Calendar:Status Meetings:2006-05-04:Log

--> 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!