17:00:55 <adamw> #startmeeting F24-blocker-review
17:00:55 <zodbot> Meeting started Mon Feb 22 17:00:55 2016 UTC.  The chair is adamw. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:00:55 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
17:00:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
17:00:55 <adamw> #meetingname F24-blocker-review
17:00:55 <adamw> #topic Roll Call
17:00:55 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'f24-blocker-review'
17:01:01 <adamw> ahoyhoy folks, who's around to review some blockers?
17:01:06 * pschindl is here
17:01:08 * kparal is here
17:01:14 * satellit_e listening
17:01:16 <adamw> #chair kparal pschindl
17:01:16 <zodbot> Current chairs: adamw kparal pschindl
17:01:18 <adamw> morning satellit
17:01:25 <satellit_e> hi
17:01:48 <kparal> adamw: btw, happy birthday, old man!
17:02:01 * tflink pops his head up from the spiky rabbit hole
17:02:26 <kparal> .moar adamw cake
17:02:26 <zodbot> here cake, have some more adamw
17:02:32 <tflink> umm
17:02:35 <kparal> damn, I always mess it up
17:02:49 <kparal> .moar cake adamw
17:02:51 <zodbot> here adamw, have some more cake
17:02:58 * pwhalen is here
17:03:20 * tflink thought of http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s7/7x06/phantasms119.jpg
17:03:21 <pwhalen> happy birthday adamw!
17:03:24 * linuxmodder stumbles in
17:03:30 <adamw> my god, this cake is trying to eat me
17:03:44 <adamw> thanks pwhalen! how did you know?! are you spying on me with lasers?
17:03:57 <adamw> oh, kparal said it first
17:04:00 <adamw> same question to him
17:04:09 <kparal> google knows everything
17:04:39 <kparal> and it happened to tell me
17:05:20 <tflink> blame the tentacle
17:05:41 * rdieter waves with popcorn
17:06:17 <tflink> wow, I sound incredibly random today :-/
17:06:50 <kparal> I got it
17:07:31 <adamw> can't escape that tentacle
17:07:35 <adamw> who wants to secretarialize?
17:07:41 <tflink> yeah, just wondering exactly what kind of a day it's going to be with spiky rabbit holes, people cake and tentacles
17:07:41 <adamw> ahoy rdieter
17:07:49 <adamw> tflink: just another day at the office!
17:08:05 * adamw is writing an incredibly existential post on the compose process, so everyone look forward to that
17:08:18 <tflink> adamw: i suspect that the norm in your office may be slightly different than mine
17:08:18 * adamw waves pipe, strokes beard, dons turtleneck
17:08:21 <kparal> another one? oh no
17:08:25 <adamw> kparal: gird your loins
17:09:08 <kparal> pschindl: I'm waiting on you to volunteer, step up!
17:09:57 <kparal> he's playing a rock today, so I guess I'll secretarialize
17:11:16 <pschindl> kparal: I'll do it. I just missed the call :)
17:11:42 <kparal> pschindl: no problem, it's yours :)
17:12:42 <adamw> #info pschindl will secretarialize
17:12:45 <adamw> #topic Introduction
17:12:46 <adamw> Why are we here?
17:12:46 <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.
17:12:46 <adamw> #info We'll be following the process outlined at:
17:12:46 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting
17:12:47 <adamw> #info The bugs up for review today are available at:
17:12:49 <adamw> #link http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current
17:12:51 <adamw> #info The criteria for release blocking bugs can be found at:
17:12:53 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Alpha_Release_Criteria
17:12:55 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Beta_Release_Criteria
17:12:59 <adamw> #link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Final_Release_Criteria
17:13:05 <adamw> we have:
17:13:31 <adamw> #info 3 Proposed Blockers (Alpha) 2 Proposed Blockers (Beta) 2 Proposed Blockers (Final)
17:13:52 <adamw> #info 2 Proposed Freeze Exceptions (Alpha)
17:14:03 <adamw> #info 1 Accepted Blocker (Alpha)
17:14:15 <adamw> (I figure there's not much point doing Beta or Final FEs or accepted blockers at present)
17:14:37 <adamw> everyone ready to dive into Alpha proposed blockers?
17:15:23 * kparal puts on a diving suit
17:15:39 <kparal> and a snorkel
17:18:18 <adamw> :)
17:18:19 <adamw> #topic (1309754) firewall-offline-cmd aborts if a service is already enabled
17:18:19 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309754
17:18:19 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, firewalld, NEW
17:18:37 <adamw> sorry, someone slap me every time i get distracted writing another paragraph of waffle about what a compose really *is*
17:20:25 <adamw> this looks fairly straightforward, +1
17:20:28 <adamw> direct violation of the criteria
17:21:05 <pschindl> +1
17:22:01 <kparal> well, it should be resolved somehow, I'm just not sure if we can immediately blame firewalld
17:22:17 <kparal> but +1 doesn't work now, either firewalld or anaconda needs to come up some with fix
17:22:55 <adamw> yeah, since it's reported by anaconda to firewalld i figure they'll work something out :)
17:23:01 <pwhalen> +1
17:23:39 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1309754 - AcceptedBlocker - clear violation of "...Supported install-time firewall configuration options must work correctly.", with the footnote that kickstart-specified options are covered
17:25:34 <pschindl> ack
17:25:48 <pwhalen> ack
17:26:20 <kparal> ack
17:27:08 <adamw> #agreed 1309754 - AcceptedBlocker - clear violation of "...Supported install-time firewall configuration options must work correctly.", with the footnote that kickstart-specified options are covered
17:27:14 <adamw> #topic (1308773) Very dark grey used for text in recent Rawhide, makes terminal almost unreadable
17:27:15 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308773
17:27:15 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-terminal, NEW
17:27:32 <adamw> this could've been a bit of a tricky one, but fortunately it seems to be fixed now, so we can probably close it and move on
17:28:29 <kparal> also, for some reason, the gtk style was changed to white
17:28:39 <adamw> ?
17:28:41 <kparal> the borders
17:28:45 <kparal> window borders
17:28:48 <adamw> oh, yeah
17:29:09 <kparal> I noticed it as well, +1 from me
17:29:20 <satellit_e> +1
17:29:46 <linuxmodder> +1 from me
17:29:48 <pschindl> +1
17:30:00 <pwhalen> its fixed, id say close it and move on as well
17:30:22 <linuxmodder> (in and out today  -- also suffering from shitty connect today)
17:32:01 <adamw> OKie dokie
17:32:14 <adamw> #info this bug is reported fixed by multiple users, so we will close it and move on
17:32:20 <adamw> #topic (1308771) Current Rawhide Workstation live image does not reach GDM due to mislabelled /run/systemd/inhibit and /run/user/1000
17:32:21 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308771
17:32:21 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, systemd, NEW
17:33:52 <kparal> clear +1
17:34:33 <adamw> yeah, this one also seems fairly obvious
17:34:34 <pwhalen> agreed, +1
17:34:44 <adamw> this bug prevents KDE live from working properly either, and by some reports might affect installed systems too
17:36:09 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1308771 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - clear violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
17:36:16 <danofsatx> +1
17:36:17 <kparal> ack
17:36:18 <pschindl> ack
17:36:28 <pwhalen> ack
17:36:31 * danofsatx is on irssi now, hopefully it's stable
17:36:33 <satellit_e> ack
17:36:36 <danofsatx> ack
17:37:02 <adamw> #agreed 1308771 - AcceptedBlocker (Alpha) - clear violation of "All release-blocking images must boot in their supported configurations."
17:37:07 <adamw> I like this enthusiasm!
17:37:19 <adamw> keep it up and I may prevent the carnivorous cake from devouring you all
17:37:47 <adamw> that's all the Alpha proposed blockers, let's move on to Beta proposed blockers
17:37:55 <adamw> #topic (1306462) _ped.PartitionException: Unable to satisfy all constraints on the partition.
17:37:55 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306462
17:37:55 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:38:00 <adamw> ...aaand we're back to the cmurf specials
17:38:59 <adamw> i'll see if i can possibly get anaconda folks to give us an opinion
17:40:34 <danofsatx> -1, unless it can be dup'd with something other than chromiumOS
17:40:58 <kparal> I think it will behave the same for any kind of disk with invalid gpt table
17:41:04 <adamw> right, this is kind of an interesting one
17:41:06 <kparal> invalid backup gpt table, to be exact
17:41:21 <adamw> on the one hand, anaconda probably shouldn't crash; but what can we practically achieve if it doesn't?
17:41:26 <danofsatx> and how do you get one of those without deliberatly doing it?
17:41:36 <kparal> dd to a larger disk
17:41:49 <adamw> as cmurf says, installing to the unpartitioned space might actually be kind of a bad idea, because we'd render the chromium install inoperable, we can't do dual boot with chromium
17:42:07 <adamw> so say we fix this, what does it achieve? make it easier to shoot yourself in the foot?
17:42:51 <kparal> I was trying to convince anaconda folks in the past that it would be nice to at least say "your primary and backup gpt table don't match, please fix it and come back"
17:42:51 <danofsatx> yeah, it removes the safety and permanently aims at the bullseye on your big toe.
17:43:04 <kparal> then people would at least know something and could search for a solution
17:43:23 <adamw> point
17:43:32 <kparal> I'm not saying this is exactly the same case as I reported in the past, but seems to be close
17:43:57 <adamw> yeah, the crash here is ultimately an inconsistent gpt table case, i think, the chromium scenario is kind of a separate thing
17:44:08 <danofsatx> can someone give me a valid use case where you would be dd'ing to the hard drive in the first place?
17:44:41 <adamw> danofsatx: well, that's what you're *supposed* to do with the recovery image, i think?
17:44:46 * danofsatx is of the opinion that it is _very_ ucommon to hit this corner case
17:44:55 <adamw> yeah, that seems to be the consensus
17:45:05 <adamw> okay, so we all seem to be fairly solidly -1
17:45:12 <pwhalen> right, -1 here too
17:45:27 <adamw> proposal: let's reject it and we can think about how to explain clearly why at our leisure (or pschindl can)
17:45:46 <kparal> danofsatx: move OS installation to a bigger disk
17:46:12 <adamw> the thing i'd be most inclined to +1 is 'anaconda crashes when dealing with broken GPT tables', under the 'reject invalid configurations without crashing' criterion, but even that's arguable and i believe has been considered before (so *that* part of this bug is a dupe)
17:47:15 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1306462 - RejectedBlocker - this is a somewhat complex case and hard to reduce to a summary, but at a very high level, we don't see any way in which making this bug a blocker would produce a significantly improved outcome. See bug for further details
17:47:34 <kparal> ack
17:47:36 <pwhalen> ack
17:47:46 <adamw> (if anyone has a better snappy summary, by all means, throw it at me)
17:48:04 <pschindl> ack
17:49:01 <adamw> nope? okay, then, next cmurf special
17:49:04 <adamw> #agreed 1306462 - RejectedBlocker - this is a somewhat complex case and hard to reduce to a summary, but at a very high level, we don't see any way in which making this bug a blocker would produce a significantly improved outcome. See bug for further details
17:49:06 <pwhalen> heh
17:49:17 <adamw> #topic (1306808) blivet.errors.FSError: mount failed: 32
17:49:17 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306808
17:49:18 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, anaconda, NEW
17:50:03 <kparal> imagine what would happen if cmurf started using ext4
17:50:41 <adamw> all our systems would magically break
17:51:09 <kparal> we seem to be short on anaconda devs feedback
17:52:16 <adamw> yeah, but this one *does* seem fairly legit
17:52:26 <kparal> yes
17:52:42 <danofsatx> yeah, from the write up, I'm +1 on this one
17:53:05 <adamw> +1 for me
17:53:22 <pwhalen> +1
17:53:27 <pschindl> +1
17:53:44 <kparal> +1 as well I guess, anaconda folks will come complaining if it is not as it seems
17:58:14 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1306808 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this seems to be a clear violation of "When using the custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes" , where an earlier section of the criterion makes clear that btrfs "storage volumes" are in the set expected to be supported
17:58:30 <kparal> ack
17:58:51 <pschindl> ack
17:59:13 <pwhalen> ack
18:00:30 <adamw> #agreed 1306808 - AcceptedBlocker (Beta) - this seems to be a clear violation of "When using the custom partitioning flow, the installer must be able to: ... Assign mount points to existing storage volumes" , where an earlier section of the criterion makes clear that btrfs "storage volumes" are in the set expected to be supported
18:00:48 <adamw> OK, that's all the beta blockers! onto final.
18:00:50 <adamw> #topic (1304681) Journal spam: Gdk-WARNING **: gdk-frame-clock: layout continuously requested, giving up after 4 tries
18:00:50 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304681
18:00:50 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, gnome-shell, NEW
18:01:39 <kparal> I believe I saw this even in my VM
18:02:02 <kparal> and I saw how unusable pschindl's laptop is with this
18:02:09 <kparal> I'm more likely to give it +1 now :)
18:02:23 <danofsatx> +1
18:02:33 <kparal> it seems to be either universal or very common
18:03:20 <kparal> but it would be nice to have more evidence
18:04:03 <pwhalen> +1
18:05:09 <adamw> if we're +1ing it, on what grounds, exactly?
18:05:12 <adamw> we need to cite a criterion
18:05:50 * adamw tries to get someone from #fedora-desktop to join
18:06:14 <kparal> pschindl: you were saying the even basic desktop operations are sometimes hard to perform when it gets real bad, right?
18:07:53 <pschindl> kparal: There were moments when whole desktop freeze for a second, but I'm not 100% sure that it is because of this bug.
18:08:29 <pschindl> Gnome-shell consumed a lot of processor time, but it could be something else.
18:08:56 <kparal> let's introduce a new "we don't like it" criterion
18:09:57 <fmuellner> adamw: here now
18:10:04 <adamw> hi fmuellner!
18:10:08 <danofsatx> kparal: don't we have one of those?
18:10:29 <adamw> so we're trying to decide if it's appropriate for this bug to block Fedora 24 Final release (and if so, what criterion it breaks)
18:10:53 <adamw> final release is a way down the road but we try to get on top of blockers early these days
18:11:03 <adamw> do you have a feeling on whether it's appropriate as a release blocker?
18:12:43 <adamw> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304681 in case you didn't get the link
18:13:07 <adamw> i'm kinda struggling because it "feels" like it's a blocker but it's hard to justify why - everything basically *works*
18:16:12 * adamw wonders if everyone got eaten by the cake
18:16:33 <danofsatx> is it too early to invoke the "works well" creterion?
18:17:03 <fmuellner> so digging in my logs, that message appears a lot until dec-22
18:17:05 <adamw> which criterion is that again?
18:17:17 <fmuellner> (where "a lot" means several times a second)
18:17:20 <adamw> fmuellner: i'm still getting it here on today's rawhide, it definitely seems to still be a bug
18:17:41 <fmuellner> after that I see it twice (jan-29 and feb-09)
18:17:53 <adamw> i ran journalctl -f for a few seconds and got http://fpaste.org/327382/45616506/
18:18:29 <pschindl> fmuellner: I'm getting it everyday too on rawhide.
18:21:59 <fmuellner> oh, it could be a wayland issue (embarrassingly I'm still running it nested most of the time so I can make changes to gnome-shell without restarting the session)
18:22:32 * adamw is on X
18:23:49 <fmuellner> mmh, now that's odd then
18:23:58 <adamw> so, bleh. um.
18:24:07 <adamw> since everyone's kinda +1ish, let me try to come up with an excuse
18:24:36 * kparal watching the pro in action
18:24:47 <adamw> let's use the good old get-out-clause
18:24:59 <fmuellner> 3.19.90 should be in rawhide by now, so no big difference to master
18:25:36 <sgallagh> fmuellner: I'm running 3.19.90 and still seeing the gdk-frame-clock messages all the time
18:25:55 <sgallagh> I'm also running Wayland, FWIW
18:27:49 <adamw> jeez, i'm coming up empty here
18:28:00 * adamw cannot criteria judo the get-out clause into covering this
18:28:05 <adamw> okay, let's go with something really half-assed
18:28:18 <danofsatx> what do we use at go/no-go for the general "must work correctly" criteria?
18:28:27 <adamw> there is no such thing.
18:28:41 <kparal> we can always punt and wait until it's fixed
18:28:44 <kparal> ^^
18:28:55 <adamw> a "it must work correctly criterion" would basically nullify the entire criteria and put us back on subjective decisions for everything
18:29:02 <adamw> nah, i got something half-assed
18:29:02 <adamw> hold on
18:29:58 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1304681 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is considered a violation of "All elements of the default panel (or equivalent) configuration in all release-blocking desktops must function correctly in typical use", in that the Shell is the core of the "default panel" for Workstation and constantly spamming the system logs and consuming significant resources constitutes failing to "function correctly"
18:30:14 <adamw> FOURTH DAN CRITERIA JUDO right there, folks
18:30:32 <pwhalen> go adamw! its your birthday.. (sung like 50 cent)
18:30:33 <adamw> (actually that's not as bad as I thought it would be)
18:30:44 <kparal> are you sure that this is better than "we don't like it" criterion?
18:30:55 <adamw> i actually don't think it's bad...
18:31:17 <kparal> but it's your birthday, so 'ack' :)
18:31:24 <pwhalen> i like it
18:31:25 <pwhalen> ack
18:31:29 <danofsatx> ack
18:33:28 <adamw> #agreed 1304681 - AcceptedBlocker (Final) - this is considered a violation of "All elements of the default panel (or equivalent) configuration in all release-blocking desktops must function correctly in typical use", in that the Shell is the core of the "default panel" for Workstation and constantly spamming the system logs and consuming significant resources constitutes failing to "function correctly"
18:33:42 <adamw> alright, last cmurf special, i think
18:33:43 <adamw> #topic (1033778) installer considers encrypted Apple Core Storage volumes as resizeable
18:33:43 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033778
18:33:43 <adamw> #info Proposed Blocker, python-blivet, NEW
18:33:58 <kparal> and one last cmurf
18:34:16 <kparal> ah, you already said that, damn
18:34:17 <danofsatx> that's an old one, innit?
18:34:29 <adamw> yeah
18:34:48 <adamw> my biggest objection to this is cmurf is kinda trying the thing where he uses the blocker process to try and gain leverage in a technical discussion
18:35:04 <adamw> this seems to be a difficult thing to fix with some back-and-forth between anaconda and libblkid folks about what to do with it
18:35:08 <adamw> that has a long history
18:36:19 <adamw> it does bother me a bit that real users are hitting it - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033778#c25
18:36:30 <adamw> but seriously, who the hell goes into the installer, sees an "unknown" partition and decides to resize it
18:36:36 <adamw> how do you think that is going to end well
18:37:02 <pwhalen> lol, right.. :)
18:38:23 <adamw> <dlehman> lol
18:38:23 <adamw> <dlehman> I might go so far as to get myself kicked out of the fedora project before "fixing" that
18:40:19 <adamw> so let's see about a rational proposal
18:42:22 <adamw> hmm, rejecting this is actually quite hard
18:43:13 <adamw> it really is a pretty explicit criterion violation
18:43:26 <adamw> i'm gonna propose we punt it and discuss the problem with anaconda in a low-pressure way
18:45:18 <adamw> proposed #agreed 1033778 - punt (delay decision) - this bug does quite clearly violate the criteria as written, but anaconda devs are strongly of the opinion that it does not qualify as a blocker on technical/architectural grounds. we will discuss this in the coming days and decide its status later
18:46:48 <pwhalen> ack
18:48:16 <adamw> any other acks?
18:48:29 <pschindl> ack
18:50:32 <danofsatx> ack
18:50:53 <kparal> ack
18:51:18 <adamw> #agreed 1033778 - punt (delay decision) - this bug does quite clearly violate the criteria as written, but anaconda devs are strongly of the opinion that it does not qualify as a blocker on technical/architectural grounds. we will discuss this in the coming days and decide its status later
18:51:19 <adamw> alrighty!
18:51:35 <adamw> so, i was thinking Alpha freeze was next week, but i got mixed up, it's only F24 branch point
18:51:42 <adamw> so we probably don't need to do Alpha FEs yet still
18:52:54 <kparal> nope
18:54:06 <adamw> OK, so I guess we can check in on the one accepted Alpha blocker
18:54:08 <adamw> #topic (1283348) Black screen on KDE live session (with qemu-kvm)
18:54:08 <adamw> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283348
18:54:08 <adamw> #info Accepted Blocker, plasma-workspace, NEW
18:54:33 <adamw> this one hasn't really moved a lot...
18:54:39 <adamw> i guess we should poke it again
18:55:06 <rdieter> sorry, i've been waiting and hoping for a successful live image to be composed, for testing purposes
18:55:15 <rdieter> (it's been awhile, for various reasons)
18:55:32 <adamw> current ones should be usable with enforcing=0 i think
18:55:48 <adamw> though, hum
18:55:52 <rdieter> oh, ok, I'll try to find one
18:56:33 <adamw> now i look at it
18:56:48 <adamw> the fact that current KDE lives boot basically fine with enforcing=0 i think means this got fixed?
18:57:58 <rdieter> pardon my ignorance, but where do I find that latest successful image?  koji?
18:59:46 <pwhalen> rdieter, http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?state=all&view=tree&method=livecd&order=-id
19:00:29 <rdieter> muchas gradias
19:00:33 <rdieter> gracias even
19:01:26 <adamw> rdieter: 'fedfind images -t live -s kde'
19:01:29 <adamw> ;)
19:01:47 <adamw> (which more or less does what that koji search URL does, with a bit of extra magic in there)
19:01:55 <rdieter> excellent tool
19:02:16 <adamw> so anyhow, i guess we can discuss further offline
19:02:25 <adamw> #info we suspect this bug has actually been fixed, will discuss it further in-bug
19:02:26 <pwhalen> agreed, use it daily
19:03:19 <adamw> #topic Open floor
19:03:25 <adamw> OK, anyone have anything else blocker-y to discuss?
19:03:55 <kparal> just as a heads up, hughsie told me today that anaconda doesn't seem to start on wayland at all
19:04:10 <kparal> (we have recently fixed the bug that caused Live images to boot on X11 and not on Wayland)
19:04:25 <kparal> so we might have some nice blocker ahead of us
19:04:41 * kparal haven't tested it yet
19:07:04 <adamw> funsies
19:07:19 <adamw> yeah, people have been discussing subsequent bugs in the live session in the systemd/selinux bug
19:07:31 <adamw> i'm trying to squelch that but we *should* separate them out into their own reports, not ignore them
19:07:44 <adamw> there appears to be an issue where anaconda doesn't start, indeed, and also an issue where GDM appears (autologin doesn't work)(
19:08:40 <kparal> the anaconda bug will be related to non-working sudo with graphical apps under wayland
19:10:00 <adamw> #info there are troubles ahead with Wayland in the Workstation live session, we should identify and file and nominate them
19:12:31 <adamw> sounds like that's all we got!
19:12:34 <adamw> thanks for coming along, folks
19:12:45 <adamw> see you next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel
19:12:46 <pwhalen> thanks adamw!
19:13:25 <kparal> and don't forget, bat-shaped cake for everyone
19:20:42 <pschindl> It seems that adamw fell asleep :) Or went to bake some cake.
19:21:11 <kparal> pschindl: the cake is a lie, but don't tell anyone
19:21:38 <kparal> we have chair, right? let's end this
19:21:48 <kparal> thanks for coming
19:21:52 <kparal> #endmeeting