15:30 <willcooke> #startmeeting GNOME as the desktop
15:30 <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Apr 18 15:30:42 2017 UTC.  The chair is willcooke. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
15:30 <meetingology> 
15:30 <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
15:31 <willcooke> Who is interesting in getting involved in the meeting?
15:31 <andyrock> hey
15:31 <flexiondotorg> o/
15:31 <jbicha> o/
15:31 <Trevinho> Hola
15:31 * kenvandine waves
15:31 <isantop> willcooke: There are a bunch of System76 people who are interested
15:31 <seb128> yeah, let's maybe that with a round of "raise your hand" for those who have things they want to say/discuss
15:31 <seb128> ?
15:31 * Laney is here
15:31 <seb128> that feels like the sort of meeting that is going to get out of hands :p
15:31 <andyrock> o/
15:31 <ryanleesipes> Hehe
15:32 <seb128> _o/
15:32 <ryanleesipes> SYSTEM76 sound off!
15:32 <isantop> o/
15:32 <mhall119> o/
15:32 <seb128> shrug
15:32 <seb128> that's a lot of people :p
15:32 <seb128> everybody get a one line summary of what topic you want to discuss?
15:32 <ryanleesipes> o/
15:32 <mhall119> I'll be brief :)
15:32 <seb128> let's give us 3 min to write that
15:32 <seb128> then we go round pasting those
15:32 <seb128> then we can find out common points
15:32 <seb128> or organize
15:33 <seb128> wdyt?
15:33 <willcooke> +1
15:33 <alex285> is the meeting done, or starting?
15:33 <willcooke> alex285, starting
15:33 <alex285> awesome thanks!
15:34 <ahayzen> o/
15:35 <mhall119> seb128: ready for us to paste them?
15:35 <seb128> if you want
15:35 <mhall119> With both my Community Council and Community Manager hats on, I just wanted to let everybody know that they can contact me directly at mhall119@ubuntu.com if they have any questions or concerns (non-technical ones, for technical talk to the desktop team) during the transition from Unity.
15:35 <ryanleesipes> Do we have an Etherpad or something?
15:35 <seb128> thanks
15:35 <seb128> no, we have a bot that record
15:36 <ryanleesipes> That would be better for collecting questions/comments
15:36 <seb128> but feel free to start one
15:36 <mhall119> ryanleesipes: the meetingology bot will record stuff and generate meeting minutes
15:36 <Trevinho> Etherpad done: http://pad.ubuntu.com/n08SOl5xiA
15:36 <cimi> cimi hi guys
15:36 <tkamppeter> hi
15:36 <seb128> jbicha, andyrock, isantop, ryanleesipes, ahayzen, feel free to paste your summary when you have it
15:36 <ryanleesipes> https://etherpad.gnome.org/p/ubuntu-desktop-meeting
15:36 <ryanleesipes> Oh nevermind
15:37 <ryanleesipes> lol Trevinho
15:37 <ogra_> w3m is the only way forward anyway :) everything else is bloat (SCNR)
15:37 <ryanleesipes> Use the top one, not mind
15:37 <ogra_> err
15:37 <ogra_> s&/w3m/wmx/ (damn)
15:37 <mhall119> seb128: can you tell meetingology about hte etherpad link?
15:37 * mhall119 has forgotten meetingology syntax already
15:38 <isantop> I'm personally concerned about the out-of-box experience GNOME delivers by default.
15:38 <ryanleesipes> Albeit I can't get into the Ubuntu etherpad
15:38 <seb128> mhall119, no, willcooke is the one who started the meeting/control the bot
15:38 <seb128> also no idea how to do that?
15:38 <seb128> link ...?
15:38 <mhall119> #link maybe
15:38 <seb128> willcooke, ^
15:38 <willcooke> #link http://pad.ubuntu.com/n08SOl5xiA
15:38 <mhall119> or LINK:
15:39 <Trevinho> LINK: http://pad.ubuntu.com/n08SOl5xiA
15:39 <seb128> jbicha, andyrock, isantop, ryanleesipes, ahayzen, no topics from you then?
15:39 * Trevinho fails
15:39 <ryanleesipes> Either you have not been granted access to this resource or your entitlement has timed out. Please try again.
15:39 <willcooke> maybe....
15:39 <willcooke> #topic Etherpad here: http://pad.ubuntu.com/n08SOl5xiA
15:39 <jbicha> well, I'd like to follow up on isantop's topic
15:39 <seb128> isantop, sorry, just saw your line from earlier
15:39 <mhall119> willcooke: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology for reference
15:39 <ahayzen> seb128, are we putting in the etherpad or here ... ?
15:39 <jbicha> also I assume it's ok now to drop Unity-specific patches that hold GNOME back? My specific example is Shotwell which is held at a git snapshot for a year because no one has stepped up to rewrite its UOA code.
15:39 <gQuigs> ryanleesipes: looks like a timeout, login and log back in to Ubuntu SSO (login.ubuntu.com)
15:39 <seb128> ahayzen, either work
15:39 <seb128> just pick one
15:39 <seb128> so we can get moving
15:39 <seb128> :-)
15:40 <seb128> so mine
15:40 <seb128> want to discuss goals/how we move z+1 to GNOME and re-active the channel/sync up the work between us; don't want to discuss today the technical details/choices of components/etc
15:40 <willcooke> +1 on avoiding technical topics for now
15:40 <willcooke> My topics:
15:40 <willcooke> How should the Ubuntu GNOME team and the Ubuntu Desktop team resolve conflicts?
15:40 <willcooke> Expected timescales to see GNOME become the default shell
15:40 <seb128> the details should be done in a meeting properly scheduled where we have the people we need, etc
15:40 <ryanleesipes> I still can't get in
15:40 <mhall119> where will technical topics be discussed? later IRC meetings or mailinglist?
15:40 <ryanleesipes> I'll just ask my questions in here, and perhaps someone else can plug them into Etherpad
15:41 <mhall119> ryanleesipes: PM me your LP nick
15:41 <seb128> we are going to have another meeting
15:41 <seb128> but mailing list is always fine for questions if anyone has some
15:41 <ryanleesipes> It's just ryanleesipes mhall119
15:41 <seb128> or for raising topics
15:42 <jackpot51> mhall119: jackpot51 on the pad pls
15:42 <mhall119> ryanleesipes: you should have etherpad access now, might need to log out and back in
15:42 <ryanleesipes> I got in
15:42 <mhall119> jackpot51: also added, if anyone else needs access to the etherpad please PM me your launchpad nick
15:43 <seb128> k, let's see we have enough topics to touch a few of those
15:43 <seb128> willcooke, how do you want to process?
15:43 <ryanleesipes> Alright, I'm in
15:43 <willcooke> I'll go through the pad one by one and set the topic, starting at the top...
15:43 <seb128> hum
15:44 <flexiondotorg> My questions: Will AppMenu and Indicator continue to be supported?
15:44 <willcooke> actually, let's start with...
15:44 <k1l> what is the goal of the "new" gnome desktop: ship a vanilla gnome-shell or keep the workflow/look at the old unity way (with extensions or maybe patches for globalmenu)?
15:44 <willcooke> #topic Dropping Unity specific patches
15:44 <willcooke> jbicha, want to kick that off?
15:45 <seb128> let's start with this one because it leads to how we set up collaboration I think
15:45 <jbicha> How are we handling Unity-specific patches?
15:45 <seb128> or organize the work
15:45 <jbicha> do we just keep them if they aren't holding us back?
15:45 <seb128> yes please
15:45 <seb128> well no
15:46 <seb128> my stand would be that we should go through the packages and remove patches that we feel like are not needed anymore
15:46 <seb128> but we shouldn't do that as individuals
15:46 <seb128> like I would try to suggest we set up a per-review rule
15:46 <seb128> and use the channel to request reviews
15:46 <mhall119> is there a definitive list of these packages/patches?
15:46 <seb128> so nobody takes an unilateral decision
15:47 <seb128> and we resume team work/channel activity
15:47 <seb128> jbicha, wdyt?
15:47 <seb128> it's probably fine to drop patches for uoa/menubars/csd etc, but maybe not some others like typeahead in nautilus
15:47 <seb128> if we just go "open gate mode" it's going to be cahotic at best
15:47 <jbicha> so, what I hear you saying is case-by-case but let's discuss when we do it to make sure there's concensus
15:47 <seb128> what do others thing?
15:48 <seb128> think
15:48 <jbicha> ironically, typeahead is probably the first to go as we've already discussed :|
15:48 <seb128> yeah, maybe not the best example
15:48 <Laney> nautilus isn't a good example because we already separately discussed dropping that
15:48 <seb128> finne
15:48 <Laney> don't know what would be atm
15:48 <Laney> maybe something
15:48 <gQuigs> are we ok with breakage on Unity to get Gnome working better?
15:48 <seb128> please don't nitpick on stupid examples
15:48 <mhall119> seb128: would it be easier to start with "no patches" and go through them to add back in ones you want to keep, or start with "all patches" and go through them to see which ones to drop?
15:48 <Laney> hey
15:48 <seb128> it's just the first one I had coming
15:49 <ryanleesipes> Agree with mhall119
15:49 <ryanleesipes> on starting with no patches
15:49 <Laney> I'm sure there will be some things to keep
15:49 <mhall119> ryanleesipes: that was a question, you can't agree with it :-P
15:49 <Laney> looking at gtk there are some
15:49 <ryanleesipes> I can
15:49 <ryanleesipes> It's my right
15:49 <seb128> keeping unity working in universe is a good point
15:49 <seb128> we are not going to keep intrusive UI patches for apps I think
15:50 <Trevinho> there are some unity patches though, that might be convenient to keep (if not causing too much hassle) for people who wants to stick to unity7 on 18.04 I think
15:50 <seb128> but we should probably keep the patches that don't cost much like if we have gtk changes to make appmenu work
15:50 <Laney> hmm
15:50 <Laney> don't know about that
15:50 <flexiondotorg> Keeping patches has the advantage that it helps identify what we might desire to upstream.
15:50 <Laney> we might end up creating a crappy experience
15:50 <seb128> k
15:50 <seb128> maybe let's stay our of technical details today?
15:50 <ryanleesipes> Will anyone be maintaining Unity7?
15:50 <Trevinho> like there are patches for headerbar to make them to work well when maximized in unity, they shouldn't create problems
15:50 <seb128> like just agree on big lines
15:50 <seb128> like need-peer-reviews to drop patches
15:50 <mhall119> ok, so can we get an action item assigned to somebody to start on a list of patches to keep/remove?
15:51 <seb128> no single person who go and clean/upload by themself
15:51 <Trevinho> ryanleesipes: as xenial is there for a while, I think it will need some basic support.
15:51 <seb128> +1 or -1?
15:51 <mhall119> then everyone else can +/-1 them
15:51 <seb128> no
15:51 <mhall119> +1 on working together to decide
15:51 <seb128> do you plan to work on updating packages?
15:51 <Trevinho> ryanleesipes: so, mostly high-prio bug fixes...
15:51 <seb128> just curious
15:51 <mhall119> me? no, you've seen what I do to .deb packages
15:52 <mhall119> nobdoy wants that :)
15:52 <seb128> k, you just seem to have strong preferences on how we organize ourselves
15:52 <seb128> so I was wondering :p
15:52 <mhall119> but I'd like to see someone take an action item to start a document or something for tracking that work
15:52 <mhall119> for visibility
15:53 <Laney> we have versions.html, just file a bug when you update a package and get a review on there?
15:53 <seb128> +1
15:53 <jbicha> seb128: I think we're in agreement with your general idea for peer review for dropping Unity-ish patches
15:53 <Laney> although that might not have proper visibility of what needs doing
15:53 <seb128> I would vote for normal mps (if vcs) or debdiff
15:53 <willcooke> I think it's too early to list out which specifics we want to work on, we need to agree the right processes today and then the specifics can come later
15:53 <seb128> and get a peer review
15:53 <Laney> more so if we go to 3.26 ;-)
15:53 <seb128> using the channel to request for reviews
15:53 <seb128> willcooke, +1
15:53 <mhall119> +1 willcooke
15:54 <seb128> which is also why I said let's stay out of technical discussions today
15:54 <seb128> like on wheter we keep supporting unity in universe
15:54 <seb128> or specifics about patches
15:54 <Laney> file bug / merge proposal, get review, upload
15:54 <seb128> +1
15:54 <flexiondotorg> +1 "using the channel to request for reviews"
15:54 <seb128> ^ agreement on that?
15:54 <jbicha> next topic?
15:55 <willcooke> Ok
15:55 <willcooke> So we're agreed that we will use LP reviews and the IRC channel to request reviews and discuss it there.
15:56 <willcooke> So I'd like to move on to....
15:56 <willcooke> #topic timescales
15:56 <willcooke> How does end of April for the seeds to be updated sound?
15:56 <seb128> I think step 1 is to update the seed to put GNOME on the iso instead of unity
15:56 <seb128> that sounds a good target to me
15:56 <Laney> Two things
15:56 <mhall119> seb128: are you talking zesty+1?
15:57 <seb128> we don't need technical details of leaf packages at first
15:57 <jbicha> willcooke: unless we are ok with the seeds including universe packages, that won't actually be possible that quick
15:57 <seb128> or maybe just gdm vs lightdm
15:57 <Laney> 1. I made a PPA https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-desktop/+archive/ubuntu/ubuntu-desktop-gnome
15:57 <Laney> this lets us 1) break shit and not care that much
15:57 <Laney> 2) include universe packages
15:57 <seb128> Laney, do we build an iso using the ppa?
15:57 <seb128> or what does it do?
15:57 <Laney> if we upload the seed there and have a look
15:57 <Laney> you don't (well, you could)
15:57 <Laney> but I think that it would be good to do some iterations there first
15:58 <Laney> unless you want to go full on "move fast and break things"
15:58 <seb128> I wouldn't mind doing that
15:58 <seb128> but what sort of changes do you expect in the ppa.?
15:58 <gQuigs> 1) drop packages that are not going to be updated from CD (unity8, ubuntu web browser), but leave unity mostly intact?
15:58 <seb128> is that to test the patches drops?
15:58 <seb128> or the seed changes?
15:58 <seb128> or...?
15:58 <Laney> ubuntu-settings, the seeds, packages with dropped patches
16:00 <seb128> hum
16:00 <seb128> I don't have a srong opinion either way
16:00 <seb128> others, wdyt?
16:00 <seb128> ppa is fine to me
16:00 <Laney> and we might find random upgrade problems before hitting the archive with them
16:00 <jbicha> what's the proposal again?
16:01 <mhall119> sounds safer to me, since people have gotten used to devel releases not massively breaking on them in recent years
16:01 <seb128> using ppa vs destabilizing the archive for a bit
16:01 <Laney> just test updating the ubuntu-meta + minimal set in a ppa before 'the switch'
16:01 <attente> how will unity7 in universe still work if the patches are dropped?
16:02 <ogra_> degraded ?
16:02 <seb128> that's a topic we didn't touch yet
16:02 <flexiondotorg> Laney are you proposing iso build that include this PPA in the short term?
16:02 <seb128> and probably worth another meeting
16:02 <mhall119> unity7 would still work, but apps won't integrate as well into it
16:02 <gQuigs> can't we have both Unity and Gnome on the CD for at least a little bit during development (or am I missing what this conversation is about)
16:02 <Laney> flexiondotorg: nah, mainly for upgrading
16:02 <Trevinho> attente: I guess we can keep the most important ones
16:02 <flexiondotorg> OK
16:02 <seb128> jbicha, do you have a list of packages that need MIRed?
16:02 <Trevinho> attente: but, integration is not much important
16:02 <Trevinho> I'd try to keep them unless they don't create troubles for merging though
16:03 <gQuigs> just like we had both Unity7 and 8 on Zesty image - I'm not saying we have to ship it, but for iterating to a new package set it makes it easier, right/
16:03 <jbicha> seb128: not yet, but I can propose a partial list of MIR needs to our mailing list
16:03 <seb128> jbicha, that would be nice
16:04 <Laney> guess we'd need to have an initial proposal for leaf packages first
16:04 <jbicha> there are several choices that will need to be discussed there (keeping shotwell for instance)
16:04 <seb128> let's not discuss apps selection in a first round
16:04 <seb128> first we get a working GNOME session with our apps
16:04 <seb128> then we discuss inside the session
16:04 <seb128> +1/-1?
16:05 <Laney> that's fine, just saying that it impacts how many MIRs need to be done and when
16:05 <flexiondotorg> +1
16:05 <jbicha> yes, we can try to get a working GNOME session first then worry about the specific apps after
16:05 <gQuigs> +1
16:05 <seb128> Laney, yeah, good point
16:05 <Laney> best to keep it lower at the start
16:05 <seb128> let's see we do another meeting next week to discuss again
16:05 <seb128> jbicha, can you do the required-minimal-MIR-set for then?
16:06 <seb128> and let's use the ppa meanwhile
16:06 <seb128> since archive is not open yet and we didn't figure out the details
16:06 <seb128> let's say*
16:06 <seb128> so it gives us
16:06 <jbicha> seb128: yes you can assign me to propose an initial MIR list this week
16:06 <seb128> - using peer review&channel to sync work
16:06 <willcooke> thanks jbicha
16:06 <seb128> - initial MIR list to be built by jbicha
16:07 <seb128> - use the ppa from Laney to start
16:07 <seb128> - another meeting next week when we review the MIR list and discuss some first tech details
16:07 <Laney> yeah feel free to upload there often
16:07 <seb128> is that a good summary?
16:07 <willcooke> seb128, +1 and captured in the pad
16:07 <seb128> anything people disagree with?
16:07 <seb128> great
16:07 <Laney> I have a second thing for this topic
16:07 * seb128 listens
16:07 <Laney> what do you think about doing one of the early distro milestones
16:07 <Laney> like say alpha 2?
16:08 <flexiondotorg> +1
16:08 <seb128> what's the point over testing dailys?
16:08 <Laney> people will actually do it
16:08 <seb128> they can actually test dailys as well
16:08 <flexiondotorg> Get community testing around a known release.
16:08 <Laney> I am aware they can
16:08 <seb128> but if you think it helps we can do it
16:08 <willcooke> It gives us a nice clear goal to work towards
16:08 <Laney> but I've been observing milestones for a while and I know that people test the named ones and don't really test the daily ones
16:08 <mhall119> we can do a coordinated public push for testing, either around a specific milestone or a specific daily
16:08 <Laney> and it's a deadline
16:09 <flocculant> Laney: I would concur - Xubuntu sees exactly that
16:09 <seb128> when is a2 likely to be?
16:09 <Laney> and the 'press' might care (if you care about that)
16:09 <jbicha> last cycle there was only 1 Alpha and that worked well
16:09 <seb128> do we have a schedule yet?
16:09 <Laney> nope
16:09 * mhall119 volunteers to help spread the call for testing in the community
16:09 <jbicha> we don't even have a name yet! ;)
16:09 <Laney> but you can look at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ZestyZapus/ReleaseSchedule for an idea
16:09 <willcooke> "end of June" for A1
16:09 <seb128> k, seems people are mostly in favor of it
16:10 <Laney> or https://wiki.ubuntu.com/YakketyYak/ReleaseSchedule might be easier to compare
16:10 <jbicha> (Zesty Alpha 1 didn't happen)
16:10 <willcooke> "end of July" for A2
16:10 <seb128> so let's call that a decision
16:10 <mhall119> Laney is right, the tech press will pickup and talk about the first milestone release with GNOME as the default
16:10 <seb128> what's the goal?
16:10 <seb128> I think we want to give it testing
16:10 <Laney> jbicha: sure, but it will do if a flavour volunteers to do it
16:10 <seb128> not press coverage yet at this point
16:10 <mhall119> lots of eyeballs and bug reports
16:10 <Laney> the timing for Z A1 sucked royally
16:10 <seb128> having "it's still a rough experience" press isn't going to help
16:11 <mhall119> seb128: we can message it as "first access, help us find all the bugs so we can fix them before release"
16:11 <gQuigs> likely it will be advertised whenever gnome lands as the default in the nighties anyway, right?
16:11 <seb128> I guess so
16:11 <mhall119> gQuigs: nightlies don't usually get much attention
16:12 <gQuigs> but the headline will be, first nightly with Gnome Shell as the default,  we should expect attention then too
16:12 <mhall119> if you want to get a bunch of people testing and filing bugs, a milestone will help you
16:12 <gQuigs> not saying to not do the alpha
16:12 <ryanleesipes> We'll give nightlies attention
16:12 <ryanleesipes> We already build them on the imaging server everyday
16:12 <ryanleesipes> We can test them on hardware.
16:12 <mhall119> ryanleesipes: well I know S76 will, I meant the wider press/community
16:13 <seb128> k, so decision is to use alpha (2) milestone points to do a call for testing?
16:13 <seb128> willcooke, Laney, ^
16:13 <mhall119> +1 from me
16:13 <jackpot51> I don't think the "wider press/community" is here...
16:13 <Laney> That's cool for me
16:13 <willcooke> +1
16:13 <seb128> k, let's move on then
16:13 <Laney> actually the main benefit for myself is the deadline :P
16:13 <flexiondotorg> +1 Alpha 2 milestone
16:13 <seb128> I believe we are working steadly without those
16:13 <seb128> but if you guys see value in it that's fine to me
16:13 <Laney> ok...
16:14 <seb128> let's see how it goes
16:14 <seb128> :-)
16:14 <seb128> next topic?
16:14 <willcooke> just looking at the questions.....
16:14 <seb128> one thing we should discuss is the topics we want to put on the agenda for next week's meeting
16:14 <seb128> and also decide on a slot for that meeting
16:15 <willcooke> I'm skipping over the technical questions in that list, but happy to discuss after the meeting
16:15 <seb128> I think one thing we need to discuss earlier is gdm vs lightdm because that''s needed for the iso
16:15 <ryanleesipes> Just for the record, what is considered technical willcooke?
16:15 <mhall119> are launchpad blueprints still used to plan and track work each release?
16:15 <jbicha> seb128: mailing list for gdm discussion?
16:15 <alex285> can we do questions after the meeting? because to be honest i;m not really following :/
16:15 <willcooke> Let me speak to Robert re: lightdm and see what he can make next week and I'll put the word round
16:15 <seb128> jbicha, list for discussions and trying to get to a conclusion during the meeting maybe?
16:16 <seb128> willcooke, Laney ^ wdyt?
16:16 <Laney> sure
16:16 <Laney> I don't really understand what there is to discuss atm so someone who knows the issues should start it
16:17 <Laney> (re the display manager)
16:17 <seb128> I'm not sure
16:17 <seb128> lightdm vs gdm seems one to me
16:17 <jackpot51> What issues are there with GDM?
16:17 <Laney> just that one
16:17 <seb128> not sure how much gnome-shell relies on gdm and if lightdm can provide the same features
16:17 <Laney> exactly
16:17 <jbicha> right, we can't make a decision today without Robert's input anyway
16:17 <seb128> that's probably one for robert_ancell
16:17 <seb128> jackpot51, it's a complexe codebase and we like lightdm
16:17 <mhall119> IIRC, lightdm had some work to add features a customer wanted, so it might impact commercial engagements within canonical
16:17 <willcooke> Can someone kick that off on the mailing list, and I'll speak to Robert and ask him to comment there
16:17 <gQuigs> ^^
16:18 <seb128> I can do that
16:18 <willcooke> thanks seb128
16:18 <jackpot51> The lock screen is a bit broken in ubuntu-gnome in lightdm, I think
16:18 <seb128> that could maybe be fixed
16:18 <seb128> lightdm has guest session as well that we like
16:18 <jackpot51> That appears to be the only issue
16:18 <Laney> I would think our default position should be the upstream one (i.e. gdm), but let's see what the issues are
16:18 <seb128> there is work either way, but we need robert_ancell for that discussion
16:18 <Laney> we'd want to re-develop the guest session feature there
16:18 <Laney> ya
16:18 <gQuigs> just curious, how much does dropping lightdm affect other flavors?
16:18 <Laney> let's do that
16:18 <ryanleesipes> Why ship it when that is part of GNOME's effort? It'll only create problems in the future
16:18 <andyrock> i can take a look to the lokscreen issue in case
16:19 <jackpot51> Who uses the guest session feature?
16:19 <gQuigs> will investiage that, and the enterprise changes for the ML
16:19 <seb128> we created lightdm for a reason and that reason might still be partially true
16:19 <gQuigs> jackpot51: I love the guest session feature
16:19 <seb128> anyway that's not a topic of today
16:19 <seb128> another topic?
16:19 <Laney> I'm sure it is
16:20 <Laney> gdm keeps a session running afaik ;-)
16:20 <jackpot51> We could solve this by having a "guest" user added to the system...
16:20 <seb128> oh right, o_gra complained about that some days ago
16:20 <Laney> just referring to the 'light' part
16:20 <willcooke> Ok, so we'll follow up on the ML for lightdm / gdm discussions
16:20 <Laney> anyway, that's for the thread
16:20 <seb128> moving on
16:20 <willcooke> Next topic...
16:20 <seb128> next?
16:21 <willcooke> jbicha would like to talk about...
16:21 <willcooke> #topic Out Of Box
16:21 <jbicha> I have read thousands of comments in the past 2 weeks. Some people like GNOME. Some think it could be a lot better if there were a few tweaks (like shipping a left-hand Dock like Unity). Some hate GNOME.
16:21 <jbicha> I think we could reach some of the 3rd group if we can help out the 2nd group.
16:21 <seb128> that might be a topic for the better organized meeting when we have robert, tim, etc
16:21 <jbicha> But the GNOME design and Shell maintainers aren't really interested in adding the option of an always visible dock.
16:22 <seb128> is there extensions we can point users to for that?
16:22 <jbicha> …ok, it's a controversial topic but a lot of people wondering what Ubuntu's approach will be
16:22 <gQuigs> Dash to dock (using it now)
16:22 <mhall119> multiple
16:22 <seb128> we don't know yet :p
16:22 <seb128> afaik, step 1 is to go vanilla GNOME
16:22 <seb128> step 2 is to read feedback from our users
16:22 <seb128> step 3 is to see where we go from there
16:23 <seb128> willcooke, right?
16:23 <Laney> if we wanted to, is it hard to seed extensions?
16:23 <willcooke> well....
16:23 <Laney> is it a gsettings override or what?
16:23 <seb128> jbicha, ^ do you know?
16:23 <jbicha> we actually already have feedback from people who have tried Ubuntu GNOME
16:23 <willcooke> I'm very interested in gathering evidence to support the argument for pre-installed extensions.
16:23 <flexiondotorg> seb128 What do you think step 1 and 2 will both be in the 17.10 dev cycle?
16:23 <k1l> there are extensions already packaged to debian/ubuntu
16:23 <seb128> jbicha, are those people who want GNOME or who want Ubuntu?
16:23 <mhall119> seb128: well part of that will depend on what Canonical is willing to invest, shipping extensions by default means you're responsible for keeping them working
16:23 <gQuigs> Laney: I don't think so, it's just a package
16:23 <Trevinho> And.... Not break the experience for ubuntu gnome users, by injecting extensions there too maybe
16:23 <Laney> I know you can package them
16:23 <jackpot51> mhall119: Both
16:23 <jbicha> hmm, I think it's just an enabled-extensions gsettings key which could work for a new default install but might not work as well for upgrades
16:24 <seb128> mhall119, do you have an answer to that?
16:24 <gQuigs> Laney: many are already packaged
16:24 <Laney> I know
16:24 <mhall119> seb128: no, that's something Will probably needs to get an official answer on internally
16:24 <mhall119> if he doesn't already know, he might
16:24 <gQuigs> oh, sorry
16:24 <alex285> regarding extensions it would be super great if you could talk with GNOME people and we could had them included inside G-C-C, as plugin at least
16:24 <Laney> but never mind, jbicha answered
16:24 <mhall119> seb128: I just don't want to set the expectation that it's an option if it's not
16:25 <ogra_> well ... you will likely also not go with the default settings of these extensiona
16:25 <ogra_> *extensions
16:25 <jbicha> org.gnome.shell enabled-extensions
16:25 <Laney> k, that's easy enough
16:25 <ogra_> so there is more
16:25 <gQuigs> ogra_: very true
16:25 <Laney> I'm guessing most of them will also be gsettings for configuration
16:25 <k_alam> @alex285 It has been discussed before.....they don't want anything extra in gcc
16:25 <meetingology> k_alam: Error: "alex285" is not a valid command.
16:25 <ogra_> Laney, yeah
16:25 <Laney> we know how to do that for default / new installs, it's trivial
16:25 <seb128> jbicha, imho it's too early to know where we go on that
16:25 <Laney> so not a big worry technically
16:25 <Laney> more of a policy thing
16:26 <jbicha> yes, the good extensions use gsettings for their settings
16:26 <ogra_> and we only want good extensions anyway ;)
16:26 <jbicha> ok, we can push that decision off to later
16:26 <Laney> Probably nto that controversial to go vanilla by default
16:26 <seb128> I would start by that
16:26 <mhall119> jbicha: does Ubuntu GNOME currently ship any extensions by default?
16:26 <jackpot51> dash to dock does not use gsettings
16:26 <Laney> but maybe it's an interesting thing to talk about how we'd make any future decision now
16:26 <seb128> and adjust if we feel it's needed
16:26 <mhall119> or is it vanilla GNOME shell?
16:27 <ogra_> jackpot51, well, thats surely fixable
16:27 <isantop> mhall119: It's very vanilla
16:27 <willcooke> As jbicha commented, lots of people have expressed an desire for particular extensions.  So I will gather up all of those comments and try to come to a conclusion about what people want.  Then I will report back here and we can discuss further
16:27 <Source0f1> Regarding extensions, I think user-friendliness is different than user-familiarity or user-preference, yeah?
16:27 <jbicha> mhall119: no, Ubuntu GNOME historically was quite close to vanilla GNOME, but we weren't aiming for the millions of Ubuntu users either
16:27 <Trevinho> in case I guess we can also develop or contribute to extensions... but it's all dependent on how we want Ubuntu desktop to differ from vanilla, as said above.
16:27 <Trevinho> so the tech point is not really a problem here.
16:28 <Laney> nod
16:28 <Laney> ok, so willcooke nicely volunteered to wade into the world of internet comments
16:28 <mhall119> he'll be missed
16:28 <mhall119> :)
16:29 <seb128> thanks willcooke
16:29 <jbicha> I think one important point is that we have an opportunity to make more a break with the past now; for instance if we add a left Dock for 18.04, users might be unhappy about us removing it later
16:29 <seb128> imho in any case we need to get the session working first to get a feel how it is to use
16:29 <Laney> yeh
16:29 <jbicha> next topic?
16:29 <Trevinho> jbicha: is also true that.... Users might be unhappy because we remove it...
16:29 <Laney> and they need to be able to try it to know what they don't like
16:30 <jbicha> yes, that reasoning works both ways
16:30 <mhall119> so is the decision to get a working vanilla GNOME shell first, and they decide where to go from there?
16:30 <jbicha> we can always make changes after 17.10 before 18.04 too
16:30 <Laney> indeed
16:30 <mhall119> jbicha: good point
16:31 <willcooke> #topic Any Other Business
16:31 <Laney> k, so I just want to mention the gnome-initial-setup thing they have
16:31 <Laney> I installed ubuntu-gnome-desktop in a VM and got that on first login after rebooting
16:31 <mhall119> can the desktop team get in touch with the docs team? This change is going to require more than the normal amount of updates for them and they're already understaffed
16:31 <Laney> we might want to think about how much we want to use that
16:32 <Laney> and how it interacts with upgrades and the installer
16:32 <Laney> not necessarily something to discuss now, but worth thinking about for the next time maybe
16:32 * willcooke adds it to the "next meeting" section
16:32 * Laney put it in there already
16:32 <seb128> I don't know enough about that topic to have an opinion
16:33 <Laney> right, that's why I mention it early
16:33 <seb128> I also don't know much about ubiquity-oem
16:33 <seb128> can they do the same things?
16:33 <seb128> like pre-seeding configs
16:33 <seb128> etc
16:33 <seb128> ?
16:33 <flexiondotorg> Given the tight time scales, what theme will be default at this stage?
16:33 <Laney> I mean historically we've not had a new user welcome thing at all
16:33 <seb128> also changing might impact oem workflows
16:33 <seb128> so we should check with our oem team
16:33 <ogra_> is ubiquity actually still a thing in 18.04 ?
16:33 <aquarius_> (worth also discussing with the mate team their experiences with first-time-setup stuff as well; historically new user welcome screens were a bit of a no-no, but mate seem to have had quite some success with theirs, so could be re-visit-able)
16:34 <ogra_> (i thought subiquity will be the replacement ... i'D expect it to grow GUI features within the next year)
16:34 <seb128> ogra_, what is replacing it you think?
16:34 <seb128> k
16:34 <jackpot51> ubiquity should definitely remain
16:34 <ogra_> but thats a question for foundations
16:34 <seb128> I didn't read anything about that yet
16:34 <jackpot51> Why would ubiquity be replaced?
16:34 <Laney> kkkk, that's not something for now!
16:35 <seb128> indeed not
16:35 <gQuigs> I though subiquity was just server's ubiquity..  but no idea what the vision for it actually is
16:35 <willcooke> ryanleesipes, would be good to get your feedback on that in the near future ^
16:35 <seb128> not in our hands and not for today
16:35 <seb128> we are over the hour, should we wrap? we have enough for today
16:35 <seb128> we can discuss/reply to questions after the meeting still
16:36 <seb128> if some people want to stick around for a bit
16:36 <willcooke> Re: Themes.  What do Ambiance and Radiance look like today on GNOME shell?
16:36 <ryanleesipes> hey willcooke sounds good, jackpot51 works with it more than I do (he is a 76er)
16:36 <flexiondotorg> There has been talk of dropping aptdaemon for PackageKit on the ML. Is this still achievable in the 17.10 dev cycle given the extra work?
16:36 <dmj_s76> oem install and firstboot working well for s76 is kinda critical
16:36 <seb128> willcooke, good question...
16:36 <Laney> flexiondotorg: I think we should do that
16:36 <seb128> flexiondotorg, patches are welcome :-)
16:36 <jbicha> willcooke: the Ubuntu themes don't look that great on GNOME
16:36 <seb128> :-(
16:36 <mhall119> willcooke had a question about resolving conflicts between the two teams
16:36 <Laney> there's a problem with black corners
16:36 <aquarius_> themes: they don't look great. I had to switch to adwaita because ambience didn't work all that well.
16:36 <seb128> what conflicts?
16:37 <seb128> aquarius_, do you have specifics/reported bugs?
16:37 <mhall119> any potential conflicts, the question was how they would be resolved
16:37 <seb128> discussion until consensus?
16:37 <seb128> is there any other way? :p
16:37 <mhall119> someone has to own decision making at some point
16:38 <seb128> any team has disagreement
16:38 <seb128> that's nothing new
16:38 <Trevinho> It's also to be considered that ambiance/radiance have some stuff that is made for unity... So if we don't want the hassle of keeping the compatibility for both, we should probably rebase new themes on them and update the css to get them working nicely in shell
16:38 <seb128> I don't think there is a change there
16:38 <aquarius_> themes: windows didn't have borders, making it impossible to see where one ended and another began, and no drop shadows. However, that may be because I installed just gnome-shell at first, and not ubuntu-gnome-desktop^. (Which is why I didn't report it.)
16:38 <jbicha> mhall119: I don't think we have trouble making decisions; we just aren't ready to make many decisions today in this meeting
16:38 <seb128> we had some in the Ubuntu Desktop team
16:38 <alex285> take into account that if you are going to do a new theme, you will need two themes. one for GTK3 one for GTK4 ..and ofc the GTK2
16:38 <Trevinho> without touching what we've now (if not breaking unity7 experience for universe users is wanted)
16:38 <seb128> GTK4 is post next-LTS
16:39 <mhall119> jbicha: seb128: ok
16:39 <Source0f1> Theme and brand mark play a part in marketing and product recognition. Would be good if new desktop look could still include Ubuntu logo and theme colors, in some way.
16:39 <ogra_> it surely will
16:40 <alex285> seb128:  but there will be apps that use GTK4, even installed as flatpak that lots Ubuntu users will do
16:40 <Trevinho> Source0f1: agree
16:40 <jbicha> seb128: nautilus 3.26 might use gtk4, so I'd push that to let's look at gtk4 several months from now
16:40 <Trevinho> I think also reusing some of the SURU work could be nice..
16:40 <ryanleesipes> That touches are my question
16:40 <Source0f1> Still want people to know it's Ubuntu: user-friendly, reliable, etc. :)
16:40 <Trevinho> If there's resources for some tuning in that sense
16:40 <seb128> jbicha, can they mix gtk3 and gtk4 libs in a same process?
16:40 <mhall119> alex285: IIRC the flatpak'd apps will include the theme they use, so that should be out of our hands anyway
16:40 <seb128> that's going to be fun
16:40 <ryanleesipes> Is Ubuntu proper going to engage with GNOME's Flatpak effort at all?
16:40 <seb128> jbicha, imho it's not realistic to tackle before the LTS
16:41 <seb128> we might need to stay on 3.24 then
16:41 <alex285> mhall119: that is not correct. Flatpak will have access to /usr/share/themes
16:41 <mhall119> oh
16:41 <mhall119> ?
16:41 <ryanleesipes> ^
16:41 <ryanleesipes> It's in a patch
16:41 <jackpot51> Do we even know if GTK4 themes will be incompatible with GTK3?
16:41 <jbicha> seb128: if we use Adwaita, it's not a problem, but Nautilus doesn't have to be the same version as the rest of GNOME
16:41 <dednick> @Trevinho: do we have any designers left to maintain suru?
16:41 <meetingology> dednick: Error: "Trevinho:" is not a valid command.
16:41 <jbicha> csoriano knows the risk of using gtk4 for Ubuntu
16:42 <dednick> Trevinho: do we have any designers left to maintain suru?
16:42 <seb128> jbicha, is that even realistic?
16:42 <alex285> mhall119:   https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/114
16:42 <jbicha> seb128: ?
16:42 <Trevinho> dednick: not sure, but still, the suru guidelines are there, so creating a gtk theme inspired on that, is still feasible
16:42 <Trevinho> dednick: of course, we'd miss resouces, and... Well, for that it could be  a problem.
16:42 <seb128> jbicha, are they/we going to have gtk3/4 versions of all libs in the archive next cycle?
16:42 <seb128> like librsvg
16:43 <dednick> just dont want a theme looking half like suru, half like another i mean.
16:43 <seb128> GTK4 is a complexe topic
16:44 <Trevinho> yeah, sure... but that would be the same for any other theme that is not maintened by someone
16:44 <seb128> if the GTK3 transition is any indication that's going to take several cycles to go through
16:44 <jbicha> I don't believe librsvg uses gtk
16:44 <seb128> not a topic for this cycle or next
16:44 <willcooke> We have more than enough to be getting on with before the next meeting, so I think we should wrap this meeting.  Carry on the discussions afterwards, but we have enough to do for the next week now
16:44 <jackpot51> https://blogs.gnome.org/desrt/2016/06/13/gtk-4-0-is-not-gtk-4/
16:44 <jackpot51> The changes will be slower than you think
16:44 <jbicha> seb128: all I'm saying is let's wait until later to decide about gtk4 instead of making a decision today
16:44 <seb128> +1
16:44 <willcooke> jbicha, +1
16:44 <flexiondotorg> +1
16:45 <willcooke> oki, ending here since that is an agreement
16:45 <willcooke> #endmeeting