Minutes for 20100213 Offenbach Software MiniTOP

Present: Dirk Astrath, Andreas Baess, Ulrich Schroeter.

Meeting called by Andreas
Started 21:00 closed around 1:00.

Estimated cost of meeting: € 43,80 + € 15,20, total € 59,00 

ABCs
====
Arbitration for ABC: Dirk Astrath interviewed, ABC is started.

Software, repository.
=====================

Testserver
----------

- Server is installed
- 5 people with access permissions
 - Wytze
 - Mendel
 - Stefan
 - Markus
 - Andreas

People worked on it until now: Wytze
  - installation the system, Software
  - Documentation of Installation process
    on wiki pages (by Wytze)
    (probably https://wiki.cacert.org/SystemAdministration/Systems/Webdb)
  - Installation of Database system (w/o content)
  - Added 2 users
  
one can connect to the server and can join
- (test) Database content will create Andreas
  
- add patches that are available
  so that test can be possible
  
- defined set for testing
  set database flags and so on ...
  
- Dirks local test system image
  shows araising of performance problems
  live system will be running at this level
  probably end of 2010
  
- Wytze promises to copy locations database
  (reminder: running arbitration
   https://wiki.cacert.org/Arbitrations/a20090427.2)
   
- discussions:
  * Birdshack
  * Kernel
  * or full

- The main goal is a complete documentation ->
  Andreas will try to rebuild the system from
  documentation given by Wytze
  for reproduction of system rebuild
  
Prioritys
=========
- not yet well discussed with Wytze
  move of priority from
  1. implement patches
  2. upgrade OS, DBMS, Apache and so on
  
  to
  1. upgrade OS, DBMS, Apache and so on  
  2. implement patches  

  - maintenance for Edge will be dropped closely
  
  - one test system for prepare upgrade
  
Repository
==========
  Step 1 - checkin
         - checkout
         
  doesn't relates to the Prioritys move
  both can be handled in parallel
  
  Dirk and Markus will meet regarding
  version control system
  prepared is SVN (subversion)
  
  proposed next meeting: week Feb 15th to 19th
  
  not yet defined: interface for change process

- which patches will be included ?
- if changes made on live system, those
  will be transfered manualy by the critical sysadmins
  intermediate-term: only thru SVN
    that changes on production system no longer
    happens, but should be possible for emergency cases
- sysadmins have their own CVS
  is running
  not yet defined: to use  2, 3 or 4 controlsystems
  #1 on development system
  #2 on production system for controling
     relates to the requirements by the auditor
     - should changes on the system code by identifyable to the
       user who broughts in a patch ?
  or - is it ok only to know that changes happens and what this
       changes are ?
  
Summary:
- Who runs the system ?
  is the development system  DEV SVN audit related ?  yes / no ?
  if the answer is yes, this will be a critical system
  
  [swmt20100213-p1.jpg]
  
  - Documentation - what has been changed
  - who made changes (developers name)
  - at least 4 eyes, does this work ?
  - at least 4 eyes, DEV code, something invisible ?
  
- Markus has to instruct Dirk
 - testsystem mades available following infos for each patch:
   - legitimation
   - documentation
   - old state
   - new state
   
Upgrade Project
===============
- 20-30 min build up new system
- try migration
  (in parallel to the repository project)
- Decision for Upgrade is incumbent on critical sysadmin 
- wishing development after upgrade
  loss of confidence  -> old software
    => better
  upgrade to new software
- Supply of testsystems
  Clarification Wytze - Andreas
- possible migration problems -> tests before upgrade
  - pwd migration (database MySQL4 -> MySQL5)
  - locales environment  _() function / translingo
  
  - tentative deadline: ?
    	awareness if migration from current to proposed system works
    	awareness becomes true after some tests in intermediate-term
      test portfolio will increase

- Documentation is fundamental
  - first impression is ok
    still needs quality control
    - build up system from scratch
    - population of test data for database
      (Andreas: was interupted by other activities)

Prospects
=========
Actual
  PG is not yet in the team
  talk Dirk / Doris 
  PG made system patches in the live system
  Wytze + Mendel responsible for the tarball
Target
  PG sends patches to Development system
  -> will result in discussions
     PG has probably no root access since 2 months,
     but access to webdb

Who, addtl to PG will become access permissions ?
  * Addtl. people are needed
  * Software Engineer to have direct access
   - for problems, that doesn't occur in the test environment
   - programmer who has to identify problems in the live system
  * for Emergency Case(s)
   - many solutions how to handle
   - we don't need to discuss
   - emergency case -> probably arbitrator has to decide
     if critical sysadmin team has no solution
     actual only 1 person has access
     should be: Software Assessment

Who has good contacts to PG ?
 - PD? Ian? Doris?
 - proposed a face-2-face meeting with PG (eastern weekend ? April 4th ?)
 
Next milestone:
 - checkin Dirk patches
 - patches do this and that
 - documentation system (not available yet)
   - documentation thru wiki -> needs too much knowledge about the wiki
   - CMS - Edit, Testsys ...
     results in confusion, nobody understands
   - how to uncouple
     doodle ?
   - as currently: no-go
   - public discussion ?
   
Dirk Patches
============
- several blocks
  * CCA patches
  * corrections, fixes  (i.e. checkboxes problem)
  * enhancements   (i.e. points system order)    

proposed order:
- Testing of bugfixes
- next enhancements
- next CCA patch

  [swmt20100213-p2.jpg]
  
As soon as foreseeable when ...
  1. Tests
  2. PG meeting to schedule
     how does he see that?
     preferable to use this channel
     and discussion about emergency fixes
       or official arbitration way
       arbitration is running after an emergency fix
       build a precedence ?  Yes or No ?
       alternate: i.e. 4 eyes principle thru desktop sharing

Board Activity?
===============
- not needed
- report to board
  from 4 proposed candidates only 2 in the pipeline   

AB: - currently no action needed
      if current t/l means this is enough
    
    - If board requests about the 4 proposed candidates
      and why are only 2 in the pipeline ?!?
             
    - Why more volunteers 
      -> People are expenditure-braked
      
    Who has influence over PG ?
    - question him, why he only proposed 2 of 4 candidates ?
    
    - actual no activity from board needed
    
Test System Documentation
=========================
- fiddle ?
- remark field
- screenshot upload
- Software Assessment
 - Testers