17:59:34 <spwhitton> #startmeeting
17:59:34 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue May 10 17:59:34 2022 UTC.  The chair is spwhitton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:34 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:48 <spwhitton> #topic Roll Call
17:59:56 <spwhitton> Apologies received from gwolf and Myon
17:59:58 <spwhitton> Sean Whitton
18:00:43 <helmut> Helmut Grohne
18:00:53 <ntyni> Niko Tyni
18:00:56 <Emperor> Matthew Vernon
18:03:12 <ntyni> ehashman: smcv: ^^
18:05:32 <ehashman> Elana Hashman
18:05:49 <spwhitton> ehashman: lo, do join us on jitsi
18:05:55 <spwhitton> the private one
18:06:01 <ehashman> oh, there's a jitsi... one moment
18:08:21 <ehashman> I don't see a link in this meeting's email, same as last time?
18:08:35 <spwhitton> ehashman: the one sent to  d-ctte-private, which was the one last time, yes
18:08:39 <spwhitton> also in #debian-ctte-private
18:08:45 <spwhitton> sorry I didn't include it in the mail.
18:20:59 <spwhitton> #action spwhitton to write to RT as previously planned
18:29:35 <spwhitton> #topic Review of previous meeting AIs
18:29:41 <spwhitton> They are all done except for Elana's
18:29:50 <ehashman> carrying forward again :)
18:29:55 <spwhitton> coolio
18:30:27 <spwhitton> #action ehashman to commit private-comms slides+gobby to git procedures/
18:30:41 <spwhitton> #topic Bug#1007717 -- Native source package format with non-native version
18:30:50 <spwhitton> thank you very much matthew for the summary
18:30:59 <Emperor> I thought it might be useful :)
18:31:01 <ntyni> +1
18:31:27 <spwhitton> Where do other people feel we are with this?
18:31:46 <spwhitton> As I mentioned I've been thinking about it for longer than most so difficult for me to say.
18:32:47 <Emperor> I think I broadly agree with Russ that it's sensible to continue to allow single-tarball source formats for both native and non-native packages
18:32:55 <ehashman> I'm not caught up on this bug; thanks Emperor for the summary
18:33:42 <ntyni> Emperor: I agree as well
18:34:18 <spwhitton> I agree too as Policy Editor, for the same reasons as Russ
18:34:25 <helmut> I was actually hoping that Russ and Guillem would engage (outside ctte) regarding the relaxing of 3.0 native versioning. seems like that didn't happen. :-/
18:34:35 <spwhitton> I don't know where smcv and gwolf stand on this one.
18:35:13 <spwhitton> I think we don't want to say anything about the MBF, right?  Just make a ruling on source packages.
18:35:36 <ntyni> yes
18:35:55 <Emperor> Yes, I think given the MBF-filer has said they aren't going to make them RC (or re-open if maintainers close), I don't think we need say anything about them
18:35:58 <helmut> judging the mbf in retrospect is not actionable, it cannot be undone
18:36:06 <ehashman> what is MBF?
18:36:10 <Emperor> Mass Bug Filing
18:36:13 <ehashman> aha
18:36:15 <ehashman> thank you
18:36:44 <Emperor> helmut: I don't think I'd necessarily agree were the submitter still intending to make them RC at some point in the future, but they don't, so it's moot, so let's not spill electrons on it :)
18:36:52 <spwhitton> ehashman: do you have strong views against Ian and co.?
18:37:05 <spwhitton> if not, maybe we can just vote -- afaict there aren't unresolved points of discussion.
18:37:22 <ntyni> have we covered 1.0-with-diff ?
18:37:27 <helmut> Emperor: right. I was referring to the "noise" generated by the mbf. closing the bugs would generate more "noise"
18:37:28 <ehashman> I feel too uninformed at this time; if you called a vote right now I'd have to abstain
18:37:37 <spwhitton> ehashman: okay fine, let's not do that then.
18:38:01 <Emperor> ntyni: I think it's useful for git-first workflows (if you see what I mean)
18:38:08 <spwhitton> right, those are the main case
18:38:27 <Emperor> '1.0-with-diff has advantages over 3.0 (quilt) particularly with git-based workflows, because in 3.0 (quilt) the diff is included inside the source tree ' to quote my own summary
18:38:32 <ntyni> yeah I can see it's still useful
18:39:05 <spwhitton> another option is for me to prepare a draft resolution so that once we hear from ehashman, gwolf and smcv that they're up-to-date, we can vote, and that can probably be got done in advance of next meeting
18:39:14 <ehashman> +1
18:39:15 <helmut> are there any downsides with relaxing the 3.0 (native) version requirement currently present in dpkg?
18:39:30 <Emperor> helmut: I've not seen any expressed
18:39:43 <spwhitton> helmut: not so far as Ian and I can tell from having worked with source packages in excrutiating detail in the context of dgit
18:39:45 <Emperor> spwhitton: I think that's sensible, well volunteered
18:40:08 <ntyni> yes, a draft resolution sounds good
18:40:22 <helmut> how about giving the benefit of doubt here as well and before we start ruling, we could file a bug against dpkg asking to relax the requirement
18:40:41 <Emperor> helmut: the request was that we issue advice, not overrule
18:40:57 <spwhitton> yup Ian was explicit about that when I asked.  he wants us to use our advice-giving power only.
18:40:59 <helmut> then guillem would have the option to reply to that bug outside ctte context
18:41:38 <spwhitton> I bet that bug already exists
18:41:47 <spwhitton> probably Ian filed one
18:42:10 <Emperor> #737634 ?
18:42:26 <helmut> tagged wontfix
18:43:04 <spwhitton> guillem's reply there has a clear view on the matter.  more recent communication on d-policy suggests he may have changed his mind.
18:43:47 <spwhitton> interesting to see discussion of the TC with guillem a whole eight years ago with similar talking points :(
18:43:52 <spwhitton> on both sides, I mean.
18:44:05 <helmut> last interaction more than 8 years ago on that bug...
18:44:20 <Emperor> I think if we think the restriction should be relaxed, we could give advice on the matter, and suggest that bug's wontfix is reconsidered
18:44:54 <spwhitton> given the issues we have with guillem not responding to us and how long the TC bug has been open without much disagreement, I would like to suggest we go ahead with voting once we know all TC are up-to-date, rather htan waiting on a new dpkg bug
18:45:00 <helmut> Emperor: that approach sounds reasonable to me.
18:45:07 <Emperor> if nothing else, our doing so might get policy changed to bless the practice, which might make Guillem more inclined to take the change
18:45:21 <spwhitton> Emperor: I think we already did this.
18:45:29 <helmut> spwhitton: no need for a new bug. the old one is fine
18:45:33 <spwhitton> not the  1.0-with-diff but the thing about version numbers.
18:46:05 <helmut> would the policy editors not be able to change policy without ctte endorsement?
18:46:17 <Emperor> helmut: they could, but they asked for our advice in this bug
18:46:20 <spwhitton> I'm just looking, it's on our unreleased substantive changes branch already
18:46:28 <spwhitton> we changed it to define native packges not in terms of verison numbers.
18:47:00 <spwhitton> sorry I mean the other way around :)
18:47:22 <helmut> I didn't perceive it as policy being blocked on ctte advice, but if that's the case, I'd be happy to vote for said advice
18:47:39 <spwhitton> I don't think there's a block of that nature either.
18:48:03 <spwhitton> okay, I think we have a next step (me posting a draft inc. reference to the wontfix as just suggested), shall we move on?
18:48:10 <Emperor> +1
18:48:14 <spwhitton> #action spwhitton to write draft to be voted on once all ctte are up-to-date
18:48:41 <spwhitton> #agreed draft resolution to include advice to reconsider wontfix status of #737634
18:49:02 <helmut> question: does the draft also cover the 1.0 diff aspect?
18:49:11 <spwhitton> helmut: I was planning to put that in.
18:49:20 <spwhitton> if we discovered disagreement we can split into ballot options.
18:49:37 <helmut> spwhitton: I think splitting it right away would be good.
18:49:44 <spwhitton> okay sure, will do that
18:50:00 <spwhitton> #topic DebConf22 presentation
18:50:13 <spwhitton> the CfP is in, not accepted yet but presumably will be
18:50:32 <spwhitton> one issue we have right now is that no-one has said that they are definitely going to be there, including me
18:50:51 <ntyni> I'm definitely not going to be there fwiw
18:50:51 <helmut> it looks more and more likely that I'm 80% there
18:51:05 <spwhitton> helmut: okay that is good to know, thank you
18:51:12 <spwhitton> I am still hopeful but it's unknown.
18:51:22 <helmut> beware though, that during debcamp, I'll be very busy with non-debian things
18:51:32 <spwhitton> we said we would do bits from the TC mail in a bits from the TC talk
18:51:43 <spwhitton> maybe we could get the former done first as then it will be easier to plan our talk?
18:52:26 <spwhitton> it's not hard to put together a bits mail.  just use last year's as a template and write shor summaries of the bugs.
18:52:31 <spwhitton> would anyone like to come up with a draft of this?
18:52:55 * Emperor would like not to on the basis of not having been on the cttee for all of the last 12 months ;p
18:53:15 <spwhitton> Here is last year's: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2021/07/msg00000.html
18:53:23 <ntyni> ok, I'll take that
18:53:27 <spwhitton> fabulous
18:53:44 <spwhitton> #action ntyni to preprae draft d-d-a mail sumamrising the past year
18:54:04 <spwhitton> so, we'll plan to talk about presentation content next meeting, then, with that draft in hand?
18:54:24 <ntyni> makes sense
18:54:43 <Emperor> +1
18:55:42 <spwhitton> #agreed next meeting we will discuss talk content & assign people to work on parts of it
18:55:52 <spwhitton> #topic Any other business
18:56:08 <spwhitton> anyone got anything else?
18:56:27 <ntyni> nothing here
18:56:58 <helmut> is rename/util-linux fully done or is there anything left there?
18:57:06 <spwhitton> helmut: fully done I believe.
18:57:25 <helmut> when do we send d-d-a mails for decisions?
18:57:29 <Emperor> I don't know if the requested change has happened
18:57:33 <ntyni> no change in the archive yet I think
18:57:46 <spwhitton> helmut: we don't do that typically
18:57:57 <ntyni> I think we used to though
18:57:59 <helmut> it sometimes did happen
18:58:01 <spwhitton> that's sort of the point of the bits mail, I thought
18:58:18 <spwhitton> cos most decisions affect only a small minority of package maintainers directly.
18:58:34 <ntyni> I kind of liked the announcements
18:58:35 <Emperor> Should we check again next meeting and maybe send a follow-up if there's been no change by then?
18:59:00 <helmut> I also liked the announcements. if we consider them too much noise, we could add them to misc developer news
18:59:12 <spwhitton> Emperor: we could.  My instinct is that people don't like being badgered by the TC once we've done our formal role.
18:59:32 <spwhitton> but in this case the request came from a non-contributor, so perhaps we should
19:00:02 <Emperor> spwhitton: I get no-one wants to be nagged; but OTOH we shouldn't forget to make sure the change we requested gets made.
19:00:29 <spwhitton> Emperor: I think the thought is that we legitimate anyone else going and doing that
19:00:32 <helmut> Emperor: I concur and it was part of why I brought it up now
19:01:05 <spwhitton> shallwe action Emperor to keep track of this one in particular?
19:01:24 <Emperor> if you do so we'll at least know to check again next meeting, so I'm cool with that
19:01:34 <helmut> thank you
19:01:44 <spwhitton> #action Emperor to keep track of util-linux bug and let us know next meeting whether the change has been made in the archive
19:01:49 <spwhitton> indeed thank you
19:02:14 <spwhitton> we are out of time but let's discuss the d-d-a anonuncements thing next meeting.  I will put it on my draft agenda.
19:02:25 <ntyni> great, thanks
19:02:31 <spwhitton> #endmeeting