Web   ·   Wiki   ·   Activities   ·   Blog   ·   Lists   ·   Chat   ·   Meeting   ·   Bugs   ·   Git   ·   Translate   ·   Archive   ·   People   ·   Donate

#sugar-meeting, 2010-06-07

 « Previous day | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

All times shown according to UTC.

Time Nick Message
15:10 mchua oh. yes, it did. :)
15:10 sdziallas #TOPIC Sugar on a Stick Meeting
15:10 #CHAIR mchua pbrobinson sdziallas SeanDaly JT4sugar satellit_Acer
15:10 did I forget anybody?
15:11 #LINK http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]k_meetings#Agenda
15:11 Yes, that's our agenda for today! :)
15:11 walterbender sdziallas: hi
15:11 sdziallas hi walterbender, hi kwurst!
15:11 kwurst waves
15:11 SeanDaly greets walterbender
15:11 phf waves
15:11 sdziallas hi phf!
15:12 looks like we've got quite a crowd today -- cool!
15:12 uh, looking at that agenda, it says "name and colors".
15:12 walterbender sdziallas: the colors usually are implicit in the name
15:12 sdziallas SeanDaly: since you're around, are you okay with raising this here? if we need more time, we can continue tomorrow, if that's okay.
15:13 walterbender: yup, right! (I don't think we should have chosen black for strawberry or something)
15:13 mchua notes we have a few new folks here today - mostly participants at http://teachingopensource.org/[…]E_Worcester_State, who are professors helping out with SoaS this week (by way of learning how to get their students involved as contributors to FOSS projects)
15:13 sdziallas kwurst, phf: feel free to shout any questions in :)
15:13 walterbender ginger is nice... sugar and spice
15:13 sdziallas kwurst, phdf: we're basically running through the agenda to set the basics for the next (v.4) release of SoaS.
15:13 walterbender maybe the Spice Girls can do a promo for us
15:13 mchua We're also projecting the meeting here in the classroom, as you can see. :)
15:14 pbrobinson walterbender: aren't they broken up?
15:14 sdziallas coughs. :)
15:14 #TOPIC name & colors
15:14 walterbender pbrobinson: know idea. I am actually quite ignorant regarding them and their music
15:14 phf thinks a reunion might be appropriate
15:15 SeanDaly sdziallas: to be honest, the color/name is a symptom rather than a cause... we have a serious divergence of what role marketing should play. We need to discuss that, although here & now probably not the best moment.
15:16 sdziallas SeanDaly: okay; I wonder how we do this best. would a thread on list help or should we devote a couple of minutes to this now?
15:16 everybody: thoughts?
15:16 SeanDaly walterbender: s/Sice Girls/Sugababes ?
15:16 satellit__ lilikoi (Passion fruit)
15:16 sdziallas satellit__: please add that to the wiki table with the agenda
15:16 satellit_Acer ok
15:17 JT4sugar sdziallas, My thought would be to reserve cloudberry for V5(we should target having SoaS working with Cloud services by next spring) and are we doing Berries/Fruit or Ice cream flavors?
15:17 pbrobinson thinks possibly divert the name/colour discussion to another meeting where SeanDaly can outlie the marketing bit
15:17 SeanDaly sdziallas: you mean flavors, or divergence of views? I think better to talk flavors right now
15:18 pbrobinson: thanks.. it is a marketing discussion after all... but why don't we express some flavors now too?
15:18 sdziallas Oh... well, if we've marketing here, we could go for it and out the cooperation of the different teams on the agenda for next week / another week.
15:18 #ACTION schedule another meeting / email thread regarding the cooperation of teams (such as SoaS & Marketing)
15:18 mchua notes that it's 17 minutes into the meeting time and we should probably just Pick A Name
15:18 pbrobinson SeanDaly: flavours are cool. was thinking more the marketing side of things
15:19 sdziallas alrighty, everybody has the wiki agenda page open?
15:19 SeanDaly Personally, I am an acolyte of Cloudberry for all the reasons previously stated... but that's only possible if wifi-3G and content offer up to par
15:19 sdziallas I think I agree with JT4sugar, but that's me personally.
15:19 satellit_Acer *lilikoi added
15:20 sdziallas satellit__: thanks!
15:20 mchua So... how *do* we pick a name?
15:21 walterbender mchua: how about listing the suggestions on the table and then quick vote?
15:21 SeanDaly JT4sugar: the original idea was ice cream flavors. But fruit works too ;-)
15:21 sdziallas personally like Sweet Cream, but that's just him :)
15:21 pbrobinson SeanDaly: cloud stuff is a lot more IMO. Things like storing the journal online and other online storage colloboration
15:21 walterbender sdziallas: you need to try the mocha from JPLicks next time you are in Boston
15:22 SeanDaly mchua: marketing criteria: not too obscure, evokes colors
15:22 sdziallas walterbender: August? :)
15:22 SeanDaly: that makes sense to me, yes.
15:22 SeanDaly pbrobnson, JT4sugar: good observations re Cloudberry
15:22 walterbender sdziallas:  a fine month for consuming large quantities of ice cream...
15:22 sdziallas #LINK http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Marketing_Team/Logo
15:22 #INFO we need to follow the color guidelines for the branding
15:23 mchua rather likes Vanilla
15:23 pbrobinson SeanDaly: I think we need to make a bang with that name and make it stick so better waiting than jumping early
15:24 sdziallas Alright, how about this: We pick *something* for now and refer to v.4 as that. Depending on how the 0.90 release cycle works out and how many cloud features are in there, we either rename it or go for v.5 for Cloudberry?
15:24 SeanDaly sdziallas: in fact, Christian has been flexible.. Mirabelle was not in the standard logo scheme
15:24 pbrobinson: quite
15:24 sdziallas SeanDaly: oh yeah, you're right :)
15:25 JT4sugar Everyone should go to Ice Cream Parlor this week and report back Great names you find and try. Cloudberry V5 +1 gives us a stretch goal
15:25 mchua proposes we punt this topic to the end of the meeting and tackle the rest
15:25 phf dreams of Straciatella
15:25 mchua because we *need* a release schedule and a feature process and Activity criteria tomorrow.
15:26 SeanDaly I feel like freeing myself from the tyranny of berries
15:26 sdziallas SeanDaly: :)
15:26 mchua: DEAL.
15:26 pbrobinson SeanDaly: YES to no berries!
15:26 sdziallas has the meeting stick. sometimes.
15:26 mchua The next agenda item is release schedule.
15:26 pbrobinson hides so as to not get beaten by the stick
15:26 sdziallas #INFO echo during the meeting mentions -1 to *-berry.
15:26 #INFO names & colors pushed back
15:27 #TOPIC release schedule
15:27 mchua #LINK http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]#Release_schedule
15:27 sdziallas that should be straight forward.
15:27 SeanDaly mchua: vanilla is to often associated with "plain"... which is why in the supermarket, most vanilla ice cream is labeled "French Vanilla" even though the vanilla comes from Madagascar
15:27 mchua Yeah, it's written, just needs sanity-checking and +1 if there are no objections.
15:27 sdziallas if nobody has further comments, I'll just approve that.
15:27 pbrobinson I would like to +10 following the fedora schedule. It kept us very focussed
15:28 mchua I like the schedule. Don't see a reason to change it.
15:28 would like to note that if Fedora's schedule slips upstream, ours does too.
15:29 walterbender pbrobinson: yes.. and we should plan our features accordingly
15:29 sdziallas #INFO if Fedora slips, we will, too. there will be an early enough notification, though.
15:29 alright, so we're game here?
15:29 walterbender pbrobinson: which is why this will *not* be the Cloudberry release :(
15:30 sdziallas #AGREED release schedule for v.4 approved as outlined in the wiki
15:30 awesome, moving on.
15:30 pbrobinson #INFO we need to follow the feature side of that closer as that's what caught us the last time
15:30 sdziallas #TOPIC feature process for v.4
15:30 pbrobinson: exactly! so that's our topic now :)
15:31 #LINK http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]s#Feature_process
15:31 pbrobinson I would like to propose the core sucrose 0.90 release as the main feature
15:31 JT4sugar sdziallas, Question on Fedora schedule there is also Feature date on 7-13 how does that apply to us. Do all activities/featuresaccepted on 7/27 need to be identified by 7/13
15:31 sdziallas #IDEA pbrobinson suggests the 0.90 as main feature
15:31 pbrobinson Its going to take a lot of work due to massive upstream project changes
15:32 sdziallas #LINK http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]eases/14/Schedule
15:32 (JT4sugar is talking about that.)
15:32 pbrobinson not just 0.90 but 0.90 and the core fructose Activities
15:32 mchua I'd like to start the feature selection process next meeting, after we approve a feature process. ;)
15:32 but that's a good one to queue up, yeah.
15:32 pbrobinson LOL. Sorry, my bad!
15:32 sdziallas JT4sugar: we're presumably only going to have a small process, so we're just sticking 7/27 in there as the major deadline.
15:33 SeanDaly bumped by 3G card... any way to see what I missed?
15:33 mchua SeanDaly: I'll try to get you a link to the logs, hang on.
15:33 sdziallas: http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]s#Feature_process ?
15:33 kicks meeting along
15:33 sdziallas SeanDaly: http://me.etin.gs/sugar-meetin[…]0100607_1510.html
15:33 mchua: :) (^^)
15:33 mchua: exactly.
15:33 mchua sdziallas: you type faster :P
15:34 sdziallas mchua: sometimes.
15:34 mchua cheers for #topic change
15:34 Anyhow.
15:34 sdziallas everyone: does the outlined bullet points make sense?
15:34 if so, we'll make a call on the decision method.
15:35 JT4sugar sdziallas, Just want to verify want to make sure key activities for literacy like read, getbooks, and others are in activity bundle
15:35 mchua they make sense to me, but I'm looking forward to the feature owners telling us what's still confusing as we go along. :)
15:35 JT4sugar: Propose them as features, and make sure they have an owner who'll develop and maintain them, and they can be in the Activity bundle.
15:35 sdziallas mchua: now this time you typed faster. :)
15:36 mchua JT4sugar: I mean, I think they're all good ideas, but we mostly need people to step up and do the work. ;) Happy to teach, if you're interested in learning how to pick some of it up yourself.
15:36 satellit__ http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/F[…]n_Kit_DVD#Summary  (Is already existing just needs approval)
15:36 mchua can't teach packaging and such, but can do most of it.
15:36 pbrobinson and TEST them!
15:36 sdziallas satellit__: we're first deciding on the process, then on the features themselves :)
15:36 mchua Sounds like we have some features queueing up for next meeting when we have our process in place. :)
15:36 satellit__ ok
15:37 sdziallas Okay, I'll note the feature process as approved and ask for the decision method then.
15:37 pbrobinson satellit__: we're not talking the feature but the actual process of summiting and getting features approved
15:37 sdziallas #AGREED feature process as outlines in the wiki is approved and will be followed
15:37 I'd be interested in thoughts about the voting proposals on the wiki.
15:39 SeanDaly note to sdziallas: the SoaS scope approach is related to Sugar Labs marketing vs. SoaS marketing problem
15:39 JT4sugar mchua, So if I am getting this correctly each activity included on the SoaS version is going to be a Feature? Yes?
15:39 mchua I should note that I don't expect those voting proposals to scale very well - they're just something to get us started.
15:39 And when the Feature Approval Voting Mechanism we pick right now can no longer handle the volume of incoming "please include this feature!!!" requests, then we can change it.
15:39 sdziallas SeanDaly: uh, scope?
15:39 sorry :)
15:39 pbrobinson SeanDaly: yes and no on the marketing
15:39 mchua JT4sugar: I would consider "$foo Activity is included in the SoaS build" as a feature, personally.
15:40 JT4sugar: Though the feature process would have to agree with me there. :) But that's what I'm thinking.
15:40 pbrobinson JT4sugar: yes. Except for the core Sucrose activities which is a core Feature in and of itself
15:40 sdziallas would like to work this through one by one.
15:40 mchua JT4sugar: or in other words, I am proposing that that be the case, yeah.
15:41 phf admires the chaos
15:41 sdziallas phf: TEH CHAOZZZZ!!! ITZ HERE!!!
15:41 alright, so.
15:41 mchua Personally, I don't care what the voting mechanism is, as long as we *have* one.
15:41 We can always change it.
15:41 SeanDaly sdziallas: SL marketing approach=how to win over teachers; SoaS marketing approach=enumerating features
15:42 sdziallas JT4sugar: does this answer your question and can we agree on that?
15:42 mchua can haz feature approval process? We need to know because we're hoping to have the POSSE group submit some stuff for consideration... er... starting tomorrow...
15:42 sdziallas SeanDaly: I don't think we should prevent Marketing from picking things to promote from this feature list.
15:43 JT4sugar mchua, Just trying to clarify this, I'm not sure that activity folks who would want their activities included understand. If this is the policy I understand and am ok just want to get word out
15:43 satellit__ so an approved  feature is included in the build of the spin?
15:43 mchua JT4sugar: The thing is that we don't have a policy yet, that is what we are trying to create right now.
15:43 JT4sugar: Once we have made that decision (real soon now, I hope) then yes, help spreading the word would be fantastic.
15:43 satellit__: Yes, aiui.
15:43 SeanDaly sdziallas: no, there's no preventing; but the approach guarantees SL marketing is at the end of the train
15:44 satellit__ * or is it a separate feature approved for use with Soas name (the DVD is a separate DL)
15:44 JT4sugar mchua, That's why collaboration is so fantastic!
15:44 mchua SeanDaly: The thing is that Marketing can't tell volunteer engineers what to work on - they can *suggest* it, but whether the work actually gets done and *can* be included as a feature depends on what individuals are motivated to pick up and code and maintain.
15:45 SeanDaly: So if Marketing wants a feature in the build, the best thing it can do is try to persuade developers to do the technical work needed to get it through the feature process.
15:45 So that it can be approved as a feature, so that Marketing can in fact guarantee it will be shipped in the live image, and market that release accordingly.
15:45 SeanDaly mchua: I quite agree... and the inverse is true... if the engineers tell marketing what can be worked on, the result is ineffective marketing
15:46 sdziallas Maybe we can make a call on the decision process and put this here in the SoaS <-> Marketing convo?
15:46 mchua SeanDaly: I think this discussion may be orthogonal to the creation of an engineering feature approval process - once we have a decision mechanism for how to include technical things, then we can talk (perhaps at tomorrow's Marketing meeting) about how the Marketing <--> Engineering dynamic should work.
15:46 sdziallas: jinx.
15:47 *really* needs a feature process for POSSE attendees tomorrow
15:47 SeanDaly mchua: yes, as I say there's an incompatibility problem which needs to be resolved
15:48 mchua SeanDaly: And it can be resolved after we figure out a way to declare something a technical feature for inclusion in the build - we don't need to block this decision on the resolution of that conversation.
15:48 does agree that conversation needs to be resolved, though.
15:48 sdziallas Alright, I propose that the current release team (mchua, pbrobinson, me) for SoaS will approve features as requested per proposal and will discuss in weekly meetings and announce decisions on list.
15:48 thinks so too, for the record (that we need to work this out)
15:48 mchua sdziallas: so a feature proposal needs to be +1'd by at least 2 of {mchua, sdziallas, pbrobinson} in order to become a feature?
15:49 JT4sugar mchua, My key question is does the 7/13 date on Fedora schedule affect our activities or features I understand 7/27 is Drop dead date
15:49 mchua sdziallas: (for v4 release, at least)
15:49 SeanDaly mchua: what is needed is a way to prioritize "features"... e-readers need to be high priority for example.
15:49 sdziallas JT4sugar: 7/27 is in the approved schedule. so it's 7/27 :)
15:49 mchua JT4sugar: in other words, "no"
15:49 sdziallas mchua: yes. (also: less bottlenecks)
15:49 JT4sugar Thank you
15:49 mchua JT4sugar: we have a little extra time, on account of we're a smaller project (...so far ;)
15:49 pbrobinson SeanDaly: agreed. So are you offering to do some testing on the eReader stuff to ensure its a feature?
15:50 mchua SeanDaly: I'd say Marketing can prioritize recruitment for development work on any feature proposals they'd like. :)
15:50 SeanDaly pbrobinson: yes - I offered to organize such testing
15:50 mchua SeanDaly: so if Marketing thinks e-readers are important, they can focus their energies on recruiting development work for the e-reader feature proposals - "this is the most important feature proposal to work on!"
15:50 that's Marketing's decision, imo.
15:50 pbrobinson SeanDaly: we need to get someone to fix Read first.
15:50 sdziallas Can we please agree on the voting process here?
15:50 pbrobinson +1 on the voting
15:51 mchua sdziallas: +1 too.
15:51 satellit__ +1
15:51 JT4sugar +1
15:51 SeanDaly mchua: "marketing" goals are strategic goals for Sugar Labs... not nice-to-have features
15:51 sdziallas alright. awesome! (I'd rather have more people on that than just a "release manager", so... I'm obviously +1, too)
15:51 mchua APPROVED
15:51 (I think)
15:52 SeanDaly pbrobinson: Samy got read working in the Saint Nick of time for Nosy Komba deployment this week
15:52 sdziallas #AGREED voting process for feature process is approved: mchua, pbrobinson and sdziallas will as the release team will discuss feature proposals at the weekly meetings and announce decisions to the appropriate lists
15:52 SeanDaly pbrobinson: he added missing packages.. no idea if that can be done cleanly for SoaS though
15:52 sdziallas next one? (I'm sorry for rushing a little here)
15:53 #TOPIC activity inclusion criteria
15:53 mchua #LINK http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/S[…]Activity_Criteria
15:53 sdziallas mchua: I think that's yours, right? activities have to meet this to get approved for... well, inclusion. :)
15:53 mchua Yep. Basically looking for a "what is missing?" sanity check on this page, here.
15:53 pbrobinson SeanDaly: so is stability and my sanity a required feature...  I had to drop the later to get the release done :-)
15:54 mchua An Activity is a specific type of Feature - when the feature-approval-team looks at an Activity that's been submitted for consideration as a feature, I'm proposing that those are the criteria we check to see whether it's "ready."
15:54 pbrobinson SeanDaly: believe me missing packages wasn't the problem in SoaS. It was changes in API
15:55 sdziallas mchua: I think it looks good. There are a few things like "how to check" that we might add, but I believe we can add that over the time as we figure it out.
15:55 walterbender thinks that much of the issue was communication...
15:55 SeanDaly pbrobinson: yes you had told me problem was difficult to foresee until late
15:56 sdziallas basically, the Gnome upstream folks made a change that broke Read and nobody noticed until it was way too late (it's not fixed and the author says it looks like a major change). If we had noticed it before, it'd have been better, yes.
15:56 (that's from what I recall)
15:56 votes +1 on activity inclusion criteria.
15:57 SeanDaly sdziallas: how about a mechanism for prioritizing?
15:57 pbrobinson SeanDaly: problem wasn't difficult. It would have been picked up a lot earlier if someone had tested it. sdziallas and I had our work held out on core OS/UI functionality. It had been broken for months which showed _NO_ one bothered to test it
15:58 sdziallas SeanDaly: I think we should probably discuss adding this to the feature process itself... (what do others think?)
15:58 pbrobinson SeanDaly: satellit__ was the one that picked it up.
15:58 SeanDaly pbrobinson: we are alas! short-handed on all sides...
15:59 sdziallas would like to ask for votes :)
15:59 pbrobinson SeanDaly: but if eReaders was what you wanted I expect you to test that functionality and report problems. Apparently it didn't matter enough for that to happen
15:59 satellit__ * it looked like it worked but had nothing to read....till I tested it by adding items it should have read to the journal--nasty to find
15:59 pbrobinson sdziallas: you mentioned adding something to the feature process itself. Was that the testing component?
16:00 SeanDaly FYI re translation (Pootle): our contacts at the EU want to be sure SoaS (which will include Activities) be available in official EU languages
16:00 sdziallas pbrobinson: what I'm saying is that marketing could add tags to feature proposals about their proposed priority.
16:00 SeanDaly pbrobinson: no, not a question of not mattering, a question of being short-handed
16:01 sdziallas (I just want to get this activity inclusion thing done for now; we can extend the feature proposal tomorrow in the marketing meeting)
16:01 pbrobinson sdziallas: OK, sounds good as one of the feature matrix options so we're aware of those.
16:01 so with the marketing prioroty I +1 it
16:01 JT4sugar Literacy tools are at the core of everyones "Learning How to Learn" foundation. I want to make sure we have an open and collaborative arrangment in place for those activity authors or maintainers to interface with SoaS team to solve. Having testing days for core learning functionality may be an idea
16:01 SeanDaly pbrobinson: it's not "marketing wants"... it's "what s the fundamental promise of Sugar"...
16:01 sdziallas SeanDaly: I really don't oppose adding a "Priority" line to the wiki feature proposal pages. :) (we need to make sure this gets communicated to the lists, though)
16:02 pbrobinson: uh, I'd add the marketing priority thing to the feature proposals, while this vote would be now activity inclusion criteria.
16:02 pbrobinson SeanDaly: can you write the EU language requirements up. As a feature point or elsewhere. I think that would be a great feature
16:02 sdziallas Can we please get through the agenda first now?
16:02 SeanDaly pbrobinson: will do
16:03 pbrobinson sdziallas: ah, sorry. Still +1 though :-D
16:03 sdziallas I'm very much willing to discuss prioritizing and believe it *will* certainly help us, but let's do one step at a time. (we should do the second one very soon, admittedly.)
16:03 pbrobinson SeanDaly: thanks!
16:04 sdziallas Any other votes on the criteria? Folks, this *is* what we will use to decide on the inclusion of activities.
16:04 satellit__ +1
16:04 mchua likes it, but I have a blind spot since I wrote much of the proposal (with major patches by walterbender)
16:04 So a biased +1 from me, for the record.
16:04 JT4sugar +1
16:04 mchua And again, we can change the criteria if they end up being insufficient or too onerous.
16:05 sdziallas #AGREED activity inclusion criteria will be used and applied to requests
16:05 (thank you everybody!)
16:05 mchua (but if we do that, I would suggest that any Activities approved for the release remain approved for the release, even if they don't meet the new criteria - just to be fair.)
16:05 sdziallas lets see, what else is there?
16:05 mchua: makes sense.
16:05 mchua test-dev-release cycle, but we're over time so we may want to punt that to the next meeting since there's no proposal to vote on.
16:05 sdziallas mchua: indeed!
16:05 mchua satellit__: (were you going to draft a first round of that process up? or is that something I was supposed to do and forgot?)
16:06 walterbender AFAIK there are *no* activities that meet all of the criteria
16:06 mchua walterbender: Yeah, not for the v3 release... we did not have *any* criteria for that
16:06 sdziallas I'd like to suggest moving name & color convos to another meeting, possibly marketing tomorrow, or next week. whatever works best.
16:06 walterbender: well, then we gotta make them fit 'em :)
16:06 thinks talk is cheap, though.
16:06 pbrobinson mchua: agreed they remain in unless they're not complete or don't work as expected at which point they get dropped like any other feature
16:06 mchua we started drafting these criteria for v3 because we realized that all Activity inclusion was arbitrary and that was landing us in a Bad Place.
16:06 walterbender sdziallas: I had started a table on the Talk page...
16:06 mchua (Bad Place ==
16:06 SeanDaly sdziallas: perhaps it is implied (ASLO ref?), but a free license seems to me to be an importan criteria
16:07 sdziallas walterbender: yeah, I saw that... actually, let me look at that again, it looke dreally cool!
16:07 mchua "we don't sleep for a few nights before release")
16:07 satellit__ mchua: No I submitted my feature on wiki and on soas lists did not know about criteria
16:07 sdziallas satellit__: we are still working the process out.
16:07 SeanDaly: oh, you've a good point there!
16:07 pbrobinson SeanDaly: free licence is compulary to get it into Fedora
16:07 sdziallas SeanDaly: it is implied there, but... dunno, maybe worth mentioning?
16:07 mchua Yeah, I didn't explicitly list licensing reqs since it's a hard dependency...
16:07 sdziallas #INFO name & color discussion shifts
16:07 mchua ...I can edit that into the "must be packaged" section though.
16:07 SeanDaly pbrobinson,sdziallas: worth mentioning please
16:08 walterbender mchua: licensing in our case is pretty straight forward...
16:08 pbrobinson SeanDaly: agreed!
16:08 walterbender mchua: we sorted that one out a few months ago...
16:08 JT4sugar An email from SoaS Team to the Activity community with these draft Inclusion Criteria should be sent out so they can begin the work to make them fit
16:08 SeanDaly completeness better than assuming people will already know stuff
16:08 sdziallas JT4sugar: agreed!
16:08 mchua satellit__: I was referring to the "how do we want to set up the dev/test/release cycle for v4?" question, and the "hm, someone should write a first-draft proposal on how we want to do that" note - I thought "someone" was you, but it may have been me and I may have just forgotten to do it.
16:08 sdziallas #ACTION send email to the activity community about inclusion criteria
16:08 any takers?
16:09 notes we're overtime.
16:09 mchua Yeah, but not too badly.
16:09 satellit__ * I can try to suggest some ideas later to list
16:09 sdziallas Okay, if nobody does, I'll take the "notify activity community" one with a short email.
16:09 mchua satellit__: ok, we should ask sdziallas to #action you on that for next time then :)
16:10 sdziallas mchua: you can do that yourself :)
16:10 mchua sdziallas: did JT4sugar want to take it?
16:10 satellit__ ok
16:10 mchua oh! I'm a chair?
16:10 ok.
16:10 #action satellit__ draft dev/test/release cycle proposal to soas list
16:10 sdziallas mchua: you're not *a* chair, but... chairing... y'know.
16:10 mchua satellit__: and then, the next weekly meeting after the draft is done, we'll bring it up as a topic for revision/approval.
16:10 sdziallas thinks his non-native-english-fu is... strange :)
16:10 satellit__ k
16:10 mchua satellit__: so if it's done by next meeting, we'll bring it up then, if it's not drafted by next meeting we'll wait until after it is.
16:10 sdziallas JT4sugar: oh, did you want to? I'm rushing too much, possibly.
16:11 mchua JT4sugar proposed the email, so...
16:11 satellit__ * multiple working hypotheses...: )
16:11 mchua but yeah, we don't need to block meeting-end on it, can ping JT4sugar after meeting to see if he wants to take it.
16:11 JT4sugar I think it would sound best coming from one of the project leads
16:11 mchua sounds like sdziallas has it, then.
16:12 sdziallas okeydokey.
16:12 mchua thinks we're done.
16:12 sdziallas anything else?
16:12 mchua eats a brownie
16:12 sdziallas awesome! thank you folks, this was quite productive!
16:12 phf ah more brownies left :-D
16:12 sdziallas #endmeeting

 « Previous day | Index | Today     Channels | Search | Join

Powered by ilbot/Modified.