20:01 <kees> #startmeeting
20:01 <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Jun 10 20:01:00 2013 UTC.  The chair is kees. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
20:01 <meetingology> 
20:01 <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
20:01 <kees> [topic] Action review
20:01 <kees> Martin to mail SRU team members about inordinate SRU waiting times in proposed queue
20:01 <kees> did this happen?
20:02 <cjwatson> There's been a fairly decent thread, and I understand Brian's new sru-review tool is starting to gain traction
20:02 <kees> yeah, the thread has been moving along. it wasn't clear to me if this action is considered "done". I guess so, since the thread is started.
20:02 <kees> so, moving on:
20:03 <kees> Jorge to check whether brainstorm.ubuntu.com could be kept as a read-only archive, and otherwise shut it down.
20:03 <cjwatson> There's been internal RT traffic about this
20:03 <kees> okay, cool.
20:03 <cjwatson> RT#61484 for those with access
20:04 * stgraber waves
20:04 <kees> [topic] Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed
20:04 <cjwatson> IS have said they'll do the dump, although need to check it for personally-identifying information
20:04 <kees> all I see on the ML is the SRU thread, so nothing extra in there.
20:05 <kees> [topic] Check up on community bugs
20:05 <kees> 0 boogs found
20:05 <kees> [topic] AOB
20:05 <kees> anything not in bugs or ML or wiki we need to take care of?
20:05 <jcastro> kees: any questions for me wrt brainstorm?
20:06 <kees> jcastro: I was just checking on the status of the brainstorm request, cjwatson found the RT. we're all good. :) thanks!
20:06 <stgraber> kees: so we had a discussion a couple meetings back about the openssl exceptions for squid and mongodb but deferred as we felt cjwatson really should be present for that discussion
20:06 <kees> stgraber: ah yes!
20:06 <cjwatson> The mongodb discussion appears to be moot since upstream are (AIUI) adding the exception
20:06 <kees> excellent.
20:07 <kees> seems like the same should be possible for squid too, I would hope.
20:07 <soren> Nope.
20:07 <cjwatson> squid have had problems tracking down copyright holders I think
20:07 <soren> Many, many contributors and copyright holders.
20:07 <stgraber> squid doesn't use copyright assignment, so getting all copyright holders to agree is a bit trickier
20:07 <ScottK> And we should have a clear policy on this in any case since it comes up routinely.
20:07 <soren> It's amazingly difficult to get them all to agree to such an exception (even though they probably pretty much all would, it's nearly impossible to track them down and get their sign off).
20:07 <kees> "please send patches to remove your code if you don't agree". :P but yeah, I know I'm a crazy person.
20:08 <cjwatson> So, I stand by my plain reading of the licences.  I would be happy to defer to the opinion of the licensors, but if they can't all be found then that's hard to achieve.
20:09 <ScottK> It seems to me that given the history of the system library exception, it's pretty clear what the intent is in the GPL text.
20:10 <kees> so do we have a specific thing about this that we need to discuss at this time?
20:11 <kees> that sounds like "no", so I guess we're done here. :)
20:12 <cjwatson> (I do recognise that this position is inconvenient, but I can't in good conscience sign off on a reading that looks like a violation based on the plain reading.)
20:12 <cjwatson> Or something better phrased.
20:12 <kees> cjwatson: so you don't agree that the system library exception matches these cases?
20:12 <cjwatson> I do not.
20:13 <cjwatson> I believe I laid out my position in https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2013-May/001603.html
20:13 <cjwatson> (I certainly believe that the licensors are entitled to jointly select a different reading)
20:13 <kees> okay. but I don't think the TB needs to make a unified decision on this at this point.
20:14 <ScottK> As an archive admin, leaving it ambiguous is bothersome.
20:14 <cjwatson> Do we have archive admins who disagree?
20:14 <ScottK> I thought we had a clear policy along the lines of what cjwatson suggests and I'd like to not leave it at DUNNO.
20:15 <cjwatson> Oh, Dave is an archive admin, isn't he
20:15 <ScottK> Yes.
20:15 <stgraber> I certainly agree with cjwatson on this and would be happy to make it policy if that makes things simpler for everyone (and we have consensus on this, at least for the TB if not TB+archive-admin)
20:15 <kees> ScottK: since several TB folks are missing currently, can you take this to the mailing list and rephrase it from the perspective of needing an official stance for archive-admin purposes?
20:16 <cjwatson> If people disagree, I would appreciate it if they actually went to the trouble to refute my analysis ...
20:16 <ScottK> kees: I can do that.
20:16 <kees> cjwatson: I'll see if I can refute it. you make it hard, though. :)
20:18 <kees> okay, so anything else? otherwise, I think it's to mdz next meeting to chair (nick-alpha order)?
20:20 <soren> I have nothing else.
20:20 <kees> okay, thanks!
20:20 <kees> #endmeeting