18:00:21 <Brooke> #startmeeting
18:00:21 <huginn> Meeting started Wed Sep  7 18:00:21 2011 UTC.  The chair is Brooke. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
18:00:21 <huginn> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
18:00:29 <nancyk> Hi, just testing...first time...Washoe County Library, Reno
18:00:32 <Brooke> Howdy, Welcome
18:00:41 <Brooke> feel free to introduce yerselves with #info
18:00:42 <nancyk> Hi Brooke
18:00:49 <wizzyrea> #info Liz Rea, NEKLS
18:00:52 <slef> #info MJ Ray, software.coop
18:00:55 <marcelr> #info Marcel de Rooy, Rijksmuseum, Netherlands
18:01:09 <daniel_g> #info Daniel Grobani, Samuel Merritt University
18:01:10 <chris_n> #info Chris Nighswonger, FBC, 3.4 Release Maintainer
18:01:12 <libsysguy> #info Elliott Davis, University of Texas at Tyler
18:01:15 <jwagner> #info Jane Wagner, PTFS/LibLime
18:01:19 <trea> #info Thatcher Rea, ByWater Solutions
18:01:24 <nengard> #info Nicole C. Engard, ByWater Solutions
18:01:28 <sekjal> #info Ian Walls, ByWater Solutions, 3.6 Quality Assurance Manager
18:01:32 <ColinC> #info Colin Campbell, PTFS-Europe
18:01:40 <rhcl> #info Greg Lawson  (May have to step out shortly)
18:01:52 <lastnode> #info Mahangu Weerasinghe, Sri Lanka
18:02:11 <schuster> #info David Schuster, Plano ISD, Texas
18:02:11 <mtj> #info Mason James, KohaAloha NZ
18:02:18 <slef> rhcl: happens to us all
18:02:19 <cait> #info Katrin Fischer, BSZ
18:03:12 <Brooke> Haere Mai, let's get started :D
18:03:13 <oleonard> #info Owen Leonard, Nelsonville Public Library
18:03:27 <Brooke> Roadmap to 3.4 Chris :)
18:03:33 <chris_n> ok
18:03:38 * slef hands Brooke a #topic
18:03:39 <nengard> hi nancyk!
18:03:47 <chris_n> everything is on track for the release of 3.4.5 on the 22nd of this month
18:03:58 <Brooke> #topic 3.4 Roadmap
18:04:25 <chris_n> plans are to continue releases on a monthly basis as long as work is being done which applies to the 3.4.x branch
18:04:33 <Brooke> outstanding
18:04:35 <chris_n> once things slow down
18:04:43 <chris_n> we'll announce EOL
18:04:50 <chris_n> and take a vote at the nearest meeting
18:05:13 <chris_n> a bunch of work has been pushed for 3.4.5
18:05:32 <chris_n> and thats it for me
18:05:41 <cait> chris_n++
18:05:44 <Brooke> okie dokie, any questions for Chris?
18:06:03 <slef> #info a bunch of work pushed for 3.4.5, on track to release 22nd, plans to continue monthly until things slow down
18:06:36 <fredericd> #info Frédéric Demians, Tamil
18:06:37 <slef> any blockers or critical bugs chris_n?
18:07:09 <chris_n> slef: one moment
18:08:36 <paul_p> hello, sorry to be a little bit late.
18:08:39 <chris_n> according to BZ there are 12
18:08:44 <chris_n> you may see them here: http://tinyurl.com/3m9qbpb
18:08:55 <chris_n> seven are marked patch-submitted
18:09:07 <Brooke> #link  http://tinyurl.com/3m9qbpb
18:09:15 <paul_p> (changing my internet provider at home... just today...)
18:09:18 <chris_n> patch-sent rather
18:09:45 <chris_n> it looks like some have failed QA
18:10:04 <paul_p> #info Paul Poulain, BibLibre, sorry to be a little bit late
18:10:10 <slef> just recreated my table
18:10:12 <slef> #link http://s.coop/koha34status
18:10:52 <chris_n> some look like they should be closed, but have not been
18:10:57 <slef> bug 6292 is critical, needs signoff - anyone want to do it?
18:10:57 <huginn> 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6292 critical, PATCH-Sent, ---, chris, ASSIGNED , Overdue notices have a bug when multiple overdues exist
18:11:16 <sekjal> 1 blocker, 1 critical, 4 major are Failed QA
18:11:18 <Brooke> #help bug 6292
18:11:21 <Brooke> movin' on
18:11:22 <sekjal> 54 bugs awaiting QA (no blockers, no critical, 5 major).  81 bugs needing signoff (no blockers, 3 critical, 8 major)
18:11:28 <Brooke> we can get this stuff asynchronously
18:11:46 <cait> slef: ther eis an open question for the follow up
18:11:50 <slef> yeah, OK. Eyeballs are good but we're being too slow
18:12:01 <cait> slef: i signed off the first patch, but not sure how to reproduce the problem for the secon dpatch
18:12:25 <slef> cait: ok, later
18:12:34 <Brooke> #topic Roadmap to 3.6
18:12:45 * slef gets out of the way before Brooke runs him over
18:12:57 <chris_n> bug 5995 has been back ported to both 3.2.x and 3.4.x btw
18:12:57 <huginn> 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5995 blocker, PATCH-Sent, ---, matthias.meusburger, ASSIGNED , Glitch with checkauth
18:13:00 <Brooke> anyone not named Paul wanna do the update on 3.6 so Paul can ask questions.
18:13:01 <chris_n> it probably can be closed
18:13:16 <sekjal> Brooke: I think I can speak a bit to 3.6
18:13:36 * slef holds 3.6 down for sekjal to give it a damn good talking to
18:13:36 <Brooke> hooray
18:13:41 <Brooke> Ian's got the floor
18:14:10 <sekjal> as mentioned a few lines early, we're at approximately 50 patches needing QA, and around 80 needing signoff
18:14:28 <sekjal> patches have been progressing through the process slowly but continuously
18:14:52 <paul_p> and many "don't apply" or "failed QA" anymore (and that's a pity if it fixed a bug)
18:14:54 <sekjal> major developments that are nearing fruition include Hourly Loans and the Holds Rewrite
18:14:55 <Brooke> #info 50 patches need QA, and around 80 needing signoff, get to gettin'.
18:15:23 <Brooke> hourly loans were one of Paul's questions, wanna go into gorey blow by blow detail?
18:15:31 <sekjal> so far, we have only had to revert one commit
18:15:35 <Brooke> bug 5549
18:15:35 <huginn> 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=5549 enhancement, PATCH-Sent, ---, ian.walls, ASSIGNED , Hourly Loans
18:15:58 <sekjal> This development has been signed off by libsysguy, who I believe is using the branch in production
18:16:04 <libsysguy> yes we are
18:16:04 <paul_p> #info 55 patches are "failed QA" and 44 are "does not apply"
18:16:25 <sekjal> so hourly loans are now onto the QA stage
18:16:35 <schuster> What is the main reason for failed or does not apply?
18:16:50 <nengard> it totally depends on the patch
18:16:52 <oleonard> There's no main reason
18:16:58 <nengard> if the patch doesn't fix the problem it fails
18:16:59 <paul_p> schuster: I think the main reason for does not apply is "does not apply anymore"
18:17:07 <sekjal> given that this is a MAJOR change to many core modules, testing needs to be thorough and painstaking, lest we break library circulation
18:17:09 <nengard> and what paul_p said about the other :)
18:17:31 <paul_p> (dna anymore because other patches have been pushed and a rebase is needed)
18:17:46 <sekjal> I will fail a patch in QA if it does not do what it proports to do, if it introduces other bugs or issues, or if it violates style guidelines
18:18:06 <paul_p> from my experience, sometimes (maybe 60% of the time), it's easy to rebase. Sometimes (30%) it's tricky, and 10% it's hard (patch must be rewritten)
18:18:17 <libsysguy> ^^
18:18:37 <sekjal> patches from before the Template::Toolkit conversion in 3.4 are especially lengthy to rebase, as any interface changes must be redone in the new language
18:18:50 <paul_p> (I mean "does not apply". Rough number given by "my feeling @", a trademark from me ;) )
18:18:56 <schuster> Thanks paul_p for the descriptive reasoning..  I have been busy with other things for a couple of months and didn't know if it was mainly Template Toolkit type stuff or just bad rebase.
18:19:16 <paul_p> theu number of T::T issues is decreasing.
18:19:42 <paul_p> there are still some (i made one today. patch not sent yet)
18:19:47 <thd> #info Thomas Dukleth, Agogme, New York City [with a disembodied connection]
18:20:36 <paul_p> I wanted to ask : should we do something with "Failed QA" or "Does Not Apply" patches that seems "abandonned" by their original author ?
18:20:50 <paul_p> I feel the answer should be different for bugfixes and for enhancements
18:21:07 <cait> if the bug still remains someone else can work on it I would think
18:21:12 <paul_p> bugfixes = keep them open, if the bug is still here, it's usefull
18:21:23 <Brooke> mebbe use superceded
18:21:27 <paul_p> enhancements = close them after a toBeDefined time maybe
18:21:33 <slef> A small reminder: signer-offers please read the patch and make sure it doesn't introduce new bugs or include unrelated junk.
18:21:35 <Brooke> for things that no longer apply
18:21:36 <paul_p> superceded ?
18:21:39 <oleonard> I agree with that proposal paul_p
18:22:00 <slef> paul_p: in debian, the QA team would ask for people to take them over I think
18:22:17 <sekjal> we could assign these enhancements a different Closed status for easy retrieval
18:22:39 <sekjal> unfortunately, if no one is willing to take up a bug fix, we won't get very far by assigning it
18:22:50 <cait> sekjal: I like that idea
18:22:52 <Brooke> yep if it's divided into superceded for bugs that don't apply and abandoned for enhancements with no owner, might be clearer. Mebbe no.
18:23:00 <sekjal> then again, if no one is willing to take up a bug fix, it must not be very bad
18:23:23 <paul_p> you're probably right sekjal
18:23:36 <cait> or a feature not a lot of people use
18:24:04 <paul_p> or a bug that happens only in a rare situation
18:24:30 <paul_p> (like : you're a french library, using unimarc, printing your itemcallnumber labels, on a A3 printer)
18:24:32 <Brooke> #idea handle mouldy enhancements differently than mouldy bugs
18:25:02 <cait> perhps we should add the pending deadlines to the log?
18:25:24 <Brooke> can we programme Huginn to nag about dusty bugs?
18:25:36 <Brooke> like on GBSD?
18:25:49 <cait> he already nags abou tneeds sign-off
18:25:50 <marcelr> who contacts the original author in order to get possible reply?
18:26:03 <cait> I think don#t make it too much bot messages
18:26:18 <sekjal> we can set up Bugzilla to use Bug Whining to send emails out on a regular basis, with a list of bug reports meeting whatever saved search we like
18:26:19 <oleonard> Right, it's the author of the submitted patch who needs the reminder
18:27:22 <paul_p> Brooke, from Hugin side, probably. The question is also = what can bugzilla provide ?
18:27:35 <slef> ultimately, it's not hard to find dusty bugs if any dev has time, is it?
18:27:38 <paul_p> if anyone has a link about bz webservices,...
18:28:21 <oleonard> slef: Yeah, people can find stuff to do if they want to look for it. Most already have plenty to work on.
18:28:24 <paul_p> http://www.bugzilla.org/docs/3.2/en/html/api/Bugzilla/WebService.html maybe
18:29:10 <Brooke> I get the sinking feeling this is a big procedure question and is like to be revisited. Anyone else think so?
18:29:39 <schuster> I feel we have been here before too...
18:29:44 <marcelr> i think so too
18:30:31 <Brooke> well, we will keep working on our slow hunches, and if anyone has any bril ideas, start a wiki page, write em down, and flag stuff on the next agenda
18:30:33 <Brooke> that said
18:30:42 <Brooke> bug 6537
18:30:42 <huginn> 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6537 enhancement, PATCH-Sent, ---, magnus, ASSIGNED , Simplified sysprefs for the web installer
18:30:52 <Brooke> go Paul :)
18:31:26 <rhcl> would anyone care to provide a bit of amplification on the holds rewrite if this is an appropriate time
18:31:44 <nengard> i thnk there is a detailed rfc on the wiki ...
18:31:55 <paul_p> the patch for 6537 has been pushed. It means the syspref system will be simplified a lot for translators.
18:32:20 <cait> magnuse++
18:32:37 <sekjal> rhcl:  the Holds Rewrite is currently in the testing phase.  ByWater Solutions is bringing up a test server to allow the sponsors to test the coded features against their own, familiar data
18:32:48 <paul_p> Since 3.4, the description is now stored in the template scope, no more in the SQL database. It means we don't need anymore to have a syspref.sql file defined for each language
18:33:00 <cait> will be simplified for developers
18:33:14 <sekjal> I'd like to open that to the community in general, once we can figure out the privacy issues to the libraries' satisfaction
18:33:20 <cait> not having to edit a lot of sql files any longer, but only add new sysprefs to the en file
18:33:32 <paul_p> thanks to magnus, we now have only one syspref.sql file, shared by all languages. located at (searching)
18:33:39 <oleonard> sekjal: privacy issues?
18:33:40 <wahanui> privacy issues are taken very seriously around here - some libraries even refuse to use google books - because it asks google every time
18:33:55 <sekjal> oleonard:  patron data
18:34:11 <chris_n> slef: blo/cri 3.4.x bugs now number 4... http://tinyurl.com/3m9qbpb
18:34:23 <slef> chris_n: ta
18:34:30 <sekjal> the current test data will be taken from the sponsoring libraries systems, and would need to be anonymized before letting other folks have access for testing
18:34:36 <wizzyrea> ^^
18:34:49 <sekjal> well, anonymized, or just wiped completely and reloaded with demo data
18:35:21 * chris_n has whined for large, clean sets of demo data for years :-)
18:35:37 <paul_p> the syspref file is now in misc/data/mysql/syspref.sql. If a specific syspref setup must be defined for a given language (like unimarc for frenchies), you still can have a fr/syspref.sql, that contains only UPDATE
18:36:06 <paul_p> what is nice with this is that it will help translators, but also help having the same syspref loaded for everybody
18:36:24 <paul_p> (previously, there was sometimes bugs because a syspref was not in the fr/syspref.sql file)
18:36:33 <paul_p> I hope i've been clear...
18:36:58 <thd> sekjal: just remember that real anonymisation is a myth because behaviour can be identifying..
18:37:01 <Brooke> lessbugs++
18:37:26 <cait> paul_p: only one small thing
18:37:33 <cait> it doesn#t change anything for translators
18:37:43 <cait> only for developers - but this is a very good change
18:37:52 <paul_p> cait, you're right
18:38:14 <marcelr> it is a simplification; less rebasing needed
18:38:42 <paul_p> yep, and less conflicts, and more fun ;-)
18:38:48 <sekjal> thd: there are ways to scramble behavior, too, but we'll get all that solved in the near future.
18:38:50 <Brooke> morefun++
18:38:57 <cait> magnuse++ :)
18:39:04 <paul_p> magnuse++
18:39:07 <paul_p> definetly !
18:39:11 <mtj> magnus++++!
18:39:11 <Brooke> magnuse++
18:39:23 <Brooke> just remember, beer > ++
18:39:37 <Brooke> #topic Roles for 3.8
18:39:50 <paul_p> well, i promize to pay a beer during next hackfest in Marseille ;-)
18:40:14 <paul_p> about my other question (Koha namespace), i saw someone added a link on the wiki, i haven't read it yet
18:40:28 <mtj> #info beer > ++
18:40:45 <cait> only if you like bear
18:40:49 <cait> um beer
18:41:12 * nengard is scared to admit that she does not like beer at all
18:41:15 <nengard> ick
18:41:20 <paul_p> cait, but you're german, so you like beer !
18:41:25 <sekjal> paul_p: that link is to a message I sent out to the koha-devel list just after KohaCon '10
18:41:30 <slef> nengard: wine?
18:41:31 <wahanui> wine is probably not usually the best for programming :)
18:41:33 <Brooke> (find beer replace chocolate)
18:41:35 <paul_p> (well, at least, that's what the world think ;-) )
18:41:39 <slef> wahanui: beer?
18:41:40 <wahanui> beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.
18:41:51 <nengard> slef if i have to choose between the two ... but usually just fruity girly mixed drinks for me
18:41:56 <Brooke> arright
18:42:00 <cait> paul_p: I don't!
18:42:01 <Brooke> back to work you
18:42:09 <Brooke> Roles for 3.8 folks
18:42:19 <Brooke> for Top Sucker I've Paul Poulain
18:42:19 <paul_p> it's like for me : all frenchies like escargots. I don't ;-)
18:42:22 <Brooke> aka RM
18:42:43 <paul_p> Top Sucker... not sure I'll like this name ;-)
18:42:48 <nengard> hehe
18:42:58 <cait> #link http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Roles_for_3.8
18:43:46 <Brooke> no one else for that
18:43:49 <slef> I want to be clear that this is only for 3.8, not 4.0 too.
18:43:50 <Brooke> any discussion?
18:44:05 <paul_p> thanks nengard & sekjal for adding you as doc & qa
18:44:06 <marcelr> i like his proposal; will be hard to realize probably, but we probably need more concensus on changing procedures?
18:44:07 <oleonard> I agree with slef.
18:44:08 <slef> Is paul_p willing to stand for reappointment next time?
18:44:14 <sekjal> I have some discussion about paul_p's proposal I'd like to bring up
18:44:25 <Brooke> discuss away
18:44:44 <paul_p> slef, my proposal is for both 3.8 and 4.0, as I think both must be started at the same time, as 4.0 is a "long term" change in my mind
18:44:51 <sekjal> I agree that we need to start thinking past the next timed release cycle
18:45:14 <sekjal> but I disagree that Koha 4.0 should be time-released for 12 months after 3.6
18:45:26 <paul_p> sekjal, why ?
18:45:29 <sekjal> I would counterpropose this:
18:45:53 <sekjal> continue the 3.X release cycle on a timed basis
18:45:59 <sekjal> 3.8 to 3.10 to 3.12, etc
18:46:03 <sekjal> every 6 months
18:46:19 <sekjal> meanwhile, starting early in the 3.8 release cycle
18:46:20 <paul_p> what would be in 3.10, 3.12,... ?
18:46:36 <paul_p> do you mean we would have 2 versions at the same time ?
18:46:50 <wizzyrea> (I think he's still talking)
18:46:56 <Brooke> ^
18:46:58 <sekjal> the community would get together and enumerate the features that would define Koha 4.0
18:47:08 <cait> let's answer one question after the other or this will all get very confusing in here
18:47:38 <sekjal> these would be features that would be things we could reasonably expect to complete in the next year or two
18:48:14 <sekjal> every 6 months, the features that are well tested and ready for inclusion could be released as part of the 3.X release cycle
18:48:17 <sekjal> as we do with master currently
18:48:19 <Brooke> #idea long term development goals coupled with short term release cycles
18:48:52 <sekjal> we would continue on 3.X until all the features are developed for 4.0
18:48:58 <Brooke> (Don't quite like the way that's phrased, so feel free to edit it. Just want to highlight the meat of this.)
18:49:33 <cait> and rebase those on current master for 4.0?
18:50:08 <sekjal> cait: features would all be on topic branches, based on master
18:50:18 <paul_p> cait, I think you rise a good & major point
18:50:20 <sekjal> and would need to be rebased frequently
18:50:27 <thd> sekjal: I suspect the actual development process depends more on what actually happens than any real overarching plan.
18:50:31 <cait> sekjal: ok, thx
18:50:41 <paul_p> sekjal, except that if 4.0 include major structural changes, it will quickly be a pain
18:51:06 <paul_p> for example : the solR work changes everything in searching.
18:51:09 <huginn> New commit(s) needsignoff: [Bug 6854] import_borrowers.pl : Double password encryption on member update if there is no password in the csv and no default password value. <http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6854>
18:51:13 <sekjal> paul_p:  my hope is that in the stages where we identify the features for 4.0, we also identify the underlying structural changes common to all those features
18:51:34 <sekjal> so the 'plumbing' changes can be done first, thus laying the groundwork for all the porcelain
18:51:55 <tajoli> IMHO label 4.0 is stritly connect with Solr. That is a big change. it is enough to change number
18:52:06 <paul_p> tajoli++
18:52:09 <Brooke> sekjal: this sounds happy for interface design. Am I off?
18:52:14 <paul_p> but I plan to do more !
18:52:31 <paul_p> well, I don't say "impossible", but I think it must be evaluated very carefully.
18:52:38 <tajoli> And Solr is for international support bugsù
18:52:40 <oleonard> Brooke: ?
18:52:42 <sekjal> I believe that Solr support is just one of the features that should be part of Koha 4.0
18:52:49 <paul_p> the move to Koha name space, solR, ...
18:52:55 <cait> I like sekjal's proposal
18:53:07 <cait> I am woried about having 2 branches, they will diverge pretty fast and be hard to bring together
18:53:20 <marcelr> afraid so too
18:53:20 <sekjal> I would also like to see:  arbitrary metadata formats, revist patron data structure, mobile templates
18:53:23 <paul_p> sekjal, suppose library A sponsor a feature, he will want it "asap". So on 3.x . you'll have to "rewrite" it for 4.0.
18:53:29 <paul_p> and that will be a pain.
18:53:33 <ColinC> tying a bunch of features to a magic number like 4.0 doesent necessarily work
18:53:35 <Brooke> oleonard: if you're planning things out, usage consideration is part of that and might declutter some menus and such
18:53:35 <cait> better bring it all together at one point in time
18:53:45 <tajoli> In fact Zebra is well for english data, not for a user of mine with greeck + arabic+armenian+ slavic
18:53:46 <paul_p> we (biblibre) face this problem already for H:T:P and T:T
18:53:46 <cait> and from the same base
18:54:09 <sekjal> paul_p:  library A needs to understand that just because they sponsor a change doesn't mean it will get into Koha on their schedule
18:54:21 <sekjal> it must meet the community's guidelines and procedures
18:54:23 <sekjal> which could take longer
18:54:24 <oleonard> sekjal++
18:54:26 <wizzyrea> ^^ a very good point
18:54:31 <paul_p> sekjal, maybe in US you can explain, but in france, you can't !
18:54:53 <paul_p> in France, the RFP always says "i want this and that, and at this date"
18:54:59 <slef> sekjal: I think you mean the community's quality control.
18:55:02 <cait> tajoli: we have pretty good experience with hebrew and german
18:55:13 <paul_p> that's why we develop on stable, then port on master
18:55:43 <tajoli> The problem is the mix of many alphabeths
18:55:58 <paul_p> (once a library has adopted Koha it's usually different , fortunatly)
18:56:22 <tajoli> In fact Zebra support every alphabeth, but all in the same time !!
18:56:23 <slef> I don't feel that I have enough data on the wiki to vote for paul_p for 4.0 and I will not vote for manifesto-free candidates on principle.  I'm concerned that Solr's larger server requirements don't compromise our happy Zebra users.
18:56:50 <cait> tajoli: I can only tell from my experience, hebrew and roman letters work well for us
18:57:03 <slef> ...so all this talk of "Solr changes everything in searching" is a bit scary.
18:57:04 <Brooke> okay
18:57:23 <Brooke> Sekjal: said your peace?
18:57:27 <paul_p> sekjal, what we say is "well, you get the feature X at the expected date, but we can't guarantee when it will be integrated in official Koha. So you may have to wait, or, even, have to abandon your feature. Or stay with your fork"
18:57:28 <schuster> slef++
18:57:33 <tajoli> Clerly not. The big work is to do is to add Zebra in parallel
18:58:07 <paul_p> slef, have you seen my mail on koha-devel about the work some ppl are doing to have zebra reintegrated ?
18:58:08 <sekjal> paul_p:  your company can certainly make the contractual arrangements to have a feature on their server by X date
18:58:38 <sekjal> and then, yes, they would need to be aware that they'll either need to be on a fork for while, or possibly lose the feature if it never gets accepted
18:58:40 <paul_p> (s/can/must ;-) )
18:58:42 <slef> paul_p: maybe not. I'm struggling to follow the lists recently. Got message-id?
18:58:44 <tajoli> Now Biblire has done a new API search on Solr. What we need to do is to develop the same API on Zebra
18:59:13 <tajoli> The feature are over the API
18:59:31 <paul_p> slef: our work on solr change a lot the internals of searching. tajoli & some others have started reintegrated zebra through this new API
18:59:52 <paul_p> the API is expected to be flexible enough to let us add other search engines later
18:59:53 <mtj> the one thing everyone agrees on is that the new Koha::Search code works with both solr and zebra
18:59:58 <sekjal> Brooke:  I believe I have presented my proposal in it's entirety.  I welcome any further feedback or requests for clarification
19:00:27 <paul_p> slef = Message-ID: <4E5E3F88.1070508@biblibre.com>
19:00:27 <Brooke> if you could go through the log, pick out what you've said, and post it, that'd be fab.
19:00:36 <Brooke> cause there's a lot of side talk going on here
19:00:52 <Brooke> any further commentary?
19:01:08 <paul_p> slef, does it answer your concern ?
19:01:28 <paul_p> (well, if you need more clarification, ask on koha-devel or the way you want)
19:01:45 <slef> Not in the way you want. It sounds backwards. So the API has been designed for Solr and Zebra is being tacked on as an afterthought?  I don't see why what works is being treated as second-class citizen.
19:02:42 <paul_p> slef, nope, you misunderstand = we've redesigned the search API to have it modular. And we made the solR stuff (because it was sponsored), tajoli has started the zebra stuff
19:02:49 <slef> reading that message to see if I've misunderstood it
19:03:09 <Brooke> tajoli++
19:03:22 <paul_p> yep, definetly.
19:03:26 <paul_p> tajoli++
19:03:35 <slef> ok, well, we wait and see... this vote should still be for 3.8 not 4.0 IMO
19:03:40 <paul_p> tcohen++
19:03:45 <Brooke> It is for 3.8
19:03:50 <Brooke> I never said it was for 4.0
19:03:54 <Brooke> you clarified
19:03:58 <Brooke> the horse has been beaten
19:04:02 <Brooke> and beaten once more
19:04:07 <Brooke> I do not want to go for three.
19:04:17 <paul_p> well... but I plan to start 4.0 in nov (at least discussions about it) too.
19:04:22 <cait> Brooke: I think it has to be clarified because Paul's proposal is for both
19:04:25 <paul_p> so, my application is for both versions.
19:04:35 <Brooke> I realise, but I'm sayin vote on one release at a time
19:04:37 <paul_p> yep, I confirm it is.
19:04:41 <Brooke> cause our tiny brains can't handle it.
19:05:15 <slef> yeah and I had no answer to the direct question: Is paul_p willing to stand for reappointment next time?
19:05:15 <cait> Brooke: I think we have to figure this out first before we can vote
19:05:36 <Brooke> slef: I think that'd clear things up.
19:05:40 <paul_p> Brooke, the problem here is that either I don't start 4.0 because i've not been elected or I start anyway hoping everybody will thank me at the end.
19:05:54 <paul_p> I prefer saying things now.
19:07:04 <nengard> Do we need an RM for 4.0 to start talking about what 4.0 is going to be?
19:07:11 <nengard> can't we just brainstorm without an RM?
19:07:20 <sekjal> nengard++
19:07:49 <marcelr> i understand that he wants to run in parallel
19:07:54 <sekjal> I feel that anything major enough to warrant a full version number jump is major enough to need as much community input as possible
19:08:11 <slef> paul_p: or you could start laying the ground as part of 3.8 and accept that maybe someone else will finish 4.0 or restart it. OK?
19:08:13 <paul_p> yep. brainstorm for, say, 2 months, then start works. And do works in //
19:08:17 <cait> and i think this is something we have to talk about
19:08:22 <cait> it really worries me about Paul's proposal
19:08:31 <cait> I like Ian's proposal better
19:08:32 <nengard> i'm not following everything we're talking about - but am i right in my understanding that we'd be working on 4.0 and 3.8 at the same time ... essentially creating forks of our own?
19:08:41 <nengard> I have a hard enough time testing patches for one version at a time
19:09:02 <cait> nengard: agreed - and maintenance for 3.4
19:09:19 <nengard> right!
19:09:24 <ColinC> and why 3.0 why not 3.10?
19:09:25 <nengard> just too much to maintain for our small group
19:09:38 <nengard> ColinC you mean 4.0?
19:09:42 <ColinC> yes
19:09:51 <paul_p> nengard, good point. and sekjal suggestion to have 3.10 / 3.12 ... while workin on 4.0 also has this kind of problem
19:09:51 <mtj> i think we don't need to commit to a 4.0 release in 12 months, too
19:10:19 <mtj> ... koha 4.0 should be released when its done
19:10:28 <cait> paul_p: with ian's proposal we would not have diverging branches
19:10:33 <ColinC> ++mtj
19:10:37 <thd> mtj++
19:10:44 <sekjal> my proposal would have 3 main branches at once:  3.4.x, 3.6.x and master.  this would change to 3.6.x, 3.8.x and master when 3.4 is EOLed
19:10:45 <paul_p> ColinC, we use to change the 1st number when there is a major structural change 1=>2 = MARC 2=>3 = zebra
19:11:18 <Brooke> 3 > 4 gamification!
19:11:25 <cait> I think we can agree to change to 4.0 once we have rewrote the search api for zebra and solr
19:11:28 * Brooke throws up the horns!
19:11:30 <cait> the question is how to make that happen
19:11:35 <paul_p> sekjal, it's also my proposal. So I don't understand where our propositions differ ?
19:11:51 <sekjal> paul_p:  I do not agree with the 1 year timeline for 4.0
19:11:58 <nengard> paul you said you'd start 4.0 in november ... that's one month after we start 3.8
19:12:08 <ColinC> but we arn't tied to that ... numbers are marketing making things dependent on a magic number holds things up
19:12:09 <Brooke> so here's what I'm gonna say
19:12:12 <Brooke> it's 3.12
19:12:14 <paul_p> nengard, did I said that ?
19:12:16 <Brooke> over here.
19:12:26 <Brooke> I think we table this part.
19:12:30 <fredericd> Paul: Where is published the new search API implement by your SolR search engine?
19:12:37 <Brooke> unless someone comes to summat brilliant in like 5 minutes.
19:12:42 <paul_p> fredericd, git.biblibre.com
19:12:50 <thd> sekjal: Do you think that one year is too short for 4.0?
19:12:53 <paul_p> (branch solR or something like that)
19:12:56 <talljoy> paulp:  you did...(2:03:12 PM) paul_p: well... but I plan to start 4.0 in nov (at least discussions about it) too.
19:12:57 <slef> Brooke: s/table/postpone/ :)
19:12:58 <sekjal> and, consequently, I do not think that it's necessary to loosen QA procedures on the road to 4.0, since we can release features as they're truly done and stable
19:13:15 <fredericd> paul_p: Could it be available outside the code?
19:13:32 <paul_p> I was meaning discussions about what should be in 4.0 and how to reach the goal. not doing things
19:13:34 <sekjal> thd:  I feel that, yes, 1 year may be too short.  I feel we should, as a community, define what features will make 4.0 first, and then start working on them
19:13:35 <nengard> paul_p ... i thought i read that ... now i'm confused so i'm going to read and stay quiet
19:13:58 <paul_p> fredericd, yep. And it should be in english (for instance, docs are in french)
19:14:24 <Brooke> so
19:14:30 <Brooke> #topic Translation Manager
19:14:31 <thd> sekjal: I prefer the way you put it last that we release what is ready without loosening  standards
19:14:38 <nengard> found it - (2:03:12 PM) paul_p: well... but I plan to start 4.0 in nov (at least discussions about it) too.
19:14:52 <paul_p> nengard, I was meaning discussions about what should be in 4.0 and how to reach the goal. not doing things
19:15:04 <cait> sekjal: I agree with that too
19:15:22 <cait> paul_p: are you open to discuss points from your proposal and have the community vote on them?
19:15:33 <Brooke> anyone have objections to Frédéric Demians?
19:15:53 <mtj> i think a smooth way to integrate solr ... would be to get Koha:Search:Zebra working first on 3.x
19:15:54 <paul_p> i'm always open to discussions. I'm usually complaining for silence, not for discussion ;-)
19:16:26 <paul_p> cait, i'm always open to discussions. I'm usually complaining for silence, not for discussion ;-)
19:16:42 <cait> so you are willing to change plans eventually?
19:17:20 <paul_p> cait, if you convince me the plan you propose is better than mine, of course ! but if I still think my plan is better, then i'll continue to argue.
19:17:36 <paul_p> TIMTOWTDI !
19:17:57 <mtj> Brooke:  no objections
19:18:47 <thd> paul_p: I think that you should set ambitious goals and if they are all realised then that will be great.  As long as we have a reasonable procedure for the quality and not abandoning users I am all for every possible great improvement.
19:18:55 <sekjal> Brooke:  I'm curious about the technical details of Frédéric Demians' proposal
19:19:15 <paul_p> fredericd++
19:19:16 <sekjal> but I have no objection
19:19:29 <thd> Brooke: objections to fredericd are absent.
19:19:32 <cait> no objection
19:19:54 <Brooke> k
19:20:03 <Brooke> hearing none, I'm going to move down the slate to
19:20:03 <cait> i would be willing to assist
19:20:07 <paul_p> same for me. I like the idea ! (although technically, how to do it is another question, I agree)
19:20:08 <thd> sekjal: please ask about your curiosity while fredericd is here to answer
19:20:11 <Brooke> #topic Documentation Manager
19:20:16 <fredericd> sekjal: as translation manager?
19:20:24 <Brooke> fredericd: yep
19:20:35 <paul_p> fredericd, the idea to remove po from main package I think
19:20:38 <nengard> chris and paul said that i was doc manager until i died .... so i promise to continue doing my job for 3.8 :)
19:20:40 <fredericd> As I explained on the wiki I would like to continue the task
19:20:57 <fredericd> The big challenge will be to succeed to extract .po files from Koha main git repository and manage them in a git submodule.
19:21:02 <sekjal> fredericd:  yes, I'm curious about the git submodule set up you propose.  I'm not sure this meeting is the most appropriate time to go into it, though
19:21:09 <fredericd> This will slim down git repository size
19:21:21 <paul_p> maybe a thread to start on koha-devel ?
19:21:28 <fredericd> sekjal: I can't enter into technical details yet
19:21:52 <fredericd> I also would like to propose a solution to allow Perl command-line scripts translation: scripts like bulkmarcimport.pl or zebraidx.pl.
19:22:04 <fredericd> But it must be discussed first. I'm not sure it's a necessity.
19:22:05 <paul_p> fredericd, not sure it will slim that much the repo size, as what has been put in is in the repo forever. even if removed from the tree
19:22:11 <thd> fredericd: Is the intent that for those who only want untranslated Koha they can avoid the larger size code base?
19:22:21 <fredericd> thd: yes
19:22:29 <Brooke> I'm going to put this out there in the big wide open
19:22:32 <fredericd> paul_p: you may be correct...
19:22:35 <paul_p> that could help having ppl sumitting patches more easily
19:22:58 <paul_p> ie : you can push patches on the submodule, while the RM push on koha
19:23:03 <fredericd> so we would need to restart a new repo? I don't know
19:23:08 <slef> I think you can shallow checkout if you want to save space.
19:23:11 <Brooke> meetings are getting longish, and I think that's happening from folks getting slammed at work. Pop in, talk to each other more. Should make for shorter meetings and better communication.
19:23:13 <paul_p> workflow for translations / workflow for Koha
19:23:19 <sekjal> I move that we move discussion of the git submodule to the koha-devel list
19:23:25 <paul_p> Brooke++
19:23:28 <paul_p> agreed
19:23:29 <sekjal> and continue with the rest of this meeting's agenda
19:23:43 <Brooke> also
19:23:46 <Brooke> the agenda is a wiki
19:23:53 <Brooke> so if you think of summat, post it
19:24:04 <Brooke> and if I don't honour it sufficiently, bring it up again next meeting :)
19:24:30 <Brooke> any objections to Nengard being Documentation Manager for Life? (or at least 3.8?)
19:24:35 <nengard> LOL
19:24:39 <cait> no objection
19:24:43 <tajoli> no
19:24:46 <schuster> nengard++
19:24:48 <paul_p> no objection
19:25:02 <jcamins_away> +1
19:25:06 <cait> nengard++
19:25:09 <marcelr> +1
19:25:10 <daniel_g> +1
19:25:10 <wizzyrea> go go gadget nengard
19:25:19 <Brooke> ha ha sucker!
19:25:23 <Brooke> oh wait
19:25:24 <paul_p> nengard, claire should catch you in the next weeks to see how it is possible to split the docbook in smaller parts
19:25:25 <ColinC> +1
19:25:27 <Brooke> we're adding more ha ha
19:25:38 <paul_p> that would be much esier for translators to deal with smaller files
19:25:47 <nengard> paul_p - i'd love a way to do that - but then links from section to section are much harder - which is why i haven't done it
19:25:47 * jcamins = Jared Camins-Esakov, C & P Bibliography Services #intro
19:25:48 <Brooke> Am I to assume there is also no objection to Documentation of the DB as Nengard too in 3.8?
19:26:02 <nengard> regarding db documentation bug 6716 tracks my work on that
19:26:02 <huginn> 04Bug http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=6716 enhancement, PATCH-Sent, ---, nengard, ASSIGNED , Database Documentation
19:26:17 <paul_p> yes, hdl told us. So she's looking for a solution/suggestion/idea to that.
19:26:22 <nengard> awesome!!
19:26:40 <paul_p> (dunno if she will find something though. Say awesome once she's found ;-) )
19:26:46 <nengard> hehe
19:26:56 <nengard> I appreciate help even if it doesn't come to a positive result :)
19:27:03 <Brooke> not hearing any so you're saddled for DB stuff too.
19:27:11 <Brooke> Bug Wranglers
19:27:11 <nengard> okey dokey
19:27:17 <Brooke> Ima go with whoever wants it gets it
19:27:22 <nengard> shouldn't we be doing #info for the voting?
19:27:27 <Brooke> cause we don't have a finite number of slots
19:27:29 <Brooke> prolly
19:27:39 <wizzyrea> define the job please?
19:27:52 <cait> we are not voting today, are we?
19:27:55 <cait> nominations
19:28:00 <Brooke> #info Nicole C Engard is the Documentation Manager and also Documenting the DB
19:29:50 <Brooke> wizzy, I'm taking my play on that from Magnus: Sign off patches, close bugs, keep an eye out for duplicates, help organize
19:30:18 <nengard> sorry cait, wrong word i guess
19:30:25 <sekjal> also linking 'depends on' and 'blocks' bugs, if possible
19:30:46 <wizzyrea> *nod* got it
19:31:09 * wizzyrea volunteers
19:31:11 <cait> nengard: not thinking voting would me a difference here :)
19:31:21 <cait> wizzyrea++ :)
19:31:45 <marcelr> katrin and magnus already do it, regardless of a formal role
19:31:52 <wizzyrea> ^^
19:32:07 <Brooke> which is why we <3 them marcel :)
19:32:18 <cait> oh :)
19:32:19 <marcelr> <3?
19:32:26 <wizzyrea> it's a heart, sideways
19:32:56 <Brooke> #topic QA Ian Walls
19:33:00 <slef> oh I wondered why everyone was redirecting fd/3 online!
19:33:09 <Brooke> any objections with Ian?
19:33:24 <paul_p> Everybody is a bug wrangler when he work on bz...
19:34:24 <slef> Brooke: seems not
19:34:33 <Brooke> on a related note: Ian, do you have a problem with 2 minions instead of just one?
19:34:37 <marcelr> ian++
19:34:37 <cait> no objections
19:34:40 <cait> sekjal++
19:34:44 <daniel_g> I'm unclear on the process going on here. I thought elections are in October. What is this?
19:34:54 <Brooke> Elections are in the beginning of October
19:34:58 <Brooke> this is nominations.
19:35:02 <cait> nominations... talking about plans and candidates I think
19:35:15 <cait> and what is involved doing the job
19:35:15 <daniel_g> can someone object to a nomination?
19:35:16 <sekjal> I have no objections; as many helpers as I can get is a good thing
19:35:43 <Brooke> you can, but it's kind of silly. I've been putting up with it, because I think it's a good idea for a candidate to not be blindsided at an election.
19:35:53 <daniel_g> ok, thanks
19:36:41 <Brooke> that said, any objections to having both Marcel and Jonathan Druart on the slate?
19:36:57 <wizzyrea> none here
19:37:07 <sekjal> no objection
19:37:12 <cait> no objection
19:37:23 <mtj> no objection
19:37:24 <Brooke> #info QA manager has Ian Walls
19:37:25 <paul_p> agreed
19:37:44 <Brooke> #info Assistant QAs are slated as Marcel de Rooy and Jonathan Druart
19:38:02 <Brooke> #topic Mason James as Packaging Manager
19:38:23 <Brooke> anything?
19:38:23 <wahanui> anything is possible with enough development work :)
19:39:23 <mtj> i have to assume here, that robin forgot to add himself for this role?
19:39:34 <paul_p> what does "packaging task" contain, exactly ?
19:39:34 <Brooke> which role?
19:39:51 <wizzyrea> packaging manager
19:39:52 <paul_p> debian/RH/... packages ?
19:40:05 <mtj> the role of Packaging Manager
19:40:26 <Brooke> eythian in the house yet?
19:40:49 <Brooke> guess not
19:40:53 <mtj> i assume its creating .deb and .rpm files from koha releases
19:41:28 <wizzyrea> ^^
19:42:26 <Brooke> I'm going to assume there aren't too many folks that are interested and move back to the whole icky RM discussion, because I did say I'd go back
19:42:36 <Brooke> I just wanted to get a few things off the list for morale
19:42:56 <Brooke> #topic Back to RM
19:43:11 <Brooke> keeping in mind it's nominations
19:43:46 * oleonard gets his internet back
19:43:48 <Brooke> I think we have to have a good think about the 3.8 / 4.0 thing
19:44:06 <marcelr> should be discussed further on ml?
19:44:12 <Brooke> I also think this might be related to the numbering item that is next on the agenda
19:44:24 <Brooke> yes, that is a good idea
19:44:34 <sekjal> Brooke:  yes, that agenda item has already been covered to the poster's satisfaction
19:44:36 <paul_p> yep, I think that too
19:45:20 <Brooke> keep in mind, ye of incredible procrastination capacity, that 3.8 hits on 22 October, and we've KohaCon on the horizon.
19:45:26 <Brooke> so
19:45:35 <Brooke> are we agreed that this is moved to the list temporarily?
19:46:06 <slef> ok... I'll make more effort to catch up on list
19:46:14 <sekjal> agreed
19:46:25 <mtj> agreed
19:46:40 <paul_p> agred
19:47:15 <Brooke> #agreed further discussion of the RM slot is going to be move to the list
19:47:18 <Brooke> hooray
19:47:32 <sekjal> I will consolidate my proposal as laid out here into an email to koha-discuss and koha-devel
19:47:42 <Brooke> #topic Numbering for post 3.8 releases
19:49:25 <Brooke> no one?
19:49:26 <wahanui> hmmm... no one is working on kiritakikoha
19:49:43 <rangi> back
19:49:49 <Brooke> welcome back
19:50:03 <Brooke> do you have a burning desire to discuss numbering post 3.8?
19:50:06 <mtj> hmmm - 3.10 , and then 3.12 ??
19:50:17 <rangi> brooke scroll back
19:50:29 <rangi> sekjal answered already
19:50:46 <Brooke> arrighty then
19:50:48 <mtj> ahh, ok :)
19:50:58 <Brooke> #topic KohaCon2011
19:51:05 <slef> I always saw the specifics as being for the rm
19:51:11 <Brooke> Bear in mind that kmkale has a broken arm and is typing with the wrong hand
19:51:22 <slef> ow!
19:52:08 <rangi> could link to programme here?
19:52:18 <rangi> I would but im on the bus
19:52:39 <slef> I;m at dinner so similarly limited for 10mins
19:52:42 <Brooke> #link http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Kohacon2011
19:52:44 <Brooke> sping.
19:52:53 <cait> kmkale around?
19:52:58 <slef> Brooke++
19:53:03 <Brooke> pfft
19:53:07 <Brooke> that's rangi and cait for ye
19:53:37 <slef> ?
19:53:51 <Brooke> beautification project
19:54:00 <Brooke> my wki was uglay
19:54:05 <Brooke> anyhoo
19:54:10 <Brooke> get to conference
19:54:14 <Brooke> it will be a blast
19:54:47 <Brooke> there is your programme. We will probably continue to tweak that as the date draws near, but it's a nice overview.
19:55:33 <Brooke> any questions, please ask, and hopefully kmkale will address them if I don't know the answers
19:56:33 <Brooke> #topic KohaCon2012
19:56:57 <Brooke> we have two bids, one from Reno, NV, USA and one from Scotland, UK
19:57:21 <Brooke> #info Voting starts 1 October
19:57:29 <Brooke> now how do we manage?
19:57:44 <Brooke> the suggestion is that we butter up nengard and ask for her survey setup another time
19:58:37 <thd> nengard: You are being volunteered.
19:58:43 <cait> nengard:plz? :)
19:58:50 * oleonard checks the fridge for butter
19:58:51 <jcamins> nengard isn't here at the moment, so we can volunteer her for anything... right?
19:59:16 <slef> 2 options, so I think it's a straight choice of approval or either/or voting. Anyone remember what we used last time?
19:59:16 <paul_p> in french we say "missing person are always wrong". So yes, we can volunteer her ;-)
19:59:34 <paul_p> we used voting
19:59:46 <thd> jcamins: yes, I see no objection from her.
20:00:05 <Brooke> jcamins, I concur. ;)
20:00:19 <slef> paul_p: yes, what sort? I forget and can't look for an hour :)
20:00:30 <slef> anyway nm
20:00:31 <rangi> slef ranked votes last time
20:00:33 <paul_p> but in this case, shouldn't we think to a rule to avoid having KohaCon in US just 3 years after the previous KohaCon in US
20:00:45 <Brooke> if she doesn't read this by like next week and let us know, we'll figure out a fallback, yes?
20:01:06 <rangi> stv almost
20:01:07 <jcamins> nengard is going to insist (understandably) that the exact wording of the questions be provided by someone else.
20:01:12 <cait> stv?
20:01:14 <paul_p> (not that I don't want to go to NV)
20:01:17 <slef> paul_p: don't change the rules mid-process. Even if I'd like the result, not really fair :)
20:01:33 <slef> jcamins: recycle last year's?
20:01:50 <thd> paul_p: If we exclude the US and one of two proposals is from the US then there is nothing to vote upon.
20:01:50 <paul_p> yep, I agree (and I agree my sentence was not correctly written)
20:02:20 <slef> rangi: ta
20:02:21 <paul_p> thd, let me rephrase : I think for KohaCon13 and later, we should define a rule to avoid repeated countries
20:02:23 <jcamins> slef: there were objections to the questions last year.
20:02:35 <Brooke> Paul, I tried and was shot down.
20:02:38 <slef> jcamins: got links/detail?
20:02:42 <Brooke> so community wins. :)
20:02:53 <jcamins> slef: not off the top of my head. I'm at work now.
20:02:56 <slef> jcamins: and was I one? ;)
20:03:04 <paul_p> well, maybe it's OK (but i'll ask all biblibrarians and french libraries to go & vote for UK ;-) )
20:03:24 <jcamins> slef: yes, you were one of the people objecting, as I recall.
20:03:31 <slef> well I can't really phrase it unless nancyk wants to help me :)
20:03:42 <thd> Brooke: Was no same country in the following year shot down?
20:03:55 <Brooke> that wasn't.
20:03:56 <jcamins> paul_p: this USian will be voting for the UK, too. :)
20:04:07 <Brooke> having a rotating slate was.
20:04:22 <tajoli> In fact as Italian a prefer UK
20:04:27 <Brooke> I didn't phrase that right at all
20:04:29 <Brooke> but any how
20:04:57 <Brooke> #agreed Nengard will hopefully once again be our saviour and create a survey based on what we did last time.
20:05:04 <thd> paul_p: Reno is by woods and a lake but much of Nevada is an arid desert.
20:05:06 <slef> jcamins: ooh I wonder why? :)
20:05:10 <Brooke> and if not, someone else will figure it out in time for the first.
20:05:40 * slef looks for his memory, but has forgotten where he left it
20:05:53 <jcamins> slef: I think the objection was about rank voting. thd may remember, I think he was the one who answered the objection.
20:05:53 <wizzyrea> i suspect it's backed up on disk somewhere
20:06:38 <Brooke> we're at the two hour mark
20:06:48 <Brooke> #topic Global Bug Squashing Days
20:07:04 <slef> well rank voting boils down to either/or here anyway. lots are equal with only 2 choice
20:07:06 <Brooke> smashing success so far if ye ask me
20:07:43 <Brooke> http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/2011-09-02_Global_bug_squashing_day
20:07:57 <Brooke> the twitter feed was neat
20:08:01 <Brooke> magnuse++
20:08:05 <thd> I favour score voting in a manner which removes motivation for false strategic voting but that is a topic for the mailing list and a different vote.
20:08:19 <cait> yep, gbsd++
20:08:49 <cait> #link http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/2011-09-02_Global_bug_squashing_day
20:08:54 <thd> slef: We should encourage more bidders.
20:09:39 <slef> thd: next time...
20:09:39 <wahanui> i think next time is in 87 years or something... ;-)
20:09:53 <ibeardslee> rangi: some further plugging of Koha planned as part of the my ACCEPTED proposal to talk about the academy at LCA in Jan.
20:09:53 <oleonard> that gives us plenty of time
20:10:11 <rangi> ibeardslee: awesome!
20:10:16 <slef> kohacon2098
20:10:34 <thd> As slef identified, the voting method hardly matters if there are only two candidates.
20:10:42 <Brooke> #topic Old Business (Actions from Last Meeting)
20:11:16 <slef> any objection to a mid month bug squash next time? thoughts on a weekend one?
20:12:01 <cait> hi magnuse
20:12:13 <cait> weekend one would be nice
20:12:18 <cait> but we have one every 2 weeks
20:12:26 <magnuse> #info Magnus Enger, Libriotech, Norway
20:12:38 * magnuse drops by briefly
20:12:57 <magnuse> slef: feel free to propose dates for gbsd!
20:13:01 <Brooke> #topic time and date of next meeting
20:13:02 <paul_p> slef, at BibLibre, we have a bug squashing session once every 2 fridays, in the morning
20:13:16 <Brooke> k movin' on
20:13:30 <Brooke> 5th October 10 UTC?
20:14:27 <paul_p> 10UTC is what we've decided = 18UTC (today) -8
20:14:52 * jcamins won't be there, but it seems fair to me. +1
20:15:00 <slef> looks ok at a glance
20:15:11 <Brooke> going once
20:15:14 <paul_p> will be in switzerland on 5th
20:15:14 <magnuse> +1
20:15:24 <mtj> +1
20:15:30 <Brooke> going twice...
20:15:36 <paul_p> but someone else from BibLibre will be able to attend (11AM in France)
20:15:37 <cait> paul_p: oh nice
20:15:51 <Brooke> #agreed 5 October 10 UTC
20:15:52 <cait> meeting has already ended, but any thoughts about rmaint?
20:15:55 <Brooke> #endmeeting