#ubuntu-meeting-2 2014-12-02
<dsmythies> #startmeeting Ubuntu Docs
<meetingology> Meeting started Tue Dec  2 17:28:33 2014 UTC.  The chair is dsmythies. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
<meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
<dsmythies> #chair dsmythies
<meetingology> Current chairs: dsmythies
<dsmythies> Is anybody here for the doc team meeting?
<dsmythies> Since nobody is here for the doc team meeting, the meeting will be adjorned.
<dsmythies> #endmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Dec  2 17:33:32 2014 UTC.
<meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.523-777-4502.28.moin.txt
<dsmythies> Gunnar, I already had the meeting and already posted the logs
<dsmythies> Nobody showed
<GunnarHj> dsmythies: Great! What did you decide? ;)
<dsmythies> I gave myself a raise
<GunnarHj> dsmythies: Good, you're worth it.
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2014-12-09
 * pitti waves
<mdeslaur> \o
 * mdeslaur waits for others
<mdeslaur> hi kees
<kees> hola!
<pitti> hey kees, how are you?
<kees> good, you?
<pitti> quite fine, thanks! /me waves from South Africa
<kees> ooh! never been. :)
<pitti> my first time too
<pitti> no response from slangasek and infinity, and stgraber send apols
<mdeslaur> hrm
<pitti> so maybe we just start
<mdeslaur> ok
<mdeslaur> #startmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting started Tue Dec  9 17:08:45 2014 UTC.  The chair is mdeslaur. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
<meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
<mdeslaur> [topic] Apologies
<mdeslaur> stgraber couldn't make it
<mdeslaur> [topic] Action review
<mdeslaur> infinity to review and respond to MAAS SRU thread
<mdeslaur> hrm, don't think he did that, so carried over
<mdeslaur> mdeslaur to gather facts on Docker versions and respond to the thread
<mdeslaur> I did respond to the thread
<kees> done
<mdeslaur> that's it for actions
<mdeslaur> [topic] Mailing list archive
<mdeslaur> "Freetype patent problem" - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2014-December/002047.html
<kees> not a patent holder, so ... nothing to respond to, IIUC?
<pitti> yeah
<pitti> we already discussed subpixel rendering on the TB many years ago
<mdeslaur> yep
<pitti> and back then it was the same thing: not a patent owner, not upstream, not interested
<mdeslaur> it's the only reasonable thing to do
<pitti> well, I think we should respond, with pretty much that
<pitti> I don't know whether we have our patent policy written down somewhere
<pitti> hah, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PatentPolicy
<mdeslaur> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PatentPolicy says "While the Ubuntu project wishes to be responsive to patent infringement claims, we cannot commit to the assessment and review of claims made by anyone other than the registered rights holder. "
<kees> that seems pretty clear :)
<mdeslaur> I'm not sure what is expected of the "Developers" section at the bottom of that page though
<pitti> I think that's "upstreams"
<mdeslaur> ah! that would make sense
<mdeslaur> ok, I'll respond to the thread again
<mdeslaur> [action] mdeslaur to respond to freetype thread
<meetingology> ACTION: mdeslaur to respond to freetype thread
<mdeslaur> does anyone have anything else to add to the freetype thread?
<mdeslaur> if not, next item:
<mdeslaur> "MRE for KDE Frameworks" - https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2014-November/002043.html
<pitti> I'm quite nervous about this TBH
<kees> pitti: for what reasons?
<pitti> if you essentially stop having a stable branch, you get all sorts of refactoring and other new bits into it, and I highly doubt that upstreams test extensively on old KDE versoins
<pitti> usually upstreams run trunk for everything
<mdeslaur> they are promising a stable ABI and API though
<pitti> well yes, but that conceptually that doesn't really work
<mdeslaur> I'm not sure how this is different from other MREs
<shadeslayer> Thing is, exisiting API is covered by unit tests
<pitti> (with having only one trunk)
<shadeslayer> new API is only harmful if apps use it
<shadeslayer> since we're not updating apps, this is not a problem
<pitti> yes, but if you don't have stable branches, refactoring etc. will also be there
<shadeslayer> *plus* we now have extensive QA mechanisms on Kubuntu CI
<shadeslayer> pitti: sure, but test coverage should ensure things don't break
<pitti> well, I think ultimately it's KDE's decision, but these are certainly not "microreleases"
<Riddell> pitti: KF5 has unstable branches for unstable stuff
<pitti> this is now the same class as landscape and juju
<Riddell> it doesn't go into master until it's stable
<shadeslayer> pitti: yes, they most certainly can't be called microreleases
<pitti> so, I'm not really convinced that this will actually work better, but I don't veto a preliminary exception and then see how it goes with a few updates
<pitti> as usual, if you want to do this then we should figure out a "how", not outright "no you can't"
<shadeslayer> pitti: ofcourse, and I think all of us in the Kubuntu team are more than willing to introduce measures to make sure things don't break
<shadeslayer> FWIW we have QA measures being taken over here : http://kci.pangea.pub/
<pitti> shadeslayer: do you have some ideas for that?
<shadeslayer> pitti: yes, see http://kci.pangea.pub/
<shadeslayer> pitti: there are a couple of things we do, at its core, check for ABI breaks , file moves, and make sure packages are generally installable
<pitti> shadeslayer: can we run app/other component's tests against an updated framework?
<shadeslayer> ( this happens every single day btw )
<shadeslayer> pitti: I don't see why not, we already integrate Plasma 5 against Framework 5 from git, which is the biggest consumer of KF5
<pitti> are these the same as we already run as autopkgtest, OOI?
<shadeslayer> no, autopkgtests can't be run unfortuantely, I'm trying to figure out how to solve those with Harald, so we'll have a solution soon, but these are basically build tests, and then installing and updating Plasma 5 from git to make sure things work
<shadeslayer> actually, if we can get autopkgtests for PPA's that would be a big help
<pitti> a log like https://launchpadlibrarian.net/192137245/buildlog_ubuntu-vivid-amd64.konversation_1.5.50%2Bgit20141209.0010%2B15.04-0ubuntu0_UPLOADING.txt.gz seems to be a lot like those, anyway
<shadeslayer> otherwise, I can setup some infrastructure on our end to do this
<pitti> shadeslayer: we'll be able to with the new cloud-based airline
<shadeslayer> \o/
<pitti> not with the currnet infrastructure I'm afraid; it's squeaking under the load already :(
<pitti> anyway, separate topic
<shadeslayer> yeah I can understand :)
<shadeslayer> pitti: what else would you like to see btw?
<pitti> reverse dependency testing for sure; automatic tests as we have them (that's essentially what's on that jenkins, right?)
<shadeslayer> ( me and Harald are more or less exclusively working on this full time at the moment, so would be nice to have suggestions )
<pitti> but also some manual testing, at least starting the desktop, checking for visual oddities, and checking that you can get up to the package updater again
<shadeslayer> pitti: done every friday
<pitti> i. e. we must never break the graphical package updater, so that we can clean up after a regression
<pitti> ^ that for SRUs, I mean
<shadeslayer> ah right ofcourse
<pitti> (not for upstream/vivid developmetn of course)
<pitti> shadeslayer: i. e. if we make sure that we don't completely break a desktop with an SRU (and the automatic tests don't catch it), and we always have a way out through another update, I'd be happy
<shadeslayer> *nod*
<shadeslayer> That's totally reasonable, and actually, what should be expected
<pitti> shadeslayer: do you want to do this for LTS, or for the "intermediate" releases too?
<pitti> it seems to be quite a lot of effort, and these days the non-LTSes are comparatively fairly uninteresting IMHO
<Riddell> for now only for utopic
<Riddell> after the next LTS we can review that but yeah it would be effort
<pitti> Riddell: ah, conceptually, or because it's a more appropriate "test run"?
<Riddell> pitti: because only utopic has kf5 in for now, in trusty it would be all new packages, dunno if the qt version is enough etc
<Riddell> after the next LTS we can judge the demand I guess
<pitti> Riddell: ah, of course; so say, we have 16.04 LTSes, would you then only do that for LTSes, or only for the latest release, or something else?
<pitti> ok
<shadeslayer> I'd say we would try to update Frameworks with our best effort
<Riddell> still for the latest releases, maybe for LTS if we're feeling generous but probably not
<pitti> ok, interesting
<shadeslayer> and if upstream bumps Qt version, then it's a problem ofcourse
<shadeslayer> which shouldn't really happen ..
<pitti> I have a feeling that the vast majority of users just stay at LTS these days
<pitti> but yes, then let's give this some test runs on utopic
<pitti> and see how it goes, how much effort it is, etc.
<shadeslayer> *nod*
<mdeslaur> ok, so provisional exception?
<pitti> ok for me, if we have some test plan to go along with it
<mdeslaur> kees ?
<kees> yeah, that's fine by me
<mdeslaur> actually, I guess we just need one, so pitti can you respond to that thread?
<pitti> "need" yes, but always good to collect opinions :)
<pitti> mdeslaur: yes
<mdeslaur> [action] pitti to respond to MRE for KDE frameworks thread
<meetingology> ACTION: pitti to respond to MRE for KDE frameworks thread
<mdeslaur> cool
<shadeslayer> thx :D
<mdeslaur> I believe that's it from the mailing list
<mdeslaur> [topic] Community bugs
<mdeslaur> None
<mdeslaur> [topic] Next chair
<mdeslaur> Looks like it's pitti
<mdeslaur> pitti: congrats :P
<pitti> docker in 14.04?
<mdeslaur> they haven't responded to our questions
<mdeslaur> we can discuss it if you'd like
<pitti> yeah, I really don't like the "package every version"
<pitti> but indeed, let's wait for a response, and f'up via mail
<mdeslaur> ok
 * kees autocompletes "f'up" not to "follow up"
<mdeslaur> Does anyone have anything else to discuss?
<pitti> kees: oops, sorry :)
<mdeslaur> lol
<kees> :)
<pitti> yes -- where to go to dinner :)
<mdeslaur> and here I thought it was just me :)
<pitti> (most folks already left, and urging us to leave too)
<kees> mmm food
<pitti> it's 19:39 here already
<mdeslaur> pitti: have a nice dinner!
<mdeslaur> #endmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Dec  9 17:39:52 2014 UTC.
<meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2014/ubuntu-meeting-2.523-777-4502.08.moin.txt
<kees> thanks!
 * pitti waves, thanks!
<mdeslaur> thanks everyone
<pitti> shadeslayer, Riddell: thanks for coming!
<Riddell> de nada
<shadeslayer> always a pleasure :)
<shadeslayer> though I kind of panicked when Riddell went "Ubuntu tech board meeting! now!" across the desk from me
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2015-12-01
<dsmythies> Is there a doc team meeting?
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2015-12-02
<slangasek> ut
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2015-12-08
<mdeslaur> \o
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2016-12-06
<mdeslaur> looks like most of the board members are sprinting and can't attend today's meeting
<mdeslaur> so I guess we'll be cancelling it.
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2016-12-09
 * shadeslayer wonders why he's here
<shadeslayer> perhaps I should slink away
 * shadeslayer slink's away
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2016-12-15
 * slangasek waves
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2016-12-20
 * slangasek waves
<stgraber> hey there
<slangasek> do we have quorum today? :)
<slangasek> stgraber: well, it's your turn to chair, so if you scare up any of the others, I'm here ;)
<stgraber> I'm only barely here myself (off today) :)
<stgraber> only thing we seem to have to discuss is the drop of powerpc, but not much to say there unless mdeslaur and/or kees show up
<slangasek> and I gave them a deadline for feedback, which has passed
<stgraber> processing https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/1643648
<slangasek> kees gave me an offline acknowledgement
<slangasek> sending that u-d-a mail is on my todo for today
<stgraber> ok
<stgraber> did you have any luck making the LP e-mails land on our mailing-list? looks like we've had a DMB request open for a month now which I haven't seen anything about (or I'd have processed it about a month ago)
<slangasek> no, have not followed up on it
<slangasek> or rather, I followed up enough to determine that we needed sabdfl to add the subscription for us
<slangasek> and haven't pestered him yet
<stgraber> ok
<slangasek> the mapreri one was open before our last TB meeting when we discussed the bugmail question fwiw
<stgraber> did the edit-acl run for that bug now, closing
<slangasek> ok
<stgraber> going to wrap up this non-meeting since the other two three aren't showing up and I should be away from my computer anyway :)
<slangasek> :)
<stgraber> doesn't look like there's anything for us to discuss anyway. Agenda has been updated and AFAICT the action list is still accurate.
<slangasek> hopefully so, as I updated it 15 minutes ago
<slangasek> [AGREED] mdeslaur to take responsibility for the above
<mdeslaur> lol
<stgraber> :)
<mdeslaur> sorry, forgot, was enjoying my holiday too much :)
<mdeslaur> did I miss anything?
<slangasek> mdeslaur: we chatted, but didn't gavel in with just the two of us
<slangasek> so no :)
<slangasek> agenda is accurate and will last until next year
<mdeslaur> slangasek: saw your powerpc post, thanks for the heads up
<slangasek> sure
<slangasek> I should manage to get the u-d-a mail out today
<mdeslaur> Do we have anything else to discuss, or can I go back to lounging around in my pyjamas?
 * mdeslaur goes back to watching funny cat videos on youtube
<mdeslaur> happy holidays everyone
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2017-12-05
<ventrical> Hi k_alam, 2:30 am here :)
<ventrical> my clock 8 minutes fast
<ventrical> test
<ventrical> hi mark
<mdeslaur> hi
<mdeslaur> stgraber: meeting?
<ventrical> just wondering the same
<stgraber> mdeslaur: I'm around
<stgraber> mdeslaur: Am I the chair? (kinda lost track)
<mdeslaur> stgraber: congratulations :)
<stgraber> yay
<slangasek> hello
<stgraber> oh, we actually have stuff on the agenda too, fun
 * om26er will watch silently.
<slangasek> yes, which is why I posted to the mailing list 5 minutes ago ;-)
<stgraber> #startmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting started Tue Dec  5 20:02:40 2017 UTC.  The chair is stgraber. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.ubuntu.com/meetingology.
<meetingology> Available commands: action commands idea info link nick
<stgraber> #topic Apologies
<stgraber> none received that I can see but we're missing kees and infinity
<stgraber> #topic Action review
<mdeslaur> slackers
<stgraber> ACTION: slangasek to investigate getting tagged ubuntu-community bugs automatically forwarded to technical-board, and if not feasible, fall back to DMB sending signed emails to list for ACL requests
<stgraber> (skipping the two assigned to infinity since he's not around)
<slangasek> carry-over
<stgraber> alright
<slangasek> (I continue to do penance by jumping on rbasak's requests when they come in)
<stgraber> #topic Ubuntu Unity
<stgraber> Ubuntu Unity dale-f-beaudoin, khurshid-alam of unity7 maintainers team requesting ubuntu-unity (unity7) to have official flavor status.
<slangasek> ventrical: hello
<ventrical> yes .. i am here
<k_alam> I am here
<stgraber> reading slangasek's e-mail now
<ventrical> I sort of got a late list of questions  in e-mail
<ventrical> sabdfl was invited but can't make meeting .. he hopes it runs "smoothly"
<slangasek> these always run smoothly
<slangasek> downhill, as gravity demands
<ventrical> :)
<slangasek> ventrical, k_alam: have you seen my reply email just now? https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2017-December/002333.html
<ventrical> yes...  I just got them now ..
<ventrical> can I have a min to review?
<slangasek> in essence, the main concern (which was shared by infinity and myself during the last TB meeting) is that we don't want to bless a flavor when it's unknown whether there is actually functional upstream maintenance
<slangasek> certainly
<stgraber> I don't have a problem with any of this in principle but echo slangasek's comment about getting a list of source packages (and any related packages that'd need to carry patches for this), it'd then make sense to reach out to the DMB to get a package set created for the unity7 desktop, get uploaders added there and get things in a good state in the archive.
<stgraber> Once the archive is in good shape with the packages you need, we can start building images from those packages
<cyphermox> from the DMB here o/
<slangasek> what I specifically don't want is to sign off on a flavor on the basis that the software has not /yet/ bitrotted, only to find that there is no one on the team with time+skill to keep the packages up to date when maintenance is needed in a few months
<mdeslaur> I share the same concern. I would love to see a unity flavour, but need to know someone is going to take over upstream maintenance.
<k_alam> I haven't read the mail....reading it now
<tsimonq2> I would just like to note that I have volunteered to sponsor any necessary packages until someone with more knowledge of the codebase gets PPU or similar.
<ventrical> I would have to stand by the names , on persons who have joined the unity7maitainers team
<ventrical> omar akram is also willing to help in this matter.
<om26er> that is me ^
<tsimonq2> I was linked to a PPA earlier with the source packages they wanted reviewed, and if the Board finds it relevant, ppa:unity7maintainers/unity7-desktop
<tsimonq2> Note that I have not gotten to reviewing but on a preliminary look, things seem correct.
<slangasek> tsimonq2: thanks; sponsorship is very useful here to make sure we don't founder on process
<tsimonq2> slangasek: Agreed.
<cyphermox> ventrical: k_alam: I echo tsimonq2's offer, feel free to ask for sponsoring.
<ventrical> I am curren team leader of Ubuntu Development Version
<slangasek> ventrical: right, so as I said in the email, I don't think we can assume that someone having their name in a team of 40+ people means they are, individually, making any certain level of time committment to the maintenance
<ventrical> yes .. we have asked .. jbicha and several have been guiding  me on several things..
<slangasek> ventrical: perhaps a good next step would be for the team leads to circle around with the members of the team who do have experience with the code base, and poll them regarding their level of committment?
<ventrical> Well I am certainly commited and muy track record at ubuntu Forums proves it.
<jbicha> I think my guidance has been mostly pointing out some bugs and helping with uploading fixes to those bugs, I'm not really involved in maintaining Unity myself
<slangasek> ventrical: do you write C++ code?
<k_alam> Alright, I will subscribe ubuntu-sponsors on the bug report.
<tsimonq2> I have also seen progress from k_alam on working with upstream bugs, specifically the non-defaults wiki page, but my personal stance is that while I totally believe this can happen and support it, I echo the comments made about it maybe being a bit early to apply for flavor status. (Just my 2Â¢ as an outsider here)
<ventrical> yes .. I used to .. turing on unix .. but I admit I need brush ups. I am a good trouble shooter and tester..
<stgraber> my understanding is that to maintain unity7 going forward, you're going to need someone with a good understanding of compiz, gtk, nux and all the other random bits that made the unity desktop. Some of those technologies are now deprecated or may soon be, so you're going to need to rewrite/port part of the code to newer technologies as the older dependencies slowly get removed from the archive.
<ventrical> khurshid?
<slangasek> ventrical: OK.  again, it's a question of time+skill.  I don't know most of the people on that team (yourself included) and don't know their skillset - so it's hard to gauge how effective this team is going to be before we've seen some work
<slangasek> OTOH you do have that Hannibal Lecter guy on your team, and his skills are reknowned
<stgraber> I'm much less concerned about the packaging and iso building aspect of this than I am about the massive amount of technical debt that comes with the unity codebase itself. We don't want to have to keep outdated libraries in the archive indefinitely to allow running unity7, so unity7 itself needs to be actively developed and updated to keep up.
<ventrical> My time is there as well as my skill as a tester
<slangasek> right - testing alone does not make for a healthy upstream
<k_alam> I can handle integration with the gnome side, gtk, indicators, zeitgeist......For unity and libunity I need some help...I only have studied the code recently....
<om26er> I committed myself to bug management of unity and related packages and if need be, will be able to fix build failures. I write Java and Python on my full-time job. Though my c++ skills are limited for now.
<ventrical> well the conventional wisdom is that i fwe get offical staus that it will bring in a lot of commitment.. it is not like I was not commited to testing unity-session during 17.10
<slangasek> ventrical, k_alam: do you feel like you have a handle on what the TB is asking from you here, and would the next steps be clear?
<ventrical> yes I do.. I have the time .. I can commit a 4 hour spread  5 days a week.
<slangasek> ventrical: I don't think the TB recognizes that as conventional wisdom :)  Official status might generate enthusiasm, but it's no guarantee that the enthusiasm is paired with the necessary coding skills
<mdeslaur> I would like to see someone start making commits to the unity codebase
<stgraber> yeah, my experience of running an official flavor is quite the opposite as what you'd expect
<stgraber> official status means you'll get a lot more interested users and a lot more bug reports and support questions
<stgraber> but not new contributors or developers
<stgraber> (this is what ultimately killed Edubuntu as an official flavor and in our case we didn't also have to be the upstream for a full desktop environment)
<ventrical> we are a feldgling group with a lot of pratical talent and good will.. it would behoove ubuntu to grant unity offical status..
<ventrical> I recall Edubuntu . I tested it vigorously .
<slangasek> ventrical: sorry, I'm not looking for an answer from you here and now regarding committment.  I am looking for you as leads to be able to demonstrate that you have a team that is a credible upstream for these packages and committed to their maintenance.  I have patched the unity7 codebase myself; it is not something that I think anyone on your team should be making a committment around before
<slangasek> they've worked on the code
<ventrical> I do appreaciate your commentary on that
<slangasek> kees: do you have any additional comments on this subject?
<slangasek> (guess not)
<ventrical> I ask that the  before the board make a decison to look at my record and commitment as a johncrosby@example.net . A distribution is only as good as the people who are testing it, and I do not think it unreasonable to have some faith that we can pull this together .
<stgraber> ok, so I feel it's best for us to continue this discussion on the mailing-list. Personally I'd like to see a list of all source packages that the unity flavor would be responsible for as well as a description of what they are and their current state in the archive.
<stgraber> that would be a good first step to see the scope of the project and then identify who on the unity flavor team has the knowledge to act as upstream for those various pieces
<slangasek> ventrical, k_alam: so from the members of the TB that have spoken, there is unanimity that we would like to see more here.  You do have folks on that team who have development experience with unity7; if as you say it's obvious that being an official flavor will bring in the volunteers, it should be straightforward for you to talk to them and get them to agree to be responsible for the upstream
<slangasek> maintenance in the interim until the team grows
<slangasek> stgraber: agreed
<cyphermox> stgraber: I agree, a package list makes it easy afterwards to take further steps
<slangasek> ventrical: will you gather the answers to those questions on the mailing list, and we can revisit by email once we have more information?
<k_alam> We are talking about maintaining Unity, I believe we don't need full scale development right away.....We will keep it compilable, make things work as it used to...then we can think of porting it to modern components.....Unity is all xorg atm....Also note same components are being shared among other projects...Mate uses unity-gtk-module, indicators etc...that makes things easier for us.
<ventrical> so you are not validating our request for offical falvor?
<ventrical> yes I will
<slangasek> ventrical: thank you
<slangasek> stgraber: (want to AGREE that for the minutes?)
<ventrical> can I make a personal comment?
<slangasek> certainly
<jbicha> k_alam: MATE doesn't use unity-gtk-modules and indicators quite yet (I understand it's being worked on this cycle though)
<ventrical> I feel , that since the question came  so quick , just aqs the meeting was starting , that somehow the goalpost were moved. is this the experience the rest of the teams have to go through?
<stgraber> #agreed unity flavor team to send a list of source packages related to the unity flavor and gather agreement from team members to be responsible for maintaining those codebase upstream and in Ubuntu
<mdeslaur> The situation with the unity flavour is a bit different, as unity currently has no active upstream developers.
<slangasek> ventrical: it's often the case that volunteer boards are unable to deliver a frustration-free experience, and regrettably we're no exception.  If you came in with the assumption that this would be a rubber stamp approval, however, I'm sorry to say that was never likely to be the case
<jbicha> k_alam: never mind, I guess Ubuntu MATE does, but it's important to explain in your proposal which source packages are co-maintained
<tsimonq2> mdeslaur: For the sake of clarity, the developers doing bugfix work for 16.04 aren't from upstream but rather downstream patches?
<fossfreedom> ventrical, I'm the project lead of Ubuntu Budgie - happy to chat with you to help you and your team through the process.  I've been through this before and am happy to help with what we have learned along the way.
<stgraber> ventrical: getting a new flavor in Ubuntu is a process which usually takes months/years, there will be quite a few discussions both on IRC and e-mail about it. Since you were around it felt appropriate to keep this on the agenda rather than postpone it to another meeting so we could get some of that discussion done now.
<ventrical> very well .. much appreciated.. we did out best but must do better:)
<ventrical> no .. never expected rubber stamp...
<ventrical> :)
<mdeslaur> tsimonq2: yes, there are a few bugfixes being made for 16.04, but that doesn't mean it's being actively developed.
<k_alam> slangasek: Yes atm, we are little short on manpower...some people who had experience with unity joined late in the team....Honestly I was expecting few more here :)
<slangasek> ventrical: if there was any failure here, it was certainly on our side for not formulating those questions sooner - questions which those of us on the TB knew needed to be asked
<tsimonq2> mdeslaur: Right, ok. Fair.
<k_alam> jbicha: How can we do that? Announce on the mailing list?
<mdeslaur> tsimonq2: if any of those developers step up and commit to maintaining unity, it would certainly help the cause
<tsimonq2> k_alam: I'd chat with flexiondotorg (hi) and see where you guys can share work if you guys are sharing packages.
<ventrical> well .there are no sour grapes here. You have all done a fine job.. obviously I came ill prepared, got blindsided so to speak :)
<stgraber> moving on to our next topic so we keep this meeting within the one hour slot
<jbicha> k_alam: I'm guessing you'd want to come up with a wiki page or other web page (since I expect it to be a big list) and mention that in your email follow up to the TB
<tsimonq2> mdeslaur: Right, and it would be a great boon to the project if th
<stgraber> #topic Ubuntu Budgie LTS status for 18.04
<stgraber> bashfulrobot: around?
<ventrical> there are a lot of devs with privilidges who are working behind the scenes.. a lot of no shows also..
<tsimonq2> s/th/those individuals did so/
<ventrical> fossfreedom.. thanks
<k_alam> Jbicha: Alright.
<bashfulrobot> I am here stgraber
<bashfulrobot> Thank you for the time
<stgraber> bashfulrobot: hi, is there some kind of e-mail about that request which I missed? :)
<bashfulrobot> I had posted in the community hub to getting more information
<jbicha> (I'm not on the TB, just interested in today's discussion)
<bashfulrobot> It was suggested that I put myself on the agenda to discuss here.
<stgraber> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RecognizedFlavors is the documented process
<ventrical> slangasek jbicah had a list he sent us  about a week ago. We were preapred for that
<stgraber> specifically the last part of the page which lists TB requirements for LTS status of flavors
<bashfulrobot> Ok, that is exactly what I was looking for.
<ventrical> but you cuaght us right off guard.. maybe a good thing after all..
<bashfulrobot> My real question was now along the lines of "where is the doc".
<jbicha> stgraber: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-release/2017-November/004243.html
<bashfulrobot> Stgraber - that actually answers exactly what we needed.
<stgraber> jbicha: thanks
<bashfulrobot> I'll read that over and get the process into motion
<bashfulrobot> Thank you stgraber
<bashfulrobot> Fossfreedom we can discuss offline
<stgraber> bashfulrobot: since it's your first LTS, I'd recommend going with 3 years, so we'll mostly want a list of the packages that you'll have to maintain for those 3 years, ideally a blurb on the upstream support for older releases and who on your side will have the time to do the SRU work and testing of stable images when we do point releases
<bashfulrobot> Stgraber yes we agree. Our team had agreed on the three-year term as well.
<stgraber> bashfulrobot: send that to the TB mailing-list and assuming everything looks good, we'll do a quick check for disk space with IS (not that it should matter that much as flavors are on cdimage.u.c, not releases.u.c so no mirror involved)
<bashfulrobot> Stgraber sounds good
<stgraber> #topic Scan the mailing list archive for anything we missed (standing item)
<stgraber> nothing that wasn't brought up here already or handled by a TB member already (thanks mdeslaur for flatpak)
<stgraber> #topic Check up on community bugs (standing item)
<stgraber> looks like slangasek took care of those :)
<stgraber> #topic Select a chair for the next meeting (next from https://launchpad.net/~techboard/+members)
<stgraber> infinity, backup kees
<stgraber> #topic AOB
<stgraber> anything?
<slangasek> nothing here
<mdeslaur> nothing from me
<stgraber> kees?
<tsimonq2> Mind if I jump in real quick with a quick question? :)
<stgraber> tsimonq2: go ahead
<tsimonq2> If Lubuntu wanted to release Lubuntu Next as a separate image alongside 18.04 but as a non-LTS, is that 1) Something the TB will let us do? 2) Something the TB needs approval for?
<tsimonq2> (Probably better as 1 question but you get it.)
<ventrical> I will inform Will Cooke of this as it was his original suggestion that we request official satus and that , pending , we need more information. Thanks and regards..
<tsimonq2> s/TB needs approval/we need approval from the TB/
<stgraber> I think it's fine, you're just going to have to be careful with your release announcement not to confuse people :)
<tsimonq2> stgraber: Sure, alright, just covering my bases here. :)
<tsimonq2> Thanks all!
<stgraber> it's a product we've released in the past (17.10) so by default we'd release it again for 18.04 and unless LTS status was requested (which you haven't), it'd default to the usual 9 months
<stgraber> so no action needed ;)
<tsimonq2> stgraber: We didn't "release" it for 17.10 but in a previous TB meeting when I asked about something similar I think it was generally approved
<stgraber> oh, oops, I saw a directory on cdimage but didn't check the content :)
<stgraber> you do have a releases/17.10 but nothing in there :)
<tsimonq2> Right :)
<stgraber> right, so technically new released product but still should be fine and not need anything from the TB
<tsimonq2> Alright excellent
<tsimonq2> Thanks again everyone :)
<stgraber> reminds me (but more of a release-team thing) that we need to poke all the flavors and ask about LTS plans for 18.04
<stgraber> anyway, that's it for today, see you in two weeks
<stgraber> #endmeeting
<meetingology> Meeting ended Tue Dec  5 20:57:11 2017 UTC.
<meetingology> Minutes:        http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/ubuntu-meeting-2/2017/ubuntu-meeting-2.523-777-4502.02.moin.txt
<mdeslaur> thanks everyone
<slangasek> thanks!
<slangasek> and thanks to all our attendees for a rarely contentful meeting ;)
<bashfulrobot> Thjanks all!
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2017-12-12
<dany1976_hhh> hi
<dany1976_j> help
<dany197666666> i have RTL8187SE, em wind its ok but here im weak segnal
#ubuntu-meeting-2 2017-12-19
 * slangasek waves
<mdeslaur> whoops

{'channel': 'ubuntu-meeting-2', 'month': 12}