Started logging meeting in #debconf-team, times are UTC.
[20:59:58] <madduck> 01 21:59 [ adlpaf ] [ bureado ] [ gregoa ] [ Maulkin ] [ sgran ] [ Traveler_]
[21:00:02] <moray> evening
[21:00:02] <madduck> 01 21:59 [ alphascorpii] [ cek ] [ grisu_42 ] [ meetbot ] [ Sledge ] [ zer0mdq ]
[21:00:05] <madduck> 01 21:59 [ amaya ] [ cpt_nemo] [ gwolf ] [ mhy ] [ suihkulokki]
[21:00:08] <madduck> 01 21:59 [ angasule ] [ edrz ] [ h01ger ] [ moray ] [ svenk ]
[21:00:11] <madduck> 01 21:59 [ arthur ] [ FBI ] [ Hydroxide] [ paravoid] [ Tincho ]
[21:00:14] <madduck> 01 21:59 [ bdale ] [ fil ] [ jvw ] [ sapphire] [ tokkee ]
[21:00:17] <madduck> 01 21:59 [ broonie ] [ Ganneff ] [ madduck ] [ schultmc] [ Tolimar ]
[21:00:20] <madduck> (maybe meetbot does this...)
[21:00:22] <madduck> hi
[21:00:25] <Ganneff> me!
[21:00:27] <moray> we probably need some local team people
[21:00:30] <gwolf> beee
[21:00:38] <Ganneff> cek: ping
[21:00:38] * bdale waves
[21:00:39] <madduck> moray: else we postpone "meet the local team"
[21:00:40] <gwolf> ...strongly so.
[21:01:18] * schultmc waves
[21:01:23] * sgran waves
[21:01:46] <madduck> i put some sort of agenda on here:
[21:02:11] <madduck> i suppose the main reason I called for this meeting was (a) to finally wrap up DC8, (b) to set dates so that I can make proper press releases.
[21:02:27] <moray> does someone have a good ref for the dc7/dc8 timelines? I can only find partial versions
[21:02:30] <madduck> given that Tincho and h01ger won't be here, I think we ought to postpone DC8-leftovers till next time
[21:02:36] <Ganneff> yes
[21:02:44] <madduck> #topic deadlines
[21:03:01] <moray> madduck: yeah, that meeting should really be announced more to dc8 "local" people in case they want to raise any last-minute issues too
[21:03:06] * Ganneff thinks the deadlines shouldnt be all finalized now just to put them in the initial announce
[21:03:20] <madduck> Ganneff: why not?
[21:03:46] <Ganneff> it wouldnt gain us much, i think. the most important part is to finally announce the dates dc9 happens at.
[21:03:52] <Ganneff> the rest can come in later.
[21:04:06] <Ganneff> and if we all finalize it now, we set a schedule thats hard(er) to adjust if needed.
[21:04:16] <moray> I agree that including them all isn't useful (as I said earlier, but not during the meeting)
[21:04:18] <madduck> of course it can come later, but it's very uncommon i think
[21:04:22] <Ganneff> also, if we split the dates announce out, we can have more releases and as such more press
[21:04:44] <madduck> Ganneff: I don't think it works like that, unfortunately
[21:04:50] <madduck> but maybe I am trying to achieve too much...
[21:04:51] <bdale> unless someone has a straw-man proposal, it seems unlikely that you're going to commit to a timeline today
[21:04:52] <moray> Ganneff: well, from the amount of press in the past it's an academic question which would work better
[21:04:56] <Ganneff> madduck: why not? did in the past.
[21:05:04] <madduck> Ganneff: we had press in the past? :)
[21:05:07] <Ganneff> moray: maybe we need to do more press releases?
[21:05:11] <Ganneff> madduck: ^^
[21:05:24] <gwolf> Ganneff: Press releases should be useful...
[21:05:48] <Ganneff> *I* would go and do an announce of the dates when it happens. and later a second one with more details. also, the most important for the normal people is the cfp one.
[21:05:51] <madduck> Ganneff: I agree. The problem in the past has usually been that I found out about stuff through -announce. This has improved a lot...
[21:05:53] <bdale> announcing firm dates for the event would suffice for a release
[21:06:09] <moray> bdale: for *internal* use, a preliminary timeline based on the last couple of years seems a useful thing to work out, then people can start objecting to it now...
[21:06:32] <moray> but I am in the "event dates" camp for external announcements just now
[21:06:42] <bdale> moray: agreed. a preliminary timeline would constitute a straw-man
[21:06:43] <madduck> #agreed alright, I agree, I will push out the dates tomorrow
[21:06:56] <madduck> does it work like that, the meetbot?
[21:07:25] <gwolf> bdale: +1. I have also got some questions regarding when the _conf_ will be - And while the CFP dates are also very important, I think the conference dates are... crucial by now
[21:07:38] <madduck> #agreed
[21:07:41] <madduck> hm.
[21:07:51] <madduck> alright, but for internal use, could we have a *rouch* guidelines?
[21:07:54] <madduck> rough even
[21:08:06] <madduck> like cfp then, reg opens then, closes then, papers in then and so on?
[21:08:23] <moray> madduck: yes, I think we should just copy over the scheme from dc7/dc8, which were approximately the same for timelines
[21:08:24] <Ganneff> madduck: lets discuss that via mailinglist
[21:08:36] <Ganneff> taking similar amounts of timeframes between events like in past two years
[21:08:56] <madduck> Ganneff: and what are those?
[21:08:59] <bdale> I agree that starting with dc7/8 timeline, working back from dc9 dates, would make a good place to start discussion
[21:09:07] <Ganneff> err. look in old archive? :)
[21:09:10] <cek_> hello
[21:09:13] <cek_> sorry for the delay
[21:09:15] <Ganneff> hello cesar.
[21:09:17] <madduck> tbh, mailing list discussions have taken ages lately, why can't we just agree on a timeline now?
[21:09:26] <madduck> Ganneff: also useful to have it documented here...
[21:09:27] <cek_> I was at the University
[21:09:27] <madduck> cek_: hi
[21:09:33] <moray> madduck: I was looking for a good link earlier, I can't spot one with all the dates together though
[21:09:41] <zer0mdq> sorry i'm late
[21:09:45] <Ganneff> cek_: (btw, you could use your irssi :) )
[21:09:47] <moray> madduck: must be in the list archives at least
[21:09:53] <bdale> madduck: if you have a proposal, we could agree on it. if you're asking someone to make something up, I don't see how we're going to do that effectively online today
[21:09:57] * zer0mdq is reading backlog
[21:10:05] <cek_> Ganneff, yes, I know :)
[21:10:29] <madduck> alright, my proposal: registration ends with march
[21:10:41] <madduck> it opens in the middle of february
[21:10:46] <Ganneff> registration for sponsored people.
[21:10:50] <madduck> call for papers goes out beginning of january
[21:10:51] <Ganneff> with march == end of march?
[21:10:55] <madduck> yes, end of march
[21:10:57] <bgupta_> Hi I'm Brian, I am part of the local team working with Jimmy on a DC10 bid. One question for schedule, has the local team given us a list of available dates for the DC9 venue(s) in question?
[21:11:12] <madduck> bgupta_: dates are fixed 16-30 july
[21:11:14] <Ganneff> and cfp - you need to be registered to propose a talk
[21:11:35] <madduck> Ganneff: cfp is the call for papers != entering papers
[21:11:56] <Ganneff> madduck: so you want to have months where people cant enter talks?
[21:11:59] <gwolf> IIRC the CFPs were quite a bit earlier in previous years (Decemberish)
[21:12:16] <madduck> Ganneff: the registration needs to open sooner.
[21:12:21] <madduck> then *
[21:12:29] <Ganneff> and cfp should be early enough to give us lots of time later in the paper committee
[21:12:37] <madduck> Ganneff: is there anything holding us back from opening it, say, next week?
[21:12:52] <madduck> can we agree on terminology? cfp != paper deadline?
[21:13:22] <madduck> Ganneff: could your propose a schedule? since i am not a penta admin, and not on the paper committee, I find it kinda hard to propsoe one.
[21:13:24] <moray> found the timeline from last year
[21:13:35] <Ganneff> opening it next week means preparing pentabarf.
[21:13:42] <moray> in my email archive, so I'll just paste here:
[21:13:45] <moray> CFP should be starting on January 29th (next Tuesday), goes until March 31st.
[21:13:46] <bdale> madduck: he has a point that once you put out the cfp, people will want to start entering info into the system
[21:13:48] <moray> March 31st also ends the period for sponsored accomoddation or food.
[21:13:48] <Ganneff> if possible i would want to do that between the years (after christmas, before new year)
[21:13:50] <moray> The accepted talks should be announced by the end of April.
[21:13:53] <moray> A couple of batches of travel sponsorship grants should be sent
[21:13:55] <moray> between April and May.
[21:13:58] <moray> June 15th is paper submission deadline.
[21:14:11] <bdale> madduck: nothing more maddening than getting a cfp, going to submit an idea, and finding out that you can't actually do it yet
[21:14:22] <madduck> bdale: true
[21:14:39] <madduck> Ganneff: okay, that sounds good. How about aiming for opening penta to the public on 15 january?
[21:14:50] <Ganneff> that should be doable, yes.
[21:14:53] <madduck> #agreed
[21:15:04] <Ganneff> write more after the token and it appears better in the log
[21:15:26] <madduck> #agreed Ganneff is in charge to prepare penta to open for dc9 on 15 jan 2009
[21:15:36] <moray> given the date of debconf we should adjust everything back a couple of weeks from last year
[21:15:50] <madduck> moray: we just did, 2 weeks. :)
[21:15:53] <moray> (except where we decide it's safe to leave something later)
[21:16:04] <madduck> so registration runs two months until 15 march?
[21:16:06] <moray> madduck: yes, my point was that also goes for the other dates ('everything')
[21:16:26] <Hydroxide> 15 march seems reasonable
[21:16:30] <Ganneff> registration runs forever, until event ends. sponsored entries should end early, 2 months time sounds good.
[21:16:40] <madduck> ok.
[21:16:47] * Hydroxide nods. That's what he meant.
[21:16:50] <madduck> #agreed reg for sponsored attendance ends 15 march
[21:16:56] <moray> the one big complaint from people has been about early reg. for sponsorship, but I agree it's necessary
[21:17:19] <madduck> should we have a brief discussion about sponsorship?
[21:17:22] <Ganneff> we then need time to sort out travel sponsorship and announce to people.
[21:17:23] <moray> and I suspect sponsorship could be significantly more difficult to raise this year
[21:17:27] <Ganneff> not in this meeting i think.
[21:17:31] <Ganneff> next time point: end of cfp
[21:17:46] <moray> madduck: we don't have enough relevant people here AFAIK
[21:17:47] <Ganneff> can be after end of sponsored registration, but not too far.
[21:18:05] <bdale> yes, I strongly suggest no "assumptions" about sponsorship levels based on past history be made this year due to the economic situation around the world
[21:18:06] <Ganneff> should have a month time for the papers committee before we announce it, and that announce should be well before dc9
[21:18:17] <madduck> end of april?
[21:18:30] <Ganneff> sounds ok. then we have until end of may to sort out what we want
[21:18:30] <madduck> paper reg ends end of march, papers announced beginning of may?
[21:18:40] <Ganneff> oh. that way round. also fine.
[21:19:08] * Ganneff would propose to drop sponsorship levels this year, but that should be discussed in a different meeting with more people
[21:19:20] <Ganneff> and especially those that did sponsorship work last year(s)
[21:19:26] <madduck> #agreed aim for paper reg to close end of march, papers announced beginning of may
[21:20:02] <madduck> yeah, i guess the main issue about sponsorship to settle is whether to get money first and then pay from a pool for n people, or whether to try to accomodate everyone who wants sponsorship
[21:20:15] <madduck> I think the first is more likely to leave more sanity amongst us.
[21:20:23] <Ganneff> nah.
[21:20:33] <Ganneff> that way until end of dc we wont tell anyone thatthey get money
[21:20:41] <Ganneff> or short before debconf.
[21:20:55] <Ganneff> as i bet we will run low on money, as usual. and so keep safe.
[21:21:04] <madduck> well, let's postpone this discussion. :)
[21:21:10] <Ganneff> we, of course, only tell people they really are sponsored, if we have the money secure.
[21:21:11] <Ganneff> yes.
[21:21:18] <madduck> one last question about deadlines/cfp
[21:21:30] <moray> (yes, -- I also have views, but will wait until more sponsorship workers are here...)
[21:21:39] <madduck> in my world, cfp is the email you forward to everyone calling for papers, not the paper registration process
[21:21:51] <moray> CFP means the call for papers yes
[21:22:01] <madduck> was there ever one? do we want one? do we want paper submissions from people who wouldn't find out about debconf the usual ways?
[21:22:03] <gwolf> We have at least the sponsored venue, which should ease on expenses... so I don't expect the hit of low sponsorship levels to be that dramatic.
[21:22:03] <moray> (which is already a misnomer when most people don't give papers, but hey ;)
[21:22:05] <Ganneff> madduck: its the call for, which opens the registration process
[21:22:14] <Ganneff> madduck: and yes, there always has been one.
[21:22:22] <moray> there has been one, read d-d-a
[21:22:26] <madduck> okay, so that should be ready by 15 jan too
[21:22:39] <madduck> is this the job of the paper committee?
[21:22:47] <cek_> gwolf, lots of companies are trying to save money. That's a problem
[21:22:50] <moray> and I don't think we generally do want talks from people who wouldn't otherwise hear about debconf, unless you can give counterexamples of where it would work
[21:22:56] <Ganneff> madduck: in the past it was "whoever wrote it"
[21:23:12] <madduck> do we have a volunteer here, or should i inquire with committee@?
[21:23:22] <madduck> anyone to prepare the cfp for 15 jan?
[21:23:30] <gwolf> cek_: Agree on that. But at least, we don't face the outcome of not having money to pay for the basics
[21:23:35] <madduck> (using the d-d-a posts as template?)
[21:23:39] <Ganneff> talk to committee (which we need to define again, i think. for that i volunteer)
[21:23:41] <moray> madduck: we don't have the committee yet, AFAIK?
[21:23:43] <Ganneff> yes.
[21:23:49] <moray> madduck: so emailing that isn't very useful ;)
[21:23:57] <Ganneff> we have the committee from last year. should probably get a new one, yes.
[21:24:07] <Ganneff> can do like last year and ask around, then mail -team about it.
[21:24:09] <Hydroxide> we should definitely figure out teams/roles again, since the set of people has changed.
[21:24:10] <Ganneff> everyone ok with it?
[21:24:10] <moray> I'd say talk to 'the relevant people' and/or -team
[21:24:40] <madduck> #topic roles
[21:24:55] <madduck> who are the relevant people? how are they elected?
[21:25:00] <Ganneff> we have
[21:25:04] <madduck> we being?
[21:25:08] <Ganneff> paper committee, travel sponsorship
[21:25:10] <moray> this is a non-agenda item?
[21:25:25] <Ganneff> last years i went an managed to get them together, talking to -team about it.
[21:25:30] <madduck> moray: yes, is that bad?
[21:25:33] <moray> we need a lot more people here if you want some general discussion of the way we should do it
[21:25:44] <moray> -team is probably better than IRC for that anyway
[21:25:44] <Ganneff> there was also schedule@
[21:25:57] <Ganneff> and herb, being the sponsor people *getting* money
[21:26:07] <moray> madduck: has something I was writing up about this
[21:26:19] <madduck> okay, no use in discussing the process, really, not with few people
[21:26:23] <moray> not how we get the people, but the things that need done
[21:26:25] <madduck> but can we set a deadline?
[21:26:36] <madduck> for the paper committee?
[21:26:42] <Ganneff> as said, i can do the travel/paper foo again.
[21:26:52] <moray> we don't need a paper committee for the CFP, we can work with the vestigial one
[21:26:56] <Ganneff> someone else should do press and others.
[21:27:12] <madduck> i think i will continue with press
[21:27:13] <Ganneff> we need that committee for the decisions
[21:27:14] <moray> in the past CFP has just been "core team/local team"'s job IIRC
[21:27:20] <Ganneff> yes.
[21:27:29] <madduck> moray: would you volunteer to have it ready by 15 jan?
[21:27:35] <Ganneff> its just the one who writes it. best if done by the local team lead
[21:27:37] <Ganneff> ie cek_
[21:27:46] <moray> yeah, cek_ would be best to do a draft
[21:27:50] <Ganneff> its the local teams conf, let em get publicity! :)
[21:27:51] <madduck> cek_: ?
[21:28:03] <moray> I'm certainly happy to help write something and/or proof-read for good English etc.
[21:28:07] <Ganneff> only, cek_ cant mail d-d-a directly, but one of us can be proxy for that mail, just providing the signature.
[21:28:24] <Ganneff> for debconf-announce, as usual, talk to me to approve it in time.
[21:28:34] <cek_> hehehe
[21:28:36] <moray> so I can volunteer to help cek_ get something ready, yes
[21:28:55] <madduck> cek_: is that ok? the call for papers email written and ready to send by 15 jan?
[21:28:58] <Ganneff> cek_: so just got volunteered to send cfp mails :)
[21:29:03] <cek_> Yes, no problem
[21:29:22] * cek_ volunteer to send cfp mails
[21:29:43] <Ganneff> can we go on and not make it an hour meeting? :)
[21:29:46] <moray> cek_: if you haven't seen it, also have a look through and see if you can get other 'local' people to agree to help on things
[21:29:58] <moray> I mean, on specific areas from that
[21:29:59] <cek_> moray, thanks, I will
[21:30:16] <moray> Ganneff: we still have madduck's pet topics to come ;)
[21:30:58] <Ganneff> yes. and if this isnt a pet topic i fear the length of them
[21:31:52] <Ganneff> madduck: please go on
[21:32:03] <madduck> sorry, i dropped off the net
[21:32:04] <moray> #agreed cek_ volunteers for CFP, moray volunteers to help with that
[21:32:12] <moray> #topic website content management
[21:32:21] <moray> (I wonder if the bot listens to me...)
[21:32:22] <madduck> #agreed cek_ volunteers for CFP, moray volunteers to help with that, deadline 15 jan
[21:32:24] <Ganneff> no, you arent chair
[21:32:26] <madduck> #topic website
[21:32:37] <madduck> given that Tincho is not here, should we postpone this?
[21:32:38] <Ganneff> tincho isnt here.
[21:32:39] <Ganneff> yes
[21:32:46] <moray> I think it's a website-people thing, yes
[21:32:52] <moray> decision of whoever will work on it
[21:32:59] <madduck> #topic RT permissions
[21:33:02] <Ganneff> i hope Tincho continues
[21:33:16] <moray> Ganneff: yes, Tincho was good before...
[21:33:34] <madduck> Ganneff: RT -- is it feasible to just open up the tracker to all of -team?
[21:33:56] <madduck> i mean, we all can field many of the tickets and it's not like we are likely to vandalise, or?
[21:34:11] <Ganneff> not for every queue. and not to anonymous. but im fine with giving out more rights to people, create more accounts, etc.
[21:34:20] <Ganneff> ie - come to me when you want an account
[21:34:24] <Ganneff> and tell me for which part
[21:34:36] <moray> I agree against anonymous, I also agree with madduck more can/should be open to -team in general though
[21:34:48] <moray> where there's not a specific reason to close it
[21:34:57] <moray> we have enough trouble getting work done without stopping people doing it
[21:35:06] <madduck> what would be a reason to keep something closed from -team members?
[21:35:12] <madduck> (I agree with anonymous too)
[21:35:16] <Ganneff> yes. sure. get me list of people and email addresses and what they want to do.
[21:35:20] <Ganneff> they get rights for those queues
[21:35:26] <Ganneff> madduck: we have admin queues in it for example.
[21:35:46] <moray> Ganneff: I think he's asking for what's specifically private, not the queues
[21:36:01] <Hydroxide> madduck: primarily for things involving attendee/corp-sponsor financial/personal info, just to reduce the number of people who see that (independent of any individuals)
[21:36:01] <Ganneff> how about system config? possibly passwords?
[21:36:02] <moray> (private from -team, not private from randoms)
[21:36:07] <Ganneff> or personal data
[21:36:23] <Hydroxide> Ganneff: I don't think that passwords should be in RT regardless. that's probably unencrypted on disk somewhere.
[21:36:47] <madduck> system config or personal data nor the stuff Hydroxide quotes needs to be hidden from -team members, or?
[21:36:52] <moray> Hydroxide: attendee info isn't generally in RT, FWIW
[21:36:52] <madduck> i mean, we are a team, right?
[21:36:57] <Ganneff> Hydroxide: yes. but i got asked for what could be in, and such things can be in the admin queue. shouldnt, but...
[21:37:14] <Hydroxide> moray: emails to sponsors@ got into RT last year
[21:37:21] <madduck> anyway, I don't want to promote that everything needs to be open, but it's just annoying to run into permission denied errors when working as part of the debconf team.
[21:37:27] <moray> Hydroxide: I said attendee info
[21:37:33] <Ganneff> madduck: i wont give out full access to everyone for *every* queue. im happy to give out access to all the relevant queues for people that need/want it.
[21:37:36] <Hydroxide> moray: fair point.
[21:37:47] <Hydroxide> madduck: I agree with you in general, with the exception I mentioned
[21:37:52] <Hydroxide> *exceptions
[21:38:09] <moray> Hydroxide: I know about the sponsorship stuff, that's a case I'd be willing to accept should be restricted (though I'm not convinced it needs to be more restricted than people actively doing work)
[21:38:24] <madduck> Ganneff: wouldn't it make sense just to separate admins and non-admins and give access to everything but admin queue to non-admins?
[21:38:27] <Hydroxide> afk for paid-work stuff
[21:38:37] <Ganneff> madduck: maybe.
[21:38:54] <madduck> it would make things easier for everyone and more transparent.
[21:38:57] <Ganneff> i can look at rt.dc.o more on weekend (someone write me a reminder please?)
[21:39:03] <Ganneff> and possibly just merge some queues then.
[21:39:08] <madduck> i'll file a ticket
[21:39:30] <madduck> #agreed Ganneff looks into RT and investigates whether the permissions setup couldn't be simplified a whole lot (e.g. admins and non-admins)
[21:39:43] * bdale needs to leave ... bye all!
[21:39:50] <moray> bdale: bye, thanks for coming!
[21:39:50] * madduck waves
[21:39:59] <madduck> #topic wiki arithmetic check
[21:40:09] <Ganneff> whats that for a topic?
[21:40:14] <madduck> another thing for Ganneff: is there a way to make the wiki remember that I can do math?
[21:40:19] <Ganneff> login?`
[21:40:27] <madduck> no, it keeps asking?
[21:40:33] <Ganneff> now, thats a bug.
[21:40:36] <moray> ganneff: I think some people saw a bug that it always asked, yes
[21:40:39] <Ganneff> i think.
[21:40:39] <madduck> anyway, if this is basically something we should discuss outside, let's do so...
[21:40:48] <moray> so I think that's another RT request
[21:40:50] <Ganneff> its for outside. if thwere is no ticket -> make one
[21:40:59] <Ganneff> it should only ask for non-users.
[21:41:03] * madduck makes the request
[21:41:11] <madduck> #topic misc
[21:41:21] <madduck> that's it from me/the agenda, anything else?
[21:41:31] <Ganneff> translation: misc means AOB :)
[21:41:42] <madduck> aob?
[21:41:43] <Ganneff> mr. triple des has broken internet again
[21:41:47] <Ganneff> any other business
[21:41:58] <des> yeap
[21:42:04] <moray> don't think so, beyond reiterating I fear we may have to re-calibrate sponsorship behaviour this year
[21:42:19] <madduck> moray: okay, i will put sponsorship on the agenda for next time.
[21:42:28] <moray> madduck: well, not much we can do about it differently
[21:42:47] <Ganneff> skip levels, hope for money, beg repeatedly, have an active team for it.
[21:42:48] <moray> just we may get zero/much less from some previous reliable sponsors
[21:42:59] <Ganneff> but thats for a different meeting with more people active in that area
[21:43:09] <moray> as was mentioned, we're lucky to have the regional government arrangement for this time
[21:43:34] <madduck> okay, anything else?
[21:43:42] <Ganneff> stay below 45mins! :)
[21:43:47] <madduck> trying!
[21:43:52] <Ganneff> then end.
[21:43:54] <cek_> moray, yes, but keep in mind that Junta de Extremadura will also be very careful with the money, we are in crisis
[21:43:54] <moray> done
[21:44:00] <madduck> thanks for the patience required to sit through the first IRC meeting I chaired. :)
[21:44:10] <moray> cek_: well, as long as they don't pull out on the venue...
[21:44:17] <madduck> #endmeeting

Meeting ended.

Information on meetbot is available at