15:07:13 <API> #startmeeting
15:07:13 <tota11y> Meeting started Thu Apr  5 15:07:13 2012 UTC.  The chair is API. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:07:13 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
15:07:27 <API> #topic A11y Breakage in Other Modules
15:07:29 <API> joanie?
15:07:33 <API> I think that you added this
15:07:34 <joanie> actually
15:07:40 <joanie> you missed the first topic
15:07:41 <joanie> but sure
15:08:23 <joanie> #info Joanie has seen a few really, really old a11y bugs (e.g. impacting GOK). In addition, and more importantly, there are new bugs (like Evolution) we need to keep better track of.
15:09:05 * API didn't refresh meeting page, so topic added in the last minute was still "your item"
15:09:07 <joanie> #info Joanie is wondering two things: 1) What we think we should do about the uber-old bugs? 2) Do we know the status of the core gnome modules (nautilus, evolution)
15:09:18 * joanie hands floor to room
15:09:37 <API> well, for what I remember
15:09:44 <API> some years ago some people suggested to
15:09:53 <API> automatically close bugs
15:10:05 <API> with more of X years of inactivity
15:10:19 <API> but I think that it was not really well received
15:10:27 <API> at least as a general GNOME policy
15:10:31 <joanie> right
15:10:35 <API> at least as a general GNOME bugzilla policy
15:10:52 <API> right measn that you agree or that you remember that proposal?
15:10:53 <joanie> but, for instance, bugs which specifically impact GOK (and not Orca and not any other AT that we know of)
15:11:11 <joanie> right == I can see that not being well received gnome-wide
15:12:14 <joanie> so opinions on 1?
15:12:27 <API> well, for the case of GOK
15:12:32 <API> well, GOK is deprecated
15:12:37 <joanie> gok is DEAD
15:12:45 <API> so why not close all gok related bugs?
15:12:52 <joanie> +1
15:13:07 <joanie> (but I am not master of the universe -- yet. so I'm asking)
15:13:35 <API> ok, so lets
15:13:41 <API> ask some bugmaster
15:13:47 <API> like andre kappler
15:13:59 <joanie> well, gok itself is already dealt with
15:14:00 <clown> do any of the bugs that affect GOK affect anything else, that is not dead?
15:14:04 <API> something like "could we close all bugs related to dead modules like gok?"
15:14:04 <joanie> it's like the ekiga bug
15:14:19 <API> ah yes
15:14:22 <joanie> because -- related to item 2
15:14:23 <API> well, about that ekiga bug
15:14:34 <jjmarin> ekiga is dead as well, right ?
15:14:35 <joanie> I really think the thing to do is ascertain the present state of gnome a11y
15:14:37 <API> is the reason I asked you that day if it was reproducible wihout gok
15:14:52 <joanie> it's not dead to my knowledge
15:14:57 <joanie> although jhbuild doesn't build it by default
15:14:59 * clown wonders if GOK is an a11y debugging tool :-p
15:15:06 <joanie> heh
15:16:01 <jjmarin> Do people still use gok ?
15:16:08 <API> well, shouldn't
15:16:11 <joanie> maybe on really old systems
15:16:20 <API> his deprecation was  the reason caribou was started
15:16:30 <API> clown, https://live.gnome.org/Gok
15:16:34 <joanie> at-spi1, corba, bla bla
15:16:39 <joanie> cspi
15:16:48 <joanie> does not run in gnome 3
15:16:56 <joanie> let alone 3.2 or 3.4
15:17:22 * clown knows what GOK is since it was an old ATRC/IDRC project.
15:17:39 <joanie> anyway, to move on to the second item, me makes a proposal
15:18:07 <joanie> #info Joanie proposes that she search for all the GOK-related bugs open against some other module and suggest via comment that they be closed.
15:18:10 <joanie> objections?
15:18:21 * API thought that previous clown comment was a question, shocked, but gave the link anyway
15:18:32 <API> joanie, no, seems a good idea
15:18:42 * clown previous clown comment was a joke.
15:18:46 <jjmarin> go forward
15:18:50 <API> this only involves gok related bugs or are you
15:18:58 <API> talkin more in general about a11y related old bugs?
15:19:24 <joanie> Well, if it still impacts a active AT
15:19:26 <clown> right, that relates to my previous, previous comment.
15:19:29 <joanie> I don't think they should be closed
15:19:43 <clown> +1
15:19:47 <joanie> My goal is to come up with a list of "all things impacting current ATs in gnome 3"
15:19:59 <API> ok
15:20:01 <joanie> and that requires two things: Get rid of things which only impact dead modules
15:20:08 <joanie> and generate a list of new regressions
15:20:11 <joanie> well three things:
15:20:25 <joanie> also verify the bugs which are open are still a problem
15:20:59 <joanie> #action Joanie will look for the old bugs as previous discussed and suggest via comment they be closed by the module maintainer
15:21:05 <joanie> so moving on to the second bit
15:21:15 <joanie> mgorse: you mentioned having a patch for an Evo bug or two?
15:21:25 <joanie> are these bugs filed and do they have keyword accessibility?
15:21:34 <joanie> ditto for nautilus and the other stuff you were doing
15:22:11 <mgorse> I filed a gtkhtml bug a while ago with a patch, and it's still unreviewed. I don't think it has the keyword. I need to find the bug and add it.
15:22:25 <joanie> mgorse: if you would do that it would be super
15:22:47 <joanie> and ditto for any and all bugs which are core gnome a11y breakage you know of
15:22:47 <mgorse> It doesn't fix all of the issues with evolution, though
15:23:01 <joanie> heh. That may require explosives
15:23:14 <joanie> before too long I am going to eval the a11y of evo
15:23:45 <joanie> but it would be helpful to know where things stand without having to search through every last evo bug
15:24:34 <API> joanie, mgorse anything else in this pint?
15:24:36 <API> point
15:24:48 <joanie> #action Mike will add the keyword 'accessibility' to gnome core module bugs he's filed (e.g. evolution and nautilus) which are still open
15:25:13 <joanie> #action Joanie will do a full evaluation of the accessibility breakage in Evolution 3.4 and file bugs accordingly.
15:25:22 <joanie> API I think I'm set now
15:25:24 <joanie> thanks :)
15:25:32 <API> ok
15:25:35 <API> so next topic
15:25:46 <API> in fact, previous topic
15:25:49 <API> #topic UTC is hard, let's go shopping!
15:26:07 <clown> for watches?
15:26:13 <API> #info UTC seems to be confusing to some users
15:26:14 <joanie> heh
15:26:31 <jjmarin> not a goos ideas, shops are close today  :-)
15:26:35 <API> #info Company also mentioned that with the last switch a11y meetings overlaps with RH meetings
15:27:19 <joanie> #info Joanie added the meeting time to the subscribable calendar (and will re-update if we change meeting times), so team members can use the calendar subscription as a possible solution. (?)
15:27:46 * clown checks calendar
15:27:56 <API> joanie, but is that a solution to overlapping meetings?
15:28:03 <jjmarin> maybe we can do the meeting at 14:30 UTC ?
15:28:08 <joanie> no of course not API
15:28:12 <joanie> that's why I said
15:28:21 <joanie> and will re-update if we change meeting  times),
15:28:23 <clown> your calendar works for me.  gives me the correct local time (EDT).
15:28:38 <joanie> :)
15:29:38 <clown> I can do 14:30 UTC (= 10:30 am EDT).
15:30:09 * joanie wonders if there's ever a time that we can always use
15:30:17 <joanie> since the meetings used to be at 14:30 UTC
15:30:25 <joanie> but we changed that to 15:00 at jjmarin's request
15:30:44 <clown> heh
15:30:52 <API> joanie, well, but 15:00 UTC means different things
15:30:56 <API> depending on the time
15:30:59 <joanie> yeah
15:31:01 <jjmarin> exactly, but with the summer time change, 14:30 is again good for me
15:31:01 <API> depending on the season
15:31:06 <joanie> but we are an international community
15:31:20 <joanie> some people don't have daylight saving time
15:31:26 * clown worries about what happens when we go interplanetary...
15:31:33 <joanie> then we have a three week period when people start switching
15:31:59 <joanie> personally I think we should pick a time, try to stick with it, and I will keep the calendar updated so that people can subscribe to it and know when the meeting is
15:32:13 <joanie> having said that, I'll go with what everyone else wants
15:32:38 <clown> does moving to 14:30 UTC help with the RH overlap, Company?
15:32:45 <API> well, for me 15:00 UTC is still nice
15:33:05 * Company has no idea about UTC
15:33:21 <clown> Company, moves this meeting 1/2 hour earlier.
15:33:21 <Company> what's that in real timezones?
15:33:22 <joanie> Company: you don't have to. subscribe to the google calendar
15:33:34 <joanie> https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/gnome.a11y%40gmail.com/public/basic.ics
15:33:36 <Company> hrm, half an hour is tricky
15:33:45 <Company> the meeting usually takes closer to an hour
15:34:22 <Company> it's better, but something like before when it was 16:00CET/10:00EST was better
15:34:46 <clown> okay.  EST? or EDT?
15:36:06 <clown> where EDT is one hour earlier than EST.
15:38:11 <API> mgorse, joanie, clown  is 16:00 fine for you?
15:38:24 <API> for jjmarin and me is what we had before
15:38:28 <clown> 16:00 what?  UTC?
15:38:31 <API> or for you is the same hour?
15:38:40 <API> 16:00 CET as Company proposed
15:38:48 <joanie> 16:00 CET is fine for me
15:38:52 <API> or for you is one hour early?
15:38:57 <clown> is that 10:00 EST or EDT?
15:38:57 <Company> clown: 10:00 eastern
15:39:01 <Company> so i guess EDT
15:39:09 <clown> thanks, Company.
15:39:09 <mgorse> It's fine for me
15:39:10 <joanie> clown: we're normally 6 hours different from CET
15:39:11 <Company> 1.5 hours ago
15:39:17 <clown> yes, that's fine with me.
15:39:28 <joanie> okay so question/confirmation
15:39:42 <Company> (i think, technically we're at CEST now, but nobody ever says that)
15:40:01 <joanie> is the proposal to move the meeting time to 16:00 CET and keep CET as the unit of time for team meetings?
15:40:07 <joanie> not unit
15:40:08 <joanie> zone
15:41:02 <API> yes, I think so
15:41:08 <joanie> okay
15:41:24 <joanie> that means that only we in the U.S. have to adjust and that is honestly fine with me
15:41:42 <joanie> clown: you ok with that if it's in the calendar?
15:41:59 <clown> as long as you pay lip service to those of us in Canada.
15:42:02 <clown> :-)
15:42:06 <joanie> argh
15:42:11 <joanie> sorry
15:42:13 <joanie> I suck
15:42:21 <clown> nah,  common mistake.
15:42:23 <joanie> I meant North America
15:42:36 <clown> I know.
15:42:36 <joanie> okay
15:42:53 <joanie> #info The official time zone of the team is now CET. UTC is dead.
15:43:06 <joanie> #info The official team meeting time will be moved to 16:00 CET
15:43:18 <joanie> #action Joanie will update the calendar and wiki accordingly
15:43:19 <clown> someone inform the greenwich (sp?) time keepers.
15:43:26 <API> ok, thanks
15:43:37 <API> clown, not required, probably they will discover that by themselves
15:43:45 <API> so lets move on then
15:43:53 <API> #topic Outreach Program for Women
15:44:03 <API> joanie, clown something to add since last meeting?
15:44:12 <joanie> (I kept this topic here just to be sure clown was all set)
15:44:19 <clown> only minor stuff...
15:44:20 <joanie> (if so we can stop talking about it)
15:44:33 <joanie> that was before your minor stuff btw
15:44:49 <clown> #info Joseph recieved two emails from student about GSoC, but not specifically about his project.
15:45:16 <clown> #info informed Marina after she asked if there were any nibbles.
15:46:01 <clown> #action  Joseph will politely respond to students suggesting they look over the other GNOME GSoC projects.
15:46:03 <clown> (done).
15:46:07 <API> nibbles? in which sense
15:46:08 <API> ?
15:46:28 * API thinking in food
15:46:43 <clown> paraphrase:  "Hi, I'm a student looking for a mentor.  Here is my resume.  Want to mentor me?"
15:47:07 <clown> where it was obvious they just took my name from the list and sent me an email.
15:47:28 <clown> they had not looked at the project I proposed.
15:47:33 <API> clown, well, most of the mails that joanie and me received were like that
15:47:39 <clown> oh, and I have no idea if they were women.
15:47:42 <API> clown, so you pointed them to the project proposed?
15:48:11 <clown> API, I can include that in the polite reply I alluded to above (in my action).
15:48:33 <API> ok
15:50:05 <API> clown, thanks for the update
15:50:14 <API> I guess that this is all, right?
15:50:14 <clown> wlcm
15:50:26 <clown> well, I have an action from last week...
15:50:33 <clown> "Consult with Piñeiro about the magnifier DBus vs Gsettings issue"
15:51:10 <clown> in that regard, I thought some more about it, did some investigation of the code, and sent an email suggesting how to proceed to the a11y list.
15:51:36 <API> well, but this is another topic
15:51:36 <API> so
15:51:55 <clown> whoops.  I thought you meant "that is all for the meeting".
15:51:56 <API> wat a mon please
15:51:59 <clown> yup.
15:52:07 <API> #topic Marketing and Fundraising
15:52:09 <API> jjmarin, ?
15:52:11 <API> something to add?
15:54:14 <jjmarin> #info this week we've reach the 64% of the FoG a11y campaign $12,760
15:54:32 <jjmarin> no more update
15:54:34 <clown> congrats jjmarin!
15:55:17 <jjmarin> thanks, it goes slowly, but I hope to reach 100% :-)
15:55:18 <API> ok, so as there is just 5 minutes less
15:55:30 <API> remaining I mean
15:55:36 <API> #topic miscellaneous time
15:55:39 <API> clown, your turn
15:55:53 <API> I have been reading your mail
15:56:05 <clown> thanks API.
15:56:12 <API> I guess that now your plan is keeping the DBUS stuff
15:56:21 <clown> yes.
15:56:22 <API> so anyone could configure/use the magnifier
15:56:25 <API> via DBUS
15:56:46 <clown> yes.  but I'd still recommend using GSettings on GNOME 3
15:56:47 <API> and just trying to be sure that the state is properly updated
15:57:00 <API> when you change it via gsettings
15:57:04 <clown> right. that's the important thing.  The bug goes deeper than dbus.
15:57:04 <API> is this correct?
15:57:20 <clown> not quite, if I understand you.
15:57:33 <clown> If one uses GSettings, everything works fine.
15:58:11 <clown> If one accesses GS-mag from another GNOME Shell object, and activates it, then it can get out of sync with the gsetting.
15:58:22 <clown> that's what I mean by going deeper that DBus.
15:58:31 <API> ah ok
15:58:40 <API> is not just if you change stuff with DBUS
15:58:47 <clown> so the bug is actually beyond the DBus interface inside the magnifier itself.
15:58:50 <API> is if you change stuff with DBUS on from a inner gshell object
15:59:06 <clown> If that deeper level is fixed, the DBus issues goes away (it's also fixed).
15:59:25 <API> well, so instead of removing stuff on DBUS etc
15:59:29 <clown> right...
15:59:37 <API> this bug has became to "ensure that stuff are properly synced"
15:59:47 <clown> good way to frame it, API.
16:00:03 <API> and the magnifier will be configurable via gsettings (recommended for GNOME3)
16:00:11 <API> or DBUS (fallback if gsettings is misisng)
16:00:21 <clown> one small change:  not "will be", but "is".
16:00:35 <API> well, I mean after the changes that you plan to do
16:00:42 <API> will be still configurable via
16:00:58 <clown> ah, I see.  Okay.
16:00:59 <API> as in some moments of the discussion you were talking about removing dbus support
16:01:00 <API> afair
16:01:10 <API> well, for me all that makes sense
16:01:15 <clown> cool.
16:01:18 <API> if you solve that internal stuff
16:01:38 <API> magnifier would be still configurable via gsettings and dbus
16:01:43 <API> and working properly
16:01:47 <clown> synced, yes.
16:02:04 <API> so, anything else?
16:02:15 <clown> not about this particularly.
16:02:27 <API> ok, so
16:02:32 <API> as we are in misc time
16:02:39 <API> does anyone something to add ?
16:02:41 <prlw1> argh: it turns out that the box I was setting up was still set to UTC not BST, sorry to have missed you...
16:03:06 <API> prlw1, no problem, in fact one of the topics today
16:03:11 <API> was about timezones and so on
16:03:27 * joanie already updated the google calendar and the wiki
16:03:27 <prlw1> (I hadn't linked /etc/localtime yet)
16:03:36 <prlw1> (new box)
16:04:40 <clown> i have one more question...
16:04:59 <clown> about releases.
16:05:27 <API> aha
16:05:48 <clown> This is coming from AEGIS — they are aware that the inverse/brightness/contrast mag effects won't come out until 3.6.
16:06:18 <clown> But, they want to know if they are committed to the git repository, is there a chance they will come out earlier.
16:06:39 <joanie> come out?
16:06:41 <API> well, afair
16:06:47 <clown> I'm not overly familiar with the GNOME release cycles — what happens between 3.4 and 3.6?
16:06:53 <joanie> 3.5
16:07:04 <jjmarin> :-)
16:07:07 <clown> yes, but is 3.5 every released?
16:07:08 <API> florian said that he planned to review your patch as soon as 3.4 stuff finished
16:07:11 <clown> "ever?
16:07:11 <joanie> https://live.gnome.org/ThreePointFive#Schedule
16:07:14 <API> yes
16:07:15 <API> looking
16:07:16 <API> ah
16:07:19 <API> not required
16:07:26 <API> clown, in summary
16:07:42 <API> between stable 3.4 and 3.6 releases
16:07:50 <API> there are some unstable releases
16:07:52 <API> 3.5.xx
16:08:03 <API> and in fact some extra 3.4.xx releases
16:08:29 <clown> so, it's possible the new functions could appear is an update?
16:08:37 <clown> "in an update"
16:08:40 <API> clown, well yes
16:08:46 <joanie> in 3.4.x -- no
16:08:50 <API> in fact this is to avoid having all the features
16:08:51 <joanie> in 3.5.x -- yes
16:08:57 <API> suddenly in one release
16:09:01 <API> this is a iterative thing
16:09:18 <API> so looking there for 3.5.1 hopefully that stuff will be there
16:09:22 <API> as it is planned for april
16:09:36 <clown> that's this month...
16:09:41 <API> end of april
16:09:52 <API> 30 april tarballs requested
16:10:03 <API> 02 may  3.5.1 released
16:10:22 <API> 04 June 3.5.2 released
16:10:35 <API> 25 June 3.5.3 released
16:10:37 <clown> and how does that translate to the "Software Updates" application?
16:10:40 <joanie> btw clown http://www.gnome.org/start/unstable/schedule.ics
16:10:46 <API> note: afaik that  page is a work in progress
16:10:48 <clown> thanks joanie
16:10:50 <prlw1> clown: what version will you call your new "release"? gnome-mag-0.17.0 ?
16:10:53 <API> so some dates can change
16:11:00 <joanie> gnome-mag?
16:11:02 <API> gnome-mag?
16:11:07 <joanie> gnome-mag is dead
16:11:10 <API> gnome-mag in GNOME 3 is deprecated
16:11:12 <prlw1> Ooops! wrong one!
16:11:17 <joanie> not deprecated. DEAD.
16:11:33 <joanie> it was deprecated back before 3.0
16:11:33 <clown> prlw1:  if it gets released, it will be part of GNOME Shell-insertt-version-here.
16:11:35 <API> <API> so some dates can change  => one week up or down
16:11:42 <API> not too different
16:12:12 <clown> I asked above: "how does that translate to the "Software Updates" application?"  Was that answered?
16:12:21 <joanie> what software updates application?
16:12:26 <joanie> in your distro?
16:12:31 <API> gnome-shell tries to version itself with the same version of gnome
16:12:38 <clown> I guess.  I thought that app was common to GNOME.
16:12:46 <joanie> if in your distro then the question becomes: are you using stable or unstable
16:12:56 <joanie> for fedora, that means rawhide until the branch event
16:13:06 <API> in the case of ubuntu
16:13:06 <clown> and sometimes I get a notification:  "updates are available for your system, blah blah".
16:13:09 <joanie> if you are using stable, your "software updates" app should pull from stable
16:13:15 <API> afaik they also pick recent tarballs
16:13:20 <API> on his unstable cycle
16:13:38 <joanie> if you are using unstable yes API
16:13:41 <API> for example some atk bugs that I solved was detected on the ubuntu unstable
16:13:48 <API> because they started to use my unstable releases
16:14:19 <joanie> but in the case of clown, if he is using F17 then he will get 3.4.x release updates
16:14:25 <joanie> he will NOT get 3.5.x release updates
16:14:31 <joanie> unless he switches to rawhide
16:14:33 <clown> joanie:  on Fedora, the app is called "Software Update".
16:14:44 <joanie> and that is a downstream app clown
16:14:52 <clown> which means?
16:14:54 <joanie> but what I have described still applies
16:15:04 <joanie> it means that it is up to the distro and not to gnome
16:15:14 <clown> I see.
16:15:17 <clown> so...
16:15:17 <joanie> but if you use the stable version of your distro you will get stable releases
16:15:28 <joanie> so if you want fedora to deliver up 3.5.x goodness
16:15:31 <joanie> you need to switch
16:15:40 <joanie> I would not recommend it for your one production machine
16:15:44 <joanie> but lemme find you the instructions
16:15:48 <clown> if the distro decides that some 3.5 release is important to their distro, they will add it to their update regimen?
16:15:58 <joanie> they could
16:16:04 <joanie> but that is very likely not going to happen
16:16:10 <joanie> because unforeseen breakage
16:16:39 <API> clown, it is for you a requirement using the stable version of the distro?
16:16:41 <clown> back to the impetus:  I need to tell AEGIS if the new mag functions will appear before 3.6, and if so, when (estimates are allowed).
16:16:57 <joanie> clown: point them to the schedule we gave you
16:16:58 <joanie> that is when
16:17:02 <API> because as we said, unstable versions of fedora and ubuntu will likely being picking those releases
16:17:04 <joanie> it requires an unstable distro
16:17:07 <joanie> or jhbuild
16:17:14 <joanie> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide
16:17:27 <joanie> tell AEGIS to use fedora and switch to rawhide on non-production machines
16:17:44 <clown> I don't think they are interested in running jhbuild.  They want to know if there will be a distro(s) that will include it before 3.6
16:17:46 <joanie> and they will get "software updates" which closely follow the unstable release schedule we provided you
16:17:54 <joanie> 18:17:14 <@joanie> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide
16:17:54 <joanie> 18:17:27 <@joanie> tell AEGIS to use fedora and switch to rawhide on non-production machines
16:18:00 <joanie> 18:17:45 <@joanie> and they will get "software updates" which closely follow the unstable release schedule we provided you
16:18:27 <clown> thanks joanie.
16:18:32 <joanie> sure
16:18:36 <joanie> fwiw, I use rawhide
16:18:38 * clown is furiously making notes
16:18:48 <clown> fwiw, I'm sticking with F16 for now.
16:19:03 <joanie> and every once in a while it lives up to its reputation ("rawhide eats babies")
16:19:05 <joanie> BUT
16:19:08 <joanie> most of the time it's fine
16:19:19 <joanie> I break the rules and run it on my production systems
16:19:26 <joanie> but I am willing to wipe and reinstall
16:19:35 <API> and having said so ...
16:19:39 <API> 20 minutes over time
16:19:43 <API> lets finish it
16:19:48 <clown> sorry...
16:19:53 <API> no problem
16:20:09 <API> just saying that it is a good moment to close the meeting
16:20:13 <API> further questions on #a11y
16:20:18 <API> thanks all for coming today
16:20:20 <API> see you
16:20:23 <API> #endmeeting