From d6745ae25a13637578946b64edc1c8bdefeec322 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Didier Raboud Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:46:00 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Add today's meeting --- .../debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.log.txt | 117 ++++++++++++++++++ .../20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.txt | 81 ++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 198 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meetings/20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.log.txt create mode 100644 meetings/20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.txt diff --git a/meetings/20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.log.txt b/meetings/20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..48f8607 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,117 @@ +19:01:18 #startmeeting +19:01:18 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 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. +19:01:39 #topic Introduction round +19:01:41 Sam Hartman +19:01:46 David Bremner +19:02:06 Didier Raboud +19:03:02 fil, Mithrandir, marga, keithp : ping +19:05:09 Even if it's just us, I'd like to at least talk about new members and the modemmanager bug +19:05:09 Tollef Fog Heen +19:05:20 hartmans: my plan too. +19:06:28 #topic Review of previous meetings' TODOs +19:06:42 I had a writeup about the new members to do, but let's topic it specifically. +19:07:14 Let's move on. +19:07:20 #topic #877024 modemmanager should ask before messing with serial ports +19:07:36 I haven't interacted on that front, but I'm quite happy with the activity on it. +19:08:04 So, I think we need to draft a resolution. +19:08:07 As I mentioned outside the meeting, I feel like it's premature to involve the committee in a formal way +19:08:24 I'd sort of prefer to focuse on a technical policy resolution rather than an override the maintainer resolution. +19:08:34 It sounds like if there were policy to follow the maintainer would not object to following it. +19:08:45 because non-committee methods of reaching concensus are clearly making progress. +19:09:14 yep. I'm with bremner on that front. +19:10:17 I feel a resolution is bound to be generic, and I don't fancy too generic resolutions much. +19:10:57 .... I'm disappointed, but sounds like I'm in the rough here +19:11:00 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 hartmans: can you expn on why you're disappointed? +19:11:34 Upstream seems to agree, but the debian maintainer has been fairly absent from the discussions, right? +19:11:47 hartmans: I'd like to understand your disappointment; in what way would you welcome a formal resolution. +19:12:13 ? +19:12:16 I think that there's active discussion with upstream. +19:12:43 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 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 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 If we'd seen the maintainer indicate they were doing that, I'd agree with you and David more +19:14:13 we did not explicitely ask the maintainer, did we ? +19:14:23 How would people feel about polling the maintainer? +19:14:40 My opinion is that if we get silence from the maintainer it would be better for us to rule +19:14:57 but I think I'd agree that if the maintainer indicates they will follow upstream we're probably good. +19:15:10 It feels like a trap to said maintainer, frankly. +19:15:12 the initial bug filed was not Cc-ed to the maintainer. +19:15:17 why would the maintainer _not_ follow upstream? this seems like a strange discussion to me. +19:15:22 unless phrased _very_ openly. +19:15:35 bremner: Well, upstream is *not* changing the default behavior +19:15:42 bremner: upstream is adding a new command line switch +19:15:57 They're saying "here's what Debian could do if these are its requirements". +19:16:05 It seems to me the discussion is having a good output. +19:16:06 once that exists, someone can ask that it be enabled. +19:16:28 I am worried that our intervention at this point may create more problems than it solves +19:16:30 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 But it seems premature to me. +19:16:40 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 I'd be happy to do that. +19:17:06 Great. +19:17:20 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 sure, no objection to some informal discussions +19:17:33 #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 Great. +19:17:44 That would move us forward. +19:18:01 Also, I prefer to not assume they have been silent on purpose. +19:18:13 agreed +19:18:26 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 probably even if they are +19:18:39 (or otherwise obviously aware, such as by contributing to the bug) +19:18:51 We don't have such a checklist. +19:18:56 Should we get one started ? +19:19:54 sounds like work ;) +19:20:13 Mithrandir: would you be willing to start a _very_ small one with that in place ? +19:20:17 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 I can surely add ten lines of text to git and we can see if it's useful. +19:20:43 if it is, great, if not, well, that was those 15-30 minutes. +19:20:47 the policy people have some (possibly overcomplicated) set of tags they use to document workflow +19:20:51 #action Mithrandir to start an initial "bug handling" checklist. +19:20:54 #save +19:21:12 bremner: I think the BTS is a terrible workflow system. +19:21:26 except for all the other ones... +19:21:40 anyway, let's move on? +19:21:44 Yep +19:21:49 anyway, not wedded to it, just mentioned an existing solution to a similar problem +19:21:59 #topic recruitment process. +19:22:05 I played with how to get a discussion moving. +19:22:59 Context is: our private ranking vote there is likely unconstitutional, so Q_ suggested to have a public discussion about that. +19:23:36 So my current thinking is that a procedures/recruitment.md text is likely a good discussion starter. +19:24:07 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 But that's just outlining and discussing the process. +19:24:30 makes sense +19:24:48 ok, so nothing to object to yet ;) +19:25:06 But the start of that hypothetical file is "get a candidates' list" +19:25:24 and I think dondelelcaro had a set of d-d-a emails for the call for candidacies. +19:25:30 so we need to act on that now. +19:25:44 Well, can we act on that before people know if our rank vote will be private? +19:25:50 Knowing keithp's term expires in 2.5 months +19:26:23 hartmans: well, nothing prevents us to "figure out a ranking" in private, without a vote +19:26:39 That's not OK. +19:26:44 (yeah, I know, we use condorcet because it's a ranking process we know and use) +19:26:57 There's only so much rules lawyering that seems ethical to tolerate +19:27:07 sure, I was playing silly. Sorry for that. +19:27:30 we can ask people later if the process is about to become public, if they still want to participate +19:27:32 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 bremner: makes sense and an easy thing to do +19:28:48 hartmans: indeed. Sorry for suggesting that. +19:29:01 So we can launch the two processes in parallel, can we ? +19:29:12 yep +19:29:15 ack +19:29:21 FYI mail sent to modemmanager maintainer +19:29:51 okay. I can focus on writing down the process, but need someone else to launch the call for candidacies. +19:30:01 (or I can happilly swap… ) +19:30:32 I probably am pretty useless for the next few weeks. +19:31:12 after that, I can help with either task. +19:31:24 Okay. +19:31:44 #action OdyX to draft an initial write-down of the process, and launch a discussion +19:32:15 #action OdyX to send the very first d-d-a calling for candidacies. +19:32:19 #topic Varia +19:32:22 #save +19:32:29 Anything else relevant for the TC ? +19:34:26 nothing from me +19:34:31 me neither +19:34:41 #endmeeting \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/meetings/20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.txt b/meetings/20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ca587fe --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20171018/debian-ctte.2017-10-18-19.01.txt @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@ +==================== +#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 -- 2.39.2