17:02:26 <czajkowski> #startmeeting 17:02:26 <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Feb 16 17:02:26 2012 UTC. The chair is czajkowski. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 17:02:26 <meetingology> 17:02:26 <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 17:03:06 <czajkowski> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda 17:03:14 <czajkowski> is todays agenda 17:03:17 * Pici waves 17:03:24 <czajkowski> who's here from the CC ? 17:03:29 * dholbach is 17:03:32 <pleia2> o/ 17:03:39 <Gwaihir> o/ 17:04:00 <czajkowski> ok shall we start with the IRCC catch up ? 17:04:18 <czajkowski> #topic IRCC Catch up 17:04:32 <czajkowski> aloha and welcome to the IRCC Catch up, thanks for coming along 17:04:34 <AlanBell> hiya 17:04:39 <czajkowski> who's here from the IRCC 17:04:43 <dholbach> hey - how are you all doing? 17:05:00 <AlanBell> not sure the time worked out for funkyHat and topyli 17:05:05 <AlanBell> we are doing great :) 17:05:08 <Pici> Yeah! 17:05:19 <czajkowski> AlanBell: Pici thanks for coming along 17:05:43 <czajkowski> it's pretty informal, just care to tell us what ye've been doing, anything we should know about, and what we can do to help 17:05:48 <AlanBell> we have had three productive team meetings so far 17:06:13 <Pici> We're organizing a bot-jam to get some requested features implemented in ubottu 17:06:15 <AlanBell> and made progress on the floodbot code which is now in a launchpad private repository 17:06:29 <pleia2> great 17:06:34 <czajkowski> thats good to hear 17:06:59 <AlanBell> the process of welcoming #lubuntu into the list of core channels is well underway with operator training starting soon 17:08:11 <pleia2> I'm glad to see the training system in place for the IRC team, some teams struggle with proper training once folks are appointed 17:08:18 <dholbach> what do you feel takes up the most time of the IRC Council right now? 17:09:21 <AlanBell> interesting question :) 17:09:49 <dholbach> is it more about starting discussion and keeping the discussions going or is it things like op/member approval and other governance process bits? 17:10:09 <dholbach> (I don't have a doubt you all are busy people. :-)) 17:10:14 <Pici> Hmm.. Things are relatively quiet right now, but channel/operator organization and appeals tend to be the biggest timesinks. 17:11:06 <dholbach> is channel/operator organisation and appeals something which comes up in bursts or is it always busy like that? 17:12:05 <Pici> It comes in bursts. Also just keeping an eye on how operators deal with issues, before they become something that might warrant a user's appeal. 17:12:14 <sabdfl> hello all, sorry for my tardiness 17:12:23 <czajkowski> Pici: AlanBell and how is the new council working out? Is there any way we the CC can help ? 17:12:44 <popey> sabdfl: http://paste.ubuntu.com/844650/ for catching up 17:13:04 <sabdfl> thanks popey 17:13:27 <AlanBell> sorry, got interrupted for a sec 17:13:28 <Pici> I think we're doing fine right now. I know I've poked some CCers in our channel in the past for advice/questions, but nothing serious at this time. 17:14:05 <czajkowski> Pici: great stuff. and how goes the plan for the IRCC for the coming months? 17:14:31 <AlanBell> we have a bit of a list of task to organise around bots 17:14:58 <czajkowski> so is the main focus the sorting out of bots for the time being then ops? 17:15:42 <sabdfl> on the people front, what's the escalation process? i.e. how quickly does stuff land on the IRCC's desk when there's a dispute? 17:17:29 <czajkowski> AlanBell: Pici ? 17:17:39 <Pici> Beyond speaking to the operator who took action, the current appeals process asks a user to first drop into #ubuntu-ops if they have an issue. If they still think that they have been treated unfairly, or do not agree with an operator, they are given information on how to contact the IRCC directly. 17:18:09 <Pici> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/AppealProcess 17:18:59 <Pici> There has been some discussion on using the bot to automatically provide that link to people who have been removed/banned/muted in our channels, but for now we provide that manually. 17:21:20 <Pici> Unfortunately, we can't stop people from going over our heads at the outset of a ban, some people think that their best course of action is to email sabdfl directly. As far as I see from emails forwarded back our way, this doesn't happen that often though. 17:21:47 <sabdfl> i haven't had one of those for ages 17:21:49 <czajkowski> Pici: the same happens to the LC and they mail jono people dont always follow the process 17:21:53 <sabdfl> which is, i think, a good sign 17:22:04 <sabdfl> that people recognise the delegation of responsibility 17:22:15 <Pici> Agreed. 17:22:52 <sabdfl> can we tell which ops are around, and have some sort of random raw for a quick "review team" which cannot be gamed? 17:23:06 <sabdfl> i.e. cannot have an op do something knowing her friends will be on the review team? 17:23:25 <sabdfl> or does this just happen in #ubuntu-ops now, informally? 17:24:55 <AlanBell> resolution of issues is done in #ubuntu-ops which is publicly logged and open for everyone to review 17:25:41 <AlanBell> it isn't unheard of for people to want to discuss their ban with a different operator to the one that banned them, which is fine 17:26:44 <Pici> By way of our bots, we also track and store all bans made in our channels in a searchable web app, so we can be sure what op banned and which removed a given ban. 17:26:46 <AlanBell> escallated issues come to the IRCC, we have had only one this year (which was directed to sabdfl and arrived at us via Claire) 17:27:38 <AlanBell> are there any particular things the CC would like us to focus on? 17:28:05 <pleia2> is there anyone here from the broader IRC team who has any comments? 17:29:49 <pangolin> Just got here, not sure what the topic is though 17:30:03 <AlanBell> it is our IRCC checkup with the CC 17:30:18 <oCean> I'd like to say that I really like how the new IRCC is taking up responsibilities, and putting a real effort in getting things done. Things that have been on hold way too long 17:30:19 * AlanBell notes the nice bot set the topic 17:30:25 <pangolin> ah, from a quick scroll back I see I am sorta the topic 17:30:49 <pleia2> thanks oCean :) 17:30:53 <czajkowski> oCean: good to hear 17:30:53 <dholbach> Do many IRC community members join the meetings? Are there many agenda items being added? Is there much discussion? 17:31:04 <Myrtti> well, at least I can say that christel's evil plan to assimilate all (present and retired) Ubuntu IRC ops seems to be going on well... 17:31:19 <AlanBell> there is lots of discussion dholbach, and lots of ops in the meeting 17:31:40 <dholbach> Myrtti, can you elaborate? 17:31:48 * Myrtti points at her cloak 17:32:02 <AlanBell> dholbach: I have been attempting to keep the meetings running to time but there is no shortage of discussion points 17:32:21 <AlanBell> nice cloak Myrtti, careful it doesn't drag on the floor and get dirty 17:32:27 <dholbach> Myrtti, aha! :) 17:32:56 <dholbach> I personally am happy to see that training is happening and many more people are actively involved in discussing and making decisions and also that you are collectively working on the bots now. 17:34:13 <czajkowski> us there anything else people would like to add ? 17:34:13 <AlanBell> one thing I have been pondering is to do a training course every release cycle, so we have a regular intake of a batch of new operators 17:34:29 <dholbach> AlanBell, you could start at Ubuntu Open Week :) 17:34:32 <sabdfl> i have a sense of organisation now that hasn't existed in some time in the IRC world, which is really great to see 17:34:43 <czajkowski> sabdfl: +1 17:34:44 <AlanBell> dholbach: well we are starting with the #lubuntu intake 17:34:52 <czajkowski> it's really impressive to see folks, keep up the great work 17:34:53 <dholbach> yeah :) 17:35:24 <oCean> sabdfl: yes, and that pays off too: it's easier for others to get more and more involved 17:35:39 <AlanBell> another thing we will be doing in 3 months or so is filling the empty 5th seat on the IRCC 17:35:44 <Myrtti> I'm writing the basic ops guide at the moment, it has an extension to how to use the most awesome IRC client in the planet, we're setting a date when we can start having the classroom sessions for our new batch of core ops 17:35:54 <Myrtti> (before you ask, irssi) 17:37:41 * AlanBell looks forward to learning of this irssi stuff, sounds interesting 17:39:12 <pleia2> thanks for coming :) 17:39:16 <sabdfl> this is all super. should we wrap and move on? 17:39:18 <dholbach> so thanks everyone in the IRC community for keeping things rolling nicely 17:39:24 <sabdfl> well done, IRCC, and thanks for the update 17:39:28 <AlanBell> thanks o/ 17:39:33 <czajkowski> ok so moving on 17:39:44 <czajkowski> #topic PPA and CoC 17:39:48 <czajkowski> #link https://lists.launchpad.net/launchpad-dev/msg08934.html 17:39:58 <czajkowski> this was brought by lifeless on the dev mailing list 17:40:22 <sabdfl> i would prefer to: 17:40:24 <czajkowski> at present the CoC doesn;t covr malware uploads, and there isn;t anything in there to cover PPas 17:40:37 <sabdfl> * make it possible to sign the CoC with a click-through 17:40:37 <popey> related to this is bug 926720 17:40:38 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 926720 in Launchpad itself "Users don't know a 'good' PPA from a 'bad' PPA" [Low,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/926720 17:40:44 <czajkowski> the questio bis is it useful to sign the CoC before uploading a PPA 17:40:47 <sabdfl> * enfore it in the member-of-a-team case too 17:40:51 <sabdfl> yes it is 17:40:58 <sabdfl> and i think the CoC does cover malware 17:41:04 <dholbach> sabdfl, +1 17:41:16 <sabdfl> in the "be excellent to each other" is not "yay malware!" sense :) 17:41:34 <czajkowski> well it's not explicit but yes I do get your point 17:41:48 <ScottK> Also isn't PPA a Launchpad issue, not an Ubuntu issue? 17:42:20 <Myrtti> well, this PPA bug started actually on IRC, we're constantly having people in #ubuntu helping others by telling them to use a PPA 17:42:22 <czajkowski> not such a clean divide I think 17:42:33 <ScottK> IIRC the PPA ToS are clear on it. 17:43:27 <dholbach> arguably packages in PPAs are built for Ubuntu, for Ubuntu users 17:43:35 <czajkowski> dholbach: indeed 17:43:38 <ScottK> Ubuntu CoC can't apply to all Launchpad users. It's much bigger than Ubuntu. 17:43:58 <dholbach> so I can see a pretty solid connection between PPAs and the CoC 17:44:44 <ScottK> It's been my understanding since PPAs were created that PPAs are built "on" Ubuntu. They aren't part of the distro. 17:45:07 <sabdfl> ScottK, this is basically a ToS that we set for folk using a service Canonical made for Ubuntu developers 17:45:08 <ScottK> They aren't unrelated, but tons of stuff to which the CoC doesn't apply are closely related. 17:45:38 <sabdfl> i.e. we provide buildd's and archive space free, and wanted a low bar for agreement on good behaviour 17:45:41 <ScottK> PPAs are not a service for Ubuntu developers. They are a service for any Launchpad user. 17:45:43 <sabdfl> CoC is a part of that 17:46:03 <sabdfl> the Ubuntu CoC is not just for members. It's a code of conduct that we want to be as widely used as possible, surely? 17:46:14 <ScottK> Right, but IIRC there's a specific ToS for PPA use that already covers this case. 17:47:17 <ScottK> I think if I'm an upstream who wants to make a PPA to provide development snapshots and updates to Ubuntu users via the PPA system, having to take on Ubuntu's social values might seem like a lot. 17:47:28 <sabdfl> would we not want to encourage our broader community to reference the CoC? 17:47:34 <sabdfl> for example, for comments on OMGU? 17:47:50 <ScottK> I think that's up to the people that run OMGU. 17:47:54 <sabdfl> well, you can do those things on your own hardware without having to agree it :) 17:48:03 <sabdfl> yes, it is, but why would we object? 17:48:05 <dholbach> surely, I didn't mean to get into a discussion about PPAs being part of Ubuntu - but I think it's reasonable for an uploader to agree on the CoC as part of offering Ubuntu packages, for Ubuntu users, of their software - to me it feels like the CoC strongly applies, and it's not just a ToS-we-already-had-around 17:48:07 <ScottK> We wouldn't. 17:48:25 <ScottK> I agree we want to encourage it. 17:48:26 <sabdfl> right. so why object to having it be a requirement for PPA uploading? 17:48:28 <czajkowski> sabdfl: so coming back to the mail from lifeless to the dev list, do you think the reply there is that yes we should be enforcing the signing of the CoC for PPA use? 17:48:35 <sabdfl> yes, i do :) 17:48:38 <czajkowski> ok 17:48:38 <ScottK> Encouraging and requiring aren't the same things. 17:49:04 <bkerensa> sabdfl: I know that Joey Sneddon does enforce the CoC to some degree as I have pointed out issues in comments before and they have quickly addressed them but I can pass it along 17:49:11 <czajkowski> so should we reply to lifeless mail suggesting this and the link to here or do we need to go further 17:49:41 <ScottK> I think it's a mistake to enforce the project's social values (as opposed to encouraging) on external parties, but I don't get a vote, so ... 17:52:10 <czajkowski> ok, any other comments before we move on 17:52:16 <czajkowski> we've limited time and one more topic 17:52:53 <czajkowski> #topic Launchpad Polls 17:53:00 <czajkowski> #link https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-council-teams/msg00023.html 17:53:01 <sabdfl> ScottK, this is not Ubuntu enforcing it on a third party 17:53:09 <czajkowski> ops sorry sabdfl 17:53:26 <sabdfl> this is a third party (well, two-and-a-halfth party :) choosing it 17:53:34 <sabdfl> just the same as OMGU might 17:54:43 <czajkowski> so a discussion has come about regarding the life of polls on lp, at present we all know they don't work as well as we would hope, but they are at present a cost to LP with regards to maintenance and it's a feature they are looking to help people move away from 17:54:54 <czajkowski> or would encourage people to submit patches to help maintain them 17:55:04 <czajkowski> but all features are a cost even if they are not being used. 17:55:17 <pleia2> the LP folks haven't responded to my email explaining the reason we need them 17:55:28 <pleia2> I don't really know where we can go from here without a response 17:56:25 <czajkowski> pleia2: nods I know some teams use them, but I think from discussions I've read they something the lp team would like to remove as it's a cost to them. 17:56:31 <dholbach> is there a way how we could use CIVS polls instead with a "none of the above" vote? 17:56:33 <czajkowski> but I'll poke lp to reply to you 17:57:30 <pleia2> dholbach: ask dholbach for his magic scraping of email address script 17:57:31 <pleia2> ;) 17:57:38 <czajkowski> dholbach: what is the reson we just dont use CIVS at present ? 17:57:50 <pleia2> a lot of people don't have public addresses 17:57:56 <dholbach> I think we just need to agree on a way to do confirmation polls 17:58:08 <pleia2> (particularly on teams like ubuntu-women, where a lot of our members keep their addresses private) 17:58:42 <pleia2> I'll pastebin the email I sent, sec 17:59:09 <popey> The whole voting system in launchpad seems very cumbersome and prone to error on the part of the user. 17:59:13 <pleia2> http://paste.ubuntu.com/844712/ 17:59:16 <dholbach> popey, yes 17:59:24 <popey> I've seen numerous polls screwed up as a result 17:59:31 <popey> restarted, abandoned, etc 17:59:35 <dholbach> perhaps we need an agreement that the LP team can hand out email addresses of the team to core governance boards 18:00:21 <dholbach> ... for purposes such as voting 18:00:51 <dholbach> I mean, if you know how to work the LP API you can get a lot of email addresses already anyway - but having that agreement would make things a lot cleaner and easier 18:00:59 <popey> I can see many people protesting or opting out of that 18:01:00 <czajkowski> nods 18:01:04 <popey> hard to do after the effect 18:01:29 <popey> I mean, people who have signed up to LP for ~years may protest at this change in policy. people get very funny about their email protection 18:01:37 <czajkowski> nods 18:01:48 <czajkowski> you could also argue if you want to vote you'll make your email available of course. 18:01:54 <dholbach> at the last CC election (all ubuntu members were mailed) we had somebody complain and Mark responded to that - there's just not any other way 18:02:19 <pleia2> yeah, I included a note about that in my paste above 18:03:44 <czajkowski> Perhaps to move forward I'll poke LP folks to reply to pleia2 email 18:03:53 <pleia2> thanks czajkowski 18:03:55 <czajkowski> and also perhaps the CC should be looking at alternatives so we have a plan 18:04:31 <Gwaihir> Scott was talking about an open source alternative, but I think it was only for CIVS, with maybe U-SSO, we might ask him 18:04:31 <pleia2> we could do something like set up CIVS for everyone with public addresses and use "contact this team" to get an email to everyone saying "if you didn't get a ballot because your address is hidden, let us know" 18:04:32 <czajkowski> ok any other comments 18:05:13 <dholbach> no, I'm all set - we obviously need to keep this discussion going 18:05:33 <pleia2> the conversation is currently on ubuntu-council-teams 18:05:44 <czajkowski> perhaps we can take it there the link is in the agenda 18:05:47 <czajkowski> I need to dash here 18:06:13 <czajkowski> #link https://lists.launchpad.net/ubuntu-council-teams/msg00023.html 18:06:26 <czajkowski> #endmeeting