Meeting started by ara at 16:01:36 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2011/ubuntu-meeting.2011-11-21-16.01.log.html .
- Do we want virtual machines to be able to submit to Ubuntu Friendly? (roadmr)
ACTION: roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know (ara, 16:12:09)
- Biweekly meetings - ara
- Any Other Business?
Meeting ended at 16:41:55 UTC.
- meeting options
- For: 0 Against: 0 Abstained: 0
- Option 1 on the cadence
- For: 4 Against: 0 Abstained: 1
- roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know
Action items, by person
- * roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know
People present (lines said)
- ara (69)
- cr3 (28)
- roadmr (27)
- brendand (19)
- meetingology (19)
- jedimike (6)
16:01:36 <ara> #startmeeting
16:01:36 <meetingology> Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired
16:01:37 <brendand> hi
16:01:51 <ara> Welcome to the UF Squad meeting
16:01:55 <ara> The agenda today looks like:
16:01:58 <ara> Do we want virtual machines to be able to submit to Ubuntu Friendly? (roadmr) - UF runs done on virtual machines aren't submitted to Launchpad, getting this to work would require some effort, we'd like to gauge community interest in this to determine if it's worth pursuing.
16:01:58 <ara> Biweekly meetings - ara
16:02:04 <ara> AOB - all
16:02:26 <ara> As usual, type ".." when you've finished talking
16:02:40 <ara> #topic Do we want virtual machines to be able to submit to Ubuntu Friendly? (roadmr)
16:02:45 <ara> roadmr, all yours
16:02:48 <roadmr> thanks!
16:02:58 <roadmr> Last week we found out that UF runs done on virtual machines aren't submitted to Launchpad. This was verified on VirtualBox, and would have to be checked also for Xen, VMWare and KVM.
16:03:13 <roadmr> The issue comes from the weird DMI information returned from virtual machines which means that checkbox is unable to generate a system_id, which in turn prevents submission to Launchpad.
16:03:27 <roadmr> The question here is whether there is interest in having Ubuntu Friendly submissions from virtual machines. This depends on how likely are community members to want to test and submit a virtual machine.
16:03:36 <ara> o/
16:03:39 <roadmr> If there is no interest, then perhaps the work needed to get this working is not worthwhile, but if it's something that people will want, maybe it'd be interesting to do.
16:03:43 <roadmr> ..
16:04:11 <roadmr> ara, go
16:04:28 <ara> I think the main interest of UF is to see how Ubuntu works on real hardware. I don't see the value on having a lot of submissions from virtual machines
16:04:38 <ara> ..
16:05:05 <roadmr> o/
16:05:10 <ara> roadmr, go
16:05:36 <brendand> o/
16:05:49 <cr3> o/
16:05:50 <roadmr> heheh so there's already a bug about this problem, one thing to do would be to mark it Won't Fix and point people who ask to that bug, and if someone ever comes up with a rationale as to why we should be testing VMs, we can revisit the decision
16:05:54 <roadmr> ..
16:06:17 <ara> brendand, your turn
16:07:31 <brendand> i don't think we should mark the bug 'won't fix', since it is a bug. but we shouldn't prioritise it. i don't think VMs are in scope for testing with Ubuntu Friendly
16:07:35 <brendand> ...
16:07:51 <ara> cr3, your turn now
16:08:16 <cr3> it should be possible to submit test results from virtual machines, even though it might not make sense to have them appear in UF
16:08:45 <cr3> how this gets communicated to the user actually running the tests, so that they're not disappointed when their virtual machines does not appear in UF, I don't know
16:08:48 <cr3> ..
16:09:23 <ara> OK, so I guess the bug is valid, but not high priority
16:10:02 <ara> we have to make sure that once we fix it, we change uf as well so they don't appear in uf
16:10:10 <cr3> ara: agreed, in other words, it shouldn't be a "validation" error to submit from a virtual machine
16:10:41 <ara> shall we vote? or we agree?
16:10:57 <cr3> anyone disagree?
16:11:16 <roadmr> so we're agreeing that the bug should be fixed at some point, correct?
16:11:24 <cr3> roadmr: correct
16:11:30 <roadmr> ok then, /me agrees
16:11:41 <ara> roadmr, but that we need to avoid to show those submissions in UF
16:12:03 <cr3> +1
16:12:09 <ara> #action roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know 16:12:09 * meetingology roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know
16:12:38 <ara> cool!
16:12:51 <ara> OK, moving on
16:12:58 <ara> #topic Biweekly meetings - ara
16:13:14 <jedimike> o/
16:13:36 <ara> OK, so nobody outside the people who attended the meeting replied to the email in the ML
16:13:48 <ara> jedimike, go ahead
16:13:56 <jedimike> personally, i think it's better two have a lively biweekly meeting than a quiet weekly meeting
16:14:15 <jedimike> just because if the meetings are quiet, as they are at the moment, they could be considered missable
16:14:19 <jedimike> ...
16:14:28 <brendand> o/
16:14:38 <ara> brendand, your turn
16:14:54 <brendand> i think we should try it once at least
16:15:11 <roadmr> o/
16:16:02 <ara> brendand, done?
16:16:06 <brendand> we should also start thinking about why people don't feel the meetings are worth participating in
16:16:11 <brendand> ...
16:16:39 <ara> roadmr, go ahead
16:16:59 <cr3> o/
16:17:17 <roadmr> biweekly meetings are a bit harder to keep track of, so we should be careful to announce them in the mailing list - not everyone will have a calendar reminder set up so we should do that for the participants
16:17:23 <roadmr> ..
16:17:36 <ara> cr3, your turn!
16:18:05 <cr3> I liked roadmr's argument sent to the mailing list but I also like jedimike's. however, I'm not convinced that making the meeting biweekly will necessarily make the discussions more lively
16:18:35 <cr3> the reason is that having it biweekly may put the project out of mind and therefore might even result in less lively meeting
16:18:41 <cr3> I don't know, tough decision
16:18:41 <cr3> ..
16:19:23 <cr3> how about we try every 1.5 weeks?
16:19:26 <ara> hehehe
16:19:46 <ara> or following the fibonacci series by week number
16:20:06 <cr3> +1
16:20:54 <ara> The only thing important is to make sure that any decisions about the project are still made in the open
16:21:04 <cr3> o/
16:21:06 <ara> on the ML or the meetings
16:21:10 <ara> cr3, go ahead
16:21:18 <cr3> ara: good point, having to wait a couple weeks in order to make a decision in the open might not be ideal
16:21:21 <cr3> ..
16:21:22 <roadmr> o/
16:21:35 <ara> roadmr, go ahead
16:21:55 <roadmr> I think relying on the ML a bit more for decision making is good, that way information comes to people
16:22:07 <roadmr> as opposed to IRC where they have to come to the information - a bit more effort for everyone involved
16:22:32 <roadmr> even though the ML is a bit slower...
16:22:50 <roadmr> that may help in showing that decisions are open to the community
16:22:56 <roadmr> and hopefully encourage more participation
16:23:02 <cr3> +1
16:23:09 <roadmr> and while I still think weekly meetings are less prone to losing momentum,
16:23:23 <roadmr> maybe going biweekly is a good opportunity to prepare more interesting agendas,
16:23:29 <roadmr> which will engage the community a bit more.
16:23:30 <roadmr> ..
16:23:48 <ara> what about keeping weekly and cancelling the meeting if there are no topics to discuss?
16:23:55 <cr3> ara: +1 16:24:01 * cr3 is in an agreeing mood today
16:24:36 <brendand> o/
16:24:44 <ara> brendand, go ahead
16:25:37 <brendand> we usually have at least *one* topic to discuss. the problem is that it's *only* one or two and maybe the topic(s) aren't that interesting to a wider audience
16:26:12 <ara> o/
16:26:36 <brendand> and if we hold up having a meeting until we have a 'good' agenda then the scheduling could end up quite random
16:26:54 <brendand> which is annoying as someone participating externally
16:27:11 <cr3> o/
16:27:11 <brendand> speaking from personal experience
16:27:12 <brendand> ...
16:28:04 <ara> I think that if we have one topic, then we need to still have the meeting. If someone put it in the agenda is because it interest them
16:28:04 <ara> ..
16:28:09 <ara> cr3, go ahead
16:28:11 <cr3> even if there's one agenda item, I would still hold a meeting because it might inspire other items for the next meeting.
16:28:14 <cr3> ..
16:29:20 <brendand> o/
16:29:23 <ara> brendand, go ahead
16:29:46 <brendand> i agree with that angle if the topic in question is proposed by the community
16:30:20 <ara> but who are the community? because I am community
16:31:04 <cr3> me too! I quit canonical for an hour just to attend these meetings
16:31:56 <brendand> i'm also the community
16:32:22 <brendand> let's say, outside of the meeting organizers
16:32:51 <ara> but why? I don't understand the difference
16:34:13 <ara> OK, so the options are:
16:34:38 <ara> 1) Keep the weekly meeting, and cancel the meeting if there are no topics at all
16:34:56 <ara> 2) Keep the weekly meeting, and cancel the meeting if there are no topics from people outside the meeting organizers (?)
16:35:03 <ara> 3) Move to a biweekly meeting
16:35:10 <ara> Any other options?
16:35:50 <cr3> shall we vote? 16:36:18 * ara wonders if you can give options to the voting system...
16:36:24 <ara> #vote meeting options
16:36:24 <meetingology> Please vote on: meeting options
16:36:24 <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
16:36:32 <ara> #endvote
16:36:32 <meetingology> Voting ended on: meeting options
16:36:32 <meetingology> Votes for:0 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
16:36:32 <meetingology> Deadlock, casting vote may be used
16:36:56 <ara> it does not look like
16:37:04 <ara> #vote Option 1 on the cadence
16:37:04 <meetingology> Please vote on: Option 1 on the cadence
16:37:04 <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me)
16:37:15 <ara> (this is for those that want option 1)
16:37:18 <cr3> +1
16:37:18 <meetingology> +1 received from cr3
16:37:20 <ara> +1
16:37:20 <meetingology> +1 received from ara
16:37:22 <roadmr> +1
16:37:22 <meetingology> +1 received from roadmr
16:37:40 <ara> (vote 0 if it is not your chosen option, please)
16:37:44 <brendand> 0
16:37:44 <meetingology> 0 received from brendand
16:38:04 <ara> jedimike, ?
16:38:13 <jedimike> +1
16:38:13 <meetingology> +1 received from jedimike
16:38:22 <ara> #endvote
16:38:22 <meetingology> Voting ended on: Option 1 on the cadence
16:38:22 <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1
16:38:22 <meetingology> Motion carried
16:38:45 <ara> OK, I think we don't need to vote the rest of the options, unless anyone says we should
16:39:50 <ara> #agree Meetings to be kept on a weekly cadence. The meeting would be cancel if no topics are on the agenda
16:40:02 <ara> mmm, it didn't seem to work
16:40:04 <ara> anyway
16:40:12 <ara> Anything else on this topic?
16:40:53 <ara> OK, let's move on
16:41:02 <ara> #topic Any Other Business?
16:41:06 <ara> Anyone?
16:41:33 <jedimike> not me
16:41:36 * roadmr got nothing else
16:41:50 <ara> OK, let's wrap up then
16:41:51 <cr3> ditto
16:41:55 <ara> #endmeeting