19:07:40 #startmeeting 19:07:40 Meeting started Mon Oct 10 19:07:40 2011 UTC. The chair is Laney. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot. 19:07:40 19:07:40 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 19:07:50 you slackers :P 19:07:53 * micahg hugs laney 19:08:01 #topic Review of previous action items 19:08:03 Laney: I chaired last week :P 19:08:08 #subtopic Laney to start thread on ubuntu-devel about renaming UCD 19:08:11 done, did everyone see it? 19:08:25 yes, I still need to respond 19:09:05 i think we should let it run until the next meeting and then look before than 19:09:17 can someone volunteer to prepare a summary? 19:09:26 and/or proposals 19:11:28 erm, ok, never mind 19:11:36 #subtopic jono to ask Daniel to update https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers to be easier to read 19:11:59 he did this, the url is at http://pad.ubuntu-uk.org/JzyYyxw0Qb 19:12:17 please edit it at your leisure, at some point i imagine daniel will commit it to the wiki 19:12:25 #subtopic cody-somerville to write some documentation on how to endorse someone 19:12:28 not done? 19:12:53 I've started this but haven't had much time to work on it since. 19:13:29 ok, hopefully next time 19:13:30 * bdrung arrives. 19:13:31 I'm wondering, is most folks on the DMB going to be at UDS? 19:13:39 yep 19:13:39 *are 19:14:14 well, I'll be there and I assume stgraber will be as well 19:14:44 I think it would be a good idea to schedule a private meeting for the DMB. 19:14:58 * geser is not at UDS 19:15:23 * bdrung will not at UDS 19:15:41 haven't seen persia in an age, don't know if he is still around 19:16:31 he is probably busy with other stuff and will reappear in a couple of weeks (like last time) 19:16:38 geser, bdrung: Would you be able to participate remotely in such a meeting? 19:16:56 cody-somerville: depends on the time 19:17:17 would have to be late I guess 19:17:23 depends on the time (and if I need to get any special tools setup to participate) 19:17:25 for .euers 19:17:43 how late? 19:17:51 late is good in most cases 19:18:02 well, we'll be at UTC-4 19:18:31 right, well let's work it on on list 19:18:39 will we have a scheduled meeting then? 19:18:46 no 19:18:58 cody-somerville: can you mail marianna and such to get a room? 19:19:03 Laney, Aye. 19:19:21 I think they usually have conference call facilities, but no idea how it works 19:19:42 carrying on 19:19:44 I'll see what I can come up with. 19:19:56 #subtopic stgraber to publish packageset generation script so the rest of the DMB can help maintain it 19:20:03 not here, does anyone know if this happened? 19:21:17 I think it may have 19:21:31 can't say for sure though 19:21:38 the page with the results was mailed, but not the script itself IIRC 19:21:44 a branch under ~developer-membership-board on LP would be good 19:21:53 i'll poke him to publish it 19:22:09 #action Laney to poke stgraber about publishing package set script 19:22:09 * meetingology Laney to poke stgraber about publishing package set script 19:22:15 #subtopic James Page 19:22:22 approved for core-dev 19:22:26 micahg: where do we stand with motu? 19:22:28 that was taken care of 19:22:37 application falls? 19:22:54 Laney: well, yeah, I didn't send out the second vote for MOTU since it seemed pointeless 19:23:04 ok, as long as there is nothing left to do 19:23:12 i want to get this position statement out though 19:23:24 can you take care of it, if everybody is ok with the proposed text? 19:23:38 Laney, Position statement on what again? 19:23:48 before the next meeting? yeah, I can do that 19:23:49 * bdrung is ok with it. 19:23:54 how we handle people applying for redundant permissions 19:23:59 'social' applications 19:25:02 Is there any pressing reason to release a statement ASAP? I haven't read it yet. 19:25:16 not ASAP, but I want it to happen 19:25:20 please do comment 19:26:14 Without reading it, I'm inclined to say it is probably something that I'd like for us to discuss at our meeting at UDS. 19:26:23 ok, well... 19:26:24 #action cody-somerville to follow up on position statement 19:26:24 * meetingology cody-somerville to follow up on position statement 19:26:29 (on-list) 19:26:31 :-) 19:26:39 #topic Administrative Matters 19:26:53 do we have anything left to discuss about the survey? 19:27:28 * cody-somerville doesn't at this point. 19:28:49 let's leave that 19:28:56 onto the meat 19:29:00 #subtopic Continue discussion about our package set management workflows 19:29:32 I had a proposal that I typed out somewhere, but I can't remember where 19:29:59 basically 19:30:50 - As a matter of policy, each package set has a single uploader, which is a team. The DMB can either handle applications to the team or delegate to an appopriate council if one is set up. 19:31:46 - Applications for new package sets must come with some clear criteria that the DMB can apply when adding subsequent packages in future 19:32:35 - Package additions are done by requesting on devel-permissions. Any DMB member will check against the criteria and add if it matches (or feed back if not). 19:32:43 possibly some kind of objection raising period? 19:32:55 sounds good so far 19:33:28 so the only real change is that we require these criteria when approving new sets 19:33:57 I really dislike making people come to meetings for these kind of additions which in most cases should be a formality 19:34:21 * bdrung agrees. 19:35:23 * micahg also agrees 19:35:51 I agree too but unless we have a policy how to manage package sets, I prefered to have it done in the meeting just to be sure (as the original list of packages was also vote on in a meeting) 19:36:02 what kind of policy? 19:36:21 you mean, unless we agree on something like this? 19:36:27 any policy, till now there is no policy at all 19:36:31 aye 19:38:20 so I suppose a policy should be added to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers/TeamDelegation ? 19:38:32 or is there some other page? 19:39:04 Since you're delegated from the TB, it might not be bad to have them approve the policy. 19:39:14 Then there's no question about are you doing it right. 19:39:15 IIRC there is no documentation of package sets at all (besides many people knowing that they exist) 19:39:26 that is true, I will copy them in 19:39:39 * Laney thinks TeamDelegation is what we have 19:41:02 so if I do that, and the TB thinks the idea is ok, can someone else volunteer to mail people running existing package sets and ask them to come up with criteria? 19:41:45 #action Laney to write down proposal for streamlining packageset changes and mail DMB and TB 19:41:45 * meetingology Laney to write down proposal for streamlining packageset changes and mail DMB and TB 19:43:27 :( 19:44:07 Laney: I can talk to the packageset owners' 19:44:19 just might not happen before UDS 19:45:28 no massive rush 19:45:46 just ping them all "hey, you can make it easy to get new packages if you tell us how to evaluate them" 19:46:50 #action micahg to ping packageset owners to write down criteria for package membership 19:46:50 * meetingology micahg to ping packageset owners to write down criteria for package membership 19:46:57 #topic AOB 19:47:58 next chair? 19:48:09 ah yes 19:48:20 #topic next chair 19:48:44 we should become more systematic 19:48:55 alphabetical rotation or so 19:49:34 well, I did last week ,so stgraber? (also not here :)) 19:49:58 well volunteered! 19:50:08 poor stgraber 19:50:14 * Laney cackles 19:50:21 #topic aob again 19:50:44 going 19:50:59 going… 19:51:19 gone, thanks all 19:51:21 #endmeeting