16:00:17 <adamw> #startmeeting F33-blocker-review
16:00:17 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Aug 31 16:00:17 2020 UTC.
16:00:17 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
16:00:17 <zodbot> The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
16:00:17 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
16:00:17 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f33-blocker-review'
16:00:17 <adamw> #meetingname F33-blocker-review
16:00:17 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
16:00:17 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f33-blocker-review'
16:00:23 <adamw> ahoyhoy folks
16:00:26 <adamw> who's around for some blocker review?
16:00:34 * coremodule is!
16:00:42 <adamw> heads up, gonna try and make it snappy this week as i have to go do a thing
16:00:50 * pwhalen is here
16:00:52 <adamw> if it looks like it's gonna drag out i may need someone to take over
16:01:07 <lruzicka> .hello2
16:01:08 <zodbot> lruzicka: lruzicka 'Lukáš Růžička' <lruzicka@redhat.com>
16:01:10 <coremodule> I can do that adamw if it happens that way.
16:01:21 <kparal> it's going to be blazing fast because we have many votes already in the discussion tickets :)
16:01:39 <kparal> also, and we can update the status of accepted blockers in those tickets
16:01:49 <kparal> just a thought
16:01:55 <bcotton> .hello2
16:01:55 <zodbot> bcotton: bcotton 'Ben Cotton' <bcotton@redhat.com>
16:02:13 <adamw> kparal: eh, i went through the tickets and only a couple are ready
16:02:19 <bcotton> -1 all blockers, +1 all FEs. meeting adjourned
16:02:24 <adamw> i updated one but left another couple out because i want to talk about them and i enjoy abusing power!
16:02:30 <coremodule> you heard the man, see you next week
16:02:35 <coremodule> thanks bcotton
16:02:35 <adamw> #chair bcotton
16:02:35 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton
16:02:41 <adamw> alrighty we're done here ;P
16:02:45 <adamw> #chair coremodule
16:02:45 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw bcotton coremodule
16:02:54 <adamw> impending boilerplate alert!~
16:02:55 <adamw> #topic Introduction
16:02:55 <adamw> Why are we here?
16:02:55 <adamw> #info Our purpose in this meeting is to review proposed blocker and nice-to-have bugs and decide whether to accept them, and to monitor the progress of fixing existing accepted blocker and nice-to-have bugs.
16:02:55 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
16:02:57 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
16:02:58 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
16:03:00 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
16:03:02 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
16:03:04 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria
16:03:06 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Beta_Release_Criteria
16:03:08 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Final_Release_Criteria
16:03:10 <adamw> #info for Beta, we have:
16:03:12 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Blockers
16:03:14 <adamw> #info 8 Accepted Blockers
16:03:16 <adamw> #info 4 Proposed Freeze Exceptions
16:03:20 <adamw> #info 8 Accepted Freeze Exceptions
16:03:22 <adamw> #info for Final, we have:
16:03:24 <adamw> #info 1 Proposed Blockers
16:03:26 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Blockers
16:03:31 <adamw> coremodule: do you volunteer to secretarialize? note: volunteering is mandatory
16:03:46 <coremodule> and if i decline the mandate?
16:03:53 <kparal> (it will also require updating discussion tickets)
16:04:05 <michel_slm> adamw: are we meeting?
16:04:12 <adamw> michel_slm: we're doing a blocker review meeting, yes
16:04:17 <adamw> coremodule: i've got a .fire with your name on it
16:04:29 <michel_slm> (chat lag, sorry)
16:04:34 <coremodule> aww dangit, fine, i'll do it begrudgingly
16:04:35 <michel_slm> .hello salimma
16:04:36 <zodbot> michel_slm: salimma 'Michel Alexandre Salim' <michel@michel-slm.name>
16:04:46 <cmurf> .hello chrismurphy
16:04:47 <zodbot> cmurf: chrismurphy 'Chris Murphy' <bugzilla@colorremedies.com>
16:04:58 <sumantro> .hello sumantrom
16:04:59 <zodbot> sumantro: sumantrom 'Sumantro Mukherjee' <sumukher@redhat.com>
16:04:59 <cmurf> (not really consistently present)
16:05:06 <adamw> #info coremodule will secretarialize
16:05:11 <bcotton> cmurf: that's my life's motto
16:05:12 <adamw> cmurf: that's my motto!
16:05:16 <adamw> .fire bcotton
16:05:16 <zodbot> adamw fires bcotton
16:05:38 <adamw> OK, let's start out with:
16:05:42 <adamw> #topic proposed Beta blockers
16:05:43 <cmurf> MOTTO TWINS, ACTIVATE!
16:05:52 <adamw> #topic (1863041) systemd-resolved.service not work with DNS server placed behind VPN (openconnect)
16:05:52 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1863041
16:05:52 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/24
16:05:52 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, openconnect, NEW
16:06:24 <kparal> so, the new criterion is still not approved
16:06:27 <kparal> are we voting?
16:06:28 <adamw> well
16:06:33 <adamw> it's been out for discussion for two weeks
16:06:40 <adamw> and no-one has said 'we should not block on openconnect VPNs'
16:07:07 <adamw> so i'd suggest we could reasonably assume that the portion of the draft relating to openconnect VPNs, or something like it, is gonna be used, and vote on that basis
16:07:30 <adamw> right now we're kinda kicking around mDNS which is fun and all, but there seems to be zero opposition to "openconnect VPNs should work".
16:07:36 <kparal> I'm fine with that
16:07:37 <lruzicka> +1
16:07:41 <sumantro> +1
16:07:54 <bcotton> +1
16:08:08 <kparal> +1 blocker
16:08:27 <lruzicka> +1 again
16:08:27 <coremodule> +1 blocker
16:08:30 <adamw> DNS server behind the VPN is a pretty common config
16:08:32 <adamw> so yeah, I'm +1
16:08:57 <michel_slm> +1
16:09:42 <kparal> coremodule: I can update https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/24 to show you how it's done
16:10:23 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1863041 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of the currently-under-discussion new networking criteria, as there has been no opposition to the idea that typical configs of common VPNs, including OpenConnect-supported VPNs, should work, and this is such a case
16:10:34 <bcotton> ack
16:10:35 <lruzicka> ack
16:10:47 <kparal> ack
16:10:50 <coremodule> ack
16:11:46 <michel_slm> ack
16:11:46 <coremodule> sure kparal, if you want to do that
16:12:06 * kparal hovers over Comment button
16:12:30 <adamw> #agreed 1863041 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this is accepted as a violation of the currently-under-discussion new networking criteria, as there has been no opposition to the idea that typical configs of common VPNs, including OpenConnect-supported VPNs, should work, and this is such a case
16:12:37 <adamw> #topic (1872068) zram-swap.service: Failed to load configuration: No such file or directory
16:12:37 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872068
16:12:37 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/36
16:12:37 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
16:12:46 <kparal> coremodule: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/24#comment-674628
16:13:27 <adamw> #info we have +3 FE (bcotton, kparal, lruzicka) and -2 blocker (bcotton, lruzicka) in the ticket - https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/36
16:13:47 <adamw> i kinda agree with the 'it's worrying but doesn't happen on a default install and upgrade so doesn't violate criteria' take
16:13:55 <adamw> definitely a CommonBugs candidate
16:14:15 * bcotton 's mind is unchanged
16:14:36 <adamw> so i'm -1 blocker/+1 FE
16:14:37 <lruzicka> so is \me 's
16:15:05 <kparal> betablocker -1 from me, people can't easily replicate it
16:15:06 <pwhalen> -1 blocker/+1 FE
16:15:18 <kparal> BetaFE +1 holds
16:15:50 <kparal> CommonBugs is a good idea
16:16:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1872068 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected on the grounds it's not reproducible from a clean install/upgrade scenario, which is what the criteria cover. Accepted as an FE as this is a serious bug for folks who happen to be in whatever state triggers it (we're not sure yet).
16:16:27 <adamw> i already tagged it commonbugs
16:16:31 <kparal> thanks
16:16:40 <kparal> ack
16:16:41 <lruzicka> ack
16:16:42 <bcotton> ack
16:16:50 <adamw> #agreed 1872068 - RejectedBlocker (Beta) AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is rejected on the grounds it's not reproducible from a clean install/upgrade scenario, which is what the criteria cover. Accepted as an FE as this is a serious bug for folks who happen to be in whatever state triggers it (we're not sure yet).
16:17:04 <kparal> coremodule: just a note, make sure you add Blocks:BetaFreezeException when updating it, it's not there
16:17:04 <adamw> #topic Proposed Beta Freeze Exceptions
16:17:09 <adamw> #info that's all the proposed beta blockers
16:17:20 <adamw> #topic (1873681) Making Design-Suite Labs available for Fedora 33 Beta
16:17:20 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873681
16:17:20 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/51
16:17:20 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, NEW
16:17:35 <adamw> we have +1 FE from kparal in the ticket
16:17:50 <bcotton> +1FE low risk, enables a non-blocking deliverable
16:17:58 <michel_slm> +1 FE
16:18:30 <pwhalen> +1 FE
16:18:36 <lruzicka> +1FE
16:19:38 <adamw> for the record, best as I can tell, the situation is that there are three separate dep issues in the referenced compose, two of them are already fixed by excluding the package from the kickstart, but they want to fix the third by including a newer blender build and that's what the FE is for
16:20:13 <adamw> +1 FE
16:20:52 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1873681 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - accepted as an FE as a bug that prevents the compose of a non-release blocking spin (we conventionally always consider such a bug FE-worthy)
16:21:13 <lruzicka> ack
16:21:16 <michel_slm> ack
16:21:18 <bcotton> ack
16:21:22 <kparal> ack
16:21:27 <adamw> #agreed 1873681 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - accepted as an FE as a bug that prevents the compose of a non-release blocking spin (we conventionally always consider such a bug FE-worthy)
16:21:40 <adamw> #topic (1874094) nano does not exist in boot.iso variants but should
16:21:40 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1874094
16:21:40 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/54
16:21:40 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, distribution, NEW
16:21:53 <adamw> i'm a bit hesitant about the idea of adding it to @core here, when the Change specifically said @standard
16:22:20 <adamw> but i guess i'm +1 FE to the concept
16:22:31 <kparal> that's not our call, though, the implementation :)
16:22:39 <adamw> (do note this makes the installer environment slightly larger and hence take up slightly more RAM, thoguh)
16:23:02 <adamw> #info we have +3 FE in the ticket from cmurf, lruzicka and kparal
16:23:07 <bcotton> otoh, the description of the change implies @core
16:23:23 <lruzicka> I am +1, because nano should become the default editor, afaik.
16:23:40 <lruzicka> so it seems logical that it is everywhere
16:23:40 <cmurf> it implies @core, we keep forgetting @standard doesn't always bring everything in
16:23:53 <pwhalen> adamw: ouch, which could affect low memory systems like arm
16:23:54 <cmurf> i made that same mistake with zram-generator
16:24:01 <adamw> @core is meant to be more or less "stuff the distro just doesn't work properly without"
16:24:06 <adamw> anyhoo
16:24:10 <adamw> we can litigate that on the bug
16:24:14 <cmurf> well vim-minimal is in @core
16:24:19 <adamw> we're at +4
16:24:33 <cmurf> the distro works without that too, you just can't edit anything haha
16:24:36 <michel_slm> if we want nano to be the default, can vim-minimal be taken out?
16:24:36 <adamw> cmurf: well, without that we had no text editor at all i think, which is pretty non-functional
16:24:42 <adamw> michel_slm: controversial :P
16:24:46 <adamw> but plausible!
16:24:46 <bcotton> +1 FE
16:24:47 <michel_slm> at least on low memory systems
16:24:53 <michel_slm> +1 FE
16:24:59 <cmurf> well it's either the default or it isn't
16:25:01 <pwhalen> +1 FE, but it could become a blocker if arm no longer installs
16:25:21 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1874094 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's clearly in scope of the Change and can't be fixed with a post-release update, note still some discussion about whether adding nano to @core is the most appropriate fix
16:25:30 <michel_slm> I can see keeping both now since it's a new change (just in case) but... yeah if space is at a premium the non-default should be dropped
16:25:35 <adamw> pwhalen: i mean, nano's small, it shouldn't be a big diff
16:25:38 <adamw> (hence the name :P)
16:25:42 <lruzicka> ack
16:25:51 <pwhalen> heh, just mentioning it as a consideration
16:25:57 <adamw> nano itself is 2.7M (uncompressed), not sure if it pulls in any deps
16:26:08 <kparal> ack
16:26:12 <cmurf> ack
16:26:17 <adamw> #agreed 1874094 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as it's clearly in scope of the Change and can't be fixed with a post-release update, note still some discussion about whether adding nano to @core is the most appropriate fix
16:26:18 <pwhalen> ok, fingers crossed
16:26:19 <pwhalen> ack
16:26:25 <adamw> #topic (1867830) can't connect using mDNS addressing when systemd-resolved is running
16:26:25 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1867830
16:26:25 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/52
16:26:25 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, systemd, NEW
16:26:47 <adamw> we have +1 FE in the ticket from kparal
16:27:02 <cmurf> pwhalen: yeah if it breaks anything, even non-release blocking images, i support backing it out and reconsidering
16:27:15 <pwhalen> thanks cmurf
16:27:38 <bcotton> +1 FE (i'd be considering blocker if the inclusion of mdns in the network proposal had rousing support)
16:27:43 <cmurf> my understanding is this needs mdns4_minimal in nsswitch.conf moved
16:27:59 <cmurf> it needs to go before [!UNAVAIL=return]
16:28:24 <michel_slm> +1 FE if there's a plausible fix we should try that before reverting
16:28:32 <adamw> this sounds icky.
16:28:48 <adamw> i'm reading the bug and the voice in my head is saying "undercooked Change"
16:28:53 <cmurf> if i do that, the problem is fixed (but then when i revert everything that depends on nss breaks and i have to do a snapshot rollback to fix it - so i advise taking the warnings about directly editing nsswitch.conf seriously!)
16:29:21 <cmurf> adamw: maybe
16:29:29 <adamw> has anyone tested an upgrade here?
16:29:38 <adamw> to see how nsswitch.conf looks like after an upgrade from f31 or f32?
16:29:40 <cmurf> the problem is reverting the change entirely is icky too
16:29:46 <cmurf> all good questions
16:29:47 <adamw> well yay ickiness
16:29:53 <adamw> anyhow, i guess i'm +1 FE in principle
16:29:58 <adamw> and we can work out the icky details elsewhere
16:30:10 <cmurf> it's sort of mini-whack-a-mole at this point
16:31:06 <cmurf> how many i don't know
16:31:09 <adamw> ick-a-mole
16:31:22 <cmurf> :P
16:31:32 <michel_slm> nano-whack-a-mole
16:31:38 <bcotton> guac-a-mole?
16:31:39 <cmurf> oooo winner!
16:31:41 <cmurf> haha
16:31:58 <cmurf> michel_slm++
16:31:58 <zodbot> cmurf: Karma for salimma changed to 4 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:32:05 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1867830 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a significant problem for those who use mDNS that can't be entirely fixed with an update (as it affects lives, installer environments, first boot etc).
16:32:22 <cmurf> michel_slm overdue karma :D
16:32:25 <bcotton> ack
16:32:28 <cmurf> ack
16:32:32 <michel_slm> ack
16:32:40 <adamw> #agreed 1867830 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is accepted as a significant problem for those who use mDNS that can't be entirely fixed with an update (as it affects lives, installer environments, first boot etc).
16:32:42 <kparal> ack
16:32:43 <michel_slm> bcotton++ I like guac-a-mole too
16:32:43 <zodbot> michel_slm: Karma for bcotton changed to 28 (for the current release cycle):  https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any
16:32:53 <adamw> #topic (1873856) resolv.conf misconfigured on fresh install
16:32:53 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1873856
16:32:53 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/53
16:32:53 <adamw> #info Proposed Freeze Exceptions, systemd, NEW
16:33:01 <cmurf> oh nice this one
16:33:20 <adamw> #info we have +2 FE in the ticket (kparal, lruzicka)
16:33:37 <cmurf> +1 FE
16:33:38 <pwhalen> +1 FE
16:33:54 <adamw> yeah, at least +1 FE
16:34:09 <cmurf> yeah i was wondering block but
16:34:22 <cmurf> at that point it becomes a more serious question about revert
16:35:28 <michel_slm> if it's a FE will we have documentation in the beta release for how to work around the issue?
16:35:51 <michel_slm> brainfade, sorry, FE means we can fix it, duh
16:35:53 <michel_slm> +1 FE
16:35:54 <adamw> if someone puts CommonBugs on the bug we will
16:35:55 <cmurf> documentation will be in the ensuing devel@ convo haha
16:36:05 <cmurf> but yeah commonbugs
16:36:07 <adamw> (if it doesn't get fixed)
16:36:13 <cmurf> right
16:36:14 <bcotton> +1 fe
16:36:38 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1873856 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is clearly a significant error in implementation of the systemd-resolved Change and likely cannot be fully fixed with a post-release update
16:36:43 <cmurf> ack
16:36:45 <bcotton> ack
16:36:45 <lruzicka> ack
16:36:47 <michel_slm> ack
16:36:55 <kparal> ack
16:36:59 <pwhalen> ack
16:37:12 <adamw> #agreed 1873856 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) - this is clearly a significant error in implementation of the systemd-resolved Change and likely cannot be fully fixed with a post-release update
16:37:24 <adamw> #topic Proposed Final blockers
16:37:30 <adamw> #info that's all Beta proposals done
16:37:46 <adamw> #topic (1872922) xkb-converted console layouts that cannot input ASCII not stripped due to grep / zgrep -L bug ; causes several languages to have broken console layouts
16:37:46 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872922
16:37:46 <adamw> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/43
16:37:46 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, kbd, ON_QA
16:38:01 <adamw> can we actually vote this for Beta FE as well?
16:38:06 <adamw> i should have proposed it as a Beta FE, that was an oversight
16:38:08 * adamw adds the proposal
16:39:13 <adamw> the cliff notes on this is: we have a lot of wrong console keyboard layouts and it means you can't really use the console in various languages including Russian
16:39:16 <michel_slm> ouch, yes
16:39:26 <michel_slm> +1 beta FE
16:39:44 <bcotton> +1 beta FE
16:39:57 <michel_slm> presumably all languages similar to Russian are affected to then? that's a lot of peole
16:40:00 <pwhalen> +1 beta FE
16:40:40 <adamw> michel_slm: strictly speaking i think the set is "all languages that expect to use an internally-switchable console layout from /usr/lib/kbd/keymaps/legacy , but for which an identically-named xkb layout exists"
16:40:41 <lruzicka> +1 beta FE, but this has been an issue during the last release
16:41:04 <adamw> i think the bug actually also means we *removed* some converted layouts that should have been included, but i didn't look into that angle as hard
16:41:22 <adamw> you can rpmdiff kbd-misc-2.3.0-1.fc33 vs. kbd-misc-2.3.0-2.fc33 to see the diff if you're interested
16:41:31 <adamw> lruzicka: it can't have been
16:41:36 <adamw> lruzicka: the zgrep bug didn't appear until f33
16:41:49 <adamw> f32's kbd-misc was correct
16:42:05 <lruzicka> adamw, but cyrilic on the console had misfigured characters
16:42:21 <adamw> lruzicka: if you're talking about how they look, that's not this bug.
16:42:28 <kparal> finalblocker +1 betafe +1 as mentioned in the ticket
16:42:43 <adamw> the effect of this bug is "you can only type cyrillic characters at the console, you cannot type latin characters at all"
16:42:53 <lruzicka> adamw, well, yeah, the looks, or rather how they were not recognizable at all
16:42:55 <adamw> other votes for Final blocker? it's a bit academic but hey
16:43:01 <adamw> lruzicka: different bug, then. nothing to do with this.
16:43:31 <lruzicka> adamw, well they closed the bug anyway saying it was a non-issue
16:43:44 <lruzicka> +1 final blocker
16:43:57 <lruzicka> you cannot use cyrillic only to control your CLI
16:44:32 <michel_slm> +1 final blocker too
16:44:32 <adamw> lruzicka: point me at the bug, i'm interested - but it's definitely nothing to do with this one
16:44:33 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1872922 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "If a particular keyboard layout has been configured for the system, that keyboard layout must be used: When unlocking encrypted storage volumes during boot (but see footnotes)", and as a Beta FE as a significant bug for affected languages which cannot be fixed with a post-release update
16:45:07 <kparal> ack
16:45:13 <lruzicka> ack
16:45:54 <michel_slm> ack
16:46:21 <adamw> #agreed 1872922 - AcceptedFreezeException (Beta) AcceptedBlocker (Final) - accepted as a Final blocker as a violation of "If a particular keyboard layout has been configured for the system, that keyboard layout must be used: When unlocking encrypted storage volumes during boot (but see footnotes)", and as a Beta FE as a significant bug for affected languages which cannot be fixed with a post-release update
16:46:51 <adamw> OK, that's all the proposals
16:46:59 <adamw> i don't have time to review all accepted Beta blockers
16:47:05 <adamw> does someone else want to take over for that, or shall we wind up?
16:47:52 <kparal> can't we review them in their discussion tickets?
16:48:13 <bcotton> i still need to do friday's blocker review email anyway, so i can just spend the time doing that instead :-)
16:48:52 <adamw> kparal: eh, discussing how we're doing with resolving them seems more for BZ than the tickets, for me
16:49:19 <adamw> but yes, we *can* do it offline, whether people *will* without someone cracking the whip in a meeting is the question :P
16:49:34 <kparal> good point :)
16:49:48 * kparal doesn't want to take over the meeting, though :)
16:50:13 <adamw> welp then
16:50:16 <adamw> #topic Open floor
16:50:19 <adamw> any other business, folks?
16:50:31 <kparal> nothing here
16:50:41 <bcotton> adamw: will it make you feel better if i crack the whip on accepted blockers? because i'll do it if it makes you happy :-)
16:50:55 <coremodule> adamw, I would take over, but am generally unfamiliar with the wrangling process; I usually step out then to start working on the secretarializing
16:53:52 <adamw> bcotton: eh, you may as well do the email i guess
16:54:05 <bcotton> okie dokie
16:54:18 <adamw> in that case, thanks for coming everyone
16:54:36 <kparal> thanks
16:54:43 <coremodule> thanks for hosting adamw
16:55:28 <michel_slm> thanks for hosting adamw
16:56:41 <adamw> #endmeeting