18:31:43 #startmeeting 18:31:43 Meeting started Tue Jun 24 18:31:43 2014 UTC. The chair is harmoney. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 18:31:43 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 18:31:51 #chair gwolf vorlon 18:31:51 Current chairs: gwolf harmoney vorlon 18:31:53 [LINK] https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf14/Meetings#Global_meeting.2C_Tuesday_24_June_at_1830_UTC_.281130_PDT.29.2C_.23debconf-team.40irc.debian.org 18:32:01 Anyone else want chair duties? 18:32:50 #topic Roll Call 18:32:55 here 18:32:59 (ish) 18:33:02 there 18:33:04 o/ 18:33:10 cate: everywhere 18:33:30 vorlon is here, but trapped on a phone call. 18:33:40 Anyone else? 18:33:43 should we wait for him, or just put his bits when he's back? 18:33:47 Cause, if not, this could be a super short meeting. 18:33:59 I'm here 18:34:07 I'm also on a call, but I think it's winding down 18:34:07 hi 18:34:13 vorlon: if you can follow and type snippets, it should do 18:34:19 * gwolf guesses 18:34:33 harmoney: nothing bad in having a short meeting 18:34:46 and we have a possible discussion coming up ;-) 18:34:47 Ok, Agenda can be seen at https://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf14/Meetings 18:34:52 You'll have to scroll to 24 June 18:35:01 #topic Deciding the schedule of DebConf14 18:35:10 I'm going to skip over the second one because it's going to take awhile. 18:35:15 good 18:35:18 So, let's hop down to Team Status. 18:35:30 #topic Team Updates: Talks Team 18:35:37 #topic Team status • Talks team 18:35:44 rmayorga gwolf: you're up. :) 18:35:52 we have just a few talks 18:36:06 OK... So we have done some work, mainly thanks to the people pushing things (/me cannot take such credit) 18:36:12 we have... 21 talks IIRC 18:36:12 (Oh, I need to ask for slots for lightning talks and live demos...) 18:36:21 (up from 12 less than a week ago) 18:36:31 that makes me feel less depressed, but... still, it's quite low 18:36:39 nattie: please do 18:36:41 gwolf: 31 by now 18:36:45 31? Wow! 18:36:51 Do we have a submission from Jaguar Land Rover and/or Intel yet? 18:36:53 people is submitting talks, which is good 18:36:59 * gwolf loses depression bits 18:37:18 there's like 2 weeks left before the deadline right? 18:37:22 what does the talks team think is a good target number for submissions? 18:37:24 jcristau: July 7 18:37:38 vorlon: July 7 is good 18:37:39 i'll take that as a yes :) 18:37:48 vorlon: we want to know about the schedule 18:37:53 rmayorga: I do too :/ 18:37:55 rmayorga: right. Very right. 18:37:56 that's on the agenda 18:38:00 gwolf: did you consider in the number also the institutional talks? 18:38:07 in fact, someone seems to have skipped over that on the agenda 18:38:09 I pushed it off so we could get through the rest of the meeting quickly. 18:38:18 cate: No, I just looked at summit, and I'm not sure if I looked at the right place 18:38:32 cate: nowadays, rmayorga has pushed its buttons way more than me 18:38:44 cate: I think everything is visible in the same interface 18:39:00 We have 1 platinum sponsor who is guaranteed a free software talks slot if they want it; has Intel submitted anything yet? 18:39:16 not that I know 18:39:19 harmoney: hard to know, I can check and confirm you later 18:39:21 or that I can recognize 18:39:27 if you have any clue of the speaker, or toopic 18:39:29 harmoney: I assume that if they were going to use their free talk slot, they would talk to the sponsors team about that 18:39:38 rmayorga: Thank you - just want to make sure if anything comes through on Intel it's just pushed through. 18:39:40 since we've been their contact 18:39:45 vorlon: I make no assumptions with Intel. :) 18:40:13 Other than schedule decision, anything pressing for you guys? 18:40:55 harmoney: we want strategies for people to submit talks 18:41:08 I think many didn't because the interface was not yet up when we called for registration 18:41:09 I don't think so, probably if we get more help from you pushing your friends to submit talks/events 18:41:11 gwolf: How so? Like tracks? 18:41:13 (but in the last few days it has improved) 18:41:39 rmayorga: Did we get a bump from the blog post Ana made? 18:41:39 harmoney: we need people to make their magic and invite people to submit talks :) 18:41:40 harmoney: even `regular' events like Cheese and Wine is not there 18:41:47 harmoney: yes, it caused quite a bump 18:42:00 rmayorga: Yikes. 18:42:06 and so on, that will help to know about the time 18:42:11 gturner: Can you submit cheese & wine as a talk event in Summit, please? 18:42:11 #action gwolf+rmayorga will go through our regular events and submit them :) 18:42:12 and slots 18:42:39 #info We currently have 31 submitted talks 18:42:47 #info We want more people submitting! 18:42:52 #action Patty to reach out interesed sponsors to make sure they submit talks. 18:43:07 #info We keep the announced deadline for "officially" scheduled talks: July 7. 18:43:08 #action gturner to submit Cheese & Wine event for Talk 18:43:14 #action nattie to submit for lightning talks and live demo session 18:43:22 (hope that went through) 18:43:31 #action nattie to submit for lightning talks and live demo session 18:43:36 #save 18:43:42 Anything else? 18:43:53 Going once 18:43:56 well, I would still like to know roughly how many talk submissions the talks team wants 18:44:11 to know how much effort to put into drumming up more submissions 18:44:27 vorlon: as mauch as we can 18:44:37 vorlon: We don't really have a number (and even more so until we have a schedule to count timeslots on) 18:44:39 rmayorga: Goal of 50? 100? 150? 18:44:42 how many "official" slots are available? 18:44:43 oh 18:44:54 well, we can still have the submissions to choose from. 18:45:09 We usually publish a schedule half-filled to allow for ad-hoc 18:45:14 and in the end, we use close to 100% 18:45:25 How many is that usually? 18:45:32 harmoney: it depends on the schedule 18:45:39 this is not tthe usual one, though 18:45:43 harmoney: 7 (days) * 7 (timeslots) * 2 to 3 (rooms) 18:45:43 rmayorga: How many did we have submitted last year? 18:46:36 harmoney: if they don't have an answer, I don't think it's worth drilling down on this during the meeting 18:46:51 let's not have people running off to look things up in their email :) 18:46:57 :) thx 18:47:04 So... Next point then? 18:47:05 #topic Team status • Frontdesk / registration 18:47:23 nattie: You're up. 18:47:24 I put this on here just to know how things are going 18:47:29 curl http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2013/debconf13/archival/ |grep ogv|wc says 82 18:47:54 Not much to report as yet - people are asking questions, and I just got some answers through thanks to harmoney, so they'll now be easier to answer. 18:48:09 CarlFK: Thank you. That helps. :) 18:48:13 (Questions are mostly related to payment for things such as accommodation, food, parking.) 18:48:16 CarlFK: ok, thanks - so we want a couple (binary) orders of magnitude more submissions, yet 18:48:48 CarlFK: ...And we usually have at least one room without video coverage. But OTOH, we are running for less days. 18:48:50 Looks like we have 249 people registered. When should we confirm? 18:49:00 nattie: ok. so you're keeping up with the rate of questions, etc? 18:49:06 harmoney: that's a separate item on the agenda 18:49:21 thbbt 18:49:23 vorlon: there haven't been *that* many questions so far - I expect it to increase the closer the start gets 18:49:31 ok 18:49:41 I trust that you'll raise a flag if you find you need more help :) 18:49:54 of course! 18:50:03 I'm working to the status mail. Probably it will assure attendees, and they could check if our information are ok 18:50:18 #topic Team status + Free for all Any other teams that need to update? 18:50:39 241 people registered, btw - the other 8 have profiles in the system but marked as not attending 18:51:11 Any other teams need to get global team attention on anything? 18:51:13 Going once... 18:51:17 fwiw 18:51:23 Where/how should I coordinate bringing things that other teams may want, like KVM switch and power strips 18:51:28 I could probably use a bookkeeper 18:51:47 I haven't had a chance to get bookkeeping stood up yet, and it's starting to get important 18:52:00 CarlFK: please coordinate with kees 18:52:22 #action CarlFK to coordinate with kees on hardware needs 18:52:42 this may be a stupid question, but... do we *have* a reconfirmation deadline? 18:52:47 fwiw I had an offer from Matt Taggart to help with the facilities stuff 18:52:48 Anyone on the DC15 team willing to do bookkeeping? 18:52:55 nattie: we don't have a reconfirmation *interface* yet, so no ;) 18:52:59 * nattie nominates hug ;) 18:53:02 we had discussion in the last meeting about it 18:53:02 how do I contact kees (ping ping) 18:53:11 CarlFK: kees@debian.org 18:53:19 anyone on the DC15 team attending the meeting? :-| 18:53:25 gwolf: Doesn't look like it. 18:53:38 hello 18:53:40 * _rene_ is 18:53:41 vorlon: fair enough. from a quick look at previous years, the deadline has been approximately 6 weeks before conference start, FWIW 18:53:42 i am here, just lazy 18:53:49 _rene_: for the record, I call your bluff; if you didn't speak up during roll call, you're not at the meeting ;) 18:54:04 #action _rene_ to help vorlon with bookkeeping. 18:54:10 <_rene_> erm. 18:54:11 harmoney: no :P 18:54:16 * _rene_ is here. 18:54:16 yeah poor _rene_ 18:54:17 no making joke actions :P 18:54:18 ;) 18:54:19 <_rene_> need to find out context 18:54:40 vorlon: I said I would. The question is how we get there, since I didn't really stay on top of things. 18:54:48 _rene_, madduck: Welcome :) We'd be very glad if the DC15 team become more an active part of DC14. It's really needed. 18:55:15 madduck: right, I haven't stayed on top of it either, and I was hesitant to throw it all at you since I don't know what differences exist between German and US bookkeeping 18:55:34 gwolf: we are trying, and we are all aware of that in dc15; we have contributed to dc13 final report, bursaries, and we follow sponsorship 18:55:59 vorlon: pure books: none; tax standards: the world. 18:56:18 madduck: W 18:56:18 bookkeeping is more or less standard 18:56:20 sorry 18:56:25 gwolf: Q! 18:56:26 ;) 18:56:51 madduck: (Not directed to you) It is customary, and I'd say much expected, for the DCn team to be _way_ more involved in DCn-1 organization 18:57:23 (but I won't start arguing _now_ what constitutes involvement and what not... I just gather what I feel the feeling to be) 18:57:33 madduck: right, we shouldn't need to worry about taxes here 18:57:44 gwolf: let's have this debate another time. I am taking in your point. I would like to note though that it is customary for DC to be *late* on everything, which is something we set out to avoid. 18:58:07 thx :) 18:59:00 madduck: can you please take point on the bookkeeping setup? 18:59:02 anyway, I'll do books if we agree that keeping books is something to be done ultra-conservatively, and if vorlon can devise a way to (b) set me up with the starting balance, (c) send all relevant data, and (d) ensure a consistent information flow 18:59:25 vorlon: for dc15 I am doing quadruple bookkeeping in ledger and gnucash for now 18:59:28 what is "ultra-conservatively"? 18:59:29 2×double, get it? ;) 18:59:39 I prefer quintuple-entry accounting 18:59:46 ultra-conservative means: no booking, no transfer without a paper trail 18:59:59 madduck: um 19:00:17 this sounds like a discussion we should take offline 19:00:21 can do 19:00:31 Any other teams need to update? 19:00:34 #action madduck and vorlon to follow up re: bookkeeping 19:00:37 vorlon: right after this? 19:01:30 madduck: 19:01:32 madduck: can do 19:01:35 k 19:02:05 #topic Sort the requirements for reconfirmation 19:02:28 can we please go back to the *first* itemon the agenda? 19:02:31 I put it first for a reason 19:03:32 #topic Deciding the schedule of DC14 19:03:35 thanks 19:03:42 so we had this discussion three weeks ago 19:03:45 and then it went to the list 19:03:52 and then it went nowhere 19:04:05 I blame the people who objected for not following through :-P 19:04:18 but we need to get a decision so the talks team knows what to schedule 19:04:38 vorlon: I was baffled with the proposal to begin with. 19:04:41 we have two options; can someone set up a poll to choose between these two, and post it to debconf-team? 19:04:49 gwolf: which proposal? the one from Noodles? 19:05:06 vorlon: Yup. Given the amount of talks, we do seem to have space to allow for schedule-light days 19:05:19 vorlon: take into account both proposal and you should decide! 19:05:21 ... But I'd prefer *not* to make them into a block 19:05:37 I'm not interested in discussing the merits of the two proposals further, there was all the time in the world for that 19:05:42 In any case, alternate them would fit better. 19:05:55 vorlon: OK, so... what's that you need? :) 19:05:59 I need a decision 19:06:20 agree, this have being in the list for quite long now 19:06:23 I *also* need, if the decision is for my original proposal, for someone to block it out more precisely, the way Noodles did for the compromise proposal 19:06:31 vorlon: I argued a bit, but left it because I frankly don't have the time to contribute in what I'd feel a responsible way (i.e. I'm skipping many mails) 19:07:00 gah, late, but I see email from CarlFK :) 19:07:38 anyway, once we had the last meeting, there was a sudden groundswell of support for my original proposal 19:07:57 but I don't know now which one is actually preferred by the team, and don't want to be picking a winner personally 19:08:03 so who can set up a poll for this? 19:08:41 I'm not a fan of polls. :-P (maybe I'm not such a democratic person?) 19:08:53 they are not the way to make decisions 19:09:05 fine 19:09:13 then we're going with the DebConf chair's preference 19:09:18 vorlon: I'm looking for it, but, very roughly - what was your proposal? 19:09:27 * madduck hands vorlon a sceptre 19:09:31 vorlon: /me agrees with the decision. 19:09:35 (I didn't want a poll in the first place, but it seemed to be the only way to get to a conclusion!) 19:09:38 http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131001.175026.0a50b91b.en.html 19:09:39 gwolf: ^^ 19:09:50 thx, reading. 19:09:54 so who can block this schedule out formally, the way Noodles did for the other one? 19:09:59 can someone on the talks team take this? 19:10:03 if you would just write shorter emails! 19:10:17 #agreed DebConf schedule will be structured per vorlon's original proposal in http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20131001.175026.0a50b91b.en.html 19:10:32 madduck: scan for the dates 19:11:11 yeah. It's an experiment, I am curious to see how it pans out. You put thought into this. TIMTOWDI. Just stay flexible and don't be afraid of change and it'll all end well. 19:11:14 still waiting for a volunteer to block the schedule 19:11:42 vorlon: FWIW I like your proposal better. 19:11:44 someone needs to do this so we know how many talk slots we have, so it's logical for someone on the talks team to take it 19:11:51 is this summit interaction busywork? 19:12:02 gwolf: yes, but we've already decided that part, now I need someone to flesh out the schedule! :) 19:12:06 meal times, exact timeslots 19:12:06 estimated time required? 19:12:16 vorlon: I *cannot* do the blocking. I am too time-strained this week, and travelling by Friday. 19:12:23 i mean, two hours and i'll do it, but I cannot do more before mid-july 19:12:30 (with my new bookkeeper hat on) 19:12:33 madduck: I can take care of the summit load; I'm concerned about getting the schedule blocking done and reviewed on the mailing list for any mines 19:12:35 rmayorga: Can you do the time blocking? 19:12:48 vorlon: I just don't know what "blocking" is. 19:13:14 madduck: sorry, "blocking" is in theater when you lay down strips of tape on the stage so people know where they're supposed to be 19:13:16 harmoney: I have the same qustion as madduck 19:13:28 to put it another way 19:13:30 ah, so you mean slotting ;) 19:13:39 note that Noodles's proposal was much more fleshed-out than mine 19:13:41 i.e. creating the slots for talks and lunch etc with times 19:13:45 e.g. lunch from 12:30 to 14:00 19:13:50 yes 19:14:04 noooo! Lunch from 14:00 to 15:30 :-P 19:14:05 I'll take a look at what we have on the test summit 19:14:09 (damn Gringos/Europeos) 19:14:13 gwolf: the way to have your way is… 19:14:15 :) 19:14:32 OK. Anything else to do on this topic? 19:14:32 you racist bitch you! 19:14:33 ;) 19:14:39 I see we have `slots' but did not play on the schedule 19:14:39 rmayorga: it's not about summit, it's about having the answer to http://lists.debconf.org/lurker/message/20140517.203458.e3b8ad44.en.html 19:14:46 vorlon: You follow this up with moray? 19:14:54 gwolf: hrm? 19:15:01 vorlon: I was focusing on your dates proposal, did not went all over the email 19:15:07 vorlon: yes, to push for a chair-based decision 19:15:36 gwolf: no, we already *know* moray's preferenc 19:15:45 oh, perfect. /me shuts up then 19:15:45 gwolf: it's *decided* - we're using my original proposal 19:15:50 perfect! 19:15:54 but now I need a volunteer *to flesh the schedule out* 19:16:09 which I've been asking for now for 5 minutes 19:17:07 ok 19:17:15 if you guys default on this, and leave it with me, 19:17:19 it's not going to get done until the end of July 19:17:39 will someone please volunteer? :) 19:17:47 vorlon: ...if it's not fleshed out but indicated, then we will somehow populate it in the talks team 19:17:51 vorlon: do you estimate this can be done in an hour? 19:17:53 I don't understand the fleshing out 19:18:19 I don't even understand what needs to be done 19:18:29 vorlon: i'll do it. for beer. 19:18:31 and I'd much rather jump to the next pending topic. 19:18:40 And we have a volunteer! 19:18:45 i hate you all 19:18:48 yes, lets discuss about slotting 19:18:51 #info madduck fleshes out vorlon's schedule 19:18:52 later 19:19:02 #action we will follow vorlon's schedule proposal 19:19:07 madduck: Just get a receipt so we can reimburse you for the beer. 19:19:10 madduck: I don't know how long it will take, probably half the time that we've spent here flailing about during the meeting 19:19:14 #topic Sort the requirements for reconfirmation 19:19:20 harmoney: my standard hourly rates? 19:19:51 madduck: thanks for taking this; I think the talks team owe you the beers :) 19:20:20 requirements for reconfirmation 19:20:28 does anyone have experience with how this worked in the past? 19:20:37 I'm not fluent in ruby, I don't want to have to try to figure it out from the penta code 19:20:46 specifically: 19:20:47 vorlon: there is not real requirement. People should reconfirm in 2 or 3 weeks 19:21:00 do we lock down people's ability to change their "attending" checkbox? 19:21:10 do we continue to let them be able to change all fields? 19:21:13 Possibly you can force some field to be set in order to reconrim 19:21:13 vorlon: we need a date that suites you and the providers 19:21:16 do I need logs of which fields have changed and when? 19:21:38 well, at the last meeting we agreed the reconfirmation deadline would be June 30 ;) 19:21:43 but that hasn't happened 19:21:45 so we should move it 19:21:48 vorlon: If you can lock out the field after the date, it'd be OK by me 19:21:51 in the past the reconfirm phase showed people another box to tick 19:21:52 vorlon: people should be able to remove attend 19:21:55 and locked a series of fields 19:21:59 but I want to understand, before I add the field to summit, what the design reqs are 19:22:20 Ganneff: what are the fields I should lock? 19:22:20 30 June is way to short 19:22:28 cate: yes, we've missed that deadline, that's clear 19:22:43 so I'm looking for clarification on what I should implement, in order to move it forward 19:23:00 vorlon: 1. Everybody is un-reconfirmed until we call for reconfirmation. 2. The field is boolean: Either you do or you don't. 3. After the deadline, the field cannot be changed, and we cannot promise people we will host or feed them. 4. People staying/eating on their own don't need to reconfirm much. 19:23:23 vorlon: I don't know. Previously we required people to talk to @registration for changes in food and accommodation, but it is no more the case for DC14 19:23:43 vorlon: I think the blocking part is just the normal, t-shirt size, arrival/departure dates, you should block what you needs to be blocked 19:23:46 vorlon: nothing special. the locked fields came with end of sponsorship deadlines 19:23:56 for example if PSU will make a fuss for a name change, name should be blocked 19:24:13 leaving you always to go "down" in the levels, never up, but independent of reconfirm 19:24:36 reconfirm mostly set free another checkbox you had to explicitly select (ie. default false) that you want to come 19:24:43 Ganneff: ok; sponsorship fields are already locked 19:25:10 gwolf: "host or feed them"> that deadline is already past and unrelated to reconfirmation 19:25:21 also, reconfirm got used in the schedule part 19:25:33 so newly-registered people should still be able to sign up after the reconfirm deadline, right? 19:25:35 AIUI, if you don't reconfirm, it's as if you decided not to come — even if you were approved. 19:25:38 only talks where at least one speaker was reconfirmed got ever set so the public could see them 19:25:50 vorlon: yes 19:25:56 ok 19:26:08 but we @registration will spam several time to people who didn't reconfirm but still have attend set 19:26:08 and do we want to lock the "I want to attend this conference" checkbox? 19:26:23 (so all talks got processed by the talks team as if the speaker comes, but the final setting to have them appear was done by a cronjob, based on speakers reconfirm) 19:26:23 is it useful to distinguish between that, and the "reconfirm" box? 19:26:31 oh, it is because otherwise we don't know they've reconfirmed 19:26:41 vorlon: i don't believe that gets locked 19:26:42 <_rene_> vorlon: well, you can't distinguish then 19:26:51 you dont want to lock the attend box 19:26:56 ok 19:26:59 you want to have people still register 19:26:59 <_rene_> vorlon: between checked because of laziness or checked because "reconfirmed" 19:27:08 Ganneff: or indeed un-register 19:27:14 they can come and attend and reconfirm and whatnot 19:27:16 Ganneff: I mean for already-registered people - is it meaningful for them to un-check it? 19:27:19 People, I have to leave now... (but fortunately, it seems the meeting is almost over anyway) 19:27:22 <_rene_> vorlon: and as Ganneff says - you want people to register and they of course attend then so should check that box :) 19:27:23 o/ 19:27:24 they just dont get anything speciual anymore. 19:27:40 [only at very end we prefer to lock many fields, so people must contact registration, and we don't lose informations 19:27:41 vorlon: yes. if you dont want anymore, for whatever reason, you unselect attend 19:27:53 and the last part of the question was, do I need logging off of the database to know what people are changing 19:28:04 vorlon: that helped tons of times in the past 19:28:13 penta had a quite big logging schema for that 19:28:14 right 19:28:24 ok 19:28:27 (each change, via triggers in the db) 19:28:30 I think I have a handle on the reqs then 19:28:34 thanks 19:28:43 I'll implement it this weekend 19:28:56 and I guess we want to push reconfirmation out to mid-July now 19:29:16 should we give 2 weeks or 3 or reconfirmation? 19:29:46 vorlon: it is your call. What do you prefer for organizing, t-shirt, daytrip, etc. 19:30:25 we have plenty of time for all of those things 19:30:33 so 3 is better 19:30:47 the only thing I need to lock down ASAP is giving a rough count to PSU of our sponsored attendees 19:30:51 last year IIRC people were slow on reconfirming 19:30:58 [which created a lot of worries] 19:31:09 so, three weeks 19:31:10 all years people are slow on reconfirm 19:31:13 cate: we were also slow with bursaries iirc 19:31:21 I do need a final count for the conference dinner a week before hand. 19:31:36 #agreed deadline for reconfirmation now set to July 21, vorlon to have reconfirmation on-line by June 29 19:31:59 I think that's it for this topic 19:32:38 #topic Who has time to help with open tasks? 19:32:59 this was a general topic I raised based on some conversations on IRC earlier this week 19:33:10 I think the answer is clearly: no one ;) 19:33:26 define open tasks 19:33:38 cate: whichever tasks come up 19:33:53 I need to know who's going to be around, that I can reach out to 19:33:59 to delegate tasks 19:34:24 Basically, putting a call out on the mailing list for someone to help has been completely unsuccessful. 19:34:29 right now, there are some summit todos that are piling up - I would be more confident in them getting done in time if I had somebody I could delegate them to 19:34:43 I'm very grateful to madduck for volunteering on the bookkeeping, that's a huge load off my mind 19:34:50 on IRC you can force people "to volunteer" 19:35:01 on IRC, people can pretend to not be at their keyboard ;) 19:35:21 vorlon: I can help for some things, and now I'm getting into the database 19:35:25 you can always and everywhere force people to volunteer - if they allow you to. 19:35:48 anyway, to repeat from earlier, there doesn't seem to be much involvement from DC15 folks right now 19:35:52 aside from madduck, it seems :) 19:36:20 * Ganneff will be more involved around the actual debconf time, with the usual admin stuff and video foo again 19:36:24 * vorlon nods 19:36:41 got vacation then. until then im not having the time unfortunately 19:36:52 so anyway, doesn't seem anyone's jumping up and down to volunteer, so I'll get off the soapbox 19:36:54 vorlon: is there a list of tasks that need doing? 19:37:18 madduck: there's a constant rotating list, which I don't bother publishing because keeping a published list is a waste of time if nobody's volunteering 19:37:37 it's easy to say that DC15 is not involved, but it's really asking a bit too much for us to "just know" what to do given how involved we are with DC15 already. 19:37:43 anyway DC15 should check penta or summit if they don't want to be late ;-) [I think there is a design problem in actual summit, like the first year of penta: lack of "conference-person" 19:37:47 <_rene_> and if people don't see what's needed (and what they think they can do) they might not volunteer 19:37:58 well, this is the call for volunteers 19:38:06 <_rene_> volunteer for some random task you then might end up not being able to do 19:38:07 if I know there are volunteers I'll be more public about things that need doing 19:38:31 vorlon: most of us read debconf-team, so if you sent a message there every three days with low hanging fruits and tougher tasks… 19:38:35 this seems a bit of an impasse... 19:38:40 cate: what do you mean? 19:38:57 madduck: well, email is quite heavyweight, even. IRC? 19:39:25 madduck: there is work to do either if you use penta or summit :-( But possibly now it is not time to hack summit 19:39:43