From 1744d77b538ceaca89fbd6a858103bec1f68f6e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Didier Raboud Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:42:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Add the 2017-02-22 meeting --- .../debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.log.txt | 174 ++++++++++++++++++ .../20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.txt | 96 ++++++++++ 2 files changed, 270 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meetings/20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.log.txt create mode 100644 meetings/20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.txt diff --git a/meetings/20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.log.txt b/meetings/20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..338cfef --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,174 @@ +19:00:35 #startmeeting +19:00:35 Meeting started Wed Feb 22 19:00:35 2017 UTC. The chair is OdyX. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. +19:00:35 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. +19:00:45 Who's here? +19:00:47 Philip Hands +19:00:50 Tollef Fog Heen +19:00:52 * OdyX is Didier 'OdyX' Raboud +19:01:07 good morning! +19:01:10 keith Packard +19:01:27 keithp: good evening :-) +19:01:37 Let's proceed +19:01:43 #topic Next Meetings? +19:02:11 So I propose, following the last meeting(s) feedback(s) to try to have these in a somewhat regular manner. +19:02:23 That would be "Third Wednesday in a month, 19 UTC. +19:02:32 What do you think ' +19:02:42 Sam Hartman +19:02:50 that time generally works for me. +19:02:57 OdyX: that works for me at least, and a regular time would be nice to put on a calendar +19:03:00 I don't have a problem with 3rd Wed 19 UTC +19:03:07 a fixed date improves my chances of remebering to turn up, and that time works for me +19:03:15 Fixed date ++ +19:03:23 It's a two-fold discussion, a) whether regular works; b) whether that pick works, +19:03:46 #agreed There seems to be consensus in favour of a fixed time-in-the-month. +19:04:13 I don't care about regular vs ad-hoc, so whatever works for folks. +19:04:28 Good. Let's take that as granted, and keep this as a possible change in the future. +19:04:39 It's not set in stone, but a good start, I think. +19:04:41 Good. +19:04:53 #topic Review of previous meetings' TODOs +19:05:06 Three TODO's were mine, I haven't progressed at all. +19:05:31 1) something about systemd in policy is hard to dive into, also there was some work in policy recently +19:05:51 2) menu-system patch needs me (+ someone) to take time+energy. +19:06:12 3) "OdyX and aba to find way forward within policy process reflecting input from debconf policy bof" I'm not sure what is expected from me. +19:06:36 Let's move on then (but I _do_ welcome your input on all these three items). +19:06:45 #topic #850887 Decide proper solution for binutils' mips* bug +19:07:34 On that; besides reflections on (as usual) how we (as TC) could'a/would'a have done better, I think it should be closed. +19:07:51 hartmans: you were closest to that subject, what is you insight on that one ? +19:07:58 s/you/your/g +19:08:17 I think it should be closed as well. +19:08:28 doco keeps wanting to add more content, but I think we've waited long enough. +19:08:41 Do you want me to close it? +19:08:55 Well. I don't see the point in keeping it open. +19:09:08 Also, I think even after being closed we are interested in anything doko wants to say +19:09:15 That was roughly a timing discussion, where doko would have waited, and RT proceeded faster. +19:09:26 Both were right, from where I sit. +19:09:51 Well, perhaps; since he's never told me what he wants to say I don't know if it is about the timing or something else. But I don't think holding it open helps. +19:10:33 hartmans: oh, absolutely. Closing a bug means "the TC shouldn't be expected to take a formal decision", but doesn't mean "the TC is closed to further feedback/opinions". +19:10:56 hartmans: please close it with reasonable hindsight, if that works for you. +19:11:03 OK, if you want to give me an action I can close +19:11:34 #action hartmans to close #850887 'decide proper solution for binutils\' mips* bug' +19:11:37 #save +19:11:45 #topic #846002 blends-tasks must not be priority:important +19:12:13 I'm not overwhelmingly happy of how it got to closure. +19:12:41 But I think it should be closed as well with a hint for involvees to talk to eachother after the stretch release. +19:13:13 It feels like the "ever-again" "development has to happen just after a release, not just before a freeze" problem. +19:13:26 fil: any opinions here ? +19:13:29 nope, me neither -- is the priority actually going to get dropped, and if so is KiBi's kludge going to be backed out? +19:13:49 development has to slow down as we get to a freeze> yes, and that's not something the CTTE can fix/change. +19:14:06 s/can/is willing to, either, / +19:14:12 No, but we could perhaps come up with guidance for when people could bring issues forward. +19:14:40 That is, perhaps we could get onto the release team schedule that in order to have reasonable chances of resolving issues, they should be brought to the TC by date x +19:14:53 if they are to be resolved for a given release +19:14:57 As for that subject, we voted, and there was result, so we should at least announce result, and move forward. +19:15:39 hartmans: that sounds reasonable. +19:15:50 I will admin I expected marga to do it, and will therefore coordinate with her how we should do that, at least. +19:15:57 s/admin/admit +19:16:15 (not blaming marga, _at all_ ) +19:16:20 ok, so you'll ensure it gets announced and closed? I can do it if not. +19:16:43 thanks +19:16:47 #action OdyX to coordinate with marga (eventually with Mithrandir's help) to close #846002 with the vote's result. +19:17:13 Mithrandir: let's coordinate between us; if you have more bandwidth/time, so much the better. +19:17:23 #topic #839570 Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening) +19:17:25 #save +19:17:26 I don't, but it's not nice to let you carry all the todos either. +19:17:36 I was supposed to rclose this right? +19:17:44 If so, my bad and I'll deal with it within an hour +19:17:59 I haven't checked the minutes, but that's my recalling, yes. +19:18:03 Ack, thank you! +19:18:09 ok, will do +19:18:13 #agreed hartmans do close that one in the next hour. +19:18:20 #topic #839172 TC decision regarding menu policy not reflected yet +19:18:33 Regarding that, I have a running TODO item to tackle that. +19:18:41 It's _hard_ to dive into it. +19:18:50 can I help with that at all? +19:19:07 keithp: yes! +19:19:31 keithp: we should find a timeslot to cook a suitable initial patch to Policy together, if that works for you! +19:19:40 sounds like a fine idea +19:20:17 #agreed keithp & OdyX to find some time to prepare an initial "discussion-ready" patch for the 'Debian menu' Policy in Debian policy +19:20:25 #topic #836127 New TC members +19:20:27 #save +19:20:33 Great. +19:21:07 I think most of us gave feedback about the candidacies we got. +19:21:38 What's blocking us in the process towards getting this towards a initial shortlist-of-two to give the DPL ? +19:21:38 * fil appologises for not responding to date -- life has been getting in the way -- I should have time very soon +19:21:40 For the public record, I'm really sad when I think about this process. +19:21:48 Oh, I concur. +19:21:56 ditto +19:22:03 We have a number of candidates, but I don't think we have a quality process for choosing between them. +19:22:09 I share hartmans's sadness, and am taking my part of the blame. +19:22:37 I think that name recognition by current members of the TC is the most effective technique we have come across so far, and I think we're all aware of the shortcomings of that. +19:22:50 Do we Condorcet them all (adding NOTA), or condorcet them individually, or a different process ? +19:23:29 "to condorcet" >> Merriam-Webster +19:23:48 it seems like a ballot containing all of them is indicated here +19:23:50 hartmans: on the other hand, is it better to delay because we think we have a less-than-optimal process? +19:24:02 anything else would show a explicit preference based on the order of ballots? +19:24:12 I think we should nominate at least one to the nominees we have, as it's as much our shortcoming, than the project's. +19:24:36 Can we agree to private-condorcet them all ? +19:24:43 wfm. +19:24:47 I think it would be fine to conduct a poll containing all the candidates and look at the ranked results. +19:25:06 (aka run a standard resolution across the names we had, in private, including NOTA). +19:25:06 I don't know that we then pick the top 3... Ultimate we should vote on a slate. +19:25:12 rather top two +19:25:33 worst case we condorcet, take the winner, and condorcet again. +19:25:39 But, I think the rankings may help us see what is next, and then people may want to propose slates or something. +19:26:19 I concur. At some point, the ranking process helps to clear the waters, and see where we stand. +19:26:28 So, let's do that. +19:26:29 Who would like to start that ? +19:26:48 I can propose a single ballot with all candidates on it, and see where it goes. +19:27:06 sounds like a start. +19:27:19 I agree +19:27:22 hartmans: you wanted to only have people there that are proposed, or can you live with a "everyone-ballot" ? +19:27:52 I don't know what you mean by prop,proposed? +19:28:04 I was thinking we'd start by ranking all accepted nominations +19:28:08 aka "people actively wanted on a ballot" vs "nominees" +19:28:35 * fil is also not understanding that distinction +19:29:03 I think OdyX is asking if we want people on the ballot who have no affirmative support within the TC +19:29:11 exactly. +19:29:14 (if there are any such) +19:29:26 In the past I've argued that such affirmative support should be required for putting a candidate forward. +19:29:28 the distinction we made in the last round was "one actual TC member wants that person on the ballot" vs "we have that nominee, but no explicit support from a TC member (yet)". +19:29:39 I still think that, but this is something I view as a poll to understand our thinking, +19:29:48 so I think all accepted nominations is right +19:29:57 Good. We're in rough agreement then. +19:30:16 Unless someone steps in, I'll prepare a ballot, and start a private vote. +19:30:21 I think all nominations is fine, if a candidate has no support they'll end up being ranked at the bottom. +19:30:32 Mithrandir: not true. +19:31:11 Mithrandir: Without requiring active support you tend to get people who are acceptable to everyone ranked fairly highly even when no one thinks they would be great. +19:31:13 you think they'll end up near the middle in case of antipaties? +19:31:20 (just to make sure we have everyone on the same page; we're talking about a private vote on the TC private alias, to help the TC reach conclusion; the public process is "the TC checks with the DPL for eventual veto's, runs the public vote, and the DPL nominates"). +19:31:30 yes, this is the private discussion +19:32:13 Iff we understand that initial poll as a consensus-finding poll, and not a proper decision, we should move on with it. +19:32:17 Mithrandir: My observation that acceptable but not favored candidates do well in rankings based on experience within student groups at MIT and within the IETF's nominations process. +19:32:40 and ping us in sequence so that we get that through before I have to resign as chair (end of March). +19:33:16 Good. I see no volunteers; I'll take that, but please ping me! +19:33:47 #action OdyX to start private Standard Resolution procedure to sort out the most favored candidates. +19:33:49 #save +19:34:25 #topic Additional Business +19:34:31 have one. +19:34:42 DebConf17. Who plans to attend ? +19:34:47 * OdyX raises hand. +19:35:06 * fil o/ +19:35:26 I will check my flights' and then file a TC session in the talks. +19:35:34 I think I will be. Have not yet asked for the travel approval but can do that shortly +19:36:07 I have very good memories from Cape Town, and would really like to see the TC back together IRL @DebConf. +19:36:30 I've so far done nothing about it, so should look at flights etc. +19:36:33 It's been super-useful to ease understanding between us-. +19:36:37 I am. +19:36:46 I plan on being there +19:37:31 Good. +19:37:36 Any other varia ? +19:38:29 I have none +19:39:19 Good. +19:39:33 Thank you for the productive meeting, +19:39:44 thanks for chairing +19:39:45 40 minutes; that's (too) good, perhaps. +19:40:07 Just an idea, should we have a "questions from the public" part ? +19:40:21 (or are we just us 5 around) +19:40:53 we could welcome questions from outside the TC during the "other business" bit. +19:41:00 (or as a separate step) +19:41:25 We do welcome questions anytime though, and on the list as well. +19:41:32 (and individually, as well). +19:41:33 That seems like it would only be wise when nothing contentious is happening ;-) +19:41:38 :-) +19:41:42 Good. +19:41:44 #endmeeting \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/meetings/20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.txt b/meetings/20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..143bda2 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20170222/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.txt @@ -0,0 +1,96 @@ +==================== +#debian-ctte Meeting +==================== + + +Meeting started by OdyX at 19:00:35 UTC. The full logs are available at +http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2017/debian-ctte.2017-02-22-19.00.log.html +. + + + +Meeting summary +--------------- +* Next Meetings? (OdyX, 19:01:43) + * AGREED: There seems to be consensus in favour of a fixed + time-in-the-month. (OdyX, 19:03:46) + +* Review of previous meetings' TODOs (OdyX, 19:04:53) + +* #850887 Decide proper solution for binutils' mips* bug (OdyX, + 19:06:45) + * ACTION: hartmans to close #850887 'decide proper solution for + binutils\' mips* bug' (OdyX, 19:11:34) + +* #846002 blends-tasks must not be priority:important (OdyX, 19:11:45) + * ACTION: OdyX to coordinate with marga (eventually with Mithrandir's + help) to close #846002 with the vote's result. (OdyX, 19:16:47) + +* #839570 Browserified javascript and DFSG 2 (reopening) (OdyX, + 19:17:23) + * AGREED: hartmans do close that one in the next hour. (OdyX, + 19:18:13) + +* #839172 TC decision regarding menu policy not reflected yet (OdyX, + 19:18:20) + * AGREED: keithp & OdyX to find some time to prepare an initial + "discussion-ready" patch for the 'Debian menu' Policy in Debian + policy (OdyX, 19:20:17) + +* #836127 New TC members (OdyX, 19:20:25) + * ACTION: OdyX to start private Standard Resolution procedure to sort + out the most favored candidates. (OdyX, 19:33:47) + +* Additional Business (OdyX, 19:34:25) + +Meeting ended at 19:41:44 UTC. + + + + +Action Items +------------ +* hartmans to close #850887 'decide proper solution for binutils\' mips* + bug' +* OdyX to coordinate with marga (eventually with Mithrandir's help) to + close #846002 with the vote's result. +* OdyX to start private Standard Resolution procedure to sort out the + most favored candidates. + + + + +Action Items, by person +----------------------- +* hartmans + * hartmans to close #850887 'decide proper solution for binutils\' + mips* bug' +* Mithrandir + * OdyX to coordinate with marga (eventually with Mithrandir's help) to + close #846002 with the vote's result. +* OdyX + * OdyX to coordinate with marga (eventually with Mithrandir's help) to + close #846002 with the vote's result. + * OdyX to start private Standard Resolution procedure to sort out the + most favored candidates. +* **UNASSIGNED** + * (none) + + + + +People Present (lines said) +--------------------------- +* OdyX (100) +* hartmans (34) +* Mithrandir (18) +* keithp (10) +* fil (10) +* MeetBot (2) + + + + +Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 + +.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- 2.39.2