16:17 <teward> #startmeeting Developer Membership Board Meeting - March 6, 2023
16:17 <meetingology> Meeting started at 16:17:14 UTC.  The chair is teward.  Information about MeetBot at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology
16:17 <meetingology> Available commands: action, commands, idea, info, link, nick
16:17 <teward> Hello, everyone, and welcome to the DMB meeting for March 6th, 2023.
16:17 <rbasak> bandali: right, but we set a cut-off at 1630 UTC, so I'm not sure there'll be time now, sorry :-(
16:18 <teward> As we're short on time I'm going to move some things to "later" (review of previous items, etc.)
16:18 <bandali> -_-
16:18 <teward> and we're going to jump right in to the meeting here.  I see that there's some missing links in the agenda page to application pages
16:18 <rbasak> vicamo: you seem to have picked a full meeting date, so I'm not expecting that your application would have been considered today anyway. Please see the email thread, find a free slot, and adjust your agenda item.
16:18 <teward> #topic Packageset / PPU Uploader Applications
16:19 <teward> #subtopic Ivan Hu
16:19 * vicamo so sad
16:19 <teward> #link https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IvanHu/PPU
16:19 <rbasak> vicamo: the agenda page says this at the top: "The Developer Membership Board will consider a maximum of one applicant per meeting."
16:19 <teward> ivanhu: greetings, how about you start by introducing yourself to the DMB and why you're here, while we review your applicaiton page.
16:20 <ivanhu> sure
16:20 <teward> vicamo: pick a meeting date that isn't full already (we only process one application per meeting at the moment because of the lengths we go to in vetting someoen for their applications)
16:21 <ivanhu> hi there, I am IvanHu, I am currently in kernel - HWE team, focus on the firmware related issues and functions. I have been the developer and maintainer of FWTS(firmware test suite) since I joined Canonical.
16:21 <vicamo> teward, rbasak: I saw two fall on today, therefore I thought it's allowed for 3.
16:22 <teward> vicamo: assuming things does not help, the text on the page itself is the most important part, and we've already sent emails in the past to peopel who are double-scheduling to choose another day.  some haven't gotten to it yet.  But we can discuss this later, right now the DMB needs to pay attention to the applicant who has the floor, ivanhu
16:23 <rbasak> ivanhu: welcome!
16:23 <rbasak> ivanhu: do you have any need or plans to change a package in a stable release, such as to fix bugs, or update the package after release? Or are you only interested in uploading to the development release?
16:27 <ivanhu> rbasak, fwts use stable ppa for getting the latest version and also will create a live image for using every release, so uploading to the development release should be fine.
16:29 <rbasak> ivanhu: if you find that you do need to update a stable release, do you know where to find the documentation on how to request that, or who to ask?
16:30 <ivanhu> rbasak, yes
16:31 <rbasak> Where do you find the documentation, or who/how/where would you ask?
16:33 <ivanhu> rbasak, the SRU process document https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates#regressions, and I can ask me colleague Timo who is in SRU team.
16:34 <rbasak> OK great, thanks. Next question: do you have any experience in making packaging changes?
16:34 <rbasak> I see very little in the history of fwts.
16:34 <rbasak> What would you do if you had to make a packaging change in fwts?
16:38 <ivanhu> rbasak, I might modify the debian configures, such as control or rule...
16:39 <rbasak> I'm not sure if you are still answering. Please let me know when you are finished with an answer.
16:39 <ivanhu> rbasak, I actually add the efi_runtime DKMS for the fwts package.
16:41 <ivanhu> that's my answer.
16:41 <rbasak> Ah, in 0.26.01-1, back in 2012? Is that your most recent experience of packaging changes?
16:43 <ivanhu> rbasak, no, that's my ex-colleague
16:43 <rbasak> [Ivan Hu]
16:43 <rbasak> * efi_runtime: add efi_runtime kernel driver module into fwts
16:44 <rbasak> That's against:
16:44 <rbasak> fwts (0.26.01-1) raring; urgency=low
16:44 <rbasak> Do you have a more recent example?
16:44 <utkarsh> TIL: raring :)
16:45 <ivanhu> rbasak, I am afraid no.
16:46 <rbasak> OK
16:46 <rbasak> I have one more question about the release schedule, and then a suggestion.
16:46 <rbasak> Question: is there a time when it is inappropriate to upload feature changes? If so, how do you find out when that is?
16:48 <utkarsh> oh, also, Colin (your top sponsorer and endorser) said: "His packaging work has been flawless and I am very confident [...]" - what packaging work are they talking about?
16:48 <utkarsh> please answer rbasak first!
16:48 <ivanhu> when the featurefreeze
16:49 <ivanhu> you can fine in the shedule wiki
16:49 <ivanhu> s/fine/find
16:49 <rbasak> Can you find a link to the appropriate page please?
16:50 <ivanhu> rbasak, https://discourse.ubuntu.com/t/lunar-lobster-release-schedule/27284
16:51 <rbasak> Great, thanks!
16:51 <rbasak> My suggestion: it looks like you're doing a great job upload fwts to stay up to date with the latest upstream versions!
16:52 <ivanhu> utkarsh, actually I have a wiki to the fwts release process
16:52 <ivanhu> https://wiki.canonical.com/IvanHu/fwtsReleaseProc
16:52 <rbasak> However, there's no track record here of you working on stable release updates, or any recent track record that demonstrates your understanding of packaging changes
16:52 <ivanhu> utkarsh, and also a script to release fwts https://github.com/Ivanhu5866/script-fwts/blob/master/release_fwts.sh
16:53 <rbasak> I don't want to block on your ability to upload non-packaging-impacting new upstream releases to this package.
16:54 <rbasak> So I suggest we grant you PPU, but with some limitations, which would be enforced by trust only. Specifically, that you do not upload packaging changes or SRUs without a public code review from a core dev first (but with a public core dev +1, you could then sign and upload yourself).
16:55 <rbasak> If this were to be agreed by the DMB, would this work for you?
16:57 <ivanhu> rbasak, works for me
16:57 <rbasak> Great! Other DMB members: would that be acceptable to you?
16:58 <kanashiro> +1
16:58 <utkarsh> +1
16:59 <seb128> +1
17:00 <rbasak> Shall we consider that the voting done then? :)
17:01 <rbasak> Unless teward has a different opinion and would like us to reconsider?
17:01 <teward> +1 no objection
17:02 <rbasak> ivanhu: it might be the case that you have no need for SRUs or packaging changes for a long time, which would be absolutely fine.
17:03 <rbasak> If you do need to start doing those, then feel free to come back to the DMB to ask for the limitation to be removed once you have a track record of having done some with core dev review. We don't want to obstruct people doing valuable work - it's just that it's difficult for us to approve something when there isn't much of a track record.
17:04 <ivanhu> rbasak, understand. thanks!
17:05 <utkarsh> cool, I can announce the application then! :)
17:05 <rbasak> It'll need a TB member to make the PPU change. I can do that.
17:06 <utkarsh> s.w.e.e.t.
17:07 <utkarsh> congratulations, ivanhu! \o
17:08 <ivanhu> thanks. \o/
17:08 <utkarsh> and with that, teward can you conclude the team meeting?
17:08 <teward> congrats!
17:08 <teward> yes I can
17:08 <teward> i'm going to carry over my taskl though
17:08 <teward> but 1 quick question:
17:08 <teward> #topic Vote on Keeping IRC meetings moving
17:08 <teward> We did this right?
17:09 <teward> rbasak: do you also want to take the announce of the application and the conditions?
17:18 <vicamo> is it my network connection or IRC meeting is not moving?
17:36 <teward> #end meeting
17:36 <teward> #endmeeting