15:22:18 <h01ger> #startmeeting
15:22:18 <MeetBot> Meeting started Thu Jun 25 15:22:18 2020 UTC.  The chair is h01ger. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:22:18 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:22:56 * h01ger reads the url briefly
15:23:25 <Beuc> So my brief notes:
15:23:26 <Beuc> https://paste.debian.net/hidden/b40e1c70/
15:23:28 <Beuc> ^^
15:23:30 <apo> I can contact the publicity team again and draft another announcement. I have done this two times before
15:23:44 <h01ger> apo: that be awesome
15:24:05 <h01ger> apo: please include the lts list is drafting it :)
15:24:10 <apo> yes, will do
15:24:25 <el_cubano> So, if I understood ta correctly, then the only "quirk" with the stretch LTS transition is that uploads to "stretch" won't work for us and the uploads must be to "stretch-security".  Is that correct?
15:24:55 <h01ger> el_cubano: thats not different from jessie LTS, or?
15:25:30 * h01ger wonders whether we still need to contact the ftp and release team for the lts switch. (we probably still want to do it for adding arm64, if someone wants to do that)
15:25:36 <ta> uploads to stretch-security won't work without the security team before the point release
15:25:38 <h01ger> does someone want to add arm64?
15:26:12 <h01ger> ta: so i guess someone from us should reach out to ftp, security and release teams (for plain getting started with stretch LTS)
15:26:27 <el_cubano> ta: Thanks for clarifying
15:26:56 <pochu> h01ger: I can do that
15:27:04 <h01ger> pochu: coolio!
15:27:17 <ta> h01ger: we could also wait until after the point release
15:27:19 <pochu> the final stretch point release should happen in early July
15:27:37 <h01ger> #info apo will draft an announcement together with the publicity team and lts list
15:27:49 <h01ger> ta: i think we should contact them asap and not wait til the last moment
15:28:04 <h01ger> #info pochu will reach out to ftp, security and release teams (for plain getting started with stretch LTS)
15:28:27 <h01ger> any one willing to get arm64 supported?
15:29:05 <ta> h01ger: the security team and the release team are no longer interested in Stretch after the point release, so ...
15:29:25 <h01ger> ta: your point being?
15:29:39 <buxy> I think we should aim to include arm64 in stretch LTS, yes, unless we believe that it will create too much work but I don't think that armel/armhf have brought lots of extra work in the past.
15:29:56 * h01ger agrees with buxy
15:30:12 <apo> I just remembered that Lee Jones from Linaro asked for arm64 to be supported, so there was/is interest from users at least
15:30:17 <apo> https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2018/08/msg00046.html
15:30:24 <ta> h01ger: nobody needs to be contacted, except the ftp team (as they have to reconfigure things) and those already know ...
15:30:24 <Beuc> Wrt extra work, I can only think of arm-specific build failures of firefox
15:30:31 <buxy> ftpmasters must be notified in advance because they will have to tweak the architecture list when they configure the hand over
15:30:56 <el_cubano> Beuc: But that is not extra work for ftp or dsa teams
15:30:59 <buxy> and obviously buildd maintainers and DSA too because they will have to keep the arm64 stretch buildd alive
15:31:24 <ta> buxy: yes, those as well
15:31:32 <h01ger> ta: url in topic disagrees. but anyhow, i agree that there's not much work for the release and security teams to hand over to us. still it's nice style to contact them
15:32:22 <ta> h01ger: yes
15:32:31 <Beuc> el_cubano, I think we were considering how much extra work that meant for us
15:32:41 <ta> (yes to the last part)
15:32:42 <h01ger> ok, so its more buildd maintainers and DSA than release and security. anyway, pochu, can you include this?
15:32:59 <pochu> h01ger: yeah absolutely
15:33:15 <h01ger> pochu: awesome. and please cc: us, so we get their replies too :)
15:33:23 <Beuc> #info we got bcc'd on 15/06/2020 16:44 UTC from the release team
15:33:23 <pochu> -lts@, sure :)
15:33:37 <h01ger> #info pochu will also involve buildd admins and DSA
15:33:50 <h01ger> Beuc: thats because i bounced the mail :)
15:34:14 <h01ger> adsb was a bit surprised when he got that copy he didnt send :)
15:34:30 <h01ger> so, whats left here?
15:34:35 <h01ger> any takers for adding arm64?
15:34:38 <Beuc> https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2020/06/msg00049.html
15:35:00 <pochu> h01ger: if it's decided we want to add it, I'll take care of that as part of talking to the wb-team and ftp-team
15:35:00 <ta> can we just try to support arm64?
15:35:16 <h01ger> pochu: i think its decided we want to add it :)
15:35:27 <h01ger> #info pochu will also take care of getting arm64 added
15:35:41 <h01ger> ta: we need buildds
15:36:03 <h01ger> anything else about the (E)LTS switch(es)?
15:37:10 <Beuc> Can we have a brief overview of the current ELTS work on transition?
15:37:29 <buxy> Beuc: what do you mean?
15:37:29 <Beuc> I believe there's been some work from buxy and pochu, but not on the lists
15:38:03 <buxy> I guess you want to know what we prepared for jessie ELTS?
15:38:24 <Beuc> yes if there's more besides the info you sent this week
15:38:56 <buxy> pochu implemented some security tracker improvement so that we can better keep track of old releases by doing minimal changes to the configuration
15:39:41 <buxy> I have setup the new repositories and I installed simple build daemons
15:39:46 <lamby> thanks pochu btw
15:40:00 <ta> buxy: which one did you choose?
15:40:02 <h01ger> indeed! pochu++
15:40:02 <buxy> (it's rebuildd triggered via SSH from reprepro hook)
15:40:12 <ta> ok
15:40:59 <h01ger> so, i guess we are good with this topic now? if we missed something, we can also discuss via mail..
15:41:01 <Beuc> pochu: do you need any help wrt https://salsa.debian.org/security-tracker-team/security-tracker/-/merge_requests/55 or is everything fine?
15:41:05 <buxy> the configuration does not force you to do source-only uploads but that's what you should do
15:41:26 <h01ger> buxy: why are source-only uploads not enforced?
15:41:29 <buxy> otherwise it will just generate noise when the buildd-generated upload will conflict with the binaries that you sent
15:42:11 <buxy> h01ger: I can do it, but it's also good to be able to upload something manually built if a buildd is busted or whatever
15:42:11 <pochu> Beuc: it's alright, carnil implemented the changes and they looked fine from our perspective. and now the architecture list is clear so we should be good to go :)
15:42:27 <Beuc> thanks
15:43:13 <h01ger> buxy: i wonder if its hard to manually allow binary uploads in such special cases and keep them forbidden for the rest of the time...
15:43:31 <h01ger> anyhow, i guess thats how it is for now and we have 16min left..
15:43:34 <h01ger> so next topic?
15:43:46 <Beuc> +1
15:43:50 <buxy> h01ger: it's not hard but it requires my intervention and I don't want to have to intervene
15:43:58 <utkarsh2102> (yes)
15:44:00 <h01ger> buxy: *nods*
15:44:22 <h01ger> so first, apologies for letting this slip
15:44:56 <h01ger> second, as written on the list, i came to conclude that sunweaver's suggestion of adding two questions about the user type was/is right/good
15:45:01 <h01ger> i just struggled with wording them
15:45:58 <h01ger> el_cubano: suggested this:
15:46:01 <h01ger> At the risk of complicating things, perhaps a breakdown in the question
15:46:01 <h01ger> might be useful:
15:46:01 <h01ger> Do you use LTS ________ ?
15:46:01 <h01ger> - only for yourself on system(s) you administer
15:46:04 <h01ger> - as a user on a system maintained by someone else
15:46:04 <h01ger> - as an administrator for other users
15:46:06 <h01ger> Which statement best describes your use of LTS?
15:46:06 <h01ger> - You use LTS for personal use only
15:46:09 <h01ger> - You use LTS in a commercial environment which derives revenue (directly or indirectly) by its use of LTS
15:46:09 <h01ger> - You use LTS in an educational setting
15:46:11 <h01ger> - You use LTS in a government setting
15:46:11 <h01ger> - You use LTS in a non-commercial environment (e.g., non-governmental organization or NGO) or a commercial not-for-profit environment (e.g., charitable foundation or trade organization)
15:46:49 <h01ger> is that good? i cannot see any downside now (but them i'm blind as i want to get this done)
15:47:49 <buxy> It lacks the size question that sunweaver was interested in.
15:48:15 <buxy> And I'm not sure we want to differentiate education/government/NGO, do we?
15:49:03 <h01ger> not so much, i'd say
15:50:19 <h01ger> so replace the 2nd question with: Your LTS using organisation has how many people? a.) below 20 b.) 20-100 c.) 100-1000 d.) over 1000?
15:50:56 <el_cubano> What about "how many people in your organization use LTS?"
15:51:06 <h01ger> sure
15:51:20 <buxy> No, that's not something that can be answered easily.
15:52:04 <buxy> They know how big their organization is. They might not know how many users use the various servers running an LTS version.
15:52:06 <el_cubano> Good point.
15:52:42 * h01ger now sees the change in semantic, before i just saw the improvement in language
15:54:34 <buxy> Where do you use LTS ? - At home - At work - In another organization
15:55:44 <buxy> If you use LTS at work or in an organization, how big is that organization? - 1 person - 2-10 - 11-100 - 101-1000 - over 1000
15:56:05 <h01ger> coolio
15:56:09 <buxy> First one is checkbox, second one is radio button.
15:56:19 <h01ger> utkarsh2102: ^ can you please add that to the survey?
15:56:28 <ta> what about companies that sell products with embedded debian?
15:56:29 <el_cubano> That definitely covers everything completely and in a way that the users can directly answer.
15:57:00 <h01ger> ta: its kinda included in option 3 of quetsion 1
15:57:11 <el_cubano> ta: That was another reason that the wording I chose was not good.
15:57:27 <utkarsh2102> buxy: it's kinda difficult to mix checkbox with radio buttons in Limesurvey, I guess
15:57:34 * h01ger suspects we can use this now and then improve in 2 years when we redo this survey for the next lts change ;)
15:57:36 <utkarsh2102> s/difficult/not possible
15:57:52 <buxy> utkarsh2102: why? it's not the same question...
15:57:54 <utkarsh2102> (or maybe I need to look harder)
15:58:13 <utkarsh2102> Ah, crap
15:58:15 <h01ger> i guess we are good here (and now)
15:58:19 <utkarsh2102> Sorry, got confused
15:58:24 <utkarsh2102> Ignore :)
15:58:28 <utkarsh2102> I'll do
15:58:41 <h01ger> we'll involve the publicity team with announcing this
15:59:01 <h01ger> #topic next (irc) meeting / AOB
15:59:02 <utkarsh2102> h01ger: I've had a word about that already
15:59:11 <Beuc> h01ger, wrt next meeting, did you get word from brian?
15:59:16 <h01ger> utkarsh2102: cool, lets discuss after the meeting
15:59:32 <h01ger> Beuc: nope :/ but i havent reached out further then announcing the meeting
16:00:05 <h01ger> i think we should have another irc meeting in a month, and then retry video in two. do you agree?
16:00:37 <Beuc> fine by me
16:00:40 <h01ger> that will be after debconf20online, so... hopefully we'll have better tooling then
16:00:41 * el_cubano approves
16:01:12 <ta> ok
16:01:16 <lamby> wfm
16:01:21 <buxy> I'm a bit sad that it didn't work out.
16:01:36 <h01ger> and tentativly again on the last thursday of the month, at 15 utc
16:01:37 <buxy> I should have planned the fallback from the start
16:01:51 <utkarsh2102> h01ger: we can do a BoF during DC20, would we want one?
16:02:02 <h01ger> utkarsh2102: i'd say yes
16:02:25 <utkarsh2102> I can propose one, if we have a consent on that :)
16:02:38 <el_cubano> If the survey is done by then, it might be good to share preliminary results and also allow for community feedback in an unstructured way
16:02:45 <Beuc> fine by me
16:03:04 <utkarsh2102> I suspect the survey to be done by then
16:03:16 <h01ger> we said to run it for two weeks, didnt we?
16:03:26 <buxy> we said one month
16:03:59 <Beuc> "AGREED: the survey will run til the end of june" :)
16:04:00 <buxy> but I'm not sure one month is better than 2 weeks unless you communicate multiple times about it
16:04:12 * h01ger nods
16:04:36 <h01ger> buxy: we can communicate it once we release it and then again, 2-3 weeks later with the monthly report
16:04:44 <h01ger> (or just do it 2 weeks)
16:04:44 <buxy> ack
16:04:45 <bhe[m]> june or july ?
16:05:06 <h01ger> bhe[m]: that was june and has become july
16:05:14 <h01ger> #topic aob
16:05:17 <lamby> In my experience, following up with reminders and stuff is absolutely key to getting a good response. You will feel like you are sending too many; you will not. :)
16:05:39 <h01ger> makes sense
16:05:53 * utkarsh2102 agrees
16:06:02 <buxy> Other topic, infra project funding
16:06:25 <buxy> We worked a bit with el_cubano and we have some "framework" here: https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/project-funding
16:06:51 <el_cubano> Other topic, LTS/TODO -> https://salsa.debian.org/lts-team/lts-extra-tasks/-/issues
16:07:26 <h01ger> we are ten minutes over-time, so please be quick or move it to the list?
16:07:35 <buxy> You might want to have a look and give some feedback. And we should see how we communicate to other Debian teams that they can submit projects there...
16:08:06 <buxy> (once we are happy with the process proposed there)
16:08:40 <h01ger> #info please checkout https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/project-funding and provide feedback
16:08:59 <h01ger> #info the LTS todo list has been moved to https://salsa.debian.org/lts-team/lts-extra-tasks/-/issues
16:10:13 <lamby> thanks
16:10:32 <Beuc> I think we need to define "Freexian project management team"
16:11:14 <h01ger> Beuc: why/how?
16:12:21 <h01ger> ok, i think we can discuss this after the meeting too, so lets formally close this meeting and the work time now
16:12:21 <Beuc> that's my initial feedback
16:12:27 <Beuc> because that's referenced multiple times at https://salsa.debian.org/freexian-team/project-funding
16:12:36 <h01ger> Beuc: ah! :)
16:12:43 <Beuc> it seems important but it's not clear what that is
16:13:03 <Beuc> agree this can be discussed later
16:13:15 * h01ger nods
16:13:20 <el_cubano> Beuc: It is basically "whomever manages the issues in the Salsa project, probably buxy and/or h01ger"
16:13:28 * h01ger thanks everyone for attending
16:13:40 <lamby> Thanks all :)
16:13:48 <el_cubano> It seemed better to use a role identifier than name specific individuals
16:13:49 <h01ger> i also was happy to see your faces and hear you, even if only a bit... :)
16:13:52 <utkarsh2102> \o/
16:14:00 * el_cubano waves
16:14:13 <h01ger> #endmeeting