20:02 <stgraber> #startmeeting
20:02 <meetingology> Meeting started Tue Dec  5 20:02:40 2017 UTC.  The chair is stgraber. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
20:02 <meetingology> 
20:02 <meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
20:02 <stgraber> #topic Apologies
20:03 <stgraber> none received that I can see but we're missing kees and infinity
20:03 <stgraber> #topic Action review
20:03 <mdeslaur> slackers
20:03 * stgraber slangasek to investigate getting tagged ubuntu-community bugs automatically forwarded to technical-board, and if not feasible, fall back to DMB sending signed emails to list for ACL requests
20:03 <stgraber> (skipping the two assigned to infinity since he's not around)
20:03 <slangasek> carry-over
20:03 <stgraber> alright
20:04 <slangasek> (I continue to do penance by jumping on rbasak's requests when they come in)
20:04 <stgraber> #topic Ubuntu Unity
20:04 <stgraber> Ubuntu Unity dale-f-beaudoin, khurshid-alam of unity7 maintainers team requesting ubuntu-unity (unity7) to have official flavor status.
20:04 <slangasek> ventrical: hello
20:04 <ventrical> yes .. i am here
20:04 <k_alam> I am here
20:05 <stgraber> reading slangasek's e-mail now
20:05 <ventrical> I sort of got a late list of questions  in e-mail
20:05 <ventrical> sabdfl was invited but can't make meeting .. he hopes it runs "smoothly"
20:06 <slangasek> these always run smoothly
20:06 <slangasek> downhill, as gravity demands
20:06 <ventrical> :)
20:07 <slangasek> ventrical, k_alam: have you seen my reply email just now? https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2017-December/002333.html
20:07 <ventrical> yes...  I just got them now ..
20:07 <ventrical> can I have a min to review?
20:07 <slangasek> in essence, the main concern (which was shared by infinity and myself during the last TB meeting) is that we don't want to bless a flavor when it's unknown whether there is actually functional upstream maintenance
20:08 <slangasek> certainly
20:08 <stgraber> I don't have a problem with any of this in principle but echo slangasek's comment about getting a list of source packages (and any related packages that'd need to carry patches for this), it'd then make sense to reach out to the DMB to get a package set created for the unity7 desktop, get uploaders added there and get things in a good state in the archive.
20:08 <stgraber> Once the archive is in good shape with the packages you need, we can start building images from those packages
20:08 <cyphermox> from the DMB here o/
20:09 <slangasek> what I specifically don't want is to sign off on a flavor on the basis that the software has not /yet/ bitrotted, only to find that there is no one on the team with time+skill to keep the packages up to date when maintenance is needed in a few months
20:09 <mdeslaur> I share the same concern. I would love to see a unity flavour, but need to know someone is going to take over upstream maintenance.
20:09 <k_alam> I haven't read the mail....reading it now
20:10 <tsimonq2> I would just like to note that I have volunteered to sponsor any necessary packages until someone with more knowledge of the codebase gets PPU or similar.
20:11 <ventrical> I would have to stand by the names , on persons who have joined the unity7maitainers team
20:11 <ventrical> omar akram is also willing to help in this matter.
20:11 <om26er> that is me ^
20:12 <tsimonq2> I was linked to a PPA earlier with the source packages they wanted reviewed, and if the Board finds it relevant, ppa:unity7maintainers/unity7-desktop
20:12 <tsimonq2> Note that I have not gotten to reviewing but on a preliminary look, things seem correct.
20:12 <slangasek> tsimonq2: thanks; sponsorship is very useful here to make sure we don't founder on process
20:13 <tsimonq2> slangasek: Agreed.
20:13 <cyphermox> ventrical: k_alam: I echo tsimonq2's offer, feel free to ask for sponsoring.
20:13 <ventrical> I am curren team leader of Ubuntu Development Version
20:14 <slangasek> ventrical: right, so as I said in the email, I don't think we can assume that someone having their name in a team of 40+ people means they are, individually, making any certain level of time committment to the maintenance
20:14 <ventrical> yes .. we have asked .. jbicha and several have been guiding  me on several things..
20:15 <slangasek> ventrical: perhaps a good next step would be for the team leads to circle around with the members of the team who do have experience with the code base, and poll them regarding their level of committment?
20:15 <ventrical> Well I am certainly commited and muy track record at ubuntu Forums proves it.
20:15 <jbicha> I think my guidance has been mostly pointing out some bugs and helping with uploading fixes to those bugs, I'm not really involved in maintaining Unity myself
20:15 <slangasek> ventrical: do you write C++ code?
20:15 <k_alam> Alright, I will subscribe ubuntu-sponsors on the bug report.
20:16 <tsimonq2> I have also seen progress from k_alam on working with upstream bugs, specifically the non-defaults wiki page, but my personal stance is that while I totally believe this can happen and support it, I echo the comments made about it maybe being a bit early to apply for flavor status. (Just my 2¢ as an outsider here)
20:16 <ventrical> yes .. I used to .. turing on unix .. but I admit I need brush ups. I am a good trouble shooter and tester..
20:17 <stgraber> my understanding is that to maintain unity7 going forward, you're going to need someone with a good understanding of compiz, gtk, nux and all the other random bits that made the unity desktop. Some of those technologies are now deprecated or may soon be, so you're going to need to rewrite/port part of the code to newer technologies as the older dependencies slowly get removed from the archive.
20:17 <ventrical> khurshid?
20:17 <slangasek> ventrical: OK.  again, it's a question of time+skill.  I don't know most of the people on that team (yourself included) and don't know their skillset - so it's hard to gauge how effective this team is going to be before we've seen some work
20:18 <slangasek> OTOH you do have that Hannibal Lecter guy on your team, and his skills are reknowned
20:18 <stgraber> I'm much less concerned about the packaging and iso building aspect of this than I am about the massive amount of technical debt that comes with the unity codebase itself. We don't want to have to keep outdated libraries in the archive indefinitely to allow running unity7, so unity7 itself needs to be actively developed and updated to keep up.
20:18 <ventrical> My time is there as well as my skill as a tester
20:18 <slangasek> right - testing alone does not make for a healthy upstream
20:19 <k_alam> I can handle integration with the gnome side, gtk, indicators, zeitgeist......For unity and libunity I need some help...I only have studied the code recently....
20:19 <om26er> I committed myself to bug management of unity and related packages and if need be, will be able to fix build failures. I write Java and Python on my full-time job. Though my c++ skills are limited for now.
20:19 <ventrical> well the conventional wisdom is that i fwe get offical staus that it will bring in a lot of commitment.. it is not like I was not commited to testing unity-session during 17.10
20:19 <slangasek> ventrical, k_alam: do you feel like you have a handle on what the TB is asking from you here, and would the next steps be clear?
20:20 <ventrical> yes I do.. I have the time .. I can commit a 4 hour spread  5 days a week.
20:20 <slangasek> ventrical: I don't think the TB recognizes that as conventional wisdom :)  Official status might generate enthusiasm, but it's no guarantee that the enthusiasm is paired with the necessary coding skills
20:21 <mdeslaur> I would like to see someone start making commits to the unity codebase
20:21 <stgraber> yeah, my experience of running an official flavor is quite the opposite as what you'd expect
20:21 <stgraber> official status means you'll get a lot more interested users and a lot more bug reports and support questions
20:21 <stgraber> but not new contributors or developers
20:22 <stgraber> (this is what ultimately killed Edubuntu as an official flavor and in our case we didn't also have to be the upstream for a full desktop environment)
20:22 <ventrical> we are a feldgling group with a lot of pratical talent and good will.. it would behoove ubuntu to grant unity offical status..
20:23 <ventrical> I recall Edubuntu . I tested it vigorously .
20:23 <slangasek> ventrical: sorry, I'm not looking for an answer from you here and now regarding committment.  I am looking for you as leads to be able to demonstrate that you have a team that is a credible upstream for these packages and committed to their maintenance.  I have patched the unity7 codebase myself; it is not something that I think anyone on your team should be making a committment around before
20:23 <slangasek> they've worked on the code
20:23 <ventrical> I do appreaciate your commentary on that
20:24 <slangasek> kees: do you have any additional comments on this subject?
20:26 <slangasek> (guess not)
20:27 <ventrical> I ask that the  before the board make a decison to look at my record and commitment as a tester at www.ubuntuforums.org . A distribution is only as good as the people who are testing it, and I do not think it unreasonable to have some faith that we can pull this together .
20:27 <stgraber> ok, so I feel it's best for us to continue this discussion on the mailing-list. Personally I'd like to see a list of all source packages that the unity flavor would be responsible for as well as a description of what they are and their current state in the archive.
20:28 <stgraber> that would be a good first step to see the scope of the project and then identify who on the unity flavor team has the knowledge to act as upstream for those various pieces
20:28 <slangasek> ventrical, k_alam: so from the members of the TB that have spoken, there is unanimity that we would like to see more here.  You do have folks on that team who have development experience with unity7; if as you say it's obvious that being an official flavor will bring in the volunteers, it should be straightforward for you to talk to them and get them to agree to be responsible for the upstream
20:29 <slangasek> maintenance in the interim until the team grows
20:29 <slangasek> stgraber: agreed
20:29 <cyphermox> stgraber: I agree, a package list makes it easy afterwards to take further steps
20:30 <slangasek> ventrical: will you gather the answers to those questions on the mailing list, and we can revisit by email once we have more information?
20:31 <k_alam> We are talking about maintaining Unity, I believe we don't need full scale development right away.....We will keep it compilable, make things work as it used to...then we can think of porting it to modern components.....Unity is all xorg atm....Also note same components are being shared among other projects...Mate uses unity-gtk-module, indicators etc...that makes things easier for us.
20:31 <ventrical> so you are not validating our request for offical falvor?
20:31 <ventrical> yes I will
20:31 <slangasek> ventrical: thank you
20:31 <slangasek> stgraber: (want to AGREE that for the minutes?)
20:31 <ventrical> can I make a personal comment?
20:32 <slangasek> certainly
20:32 <jbicha> k_alam: MATE doesn't use unity-gtk-modules and indicators quite yet (I understand it's being worked on this cycle though)
20:33 <ventrical> I feel , that since the question came  so quick , just aqs the meeting was starting , that somehow the goalpost were moved. is this the experience the rest of the teams have to go through?
20:34 <stgraber> #agreed unity flavor team to send a list of source packages related to the unity flavor and gather agreement from team members to be responsible for maintaining those codebase upstream and in Ubuntu
20:35 <mdeslaur> The situation with the unity flavour is a bit different, as unity currently has no active upstream developers.
20:35 <slangasek> ventrical: it's often the case that volunteer boards are unable to deliver a frustration-free experience, and regrettably we're no exception.  If you came in with the assumption that this would be a rubber stamp approval, however, I'm sorry to say that was never likely to be the case
20:35 <jbicha> k_alam: never mind, I guess Ubuntu MATE does, but it's important to explain in your proposal which source packages are co-maintained
20:36 <tsimonq2> mdeslaur: For the sake of clarity, the developers doing bugfix work for 16.04 aren't from upstream but rather downstream patches?
20:36 <fossfreedom> ventrical, I'm the project lead of Ubuntu Budgie - happy to chat with you to help you and your team through the process.  I've been through this before and am happy to help with what we have learned along the way.
20:36 <stgraber> ventrical: getting a new flavor in Ubuntu is a process which usually takes months/years, there will be quite a few discussions both on IRC and e-mail about it. Since you were around it felt appropriate to keep this on the agenda rather than postpone it to another meeting so we could get some of that discussion done now.
20:37 <ventrical> very well .. much appreciated.. we did out best but must do better:)
20:38 <ventrical> no .. never expected rubber stamp...
20:38 <ventrical> :)
20:38 <mdeslaur> tsimonq2: yes, there are a few bugfixes being made for 16.04, but that doesn't mean it's being actively developed.
20:38 <k_alam> slangasek: Yes atm, we are little short on manpower...some people who had experience with unity joined late in the team....Honestly I was expecting few more here :)
20:39 <slangasek> ventrical: if there was any failure here, it was certainly on our side for not formulating those questions sooner - questions which those of us on the TB knew needed to be asked
20:39 <tsimonq2> mdeslaur: Right, ok. Fair.
20:39 <k_alam> jbicha: How can we do that? Announce on the mailing list?
20:39 <mdeslaur> tsimonq2: if any of those developers step up and commit to maintaining unity, it would certainly help the cause
20:40 <tsimonq2> k_alam: I'd chat with flexiondotorg (hi) and see where you guys can share work if you guys are sharing packages.
20:40 <ventrical> well .there are no sour grapes here. You have all done a fine job.. obviously I came ill prepared, got blindsided so to speak :)
20:40 <stgraber> moving on to our next topic so we keep this meeting within the one hour slot
20:40 <jbicha> k_alam: I'm guessing you'd want to come up with a wiki page or other web page (since I expect it to be a big list) and mention that in your email follow up to the TB
20:41 <tsimonq2> mdeslaur: Right, and it would be a great boon to the project if th
20:41 <stgraber> #topic Ubuntu Budgie LTS status for 18.04
20:41 <stgraber> bashfulrobot: around?
20:41 <ventrical> there are a lot of devs with privilidges who are working behind the scenes.. a lot of no shows also..
20:41 <tsimonq2> s/th/those individuals did so/
20:41 <ventrical> fossfreedom.. thanks
20:41 <k_alam> Jbicha: Alright.
20:42 <bashfulrobot> I am here stgraber
20:42 <bashfulrobot> Thank you for the time
20:42 <stgraber> bashfulrobot: hi, is there some kind of e-mail about that request which I missed? :)
20:43 <bashfulrobot> I had posted in the community hub to getting more information
20:43 <jbicha> (I'm not on the TB, just interested in today's discussion)
20:43 <bashfulrobot> It was suggested that I put myself on the agenda to discuss here.
20:43 <stgraber> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors is the documented process
20:43 <ventrical> slangasek jbicah had a list he sent us  about a week ago. We were preapred for that
20:43 <stgraber> specifically the last part of the page which lists TB requirements for LTS status of flavors
20:43 <bashfulrobot> Ok, that is exactly what I was looking for.
20:43 <ventrical> but you cuaght us right off guard.. maybe a good thing after all..
20:44 <bashfulrobot> My real question was now along the lines of "where is the doc".
20:44 <jbicha> stgraber: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/2017-November/004243.html
20:44 <bashfulrobot> Stgraber - that actually answers exactly what we needed.
20:44 <stgraber> jbicha: thanks
20:45 <bashfulrobot> I'll read that over and get the process into motion
20:46 <bashfulrobot> Thank you stgraber
20:46 <bashfulrobot> Fossfreedom we can discuss offline
20:47 <stgraber> bashfulrobot: since it's your first LTS, I'd recommend going with 3 years, so we'll mostly want a list of the packages that you'll have to maintain for those 3 years, ideally a blurb on the upstream support for older releases and who on your side will have the time to do the SRU work and testing of stable images when we do point releases
20:47 <bashfulrobot> Stgraber yes we agree. Our team had agreed on the three-year term as well.
20:48 <stgraber> bashfulrobot: send that to the TB mailing-list and assuming everything looks good, we'll do a quick check for disk space with IS (not that it should matter that much as flavors are on cdimage.u.c, not releases.u.c so no mirror involved)
20:48 <bashfulrobot> Stgraber sounds good
20:48 <stgraber> #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item)
20:49 <stgraber> nothing that wasn't brought up here already or handled by a TB member already (thanks mdeslaur for flatpak)
20:49 <stgraber> #topic Check up on community bugs (standing item)
20:49 <stgraber> looks like slangasek took care of those :)
20:50 <stgraber> #topic Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members)
20:50 <stgraber> infinity, backup kees
20:50 <stgraber> #topic AOB
20:50 <stgraber> anything?
20:50 <slangasek> nothing here
20:50 <mdeslaur> nothing from me
20:50 <stgraber> kees?
20:51 <tsimonq2> Mind if I jump in real quick with a quick question? :)
20:51 <stgraber> tsimonq2: go ahead
20:52 <tsimonq2> If Lubuntu wanted to release Lubuntu Next as a separate image alongside 18.04 but as a non-LTS, is that 1) Something the TB will let us do? 2) Something the TB needs approval for?
20:52 <tsimonq2> (Probably better as 1 question but you get it.)
20:52 <ventrical> I will inform Will Cooke of this as it was his original suggestion that we request official satus and that , pending , we need more information. Thanks and regards..
20:52 <tsimonq2> s/TB needs approval/we need approval from the TB/
20:52 <stgraber> I think it's fine, you're just going to have to be careful with your release announcement not to confuse people :)
20:53 <tsimonq2> stgraber: Sure, alright, just covering my bases here. :)
20:53 <tsimonq2> Thanks all!
20:53 <stgraber> it's a product we've released in the past (17.10) so by default we'd release it again for 18.04 and unless LTS status was requested (which you haven't), it'd default to the usual 9 months
20:53 <stgraber> so no action needed ;)
20:54 <tsimonq2> stgraber: We didn't "release" it for 17.10 but in a previous TB meeting when I asked about something similar I think it was generally approved
20:55 <stgraber> oh, oops, I saw a directory on cdimage but didn't check the content :)
20:55 <stgraber> you do have a releases/17.10 but nothing in there :)
20:55 <tsimonq2> Right :)
20:55 <stgraber> right, so technically new released product but still should be fine and not need anything from the TB
20:55 <tsimonq2> Alright excellent
20:56 <tsimonq2> Thanks again everyone :)
20:56 <stgraber> reminds me (but more of a release-team thing) that we need to poke all the flavors and ask about LTS plans for 18.04
20:57 <stgraber> anyway, that's it for today, see you in two weeks
20:57 <stgraber> #endmeeting