User1: Ubuntu Youth Team Meeting in three minutes
User1: Show your hand if you're here for said meeting
User2: here
User3: o/
User3: Oops, too soon.
User1: #startmeeting
User4: Meeting started at 11:00. The chair is zkriesse.
User4: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
User1: [Topic] Welcome to the Ubuntu Youth Team Meeting
User4: New Topic:  Welcome to the Ubuntu Youth Team Meeting
User1: Ok, show your hands if you're here for the Ubuntu Youth Team meeting
User5: o/
User1: If we only get a few I'm going to cancel said meeting here and just move it over to #ubuntu-youth
User6: here
User3: Oops, too soon.
User3: o/
User5: i know AndrewMC is in camp, so he will not attend
User1: Yes i know
User6: 4 people? is that it?
User1: anyone else?
User6: dont think so
User1: Frack
User1: Ok, let's end this here and move to #ubuntu-youth
User1: Rather not tie up the channel here
User1: #endmeeting
User4: Meeting finished at 11:03.
User6: agreed
User2: im here
User3: User2 #ubuntu-youth
User7: o/
User8: time for the ircc meeting. who's around?
User9: o/
User10: I'm here
User8: alright. afaik we shouldn't expect the others today. we have quorum
User8: [startmeeting]
User9: User8 #startmeeting
User8: @startmeeting
User8: yah
User8: #startmeeting
User4: Meeting started at 13:03. The chair is topyli.
User4: Commands Available: [TOPIC], [IDEA], [ACTION], [AGREED], [LINK], [VOTE]
User8: when i said i can chair, i didn't mean it. just that i'm willing
User8: [link] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
User4: LINK received:  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/IRC/IrcCouncil/MeetingAgenda
User8: i see no new bugs
User8: one of these days we should close the "ubuntu too busy" bug one way or another
User9: Agreed topyli. There realy isn't a good solution to that at this time imo
User8: i would close it as wontfix. i don't agree that it's too busy anyway
User8: or notabug, do we have such a resolution available?
User10: [link] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/392799
User4: LINK received:  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/392799
User11: Ubuntu bug 392799 in ubuntu-community "#ubuntu too noisy to be useful" [Medium,In progress]
User9: User8 That would be 'invalid'
User8: ah yes
User12: That actually looks like opinion.  First valid use of that state I think I've seen.
User10: I think the support guys do a good job of directing uses to more specific channels when appropriate anyway
User9: I agree it is busy, but I'm not sure I agree that it is a bug. But I can see why some people do.
User9: User12 I forgot they added that status. I agree
User9: User10 +1
User8: agreed
User9: I think the 'opinion' status might be the best "solution" to this bug at this time
User8: yeah
User8: we can leave it there, people can add comments if they have any. it's been quiet though
User10: you can't "delete" a bug anyway
User8: yep
User8: ok
User8: action items. i did the ubottu bug chattiness stats
User9: I don't think jussi got to his item (and he is on vacation now)
User10: we still have https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/680052 which I think is inactive
User11: Ubuntu bug 680052 in ubuntu-community "#ubuntu-us-ca logging needs search indexing blocked" [Undecided,New]
User10: and there's really nothing _we_ can do about it
User8: true
User9: User10 Probably best to just unassign us from it
User9: Back to action review, I took care of the IRC Members team action
User9: User8 Did you update the wiki?
User8: elky sent the mail about the bug parsing
User8: User9 oh yes. i did
User9: User10 Is the private logging of -ops-team also sorted (I know the channel was setup)
User10: I have ubottu currently logging there
User10: in a secret place while I try and integrate LP into authentication
User9: Great. So besides jussi's one item, everything appears to be done
User8: we rock
User8: so about the bug logging in #ubuntu, its chattines sellerstheodore@example.org lines per day so it's not a problem IMO
User9: User8 I agree. We had some complaints at first, but 3.8 lines is a VERY small percent of the daily chat that takes place in there
User9: User10 Thoughts?
User10: I think ~4 lines per day is worth it
User9: Looks like we are in agreement then
User8: someone also referenced several X bugs within a few minutes, so i think it was useful to figuring out a problem in that case
User8: (i didn't have time to actually study the logs to see the context properly)
User9: It is also fairly trivial to disable this feature in the future if it starts being abused or anything like that
User8: yes
User8: so we agree to leave it enabled?
User9: Yep
User10: I don't see any reason to not
User8: [AGREED] leave the ubottu bug feature enabled in #ubuntu
User4: AGREED received:  leave the ubottu bug feature enabled in #ubuntu
User8: [topic] Add eir to #ubuntu
User4: New Topic:  Add eir to #ubuntu
User10: didn't we already discuss the eir item last time?
User8: we did. i thought there's some new development on the issues since it's on the agenda :)
User8: issue
User9: I kept it on the agenda, as we still had some issues to sort out (which I was hoping we would have done by now)
User9: I'm still having some difficulty finding the arguments for/against ubottu's channel notices in -ops. This is making the topic of eir's notices hard to address
User9: If anyone could find and tell me when/where to find those arguments, it would be very useful
User9: As for the ubottu changes needed for eir, I don't believe anything has changed since the last meeting
User10: I think the main objection to it is the generalization that "notices are bad"
User8: it would be useful to know how many actually think so, though
User9: Well, I would disagree with that generalization. Notices are actually appropriate for certain types of messages (and IRC clients should respond to them appropriately)
User10: I'm tinkering with getting ubottu to understand comments to eir, the main issue is that the bot needs to know which ban ID to associate the comment with
User10: User9 sure, but lots of our ops were taught that "channel notices are a banable offence", hence the feeling
User9: User10 That is mainly because most of those notices are spam and not sent in appropriate situations
User9: User10 As for the ubottu issue, it is rather nasty, but ubottu could query eir to figure out the ban string a certain eir id represents. It could then take that ban string to find the right ban in the BT
User9: But there really isn't much more to discuss on this topic right now. We need to find the old arguments so we can see whether they are even still applicable in this situation
User8: maybe we leave the item standing while the technicalities are figured out
User9: User8 Yep. And maybe a general ACTION for the Ubuntu OPs to help us find those old arguments? ;)
User8: [action] ops to datamine for arguments against notices in -ops
User4: ACTION received:  ops to datamine for arguments against notices in -ops
User8: :)
User8: [topic] Review #ubuntu-ops-team
User4: New Topic:  Review #ubuntu-ops-team
User8: from what i see, -ops-team works
User9: I haven't seen it being overly necessary (from the discussions taking place there), but I also haven't seen it being used in an inappropriate way. I'd be willing to keep it open and review it again further down the road
User10: it hasn't turned into a troll-pit yet, that's a good sign ;)
User10: and there's already been some inter-ops team work done in there from what I see
User8: yes it's not -ops-rant, at least yet
User8: if anything, i'd like to see many of the discussions taking place in -ops move there
User8: (i don't want to push that though, just a thought)
User10: obviously it'll take some time for people to get used to using the channel
User9: I'm not sure what discussions you are talking about topyli, so I can't really respond to that. I still like the idea of things being open and transparant when possible
User10: we tried open and transparent, our ops were targeted for it
User8: User9 some disagreements on specific cases mostly
User8: better off unlogged imo
User9: User10 Note the 'when possible'
User5: who does qualify for this channel? i remember not only core ops, right?
User10: User9 I still expect -ops to be the main channel for our ops to communicate
User9: So do we want to just add a 'review -ops-team' item to the agenda for a month or two down the road?
User8: User5 some ops from big non-core channels are invited as well
User10: User9 yeah, I think it should be continuously reviewed for a while yet
User8: agreed. let's keep it and review it from time to time
User9: Maybe add that to the calendar so we don't forget?
User10: sure, monthly is probably a good time-frame
User8: monthly at first perhaps?
User8: heh
User10: eventually we'll get annoyed with reviewing it, and we'll know it's a success ;)
User8: so we have a success metric too. perfect!
User8: [agreed] keep -ops-team, review it monthly for an undefined while
User4: AGREED received:  keep -ops-team, review it monthly for an undefined while
User8: i can action the calendar
User8: should we have a chat about it on meetings?
User8: s/on/in
User8: like every second meeting we see if the channel is okay
User10: well, if we review it monthly it would be every second meeting anyway
User8: yeah but it could happen outside meetings too
User10: we can just state in the meeting that we continue to approve it, and only go into details if we have concerns
User8: good
User8: it's more open that way too
User10: we should probably add it to the fixed agenda items so we don't forget
User10: well, add it temporarily
User9: Or at least [ACTION] it so we review it when we review outstanding actions
User10: User9 then we'd be actioning it every month, rather than just once
User8: i'd add it to the fixed items for now. if we're unsure whether it's time, we can check the calendar :)
User10: I know it's not exactly a "fixed" item, but it will be one of the first things we see when we look at the agenda
User8: actually this is more complicated than just say whether the channel is ok or not in every meeting :)
User8: ok, solution: i'll add a fixed item saying we'll review -ops-team if it's a saturday
User8: anything else?
User9: Nope
User10: that's it
User8: alright
User8: [action] topyli to do post-meeting stuff
User4: ACTION received:  topyli to do post-meeting stuff
User8: #endmeeting
User4: Meeting finished at 13:49.
User8: thanks guys
User8: 13:49?
User10: it's local time where ever MootBot is
User8: the bot must be running on an unconfigured win95 box, they default to tijuana time
ubuntu-meeting
Ubuntu IRC