17:06:33 <czajkowski> #startmeeting 17:06:33 <meetingology> Meeting started Thu Jul 5 17:06:33 2012 UTC. The chair is czajkowski. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 17:06:33 <meetingology> 17:06:33 <meetingology> 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 17:06:44 <czajkowski> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda 17:06:47 <czajkowski> todays agenda 17:06:51 <czajkowski> welcome to the CC meeting 17:07:21 <czajkowski> so who is here from the DMB ? 17:07:28 <tumbleweed> !dmb-ping 17:07:29 <ubottu> bdrung, cody-somerville, Laney, micahg, barry, tumbleweed, stgraber: DMB ping 17:07:31 <tumbleweed> hi 17:07:39 <micahg> hi 17:07:47 * stgraber waves 17:07:53 <czajkowski> hey folks thanks for coming 17:08:20 <czajkowski> so in past meetings and in the last cycle we've invited boards to come along and just give us an inforaml update on how things are going, any issues and if we can help in any way 17:09:33 <czajkowski> so bdrung cody-somerville Laney micahg tumbleweed stgraber care to update us 17:11:24 <micahg> so, overall, think we're doing ok, I think we've only missed quorum twice in the last 6 months 17:11:44 <czajkowski> that's not bad at all. 17:12:35 <beuno> apologies for the stupid question, but meeting how often? 17:12:40 <tumbleweed> we limited the number of candidates per meeting, which also seems to have helped streamline things 17:12:44 <micahg> beuno: once a fortnight 17:12:58 <czajkowski> tumbleweed: oh nice idea. how does that work ? 17:13:28 <tumbleweed> 2 per meeting 17:13:29 * bdrung is back 17:13:40 <tumbleweed> our meetings used to run towards 2 hours each 17:14:05 <czajkowski> tumbleweed: so limit the number of applicants and increase meeting frequency has worked? 17:14:17 <tumbleweed> frequency has stayed the same 17:14:36 <tumbleweed> but we used to have people hanging around, hoping we'd get to them 17:14:45 <tumbleweed> now it's obvious before the meeting who is goin gto be processed 17:14:52 <cprofitt> is there a backlog of applicants? 17:15:09 <micahg> just DMB members at this point 17:15:22 <tumbleweed> we wish :( 17:15:34 <tumbleweed> applications are slowing 17:16:21 <beuno> tumbleweed, why do you think that's happening? 17:16:47 <tumbleweed> there haven't been many new contributors recently, that I've seen 17:17:22 <beuno> anything that can be done to improve that? does it need improving? 17:18:23 <micahg> well, for a while it seemed like the MOTU community has stalled 17:18:38 <tumbleweed> fortunately, that's outside our control (as a board) so we should probably concentrate on other issues 17:18:47 <micahg> there were several sessions at UDS and I think we're hoping that the reinvigoration will lead to more applicants 17:19:21 <micahg> dholbach has been a great help in getting these things going again 17:19:56 <czajkowski> nods 17:20:10 <czajkowski> are there any areas we the CC can help in ? 17:21:00 <micahg> also, now that we have a smoother sponsorship process, as well as the number of contributors increasing, I'm hoping that in time we'll get more applicants 17:21:19 * ScottK thinks that over the long run things like PPAs and extras.ubuntu.com have reduced the incentive to get involved in the distro. 17:21:43 <micahg> ScottK: yeah, well, the ARB is good about redirecting when appropriate 17:22:04 <Laney> oops, this is now 17:22:05 <ScottK> Yes, but it'd have been 100% redirect before (effectively). 17:22:06 <Laney> hello :-) 17:22:21 <micahg> and as for PPAs, I wanted to start talking to people running specific PPAs to see if they're interested in distro work 17:22:31 <micahg> with backports being more active, that's a big help as well 17:23:39 <ScottK> I've asked in the past and the response has generally been something like "why should I bother - the PPA solves my problem." 17:23:44 <cprofitt> that sounds promising micahg and ScottK 17:23:49 <bdrung> PPAs helped me when I started contributing to Ubuntu. 17:24:39 <micahg> well, for the people doing stuff for themselves, you probably won't get traction, but for people trying to help others, they might be interested in reaching a larger audience, also with backports enabled by default in oneiric+, that's a big impetus to use backports vs PPAs 17:25:12 <ScottK> bdrung: I'm not saying PPAs aren't useful. They are very much so, but they also have their costs. 17:25:23 <micahg> yeah, it should probably be the developer advisory board that follows up on the PPA people 17:25:24 <tumbleweed> I'm frequently amazed by the number of PPAs people use. There must be people there worth attracting 17:25:36 <bdrung> ScottK: Distro work requires sustainable contribution. PPA allow to just do one thing and then forget about it. 17:25:41 <cprofitt> I rarely use PPAs 17:25:42 <czajkowski> tumbleweed: indeed! 17:25:47 <czajkowski> so many people use them 17:26:05 <micahg> bdrung: well, no, people can do one off distro contributions as well if it suits their need 17:26:21 <micahg> upload rights require sustained contribution 17:26:45 <bdrung> blog post like http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/how-to-upgrade-to-the-latest-vlc-release-in-ubuntu-12-04 do not help 17:27:31 <micahg> right, well, I didn't see a backport request for vlc 2.0.2 :) 17:27:41 <bdrung> micahg: we are more interested in sustained contribution if someone wants to get a new package in the archive 17:28:07 <micahg> bdrung: sure, but I think a lot of PPAs are just the newest version of foo in the archiv 17:28:07 <bdrung> micahg: i want 2.0.2 in precise-security or -updates 17:28:29 <micahg> bdrung: that probably won't happen unless you go for an MRE (but that's for another discussion) 17:28:44 <bdrung> MRE? 17:28:51 <micahg> MicroRelease Exception 17:28:51 <ScottK> Micro Release Exception. 17:29:14 <joshuahoover> ralsina: any ideas on how to help a 11.10 user who is showing this in the syncdaemon log: ubuntuone.SyncDaemon.StorageClient - INFO - Connection lost, reason: [Failure instance: Traceback (failure with no frames): <class 'OpenSSL.SSL.Error'>: [('SSL routines', 'SSL3_GET_SERVER_CERTIFICATE', 'certificate verify failed')] 17:29:23 <micahg> so, back to the CC, we were wondering about the 6 month requirement for membership with regard to contributing developer 17:29:27 <czajkowski> so moving back to the DMB checkup, is there anything else you wish to say 17:29:30 <czajkowski> joshuahoover: wrong channel! 17:29:31 <micahg> joshuahoover: this is a meeting channel :) 17:29:50 <joshuahoover> czajkowski, micahg: sorry about that! 17:30:17 <czajkowski> micahg: do you want to increase or decrease it or what is the issue? 17:30:21 <ralsina> joshuahoover: dobey's symlink trick? 17:30:26 * beuno slaps ralsina 17:30:37 <ralsina> beuno: oops 17:30:44 <micahg> czajkowski: well, basically, is it a hard requirement or is it just a nice to have 17:30:50 <ScottK> micahg: Isn't that more of a guidelane than a rule? 17:30:59 <micahg> ScottK: that's what we're asking :) 17:31:24 <ScottK> (Speaking as a Kubuntu Council member who decides such stuff I've always thought it was a guideline) 17:31:25 <czajkowski> micahg: well has it helped or do you think your numbers would be higher if it were reduced or removed? 17:31:45 <micahg> czajkowski: to be honest, we haven't had many applicants going for that 17:32:23 <tumbleweed> ScottK: we do treat it as a guideline. But there are times when there is very little sustained contribution, but PPU still seems like a reasonable thing to grant 17:32:36 <czajkowski> micahg: can you elaborate ? 17:32:55 <cprofitt> where is the requirement for six months listed? 17:32:55 <micahg> czajkowski: we don't get a lot of applicants for dev membership without upload rights 17:33:02 <ScottK> tumbleweed: Personally I very uncomfortable with non-members being Ubuntu developers. 17:33:28 <ScottK> I also think significant and sustained are important parts of the requirement. 17:33:33 <micahg> ScottK: so, I take it you don't like the DM process? 17:33:59 <ScottK> micahg: I'd feel better if PPU weren't part of ubuntu-dev. 17:34:14 <tumbleweed> ScottK: which would make them not members 17:34:33 <micahg> cprofitt: on https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Membership, it says that it's rare for an application to be accepted with < 6 months of contributions 17:34:47 <ScottK> Right, don't make them members without significant and sustained contributions. 17:34:52 <micahg> ScottK: so would I :), that's the second point I wanted to bring up, but the DMB is still trying to find consensus on 17:35:22 <cprofitt> micahg: how long does it take to get upload rights? 17:35:36 <ScottK> I think having them not necessarily be ubuntu-dev/members makes PPU more like DM. 17:36:10 <micahg> cprofitt: that depends on the second point which I wanted to bring up of decoupling upload rights from membership 17:36:26 <cprofitt> micahg: I would think that getting several sponsored uploads would take a while... is it frequent that a person accomplishes this under six months? 17:36:40 <micahg> cprofitt: it can be done in a matter of weeks 17:36:52 <micahg> err..several sponsored uploads 17:37:07 <ScottK> If one is already a DD, it could (technically) be very fast. 17:37:07 <cprofitt> to be honest I am more concerned with sustained activity than anything 17:37:32 <tumbleweed> ScottK: in that case, granting membership is more straightforward, I think 17:37:33 <micahg> but upload rights require good working knowledge of what's being applied for, that can be either a short time or a long one depending on the person 17:37:44 <cprofitt> I think we want to avoid a person who is really excited about 'package x' gets several uploads done... goes for membership and then loses the momentum 17:38:07 <micahg> but generally, we want to see someone go through an entire dev cycle (6 months) to see how the freeze schedule works 17:38:13 <ScottK> tumbleweed: I disagree. I think granting upload rights for packages they maintain is pretty straightforward. I don't think that also means membership is straightforward. 17:38:23 <cprofitt> I agree there may be situations that merit things moving faster 17:39:34 <bdrung> ScottK: that's where decoupled upload rights and membership is a benefit 17:39:42 <ScottK> yes. 17:39:49 <ScottK> (for PPU) 17:40:21 <czajkowski> tumbleweed: micahg Laney is there anything you want to follow up post this meeting as we do seem to have gone off track here from the check up 17:40:26 <tumbleweed> ScottK: yes. It does depend on the situation. I also recall debian people who care about their packages in Ubuntu and fix the bugs in debian, so there are few uploads but clear development-related involvement in our community 17:40:29 <bdrung> the question is: are we allowed to grant PPU without membership? 17:40:34 <czajkowski> what needs to be followed up on and posisbly reviewed 17:41:02 <Laney> Sorry I forgot to pay attention as I was on the phone to the stupid gas company sorting out readings 17:41:15 * Laney grumbles 17:42:24 <ScottK> bdrung: I suspect that's a TB question, but I'm not sure. 17:42:31 <Laney> do we have a resolution? 17:42:35 <Laney> I think membership is a CC thing. 17:42:58 <Laney> I've come around to kind of liking the idea of decoupling it. People can apply for both simultaneously if they want. 17:43:10 <micahg> exactly 17:43:11 <beuno> so 17:43:19 <beuno> conceptually 17:43:24 <beuno> would we want casual contributors? 17:43:31 <Laney> want for what? 17:43:35 <bdrung> Laney: core-dev, MOTU should infer membership 17:43:38 <beuno> as a healthy project 17:43:41 <cprofitt> Laney: micahg: ScottK: 17:43:41 <micahg> bdrung: yes 17:43:44 <Laney> bdrung: yes 17:43:49 <tumbleweed> beuno: sustained casual contributors seem to be candidates fro membership 17:43:55 <tumbleweed> drive-by, not so much 17:43:56 <beuno> right 17:43:57 <micahg> beuno: of course, that's what the sponsorship process is for 17:44:02 <cprofitt> I think you folks should discuss this and arrange to meet with the CC again about this issue 17:44:15 <beuno> if they are sustained, then the qualify for membership 17:44:20 <Laney> I think you should tell us if we're allowed to decouple it in principle and then we don't need to come back 17:44:28 <micahg> +1 17:44:29 <cprofitt> I think you should formulate a desired outcome and plan to achieve it and then have the CC take a look at it 17:44:43 <cprofitt> there appears to be a great deal of depth in this topic 17:44:59 <tumbleweed> I think the plan is very straightforward: Make PPU not imply membership 17:45:02 <micahg> membership requires sustained contribution, upload rights require proficiency 17:45:13 <Laney> It would make it easier to let us grant people PPU 17:45:21 <beuno> but not sustained? 17:45:31 <tumbleweed> currently we evaluate the PPU rights, and the membership goes along for free. But we don't think that's fair on the other members who had to prove themselves 17:45:32 <Laney> just enough for us to be convinced that they know what they're doing 17:45:42 <micahg> beuno: not necessarily (Debian Developers are the easiest example) 17:46:17 <cprofitt> can we move to any other topics you have? 17:46:30 <micahg> those 2 were it AIUI 17:46:30 <beuno> so, lets pick this up again 17:46:35 <Laney> So what we'd do is remove ~ubuntumembers from ~ubuntu-dev 17:46:36 <beuno> schedule it 17:46:39 <Laney> err, the other way around 17:46:57 <beuno> I think it's absolutely worth discussing, if you guys feel it would help 17:47:01 <Laney> Or, think about whether these people should be in ubuntu-dev at all. 17:47:07 <beuno> just need to weigh in long-term effects a bit more 17:47:17 <micahg> Laney: well, it's a little more complicated than that 17:47:30 <Laney> Maybe /that/ is a question for the TB. 17:47:38 <czajkowski> beuno: perhaps email as our schedule is done for a few weeks 17:47:44 <tumbleweed> I don't know of any other pressing questions from our side 17:48:03 <beuno> sure, email works 17:48:10 <czajkowski> I think we should follow this up after the meeting via email to discuss this further 17:48:28 <czajkowski> #action beuno to start a thread with the DMB and CC to discuss the topics that have come from todays meeting 17:48:28 * meetingology beuno to start a thread with the DMB and CC to discuss the topics that have come from todays meeting 17:48:32 <czajkowski> :) 17:48:43 <beuno> look at that, I win a task! :) 17:48:48 <beuno> well played 17:49:02 <czajkowski> hey I got landed with chairing I feel the need to share the love! 17:49:06 <czajkowski> right moving on 17:49:14 <czajkowski> #topic Juju Governance 17:49:19 <czajkowski> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/CommunityCouncilAgenda/talk 17:49:25 <czajkowski> jcastro: ping 17:49:31 <jcastro> hi 17:49:58 <czajkowski> really that link isn't helpful 17:50:20 <beuno> https://juju.ubuntu.com/CharmReviewBoard 17:50:21 <jcastro> sorry I didn't know how to link the header 17:50:39 <jcastro> it's the top paragraph but it's not really as important as the link beuno just posted 17:50:45 <czajkowski> #link https://juju.ubuntu.com/CharmReviewBoard 17:51:27 <beuno> thanks btw, Laney, micahg, tumbleweed, ScottK :) 17:52:14 <czajkowski> jcastro: so how did this idea come about 17:52:24 <czajkowski> and who would it be aimed at 17:52:48 <jcastro> right so the idea would basically be for juju to be like everything else in ubuntu 17:52:57 <jcastro> since the charm store is analogous to an archive 17:53:16 <jcastro> and has it's own policies and all that, then it would make sense to have it governed in the same way as ubuntu itself 17:53:31 <jcastro> we've basically been doing that the entire time 17:53:46 <jcastro> but there was no escalation process, nor a policy that was official or anything 17:53:56 <jcastro> it was just a bunch of us kind of self-governing ourselves. 17:54:14 <jcastro> which is fine when you're small, but at some point we needed to tighten things up and codify these things, hence this document 17:54:19 <beuno> +1 from me, really. Makes a lot of sense, it's well layed out. 17:54:33 <cprofitt> +1 from me as well... nice job to those who contributed 17:54:35 <jcastro> it's mostly a clone of the existing forums process 17:54:47 <jcastro> since I didn't want to be special, just another board. :) 17:55:13 <czajkowski> jcastro: so would members have to be Ubuntu members and or juju developers? 17:55:31 <jcastro> they would have to be ubuntu members 17:55:49 <jcastro> and in order to even review charms they need to be in the ~charmers group 17:56:14 <czajkowski> #link https://launchpad.net/~charmers 17:56:24 <beuno> which is different from a juju dev, yes> 17:56:25 <czajkowski> so there is atm 26 people and 4 pending 17:56:25 <beuno> ? 17:56:28 <jcastro> yes 17:56:34 <beuno> right, makes sense 17:56:36 <czajkowski> what's the difference as I'm unsure 17:56:37 <ScottK> I see charms have listed maintainers. Is that a strong maintainer like in Debian or more like a primary point of contact? 17:56:53 <jcastro> primarily a POC right now 17:57:03 <jcastro> we're trying to make it more of a strong maintainership 17:57:10 <jcastro> but we didn't have maintainers when it started 17:57:20 <jcastro> so when it came down to "claim your charm!" a few people bailed 17:57:23 <ScottK> That's a bit different than we do in Ubuntu with package maintainership. 17:57:33 <cprofitt> so if I get this right... there would be Juju devs, Juju reviewers and the Juju Council? 17:58:01 <jcastro> it's a board 17:58:08 <jcastro> so there are juju core devs 17:58:15 <jcastro> who may or may not be ubuntu members 17:58:22 <jcastro> and then the ~charmers, which are reviewers 17:58:23 <cprofitt> so if I get this right... there would be Juju devs, Juju reviewers and the Juju Board... that is correct? 17:58:27 <micahg> I thought juju was bigger than Ubuntu, is this not the case? 17:58:30 <jcastro> and the review board would be made up of ~charmers 17:58:36 * cprofitt nods 17:58:56 <jcastro> micahg: what do you mean? 17:59:02 <micahg> jcastro: more encompassing 17:59:07 <jcastro> sure, it can be 17:59:15 <cprofitt> micahg: it is certainly bigger than Ubuntu, but there is also an Ubuntu part of it 17:59:31 <jcastro> but we still need a process for say, escalation, etc. 18:02:12 <beuno> sounds great to me 18:02:46 <cprofitt> me as well jcastro 18:02:55 <beuno> czajkowski? 18:03:13 <czajkowski> it's intersting that;s fore sure 18:03:21 <czajkowski> but there are only 3 of us here from the CC today 18:03:33 <czajkowski> so I think we should follow up on this with the others via email 18:04:00 <czajkowski> any other comments regarding the juju board? 18:04:05 <micahg> shouldn't the Ubuntu/non-Ubuntu things be clarified since wouldn't the CC only have authority over the Ubuntu part of the ecosystem 18:04:24 <czajkowski> micahg: yup thats one thing I want to clarify with the CC 18:04:32 <czajkowski> but ther are only 3/8 here atm 18:04:40 <czajkowski> sorry 3/7 18:05:01 <czajkowski> grr 8 18:05:16 <czajkowski> anything else folks? 18:05:21 <micahg> either way, no quorum :) 18:05:26 <czajkowski> micahg: bingo :) 18:06:00 <beuno> I'm tempted to not have meetings with no quorum 18:06:07 <beuno> but, the future 18:06:14 <beuno> is that a wrap up? 18:06:22 <czajkowski> yes 18:06:35 <czajkowski> #endmeeting