=== jiyuu0 [~jiyuu0@219.95.215.63] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== fabbione [~fabbione@port49.ds1-van.adsl.cybercity.dk] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== Treenaks [martijn@facecrime.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== jiyuu0 [~jiyuu0@218.111.42.70] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== jbailey [~jbailey@CPE000ded9d787c-CM014260028338.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== opi [~emil@ar2.tpnets.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== smurfix [~smurf@run.smurf.noris.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== ogra_ [~ogra@p508EB8FD.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== zul [~chuck@198.62.158.205] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== pitti [~martin@box79162.elkhouse.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== mako [mako@micha.hampshire.edu] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
04:38opihi makpo
04:38opis/makpo/mako
04:40makoopi: hey there
04:40opimako, I've made it ;>
04:40opimako, not like the last time
04:43zulhi everyone
04:43makoso, if people want to take a look at my draft stuff for the nm process, i've got it online here:
04:43makohttp://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMembersMaintainersDraft
04:43makohttp://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMemberProcessDraft
04:43makoi'm finishing the maintainer once right now
04:44opimako, sounds very similar to MOTU draft
04:44zulmako: looks easy enough to follow
04:45opimako, if I had to include my posting to ubuntu-*@lists.ubuntu.com, I would have to quit my job ;-)
04:45fabbioneguys.. i am sorry i won't be at the CC meeting
04:46fabbionemako: if there is something important about the announce i am sure you will be wise enough to handle it properly :-))
04:46opifabbione, no worry, Mako will do raport anyhow ;))
04:46fabbionecya
04:46opita-ta
04:47jbaileymako: Wow, this is so much clearer than the jumble of conflicting stuff that was there before.
04:47opijbailey, it sounded like: work for use, if you'll be lazy, off with your head :)
04:47crimsunexcellent, mako.
04:48opis/for use/for us
04:49jbaileyopi: The gnome foundation also has a similar policy to that.  They review your status every couple of years, and if you're behind they contact you saying yuo have a year to start contributing again.
04:49jbaileyThat way folks to dissapear for a year to have a kid, travel, etc. don't come back to find themselves removed.
04:49opijbailey, sounds ok
04:50opimako, I have already signed for Mentro program ;)
04:50opimako, it's semimentroprogramiinventedmyself :)
04:51makoalso here: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMaintainerProcessDraft
04:51opimako, Kubuntu guys agreed to crashtest my packages
04:52makojbailey: i just added "Membership lasts for two years, and is renewable. If you don't renew your status as a maintainer you will join the "inactive memberas" list. Membership can be reactivated at any time after it has lapsed."
04:52opiIt was there before, IIRC :)
04:53jbaileymako: Nice.
04:53jbaileymako: In NewMaintainerProcessDraft: "While many aspire to selection as an Ubuntu maintainer, only a few will be selected."  It would be interesting to see in a year if this statement is actually true.
04:53makoeverything here has been talked about and agreed to before.. nobody wrote it al in one place yet
=== mako needs to look through that page more carefully
04:54makoi took most of that page from the current maintainer page on the website
04:54makowhich is what we're replacing because it's highly "maintains packages" oriented, etdc
04:56jbaileymako: NewMaintainerProcessDraft says "The Community Council will not appoint someone as a maintainer until..." but NewMembersMaintainersDrag says "Must be approved by the Ubuntu Technical Board"
04:58makojbailey: the first one is off
04:59makoi'll fix
04:59KamionAre we expecting sabdfl today?
=== mdz [~mdz@69-167-148-207.vnnyca.adelphia.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
04:59makoKamion: i should call him
05:00makobut we should give him a couple minutes first
05:00makomdz: look over the drafts linked from the agenda :)
05:00Kamionpinged elmo
=== amu [~amu@amu.developer.debian] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
05:01mdzmako: sabdfl said he was writing stuff, too, did you guys combine your efforts?
=== seb128 [~seb128@ANancy-151-1-22-109.w83-194.abo.wanadoo.fr] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== elmo [~james@83-216-141-215.jamest298.adsl.metronet.co.uk] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
=== silb1 [~sbsm0084@host81-154-101-203.range81-154.btcentralplus.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
05:02makomdz: no.. i had been working on this for a while
05:03mdzmako: NewMembersMaintainersDraft is missing the elmo clause
05:03makomdz: go ahead and add it
05:03Kamionthe elmo clause?
05:04mdzthat the member->maintainer process should go through the CC as well as TB
05:04makowait.. that is there
=== mvo_ [~Michael@ip181.135.1511I-CUD12K-01.ish.de] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
05:05makomdz: it says all maintainers must be members
05:05makomdz: membership is a cc thing, maintainership is a tb thing
05:05elmomako: that's not what we originally discussed
05:06mdzmako: right, which is not what we agreed upon in Mataro
05:06Kamionerm, confused. how does that differ from what we agreed?
05:06makoi built that from the mataro notes
05:06mdzNewDevelopersAndMaintainers says that maintainers are approved by both
05:06makoso i think there is some confusion
05:07makoah, ok
05:07makoso you are saying that maintainers should be approved by the CC twice?
05:07mdzpoint being that the CC's approval of someone as a member is not the same as approving them as a maintainer
05:08Kamionthat's a fair point, but I'm not sure how the TB's approval isn't adequate
05:08mdzwell, I I think I'm trying to state elmo's position from the last meeting, but I think I should rather leave it to him at this point
05:08makoelmo: is that something you feel strongly about? having maintainers approved by the CC after membership?
05:09elmomy concern is that the TB has one person who's actively involved, day-to-day in distro, to the degree where they'll be able to independently and adqueately judge a maintainer's worth
05:09elmoTB+CC has 3
05:09elmoand it was always my understanding that's how we were going to do stuff, unfortunately I was ill the day of the maintainer discussions in mataaro
=== haggai [~halls@i-83-67-20-196.freedom2surf.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
05:10elmomako: I feel reasonably strongly about it, but OTOH, if everyone else disagrees I'm happt to shut up
05:10makoi think if the tb is not adequately well suited to approve people based as maintainers for the distro, that's a problem that should be solved in the TB
05:10makobut i suspect that they are
05:11mdzI agree; in the current process, a majority of the TB is going to be lacking information about the candidate
05:11elmomako: how are the TB meant to judge candidates?
05:11makohmm..
05:11mdzevery time
05:11elmoother than reviewing the work they've done?
05:12makoelmo: the work they've done, recommendations/testimonials, cc approval for membership
05:12elmoI don't think it's appropriate to insist the TB is staffed by people who follow the distro so closely they'd be able to tell that for any given maintainer
05:12elmomako: dude membership is so far removed from maintainership, it's not even funny
05:12mdzapproval for membership is an entirely different thing
05:12elmomaintainer means global write to anything in main - essentialy unpeer-reviewed
05:12makoright, i undrestand that
05:13makobut its one piece that implies a certain level of sanity, that's why i mentioned it in a list
05:13elmoso the CC approval for membership is _irrelevant_ when it comes to maintainership
05:13elmoif I, as part of CC approve someone for membership, I sure as heck don't want to take that as implicit approval when the TB come to review someone as a maintainer
05:13mdza member could (and should, easily) be someone who helps out on the mailing lists or whatever
05:13elmos/take/taken/
05:13mdzand doesn't actually write code at all
05:13Kamionso the CC are essentially being co-opted as known-sane adjuncts to the TB for purposes of an extra check on maintainership approvals?
05:14Kamionrather than it being a function of the CC as such
05:14elmoKamion: dude, this is NOT co-opting
05:14elmothis is what we originally discussed
05:14Kamionum, whatever, I don't think I meant what you thought I meant. :)
05:14elmoi.e. pre-mataro.. I'm not suggesting something new here
05:14mdzpart of the concern stems from how TB and CC happen to be composed at present
05:14makomdz: right, i understand that
05:14Kamionelmo: yes, I understand
05:15Kamionwhat I was trying to say is that it doesn't sound like an intrinsic function of the CC, but the people on the CC happen to be useful to make the maintainership approval more robust
05:16makoelmo: no, i understand that
05:16Kamionat least that's what I'm getting from the above
05:16Kamion(note I don't object, just trying to understand rationale)
05:16makoelmo: the idea was always that maintainers would be approved by both, but that was also before we had membership pre-mataro
05:17makoelmo: so when we introduced members, i was under the impression that the job of the two groups was sort of split. cc looked at membership stuff and the tb looked only at maintainer specific things
05:17elmoKamion: yes, basically
05:17opibrb
05:17makoelmo: so all mainainters still need approval by both groups
05:17makoelmo: just at different stages
05:18mdzwe'll need to address the issue of the TB lacking information regardless
05:18makomdz: yes, of coursse
05:18Kamionmako: I see what elmo means though, when somebody applies to be a member I'm not applying very strict criteria when I say yes
05:18elmoif both the TB and CC are both not actively involved in the distro we still lose, but if we get to that stage, I think the whole idea needs revisited
05:18makoKamion: yes
05:18mdzexactly
05:19Kamionindeed
05:19elmo(and by actively invovled, I'm not meaning to be denegrating (sp?) in anyway to the people who I think aren't)
=== mako thinks
=== opi [~emil@ar2.tpnets.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
05:21opire
05:21mdzgiven the written scope of the CC, it doesn't sound like they're inherently meant to be working day-to-day on the distribution
05:21elmoor the TB?
05:21mdzpoint
05:21elmomaybe the "cleanest" solution is a delegated board of folks who do?
05:21elmospecificaly for this task
05:22mdzwe'll just call them the New Maintainer team
=== mdz gasps!
05:22KamionI'm a bit worried about committee overload though
05:22makoi'm happy saying that even if we can't trust the TB to spend all of their time doing this, we should be able to trust them to ask or find out
05:22makothat may be asking folks on the TB, etc
05:22makothat is the whole "recommendations, etc" step
05:23mdzKamion: I think a good way to avoid that is to move the responsibility to the candidate
=== ogra [~ogra@p508EB8FD.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
05:23mdzthey should come equipped with recommendations/testimonials/etc. from people with direct experience of their work
05:23elmomako: due respect, that sounds like dodging the issue to me
05:23elmo"the TB aren't equipped to do this", "well they can ask the folks who are"
05:23mdztbh, approving new people is more a community issue than a technical issue
05:24makomdz: approving new people to upload into the distribution is what we're talkinga bout
05:24silb1without considering the current membership of the TB, in an ideal world is that where the function belongs?
05:24mdzmako: and that's also what I meant
05:24makomdz: you think?
05:24mdzsilb1: I'm starting to think no
05:24mdzit's a character judgement, not a technical one
05:24elmothere's technical stuff involved, e.g. review a candidates work?
05:25elmothe problem is, I think it straddles both domains
05:25silb1same question for the CC (ignore current membership of CC). Is that where it ideally belongs?
05:25mdztechnical ability is needed in order to understand their work, sure
05:25elmowhich is why it should, IMHO, either be in the domain of both committees or a dedicated one
05:25opiI'm not a in a point for taking my voice, but anyone who want to be Maintainer, could be aproved by both. But not by the CC directly. CC would be asked by TB about this candidate.
05:25makoelmo: well that's not *really* the problem. the problem is straddles both domains in such a way that has a different social requirement than just membership
05:26elmoopi: again that seems like a run-around - if that's going to happen, why not make it explicit?
05:26mdzopi: I think it is certainly a problem at this point to have to arrange to attend both meetings in order to proceed, but we can address that once we've decided who should be involved
05:26elmomdz: understand and judge?
05:26silb1mako: if that's the problem, then that is also the sol'n. A joint decision, wholly different than membership
05:27makosilb1: which is what elmo is suggesting, and i think he's convincing. i'm sort of trying to avoid death by committee but if it's worth it, it's worth it
05:27elmoyes, I think it should be entirely divorced from membership, other than membership being  a prerequiste
05:27mdzelmo: do you think that copies of their last 10 uploads should be brought to the meetings? ;-)
05:27mdzelmo++
05:27mdzmaintainership and membership have very different criteria and need to be explicitly separate decisions
05:27makomdz: they always have been
05:28mdzmako: yes, but then we've taken CC approval for members and used it as CC approval for maintainers
05:28elmomdz: I think if  the candidate's last 10 uploads got REJECTed, heck yes
05:28silb1I don't think this needs to be as difficult as it is getting.  It seems people agree on where the function sits, and we have appropriate committess to to solve that (TB and CC). If issue is meeting overload, then let's work on process (i.e, does it have to happen in real time in a mtg?)
05:28makomdz: the only issue is how many stamps we need on the maintainers forms before they get an account
=== doko [doko@dsl-082-082-208-002.arcor-ip.net] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
05:29mdzsilb1: I think there's definitely value in having the committee members discuss with each other
05:29Kamionother thing from a practical point of view is that occasionally we like to approve somebody known all the way up to maintainership in a single meeting
05:29Kamionso if there were a separate NM group then they'd have to attend CC meetings too
05:29makoKamion: except that unless we have the tb there.. that can be tricky
05:29mdzit's usually not a problem to have majorities of both committees in both meetings
05:29mdzthis one seems to be an exception
05:30Kamionespecially with sabdfl on both ;)
05:30makoKamion: i'd prefer cc+tb approval rather than a new committee
05:30mdzmako: agreed
05:30KamionI think I agree
05:30makoso that sorta kinda seems like rough conensus
05:31makoelmo: you win :)
05:31elmoFLAWLESS VICTORY!!!
=== opi [~emil@ar2.tpnets.com] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
05:32opire, *sigh*
05:32elmo(sorry - can't help that; it's an instinctive reaction to 'you win')
05:32makothere ya go: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMembersMaintainersDraft
05:32mdzmako: I think we should make the role of maintainer as mentor an explicit responsibility
05:32mdzotherwise, no one will find time for it
05:33ograMOTU = mentor
05:33elmohmm, sorry, really not  trying to be awkard, but this doc seems to miss out the MOTU process?
05:33makook.. i updated both pages with the added CC approval
05:33makomdz: as in, all maintainers should be mentors?
05:34mdzmako: as in, part of being a maintainer is to mentor people who want to learn
05:34elmomako: the memembers URL has a typo "ubuntlinux.org"
05:34makomdz: yes, ok
05:34elmo[I know it's a wiki, but locking etc.]
05:34mdzzwiki uses the OHSHIT locking technology
05:34ogramako: i think all MOTUs should be mentors....to keep the core team on its actual work
05:35makoelmo: it implies MOTU
05:35ograore team should be last resort here
05:35ogracore even
05:35mako"Many Ubuntu maintainers will, especially initially, be limited in their ability to upload packages to a component. Many developers will be universe maintainers which will allow them to upload into universe but not into the main supported distribution. The extent of upload capacity will be decided by the Technical Board.
05:35elmomako: don't we need to document the whole MOTU-approved universe-maintainers can be approved by only two CC members etc.?
05:36makoelmo: that's a temporary hoary only thing
05:36elmo*blink* it is?  ok, wasn't aware
05:36makoelmo: it's documented elsewhere.. these are pages i want to move into the core website
05:36elmok
05:37makoelmo: its fine if it goes there.. but i know i will forget to remove it :)
05:37haggaimako: if this is going to be the canonical guide it still needs a brief mention, with a note that it only applies pre-hoary
05:37makohaggai: alright
05:37mdzmako: why should new maintainers add themselves to MaintainerCandidates, and members to the CC agenda?  those should be similar processes
05:38mdzmako: we currently have confusion as to whether the committees should be checking a separate list of candidates, or whether candidates should be on the agenda
05:38makoelmo, haggai: i'll add a mention
05:38makomdz: i think it should be on the agendas
05:38makobecause that's what we've worked off in the past :)
05:38mdzthen MaintainerCandidates is pointless and confusing
05:39mdzpeople add themselves to there and then are ignored and wonder why
05:39makook, so we should remove that?
05:39makoi'm fine w/ that
05:39ogramake it MOTU candidates (which implys to be a member before)
05:39mdzI'm fine either way, 1) committees have a permanent agenda item to review the list of candidates, or 2) candidates add themselves directly to the agenda (and _show up_)
05:40haggaiit's probably better to get them to add themselves to the agenda to make sure they know they have to turn up on that date
05:40mdzmako: the member process says you should come to the meeting
05:40mdzmako: the maintainer process says something about submitting an application
05:41Kamioneventually I'd prefer for candidates not to have to show up at the meeting; it's not going to scale well and we'll end up with monster meetings
05:41Kamionplus timings are never going to be convenient for all candidates
05:42makoin the past, we've not approved people who we didn't know about and who were not there
05:42makoKamion: giving a heads up, if they won't be there, is easy enough and enough i think
05:42makoand showing up is a nice gesture
05:42mdza nice gesture?
05:42mdzit seems essential to me
05:42Kamionmdz: not everyone is going to be able to make 16:00 UTC
05:42haggai4pm GMT must be in the middle of the night somewhere in the world
05:43mdzKamion: we should be rotating the time, but that's a separate matter
05:43Kamionif people have to turn up, then we have to start cycling meeting times and therefore people might not be able to make it for up to six weeks
05:43elmowe should disable timezones, period
05:43Kamionwhich seems unacceptably long
05:43jbaileyOr in the middle of the day when someone doesn't have access to outside 'net access through the corporate firewall.
05:43Kamionand therefore I think it should be decoupled from meetings
05:43mdzwe need to be rotating the times anyway
05:43haggaielmo: can we drop all translations too then
05:44mdzbecause people need to be able to come and discuss things
05:44mdznon-member/maintainer agenda items
05:44Kamionmdz: yes, but as said I don't think it'll help. we should allow people to come and discuss things outside meeting times
05:44elmohaggai: YES!  I keep telling the rosetta folks this, but all they do is glare at me
05:44mdzjdub needs to be able to come once in a while
05:44ograhaggai: esperanto linux ?
05:44elmo[good thing they're tree-hugging hippies and not violent-types, I guess]
05:44makomdz: ok.. i changed http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMaintainerProcessDraft
05:44makomdz: no mention of application explicitly and it talks about meeting agendas only
05:45makoi think that addresses your concerns
05:45mdzok
05:45mdzso it is implicitly the TB and CC members' responsibility to go out and find information about the candidate?
05:45makolet me drop the come to teh meeting thing
05:45mdzif so, I think we need to address that scalability problem
05:46haggaiit would probably help to have a checklist that the candidates can go through, including a list of stuff to put on their wiki page perhaps?
05:46makohaggai: there is a rough list of suggested stuff.. i think a few example pages would be great
05:47ograhaggai: i think things like this are already on the MaintainerCandidates page
05:47makoi dropped the attending meetings thing
05:47makoare there other critical issues?
05:47ograso people just have to look at already approved MOTUs wiki pages
05:48makoshort of the missing reference to MOTU process which we agreed upon last meeting and i put in the summary for the meeting
05:48makothe hoary-specific process
05:48makoi can include a reference to that
05:49mdzmako: my main concern is that both TB and CC end up with useful information about the candidate as part of the documented process
05:49haggaiogra: the list on MaintainerCandidates is maybe not specific enough to help TB and CC members collect information they need quickly
05:49haggaimaybe something like 'links to your last 10 uploads' or something
05:49makomdz: absolutely
05:49haggai(to motu)
05:50mdzmako: maybe an explicit list of things that they should link from / documented on their wiki page application?
05:50ograhaggai: good idea
05:50haggaimdz: yes, that's what I'm thinking too
05:50makomdz: do you think examples/templates would help
05:50makoi don't want to make requirements we are going to ignore
05:50makobecause we get super competant/trusted people we all know
05:50mdzexamples, yes, rather than required items
05:51makomdz: ok, agreed completely then
05:51mdzhow about an explicit statement in the process like "provide enough information so that the CC and TB members, who may not know anything else about you, have something to go on"
05:51mdzexamples of helpful information: foo, bar, baz
05:52makomdz: alright
05:52mdzshould the 'testimonials' be a formal thing?
05:52makomdz: we've got something like this for membership. are you talking explictly about maintainers or both?
05:52mdzmako: both
05:53mdzprobably members should keep this stuff around, and add to it when they apply for maintainership
05:53makomdz: yes, alright
05:54opimay I ask, what should be exposed in a testemonial? Is there a possibility that someone highly skilled without social skill will be rejected, and someone who has charm and medium skill will be in?
05:54opiI know being a member is more social, and being a MOTU more tachnical thing
05:54mdzelmo: can we make it easy for the committee members to pull a bunch of each candidate's uploads to review?
05:55ograopi: MOTU requires member.....
05:55elmomdz: umm - if they're still in the archive, yah
05:55mdzopi: for a member, testimonials should reflect participation and contribution to the community
05:55opiogra, oh, ok
05:55elmoand signed by their key
05:55Kamionopi: we don't want to approve people who will disrupt the community
05:55mdzelmo: but not superseded ones?
05:55makomdz:    Your wiki page should include enough information about you that the
05:55mdzlots of people will maintain one package or something
05:55mako   CommunityCouncil and TechnicalBoard members, who may not know
05:55mako   anything else about you, have enough information to approve you.
05:56mdzmako: sounds good, thanks
05:56Kamionopi: we also don't want to approve people who won't pull their weight - but we do expect a range of skill levels
=== mako sighs
05:56Kamionthe less-skilled people will be doing fewer important things, which is fair enough
05:56mdzopi: for a maintainer, testimonials would be more focused on technical ability
05:56makook, it's added
05:56elmomdz: not as easily no - the katie DB doesn't remember stuff once it's no longer in the archive; I have the .changes, but nothing pre-existent to trawl through and find .changes +files-in-morgue for a given key
05:57mdzelmo: right, so punt to the arch team then? ;-P
05:57ograhmm hoary-changes has an archive....
05:57mdzhoary-changes has no code
05:57makoso short of added reference to the MOTU process and examples templats, are people happy with the draft process
05:57mako(it can/will change of course)
05:57Kamionogra: those are the .changes files, but you still have to map them to stuff in the morgue that you can download
05:57mdzthough that would be a slick feature, to just attach the diff if it's < 10k or something
05:57elmomdz: haha
05:58mdzelmo: yeah, right after you finish sending notifications for syncs to -changes
05:58haggainow that would be cool
05:58mako?
05:58elmomdz:I was haha-ing at your ohsobitter arch team remark :P
05:58Kamionopi: http://www.ubuntulinux.org/wiki/NewMaintainerProcessDraft mentions both factors
05:58makoi don't want to be the party pooper or anything thing but we have a number of other things on teh agenda :)
05:58elmoand besides I wrote a chunk of the notification stuff when I was getting my carswindscreen replaced
05:58opiKamion, ok, I'm ready to not apply :-)
05:59KamionI'm happy enough with the drafts
05:59opisince JDub's not here, I guess my Kubuntu-ml agenda will be off :|
05:59Kamionmailing list stuff can be sorted out and given to jdub to implement later
05:59makoi'd like to get some sort of consensus on the maintainer stuff now
05:59mdzI think the drafts are pretty reasonable
06:00mdzI'd like to try to address some of the practical problems
06:00mdzonce there's consensus on the content
06:00makoright, is there consensus
06:00mako?
06:00makoelmo, Kamion: ?
06:00elmoon which sorry? the discussions drifted?
06:00mdzelmo: mako's process documentation
06:00makothen we can let sabdfl at it and have it completely redone :)
06:00ograhehe
06:01makoelmo: yeah..
06:01makoi'm really just trying to document what we have agreed to in the past but not had written down
06:01mdzmako: oh, another thing
06:01elmomako: yeah, that's ok
06:02mdzmako: we have said in the past that members shouldn't be required to be able to manage a GPG key
06:02mdzoh, the paper thing is there, nm
06:02makomdz: yes
=== mako raises a fist victoriously
06:02elmoI know we're behind, so feel free to ignore me - are we going to beef up the testimonial's section?
06:02makoelmo: i can do that, yes
06:03elmoIME with Debian, useful recommendations can be super-helpful to speed things up
06:03makoelmo: no, i *completely* agree
06:03mdzmako: it's a bit awkward having the guidelines for membership/maintainership on a different page from the steps to take to become one
06:03makomdz: we can merge it into a monster page :)
06:03mdzthose guidelines should apply to the content of testimonials
06:03mdzso I think we've already written about what testimonials should be
06:04makoKamion: what do you think?
06:04Kamionmako: count me for consensus
06:04makolets move on!
06:05makook, we tabled the ml thing for jdub
06:05makoFun Issue Of The Week
06:05makoreply-to issues on ubuntu-users
06:05Kamionaargh American vs. British English meaning of "tabled"
06:05makohah
06:05mdzhow do you spell it, tabloed?
06:05Kamionno, they're exact opposite meanings
06:06mdzoh, I read 'meaning' as 'spelling'
06:06Kamionanyway, that aside
06:06makodid people have a chance to look over the reply-to stuff?
06:06elmoyes :(
06:06makome too
06:06Kamiondamn, I forgot to read the thread, give me a sec
06:06makopeople are pissed
06:06mdzmy opinion on the reply-to thing, fwiw, is that there seems to be a clear consensus among the user population that they want reply-to set.  they don't, as a rule, use mail clients which are smart about the difference between a list-reply and a poster-reply, and they shouldn't really need to care
06:06ograunfortunately
06:07Kamionmy main question is whether people will be equally pissed off with the other default
06:07mdzI don't think they will, honestly
06:07Kamionpeople who are happy with the current situation tend not to say anything, as a general rule
06:07ograwhat about cross posting then ? (in regard to the kubuntu-ml)
06:07opihappy people are quiet, mad people are loud
06:07elmomy opinion is that: if a majority of users want reply-to on ubuntu-users we should do it.  but I think the people demanding it, should be the ones putting the work in to do an actuall poll and prove  they're not just a vocal minority
06:07mdzthe arguments against reply-to are inscrutable to most users
06:08makomdz: i tend to agree
06:08opiI'm with Elmo
06:08mdztechnical pedantry is fine for the developer community, but it shouldn't be forced on users
06:08opithey should prove admin wrong
06:08opiby majority
06:08ograyup
06:08opibut it only goes for -users
06:08mdzI think that's process overkill
06:08ogra2/3
06:08elmomdz: which?  a poll?
06:08mdzthis is such a trivial thing, we can try it for a week and see if it's better or worse
06:08mdzyeah
06:09makonow i suspect sabdfl was going to suggest that we just make sure we add teh functionality to reply-to-list to any client we ship taht doesn't already have it
06:09silb1mdz: I agree. Plus you'll still only get the unhappy people voting (as noted above).
06:09mdzit's not like we're making some decision which we'll have to live with for years
06:09mdzit's trivial to change
06:09opimako, only Thunderbird lack here
06:09makoopi: right, that was my impression
06:09Kamion(catching up) with respect I really don't think it's technical pedantry
06:09Kamionanyhow, what about the cross-posting thing ogra brought up?
06:10Kamionmails delivered through ubuntu-users get Reply-To: and others don't, I guess
06:10opiKamion, -users tend not to crosspost
06:10mdzin regard to kubuntu, or reply-to?
06:10ogramdz: both
06:10opiKamion, that's why I suggest to leave things as it is for -devel releated lists
06:10makoi say we try it for two weeks
06:10Kamionopi: absolutely
06:10haggaiI think the mail client reply-to-list would be much more useful if reply automatically replied to the list, and reply-to-list became reply-to-poster
06:10makoand put this on the agenda for two weeks from now
06:10mdzI think it's fine for reply-to to point to -users only
06:10Kamionhas anyone done a quick survey of how many people on ubuntu-users are currently using Reply-To: for its original intended purpose?
06:10elmomdz: no, but I think the people who _don't_ want a Reply-To should be given the chance to say so without being compared to slavers
06:10mdzthat'll discourage cross-posting
06:11mdzelmo: I think we won't hear from them until we actually do it anyway
06:11Kamioni.e. From: set to one e-mail address and Reply-To: set to another because you can't change your From: for whatever reason
06:11mdzeven if we took a very careful survey, people would bitch and moan about not knowing what was going on
06:11opimdz, annouce it on -users
06:11makoKamion: very view
06:11makoKamion: very few
06:11mdzwhereas if it's changed for a week, and you don't notice or don't complain, then you can be considered to have been counted, imo
06:12elmomdz: silence is assent?
06:12makoso mdz says change it for a week, i say two (just to conincide with the meeting)
06:12opielmo, those who are not here, rise your hand :-)
06:12mdzelmo: yes.  if you aren't participating in the list enough to notice, then your opinion doesn't count for much
06:13mdzthe people who are actually using the list on a daily basis should have more weight
06:13mdztoo many people are just regurgitating opinions they read on the web
06:13elmomdz: I'll remember that, next time you bitch at me for assuming consent from you
06:13mdzelmo: we're talking about a trivial thing here
06:14ograthat we could decide without the listmaster ?
06:14elmoogra: listmaster delegated it to CC
06:14ograah, good
06:14mdzelmo: if you email me asking me "is it ok to rm -rf the archive?" and I don't answer, don't assume consent
06:14elmobtw, quick visual scan does show people using different Reply-To's and From's
06:15elmonot many, but there are some
06:15mdzelmo: but if you email me about a typo on some wiki page, and I don't answer, assume I don't care
=== mako sighs
06:16elmomdz: dude, I don't really care about your consent or not, I just think it's an entirely bogus argument.  some of the pro-reply-to people were insanely OTT and flamey, so much so that anyone sane is either outright ignoring the thread or at least certainly scared away from replying
06:16elmoin those conditions, I don't think it's fair to take a silence is assent stance, but *shrug* whatever
06:16mdza quick visual scan shows only one person actually using different from and reply-to in my current -users mailbox
06:16Kamionwell, I don't see a majority on the list, I see a vocal and flamy minority; still, I'd rather the list weren't full of flames so if changing the default will make the list more palatable I'll approve of it
06:16mdza lot of people using From == Reply-To, oddly enough
06:16makodo we have consensus to make a temporary change or should we wait?
06:16Kamionbut I don't think we should describe the change as "due to user consensus" or anything like that
06:16opiI'm for a test-change
06:17Kamionbecause I don't see such a consensus
06:17mdzelmo: I don't care as much about the flamage as I do about the dozens of people who reply to me off-list every week
06:17elmokamion++
06:17makoKamion: make it very explicit that it's test
06:17mdzelmo: who I need to reply to and remind them that they need to take some explicit and different action in order to get their mail client to do the thing which is sane by default
06:17makohow about this for a proposal:
06:17ograit think the flameages were nearly beyond the CoC ....
06:17Kamionogra: well beyond, dude
06:18Kamionwe should fix the mail clients anyway, of course
06:18elmomdz: fine, but I think by ostriching about the flamage, all you're doing pandering too it and encouraging it in the future
06:18Kamionit's something which will be useful in a number of communities
06:18ograwhich is why i vote against a change atall
06:18makoWe make the change temporarily announcing that it's a test and not due to consensus. We collect complaints, etc. and revisit this in two weeks.
06:18makoAt which point, we should be able to more adequately justify movement on this.
06:18elmo"hey, let's call them slavers; it got us our reply-to"
06:18Kamionmako: ack
06:18mdzelmo: agreed. but likewise, we can't use flamage as a reason to ignore an issue, because usually there's a legitimate issue there, and that penalizes the reasonable people too
06:19Kamionhow about we also ban the totally unreasonable flamers?
06:19Kamioncode of conduct etc.
06:19makoKamion: yeah, they are banned....
06:19opithat would be good, too, Kamion :-)
06:19Kamionmako: already?
06:19elmomdz: I'm not suggesting ignoring it; I'm suggesting shifting the burden onto the vocal minority to prove they're not.. and when it's proven there's a consensus, we're making the change for the right reasons
06:19ograelmo +++
06:19opiagree
06:19makoelmo: are you not comfortable with a test?
06:20opithey are vocal, they should prove us wrong
06:20opiit was less that 15 users that flamed
06:20mdzconsensus is inherently difficult to prove because it's fuzzy
06:20ograhow many are subscribed currently ?
06:20opiogra, that was my next question :)
06:20makoopi: right, but it's been raied 4-5 times already
06:20mdzanyway, there's a vote on the table I think
06:20elmomdz: let me ask you this, if we did a poll and there was a strong majority against it, would you still want to do it?
06:21mdzbut not "tabled"
=== mjg59 [mjg59@cavan.codon.org.uk] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
06:21elmos/it/adding 'reply-to'/
06:21mdzelmo: I cannot think of any poll we could do which would be meaningful
06:21makoopi: roughly once a month
06:21mdzideally we could poll members, but we don't have enough yet
06:21elmos/poll/vote/ whatever.  how is a vote not meaningful?
06:21mdzwho gets a vote, and how do we determine what their vote is?
06:21mdzand besides, sabdfl doesn't like votes ;-)
06:22elmoI bet you sabdfl's response would be "fix the clients" :P
06:22opiand that would be unlimate solution
06:22opi,,no we won't change it, use reply-to-mailinglist feature''
06:22elmomdz: that's why I suggested offloading the work onto the people who want the change
06:22elmo*shrug*
06:22mdzelmo: give them an impossible task and hope they go away?
06:23mdzthis isn't Debian :-P
06:23elmomdz: dude, don't be obtuse, holding a vote is pretty far from an impossible task
06:23elmoit's going to turn INTO Debian if we encourage people to behave like they did in that thread
06:23elmoI seriously see that as much of a threat than any problems that result from a lack of reply-to
06:23elmomuch more
06:23makoi think we can make it clear that this is not what is going on
06:24makobut this is a real concern for many people
06:24makoit's raised almost monthly and it bothers many people
06:24mdzI don't think that kind of negative reinforcement helps to encourage good behaviour
06:24mdza better solution is to ignore the flames and consider the sane viewpoints
06:24KamionI give the various people who say "hm, I'm confused, what just happened to my mail?" a lot more weight than the flamers personally
06:25Kamionthe question for me is how to put that across
06:25Kamionand I think aggressively banning people who violate CoC on the lists is a good way to do so
06:25opiis there a option to let users set rules on -users?
06:25mdzwe can't punish an idea because it's the subject of some moron's flaming
06:25makothings that people feel strongly tend to turn into flamewars
06:25opinot set, per se
06:25makoand this has been brought up half a dozen times outside of a flamewar
06:25elmomdz: if you discount the flamers, how many people were asking for Reply-To?
06:25mdzmako: I agree, re: make it clear
06:25Kamionwe have a new community here, there's no reason why CoC can't be strongly applied
06:26ograbut do we need to encourage bad behavior ?
06:26mdzelmo: as I said, my POV is based on people that I have interacted with personally, and not on the flames
06:26makoKamion: we do need to be better about doing this
06:26ograi.e. "i flamed and they changed it....i'm a hero !!"
06:26mdzmako: in the announcement, point out that the people who were flaming about it have been banned, and a decision made to do foo, based on bar and baz?
06:26makoelmo: we get to spin this and we can make the role of the flamers (i.e., a counterproductive one) very clear
06:27makomdz: right..
06:27Kamion"despite the comparisons to slavery, ..."
06:27makoand we're only suggestion its a test
06:27makoKamion: heh
06:28opiI guess we could try to ,,fix'' mailman. A user could set a reply-to/no-reply-to per account
06:28elmomako: *shrug* ok, fine
06:28makoif you're prefer, we can run this by sabdfl before implement it
06:29Treenaksopi: that'd give you a whole lot of NEW bugs when they switch mail clients
06:29Kamionsabdfl's away all this week isn't it?
06:29makowoot
06:29Treenaksopi: "It doesn't work as advertised"
06:29Kamioner, isn't he?
06:29mdzthe result of that tends to be that all the discussion we have had is either discarded, or needs to be retraced
06:29makois it? :)
06:29elmomako: we've got 3/4 CC, if we agree, doesn't really matter, does it?
06:29opiTreenaks, I'm just think out loud :)
06:30makoelmo: no, we can go ahead
06:30makoalright then.. lets do this
06:30makoi'll talk to jdub
06:30mdz(that == seeking an opinion from someone who couldn't be present for the discussion)
06:30elmohang on, is kamion okay with it?
06:30makoelmo: it was his idea
06:30elmooh, ok
06:30elmosorry, thought he was arguing against it :)
06:30Kamionhalf of it was my idea
06:30makoah, ok
06:30makoKamion: so are you ok with it?
06:31Kamionthe "test for two weeks" was mako's
=== lamont tries to remember if we're talking about breaking another mailing list, or fixing a broken one...
06:31makolamont: breaking one :)
06:31ogralamont: first one
06:31Kamionmako: yes, it's fine with me provided that we really *do* revisit it rather than waving it through in two weeks' time
06:31lamontmako: I promise to try to remember to not send private comments to the mailing list, then,
06:31Kamionwill there be a clear contact point for complaints about the new setup?
06:31mdzKamion: easy enough, add it to the agenda for the next meeting
06:31elmo(and let's try and bullt sabdfl into being here next meeting)
06:32makowe'll add it right away
06:32makoi'll add it when i reset the agenda after this meeting
06:32makoalright!
06:32makothe rest is easier
06:32makosmurfix: around?
06:32Kamioncan we go back to the kubuntu item?
06:32Kamionit got skipped somehow
06:32makoKamion: yes
06:32mdzdoes anyone know if we include a pointer to the CoC in the welcome email for the mailing lists?
06:32Kamionopi: did jdub ask you to come to the CC with that list proposal?
06:32makomdz: IIRC, no but that can be fixed
06:33opiKamion, nope, sorry
06:33mdzmako: if we don't, it's a bit underhanded to ban people based on it
06:33opiKamion, it did it myself :/
06:33opiKamion, I thought he'll be there, and I could ask him for that
06:33Kamionopi: in general the listmaster's responsible for new lists; can you take this to him, unless there's something controversial about it? if he asks you to come back to us then I apologise for giving you the run-around
06:33haggaier, if this is about kubuntu[-deve] @lists I already asked jdub to create the lists and he said he would
06:33elmomdz: underhanded is what we slavers do best</bitter> ;-P
06:33Kamionlistmaster == jdub
06:33opiKamion, sure I do
06:33ograi think he wrote something about it anywhere
06:34Kamionopi: ah, see what haggai said then, so we can scratch that item and move on
06:34ograthat its needed and should be in place soon
=== mako nods
06:34mdzmako: if you write a paragraph, I can make the mailman change, and we can send a copy to -users for existing subscribers
06:34Kamionmdz: I think people know fine well for themselves what's acceptable and what isn't; I don't have a lot of sympathy for the "you didn't tell me I wasn't allowed to call people slavers!" line of argument
06:34makomdz: that sounds fine
06:35Kamionalso, bans can be temporary, == cooling-off period
=== ogra thinks of a certain IRC person.....
06:35makoopi: have you already been approved for a pl team by smurf
06:36mako?
06:36mdzKamion: is that what's happening?  has someone mailed the banned people and explained that it's temporary, or something like that?
06:36makoopi: because technically, you don't need CC approval
06:36opimako, not officialy, me thinks
06:36mdzsmurfix: ?
06:36opimako, I'm doing my job, and if I should give it to someone else, I'll :)
06:36makoi highly doubt this will be a problem :)
06:36makoopi: you've been very active/visible doing this so far
06:37makoso i'm happy saying welcome and encouraging you to follow up with smurfix when he comes back
06:37opimako, flamer're loud, too. :)
06:37makosames goes with andrea
06:37opithank you :)
06:38makoopi: perhaps we can put together a good example webpage and get you confirmed a member at teh next meeting
06:38mdzit's not clear from the agenda whether crimsun is proposing himself, or ogra is proposing him
06:38ograi proposed him on behalf...(i think) :)
06:38opimako, sure, but I'm still at work, and I'll have to take few things before that
06:39Kamionmdz: I don't know, all I know about any banning is an aside from mako which he didn't expand upon
06:39crimsunI'm proposing, but ogra filled out the name.
06:39mdzogra: I hope he gave his consent ;-)
06:39opimako, can we do it tom. from morning or today, at night?
06:39ogramdz: done :-P
06:39makoKamion: i am not even sure if/who we can ban someone but i suspect it's possible.. i haven't looked into it too much yet
06:40makowell, i'm happy approving crimsun as a member right now
06:40Kamionack crimsun as member
06:41makoelmo: ?
06:41elmoack
06:41makocrimsun: are you looking for universe maintainership or full maintainership
06:41elmomako: eh
06:41makocrimsun: i wasn't clear
06:42opimako, will it be requied for Leaders to be a members? Or it's gets automagiclly?
06:42makoopi: no, not required
06:42elmodoesn't agenda say just member?  (I'm not necessarily objecting, just confused)
06:42mdzyes, it does
06:42crimsunmako: eventually full, but as I understand it MOTU can be part of the process.
06:42makosorry.. i was reading the heading
06:42mdzjbailey, though, is applying for full maintainership, though it doesn't say
06:42makocrimsun: yes
06:43crimsunmako: my current aim is to assist as part of MOTU.
06:43makocrimsun: cool. you can move ahead with that work and we'll revisit that soon then :)
06:43haggaiI've got a patch from crimsun in my mailbox I still need to review for MOTU
06:43makojbailey: then
06:43jbaileymdz: I had understoof membership to be a pre-requisite.  I'm thankful that it's being made clearer. =)
06:43makohaggai: sounds good
06:43makowell, jbailey is fine by me as a member
06:43mdzjbailey: that's the subject of the documentation we were working out earlier in this meeting
06:43makoand a maintainer for that matter
06:43jbaileymdz: Ayup.  I offered some other comments to Mako before the meeting, too.
06:44mdzat any rate, it should be entirely possible to get both approvals in one CC meeting
06:44mdz(practically speaking)
06:44elmomdz: no keybuk tho?
06:44mdzno :-/
06:44mdzelmo: I meant both CC/member and CC/maintainer
06:44elmooh, I see
06:44makoright, the TB stuff will have to wait
06:45makoKamion, elmo: jbaily member/maintainer?
06:45elmoI'm happy to ack jbailey as CC/member and CC/maintainer.. purely on basis of his Debian work (can we do that?)
=== Mithrandir [~tfheen@vawad.err.no] has joined #ubuntu-meeting
06:45makoelmo: yes
06:45mdzis keybuk not likely to be awake?
06:45makoelmo: we have in the past
06:45elmomdz: at nearly 6 in the evening?  I'd hope he is - shall I ring him?
06:46haggaikeybuk's on jabber
06:46silb1keybuk was taking today off to build furniture. Or something like that.
06:46Kamionyes, what elmo said, ack jbailey as member/maintainer
06:46Kamionnoting for the avoidance of doubt that jbailey is a Canonical employee, but having dealt with him for some time in Debian I'd be happy to approve him notwithstanding that
06:46makowoot!
06:47mdzI don't see him on jabber
06:47makojbailey: process-wise you still need to get checked off by the TB
06:47ograso may i change my suggestion for crimsun to member/maintainer too ?
06:47mdzogra: I think crimsun needs to be the one to do that
06:47crimsunmdz: acked.
=== haggai sends keybuk a msg
06:47makoogra: i'd prefer we had haggai and etc come back after we've had some of theo patches accepted a bit of work done
06:47jbaileymako: Yup, thanks.
06:47ogramdz: just wanted to correct my agenda item ;)
06:47elmoI'll call him - worse case he'll tell me to go away
06:48elmoanswerphone
06:48makoalright!
06:48mdzdo you guys think that CC/TB approvals should be required to happen during public meetings?
06:48makono, i don't
06:48mdzor can we meet in smoke-filled rooms and get approvals to accelerate the process?
06:49makomdz: i think we require full consensus if it's outside of a meeting
06:49opiI can leave :-)
06:49elmowe could have them happen in public, just not scheduled
06:49haggaias long as the meetings are publicly archived
06:49mdzopi: the issue is getting everyone together at the same time, not publicity
06:49mdze.g., keybuk isn't around right now, but he likely will be at some point before the next TB meeting
06:50mdzbut it won't be as part of a public, archived meeting
06:50Kamionseems a bit underhand not to, but we can call extraordinary meetings for the purpose of approving people if it's more convenient to do so
06:50Kamione.g. announce meeting a day in advance at $TIME
06:50mdzcertainly approvals should go on public record
06:51mdzif they can happen outside of meetings
06:51makopeople can just join this channel.. it's archived
06:51mdzI don't think it's particularly important to schedule them; it shouldn't make a difference if others are present
06:51elmoor we could use a non-realtime medium like mailing lists?
06:51elmoas an alternative for approvals
06:51haggaimdz: I think it does make a difference because it's a chance for non-TB/CC people to speak up if they know a reason not to approve
06:51mdzwe should probably start requiring that approvals be authenticated somehow anyway
06:51mdzhaggai: hmm, good point
06:51elmo"Dear Scott, please approve Jeff.  kthxbye"
06:52Kamioneverything here is logged, anyway ...
06:52Kamionso they should always be in #ubuntu-meeting
06:52mdzthings here are logged, but not particularly well authenticated
06:52mdzanyway, it was just a thought
06:53haggaiIRC is great for going back and forth in a discussion without ending up with a long drawn out thread including possible flames etc
06:53mdzI'll try to call a TB mini-meeting to follow up with any TB decisions from this meeting
06:53Kamion"if any of you know just cause or impediment why this person should not be an Ubuntu maintainer, speak now or forever hold your peace"
06:53ograheh
=== mako likes sabdfl's "security, PSHAW, i've see too many certificates in my life already" attitude
06:53haggaior forever be flamed for not speaking up ;)
06:53ograKamion: practicing ?
06:54mdzare we finished with the agenda?
06:54makoyes
06:54makowe are
06:54makothanks everbody
06:54opilet's have a drink
06:54mdzoh, crimsun is to be consisdered for MOTU status
06:54Kamionogra: it might be slightly on my mind
06:54opi(or work:)
06:54ogramdz: yeah.....
06:54makomdz: you and haggai can do that alone
06:55mdzmako: me??
06:55ograheh
=== mvo_ has to leave now to go to hockey training
06:55Kamionfollowing up crimsun's references, I have no issues
06:55mdzI'm neither MOTU nor CC, and those are the two bodies that have authority on the issue
06:55makomdz: yeah, remember the fastrack MOTU procedure you suggested at the meeting two weeks ago?
06:56makoi thought it was tb members too
06:56makobut i can check my notes
06:56makoin any case, it's not difficult
06:56Kamioncrimsun: although could you add a source package for your bzflag package to http://sh.nu/~crimsun/?
06:56mdzcrimsun: is your key in the strongly connected set?
06:56crimsunKamion: certainly.
06:56crimsunmdz: no
06:57Kamionhm, and backports should ideally have decreased version numbers, not increased
06:57mdzmako: hmm, there is nothing in NewMaintainerProcessDraft about keys
06:57mdzmako: and I think there should be
06:57Kamion(looking at http://sh.nu/~crimsun/qsynaptics/qsynaptics_0.22.0-1ubuntu1.diff.gz)
06:57crimsunKamion: 0.22.0-0ubuntu1?
06:57mdzmako: ah, it's on NewMembersMaintainersDraft
06:57makomdz: yeah, it should be
06:58makomdz: that's an oversight
06:58mdzmako: you said they could be merged anyway, I think that's probably the right thing
06:58Kamioncrimsun: yeah, that would be better, it makes upgrades work more sanely
06:59Kamioncrimsun: i.e. maintain a warty < hoary invariant
06:59makoi have a short list of changes: (A) reference to motu fastrack process (b) example templates (c) testimonial sections beefed up (d) info on keys in the newmaint section (e) merge it all
06:59makothanks everyone!
06:59crimsunKamion: acked, will correct along with the remaining packages there.
07:00ogramako: did you already put up the signable CoC.txt ?
07:00Kamioncrimsun: thanks
07:01Kamionare existing MOTUs here happy with crimsun's work?
07:01ograabsolutely :)
07:01ograriddell ?
07:01makoogra: not linked up yet
07:01ogramako: got it still here: http://www.grawert.net/CoC.txt
07:02crimsunmako: is it adequate if I simply copy and paste from http://www.ubuntulinux.org/community/conduct/ , or shall I use ogra's url?
07:02makocrimsun: either is adequate
07:02crimsunmako: thanks.
07:02makoohh
07:02makoNEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 1st!
07:03opino, the date of doom
07:03opiif my system won't start at 1st, I can stay longer, because I'll be fired :)
07:03makowait
07:03makothat's wrong
07:03makothat's the TB meeting
07:03mdzmako: did anyone call for additional items not on the agenda?
07:04makoi think i asked
07:04makomaybe i just thought about asking
07:04makomdz: do you have something?
07:04haggaiI have something
07:04mdzmako: it should be a standard part of the agenda to ask for other business, I think
07:05makomdz: yes
07:05makohaggai: go ahead
07:05mdzI try to do it at TB, and have added a note to the wiki as a reminder
07:05makomdz: i'll add a note
07:05haggaiabout mMOTU, proposing ogra to help
07:05haggaihe's been pretty active already and helpful with the community side
07:05makothat's fine with me
07:05mdzthere was consensus at a previous CC meeting that MOTU should be a proper Ubuntu team, with leadership roles
07:05haggaisince chrish can't help because he doesn't have the time, I