20:00:47 <h01ger> #startmeeting
20:00:47 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Dec 23 20:00:47 2014 UTC.  The chair is h01ger. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:00:47 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
20:00:51 <h01ger> #chair MoC
20:00:51 <MeetBot> Current chairs: MoC h01ger
20:00:57 <h01ger> #chair intrigeri
20:00:57 <MeetBot> Current chairs: MoC h01ger intrigeri
20:00:58 <intrigeri> hmm, I should read the status update first.
20:01:17 <h01ger> intrigeri: do that while i explain the basics of meetbot
20:02:02 <h01ger> MoC: have a look at http://meetbot.debian.net/apparmor/2014/ - pretty boring :) once you look, i will do something...
20:02:16 <h01ger> s/#once you look#once you looked#
20:02:44 <MoC> h01ger: ok
20:02:51 <h01ger> # topic init - collect agenda
20:02:56 <h01ger> #topic init - collect agenda
20:03:03 <h01ger> #save
20:03:10 <h01ger> look again :)
20:03:27 <MoC> nice
20:03:49 <h01ger> http://meetbot.debian.net/apparmor/2014/apparmor.2014-12-23-20.00.html has all the #info #agreed stuff
20:03:56 <h01ger> #agreed meetbot rocks :)
20:03:58 <h01ger> #save
20:04:22 <h01ger> http://meetbot.debian.net/apparmor/2014/apparmor.2014-12-23-20.00.* is updated at the end of the meeting end on #save
20:04:58 <MoC> do i add an agenda topic by doing the topic command?
20:05:17 <h01ger> no, normally meetbot changes channel topic
20:05:23 <MoC> oh ok
20:06:06 <intrigeri> OK, read the report and had a look at the recent wiki changes.
20:06:12 <MoC> intrigeri: great
20:06:42 <intrigeri> general impression: wow, you're getting up to speed! :)
20:06:48 <MoC> intrigeri: hehehe :)
20:07:00 <h01ger> jmichael_: sbeattie1 sarnold_ kees: could you please set +t so meetbot can change topics or add me to the channel access list, so i can do +t before a meeting and -t after...
20:07:05 <MoC> so how shoudl we structure this meeting?
20:07:20 <h01ger> collecting an agenda, going through the topics :)
20:07:34 <MoC> talk about the documentation i wrote and other done stuff?
20:07:40 <MoC> then todo ? then next meeting?
20:07:44 <h01ger> yup.
20:08:05 <h01ger> status. docs. todo. next meeting. - those 4 ? anything else?
20:08:11 <intrigeri> reports
20:08:15 <MoC> and also define when to send status updates :)
20:08:23 <intrigeri> that's it.
20:08:24 <h01ger> reports is status for me, no?
20:08:31 <MoC> yes
20:08:37 <MoC> well, no
20:08:48 <MoC> current status != status report deadlines?
20:09:06 <intrigeri> that's what I meant with "reports" :)
20:09:11 <MoC> shall we start with the deadline for the reports? this might be the easiest topic
20:09:12 <h01ger> so. 1. current status 2. status report deadlines 3. docs 4. todo 5. next meetings. right?
20:09:28 * h01ger is very fine with switching 1+2 :)
20:09:30 <MoC> ok
20:09:33 <h01ger> more topics?
20:09:49 <intrigeri> nothing I can think of right now.
20:10:03 <h01ger> #agreed 1. status report deadlines 2. current status 3. docs 4. todo 5. next meetings. 6. any other business
20:10:07 <h01ger> #save
20:10:20 <h01ger> #topic status report
20:10:23 <h01ger> sorry
20:10:26 <h01ger> #topic status report deadlines
20:10:36 <MoC> please tell me what's best for you
20:11:21 <intrigeri> I need >= 24h to process the report and be useful at a meeting (as you'll see today, I've not had time to think of any of this yet,
20:11:25 <MoC> how many hours before a meeting do you want the reports or shall i do them every friday?
20:11:26 <intrigeri> no time to follow links etc.)
20:11:45 <intrigeri> but >48h would be meaningless (there's too much new stuff that can happen in the last 48h), probably
20:11:50 <MoC> yes
20:11:52 <intrigeri> so I would say between 24 and 48h.
20:11:57 <MoC> and h01ger?
20:12:04 * h01ger is fine with that
20:12:07 <MoC> ok
20:12:09 <MoC> me too
20:12:13 <intrigeri> but if exceptionally it's 18h or 56h, it's fine too :)
20:12:18 <MoC> :D
20:12:27 <h01ger> its also fine, rather obvious, if the latest stuff is missing then
20:12:34 <h01ger> might give for more interesting updates during the meeting
20:12:41 <MoC> yes
20:12:42 <intrigeri> also, I'd rather see these reports sent to pkg-apparmor-team.
20:12:47 <h01ger> +yes, exceptions rules the world ;)
20:12:58 * h01ger nods intri and public reports
20:13:34 <intrigeri> also, first time we're having a meeting *here*, so to anyone reading:
20:13:55 <intrigeri> that's a mentoring/coordination meeting about MoC's OPW project: https://wiki.debian.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/UlrikeU
20:13:58 <intrigeri> .
20:14:19 <intrigeri> MoC: fine with emailing reports to the list in the future?
20:14:22 <MoC> ok, fine with me
20:14:30 <intrigeri> Cool. next topic, then!
20:14:35 <MoC> i can also send today's one
20:14:55 <intrigeri> MoC: if you want, otherwise no big deal. the future is more important :)
20:15:01 <h01ger> #agreed status reports should (in general) be send >24h in advance to our irc meetings and be send to the pkg-apparmor-team mailinglist.
20:15:01 <MoC> :D
20:15:12 <MoC> #save
20:15:14 <MoC> krkrk
20:15:15 <h01ger> i think re-sending the current/old one is nice
20:15:29 <h01ger> #topic status updates
20:16:18 <h01ger> ulrikes blog is on http://planet.debian.org now :)
20:16:48 <MoC> ok, so the biggest thing i did this week is work on https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/Progress and https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/PackageMaintainers
20:18:02 <MoC> on the blog itself i did simply explain how a profile gets into debian and how to checkout the launchpad profiles and modify them. but i think the doc might need some review.
20:18:09 <intrigeri> [not read the blog posts yet]
20:18:28 <h01ger> MoC: these docs are really great!
20:18:44 <MoC> thanks h01ger
20:18:52 <intrigeri> I'll review it later.
20:18:57 <MoC> great
20:19:13 <MoC> what i am still having a hard time with is defining the usertags
20:19:22 <MoC> or at least propose some
20:19:31 <h01ger> #info usertags still unclear
20:19:33 <h01ger> #save
20:19:39 <MoC> i guess i can take some more time and try to discuss this on the mailing list?
20:19:49 <h01ger> #link https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/Progress
20:19:50 <intrigeri> iirc, last time we agreed that the usertags would follow once we have the user stories.
20:19:56 <MoC> yes
20:19:57 <h01ger> #link https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/PackageMaintainers
20:20:12 <h01ger> #link https://apparmor.451f.org/2014/12/23/how-does-my-apparmor-profile-get-into-debian/
20:20:15 <intrigeri> so I'm happy to discuss this, once we have the user stories drafted and agreed upon.
20:20:20 <intrigeri> (on the list :)
20:20:21 <h01ger> #link https://apparmor.451f.org/2014/12/23/how-to-contribute-to-the-apparmor-upstream-profiles/
20:20:28 <MoC> intrigeri: ack
20:20:31 <h01ger> makes sense
20:20:56 <h01ger> #info usertags should follow once we have the user stories
20:20:58 <h01ger> #save
20:21:04 <intrigeri> MoC: was time the only blocker wrt. working on the user stories, or is there anything else (and especially anything we can help with)?
20:21:15 <MoC> intrigeri: good that you ask!
20:21:21 <MoC> intrigeri: no, time was not the only blocker
20:21:29 <intrigeri> (I understand that doing everything you did was anyway needed first, to get an idea of the big picture)
20:21:44 <MoC> intrigeri: also, i have a hard time imagining more, although i added one story based upon the mysql merge request
20:22:12 * h01ger thinks its ok to just have a few stories now
20:22:25 * intrigeri looking at https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/Progress#User_Stories
20:22:32 <MoC> i started adding some proposals for tags in italic for each story
20:22:37 <intrigeri> ... and really confused by the formatting.
20:22:39 <MoC> but not yet much
20:22:40 <h01ger> hopefully there will be 2-3 more in 3 months, but i dont see 30 stories anytime
20:22:53 <intrigeri> I see, we have 3 stories in there.
20:23:17 <intrigeri> MoC: todo++ fix the formatting of the user stories? :)
20:23:34 <MoC> sure
20:23:48 <intrigeri> cool.
20:23:56 <intrigeri> do we want to discuss the usertag proposals now, then?
20:23:57 <MoC> actually the sub lists are kind of integrated into the doc more or less
20:24:19 <MoC> intrigeri: i'd say yes
20:24:31 <intrigeri> ok, go.
20:24:35 <intrigeri> first is about "When I want to ship an AppArmor profile in "my" package"
20:24:49 <MoC> #action MoC fix user story formatting on https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/Progress#User_Stories
20:24:52 <h01ger> based on the stories i see 1 usertag: "apparmor" ;)
20:25:19 <MoC> h01ger: i have understood that because we have the user pkg-apparmor team, adding apparmor as a tag is not useful
20:25:38 <h01ger> MoC: we need to set some tag
20:25:50 <h01ger> at least one
20:25:52 <intrigeri> h01ger: what part of which user story are you talking of?
20:25:59 <MoC> (cboltz: no PMs please. I will fix your orthographic issue, np)
20:26:18 <h01ger> intrigeri: ok, i see 2 tags now: profile-missing and profile-broken
20:26:30 * intrigeri confused.
20:26:46 <MoC> no, there are 2 profiles
20:26:51 <MoC> new-profile and ux
20:27:10 <MoC> i propose to add "diagnose" - when you need help saignosing if a bug is indeed due to apparmor
20:27:26 <MoC> and we talked about "merge-with-upstream"
20:27:35 <MoC> based on the mysql profile issue
20:27:36 <cboltz> MoC: I wanted to avoid public "blaming" for minor issues in the middle of the meeting ;-) - but if you want everything in public, I'm fine with that
20:27:39 * intrigeri totally confused.
20:27:52 <MoC> intrigeri: about what?
20:27:53 <h01ger> there are 3 stories and now i even/finally see 3 tags: aa-profile-missing, aa-profile-broken and aa-more-info
20:28:17 <intrigeri> MoC: this discussion. the way draft tech solutions are mixed in the middle of user stories.
20:28:34 <MoC> intrigeri: ok, let me fix the formatting first then?
20:28:40 <intrigeri> h01ger: I don't think "aa-" is useful given these are *user*tags set for pkg-apparmor-team.
20:29:09 <intrigeri> MoC: I think so. And please move everything that's not part of these stories (and not properly phrased) outside. Let's keep the solutions elsewhere.
20:29:10 <h01ger> intrigeri: probably you are not confused, but rather we are, and this confuses you. could you re-propose your proposal how to proceed now?
20:29:21 <h01ger> intrigeri: probably, yes. (aa-prefix)
20:29:51 * h01ger waits for the formatting to be done
20:30:04 <MoC> ok done
20:30:40 <h01ger> still one glitch
20:30:42 <intrigeri> thx
20:30:48 <h01ger> +thanks indeed
20:30:49 <MoC> let me fix it better, sorry
20:30:58 <intrigeri> "proposed usertag: merge-with-upstream" is still in the middle.
20:31:23 <intrigeri> and some stories have "As a Debian package maintainer, ", some others not.
20:31:33 <MoC> i was just editing this
20:31:38 <intrigeri> :)
20:32:30 <h01ger> #save
20:32:30 <MoC> so, now i basically put it the exact same way as proposed during the last meeting
20:32:47 <MoC> I added the second one though
20:32:59 <intrigeri> (except we've lost the <br />, but I'll stop now :)
20:33:31 <intrigeri> now, I think we can take each of those and stuff the user stories a bit as needed, and maybe discuss the tech solutions if we have time and feel it can be quick?
20:33:39 <h01ger> #info the user stories should be put into super formalized language, cucumber style, eventually
20:33:59 <intrigeri> anyway. that's a tool. let's now use it :)
20:34:01 <MoC> intrigeri: discuss tech solutions or usertags?
20:34:06 * h01ger thinks this proper language/formatting really helps
20:34:11 <intrigeri> MoC: usertags are one kind of tech solutions :)
20:34:38 <intrigeri> user stories are meant (IMO) to take a step back, think of what "user" experience we want to offer,
20:34:38 <h01ger> wait a second. we are at topic "status updates" and i dont think we are really there anymore...
20:34:45 <intrigeri> and from *there* think about solutions.
20:34:52 <MoC> h01ger: true
20:35:00 <MoC> h01ger: status update is done i guess?
20:35:08 <h01ger> i'm fine with switching topic if there is no more new status
20:35:13 <intrigeri> yep.
20:35:19 <h01ger> #topic user stories
20:35:39 <intrigeri> so, the 1st one is:
20:35:48 <intrigeri> When I want to ship an AppArmor profile in "my" package
20:35:49 <intrigeri> Then I need to be told how to do that
20:35:59 <h01ger> #info intrigeri> user stories are meant (IMO) to take a step back, think of what "user" experience we want to offer, and from *there* think about solutions. usertags are one kind of tech solutions :)
20:36:29 <intrigeri> so,  (as a pkg maintainer) I need to be aware that there are guidelines, doc, and a team to help me, basically, no?
20:36:37 <MoC> intrigeri: yes
20:36:50 <intrigeri> so it requires guidelines, doc, a team, and enough publicity about it.
20:37:00 * h01ger thinks we should discuss one story here in detail and let MoC work out the rest til next meeting?
20:37:02 <intrigeri> MoC is working on the guidelines and doc (\o/)
20:37:37 <MoC> there is a team, yes guidelines and doc are work in progress. publicity: planet?
20:37:39 <intrigeri> h01ger: I'd like to discuss another story that possibly involves usertags too, as I'm in doubt we're on the same page regarding them.
20:37:49 <h01ger> intrigeri: ok, cool
20:37:58 * h01ger just wants this meeting to finish in 23min :)
20:38:00 <intrigeri> MoC: d-d-announce, planet, Jessie release notes, etc. :)
20:38:18 <intrigeri> h01ger: ah, OK. please tell us when beginning the meeting next time.
20:38:45 <intrigeri> any other solution for the 1st user story?
20:38:57 <h01ger> DPN is also good for publicity
20:38:59 <intrigeri> (we can brainstorm more in depth later, when it'll be time to do the publicity thing)
20:39:05 <MoC> ok, intrigeri. do you think there should be an action item (on the long run) about publicity involving what you just said?
20:39:17 <intrigeri> what I meant to arrive at is: no need for bug reports nor usertags, to solve this 1st user story :)
20:39:23 <MoC> yep
20:39:24 <h01ger> and ack on defining meeting length at the beginning. i was blindly assuming "the default" ;)
20:39:25 <MoC> ok
20:39:31 <MoC> h01ger: :))
20:39:46 <intrigeri> MoC: yep. not necessarily as part of your project. I think you're doing everything so that we (the team) can publicize that once you're done :)
20:39:55 <MoC> intrigeri: ok
20:39:58 <h01ger> hehe
20:40:00 <intrigeri> so, next stepry.
20:40:02 <intrigeri> story.
20:40:07 <intrigeri> As a Debian package maintainer,
20:40:12 <h01ger> #save
20:40:33 <intrigeri> (skipping the 2nd user story that's less complete than the others, for now)
20:40:39 <MoC> ok
20:40:49 <intrigeri> Who ships an AppArmor profile in "my" package,
20:40:53 <intrigeri> When I receive a bug report that might be caused by AppArmor,
20:40:54 <intrigeri> Then I want to
20:41:04 <intrigeri> a) be told how to diagnose if AppArmor is involved
20:41:14 <intrigeri> b) if yes, be told how to put the problem under the pkg-apparmor team's radar
20:41:27 <MoC> a) is part of the documentation
20:41:40 <MoC> b) requires usertagging
20:41:45 <intrigeri> so, for (a), same as above (doc, and enough publicity so that people actually *know* that it might be caused by apparmor, and that there *is* doc)
20:41:53 <intrigeri> MoC: agreed.
20:41:54 <MoC> yep
20:41:57 <h01ger> #info check the full log for discussion on user stories and what follows up on them
20:42:24 <h01ger> are we good here?
20:42:41 <MoC> not completely
20:42:51 <h01ger> ack. please go on then
20:42:51 <intrigeri> so, we need two usertag here, right?
20:43:02 <MoC> so, the usertag should simply involve adding pkg-apparmor-team@ as user
20:43:12 <intrigeri> one for maintainers who don't want/can't debug themselves. one for once the AppArmor profile has been proven to be part of the problem.
20:43:26 <MoC> and something which indicates that i need help with debugging
20:43:29 <intrigeri> MoC: I think a usertag needs both a user and a tag.
20:43:37 <MoC> he yes
20:43:47 <h01ger> no
20:43:51 <intrigeri> maybe "help" and "buggy-profile"?
20:43:58 <h01ger> the user should always be the same.
20:44:03 <intrigeri> ah, no, "help" is defined globally.
20:44:12 <intrigeri> h01ger: I don't think anyone said the contrary :)
20:44:23 <h01ger> the user who "owns" all the aa-usertgs
20:44:35 <h01ger> intrigeri: ok, good, then i might have misunderstood.
20:44:40 <intrigeri> h01ger: I was answering "the usertag should simply involve adding pkg-apparmor-team@ as user", which is wrong, as it needs a tag name (I think)
20:44:54 <intrigeri> h01ger: sure, all our usertags will have pkg-a-t@alioth as the user. right?
20:45:07 <h01ger> yeah. whoever :)
20:45:08 <MoC> intrigeri: and i was simply starting this sentence, add a user AND a tag, i wanted to say :))
20:45:31 <intrigeri> there's a global "help" tag on the BTS, right? so we can't use it as a usertag.
20:45:35 <h01ger> MoC: no, you add a usertag
20:45:38 * intrigeri verifying.
20:45:42 <h01ger> intrigeri: yes, there is help
20:45:46 <intrigeri> OK.
20:46:00 <h01ger> maybe it also works as usertag
20:46:03 <intrigeri> needs-help?
20:46:13 <h01ger> that works
20:46:14 <intrigeri> h01ger: no, never reuse global tags as usertags.
20:46:20 <h01ger> point
20:46:26 <intrigeri> h01ger: (the BTS is buggy if you do that.)
20:46:33 <intrigeri> (totally buggy. useless.)
20:46:40 <MoC> needs-help sounds good
20:46:49 <intrigeri> "help-needed" is probably clearer and nicer.
20:46:59 * h01ger nods intrigeri
20:47:02 <MoC> but then buggy-profile might not be necessary
20:47:06 <intrigeri> cool.
20:47:23 <h01ger> "profile-kaputt"
20:47:39 <intrigeri> MoC: I find it useful to be able to sort apart the two cases: we have a confirmed bug in our stuff, or we have something that *might* be caused by our stuff.
20:47:48 <MoC> ok indeed
20:48:05 <h01ger> #i nfo anything? or next topic? or?
20:48:15 <intrigeri> I don't like buggy-profile very much. There might be AppArmor issues caused by something else than a profile.
20:48:33 <h01ger> apparmor-broken?
20:48:44 <intrigeri> well, it's more that it breaks something else.
20:48:53 <intrigeri> let's leave this one for MoC to brainstorm and propose something?
20:48:58 <MoC> ok
20:48:58 <intrigeri> and next topic
20:49:16 <h01ger> #topic docs
20:49:18 <h01ger> #save
20:49:24 <intrigeri> (trying to rush the meeting to its end while still trying to take useful things out of it.)
20:49:27 <MoC> #agreed on usertag help-needed for package maintainers who cant debug their profile
20:49:54 <intrigeri> #agreed we need another usertag for pkg maintainers who have identified that AppArmor is breaking something for them
20:50:05 <h01ger> #agreed U will brainstorm usertags (+stories) and propose something
20:50:33 <h01ger> if we switched # topic now, we would have even nicer formatting in the automated protocol, but meh :)
20:50:34 <MoC> #action brainstorm on 2nd usertag for story nr. 3 once the AppArmor profile has been proven to be part of the problem
20:50:40 <MoC> (re)
20:50:45 <h01ger> #topic docs
20:50:49 <h01ger> whats about this topic?
20:50:50 <intrigeri> what's this exactly?
20:51:00 <h01ger> MoC proposed it
20:51:20 <MoC> i think that was that the docs need some review
20:51:25 <MoC> but maybe that is not urgent yet
20:51:41 <MoC> intrigeri: you somehow said you could read the stuff over and report back to me?
20:51:47 <intrigeri> I will, sure.
20:51:54 <intrigeri> (and next time I'll do it before the meeting.)
20:52:00 * h01ger is happy to review if you send a dedicated mail "please review $this-doc"
20:52:07 <MoC> ok
20:52:19 <h01ger> i need some pull request like that :)
20:52:32 <MoC> #action intrigeri: review doc on debian wiki
20:52:48 <intrigeri> MoC: ETA January 2 is good enough for you?
20:52:49 <MoC> #action MoC send doc review requests to h01ger by email
20:52:51 <h01ger> ah, you mean AppArmor/PackageMaintainers ?
20:52:55 <MoC> intrigeri: yes
20:53:03 <MoC> i was about to propose this too
20:53:17 <MoC> h01ger: yes, for example
20:53:29 <h01ger> #agreed intrigeri and h01ger review https://wiki.debian.org/AppArmor/PackageMaintainers til january 2nd
20:53:32 <intrigeri> MoC: org-mode++'ed
20:53:42 <h01ger> MoC: what else? ;)
20:54:00 <MoC> in docs, nothing
20:54:03 <MoC> todo?
20:54:05 <intrigeri> ok.
20:54:09 <intrigeri> hmmm
20:54:13 <h01ger> [21:53] <        MoC> | h01ger: yes, for example
20:54:19 <h01ger> so to review only that now?
20:54:58 <intrigeri> I plan to review the 2 blog posts too.
20:55:05 <MoC> intrigeri: that's great!
20:55:11 <MoC> i like that
20:55:34 <h01ger> its basically our job to review everything :)
20:55:38 <intrigeri> I'd like to see the status report shipped with proposed plans for the next 2 weeks.
20:55:45 <MoC> intrigeri: i'd actually prefer if one of you reads them first before they appear on planet
20:55:45 <h01ger> #save
20:55:53 <h01ger> #topic todo
20:56:10 <intrigeri> h01ger: ^ don't add to planet before one of us has reviewed.
20:57:06 <h01ger> intrigeri: no, MoC shouldnt push her posts to her blog before reviewing if she doesnt like. all new posts are automaticlly aggregated now. thats how planet works
20:57:25 <intrigeri> h01ger: she published this *before* it was added to planet.
20:57:34 <MoC> so, for the todo: i should continue working on the user stories and tags. documentation. fix the pidgin profile. pull pidgin-blinklight modification from upstream into apparmor-profiles-extra and work on the UDD query
20:58:04 <intrigeri> h01ger: too late? OK.
20:58:11 <h01ger> intrigeri: i didnt put noone on planet without asking frist...
20:58:13 <h01ger> first
20:58:32 <h01ger> MoC: agreed :)
20:58:41 <MoC> about the planet : please take it down if you want to, until you reviewed it. it might be better not to add strange things to this planet.
20:58:47 <intrigeri> h01ger: sure. I thought you wouldn't do it during the meeting. sorry for the confusion.
20:58:59 <h01ger> its impossible to take down stuff from planet once its there...
20:59:05 <MoC> however, i will publish the stuff because i need to do that every 2 weeks anyway
20:59:08 <h01ger> (and its fine on planet. i read it...)
20:59:27 <MoC> what we can do is change the feed URL and i will add the posts to a specific category once they have been reviews
20:59:32 <h01ger> intrigeri: no done this afternoon already :)
20:59:34 <MoC> reviewed, what do you think?
20:59:39 <h01ger> MoC: why?
20:59:46 <intrigeri> MoC: makes sense.
21:00:12 <h01ger> if you want your post reviewed before posting, do that. once you post them on your blog, they are on planet. or do you want to introduce a preview category on your planet?
21:00:20 <MoC> h01ger: so, it can appear on the planet of the outreach program first. and once reviewed it can appear on debian's planet
21:00:24 <h01ger> imo thats overkill, but fine.
21:00:39 <h01ger> MoC: but why?
21:00:43 <MoC> so if we change the feed url to the reviewed category..
21:00:55 <h01ger> nmistakes are fine
21:00:59 <h01ger> mistakes are needed
21:01:02 <MoC> h01ger: because then we are sure that the communication about aa in debian is correct and nt faulty
21:01:07 <h01ger> how shall we learn without mistakes?
21:01:15 <intrigeri> h01ger: it's easier to tell that from your position, than to experience it from MoC's.
21:01:19 <intrigeri> h01ger: just saying.
21:01:47 <h01ger> "but fine"
21:01:49 <MoC> h01ger: imagine i say something which is not correct, and then people who want their profile shipped have false info
21:01:56 <MoC> that's the usecase i am tinking about
21:01:59 <MoC> +h
21:02:15 <h01ger> then a bug will be found, reported and fixed.
21:02:44 <h01ger> MoC: if you want a different feed of your to be aggregated on planet, i'll happily change it to that
21:02:55 <MoC> but wouldn't it be easier to have the right info right away?
21:03:19 <MoC> h01ger: ok, let's do that, we can still change it, right?
21:03:39 <MoC> i'll send you an email later with another feed url
21:03:43 * cboltz wonders if MoC's blog allows a public preview link (sent around via mail) before hitting the "publish" button
21:03:47 <h01ger> well, mostly you will post right stuff right away :) and if not, add a small note with a correction. or write a big bang post about it :)
21:03:49 <h01ger> MoC: sure
21:04:05 <intrigeri> I see two remaining topics.
21:04:11 <intrigeri> 1. plans for next 2 weeks
21:04:13 <intrigeri> 2. next meeting
21:04:15 <h01ger> todo and ?
21:04:17 <h01ger> right
21:04:19 <h01ger> [21:57] < MoC> so, for the todo: i should continue working on the user stories and tags. documentation. fix the pidgin  profile. pull pidgin-blinklight modification from upstream into apparmor-profiles-extra and work on the  UDD query
21:04:28 <h01ger> do we agree on this todo? :)
21:04:36 <h01ger> it sounds good to me
21:05:03 <intrigeri> not convinced by the UDD query, but that's probably because I'm lacking tech background and had no time to look at it / ask questions.
21:05:19 <intrigeri> ACK the rest!
21:05:32 <h01ger> and "work on making usertag visibly"
21:05:34 <intrigeri> MoC: once you have stuff ready for review in the wiki, please ping us.
21:05:40 <MoC> intrigeri: ok
21:05:52 <intrigeri> MoC: I see the notificaitons, but never know when it's time for me to look at it.
21:05:56 <intrigeri> (many notifications :)
21:05:56 <h01ger> intrigeri: agreed on "...and work on making usertag visibly"?
21:05:58 <MoC> intrigeri: and about UDD, if you manage eventually to read the progress page, you can still comment on it
21:06:06 <intrigeri> h01ger: not sure what it means.
21:06:30 <intrigeri> MoC: I've read it.
21:06:41 <h01ger> instead of working on the UDD query (a correct implementation proposal), she will work on... making usertags more visible.
21:06:47 <intrigeri> MoC: let's discuss it later, e.g. after the meeting or before you start working on it.
21:06:47 <h01ger> though there are urls
21:06:50 <MoC> #action MoC until january 2nd continue working on the user stories and tags. documentation. fix the pidgin  profile. pull pidgin-blinklight modification from upstream into apparmor-profiles-extra
21:06:57 <MoC> intrigeri: ack
21:07:02 <h01ger> hehe, thanks, agreed
21:07:19 <h01ger> #agreed we agreed on the last #action :)
21:07:22 <MoC> #agreed on rediscussing working on the UDD query
21:07:27 <h01ger> #topic next meeting
21:07:55 <h01ger> can we also agree on trying to have 60min meetings each time?
21:07:57 <MoC> #agreed MoC needs to ping intrigeri and h01ger explicitly once documentation is ready for review
21:07:59 <intrigeri> I can do Jan 5-7
21:08:02 <MoC> h01ger: +1
21:08:26 <h01ger> intrigeri: 1h good for you too?
21:08:28 <MoC> 7th i'll have an operation and will probably be sick for 2 days
21:08:30 <intrigeri> happy to have this as a general goal. would rather schedule a bit more time just in case.
21:08:31 <h01ger> jn 5-7 works for me
21:08:41 <MoC> so rather 5th if possible
21:08:53 <h01ger> ok, 5th be it. which time?
21:09:09 <intrigeri> 4pm?
21:09:13 <MoC> ack
21:09:15 <h01ger> planning for 90min sounds doable for me, though i find long meetings tendious
21:09:39 <intrigeri> I've found this meeting tedious, but not really because it was long.
21:09:48 <h01ger> i rather prefer to schedule a short ad-hoc session afterwards and keep meetings shorter+more focussed
21:09:52 <intrigeri> so, Jan 5th, 4pm CET.
21:10:10 <MoC> ack
21:10:13 <h01ger> #agreed next meeting , january 5th, 1600 CET, monday
21:10:16 <intrigeri> cool.
21:10:21 <MoC> :)
21:10:26 <h01ger> 60 or 90min?
21:10:34 <MoC> 60min preferred
21:10:43 <intrigeri> everybody prefers 60 minutes.
21:10:47 <MoC> hehe
21:10:52 <intrigeri> (of course.)
21:10:52 <h01ger> "we reserve 90m time, but plan for 60min meetings"?
21:10:53 <MoC> max 70? :D
21:11:08 <h01ger> so that we alwys can schedule things after it
21:11:13 <h01ger> short things :)
21:11:23 <MoC> ok
21:11:47 <intrigeri> ack
21:11:49 <h01ger> eg, "lets discuss userstories in detil after the meeting, h01ger doesnt care anyway" - fake example
21:11:53 <h01ger> +
21:11:55 <h01ger> a
21:12:11 <h01ger> #agreed "we reserve 90m time, but plan for 60min meetings"
21:12:24 <MoC> ok
21:12:26 <MoC> done?
21:12:41 <h01ger> thanks for the nice+productive meeting! :) even if sometimes.. suboptimal :)
21:12:55 <MoC> thank you !
21:13:03 <intrigeri> bye, take care.
21:13:07 <h01ger> #endmeeting