17:00:33 #startmeeting 17:00:33 Meeting started Tue May 28 17:00:33 2013 UTC. The chair is lucas. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:00:33 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:00:34 o/ 17:00:51 #topic roll call 17:00:56 here 17:00:57 o/ 17:01:00 o/ 17:01:01 here-ish. 17:01:02 agenda is http://titanpad.com/debiandpl-20130528 17:02:15 maybe we could start with the two points that bgupta proposed, while waiting for others to arrive 17:02:28 #topic Debian/SPI relationship 17:03:04 one problem we have with SPI is that they are not able to provide a detailed list of transactions involving Debian 17:03:35 we get monthly statuses, so we know how much money we have, but we don't have a list of incoming/outcoming transactions 17:03:44 with the exception of credit card donations 17:04:18 that's something that is very demotivating for the work of our auditors, of course 17:04:40 zack has been pushing quite a lot for this, me too (my last ping is from mid-may) 17:05:14 besides more pushing, I don't think there's anything else to do, but since it has been raised, I wanted to clarify the situation 17:05:53 (of course, the dramatic measure would be to look for another US-based trusted organization, but I don't think that we are there yet) 17:06:16 comments? 17:06:20 questions? 17:06:21 [stuck on the phone] 17:06:26 I'll also add that there is a sense from some in the project, (perhaps a minority) that the fees they charge (5% or so) combined with the inconsistantly responsiveness of the service provided, feels like we are not getting a great deal. (I am paraphrasing) 17:07:04 I personally think that the issue is likely volunteer/manpower on SPIs side. 17:07:22 and some of the things they are doing manually now, could stand to be automated 17:07:41 It's also complicated by the fact that they are supporting multiple projects. 17:07:54 yes, that's likely, but from our exchanges so far, it's hard to tell 17:08:27 isn't the majority of the SPI board Debian folk? 17:08:34 it is 17:08:45 I have a feeling that if they opened up aseperate bank accounts for debian, and allowed certain debian staff access to those accounts, it would be the simplest way to resolve this. 17:09:41 I'm keeping an eye on this, and will raise it with the SPI board if it doesn't get solved 17:10:01 Basically remove the administrative burden from them, but still allow them to legally own the accoutns. 17:10:13 #action lucas ping again on the SPI transactions issue 17:10:18 (so that i don't forget) 17:10:20 (Debian can't own anything) 17:11:09 I don't think that we should propose such a thing, esp. if it involves stepping on their toes 17:11:38 there's a risk of demotivating them, too 17:12:03 well, on the flip side, they might welcome a lowering of their workload. 17:12:22 and they'd be able to provide better service to other projects. 17:12:28 it's not something they expressed so far, and they had the possibility to do it 17:12:32 Just floating an idea.. 17:12:48 #topic listing of trusted organizations + criterias for becoming one 17:13:12 the specific Q being: what the timeframe is on having the TO definition finalized, so the list of TOs can be finalized 17:13:40 I must admit that this is a topic I don't know well, and receiving the question 30 mins before the meeting didn't help :P 17:13:59 It's on auditor's TODO list. 17:14:12 perhaps, I'll just send email to auditor@? 17:14:23 generally, I don't think that we have a need to increase our number of TO *a lot* 17:14:46 clarifying what we expect from existing TO would be good 17:14:56 well the issue is that their list in a ittle nebulous as to what is and isn't TO 17:14:57 but we don't really have candidate TO currently 17:15:08 there's debian france, but I don't think that things are very active on that front 17:15:33 LIke the spanish debian org, is that TO? 17:15:47 anyway, we can take this offline.. 17:15:50 yes, ok 17:16:19 can you add an action for you :) to clarify the status with auditor@? 17:17:00 #action bgupta follow up with auditor@ regarding status of TO criteria 17:17:24 #topic DAM, keyring maint and DM keyring maint statuses 17:17:44 so, first, those teams are working well, and there's no need to worry in the near future 17:18:27 however, there's some work to do in terms of checking who is active, what the role of the team is (esp. for DM keyring maint), and who should be delegated 17:18:58 for example, the DM keyring maint does not manage the DM keyring anymore, and is composed of 3 DDs, 2 of them being inactive 17:19:14 so there's room for improvement ;) 17:19:41 I'm mentioning it here because it's a task that is quite self-contained, and that i wouldn't mind delegating 17:20:30 the expected outcomes being 1 to 3 delegation emails clarifying team members and role of each team 17:20:41 is someone interested? 17:20:53 (I was thinking that moray could be) 17:21:44 erm, it looks like it will be for me 17:22:11 (I would, but I don't think I am the right person for the task) 17:22:12 lucas: hi, just coming back online 17:22:40 lucas: working out what each time is/should be doing could fit with other "look at teams" stuff, the actual delegation part is a bit separate obviously 17:22:51 s/time/team/ 17:24:14 yes, but I think that the priority is a bit different, since we know those teams could become weak points 17:24:38 there is a wider issue about how delegations should be handled 17:24:39 (not a new one) 17:24:49 what do you mean? 17:24:58 e.g. when people are inactive, how quickly is it sensible to try to push changes 17:25:20 DPLs have tended to be scared of annoying delegates, even inactive ones :) 17:25:40 heh 17:25:58 note that having people around is helpful even if they are not doing the day-to-day work 17:26:13 I think that we kind-of solve this with "wizards" 17:26:22 sure. I think the problematic case is when they are (sometimes unintentionally) blocking new people helping on the work 17:26:39 (which can be simply because it appears from outside that there are enough people doing it) 17:27:24 sure 17:28:22 sorry, I don't think we reached a decision: I'm fine doing this specific task, but if you want it, it's yours 17:28:59 moray: ^ 17:29:03 I think it's mostly just sorting out the delegation (possibly including killing off a separate DM delegation), so probably you can do it without too much help :) 17:29:25 ok, as you want 17:29:30 (or I fear that the extra coordination between more people may add more work than it removes) 17:30:24 we inverted "next meeting" and "new topics" earlier, so let's go back to next meeting 17:30:32 #topic next meeting 17:30:38 [2013-06-11 Tue 17:00] ? (date -d @1370970000) 17:30:45 moray? 17:31:02 should work for me, currently 17:31:18 #agreed next meeting [2013-06-11 Tue 17:00] ? (date -d @1370970000) 17:31:22 ok, let's do that 17:31:43 I'm going to copy/paste from the agenda the things that might not require discussion 17:31:58 if you think differently, of course, feel free to ask questions or to comment 17:32:03 #topic actions from last meeting 17:32:14 ** DONE lucas to finish work on bits.d.o delegation 17:32:15 https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2013/05/msg00012.html 17:32:15 ** TODO bgupta to flesh out debian-sponsors wiki here http://wiki.debian.org/Fundraising, and ping list again to share 17:32:17 Finally starting working on it, have made progress, but really still need to organize the ideas into categories to focus discussions. Expect to be ready to start dicussions on list within a week or two 17:32:22 ** TODO bgupta Write to Mishi@SFLC and confirm that no changes are required to TM policy if we register Logo 17:32:25 Repinged - still waiting - recently pinged - no need to discuss 17:32:27 ** TODO bgupta investigate full madrid costs 17:32:30 Repinged - still waiting - recently pinged - no need to discuss 17:32:33 ** TODO zack to answer on -cloud@ about general philosophical statements from Debian 17:32:38 ** DONE lucas update organization web page to add " (delegate)" and send email about current known+active delegations 17:32:41 - organization.en.html updated 17:32:44 - mail sent to d-d-a, with a deadline on June 15th for feedback 17:32:45 ** TODO moray to propose a more detailed process about the teams survey 17:32:48 Waiting for some responses, e.g. have asked Steve McIntyre for comments based on his experience of the previous teams survey. 17:32:51 ** TODO moray to initiate work on paths into the project 17:32:54 Still on hold until previous item has progressed more. 17:32:56 ** TODO Diziet make progress on inbound trademark policy 17:32:59 Lucas clarified that the DPL position did not change with the DPL switch 17:33:02 ** DONE lucas to check with auditor about current status of reimbursement requests 17:33:05 Answer is: they are not aware of any problems recently 17:33:06 ** DONE lucas investigate moving the initd discussion to the TC 17:33:09 TC suggests organizing more discussions, possibly during a "summit" meeting or at DebConf. 17:33:12 In the meantime, new discussion on -devel@. Next action is probably on systemd supporters to answer the various questions 17:33:15 ** TODO paultag do ics automailer 17:33:18 -- I'll re-action what needs to be re-action 17:33:22 #action bgupta to flesh out debian-sponsors wiki here http://wiki.debian.org/Fundraising, and ping list again to share 17:33:29 #action bgupta Write to Mishi@SFLC and confirm that no changes are required to TM policy if we register Logo 17:33:32 re-action sorry 17:33:36 #action bgupta investigate full madrid costs 17:33:47 #action zack to answer on -cloud@ about general philosophical statements from Debian 17:33:55 #action moray to propose a more detailed process about the teams survey 17:34:02 #action moray to initiate work on paths into the project 17:34:10 #action Diziet make progress on inbound trademark policy 17:34:17 #action paultag do ics automailer 17:34:32 on the TC/summit/debconf point: I think it would be nice if we could get someone from each faction to present their case in a session at debconf 17:35:11 yes. however I hope that we will make progress by then 17:35:25 well, sure, maybe we can have a "winner" doing a presentation :) 17:36:00 but the same potentially goes for other topics 17:36:19 we should be careful about not postponing everything until debconf, too ;) 17:37:18 right, I mentioned it as I think one of the most useful types of DebConf talk is to present a possible option for enhancing Debian, without necessarily trying to reach a solution 17:37:23 (but I agree that debconf sessions on the active topics that could use it would be nice) 17:37:33 and that any of us (or others) should look for relevant things and actively ask people to present about them 17:38:11 indeed, very good point 17:38:30 generally, I'm not sure that "what's wanted in terms of talks" is clearly stated for debconf 17:38:35 no 17:38:51 what's the deadline for talk proposals? 17:39:06 there is some deadline soon, but it will be possible to take more much later 17:39:29 we could even reserve some slots for "current discussion topics" in advance, I guess 17:39:40 ok, I'll make sure to mention debconf submissions in my next d-d-a bits 17:40:07 other comments, 17:40:08 ? 17:41:05 ok, let's look at items that could use more discussion 17:41:06 ** TODO bgupta to move list of ideas to wiki and go through end of campaign's discussions -- http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/campaignideas 17:41:09 Done - ready for folks to start reviewing 17:41:33 maybe something to post to -project or -vote? 17:41:47 maybe s/campaignideas/Ideas in the page title 17:41:50 yes, -project 17:41:53 Please confirm this is roughly what was envisioned, and that my catagorization makes sense. 17:42:32 yes, totally. great work, overall. 17:42:50 thanks. 17:43:11 that's something that will be very useful in the future. one challenge is to keep it roughly updated when new things come up 17:44:02 I would say one thing, that it is kind of a laundry list, with some things making sense and others maybe not so much. 17:44:09 ah, something else that should be mentioned is "criteria for addition to the list" 17:44:22 I don't think that we should add ideas that have not been discussed somewhere before 17:44:53 that's kinda unavoidable 17:45:05 and one of the rules of brainstorming is not criticizing ;) 17:45:10 yeah, if people just add arbitrary things to the wiki page it's unlikely to stay useful 17:45:41 lucas: I did hae a thought.. there was a question raised about how to do this more often. Realistically this list is rather large and that once per year as part of -vote proceedings, perhaps is enough? 17:46:09 #action lucas/bgupta to add header of criterias for adding things and general goal 17:46:24 s/of/with 17:46:41 bgupta: sometimes ideas are mentioned in random mailing list threads 17:47:03 a good sign that soemthing should be added is when someone points out that this has already been raised before 17:47:13 ok.. 17:47:39 Yeah, being able to point to list archive perhaps shoud be criteria.. 17:47:54 yes 17:48:04 other comments? 17:48:38 lucas: I think before we share list more widely, you should formulate Why we adoing this. 17:48:38 ** TODO bgupta to investigate domain held by Debian with dsa, hostmaster@spi, auditor@ 17:48:41 DONE? Email sent 5/24 - Awaiting replies (added ffis to list of recipients). Expanded to tracking list of all debian.* domains. Status only 8 out of 28 debian.* domains are held by TOs. Question s: Where should this list be tracked? I can check into dpl-helpers trademark folder for now, if people think that's a reasonable place. 17:48:51 bgupta: yes 17:49:08 bgupta: I think that dpl-helpers git is fine 17:49:26 bgupta: please notify auditors@ that we have such a list, too 17:50:01 #action bgupta commit list of debian.* domains to dpl-helpers repo and notify auditors about list 17:50:53 ok, with this we end the agenda 17:51:36 does someone have something else to add? 17:52:17 ok, I'll handle posting the meeting notes 17:52:22 #endmeeting