[14:46] <mathiaz> zul: or do you wanna tag the sru-potential?
[14:46] <mathiaz> zul: in which case they should just be nominated
[14:46] <zul> mathiaz: yes that what I was thinking
[14:46] <mdz> mathiaz, zul, how would that be different from a nomination?
[14:47] <mathiaz> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-16.html
[14:47] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-16.html
[14:47] <mathiaz> ^^ this is last week fixed released bugs - anything worth in there?
[14:47] <mdz> mathiaz, that list looks a week old
[14:47] <mathiaz> mdz: yes - that was during UDS
[14:47] <mathiaz> mdz: we haven't processed it yet
[14:47] <zul> mdz: when its fixed in lucid then we can just close it and add a tag like "sru-potential" and talk about it during the weekly meetings
[14:48] <mathiaz> mdz: as we hadn't a meeting last week
[14:48] <mathiaz> zul: nominating them for the proper the release would do the same thing
[14:48] <mathiaz> zul: as we're reviewing the list of nominated bugs during the meeting
[14:48] <zul> mathiaz: okie dokie
[14:49] <mathiaz> ok - so anything SRU worth on http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-16.html?
[14:49] <mdz> mathiaz, so we should have 2 weeks worth of bugs, no?
[14:49] <ScottK> For Universe, nxvl is working on some courier stuff that will be SRU worthy once it's resolved and there is a havp fix in work that should also qualify.  Both packages are currently very broken in Karmic.
[14:49] <mathiaz> mdz: yes - 2 weeks of bugs -> 2 lists
[14:49] <zul> mathiaz, #479955 might be
[14:49] <mdz> mathiaz, ah, ok
[14:49] <mathiaz> bug 479955
[14:49] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 479955 in samba "winbind authentication fails after karmic upgrade" [High,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/479955
[14:50] <mathiaz> ScottK: are the bugs nominated/accepted for karmic?
[14:50] <zul> actually its already been nominated
[14:50] <ScottK> mathiaz: I think not yet, but they are both still unfixed in Lucid.
[14:50] <mathiaz> ScottK: ok - so lucid first :)
[14:51] <ScottK> For havp the patch is still being reviewed and last I heard nxvl was beating he head against the wall over courier.
[14:51] <ScottK> Yes
[14:51] <mathiaz> ok - let's move on to the second list:
[14:51] <mathiaz> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-23.html
[14:51] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/fixedbugs.ubuntu-server.2009-11-23.html
[14:51] <mathiaz> anything SRU worth on this one^^?
[14:52] <zul> the ucf dbconfig-common is pretty easy to fix and probably SRUable
[14:52] <zul> bug 424653
[14:52] <ubottu> Launchpad bug 424653 in dbconfig-common "I cant desintall phpmyadmin completle the database" [Undecided,Fix released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/424653
[14:53] <zul> should be fixed for jaunty at least
[14:54] <mathiaz> zul: well - it doesn't seem too critical for jaunty now
[14:54] <mathiaz> ttx: ^?
[14:54] <mathiaz> anything SRU worth on the two lists above?
[14:54] <zul> im not exactly sure how to reproduce it though
[14:54] <ttx> mathiaz: yes, I'd say that's not important enough
[14:55] <mathiaz> ok - let's move on then
[14:55] <mathiaz> http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/acceptedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html
[14:55] <MootBot> LINK received:  http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/ubuntu-server-team/acceptedbugs.ubuntu-server.latest.html
[14:55] <mathiaz> what the progress on these bugs?
[14:55] <mathiaz> ^^
[14:56] <mathiaz> I think I need to add how long the bug has been assigned to this table
[14:56] <mathiaz> to measure whether things get stalled (which is the goal of this list)
[14:56] <mathiaz> I don't know I can extract the date of assignement from LP though
[14:56] <zul> either in  -proposed or in -updates or waiting for users to test
[14:57] <mathiaz> zul: all of them?
[14:57] <mdz> ok, we're almost out of time, can we close the SRU topic?
[14:57] <mathiaz> which reminds me that I should add the status of the bug as well
[14:57] <mathiaz> mdz: yes
[14:57] <mdz> [topic] Meeting time
[14:57] <MootBot> New Topic:  Meeting time
[14:57] <mdz> A few people mentioned this meeting time was less than ideal for them
[14:58] <mdz> last I checked, Maria was working on finding a better time, and I asked her to work directly with you on it
[14:58] <mdz> what was the outcome?
[14:58] <mdz> (she's on holiday right now, so I can't ask her)
[14:58] <ScottK> It's way better for me since I'm generally unavailable on Tuesdays.
[14:58] <mathiaz> mdz: I haven't heard of maria on this topic
[14:59] <mdz> kirkland, I believe you were one of the people with an objection
[14:59] <mdz> there was an email thread at the end of October
[14:59] <kirkland> mdz: yes, this time is very bad for me
[14:59] <kirkland> mdz: i've spoken with maria, filled out the survey again
[14:59] <kirkland> mdz: the day of the week is fine; it's the hour that's a problem
[15:00] <kirkland> mdz: one hour later would solve my conflict
[15:01] <mdz> kirkland, please work with maria to find a better time
[15:01] <mdz> [topic] AOB
[15:01] <MootBot> New Topic:  AOB
[15:01] <kirkland> mdz: okay
[15:01] <ScottK> Who was working on the SpamAssassin update?
[15:01] <ScottK> This is, I think, a very important topic for Lucid and I'd like to make sure we track it.
[15:02] <mathiaz> ScottK: IIRC Daviey investigated it
[15:02] <mathiaz> ScottK: I don't know the the outcome of the session though
[15:02] <ScottK> It sounded like we'll want to update, but we need to make sure of this.
[15:03] <ScottK> mathiaz: Could we make sure this gets added to something as a work item so it doesn't get dropped.
[15:03] <mathiaz> ScottK: that should be documented in the blueprint
[15:03] <ScottK> mathiaz: What blueprint?
[15:03] <mathiaz> ScottK: and the whiteboard of the blueprint (mail-server stack?) updated
[15:03] <ScottK> I don't think we have one explicitly for this.
[15:03] <ScottK> mail-server-stack was a Karmic blueprint.
[15:04] <ScottK> The one I'm working on is about package integration.
[15:04] <mathiaz> ScottK: well - if there is work to be done in Lucid and you'd want it to be tracked, I'd suggest to file a blueprint
[15:04] <mathiaz> ScottK: and create the necessary work items in the whiteboard
[15:04] <mdz> agreed
[15:04] <ScottK> mathiaz: I think it's important, but I really don't have time to deal with it.  It's in Main.  Please assign someone to deal with it then.
[15:04] <mathiaz> ScottK: could the spamassassin be added to the mail-related blueprint you're working on?
[15:05] <ScottK> mathiaz: It could if someone is going to do the work.
[15:05] <mathiaz> ScottK: right - documenting what needs to be done will make it easier for someone to pick it up later
[15:05] <ScottK> I don't mind having it in there for tracking, but I really don't have time to develop a relationship with another upstream (and that's what I think this will take)
[15:05] <mathiaz> ScottK: defining a work item doesn't mean *you* need to do it
[15:06] <ScottK> That's fine then.
[15:06] <mdz> ok, we're over time, can we adjourn?
[15:06] <mdz> thanks, all
[15:06] <mdz> #endmeeting
[15:06] <MootBot> Meeting finished at 09:06.