1 18:05:01 <darci> #startmeeting
   2 18:05:01 <tota11y> Meeting started Fri Apr 26 18:05:01 2013 CET.  The chair is darci. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
   3 18:05:01 <tota11y> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
   4 18:05:22 <darci> Who wants to start
   5 18:05:27 <darci> Stoney?
   6 18:05:30 <heidi> Shall we start with the thoughts on the current status?
   7 18:05:44 <ghislop> hi all...
   8 18:05:45 <heidi> #topic Current Status
   9 18:05:47 <heidi> Stoney?
  10 18:05:48 <Stoney> sure
  11 18:05:52 <heidi> Hi ghislop
  12 18:05:55 <darci> hi Greg
  13 18:06:01 <ghislop> my apology that the foss2serve.org server is down...
  14 18:06:22 <ghislop> the drexel university IT level people chose this AM to do an upgrade...
  15 18:06:24 <Stoney> did everyone have a chance to look at the page that was circulated before the server went down?
  16 18:06:33 <darci> yes
  17 18:06:37 <john> yes
  18 18:06:41 <ghislop> I knew it was coming, but they didn't give much notice about when...
  19 18:06:52 <ghislop> and now I hear they've run into problems (of course)...
  20 18:07:18 <Stoney> i guess I give a short synops.
  21 18:07:25 <ghislop> so, again, apologies... we're waiting on their work and will get the server back ASAP after they network changes are done...
  22 18:07:47 <ghislop> and now I'll be quiet and let Stoney or Darci resume with the meeting...  :-)
  23 18:07:57 <heidi> Stoney?
  24 18:08:14 <Stoney> basically, we are proposing to start fresh using the newest platform
  25 18:08:22 <heidi> And the motivation?
  26 18:08:38 <heidi> (Not questioning, just wanting further explanation for the group.)
  27 18:08:45 <Stoney> oh... because although we have learned alot by trying to fix what we have...
  28 18:08:58 <Stoney> we still don't have a working system
  29 18:09:18 <darci> #info The suggestion is to start fresh using the newest platform -- we've learned a lot, but still don't have a working system
  30 18:10:04 <heidi> Adding to that, one of our goals is to bring MouseTrap into Gnome 3 compliance and Python 3.
  31 18:10:15 <Stoney> so we were thinking to move to GTK 3, Python3
  32 18:10:19 <Stoney> right... : )
  33 18:10:41 <heidi> And the major barriers to getting the current system running is the OpenCV library.
  34 18:10:47 <heidi> joanie?
  35 18:11:08 <Stoney> which isn't available in python3 (correct?)
  36 18:11:08 <darci> #info Starting fresh would allow us to bring MouseTrap into Gnome 3 compliance and Python 3
  37 18:11:29 <heidi> I'm thinking that it would be good to get Joanie or API's input into this.
  38 18:11:30 <joanie> heidi: yes?
  39 18:11:35 <amber> opencv has no python3 support currently
  40 18:11:35 <heidi> hi!
  41 18:11:40 <joanie> hey
  42 18:11:42 <amber> it may be planned in the future
  43 18:12:01 <heidi> We are thinking about rewriting MouseTrap from scratch. <read back>
  44 18:12:17 * joanie pokes API_afk to see if he's really afk
  45 18:12:28 <API_afk> ups
  46 18:12:31 <API_afk> no sorry
  47 18:12:36 <API_afk> I forget to change my nick
  48 18:12:40 <heidi> :-) Hi API
  49 18:12:47 <API> hi heidi
  50 18:12:50 <heidi> :-)
  51 18:13:06 <joanie> writing it from scratch seems sad to me
  52 18:13:13 <joanie> but maybe it is needed
  53 18:13:13 <API> rewriting mousetrap from scratch ....
  54 18:13:15 <joanie> ?
  55 18:13:20 <heidi> So the issue is that we've tried a variety of things to get MouseTrap to work with Fedora 18, without much success.
  56 18:13:21 <API> without opencv?
  57 18:13:24 <amber> we would still be keeping the algorithms and haars im sure?
  58 18:13:29 <Stoney> yes API...
  59 18:13:34 <heidi> Yes, that is the question. Should we still use OpenCV.
  60 18:13:39 <Stoney> no opencv in python3
  61 18:13:48 <Stoney> replace it with gstreamer
  62 18:13:50 <API> well, but if the idea is starting from scratch
  63 18:13:54 <heidi> What we're looking for is some input. We don't like the idea of a complete rewrite.
  64 18:13:56 <Stoney> and scipy/numpy
  65 18:13:56 <API> other option is C
  66 18:13:59 <heidi> Seems to defeat the purpose.
  67 18:14:02 <API> anyway, gstreamer?
  68 18:14:07 <Stoney> true
  69 18:14:22 <API> have gstreamer all the utilities that opencv provides?
  70 18:14:32 <API> I mean that gstreamer is basically
  71 18:14:36 <Stoney> no... just the multimedia part
  72 18:14:39 <API> "play this song/video/image"
  73 18:14:42 <Stoney> capturing images from cam
  74 18:14:53 <API> opencv is the one that provides image analysis, afaik
  75 18:15:14 <Stoney> that's what numpy/scipy would be used for... the calculations
  76 18:15:17 <joanie> have you tried ctypes?
  77 18:15:27 <Stoney> no I haven't
  78 18:15:32 <joanie> http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/ctypes.html
  79 18:15:37 <API> fwiw
  80 18:15:44 * heidi looks
  81 18:15:54 <API> there are some people that work at our company
  82 18:15:55 <Stoney> taking a look too
  83 18:16:00 <API> that have some experience with opencv
  84 18:16:20 <API> so before deciding about starting from scratch
  85 18:16:25 <API> something that sounds like a lot of work
  86 18:16:39 <API> I think that it would be good to ask them more about the python3 stuff
  87 18:16:46 <API> and if there are other options
  88 18:16:48 <joanie> or try ctypes
  89 18:17:04 <heidi> Ask the opencv folks?
  90 18:17:09 <heidi> About python 3?
  91 18:17:15 <john> I'd like to suggest an idea: write the UI front end in Python, and the OpenCV backend in C.
  92 18:18:00 <API> heidi, well, we can do that too
  93 18:18:12 <API> but I guess that it would be better to ask first our colleagues
  94 18:18:12 <heidi> John, do you mean rewrite the OpenCV in C?
  95 18:18:29 <API> heidi, opencv is a c++ library
  96 18:18:34 <john> If we're rewriting Mousetrap, yes -- write the backend in C
  97 18:18:36 <heidi> Just to clarify, ask our colleagues in A11y?
  98 18:18:36 <Stoney> joanie, so ctypes woul let us access the opencv as a dll/so?
  99 18:18:39 <API> afaik, mousetrap is using their python bindings
 100 18:18:51 <API> heidi, ask our colleagues in Igalia, our company
 101 18:18:55 <john> Actually not exactly
 102 18:18:58 <heidi> Oh, got it! Sorry :-)
 103 18:19:07 <john> Mousetrap isn't using the current Python bindings -- it's using PyVision
 104 18:19:09 <john> IIRC
 105 18:19:19 <API> heidi, np, we are all talking at the same time
 106 18:19:19 <joanie> https://code.google.com/p/ctypes-opencv/
 107 18:19:48 <heidi> API, yes, it would be helpful to have some additional input from your colleagues.
 108 18:20:20 <joanie> http://www.cs.unc.edu/~gb/blog/2007/02/04/python-opencv-wrapper-using-ctypes/
 109 18:20:21 <heidi> I have almost no experience with the technologies that we're talking about so I'm having difficulty evaluating the best approach.
 110 18:20:23 <API> john, so if mousetrap is using pyvision ...
 111 18:20:29 <API> who is the one that have problems with python3?
 112 18:20:33 <heidi> And I am concerned about performance as well.
 113 18:20:34 <API> opencv or pyvision?
 114 18:20:41 <john> joanie: would it complicate things, forcing a Python layer? Could we simply use C directly,
 115 18:20:46 <heidi> OpenCV is not python3 compliant.
 116 18:20:52 <API> afaik, pyvision is a kind of prototyping library
 117 18:20:59 <heidi> #link https://code.google.com/p/ctypes-opencv/
 118 18:21:08 <heidi> #link http://www.cs.unc.edu/~gb/blog/2007/02/04/python-opencv-wrapper-using-ctypes/
 119 18:21:17 <API> john, well, "could we simply" is relative
 120 18:21:18 <john> PyVision is old and no longer developed. It precedates Python 3
 121 18:21:22 <heidi> #link http://docs.python.org/3.3/library/ctypes.html
 122 18:21:27 <API> mousetrap has already some work already done
 123 18:21:38 <API> so I think that it is debatable what it is easier
 124 18:21:44 <API> solving the python3 usage problem
 125 18:21:48 <heidi> API, work done using Python3?
 126 18:21:50 <heidi> Ah, goti t.
 127 18:21:56 <API> or starting without all the functionality already implemented on mousetrap
 128 18:21:57 <john> To use ctypes you seem to need to know C
 129 18:22:04 <john> Why use a unnecessary layer?
 130 18:22:25 <john> Using C, the Python 3 problem disappears.
 131 18:22:26 <joanie> to transition rather than start from scratch
 132 18:22:32 <joanie> true
 133 18:22:39 <joanie> I don't know how much work that would be
 134 18:22:49 <joanie> so I was merely suggesting other things to consider
 135 18:23:13 <amber> stupid question, doesnt the current version of mousetrap use ctypes?
 136 18:24:07 <john> Yes, some of the code does. It uses a mix of PyVision, ctypes and home-grown mini-APIs.
 137 18:24:31 <heidi> Yes.
 138 18:24:38 <amber> so that would eliminate some "from scratch"
 139 18:25:02 <john> Thing is, does those APIs still exist/work with the current OpenCV?
 140 18:25:21 <API> john, btw, are you sure about that "we don't use opencv but we use pyvision"?
 141 18:25:24 <john> Mousetrap's code predates the cv/cv2 mess
 142 18:25:30 <API> after a quick look on mousetrap/conifgure.in
 143 18:25:35 <API> the dependency is with opencv
 144 18:25:44 <john> PyVision is basically OpenCV bindings for Python
 145 18:25:48 <john> before OpenCV rolled their own
 146 18:26:13 <john> So it's not "instead of OpenCV", they do use OpenCV, using PyVision bindings
 147 18:27:14 <john> I think amber found this as well -- she knows much more about the inner workings
 148 18:27:31 <amber> john, your saying  pyvision is built into opencv?
 149 18:27:35 <API> john, but although pyvision is basically opencv bindings for python, I really doubt that mousetrap is using that
 150 18:27:37 <john> Not sure
 151 18:27:52 <API> the dependency is with python-opencv
 152 18:27:59 <API> that is not related at all with pyvision
 153 18:28:24 <amber> ok, i was very confused for a min lol
 154 18:28:43 <API> at least, I think that when I got compiled mousetrap
 155 18:28:53 <john> Then it must be another library -- because Mousetrap predates OpenCV's own Python bindings (I think)
 156 18:28:55 <API> I didn't have at all pyvision stuff
 157 18:28:58 <API> having said so
 158 18:29:11 <API> as I said, deciding to switch to starting from scratch
 159 18:29:16 <API> is a important decision
 160 18:29:21 <API> and more a long term one
 161 18:29:22 <API> soo
 162 18:29:25 <API> what about something like
 163 18:29:54 <API> 1. API ask their colleagues with opencv experience
 164 18:29:59 <API> about this python3 problem
 165 18:30:18 <API> 2. meanwhile, someone sees how complex would be to use the ctypes option that joanie suggested
 166 18:30:42 <API> in a summary
 167 18:30:47 <API> <joanie> I don't know how much work that would be
 168 18:30:47 <API> <joanie> so I was merely suggesting other things to consider
 169 18:31:05 <heidi> Yes, I like this.
 170 18:31:09 <heidi> Stoney, thoughts?
 171 18:31:24 <Dark_Rose> Heidi, none of this affects me directly with gtk, so I should keep focusing on gtk and gtk3 for now?
 172 18:31:29 <Stoney> I've been quiet because I've been trying to keep up reading
 173 18:31:37 <john> I brought up an possibility with amber and nicole a couple of weeks ago of using the Apple model with this -- one team working on getting the current code to work, another work on a rewrite, and see who prevails.
 174 18:31:46 <heidi> Dark_Rose, not sure yet.
 175 18:31:50 <Dark_Rose> ok
 176 18:31:55 <Stoney> I still think that we don't really know how much of the current code base is working
 177 18:32:04 <Stoney> and if it was an easy fix it would be done
 178 18:32:18 <Stoney> so I would still like to see an effort starting with working code
 179 18:32:19 <heidi> Is the threading the main issue?
 180 18:33:08 <john> If it's impossible to test it piece by piece without running into threading, the code is bad. /interjection
 181 18:33:44 <Stoney> it's very hard to know if we are making progress without working code
 182 18:34:01 <API> I'm somewhat lost now
 183 18:34:10 <API> a quick summary of that threading thing?
 184 18:34:12 <heidi> This is a case where the code is inherently multithreaded. Need to have the camera tracking user movements at the same time as moving the cursor.
 185 18:34:20 <API> is somewhat related with the previous python3 stuff?
 186 18:34:36 <Stoney> no
 187 18:34:44 <Stoney> threading issues in python2 stuff too
 188 18:34:59 <heidi> Umm, I don't think so. I'm just commenting that when we were testing we were getting seg faults at different locations.
 189 18:35:06 <API> so when you tested moustrap with python2 you found threading issues?
 190 18:35:07 <joanie> did anyone try to see if the software works on an older version of GNOME?
 191 18:35:09 <heidi> And even at different locations using the same machine.
 192 18:35:12 <joanie> like, say, f14 maybe?
 193 18:35:14 <john> In theory one should be able to test moving the cursor in one thread. And tracking the face in one thread. Even though the program runs them in two threads...
 194 18:35:21 <Stoney> the only time I've seen the current code base work is when logan commented about 80% of the codebase out
 195 18:35:24 <heidi> Amber got it to work on Ubuntu. And John did too?
 196 18:35:33 <joanie> Stoney: oh dear
 197 18:35:34 <john> joanie: yes -- it semi-worked
 198 18:35:41 <john> No camera capture, though
 199 18:35:42 <amber> yea wasnt full-functionality
 200 18:35:47 <john> but it compiled and GUI showed up
 201 18:36:40 <amber> yep
 202 18:36:49 <API> was mousetrap inherently using threads?
 203 18:36:50 <joanie> it is my assumption that at some point this code worked
 204 18:37:02 <API> at least at CSUN 2010 worked
 205 18:37:12 <john> CSUN 2010?
 206 18:37:25 <Stoney> joanie: mine too, but I've never seen it run :)
 207 18:37:40 <heidi> Stoney, you're working on a VM?
 208 18:37:41 <API> that was the first(and last) time that I talked with original mousetrap maintainer face-to-face
 209 18:37:47 <Stoney> no
 210 18:37:53 <API> but in theory, it was also working after that
 211 18:38:07 <API> I mentioned CSUN 2010, because Flavio was
 212 18:38:07 <Stoney> heidi: no, fedora 18 our development platform
 213 18:38:14 <API> showing the app to people at the event
 214 18:38:14 <heidi> Yes, I've seen some comments that it was working in 2011.
 215 18:38:20 <heidi> Right. It
 216 18:38:24 <heidi> 's a cool app. :-)
 217 18:38:35 <Stoney> heidi: and I mean that I've never seen anyone demonstrate it to me other than through youtube
 218 18:38:41 <heidi> Got it.
 219 18:39:05 <john> Working in 2011 using current-at-the-time software, I assume?
 220 18:39:17 <Stoney> I don't doubt that it did work...
 221 18:39:32 <heidi> I believe so.
 222 18:39:46 <john> According to github the last changes was back in 2009
 223 18:39:48 <Stoney> it's just not a good sign if we have never got it to work ourselves
 224 18:39:53 <john> that is ages ago in sotware-time
 225 18:40:11 <joanie> well, maybe it is worth starting from scratch then.
 226 18:40:13 <API> john, github?
 227 18:40:19 <API> which repository are you using?
 228 18:40:19 <joanie> that seems extreme however
 229 18:40:26 <API> official one is gnome one
 230 18:40:30 <john> amber's -- and Stoney's
 231 18:41:04 <joanie> https://git.gnome.org/browse/mousetrap/log/
 232 18:41:05 <john> they forked from Mousetrap's official one… right amber or Stoney?
 233 18:41:10 <API> on gnome repository, last change of flavio dates of 2010
 234 18:41:11 <joanie> 2010 is still long ago
 235 18:41:15 <joanie> but yeah
 236 18:41:20 <Stoney> john: mine was yes
 237 18:41:45 <Stoney> let me clarify what I mean by "from scratch"
 238 18:41:56 <heidi> Yes, we are using a copy from Gnome that we've put on github so that everyone can reach it.
 239 18:42:02 <Stoney> I think we can use the existing code base as a model
 240 18:42:05 <API> heidi, ok
 241 18:42:13 <Stoney> we can mine it for its design
 242 18:42:26 <john> Hmm -- this Balazs Ur guy added a translation just last month
 243 18:42:27 <heidi> The idea was to get a running version and then push that to GNOME as a base to make further changes.
 244 18:42:32 <john> Anyone know if he got it working?
 245 18:42:45 <joanie> john: translators don't even build the code necessarily
 246 18:42:47 <API> john, usually translation teams doesn¡t test programs
 247 18:42:52 <john> ah
 248 18:42:56 <john> got it
 249 18:43:03 <API> they just receive a file with all the strings to translate
 250 18:43:13 <API> they provide the translated version and upload it
 251 18:43:41 <joanie> but that's a digression
 252 18:43:53 <john> haha, sorry
 253 18:44:27 <Stoney> nothing says we can't have a team trying to fix the existing system...
 254 18:44:39 <Stoney> and another trying "from scratch"
 255 18:44:44 * joanie nods
 256 18:45:13 <heidi> I'd like to hear what API's colleagues have to say as well.
 257 18:45:30 <API> in any case
 258 18:45:31 <Stoney> absolutely
 259 18:45:33 <amber> if we fix th existing im assuming thats using opencv?
 260 18:45:39 <Stoney> if there is an easy fix... i'm all for it
 261 18:45:41 <API> starting from scratch would need a lot of time
 262 18:45:52 <john> even if we do from scratch, I think we would use opencv still
 263 18:45:55 <API> so a last bullet to use opencv on python3 is worthy
 264 18:45:56 <heidi> Yes, fixing existing means using opencv.
 265 18:45:56 <API> imho
 266 18:46:02 <API> john, I agree
 267 18:46:30 <heidi> OK.
 268 18:46:32 <joanie> i've got a crazy and possibly dumb idea
 269 18:46:36 <heidi> ?
 270 18:46:44 <heidi> I love creative thinking!
 271 18:46:52 <joanie> if we could figure out in what environment (old distro) where it worked
 272 18:46:54 <Stoney> if we go from scratch we certainly can still use opencv through ctypes (it looks like) but there are other options
 273 18:47:00 <joanie> and use that as a development environment
 274 18:47:03 <john> or C...
 275 18:47:07 <joanie> ctypes has been around for ages
 276 18:47:12 <joanie> so has c
 277 18:47:13 <joanie> ;)
 278 18:47:15 <john> joanie: Anjuta
 279 18:47:31 <joanie> what does anjuta have to do with anything?
 280 18:47:34 <john> nicole (or amber?) thinks the file structure looks like Anjuta
 281 18:47:35 <john> 's
 282 18:47:39 <john> IDE
 283 18:47:40 <amber> not me lol
 284 18:47:43 <joanie> emacs
 285 18:47:44 <joanie> ;)
 286 18:47:56 <joanie> I'm talking about the version of gnome
 287 18:47:56 <john> joanie: unless I'm completely misunderstanding you
 288 18:47:58 <joanie> not the ide
 289 18:48:04 <heidi> Joanie, so you're saying revert to something like Fedora 14 where MouseTrap works?
 290 18:48:09 <Stoney> john: I don't think it is anjunta's - we checked that out
 291 18:48:12 <joanie> brainstorming, but yes
 292 18:48:36 <joanie> because if we've never seen it working it's hard to see and test progress
 293 18:48:41 <joanie> it's just a bunch of lines of code
 294 18:48:50 <john> The install instructions on the original site has Debian commands (IIRC?) so that implies Ubuntu
 295 18:48:51 <heidi> Yes :-) It certainly is!
 296 18:49:09 <API> fwiw, anjunta is just an IDE
 297 18:49:10 <joanie> so even in old ubuntu
 298 18:49:17 <joanie> you could use ctypes
 299 18:49:19 <API> probably it was used to create the skeleton of the program
 300 18:49:20 <joanie> you could port to c
 301 18:49:30 <API> but it is not a environment to run it
 302 18:49:34 <joanie> you can verify if your changes work
 303 18:49:42 <API> joanie is proposing an older version of the system at all
 304 18:49:43 <joanie> etc.
 305 18:49:52 <heidi> Ah, got it.
 306 18:49:53 <john> API: I know -- from experience with Eclipse, sometimes a structure makes zero sense unless you open it in the IDE. But I seem to have misunderstood joanie, so ignore me :)
 307 18:49:55 <API> lets say, first release of fedora on 2010
 308 18:50:11 <joanie> ubuntu, but yeah
 309 18:50:19 <Dark_Rose> I have to go, im pretty sick today, i'll probably be back on IRC around 2. if I miss anything big just shoot me an email :)
 310 18:50:22 <API> I was just giving an example ;)
 311 18:50:25 <Stoney> api: yes... we were struggling with autotools, and anjunta briefly came up because it use autotools to manage its projects... but we have since figured out that anjunta was not use (or doesn't appear to have been) on mousetrap
 312 18:50:31 <heidi> Bye dark_rose
 313 18:50:55 <API> Stoney, ok
 314 18:51:00 <joanie> so heidi you are following what I'm saying?
 315 18:51:13 <heidi> I think so.
 316 18:51:25 <joanie> work with working code :)
 317 18:51:59 <heidi> yes, I like that!
 318 18:52:14 <heidi> And once we get it working, the first thing would be to try to update to OpenCV2?
 319 18:52:25 <joanie> sounds like it might be, yes
 320 18:52:35 <joanie> how long has opencv2 been around?
 321 18:52:46 <joanie> and what are its dependencies?
 322 18:52:50 <heidi> Ah, so isolate the OS issues from the library version issues.
 323 18:52:52 <joanie> (don't need an answer now)
 324 18:52:56 <joanie> exactly
 325 18:53:00 <john> That's one thing I'm completely confuzzled about… cv and cv2 -- cv2 seems to be a superset of cv now? And I read somewhere that cv will replace cv2? *lost*
 326 18:53:08 <heidi> We have this info on the foss2serve wiki which is down now.
 327 18:53:11 <joanie> try to get as far along as you can in the old ubuntu
 328 18:53:33 <amber> how will we know when its "working"?
 329 18:53:52 <Stoney> I can move the mouse with my head? :)
 330 18:53:53 <joanie> when it does what's in flavio's video?
 331 18:53:55 <heidi> Amber, because we'll be able to see behavior as shown in the videoas.
 332 18:53:56 <heidi> :-)
 333 18:53:59 <heidi> Yes.
 334 18:54:23 <joanie> amber: and then start updating the code and see if stoney can still move the mouse with his head :)
 335 18:54:34 <heidi> Joanie, why ubuntu rather than earlier fedora, because we know it works in ubuntu
 336 18:54:35 <joanie> and if he can, you did it right ;)
 337 18:54:36 <heidi> :-)
 338 18:54:42 <heidi> right!
 339 18:54:50 <heidi> Stoney is very good at moving things :-)
 340 18:54:55 <john> Maybe I'm wrong, but the one in Flavio's video seems different from the one we watched crash constantly in Ubuntu… For one, the video is displayed in a window completely differently than it seems to fit in the program we ran...
 341 18:54:56 <joanie> heidi: because it appears that ubuntu was used before
 342 18:54:57 <Stoney> lol
 343 18:55:02 <heidi> Not so sure about the head part :-)
 344 18:55:14 <Stoney> :)
 345 18:55:28 * joanie looks for the video
 346 18:56:16 <amber> i think being able to move the mouse with your head is somewhat vague. there are other capabilities that mousetrap has.
 347 18:56:24 <Stoney> like?
 348 18:56:32 <amber> choosing which haar
 349 18:56:38 <Stoney> why?
 350 18:56:55 <amber> for different usability scenarios
 351 18:56:57 <john> joanie abmonished us about that one a couple weeks ago… ;)
 352 18:56:58 <heidi> http://www.youtube.com/user/flaper87
 353 18:57:18 <amber> yes, but the video is a subset of its functionality
 354 18:57:25 <Stoney> john... about what?
 355 18:57:26 <heidi> Right. Mousetrap should be able to track noses, fingers, etc.
 356 18:57:32 <Stoney> I see
 357 18:57:34 <john> about usability scenarios
 358 18:57:41 <john> Stoney: I was just joking, BTW
 359 18:57:48 <amber> so, it would be nice to see a list so we know what "working" is
 360 18:57:53 <joanie> I don't think it was an admonishment :)
 361 18:58:09 <Stoney> well... right now our version doesn't track anything .... so I would be happy about the head (or any feature)
 362 18:58:12 <joanie> amber: my understanding is that currently it does absolutely nothing
 363 18:58:17 <joanie> exactly
 364 18:58:18 <amber> yes
 365 18:58:21 <Stoney> exactly
 366 18:58:32 <joanie> so we're not saying ONLY moving the mouse
 367 18:59:07 <Stoney> joanie: does that mean that mousetrap is really a feature tracker?
 368 18:59:22 <joanie> ?
 369 18:59:22 <amber> but it seems we are having lots of conversations about approaches, (we already talked about developing with a working version) so I would like to see some requirements and goals so we dont create a cirucular dev pattern
 370 19:00:15 <heidi> One of the videos shows using one's mouth as a mouse click.
 371 19:00:17 <john> Agreed -- let's go with my idea of having two teams tackling the two approaches
 372 19:00:23 <john> and just do it
 373 19:00:40 <heidi> So what two approaches are those? I count three approaches so far.
 374 19:00:56 <john> rewrite or fix
 375 19:01:08 <heidi> 1. - Get it running on older ubuntu/fedora, 2. - Start from scratch 3. - Fix what we have currently.
 376 19:01:19 <john> 1 is part of 3
 377 19:01:36 <john> once it runs in oldies, we can see what works and what does in newies
 378 19:01:42 <joanie> right
 379 19:01:44 <john> *not
 380 19:02:03 <heidi> Stoney? Are you happy with this?
 381 19:02:15 <Stoney> I'm happy with working code...
 382 19:02:16 <heidi> (I've got only 3 more minutes...)
 383 19:02:17 <Stoney> so either is good
 384 19:02:28 <heidi> So who would like to work on which?
 385 19:02:31 <heidi> Amber, thoughts?
 386 19:02:40 <john> Both approaches have possible fruitful results -- might as well try both I think
 387 19:02:42 <heidi> John?
 388 19:02:52 <amber> id like to fix existing, since im familiar with opencv
 389 19:03:23 <john> If I'm choosing, I'll be on the rewrite team
 390 19:03:34 <john> unless you guys think I'm a better fit elsewhere :)
 391 19:03:44 <heidi> Amber and John, are you available Monday at 10?
 392 19:03:55 <amber> ill be on the train
 393 19:03:56 <john> Unfortunately, no
 394 19:04:01 <john> 9:30 I can be
 395 19:04:06 <heidi> Ah, OK. that is the WNE regular meeting.
 396 19:04:09 <amber> later i can be
 397 19:04:17 <heidi> I think folks have class until 10 at WNE.
 398 19:04:38 <john> I have class at 11 and am booked solid until 5
 399 19:04:51 <amber> (i just was in class 12-1) oops
 400 19:04:55 <john> Well, actually I *can* be available at 10
 401 19:05:02 <john> I'll just have to drive to school earlier
 402 19:05:02 <heidi> Do NOT miss class :-)
 403 19:05:10 <amber> i was still there!
 404 19:05:27 <john> Scratch that. I'll be available at 10 on Monday, yes
 405 19:05:45 <Stoney> we'll talk to WNE students monday and see what they want to do
 406 19:05:55 <Stoney> (they're not here right now)
 407 19:05:58 <heidi> Right.
 408 19:06:11 <Stoney> motion to adjourn?
 409 19:06:24 <heidi> And Logan has been debugging the current system using a python debugger.
 410 19:06:38 <heidi> Note that we haven't really decided anything. Just pushed a lot of ideas.
 411 19:06:46 <Stoney> exactly
 412 19:06:56 <heidi> I'm fine with that.
 413 19:06:56 <john> logan and amber on the fix team, me and Nicole on the rewrite team (since she's working on GTK+)
 414 19:07:04 <joanie> i'll install an older version of ubuntu on my laptop
 415 19:07:14 <joanie> and see if I can get it working
 416 19:07:27 <heidi> #agree Explore option of reverting to older version of ubuntu and get MouseTrap working and progress from there
 417 19:07:31 <amber> ubuntu 10 was promising
 418 19:07:36 <heidi> #agree Explore option of rewrite from scratch.
 419 19:07:37 <john> I'll 'see' you guys at 10 here on Monday?
 420 19:07:42 <john> 10.4 to be exact
 421 19:08:04 <amber> is there anyway to meet later on monday?
 422 19:08:14 <Stoney> #agree 10 am monday here if you can make it
 423 19:08:22 <heidi> We'll be meeting with students f2f Monday at 10:00.
 424 19:08:27 <Stoney> very tough for me amber... lots of meetings and classes on monday
 425 19:08:33 <john> amber: I'm available after 5, but I don't think the WNE students will appreciate that ;)
 426 19:08:36 <heidi> Right. Stoney teaches all afternoon.
 427 19:08:43 <heidi> Well, I can't do after 5:00 :-(
 428 19:08:57 <darci> Why not run the meetbot, Amber can at least look at the log
 429 19:08:57 <heidi> Lets get as many folks as we can and continue the discussion.
 430 19:09:01 <heidi> Now I really need to run.
 431 19:09:08 <amber> ok
 432 19:09:11 <heidi> Joanie and API, thank you so much for all your help.
 433 19:09:13 <Stoney> ditto
 434 19:09:14 <darci> bye
 435 19:09:15 <heidi> We very much appreciate it!!
 436 19:09:21 <Stoney> thank you all
 437 19:09:27 <john> joanie thanks again for the help with PixBuf!
 438 19:09:29 <API> heidi, no problem, you are welcome
 439 19:09:32 <joanie> someone needs to end meeting
 440 19:09:35 <heidi> And API, if you email me whatever you find out from your colleagues, I'll pass it along to the group.
 441 19:09:40 <heidi> Darci? End the meeting?
 442 19:09:42 <API> heidi, ok
 443 19:09:43 <darci> I can do that
 444 19:09:45 <darci> ;-)
 445 19:09:47 <heidi> :-) Thank you!
 446 19:09:49 <darci> #endmeeting