== Meeting information == * #ubuntu-meeting: technical board meeting, started by mwhudson, 09 Sep at 19:03 — 19:39 UTC. * Full logs at https://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2025/ubuntu-meeting.2025-09-09-19.03.log.html == Meeting summary == === action review === Discussion started by mwhudson at 19:03. * '''mwhudson to handle RT ticket to IS to set riscv64 status as official for Questing onward''' (mwhudson, 19:04) * '''rbasak to follow up on ML thread regarding riscv64 'official' status / TB definition of what the 'official' designation/flag means.''' (mwhudson, 19:05) * ''LINK:'' https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2025-August/003046.html (rbasak, 19:06) * '''teward to follow up with "who can vote" and documentation at https://ubuntu.com/community/governance/technical-board with the CC (carried over)''' (mwhudson, 19:15) * '''seb128 to continue working with AA and Release teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations''' (mwhudson, 19:16) * '''(unassigned, needs a driver) Future action item: require a notification to either ubuntu-devel@ or Discourse when we're there for new Ubuntu-only packages regardless of target pocket.''' (mwhudson, 19:18) * ''ACTION:'' seb128 to discuss requiring email to ubuntu-devel before ubuntu-only package introduction idea with AAs (mwhudson, 19:34) === Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item) === Discussion started by mwhudson at 19:34. === Check up on community bugs and techboard bugs (standing item) === Discussion started by mwhudson at 19:35. * ''ACTION:'' Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members) (mwhudson, 19:35) === Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members) === Discussion started by mwhudson at 19:36. * ''AGREED:'' teward to chair, seb128 back up (mwhudson, 19:37) === AOB === Discussion started by mwhudson at 19:37. * ''AGREED:'' actually seb128 to chair, teward as back up (mwhudson, 19:39) == Action items, by person == * seb128 * seb128 to discuss requiring email to ubuntu-devel before ubuntu-only package introduction idea with AAs * **UNASSIGNED** * Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members) == People present (lines said) == * mwhudson (54) * seb128 (31) * rbasak (26) * teward (22) * meetingology (6) * doko (4) == Full log == 19:03 #startmeeting technical board 19:03 Meeting started at 19:03:30 UTC. The chair is mwhudson. Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology 19:03 Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick 19:03 #topic action review 19:04 #subtopic mwhudson to handle RT ticket to IS to set riscv64 status as official for Questing onward 19:04 this is done! hooray 19:04 next two look kind of redundant 19:05 oh maybe not 19:05 #subtopic rbasak to follow up on ML thread regarding riscv64 'official' status / TB definition of what the 'official' designation/flag means. 19:05 they're similar but not exactly the same 19:05 rbasak: i don't think this really happened? 19:06 I did email the thread 19:06 https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2025-August/003046.html 19:06 oh yes you did 19:07 i guess the intent behind this thing is to codify what we thing official means in a more generalized sense 19:07 do we think that has been done? 19:08 because the next item is "rbasak to follow up in ML thread on "official" flag and riscv64 official status" and for sure that has been done 19:08 one sec 19:11 ok back 19:11 Oh, OK. I didn't interpret the action item to mean that we wanted more general documentation on this. 19:11 If that's what you mean? 19:12 well i don't remember why we have to actions in the agenda, honestly 19:12 *two 19:12 i think i am happy to draw a line under all this for now and no further action required 19:12 I think it's fine as it is, tbh 19:12 +1 19:12 seb128, teward: thoughts? 19:12 (I don't think that every TB decision needs separate documentation; this is a fairly minor thing) 19:14 I missed a few meetings due to holidays and I'm also unsure to understand why there was another action item there... 19:15 I'm happy to just move on for now, doesn't look like any action is really needed 19:15 let's move on 19:15 #subtopic teward to follow up with "who can vote" and documentation at https://ubuntu.com/community/governance/technical-board with the CC (carried over) 19:15 @seb128 there were action items added because we didn't have you here and came to conclusions 19:15 with quorum 19:15 to get it all handled because it was reraised as an issue 19:15 mwhudson: carry over 19:15 ah ok 19:16 teward: ack 19:16 thx 19:16 #subtopic seb128 to continue working with AA and Release teams to document their membership process and link to it from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard#Team_Delegations 19:16 that one ^^ however is still yours :P 19:17 yes, carry over, we are making progress with processes and documentation but not there yet 19:17 ack 19:18 #subtopic (unassigned, needs a driver) Future action item: require a notification to either ubuntu-devel@ or Discourse when we're there for new Ubuntu-only packages regardless of target pocket. 19:19 i think that'll still need a driver but it was listed as a future action item if someone wanted to take it, i don't think it's a *mandatory* item at this point but would be a nice to have 19:19 is that having Debian ITP style annonces made mandatory for Ubuntu? 19:19 i'm guessing noone is champing at the bit to take this on 19:19 seb128: yes 19:19 mwhudson: yeah i'm definitely not 19:19 is that really a thing for the TB to decide/enforce? 19:19 seb128: that came from one of rbasak's "I'd like to see..." things 19:20 I think that is a good practice and we should encourage it, unsure if that needs to be a requirement though... 19:20 i forget all the specific context around it 19:20 IMHO, there have been various inappropriate new packages introduced into Ubuntu in the past year or two, which only get flagged after the fact 19:20 seb128: it feels like it probably is, this kind of policy is our remit isn't it? 19:20 isn't that an AA issue if those go through NEW though? 19:20 I feel like it's more an AA topic 19:20 AAs aren't reviewing for package appropriateness, AFAIK 19:20 I'm happy to take it for discussion with the AA team 19:21 they do gate things to enter in the archive so maybe they should? 19:21 ok that would be good i guess 19:21 AAs should do these checks for source packages, licenses, etc, 19:21 the AA team are definitely on the enforcement side of this, not sure about policy side 19:21 do you have an example of "inappropriate" 19:22 See for example bug 2103602 19:22 if you're going to discuss things with the AA, remind them to **triple check** before just removing a package without notifying flavor teams when things're seeded. ongoing issue with things (and we decided I think to gently nudge the AAs about that stuff) 19:22 just adding notes ;) 19:23 ack 19:23 Apparently nobody reviewed this from a "what's wrong with add-apt-repository" perspective (which already integrates various classes of other common repositories, such as the Canonical Cloud Archive) 19:23 We do need someone in charge of those decisions though 19:24 Because even if those are announced and problems discussed on e.g -devel, what at the end if the uploader doesn't change their mind? 19:24 linux-mtk is another example, which was added to Jammy but not to newer releases, in contradition to SRU policy and the principle that hardware enablements should always be backports. 19:24 well this seems more a failure of aa review, would an announcement have really helped? 19:25 rbasak: well, that would be responsibility of the SRU team 19:25 mwhudson: which example? 19:25 doko: the SRU team doesn't review kernel packages 19:25 rbasak: add-nvidia-repositories 19:26 mwhudson: OK, so in that example, I think there would have been much more opportunity to say "why not add-apt-repository" and then we would have had that discussion. I'd have probably brought it up. 19:26 My understanding is that new packages in Ubuntu are rare, so it shouldn't be much of a problem to have the opportunity to collectively discuss them. 19:28 i certainly have no problem with the general idea 19:28 where NEW is specific to Ubuntu and not NEW via autosyncs you mean 19:28 just to clarify ;) 19:28 seb128: if the discussion results in a clear lack of consensus, then the uploader isn't allowed to upload. They can only act by consensus, or escalate to a responsible team. 19:28 I think it's fine to at least recommend emailing devel for new packages 19:29 teward: right 19:29 there is no NEW for debian source imports 19:29 doko: yeah stuff coming via debian is not the topic here 19:29 there is no review, they are gated by the the NEW queue though 19:29 Also there are probably routine things like versioned toolchain source packages that can probably be skipped 19:30 yes, same as we do for MIR 19:30 No need to announce the use of an existing established pattern 19:31 so do we consider that a topic for the TB to decide on? 19:31 Maybe we should ask the AAs opinion first 19:31 and if so we want to decide on recommended vs mandatory here/now? 19:31 seb128: imo yes 19:32 or what rbasak says :) 19:32 But apart from that, yes :) 19:32 I do plan to bring that topic to our weekly AA sync meeting in any case 19:32 Thanks :) 19:32 and I'm happy to own getting the Ubuntu Documentation updated to include the outcome 19:32 do we postpone to next time to wait for the AA team opinion? 19:32 +1 19:32 I mean, we already have source packages in NEW waiting for several weeks ... I'm justd afraid that situation gets worse 19:32 yeah 19:33 doko: I'm deliberately not asking for anyone to have to wait for agreement. It wouldn't block anything 19:33 something like "seb128 to discuss requiring email to ubuntu-devel before ubuntu-only package introduction idea with AAs"? 19:33 doko, we are not speaking about reviewing Debian imports. Having a pre-discussion on devel shouldn't make a difference on review time, it might help to catch problems ahead and reduce review load 19:34 mwhudson, +1 19:34 #action seb128 to discuss requiring email to ubuntu-devel before ubuntu-only package introduction idea with AAs 19:34 * meetingology seb128 to discuss requiring email to ubuntu-devel before ubuntu-only package introduction idea with AAs 19:34 #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item) 19:34 i don't think there is anything 19:35 #topic Check up on community bugs and techboard bugs (standing item) 19:35 also nothing afaik 19:35 #action Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members) 19:35 * meetingology Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members) 19:36 bah 19:36 #topic Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members) 19:36 iirc it's teward's turn. who should be backup? 19:37 I missed my turn in the weeks I was off so probably fair if it's me 19:37 ok 19:37 #agreed teward to chair, seb128 back up 19:37 AGREED: teward to chair, seb128 back up 19:37 #topic AOB 19:37 wait i thought i chaired last week o.O 19:37 but ok 19:37 i don't have anything today 19:37 teward: oh oops 19:38 Nothing from me thanks 19:38 mwhudson: no worries, just was saying "Meh" 19:38 I can chair the next one, if you know how to undo and update the action :p 19:38 but i'm fine to chair i'm way overdo :) 19:38 no AOB from me either 19:38 @seb128 it's glitchy, so we can just do an #AGREED "Actually smoeone else to chair, teward as backup" or such 19:38 Undo is glitchy :P 19:38 no AOB here 19:39 ack 19:39 more coffee required though :D 19:39 #agreed actually seb128 to chair, teward as back up 19:39 AGREED: actually seb128 to chair, teward as back up 19:39 ok we're done i think 19:39 👍 19:39 #endmeeting Generated by MeetBot 0.4.0 (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)