17:59:43 #startmeeting 17:59:43 Meeting started Tue Jan 22 17:59:43 2013 UTC. The chair is zack. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:59:43 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:59:47 MeetBot: pingall dpl-helpers IRC meeting starting now 17:59:47 dpl-helpers IRC meeting starting now 17:59:47 algernon bgupta buxy Diziet gnugr gregoa hug KGB-0 KGB-1 KGB-2 lucas Maulkin MeetBot moray_ OdyX pabs taffit taffit_sud zack 17:59:47 dpl-helpers IRC meeting starting now 17:59:56 please say hi if you're around 17:59:57 hi 18:00:58 what a crowd :-) 18:01:20 indeed 18:01:40 oh well, the first one is easy enough, no matter how many we are 18:01:43 #topic next meeting 18:01:46 o/ 18:01:51 Hi. 18:01:58 * zack waves 18:02:08 next meeting: date -d @1360087200 (February 05) ? any objection? 18:02:16 I might need to leave early. 18:02:20 (on the 5th) 18:02:31 ok 18:02:31 * Maulkin is Skiing, so may or may not be around 18:02:40 fwiw, is the week after FOSDEM 18:03:04 still doesn't seem worth the hassle of picking another date, right? 18:03:17 Not really... 18:03:19 (hi) 18:03:28 no objection 18:03:31 ok, so: 18:03:31 #agreed next meeting date -d @1360087200 (February 05) 18:03:40 #topic action items from last meeting 18:03:57 we've even lost paultag, I'll query him 18:03:58 (I'm on 3G, so it's possible I'll get disconnected) 18:04:10 #action paultag to do the README for the dpl magic ical script (for real [real]) 18:04:34 Diziet: next one if yours, I've some q/comments unless you've updates in addition to what's been going on in the -project thread 18:04:35 My google calendar replacement is unhappy(tm) with it having ';'s in :( 18:04:51 Maulkin: uh? 18:04:56 zack: the ical URL. 18:05:08 Maulkin: ah, maybe you can set up some redirection, or a deb.li static URL? 18:05:10 zack: I have nothing much by way of updates. 18:05:17 zack: it has ';' in it, and it thinks that's a SQL injection attack 18:05:32 zack: But TBH I see myself as your assistant so I if you say you see consensus then that's what we will go with. 18:05:43 Diziet: so, I wonder if you can comment on why you think we don't have consensus on the topics at the bottom of your mail 18:06:02 To answer that properly I'd have to go through the previous thread again. 18:06:08 Diziet: oh, but I don't want to push in any specific direction, if you think there is not, I'm genuinly curious of understanding why 18:06:29 I just went through the thread and those were things that either weren't discussed or which there seemed to be some inconclusive discussion of. 18:06:40 there was indeed one point not discussed 18:06:46 I think the right answer is probably rather to put them forward again more forcefully as "we think there is consensus on XYZ" 18:06:55 i.e. whether the marks, after unbranding, could stya in the archive 18:07:10 Diziet: agreed 18:07:29 But anyway thanks for your reply. 18:07:36 I shall reply and I think I can go forward... 18:07:37 Diziet: do you have pending additional comments to that? 18:07:54 #action Diziet to push on with trademark, adopting comments from zack 18:07:56 No, I don't 18:08:01 ok, one last, related to this 18:08:07 OK 18:08:14 I'm a bit lost about the discussion with Q_ on DPL statements 18:08:18 Yes, me too. 18:08:23 it occurred to me that an alternative might be a DEP 18:08:26 I think we should press on and see if anyone actually objects. 18:08:27 Oh god. 18:08:32 ok, never mind :) 18:09:07 I just meant as a place where to store a document, if there's agreement already, it'd be pointless to go through the steps 18:09:16 Ah. 18:09:28 DEP was meant to be = process + storage 18:09:33 (of the state of a discussion) 18:09:50 The problem is that it doesn't have a clear status transition decisionmaker. 18:10:05 But I think that's another discussion... 18:10:09 indeed 18:10:29 anyway, I agree with you that a page with "DPL thinks there's consensus on..." it's absolutely fine, constitution-wise 18:11:13 ok, let's move on, ball in Diziet camp 18:11:22 (with many thanks for the work so far, I really appreciate) 18:11:31 #action zack to update the DMCA draft directly with the identified changes rationale 18:11:36 (I've been lagging on that one) 18:11:50 #action zack to contact debconf-team to draft a "job description" for delegation 18:11:53 (ditto) 18:12:00 lucas: your turn to lag :-P 18:12:20 ETOOBUSY, I need to send a VAC email, I think :/ 18:12:25 argh! 18:12:55 but that's fine, of course, just re #action it (or possibly move it to the todo.txt, which is for more long term stuff) 18:13:24 ok, will move it to todo.txt 18:14:01 (looks like today is gonna be a rather quick meeting) 18:14:12 #topic matters of the day 18:14:25 I've added 3 minor call for helps to the agenda 18:14:41 first one is for everyone, in about 1.5 months we're gonna start the new election process 18:14:48 +/- 1 week (right Maulkin?) 18:14:57 I've started repeating to people I won't run again 18:15:12 Hah, well, vote.debian.org is currently broken, so it may be zack for life! 18:15:15 meaning: this is *really* the time to start "bothering" people you think would be good candidates to run 18:15:18 Maulkin: :-P 18:15:33 the risk of people deciding only last minute because "we have elections, already?" is better be avoided 18:15:43 (Interesting constitutionally what happens if we just don't run an election...) 18:16:02 Maulkin: I guess it says to start elections "immediately" when once notices, right? 18:16:08 Maulkin: so you'll just have to run it by hand :-P 18:16:20 Probably 18:16:58 ayway, this is very DPL-ish, finding good candidates is fundamental -- I'm doing that, w/o much success for now :-P 18:17:17 feel free to /query me if you've candidates to propose and you want me to approach them, whatever 18:17:23 but keep this in mind 18:17:28 ---------------------------------------- 18:17:35 Normally call for nominations happens at FOSDEM time 18:17:45 Maulkin: right, that too 18:18:04 And we bully^Wconvince people to stand at FOSDEM 18:18:13 (with lots of beers around, which helps) 18:18:25 the other matter is M$ Azure 18:18:37 we now have Debian there https://lists.debian.org/debian-cloud/2013/01/msg00029.html 18:18:51 I think we should send out a press release mentioning Debian support on a multitude of public clouds 18:18:56 zack: Put an outline together on titanpad or something (with quotes) and I can PR it. 18:19:01 ... I could use a volunteer to draft the PR with me 18:19:07 Maulkin: oh, nice! 18:19:17 #action zack to draft outline for the debian on public cloud release 18:19:34 #action Maulkin to expand zack's draft PR on public cloud into some meaningful text 18:20:00 Debian reaches the for the sky with global public clouds 18:20:01 ---------------------------------------- 18:20:04 Or something 18:20:11 you're really into PR :) 18:20:38 Two minor issues to report from me (for interest of others) 18:20:45 Maulkin: just a sec 18:20:49 last one and then it's all misc 18:20:54 Cool 18:21:02 we need to document our "infra" at www.d.o/Teams/DPL 18:21:05 list, irc channel, etc 18:21:16 very minor, I was hoping to pass it to nhandler 18:21:19 s/www/wiki/ probably 18:21:27 taffit: right, sorry 18:21:40 I'll try to trick nathan :), or do it directly 18:21:43 -------------------------------- 18:21:44 Maulkin: all yours 18:22:28 New bits from the RT is due out tomorrow 18:22:29 http://titanpad.com/debian-release 18:22:47 Secret (not really) preview! 18:22:59 right! 18:23:06 s/is joining/has joined/ maybe? 18:23:13 Yeah. 18:23:42 live editing rocks :) 18:23:57 Maulkin: you know my pet peeve already, I mention it her for others to comment: 18:24:09 I think you should mention the forthcoming RT triaging, even if you're not *committing* to it 18:24:25 because otherwise people will just do silly things, like projecting the current RC bug count decrease ratio 18:24:28 or something 18:24:45 it's not *that* important, but it could help with morale 18:24:53 They do that anyway. 18:25:23 Plus, I mentioned it in the last bits... 18:25:38 And I need *something* to put in the next one! :) 18:25:42 yeah, but now you're at the point where it's (almost) feasible 18:25:57 Maulkin: ok, _that_ is a killer argument :-P 18:26:04 * Maulkin nods 18:26:12 #topic miscellanea 18:26:34 It's actually slightly less fatuous then that - having something important to announce makes me write a bits mail - jmw for example 18:26:58 anything else? (I've one last, but it's very minor) 18:26:59 Also, I was looking at the RT delegation - I'm fairly sure we're delegates already, by having things delegated from others. 18:27:06 Maulkin: right, though I agree with zack that it's not ideal if some "Debian is really late again" meme goes round 18:27:21 moray: Hey, I made LWN quote of the week :) 18:27:46 moray: yeah, and I see that happening already, even if I think that, honestly, there's no basis for it 18:28:17 Maulkin: oh? haven't checked it recently 18:28:23 The way to combat that is for people not to (for example) upload a new gcc just before we freeze. 18:28:38 Maulkin: I thought about point "we're delegates already", and I understand it. But in DDs mind the RT is really a separate entity. I think it'd be good to have it reflected at the delegation level too 18:28:52 Maulkin: how true... 18:29:22 I don't think it's sane to have RT "power" stem from the delegation of other teams 18:29:29 zack: though if it *is* under an existing delegation, constitutionally you might not be able to re-delegate it at the same time :) 18:29:44 zack: Fair enough. May be interesting to try and codify it... 18:29:59 I agree that delegated delegations aren't ideal, though 18:30:04 yeah, that's in TODO already, although I've been lagging 18:30:17 I think we're also going to be looking at this time based freeze too. Not entirely sure it's worked this time round. 18:30:17 Maulkin: maybe we can have a chat (i.e. on this channel) from here and next meeting and try that out? 18:30:39 zack: Probably needs someone to draft an outline first :) 18:30:50 sure 18:31:35 anyway, my last point was asking who around here is coming to FOSDEM, in case we want to try a F2F feedback moment 18:31:40 I'm going, and I know lucas is too 18:31:41 Maulkin: I share the concern that's been expressed, that a lot of people seem to see releasing as someone else's problem 18:31:54 * Maulkin is not. As it's FOSDEM. And I'm skiing :) 18:32:01 eh :) 18:32:06 (and just assume that the wonderfully efficient release team will get on with it) 18:32:26 * Maulkin nods. 18:32:29 I'm not booked for FOSDEM yet, though I was considering it (might not be able to go anyway) 18:32:34 Maulkin: I think in terms of bugs count, that's is strictly correlated with the number of packages in the archive, more than with the release technique 18:32:48 See the hastle I got about RC bugs and NMU delays. 18:32:54 Maulkin: the time-based freezes help the "diligent" teams and, imho more importatnly, upstreams 18:33:07 2Are we really meant to ping an RC bug every X days to say we're working on it?" <-- Yes, it's a bloody RC bug. 18:33:22 Maulkin: that's a wider problem with all bugs anyway 18:33:23 But hey, I'm grumpy. 18:33:31 I guess we can have a public discussion about this as soon as wheezy is out of the door? 18:33:38 Maulkin: many maintainers (including me) are bad with sending any reply until it's fixed 18:33:57 Yeah, I intend on asking for a release team sprint about a month or so after it anyway 18:34:02 also, part of the problem is: with 2 years release cycle, is very hard to have decent feedback loops about release techniques 18:34:15 Again, with a call for feedback etc (Not that I got much mail last time...) 18:34:22 the risk of flip-flopping about 2 mutually exclusive alternatives "just because" is high 18:35:27 anything else for the meeting or can we stop here? 18:36:12 * Maulkin is done 18:36:23 #endmeeting