== Meeting information ==
 * #ubuntu-meeting: DMB, 23 Oct at 15:11 — 16:26 UTC
 * Full logs at [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2017/ubuntu-meeting.2017-10-23-15.11.log.html]]



== Meeting summary ==

=== Review of previous action items ===
The discussion about "Review of previous action items" started at 15:11.


=== SRU Developer Applications ===
The discussion about "SRU Developer Applications" started at 15:15.

 * '''Dan Streetman''' (15:20)
  * ''LINK:'' https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ddstreet/UbuntuSRUDeveloperApplication 
  * ''LINK:'' http://ubuntu-dev.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu-sponsorships.cgi?render=html&sponsoree=Dan+Streetman 
  * ''LINK:'' https://launchpad.net/~ddstreet/+uploaded-packages is showing me 23 in total, including development release uploads, and including series SRU duplication.
  * ''Vote:'' Grant ddstreet SRU Developer (Carried)
  * ''ACTION:'' sil2100 to grant ddstreet SRU permissions

=== AOB ===
The discussion about "AOB" started at 16:25.




== Vote results ==

 * [[http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting/2017/ubuntu-meeting.2017-10-23-15.11.log.html#148 Grant ddstreet SRU Developer]]
  * Motion carried (For/Against/Abstained 3/0/2)
   *  Voters rbasak, jbicha, sil2100, bdmurray, micahg



== Action items, by person ==

 * ddstreet
  * sil2100 to grant ddstreet SRU permissions
 * sil2100
  * sil2100 to grant ddstreet SRU permissions



== Done items ==

 * (none)



== People present (lines said) ==

 * sil2100 (63)
 * ddstreet (57)
 * jbicha (21)
 * rbasak (15)
 * meetingology (14)
 * bdmurray (12)
 * micahg (9)
 * ubottu (3)
 * BenC (1)



== Full Log ==


 15:11 <sil2100> #startmeeting DMB

 15:11 <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Oct 23 15:11:10 2017 UTC.  The chair is sil2100. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.

 15:11 <meetingology> 

 15:11 <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick

 15:11 <sil2100> o/

 15:11 <sil2100> #topic Review of previous action items

 15:11 <BenC> o/

 15:11 <sil2100> I guess the two (done) action items from the agenda are done and can be discarded

 15:11 <sil2100> bdmurray: are you around?

 15:12 <bdmurray> sil2100: Yeah, just got in an errand took longer than I expected

 15:12 <sil2100> Did we get the PPU rights for fossfreedom enabled in the end?

 15:12 <sil2100> bdmurray: o/

 15:12 <sil2100> Hey!

 15:12 <bdmurray> I think there is still a bug open that had some discussion in it

 15:12 <sil2100> Oh my

 15:12 <bdmurray> bug 1716770

 15:12 <ubottu> bug 1716770 in ubuntu-community "[TB/DMB] New packageset ~personal-fossfreedom in Artful" [Undecided,Incomplete] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1716770

 15:12 <sil2100> Ok, I'll try to find it and help with getting it through

 15:12 <sil2100> Thanks

 15:13 <sil2100> Because of the release things got a bit out of hand

 15:13 <jbicha> I think it would make sense as a flavor set too instead of ppu

 15:13 <bdmurray> So I think somebody needs to review the packageset vs his requested packages

 15:13 <sil2100> +1 on that

 15:14 <sil2100> Once we review those, is there anything else formal-wise that needs to be done for this to become an automatic packageset?

 15:14 <sil2100> A TB bug or can we re-use this one?

 15:15 <sil2100> Anyway, let's get that sorted after the meeting

 15:15 <sil2100> #topic SRU Developer Applications

 15:16 <bdmurray> It sounded like slangasek had concerns about seeds being modified w/o DMB review.

 15:16 <micahg> this wasn't meant to be a seed based package

 15:16 <micahg> *packageset

 15:16 <jbicha> micahg: why not?

 15:16 <micahg> for exactly that reason :0

 15:16 <micahg> :)

 15:18 <micahg> it's not flavor upload rights, but rather personal upload rights for packages that he's worked on which coincides with some of the primary Budgie packaging (or that was my understanding at least)

 15:18 <bdmurray> Regardless reviewing the seed vs the requested packages might make sense.

 15:18 <micahg> sure, my vote was not for seed based upload rights though

 15:18 <sil2100> I think originally fossfreedom just wanted upload rights for budgie packages

 15:18 <sil2100> But this didn't really work as there was no packageset for budgie back then

 15:19 <sil2100> So to avoid confusion he just went for PPU rights

 15:19 <bdmurray> I think our debating of this is not helping the requestor. Maybe we should just do what they want.

 15:19 <sil2100> Because we still couldn't really give him upload rights for the budgie packageset as this doesn't exist

 15:20 <sil2100> Let's continue with the meeting and discuss later during AOB

 15:20 <sil2100> (if needed)

 15:20 <sil2100> #subtopic Dan Streetman

 15:20 <sil2100> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ddstreet/UbuntuSRUDeveloperApplication

 15:20 <sil2100> http://ubuntu-dev.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu-sponsorships.cgi?render=html&sponsoree=Dan+Streetman

 15:20 <sil2100> ddstreet: o/

 15:20 <sil2100> ddstreet: re-introduce yourself please

 15:20 <ddstreet> hi all, i'm reapplying for sru developer

 15:20 <ddstreet> last application: https://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2017/09/11/%23ubuntu-meeting.txt

 15:21 <ddstreet> sponsored pkgs: http://ubuntu-dev.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu-sponsorships.cgi?render=html&sponsor=&sponsor_search=name&sponsoree=Dan+Streetman&sponsoree_search=name

 15:21 <ddstreet> and this bug that i've created the debdiffs for is waiting https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/xenial/+source/mdadm/+bug/1617919

 15:21 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1617919 in mdadm (Ubuntu Xenial) "mdadm segfault error 4 in libc-2.23.so" [High,Triaged]

 15:22 <sil2100> Questions please

 15:23 <jbicha> ddstreet: one question from before: is the Ubuntu kernel git repo public?

 15:24 <ddstreet> jbicha yes the ubuntu kernel git repos are public

 15:24 <jbicha> can you paste a link?

 15:24 <ddstreet> from my git

 15:24 <ddstreet> ubuntu/trusty	git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-trusty.git (fetch)

 15:24 <ddstreet> ubuntu/trusty	git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-trusty.git (push)

 15:24 <ddstreet> ubuntu/xenial	git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git (fetch)

 15:24 <ddstreet> ubuntu/xenial	git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-xenial.git (push)

 15:24 <ddstreet> ubuntu/zesty	git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-zesty.git (fetch)

 15:24 <ddstreet> ubuntu/zesty	git://kernel.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ubuntu-zesty.git (push)

 15:25 <ddstreet> jbicha or if you mean the special kernel repos, they are in a different location, e.g.

 15:25 <ddstreet> ubuntu/aws	git+ssh://git.launchpad.net/~canonical-kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux-aws (fetch)

 15:26 <jbicha> I was looking for http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-artful.git/log/?qt=author&q=streetman

 15:26 <jbicha> :)

 15:26 <ddstreet> sorry, i assumed you mean git url

 15:26 <jbicha> no problem, I found it

 15:27 <sil2100> ddstreet: a question from me: after you prepared an SRU, prepared the bug and uploaded the change to the archive (and this upload got accepted to -proposed), what work do you need to do next on that SRU?

 15:27 <ddstreet> verify the proposed package and mark the bug as verification-done-RELEASE

 15:27 <ddstreet> for affected releases

 15:27 <sil2100> Anything else?

 15:27 <ddstreet> add a comment to the bug with the details of the verification

 15:28 <ddstreet> then after 7 days or more, ping a sru person to move it to -updates

 15:28 <ddstreet> check the autopkgtest results

 15:28 <ddstreet> of there are any failures, explain them in the bug - or if the failures are a result of the change, it will need reworking

 15:28 <sil2100> Ok, thanks

 15:28 <ddstreet> which likely would involve re-patching, then re-uploading to -proposed again

 15:28 <sil2100> btw. the ping-the-sru-person is not required ;p

 15:29 <ddstreet> heh well hopefully not ;-)

 15:29 <sil2100> You can do that if the SRU is somehow priority but usually we'll just do it when the time comes ;)

 15:29 <ddstreet> it's not always clear when that time is to outsiders ;-)

 15:29 <jbicha> I'm looking at the last 2 SRUs from https://launchpad.net/~ddstreet/+uploaded-packages

 15:30 <jbicha> and they got sponsored very quickly, like same day

 15:30 <ddstreet> yes, last thurs i believe

 15:31 <ddstreet> jbicha you mean the lshw upload?

 15:31 <jbicha> well not initramfs-toolsbut the other 2 recent ones, just commenting

 15:31 <jbicha> lshw and vlan

 15:31 <ddstreet> sorry im not sure what vlan you mean?

 15:31 <ddstreet> that was sept 20

 15:31 <ddstreet> for vlan

 15:32 <ddstreet> the two lshw uploads are the same bug, just one for x and other for t

 15:32 <rbasak> o/

 15:32 <jbicha> you uploaded the debdiff for LP: #1716964 and it got sponsored later that day

 15:32 <ddstreet> jbicha am i misunderstanding you?

 15:32 <ubottu> Launchpad bug 1716964 in vlan (Debian) "VLAN network script if-up.d/ip limits rp_filter value to 0 or 1" [Unknown,New] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1716964

 15:32 <ddstreet> i think so yes

 15:32 <ddstreet> sorry, i'm not clear if there is a question for me?

 15:32 <jbicha> sometimes, things get stuck in the sponsoring queue for a very long time, so I was just commenting that you have got some much quicker than that

 15:33 <jbicha> no question, just a comment

 15:33 <ddstreet> oh ok thanks

 15:33 <ddstreet> yes, i can't really let things hang out in the sponsorship queue, so since i don't have upload rights i have to actively find sponsors to pester

 15:33 <ddstreet> obviously, that's why i am requesting upload rights

 15:35 <bdmurray> previously you had mentioned being interested in sponsoring SRU uploads for other people. Is that still something you plan on doing?

 15:35 <ddstreet> yes

 15:36 <jbicha> it looks like you've done an average of 1 SRU set per month, sustained over the past year and a half (another comment, not really a question)

 15:36 <ddstreet> yes, on average, although i think i've picked up the pace significantly in the last month, since my last application was rejected because i hadn't done enough SRUs

 15:37 <ddstreet> before that, i had done mostly kernel fixes which don't show up in the sponsor list, and aren't relevant for this application

 15:38 <ddstreet> well, i'm not one to say if kernel fixes are relevant for this application, that is what bdmurray suggested during my first application

 15:38 <rbasak> No endorsements from two out of three of your latest sponsors?

 15:38 <sil2100> I left a comment

 15:38 <sil2100> It's like a soft endorsement ;)

 15:38 <ddstreet> rbasak i believe i asked you a while back, and i did ask apw but he did not respond

 15:38 <ddstreet> maybe didn't see my request

 15:39 <ddstreet> thanks sil2100!

 15:39 <jbicha> (no more questions from me for this application)

 15:39 <sil2100> Any other questions?

 15:39 * rbasak is still reviewing

 15:40 <ddstreet> re: endorsement i also asked cpaelzer but i don't think he saw my request either

 15:40 <rbasak> So far, everything I see suggests a high quality of SRUswork.

 15:41 <rbasak> I'm still a little concerned by not having a big enough sample size though.

 15:41 <rbasak> What do other DMB members think of this?

 15:41 <micahg> same

 15:42 <ddstreet> rbasak micahg what would you consider a big enough sample size?

 15:43 <rbasak> That's a good question. I think it's variable depending on the quality of work demonstrated and the strength of the endorsements.

 15:43 <ddstreet> looks like i have ~22 separate SRUs so far, not counting multiple releases per SRU.

 15:43 <rbasak> https://launchpad.net/~ddstreet/+uploaded-packages is showing me 23 in total, including development release uploads, and including series SRU duplication.

 15:43 <rbasak> What am I missing?

 15:44 <ddstreet> rbasak i'm going by http://ubuntu-dev.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/ubuntu-sponsorships.cgi?render=html&sponsor=&sponsor_search=name&sponsoree=Dan+Streetman&sponsoree_search=name

 15:45 <ddstreet> so 23 sounds right

 15:45 <sil2100> It's hard to judge what sample size we require here

 15:46 <ddstreet> what have you required of past applicants?

 15:46 <sil2100> But I'm rather confident in ddstreet's knowledge about the SRU process

 15:46 <bdmurray> I think there's only been one other applicant

 15:46 <ddstreet> for SRU, yes

 15:46 <micahg> usually a full cycle focused on whatever they're applying for

 15:47 <ddstreet> the sru developer team was created for him, slashd, because you were not ready to give him coredev

 15:47 <rbasak> To narrow it down, if I saw somewhere between 5 and 10 (not sure exactly) recent SRUs that required no significant review changes and had endorsements from >90% of sponsors from that sample, I'd be happy.

 15:47 <jbicha> I think applicants tend to upload more frequently than you do but I'm ok with the total upload count

 15:47 <sil2100> Should we start the vote?

 15:48 <sil2100> Everyone ready?

 15:48 <sil2100> We have this tendency to running over our meeting time

 15:48 <rbasak> I'm +0 right now. I don't have a list of SRUs in front of me as qualified by my criteria above to review.

 15:49 <rbasak> That seems to be mostly an issue of data mining.

 15:49 <sil2100> Ok, I see rbasak started the voting so let's just start it formally

 15:49 <sil2100> #vote Grant ddstreet SRU Developer

 15:49 <meetingology> Please vote on: Grant ddstreet SRU Developer

 15:49 <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)

 15:49 <rbasak> Perhaps, in hindsight, we could ask applicants for this team to provide this as a summary to save us all doing it individually.

 15:49 <rbasak> +0

 15:49 <meetingology> +0 received from rbasak

 15:49 <jbicha> +1

 15:49 <meetingology> +1 received from jbicha

 15:49 <sil2100> +1, I have no good feeling on what criteria we have but I'm happy with ddstreet's SRUs so far

 15:49 <meetingology> +1, I have no good feeling on what criteria we have but I'm happy with ddstreet's SRUs so far received from sil2100

 15:50 <rbasak> To be clear, I _am_ happy with the quality of the work that I've seen.

 15:51 <sil2100> bdmurray, BenC, micahg: ?

 15:51 <micahg> +0 I have a good technically feeling, and am very close to voting in favor, but still feel like we should have a few more recent SRUs as rbasak mentioned

 15:51 <meetingology> +0 I have a good technically feeling, and am very close to voting in favor, but still feel like we should have a few more recent SRUs as rbasak mentioned received from micahg

 15:51 <bdmurray> +1 I think the working being done is of fine quality, but I'm still concerned about the posibility of things being sponsored. I guess the SRU team is a safety check there though.

 15:51 <meetingology> +1 I think the working being done is of fine quality, but I'm still concerned about the posibility of things being sponsored. I guess the SRU team is a safety check there though. received from bdmurray

 15:53 <ddstreet> bdmurray i don't quite understand what exactly you're concerned about there, but thanks for the +1

 15:54 <sil2100> BenC: are you still around to vote? :)

 15:55 <bdmurray> ddstreet: I think I'm concerned about you having the skills to judge the quality of an SRU.

 15:55 <ddstreet> i see

 15:57 <ddstreet> bdmurray feel free to point out any specific examples where I've done something wrong - that will help me improve myself, right

 16:06 <ddstreet> so, is the voting done?

 16:07 <jbicha> sorry, we're trying to figure out if we can end the vote now without BenC

 16:07 <sil2100> Yeah, some discussions on the procedures

 16:07 * ddstreet refills coffee

 16:12 <sil2100> Sorry about this, would be much better if we got this one more vote from BenC ;)

 16:12 <jbicha> sil2100: maybe we should move on with the rest of the meeting?

 16:13 <bdmurray> Please

 16:13 <jbicha> rbalint: are you here?

 16:20 <sil2100> Ok, let me end the vote

 16:20 <sil2100> #endvote

 16:20 <meetingology> Voting ended on: Grant ddstreet SRU Developer

 16:20 <meetingology> Votes for:3 Votes against:0 Abstentions:2

 16:20 <meetingology> Motion carried

 16:22 <sil2100> rbasak: did I end to early?

 16:23 <sil2100> ddstreet: ok, sorry for the wait, congratulations!

 16:23 <ddstreet> thanks

 16:24 <sil2100> I think we have this settled

 16:24 <sil2100> (I think)

 16:24 <sil2100> Who wants to take the action?

 16:24 <sil2100> I'll just take it

 16:25 <sil2100> #action sil2100 to grant ddstreet SRU permissions

 16:25 * meetingology sil2100 to grant ddstreet SRU permissions

 16:25 <sil2100> #topic AOB

 16:25 <sil2100> We probably had something but since we're already 25 minutes over, I'd say... let's discuss next time

 16:26 <sil2100> We just need to make sure to push fossfreedom's upload rights forward

 16:26 <sil2100> Anyway, if you don't mind, I need to finish the meeting since I need to go AFK

 16:26 <sil2100> #endmeeting



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