19:00:05 #startmeeting 19:00:24 #topic agree on rating threshholds 19:00:53 everyone ready to start? does anyone object to discarding talks with ratings <= 0 ? 19:01:19 No question about this 19:01:30 ok 19:01:38 #agreed we will not consider talks rated <= 0 19:01:45 Ganneff: still, there might be a maximum number of spots we want to consider 19:01:48 * gwolf agrees 19:01:57 now let's set a number N where we'll accept all talks with ratings >= N 19:01:58 gwolf: no 19:02:17 any suggestions? I don't know off-hand how many talks are usual 19:02:36 Ganneff: what has this N been in the past? 19:03:07 50, 40, depending on the amount 19:03:10 Looking at the rating sorted list IMHO >= 75 is fine 19:03:26 an3as: that cuts out a huge number of talks, but also includes a huge number 19:03:30 i say 50 looks good. 19:03:36 50 is OK for me 19:03:37 Now... Are we using the same cutoff point for the different kinds of submissions? 19:03:55 I also do not want to *cut* but want to *start* discussion 19:04:05 I'd be stricter, i.e., with DebConf lectures than with BoFs - I'd be fine with letting a BoF with 0, but would prefer positive lectures 19:04:09 submission types did not count 19:04:10 But as I said: 50 is fine as well. 19:04:11 gwolf: for talks rated 1-49 we will discuss each 19:04:23 I'm currently working through the talks with negative ratings, and at least one I think should be allowed as an evening session. 19:04:25 keep in mind this does not mean refusal to have this at debconf 19:04:29 it means refusal to be official 19:04:40 ok. 19:04:45 bdale: does what Ganneff said work for you with regard to that talk? 19:04:47 *any* and all events can happen, if there is a free spot during debconf and people interested 19:04:56 Ganneff: check. 19:04:56 catching up on scrollback now 19:05:11 this here is for official or not, thus counting for sponsorship and proceedings (if any) 19:05:15 ok, I don't grok the 'official' vs not distinction 19:05:21 oh 19:05:44 bdale: i.e. not on the preprinted scheduled, not used in travel sponsorship decisions, etc., but still allowed to occur assuming time and space permits 19:05:58 Hydroxide: if the people want it. some also decide to withdraw 19:06:02 so we should right away ignore everything that was put to the Unofficial tracks by the submitters? 19:06:05 Ganneff: yes 19:06:19 gwolf: we're talking about the talks with negative or zero ratings 19:06:19 or we should ignore tracks completely? 19:06:39 gwolf: we will look at tracks only for talks rated 1-49, under the current plan 19:06:56 my impression of the ones I've read and rated so far is that submitters don't have the tracks selected well, so I'm mostly ignoring what they said and saying what I think in the comments 19:07:03 ok. 19:07:10 bdale: is the "as time and space permits, not announced pre-conference" ok for the negative one which you like? 19:07:17 sure 19:07:26 #info any talk can occur at debconf even if it's not selected, assuming there is time and space free 19:07:51 #agreed we will accept talks rated >=50 and only discuss talks rated 1-49 19:07:54 I haven't gotten through all the negative ones yet, and haven't looked at any of the positive ones yet... after my dc8/dc9 screw-up, I'm working my way up from the bottom looking for diamonds in the trash heap, as it were 19:07:59 great 19:08:03 bdale: yeah, sorry about that 19:08:32 * gwolf also started rating DC8 FWIW 19:08:44 we have 22 talks to discuss 19:08:49 there are several cases where the proposal or set of proposals from a person aren't good as-is, but a session on that topic by that person structured differently or in a different track would be good... how do we handle those? 19:09:06 gwolf: I think the link we were given pointed us that way, or something 19:09:25 bdale: No, it's the same link. It's something in the session. 19:09:32 ok 19:09:35 I'm just guessing 19:09:37 bdale: Hope you didn't make much advance ranking the past :) 19:09:43 #topic how to handle mischaracterized proposals 19:09:44 last year for talks we thought "merge" we had one talk to the submitter wafter the meeting 19:09:47 more than I care to admit... /o\ 19:09:58 anything more to say on this or should we start on the talks? 19:09:58 or for general "this should be done differently, like ..." 19:09:59 Ganneff: ok, that's fine 19:10:32 I wasn't able to participate in the meeting last year, so sorry if these are "newbie questions" 19:10:37 #agreed we will talk to the submitter if we have requests for redesigning the proposal 19:10:57 #topic Debian-Med BOF 19:11:00 any comments on this? 19:11:06 * bdale looks it up 19:11:24 (I assume we're starting from rating 49 to rating 2 (there is nothing rated 1) 19:11:27 ) 19:11:27 Hydroxide: give the event id with the topic 19:11:40 #topic Debian-Med BOF: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/385 19:11:47 I will not vote ... ;-) 19:11:48 or better, the url, like https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/377 - but with the id people can just replace 19:11:48 yes 19:11:52 * gwolf is OK with it. 19:12:06 I'd like to see a real BOF on this, whether it works depends on how many people other than an3as are engaged 19:12:10 . o O Would be nice to have a non-German submitter, but I won't say it out loud 19:12:19 bdale: I agree. I know my father would be interested next year when it's in NYC :) 19:12:37 wait, I had made a point somewhere there... looking it up 19:12:42 ok, waiting 19:12:45 fwiw, an3as, my doctor was whining about the new system in his office and I told him about this project and he hopes we have a solution for him some day. ;-) 19:13:02 Bdale: From past experience 3-10 people in the BoF 19:13:05 ah, no, it was for another an3as submission (Debian Science) 19:13:09 go on. 19:13:22 #agreed Debian-Med BOF approved 19:13:28 Bdale: There will be a solution in the far! future 19:13:45 Hydroxide: please note down the ids of those you approve now, some file, one per line would be best. thanks. 19:13:56 #topic dpkg vs Microsoft Installer: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/426 19:14:00 Ganneff: ok 19:14:13 (so i can later run an easy sql query to update their status) 19:14:23 For this one we need to consider it is a lightning talk 19:14:34 I think it is a fun, interesting topic for 5-10 minutes 19:14:35 are we approving lightning talks individually? 19:14:42 IMHO a time od 10-q5 min makes no complete talk, right? 19:14:44 or is the lightning talk coordinator doing those? 19:14:45 break: accept all lightning talks as one. 19:14:59 Yes - that's why I did not voted here 19:15:03 agree. 19:15:05 ok. 19:15:10 and/or move them over to someone else doing the coordination for it. :) 19:15:13 IMHO it makes a perfect lightning talk but no separate event 19:15:15 I agree ... a lightning talks session is a great idea for the main conf 19:15:17 #agreed we are not voting on lighting talks individually - that's the lightning talk coordinator's job 19:15:20 next one 19:15:23 Well, somebody (Simon?) proposed the lightning talks slot 19:15:26 so he might be the one. 19:15:32 probably 19:15:39 #topic Debian redesign: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/459 19:15:47 if we have such a proposal, let's approve it and group relevant proposals with it? 19:15:56 bdale: which? 19:16:21 bdale: In this case, pixelgirl has one specific proposal she has been working on.. And I guess she will present it 19:16:24 lightning talks 19:16:35 for this redesign, is this about the web site, or theming, or what? 19:16:52 overall debian visuals, I think 19:16:55 I also failed to understand what the real intention might be ... 19:16:56 mostly Web, but includes other factors 19:16:57 including website and logo 19:17:03 but still keeping the swirl 19:17:04 :) 19:17:14 I wish the proposal were more complete ... as-is, this is hard to rate 19:17:14 She wants to present her work - although it seems she is taking it as will-be-official... dunno 19:17:24 Gwolf: Did you asked her to complete the description? 19:17:24 I think it'll be controversial but could produce a great result if the project ends up with something it likes 19:17:26 pixelgirl: are you still around? 19:17:35 an3as: No, I didn't see the note until now 19:17:37 gwolf: I think she had to leave 19:17:50 bdale: she did her diploma thesis on it at university 19:17:54 Metaquestion: Should we set some events to "stalled until further information" 19:17:58 I'm fine with hearing a talk on a proposed alternate set of design elements 19:18:09 * bdale is married to a graphic designer... 19:18:10 I could look up the URLs she has sent me - but I think we don't need to see the specifics for this. 19:18:19 an3as: no, due to the lateness of this meeting. the conference is in less than 2 months 19:18:24 OK 19:18:40 #agreed Debian redesign talk is approved 19:18:51 Hmh, I'd like to hear enrico and Kinnison on this :( 19:18:52 So I'd vote for "inoffical event" in those cases 19:19:02 (well, on many) 19:19:35 gwolf: I was planning to let them give their comments via email between now and monday 19:19:38 * enrico reads backlog 19:19:45 enrico: 19:19:49 enrico: \o/ 19:19:53 * Hydroxide pauses for enrico to catch up 19:20:12 * bdale needs an emoticon for a big hug ... is there one? 19:20:37 bdale: {} might do, although it's quite conceptual in nature ☺ 19:21:13 ->{}<- 19:21:24 or is that a trash compacter? 19:21:32 bdale: Depending on how strong the hug is... 19:21:35 depends how hard you hug 19:21:41 * bdale tries not to break bones 19:21:46 boring 19:21:52 granted 19:21:53 i want to see blood! (not mine) 19:22:12 Ganneff: but requiring you to hug is not usually fun (for you) 19:22:33 trying to hug Ganneff might result in blood, you mean? ;-) 19:22:42 enrico: can you comment specifically on the debian redesign talk proposal? we can then move on while you continue catching up on backlog 19:23:21 let's move on anyway 19:23:27 go for it 19:23:27 he can catch up and we can come back to it 19:23:55 #topic Site configuration using config-package-dev: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/437 19:24:21 I didn't get to rating this one, but the other config package event seemed more general 19:24:22 Fine for me 19:24:34 oh, but they are a pair, right? 19:24:44 This one seems good. The other one is AFAICT as a continuation 19:24:48 this one seems really interesting 19:24:53 ok, great, approved 19:25:01 #agreed The config-package-dev talk is approved 19:25:11 the notion of how to handle multi-level defaults is something we've struggled with for years 19:25:30 working solutions are good to hear about 19:25:35 #topic Non-English IRC support: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/415 19:25:45 I say this one should become a BoF 19:26:15 gwolf: agreed. BoF is fine 19:26:21 It is not meant to present a topic but to spark a collective discussion 19:26:27 so approve but only as a BoF if the submitter wants? 19:26:33 Yes 19:26:39 #agreed approved, but only as a BoF if the submitter wants 19:26:49 in that case, a bof or working session makes sense ... a talk on the results of such a session for the main audience could be interesting 19:27:05 #topic JTAG for beginners: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/446 19:27:32 I'm unfamiliar with this topic — Although it should be noted that it is a Deb_CAMP_ lecture. 19:27:41 So I don't think it faces much competition for spaces. 19:27:44 ah, for debcamp there's more space of course and I don't need to be as picky 19:27:45 I have no real idea whether this is interesting - for me definitely not, but that's a personal opinion 19:27:49 for camp, this is a great session ... for conf, not so much 19:28:00 Ahh, debcamp, sorry. 19:28:06 #agreed approved given that it's for debcamp 19:28:14 For this it is fine - but do we really rate about debcamp? 19:28:22 SHouldn't we leave this out here? 19:28:32 it doesn't matter to me 19:28:34 teams decision. 19:28:36 well, it is blessed with the "official" status 19:28:41 re: redesign, if it was her thesis, it's a finished work that's nice to see presented, whether it's going to eb used in Debian or not 19:28:41 so there is a slight difference 19:28:45 but not worth much arguing :) 19:29:20 enrico: that's more or less what I think, too, as long as it is presented as results of a thesis possibly of interesting to Debian, and not as a definite direction the project is going 19:29:26 * enrico is ok with all the rest so far (and suggest next meeting to highlight all participants at the beginning, I was busy pestering rleigh with sbuild bugs) 19:29:49 given enrico's feedback, anyone mind if I consider the redesign project as approved, but with instructions not to present it as a fait accompli? 19:30:02 fine for me 19:30:03 * bdale is still struggling with this official status distinction, but carry on 19:30:11 Hydroxide: works for me 19:30:14 Hydroxide: Agree — I have told her that same comment, and she knows it, but still. 19:30:20 #agreed pixelgirl's redesign talk is approved, but with instructions not to present it as a fait accompli? 19:30:22 I see it similar to biella presenting her thesis about debian 19:30:26 #agreed minus question mark 19:31:01 #topic Let's get the penguin some rest: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/452 19:31:04 config-package was interesting, but overlaps with other ideas blends have about confi management 19:31:13 sometimes these distinctions are obvious to those in the room, but not to those watching recorded streams later... that's why it's worth being explicit about it at the start of a talk 19:31:17 so I don't know if 2 events are a good idea 19:31:17 (there aren't enough DebCamp talks left to worry about whether to approve them en masse) 19:31:38 enrico: config-package has a second BoF session, to which blends should be explicitly invited IMO 19:31:41 452 isn't really debian specific, is it? 19:31:57 although it is very actual and interesting 19:32:00 that was my thought too, correct 19:32:05 we should have a "cool technologies" track 19:32:05 enrico: yes - but interesting anyway also for Debian 19:32:14 looks interesting to me. particularly if wum is in Debian by the time of the conference. 19:32:26 so the majority opinion is yes, allow it? 19:32:32 as you know, 2 debconfs ago I ran sessions for skill exchanges that were not necessarily debian specific but still useful to debian developers 19:32:32 looks interesting. Now, I wonder what the submitter meant by setting it as a "workshop" 19:32:42 I voted yes and I stick to this vote 19:33:01 #agreed approved: the penguin will receive some rest 19:33:36 #topic Scratchbox2 for crosscompiling debian: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/388 19:33:45 no comment here since I didn't read this one 19:34:03 For me it's the "to less information" category -> unofficial 19:34:08 I understand scratchbox is Nokia's cross-building environment/setup 19:34:16 But it is very lacking in information... 19:34:21 It's a cross building tool for embedded debian packages, what's wrong about it? 19:34:29 an3as: I'd say "unofficial" means we say no but encourage them to do it as time and space permits 19:34:47 sure, they could describe what scratchbox2 is, but it is a tool used to cross build debian packages, doesn't it have a place in a debconf where dds attend? 19:34:51 Yes, I've thought that's the definition 19:35:01 I'd like to see this talk. I don't know that I'd sponsor the speaker to give it. 19:35:06 enrico: my vote is yes too 19:35:13 I am also mildly in favor 19:35:16 so we approve it then? ok 19:35:17 http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/sbox2 19:35:23 #agreed approved 19:35:23 enrico: If you say it this way it is fine for me - but I was not able to make it out from the description 19:35:28 http://packages.ubuntu.com/hardy/utils/scratchbox2 19:35:30 (for references) 19:35:40 I was aware of what scratchbox was, fwiw 19:35:41 (as I give importance to how much effort was put into filling in the proposal) 19:35:50 I'm neutral - fine with your vote 19:36:12 #topic Advanced power management for OMAP3 and beyond: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/455 19:36:28 gwolf: I prefer to give importance to the proposal, otherwise luke cassington leighton's well crafted proposals about bollocks (in the past years) would all be approved 19:36:54 * enrico hopes this IRC discussion isn't publicly archived 19:37:08 .oO(but even then, who cares) 19:37:10 enrico: it is currently, as was said in the email thread. 19:37:25 enrico: Agree with you - I was explaining why I said I was _mildly_ in favor - The lack of a full description lowered my score, but not enough to even become neutral 19:37:36 any comments on the OMAP3 talk? 19:37:49 I'm mildly in favour 19:37:53 not quite debian related 19:37:57 this looks interesting, and I'd enjoy hearing the talk, but the Debian connection is thin. it's mostly kernel work, and arm-specific at that. Of course, Debian is used as the distro for many embedded arm things, so ... 19:38:09 I agree that it is not very Debian specific - but Debian should care about this 19:38:09 but we have enough not quite debian related embedded technology to run an embedded technology track 19:38:25 I agree I'm mildly against just due to not being debian-related enough, but if people want the focus to be broader I can go along with it 19:38:37 this is another one where I'd accept the talk but not necessarily spend Debian money to get the speaker there to give it. does that make sense? 19:38:56 bdale: it does 19:38:57 IMHO that's just "unofficial" 19:38:58 Well, practically all of the proposals are interesting in some way or another 19:39:21 ...I do feel the Debian connection quite weak. I'd also prefer seeing it as presented although unofficial 19:39:31 * bdale pauses for a delivery at his front door, bbiam 19:39:33 even if I am tied for the highest ranker for this topic 19:39:56 #agreed not approved in an official way but will encourage the submitter to present as unofficial 19:39:59 ok? 19:40:16 OK 19:40:18 ok 19:40:19 back 19:40:23 ok (and we should then use that as a general policy for non-debian-related talks) 19:40:34 agreed 19:40:42 #agreed we should use that as a general policy for non-debian-related talks 19:40:43 otherwise it could be unfair to some 19:40:54 I'd like to focus our meager sponsorship on talks/speakers that are strongly Debian relevant 19:41:08 enrico: well, there are some that are just plain not appropriate 19:41:14 But diedn't we agreed to this policy in the beginning anyway? 19:41:15 it seems there's "we want this to be permanently recorded" and "we want to spend money to see this" 19:41:42 #topic Introduction to Shaft: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/450 19:41:54 (please tell me to slow down if desired) 19:42:17 hm, I had rated this as 100 - and it is strange to me that it was so much voted down. I admit I read the description a bit hastily, and this was among the first I rated... 19:42:30 not debian related as it is presented 19:42:31 Shaft looks like a good lightning talk, perhaps coupled with a bof afterwards? 19:42:32 But I did think this was very usable for our general archive-wide QA on shell scripts 19:42:37 it could easily become debian related 19:42:47 Well, it is very interesting - I would like to see this, but IMHO off topic at debconf 19:43:06 I am not sure I know the submitter... 19:43:19 that is, if it can straightforwardly be used to run tests of maintainer scripts, then the submitter could add that to the talk 19:43:23 I need to step away momentarily. who wants to share chair powers? 19:43:24 (although I could not see how) 19:43:29 (the current bot can handle that) 19:43:38 enrico: This would change my vote definitely to +100 19:43:39 if it cannot, then it's not really debian related 19:43:41 So, well, I will go with the flow — I think it has the potential of being Debian-related… 19:43:44 Hydroxide: I will 19:43:47 #chair gwolf 19:43:55 ok, afk for a bit, back asap 19:44:08 gwolf: it has the potential,but it also has the potential to be completely irrelevant 19:44:19 gwolf: only the submitter knows, as far as I can tell 19:44:20 So, maybe we can leave it as unofficial unless the submitter moves it to be Debian-related? 19:44:24 gwolf: agreed 19:44:25 another conference I attend each year has two sessions for lightning talks ... one at the beginning, filled with short talks of the form "this is something I care about that I'd like to introduce you to so we can talk about it while we're here" things, the other at the very end full of "here are things we learned/decided/etc while we were here or things we now realize more of you might want to go read about after being here" ... 19:44:46 bdale: I like that 19:44:52 Probably we should ask the submitter explicitely to make it Debian relevant 19:44:54 #agreed Stays as unofficial, but will contact submitter to check if it can be made more Debian-related. Can be promoted later on. 19:44:59 ok? 19:45:06 ok 19:45:11 OK 19:45:27 #topic Dance BoF - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/447 19:45:42 Anything against an unofficial BoF? 19:45:47 no 19:45:51 no 19:45:55 #agreed Ok, stays unofficial as submitted 19:46:00 agreed 19:46:02 unofficial, so in anyways as they sure persist and want it 19:46:10 #topic Debichem - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/397 19:46:20 they can have it every night if they want... ;-) 19:46:31 as long as they dont disturb 19:46:38 enrico: I'd like to learn about the difference you gave my travel foto talk compared to dance bof 19:46:44 what's controversial about debichem? 19:46:50 Ganneff: You might want to approach the rooms team to put you far away... 19:46:57 (sorry for rushing things) 19:47:07 an3as: the difference to me is that I 19:47:13 debichem is fine - but I'm biased 19:47:20 d love to sit in your talk, and I'm unlikely to be caught dancing... ;-) 19:47:21 Debichem should be approached, IMHO, as they run quite closely to an3as' debian-science panel 19:47:38 gwolf: yes 19:47:44 But that does not mean I am against it, just to make sure it is adequately scheduled 19:48:02 #agreed Debichem is in 19:48:13 #topic Debian Wiki - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/365 19:48:55 Nobody put any remarks on it... Speak now! 19:48:57 a bof about the debian wiki, I see nothing wrong with it 19:48:59 a bof on the wiki sounds good 19:49:09 yes 19:49:20 #agreed The Wiki stays in 19:49:26 ??? I wonder why it has such a low percentage! 19:49:29 * Hydroxide returns 19:49:35 I hadn't rated it yet, fwiw 19:49:35 Is there something wrong with penta? 19:49:39 #topicKeynote from the Release Team - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/407 19:49:52 Please could somebody have a look back on 365 19:49:53 oops. Well, that's my cue for giving the control back to Hydroxide :) 19:49:59 haha :) 19:49:59 ok, not rushing.. 19:50:13 gwolf: thanks for temp-chairing 19:50:20 * enrico is confused 19:50:22 I see many ++ and + votings 19:50:28 how come we are starting straight uncontroversial events? 19:50:34 s/starting/discussing/ 19:50:39 wait, why are we voting on wiki? that was already rated 65 19:50:40 an3as: It is fine - We didn't give it a higher position, but it is mostly positive by everyone 19:50:44 a talk from the release team about the plan for the next release would be great. I'm not convinced it needs to be a keynote, and the lack of detail in the penta proposal is troublesome. 19:50:48 the only 0 was Kinnison's on acceptance... 19:51:06 the wiki shows 65 for me 19:51:11 Fine 19:51:12 err the review report 19:51:17 ok. 19:51:18 wait.. my error then? :-/ 19:51:24 ya 19:51:27 yes, I think I mis-sorted or something? grah 19:51:36 yes, a reload kills the ordering 19:51:39 * gwolf grmbls 19:51:39 * enrico tickles gwolf 19:51:46 #topic Keynote from the Release Team: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/407 19:51:48 grah! 19:52:06 I agree with what bdale said several lines up 19:52:25 Hydroxide: It is also over our threshold (55) 19:52:28 so agreed but please add more info if you want it to be a keynote? 19:52:45 never mind, was already approved 19:52:47 for it to be a keynote, they'd have to be announcing a release? ;-) 19:52:57 Well, I see no reason to artificial increase the score 19:53:03 #info wiki and release team keynote were already approved as rated >= 50 19:53:08 bdale: You are spoiling their news :) 19:53:13 If it is *accepted* and marked *keynote* it becomes a keynote, right? 19:53:14 * bdale hides 19:53:26 ok ... back to the right flow of things 19:53:42 #topic The Death of Open Hardware: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/439 19:53:43 an3as: I personally think we or the other event organizers should have more control over which talks are called 'keynote' 19:53:49 If 3/5 raters wrote a paragraph for it, I'd strongly ask dato.. well, anyway :) 19:54:20 bdale: IMHO the organisers will have the final word 19:54:23 439 should go with the rest of non debian related talks, although last year I greatly enjoyed vince and daniel's talk 19:54:51 erhm, s/last year/2 years ago/ 19:55:11 enrico: I also enjoyed and recommende that talk, it was great - but non-Debian-related completely. 19:55:19 I'd enjoy this talk, but mostly because I'd be providing a dissenting opinion from the back of the room? 19:55:55 (In fact, I'd re-rate it lower - Again, this was one of my first ratings) 19:56:09 so, unofficial like the rest? 19:56:12 yes 19:56:13 yes 19:56:20 yes 19:56:51 #agreed Stays as unofficial 19:56:58 bah, I'm no longer the chair 19:57:00 Hydroxide: !!! 19:58:04 gwolf take over again 19:58:12 * enrico 's stomach growls 19:58:51 Are we netsplit or something? 19:58:57 I'm here 19:59:08 I got called away for work 19:59:10 hm, this was just too quiet :) 19:59:19 gwolf: can you chair for the rest? 19:59:35 yes, just give me back the rights... 19:59:41 you should still have them 19:59:42 #agreed Stays as unofficial 19:59:42 #chair gwolf 19:59:45 #agreed Stays as unofficial 19:59:49 gwolf: there's no response for that 19:59:50 well... no :-/ 19:59:52 gwolf: go ahead 19:59:56 oh, bummre 19:59:57 gwolf: we've just agreed several times 20:00:07 #topic xcontrol - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/422 20:00:54 ...Any opinions? 20:01:02 My problem: Topic is not uninteresting - but where is the difference to DebConf 7 talk? 20:01:03 as I said, since it is a lecture, I'll be really upset if he still presents the idea and not a working tool. 20:01:13 I say it should stay as unofficial unless he justifies it otherwise 20:01:20 yes 20:01:40 if he presents a working tool (and I have no reason to say otherwise besides knowing GyrosGeier ;) then it should definitely be in 20:02:02 enrico: $ apt-cache search xcontrol 20:02:02 debian-xcontrol - Extended syntax for debian/control files 20:02:05 agreed with all ... if this is a report on work done, it will be interesting 20:02:18 heh, so it's there already..? 20:02:28 heh 20:02:36 Oh, great, and here is the man himself! 20:02:50