20:01 <rbasak> #startmeeting Technical Board
20:01 <meetingology> Meeting started at 20:01:28 UTC.  The chair is rbasak.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
20:01 <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
20:01 <rbasak> #topic Action Review
20:01 <sil2100> I think so, thanks!
20:01 * rbasak formal ratification of third party seeded snap security policy, depends on: (rbasak, 19:06)
20:01 * rbasak vorlon to circle around with store, snapcraft, et all, and revise the snap source revision policy to be more clear with regards to rebuildability and GPL compliance. (rbasak, 19:06)
20:01 * rbasak vorlon to reply to seeded snap upload permissions question on list (rbasak, 19:06)
20:01 * rbasak sil2100 to start a draft summarizing the OEM archive portion of the meeting which xnox and TB will review, edit, and ratify before we move on to figuring out the next step (rbasak, 19:08)
20:02 * rbasak all members to continue discussion at https://pad.ubuntu.com/third-party-repository-requirements (rbasak, 19:11)
20:02 <sil2100> o/
20:02 <sil2100> I started the draft a while ago and did some modifications recently
20:02 <sil2100> (for the OEM archive)
20:02 <sil2100> There are things however that I didn't yet manage to get enough knowledge to fill in the gaps, so maybe one of you could help - if you know
20:02 <sil2100> If not, I'll reach out to people working on it
20:03 <sil2100> Because I was wondering: who has upload rights to the OEM archive?
20:03 <sil2100> Since the Canonical OEM metapackage PPA is governed by the team for the PPU
20:03 <sil2100> But I was actually wondering if it's the same team that gives power over the OEM archive itself?
20:04 <sil2100> The still in-progress draft of the OEM scenario is done here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/OEMArchive
20:04 <rbasak> ALso https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2020-January/002478.html for some discussion I think
20:05 <sil2100> This was all before my time so I only wrote of the things that I knew about, might need to poke around to get all the other missing bits
20:05 <sil2100> Yeah, this I remember
20:06 <sil2100> But it doesn't directly say who besides the 'Canonical Teams' that got given access to the OEM private PPA are
20:07 <sil2100> If no one remembers, I'll follow up on that since I think we need to have this clarified in the documentation, so that we know exactly how the ACLs for this is managed. Since if the OEM archive is enabled for our main Ubuntu certified machines, I'd like to know that who can upload packages for them
20:07 <rbasak> Was there any explicit approval for the TB for Ubuntu to enable the OEM archive through the Ubuntu archive?
20:07 <rbasak> *by* the TB I mean
20:07 <mdeslaur> Sorry, I don't remember the OEM discussions
20:08 <mdeslaur> pretty sure they were enabled before it was brought up to the tech board
20:08 <sil2100> I was not part of the TB so I don't really know, the e-mail seems to say it was. Maybe this is worth revisiting? Should I investigate and we check back next meeting?
20:08 <rbasak> I think you're raising good questions. So yes, that sounds good.
20:08 <sil2100> Since I think it would be clear by checking the IRC logs and maybe poking Dimitri and Iain for some context
20:09 <sil2100> Could you add an additional action item just so that I don't forget? Would be helpful!
20:09 <mdeslaur> yeah, I think we need to make sure we're ok with how that works, and how people get upload rights to it
20:09 <rbasak> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2019-August/002456.html might be relevant
20:10 <rbasak> There's followup in October and January.
20:10 <rbasak> AFAICT, it was already being done on "preinstalled Ubuntu" without any explicit involvement of the TB.
20:10 <sil2100> True
20:10 <rbasak> So I suspect it's "Canonical" that can upload to the OEM archive with no further governance rules.
20:11 <rbasak> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2020-January/002478.html has a summary
20:12 <sil2100> Still, since we were involved in getting it done 'properly', I think we should at least have clear information about ownership here, and maybe also get to know a bit better about what policies such OEM archive uploads follow
20:12 <mdeslaur> +1
20:13 <rbasak> Yes please. And thank you for getting into this.
20:14 <sil2100> Will try to gather as much info for the next meeting then o/
20:14 <rbasak> On the third party repository requirements thing, I think it's time I converted the pad into a written draft, now that we've got input from everyone.
20:15 <rbasak> I'll do that next, and present that for further discussion.
20:15 <rbasak> So everything needs carrying over then, I guess?
20:15 <rbasak> #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item)
20:16 <rbasak> There's "Setting NotAutomatic for hirsute+1-proposed" - do we have a decision on this?
20:17 <sil2100> Let me take a look at that one again
20:18 <sil2100> hm, ok, so I sadly missed some TB meetings, but was this brought up here or only on the ML?
20:18 <rbasak> Only on the ML so far
20:19 <mdeslaur> was anyone opposed to that? do we need to make a decision on it?
20:19 <rbasak> But we're on the IRC agenda topic that makes us look for open things on the ML :)
20:19 <rbasak> I think we need to decide if/when to switch it on, and on which series
20:21 <rbasak> Eg. retrospectively for all releases now, or only for Jammy onwards now, or after Knotty opens and then retrospectively for previous releases after it's proven there, etc.
20:21 <sil2100> I have no strong opinions regarding this, since I personally didn't have and didn't see anyone I know have problems with -proposed enabled
20:21 <rbasak> It'll immediately break pbuilder/sbuild users I think to make the change right now. They'll end up not picking up packages from -proposed I think.
20:21 <sil2100> So I don't really know how much of an impact this has on users right now
20:21 <mdeslaur> besides vorlon mentioning he'd like it enabled in stable releases, was that really being considered?
20:22 <rbasak> I don't think anything was considered except that it's now possible because Launchpad supports it. The details have been left to us.
20:23 <sil2100> I know this sounds a bit lazy, but maybe we could bring this up again on the next meeting when vorlon is around? As he certainly has an opinion here
20:23 <rbasak> Sure, we can defer it
20:23 <mdeslaur> yeah, I don't mind turning it on on the dev release
20:23 <rbasak> Also it's only next week with the phase change
20:24 <mdeslaur> but I'd rather discuss it with vorlon around if it affects stable releases
20:24 <rbasak> I don't see any other open ML posts, so I think that's it for this topic.
20:24 <rbasak> #topic Check up on community bugs (standing item)
20:24 <rbasak> There are none.
20:25 <rbasak> #topic Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members)
20:25 <rbasak> Next chair will still be cyphermox, with I guess vorlon as backup.
20:25 <sil2100> +1 o/
20:25 <rbasak> #topic AOB
20:25 <mdeslaur> sounds good
20:26 <rbasak> Anything else to raise?
20:26 <rbasak> #endmeeting