20:02 <pitti> #startmeeting 20:02 <meetingology> Meeting started Mon Sep 30 20:02:39 2013 UTC. The chair is pitti. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology. 20:02 <meetingology> 20:02 <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 20:02 <mdz> pitti, hi 20:03 <pitti> hey mdz, how are you? 20:03 <mdz> busy! :-) 20:03 <pitti> #topic action review 20:03 <mdz> do we have quorum today? 20:03 <pitti> Martin Pitt to contact Mark Shuttleworth to organise nominations and elections 20:03 <pitti> done 20:03 <pitti> mdz: 4 members, so yes 20:03 <mdz> ah great 20:04 <pitti> kees still wanted to review MREs, no visible progress there 20:04 <cjwatson> re nominations 20:04 <pitti> #topic TB elections 20:04 <cjwatson> I guess the plan is to renew just those members who haven't declared an intent to stand down? 20:04 <kees> o/ 20:04 <pitti> oh, hey kees 20:04 <cjwatson> as in, temporarily extend terms pending elections 20:04 <kees> yeah, so no progress on MRE review. still need to gather bug details. it is not trivial :) 20:04 <pitti> cjwatson: I actually meant it "extend membership of the whole board for a month" 20:05 <pitti> cjwatson: but if you want to leave now, that's fine too 20:05 <pitti> I'm just concerned that suddenly nobody of us would have tb powers any more, which makes some things difficult 20:05 <pitti> (cleaning up MPs and similar) 20:05 <cjwatson> just wondering if I get to stop turning up to Monday evening meetings ... ;-) 20:05 <cjwatson> cleaning up MPs - I think core-dev can do that now 20:06 <cjwatson> given that ~ubuntu-branches > ~ubuntu-core-dev 20:06 <pitti> cjwatson: well, you can :) 20:06 <pitti> cjwatson: oh, good 20:06 <cjwatson> I agree that the TB slots in Launchpad shouldn't be left unstaffed 20:06 <cjwatson> I got infinity to add me to ~launchpad-buildd-admins, though, so I think that's the main TB power I use routinely 20:07 <kees> do we need to have offset terms for the incoming folks? 20:07 <cjwatson> If there are others, I would be interested to discover them :-) 20:07 <cjwatson> kees: Seems unnecessary 20:08 <pitti> ok, other than that I guess we need to wait on sabdfl's reply on a candidate list now, and the actual elections 20:08 <pitti> #topic Requiring TB members to be Ubuntu core developers 20:09 <pitti> just as some people already said by mail, I generally agree that TB members *should* be core devs 20:09 <soren> o/ 20:09 <pitti> but I'm not even sure whether we can even instantiate that requirement 20:09 <soren> Sorry I'm late. 20:09 <pitti> given that ultimately sabdfl decides on the nominations 20:10 <cjwatson> My feeling on this is that it can be left up to the good sense of the electorate, given (a) a reasonable slate of nominees and (b) a secret ballot so that there's no undue pressure 20:10 <micahg-work> why should this be different than any other board? 20:10 <pitti> we could, as a TB, give him a recommendation to consider core-devs only 20:10 <pitti> micahg-work: how do you mean? 20:10 <cjwatson> I agree that it's a reasonable default, but I can easily imagine exceptions, and indeed some were suggested 20:10 <pitti> no other board is "core dev only" 20:10 <kees> why not making it a requirement, and then if it needs to be violated, that can be discussed at the time. 20:10 <stgraber> cjwatson: I did a milestone cleanup last week which IIRC requires TB privileges so we're good for a bit 20:10 <micahg-work> well, to have prerequisites in terms of who can serve 20:11 <cjwatson> stgraber: Yeah, that and I suspect that I may run into something with packagesets but we'll see 20:11 <micahg-work> even the CC has a public nominations period 20:11 <stgraber> cjwatson: oh yeah, good point, that's one TB-related right I use quite a bit 20:11 <cjwatson> micahg-work: I think we can have recommendations and/or requirements 20:11 <stgraber> (for those that aren't DMB owned) 20:11 <cjwatson> stgraber: It might be ~ubuntu-archive. I'll find out 20:12 <micahg-work> sorry 20:12 <pitti> it just feels odd to me that an existing board can restrict its own successors 20:12 <micahg-work> getting 2 topics crossed here 20:12 <cjwatson> What I mean is, I think we can have core-dev as a soft requirement / recomendation, without having to make it a rule and then argue about violations 20:12 <pitti> micahg-work: that's fine, your's is the current one 20:12 <micahg-work> no, I meant I was bringing up 2 topics :) 20:12 <micahg-work> let's focus on the core dev issue first 20:12 <cjwatson> pitti: heh, British constitutional principle 20:13 <micahg-work> so, maybe I should ask the CC to make it a requirement if the TB doesn't feel it has the right to do so 20:13 <pitti> by the same reason we coudl decide that members must only be "pitti", "cjwatson", "kees", and so on 20:13 <soren> I still haven't understoo the motivation, to be honest. 20:13 <cjwatson> micahg-work: In my case, it's not that I don't think the TB has the right, it's that I think it shouldn't make it a hard rule 20:13 <cjwatson> micahg-work: Furthermore, the CC does not have authority over the TB 20:14 <pitti> but still, if there's a very active MOTU with a good technical understanding and he gets a majority of ubuntu dev's trust, why not 20:14 <micahg-work> I thought the CC has some authority as the ultimate community governance structure 20:14 <cjwatson> The governance structure has the CC and TB at the same level, under sabdfl 20:14 <soren> If sabdfl and the everyone who can vote wants someone to be in the TB who isn't a core-dev... Why not? 20:14 <cjwatson> I was there when it was written 20:14 <micahg-work> ok, I guess that's good to know then 20:14 <soren> This is news to me, too. I thought CC>TB. 20:14 <pitti> also, if someone is a very active, say ~ubuntu-desktopper 20:15 <cjwatson> soren: Right, this is my "set general principle but let the electorate decide" preferred approach 20:15 <mdz> cjwatson, I recall sabdfl remembering differently and/or wanting to change that, a while back 20:15 <pitti> (we have package sets now) 20:15 <soren> cjwatson: Right. That's what I tried to express in my e-mail as well, but you managed it much more eloquently :) 20:16 <cjwatson> mdz: Well, if so, I don't think http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/governance implies that right now ... 20:16 <cjwatson> (And I think it would be unfortunate) 20:17 <mdz> cjwatson, I agree 20:17 <pitti> micahg-work: under the circumstances (no majority for a requirement, and doubts that we even have the ability to make it a requirement), would you settle for the TB giving this as a reocmmendation to sabdfl? 20:17 <mdz> at least on the former. I should probably be neutral on the latter 20:18 <cjwatson> FWIW, the current set of nominees being tossed around in private mail doesn't include any non-core-devs, I believe; I don't know if sabdfl has other ideas 20:18 <micahg-work> pitti, if that's the best I can get, I guess I"ll take it 20:18 <micahg-work> but I was very concerned with the last election 20:19 <micahg-work> it seemed to be too close for comfort 20:19 <pitti> right, and admittedly I used ~core-dev/+members as input for my own recommendations 20:19 <cjwatson> micahg-work: Was it really a problem, given that the electorate made its feelings clear? 20:19 * soren tries to recall the last election.. 20:19 <micahg-work> cjwatson, I don't want it to get to a point where it is a problem 20:19 <mdz> I'm in favor of fewer rules where guidelines and judgment suffice 20:20 <cjwatson> The non-dev candidates in the last election placed 10th and 13th 20:20 <cjwatson> I don't recall exactly who was core-dev at the time but I think all the top 9 were 20:20 <micahg-work> oh, hrm, I thought one placed 7th 20:20 <micahg-work> if I"m misremembering, I guess it might be a non-issue after all 20:21 <cjwatson> micahg-work: No, history from LP is clear that that wasn't the case 20:21 <cjwatson> http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_3896e483ca548c95 if anyone else wants to data-mine 20:21 <micahg-work> ok, must have been thinking of something else then 20:21 <cjwatson> Looks like all of 1-9, 11, 12 were core-dev at the top 20:21 <micahg-work> then, I guess the recommendation will suffice 20:21 <cjwatson> *time 20:21 * soren doesn't recall whether Clint was core-dev at the time, tbh. 20:22 <micahg-work> I'm pretty sure he was 20:22 <cjwatson> soren: He was, by a few months 20:22 <cjwatson> https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/+members has joining dates 20:23 <soren> cjwatson: Are those trustworthy? It used to show the date when someone applied for membership, not when they were approved. 20:23 <soren> Bah. It doesn't matter. 20:23 <cjwatson> I'n not certain. Could check, but not within meeting time :-) 20:23 <micahg-work> ok, I think that suffices then, thank you all 20:24 <cjwatson> soren: In Clint's case, -devel-announce archives confirm that it was approval date 20:24 <pitti> so is everyone ok with an explicit recommendation about core-dev to sabdfl? 20:24 <cjwatson> +1 20:24 <pitti> or any new/other discussion aspects? 20:24 <pitti> +1 20:25 <pitti> soren, kees, mdz: opinions? 20:25 <mdz> +0 20:25 <pitti> (mdz is actually an interesting case as he voluntarily stepped out of core-dev) 20:26 <mdz> I'll support the consensus 20:26 <stgraber> +1 20:26 <pitti> and collective wisdom via vote should do the rest :) 20:26 <mdz> I think it's worth asking the question, it would be unusual I agree 20:26 <soren> +1 20:27 <cjwatson> unusual> Yes, I'm definitely in favour of it as a default and as a (strong) recommendation, just have qualms about it as a hard requirement 20:28 <kees> +1 20:28 <pitti> ack, thanks 20:28 <pitti> #topic Provisional MRE Request For KDE Telepathy 20:28 <pitti> (via email) 20:29 <pitti> this seems rather obvious to me really, as these are now under the KDE microrelease policy 20:29 <pitti> and don't influence other flavours 20:29 <kees> yeah 20:30 <pitti> any objections? 20:30 <soren> Nope. 20:30 <kees> nope; I'm for it. 20:31 <pitti> ack, so granted (will do bureaucracy after meeting) 20:31 <pitti> #topic ML scan 20:31 <cjwatson> Oh, I thought I'd replied to that by mail 20:31 <pitti> nothign else that I can see 20:31 <cjwatson> I agree, the MRE looks like an easy signoff 20:31 <pitti> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bugs?field.assignee=techboard -> zarro 20:31 <pitti> #topic Select a chair for the next meeting 20:31 <pitti> kees: would you do the honors? 20:32 <pitti> kees: (as it would have been your turn today) 20:32 <kees> yup! 20:32 <kees> sorry about being late :( 20:33 <pitti> np 20:33 <pitti> #topic AOB 20:33 <micahg-work> o/ 20:33 <pitti> micahg-work: go ahead 20:34 <micahg-work> so, I was wondering why there was no public call for nominations for the TB this time around, ISTR one happening last time 20:35 <pitti> I'm not sure whether there is a final nomination list already, so far Mark just asked for some recommendations from the current TB 20:35 <micahg-work> right, I saw that 20:36 <cjwatson> The nomination process is running rather behind, of course 20:36 <cjwatson> I think partly because Mark was on holiday 20:36 <micahg-work> ok, ISTR dholbach gathering nominations 20:37 <micahg-work> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2011-September/000895.html 20:38 <pitti> I'll forward that question to Mark, CC'ing the list (need to write him anyway for the core-dev recommendation) 20:38 <micahg-work> the CC just had a public call for nominations as well: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/community-announce/2013-September/000013.html 20:39 <cjwatson> I think it'd be a good idea, although bearing in mind that we're late 20:40 <pitti> AOB 2? 20:40 <pitti> going once.. 20:41 <pitti> twice.. 20:41 <pitti> #endmeetnig 20:41 <pitti> #endmeeting