19:00:35 #startmeeting 19:00:35 Meeting started Wed Feb 22 19:00:35 2017 UTC. The chair is OdyX. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:00:35 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 19:00:45 Who's here? 19:00:47 Philip Hands 19:00:50 Tollef Fog Heen 19:00:52 * OdyX is Didier 'OdyX' Raboud 19:01:07 good morning! 19:01:10 keith Packard 19:01:27 keithp: good evening :-) 19:01:37 Let's proceed 19:01:43 #topic Next Meetings? 19:02:11 So I propose, following the last meeting(s) feedback(s) to try to have these in a somewhat regular manner. 19:02:23 That would be "Third Wednesday in a month, 19 UTC. 19:02:32 What do you think ' 19:02:42 Sam Hartman 19:02:50 that time generally works for me. 19:02:57 OdyX: that works for me at least, and a regular time would be nice to put on a calendar 19:03:00 I don't have a problem with 3rd Wed 19 UTC 19:03:07 a fixed date improves my chances of remebering to turn up, and that time works for me 19:03:15 Fixed date ++ 19:03:23 It's a two-fold discussion, a) whether regular works; b) whether that pick works, 19:03:46 #agreed There seems to be consensus in favour of a fixed time-in-the-month. 19:04:13 I don't care about regular vs ad-hoc, so whatever works for folks. 19:04:28 Good. Let's take that as granted, and keep this as a possible change in the future. 19:04:39 It's not set in stone, but a good start, I think. 19:04:41 Good. 19:04:53 #topic Review of previous meetings' TODOs 19:05:06 Three TODO's were mine, I haven't progressed at all. 19:05:31 1) something about systemd in policy is hard to dive into, also there was some work in policy recently 19:05:51 2) menu-system patch needs me (+ someone) to take time+energy. 19:06:12 3) "OdyX and aba to find way forward within policy process reflecting input from debconf policy bof" I'm not sure what is expected from me. 19:06:36 Let's move on then (but I _do_ welcome your input on all these three items). 19:06:45 #topic #850887 Decide proper solution for binutils' mips* bug 19:07:34 On that; besides reflections on (as usual) how we (as TC) could'a/would'a have done better, I think it should be closed. 19:07:51 hartmans: you were closest to that subject, what is you insight on that one ? 19:07:58 s/you/your/g 19:08:17 I think it should be closed as well. 19:08:28 doco keeps wanting to add more content, but I think we've waited long enough. 19:08:41 Do you want me to close it? 19:08:55 Well. I don't see the point in keeping it open. 19:09:08 Also, I think even after being closed we are interested in anything doko wants to say 19:09:15 That was roughly a timing discussion, where doko would have waited, and RT proceeded faster. 19:09:26 Both were right, from where I sit. 19:09:51 Well, perhaps; since he's never told me what he wants to say I don't know if it is about the timing or something else. But I don't think holding it open helps. 19:10:33 hartmans: oh, absolutely. Closing a bug means "the TC shouldn't be expected to take a formal decision", but doesn't mean "the TC is closed to further feedback/opinions". 19:10:56 hartmans: please close it with reasonable hindsight, if that works for you. 19:11:03 OK, if you want to give me an action I can close 19:11:34 #action hartmans to close #850887 'decide proper solution for binutils\' mips* bug' 19:11:37 #save 19:11:45 #topic #846002 blends-tasks must not be priority:important 19:12:13 I'm not overwhelmingly happy of how it got to closure. 19:12:41 But I think it should be closed as well with a hint for involvees to talk to eachother after the stretch release. 19:13:13 It feels like the "ever-again" "development has to happen just after a release, not just before a freeze" problem. 19:13:26 fil: any opinions here ? 19:13:29 nope, me neither -- is the priority actually going to get dropped, and if so is KiBi's kludge going to be backed out? 19:13:49 development has to slow down as we get to a freeze> yes, and that's not something the CTTE can fix/change. 19:14:06 s/can/is willing to, either, / 19:14:12 No, but we could perhaps come up with guidance for when people could bring issues forward. 19:14:40 That is, perhaps we could get onto the release team schedule that in order to have reasonable chances of resolving issues, they should be brought to the TC by date x 19:14:53 if they are to be resolved for a given release 19:14:57 As for that subject, we voted, and there was result, so we should at least announce result, and move forward. 19:15:39 hartmans: that sounds reasonable. 19:15:50 I will admin I expected marga to do it, and will therefore coordinate with her how we should do that, at least. 19:15:57 s/admin/admit 19:16:15 (not blaming marga, _at all_ ) 19:16:20 ok, so you'll ensure it gets announced and closed? I can do it if not. 19:16:43 thanks 19:16:47 #action OdyX to coordinate with marga (eventually with Mithrandir's help) to close #846002 with the vote's result. 19:17:13 Mithrandir: let's coordinate between us; if you have more bandwidth/time, so much the better. 19:17:23 #topic #839570 Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening) 19:17:25 #save 19:17:26 I don't, but it's not nice to let you carry all the todos either. 19:17:36 I was supposed to rclose this right? 19:17:44 If so, my bad and I'll deal with it within an hour 19:17:59 I haven't checked the minutes, but that's my recalling, yes. 19:18:03 Ack, thank you! 19:18:09 ok, will do 19:18:13 #agreed hartmans do close that one in the next hour. 19:18:20 #topic #839172 TC decision regarding menu policy not reflected yet 19:18:33 Regarding that, I have a running TODO item to tackle that. 19:18:41 It's _hard_ to dive into it. 19:18:50 can I help with that at all? 19:19:07 keithp: yes! 19:19:31 keithp: we should find a timeslot to cook a suitable initial patch to Policy together, if that works for you! 19:19:40 sounds like a fine idea 19:20:17 #agreed keithp & OdyX to find some time to prepare an initial "discussion-ready" patch for the 'Debian menu' Policy in Debian policy 19:20:25 #topic #836127 New TC members 19:20:27 #save 19:20:33 Great. 19:21:07 I think most of us gave feedback about the candidacies we got. 19:21:38 What's blocking us in the process towards getting this towards a initial shortlist-of-two to give the DPL ? 19:21:38 * fil appologises for not responding to date -- life has been getting in the way -- I should have time very soon 19:21:40 For the public record, I'm really sad when I think about this process. 19:21:48 Oh, I concur. 19:21:56 ditto 19:22:03 We have a number of candidates, but I don't think we have a quality process for choosing between them. 19:22:09 I share hartmans's sadness, and am taking my part of the blame. 19:22:37 I think that name recognition by current members of the TC is the most effective technique we have come across so far, and I think we're all aware of the shortcomings of that. 19:22:50 Do we Condorcet them all (adding NOTA), or condorcet them individually, or a different process ? 19:23:29 "to condorcet" >> Merriam-Webster 19:23:48 it seems like a ballot containing all of them is indicated here 19:23:50 hartmans: on the other hand, is it better to delay because we think we have a less-than-optimal process? 19:24:02 anything else would show a explicit preference based on the order of ballots? 19:24:12 I think we should nominate at least one to the nominees we have, as it's as much our shortcoming, than the project's. 19:24:36 Can we agree to private-condorcet them all ? 19:24:43 wfm. 19:24:47 I think it would be fine to conduct a poll containing all the candidates and look at the ranked results. 19:25:06 (aka run a standard resolution across the names we had, in private, including NOTA). 19:25:06 I don't know that we then pick the top 3... Ultimate we should vote on a slate. 19:25:12 rather top two 19:25:33 worst case we condorcet, take the winner, and condorcet again. 19:25:39 But, I think the rankings may help us see what is next, and then people may want to propose slates or something. 19:26:19 I concur. At some point, the ranking process helps to clear the waters, and see where we stand. 19:26:28 So, let's do that. 19:26:29 Who would like to start that ? 19:26:48 I can propose a single ballot with all candidates on it, and see where it goes. 19:27:06 sounds like a start. 19:27:19 I agree 19:27:22 hartmans: you wanted to only have people there that are proposed, or can you live with a "everyone-ballot" ? 19:27:52 I don't know what you mean by prop,proposed? 19:28:04 I was thinking we'd start by ranking all accepted nominations 19:28:08 aka "people actively wanted on a ballot" vs "nominees" 19:28:35 * fil is also not understanding that distinction 19:29:03 I think OdyX is asking if we want people on the ballot who have no affirmative support within the TC 19:29:11 exactly. 19:29:14 (if there are any such) 19:29:26 In the past I've argued that such affirmative support should be required for putting a candidate forward. 19:29:28 the distinction we made in the last round was "one actual TC member wants that person on the ballot" vs "we have that nominee, but no explicit support from a TC member (yet)". 19:29:39 I still think that, but this is something I view as a poll to understand our thinking, 19:29:48 so I think all accepted nominations is right 19:29:57 Good. We're in rough agreement then. 19:30:16 Unless someone steps in, I'll prepare a ballot, and start a private vote. 19:30:21 I think all nominations is fine, if a candidate has no support they'll end up being ranked at the bottom. 19:30:32 Mithrandir: not true. 19:31:11 Mithrandir: Without requiring active support you tend to get people who are acceptable to everyone ranked fairly highly even when no one thinks they would be great. 19:31:13 you think they'll end up near the middle in case of antipaties? 19:31:20 (just to make sure we have everyone on the same page; we're talking about a private vote on the TC private alias, to help the TC reach conclusion; the public process is "the TC checks with the DPL for eventual veto's, runs the public vote, and the DPL nominates"). 19:31:30 yes, this is the private discussion 19:32:13 Iff we understand that initial poll as a consensus-finding poll, and not a proper decision, we should move on with it. 19:32:17 Mithrandir: My observation that acceptable but not favored candidates do well in rankings based on experience within student groups at MIT and within the IETF's nominations process. 19:32:40 and ping us in sequence so that we get that through before I have to resign as chair (end of March). 19:33:16 Good. I see no volunteers; I'll take that, but please ping me! 19:33:47 #action OdyX to start private Standard Resolution procedure to sort out the most favored candidates. 19:33:49 #save 19:34:25 #topic Additional Business 19:34:31 have one. 19:34:42 DebConf17. Who plans to attend ? 19:34:47 * OdyX raises hand. 19:35:06 * fil o/ 19:35:26 I will check my flights' and then file a TC session in the talks. 19:35:34 I think I will be. Have not yet asked for the travel approval but can do that shortly 19:36:07 I have very good memories from Cape Town, and would really like to see the TC back together IRL @DebConf. 19:36:30 I've so far done nothing about it, so should look at flights etc. 19:36:33 It's been super-useful to ease understanding between us-. 19:36:37 I am. 19:36:46 I plan on being there 19:37:31 Good. 19:37:36 Any other varia ? 19:38:29 I have none 19:39:19 Good. 19:39:33 Thank you for the productive meeting, 19:39:44 thanks for chairing 19:39:45 40 minutes; that's (too) good, perhaps. 19:40:07 Just an idea, should we have a "questions from the public" part ? 19:40:21 (or are we just us 5 around) 19:40:53 we could welcome questions from outside the TC during the "other business" bit. 19:41:00 (or as a separate step) 19:41:25 We do welcome questions anytime though, and on the list as well. 19:41:32 (and individually, as well). 19:41:33 That seems like it would only be wise when nothing contentious is happening ;-) 19:41:38 :-) 19:41:42 Good. 19:41:44 #endmeeting