Re: How about an XB-Meta-Package: dummy package field?
On 2013-02-14 09:12:16 -0800, Scott Ritchie wrote: > On 2/13/13 10:43 PM, Martin Pitt wrote: > >Scott Ritchie [2013-02-13 22:35 -0800]: > >>We have (and will continue to have) many transitional dummy packages > >>with no content. I see two main advantages to flagging them: > >> > >>1) Lintian could be taught to warn about depending on them rather > >>than the "real" package > >>2) Software center could refuse to display them even in the detailed view > > > >Don't we already have "Section: oldlibs" for that? "oldlibs" seems to be right: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-transition > I suppose we could keep using that, but are we telling > lintian/software center to do the right things in this case? lintian does already have a check for this: "transitional-package-should-be-oldlibs-extra" Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Syncing make-dfsg 2.82 from Debian experimental
On 2012-08-09 09:48:58 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le 08/08/2012 22:41, Steve Langasek a écrit : > >I don't think this should be synced without doing a full test rebuild of the > >archive (main+universe) using the new version. > Who can do archive rebuilds on ppas (I guess there is an easy way > that scripting a get and put for every single source)? Can we get > one done using that version? The recent archive rebuilds were IIRC done by Matthias Klose. But I guess you as a Canonical employee and core-dev might have the needed permissions too (or can get them) to trigger an archive rebuild in a PPA too. I don't know how exactly this works but as far as I know LP has some build-in support for them so you don't need to upload each source package. You might want to ask #launchpad or Matthias as he did some archive rebuilds already for advice how to exactly set it up. (And let William Grant know about it so he can set up a FTBFS page to track the build failures.) Regards, Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Minutes from the Developer Membership Board meeting, 2011-12-05
== Attendees == * Chair: Michael Bienia * Present: Benjamin Drung, Micah Gersten, Stefano Rivera, Stéphane Graber == Notes == * Action review * Iain Lane to document package set application process → done * Micah Gersten to ping all packageset teams to get a description we can use for future changes → not done yet; postponed to next meeting * Stefano Rivera to create private DMB channel for realtime use during meetings → done; the channel (#ubuntu-dmb) is invite-only * Jeremy Bicha to create a list of packages from the .modules files for the desktop-extra package set → an e-mail with that list arrived during the meeting and got discussed at the end of the meeting * MOTU application: Julian Taylor https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JulianTaylor/MOTUApplication The application got approved with 5 votes. * Core Dev application: Micah Gersten https://wiki.ubuntu.com/micahg/CoreDevApplication The application got approved with 4 votes (Micah didn't vote on his own application). * Chair for the next meeting: Cody Somerville * Meeting log: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/12/05/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t19:05 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Reevaluating the "Ubuntu Contributing Developer" status
On 2011-10-06 12:04:11 -0400, Luke Faraone wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:25, Stephen M. Webb wrote: > > > > Ubuntu Member: a recognized member of the Ubuntu community > > > > Ubuntu Developer: a Ubuntu Member who obtained their recognition through > > contributing software development (patches, sponsored packages, whatever) > > > > I'm not sure there's a need for such a subset of Member which conveys no > additional access. "Contributing Developer" is the only such category that I > know of. Should we create an "Ubuntu Translator" group for those who > obtained their recognition through contributing translations? UCD dates back to the time when MOTU Council was granted the right to grant Ubuntu membership. The idea for a subteam comes from Mark [1,2] when it was discussed how the membership granting gets implemented for the MC. UCD caused already once confusion[3] in the past and it was proposed to merge UCD with ~ubuntumembers where Mark was against this idea[4] and prefered to keep the subteams to be able to track which membership granting council added a person[5]. UCD is in line with the other membership granting councils: - Kubuntu council -> ~kubuntu-members - Edubuntu council -> ~edubuntu-members - Forum council -> ~ubuntu-forum-members - IRC council -> ~ubuntu-irc-members Only ~ubuntu-forum-members and ~ubuntu-irc-members seem to give additional rights compared to ~ubuntumembers. If translation contributions get their own council, it should IMHO get moved into their own subteam. Perhaps UCD should get renamed to "Ubuntu Development Members" (~ubuntu-dev-members) to match the naming scheme of the other teams. But I'm not sure if the difference to "Ubuntu Developers" will be clear enough just from the team name. Michael 1: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2008-March/000931.html 2: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/motu-council/2008-March/000933.html 3: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-March/000124.html 4: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-March/000137.html 5: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2010-March/000139.html -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Oneiric / Sid diff pages in Launchpad
On 2011-08-16 21:40:04 +0300, Jani Monoses wrote: > On 08/16/2011 07:19 PM, Julian Edwards wrote: > >On Tuesday 16 August 2011 09:30:43 Jani Monoses wrote: > > https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/oneiric/+missingpackages > > >>pending approval? Do those not yet meet criteria for inclusion? > >> > >>For ex: > >>"Pending in sid-release since 2009-04-21 16:46:55 EEST" > > > >Someone else will have to answer that. I've checked some of the packages listed there. Some were added to Debian unstable after DIF, some are on the sync blacklist but most seem to be packages that got removed in Debian (and exist only in stable or oldstable) and got also already removed from Oneiric (or older releases). That they are still listed might be related to the fact that the LP Debian "mirror" doesn't publish the packages but only has them in "Pending". And it looks like the LP Debian "mirror" doesn't track removals from Debian but keeps them in Pending: http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/acidlab.html https://launchpad.net/debian/+source/acidlab/+publishinghistory Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 2011-08-04 15:42:38 -0400, Jonathan Carter wrote: > On 04/08/11 02:13 PM, Dustin Kirkland wrote: > > To (1), there's been discussion on the list about adjusting meeting > > times to improve quorum. That would be a huge win for everyone. > > Woohoo. \o/ > > Yep, timing seems to be an issue in some boards. Especially the DMB. The RMBs have an advantage in the timezone issue compared to the DMB as they only have to cover a few (related) timezones and it's easier to find a meeting time which works well for all members (and the applicants). The DMB consists of seven people spread around the world: east coast of the US, Europe and Japan. Which in itself is good to have representives from the around the world but makes finding meeting times where we can reach at least quorum a hard task and also suites the applicants (luckily we don't have members from even more spread timezones). There were proposal how to solve the time issue but IMHO they all have a drawback that they don't guarantee a timely processing of an application (if you don't have to reply right now there is a high chance that an important task slips in and moves processing an application down your work queue). I didn't yet seen a proposal which address both issues. An idea might be to split the DMB into RDMBs but there aren't enough applications to warrant that. [...] > In the Ask Mark session at the UDS in Budapest I asked him for a > canonical answer on the matter. He confirmed that in no way should we > weigh employment by Canonical negatively or positively. And that's how > everyone should vote. If you're not doing that, then you're not doing > your job as membership board right. Sure, if you disagree with it you > can take it up with the CC, but it's policy and as a membership board > member people should accept that they can't just make up random rules > about membership during meetings. That should also apply the other way: the applicants and also their supporters should accept the current rules and don't try to change them during a meeting. If there is a need to discuss the current policies than it should be done in the right place and not during meetings. It's really time to discuss them in regard to current Canonical projects and adapt the policies if needed. Many policies are still from the time where only Ubuntu (the distribution and their derivatives) existed and LP was still closed source. This has changed over time (LP is open source, Canonical funds several projects) but I don't remember that the policies got updated (or at least discussed). Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: DMB: Proposal for a different review process
On 2011-08-03 12:23:13 -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 08/03/2011 12:14 PM, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > > The only time I've seen the application be done *completely* in email > > was when there was a 9-person-ish queue. > > Ok, that's evidence of what's been done in the past, but what is the > policy? Can I do it myself? I'm asking because I seriously would rather > do apply through email than get up at 6 AM on a Monday morning, hoping > there's a quorum :). We don't announce this possibility widely as we prefer to process applications in a common workflow and not every application in a different way. Just talk to the DMB if you can't make the meeting times and we figure something out that works for all involved (be it a meeting at a different time, processing the application by mail, something different). We aren't scripts/bots that follow a strict workflow :) Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes
On 2011-08-02 11:50:52 -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 07/29/2011 11:24 AM, Jordon Bedwell wrote: > > Hola, > > > > On Fri, July 29, 2011 11:01 am, Michael Bienia wrote: > >> This leads to the next question: how much do you trust the person > >> writing the endorsement? > >> > >> Of course I trust endorsements from long-standing dev members with a > >> great reputation where I trust their ability to judge the packaging > >> skills and trustworthiness of the applicant. But should I apply the same > >> trust to e.g. a dev member who got accepted himself a month ago? > > > > Why should you not trust that persons judgement unless there is compelling > > reason to believe their judgement should not be trusted. It seems > > counter-intuitive to okay them for inclusion and then default on your own > > judgement of them by not trusting them without a very good reason to not > > trust them. I'm not saying that I don't trust them at all, just that I trust them less than a long-standing member (and only in judging the skills of others in endorsements). It's about expierence. New members have enough knowlegde and expierence to give them membership/upload rights and I expect they continue to learn and gain expierence with time. But do they have the experience and knowledge to judge others from the beginning (what to look for; what are common mistakes and did they learn from them)? This only applies for complete new contributors. When someone already known in the community would add endorsements in his field of knowledge, I'd trust them. > > Yes, it's just fine to review an endorsement they give, like any open > > ecosystem would and does currently do, but flat out not trusting their > > judgement seems like you feel they don't belong there in the first place > > which leads to two questions: Why did you okay them them for inclusion at > > all if you aren't going to trust their judgement on skill? Why would you > > okay him/her for inclusion if you have any reasonable doubt about their > > judgement on skill? > > I think I may understand where Michael is coming from. If, for example, > I endorse someone based on their Python skills, that endorsement should > be near meaningless since I don't really know Python. If the application > reviewer doesn't know me, they might not realize this. Yes, and if e.g. Barry Warsaw would write the same endorsement it would have a much bigger weight. But if Chase would work on his Python skills I would have no issue in giving his endorsements the same weight as Barry's (or any other expierenced Python packager) after some time. For some people I know their field of expierence and trust their endorsements in this field but I don't know it of all people writing endorsements. > However, an application reviewer should be able to look up an unknown > endorser's credentials fairly readily. If you can't find any through a > glance at the endorser's LP page, Ubuntu wiki page, or Google search, > then I think it's fair to give up and not count that endorsement. > > This can also be extrapolated beyond specific developer skills to more > subjective criteria like trustworthiness. For example, if an endorser is > a Core Dev, then their endorsement of the trustworthiness of an > applicant for upload rights should be valid even if the reviewer and > endorser don't know each other. True, and at least for me I'd be easier to build up that trust relationship to an endorser if mine contact to him is more 'personal' (like interacting on IRC or mail or even meeting him at a conference) than just from reading some static wiki pages or LP profiles. Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes
On 2011-07-27 12:55:08 -0700, Chase Douglas wrote: > Imo, What we should be looking for is two-fold: > > Packaging: > 1. Has the applicant properly worked on packages in the past? > 2. Is the applicant aware of the limits of their packaging competency? > 3. Does the applicant seek out guidance when confronted with packaging > they are not competent with? > > (Note that questions 2 and 3 should be answered through endorsements.) > > Overall Trust: [...] > 2. Do endorsements provide positive feedback about the trustworthiness > of the applicant? This leads to the next question: how much do you trust the person writing the endorsement? Of course I trust endorsements from long-standing dev members with a great reputation where I trust their ability to judge the packaging skills and trustworthiness of the applicant. But should I apply the same trust to e.g. a dev member who got accepted himself a month ago? In most cases all I've got are a couple lines in a endorsement from persons I've worked with to different degrees and who have a different amount of reputation. As I've never met anyone from the dev community in person till now, it makes it harder to build up a trust relationship to them. Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Understanding the definitions and expectations of our membership processes
On 2011-07-26 15:53:09 -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Iain Lane wrote: > > By the way, I am disturbed at the amount of implied criticism the DMB is > > receiving in the past couple of weeks. Is it a coincidence that it comes > > shortly after we defer some applications (for the first time in a long > > while)? I am not just referring to this and the TB email thread, but > > also comments that appear on IRC when individuals don't feel an > > application is going the way they like. > > Perhaps this is a reference to some comments I've made in IRC recently. > > I admit that I am guilty of dishing out some such criticism. Where > I've offended people with said criticism, I offer my humble, sincere > apologies and hope to avoid offending individual board members in such > ways again. I've already contacted these individuals privately, but > I'll again offer my public apology here. I'm open to discussion on how the DMB does its work as for me the DMB works on behalf of all Ubuntu developers and the DMB interpretation of what is expected from an applicant should match the common understanding of all developers. So I prefer to have discussion from time to time to be able to check if my understanding of the guidelines is still in line with others as I don't expect that the interpretation is static over time nor that my interpretation will be the same over time and might shift. > I am glad that Jorge started this thread, though, as I have been > disappointed with the handling of several applications lately. Not so > much the final decision, but the process, which I think is more > painful than it needs to be. In particular, I'll echo Jorge's > concerns around: > > - The true value of sponsor endorsements. At this point, I'm > becoming more and more reluctant to put time or effort into writing > endorsements, as it seems to me that they are summarily dismissed in > my experience. This is frustrating as an endorser/sponsor to be told > over and over and over again, "Sorry, your endorsement is just wrong Please don't stop writing endorsements as for me endorsements are very important when processing an application. As the sponsors did a thorough review of the contributions when sponsoring, they have a better impression of the quality than me. Many endorsements are also a good sign of the good integration into the dev community while few endorsements raise questions. But I also check if the other things I expect from the applicant (depending on the type of application) are also fulfilled. In some cases I get feeling that the endorsements don't match the type of application, e.g. when reading in a membership application endorsements which would fit better into a MOTU or PPU application. (In those cases I also check if the applicant choose the right type of application or didn't understand the differences between the types and really should apply for MOTU or PPU). For some special type of applications (for kernel upload rights) I even fully base my vote only on endorsements: if the current kernel uploaders endorse you, you get my +1 and without such endorsements a certain -1. > - The pressing need for some standards for what counts as "enough". > I've long been frustrated with the fuzzy, moving targets we have for > membership and privileges in Ubuntu, and I think we are long, long > overdue for some better published standards. The requirements for membership didn't change: it was always "significant and sustained contributions". Where "sustained" is in the range of 6 months and I check if this is fulfilled when processing membership applications. But please don't understand that as strict 6 months. I don't defer someone who is missing one or two weeks for those 6 months, but on the other hand I'd have concerns to count it as 6 months if someone contributed for 2 weeks, then took a 5 month break and contributed for 2 weeks again. I like to see around 1-2 contributions per month (more is of course welcome; based on an average package complexity) to count for "sustained". Of course if someone is working on a very complex package I won't insist on that number but like to see that the applicant worked on it during that time (e.g. questions on IRC or mailing lists about certain problems he encountered). But what counts as "contribution" seems to have changed over time. In the past (before UDD) my understanding of contribution was sponsored uploads to the main archive only (PPA don't count). It didn't change much till now and might need a discussion in the dev community what should count as contributions (for membership): I assume there is no much discussion needed for merge proposals (they should count). But what about packages in PPA: currently PPA don't count at all (at least for MOTU, not sure if they count for membership or not). Should it stay that way or should PPA count fully or only under certain conditions? What about "upstream" contributions? There was some discu
Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"
On 2011-07-25 16:11:43 +0100, Iain Lane wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 05:01:35PM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote: > > I agree that the name is misleading and it's unfortunate that it > > confuses applicants. It'd be good to change it something sensible. Even > > if we just change it in the documentation. > > I just added a discussion item to the next DMB agenda to rename the team > to Ubuntu Development Members. This is in line with the other delegated > (non RMB) membership names, and I think is much less confusing. I'm for a name change but only if it makes things more clear and easier to understand. But I disagree on "Ubuntu Development Members" as it's too easy to mix it up with "Ubuntu Developers". If applicants assume they get upload rights when they are members of "Ubuntu Development Members" nothing is gained. Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"
On 2011-07-25 22:58:10 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 25 July 2011 07:45, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > I would recommend people to apply for 'Ubuntu Contributing Developer' > > before applying for MOTU or core-dev. > > I disagree with your recommendation. I recently got my Ubuntu > membership through the Regional Boards and it turns out I was a good > candidate for the Ubuntu Contributing Developer (UCD) route which I > had actually not heard of yet. UCD provides no extra privileges or > status, and there's no point in anybody who is already a Ubuntu Member > getting UCD status before applying for MOTU or core-dev. At least in the past the DMB talked to UCD applicants who were already Ubuntu members before a meeting as UCD wouldn't grant them anything (except an additional badge on their LP profile) and only processed those applications if the applicant insisted on UCD membership. Ubuntu membership (preferrable through UCD) is a recommendation for MOTU applicants but no requirement. And it doesn't matter if one got Ubuntu member through UCD, forums, IRC or any other membership granting activities. Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"
On 2011-07-25 07:51:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I think it's a fair point that UCD is confusing. What it means is "Ubuntu > member that got their membership based on development contribution and not > some other kind". Do we really need a different name for this? It might be > more clear to just have the DMB grant Ubuntu membership by name rather than > have a separate name/team that doesn't actually mean anything different. IIRC the CC preferred a seperate team (would have to dig in my MC mail archive) to be able to track which of the different membership boards added a member instead of one ~ubuntumembers team with many administrators. But I agree that UCD is not very descriptive. Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: "What I like least in Ubuntu"
On 2011-07-25 14:48:38 -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: > On 07/25/2011 02:05 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Package set members having exclusive lock on packages is something that has > > been discussed, but AIUI (except for packagesets corresponding to Main) > > there > > are no such restrictive packagesets in place. AIUI those packagesets that correspond to Main aren't those "exclusive packagesets" from the ArchiveReorg wiki page. Those "exlusive packagesets" are so exclusive that even core-dev isn't enough for them and you have to be a member of the upload team associated to that exclusive packageset so be able to upload them. I expect only very, very few of such exclusive packagesets (<< 10) and only for very important packages (VIP :) that would be hard to recover from a broken upgrade (like e.g. dash or libc). That way it would be possible to earlier accept new generalists (= core-dev) without the "fear" that the overestimated their knowledge and totally break systems by mistake. [...] > AIUI, it wasn't that all packagesets would be totally restrictive in the > reorg, but rather they would be core-dev + packageset uploaders for the > ACLs. That's my understand too (with core-dev == generalists). The original plan was to only have generalists (core-dev) and package set uploaders. MOTU should got merged into core-dev but that raised concerns from current core-dev members. And in a later discussion it was decided that MOTU should be kept for the unseeded packages/packages without a package set/long tail. > The only difference WRT now would be MOTU access to current > universe packages. I think the understanding is that if we have a > packageset, we have a subset of people caring for those packages. Any > qualified person wishing to care for these packages can then apply for > the packageset. MOTU would serve as generalists for the packages that > have no particular group taking care of them in the archive. The concept of main and universe should vanish with ArchiveReorg. So either (the future) MOTU would have only access to a) only the "unseeded" package set Packages from that set can also be in other package sets as long as they don't belong to the "seeded" ones. This would be mostly what currently universe is. b) only the packages without a package set c) be members of all package sets which get build from todays "universe" But here I see the problem how to maintain what would belong to "universe" in the long run and either MOTU would convert into b) or core-dev (member of all non-exclusive package sets). I'm not sure which understanding was decided on for the future MOTU. Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Minutes from the Developer Membership Board meeting 2011-02-28
Developer Membership Board meeting 2011-02-28 19:00 UTC === Chair: Michael Bienia Present: Benjamin Drung, Mackenzie Morgan, Stéphane Graber, Cody Somerville (only half of the meeting) Absent: Emmet Hikory, Iain Lane == Action review == * Emmet Hikory to organise the selection process for DMB renewal Emmet wasn't present to report, but the voting is done. == Administrative Matters == * Review progress of probationary period of Marco Rodrigues Deferred as Cody had to go afk. == MOTU Applications == * Sylvestre Ledru https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/SylvestreLedruMOTU As Sylvestre Ledru wasn't at the meeting, the application was moved to the next meeting. * Krzysztof Klimonda https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KrzysztofKlimonda/MOTUApplication Result of the voting is: 4 for, 0 against, 1 abstained. The application was approved. == Ubuntu Core Developer Applications == * Dave Walker https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DaveWalker/DeveloperApplication Dave was already questioned at the previous DMB meeting[1] but as the applications was added with too short notice to the agenda it wasn't voted last time. The result of the voting is: 4 for, 0 against, 1 abstained. The application got approved. * Clint Byrum https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ClintByrum/DeveloperApplication Clint asked for a reschedule for the next meeting. == PerPackageUploader Applications == * Serge Hallyn https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SergeHallyn/PerPackageDeveloperApplication Serge asked for upload permissions for: vmbuilder, multipath-tools, qemu-kvm, qemu-linary, seabios, vgabios, kvm-pxe, libvirt-bin, lxc and libcap2. The result of the voting is: 4 for, 0 against, 1 abstained. The application got approved. == Package Sets == * uTouch https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Multitouch/uTouchPackageSetApplication Chase Douglas asked for the creation of an uTouch package set. The result of the voting is: 4 for, 0 against, 0 abstained. The initial package list for the uTouch package set is: ginn, libgrip, mtdev, mtview, utouch, utouch-evemu, utouch-frame, utouch-geis, utouch-grail, utouch-compiz Chase also asked about upload rights for this package set. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ChaseDouglas/DeveloperApplication-uTouch The result of the voting is: 4 for, 0 against, 0 abstained. The application was approved. == Next meeting == * March 14th, 2011 12:00 UTC * Chair: TBD Log: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/02/28/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t18:13 1: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/02/14/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t12:28 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Developer Membership Board vote results
On 2011-02-02 15:58:06 +0900, Emmet Hikory wrote: Hello, the vote ended on 2011-02-14 as no official announcement of the vote results was done yet, I want to catch up on it. > I've created a CIVS poll to select new members for the Developer > Membership Board. [...] The result of the vote is¹: Emmet Hikory (persia) Michael Bienia (geser) Stéphane Graber (stgraber) Iain Lane (Laney) Makenzie Morgan (maco) Cody Somerville (cody_somerville) The current Developer Membership Board members are²: Benjamin Drung (bdrung) Emmet Hikory (persia) Michael Bienia (geser) Stéphane Graber (stgraber) Iain Lane (Laney) Makenzie Morgan (maco) Cody Somerville (cody_somerville) Michael ¹: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_924ef5b8e9f6d03b ²: https://launchpad.net/~developer-membership-board/+members#active -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Minutes from the Developer Membership Board meeting 2011-01-03
Developer Membership Board meeting 2011-01-03 19:00 UTC === Chair: Cody Somerville Present: Benjamin Drung, Soren Hansen, Stéphane Graber, Michael Bienia Absent: Emmet Hikory, Colin Watson == Action review == * Colin Watson to find a convenient time for a meeting for Martin Pool's application Colin Watson wasn't present, carrying action item == Administrative Matters == * Review Marco Rodrigues participation in Ubuntu Development Cody Somerville sent an e-mail to Marco with the rules about his probationary period (duration: ~90 days) after which his request to lift his ban will be reviewed again. Cody will act as a proxy for Marco (all his requests must go to Cody first for review) during this probationary period. After this period Cody will report to the DMB. * Review responsibilities and requirements of DMB delegates Cody Somerville will write a mail about it to start a discussion. == PerPackageUploader Applications == * Martin Pool (bzr and related packages) As Martin wasn't around (timezone issues, see above), his application was deferred again. == MOTU Applications == * Angel Abad https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AngelAbad/MOTUApplication Result of the voting is: 4 for, 0 against, 1 abstained. Total: 4 The application was approved. == Ubuntu Core Developer Applications == * Barry Warsaw https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BarryWarsaw/MyApplication Result of the voting is: 2 for, 1 against, 1 abstained. Total: 1 The application was denied. == Next meeting == * January 17th, 2011 12:00 UTC * Chair: TBD Log: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/01/03/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t19:23 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
New MOTU: Angel Abad
Hello, Angel Abad's application for MOTU was approved during the DMB meeting on 2011-01-03 [1]. Please give him a sincere welcome. Michael 1: http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2011/01/03/%23ubuntu-meeting.html#t19:29 -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
FTBFS overview page lists now packagesets too
Hello,
since a few days the FTBFS overview page at
http://qa.ubuntuwire.com/ftbfs/
contains now information about packagesets too.
The 'component' tables got an additional column ('Set?') which contains
a checkmark if the package belongs to at least one packageset. A tooltip
shows which packagesets it belongs to.
Also new are the tables for each packageset with at least one FTBFS
(linked from the top of the page). They have also a "Set?" column but
with a slight different meaning. Here a checkmarks appear if the package
belongs also to a different packageset (a tooltip shows which ones).
Michael
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Proposal for a JavaLibraryFreeze
On 2010-10-28 16:47:37 -0400, Thierry Carrez wrote: [ JavaLibraryFreeze ] Is there a clear definition of which (source) packages fall below it that would make it easy to check if an exception is needed or not? (for those who aren't familiar with java). Something like all source packages producing binary packages matching "lib.*-java" and a list of packages that would miss this check (like e.g. "groovy" which was mentioned in this thread). Or whatever other check seems suitable. Are all "Java" libraries affected or e.g. only those in main as they are used by e.g. Eucalyptus? Michael -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: Call for votes: Vacant Developer Membership Board seat
On 2010-10-20 10:29:16 +0200, Michael Bienia wrote: > The Developer Membership Board has started a vote to fill the vacant > position. I've contacted by several people about the fact that the ballot mails are a mix of German and English. I'm sorry about the inconvenience. I didn't expect that the CIVS page sends out German mails because my preferred browser language is German :( But luckily the voting webpage itself is in English (or the preferred browser language), so voting for all should be possible. Michael Bienia -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
