19:15 #startmeeting DMB 19:15 Meeting started Mon Feb 27 19:15:02 2017 UTC. The chair is rbasak. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 19:15 19:15 Available commands: action commands idea info link nick 19:15 #topic Review of previous action items 19:15 o/ 19:15 cyphermox to handle Sean Davis' xfdashboard packageset request 19:15 cyphermox to refresh Kubuntu packageset 19:15 cyphermox: I think both of those are done? 19:15 both still todo, hopefully I can get to them later 19:15 Oh, OK. 19:16 for now I'm fighting maas here. 19:16 #action cyphermox to handle Sean Davis' xfdashboard packageset request (carried over) 19:16 * meetingology cyphermox to handle Sean Davis' xfdashboard packageset request (carried over) 19:16 #action cyphermox to refresh Kubuntu packageset (carried over) 19:16 * meetingology cyphermox to refresh Kubuntu packageset (carried over) 19:16 #topic Ubuntu Contributing Developer Applications 19:16 #subtopic Ross Gammon (rosco2) 19:16 Rosco2: hello! 19:16 Hi All 19:17 #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RossGammon/ContributingDeveloperApplication 19:17 I reviewed Ross' previous application earlier. 19:17 Looking for the link 19:18 #link https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2016/08/01/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t15:21 19:19 Does anyone have any further questions for Rosco2? 19:19 I'm wondering what has changed 19:20 I see comments now, but I don't see any uploads past October 19:20 well, his last meeting was in august. 19:21 okay, but 3 uploads since august doesn't seem like enough to show significance. 19:21 3 uploads in 6 months isn't significant and sustained contribution IMHO 19:21 No uploads recently - but some waiting for sponsorship 19:22 I'm not saying it necessarily meets the guidelines, just that there exists uploads since last review. 19:23 Rosco2: you're also already an Ubuntu member, so this status won't confer any additional rights 19:23 Rosco2: have you had any other development activity you can call out apart from uploads and uploads pending sponsorship? 19:24 Well this year so far in Ubuntu has mainly been about releases 19:24 Not that Contributing dev isn't a nice badge of honor as well, but just wanted to point that out 19:24 I have been ISO testing for point releases & Zesty Beta 1 19:25 I see 15 uploads in all and two in the sponsorship queue. 19:25 Latest thing in the sponsorship queue is dated 21 Feb 19:25 There are also a few backports that have gone stale that I need to get back to 19:27 Any other questions for Rosco2? 19:28 #vote Grant Rosco2 Contributing Developer 19:28 Please vote on: Grant Rosco2 Contributing Developer 19:28 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname) 19:28 +1 19:28 +1 received from rbasak 19:28 +1 19:28 +1 received from micahg_mobile 19:29 I think the number of uploads, even if over a long period of time and not very dense currently, adds up to significant enough. I appreciate your contributions. 19:29 Especially as Set, Timo and Daniel all appear happy with your work. 19:29 Ditto 19:29 thanks 19:30 +12 19:30 +12 received from cyphermox 19:30 ugh 19:30 +1, obviously. 19:30 +1, obviously. received from cyphermox 19:30 I guess I don't need to vote then 19:30 but I will anyway 19:30 +1 19:30 +1 received from bdmurray 19:30 #endvote 19:30 Voting ended on: Grant Rosco2 Contributing Developer 19:30 Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 19:30 Motion carried 19:31 Congratulations Rosco2 and thank you for your contributions. 19:31 Can someone volunteer to sort that and announce it please? 19:31 Your'e welcome. Tanks for your time everyone 19:32 #action rbasak to add Rosco2 to the contributing developer team 19:32 * meetingology rbasak to add Rosco2 to the contributing developer team 19:32 #action rbasak to announce Rosco2's new contributing developer team membership 19:32 * meetingology rbasak to announce Rosco2's new contributing developer team membership 19:32 #topic SRU uploader proposal 19:32 #link https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2017-February/039690.html 19:32 My position is a +1 already obviously. 19:33 rbasak: Do you expect people to already have some upload rights before applying to this new team? If so what kind? 19:33 To the other board members: opinions? Objections? Anything I can address before a vote? 19:33 bdmurray: no, I expect new members of this team to be uploading directly for the first time by joining it. 19:34 rbasak that's why it's a great idea ^^ 19:34 Right, as a stepping stone. 19:34 rbasak: directly uploading for the first time to main / restricted? 19:34 bdmurry: yes. But in stable releases only, for things that meet SRU policy only. 19:34 rbasak: as a member of the security team but not core-dev I've got similar privileges; it's a bit strange to have privileges to push updates to ~25M machines but not to check in changes to -devel. But it'd be far more annoying to have to go through patch piloting for every change.. 19:34 bdmurray sorry :) 19:35 Sarnold, that was a loophole I meant to address several years ago :) 19:35 micahg_mobile :) 19:35 I guess I have concerns as an SRU team member about keeping up with the volume of reviews. Its some what challenging as it is. 19:36 bdmurray: I do expect the DMB to grant this only to applicants who have shown that they understand SRU policy and procedure by having a good track record of doing these things. And there would be a second sanity check through the SRU team anyway. But if there's any concern that an applicant will bother the SRU team, I'd expect that application to be refused. 19:36 bdmurray.. .ubuntu-sru team would still have to approve the upload. 19:36 bdmurray: it would be the same amount since our case load wouldn't change 19:36 tinoco: its not just a team for you though, anybody could apply to join it. 19:36 bdmurray: it might also be reasonable to expect endorsements for the SRU team and refuse an application if there aren't any. I hadn't considered that before. 19:36 Bdmurray: I brought that up at the last meeting and was told the load would be the same 19:37 micahg_mobile: yeah that's MHO. 19:37 you can control the load with the amount of people you approve. controlling bottleneck in the sru team if needed. 19:37 I don't see any reason why this would open the floodgates to the SRU team. 19:38 I can forsee such a case :) 19:38 Currently the demand comes from Canonical STS who are getting their SRU requests sponsosred anyway 19:39 Uploads under this scheme would either be acceptable to the SRU team, or not. 19:39 If they're acceptable, then we should be taking them and growing the SRU team even if it does increase workload. Why should we be turning down good SRU contributions? 19:39 I don't think saying "we can't have more people in the team because the SRU team is overloaded" is fair 19:39 If they're not acceptable, then I'm proposing that we don't grant membership of this team to such applicants. 19:39 Yeah, but once we compress the feedback window by eliminating sponsorship, there's the potential to start throwing more fixes in 19:40 micahg_mobile: that's true, but that's a good thing surely? 19:40 Will there be a way for an SRU team member to request removal of somebody from the team? 19:40 bdmurray: who do you think is saying that? 19:41 request removal> I'm not sure the DMB has ever had to do that before, but if it came up, it would presumably be the DMB who would handle it. 19:41 (and I think we have the remit) 19:41 tinoco said "you can control the load with the amount of people you approve" 19:41 Ah, OK. 19:41 bdmurray: totally agree on what you are saying 19:42 I'd take a request to have someone removed from any uploading team quite seriously. 19:42 If there is a way for the SRU team to get people removed I'd feel better. Although the SRU team would need a way to keep track of rejections I guess. 19:42 And perhaps the DMB should deal with that in private or something. 19:43 But given the SRU team have to review everything anyway, it would make no sense for the DMB to refuse to remove someone the SRU team want removed. 19:43 So how about: 19:44 1) We expect SRU team endorsement on any application. 19:44 2) The SRU team can ask for any SRU uploader to be removed. 19:44 s/expect/require/ if you prefer. 19:45 Whether the SRU team think any single SRU team member should be able to request removal, or it needs a majority, or what, could perhaps be entirely up to them. 19:46 By "can ask for" I mean "the DMB will do it". 19:46 It should be either a majority of the SRU team or DMB votes (or both) 19:47 The SRU team is rather large so majority seems like a lot to me. 19:47 Ok, I just want some checks here 19:47 Taking off my SRU team hat for a moment, I was thinking of leaving how they want to resolve their decision as up to them. 19:48 DMB vote is fine even if 1 person requests the DMB to review 19:49 Let me write this down: http://pad.ubuntu.com/m9xRiL8pyP 19:52 How does that look? Does that cover all options that have been proposed? 19:53 I don't think "requires" SRU team member endorsement is necessary. SRU sponsor would be fine. Its harder to find the SRU accepter than it is the SRU sponsor. 19:54 As an SRU team member I don't recall good uploads rather its the rejects I remember more. 19:55 I'd also like to see members of this ubuntu-sru-uploaders team not leave stuff languishing in -proposed. 19:55 The pending-sru report is full of sadness. 19:56 bdmurray, most of our work in STS requires to SRU to be Fix Release before we close the support ticket with customer 19:56 so it won't be a problem for us 19:57 bdmurray, so that's an additional permission bit... promotion from -proposed -> -updates... are you proposing that ubuntu-sru-uploader have those rights? 19:57 chiluk: No, I'm saying verify your uploads if nobody else does. 19:57 chiluk: i believe he said for us to verify things more quickly. 19:58 chiluk, I think he is talking about the verification-done step 19:58 I agree with bdmurray on the endoresements piece 19:58 And rbasak on how a member should be removed 19:59 bdmurray,rbasak, Does this potential sru-uploader team would be able to nominate bugs for release without approval ? 19:59 slashd: I think that's a separate issue. 19:59 rbasak, ack 19:59 And doesn't really fall under the DMB. 20:00 It's a bug squad/bug control thing. 20:00 ok, disregard my last comment then 20:00 We should still address that, but not at the DMB. 20:00 rbasak: it might just work with the acl 20:00 I'm hoping so :) 20:01 cyphermox: opinions? 20:01 rbasak, i'm part of both bug control and bug squad teams, and don't have permission to approve nominated releases... 20:01 chiluk: I'm aware :) 20:01 rbasak do you know what team I'm missing? 20:01 chiluk: I believe you get it if you can upload the package. 20:01 But let's talk about that another time. 20:02 Back to the pad 20:02 For joining, I'm happy to not require 2 either. 20:02 upload the package or member of a special ubuntu-release-nominators team 20:03 Uploader rights for the package or there are two other teams I think, ubuntu-release and I thought we made one team that didn't have other rights attached to it 20:03 That's it 20:04 bdmurray, micahg_mobile: how does the pad look for you now? Are you comfortable with what we have now? 20:04 Can we resolve line 1? 20:04 Good point. 20:05 I'm happy either way. 20:05 Yeah, I think it is fine 20:05 I guess that means I say "expected". 20:06 But if someone wants to tighten it to "requires" I'm fine with that. 20:06 That's what I expect 20:06 Now that's a confusing statement :-) 20:06 You expect someone to tigthen it to "requires"? :-P 20:06 I expect it to say excpet not requires 20:07 OK I'll change it. 20:07 And let me take out 2, since we seem to have some consensus it isn't required. 20:09 cyphermox: ? 20:10 sorry, I'm busy 20:11 OK 20:12 micahg_mobile, bdmurray: are you +1 on the current pad? 20:12 yes 20:13 Yes 20:13 Great, thanks! I guess there's no need for a formal meetingology vote for the sake of it. 20:13 We'll need one more +1. 20:13 Shall we move on and let the others vote offline? 20:14 I will copy the pad, clean up and post it to the thread. 20:14 Rbasak: Shows up in the meeting logs as a vote :) 20:14 #topic Expiring DMB members 20:15 Can we change members to membership please? 20:15 micahg_mobile: you mean line 11 20:15 ? 20:15 Current topic :) 20:16 #topic Expiring DMB membership 20:16 cyphermox pointed out that his membership expires soon 20:16 2015-03-02 20:16 yep, in 4 days 20:16 FWIW, +1 on the SRU proposal from me 20:16 Oh great, thanks. Then it's done :) 20:16 \o/ 20:17 s/2015-03-02/2017-03-01/ 20:17 ... or less than four days 20:17 Yeah, so we need to organise nominations and a vote for cyphermox's seat, right? 20:17 cyphermox: are you intending to stand again? 20:17 I think the first thing would be to ask the TB to extend cyphermox's membership 4 weeks so we can hold an election 20:17 rbasak: I'm not sure. 20:18 micahg_mobile: that sounds reasonable. Everyone happy with that? 20:18 +1 for the extension 20:18 Doesn't Adam expire this year too? 20:19 #agreed The DMB will ask the TB to extend cyphermox's membership 4 weeks so we can hold an election 20:19 Yes, 2017-08-03 20:19 Should we hold an election early for that seat too, or wait? 20:19 ask infinity? 20:19 I guess it is 5 months 20:19 His membership expires in August, we could seek 2 now and have the second one's term start in August 20:20 I'm fine either way 20:20 Also, would it be an idea to adjust term lengths to get those two seats lined up? 20:20 Are we excluding anybody by holding the election early? 20:20 Just to save admin in the future. I don't think anyone will care about the length adjustments, will they? 20:21 18 months or so for the second one I guess 20:22 Yeah that sounds right 20:22 OK so two things 20:23 1) Hold an election for infinity's seat now, together with cyphermox's seat. 20:23 2) Shorten infinity's seat's next term to coincide expiry with cyphermox's seat's next term. 20:24 Presumably we'd hold the usual ranked CIVS thing and give the top result the longer immediate seat, and the second result the shorter delayed seat? 20:24 Everyone happy with that? 20:24 0) ask for extension for cyphermox 20:25 Yep 20:25 * rbasak minuted that already :) 20:25 I thought that was uncontroversial :) 20:26 okay 20:26 cyphermox? micahg_mobile? 20:27 heh, either way is fine by me 20:29 rbasak, with regard to the sru-uploader team ... what are the next steps ? Do you guys need more votes or we can already say it is officially approved ? 20:32 and when do you think ppl can start applying for this new team ? 20:33 slashd: I'll sort it on the mailing list afterwards. 20:33 rbasak perfect, tks 20:33 tks all for your time about this subject 20:35 Rbasak, I'm good with that 20:36 Great, thanks! 20:36 Any volunteers to sort it out? 20:38 which thing? 20:38 If its the SRU team thing could we break up the tasks? 20:38 The three things - extending cyphermox's term, organising the vote, announcing the adjustment of terms, etc. 20:39 I'm happy to take sorting out the SRU team thing. 20:39 I guess we can't make cyphermox do it 20:39 So I'll do it 20:40 Thank you! 20:41 #action bdmurray to sort out votes and related items in respect of the two upcoming expiring DMB memberships 20:41 * meetingology bdmurray to sort out votes and related items in respect of the two upcoming expiring DMB memberships 20:41 #action rbasak to sort out the SRU uploaders team 20:41 * meetingology rbasak to sort out the SRU uploaders team 20:41 #topic Any other business 20:41 Anything else to raise? 20:41 rbasak.. my core dev application status? 20:41 Let me check. 20:42 thanks. 20:42 I may have replied privately not publicly. 20:43 So there was no vote from anyone at the IRC meeting, correct? 20:44 rbasak not that I recall ... 20:44 I'm sorry, I thought that was addressed in the last meeting, but I don't remember the conclusion 20:45 I count +1s from sil2100, BenC and cyphermox. 20:46 bdmurray: I don't see a private or public vote from you, nor from Adam. 20:46 rbasak: looking 20:46 And I had deferred for the ~ubuntu-sru-uploader topic. Now that is resolved, I need to look again, but I suspect the reason I did that was because I felt that would be more appropriate. 20:46 But I'll give myself an action to look again properly. 20:47 I see a sent mail about it 20:49 #action rbasak to vote on chiluk's core dev application 20:49 * meetingology rbasak to vote on chiluk's core dev application 20:49 resent it 20:50 Ah 20:50 I see it. 20:50 In that case, I don't need to do anything :) 20:50 #undo 20:50 Removing item from minutes: ACTION 20:50 chiluk: congratulations :) 20:50 WOOHOO! 20:50 thanks guys. 20:51 Now this one we _can_ give to cyphermox :-) 20:51 #action cyphermox to add chiluk's core dev membership 20:51 * meetingology cyphermox to add chiluk's core dev membership 20:51 #action cyphermox to announce chiluk's core dev membership 20:51 * meetingology cyphermox to announce chiluk's core dev membership 20:51 cyphermox: seems only fair as bdmurray is handling your seat :-) 20:51 OK. AOAOB? 20:52 I guess we're done then! 20:52 Thank you all for your patience. Long meeting! 20:52 #endmeeting