20091125
Revision 1 as of 2009-11-26 03:06:06
Clear message
Agenda
Items we will be discussing:
- Review ACTION points from previous meeting (ttx)
- Check blueprint status and progress for the week (mdz)
Assigned and to-be-assigned bugs: http://qa.ubuntu.com/reports/team-assigned/canonical-server-assigned-bug-tasks.html (mdz)
- Weekly SRU review (mathiaz)
- Open Discussion
- Agree on next meeting date and time
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.