20:03 <cyphermox> #startmeeting Ubuntu Technical Board
20:03 <meetingology> Meeting started at 20:03:47 UTC.  The chair is cyphermox.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
20:03 <rbasak> Sure
20:03 <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
20:03 <rbasak> I was just looking up previous action items
20:04 <cyphermox> #chairs cyphermox rbasak
20:04 <rbasak> I think everything was carried
20:04 <cyphermox> probably
20:04 <rbasak> And I also had "
20:04 <rbasak> rbasak will send out the private removal emails
20:04 <rbasak> "
20:04 <rbasak> which I've done
20:04 <cyphermox> thanks :)
20:04 <cyphermox> #topic Action Review
20:05 * cyphermox formal ratification of third party seeded snap security policy, depends on: (rbasak, 19:06)
20:05 <rbasak> I think we were going to collapse this all into the ongoing (pad) discussion on seeded snap requirements, but I failed to update the agenda
20:08 <cyphermox> ok
20:08 <cyphermox> so carry?
20:09 <cyphermox> no longer double-booked.
20:09 <sil2100> I'd say yes
20:09 * cyphermox vorlon to circle around with store, snapcraft, et all, and revise the snap source revision policy to be more clear with regards to rebuildability and GPL compliance. (rbasak, 19:06)
20:09 <vorlon> carry-over
20:10 <vorlon> (I think at this point it makes sense for the above to be dependent on finalizing the ratification of the policy)
20:10 <cyphermox> I agree, I'll update the agenda to that effect
20:10 * cyphermox sil2100 to start a draft summarizing the OEM archive portion of the meeting which x-nox and TB will review, edit, and ratify before we move on to figuring out the next step (rbasak, 19:08)
20:10 <sil2100> Yes, so the draft is started, but still not finished!
20:11 <cyphermox> alright, thanks sil2100 :)
20:11 <sil2100> So carry over please ;)
20:11 <sil2100> (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OEMArchive for the record)
20:11 * cyphermox Review and leave feedback on the first version of the preamble and three first requirements https://pad.ubuntu.com/third-party-repository-requirements (all of the TB) (sil2100, 20:09)
20:12 <cyphermox> I had left my feedback months ago
20:13 <sil2100> hmmm, yeah, I didn't leave my comment on the actual preamble
20:13 <sil2100> Well, it's about the formal preamble, that's quite new
20:13 <cyphermox> I'll re-review for myself too
20:13 * cyphermox Discuss DMB inactivity expiration policy (all of the TB) (sil2100, 20:27)
20:13 <rbasak> cyphermox: yes, but I'd like more feedback please now that I've actually started drafting the proposed final wording after having gathered everyone's opinions
20:13 <sil2100> We were working on the rules themselves, but then rbasak started working on the actual wording - I need to sit down on that
20:13 <cyphermox> oops sorry
20:13 <vorlon> arewe continuing on using a pad for this, vs perhaps moving it to a google doc?
20:14 <cyphermox> +1 for a Google doc, if we're doing final wording
20:14 <rbasak> I'm happy to move it to a Google Doc if you all think it's worth doing that. I used the pad because I thought it'd be more open, but it turns out to be really hard to use the pad effectively
20:14 <rbasak> OK I'll do that thanks
20:15 <cyphermox> ok, what about the DMB inactivity policy?
20:15 <cyphermox> and perhaps, TB inactivity, since I was so kind to just disappear for three months myself :/
20:16 <rbasak> That's resolved for the current situation, but longer term I think the TB needs to decide what to do if the situation recurs
20:16 <cyphermox> ok
20:16 <rbasak> That's not urgent though.
20:18 <cyphermox> should we discuss it now, or take that back to the mL?
20:18 <rbasak> We need someone to drive it on the ML :-/
20:18 <rbasak> (IMHO)
20:20 <cyphermox> yep
20:22 <rbasak> Or, it gets left until it actually comes up I guess.
20:23 <cyphermox> ok
20:25 <sil2100> +1
20:26 <cyphermox> alright. that's a drop then, for all intents and purposes
20:26 <sil2100> I still think the retention policy is a good idea
20:26 <cyphermox> postpone until it comes up
20:26 <cyphermox> ah
20:27 <rbasak> FTR, I basically agree with what the DMB wants to do. I think we just need to refine the detail about the interaction between the DMB and the TB to actually do the removal, and communicate with the DMB members being removed, etc.
20:27 <vorlon> sil2100: does that mean you want to drive the discussion on the list?
20:27 <sil2100> vorlon: eh, I'm worried that I have so many DMB + the TB action that it might not be driven to completion
20:27 <sil2100> I would love to, since I think this policy will be helpful
20:28 <vorlon> I agree that it would be helpful but am wary of committing myself to driving it
20:28 <rbasak> I think, given recent events, it would be best if I didn't drive this one.
20:28 <rbasak> (but I will provide input, etc)
20:28 <sil2100> Ok, so maybe please assign it to me and if I can't make it by the next meeting, we'll try finding someone else
20:31 <cyphermox> alright
20:31 <sil2100> Thanks o/
20:31 <cyphermox> (sil2100) Discuss if the membership to ~ubuntu-archive should be managed by the Technical Board, and if yes: consider new timezone-diverse additions to the team (i.e. bdmurray).
20:32 <rbasak> I thought ~ubuntu-archive managed their own membership, and various existing members were added that way?
20:33 <sil2100> Yeah, I think that's correct, I think the action item is invalid!
20:33 <cyphermox> err okay :P
20:33 <sil2100> Sorry about that ;p
20:33 <cyphermox> moving on
20:33 <rbasak> OK
20:33 <cyphermox> Definition of our third party repository policy. See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2021-July/002562.html and https://pad.ubuntu.com/third-party-repository-requirements
20:34 <rbasak> To be clear, if members of ~ubuntu-archive want to change things, then consulting with the TB is probably worthwhile.
20:34 <rbasak> But unless there's some reason we'd probably leave it as-is
20:34 <sil2100> Sure, but I think that's all up to the ubuntu-archive admins - I think as of right now there is no actions required
20:35 <sil2100> *action
20:35 <rbasak> OK
20:36 <rbasak> On the pad, I'll take the action to move it to a Google Doc then, update everyone on the TB with the link and ask for further feedback there.
20:36 <cyphermox> yes
20:37 <rbasak> I don't think there's anything else on this, except to say that I really want to make progress on this and need to know that you're happy with the direction it's going in since I'll need the final wording to be agreed later.
20:39 <cyphermox> #topic Mailing list review
20:39 <sil2100> Not sure if this is the right moment to bring this up:
20:39 <cyphermox> there was only one email there, not sure if it had been actioned yet, DMB allow
20:40 <sil2100> But there was the e-mail from Marc?
20:41 <sil2100> Should we think about starting an election?
20:41 <cyphermox> yeah, I suppose there is that too
20:41 <rbasak> We need the CC to do that I think.
20:41 <vorlon> cyphermox: do you want to give us a gmail address for you to use for the google doc?  I think that will make comment etc. tracking saner so it's not accidentally "anonymous"
20:41 <rbasak> At least that's what's happened in the past.
20:41 <cyphermox> vorlon: I will share it, yes
20:41 <rbasak> Unless you want to do like the DMB and have us run the TB election admin ourselves
20:42 <sil2100> I guess someone will have to take the AI to contact the CC in that case
20:42 <vorlon> historically it's been the CC
20:42 <cyphermox> I will take that action
20:42 <rbasak> Thanks!
20:42 <vorlon> I'm doing the best I can to refer election management either up or down so I don't have to do it ;-)
20:42 <cyphermox> I will contact the CC to trigger the election
20:43 <rbasak> Now that I've done the DMB one twice I've got the process in my head and don't mind doing it. But it'd probably be better if the CC can.
20:43 <cyphermox> #topic Check up on community bugs
20:43 <cyphermox> there are no open bugs
20:43 <sil2100> \o/
20:43 <cyphermox> #topic Select a chair for the next meeting
20:43 <rbasak> One AOB item please
20:43 <cyphermox> sure
20:44 <cyphermox> rbasak, it's your turn next to chair I think?
20:44 <rbasak> I chaired last week! But sure.
20:44 <rbasak> Uh, last time - two weeks ago.
20:44 <cyphermox> unless someone wants to save you
20:44 <rbasak> I don't mind.
20:44 <cyphermox> if I'm not double-booked I can do it again
20:44 <cyphermox> okay, moving on
20:44 <cyphermox> #topic AOB
20:45 <rbasak> Is everyone happy with my response on the question of DMB nomination eligibility?
20:45 <rbasak> It wasn't my intention to speak for the TB but it seems to have been taken that way.
20:46 <rbasak> (I also fail to see how asking the TB for a vote is any different to asking the DMB for a vote in terms of "formality" but there you go)
20:48 <vorlon> I'm trying to skim the mailing list thread quickly, since I don't remember this
20:48 <rbasak> Today on ubuntu-devel@
20:48 <vorlon> the old one on tech-board
20:48 <rbasak> Oh right sorry
20:49 <vorlon> giving the timing I can well understand why I personally didn't reply to it :)
20:50 <vorlon> I agree that ~ubuntu-sru-developers is narrower than what we expect DMB to assess and therefore isn't a good fit
20:50 <vorlon> also wonder why anyone on the ~ubuntu-sru-developers team who was actually interested in running for DMB wouldn't also just get core-dev first
20:51 <vorlon> I would be fine to vote on this if necessary
20:51 <sil2100> btw. do we have this documented somewhere besides the ML?
20:51 <sil2100> Like, who can actually be nominated for a seat for the DMB
20:52 <rbasak> Following that ML post, I put it in my call for nominations
20:53 <rbasak> Additionally I wrote it up in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperMembershipBoard/KnowledgeBase#Running_a_DMB_election - not specifically the rule, but it does link to my call for nomination email as an example to use as a basis.
20:53 <sil2100> Ah, ok!
20:53 <sil2100> Noted ;)
20:53 <rbasak> I can document the rule explicitly there if you think it'd be helpful.
20:55 <rbasak> vorlon: thanks, but also, are you happy with the position that it's for the TB to decide eligbility and not the DMB? That's what ddstreet seems to be complaining about as "all this formality". I don't see any other reasonable option though.
20:55 <rbasak> (and same question to the others)
20:57 <vorlon> rbasak: yes, TB should decide this, not DMB
20:58 <rbasak> Does anyone on the TB want to support any change to the status quo?
20:58 <rbasak> If not then I'm done - thank you for clarifying.
20:58 <sil2100> hm, it's hard to say from my POV, I don't have a strong opinion. But I think that since the TB does manage the DMB membership (besides the fact of startin elections), I think it makes sense to assume that the TB is the one setting the base rules
20:58 <rbasak> I wanted to make sure that this is handled openly since I'm dancing a fine line of ensuring that the election is done properly :-/
20:59 <sil2100> But as said, I'm of no strong opinion here
21:06 <cyphermox> okay, so do we need a vote or do we already have consensus on the topic?
21:07 <rbasak> I don't think anyone has called for a vote here.
21:07 <rbasak> So I think we're good. Thanks!
21:07 <sil2100> o/
21:08 <rbasak> Does that mean "I'd like to raise something" or "bye"? :)
21:08 <cyphermox> haha
21:08 <sil2100> ...that is a bit confusing, yes! But the latter ;)
21:09 <cyphermox> alrighty then, any other other business?
21:09 <cyphermox> #endmeeting