18:05:49 <Keybuk> #startmeeting
18:05:49 <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Aug 11 18:05:49 2011 UTC.  The chair is Keybuk. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot.
18:05:49 <meetingology> Useful Commands: #topic #action #link #idea #voters #vote #chair #action #agreed #help #info #endmeeting.
18:05:54 <Keybuk> #topic Action Rview
18:05:54 <meetingology> TOPIC: Action Rview
18:06:08 <Keybuk> Set series RM to ubuntu-release (cjwatson)
18:06:08 <Keybuk> [LINK] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/174375
18:06:10 <ubottu> Ubuntu bug 174375 in Launchpad itself "Distribution drivers permissions may need redesign" [Low,Triaged]
18:06:11 <Keybuk> done?
18:06:15 <cjwatson> yes!
18:06:17 <cjwatson> at long last
18:06:20 <Keybuk> Brainstorm review update (cjwatson)
18:06:39 <cjwatson> not done :-(
18:06:54 <Keybuk> Send notes on the Extension Repository Policy proposal (everyone)
18:07:14 <Keybuk> did this mean the Partner repository?
18:07:16 <Keybuk> or something else/
18:07:19 <kees> i failed at this, but mdz had good things to say
18:07:34 <kees> it's the merged partner and extras policy
18:07:41 <Keybuk> I don't think I've seen that
18:07:57 <wendar> I've updated the proposal to the latest from the technical-board mailing list thread.
18:08:02 <mdz> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-August/001007.html
18:08:07 <kees> there has been a thread about it on the tb list
18:08:18 <mdz> all of the issues I raised have been addressed
18:08:21 <Keybuk> mdz: right, that's the thread I meant by "the Partner repository"
18:08:29 <Keybuk> we have a separate agenda item for that
18:08:31 <Keybuk> so
18:08:36 <Keybuk> [TOPIC] Policy proposal for extensions repository
18:08:36 <meetingology> TOPIC: Policy proposal for extensions repository
18:08:36 <mdz> Keybuk, extension = partner + ARB + ...?
18:08:42 <Keybuk> [LINK] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PartnerRepositoryPolicy
18:09:20 <Keybuk> so all of mdz'
18:09:24 <Keybuk> s issues have been addressed
18:09:29 <mdz> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PartnerRepositoryPolicy
18:09:30 <Keybuk> did anyone else have issues with the policy?
18:10:01 <mdz> it was just updated today with the changes discussed
18:10:05 <cjwatson> some of the rules are unnecessary (we already have transitive closure rules for the components of the Ubuntu archive proper), but no matter
18:11:31 <mdz> is anyone NOT prepared to vote on it today?
18:11:34 <cjwatson> I'm happy that the set of differences are proportionate to what these repositories need, and that they aren't unreasonably hard for archive admins to enforce
18:11:59 <cjwatson> if approved, it should be linked from the archive admin docs and archive admins should be made aware of it
18:12:03 <kees> I'm happy with it. I'd love to see a "nice to have" area (e.g. "built with ubuntu's compiler"), but I don't think there is really a place for that
18:12:10 <Keybuk> I think, given the resounding silence, and given the healthy ML thread, we should go ahead and vote
18:12:13 <mdz> I'm conscious that this was first proposed in May
18:12:28 <Keybuk> [VOTE] Policy proposal for extensions repository
18:12:28 <meetingology> Please vote on: Policy proposal for extensions repository
18:12:28 <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)
18:12:34 <mdz> +1
18:12:34 <meetingology> +1 received from mdz
18:12:35 <cjwatson> +1
18:12:35 <meetingology> +1 received from cjwatson
18:12:36 <Keybuk> +1
18:12:36 <meetingology> +1 received from Keybuk
18:12:38 <kees> +1
18:12:38 <meetingology> +1 received from kees
18:12:41 <Keybuk> #endvote
18:12:41 <meetingology> Voting ended on: Policy proposal for extensions repository
18:12:41 <meetingology> Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0
18:12:41 <meetingology> Motion carried
18:12:52 * nijaba thanks the board
18:13:02 * wendar too
18:13:08 <kees> thanks nijaba and wendar !
18:13:13 <mdz> nijaba, wendar, sorry it took so long to get here
18:13:25 <Keybuk> nijaba: thank you for your work on this
18:14:14 <nijaba> Keybuk: wendar did help a lot too :)
18:14:23 <Keybuk> ok,
18:14:26 <Keybuk> [TOPIC] AOB?
18:14:26 <meetingology> TOPIC: AOB?
18:15:05 <cjwatson> I have one small item
18:15:35 <Keybuk> cjwatson: go for it
18:15:41 <cjwatson> I'm also checking with Mark in his capacity as my employer, but figured I'd ask the board as well
18:15:56 <cjwatson> at DebConf, Stefano and Bdale asked if I'd like to serve on the Debian Technical Committee
18:16:12 <cjwatson> I'm minded to accept, but would like to check that nobody on the TB feels this is any kind of conflict
18:16:30 <mdz> do you anticipate the tech-ctte becoming more active?
18:17:23 <mdz> hmm, looking at the archives, maybe it already is
18:17:35 <kees> I have trouble imagining a direct conflict. seems like it would be bebficial. might be more work than expected since we sometimes move items from here to tech-ctte
18:17:41 <cjwatson> it's active in the sense that it responds in a reasonably timely fashion nowadays
18:17:49 <kees> *beneficial
18:18:15 <mdz> I could imagine situations where you would want to abstain from certain decisions in either role
18:18:29 <cjwatson> there are limits to how active it can be in some senses since its role is laid down in the Debian constitution; for example the constitution says that it does not do technical design
18:18:31 <mdz> but no conflict of interest in occpying it
18:18:34 <Keybuk> speaking as somebody who serves in a technical capacity on two competing Linux distributions already, I don't see a conflict
18:18:50 <kees> true, but I think that almost stems more from being a dev than a board member
18:19:28 <cjwatson> but Bdale did say he was looking for somebody who would be able to help drive discussions forward, and a wider range of experience
18:19:40 <cjwatson> I think the activity level of the TC is such that I can manage that
18:20:21 <cjwatson> there was some discussion at DebConf, so interested people may like to review the video of that session
18:20:48 <Keybuk> cjwatson: though I do worry that when you do burnout from taking on too much, the resulting explosion could end all life on this planet
18:20:51 <cjwatson> I agree that there are cases where abstentions would be needed, although I haven't seen any such in recent activity
18:20:55 <kees> how do people get onto the TC? appointment?
18:21:04 <cjwatson> appointment by DPL + existing TC
18:22:04 <kees> yeah, I'd say go for it as long as you don't think you'll be spread too thin
18:22:13 <cjwatson> at the very least I must admit it's gratifying to be asked :)
18:22:13 <mdz> +1
18:22:28 <cjwatson> so ok, thanks for the feedback folks, I'll try to get hold of Mark once he's back from his travels
18:22:57 <Keybuk> great
18:23:05 <Keybuk> mdz: I believe you're next chair in alphabetical rotation?
18:23:29 * mdz nods
18:24:06 <Keybuk> great
18:24:10 <Keybuk> then if there's nothing else ...
18:24:13 <mdz> Keybuk, agenda will be empty following this meeting, yes?
18:24:23 <Keybuk> mdz: it will, but I still can't edit the wiki, so if you could clear it ...
18:24:25 <mdz> I think that's our first "zero moment" in a while
18:24:57 <mdz> so, yay
18:25:19 <mdz> cjwatson, do you need help with the brainstorm review?
18:25:34 <mdz> unfortunately I can't offer myself at present
18:25:40 <cjwatson> no, I just had to put a lot of stuff on hold while away in the Balkans
18:25:44 <Keybuk> #endmeeting