18:00:26 #startmeeting Ubuntu Technical Board meeting 18:00:26 Meeting started Thu Oct 20 18:00:26 2011 UTC. The chair is stgraber. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot. 18:00:26 18:00:26 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 18:00:38 o/ 18:00:58 cjwatson, kees: ping 18:01:59 here 18:03:30 #topic Action review 18:03:45 the wiki doesn't list anything, is there something that's not on the wiki? 18:04:25 Well, kind of. 18:04:48 On www.ubuntu.com, it says that these meetings are on Tuesdays which I why I missed the last one :( 18:04:57 wow, that's outdated 18:05:01 I took an action item to file a bug about that. I did. 18:05:06 however, I would like to revisit the meeting time anyway given the new board 18:05:15 Naturally, I didn't do that at the meeting, but it's sort of relevant. :) 18:05:20 cjwatson: Yes! 18:05:22 Me too. 18:05:26 this time is pretty inconvenient for me and I wonder if we could do better for others 18:05:35 I can take an action to organise one of those whatever the website is called things 18:05:45 It's very inconvenient for me as well. It'll be even worse once DST goes away. 18:05:46 the one that lets everyone specify their preferred times 18:06:00 doodle? 18:06:03 WEll.. 18:06:22 The problem is that we're spread pretty far. 18:06:26 ACcross many timezones. 18:06:27 stgraber: sounds familiar 18:06:34 soren: yeah, but this way we'd at least have data 18:06:38 worst case we could rotate 18:06:39 So any time we find is likely to be a bit of stretch for someone. 18:07:12 ..so when DST changes, it might just move into someone's unacceptable time. 18:07:13 stgraber, the wiki has two agenda items 18:07:15 If that makes sense. 18:07:19 this meeting time is actually pretty good for me (early afternoon), but I'm still fine with it being moved a bit 18:07:26 oh, you meant actions 18:07:34 soren: let's see what we get from a doodle survey 18:07:39 And DST changes at different times in different parts of the world. 18:07:59 cjwatson: Right. Set the data there to sometime in the middle of november. Then the data will be good at least until March. 18:08:06 Er... 18:08:06 ok 18:08:11 Set the *date*. 18:08:39 cjwatson: ok, can I give you an action to setup the doodle/whatever survey for the meeting time? 18:08:52 yes 18:09:06 #action cjwatson to setup a survey for a new Technical Board meeting time 18:09:06 * meetingology cjwatson to setup a survey for a new Technical Board meeting time 18:09:16 #topic MESA patent enquiry 18:09:46 I followed up to the list about that today 18:10:24 so are we just waiting for some more information from RAOF? 18:11:09 it would be useful to know if anyone else on the TB (dis)agrees with my assessment, as it looks delicate 18:11:40 cjwatson: Your conclusion was that we'd better steer clear, right? 18:12:21 it looks less safe to me than I would like, let's put it that way 18:12:41 I don't know if I would feel differently if we hadn't been explicitly asked 18:12:56 I haven't read the list recently 18:14:06 mdz: in case you didn't find it already: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001113.html 18:14:54 cjwatson: I agree. They're not saying they'll enforce it, but they're saying open source implementations certainly aren't exempt. That makes me uncomfortable. 18:14:55 (erk, sorry I'm late. here now) 18:18:19 has there been any off-list discussion of what features are missing if it stays disabled? that questions went unanswered on the list 18:19:16 I doubt RAOF actually read cjwatson's e-mail yet, he probably will in a few hours though 18:20:06 yeah, sorry, I was prompted into replying by checking the agenda 18:20:18 so I guess we can keep that item on the agenda and re-discuss at the next meeting when we have some more information from RAOF 18:21:10 #topic Authorise temporary substitute for Emmet Hikory on DMB 18:21:48 various people have been trying to get in touch with Emmet, and have so far failed 18:23:25 in the meantime, I think it might be appropriate for us to authorise a stand-in so that the DMB can carry on doing business more effectively 18:23:36 the suggested solution to that problem for the DMB would be to temporarily get the second candidate of the last election, Stefano Rivera to take Emmet's seat until we hear back from him 18:23:42 I have no problem with that. 18:24:03 sounds reasonable enough 18:24:14 I'm fine with that too. Only thing I was wondering is if tumbleweed was contacted about it? 18:25:08 I don't think so as yet, obviously he'd need to consent :) 18:25:27 tumbleweed: (don't suppose you're reading?) 18:25:46 if he's willing, I think that's fine too. 18:26:33 that sounds like approval by acclamation to me 18:26:36 ok, I'll take the action of contacting tumbleweed and if he's willing, add him to both the LP team and mailing list 18:27:20 thanks 18:27:42 #agreed Authorise Stefano Rivera as temporary substitute for Emmet Hikory on DMB 18:28:04 #action stgraber to contact tumbleweed and if he agrees to be on the DMB, add him to the LP team and mailing list 18:28:04 * meetingology stgraber to contact tumbleweed and if he agrees to be on the DMB, add him to the LP team and mailing list 18:28:54 ok, so the meeting time agenda item was already discussed earlier 18:29:28 not quite sure what to do about the brainstorm review item, do we just skip it until December 2011? 18:30:01 (sorry, was supposed to find some time with pitti to discuss pre/post TB meeting actions, but that didn't quite happen...) 18:31:21 it's just there as a reminder 18:31:23 stgraber, the idea was that it would remind us 18:32:08 #topic DMB term length 18:32:14 https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001105.html 18:33:57 I don't remember any explicit decision on that, and can't check back right now 18:34:45 though I can perhaps check my archives tomorrow 18:35:14 In case no decision has been made, perhaps we should decide now? 18:35:18 is the CC 2 years? 18:35:29 because if so, it seems like the common term is 2 years. 18:35:30 And fall back to whatever you find out was previously decided, if anything. 18:35:33 that'd be great. I had a quick look on the wiki and through my e-mails when that thread started but couldn't find any reference to the term length on there 18:36:14 I certainly don't object to 2, which aligns with the TB too 18:36:27 I have no particular preference. Two years is customary in Ubuntu, so I'm fine with that (and we can let geser off the hook early as an exception) 18:36:35 I'm fine with 2 years 18:36:43 And Laney. 18:36:50 1 might have been an accident due to LP defaults 18:36:50 per https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001107.html 18:37:02 only note is that quite a few members asked for their expiry not to be cahnged if we indeed choose to make it 2 years 18:37:57 Ok, so geser and Laney are off the hook in Feb 2012. Everyone else's term is 2 years, unless cjwatson finds a different decision in the archives. 18:37:57 right, both Michael Bienia and Iain Lane asked for theirs to be kept to one year 18:38:20 Does that sounds good to everyone? 18:38:45 yep, that sounds good to me 18:39:26 * kees nods 18:39:31 ok 18:39:32 #vote Set DMB term to 2 years except for geser and Laney who asked for theirs to expire in February 2012 18:39:32 Please vote on: Set DMB term to 2 years except for geser and Laney who asked for theirs to expire in February 2012 18:39:32 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) 18:39:46 +1 18:39:46 +1 received from cjwatson 18:39:47 +1 18:39:47 +1 received from stgraber 18:39:48 +1 18:39:48 +1 received from soren 18:40:51 mdz, kees: ^ 18:40:57 sorry 18:40:58 +1 18:40:58 +1 received from mdz 18:41:28 Where's pitti today, btw? Did we just forget to ping him? 18:41:42 soren: I poked him in #ubuntu-devel, no response 18:41:49 Ok, np. 18:43:36 looks like we lost kees, I guess we can take that "18:39 * kees nods" as a +1, though we already have 4 +1s anyway 18:43:39 #endvote 18:43:39 Voting ended on: Set DMB term to 2 years except for geser and Laney who asked for theirs to expire in February 2012 18:43:39 Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 18:43:39 Motion carried 18:44:03 #action stgraber to update the term of the DMB members to 2 years 18:44:03 * meetingology stgraber to update the term of the DMB members to 2 years 18:45:05 Mark just commented on the MESA issue. 18:45:17 fwiw 18:45:52 https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001114.html 18:46:58 #topic AOB 18:47:20 Looking at the mailing-list, I also found https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001104.html 18:48:43 Does the DMB have privileges to actually add stuff to package sets or do they still go through cjwatson for that? 18:48:54 Technical privileges, I mean. 18:49:10 the DMB actually owns a few package sets 18:49:28 I'm not sure I understand what that means. 18:49:44 for the others they ask someone on the TB to implement the changes (usually cjwatson though I guess I can do it myself now) 18:50:08 stupid network. back again. yeah, I was +1 :P 18:50:57 Ok, someone owns a package set. The owner can add and remove packages from it? And the team that can upload the packages in the package set is a different team than the owning team? 18:51:01 Is that right? 18:51:48 yep 18:51:53 Ok. 18:52:22 I just got reminded by wendar that the ARB has a selection of new members that need to be reviewed by the TB, ideally at this meeting 18:52:33 #topic selection of new ARB members 18:52:45 wendar: thanks for reminding me! 18:52:49 the list is at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001110.html 18:53:43 as discussed at the last TB meeting, these would be additional members of the ARB team to help with the few new packages that the ARB got since developers.u.c was launched 18:54:05 How many seats are being filled? 3? 18:54:14 yes, three 18:54:18 that's an additional 3 seats on the ARB, yes 18:54:31 bringing us back up to the 7 seats currently listed as the max 18:55:06 (we've been down to 4 members for a while) 18:55:36 all three candidates are part of ubuntu-dev as was agreed at the last TB meeting 18:56:46 #vote Approve the 3 additional members for the ARB (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001110.html) 18:56:46 Please vote on: Approve the 3 additional members for the ARB (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001110.html) 18:56:46 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) 18:57:05 +1 18:57:05 +1 received from kees 18:57:09 +1 18:57:09 +1 received from stgraber 18:57:49 I don't personally have any reservations about them, but I wonder how it would have shown in a condorcet vote if someone did. 18:58:04 one moment, reading the email 18:58:28 +1 18:58:28 +1 received from mdz 18:58:36 soren: it would show as a very low rating, "no opinion" gives them no points 18:58:57 Hm. 18:59:00 +1 18:59:00 +1 received from soren 18:59:16 ...but I think we should revisit how we do this in the future. 18:59:41 cjwatson: ^ 19:00:20 soren: yeah, someone suggested a "None of the Above" entry 19:00:41 soren: also, more of a +1/-1 system seems appropriate here 19:00:44 wendar, that would be an improvement I think 19:00:47 That would have helped, but I'm not sure that would really do the trick. 19:00:52 wendar: Right, exactly. 19:00:56 is there a document anywhere which explains the process for running an election? 19:00:56 soren: something to talk about at the UDS session 19:01:10 another way would have been to create one poll per candidate with a simple yes/no vote 19:01:20 mdz: yes, it's new, but the TB reviewed it in the last meeting 19:01:37 mdz: so, this is our first time through electing new ARB members 19:01:53 I figured most of our elections are probably run in the same fashion 19:02:05 and if not, they probably should be :-) 19:02:10 mdz: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AppReviewBoard/Restaffing 19:02:15 we usually have more candidate than seats though 19:02:29 this time was a bit weird as we had 3 candidates and 3 seats 19:02:50 mdz: (which is just a specific application of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncil/Restaffing) 19:03:23 stgraber: yes, that's what made the usual poll system an odd fit for this one 19:04:08 ok, looks like we lost cjwatson 19:04:11 #endvote 19:04:11 Voting ended on: Approve the 3 additional members for the ARB (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2011-October/001110.html) 19:04:11 Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 19:04:11 Motion carried 19:04:12 I wonder if we should always include a "none of the above" option. 19:04:37 EVen if there are more candidates than seats, there might still be candidates that people would rather be without. 19:05:11 Which is just as valid as in the case where there are as many (or fewer) candidates as there are seats to be filled. 19:05:13 soren: I think that'd be interesting to have indeed 19:05:31 I'm +1 on that ARB motion, sorry 19:05:37 I do have to leave now though 19:05:49 #action stgraber to add the new members to the ARB 19:05:49 * meetingology stgraber to add the new members to the ARB 19:05:51 none of the above - agreed 19:06:03 #topic Chair 19:06:16 Next meeting is as UDS, right? 19:06:16 so apparently the TB uses alphabetical order, making cjwatson the next chair 19:06:20 soren: indeed 19:06:25 Cool. 19:06:26 I'm fine with that 19:06:42 so that's going to be at 3pm UDS-time 19:06:47 Well.. 19:06:52 Yeah, probably. 19:07:04 We can make the new meeting time effective after UDS. 19:07:10 (whatever it may be) 19:07:32 How many of us will be at UDS? 19:07:34 o/ 19:07:57 I'll 19:09:20 I'm sorry, I also have to run, I think we'll be a majority of the TB members at UDS. 19:09:35 #endmeeting