Started logging meeting in #ubuntu-meeting
[09:01:13] <mdz> cjwatson, Keybuk, hi
[09:01:25] <mdz> kees sent apologies
[09:01:40] <mdz> I believe pitti is away
[09:01:42] <cjwatson> hi
[09:01:55] <mdz> [link]
[09:02:43] <mdz> sabdfl is online but I haven't heard from him
[09:02:45] <cjwatson> robbiew has once again scheduled our weekly catch-up to clash with the TB, so I'll see what happens when he comes online
[09:02:46] <mdz> ah, hi
[09:03:06] <sabdfl> hello hello
[09:03:09] <oubiwann> mdz: he was on a meeting with us
[09:03:42] <mdz> Keybuk is marked away but was around earlier
[09:03:47] <Keybuk> I'm here
[09:03:51] <mdz> ah hi
[09:04:01] <mdz> [topic] Action review
[09:04:05] <mdz> mdz to draft plan/process for brainstorm
[09:04:09] <mdz> this is done, draft is on technical-board@
[09:04:18] <Keybuk> I saw
[09:04:18] <mdz> I got some feedback from sabdfl so far
[09:04:45] <cjwatson> it looked fine to me
[09:04:53] <mdz> the executive summary is: Every 3 months, the Technical Board would review a selection of the most popular items on, and arrange for project representatives to comment on them.
[09:05:06] <cjwatson> I can't say I mind either way about when we do the review
[09:05:24] <Keybuk> the important thing seemed to be just that some review happens
[09:05:28] <mdz> [link]
[09:05:39] <cjwatson> as long as it's not a single giant epic meeting (and your most recent mail on the subject suggeted it wouldn't it)
[09:05:41] <mdz> yeah, so the most important bit is the fact that the TB is responsible for making it happen
[09:05:44] <cjwatson> *suggested it wowuldn't be
[09:05:46] <cjwatson> argh. lag
[09:05:51] <mdz> though not (hopefully) for creating all of the content
[09:06:12] <cjwatson> delegation :-)
[09:06:26] <mdz> I put this back on the agenda for this meeting just to confirm it, so we'll come back to that
[09:06:30] <mdz> cjwatson to review and defraft TB wiki pages to match current governance practice
[09:06:38] <cjwatson> done an hour or so ago
[09:06:42] <mdz> thanks
[09:06:42] <mdz> Keybuk to invoke lamont for ia64/sparc drop
[09:07:00] <Keybuk> there is an RT ticket filed
[09:07:05] <cjwatson> this was in progress - lamont was working with bigjools on it
[09:07:25] <mdz> any further action needed from the TB?
[09:07:33] <cjwatson> I got an LP patch landed to drop the architectures from cron.germinate, and nuked the installer-* directories
[09:07:37] <cjwatson> (which was about all I could do to help)
[09:07:38] <Keybuk> 41039
[09:07:40] <cjwatson> I don't think sos
[09:07:49] <mdz> ok, thanks Keybuk
[09:07:50] <mdz> pitti to follow up with kees on-list (re: Chromium security updates)
[09:08:03] <mdz> neither pitti nor kees is here today, but does anyone know what happened with this?
[09:08:17] <Keybuk> buildds are not getting new uploads, binaries and pending builds deleted, and the SQL to delete the series is slowly progressing
[09:08:34] <mdz> there's been nothing further on the list since that meeting
[09:08:48] <mdz> so I'm inclined to carry this over
[09:09:02] <mdz> [topic] Brainstorm proposal [mdz]
[09:09:10] <mdz> [link]
[09:09:12] <mdz> [link]
[09:09:49] <mdz> so assuming we manage the work appropriately so that it doesn't drop as one big todo list in a short span of time
[09:09:54] <mdz> are there any other questions or concerns?
[09:10:32] <mdz> there are two open questions in the proposal
[09:10:41] <mdz> both to do with how we actually select which ones to comment on
[09:11:01] <mdz> but I don't see that as a blocker; we can always apply some judgement on the spot if needed
[09:11:13] <cjwatson> this is the sort of thing I'd prefer we figured out the first time we did it
[09:11:24] <cjwatson> rather than trying to figure out what the right thing will be in advance
[09:11:27] <mdz> agreed
[09:11:40] <mdz> the only potential gotcha is if brainstorm doesn't collect the data we need to make a decision
[09:11:56] <mdz> which I think is acceptable at this point
[09:12:19] <mdz> the worst case scenario is that we do some extra work to filter the data when the time comes
[09:12:38] <mdz> if there's nothing else, I'd like to go ahead and vote on this
[09:13:19] <mdz> [vote] Brainstorm review proposal in
[09:13:28] <mdz> +1
[09:13:38] <Keybuk> +1
[09:13:56] <sabdfl> +1
[09:14:58] <mdz> cjwatson was experiencing some lag earlier...
[09:15:05] <cjwatson> +1
[09:15:11] <mdz> #endvote
[09:15:20] <mdz> [endvote]
[09:15:44] <mdz> [action] mdz to implement brainstorm reviews as proposed
[09:15:54] <mdz> [topic] Application Review Board [mdz for jono]
[09:16:10] <mdz> so jono sent an RFC to the list
[09:16:12] <mdz> [link]
[09:16:31] <mdz> and got feedback from me, sabdfl, kees, cjwatson and Keybuk
[09:17:17] <mdz> he asked one more question about the term
[09:17:31] <mdz> I think if folks here agree that 6 months is an appropriate initial term, then we can close this out
[09:18:16] <sabdfl> fine by me
[09:18:17] <mdz> (I do)
[09:18:31] <cjwatson> I don't see a problem there
[09:19:11] <mdz> any thoughts on what we should do when that term expires? should these be elected positions like the DMB, or simply appointed?
[09:20:39] <mdz> I guess we can defer that question until later
[09:20:43] <sabdfl> even elected positions are still shortlisted by us
[09:20:57] <mdz> I'll go back to jono and affirm that we can go ahead with setting itup
[09:21:07] <mdz> [action] mdz to respond to jono re: application review board
[09:21:09] <sabdfl> so, i would say stick to direct delegation till we have a use case for broader participation
[09:21:24] <cjwatson> I'm not sure we can decide that until we know what sort of size the community is
[09:21:42] <mdz> ok
[09:21:45] <sabdfl> if the app publication process takes off as we'd like it to, that would be a meaningful improvement on the Apple app approval process :)
[09:22:04] <mdz> moving on then
[09:22:06] <mdz> [topic] AOB
[09:22:16] <mdz> I scanned the mailing list and community bugs when putting the agenda together, so I think those are clear
[09:22:38] <mdz> anything else? going once...
[09:22:47] <mdz> twice...
[09:22:48] <Keybuk> sabdfl: to be fair, the bar there is so slow you trip over it on the way in
[09:23:00] <sabdfl> :)
[09:23:00] <Keybuk> of course, what we also don't want to end up with is the Android app approval process :)
[09:23:07] <Keybuk> which is a bit like the Facebook/Skins House Party of processes
[09:23:10] <sabdfl> indeed
[09:23:36] <mdz> [agreed] chair for the next meeting (alphabetically) is pitti
[09:23:55] <halvors> Who meeting is this?
[09:24:03] <sabdfl> halvors: TB
[09:24:06] <mdz> halvors, technical board
[09:24:12] <halvors> Ok.
[09:24:15] <mdz> ...and it's over, thanks all
[09:24:16] <mdz> #endmeeting
Meeting ended.