16:01:36 #startmeeting 16:01:36 Meeting started Mon Nov 21 16:01:36 2011 UTC. The chair is ara. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/AlanBell/mootbot. 16:01:36 16:01:36 Available commands: #accept #accepted #action #agree #agreed #chair #commands #endmeeting #endvote #halp #help #idea #info #link #lurk #meetingname #meetingtopic #nick #progress #rejected #replay #restrictlogs #save #startmeeting #subtopic #topic #unchair #undo #unlurk #vote #voters #votesrequired 16:01:37 hi 16:01:51 Welcome to the UF Squad meeting 16:01:55 The agenda today looks like: 16:01:58 Do we want virtual machines to be able to submit to Ubuntu Friendly? (roadmr) - UF runs done on virtual machines aren't submitted to Launchpad, getting this to work would require some effort, we'd like to gauge community interest in this to determine if it's worth pursuing. 16:01:58 Biweekly meetings - ara 16:02:04 AOB - all 16:02:26 As usual, type ".." when you've finished talking 16:02:40 #topic Do we want virtual machines to be able to submit to Ubuntu Friendly? (roadmr) 16:02:45 roadmr, all yours :) 16:02:48 thanks! 16:02:58 Last week we found out that UF runs done on virtual machines aren't submitted to Launchpad. This was verified on VirtualBox, and would have to be checked also for Xen, VMWare and KVM. 16:03:13 The issue comes from the weird DMI information returned from virtual machines which means that checkbox is unable to generate a system_id, which in turn prevents submission to Launchpad. 16:03:27 The question here is whether there is interest in having Ubuntu Friendly submissions from virtual machines. This depends on how likely are community members to want to test and submit a virtual machine. 16:03:36 o/ 16:03:39 If there is no interest, then perhaps the work needed to get this working is not worthwhile, but if it's something that people will want, maybe it'd be interesting to do. 16:03:43 .. 16:04:11 ara, go 16:04:28 I think the main interest of UF is to see how Ubuntu works on real hardware. I don't see the value on having a lot of submissions from virtual machines 16:04:38 .. 16:05:05 o/ 16:05:10 roadmr, go :) 16:05:36 o/ 16:05:49 o/ 16:05:50 heheh :) so there's already a bug about this problem, one thing to do would be to mark it Won't Fix and point people who ask to that bug, and if someone ever comes up with a rationale as to why we should be testing VMs, we can revisit the decision 16:05:54 .. 16:06:17 brendand, your turn 16:07:31 i don't think we should mark the bug 'won't fix', since it is a bug. but we shouldn't prioritise it. i don't think VMs are in scope for testing with Ubuntu Friendly 16:07:35 ... 16:07:51 cr3, your turn now 16:08:16 it should be possible to submit test results from virtual machines, even though it might not make sense to have them appear in UF 16:08:45 how this gets communicated to the user actually running the tests, so that they're not disappointed when their virtual machines does not appear in UF, I don't know 16:08:48 .. 16:09:23 OK, so I guess the bug is valid, but not high priority :) 16:10:02 we have to make sure that once we fix it, we change uf as well so they don't appear in uf 16:10:10 ara: agreed, in other words, it shouldn't be a "validation" error to submit from a virtual machine :) 16:10:41 shall we vote? or we agree? 16:10:57 anyone disagree? 16:11:16 so we're agreeing that the bug should be fixed at some point, correct? 16:11:24 roadmr: correct 16:11:30 ok then, /me agrees :) 16:11:41 roadmr, but that we need to avoid to show those submissions in UF 16:12:03 +1 16:12:09 #action roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know 16:12:09 * meetingology roadmr to update the bug with the correct importance and a nice comment to let people know 16:12:38 cool! 16:12:51 OK, moving on 16:12:58 #topic Biweekly meetings - ara 16:13:14 o/ 16:13:36 OK, so nobody outside the people who attended the meeting replied to the email in the ML 16:13:48 jedimike, go ahead 16:13:56 personally, i think it's better two have a lively biweekly meeting than a quiet weekly meeting 16:14:15 just because if the meetings are quiet, as they are at the moment, they could be considered missable 16:14:19 ... 16:14:28 o/ 16:14:38 brendand, your turn 16:14:54 i think we should try it once at least 16:15:11 o/ 16:16:02 brendand, done? 16:16:06 we should also start thinking about why people don't feel the meetings are worth participating in 16:16:11 ... 16:16:39 roadmr, go ahead 16:16:59 o/ 16:17:17 biweekly meetings are a bit harder to keep track of, so we should be careful to announce them in the mailing list - not everyone will have a calendar reminder set up so we should do that for the participants :) 16:17:23 .. 16:17:36 cr3, your turn! 16:18:05 I liked roadmr's argument sent to the mailing list but I also like jedimike's. however, I'm not convinced that making the meeting biweekly will necessarily make the discussions more lively 16:18:35 the reason is that having it biweekly may put the project out of mind and therefore might even result in less lively meeting 16:18:41 I don't know, tough decision 16:18:41 .. 16:19:23 how about we try every 1.5 weeks? :) 16:19:26 hehehe 16:19:46 or following the fibonacci series by week number 16:20:06 +1 16:20:54 The only thing important is to make sure that any decisions about the project are still made in the open 16:21:04 o/ 16:21:06 on the ML or the meetings 16:21:10 cr3, go ahead 16:21:18 ara: good point, having to wait a couple weeks in order to make a decision in the open might not be ideal 16:21:21 .. 16:21:22 o/ 16:21:35 roadmr, go ahead 16:21:55 I think relying on the ML a bit more for decision making is good, that way information comes to people 16:22:07 as opposed to IRC where they have to come to the information - a bit more effort for everyone involved 16:22:32 even though the ML is a bit slower... 16:22:50 that may help in showing that decisions are open to the community 16:22:56 and hopefully encourage more participation 16:23:02 +1 16:23:09 and while I still think weekly meetings are less prone to losing momentum, 16:23:23 maybe going biweekly is a good opportunity to prepare more interesting agendas, 16:23:29 which will engage the community a bit more. 16:23:30 .. 16:23:48 what about keeping weekly and cancelling the meeting if there are no topics to discuss? 16:23:55 ara: +1 16:24:01 * cr3 is in an agreeing mood today 16:24:36 o/ 16:24:44 brendand, go ahead 16:25:37 we usually have at least *one* topic to discuss. the problem is that it's *only* one or two and maybe the topic(s) aren't that interesting to a wider audience 16:26:12 o/ 16:26:36 and if we hold up having a meeting until we have a 'good' agenda then the scheduling could end up quite random 16:26:54 which is annoying as someone participating externally 16:27:11 o/ 16:27:11 speaking from personal experience 16:27:12 ... 16:28:04 I think that if we have one topic, then we need to still have the meeting. If someone put it in the agenda is because it interest them :) 16:28:04 .. 16:28:09 cr3, go ahead 16:28:11 even if there's one agenda item, I would still hold a meeting because it might inspire other items for the next meeting. 16:28:14 .. 16:29:20 o/ 16:29:23 brendand, go ahead 16:29:46 i agree with that angle if the topic in question is proposed by the community 16:30:20 but who are the community? because I am community :) 16:31:04 me too! I quit canonical for an hour just to attend these meetings :) 16:31:56 i'm also the community 16:32:22 let's say, outside of the meeting organizers 16:32:51 but why? I don't understand the difference 16:34:13 OK, so the options are: 16:34:38 1) Keep the weekly meeting, and cancel the meeting if there are no topics at all 16:34:56 2) Keep the weekly meeting, and cancel the meeting if there are no topics from people outside the meeting organizers (?) 16:35:03 3) Move to a biweekly meeting 16:35:10 Any other options? 16:35:50 shall we vote? 16:36:18 * ara wonders if you can give options to the voting system... 16:36:24 #vote meeting options 16:36:24 Please vote on: meeting options 16:36:24 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me) 16:36:32 #endvote 16:36:32 Voting ended on: meeting options 16:36:32 Votes for:0 Votes against:0 Abstentions:0 16:36:32 Deadlock, casting vote may be used 16:36:56 it does not look like 16:37:04 #vote Option 1 on the cadence 16:37:04 Please vote on: Option 1 on the cadence 16:37:04 Public votes can be registered by saying +1, +0 or -1 in channel, (private votes don't work yet, but when they do it will be by messaging the channel followed by +1/-1/+0 to me) 16:37:15 (this is for those that want option 1) 16:37:18 +1 16:37:18 +1 received from cr3 16:37:20 +1 16:37:20 +1 received from ara 16:37:22 +1 16:37:22 +1 received from roadmr 16:37:40 (vote 0 if it is not your chosen option, please) 16:37:44 0 16:37:44 0 received from brendand 16:38:04 jedimike, ? 16:38:13 +1 16:38:13 +1 received from jedimike 16:38:22 #endvote 16:38:22 Voting ended on: Option 1 on the cadence 16:38:22 Votes for:4 Votes against:0 Abstentions:1 16:38:22 Motion carried 16:38:45 OK, I think we don't need to vote the rest of the options, unless anyone says we should 16:39:50 #agree Meetings to be kept on a weekly cadence. The meeting would be cancel if no topics are on the agenda 16:40:02 mmm, it didn't seem to work :) 16:40:04 anyway 16:40:12 Anything else on this topic? 16:40:53 OK, let's move on 16:41:02 #topic Any Other Business? 16:41:06 Anyone? 16:41:33 not me 16:41:36 * roadmr got nothing else :( 16:41:50 OK, let's wrap up then 16:41:51 ditto 16:41:55 #endmeeting