#title #ubuntu-meeting Meeting Meeting started by dholbach at 17:02:23 UTC. The full logs are available at http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2012/ubuntu-meeting.2012-09-06-17.02.log.html . == Meeting summary == *Meet-Up with the ARB *any other business? Meeting ended at 17:45:10 UTC. == Votes == == Action items == * (none) == People present (lines said) == * dholbach (60) * wendar (52) * coolbhavi (30) * czajkowski (29) * highvoltage (13) * pleia2 (3) * ScottK (3) * meetingology (3) * Gwaihir (1) == Full Log == 17:02:23 #startmeeting 17:02:23 Meeting started Thu Sep 6 17:02:23 2012 UTC. The chair is dholbach. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 17:02:23 17:02:23 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 17:02:34 #topic Meet-Up with the ARB 17:02:37 how are you all doing? :) 17:02:59 great, thanks :) 17:03:05 I am fine dholbach :) how about you? 17:03:14 Thanks for coming folks 17:03:18 doing well, thanks :) 17:03:43 how is the restaffing of the ARB going? 17:03:44 hey dholbach 17:03:48 hey highvoltage 17:03:53 I saw that Alessio volunteered 17:03:58 (my attention span is really chopped up today) 17:04:19 is this the CC catch-up with the ARB? 17:04:22 yes 17:04:24 highvoltage: yup 17:04:27 great. 17:04:31 wendar: so how are things in the ARB going? 17:06:28 highvoltage, coolbhavi: I guess you can answer the questions too :) 17:06:33 anyone can 17:06:34 true 17:06:35 sorry 17:06:56 well, technically I resigned from the ARB a few weeks back and just opportunistically doing a little when I have a chance 17:07:03 (and keeping up with the list) 17:07:31 how are you dealing with the aftermath of the app showdown? 17:07:33 but I'm not sure I'm the best person to comment on it. the arb is kind of complicated :) 17:07:42 I saw a lot of activity in the last few weeks on the mailing list 17:07:43 dholbach, thanks! we are just going through the queue as a backdrop of successful app showdown :) 17:08:06 highvoltage: in what way, I note this is the 2nd meeting of the ARB as we got to meet ye last cycle, so have things changed? improved or? 17:08:16 it was successful indeed :) 17:08:30 I can vouch for the fact that coolbhavi has been amazing, reviewing apps at a record pace 17:08:41 dholbach: indeed, there's been a lot of progress, I believe the majority of the apps had received feedback on them, a few of them have been published and I believe the majority of them still needs to be, but I think that's going ok 17:08:45 and highvoltage managed 50 in a couple of weeks, which was super-human 17:08:51 thanks wendar :) 17:08:56 * highvoltage thought it was more than that :) 17:09:17 highvoltage: 75? it was outrageous anyway 17:09:26 highvoltage, 53 votes as per the stats go :) 17:09:41 I think it was around 90 iirc. being at debconf helped :) 17:09:48 awesome :) 17:09:48 I do know that when I was working full-time on the queue in Feb and March, I was able to battle it down to only 20 apps in the queue 17:10:34 but, my current job leaves me very little time for open source work, so I'm not much help anymore 17:10:56 did recent apps get a bit easier to review? 17:11:19 yes, there have been some new tools put in place that help 17:11:39 btw I am trying to clear the amount of apps which have +3 votes by uploading them whenever I find time 17:11:42 and many of the App Showdown submissions were cookie-cutter Quickly apps 17:11:52 coolbhavi: thanks! 17:12:01 * dholbach likes cookie cutters :) 17:12:21 yup, they simplify many things 17:12:32 wendar, +1 again quickly is quick to review :) 17:12:46 how was the response for the call for nominations? 17:13:06 one, who looks like a great candidate 17:13:12 * coolbhavi saw one application on the list from alessio 17:13:26 dholbach: re apps being easier to review, the fixes in quickly helped a lot. it would've been awesome if quickly was fixed before the showdown :) 17:13:34 wendar: do you think it'll be easy to fill the roles, are more people expiring ? 17:13:48 maybe it'd make sense to reach out to some arb helpers? 17:14:00 unfortunately, I don't think it will be, and we really need the help 17:14:21 with the round of expiring memberships on Sept 13, we'll be down to 2 members 17:14:36 why do you think it'll be hard? 17:14:45 the work load? or is the board big enough? 17:15:03 with the one new candidate, that'll be 3, which is the bare minimum needed to approve an app (and means every member has to vote on every app) 17:15:08 dholbach, seeing the response I think reaching out to helpers might be a good thing to do 17:15:21 and maybe blog about it again? 17:15:33 wendar: doesn;t leave much for wiggle room 17:15:42 dholbach: yes, new helpers would be good, or figuring out where the helpers we had during the App Showdown went? 17:15:55 czajkowski, and the deadline was sept 5th IIRC 17:16:02 maybe it'd make sense to mail them? 17:16:07 for new nominations 17:16:07 dholbach: I'm afraid we burned them out, or they got discouraged when they put in all that work preparing apps that then blocked on voting 17:16:29 is anyone from the expiring ARB members planning to come back again? 17:16:32 czajkowski: yes, I think the workload is daunting right now 17:16:58 wendar: so if you take away the app contest, how many apps would you normaly have? 17:17:04 wendar, +1 17:17:15 czajkowski: of course, spreading that out over more members helps, but it's tough to recruit for such a workload 17:17:52 did the ARB know the app contest was happening, so ye could plan ? 17:18:00 maybe the new members could try to reach out to the app developer community for some help with the reviews? 17:18:14 dholbach: ajmitch will return. I'm not an Ubuntu Developer yet, so not qualified. (I'm one of the people who encouraged making UD a requirement, because I think it really should be) 17:18:30 that makes it harder 17:18:40 czajkowski, yes we were contacted by jono 17:18:48 dholbach: coolbhavi's term is not ending until next year, and no one else is returning 17:19:12 :/ 17:19:26 czajkowski: yes, it would have helped to have more advance notice of the app contest, we were scrambling at the last minute 17:19:46 czajkowski: though, I don't think anyone expected it would be *that* successful 17:19:56 czajkowski, but we were taken off by the success it had because it was all quick I believe 17:20:05 nods 17:20:14 maybe it'd make sense to extend the call for nominations then 17:20:16 czajkowski: our usuall submission rate was about 5/week, which was managable by one person (me) full-time 17:20:27 yea so that is a massive jump 17:20:53 wendar: coolbhavi highvoltage do you think extending the deadline and possibly increasing the ARB would be a good idea 17:21:07 I note there has been a lengthy discussion on ubuntu-devel on the ARB process 17:21:26 czajkowski, certainly +1 here we need members 17:21:48 Improvements to the ABR process will help, but we are talking 6+ months of development work to get the tools in place 17:22:12 in the mean-time we do still have a stack of developers waiting for a response, and it seems unfair to leave them waiting 17:22:26 how invovolved were the aRB in the draftng of this process, I guess ye would know from hands on experience ? 17:22:30 sure, in the meantime, there needs to be an active team of ARB helpers + members 17:22:38 by "extending the deadline" do you mean allowing more nominations after Sept 5th? 17:22:53 wendar: yes 17:22:55 dholbach, yes agreed 17:23:05 wendar: we could extend it another week or 10 days 17:23:10 do you think that would help ? 17:23:22 I'm happy to extend the deadline as long as needed, but what do we do about the expiring members? 17:23:33 we can't approve apps with only 2 members 17:23:50 yes that is a bit of an issue alright. 17:24:10 and holding up apps with the vote, increases the backlog 17:24:16 I'm sure the TB can extend the expiration period 17:24:20 czajkowski: the ARB did review the proposal before it was posted to ubuntu-devel, and contributed substantial changes 17:24:29 of course I can't speak for the TB, but the CC has done this various times before 17:24:32 wendar: good to hear. 17:24:35 and if only for a ocuple of weeks to get things organised 17:24:40 dholbach: +1 17:24:49 wendar, can we mail luke to get him involved here? I havent seen him for ages though 17:25:25 coolbhavi: I don't expect much from him, and have been considering him "expired" with the rest, even though his term lasts until next year 17:25:44 hmm 17:25:54 in that case we should reach out to him 17:25:58 I can do that if you like 17:26:00 coolbhavi: he signed up when we promised "no more than 5 hours/week" so I don't think he had enough time available 17:26:16 ok 17:26:36 dholbach: you can, or I can, but be gentle 17:26:42 of course 17:27:01 dholbach: it's really just a question of whether he has any time, and if not well let him go with no hard feelings 17:27:09 exactly 17:27:35 I can also help liaise with the TB to get an extension of your terms, so there's a bit more time for nominations 17:27:52 how do you like the new spec - do you think that'd be our best shot at solving the apps problem? 17:27:57 I hate to make the one really good candidate wait for more nominations 17:28:09 could we recruit him and then do another round of nominations? 17:28:18 yes, I guess that should be possible too 17:28:28 dholbach, that would be great but I go with wendar here 17:28:37 I can start the conversation with the TB tomorrow 17:28:55 sure, that sounds good 17:29:00 excellent 17:29:19 I'm not sure if the other members want their terms extended, but I'm certainly happy to continue until we restaff 17:29:33 cool, I'll include everyone in the discussion 17:29:49 dholbach, great 17:30:06 how do you like the new spec - do you think that'd be our best shot at solving the apps problem? 17:31:04 As I've mentoned elsewhere, I don't 100% agree with the new spec. But, we desperately need some work in the direction of automated packaging/sandboxing. 17:31:42 agreed 17:31:43 And I'm confident we can hit a good agreement for the next 6-month cycle of work. 17:31:57 coolbhavi, highvoltage - how do you feel about it? 17:32:15 dholbach, by an initial read its much better than existing one and one part I liked was removing manual reviews which were the bottlenecks this showdown I believe 17:32:41 I'm actually really encouraged by the discussion on the ubuntu-devel list. It's lengthy, but the tone is quite healthy. A night and day difference from the initial discussion when the ARB was launched. :) 17:33:57 and it seems to be quite focused on one particular part of it :) 17:34:08 dholbach: the new spec? well, dropping the /opt requirements will bring more problems than it solves, afaict 17:34:42 highvoltage: yes, I'm also in favor of keeping the /opt requirement 17:34:43 it will be interesting to see how the discussion works out and which new solutions will be presented 17:34:52 * coolbhavi seconds highvoltage 17:35:31 I think all my questions are answered - Gwaihir, czajkowski, pleia2? 17:35:35 I don't like the opt requirement, it is inconvenient, it does add a challenge, it does make it harder to get that same package into the debian/ubuntu archives, but it's also the only way you can prevent filename clashes reliably 17:35:46 no, I'm good for now 17:36:00 dholbach, I'm good for now too 17:36:38 no I'm ok thanks. 17:36:45 ok, I'm happy to help with the restaffing 17:36:52 I hope we get some more good candidates :) 17:37:18 is there anything else from you, the ARB, which we CC folks could help with? 17:38:00 dholbach, I'm fine here as my only concern was restaffing 17:38:06 we really appreciate the time to talk, it's helpful 17:38:19 thanks for coming :) 17:38:22 cool :) 17:38:30 thanks a lot! :) 17:38:37 wendar, I have a suggestion here 17:39:10 coolbhavi: yup? 17:39:55 maybe we can elaborate the ubuntu developer requirement and state that we arent looking out for MOTU/Core dev explicitly as a requirement? 17:40:23 then we can get more applications I guess 17:40:25 the call for nominations did say "not a requirement" 17:40:52 * ScottK thought it was supposed to be a requirement. 17:40:56 but, we can certainly work to make the second call even more welcoming 17:41:08 ScottK: being an Ubuntu Developer is a requirement 17:41:18 OK. 17:41:21 ScottK: being MOTU/core-dev isn't 17:41:32 Right. That bug still exists. 17:41:42 yes but the general feeling is ubuntu developer straight goes to MOTU/core dev 17:41:50 ScottK, +1 17:42:02 well, they could be a Kubuntu developer 17:42:07 that'd be fine 17:42:22 or a DD 17:42:27 (as well as UD) 17:42:46 fine with me though :) 17:42:49 :) 17:42:52 perfect 17:42:57 anything else or shall we move on? 17:43:09 nothing from here, thanks! 17:43:26 thanks again :) 17:43:32 #topic any other business? 17:43:50 dholbach and the CC: thanks for your time! 17:44:01 the only thing I have on my list is the CoC update and I think it's still with YokoZar - I mailed him today about it 17:44:04 but that's all I have 17:44:07 anyone else? 17:44:15 nope 17:44:19 all good thanks dholbach 17:44:41 nope 17:45:00 alright then 17:45:06 have a great rest of your day everyone 17:45:08 and thanks for coming 17:45:10 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)