17:59:44 <spwhitton> #startmeeting
17:59:44 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue Aug  9 17:59:44 2022 UTC.  The chair is spwhitton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:59:44 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:59:49 <spwhitton> #topic Roll Call
17:59:51 <spwhitton> Sean Whitton
17:59:52 <Emperor> Matthew Vernon
17:59:58 <ntyni> Niko Tyni
18:00:06 <spwhitton> Apologies received from Christoph Berg
18:05:24 <Emperor> Is this all of us?
18:05:45 <spwhitton> gunnar and simon
18:05:55 <spwhitton> and helmut
18:06:00 <Emperor> I meant more "present or having apologised", but :)
18:06:31 <spwhitton> ah ofc, I have been thinking about recruitment.
18:06:45 <spwhitton> gwolf: ping
18:06:46 <spwhitton> smcv: ping
18:06:48 <spwhitton> helmut_: ping
18:07:28 <gwolf> Gunnar Wolf
18:07:47 <spwhitton> lo
18:07:49 <gwolf> (sorry for the lack of attention...)
18:08:12 <gwolf> Do we start with a Jitsi call today, or just IRC?
18:08:20 <spwhitton> just IRC
18:08:28 <gwolf> OK
18:08:47 <spwhitton> #topic Review of previous meeting AIs
18:09:00 <spwhitton> anyone like to take on Elana's?  I can.
18:10:00 * gwolf continues to be swamped... If you can take it, I'll be grateful...
18:10:03 <Emperor> I'm going to wriggle out on the basis the actions predate my arrival on the ctte :)
18:10:16 <ntyni> yeah thanks if you take it
18:10:37 <Emperor> I observe that util-linux 2.38.1-1 has been uploaded to unstable without rename.ul restored; I emailed Chris H to ask about their plans for rename.ul in the light of this fact (but, I'm afraid, only earlier today).
18:10:50 <spwhitton> #action spwhitton to commit private-comms slides+gobby to git procedures/
18:10:56 <spwhitton> Emperor: hmm.  not ideal but could well just be an oversight.
18:11:08 <gwolf> hopefully :-\
18:11:43 <spwhitton> what shall we do?
18:11:56 <spwhitton> next meeting is not too late for the freeze or anything, so we could just wait on the mail emperor just sent
18:12:02 <Emperor> I think we should see if I get a response.
18:12:10 <ntyni> yes
18:12:29 <Emperor> But I think if we have no response by next meeting, we should treat that as a negative response, IYSWIM
18:12:47 <ntyni> makes sense
18:12:49 <gwolf> Yes. But maybe we should have a cutoff "alarm" in two weeks to nudge again the maintainer ..?
18:13:03 <gwolf> Waiting yet another month seems a bit too much...
18:13:39 <spwhitton> yes good, a reminder in two weeks and assuming we need to NMU by next time seems reasonable
18:14:14 <Myon> I'm here now
18:14:23 <spwhitton> hello!
18:14:38 <spwhitton> Emperor: can you do the follow-up too?
18:14:50 <Emperor> I'm away on holiday from evening of 23 Aug (2 weeks today) until 1st Sep; so our options are before I go away or when I get back
18:14:57 <gwolf> welcome Myon :-)
18:15:00 <spwhitton> just before you go away seems fine to me
18:15:25 <gwolf> Emperor: I can take the task of reminding him if you prefer
18:15:39 <Emperor> I've made a note to do so.
18:15:49 <spwhitton> okay great.  I will note it here:
18:16:04 <spwhitton> #agreed no reply from util-linux maintainer by next meeting to be interpreted as not having plans to implement our decision
18:16:07 <gwolf> Emperor: OK, great. So no action for me ;-)
18:16:25 <spwhitton> #action Emperor to send a reminder to util-linux maintainer two weeks from now
18:16:30 <spwhitton> alrighty
18:16:38 <spwhitton> #topic Recruitment
18:16:43 <spwhitton> we have various e-mailed nominations to consider, I can send out the usual d-d-a mail in case people want to send more (and they should feel free to resend), and then we discuss them all over Jitsi next time.  I think that's it for this meeting?  did I miss anything?
18:16:47 <spwhitton> is it okay with others if I write "we have three open seats, we want to fill all three, but we prioritise quality, so we may end up filling just two"?  I was thinking it would give us a bit more freedom/less pressure, even though I think we are likely to be able to fill all three.
18:17:08 <Emperor> +1
18:17:23 <gwolf> spwhitton: I agree we don't _need_ to have 8 people sitting on the board
18:17:55 <Myon> "quality ... just two" sounds a bit harsh against the extra people on the waiting list, so I wouldn't say that on d-d-a
18:18:24 <ntyni> yeah I got the same feeling
18:18:34 <Myon> do we fill the 8th seat before the end of the year? I'd say yes
18:18:34 <gwolf> Then again... We might want to fill one now, and the two other closer to the end of the year
18:18:48 <gwolf> So we don't have a 3 people change so suddenly
18:18:59 <spwhitton> Myon, ntyni I see what you mean.
18:19:17 <Myon> right, and it's still a long time until the end of the year, so splitting makes sense
18:19:31 <spwhitton> hm.
18:19:52 <Myon> could you/someone post the list to the private list and we start looking there?
18:19:56 <spwhitton> I feel like we can make a better decision picking two or three from a larger pool than picking one and then later two from approximately the same pool
18:20:13 <Myon> we can keep the other two in mind even now
18:20:36 <spwhitton> I mean, yeah, but it is not the same decision situation
18:20:49 <spwhitton> we can just leave this open anyway.  it might be obvious whether we want to do three or 1.
18:20:57 <Myon> ack
18:20:58 <spwhitton> I'll not mention it to d-d-a
18:21:11 <gwolf> Oh -- And I'd have to check, but I am not _sure_ we need to change the three seats
18:21:23 <spwhitton> gwolf: I checked but would appreciate someone else looking again
18:21:30 <spwhitton> #action spwhitton to attempt to dig out existing nominations
18:21:38 <spwhitton> #action spwhitton to ask for volunteers in low key manner on d-d-a
18:21:56 <spwhitton> #agreed next meeting we discuss existing candidacies on Jitsi
18:21:57 <ntyni> if we go down to five there's special measures in the constitution
18:22:25 <spwhitton> ntyni: aren't those just about whether we hvae to go via the DPL?
18:22:34 <ntyni> yeah that
18:22:49 <spwhitton> I don't think that affects making our choices
18:23:01 <ntyni> also if we fail to appoint the DPL can bypass us
18:23:08 <spwhitton> huh.
18:23:38 <ntyni> but I agree those shouldn't really matter here
18:23:43 <Myon> can we just not go there? :)
18:23:48 <gwolf> right :-]
18:24:17 <spwhitton> #info we may want to appoint 1 now, 2 at the end of the year, or 3 now, or possibly something else.
18:24:26 <spwhitton> okay I think that's it?
18:24:49 * Emperor has nothing else for today
18:24:51 <spwhitton> er, "3 now" means choose three now :)
18:25:55 <gwolf> Right, we _cannot_ appoint 3 now (unless ntyni and I resign early)
18:25:55 <spwhitton> #topic Suggestion from BoF about announcing all decisions to d-d or d-d-a
18:26:03 <spwhitton> gwolf: right!
18:26:14 <spwhitton> thank you ntyni for following up here
18:26:33 * Emperor thinks the arguments for d-d-a are more persuasive
18:26:36 <spwhitton> we seem to have a situation where we're going to annoy some people if we pick d-d-a, and others would prefer we pick d-d-a
18:26:50 <spwhitton> we do still have the option of doing it case-by-case.
18:26:59 <Emperor> (spec. that it's a useful way for people to know what we're up to, and d-d is way high volume)
18:27:25 <spwhitton> we could say that we default to d-d-a but if it's particularly niche d-d?
18:27:31 <spwhitton> e.g. this rename.ul bug.
18:27:31 <Myon> ack
18:27:39 <gwolf> right
18:27:54 <Myon> "case by case, with a tendency towards d-d-a"
18:28:00 <spwhitton> and we want to send every decision (ideally just CC the bug closing message) to one of them.
18:28:16 <Myon> ack
18:28:20 <ntyni> I think I'd prefer everything to d-d-a but that works for me
18:28:29 <gwolf> Yes, announcing all decisions is important IMO
18:28:40 <spwhitton> would someone be able to write this into procedures/ in tech-ctte.git ?
18:28:41 <gwolf> (even if the decision is "we have agreed not to act on...")
18:28:49 <gwolf> spwhitton: I can do it
18:28:52 <spwhitton> cool
18:28:54 <spwhitton> ty
18:29:15 <spwhitton> #action gwolf to record in procedures/: send every decision to d-d-a or d-d, defaulting to the former, latter if niche.
18:29:30 <smcv> (sorry for missing the start, I am here now)
18:29:36 <spwhitton> hello simon!
18:29:40 <Emperor> ~~~
18:29:55 <spwhitton> smcv: any thoughts on this announcing d-d-a/d-d thing?
18:30:09 <smcv> your action seems good to me
18:31:04 <spwhitton> okay then
18:31:09 <spwhitton> #topic Any Other Business
18:31:21 <ntyni> we might want to do something about the outdated bug list at https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte
18:31:30 <ntyni> it's come up a few times lately I think
18:31:33 <smcv> implications of merged /usr should probably have gone to d-d-a, but I agree the rename.ul thing seems too niche to be bothering the whole distro with
18:31:49 <spwhitton> ntyni: I am keen for it not to be our responsibility, given how we struggle with availability already.
18:31:49 <Myon> is that even the right place to put the bugs? sounds like a wiki page would be better
18:32:01 <Myon> then everyone could update it
18:32:11 <spwhitton> Myon: sounds reasonable.  seems up to the web team but we could suggest to ehm.
18:32:12 <Myon> or we just refer to git
18:32:27 <spwhitton> refer to bts, you mean?
18:32:30 <smcv> I assume the argument for not a wiki would be that, er, anyone can edit a wiki
18:32:39 <smcv> and it looks equally authoritative
18:33:00 <spwhitton> we could just drop all these lists and have the link to the BTS search that gets you everything.
18:33:07 <spwhitton> which is already there, in fact.
18:33:31 <gwolf> We are going into detailed design work ;-)
18:33:36 <smcv> I assume it should be archive=both so it actually shows recent things
18:33:57 <spwhitton> gwolf: you're right, and that's sort of what I mean by it not being our responsibility
18:33:59 <Myon> I meant pointing at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/tech-ctte/-/tree/master/resolved_issues
18:34:14 <spwhitton> Myon: the bts is the only thing that we *always* keep up-to-date
18:34:15 <gwolf> I mean, just having the bugs available is enough
18:34:15 <Myon> which is writable by Debian as well, so not totally different from the wiki
18:34:19 <ntyni> I doubt the web team feels responsible for the current list either
18:34:20 <smcv> do we have a directory in git for everything?
18:34:25 <gwolf> better ways to find them and to udnerstand them are always nice
18:34:26 <Myon> spwhitton: ack, then the BTS
18:34:34 <gwolf> but... how far from the way must we steer?
18:34:46 <Myon> the problem with the BTS is that it doesn't have summaries
18:34:48 <smcv> I think we only commit to git when the wording is complicated and needs thought
18:34:52 <spwhitton> smcv: right.
18:34:59 <spwhitton> and I think that's fine.
18:35:13 <smcv> so implications of merged /usr yes, "do we overrule about rename.ul y/n?" not so much
18:35:18 <Myon> some curated summary makes sense, just webwml is a terrible place to put it
18:36:14 <gwolf> Myon: Agree
18:36:32 <spwhitton> seems like our options are actively asking the web team to only have the link (with archive=both), suggesting they move it to the wiki, doing nothing
18:36:48 <Myon> the list of former members on that web page is also outdated
18:37:04 <spwhitton> Myon: that feels like more webwml material hwoever.
18:37:12 <spwhitton> s/like more/more like/
18:37:21 <Myon> ah, just the German translation is outdated
18:37:56 <ntyni> well Elana should be there now
18:38:19 <Myon> do we think we can update our procedure list in our minds to include "update that list" (wherever it is)?
18:38:49 <ntyni> yeah I've been doing the updates the last few times
18:38:53 <spwhitton> Myon: I'm happy to add "consider updating that list" but I don't want us to feel obligated.
18:39:20 <Myon> ok then I guess the list (both actually) can stay where it is now
18:39:53 <spwhitton> ntyni: since you brought this up, do you think that's enough?
18:40:12 <ntyni> re member list? yeah I guess
18:40:20 <spwhitton> no sorry I meant decisions list
18:41:00 <ntyni> oh right - I kind of think the current list is our domain more than the web team but I'm not quite sure why
18:41:13 <ntyni> probably best to just drop it and link to the BTS lacking anything better
18:41:15 <spwhitton> if it is, then I'd like us to replace it with a bts link.
18:41:35 <Myon> I think the BTS is a step back
18:41:49 <Myon> I can have a look at the web page and suggest how to handle it
18:42:24 <spwhitton> okay thank you, let's leave it with you to report back
18:42:29 <smcv> if our issue tracker wasn't from the 1990s, we could have a template that includes tickyboxes for all the things that need to happen before declaring it closed... (/me has been using gitlab a lot, can you tell)
18:42:38 <Myon> and probably also do updates, along with ntyni or whoever is fastest
18:42:49 <ntyni> Myon: thanks
18:42:53 <spwhitton> #action Myon to have a look at web page of old decisions and think about keeping it up-to-date
18:42:58 <smcv> which would make it easier to have reminders like, did you announce to d-d-a, did you update the web page
18:43:26 <Myon> is there anything we should be doing re merged-usr?
18:43:37 <spwhitton> I don't believe so
18:44:03 <Myon> ok
18:44:25 <smcv> I think the next milestone we're waiting for is init-system-helpers gaining a dep on usrmerge | usr-is-merged
18:45:26 <smcv> but that might be blocked on bluca's debootstrap update being in the next Debian 11 point release, because something something buildds
18:45:40 <spwhitton> the technical side seems to be rolling though
18:45:50 <Myon> very nice
18:45:51 <smcv> right
18:46:06 <Myon> thanks bluca!
18:46:09 <spwhitton> indeed
18:46:18 <spwhitton> and Simon for a lot of review of that work
18:46:53 <Myon> +1
18:47:00 <spwhitton> #endmeeting