20111121

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 .

Meeting summary

  • 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.

Votes

  • meeting options
    • For: 0 Against: 0 Abstained: 0
  • Option 1 on the cadence
    • For: 4 Against: 0 Abstained: 1

Action items

  • roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know

Action items, by person

  • roadmr
  • * 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)

Full Log

  • 16:01:36 <ara> #startmeeting

    16:01:36 <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Nov 21 16:01:36 2011 UTC. The chair is ara. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.

    16:01:36 <meetingology>

    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 Smile :)

    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 Smile :)

    16:05:36 <brendand> o/

    16:05:49 <cr3> o/

    16:05:50 <roadmr> heheh Smile :) 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 Smile :)

    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 Smile :)

    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 Smile :)

    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 Smile :)

    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? Smile :)

    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 Smile :)

    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 Smile :)

    16:31:04 <cr3> me too! I quit canonical for an hour just to attend these meetings Smile :)

    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 Smile :)

    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 Sad :(

    16:41:50 <ara> OK, let's wrap up then

    16:41:51 <cr3> ditto

    16:41:55 <ara> #endmeeting

Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot)

UbuntuFriendly/Meetings/20111121 (last edited 2011-11-23 18:17:17 by apulido)