Sep 27 10:55:19 ---	bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Meeting rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init process
Sep 27 10:56:13 -->	drago01 (n=dragoran@chello062178124130.3.13.univie.teleweb.at) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 10:56:48 -->	llaumgui (n=llaumgui@cro34-2-82-226-153-125.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 10:59:30 <bpepple>	FESCo meeting ping -- bpepple, caillon, c4chris, dgilmore, dwmw2, f13, jeremy, jwb, notting, spot, nirik, tibbs, warren
Sep 27 10:59:31 <bpepple>	Hi everybody; who's around?
Sep 27 10:59:34 *	jeremy is here
Sep 27 10:59:35 *	tibbs here
Sep 27 10:59:41 *	spot is heah
Sep 27 10:59:48 *	f13 present
Sep 27 10:59:49 *	warren here
Sep 27 11:00:04 <--	drago01 has quit ("Leaving")
Sep 27 11:00:07 *	c4chris is here
Sep 27 11:00:54 -->	notting (n=notting@redhat/notting) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:01:01 *	nirik is here. 
Sep 27 11:01:24 <bpepple>	ok, we can probably get started.
Sep 27 11:01:25 ---	bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RahulSundaram/WhyUpstream - all
Sep 27 11:01:36 <bpepple>	mether wanted us to look at this.
Sep 27 11:01:55 <f13>	and do what exactly with it?
Sep 27 11:01:57 -->	poelcat (i=slick@fedora/poelcat) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:02:20 <bpepple>	bpepple: I believe he was looking for us to ratify it, though I'm not sure it's necessary.
Sep 27 11:02:27 <notting>	i'm uncomfortable with mandating 'upstream if not one of these exceptions'. i don't think we a) will really be able to quantify all the situations where an exception may be needed b) want to be in the business of approving/disproving exceptions
Sep 27 11:02:50 <warren>	notting, +1
Sep 27 11:02:57 *	dgilmore is here
Sep 27 11:02:57 <f13>	notting: +1
Sep 27 11:02:59 <tibbs>	I didn't see anything factually incorrect when I read through it, but I agree with notting .
Sep 27 11:03:42 <tibbs>	The "Why Upstream" section is a nice summary of why we want to work with upstream.  I'd be happy if it stopped there.
Sep 27 11:03:45 <f13>	so everything but the Exceptions section seems fine to me.
Sep 27 11:04:18 <bpepple>	f13: agreed.  maybe we could have mether drop that section.
Sep 27 11:04:49 <tibbs>	This isn't intended to be some sort of packaging guideline, is it?  With people going to through and asking "did you upstream that patch yet"?
Sep 27 11:05:10 <mether>	my idea behind doing this was to give packagers esp new ones some sort of best practices guidelines
Sep 27 11:05:16 <dgilmore>	the exceptions part while it pretty much makes sense,  we dont want to be police.
Sep 27 11:05:16 <f13>	I thought it would just so somewhere in the "what fedora is about" documents.
Sep 27 11:05:19 <mether>	not a strict interpretation of what is necessary or not
Sep 27 11:06:06 <dgilmore>	we can not force anyone to upstream things  we can only encourage it
Sep 27 11:06:27 <tibbs>	Yes, because of the simple fact that we can't force upstream to take any of our patches.
Sep 27 11:06:35 <dgilmore>	indeed
Sep 27 11:07:26 *	jwb is here
Sep 27 11:07:42 *	nirik agrees 
Sep 27 11:07:46 -->	G_ (n=njones@wikipedia/NigelJ) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:09:20 <jwb>	and conversation has died...
Sep 27 11:09:32 <bpepple>	are there any other thoughts on mether's proposal?
Sep 27 11:09:52 <f13>	well, wtf are we supposed to put it
Sep 27 11:09:57 <f13>	once we agree on the content?
Sep 27 11:11:19 <bpepple>	f13: maybe somewhere in the users section of the PackageMaintainers page?
Sep 27 11:11:24 ---	dwmw2_gone is now known as dwmw2
Sep 27 11:11:30 <dgilmore>	f13: somewhere that deals with maintaining packages
Sep 27 11:12:03 *	dwmw2 arrives
Sep 27 11:12:25 <bpepple>	possibly the resources section, though that is pretty over-loaded already.
Sep 27 11:12:28 <dwmw2>	what notting said. Let the kernel maintainers judge exceptions like they always have
Sep 27 11:12:51 <dgilmore>	dwmw2: thats not what we are talking about
Sep 27 11:12:55 <f13>	how about this, we put it somewhere in the About Fedora pages, under a "Why we stress upstream"
Sep 27 11:13:05 <dgilmore>	f13: sounds fine
Sep 27 11:13:08 <f13>	and then we can wikilink to that from wherever else in the wiki it makes sense.
Sep 27 11:13:16 <bpepple>	f13: works for me.
Sep 27 11:13:21 <dwmw2>	dgilmore: ah, ok. I keep forgetting that userspace exists. :)
Sep 27 11:13:32 *	c4chris likes the document except the Exceptions part
Sep 27 11:13:48 <nirik>	sounds fine to me. Do we want to ask removal/re-wording of exceptions?
Sep 27 11:13:55 <jwb>	yes
Sep 27 11:14:17 <dgilmore>	dwmw2: :)
Sep 27 11:14:24 <f13>	maybe change it to say "Some examples of when upstreaming is not possible" nad then drop the final sentance
Sep 27 11:14:27 <f13>	sentence
Sep 27 11:14:34 <bpepple>	f13: +1
Sep 27 11:14:49 <tibbs>	+1
Sep 27 11:14:54 <nirik>	+1
Sep 27 11:15:11 <dgilmore>	+1
Sep 27 11:15:16 <dwmw2>	+1
Sep 27 11:15:17 <c4chris>	+1
Sep 27 11:15:45 <bpepple>	ok, that's more than half of fesco.
Sep 27 11:15:57 <jwb>	+1
Sep 27 11:16:32 <bpepple>	mether: anything else you want to add? Or should we move on?
Sep 27 11:16:56 <caillon>	dwmw2: +1
Sep 27 11:17:01 <mether>	bpepple: works for me
Sep 27 11:17:14 <bpepple>	mether: great, thanks!
Sep 27 11:17:21 ---	bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting -- MISC -- transition plan for switching devel to rawhide - warren
Sep 27 11:17:36 <jwb>	i don't understand this topic at all
Sep 27 11:17:53 <c4chris>	that's two of us, then :)
Sep 27 11:17:55 <tibbs>	We want to call it rawhide, right?
Sep 27 11:17:58 <bpepple>	jwb: this was something we talked about a few meetings back.
Sep 27 11:18:04 <bpepple>	tibbs: correct.
Sep 27 11:18:05 <tibbs>	Bugzilla still calls it "devel", for one.
Sep 27 11:18:06 <dwmw2>	we already call it rawhide
Sep 27 11:18:16 <dgilmore>	jwb: we will use rawhide to revert to the development branch  everywhere officially
Sep 27 11:18:16 <nirik>	in some places it's devel, and some places rawhide. People get confused. 
Sep 27 11:18:18 <dwmw2>	please, no more gratuitous renaming of stuff
Sep 27 11:18:35 <jwb>	dgilmore, s/revert/refer?
Sep 27 11:18:37 <dgilmore>	s/revert/refer/
Sep 27 11:18:40 <dwmw2>	'devel' is better for people who aren't familiar with Fedora.
Sep 27 11:18:41 <jwb>	ok
Sep 27 11:19:40 <caillon>	i agree with dwmw2 on this.  not important enough to change things.  i'm fine with cvs being in project/devel and don't care to have to recheck out everything to see project/rawhide
Sep 27 11:19:43 <--	G has quit (Connection timed out)
Sep 27 11:19:58 <c4chris>	old lore can be fun ...
Sep 27 11:20:44 <notting>	what? changing cvs?
Sep 27 11:21:05 <caillon>	if we're talking about "everywhere" that's one place that would have to change
Sep 27 11:21:24 <c4chris>	I think we've had enough changes for a while
Sep 27 11:21:46 <c4chris>	interested parties can ask, and that starts a dialogue of some sort
Sep 27 11:22:05 *	nirik would prefer everything was rawhide, but it's not probibly worth all the hassle to change it. 
Sep 27 11:22:06 <bpepple>	c4chris: +1
Sep 27 11:22:32 <jwb>	i see no benefit here
Sep 27 11:22:35 <notting>	changing cvs is just wrong
Sep 27 11:22:53 <caillon>	notting: unless we do something useful like move to hg/git/whatever
Sep 27 11:23:11 <caillon>	but that's a different discussion :)
Sep 27 11:23:16 <bpepple>	Is anyone interested in pursuing this?  Otherwise I think we can probably move on then.
Sep 27 11:23:55 *	caillon takes that to be a no
Sep 27 11:24:03 *	bpepple agrees with caillon
Sep 27 11:24:04 <wwoods>	Since we so commonly refer to rawhide as.. well, as rawhide
Sep 27 11:24:10 <wwoods>	we'll probably change the Bugzilla version name
Sep 27 11:24:19 <jwb>	for what reason?
Sep 27 11:24:27 <caillon>	i'm fine with that.  does that warrant fesco involvement?
Sep 27 11:24:27 <wwoods>	but CVS is developer-focused, and the devs can Figure It Out
Sep 27 11:24:29 <nirik>	can you have it just be an alias for 'devel' ? have both show up?
Sep 27 11:24:40 <wwoods>	caillon: not really. just being informative.
Sep 27 11:24:46 <caillon>	wwoods: okay :)
Sep 27 11:24:55 <wwoods>	nirik: I'm kind of trying to have less versions in bugzilla, not more
Sep 27 11:24:56 <notting>	the only other place to maybe change is the tree name in the repos/web site
Sep 27 11:25:09 <nirik>	wwoods: true. 
Sep 27 11:25:11 -->	hircus (n=michel@156-56-225-128.dhcp-bl.indiana.edu) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:25:47 <nirik>	or 'development(rawhide)' or something... details tho... shall we move on?
Sep 27 11:25:59 <caillon>	aye
Sep 27 11:26:05 ---	bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
Sep 27 11:26:27 <wwoods>	right, having rawhide actually called "rawhide" in the repo names would be helpful, since we all call it rawhide all the dang time
Sep 27 11:26:32 <c4chris>	didn't see a releng report lately...
Sep 27 11:26:41 <wwoods>	but yes. moving on.
Sep 27 11:26:45 <tibbs>	I don't think FESCo covered the Python Eggs proposal submitted by FPC last week.
Sep 27 11:26:46 <f13>	we haven't really done much deciding, mostly just working
Sep 27 11:26:54 <tibbs>	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PythonEggs
Sep 27 11:27:07 <c4chris>	f13: k
Sep 27 11:27:14 <tibbs>	This was approved by FPC but sort of got lost in the confusion while I was ill.
Sep 27 11:27:51 <bpepple>	tibbs: Yeah, I don't think anyone was aware the FPC had submitted that.
Sep 27 11:27:54 <lkundrak>	I need some more opinions about http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LubomirKundrak/SecurityUpdateProcessDraft Basically it is request for requirement to approve security updates by Security Response team to ensure quality
Sep 27 11:28:00 <poelcat>	c4chris: after they waste an hour trying to figure out why? :)
Sep 27 11:28:16 <tibbs>	bpepple: Toshio did the summary for that meeting and sent it to fedora-devel-list.
Sep 27 11:28:42 <bpepple>	most of got lost in the mountain of mail I got last week. ;)
Sep 27 11:29:05 ---	bpepple has changed the topic to: FPC Proposal: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PythonEggs
Sep 27 11:29:08 <nirik>	+1 on pythoneggs... seems fine. 
Sep 27 11:29:19 <c4chris>	+1
Sep 27 11:29:33 <jwb>	0.  i don't know anything about eggs but i trust the FPC
Sep 27 11:29:51 <tibbs>	+1 (didn't get to vote in FPC)
Sep 27 11:29:54 <c4chris>	poelcat: I'm not sure why what ?
Sep 27 11:30:05 <caillon>	0 for me, too
Sep 27 11:30:30 <dgilmore>	+1  i know there are a few projects that only distriute as eggs
Sep 27 11:30:38 <bpepple>	+1 here also.
Sep 27 11:30:52 <poelcat>	c4chris: sorry... my backscroll was stuck... was referring to your comment about people being confused about rawhide vs. development can ask/start a discussion
Sep 27 11:31:24 <c4chris>	poelcat: oh, I see... yes, that's part of the fun :)
Sep 27 11:31:26 <notting>	0
Sep 27 11:31:46 <poelcat>	c4chris: s/fun/frustration ... at least it was for me in the beginning
Sep 27 11:31:58 <jwb>	i need to head to a real-life meeting
Sep 27 11:32:03 *	jwb &
Sep 27 11:32:26 <bpepple>	ok, I see five '+1' and three '0'.
Sep 27 11:32:35 <f13>	+1
Sep 27 11:32:38 <dwmw2>	0
Sep 27 11:33:05 <bpepple>	but more importantly I don't see any '-1', so I think we can consider this approved.
Sep 27 11:33:42 <f13>	worksforme
Sep 27 11:33:51 ---	bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
Sep 27 11:34:07 <bpepple>	Anything else people want to discuss?
Sep 27 11:34:13 <lkundrak>	19:13 < lkundrak> I need some more opinions about http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LubomirKundrak/SecurityUpdateProcessDraft Basically it is request for requirement to  approve security updates by Security Response team to ensure quality
Sep 27 11:34:17 <lkundrak>	this
Sep 27 11:34:43 ---	bpepple has changed the topic to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LubomirKundrak/SecurityUpdateProcessDraft
Sep 27 11:35:19 <nirik>	this will need: bodhi changes, and enough people in security_response to handle the load without delaying things. 
Sep 27 11:36:13 <lkundrak>	there are enough people for that now. plus we can ensure timely reaction by having a timeout for security team reaction
Sep 27 11:36:22 <lkundrak>	like 2 days without approval/disapproval = approval
Sep 27 11:36:33 <lmacken>	works for me.. it's a pretty trivial bodhi change
Sep 27 11:36:45 <caillon>	lkundrak: you said there were a number of problems, especially 2.  were there others that should be addressed?
Sep 27 11:36:54 <tibbs>	Do update pushes happen on any type of schedule?
Sep 27 11:37:06 <lmacken>	tibbs: nope
Sep 27 11:37:06 <nirik>	tibbs: not currently I don't think. 
Sep 27 11:37:08 <caillon>	lkundrak: or is it just those 2 problems?
Sep 27 11:37:16 <c4chris>	IIUC, you'd like the people doing the push approval in bodhi to do additional checking ?
Sep 27 11:37:19 <lkundrak>	caillon: basically just these 2
Sep 27 11:37:30 -->	drago01 (n=linux@chello062178124130.3.13.univie.teleweb.at) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:37:48 <lkundrak>	c4chris: just add one more approval to the regular testing
Sep 27 11:38:15 <c4chris>	from a secutity team member ?
Sep 27 11:38:20 <lkundrak>	yes
Sep 27 11:38:24 <caillon>	lkundrak: how many people are in security_response currently?
Sep 27 11:38:42 <lkundrak>	caillon: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security/ResponseTeam
Sep 27 11:38:43 <caillon>	and also, how many non-RH employees?
Sep 27 11:38:47 *	nirik doesn't think that group exists. 
Sep 27 11:38:48 <lmacken>	FC6 already does this, except it requires approval from the RH security team.  This proposal gives more responsibility to the fedora security team
Sep 27 11:39:01 <lmacken>	the group is security_respons afaik
Sep 27 11:39:03 <lkundrak>	caillon: though I'd expect mostly thoger and me to care about those, as we do work in tracking. probably also nirik
Sep 27 11:39:06 <lmacken>	it's missing a letter or two
Sep 27 11:39:37 <nirik>	ah, ok. 
Sep 27 11:39:43 <nirik>	there are 4 people in that group
Sep 27 11:39:49 <nirik>	https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/dump-group.cgi?group=security_respons&format=plain
Sep 27 11:40:28 <caillon>	how many hours of coverage does that get us?  if not 24/7 then i'm not comfortable with it.
Sep 27 11:40:35 <lmacken>	(as opposed to 1 person responsible for signing/pushing updates)
Sep 27 11:40:40 <lmacken>	security team is not the bottleneck here.
Sep 27 11:40:57 <caillon>	(or close to 24/7)
Sep 27 11:41:04 <lkundrak>	caillon: probably 8x5
Sep 27 11:41:37 *	nirik would be happy to help if it's just checking security marked packages against CVE... I keep up on the security stuff pretty well... 
Sep 27 11:42:00 <lkundrak>	nirik: each security update should have a cve
Sep 27 11:42:00 <jeremy>	simple way to address caillon's concern -- make it so pushers/signers can also mark as "okay" and then if it's critical, the pusher/signer can just do it
Sep 27 11:42:08 <caillon>	lkundrak: we should add some emea/apac people to that list then.  why aren't people like mjcox/holtmann in the group?  that adds another 8 hours
Sep 27 11:42:14 -->	kital (n=Joerg_Si@fedora/kital) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:42:15 <nirik>	lkundrak: right. and it should be the right one too as a bonus. ;) 
Sep 27 11:42:16 <lkundrak>	jeremy: sounds file
Sep 27 11:42:34 <lkundrak>	caillon: mjcox woudn't have time for that, holtmann left RH
Sep 27 11:42:39 <lkundrak>	jeremy: *fine
Sep 27 11:43:10 <jeremy>	(we should still have more people to help out, but that will avoid that being a blocking case ever... and then the pushers/signers are just aware and _try_ to get security response involved but doesn't have to block on them)
Sep 27 11:43:21 <caillon>	okay
Sep 27 11:43:25 <nirik>	sounds good. 
Sep 27 11:43:31 <caillon>	I am in favor of this proposal in general
Sep 27 11:43:44 <caillon>	and agree the sec team should be on these bugs
Sep 27 11:43:54 <bpepple>	caillon: agreed.
Sep 27 11:44:03 <caillon>	just don't want to get into a place where a critical is stuck because nobody is awake
Sep 27 11:44:06 <f13>	me too
Sep 27 11:44:14 <caillon>	because I have had that happen in the past before
Sep 27 11:44:20 <caillon>	for FC6
Sep 27 11:44:22 <caillon>	and under
Sep 27 11:44:23 <tibbs>	Perhaps then we need to be able to wake people up.
Sep 27 11:44:31 <c4chris>	fine with me
Sep 27 11:44:36 *	f13 isn't wearing a pager to push updates.
Sep 27 11:44:40 <lmacken>	admin.fp.o/pager ;)
Sep 27 11:44:48 <jeremy>	tibbs: infrastructure has some capability for that, it could be extended for more people
Sep 27 11:45:18 <tibbs>	That's not just an empty muse; I'm on the list of security people.
Sep 27 11:45:33 <jeremy>	we really need to get the signing stuff going as then we can have more signers/pushers.  which is the current bottleneck.  (well, plus mashing takes a while)
Sep 27 11:45:37 <caillon>	tibbs: I have the home/cell phone numbers for bressers which wakes him usually but not sure how many do and how many he wishes to dish that out to :)
Sep 27 11:45:52 <lkundrak>	caillon: basically, I would say it's better when update waits a day or two than when it comes out in horrible state (lacking bugzilla/cve references, with a comment "Sec FIX")
Sep 27 11:46:32 <caillon>	lkundrak: in some cases yes.  firefox gets high visibility though and i would not necessarily say that is the case.
Sep 27 11:46:51 <caillon>	(although i've done this enough so they will almost never go out with missing info)
Sep 27 11:47:00 <nirik>	I think between more security_respons folks, and allowing signers/pushers to check/allow security updates we should be ok, or at least not worse off than now. 
Sep 27 11:47:07 <--	tux_440volt has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
Sep 27 11:47:42 <lkundrak>	caillon: there are not many updates like that. for firefox the security response usually know in advance that it is coming out. you know.
Sep 27 11:47:49 <f13>	jeremy: indeed, silly things like F8 keep getting in the way of my signing server work (:
Sep 27 11:47:55 -->	ChitleshGoorah (n=chitlesh@77.206.229.162) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:48:12 <jeremy>	f13: I know, I'm just saying that adding security response isn't going to be the bottleneck here so let's just do it :)
Sep 27 11:48:20 <caillon>	lkundrak: i know.  but sometimes there are other issues which means it gets delayed to after hours
Sep 27 11:48:25 <caillon>	anyway
Sep 27 11:48:29 <--	bpepple has quit ("Ex-Chat")
Sep 27 11:48:30 <f13>	jeremy: I agree
Sep 27 11:48:31 <caillon>	+1 on this in general
Sep 27 11:48:38 <jeremy>	+1
Sep 27 11:48:42 <nirik>	+1 here. 
Sep 27 11:48:42 <f13>	+1
Sep 27 11:48:44 <tibbs>	+1
Sep 27 11:48:44 -->	bpepple (n=bpepple@adsl-76-222-100-197.dsl.wotnoh.sbcglobal.net) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:48:46 <notting>	+1
Sep 27 11:48:50 <c4chris>	+1
Sep 27 11:48:50 <lmacken>	lkundrak: you sure are putting me to work this week
Sep 27 11:48:54 <lkundrak>	thanks
Sep 27 11:49:00 <bpepple>	+1
Sep 27 11:49:03 <caillon>	okay, that's 7 +1 (since bpepple missed it)
Sep 27 11:49:04 <caillon>	8
Sep 27 11:49:52 <bpepple>	caillon: thanks.
Sep 27 11:50:05 <dgilmore>	+1
Sep 27 11:50:10 <bpepple>	ok, anything else? Or should we move on?
Sep 27 11:50:31 <dgilmore>	move on
Sep 27 11:50:49 <nirik>	I guess bressers is the one to ping to add to the security_respons group then? 
Sep 27 11:50:59 <caillon>	i'd say so
Sep 27 11:51:07 ---	bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
Sep 27 11:51:23 <lkundrak>	nirik: yes
Sep 27 11:51:24 <bpepple>	anything else people want to discuss this week before wrapping up?
Sep 27 11:52:09 *	nirik can't think of anything off hand. 
Sep 27 11:52:32 *	c4chris has naught
Sep 27 11:52:40 <bpepple>	caillon: what's the status of xulrunner? (I've been gone most of the week)
Sep 27 11:52:43 <tibbs>	When should we raise the merge review issue again?
Sep 27 11:53:04 <f13>	tibbs: probably start of F9
Sep 27 11:53:13 <f13>	although I think F9 conflicts pretty horribly with RHEL5.2 schedule
Sep 27 11:53:48 <tibbs>	Is there a release that doesn't conflict in some way with the RHEL schedule?
Sep 27 11:53:59 <bpepple>	tibbs: probably not. ;)
Sep 27 11:54:11 <f13>	tibbs: F10 may fare better
Sep 27 11:54:51 <spot>	caillon: are we going to get firefox built against xulrunner? soon? :)
Sep 27 11:54:54 <nirik>	f13: did you have an updated list of things that need buildid/ppc rebuilds?
Sep 27 11:55:02 <f13>	nirik: I'll spin one up now.
Sep 27 11:55:06 <dwmw2>	spot: and more to the point, will it work when we do? :)
Sep 27 11:55:06 <f13>	spot: not for F8
Sep 27 11:55:08 <tibbs>	Perhaps a better question is whether there's ever a lull where we can try to agressively deal with some of the merge reviews.  I suspect there isn't.
Sep 27 11:55:11 <f13>	spot: nothing will be built against xul for F8
Sep 27 11:55:28 <f13>	spot: xul made itself unsuitable to build things against it.
Sep 27 11:55:48 <tibbs>	I thought xulrunner was the holy grail.
Sep 27 11:55:52 -->	clarkbw (i=clarkbw@nat/redhat/x-8666ad5599802a36) has joined #fedora-meeting
Sep 27 11:55:58 <jeremy>	I don't think there's a lull... so it's going to be a matter of just continuing to chip away
Sep 27 11:55:58 <nirik>	tibbs: we might try at a fudcon again, but thats not going to get response from maintainers any better. 
Sep 27 11:56:00 <f13>	tibbs: FF upstream isn't ready to switch to xul.
Sep 27 11:56:19 <jeremy>	and I'll try to mention some "encouragement" to appropriate people as well
Sep 27 11:57:06 <bpepple>	ok, I think we can wrap up for this week.
Sep 27 11:57:24 <tibbs>	As I wrote on #fedora-devel, if a particular maintainer feels they have time to deal with some merge reviews, I'll try to work on them.
Sep 27 11:57:35 <nirik>	wow... thats the first time in a while we have finished on time. ;) 
Sep 27 11:58:06 <bpepple>	nirik: yeah, been a long time. ;)
Sep 27 11:58:07 *	bpepple will end the meeting in 60
Sep 27 11:58:16 <c4chris>	woot
Sep 27 11:58:24 *	bpepple will end the meeting in 30
Sep 27 11:58:26 ---	dwmw2 is now known as dwmw2_gone
Sep 27 11:58:44 *	bpepple will end the meeting in 15
Sep 27 11:58:44 <nirik>	tibbs: yeah, I would be happy to do likewise. I should try and work on some more reviews here. Might have time this weekend. 
Sep 27 11:58:59 <bpepple>	-- MARK -- Meeting End
Sep 27 11:59:02 <--	notting (n=notting@redhat/notting) has left #fedora-meeting ("Ex-Chat")
Sep 27 11:59:11 <bpepple>	thanks everyone
Sep 27 11:59:34 <c4chris>	bpepple: thanks
Sep 27 11:59:41 <c4chris>	later folks
Sep 27 11:59:49 <bpepple>	btw, does anyone have a log from this meeting that I could post, since my irc client crapped out in the middle of the meeting today?
Sep 27 12:00:18 <nirik>	bpepple: I have one... shall I upload somewhere or mail to you?
Sep 27 12:00:44 <bpepple>	nirik: I'm fine with either option.  Thanks!