Started logging meeting in #debconf-team, times are UTC.<br />
[20:59:58] &lt;madduck&gt; 01 21:59 [ adlpaf      ] [ bureado ] [ gregoa   ] [ Maulkin ] [ sgran      ] [ Traveler_] <br />
[21:00:02] &lt;moray&gt; evening<br />
[21:00:02] &lt;madduck&gt; 01 21:59 [ alphascorpii] [ cek     ] [ grisu_42 ] [ meetbot ] [ Sledge     ] [ zer0mdq  ] <br />
[21:00:05] &lt;madduck&gt; 01 21:59 [ amaya       ] [ cpt_nemo] [ gwolf    ] [ mhy     ] [ suihkulokki] <br />
[21:00:08] &lt;madduck&gt; 01 21:59 [ angasule    ] [ edrz    ] [ h01ger   ] [ moray   ] [ svenk      ] <br />
[21:00:11] &lt;madduck&gt; 01 21:59 [ arthur      ] [ FBI     ] [ Hydroxide] [ paravoid] [ Tincho     ] <br />
[21:00:14] &lt;madduck&gt; 01 21:59 [ bdale       ] [ fil     ] [ jvw      ] [ sapphire] [ tokkee     ] <br />
[21:00:17] &lt;madduck&gt; 01 21:59 [ broonie     ] [ Ganneff ] [ madduck  ] [ schultmc] [ Tolimar    ] <br />
[21:00:20] &lt;madduck&gt; (maybe meetbot does this...)<br />
[21:00:22] &lt;madduck&gt; hi<br />
[21:00:25] &lt;Ganneff&gt; me!<br />
[21:00:27] &lt;moray&gt; we probably need some local team people<br />
[21:00:30] &lt;gwolf&gt; beee<br />
[21:00:38] &lt;Ganneff&gt; cek: ping<br />
[21:00:38] * bdale waves<br />
[21:00:39] &lt;madduck&gt; moray: else we postpone "meet the local team"<br />
[21:00:40] &lt;gwolf&gt; ...strongly so.<br />
[21:01:18] * schultmc waves<br />
[21:01:23] * sgran waves<br />
[21:01:46] &lt;madduck&gt; i put some sort of agenda on here: http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/DebConf9/Meetings<br />
[21:02:11] &lt;madduck&gt; i suppose the main reason I called for this meeting was (a) to finally wrap up DC8, (b) to set dates so that I can make proper press releases.<br />
[21:02:27] &lt;moray&gt; does someone have a good ref for the dc7/dc8 timelines?  I can only find partial versions<br />
[21:02:30] &lt;madduck&gt; given that Tincho and h01ger won't be here, I think we ought to postpone DC8-leftovers till next time<br />
[21:02:36] &lt;Ganneff&gt; yes<br />
[21:02:44] &lt;madduck&gt; #topic deadlines<br />
<a name='0'></a>
[21:03:01] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: yeah, that meeting should really be announced more to dc8 "local" people in case they want to raise any last-minute issues too<br />
[21:03:06] * Ganneff thinks the deadlines shouldnt be all finalized now just to put them in the initial announce<br />
[21:03:20] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: why not?<br />
[21:03:46] &lt;Ganneff&gt; it wouldnt gain us much, i think. the most important part is to finally announce the dates dc9 happens at.<br />
[21:03:52] &lt;Ganneff&gt; the rest can come in later.<br />
[21:04:06] &lt;Ganneff&gt; and if we all finalize it now, we set a schedule thats hard(er) to adjust if needed.<br />
[21:04:16] &lt;moray&gt; I agree that including them all isn't useful (as I said earlier, but not during the meeting)<br />
[21:04:18] &lt;madduck&gt; of course it can come later, but it's very uncommon i think<br />
[21:04:22] &lt;Ganneff&gt; also, if we split the dates announce out, we can have more releases and as such more press<br />
[21:04:44] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: I don't think it works like that, unfortunately<br />
[21:04:50] &lt;madduck&gt; but maybe I am trying to achieve too much...<br />
[21:04:51] &lt;bdale&gt; unless someone has a straw-man proposal, it seems unlikely that you're going to commit to a timeline today<br />
[21:04:52] &lt;moray&gt; Ganneff: well, from the amount of press in the past it's an academic question which would work better<br />
[21:04:56] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: why not? did in the past.<br />
[21:05:04] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: we had press in the past? :)<br />
[21:05:07] &lt;Ganneff&gt; moray: maybe we need to do more press releases?<br />
[21:05:11] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: ^^<br />
[21:05:24] &lt;gwolf&gt; Ganneff: Press releases should be useful...<br />
[21:05:48] &lt;Ganneff&gt; *I* would go and do an announce of the dates when it happens. and later a second one with more details. also, the most important for the normal people is the cfp one.<br />
[21:05:51] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: I agree. The problem in the past has usually been that I found out about stuff through -announce. This has improved a lot...<br />
[21:05:53] &lt;bdale&gt; announcing firm dates for the event would suffice for a release<br />
[21:06:09] &lt;moray&gt; bdale: for *internal* use, a preliminary timeline based on the last couple of years seems a useful thing to work out, then people can start objecting to it now...<br />
[21:06:32] &lt;moray&gt; but I am in the "event dates" camp for external announcements just now<br />
[21:06:42] &lt;bdale&gt; moray: agreed.  a preliminary timeline would constitute a straw-man <br />
[21:06:43] &lt;madduck&gt; #agreed alright, I agree, I will push out the dates tomorrow<br />
<a name='1'></a>
[21:06:56] &lt;madduck&gt; does it work like that, the meetbot?<br />
[21:07:25] &lt;gwolf&gt; bdale: +1. I have also got some questions regarding when the _conf_ will be - And while the CFP dates are also very important, I think the conference dates are... crucial by now<br />
[21:07:38] &lt;madduck&gt; #agreed<br />
<a name='2'></a>
[21:07:41] &lt;madduck&gt; hm.<br />
[21:07:51] &lt;madduck&gt; alright, but for internal use, could we have a *rouch* guidelines?<br />
[21:07:54] &lt;madduck&gt; rough even<br />
[21:08:06] &lt;madduck&gt; like cfp then, reg opens then, closes then, papers in then and so on?<br />
[21:08:23] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: yes, I think we should just copy over the scheme from dc7/dc8, which were approximately the same for timelines<br />
[21:08:24] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: lets discuss that via mailinglist<br />
[21:08:36] &lt;Ganneff&gt; taking similar amounts of timeframes between events like in past two years<br />
[21:08:56] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: and what are those?<br />
[21:08:59] &lt;bdale&gt; I agree that starting with dc7/8 timeline, working back from dc9 dates, would make a good place to start discussion<br />
[21:09:07] &lt;Ganneff&gt; err. look in old archive? :)<br />
[21:09:10] &lt;cek_&gt; hello<br />
[21:09:13] &lt;cek_&gt; sorry for the delay<br />
[21:09:15] &lt;Ganneff&gt; hello cesar.<br />
[21:09:17] &lt;madduck&gt; tbh, mailing list discussions have taken ages lately, why can't we just agree on a timeline now?<br />
[21:09:26] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: also useful to have it documented here...<br />
[21:09:27] &lt;cek_&gt; I was at the University<br />
[21:09:27] &lt;madduck&gt; cek_: hi<br />
[21:09:33] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: I was looking for a good link earlier, I can't spot one with all the dates together though<br />
[21:09:41] &lt;zer0mdq&gt; sorry i'm late<br />
[21:09:45] &lt;Ganneff&gt; cek_: (btw, you could use your irssi :) )<br />
[21:09:47] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: must be in the list archives at least<br />
[21:09:53] &lt;bdale&gt; madduck: if you have a proposal, we could agree on it.  if you're asking someone to make something up, I don't see how we're going to do that effectively online today<br />
[21:09:57] * zer0mdq is reading backlog<br />
[21:10:05] &lt;cek_&gt; Ganneff, yes, I know :)<br />
[21:10:29] &lt;madduck&gt; alright, my proposal: registration ends with march<br />
[21:10:41] &lt;madduck&gt; it opens in the middle of february<br />
[21:10:46] &lt;Ganneff&gt; registration for sponsored people.<br />
[21:10:50] &lt;madduck&gt; call for papers goes out beginning of january<br />
[21:10:51] &lt;Ganneff&gt; with march == end of march?<br />
[21:10:55] &lt;madduck&gt; yes, end of march<br />
[21:10:57] &lt;bgupta_&gt; Hi I'm Brian, I am part of the local team working with Jimmy on a DC10 bid. One question for schedule, has the local team given us a list of available dates for the DC9 venue(s) in question?<br />
[21:11:12] &lt;madduck&gt; bgupta_: dates are fixed 16-30 july<br />
[21:11:14] &lt;Ganneff&gt; and cfp - you need to be registered to propose a talk<br />
[21:11:35] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: cfp is the call for papers != entering papers<br />
[21:11:56] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: so you want to have months where people cant enter talks?<br />
[21:11:59] &lt;gwolf&gt; IIRC the CFPs were quite a bit earlier in previous years (Decemberish)<br />
[21:12:16] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: the registration needs to open sooner.<br />
[21:12:21] &lt;madduck&gt; then *<br />
[21:12:29] &lt;Ganneff&gt; and cfp should be early enough to give us lots of time later in the paper committee<br />
[21:12:37] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: is there anything holding us back from opening it, say, next week?<br />
[21:12:52] &lt;madduck&gt; can we agree on terminology? cfp != paper deadline?<br />
[21:13:22] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: could your propose a schedule? since i am not a penta admin, and not on the paper committee, I find it kinda hard to propsoe one.<br />
[21:13:24] &lt;moray&gt; found the timeline from last year<br />
[21:13:35] &lt;Ganneff&gt; opening it next week means preparing pentabarf.<br />
[21:13:42] &lt;moray&gt; in my email archive, so I'll just paste here:<br />
[21:13:45] &lt;moray&gt; CFP should be starting on January 29th (next Tuesday), goes until March 31st.<br />
[21:13:46] &lt;bdale&gt; madduck: he has a point that once you put out the cfp, people will want to start entering info into the system<br />
[21:13:48] &lt;moray&gt; March 31st also ends the period for sponsored accomoddation or food.<br />
[21:13:48] &lt;Ganneff&gt; if possible i would want to do that between the years (after christmas, before new year)<br />
[21:13:50] &lt;moray&gt; The accepted talks should be announced by the end of April.<br />
[21:13:53] &lt;moray&gt; A couple of batches of travel sponsorship grants should be sent<br />
[21:13:55] &lt;moray&gt; between April and May.<br />
[21:13:58] &lt;moray&gt; June 15th is paper submission deadline.<br />
[21:14:11] &lt;bdale&gt; madduck: nothing more maddening than getting a cfp, going to submit an idea, and finding out that you can't actually do it yet<br />
[21:14:22] &lt;madduck&gt; bdale: true<br />
[21:14:39] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: okay, that sounds good. How about aiming for opening penta to the public on 15 january?<br />
[21:14:50] &lt;Ganneff&gt; that should be doable, yes.<br />
[21:14:53] &lt;madduck&gt; #agreed<br />
<a name='3'></a>
[21:15:04] &lt;Ganneff&gt; write more after the token and it appears better in the log<br />
[21:15:26] &lt;madduck&gt; #agreed Ganneff is in charge to prepare penta to open for dc9 on 15 jan 2009<br />
<a name='4'></a>
[21:15:36] &lt;moray&gt; given the date of debconf we should adjust everything back a couple of weeks from last year<br />
[21:15:50] &lt;madduck&gt; moray: we just did, 2 weeks. :)<br />
[21:15:53] &lt;moray&gt; (except where we decide it's safe to leave something later)<br />
[21:16:04] &lt;madduck&gt; so registration runs two months until 15 march?<br />
[21:16:06] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: yes, my point was that also goes for the other dates ('everything')<br />
[21:16:26] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; 15 march seems reasonable<br />
[21:16:30] &lt;Ganneff&gt; registration runs forever, until event ends. sponsored entries should end early, 2 months time sounds good.<br />
[21:16:40] &lt;madduck&gt; ok.<br />
[21:16:47] * Hydroxide nods. That's what he meant.<br />
[21:16:50] &lt;madduck&gt; #agreed reg for sponsored attendance ends 15 march<br />
<a name='5'></a>
[21:16:56] &lt;moray&gt; the one big complaint from people has been about early reg. for sponsorship, but I agree it's necessary<br />
[21:17:19] &lt;madduck&gt; should we have a brief discussion about sponsorship?<br />
[21:17:22] &lt;Ganneff&gt; we then need time to sort out travel sponsorship and announce to people.<br />
[21:17:23] &lt;moray&gt; and I suspect sponsorship could be significantly more difficult to raise this year<br />
[21:17:27] &lt;Ganneff&gt; not in this meeting i think.<br />
[21:17:31] &lt;Ganneff&gt; next time point: end of cfp<br />
[21:17:46] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: we don't have enough relevant people here AFAIK<br />
[21:17:47] &lt;Ganneff&gt; can be after end of sponsored registration, but not too far.<br />
[21:18:05] &lt;bdale&gt; yes, I strongly suggest no "assumptions" about sponsorship levels based on past history be made this year due to the economic situation around the world<br />
[21:18:06] &lt;Ganneff&gt; should have a month time for the papers committee before we announce it, and that announce should be well before dc9<br />
[21:18:17] &lt;madduck&gt; end of april?<br />
[21:18:30] &lt;Ganneff&gt; sounds ok. then we have until end of may to sort out what we want<br />
[21:18:30] &lt;madduck&gt; paper reg ends end of march, papers announced beginning of may?<br />
[21:18:40] &lt;Ganneff&gt; oh. that way round. also fine.<br />
[21:19:08] * Ganneff would propose to drop sponsorship levels this year, but that should be discussed in a different meeting with more people<br />
[21:19:20] &lt;Ganneff&gt; and especially those that did sponsorship work last year(s)<br />
[21:19:26] &lt;madduck&gt; #agreed aim for paper reg to close end of march, papers announced beginning of may<br />
<a name='6'></a>
[21:20:02] &lt;madduck&gt; yeah, i guess the main issue about sponsorship to settle is whether to get money first and then pay from a pool for n people, or whether to try to accomodate everyone who wants sponsorship<br />
[21:20:15] &lt;madduck&gt; I think the first is more likely to leave more sanity amongst us.<br />
[21:20:23] &lt;Ganneff&gt; nah.<br />
[21:20:33] &lt;Ganneff&gt; that way until end of dc we wont tell anyone thatthey get money<br />
[21:20:41] &lt;Ganneff&gt; or short before debconf.<br />
[21:20:55] &lt;Ganneff&gt; as i bet we will run low on money, as usual. and so keep safe.<br />
[21:21:04] &lt;madduck&gt; well, let's postpone this discussion. :)<br />
[21:21:10] &lt;Ganneff&gt; we, of course, only tell people they really are sponsored, if we have the money secure.<br />
[21:21:11] &lt;Ganneff&gt; yes.<br />
[21:21:18] &lt;madduck&gt; one last question about deadlines/cfp<br />
[21:21:30] &lt;moray&gt; (yes, -- I also have views, but will wait until more sponsorship workers are here...)<br />
[21:21:39] &lt;madduck&gt; in my world, cfp is the email you forward to everyone calling for papers, not the paper registration process<br />
[21:21:51] &lt;moray&gt; CFP means the call for papers yes<br />
[21:22:01] &lt;madduck&gt; was there ever one? do we want one? do we want paper submissions from people who wouldn't find out about debconf the usual ways?<br />
[21:22:03] &lt;gwolf&gt; We have at least the sponsored venue, which should ease on expenses... so I don't expect the hit of low sponsorship levels to be that dramatic.<br />
[21:22:03] &lt;moray&gt; (which is already a misnomer when most people don't give papers, but hey ;)<br />
[21:22:05] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: its the call for, which opens the registration process<br />
[21:22:14] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: and yes, there always has been one.<br />
[21:22:22] &lt;moray&gt; there has been one, read d-d-a<br />
[21:22:26] &lt;madduck&gt; okay, so that should be ready by 15 jan too<br />
[21:22:39] &lt;madduck&gt; is this the job of the paper committee?<br />
[21:22:47] &lt;cek_&gt; gwolf, lots of companies are trying to save money. That's a problem<br />
[21:22:50] &lt;moray&gt; and I don't think we generally do want talks from people who wouldn't otherwise hear about debconf, unless you can give counterexamples of where it would work<br />
[21:22:56] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: in the past it was "whoever wrote it"<br />
[21:23:12] &lt;madduck&gt; do we have a volunteer here, or should i inquire with committee@?<br />
[21:23:22] &lt;madduck&gt; anyone to prepare the cfp for 15 jan?<br />
[21:23:30] &lt;gwolf&gt; cek_: Agree on that. But at least, we don't face the outcome of not having money to pay for the basics<br />
[21:23:35] &lt;madduck&gt; (using the d-d-a posts as template?)<br />
[21:23:39] &lt;Ganneff&gt; talk to committee (which we need to define again, i think. for that i volunteer)<br />
[21:23:41] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: we don't have the committee yet, AFAIK?<br />
[21:23:43] &lt;Ganneff&gt; yes.<br />
[21:23:49] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: so emailing that isn't very useful ;)<br />
[21:23:57] &lt;Ganneff&gt; we have the committee from last year. should probably get a new one, yes.<br />
[21:24:07] &lt;Ganneff&gt; can do like last year and ask around, then mail -team about it.<br />
[21:24:09] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; we should definitely figure out teams/roles again, since the set of people has changed.<br />
[21:24:10] &lt;Ganneff&gt; everyone ok with it?<br />
[21:24:10] &lt;moray&gt; I'd say talk to 'the relevant people' and/or -team<br />
[21:24:40] &lt;madduck&gt; #topic roles<br />
<a name='7'></a>
[21:24:55] &lt;madduck&gt; who are the relevant people? how are they elected?<br />
[21:25:00] &lt;Ganneff&gt; we have<br />
[21:25:04] &lt;madduck&gt; we being?<br />
[21:25:08] &lt;Ganneff&gt; paper committee, travel sponsorship<br />
[21:25:10] &lt;moray&gt; this is a non-agenda item?<br />
[21:25:25] &lt;Ganneff&gt; last years i went an managed to get them together, talking to -team about it.<br />
[21:25:30] &lt;madduck&gt; moray: yes, is that bad?<br />
[21:25:33] &lt;moray&gt; we need a lot more people here if you want some general discussion of the way we should do it<br />
[21:25:44] &lt;moray&gt; -team is probably better than IRC for that anyway<br />
[21:25:44] &lt;Ganneff&gt; there was also schedule@<br />
[21:25:57] &lt;Ganneff&gt; and herb, being the sponsor people *getting* money<br />
[21:26:07] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Jobs has something I was writing up about this<br />
[21:26:19] &lt;madduck&gt; okay, no use in discussing the process, really, not with few people<br />
[21:26:23] &lt;moray&gt; not how we get the people, but the things that need done<br />
[21:26:25] &lt;madduck&gt; but can we set a deadline?<br />
[21:26:36] &lt;madduck&gt; for the paper committee?<br />
[21:26:42] &lt;Ganneff&gt; as said, i can do the travel/paper foo again.<br />
[21:26:52] &lt;moray&gt; we don't need a paper committee for the CFP, we can work with the vestigial one<br />
[21:26:56] &lt;Ganneff&gt; someone else should do press and others.<br />
[21:27:12] &lt;madduck&gt; i think i will continue with press<br />
[21:27:13] &lt;Ganneff&gt; we need that committee for the decisions<br />
[21:27:14] &lt;moray&gt; in the past CFP has just been "core team/local team"'s job IIRC<br />
[21:27:20] &lt;Ganneff&gt; yes.<br />
[21:27:29] &lt;madduck&gt; moray: would you volunteer to have it ready by 15 jan?<br />
[21:27:35] &lt;Ganneff&gt; its just the one who writes it. best if done by the local team lead<br />
[21:27:37] &lt;Ganneff&gt; ie cek_<br />
[21:27:46] &lt;moray&gt; yeah, cek_ would be best to do a draft<br />
[21:27:50] &lt;Ganneff&gt; its the local teams conf, let em get publicity! :)<br />
[21:27:51] &lt;madduck&gt; cek_: ?<br />
[21:28:03] &lt;moray&gt; I'm certainly happy to help write something and/or proof-read for good English etc.<br />
[21:28:07] &lt;Ganneff&gt; only, cek_ cant mail d-d-a directly, but one of us can be proxy for that mail, just providing the signature.<br />
[21:28:24] &lt;Ganneff&gt; for debconf-announce, as usual, talk to me to approve it in time.<br />
[21:28:34] &lt;cek_&gt; hehehe<br />
[21:28:36] &lt;moray&gt; so I can volunteer to help cek_ get something ready, yes<br />
[21:28:55] &lt;madduck&gt; cek_: is that ok? the call for papers email written and ready to send by 15 jan?<br />
[21:28:58] &lt;Ganneff&gt; cek_: so just got volunteered to send cfp mails :)<br />
[21:29:03] &lt;cek_&gt; Yes, no problem<br />
[21:29:22] * cek_ volunteer to send cfp mails<br />
[21:29:43] &lt;Ganneff&gt; can we go on and not make it an hour meeting? :)<br />
[21:29:46] &lt;moray&gt; cek_: if you haven't seen it, also have a look through http://wiki.debconf.org/wiki/Jobs and see if you can get other 'local' people to agree to help on things<br />
[21:29:58] &lt;moray&gt; I mean, on specific areas from that<br />
[21:29:59] &lt;cek_&gt; moray, thanks, I will<br />
[21:30:16] &lt;moray&gt; Ganneff: we still have madduck's pet topics to come ;)<br />
[21:30:58] &lt;Ganneff&gt; yes. and if this isnt a pet topic i fear the length of them<br />
[21:31:52] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: please go on<br />
[21:32:03] &lt;madduck&gt; sorry, i dropped off the net<br />
[21:32:04] &lt;moray&gt; #agreed cek_ volunteers for CFP, moray volunteers to help with that<br />
[21:32:12] &lt;moray&gt; #topic website content management<br />
[21:32:21] &lt;moray&gt; (I wonder if the bot listens to me...)<br />
[21:32:22] &lt;madduck&gt; #agreed cek_ volunteers for CFP, moray volunteers to help with that, deadline 15 jan<br />
<a name='8'></a>
[21:32:24] &lt;Ganneff&gt; no, you arent chair<br />
[21:32:26] &lt;madduck&gt; #topic website<br />
<a name='9'></a>
[21:32:37] &lt;madduck&gt; given that Tincho is not here, should we postpone this?<br />
[21:32:38] &lt;Ganneff&gt; tincho isnt here.<br />
[21:32:39] &lt;Ganneff&gt; yes<br />
[21:32:46] &lt;moray&gt; I think it's a website-people thing, yes<br />
[21:32:52] &lt;moray&gt; decision of whoever will work on it<br />
[21:32:59] &lt;madduck&gt; #topic RT permissions<br />
<a name='10'></a>
[21:33:02] &lt;Ganneff&gt; i hope Tincho continues<br />
[21:33:16] &lt;moray&gt; Ganneff: yes, Tincho was good before...<br />
[21:33:34] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: RT -- is it feasible to just open up the tracker to all of -team?<br />
[21:33:56] &lt;madduck&gt; i mean, we all can field many of the tickets and it's not like we are likely to vandalise, or?<br />
[21:34:11] &lt;Ganneff&gt; not for every queue. and not to anonymous. but im fine with giving out more rights to people, create more accounts, etc.<br />
[21:34:20] &lt;Ganneff&gt; ie - come to me when you want an account<br />
[21:34:24] &lt;Ganneff&gt; and tell me for which part<br />
[21:34:36] &lt;moray&gt; I agree against anonymous, I also agree with madduck more can/should be open to -team in general though<br />
[21:34:48] &lt;moray&gt; where there's not a specific reason to close it<br />
[21:34:57] &lt;moray&gt; we have enough trouble getting work done without stopping people doing it<br />
[21:35:06] &lt;madduck&gt; what would be a reason to keep something closed from -team members?<br />
[21:35:12] &lt;madduck&gt; (I agree with anonymous too)<br />
[21:35:16] &lt;Ganneff&gt; yes. sure. get me list of people and email addresses and what they want to do.<br />
[21:35:20] &lt;Ganneff&gt; they get rights for those queues<br />
[21:35:26] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: we have admin queues in it for example.<br />
[21:35:46] &lt;moray&gt; Ganneff: I think he's asking for what's specifically private, not the queues<br />
[21:36:01] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; madduck: primarily for things involving attendee/corp-sponsor financial/personal info, just to reduce the number of people who see that (independent of any individuals)<br />
[21:36:01] &lt;Ganneff&gt; how about system config? possibly passwords?<br />
[21:36:02] &lt;moray&gt; (private from -team, not private from randoms)<br />
[21:36:07] &lt;Ganneff&gt; or personal data<br />
[21:36:23] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; Ganneff: I don't think that passwords should be in RT regardless. that's probably unencrypted on disk somewhere.<br />
[21:36:47] &lt;madduck&gt; system config or personal data nor the stuff Hydroxide quotes needs to be hidden from -team members, or?<br />
[21:36:52] &lt;moray&gt; Hydroxide: attendee info isn't generally in RT, FWIW<br />
[21:36:52] &lt;madduck&gt; i mean, we are a team, right?<br />
[21:36:57] &lt;Ganneff&gt; Hydroxide: yes. but i got asked for what could be in, and such things can be in the admin queue. shouldnt, but...<br />
[21:37:14] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; moray: emails to sponsors@ got into RT last year<br />
[21:37:21] &lt;madduck&gt; anyway, I don't want to promote that everything needs to be open, but it's just annoying to run into permission denied errors when working as part of the debconf team.<br />
[21:37:27] &lt;moray&gt; Hydroxide: I said attendee info<br />
[21:37:33] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: i wont give out full access to everyone for *every* queue. im happy to give out access to all the relevant queues for people that need/want it.<br />
[21:37:36] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; moray: fair point.<br />
[21:37:47] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; madduck: I agree with you in general, with the exception I mentioned<br />
[21:37:52] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; *exceptions<br />
[21:38:09] &lt;moray&gt; Hydroxide: I know about the sponsorship stuff, that's a case I'd be willing to accept should be restricted (though I'm not convinced it needs to be more restricted than people actively doing work)<br />
[21:38:24] &lt;madduck&gt; Ganneff: wouldn't it make sense just to separate admins and non-admins and give access to everything but admin queue to non-admins?<br />
[21:38:27] &lt;Hydroxide&gt; afk for paid-work stuff<br />
[21:38:37] &lt;Ganneff&gt; madduck: maybe.<br />
[21:38:54] &lt;madduck&gt; it would make things easier for everyone and more transparent.<br />
[21:38:57] &lt;Ganneff&gt; i can look at rt.dc.o more on weekend (someone write me a reminder please?)<br />
[21:39:03] &lt;Ganneff&gt; and possibly just merge some queues then.<br />
[21:39:08] &lt;madduck&gt; i'll file a ticket<br />
[21:39:30] &lt;madduck&gt; #agreed Ganneff looks into RT and investigates whether the permissions setup couldn't be simplified a whole lot (e.g. admins and non-admins)<br />
<a name='11'></a>
[21:39:43] * bdale needs to leave ... bye all!<br />
[21:39:50] &lt;moray&gt; bdale: bye, thanks for coming!<br />
[21:39:50] * madduck waves<br />
[21:39:59] &lt;madduck&gt; #topic wiki arithmetic check<br />
<a name='12'></a>
[21:40:09] &lt;Ganneff&gt; whats that for a topic?<br />
[21:40:14] &lt;madduck&gt; another thing for Ganneff: is there a way to make the wiki remember that I can do math?<br />
[21:40:19] &lt;Ganneff&gt; login?`<br />
[21:40:27] &lt;madduck&gt; no, it keeps asking?<br />
[21:40:33] &lt;Ganneff&gt; now, thats a bug.<br />
[21:40:36] &lt;moray&gt; ganneff: I think some people saw a bug that it always asked, yes<br />
[21:40:39] &lt;Ganneff&gt; i think.<br />
[21:40:39] &lt;madduck&gt; anyway, if this is basically something we should discuss outside, let's do so...<br />
[21:40:48] &lt;moray&gt; so I think that's another RT request<br />
[21:40:50] &lt;Ganneff&gt; its for outside. if thwere is no ticket -> make one<br />
[21:40:59] &lt;Ganneff&gt; it should only ask for non-users.<br />
[21:41:03] * madduck makes the request<br />
[21:41:11] &lt;madduck&gt; #topic misc<br />
<a name='13'></a>
[21:41:21] &lt;madduck&gt; that's it from me/the agenda, anything else?<br />
[21:41:31] &lt;Ganneff&gt; translation: misc means AOB :)<br />
[21:41:42] &lt;madduck&gt; aob?<br />
[21:41:43] &lt;Ganneff&gt; mr. triple des has broken internet again<br />
[21:41:47] &lt;Ganneff&gt; any other business<br />
[21:41:58] &lt;des&gt; yeap<br />
[21:42:04] &lt;moray&gt; don't think so, beyond reiterating I fear we may have to re-calibrate sponsorship behaviour this year<br />
[21:42:19] &lt;madduck&gt; moray: okay, i will put sponsorship on the agenda for next time.<br />
[21:42:28] &lt;moray&gt; madduck: well, not much we can do about it differently<br />
[21:42:47] &lt;Ganneff&gt; skip levels, hope for money, beg repeatedly, have an active team for it.<br />
[21:42:48] &lt;moray&gt; just we may get zero/much less from some previous reliable sponsors<br />
[21:42:59] &lt;Ganneff&gt; but thats for a different meeting with more people active in that area<br />
[21:43:09] &lt;moray&gt; as was mentioned, we're lucky to have the regional government arrangement for this time<br />
[21:43:34] &lt;madduck&gt; okay, anything else?<br />
[21:43:42] &lt;Ganneff&gt; stay below 45mins! :)<br />
[21:43:47] &lt;madduck&gt; trying!<br />
[21:43:52] &lt;Ganneff&gt; then end.<br />
[21:43:54] &lt;cek_&gt; moray, yes, but keep in mind that Junta de Extremadura will also be very careful with the money, we are in crisis<br />
[21:43:54] &lt;moray&gt; done<br />
[21:44:00] &lt;madduck&gt; thanks for the patience required to sit through the first IRC meeting I chaired. :)<br />
[21:44:10] &lt;moray&gt; cek_: well, as long as they don't pull out on the venue...<br />
[21:44:17] &lt;madduck&gt; #endmeeting<br />
<hr>Meeting ended.<br /><hr><p>Information on meetbot is available at <a href='http://meetbot.debian.net'>meetbot.debian.net</a></p>