19:00:05 <Hydroxide> #startmeeting
19:00:24 <Hydroxide> #topic agree on rating threshholds
19:00:53 <Hydroxide> everyone ready to start? does anyone object to discarding talks with ratings <= 0 ?
19:01:19 <an3as> No question about this
19:01:30 <Hydroxide> ok
19:01:38 <Hydroxide> #agreed we will not consider talks rated <= 0
19:01:45 <gwolf> Ganneff: still, there might be a maximum number of spots we want to consider
19:01:48 * gwolf agrees
19:01:57 <Hydroxide> now let's set a number N where we'll accept all talks with ratings >= N
19:01:58 <Ganneff> gwolf: no
19:02:17 <Hydroxide> any suggestions? I don't know off-hand how many talks are usual
19:02:36 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: what has this N been in the past?
19:03:07 <Ganneff> 50, 40, depending on the amount
19:03:10 <an3as> Looking at the rating sorted list IMHO >= 75 is fine
19:03:26 <Hydroxide> an3as: that cuts out a huge number of talks, but also includes a huge number
19:03:30 <Ganneff> i say 50 looks good.
19:03:36 <an3as> 50 is OK for me
19:03:37 <gwolf> Now... Are we using the same cutoff point for the different kinds of submissions?
19:03:55 <an3as> I also do not want to *cut* but want to *start* discussion
19:04:05 <gwolf> I'd be stricter, i.e., with DebConf lectures than with BoFs - I'd be fine with letting a BoF with 0, but would prefer positive lectures
19:04:09 <Ganneff> submission types did not count
19:04:10 <an3as> But as I said: 50 is fine as well.
19:04:11 <Hydroxide> gwolf: for talks rated 1-49 we will discuss each
19:04:23 <bdale> I'm currently working through the talks with negative ratings, and at least one I think should be allowed as an evening session.
19:04:25 <Ganneff> keep in mind this does not mean refusal to have this at debconf
19:04:29 <Ganneff> it means refusal to be official
19:04:40 <gwolf> ok.
19:04:45 <Hydroxide> bdale: does what Ganneff said work for you with regard to that talk?
19:04:47 <Ganneff> *any* and all events can happen, if there is a free spot during debconf and people interested
19:04:56 <gwolf> Ganneff: check.
19:04:56 <bdale> catching up on scrollback now
19:05:11 <Ganneff> this here is for official or not, thus counting for sponsorship and proceedings (if any)
19:05:15 <bdale> ok, I don't grok the 'official' vs not distinction
19:05:21 <bdale> oh
19:05:44 <Hydroxide> bdale: i.e. not on the preprinted scheduled, not used in travel sponsorship decisions, etc., but still allowed to occur assuming time and space permits
19:05:58 <Ganneff> Hydroxide: if the people want it. some also decide to withdraw
19:06:02 <gwolf> so we should right away ignore everything that was put to the Unofficial tracks by the submitters?
19:06:05 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: yes
19:06:19 <Hydroxide> gwolf: we're talking about the talks with negative or zero ratings
19:06:19 <gwolf> or we should ignore tracks completely?
19:06:39 <Hydroxide> gwolf: we will look at tracks only for talks rated 1-49, under the current plan
19:06:56 <bdale> my impression of the ones I've read and rated so far is that submitters don't have the tracks selected well, so I'm mostly ignoring what they said and saying what I think in the comments
19:07:03 <gwolf> ok.
19:07:10 <Hydroxide> bdale: is the "as time and space permits, not announced pre-conference" ok for the negative one which you like?
19:07:17 <bdale> sure
19:07:26 <Hydroxide> #info any talk can occur at debconf even if it's not selected, assuming there is time and space free
19:07:51 <Hydroxide> #agreed we will accept talks rated >=50 and only discuss talks rated 1-49
19:07:54 <bdale> I haven't gotten through all the negative ones yet, and haven't looked at any of the positive ones yet...  after my dc8/dc9 screw-up, I'm working my way up from the bottom looking for diamonds in the trash heap, as it were
19:07:59 <Hydroxide> great
19:08:03 <Hydroxide> bdale: yeah, sorry about that
19:08:32 * gwolf also started rating DC8 FWIW
19:08:44 <Hydroxide> we have 22 talks to discuss
19:08:49 <bdale> there are several cases where the proposal or set of proposals from a person aren't good as-is, but a session on that topic by that person structured differently or in a different track would be good... how do we handle those?
19:09:06 <bdale> gwolf: I think the link we were given pointed us that way, or something
19:09:25 <gwolf> bdale: No, it's the same link. It's something in the session.
19:09:32 <bdale> ok
19:09:35 <bdale> I'm just guessing
19:09:37 <gwolf> bdale: Hope you didn't make much advance ranking the past :)
19:09:43 <Hydroxide> #topic how to handle mischaracterized proposals
19:09:44 <Ganneff> last year for talks we thought "merge" we had one talk to the submitter wafter the meeting
19:09:47 <bdale> more than I care to admit...  /o\
19:09:58 <Hydroxide> anything more to say on this or should we start on the talks?
19:09:58 <Ganneff> or for general "this should be done differently, like ..."
19:09:59 <bdale> Ganneff: ok, that's fine
19:10:32 <bdale> I wasn't able to participate in the meeting last year, so sorry if these are "newbie questions"
19:10:37 <Hydroxide> #agreed we will talk to the submitter if we have requests for redesigning the proposal
19:10:57 <Hydroxide> #topic Debian-Med BOF
19:11:00 <Hydroxide> any comments on this?
19:11:06 * bdale looks it up
19:11:24 <Hydroxide> (I assume we're starting from rating 49 to rating 2 (there is nothing rated 1)
19:11:27 <Hydroxide> )
19:11:27 <Ganneff> Hydroxide: give the event id with the topic
19:11:40 <Hydroxide> #topic Debian-Med BOF: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/385
19:11:47 <an3as> I will not vote ... ;-)
19:11:48 <Ganneff> or better, the url, like https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/377 - but with the id people can just replace
19:11:48 <Ganneff> yes
19:11:52 * gwolf is OK with it.
19:12:06 <bdale> I'd like to see a real BOF on this, whether it works depends on how many people other than an3as are engaged
19:12:10 <gwolf> . o O Would be nice to have a non-German submitter, but I won't say it out loud
19:12:19 <Hydroxide> bdale: I agree. I know my father would be interested next year when it's in NYC :)
19:12:37 <gwolf> wait, I had made a point somewhere there... looking it up
19:12:42 <Hydroxide> ok, waiting
19:12:45 <bdale> fwiw, an3as, my doctor was whining about the new system in his office and I told him about this project and he hopes we have a solution for him some day.  ;-)
19:13:02 <an3as> Bdale: From past experience 3-10 people in the BoF
19:13:05 <gwolf> ah, no, it was for another an3as submission (Debian Science)
19:13:09 <gwolf> go on.
19:13:22 <Hydroxide> #agreed Debian-Med BOF approved
19:13:28 <an3as> Bdale: There will be a solution in the far! future
19:13:45 <Ganneff> Hydroxide: please note down the ids of those you approve now, some file, one per line would be best. thanks.
19:13:56 <Hydroxide> #topic dpkg vs Microsoft Installer: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/426
19:14:00 <Hydroxide> Ganneff: ok
19:14:13 <Ganneff> (so i can later run an easy sql query to update their status)
19:14:23 <gwolf> For this one we need to consider it is a lightning talk
19:14:34 <gwolf> I think it is a fun, interesting topic for 5-10 minutes
19:14:35 <Hydroxide> are we approving lightning talks individually?
19:14:42 <an3as> IMHO a time od 10-q5 min makes no complete talk, right?
19:14:44 <Hydroxide> or is the lightning talk coordinator doing those?
19:14:45 <Ganneff> break: accept all lightning talks as one.
19:14:59 <an3as> Yes - that's why I did not voted here
19:15:03 <gwolf> agree.
19:15:05 <Hydroxide> ok.
19:15:10 <Ganneff> and/or move them over to someone else doing the coordination for it. :)
19:15:13 <an3as> IMHO it makes a perfect lightning talk but no separate event
19:15:15 <bdale> I agree ... a lightning talks session is a great idea for the main conf
19:15:17 <Hydroxide> #agreed we are not voting on lighting talks individually - that's the lightning talk coordinator's job
19:15:20 <Hydroxide> next one
19:15:23 <gwolf> Well, somebody (Simon?) proposed the lightning talks slot
19:15:26 <gwolf> so he might be the one.
19:15:32 <Hydroxide> probably
19:15:39 <Hydroxide> #topic Debian redesign: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/459
19:15:47 <bdale> if we have such a proposal, let's approve it and group relevant proposals with it?
19:15:56 <Hydroxide> bdale: which?
19:16:21 <gwolf> bdale: In this case, pixelgirl has one specific proposal she has been working on.. And I guess she will present it
19:16:24 <bdale> lightning talks
19:16:35 <bdale> for this redesign, is this about the web site, or theming, or what?
19:16:52 <Hydroxide> overall debian visuals, I think
19:16:55 <an3as> I also failed to understand what the real intention might be ...
19:16:56 <gwolf> mostly Web, but includes other factors
19:16:57 <Hydroxide> including website and logo
19:17:03 <Hydroxide> but still keeping the swirl
19:17:04 <Hydroxide> :)
19:17:14 <bdale> I wish the proposal were more complete ... as-is, this is hard to rate
19:17:14 <gwolf> She wants to present her work - although it seems she is taking it as will-be-official... dunno
19:17:24 <an3as> Gwolf: Did you asked her to complete the description?
19:17:24 <Hydroxide> I think it'll be controversial but could produce a great result if the project ends up with something it likes
19:17:26 <gwolf> pixelgirl: are you still around?
19:17:35 <gwolf> an3as: No, I didn't see the note until now
19:17:37 <Hydroxide> gwolf: I think she had to leave
19:17:50 <Hydroxide> bdale: she did her diploma thesis on it at university
19:17:54 <an3as> Metaquestion: Should we set some events to "stalled until further information"
19:17:58 <bdale> I'm fine with hearing a talk on a proposed alternate set of design elements
19:18:09 * bdale is married to a graphic designer...
19:18:10 <gwolf> I could look up the URLs she has sent me - but I think we don't need to see the specifics for this.
19:18:19 <Hydroxide> an3as: no, due to the lateness of this meeting. the conference is in less than 2 months
19:18:24 <an3as> OK
19:18:40 <Hydroxide> #agreed Debian redesign talk is approved
19:18:51 <gwolf> Hmh, I'd like to hear enrico and Kinnison on this :(
19:18:52 <an3as> So I'd vote for "inoffical event" in those cases
19:19:02 <gwolf> (well, on many)
19:19:35 <Hydroxide> gwolf: I was planning to let them give their comments via email between now and monday
19:19:38 * enrico reads backlog
19:19:45 <gwolf> enrico:
19:19:49 <gwolf> enrico: \o/
19:19:53 * Hydroxide pauses for enrico to catch up
19:20:12 * bdale needs an emoticon for a big hug ... is there one?
19:20:37 <gwolf> bdale: {} might do, although it's quite conceptual in nature ☺
19:21:13 <bdale> ->{}<-
19:21:24 <bdale> or is that a trash compacter?
19:21:32 <gwolf> bdale: Depending on how strong the hug is...
19:21:35 <Ganneff> depends how hard you hug
19:21:41 * bdale tries not to break bones
19:21:46 <Ganneff> boring
19:21:52 <bdale> granted
19:21:53 <Ganneff> i want to see blood! (not mine)
19:22:12 <gwolf> Ganneff: but requiring you to hug is not usually fun (for you)
19:22:33 <bdale> trying to hug Ganneff might result in blood, you mean?  ;-)
19:22:42 <Hydroxide> enrico: can you comment specifically on the debian redesign talk proposal? we can then move on while you continue catching up on backlog
19:23:21 <Hydroxide> let's move on anyway
19:23:27 <bdale> go for it
19:23:27 <Hydroxide> he can catch up and we can come back to it
19:23:55 <Hydroxide> #topic Site configuration using config-package-dev: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/437
19:24:21 <Hydroxide> I didn't get to rating this one, but the other config package event seemed more general
19:24:22 <an3as> Fine for me
19:24:34 <Hydroxide> oh, but they are a pair, right?
19:24:44 <gwolf> This one seems good. The other one is AFAICT as a continuation
19:24:48 <bdale> this one seems really interesting
19:24:53 <Hydroxide> ok, great, approved
19:25:01 <Hydroxide> #agreed The config-package-dev talk is approved
19:25:11 <bdale> the notion of how to handle multi-level defaults is something we've struggled with for years
19:25:30 <bdale> working solutions are good to hear about
19:25:35 <Hydroxide> #topic Non-English IRC support: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/415
19:25:45 <gwolf> I say this one should become a BoF
19:26:15 <an3as> gwolf: agreed.  BoF is fine
19:26:21 <gwolf> It is not meant to present a topic but to spark a collective discussion
19:26:27 <Hydroxide> so approve but only as a BoF if the submitter wants?
19:26:33 <an3as> Yes
19:26:39 <Hydroxide> #agreed approved, but only as a BoF if the submitter wants
19:26:49 <bdale> in that case, a bof or working session makes sense ... a talk on the results of such a session for the main audience could be interesting
19:27:05 <Hydroxide> #topic JTAG for beginners: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/446
19:27:32 <gwolf> I'm unfamiliar with this topic — Although it should be noted that it is a Deb_CAMP_ lecture.
19:27:41 <gwolf> So I don't think it faces much competition for spaces.
19:27:44 <Hydroxide> ah, for debcamp there's more space of course and I don't need to be as picky
19:27:45 <an3as> I have no real idea whether this is interesting - for me definitely not, but that's a personal opinion
19:27:49 <bdale> for camp, this is a great session ... for conf, not so much
19:28:00 <an3as> Ahh, debcamp, sorry.
19:28:06 <Hydroxide> #agreed approved given that it's for debcamp
19:28:14 <an3as> For this it is fine - but do we really rate about debcamp?
19:28:22 <an3as> SHouldn't we leave this out here?
19:28:32 <bdale> it doesn't matter to me
19:28:34 <Ganneff> teams decision.
19:28:36 <gwolf> well, it is blessed with the "official" status
19:28:41 <enrico> re: redesign, if it was her thesis, it's a finished work that's nice to see presented, whether it's going to eb used in Debian or not
19:28:41 <gwolf> so there is a slight difference
19:28:45 <gwolf> but not worth much arguing :)
19:29:20 <bdale> enrico: that's more or less what I think, too, as long as it is presented as results of a thesis possibly of interesting to Debian, and not as a definite direction the project is going
19:29:26 * enrico is ok with all the rest so far (and suggest next meeting to highlight all participants at the beginning, I was busy pestering rleigh with sbuild bugs)
19:29:49 <Hydroxide> given enrico's feedback, anyone mind if I consider the redesign project as approved, but with instructions not to present it as a fait accompli?
19:30:02 <an3as> fine for me
19:30:03 * bdale is still struggling with this official status distinction, but carry on
19:30:11 <bdale> Hydroxide: works for me
19:30:14 <gwolf> Hydroxide: Agree — I have told her that same comment, and she knows it, but still.
19:30:20 <Hydroxide> #agreed pixelgirl's redesign talk is approved, but with instructions not to present it as a fait accompli?
19:30:22 <enrico> I see it similar to biella presenting her thesis about debian
19:30:26 <Hydroxide> #agreed minus question mark
19:31:01 <Hydroxide> #topic Let's get the penguin some rest: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/452
19:31:04 <enrico> config-package was interesting, but overlaps with other ideas blends have about confi management
19:31:13 <bdale> sometimes these distinctions are obvious to those in the room, but not to those watching recorded streams later... that's why it's worth being explicit about it at the start of a talk
19:31:17 <enrico> so I don't know if 2 events are a good idea
19:31:17 <Hydroxide> (there aren't enough DebCamp talks left to worry about whether to approve them en masse)
19:31:38 <gwolf> enrico: config-package has a second BoF session, to which blends should be explicitly invited IMO
19:31:41 <enrico> 452 isn't really debian specific, is it?
19:31:57 <enrico> although it is very actual and interesting
19:32:00 <Hydroxide> that was my thought too, correct
19:32:05 <enrico> we should have a "cool technologies" track
19:32:05 <an3as> enrico: yes - but interesting anyway also for Debian
19:32:14 <bdale> looks interesting to me.  particularly if wum is in Debian by the time of the conference.
19:32:26 <Hydroxide> so the majority opinion is yes, allow it?
19:32:32 <enrico> as you know, 2 debconfs ago I ran sessions for skill exchanges that were not necessarily debian specific but still useful to debian developers
19:32:32 <gwolf> looks interesting. Now, I wonder what the submitter meant by setting it as a "workshop"
19:32:42 <an3as> I voted yes and I stick to this vote
19:33:01 <Hydroxide> #agreed approved: the penguin will receive some rest
19:33:36 <Hydroxide> #topic Scratchbox2 for crosscompiling debian: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/388
19:33:45 <Hydroxide> no comment here since I didn't read this one
19:34:03 <an3as> For me it's the "to less information" category -> unofficial
19:34:08 <gwolf> I understand scratchbox is Nokia's cross-building environment/setup
19:34:16 <gwolf> But it is very lacking in information...
19:34:21 <enrico> It's a cross building tool for embedded debian packages, what's wrong about it?
19:34:29 <Hydroxide> an3as: I'd say "unofficial" means we say no but encourage them to do it as time and space permits
19:34:47 <enrico> sure, they could describe what scratchbox2 is, but it is a tool used to cross build debian packages, doesn't it have a place in a debconf where dds attend?
19:34:51 <an3as> Yes, I've thought that's the definition
19:35:01 <bdale> I'd like to see this talk.  I don't know that I'd sponsor the speaker to give it.
19:35:06 <Hydroxide> enrico: my vote is yes too
19:35:13 <gwolf> I am also mildly in favor
19:35:16 <Hydroxide> so we approve it then? ok
19:35:17 <enrico> http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/sbox2
19:35:23 <Hydroxide> #agreed approved
19:35:23 <an3as> enrico: If you say it this way it is fine for me - but I was not able to make it out from the description
19:35:28 <enrico> http://packages.ubuntu.com/hardy/utils/scratchbox2
19:35:30 <enrico> (for references)
19:35:40 <Hydroxide> I was aware of what scratchbox was, fwiw
19:35:41 <gwolf> (as I give importance to how much effort was put into filling in the proposal)
19:35:50 <an3as> I'm neutral - fine with your vote
19:36:12 <Hydroxide> #topic Advanced power management for OMAP3 and beyond: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/455
19:36:28 <enrico> gwolf: I prefer to give importance to the proposal, otherwise luke cassington leighton's well crafted proposals about bollocks (in the past years) would all be approved
19:36:54 * enrico hopes this IRC discussion isn't publicly archived
19:37:08 <enrico> .oO(but even then, who cares)
19:37:10 <Hydroxide> enrico: it is currently, as was said in the email thread.
19:37:25 <gwolf> enrico: Agree with you - I was explaining why I said I was _mildly_ in favor - The lack of a full description lowered my score, but not enough to even become neutral
19:37:36 <Hydroxide> any comments on the OMAP3 talk?
19:37:49 <an3as> I'm mildly in favour
19:37:53 <enrico> not quite debian related
19:37:57 <bdale> this looks interesting, and I'd enjoy hearing the talk, but the Debian connection is thin.  it's mostly kernel work, and arm-specific at that.  Of course, Debian is used as the distro for many embedded arm things, so ...
19:38:09 <an3as> I agree that it is not very Debian specific - but Debian should care about this
19:38:09 <enrico> but we have enough not quite debian related embedded technology to run an embedded technology track
19:38:25 <Hydroxide> I agree I'm mildly against just due to not being debian-related enough, but if people want the focus to be broader I can go along with it
19:38:37 <bdale> this is another one where I'd accept the talk but not necessarily spend Debian money to get the speaker there to give it.  does that make sense?
19:38:56 <enrico> bdale: it does
19:38:57 <an3as> IMHO that's just "unofficial"
19:38:58 <gwolf> Well, practically all of the proposals are interesting in some way or another
19:39:21 <gwolf> ...I do feel the Debian connection quite weak. I'd also prefer seeing it as presented although unofficial
19:39:31 * bdale pauses for a delivery at his front door, bbiam
19:39:33 <gwolf> even if I am tied for the highest ranker for this topic
19:39:56 <Hydroxide> #agreed not approved in an official way but will encourage the submitter to present as unofficial
19:39:59 <Hydroxide> ok?
19:40:16 <an3as> OK
19:40:18 <gwolf> ok
19:40:19 <bdale> back
19:40:23 <enrico> ok (and we should then use that as a general policy for non-debian-related talks)
19:40:34 <bdale> agreed
19:40:42 <Hydroxide> #agreed we should use that as a general policy for non-debian-related talks
19:40:43 <enrico> otherwise it could be unfair to some
19:40:54 <bdale> I'd like to focus our meager sponsorship on talks/speakers that are strongly Debian relevant
19:41:08 <Hydroxide> enrico: well, there are some that are just plain not appropriate
19:41:14 <an3as> But diedn't we agreed to this policy in the beginning anyway?
19:41:15 <MrBeige> it seems there's "we want this to be permanently recorded" and "we want to spend money to see this"
19:41:42 <Hydroxide> #topic Introduction to Shaft: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/450
19:41:54 <Hydroxide> (please tell me to slow down if desired)
19:42:17 <gwolf> hm, I had rated this as 100 - and it is strange to me that it was so much voted down. I admit I read the description a bit hastily, and this was among the first I rated...
19:42:30 <enrico> not debian related as it is presented
19:42:31 <bdale> Shaft looks like a good lightning talk, perhaps coupled with a bof afterwards?
19:42:32 <gwolf> But I did think this was very usable for our general archive-wide QA on shell scripts
19:42:37 <enrico> it could easily become debian related
19:42:47 <an3as> Well, it is very interesting - I would like to see this, but IMHO off topic at debconf
19:43:06 <gwolf> I am not sure I know the submitter...
19:43:19 <enrico> that is, if it can straightforwardly be used to run tests of maintainer scripts, then the submitter could add that to the talk
19:43:23 <Hydroxide> I need to step away momentarily. who wants to share chair powers?
19:43:24 <enrico> (although I could not see how)
19:43:29 <Hydroxide> (the current bot can handle that)
19:43:38 <an3as> enrico: This would change my vote definitely to +100
19:43:39 <enrico> if it cannot, then it's not really debian related
19:43:41 <gwolf> So, well, I will go with the flow — I think it has the potential of being Debian-related…
19:43:44 <gwolf> Hydroxide: I will
19:43:47 <Hydroxide> #chair gwolf
19:43:55 <Hydroxide> ok, afk for a bit, back asap
19:44:08 <enrico> gwolf: it has the potential,but it also has the potential to be completely irrelevant
19:44:19 <enrico> gwolf: only the submitter knows, as far as I can tell
19:44:20 <gwolf> So, maybe we can leave it as unofficial unless the submitter moves it to be Debian-related?
19:44:24 <enrico> gwolf: agreed
19:44:25 <bdale> another conference I attend each year has two sessions for lightning talks ... one at the beginning, filled with short talks of the form "this is something I care about that I'd like to introduce you to so we can talk about it while we're here" things, the other at the very end full of "here are things we learned/decided/etc while we were here or things we now realize more of you might want to go read about after being here" ...
19:44:46 <enrico> bdale: I like that
19:44:52 <an3as> Probably we should ask the submitter explicitely to make it Debian relevant
19:44:54 <gwolf> #agreed Stays as unofficial, but will contact submitter to check if it can be made more Debian-related. Can be promoted later on.
19:44:59 <gwolf> ok?
19:45:06 <enrico> ok
19:45:11 <an3as> OK
19:45:27 <gwolf> #topic Dance BoF - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/447
19:45:42 <gwolf> Anything against an unofficial BoF?
19:45:47 <enrico> no
19:45:51 <an3as> no
19:45:55 <gwolf> #agreed Ok, stays unofficial as submitted
19:46:00 <bdale> agreed
19:46:02 <Ganneff> unofficial, so in anyways as they sure persist and want it
19:46:10 <gwolf> #topic Debichem - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/397
19:46:20 <bdale> they can have it every night if they want...  ;-)
19:46:31 <Ganneff> as long as they dont disturb
19:46:38 <an3as> enrico: I'd like to learn about the difference you gave my travel foto talk compared to dance bof
19:46:44 <enrico> what's controversial about debichem?
19:46:50 <gwolf> Ganneff: You might want to approach the rooms team to put you far away...
19:46:57 <gwolf> (sorry for rushing things)
19:47:07 <bdale> an3as: the difference to me is that I
19:47:13 <an3as> debichem is fine - but I'm biased
19:47:20 <bdale> d love to sit in your talk, and I'm unlikely to be caught dancing...  ;-)
19:47:21 <gwolf> Debichem should be approached, IMHO, as they run quite closely to an3as' debian-science panel
19:47:38 <an3as> gwolf: yes
19:47:44 <gwolf> But that does not mean I am against it, just to make sure it is adequately scheduled
19:48:02 <gwolf> #agreed Debichem is in
19:48:13 <gwolf> #topic Debian Wiki - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/365
19:48:55 <gwolf> Nobody put any remarks on it... Speak now!
19:48:57 <enrico> a bof about the debian wiki, I see nothing wrong with it
19:48:59 <bdale> a bof on the wiki sounds good
19:49:09 <an3as> yes
19:49:20 <gwolf> #agreed The Wiki stays in
19:49:26 <an3as> ??? I wonder why it has such a low percentage!
19:49:29 * Hydroxide returns
19:49:35 <bdale> I hadn't rated it yet, fwiw
19:49:35 <an3as> Is there something wrong with penta?
19:49:39 <gwolf> #topicKeynote from the Release Team -  https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/407
19:49:52 <an3as> Please could somebody have a look back on 365
19:49:53 <gwolf> oops. Well, that's my cue for giving the control back to Hydroxide :)
19:49:59 <Hydroxide> haha :)
19:49:59 <gwolf> ok, not rushing..
19:50:13 <Hydroxide> gwolf: thanks for temp-chairing
19:50:20 * enrico is confused
19:50:22 <an3as> I see many ++ and + votings
19:50:28 <enrico> how come we are starting straight uncontroversial events?
19:50:34 <enrico> s/starting/discussing/
19:50:39 <Hydroxide> wait, why are we voting on wiki? that was already rated 65
19:50:40 <gwolf> an3as: It is fine - We didn't give it a higher position, but it is mostly positive by everyone
19:50:44 <bdale> a talk from the release team about the plan for the next release would be great.  I'm not convinced it needs to be a keynote, and the lack of detail in the penta proposal is troublesome.
19:50:48 <gwolf> the only 0 was Kinnison's on acceptance...
19:51:06 <Hydroxide> the wiki shows 65 for me
19:51:11 <an3as> Fine
19:51:12 <Hydroxide> err the review report
19:51:17 <Hydroxide> ok.
19:51:18 <gwolf> wait.. my error then? :-/
19:51:24 <Hydroxide> ya
19:51:27 <gwolf> yes, I think I mis-sorted or something? grah
19:51:36 <gwolf> yes, a reload kills the ordering
19:51:39 * gwolf grmbls
19:51:39 * enrico tickles gwolf
19:51:46 <Hydroxide> #topic Keynote from the Release Team: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/407
19:51:48 <gwolf> grah!
19:52:06 <Hydroxide> I agree with what bdale said several lines up
19:52:25 <gwolf> Hydroxide: It is also over our threshold (55)
19:52:28 <enrico> so agreed but please add more info if you want it to be a keynote?
19:52:45 <Hydroxide> never mind, was already approved
19:52:47 <bdale> for it to be a keynote, they'd have to be announcing a release?  ;-)
19:52:57 <an3as> Well, I see no reason to artificial increase the score
19:53:03 <Hydroxide> #info wiki and release team keynote were already approved as rated >= 50
19:53:08 <gwolf> bdale: You are spoiling their news :)
19:53:13 <an3as> If it is *accepted* and marked *keynote* it becomes a keynote, right?
19:53:14 * bdale hides
19:53:26 <Hydroxide> ok ... back to the right flow of things
19:53:42 <Hydroxide> #topic The Death of Open Hardware: https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/439
19:53:43 <bdale> an3as: I personally think we or the other event organizers should have more control over which talks are called 'keynote'
19:53:49 <gwolf> If 3/5 raters wrote a paragraph for it, I'd strongly ask dato.. well, anyway :)
19:54:20 <an3as> bdale: IMHO the organisers will have the final word
19:54:23 <enrico> 439 should go with the rest of non debian related talks, although last year I greatly enjoyed vince and daniel's talk
19:54:51 <enrico> erhm, s/last year/2 years ago/
19:55:11 <gwolf> enrico: I also enjoyed and recommende that talk, it was great - but non-Debian-related completely.
19:55:19 <bdale> I'd enjoy this talk, but mostly because I'd be providing a dissenting opinion from the back of the room?
19:55:55 <gwolf> (In fact, I'd re-rate it lower - Again, this was one of my first ratings)
19:56:09 <enrico> so, unofficial like the rest?
19:56:12 <bdale> yes
19:56:13 <gwolf> yes
19:56:20 <an3as> yes
19:56:51 <gwolf> #agreed Stays as unofficial
19:56:58 <gwolf> bah, I'm no longer the chair
19:57:00 <gwolf> Hydroxide: !!!
19:58:04 <an3as> gwolf take over again
19:58:12 * enrico 's stomach growls
19:58:51 <gwolf> Are we netsplit or something?
19:58:57 <bdale> I'm here
19:59:08 <Hydroxide> I got called away for work
19:59:10 <gwolf> hm, this was just too quiet :)
19:59:19 <Hydroxide> gwolf: can you chair for the rest?
19:59:35 <gwolf> yes, just give me back the rights...
19:59:41 <Hydroxide> you should still have them
19:59:42 <gwolf> #agreed Stays as unofficial
19:59:42 <Hydroxide> #chair gwolf
19:59:45 <gwolf> #agreed Stays as unofficial
19:59:49 <Hydroxide> gwolf: there's no response for that
19:59:50 <gwolf> well... no :-/
19:59:52 <Hydroxide> gwolf: go ahead
19:59:56 <gwolf> oh, bummre
19:59:57 <Hydroxide> gwolf: we've just agreed several times
20:00:07 <gwolf> #topic xcontrol - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/422
20:00:54 <gwolf> ...Any opinions?
20:01:02 <an3as> My problem: Topic is not uninteresting - but where is the difference to DebConf 7 talk?
20:01:03 <enrico> as I said, since it is a lecture, I'll be really upset if he still presents the idea and not a working tool.
20:01:13 <gwolf> I say it should stay as unofficial unless he justifies it otherwise
20:01:20 <an3as> yes
20:01:40 <enrico> if he presents a working tool (and I have no reason to say otherwise besides knowing GyrosGeier ;) then it should definitely be in
20:02:02 <an3as> enrico: $ apt-cache search xcontrol
20:02:02 <an3as> debian-xcontrol - Extended syntax for debian/control files
20:02:05 <bdale> agreed with all ... if this is a report on work done, it will be interesting
20:02:18 <gwolf> heh, so it's there already..?
20:02:28 <GyrosGeier> heh
20:02:36 <gwolf> Oh, great, and here is the man himself!
20:02:50 <gwolf> GyrosGeier: We have the following comments:
20:02:53 <gwolf> Didn't we heard the same talk at DebConf 7?
20:02:56 <gwolf> At DC8 this was presented as a BoF, and now as a lecture - I'd read that back then it was presented as looking for criticism or design ideas, and now it will be triumphantly presented as a working tool? Should Simon be approached for details? (note that Simon is probably our top submitter this year)
20:02:59 <gwolf> Since it is a lecture, I'll be really upset if he still presents the idea and not a working tool.
20:03:12 <gwolf> What would you say? Or do we put it as unofficial?
20:03:35 <GyrosGeier> no problem with either
20:03:44 <enrico> well, we've already seen that it is a package, so it is a work done to be presented
20:03:54 <enrico> GyrosGeier: debian-xcontrol is ready for production, isn't it?
20:03:55 <gwolf> Ok. And don't go (too far) away, please.
20:04:02 <GyrosGeier> not really
20:04:05 <enrico> GyrosGeier: even if it's version 0.0.4-1 ?
20:04:06 <enrico> GyrosGeier: ok
20:04:11 <GyrosGeier> but it is moving fast
20:04:17 <gwolf> GyrosGeier: So, it gets unofficial status, OK?
20:04:26 <GyrosGeier> fine
20:04:27 <gwolf> #agreed xcontrol stays unofficial
20:04:37 <an3as> OK unofficial
20:04:39 <gwolf> #topic Das U-Boot - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/451
20:05:19 <gwolf> lightning
20:05:20 <enrico> it's a lightning talk, but the description has lots of meat to put on the grill
20:05:21 <GyrosGeier> I think that was moved to a lightning talk
20:05:27 <an3as> fifteen minutes = llightning  talk - so out of question here
20:05:33 <gwolf> yes, I waited as it was originally not so
20:05:36 <gwolf> anyway -
20:05:40 <gwolf> #agreed lightning - move on
20:05:43 <enrico> ok
20:05:49 <gwolf> #topic Debian Java Packaging https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/370
20:06:40 <gwolf> It is a BoF, for which should not be too picky - but it is  basically empty of information. Is anybody familiar with what they are submitting?
20:07:02 <an3as> while interesting it fails into the "low information" category -> unofficial
20:07:03 <enrico> sounds like a java pakcagers meeting
20:07:09 <enrico> which would be fine as a bof
20:07:21 <gwolf> Anybody disagrees if it stays unofficial?
20:07:30 <enrico> I'd like, in such cases, to see a long list of persons, but meh
20:07:30 <gwolf> enrico: But it is not of project-wide interest...
20:07:46 <enrico> gwolf: although it *is* related to debian
20:07:57 <an3as> Well, IMHO it has the same relevance as my Debian Med BoF - but they should care more for the information about it
20:08:01 <enrico> gwolf: as related as, say, debichem or med
20:08:14 <gwolf> ok. So it stays as official but we request fuller information.
20:08:21 <an3as> What should I assume about the event itself if the submitter does not spend 10 minutes of time for a description???
20:08:23 <enrico> gwolf: I'd request a larger list of people interested
20:08:36 <gwolf> #agreed Stays official, but more information (and list of involved people?) should be requested from submitter.
20:08:43 <enrico> gwolf: if one wants to propose an official BOF, I don't want to risk scheduling a one man bof
20:08:58 <an3as> enrico: ;-)
20:09:02 <gwolf> enrico: I don't think that'd happen - from the pkg-perl experience. And this should be similar.
20:09:10 <enrico> so for BOFs I'd encourage to bootstrap with a list of interested people
20:09:20 <bdale> an3as: I understand your point, but it's easy for people proposing something like this to assume that others will understand what it is and why it's important
20:09:31 <gwolf> (BTW, the pkg-perl BoF has a not very different description, although is linked to a wiki, and is ranked at 100)
20:09:46 <gwolf> Still, shall we move on?
20:09:49 <bdale> gwolf: to your comment, how Java things are packaged for Debian *is* of project-wide interest, even if it doesn't directly touch each package
20:10:08 <bdale> we can move on
20:10:11 <gwolf> #topic Packing the data in and getting it back out - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/443
20:10:21 <enrico> yet another blars OSM talk
20:10:30 <enrico> should we just pick one decision for all of them?
20:10:52 <gwolf> right, I didn't recognize it as such as it does not say OSM on the topic (:
20:10:55 <enrico> like, unofficial, and possibly packed into a talk or two
20:10:59 <an3as> Uhm I have to fix my rating - must have been totally missleaded ...
20:11:01 <bdale> is this an OSM talk?
20:11:02 <enrico> gwolf: look at the links
20:11:06 <gwolf> yes, yes
20:11:10 <enrico> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trapi
20:11:22 <an3as> Ups, no (wrong link)
20:11:24 <bdale> one OSM talk by Blars 'unofficial' would be fine
20:11:26 <gwolf> so, unofficial.
20:11:26 <enrico> it's about the software he created to serve tiles or something
20:11:35 <gwolf> #agreed unofficial
20:11:45 <gwolf> what bugs me is the number of almost-identical talks he submitted :-/
20:11:47 <enrico> gwolf: unofficial AND pack it with the other OSM Blars stuff
20:11:57 <enrico> AND, I didn't see a Caceres mappign party
20:12:10 <enrico> which is the very first unofficial OSM thing that I'd have expected to be proposed
20:12:11 <gwolf> #agreed Ask to blars to please please reconsider clumping together his many proposals.
20:12:26 <bdale> gwolf: I've been known to stack CFPs before myself, sometimes one aspect is of interest and others aren't.  what bothers me here is that none of these are articulated in a very Debian-relevant way
20:12:43 <bdale> enrico: good point
20:12:44 <gwolf> #topic Openmoko Buzz Fix Party https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/376
20:12:53 <gwolf> Clearly unofficial IMHO...
20:13:08 <enrico> unofficial, but yes please. There's many DDs with the blasted buggy crappy thing
20:13:10 <bdale> I had to do some searching to figure this out.  unofficial, clearly
20:13:12 <enrico> (me being one)
20:13:26 <gwolf> even though it might be important, as enrico says, for DDs -We don't need to bless it as official.
20:13:26 <enrico> and it can only be fixed with skilled soldering or something like that
20:13:29 <an3as> Does anybody of the raters has such a thingy? ;-)
20:13:38 <gwolf> #agreed unofficial (but please have it)
20:13:39 <bdale> not I
20:14:01 <gwolf> an3as: You can cover the names and look at the rating... You will clearly see concordance with the opinions in the channel :)
20:14:05 <enrico> an3as: we do have a debian openmoko effort which is quite successful
20:14:15 <an3as> ;-))
20:14:22 <gwolf> #topic Reproducible Research with R and Sweave - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/435
20:14:33 <an3as> I like all these OpenMolo guys - believe me
20:15:02 <an3as> enrico: Just express the Debian relevance in the description ...
20:15:17 <bdale> this talk by Don is one that I'd like to hear, but the direct relevance to Debian seems low?
20:15:25 <enrico> unofficial, I'd say?
20:15:31 * gwolf feels exactly the same way
20:15:42 <an3as> completely agree with bdale
20:15:46 <gwolf> Yes, it should be unofficial IMHO. But he should present it anyway.
20:15:52 <bdale> the suggestion in the rations of asking him to make it more relevant is good
20:15:57 <an3as> I *personally* want to learn R and this seems to be a great chance to do so
20:16:09 <bdale> if he uses the tools to show us how to do something in Debian better, for example, that'd be great
20:16:17 <an3as> yes
20:16:22 <gwolf> #agree Unofficial, we should suggest Don to make it more Debian-related. The talk looks very interesting for most people.
20:16:39 <gwolf> #topic Component-based software - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/448
20:17:09 <enrico> unofficial, not debian related
20:17:16 <enrico> rinse, repeat
20:17:17 <gwolf> I agree with the criticisms. I over-rated again.
20:17:25 <an3as> yes.  and requires lunch break inbetween - argh
20:17:26 <gwolf> #agreed unofficial
20:17:53 <gwolf> #topic Openstreetmap - What, Why, and How - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/375
20:18:05 <bdale> as an overview / introduction talk to the technical area, ok ... without a more direct Debian connection, it's not exciting
20:18:05 <enrico> osm blars same as before
20:18:07 <gwolf> Precisely: Why, what, how?
20:18:10 <gwolf> #agreed unofficial
20:18:18 <gwolf> excuse me if I don't wait for you all.
20:18:20 <bdale> lump them, one unofficial OSM talk is ok
20:18:25 <an3as> yep
20:18:33 <enrico> I'd like to see something about packaging OSM stuff in debian
20:18:39 <enrico> so that geostuff in debian can use it
20:18:39 <gwolf> And just for completeness sake:
20:18:43 <bdale> suggest that in the feedback to him?
20:18:49 <gwolf> #topic Openstreetmap BOF https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/440
20:18:52 <gwolf> #agreed unofficial
20:18:53 <an3as> Very good idea!
20:18:53 <enrico> but we don't have anything like that and all the blasted geothings have different formats
20:19:02 <bdale> ask him to warp the BOF into a mapping party?
20:19:13 <gwolf> the bof can be very different from a mapping party
20:19:19 <bdale> ok
20:19:33 <gwolf> there are many other aspects - i.e. as the software used, the representation, the tags used, etc., which are much more theorical in essence
20:19:36 <bdale> I think one talk, unofficial, a BOF, and a mapping party would all be ok and acceptable
20:19:48 <gwolf> but still, this should all be unofficial and that's it. After all, everything fits as unofficial.
20:19:55 <gwolf> (and yes, I'm an OSM fan... but it's too much!
20:20:14 <gwolf> #topic Paper: towards more semantic web into Debian servers (UDD and likes) - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/386
20:20:20 <bdale> I *want* to be an OSM fan, but I can't figure out how to live without the Garmin-sold map card in my hand-held GPS yet...
20:20:42 <enrico> bdale: you can convert OSM maps into garmin format
20:20:49 <enrico> but anyway
20:21:00 <gwolf> anyway - we are almost done...
20:21:01 <enrico> not many details in Olivier's talk, but I talked with him at Fosdem
20:21:07 <gwolf> Please, what's your opinion on 386?
20:21:14 <an3as> event 386: to few information -> unofficial
20:21:16 <bdale> I think this would be interesting, particularly adjacent to the talk on redesign?
20:21:26 <enrico> he'd like to discuss how to have more rdf/semantic information about packages published
20:21:32 <enrico> more of a BOF probably
20:21:53 <an3as> but I'd love to see if you have internals that might rank it higher ...
20:22:01 <enrico> I'm not sure he's got something ready to present since fosdem (although I'd love to be contradicted)
20:22:30 <gwolf> #agreed unofficial — Should approach submitter asking for further information, and suggesting the BoF format instead
20:22:42 <bdale> a stream of presentations on the same material at different events showing continuous progress is awesome, fwiw
20:23:01 <gwolf> #topic BuildBot, Subversion, Trac - https://penta.debconf.org/penta/pentabarf/event/420
20:23:18 <enrico> continuos integration is nice, but in this case it isn't debian related
20:23:20 <enrico> so, unofficial
20:23:38 * gwolf agrees.. Any other voices?
20:24:20 <gwolf> ok...
20:24:23 <gwolf> #agreed unofficial
20:24:23 <bdale> ick ... subversion ... ick
20:24:42 <gwolf> #topic Congratulations, we are done. Any other business?
20:24:58 <enrico> I thought there were 8 more talks
20:25:01 <gwolf> Any specific talks that come to your mind?
20:25:08 <gwolf> yes? Let me check an dbe sure
20:25:25 <enrico> ah, ok, it's the negative ones
20:25:29 <enrico> sorry
20:25:39 <gwolf> ok. They are all auto-unofficialed.
20:25:50 <bdale> the only one of those I liked was the travel photo one from an3as, fwiw
20:25:51 <enrico> we could have some sort of position for the spanish talks
20:26:02 <gwolf> Now, we might end up rescuing some of them for OpenDebConfDay, DebianDay or whatever it becomes this year
20:26:04 <bdale> right, they were hard to judge
20:26:10 <an3as> bdale: it is like your rocket talk last year
20:26:20 <gwolf> bdale: I think an3as will not be angry if it is an unofficial talk, right?
20:26:24 <bdale> it's tempting to point all spanish-language talks at debianday, but I don't know if that's right?
20:26:26 <an3as> Just let's do it and have fun
20:26:26 <enrico> nothing against an3as showing pictures as long as it is sort of like the dance bof
20:26:27 <gwolf> enrico: Ok, good point...
20:26:33 <an3as> gwolf: yep
20:26:33 <gwolf> #topic Spanish talks
20:26:41 <enrico> but I don't know how much that should be in the program
20:26:43 <bdale> exactly, fun talks in the evening are good
20:26:44 <gwolf> I think I'm the only one who read them :)
20:26:51 <bdale> unofficial, of course
20:26:57 <an3as> enrico: that was intended to be expressed in my description
20:27:01 <enrico> gwolf: I had read them
20:27:05 <bdale> gwolf: I tried!
20:27:15 <gwolf> Some of them could be interesting for outsiders, for DebianDay (i.e. Steve's)
20:27:17 <an3as> and yes traveling photos, but some of them rated as excellent in wikimedia commons
20:27:29 <enrico> we were on the spanish talks
20:27:31 <an3as> so nothing you really want to run away from (hopefully) ;-)
20:27:32 <gwolf> But some... Really, I'd much MUCH rather don't bore our audience with them.
20:27:40 <bdale> an3as: you are an excellent photographer, imho
20:27:40 <enrico> we can talk later of unofficial/impromptu events
20:28:05 <bdale> an3as: the one of the curl in the snow/ice I still remember quite vividly!
20:28:10 <an3as> bdale: thank you ;-)
20:28:16 <enrico> is it worth having 2 tracks for DebianDay, including a technical one in spanish?
20:28:21 <gwolf> i.e. I doubt we should put Canaima and the university talks as part of the DebianDay track, as it is not really relevant for Spanish non-Debianers... I'd much rather have other talks.
20:28:31 <bdale> when/where will the debianday be this year?
20:28:34 <gwolf> enrico: I think the only technical Spanish talk is Steve's
20:28:41 <gwolf> bdale: First day of DebConf, together with us
20:28:49 <bdale> oh, ok
20:29:06 <bdale> do we expect much attendance by people not of debconf?
20:29:08 <gwolf> the original idea (and hence the name OpenDebConfDay) is that it'd be a technical conference, just part of DebConf, but with the talks most likely to attract the locals
20:29:20 <bdale> I see
20:29:37 <gwolf> enrico: (right, I didn't remember your Spanish... I think you will agree with me, right?)
20:29:42 <bdale> wasn't clear to me how many "locals" we should expect, though
20:30:17 <enrico> gwolf: there's someone with their pet technology (Virtualisation) and the Venezuelans wanting to talk about the cool things that are happening there
20:30:20 <enrico> (IIRC)
20:30:23 <gwolf> bdale: The problem with it is that it is unpredictable. I would expect many people  from Madrid (largest nearby big city) to go just for curiosity
20:30:49 <bdale> as long as it isn't a major national holiday, and travel to/from is reasonable, and and and
20:30:53 <enrico> the venezuelans can join success stories together with Indiana
20:31:03 <bdale> heh
20:31:03 <enrico> they could do a lightning talk together, really
20:31:12 <enrico> a lightning talk about success stories would be cute
20:31:15 <gwolf> enrico: The talks by the Venezuelans about the usage in the University and their derived distribution... I don't think will be very relevant for Spaniards. they have in Extremadura a much more important story to judge us by
20:31:27 <bdale> I thought the Indiana one was just about SPI's pobox being there... but maybe I'm being too critical?
20:31:41 <gwolf> The virtualization one can be interesting for the public at large
20:31:54 <schultmc> bdale: it's not, but you can reject that one if you want
20:32:18 <bdale> schultmc: ;-)  hi!
20:32:29 <gwolf> ok... So this looks like the end of the topic. Anything else?
20:32:34 <enrico> what was wrong with Gaudenz presenting his research, besides that he didn't say what it was about and none of us speaks german?
20:32:47 <bdale> schultmc: it wasn't ranked well, largely due to having such a sparse description
20:32:58 <an3as> enrico: I speak German ;-)
20:33:05 <bdale> enrico: right, hard to rate based on what was put in penta
20:33:13 * gwolf agrees
20:33:15 * bdale thinks he wrote that in the comments
20:33:16 <an3as> But I did not cared about reading the paper until now.
20:33:24 <enrico> potentially on par with Zack and Madduck's
20:33:28 <gwolf> we should not be directed to a full paper just to rate pertinence
20:33:30 <enrico> but he should say something abotu it
20:33:36 <an3as> If you want me to read it now I might do it - but I'm not really motivated
20:33:39 <gwolf> it _sounds_ interesting...
20:33:48 <enrico> an3as: I'd rather ask Gaudenz to provide more details
20:33:54 <an3as> yep
20:33:54 <bdale> right.  a paragraph backed up by the link to the paper would have been better.  I'm not negative about the work, I just don't know how to rate it.
20:33:55 <gwolf> And anyway, he can still unofficially present it. The difference is not _that_ huge
20:34:00 <schultmc> bdale: interesting - if I'm motivated I can repropose it for a future debconf with a better description
20:34:05 <gwolf> #topic other businesses...
20:34:18 <bdale> schultmc: that would be good
20:34:32 <enrico> wrt an3as's photos, I'd decide what to do with unofficial / impromptu things
20:34:50 <enrico> like, maybe it happens that lots of people will ask me about weather software and debian
20:34:56 <enrico> (more likely not)
20:35:15 <enrico> but maybe it'll happen that I'll need to ask for a room or something to do something silly with lots of people in
20:35:16 <an3as> enrico: please could you register a weather software talk!
20:35:17 <bdale> I've had people ask if I'm going to show some rocket stuff again this year.  I certainly could, but didn't propose it directly.  I will, of course, sneak some rocket photos into my other session if it's accepted and scheduled.
20:35:35 <enrico> it'd be useful to know who to ask, to have some rooms free for it, to have a space where such things could be announced as they are decided
20:35:38 <gwolf> Anyway... 15:30 here and I want to get some lunch. We can continue arguing forever...
20:35:43 <gwolf> But I want to leave (:
20:35:44 <bdale> enrico: yes... a 'cool things we do with open source' evening track could be fun
20:36:00 <bdale> gwolf: I think we're done with the official part of our work, no?
20:36:00 <enrico> bdale: that's a nice one
20:36:01 <gwolf> It can be a cool track or a nice set of lightning talks, at the very least...
20:36:06 <an3as> Lunch??? We have a really nice sunset!!!
20:36:16 <gwolf> ok, then... does somebody know how to ask MeatBot to stop lurking?
20:36:19 <gwolf> #end
20:36:24 <gwolf> #shutupplease?
20:36:25 * bdale got handed lunch in mid-meeting (the benefits of working at home!)
20:36:31 <enrico> MeatBot: can you please stop lurking?
20:36:34 <bdale> gwolf: #no
20:36:46 <gwolf> #help
20:36:47 <enrico> ok, if we're done, I'll see about dinner
20:36:48 <an3as> enrico: are you aware of http://blends.alioth.debian.org/science/tasks/meteorology
20:36:58 <enrico> an3as: I am aware, it's me and Alastair
20:37:04 <gwolf> #endmeeting