1 20:04 < danielsan> anyone here who whants to do the meeting?
2 20:04 * sepski = Ronny Aasen
3 20:05 * winnie = Patrick Winnertz
4 20:05 < sepski> danielsan, is it a low turnup ?
5 20:05 * danielsan = Daniel Hess
6 20:06 < danielsan> at least we are 3 persons
7 20:06 < winnie> seems that we are only 3 persons :)
8 20:06 < winnie> danielsan: you were faster than me :)
9 20:08 < winnie> okay who wants to write the summary and who wants moderate this meeting=
10 20:08 < winnie> if nobody else volunteers I would collect the log.
11 20:08 -!- danielsan
12 20:09 < sepski> have you written most of the agenda points ? if the ones that put the item on the agenda is not present i think it's kinda moot having it.
13 20:10 * sepski did not contribute any of the points
14 20:10 < danielsan> i don't think we have much to summarise
15 20:10 * winnie things that too
16 20:10 < danielsan> me too
17 20:11 < danielsan> at least we could do point 9. or we will not get a real meeting in the next few weeks
18 20:11 < winnie> danielsan: and I would like to discuss me mail I wrote some hors ago
19 20:11 < sepski> yeah i think point 9 is something we can do :)
20 20:11 < winnie> s/hors/hours/
21 20:12 < danielsan> winnie: maybe you could add it to the agenda and we will skip there fast?
22 20:12 < winnie> okay
23 20:12 < winnie> wait :)
24 20:13 < danielsan> ok, than i think we have point 1.: nobody writes a summary, as it would be longer than the log :)
25 20:13 * Werner = Morten Werner Olsen
26 20:13 < winnie> danielsan: *g*
27 20:13 < Werner> sorry I'm late..
28 20:14 < danielsan> Werner: you did not miss much :)
29 20:14 < winnie> Werner: np
30 20:14 < sepski> Werner, dont think there is goning to be a real meeting. since the turnup is low
31 20:14 < Werner> ok
32 20:14 -!- annkas
33 20:14 < winnie> Werner: we are only 4 people here
34 20:14 -!- annkas
35 20:14 < embrik> 5
36 20:14 -!- danielsan
37 20:14 < winnie> embrik: please do a /me = realname
38 20:15 < danielsan> anyone here who wants to say something here?
39 20:15 < embrik> embrik is my realname
40 20:15 < winnie> danielsan: yes a bit
41 20:15 < winnie> kurt gramlich made the announcements in germany
42 20:15 -!- pere
43 20:16 * pere = Petter Reinholdtsen. Sorry for being late.
44 20:16 < winnie> but he modified the official text a bit and added some points about cipux as administration system
45 20:16 < winnie> pere: np, we are now 6 people here
46 20:16 < winnie> since we doesn't officially support this and cipux is also no part of d-e this wasn't correct.
47 20:17 < winnie> but I also think we can't do there much, so this was just for the record :)
48 20:18 < Werner> do we have an agenda on web?
49 20:18 < danielsan> yes, i think it was to short for anyone get any information about cipux at all out of it
50 20:18 < winnie> Werner: yes, here: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Meeting
51 20:18 < Werner> right, I was looking for a specific date, sorry
52 20:19 -!- danielsan
53 20:19 -!- pere
54 20:19 < Werner> is there anyone here that have done any press work at all?
55 20:19 < winnie> the point is that our official administration interface wasn't mentioned.. only some unofficial and highly incomplete stuff
56 20:19 < pere> I've contacted fremover, but did not get any reply.
57 20:20 < pere> winnie: yes, it is sad that the german press was getting incorrect info.
58 20:20 < danielsan> i think we should better look at the translations send out next time, ...
59 20:20 < winnie> danielsan: the translations wasn't the problem...
60 20:21 < winnie> kurt modified them before sending them to the press (he has done this himself)
61 20:21 < winnie> danielsan: I made the german translation of the press package
62 20:21 < danielsan> winnie: i meant the version of the translation that is send to the press
63 20:22 < winnie> danielsan: ah okay... but how? if he modified it on his pc and then directly send it to the press?
64 20:22 < danielsan> that it something that should not happen
65 20:23 < winnie> yes definitly. /me is quite angry with kurt
66 20:23 < Werner> but is it something we can do about it here?
67 20:23 < Werner> we have a rather large agenda, so if not I suggest we should move on
68 20:23 < danielsan> we sould have the exact version in the wiki where some (more than one) could agree on bevore it get send out
69 20:23 < danielsan> yes
70 20:23 < winnie> Werner: yes we should :)
71 20:24 -!- danielsan
72 20:24 < danielsan> we sould go on
73 20:25 < winnie> Okay, there are several patches for slbackup-php and lwat which should enter r1 (slbackup-php is mostly useless without :S and lwat get's some fixes
74 20:25 < winnie> furthermore I got an status report from a friend of mine doing an installation:
75 20:25 < danielsan> winnie: what about the i18n changes?
76 20:25 < danielsan> to lwat
77 20:26 < winnie> danielsan: this is part of the fixes ;)
78 20:26 < danielsan> ok, than we may whant to call for translations of the new strings
79 20:26 < winnie> danielsan: atm I'll wait for some fixes and then I'll upload lwat again.
80 20:26 < winnie> but back to the installation report:
81 20:27 < winnie> he installs an amd64 machine and hit only enter on the boot prompt
82 20:27 < winnie> then the installer will install amd64 correctly
83 20:28 < winnie> but if he start with linux debian-edu-expert the installer installs on the amd64 machine an i386 system...
84 20:28 < winnie> i guess this is not what we really want :)
85 20:28 < danielsan> winnie: try amd64-debian-edu-expert
86 20:28 < danielsan> the autodetect only works if you hit enter
87 20:28 < danielsan> something that sould get documented it think
88 20:29 < winnie> danielsan: okay.. than this is definitly a point we should document
89 20:29 < winnie> yes exactly
90 20:29 < Werner> winnie: is the bug reported?
91 20:29 < winnie> Werner: I guess not
92 20:29 < winnie> I'll told him to do so, okay?
93 20:29 < pere> isn't it install-amd64 instead of install?
94 20:30 < danielsan> mhh, ok, maybe better to take a look at the iso bevore documenting it :)
95 20:30 < winnie> danielsan: :)
96 20:30 < danielsan> any further things about 3 or 3.1?
97 20:30 < pere> I want the live CD released with r1
98 20:31 < pere> (well, the live DVD)
99 20:32 < danielsan> pere: have there been wider tests and reports so far?
100 20:32 < pere> my wish list for r1 was sent to the list earlier, and I hope someone is working on those things.
101 20:32 * danielsan remebers now :)
102 20:32 < pere> danielsan: not that I am aware of. the only "experimental" feature on the standalone live image is the enabling of the students kde profile for the live user.
103 20:32 < danielsan> maybe we sould create a wikipage with points to do bevore the release
104 20:32 < pere> the rest is just standalone+laptop.
105 20:33 < Werner> danielsan: sounds like a good idea
106 20:33 < winnie> pere: I've set up an tjener this days
107 20:33 < pere> http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/roadmap could be a starting point.
108 20:33 < winnie> it works well expept one point:
109 20:33 < winnie> sitesummary
110 20:33 < pere> <URL: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Status/Etch > is related too.
111 20:34 < danielsan> looks good, maybe we could create a r1 section and merge peres e-mail there
112 20:34 < Werner> so who can update the roadmap-page?
113 20:34 < pere> winnie: do we need both the roadmap and the status page?
114 0:34 * klausade = klaus ade johnstad
115 20:34 < pere> the status page is outdated, btw. several of the issues there are fixed.
116 20:35 < winnie> pere: afaik sitesummary should help to set up munin.. but munin is after all not configured.
117 20:35 < pere> winnie: ? I suspect you are not aware that you need to wait a day or two. :)
118 20:35 < winnie> pere: I waited one week ;-)
119 20:36 < klausade> pere: is there a way to start it sooner, i mean munin?
120 20:36 < danielsan> anyone who volunteers to create/modify a page for r1 release goals?
121 20:36 < pere> winnie: worked for me. first sitesummary-client need to run to submit info to the server. next sitesummary need to run to update the munin config. then minin need to run to generate stats.
122 20:36 < pere> klausade: sure. /etc/cron.daily/sitesummary-client;/etc/cron.daily/sitesummary
123 20:37 < winnie> pere: okay I'll test it when my servers are again available
124 20:37 < pere> and because sitesummary-client is sorted after sitesummary, the cron jobs need to run two days in a row for a machine to propagate into munin. :(
125 20:38 < winnie> pere: okay I'll hava again a look at it
126 20:38 < pere> danielsan: apparently no volunteer. :)
127 20:38 < danielsan> ok, for preparing r1 the next step is the wikipage and we'll the on the next meeting how long we will take to get it out?
128 20:39 * pere believe we need to reduce the number of wiki pages and combine them in new ways, because it is getting hard to track information.
129 20:39 < Werner> danielsan: sounds good
130 20:39 < pere> I would like to have updated and translated documentation in r1. hope h01ger is working on it.
131 20:39 < danielsan> ok, but thats it for now and r1 or does anyone whants to make a bit plan now?
132 20:40 -!- danielsan
133 20:40 -!- danielsan
134 20:40 < danielsan> opps
135 20:40 < pere> what is the core team?
136 20:41 < danielsan> was not meant to change now, but i gues we are at point 4 now?
137 20:41 < winnie> pere: I guess everybody who is active... this aren't so much
138 20:41 < pere> I would see all active as "the team", and those inactive as outside it. :)
139 20:41 < winnie> pere: :) okay
140 20:42 < winnie> this is whites point I doesn't know what he understand under "core" team
141 20:42 < pere> but I guess the point was that we need more official debian developers on the team, and I agree.
142 20:42 < winnie> pere: yes
143 20:42 < winnie> atm this is only you, white, Werner, ?
144 20:42 < winnie> danielsan: are you DD?
145 20:42 < sepski> h0lger
146 20:43 < winnie> ah yes of course
147 20:43 < danielsan> no
148 20:43 < winnie> mh.. sepski danielsan sign up? ;-)
149 20:43 < sepski> winnie, well i have read a bit on the NM, but one of the requisites is a regular supply of time. and my spare time supply is highly irregular.
150 20:43 < pere> learning the skills required to become a DD would be very useful for debian edu.
151 20:44 -!- H
152 20:44 < sepski> at present it's quite little of it. ina few months i may be able to spend several houers a day on foss.
153 20:44 < pere> sepski: like a N-shaped U-space? :)
154 20:44 < sepski> pere, hehe yes :)
155 20:44 < winnie> danielsan: what about you?
156 20:45 < danielsan> winnie: some day i will surly sign up, but i think currently i'm not ready for it
157 20:45 < sepski> but it's something i'd like if i manage to twist my life situation into giving that poibillity.
158 20:45 < winnie> does we have any other contributors who aren't yet DD ?
159 20:46 < winnie> (except myself)
160 20:47 < pere> several, but not that many on the coding side. :)
161 20:47 < danielsan> ok, than this is a call for all to think about signing up for nm-process who are not DDs already?
162 20:47 < sepski> well it's not possible to force anyone into becoming a dd, they may be more then happy to work on edu, but not ready to take on the responsibility of dd-ishm
163 20:48 < danielsan> can we move on?
164 20:48 < sepski> please do
165 20:48 < pere> yeah, and we do have work for them too. Having more DDs is nice to reduce the load on the existing ones, but not required to keep going.
166 20:48 < pere> I'm done. :)
167 20:48 < winnie> sepski: we don't want to force anybody of signing up. if someone doesn't want because of no time or no interest there is no problem I think
168 20:48 -!- danielsan
169 20:49 < sepski> h01ger, should have been here for thatone i think
170 20:49 < pere> yeah. but he do not know the answer to it, so we need to provide feedback.
171 20:49 < pere> there is a PDF and a HTML. is the txt wanted?
172 20:50 < danielsan> i think text would be nice for blind people?
173 0:50 < pere> they can't use html?
174 20:50 < winnie> pere: I think we should include something which can be read without gui interface and without installing non-gui browsers
175 20:50 < pere> winnie: why?
176 20:50 < danielsan> or at least the html version sould be good readable with lynx
177 20:50 < pere> I believe the txt is basicly lynx -dump of the html version.
178 20:51 < winnie> danielsan: is lynx installed per default? My first action is: vim /usr/share/doc/$packagename/
179 20:51 < winnie> and browsing this dir..
180 20:51 < pere> links is installed by default.
181 20:51 < pere> it was claimed to be a better browser so we replaced it for lynx.
182 20:52 < danielsan> if we not include a txt version we should try to give good alt attributes for html
183 20:52 < Werner> I always appreciate when there is a .txt.gz .. but it's of course a lynx -dump if you have lynx installed :)
184 20:52 < pere> danielsan: sure. how do we do this on the wiki?
185 20:52 < sepski> perhaps someone have time to look at the output of html2text from the html pages ?
186 20:53 < winnie> sepski: yes I guess I can look over this.
187 20:53 < pere> we are moving to a documentation framework with wiki->docbook->PDF/HTML and docbook->po-files->translated docbook->PDF/HTML.
188 20:53 < danielsan> pere: don't know, unfortunatly i've not have enough time to take a close look at the doc thing
189 20:53 < pere> so with the wiki being the source document, we do not have full flexibility.
190 20:53 < winnie> pere: what about: wiki->docbook->translated docbook->html>text
191 20:54 < sepski> if there are tools that can make a sane txt from html/pdf or docbook, im sure it's implementable
192 20:54 < winnie> sepski: i guess this should be possible
193 20:54 < pere> winnie: yes, that is the question. is the text version useful when we already have PDF and HTML?
194 20:54 < Werner> practical, but not neccessarry :)
195 20:54 < pere> I normally use the html version myself, I must admit.
196 20:54 < winnie> pere: I would say yes. txt is the easies format
197 20:55 < sepski> i think that the people that use the .txt version would also know about lynx -dump :)
198 20:55 < pere> what would the teachers and sysadmins want?
199 20:55 < Werner> html or pdf I guess?
200 20:55 < danielsan> i think most teachers would go for a hardcopy of the pdf if they are new and use html later (when they already know the basics)
201 20:56 < danielsan> at least the kind of teachers i know :)
202 20:56 < winnie> danielsan: I ask just now a sysadm
203 20:57 < danielsan> maybe we should concentrate on getting something that maybe later could dump to txt first?
204 20:58 < sepski> check for tools to do it ? and move on ?
205 20:59 < sepski> 1 minute left and 4 points :)
206 20:59 < pere> danielsan: well, if I understood h01ger correctly, he wanted a policy decision to know if he should spend time on the text version or not.
207 20:59 < danielsan> any more things for this point?
208 20:59 < winnie> danielsan: okay.. "my" sysadm would prefer html
209 20:59 < pere> it seem to me that the general feeling is that schools are well off with PDF and HTML.
210 20:59 < danielsan> ok, i would say txt would be nice if it is easy to implement, but sould not be a showstoper?
211 21:00 < sepski> i think 2x the same docs must be enoughf redundancy. document how to use links in a text file in the docs if nexxecary :)
212 21:00 < winnie> yes, okay than we shouldn't blow up d-e-d unnecessary with duplicate informations
213 21:00 < danielsan> anyone who whants to make decision for or against txt now?
214 21:01 < pere> I say we decide to drop txt in the doc package when PDF and HTML is available.
215 21:01 < pere> two copies are enough, and the package is getting very bug.
216 21:01 < pere> s/bug/big/
217 21:01 < sepski> h01ger, dont bother using time on it. <next agenda point please>
218 21:02 < danielsan> any objections?
219 21:02 < winnie> okay... since it is late should we move to the next point?
220 21:02 -!- danielsan
221 21:02 < winnie> danielsan: does r1 need an own name?
222 21:03 < danielsan> i don't think so
223 21:03 < winnie> if this is about the lenny based version we shouldn't decide now since there are too many people around
224 21:03 < sepski> aren't we talking about lenny now ?
225 21:03 < danielsan> maybe it's the lenny based?
226 21:03 < pere> I do not think so either.
227 21:03 < winnie> yes, lenny based
228 21:03 < pere> I suspect the topic is for lenny name and number.
229 21:03 < winnie> pere: yes..
230 21:03 < sepski> i'd hope the lenny based one would be called "lenny"... :)
231 21:03 < danielsan> ok, lenny still takes some time and we are on r1 now, so decide later?
232 1:03 < winnie> sepski: *g*
233 21:04 < winnie> danielsan: yes I would say this
234 21:04 < sepski> danielsan, definitiftly. move on.
235 21:04 -!- danielsan
236 21:04 < winnie> danielsan: I would go for skipping this point too.. --> r1
237 21:04 < pere> h01ger and I have discussed the numbering a bit, and h01ger proposed to use the same number as debian is using, while I believe we need to use our own version numbers as it will be impractical to lock ourself to the version numbers used in debian.
238 21:04 < winnie> i also would go for own version numbers
239 21:05 < danielsan> do we need to decide now?
240 21:05 < pere> nope, we do not need to decide now.
241 21:05 < winnie> danielsan: i don't think so
242 21:05 < sepski> i think 7 is so large it can take on a meeting by itself.
243 21:06 < danielsan> do we whant to talk about lenny now, or should we concentrate on r1 and than talk about lenny (as there are some people missing now)
244 21:06 < winnie> yes i think so
245 21:06 < danielsan> any objections about skiping to point 8?
246 21:06 < winnie> we should make an own meeting with hopefully more persons around
247 21:07 < winnie> lets move on to 8. ?
248 21:07 -!- danielsan
249 21:07 < winnie> okay, i started to work on getting debian-edu into an extreamdura session
250 21:07 < winnie> and I talked with stockholm about getting in.
251 21:08 < Werner> good
252 21:08 < danielsan> cool
253 21:08 < Werner> maybe combine agenda-point 7 and extremadura-session?
254 21:08 < winnie> there is atm no completly free meeting so we have to share one of these dates with another org (maybe cdd)
255 21:09 < danielsan> is it still the one together with cdd?
256 21:09 -!- H
257 21:09 < danielsan> ah :)
258 21:09 < winnie> stockholm wants to give me feedback about when we get an slot until the end of this week. (mid of aug)
259 21:09 -!- H
260 21:10 < pere> winnie: good to hear. I hope it work out.
261 21:10 < winnie> the most possible meeting date is in octobre, but atm I can't tell more since stockholm has to speak with caesar.
262 21:10 < winnie> but I definitly write then an email to the mailinglist.
263 21:11 < winnie> i think things are good to get in
264 21:11 < pere> getting a date early would be good.
265 21:11 < winnie> yes, thats why i ask them to get the date until the end of this week
266 21:12 < danielsan> winnie: good, thanks for taking care
267 21:12 < pere> include the URL to the wiki page in the summary. :)
268 21:13 < winnie> danielsan: np
269 21:13 < sepski> i haveto run. regarding 9 for me is most days after 20:00 weekdays are usualy okish
270 21:13 < danielsan> pere: thats an other point, at the beginning it did not show that it will take this long, but it gues i'll write a short summary
271 21:14 < danielsan> next point?
272 21:14 < winnie> yes
273 21:14 -!- danielsan
274 21:14 < winnie> as I write in my emails ~1 houre ago I would like to discuss the idea white and I had today
275 21:15 * pere have not received email today. what is the idea?
276 21:15 -!- sepski
277 21:15 < winnie> to update some of the packages which are in the stable pool.
278 21:15 < winnie> in short :)
279 21:15 < winnie> in long:
280 21:16 < winnie> we think over if it would make sense to update some packages in the stable pool to include non security fixes
281 21:16 -!- H
282 21:16 < pere> as in pushing some packages from etch-test to etch?
283 21:16 -!- H
284 21:16 < pere> I believe the artwork package should be pushed, as well as the discover packages.
285 21:16 < danielsan> winnie: you are taking about normal programms, not edu specific packages?
286 21:16 < winnie> pere: yes. on a package to package descision
287 21:17 < winnie> danielsan: both. for example lwat. there are some fixes I would like to see in etch before r1 which aren't security related
288 21:17 < winnie> also slbackup-php... the 0.2 version is mostly useless here
289 21:17 < pere> winnie: I believe we should push some packages from etch-test to etch, yes.
290 21:18 < winnie> and slbackup-0.3 works much better
291 21:18 < winnie> if we decide so we should discuss this for every package every time i guess since etch should stay stable more or less
292 21:19 < winnie> and we also have to think over the disadvantages of pushing new packages in: maybe introducing new bugs which weren't there before for example
293 21:19 < pere> some of the newer packages are just repackaging of the old ones, as our local patches made it into unstable.
294 21:19 < danielsan> winnie: maybe posting the new changelog entrys to debian-edu@ and wait some days if someone has to say someting against?
295 21:20 < winnie> danielsan: i guess moving packages to stable should be the exception. so if somebody has really good reason to move an package we should discuss this on firstname.lastname@example.org
296 21:20 < pere> perhaps with a fixed subject too, like :Stable update proposal: packagename
297 21:20 < winnie> pere: yes
298 21:21 < danielsan> maybe people who have tested the new version could also provice feedback
299 21:21 < pere> winnie: it will only be the exception. most of the 2500 packages are not going to be updated. :)
300 21:21 < winnie> danielsan: yes, this would be the idea.. that only well tested packages should move
301 21:21 < danielsan> so the ftpadmin who may move the package can get an easy overview
302 21:22 < pere> seem to me everyone agree on that one. :)
303 21:23 < danielsan> yes
304 21:23 < winnie> yes :)
305 21:23 -!- danielsan
306 21:23 < danielsan> i think we sould not wait to long for it :)
307 21:23 < winnie> in two weeks?
308 21:23 < pere> do we have a schedule for r1?
309 21:23 < winnie> no not yet
310 21:24 < pere> next meeting should be before r1 is released. :)
311 21:24 < danielsan> pere: i think we sould do the wiki update and then decide at the next meeting?
312 21:24 < winnie> pere: mh.. two weeks are bad.. I'm in holydays then :S maybe 3.9 ?
313 21:25 * danielsan thinks two weeks are to long
314 21:25 < danielsan> when have some points left from today
315 21:25 < pere> danielsan: well, we can either decide to release with what we got ready at a fixed date, or try for a moving target. I suspect the former is better.
316 21:25 < pere> r1 at the end of this month or early next month is probably a good idea.
317 21:27 < danielsan> sounds good, maybe we could get somethink more specific at the next meeting
318 21:27 < winnie> oeri would say one point which should be a "we won't release without" should be the docu
319 21:28 < pere> just having updated documentation would be enough to justify r1. :)
320 21:28 < pere> all the other fixes is just a bonus. :)
321 21:28 < winnie> :)
322 21:28 < pere> next meeting in a week or two weeks? can we move away from mondays?
323 21:28 < pere> (but my tuesdays and thursdays are taken)
324 21:29 < danielsan> what about next week on thursday?
325 21:29 < winnie> i would go for a meeting befor the 24.8
326 21:29 < winnie> since then i can give an status overview about extremadura
327 21:29 < pere> 2007-08-23 might work for me.
328 21:30 < winnie> and I'll be off from 25.8 till 2.9
329 21:30 < pere> anyone against 23rd?
330 21:30 < danielsan> ok than 2007-08-23, 18 UTC (20 CEST) again?
331 21:31 < pere> ok with me.
332 21:31 < winnie> oay fine
333 21:31 < danielsan> ok
334 21:32 < danielsan> than that is
335 21:32 < danielsan> thanks all for coming