== Meeting information ==
 * #ubuntu-meeting-2 Meeting, 28 Oct at 17:01 — 17:49 UTC
 * Full logs at [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.2014-10-28-17.01.log.html]]



== Meeting summary ==

=== Action review ===
The discussion about "Action review" started at 17:01.

  * ''Vote:'' replace owncloud packages with empty stubs, since no one's willing to maintain it (Carried)
  * ''LINK:'' https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/Removals perhaps.
  * ''ACTION:'' pitti to draft initial removal-as-an-SRU policy document with a less lousy name than the one used in this action.

=== Dismantling the ARB ===
The discussion about "Dismantling the ARB" started at 17:22.

  * ''Vote:'' undelegate the ARB and remove the team from LP (Carried)

=== Community bugs: 0 ===
The discussion about "Community bugs: 0" started at 17:31.


=== Mailing list review ===
The discussion about "Mailing list review" started at 17:34.

  * ''ACTION:'' Riddell to improve the CFQ SRU paperwork to detail regression testing plans

=== Next chair ===
The discussion about "Next chair" started at 17:44.

  * ''Vote:'' Skip Nov 11 meeting, so people can buy poppies and be appropriately respectful (Carried)

=== AOB ===
The discussion about "AOB" started at 17:48.




== Vote results ==

 * [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.2014-10-28-17.01.log.html#225 Skip Nov 11 meeting, so people can buy poppies and be appropriately respectful]]
  * Motion carried (For/Against/Abstained 5/0/0)
   *  Voters kees, stgraber, mdeslaur, infinity, slangasek
 * [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.2014-10-28-17.01.log.html#21 replace owncloud packages with empty stubs, since no one's willing to maintain it]]
  * Motion carried (For/Against/Abstained 6/0/0)
   *  Voters infinity, slangasek, stgraber, mdeslaur, kees, pitti
 * [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.2014-10-28-17.01.log.html#133 undelegate the ARB and remove the team from LP]]
  * Motion carried (For/Against/Abstained 6/0/0)
   *  Voters infinity, slangasek, stgraber, mdeslaur, kees, pitti



== Action items, by person ==

 * pitti
  * pitti to draft initial removal-as-an-SRU policy document with a less lousy name than the one used in this action.



== Done items ==

 * (none)



== People present (lines said) ==

 * infinity (88)
 * slangasek (48)
 * meetingology (38)
 * pitti (36)
 * mdeslaur (17)
 * kees (15)
 * stgraber (11)
 * AnybodyElse (2)



== Full Log ==


 17:01 <infinity> #startmeeting

 17:01 <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Oct 28 17:01:27 2014 UTC.  The chair is infinity. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.

 17:01 <meetingology> 

 17:01 <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick

 17:01 <pitti> (end of Oct in EU, start of Oct in US)

 17:01 <slangasek> strange that I didn't see anyone mentioning this DST change on lists

 17:01 <infinity> [TOPIC] Action review

 17:02 <infinity> Oh, meetingology doesn't have topic rights here, does it?  Silly.

 17:03 <infinity> Anyhow, the one pending action is "Adam is a slacker and hasn't responded to the MAAS thing yet", so let's move on so that guy can save face.

 17:03 <infinity> Riddell: Are you here to discuss the two things you wanted to hit early in the meeting before you have to leave?

 17:04 <infinity> *tick, tick, tick*

 17:04 <infinity> Right, we'll leave his items until he pops up.

 17:04 <pitti> well, we can start the owncloud thing

 17:04 <pitti> which seems like a no-brainer to me

 17:05 <pitti> I responded to the bug and the ML

 17:05 <infinity> pitti: No-brainer, as in you're +1 on uploading empty packages?

 17:05 <pitti> yes

 17:05 <mdeslaur> it's quite unfortunate that nobody stepped up, but I'd rather +1 on empty packages too, rather than leaving in old crusty versions

 17:06 <mdeslaur> especially since upstream asked

 17:06 <pitti> it's ugly, but still better than leaving it vulnerable

 17:06 <infinity> [VOTE] replace owncloud packages with empty stubs, since no one's willing to maintain it

 17:06 <meetingology> Please vote on: replace owncloud packages with empty stubs, since no one's willing to maintain it

 17:06 <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname)

 17:06 <infinity> +1

 17:06 <meetingology> +1 received from infinity

 17:06 <pitti> +1

 17:06 <meetingology> +1 received from pitti

 17:06 <mdeslaur> +1

 17:06 <meetingology> +1 received from mdeslaur

 17:06 <stgraber> +1

 17:06 <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber

 17:06 <slangasek> hmm

 17:06 <kees> +1

 17:06 <meetingology> +1 received from kees

 17:07 <slangasek> well, I would've appreciated a bit of discussion time here

 17:07 <infinity> slangasek: FWIW (and this may influence your vote), the empty stubs contain instructions on how to install it from both upstream's builds and juju charms.

 17:07 * pitti is running the owncloud debs from upstream, they work reasonably well and get updated

 17:07 <slangasek> infinity: and is there a debconf notice at install time?

 17:07 <infinity> slangasek: But feel free to vote FD. ;)

 17:07 <pitti> not in the current upload

 17:07 <kees> can we document the "empty upload" policy so we can reuse it when we hit these things again?

 17:08 <pitti> FWIW, I was voting about the general "replace them with empty stub", not the precise implementation; debconf seems fine to me, too

 17:08 <infinity> slangasek: I'd think a double-whammy of NEWS.Debian and a debconf note might help.

 17:08 <slangasek> I do think this is the right principle

 17:08 <slangasek> but it's important that the user who upgrades knows what's what

 17:08 <infinity> Happy to have someone document one of both of those as a requirement in the bug to go with our decision.

 17:08 <slangasek> so on that basis, +1

 17:08 <slangasek> +1

 17:08 <meetingology> +1 received from slangasek

 17:09 <infinity> s/one of/one or/

 17:09 <infinity> [ENDVOTE]

 17:09 <meetingology> Voting ended on: replace owncloud packages with empty stubs, since no one's willing to maintain it

 17:09 <meetingology> Votes for:6 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0

 17:09 <meetingology> Motion carried

 17:10 <AnybodyElse> (Thanks - upstream guy here. We had A LOT of users that installed the outdated Universe package.)

 17:10 <infinity> slangasek: Want to follow up to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/owncloud/+bug/1384355 with the "please add a debconf note" mention?

 17:10 <mdeslaur> kees: the policy on the technical way to do it, or on when it's appropriate to do

 17:10 <slangasek> will do

 17:10 <infinity> mdeslaur: The former, I'd think.

 17:10 <infinity> mdeslaur: "Appropriate" is always a case-by-case thing.

 17:10 <kees> mdeslaur: I meant the former, but probably we need both.

 17:11 <kees> and for the latter, yeah, say "case-by-case" but give past examples since it's so rare (Java, e.g.)

 17:11 <mdeslaur> AnybodyElse: hi!

 17:11 <infinity> mdeslaur: "Upstream asked" isn't a good enough reason (LOTS of upstreams don't want us shipping their stuff), but "upstream asked, and it's actively harmful to users because we have no distro maintainers looking at it" is probably sane, etc.

 17:11 * AnybodyElse waves back to mdeslaur :)

 17:11 <slangasek> I don't think "no distro maintainers" is sufficient cause to say that it's actively harmful to users

 17:12 <pitti> it's even more of a no-brainer in precise where universe isn't supported any more, but for trusty it's an actual problem indeed

 17:12 <infinity> slangasek: Right, "no distro maintainers, and it's woefully out of date with security issues" blah blah.

 17:12 <slangasek> yes

 17:12 <infinity> slangasek: Hence my "case-by-case" statement.

 17:12 <slangasek> if we were going to leave this to be case-by-case, there's no reason to involve the TB

 17:12 <slangasek> a policy should be an actual policy :)

 17:12 <infinity> Fair point.

 17:13 <slangasek> anyway, commented on the bug

 17:13 <infinity> It's a hard policy to nail down precisely.  The best we can do is provide guidance, I think, so SRU people have something to point at as a reference.

 17:13 <slangasek> is someone taking the action to draft a policy?

 17:14 <pitti> that should go on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates, right?

 17:14 <slangasek> yes, I would say so

 17:14 <infinity> pitti: Ultimately, I'd think it would be there, or linked from there.

 17:14 <pitti> or a subpage; at least under that domain

 17:14 <infinity> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates/Removals perhaps.

 17:14 <pitti> yeah, and linking from /SRU; although it wouldn't be very long, maybe two paragraphs

 17:15 <infinity> kees: Since you brought it up, feel like drafting a (non-pretty, rambling text and bullet points is fine) first cut of a sane-seeming policy for considering removal requests, and we can argue about it in two weeks?

 17:15 <pitti> ^ or on the list

 17:15 <slangasek> "maybe two paragraphs" to me says it shouldn't be a subpage, but ymmv and doesn't need bikeshedding

 17:16 <infinity> pitti: Well, it could be a removal policy in general, so could grow.  So, security issues, like owncloud, IP takedown issues, etc.

 17:16 <pitti> I was in the middle of typing "I can try and draft something", but if kees wants to do it, I'm all for it :)

 17:16 <infinity> pitti: Well, if you're volunteering, I doubt kees will assert ownership of the idea. :P

 17:16 <pitti> oh, it should just be the "how", and maybe some guidelines of "when", but I'd keep it as a case-by-case decision

 17:17 <pitti> such things are hard to pinpoint in a policy

 17:17 <infinity> [ACTION] pitti to draft initial removal-as-an-SRU policy document with a less lousy name than the one used in this action.

 17:17 * meetingology pitti to draft initial removal-as-an-SRU policy document with a less lousy name than the one used in this action.

 17:17 <mdeslaur> does the SRU team remain authoritative on empty package SRUs?

 17:18 <infinity> mdeslaur: The SRU team remains generally authoritative over the -proposed queues in general, I think, though we lack a constitution for me to base that statement on. :P

 17:18 <mdeslaur> infinity: ok, that's fine with me

 17:20 <infinity> mdeslaur: As far as I read our non-constitution, we can override any of the delegate technical teams (like AA, SRU, etc), but overriding isn't the same as making all their decisions for them.

 17:20 * mdeslaur nods

 17:20 <infinity> Anyhow.  Skipping along.  Going to bounce the CFQ thing until Riddell pops up.

 17:20 <pitti> well, the SRU team is bound by the policy in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates

 17:21 <infinity> pitti: They write the policy, so "bound" is a curious term.

 17:21 <pitti> infinity: I think it was actually written by the TB

 17:21 <pitti> and all changes certainly were approved by the TB

 17:21 <infinity> pitti: Well, I've certainly amended it a lot when I wasn't on the TB. :P

 17:22 <infinity> Anyhow, a governance discussion seems like it would take the whole meeting slot, and we have a busy week for once.

 17:22 <pitti> CFQ> not sure if there's much else to discuss; it's rock <-> that SRU <-> hard place

 17:22 <infinity> [TOPIC] Dismantling the ARB

 17:23 <infinity> stgraber: Care to wax poetical on this topic?

 17:23 <pitti> the main question I'd have is whether this can be done less intrusively with the blkio cgroup controller, but I think that was already handled in the ML

 17:23 <stgraber> sure

 17:23 <stgraber> so the ARB hasn't done anything since precise, all members expired and all we've done so far is create the extras.u.c entry every time we open a new release

 17:24 <stgraber> I believe it's now time to just kill it entirely and remove the repository in 15.04

 17:24 * kees sharpens the axe

 17:24 <pitti> oh, so it's practically non-existing already anyway?

 17:24 <infinity> pitti: Right, it's dead, it just needs to be told it's dead.

 17:24 <stgraber> correct, no packages published since precise and I'm the only member of the ARB team on LP (and only there because I'm doing the series initialization every 6 months)

 17:24 <pitti> kees: axe? I thought a wooden spile through the heart is better for zombies?

 17:25 <kees> hehe

 17:25 <infinity> So, we need a technical solution to the removal of extras from users' systems on upgrade, and to take a TB decision to un-delegate the team and whack it from LP?

 17:25 <kees> I think spikes are for vampires

 17:25 <mdeslaur> stgraber: perhaps I'm confused, but isn't there activity in the weekly reports?

 17:25 <stgraber> nope

 17:25 <stgraber> you're confusing this with the commercial app stuff I suspect

 17:26 <mdeslaur> oh, yes, I am

 17:26 <mdeslaur> I keep confusing those two

 17:26 <mdeslaur> sorry, please ignore me

 17:27 <infinity> slangasek: As the engineering manager who happens to own the technical side of this discussion (ubuntu-release-upgrader, probably?), are you happy with mandating the removal of extras and making that happen?

 17:27 <infinity> (Note that it doesn't need to be done in concert with killing the team, we just really should stop shipping a useless empty repo line in sources.list)

 17:27 <infinity> Well, release-upgrader for upgrades, and installers for new installs.

 17:27 <slangasek> infinity: I think it's clear that this is what needs to be done, yes

 17:28 <slangasek> infinity: just make sure this decision turns into a bug report :)

 17:28 <infinity> Right, do we need a formal vote on the undelegation of the team?

 17:28 <stgraber> yeah

 17:28 <infinity> [VOTE] undelegate the ARB and remove the team from LP

 17:28 <meetingology> Please vote on: undelegate the ARB and remove the team from LP

 17:28 <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname)

 17:29 <infinity> +11

 17:29 <meetingology> +11 received from infinity

 17:29 <stgraber> +1

 17:29 <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber

 17:29 <mdeslaur> +1

 17:29 <meetingology> +1 received from mdeslaur

 17:29 <slangasek> +1

 17:29 <meetingology> +1 received from slangasek

 17:29 <pitti> +1

 17:29 <meetingology> +1 received from pitti

 17:29 <slangasek> +1!!

 17:29 <meetingology> +1!! received from slangasek

 17:29 <kees> +1

 17:29 <meetingology> +1 received from kees

 17:29 <infinity> [ENDVOTE]

 17:29 <meetingology> Voting ended on: undelegate the ARB and remove the team from LP

 17:29 <meetingology> Votes for:6 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0

 17:29 <meetingology> Motion carried

 17:29 * slangasek one-ups infinity

 17:29 <pitti> infinity has chair has 11 times the voting power??

 17:29 <slangasek> because 1-factorial-factorial is better than 11

 17:29 <infinity> pitti: According to the bot, no.

 17:30 <infinity> stgraber: Can you file a bug report on whatever components you can think this affects?

 17:30 <infinity> stgraber: u-r-u, apt-setup, ubiquity, livecd-rootfs, maybe curtin...

 17:30 <pitti> infinity: (j/k)

 17:30 <infinity> pitti: I was curious to see if it would tally it oddly, but I guess it's smarter (or, realistically, dumber) than that.

 17:31 <stgraber> infinity: sure. I'll also take care of killing off the team and any documentation I can find

 17:31 <infinity> stgraber: \o/

 17:31 <pitti> rest in peace, extras.u.c., and be replaced click apps..

 17:31 <mdeslaur> stgraber: aim for the head

 17:31 <pitti> "with"

 17:31 <infinity> [TOPIC] Community bugs: 0

 17:32 <infinity> Subtopic there... The community bugs review is almost always 0.  Is this a sign that people aren't escalating things they should, or that Ubuntu is so super healthy that there's no need?

 17:32 <infinity> Should we be advertising a more friendly "hey, you can assign bugs to us when they need guidance" stance?

 17:33 <slangasek> is Riddell's SRU escalation not a "community bug"?

 17:33 <infinity> Oh, true, it's just not in the search link. :P

 17:33 <slangasek> I guess technically there wasn't a bug report assigned to us, sure

 17:33 <slangasek> but I don't think we care about the escalation vector, really

 17:34 <pitti> I can remember only one community bug ever..

 17:34 <infinity> Alright, maybe it's working as designed, then.

 17:34 <infinity> [TOPIC] Mailing list review

 17:34 <infinity> Which I think probably brings us full circle to CFQ.

 17:34 * slangasek nods

 17:35 <infinity> Does anyone have any new opinions on that that they haven't voiced on the list?

 17:36 <pitti> nothing new, really; if Kubuntu wants to go ahead with that, I see relatively few other options, as AFAIR the "low blkio priority in cgroup" idea was already discarded?

 17:36 <pitti> but slangasek's test plan looked fairly comprehensive

 17:36 <infinity> I'm personally in the "It's probably harmless (will change performance one way or another in a lot of scenarios, but I trust the upstream code to not be BROKEN)" camp, but I'm still concerned with a userspace package for desktop_foo changing the behaviour for a multi-desktop system.

 17:36 <infinity> But maybe that fear is silly, as multi-DE installs are hugely uncommon, and reserved for the nerdy.

 17:37 <slangasek> I don't think there are any blockers here, except for "SRU team has time for review" and "someone involved in this SRU acknowledges the testing requirements and updates the SRU bug accordingly"

 17:37 <slangasek> currently the SRU test case shown is the original one, which is incomplete

 17:38 <infinity> Riddell: Since you seem to still be idle, when you get back and read backscroll, can you address Steve's bug paperwork concerns?

 17:38 <slangasek> infinity: it's not just multi-desktop systems; as xnox pointed out on ubuntu-release@, it will impact the system performance characteristics for users running, e.g., a VM on top of a kubuntu desktop

 17:38 <infinity> Riddell: Thanks in advance. :P

 17:38 <infinity> slangasek: Sure, but I'm not sure layering like that is a thought exercise worth getting into.

 17:39 <slangasek> not sure what you mean

 17:39 <infinity> slangasek: Ubuntu in a VM performs differently if the host is Ubuntu or RHEL too.  Oh well.

 17:39 <slangasek> I'm not talking about layering

 17:39 <slangasek> I'm talking about "if you run a VM on kubuntu you will be in pain"

 17:39 <slangasek> as in, your desktop experience will regress

 17:39 <mdeslaur> no, heavy disk io, whether created by a VM that's running, or simply copying files off of a USB disk

 17:39 <infinity> slangasek: I think "you will be in pain" is an exaggeration, but this is where some good testing is a solid plan.

 17:40 <slangasek> maybe I have a low pain tolerance ;)

 17:40 <slangasek> anyway, actionability here - next step is for the Kubuntu devs to lay out their explicit test plan in the SRU bug?

 17:40 <infinity> slangasek: But okay, I see what you mean here.  My take was "kubuntu can do what they want to kubuntu as long as it's not actively harmful".

 17:41 <infinity> In a broad sense.  Obviously not in any willy nilly SRU, hence the discussion.

 17:41 <slangasek> well, I think the SRU team has a duty to protect Kubuntu users from regressions too

 17:42 <infinity> slangasek: Anyhow, on the off chance that Riddell's missed backscroll, can you poke the list thread with a re-request for better paperwork?

 17:42 <slangasek> infinity: can you just [ACTION] it and send out minutes? :-)

 17:42 <infinity> Maaaybe.

 17:42 <slangasek> I mean [ACTION] Riddell, not me

 17:43 <infinity> [ACTION] Riddell to improve the CFQ SRU paperwork to detail regression testing plans

 17:43 * meetingology Riddell to improve the CFQ SRU paperwork to detail regression testing plans

 17:44 <infinity> [TOPIC] Next chair

 17:44 <infinity> Should be kees, unless he's got other plans.

 17:44 <infinity> kees: ^

 17:45 <infinity> Hrm, next meeting would be Nov 11.  A lot of countries take that off.

 17:45 <kees> yup

 17:45 <kees> oh?

 17:45 <infinity> Should we defer for a week, or jiggle it around?

 17:45 <slangasek> "a lot of countries"?

 17:45 <kees> oh, so it is.

 17:45 <infinity> slangasek: Well, some.  I'm not sure who. :P

 17:45 <slangasek> oh, right

 17:45 <kees> "a lot of the board are in country that takes it off"

 17:45 <slangasek> we didn't actually invent that date, we just rebranded it ;-)

 17:46 <kees> I vote to skip it.

 17:46 <pitti> there's still the ML

 17:46 <pitti> for discussing CFQ etc.

 17:46 <kees> I can run the 25th meeting, then?

 17:46 <infinity> [VOTE] Skip Nov 11 meeting, so people can buy poppies and be appropriately respectful

 17:46 <meetingology> Please vote on: Skip Nov 11 meeting, so people can buy poppies and be appropriately respectful

 17:46 <meetingology> Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (for private voting, private message me with 'vote +1/-1/+0 #channelname)

 17:46 <infinity> +1

 17:46 <meetingology> +1 received from infinity

 17:46 <kees> +1

 17:46 <meetingology> +1 received from kees

 17:46 <mdeslaur> +1

 17:46 <meetingology> +1 received from mdeslaur

 17:47 <stgraber> +1

 17:47 <meetingology> +1 received from stgraber

 17:47 <slangasek> +1

 17:47 <meetingology> +1 received from slangasek

 17:47 <infinity> Right, the 1s have it.

 17:47 <infinity> [ENDVOTE]

 17:47 <meetingology> Voting ended on: Skip Nov 11 meeting, so people can buy poppies and be appropriately respectful

 17:47 <meetingology> Votes for:5 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0

 17:47 <meetingology> Motion carried

 17:47 <infinity> kees: You've got the 25th, then.

 17:47 <slangasek> (poppies?  I thought this day was for celebrating heroes, not heroin)

 17:47 <infinity> slangasek: Canadians celebrate by getting high.

 17:48 <infinity> [TOPIC] AOB

 17:48 <slangasek> that seems like a truism

 17:48 <infinity> Anything else?

 17:48 <pitti> nothing from me

 17:48 <slangasek> not here

 17:48 <infinity> slangasek: It's symbolic of the poppies that grow among the graves in Flanders Fields.

 17:48 <slangasek> huh

 17:49 <slangasek> learn something new

 17:49 * mdeslaur learns something new

 17:49 <infinity> #endmeeting



Generated by MeetBot 0.1.5 (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology)