17:59:55 #startmeeting 17:59:56 Meeting started Tue Dec 11 17:59:55 2012 UTC. The chair is zack. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:59:56 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 18:00:07 o/ (in and out, just landed in washington dc for $WORK) 18:00:12 hi everyone 18:00:21 .oO( I should probably learn about the pingall command... ) 18:00:24 paultag: heya! 18:00:27 who's around? 18:00:29 howdy! 18:00:31 o/ 18:01:12 uhm, not a crowd for the moment ... ;) 18:01:19 Maulkin mentioned he'll be late 18:01:27 so, I've pushed the agenda to Git 18:01:39 thanks a lot nhandler for adding the actions items from last week! 18:01:46 No problem 18:01:51 #topic next meeting 18:01:55 I've pushed a proposal for that 18:02:20 given nhandler correctly observed that now+2 weeks is xmas 18:02:27 and now+3 weeks is january 1st 18:02:35 the proposal is to have a meeting on december 28th 18:02:35 (hi) 18:02:48 and then gets back to the usual schedule on january 8th (which is Tue again) 18:02:57 moray_: hi moray_! (I've a new topic for you, hint hint) 18:03:08 how about the next meeting(s) proposal? 18:03:25 I'll be VAC for a week starting on the 22nd, so I'll have to miss that one. January 8 should work though 18:03:33 that sounds sensible to me 18:03:45 I'll probably be VAC 18:03:48 (hi!) 18:03:52 lucas: hi! 18:04:32 nhandler: would you prefer a non-Tue slot, in general? 18:04:33 I don't think we can change that now, but it'd be useful to know in general 18:05:08 zack: After the new year, my conflict that has forced me to leave early should go away. 18:05:41 ah, "should work" as in "OK", not in "I should work so I won't make it" ;-) 18:05:52 great, so let's say that the proposal on the agenda is fine 18:06:00 zack: Yep, sorry for the confusion :) 18:06:22 as long as it's this time, most days will work great here 18:06:29 it's actually a perfect time for me 18:06:39 I'll try to announce the 28th meeting with advance 18:06:40 so we can cancel if there are many regrets 18:06:40 #agreed next meetings dec 28th, jan 8th (usual time) 18:06:40 paultag: great! 18:06:51 #topic review action items from last meeting 18:07:05 I'll update the /topic and calendar after the meeting 18:07:10 (I'll follow the order from http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=dpl/dpl-helpers.git;a=blob_plain;f=meetings/agenda.txt) 18:07:19 nhandler: cool, thanks 18:07:48 the DPL-ish pseudopackage is still pending, I'll just re-act it 18:07:59 #action someone to check with bugs.d.o if a DPL-ish pseudopackage would be acceptable 18:08:14 paultag: you tested the script made by nhandler and it works, right? 18:08:21 yessir. 18:08:26 (to both) 18:08:35 cool, so it works for different accounts 18:08:47 had a minor perl dep issue 18:08:48 sorted now 18:08:59 so that's rightfully DONE 18:09:00 paultag: Did you ever commit that readme you had talked about? 18:09:19 erm, no 18:09:28 tsk tsk ;) 18:09:31 task me with that, I can get to it after I get back home :) 18:09:47 paultag: you can task yourself! 18:10:12 (it'll even feel more masochist that way) 18:10:17 #task paultag to do the readme for the dpl magic ical script 18:10:21 erm, hurm. 18:10:24 (#action) 18:10:25 s/task/action/ 18:10:28 #acton paultag to do the readme for the dpl magic ical script 18:10:32 great! 18:10:33 #action paultag to do the readme for the dpl magic ical script 18:10:34 ugh! :) 18:10:53 as you can see at http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=dpl/dpl-helpers.git;a=blob_plain;f=meetings/agenda.txt the agenda is done too 18:11:03 it's also great that we have meeting archives 18:11:14 I guess eventually I'll need to separe the agenda from a more broad todo list 18:11:40 (I suspect there will *always* be more DPL-ish tasks at hand than those we can discuss in a meeting)... 18:11:53 nhandler: good if I had a TODO list top-level, and we keep agenda.txt where you put it? 18:12:14 zack: No objections from me. 18:12:27 #action zack to add a top-level TODO list, as opposed to agenda.txt (which will be running "next meeting" agenda) 18:12:54 lucas: no news on the salvaging discussion front, right? 18:12:59 #action lucas to wrap-up the salvaging/orphaning thread and submit dev-ref patch. also address #681833. also look at the recent debian-qa@ thread. 18:13:05 no, still ENOTIME on my side 18:13:16 lucas: np. Do you think you could do it before xmas VAC? 18:13:26 not realistically 18:13:27 (I know, it's end of semester ;)) 18:13:30 during, maybe 18:13:43 oki 18:13:45 if someone else volunteers, I don't mind 18:13:54 otoh, it doesn't sound very urgent 18:13:55 Hello. 18:13:57 Sorry I'm late. 18:14:03 lucas: agreed 18:14:11 Diziet: I was right about to ping you 18:14:12 #insert 18:14:20 welcome! 18:14:34 Heh. 18:14:35 Diziet: agenda is at http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=dpl/dpl-helpers.git;a=blob_plain;f=meetings/agenda.txt now 18:14:48 and we are right at the point starting with "Diziet" :) 18:16:13 I haven't done anything about my items, one of which is obviously blocked on the other. 18:16:19 right 18:16:31 do you dare proposing an ETA? (if not, we can simply postpone of course) 18:16:57 I would say "I will do this by the next meeting" but that's what I told myself last time. 18:17:10 eh :) just re-action them, so that we won't forget 18:17:11 It's trivial though so maybe this time if I promise "by next meeting" maybe I actually will. 18:17:27 #action Diziet to ask secretary@d.o about https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/11/msg00009.html by next meeting 18:17:36 #action Diziet draft more formal statement re trademarks and discuss on -project, 18:17:43 #action Diziet draft more formal statement re trademarks and discuss on -project, apropos of https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00073.html 18:17:46 (oops) 18:18:01 i'll reuse your #include header for the next one 18:18:14 #action zack to write an outline of the -companies announcement and mail it to press@d.o 18:18:42 since last meeting, I've been sucked up in quite a bit of day to day work + the debconf urgent stuff + bits, etc 18:18:58 I should be more available starting next week too, past end of semester \o/ 18:19:01 algernon: around? 18:19:50 apparently not 18:20:11 I might end up reviewing the draft algernon already prepared myself during xmas vac, but in the avoidance of doubt I'll just re-action it as it is 18:20:22 #action algernon to update the DMCA draft directly with the identified changes, for easier review 18:21:24 anything else we might have forgot? If not we may move to the new-er stuff... 18:21:50 Nothing from me 18:21:55 #topic new topics 18:22:06 (how meta this change is...) 18:22:15 * nhandler -> away 18:22:18 easy stuff first 18:22:29 while working on the agenda it occurred to me that the usual IRC notifications might be nice 18:22:50 nhandler volunteered to work on KGB integration, so unless someone else want to do that, I'll just assign it to him 18:23:22 +1 for nhandler doing it :-) 18:23:26 #action nhandler to add KGB bot to #debian-dpl 18:23:39 next one is more juicy 18:24:08 are you all up to date with the debconf13 venue debate / flame ? 18:24:29 as in, you've an idea of wth I'm talking about? 18:24:40 yes 18:24:43 moray_: ^^^ 18:24:58 zack: I am aware of what you're talking about :P 18:25:05 just pinging you :-P 18:25:17 so, the part that concerns me here is the part about the delegation 18:26:12 reference is <20121126202237.GA6101@upsilon.cc> 18:26:25 and there's a small executive summary in the agenda 18:26:46 I don't think that a stronger Chairs delegation would have helped anything here 18:26:54 ugh, more debconf 18:26:59 in short, even if some debconf team members complained at the time of the chairs delegation that that was "disrupting" a bit the consensus based decision making of the time 18:27:02 team 18:27:12 it seems to me that the team had no good way to escalate an urgent decision 18:27:17 or am I reading this wrong? 18:27:33 http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/?m=%3C20121126202237.GA6101%40upsilon.cc%3E no hits 18:27:41 and I think that the origins of the issues were from weaknesses in other areas, like the bid decision process and "local team" to "long-time DebConf people" interaction 18:27:48 Diziet: sure, it can be escalated to the DPL, but for any urgent decision, that would be a bit unfair 18:27:55 sorry, copy/past error 18:27:59 Diziet: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.conference.team/8966 18:28:05 ta 18:28:16 (thanks debconf.org different infrastructure than debian.org for that search failure...) 18:28:41 moray_: so, how do you think this can be avoided in the future? 18:29:02 I think debconf team does need an authoritative way to take urgent / non delegated to other decisions 18:29:19 that is similar to what the DPL does for Debian, but the 2 cannot be reasonably merged into a single person 18:29:26 it'd just be madness, imho 18:29:57 zack: part of the problem in this case was that many people (including me) didn't *want* to take a decision for most of the period involved 18:30:00 hence the 2 ideas in the agenda ( *obviously* to be discussed with debconf team), but I welcome comments/suggestions even here 18:30:05 i.e. thought that taking a decision was actively harmful 18:30:42 Other long-running conferences (eg SF cons) have a committee which makes all decisions and is formally responsible for everything. But those communities have more of a tradition of conrunning. 18:30:48 that's just side-stepping the issue, it's equivalent to someone deciding "postpone the decision" 18:30:49 for forcing decisions, I would, as you guessed, point to the Committee thing though, sure 18:30:56 So we probably shouldn't adopt the "bid team is in charge". 18:31:20 ok 18:31:27 Diziet: the "Committee" idea here is having more experienced people involved 18:31:30 I think the DPL delegation should be to a standing committee who are formally responsible for making decisions. And naturally most of the time they wouldn't do so. 18:31:33 moray_: Right. 18:31:51 moray_: how "stable" the debconf committee you think is? (wrt change overtime, that is) 18:32:00 I mean mostly things go straightforwardly and no-one needs to make a Decision with a capital D 18:32:19 zack: I would rather that there was a rotation, rather than it being the same people in 10 years' time 18:32:45 zack: but I'm not sure about legislating details of that, as we find that different years' DebConfs give different numbers of long-term useful people staying around 18:33:06 (and a big part of DebConf's problems have been a lack of those over a number of years, indeed) 18:33:12 moray_: are you saying that there's no better solution than the status-quo? :) 18:33:17 moray_: I agree there should be turnover. People with experience and enthusiasm can gradually come in in the usual way we have with core teams. 18:33:28 long-term useful people> Right. 18:33:31 zack: I think the "consitutional" arrangements can be improved 18:33:38 zack: and would be happy to draw up some ideas on that 18:33:55 I was hoping something like that ;) 18:34:03 so, I'm all in favor of committees, with rotations 18:34:08 zack: but for the specific case, I'm not really convinced that the *process* went wrong/wasn't enough in itself 18:34:24 if you mean the bid process, I agree with you 18:34:37 zack: I include the decision-making process there 18:34:44 what bothers me is that there is no other escalation mechanism than "ask the DPL" (which likely knows nothing about what you're talking about) 18:35:00 the team was significantly split, so I don't accept that just making a quick decision would have been the right thing 18:35:12 I see, that's a good point 18:35:19 zack: whatever you have in place, *someone* will try asking the DPL :) 18:35:26 tell me about that.... 18:36:19 my idea was to eventually, ask debconf-team a sort of self-assessment of the team decision procedures 18:36:24 and see what the response is 18:36:33 if team members are fine with the status quo -> fine by me 18:36:43 if not, I'll be happy to evaluate alternatives 18:37:06 zack: well, asking that too much will just repeat the recent discussion 18:37:17 with people taking "party lines" depending on which group they were in 18:37:20 moray_: after this experience, do you think the "chairs" delegation is useful, considering its de facto "weakness"? 18:37:56 zack: from my point of view many people involved already assume that the Chairs have more power than I would like them to have 18:38:11 yeah, I agree with that 18:38:16 so yes, it's been useful in avoiding there just being no ability to decide what happens 18:38:18 (not sure if that's a problem per se) 18:38:41 but I don't see an immediate need to increase the delegated powers 18:39:06 I think trying to make the Committee more real is worth an attempt 18:39:15 "immediate" <- me neither, I was more thinking at something for the next debconf cycle 18:39:24 (hence to pass on to the next DPL) 18:39:33 moray_: I agree with the Committee part 18:39:47 and TBH, formal rotations are a mechanism I very much like, in general 18:39:58 and of which Debian needs quite a bit in various places 18:40:26 moray_: I don't see the need of adding any immediate action, but if you can keep in the backburner the Committee part and work on some improvement proposal, I'll be glad 18:40:51 zack: for the specific case, also bear in mind that the push to "decide now" started months back, at a time when none of the experienced people really wanted to have a yes-or-no decision that was being asked for by the Swiss 18:41:33 so most of this is about setting shared expectations in a better way rather than decisions as such 18:42:47 fair enough, although that sounds easier to do in theory than in practice :) 18:43:12 anything else on this? suggestions are welcome 18:43:53 ok 18:43:58 Maulkin: around? 18:44:04 zack: well, there is an opportunity to set expectations better when starting with future bid teams 18:45:05 fwiw, another part of the problem was the Swiss enthusiastically having lots of local face-to-face meetings during the DC12 period (although asked not to); I am intending to propose that we have one or two experienced non-local people focus more on DebConfN+1 much earlier 18:45:58 I don't know the details, but in general F2F meetings are fine *as long as* they're properly reported to the people unable to participate. Did the last part happen? 18:47:20 zack: making decisions in those meetings isn't ideal, though -- and for reporting, there was a mixture, including some vastly too detailed meeting minutes that no one had time to read due to DC12 being more urgent :) 18:47:37 making decision <- sure, I agree 18:47:56 anyway, as Maulkin is not around, just a comment on the next point "release team delegation" 18:48:14 the release team at present is *not* delegated, afai(and others)ct 18:48:23 that's bad, as they do have more powers than any other DD 18:48:35 I've discussed that with Maulkin long time ago 18:48:46 and I think it should be fixed, although it has been a big ENOTIME for me 18:49:09 Yes 18:49:24 the typical "exercise" to do at this point, is to ask the team what they *think* their responsibilities are, and compare it with what you (the DPL or helper :-P) think they are 18:49:30 better if written independently 18:49:31 As soon as a group like that starts mentioning that it is not delegated, it is time to fix things :) 18:49:56 Maulkin: mentioned something about that before the meeting started, but I didn't get what he meant 18:50:09 I'll look into this, with the goal of having a delegation before my term ends 18:50:30 but if anyone else wants to try writing down the important parts, it'll be a nice "DPL exercise" :) 18:50:57 #action zack to contact debconf-team to draft a "job description" for future delegation 18:51:10 if it doesn't make progress before I have some free time again, I could give it a try 18:51:41 lucas: ah, you fool :), ok, thanks 18:52:02 I'm short on time now as I've a dinner shortly after the meeting 18:52:16 so I'll just leave the remaining items in the agenda, probably moving them to a more broader todo list 18:52:29 anything else anyone wants to mention (in, say, 5 minutes)? 18:53:10 still no big progress on the "renewing AWS credits" front, I'm getting worried 18:53:17 uff, that sucks 18:53:38 jeb went MIA or ...? 18:54:03 no, he forgot to Cc you his last mail, which was "If we don't get a response by Monday from the people I've asked I'll put in for a credit myself for you." 18:54:25 with monday being yesterday, I'll ping him again ;) 18:54:26 lucas: can you bounce me that? 18:54:41 done 18:55:06 thanks, if nothing works in the next week, I'll try to escalate to the other people involved in the marketplace parts 18:55:27 (which was not exactly jeb's team, so it might give another lead) 18:55:33 please ping me if I forget! 18:55:59 ok, time to stop meeting for me 18:56:04 #endmeeting