Calendar:Status Meetings:2006-05-04:Log
From MozillaWiki
--> You are now talking on #calendar-mtg --- Topic for #calendar-mtg is http://wiki.mozilla.org/Calendar:Status_Meetings:2006-05-04 --- Topic for #calendar-mtg set by dmose at Thu May 4 12:11:18 2006 --> ssa (ssa@moz-4811E34E.staroffice.de) has joined #calendar-mtg --> mschroeder (mschroeder@moz-84EB1E6F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #calendar-mtg --> mickey (chatzilla@moz-F443675A.pools.arcor-ip.net) has joined #calendar-mtg --> redrenius (robin@moz-522E761F.tbcn.telia.com) has joined #calendar-mtg --> ulf (ulf@moz-4811E34E.staroffice.de) has joined #calendar-mtg --> mostafah (mostafah@moz-3B3D7A07.oeone.com) has joined #calendar-mtg <dmose> we're still missing mvl, so let's wait a few more minutes <dmose> anyone up for being the scribe for today's meeting? --> garyvdm (chatzilla@moz-C5BFE2DC.telkomadsl.co.za) has joined #calendar-mtg <jminta> dmose: i think it might be my turn again <dmose> jminta: ok, cool --> ctalbert_ (ctalbert@1D42E68C.6F531F45.599AF29.IP) has joined #calendar-mtg <dmose> ok, why don't we go ahead and start in on the action items <dmose> and we'll come back to 0.3a2 once mvl arrives <dmose> VOIP / phone conference stuff <ssa> sure <dmose> ssa: did you get a chance to poke at this? <ssa> well, yes <ssa> so, voip solutions seem difficult <ssa> skype supports only 5 participants --> Standard8 (mark@moz-BD7E5647.demon.co.uk) has joined #calendar-mtg <ssa> then there is teamtalk <ssa> sory, teamspeak <ssa> which requires a dedicated server but has good quality <ssa> further investigation revealed that we might use a sun service to host phone conference <ssa> this is not verified but sounds promising <dmose> ok <dmose> i did not get a chance to talk to moco folks about that this week, unfortunately <dmose> i'm trying to get a handle on whether oracle could support a phone conf <dmose> unfortunately, the intranet site i need is down <dmose> i'll try and find out more in the next day or so <ssa> I'm pretty sure I know more in the next few days as well <dmose> i suggest we tentatively plan on having next week's meeting in irc, but push ahead with trying to find out more about sun / oracle phone options <ssa> ok <dmose> next: raison d'etre <dmose> i posted a new iteration, some people posted to say that they basically liked it <dmose> any other reactions? <ssa> the one from May, 2nd, right ? <dmose> yes <dmose> well, 5/1 actually <dmose> the 5/2 was just a possible minor modification <ssa> it was 5/2 here already ;) I'm fine with it and made minor remarks, but I think we should go for it <dmose> ok, if there are no other comments / objections, i vote we consider this "good enough" <ssa> especially the firefox charter is a good resource <dmose> i'll put it and the annotations up on the wiki <mickey> no objections from me, i found it very good <dmose> and then we can sort out minor modifications as we go <ssa> do you copy the charter as well, may be with minor modifications ? <ctalbert_> sounds good to me too. <dmose> copying the charter sounds good to me <dmose> ok, action item for me <dmose> next: consensus on product defn --> mvl (michiel@moz-FC59C0AE.xs4all.nl) has joined #calendar-mtg <dmose> this didn't happen. however, i did do some thinking. <ssa> what was it again ? <dmose> well, the existing discussion didn't seem like folks had much to say about specific product definition <dmose> other than basic calendaring in conjunction with stuff that flows from the charter --> ssitter (chatzilla@moz-6BD4E38B.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #calendar-mtg <dmose> there was some lightning-as-pim discussion <dmose> my thinking this week was that for the basic stuff <dmose> we can perhaps do what we're doing with pushing features into extensions <dmose> which is to say, don't deal with it until we have to <dmose> at this stage of the game, when the most important piece is getting the basic calendaring functionality right <dmose> and some incarnations of the mail features will be different between ltn and sunbird <dmose> i still suspect they won't conflict much as long as we factor the code appropriately <ssa> sounds good <dmose> so as far as PIM discussion, i vote we cross that bridge when we come to it --> bienvenu_ (DavidBienv@moz-E3161DB1.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net) has joined #calendar-mtg <ssa> well, it's basically the thunderbird integration, ritgh? <dmose> right <ssa> but this doesn't sound too bad for a 1.0 product definition <ssa> it would help us to prioritize <ssa> objections ? * jminta isn't clear on the question <jminta> what's "this" refer to specifically? <ssa> the question might be: how do we define the product lightning 1.0 ? <dmose> i'm not clear on what you mean <dmose> (which doesn't sound too bad?) <dmose> that's the piece i'm missing also <ssa> lightning 1.0 = basic calendaring functionality + tight thunderbird integration <dmose> i have a few comments there <dmose> and another proposal besides <dmose> so rather than letting that eat up the rest of this meeting (since it seems like a big discussion) <dmose> i propose to discuss more on the newsgroup this week <dmose> and i'll post something kicking off that discussion <dmose> are people ok with that? <ssa> that would be great <mickey> i'm fine with that <jminta> dmose: i feel like we're getting several discussions all related to the same issues --- Standard8 is now known as Standard8Away <dmose> jminta: there is certainly overlap <dmose> jminta: which "several discussions" are you referring to specifically? <jminta> well, this sounds very much like the roadmap discussion previously started <dmose> yes, i believe this is going to help us come up with a roadmap <dmose> ie, first we get some idea of what we think 1.0 shoiuld look like <dmose> then we work backwords from there to figure out proposed steps to get there <ssa> but we also haven't solved the target audience question, so I agree with joey <mickey> that sounds perfectly reasonable, first get consensus on what 1.0 should be, then define the steps how to get there <dmose> yes, target audience is part of the 1.0 discussion <ssa> we shouldn't start too many discussion without having reached consensus somewhere <dmose> and, in fact, is one of the first things i plan to bring up in my n ewsgroups posting <dmose> agreed, totally <dmose> so if we can get reasonable target audience and high-level 1.0 goals on the map for next week <dmose> by ng discussion <dmose> i think we'll be a fair ways towards a roadmap <dmose> additionally, i have a proposl on how to focus our work in the meantime <dmose> so that this isn't blocking us <dmose> any objections to moving on to UI / design stuff now? <mickey> step ahead <dmose> ok, so i spent a bunch of time talking to beltzner and mconnor about this last night <dmose> and i'm still in the process of digesting what they said <jminta> is there a log of that discussion? <dmose> further, beltzner said he would take some time to get back to the newsgroup and chime in on the existing discussion we've had there <dmose> no, it was face-to-face <jminta> ok <dmose> so my inclination is to ask what sorts of ideas folks come up with on UI ownership selection, if any <jminta> part of this goes back to code segmentation, because some of the areas you deliniated in the wiki are intrinsically UI related <dmose> and the push this to next week, assuming beltzner will get some useful stuff in soon <ssa> first I liked the corresponding part in the firefox charter <dmose> s/and the push/and then push/ <ssa> which says that the UI group should be small (i.e. not community driven) and especialy the part about making changes available <ctalbert_> I would say that you'd want a *SMALL* group of people responsible for the overall vision of the UI. <mvl> yes, agreed <dmose> i haven't heard yet anyone disagree with the basic firefox principles, which is good, since i suspect it means there's pretty good consensus there <ssa> so i think we should pick a small group (max. 3 people) who have experience in UI design and in the Mozilla UI area <mvl> but it shouldn't slow down the development significantly <mickey> the question is who has expertise in ui design and has enough time to spend on the calendar project <mvl> and is willing to do a semi-long term commitment <mvl> we don't want owners to change every week <mickey> totally agreed <dmose> ok, so i propose that we not brainstorm about this right now <dmose> because this is also big, i think <dmose> any objection to waiting for beltzner? <mickey> i would like to get this sorted out sooner than later <mvl> we shouldn't push out too much stuff <mickey> yes <jminta> that said, there's plenty of non-UI work to be done <dmose> i agree, but i'm not comfortable making this decision without beltzner's input <jminta> so, as dmose said, it's not strictly blocking <mickey> but also much ui related stuff to do, also <dmose> so i think we could push this brainstorming to the newsgroup <dmose> productively <dmose> and get beltzner's input there <dmose> and still have some hope of making it through more items on the agenda <ssa> did beltzner signalize that he would have the time to actively contribute or would he merely check the proposals ? <dmose> he said he would have time to actively contribute about the high-level how-we-structure things issue <dmose> which is really what i want his input on, more than anything else <ssa> sure <dmose> since i think we can do a pretty reasonable just of sorting out smaller questions <dmose> s/just of/of just/ <dmose> ok, let's newsgroup this <dmose> i suggest we punt versioning story to next week also <mvl> can i ask to do sb0.3a2 now? <dmose> because i don't think that's critical to talk about now, and lilmatt was the one wanted to talk about it, and he's not here <mvl> i have to leave a bit earlier <dmose> mvl: sounds good. what's the elevator story? <mvl> extension manager was blocker, seems to be fixed now <mvl> the actual version number change seemed to have triggered an ext.mgr. bug <mvl> next blocker was the app not starting after a import, is fixed to <mvl> just need checkin <dmose> is the webdav thing a blocker? <mvl> so tomorrow looks like a good day for a RC2 <jminta> yay <mvl> i'm thinking about it <mvl> we could workaround that by disabling the etag check <dmose> ok, so we're kind of at the same place as last week\ <mvl> which is sad, but not-working webdav sucks too <dmose> which is, we think we're almost ready for an RC, if we're lucky <dmose> last week, we weren't lucky <dmose> hopefully, this week we will be <mvl> i can write the patch this evening, <mvl> hoping that somebody can review <dmose> i'll review <mvl> before the next nightlies <dmose> y <mvl> (this evening = within a few hours) <dmose> no problem <dmose> anything else 0.3a2 related? <mvl> no <dmose> face-to-face meeting <mvl> i hope next nightlies can be 0.3a2 <dmose> hecker and shaver said that noone had the bandwidth to set up a general mozilla developer meeting in the next 3 or 4 months <dmose> which suggests that we should do a calendar-only meeting <dmose> shaver also pointed out that when the canadians (him, mconnor, beltzner) are in mountain view, they're generally totally slammed with meetings <dmose> addition there is an office in Toronto with meeting space <dmose> so he suggested that hold the meeting there <dmose> that also has the advantage that it's closer than MV for a large number of people who would be likely to come <dmose> what do people think of the idea of meeting in toronto in late june or early july? <jminta> seems reasonable to me <mvl> i hope i can get the days free from work... <dmose> we could try and wrap it around a weekend <jminta> we could aim for a weekend to minimize that <dmose> eg sat -> tues or something like that <ssa> sounds good, in fact we thought about a possibility here in hamburg, would at least be better suited for mvl and us ;) * dmose grins <dmose> i vote for the next meeting to be europe :-) <ssa> +1 <mickey> that would be great +1 <mvl> dmose: next? we didn't have one yet <dmose> right, i'm still proposing this one be in Toronto <dmose> i'm saying the one after that... <mvl> ok :) <ssa> and the 'canadians' would of course attend, regardless of the exact date ? <dmose> i don't think we'd get 100% of their time, but we'd definitely be able to get some participation <dmose> i think we probably want to dodge the period of time around independence day (jul 1 in calendar, july 4 in us) --- Standard8Away is now known as Standard8 <jminta> s/calendar/canada? <dmose> are there any dates when people know they wouldn't be able to make it? <dmose> jminta: er yes <mvl> dmose: i would need to talk to my boss <dmose> shaver did say he thought july would be better for him, at least somewhat <mvl> except that i'm only starting at the job in about a week... <mvl> in late july / early august i'll be away for one week, vacation <dmose> i thing late july is too far out anyway <dmose> we should get together sooner if we possibly can <dmose> s/thing/think/ <dmose> mvl: is that something you could find out and call your boss about? <ssa> we also have to clarify things here, but beginning of july would be ok, but most probably for only a few of our team <mvl> dmose: i can try to call them <dmose> mvl: it's pretty important that you be there, i think, so i'd suggest we figure out what works for you, and then plan around that <dmose> since it sounds like other folks have a little more flexibility <ctalbert_> It would be ok for me. (Except for around July 4th) <dmose> mvl: ok, that would rock <dmose> so let's tentatively wait to hear back from mvl, then come up with more concrete proposals, and try and see which one works best <dmose> note that mozilla foundation might be able to fund travel for some small number of contributors who don't have corporate backing <mvl> ok, i'll do my best to call tomorrow <dmose> great <mvl> (if they are open tomorrow. it's a national semi-holiday) <dmose> in light of the fact that we're still sorting out product & ui stuff <dmose> we need to be able to work and not block <dmose> and i think there's one thing that makes dataloss bugs the thing to pick <dmose> which is that for UI work, having prototypes is worth a tremendous amount in figuring out what we think is liikely to be effective <dmose> and if we can make the calendar code roundtrip ICS data with minimal dataloss <dmose> then we can essentially use any ICS-supporting app as a prototype <dmose> i.e. we can all test how certain features feel using our own, real live calendar data <mvl> the webdav issue (sharing) might also be on this category <mvl> instead of the 412 error we get now <dmose> additionally, once we play nice with other ICS apps, we'll be able have a much broader category of tests <dmose> s/test/testers/ <mvl> but i have to leave for 10-15 minutes <dmose> not just ones who only use mozilla <mvl> but sofar, i agree with dmose :) <dmose> the other thing along the prototype line i think would be useful <dmose> would getting the existing work that mickey has done available somehow <dmose> and my instinct is to suggest checking it in on branch <dmose> because then we can test it in our own trees using "cvs update -j" <dmose> thoughts? <jminta> gekacheka did some nice work by putting his dialog prototpye into an extension <jminta> that was simpler, and allowed non-hackers a lower barrier of entry <ssa> i also like the extension idea <dmose> sure, that works too <ssa> mickey: would that be possible ? <ctalbert_> I would tend to agree with jminta. We want to keep the barrier to entry low in order to have more eyes on the prototype. <mickey> yes, certainly <dmose> although those two options don't actually conflict, i don't think <dmose> ok, so we have an action item for mickey, then? <dmose> fwiw, i think it's totally fine if the dialog isn't completely wired up in the extension <mickey> the only problem is that the free/busy stuff currently requires our wcap connector <mickey> but besides that, it's no problem <dmose> leave it broken for now <dmose> or include your wcap provider in the extension <ssa> daniel wanted to submit the wcap (sun calendar server) connector but just left for honeymoon... <mickey> i'll wire up something into an extension, so i take the action item <ctalbert_> Should I do the same with iTIP/iMIP? <dmose> ctalbert_: sounds like an excellent idea! <ssa> ctalbert_: that would be great <dmose> ctalbert_: i actually started going over the web page stuff, but got pulled away; i'll try and get back to it relatively soon <ctalbert_> I'll do that. I'm almost finished extracting jslib out of it. ... long story... * dmose chuckles <mickey> anything else, because i need to leave soon <mickey> ? <dmose> we're about out of time, so we should probably push the feature and qa items until next week, unless there's something quick to be said now <ssa> we were also thinking about making a sun calendar server accessible to the public, so you could try it out and we could may be schedule our meeting there ;) * dmose grins <dmose> is sun calendar server considering implementing caldav? <ssa> well, it's still wcap <ssa> but i'm not in the server group <dmose> gotcha <ctalbert_> FYI: QA Changes (i.e. bugzilla changes) are blocked until sb0.3a2 is released. But, I am working on regression stuff w/m.d.qa and a wiki update for the calendar qa site. <dmose> that would be interesting to knwo <ssa> I'm pretty sure they are thinking about it ;) <dmose> that'd be a fine thing <dmose> ctalbert_: sounds good; i talked to davel the other day, and he seemed excited <dmose> ok, i think we're set then <dmose> meeting adjourned!