--- /dev/null
+19:01:18 <OdyX> #startmeeting
+19:01:18 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed Oct 18 19:01:18 2017 UTC. The chair is OdyX. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
+19:01:18 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
+19:01:39 <OdyX> #topic Introduction round
+19:01:41 <hartmans> Sam Hartman
+19:01:46 <bremner> David Bremner
+19:02:06 <OdyX> Didier Raboud
+19:03:02 <OdyX> fil, Mithrandir, marga, keithp : ping
+19:05:09 <hartmans> Even if it's just us, I'd like to at least talk about new members and the modemmanager bug
+19:05:09 <Mithrandir> Tollef Fog Heen
+19:05:20 <OdyX> hartmans: my plan too.
+19:06:28 <OdyX> #topic Review of previous meetings' TODOs
+19:06:42 <OdyX> I had a writeup about the new members to do, but let's topic it specifically.
+19:07:14 <OdyX> Let's move on.
+19:07:20 <OdyX> #topic #877024 modemmanager should ask before messing with serial ports
+19:07:36 <OdyX> I haven't interacted on that front, but I'm quite happy with the activity on it.
+19:08:04 <hartmans> So, I think we need to draft a resolution.
+19:08:07 <bremner> As I mentioned outside the meeting, I feel like it's premature to involve the committee in a formal way
+19:08:24 <hartmans> I'd sort of prefer to focuse on a technical policy resolution rather than an override the maintainer resolution.
+19:08:34 <hartmans> It sounds like if there were policy to follow the maintainer would not object to following it.
+19:08:45 <bremner> because non-committee methods of reaching concensus are clearly making progress.
+19:09:14 <OdyX> yep. I'm with bremner on that front.
+19:10:17 <OdyX> I feel a resolution is bound to be generic, and I don't fancy too generic resolutions much.
+19:10:57 <hartmans> .... I'm disappointed, but sounds like I'm in the rough here
+19:11:00 <OdyX> We're mostly in agreement that blind-addressing random USB devices is bad™, and that specific upstream seems to agree, is making steps in that direction, and is being very helpful.
+19:11:28 <Mithrandir> hartmans: can you expn on why you're disappointed?
+19:11:34 <hartmans> Upstream seems to agree, but the debian maintainer has been fairly absent from the discussions, right?
+19:11:47 <OdyX> hartmans: I'd like to understand your disappointment; in what way would you welcome a formal resolution.
+19:12:13 <OdyX> ?
+19:12:16 <hartmans> I think that there's active discussion with upstream.
+19:12:43 <hartmans> But I think other methods within Debian have been tried and have not produced anything, and I think Debian needs to figure out what its needs are and those might be different from upstream.
+19:12:45 <OdyX> well, if I were a maintainer with an upstream active in the discussion, where I mostly followed what upstream did, I would also back off until dust settles and follow consensus.
+19:13:05 <hartmans> And absent the debian maintainer stepping in, I think the TC is a reasonable place to set policy on blind addressing usb devices
+19:13:36 <hartmans> If we'd seen the maintainer indicate they were doing that, I'd agree with you and David more
+19:14:13 <OdyX> we did not explicitely ask the maintainer, did we ?
+19:14:23 <hartmans> How would people feel about polling the maintainer?
+19:14:40 <hartmans> My opinion is that if we get silence from the maintainer it would be better for us to rule
+19:14:57 <hartmans> but I think I'd agree that if the maintainer indicates they will follow upstream we're probably good.
+19:15:10 <OdyX> It feels like a trap to said maintainer, frankly.
+19:15:12 <Mithrandir> the initial bug filed was not Cc-ed to the maintainer.
+19:15:17 <bremner> why would the maintainer _not_ follow upstream? this seems like a strange discussion to me.
+19:15:22 <OdyX> unless phrased _very_ openly.
+19:15:35 <hartmans> bremner: Well, upstream is *not* changing the default behavior
+19:15:42 <hartmans> bremner: upstream is adding a new command line switch
+19:15:57 <OdyX> They're saying "here's what Debian could do if these are its requirements".
+19:16:05 <OdyX> It seems to me the discussion is having a good output.
+19:16:06 <bremner> once that exists, someone can ask that it be enabled.
+19:16:28 <bremner> I am worried that our intervention at this point may create more problems than it solves
+19:16:30 <OdyX> If the maintainer follows upstream blindly despite the public discussion in front of the TC, I'd be very much in favour of a resolution.
+19:16:35 <OdyX> But it seems premature to me.
+19:16:40 <Mithrandir> I would be happy for somebody to poke the maintainers pointing out the bug and asking if they have any input other than what's in there already?
+19:16:54 <hartmans> I'd be happy to do that.
+19:17:06 <OdyX> Great.
+19:17:20 <Mithrandir> there's no explicit indication they know of the bug. I think Michael follows the tech-ctte list, but I don't actually know.
+19:17:23 <bremner> sure, no objection to some informal discussions
+19:17:33 <OdyX> #action hartmans to poke the maintainers pointing out the bug and ask if they have any input other than what's in there already.
+19:17:37 <OdyX> Great.
+19:17:44 <OdyX> That would move us forward.
+19:18:01 <OdyX> Also, I prefer to not assume they have been silent on purpose.
+19:18:13 <hartmans> agreed
+19:18:26 <Mithrandir> we should probably make it part of our standard checklist to poke the maintainers if they're not Cc-ed on the initial bug filing
+19:18:37 <hartmans> probably even if they are
+19:18:39 <Mithrandir> (or otherwise obviously aware, such as by contributing to the bug)
+19:18:51 <OdyX> We don't have such a checklist.
+19:18:56 <OdyX> Should we get one started ?
+19:19:54 <bremner> sounds like work ;)
+19:20:13 <OdyX> Mithrandir: would you be willing to start a _very_ small one with that in place ?
+19:20:17 <Mithrandir> maybe? at the risk of severe topic drift: We've been thinking about various workflows to ensure bugs don't get lost, maybe what we need is a standard procedure we can grab when something comes in?
+19:20:32 <Mithrandir> I can surely add ten lines of text to git and we can see if it's useful.
+19:20:43 <Mithrandir> if it is, great, if not, well, that was those 15-30 minutes.
+19:20:47 <bremner> the policy people have some (possibly overcomplicated) set of tags they use to document workflow
+19:20:51 <OdyX> #action Mithrandir to start an initial "bug handling" checklist.
+19:20:54 <OdyX> #save
+19:21:12 <Mithrandir> bremner: I think the BTS is a terrible workflow system.
+19:21:26 <bremner> except for all the other ones...
+19:21:40 <Mithrandir> anyway, let's move on?
+19:21:44 <OdyX> Yep
+19:21:49 <bremner> anyway, not wedded to it, just mentioned an existing solution to a similar problem
+19:21:59 <OdyX> #topic recruitment process.
+19:22:05 <OdyX> I played with how to get a discussion moving.
+19:22:59 <OdyX> Context is: our private ranking vote there is likely unconstitutional, so Q_ suggested to have a public discussion about that.
+19:23:36 <OdyX> So my current thinking is that a procedures/recruitment.md text is likely a good discussion starter.
+19:24:07 <OdyX> With that in place (which doesn't exist yet), we could/should have a discussion on d-ctte and/or d-project
+19:24:19 <OdyX> But that's just outlining and discussing the process.
+19:24:30 <hartmans> makes sense
+19:24:48 <bremner> ok, so nothing to object to yet ;)
+19:25:06 <OdyX> But the start of that hypothetical file is "get a candidates' list"
+19:25:24 <OdyX> and I think dondelelcaro had a set of d-d-a emails for the call for candidacies.
+19:25:30 <OdyX> so we need to act on that now.
+19:25:44 <hartmans> Well, can we act on that before people know if our rank vote will be private?
+19:25:50 <OdyX> Knowing keithp's term expires in 2.5 months
+19:26:23 <OdyX> hartmans: well, nothing prevents us to "figure out a ranking" in private, without a vote
+19:26:39 <hartmans> That's not OK.
+19:26:44 <OdyX> (yeah, I know, we use condorcet because it's a ranking process we know and use)
+19:26:57 <hartmans> There's only so much rules lawyering that seems ethical to tolerate
+19:27:07 <OdyX> sure, I was playing silly. Sorry for that.
+19:27:30 <bremner> we can ask people later if the process is about to become public, if they still want to participate
+19:27:32 <hartmans> Either it's OK to do the ranking vote in private, or it's not. Calling it something else to get around an openness requirement strikes me as way over the line.
+19:27:58 <hartmans> bremner: makes sense and an easy thing to do
+19:28:48 <OdyX> hartmans: indeed. Sorry for suggesting that.
+19:29:01 <OdyX> So we can launch the two processes in parallel, can we ?
+19:29:12 <hartmans> yep
+19:29:15 <bremner> ack
+19:29:21 <hartmans> FYI mail sent to modemmanager maintainer
+19:29:51 <OdyX> okay. I can focus on writing down the process, but need someone else to launch the call for candidacies.
+19:30:01 <OdyX> (or I can happilly swap… )
+19:30:32 <bremner> I probably am pretty useless for the next few weeks.
+19:31:12 <bremner> after that, I can help with either task.
+19:31:24 <OdyX> Okay.
+19:31:44 <OdyX> #action OdyX to draft an initial write-down of the process, and launch a discussion
+19:32:15 <OdyX> #action OdyX to send the very first d-d-a calling for candidacies.
+19:32:19 <OdyX> #topic Varia
+19:32:22 <OdyX> #save
+19:32:29 <OdyX> Anything else relevant for the TC ?
+19:34:26 <Mithrandir> nothing from me
+19:34:31 <bremner> me neither
+19:34:41 <OdyX> #endmeeting
\ No newline at end of file
--- /dev/null
+====================
+#debian-ctte Meeting
+====================
+
+
+Meeting started by OdyX at 19:01:18 UTC. The full logs are available at
+http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2017/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.log.html
+.
+
+
+
+Meeting summary
+---------------
+* Introduction round (OdyX, 19:01:39)
+
+* Review of previous meetings' TODOs (OdyX, 19:06:28)
+
+* #877024 modemmanager should ask before messing with serial ports
+ (OdyX, 19:07:20)
+ * ACTION: hartmans to poke the maintainers pointing out the bug and
+ ask if they have any input other than what's in there already.
+ (OdyX, 19:17:33)
+ * ACTION: Mithrandir to start an initial "bug handling" checklist.
+ (OdyX, 19:20:51)
+
+* recruitment process. (OdyX, 19:21:59)
+ * ACTION: OdyX to draft an initial write-down of the process, and
+ launch a discussion (OdyX, 19:31:44)
+ * ACTION: OdyX to send the very first d-d-a calling for candidacies.
+ (OdyX, 19:32:15)
+
+* Varia (OdyX, 19:32:19)
+
+Meeting ended at 19:34:41 UTC.
+
+
+
+
+Action Items
+------------
+* hartmans to poke the maintainers pointing out the bug and ask if they
+ have any input other than what's in there already.
+* Mithrandir to start an initial "bug handling" checklist.
+* OdyX to draft an initial write-down of the process, and launch a
+ discussion
+* OdyX to send the very first d-d-a calling for candidacies.
+
+
+
+
+Action Items, by person
+-----------------------
+* hartmans
+ * hartmans to poke the maintainers pointing out the bug and ask if
+ they have any input other than what's in there already.
+* Mithrandir
+ * Mithrandir to start an initial "bug handling" checklist.
+* OdyX
+ * OdyX to draft an initial write-down of the process, and launch a
+ discussion
+ * OdyX to send the very first d-d-a calling for candidacies.
+* **UNASSIGNED**
+ * (none)
+
+
+
+
+People Present (lines said)
+---------------------------
+* OdyX (58)
+* hartmans (27)
+* bremner (17)
+* Mithrandir (13)
+* MeetBot (2)
+
+
+
+
+Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
+
+.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
projects / debian-ctte.git / commitdiff