15:00 -!- seemant [n=trinity@gentoo/developer/seemant] has joined #gentoo-council
15:00 -!- Topic for #gentoo-council: Meeting starts at 2000 UTC today
15:00 -!- Topic set by Koon [] [Tue Nov 15 12:05:31 2005]
15:00 [Users #gentoo-council]
15:00 [@Koon ] [@vapier  ] [ code|work] [ FuzzyRay] [ spb ] 
15:00 [@solar] [+g2boojum] [ cryos    ] [ genone  ] [ tove] 
15:00 [@SwifT] [ agaffney] [ ferringb ] [ seemant ] [ Zr40] 
15:00 -!- Irssi: #gentoo-council: Total of 15 nicks [4 ops, 0 halfops, 1 voices, 10 normal]
15:00 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o seemant] by ChanServ
15:00 <@seemant> hi everyone
15:00 -!- Channel #gentoo-council created Wed Nov  9 05:09:05 2005
15:00 -!- Irssi: Join to #gentoo-council was synced in 11 secs
15:00 <@seemant> is everyone present?
15:00 <@solar> azarah was active about 3 mins ago
15:00 <@Koon> Dr Kulleen
15:00 <@seemant> dr. Koon
15:00 <@Koon> greetings
15:01 <@solar> erp 15 mins ago now that I double check
15:01 <@Koon> agriffis missing
15:01 <@vapier> booga
15:02 -!- az [n=ms@gentoo/developer/azarah] has joined #gentoo-council
15:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o az] by ChanServ
15:04 <@seemant> let's give agriffis 2 more minutes
15:07 <@Koon> and.. one slacker point goes to...
15:07  * SwifT points to oblivion
15:07 <@seemant> agriffis
15:08 <@seemant> let's start the meeting
15:08 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by seemant
15:08 <@seemant> right, hello everyone
15:08 <@seemant> this is the November meeting of the Gentoo Council
15:08 <@seemant> and our agenda items are:
15:08 <@seemant> 1. Voting on GLEP 41 (requested hparker)
15:09 <@seemant> 2. Portage Tree signing status (requested by genone)
15:09 <@seemant> 3. Q&A (open floor)
15:09 <@seemant> so let's begin, shall we?
15:09 <@Koon> (genone and/or g2boojum)
15:09 <@seemant> Koon: ah, true
15:09 <@Koon> shoot
15:09 <@seemant> s/\(genone\)/\1 and g2boojum/
15:09 <@seemant> right, so let's begin with Agenda Item #1: GLEP 41
15:10 <@seemant> do I hear 10 dollars?
15:10 <@seemant> kidding -- the issue is that this GLEP was presented to the council during October's meeting
15:10 <@seemant> and the Council members requested a number of changes made
15:10 <@Koon> one question is "should have it been resubmitted to dev for discussion before we vote"
15:10 <@seemant> the latest version of the GLEP document reflects those changes
15:11 <@seemant> yes, what Koon said
15:11 <@Koon> I answer no, since only the mandated changes are in , but YMMV
15:11 <@Koon> diff at http://tinyurl.com/bmsee
15:11 <@seemant> I feel that, to be consistent, -dev should have seen it before we got it
15:12 <@vapier> looks like all the concerns brought up previously have been addressed
15:12 <@vapier> but yeah, i dont like the idea of making changes and then going back for vote without going through -dev without an announcement
15:12 <@Koon> having it wait another month just sounds not nice to me
15:12 -!- kito [n=kito@gentoo/developer/kito] has joined #gentoo-council
15:12 <@vapier> and there is that
15:12 <@seemant> Koon: I agree with that as well
15:13 <@vapier> we could vote on this now and then mandate that in the future, all GLEP changes must be announced before being voted on
15:13 <@seemant> Koon: however, we wind up on a slippery slope (because yes the changes are trivial, and exactly what the council requested)
15:13 <@seemant> but strictly speaking, the community should have been notified of those changes
15:13 <@vapier> make an exception since this is the first time it's come up
15:13 <@seemant> I'm ok with  vapier's suggestion
15:14 <@seemant> but then we need to be strict from here on in about such things
15:14 <@seemant> no more exceptions
15:14 <@solar> He posted to the list that this topic could be postponed.
15:14 <@vapier> right, lets get g2boojum to update GLEP1 with this requirement ?
15:14 <@az> on the other had, should they not have been notified of this on submission ?
15:14 <@SwifT> I wouldn't ask for postponal, for me the GLEP's issues have been addressed and taken care of
15:14 <@seemant> solar: I thought that was item #2 (if you speak of g2boojum)?
15:15 <@seemant> az: this is true -- there is no policy
15:16 <@Koon> note: no need to argue on this if we intend to refuse it in its current form
15:16 <@vapier> i think we're all ok with it now in its current form ?
15:16 <@seemant> I am ok with it, yes
15:16 <@SwifT> yup
15:16 <@Koon> any suggestion for (subdomain_to_be_determined) ?
15:16 <@Koon> just kidding
15:17 <@Koon> I'm ok with it
15:17 <@seemant> aide.gentoo.org perhaps ?
15:17 <@Koon> especially since it has been submitted (a litte late) and didn't spark any negative comment
15:18 <@seemant> az: solar: comments?
15:18 <@Koon> We should just say that from now on, GLEP (even minor corrections) should be submitted to -dev at least n days before being put on the agenda
15:18 <@az> not really, think we covered everything mostly last time
15:18 <@Koon> k, then , maybe we should move to the meaty stuff
15:19 <@seemant> so I guess two things have been decided (and need to be hashed out(
15:19 <@seemant> 1. GLEP 41 is approved
15:19 <@seemant> 2. -dev needs to be informed of any and all changes before (re)submission of any GLEP for council voting
15:20 <@seemant> Right, Item # 2 addresses the status of gpg signing of portage tree things
15:20 <@vapier> put a timeframe on that ? (2) must be at least a week before the actual meeting
15:20 <@seemant> currently, I believe the signing is limited only to package directories
15:20 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v genone] by Koon
15:21 <@seemant> vapier: I think a week before meeting is perfect personally
15:21 <@Koon> that's about when we announce agenda submission deadlines anyway
15:21 <@az> so then rather 2 weeks ?
15:21 <@az> 1 week discussion, 1 week to get to us
15:21 <@vapier> 1 week before agenda submission deadline
15:22 <@Koon> k, but we must wake up and announce meetings earlier then :)
15:22 <@vapier> we *remind* we dont announce
15:23 <@Koon> heh
15:23 <@vapier> remind everyone on the 1st of each month of the upcoming times
15:23 <@seemant> Koon: I would like to propose that the meeting times are pre-announced -- we simply fine tune/remind the actual date
15:23 <@solar> If this is not being postponed on the topic of glep41 as said on the mailing list then I'm going with a no on this topic. So far what I've seen of AT's and the existing AT lead for x86@ has not been very encouraging. thus I dont think it is worth it to put the extra workload on infra.
15:24 <@vapier> and if it were postponed, what would change your mind ?
15:24  * Koon feels the sudden cold
15:25 <@solar> I dont want to hand out access to people who put 30-60 mins of effort into gentoo per week
15:25 <@vapier> so you dont have to
15:25 <@vapier> the AT stuff is up to each arch team as they see fit
15:26 <@vapier> if you dont have people who you think arent fit, no cookie
15:26 <@Koon> also it's quite a light "access". r/o CVS and a mail alias...
15:27 <@Koon> anyway, he has the right to vote no, anyone reverting his vote to follow solar ?
15:27 <@solar> the majority of you have voted yes so it still will pass. I'm fine with that.
15:28 <@Koon> ok, then, the portage tree signing stuff...
15:29 <@solar> genone: want to start this topic off?
15:29 <@Koon> This is more a discussion that should remind/confirm past decisions on this and also discuss how we can speed up things, no ?
15:29 <@Koon> unless someone has objections on the May 2004 plan
15:30 <@Koon> ...
15:30 <@solar> ok I've talked with some key people in the past about this topic. robbat2 pretty much knows what we need. At one point klieber blocked gentoo having it's own keyserver.
15:30 <@solar> but for us todo it right it is my understanding that is vital
15:31 <@solar> jstubbs said he is willing to add any additional code to portage itself that is needed to make this happen
15:31 <@vapier> infra already indexes dev's keys i thought
15:31 <@Koon> the May 2004 meeting established that we don't really need a keyserver, just a keychain in portage, signed by a master key, no ?
15:32 <@seemant> that was my understanding as well
15:32 <@Koon> solar: so it's mostly a problem with devrel not pushing key policy to devs ?
15:32 <@Koon> (the (1) in genone email ?)
15:32 <@Koon> and/or an infra problem ?
15:34 <+genone> someone needs to 1) collect keys 2) sign them with some master key 3) put them somewhere in the (rsync) tree
15:34 <+g2boojum> Koon: My understanding is that there is on key policy.  Where should they be stored.  How needs to sign the key?  What about expiration dates?  Devs should use a single-purpose key, or a signed subkey, or what?
15:34 <+g2boojum> s/on key/no key/
15:34 <@vapier> i thought there was a policy
15:34 <@Koon> g2boojum/vapier: who should set it ? the council ?
15:35 <@vapier> it already exists
15:35 <@vapier> proj/en/devrel/handbook/hb-guide-manifest-signing.xml
15:36 <@solar> that is not the right policy.
15:36 <@solar> I recall covering this before. There was no reson to attempt to force DSA keys.
15:36 <@Koon> solar: consistency ?
15:36 <+g2boojum> Koon: Ultimately, yes.  Now, there could be a GLEP that specifies this stuff, but there probably needs to be some encouragement for some sane folks to write such a GLEP.
15:37 <@solar> RSA/DSA are both handled the same. RSA for security has proven itself better. DSA was faster for verifcation
15:37 <@vapier> ok, but is there any information other than that URL as to our signing policy ?
15:37 <+g2boojum> vapier: Just the log from that long-ago meeting that genone stripped out and forwarded to the council.
15:38 <+g2boojum> vapier: Which was pretty much inconclusive.
15:38 <@Koon> the problem here is that it's nobody's job to make it progress
15:39 <@Koon> so it's prio 2 for almost everyone
15:39 <@solar> yes pretty much.
15:40 <@az> you could say its an security issue, so security heard should take charge of it
15:40  * az runs
15:40 <@az> herd*
15:40 <@vapier> heh, that's stretching it
15:40 -!- thunder` [n=thunder@gentoo/developer/thunder] has joined #gentoo-council
15:41 <@Koon> az: why not, but lots of people feel that we are already too aggressive with other teams, so I don't want to overstretch
15:41 <@solar> there are people willing to work on it. But there is no clear plan thats bullet proof. Adding profiles/ eclass/ package.tbz2 to the list
15:41 <@seemant> let me ask this -- what would people like to see happen before we go into aggressive mode with a key signing policy?
15:42 <@seemant> 1. existence of said policy
15:42 <@seemant> 2. ????
15:42 <@seemant> 3. profit^W
15:42 <@solar> repoman not allowing commits to the tree unless FEATURES=sign is enabled
15:42 <@az> should be start if its implemented i guess
15:42 <@solar> getting all keys. deciding who is in control of the master key
15:42 <@vapier> take a step back, we dont even have a policy that is generally accepted
15:43 <@Koon> ok so we need to GLEP the key policy
15:43 <@Koon> "we"
15:43 <@seemant> vapier: see #1 on my mini list
15:43 <@vapier> so why dont we take it upon ourselves to do that
15:43 <@vapier> pass around a scratch glep, then send it to the people involved in first meeting, then send to -dev
15:44 <@solar> I'm in favor of that
15:44 <@Koon> vapier: sure, but it'd probably still need a primary author, even if the other council members can help in reviewing/correcting
15:44 <@seemant> all in favour
15:44 <@seemant> ?
15:44 <@vapier> primary authors are overrated
15:44 <@Koon> yes
15:44 <@seemant> Koon: we'll come to that
15:44  * Koon hides
15:44 <@vapier> i'll put down az's name anyways
15:44 <@seemant> Koon: first let's make sure the council members are ok with it
15:45 <@SwifT> I'm in favor of such a scratch glep; doesn't need to come from us (but can of course)
15:45 <@az> if you want a screwup, sure
15:45 <@seemant> az: explain?
15:45 <@vapier> he forget the </joke>
15:45 <@vapier> ;P
15:45 <@az> i cannot write litrature/anything longer than a paragraph to save my ass
15:45 <@seemant> SwifT: the idea is probably that the council kicks it off by putting its weight behind it
15:45 <@vapier> let alone a # comment
15:46 <@seemant> az: yes, but you can express ideas and that's the important bit
15:46 <@Koon> especially if it goes a little beyong key policy and mandates who is in charge of what job
15:46 <@az> i thought vapier wanted me to write it
15:46 <@Koon> like who asks rogue devs to create new keys
15:46 <@SwifT> if there is no support from the dev community putting in weight won't work, but I think there is support, just passive
15:46 <@solar> az he just wants to forge your name on it
15:46 <@seemant> ok, gavel pound -- the council is hereby charged with scratching the beginnings of the key signing policy document
15:46 <@az> oh, heh
15:47 <@seemant> shall we say that the council members will be done with their part of the scratch before the next meeting in December?
15:47 <@seemant> (ie we would have handed the doc off of to the people involved in the first meeting)
15:47 <@vapier> sure
15:48 <@Koon> sure
15:48 <@SwifT> ack
15:48 <@az> fine
15:48 <@seemant> for the sake of the record: the first meeting I refer to is the meeting in genone's email to the council (under the old gentoo metastructure leadership)
15:48 <@seemant> ok, that is as it is then
15:48 -!- antarus|work [n=antarus@nagoya.dhcp.egr.msu.edu] has joined #gentoo-council
15:49 <@seemant> I'll now open up the floor for Q&A
15:49 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by seemant
15:49 <@seemant> don't all talk at once
15:50 <@solar> Are we supposed to be voting on 43?
15:50  * antarus|work just got here ;)
15:50 <@vapier> are we ?  i dont recall it being requested ...
15:50 <@seemant> solar: wasn't on the agenda I had
15:50 <@Koon> solar: probably not, wasn't put on the agenda. Which one is it
15:50 <@seemant> Koon: the hosting of gleps
15:50 <+g2boojum> solar: It's up to you folks.  I claim that it's a local issue (just affecting the GLEP project), so it doesn't really need a vote by the council.
15:50 <@seemant> well, files that are related to gleps
15:50 <@seemant> g2boojum: I should think so as well
15:50 <@Koon> ah yes, I'd say it's more a GLEP-internal thing
15:51 <@solar> I'm fine with that. It's pretty much a no brainer
15:51 <+g2boojum> I'm willing to be smacked down by the council for being uppity, however.
15:51 <@seemant> who knew g2boojum was kinky
15:51 <@seemant> I'd rather council stayed far away from the micromanaging thing
15:52 < ferringb> agreed
15:52  * vapier knew
15:52 <@seemant> so seriously, no questions from anyone?
15:52 < ferringb> what's 2+2?
15:52 <@seemant> 4
15:52 <@vapier> how do you stay so sexy ?
15:52 <@seemant> tae-bo
15:53 <@seemant> next
15:53 <@Koon> everything must go very well in Gentoo-land
15:53 <@SwifT> well, if that's it, I'm off :)
15:53 <@seemant> next time, we need something more controversial to vote on :P
15:53 <@Koon> at least two weeks without a -core flame
15:53 < ferringb> hmm.
15:54 < ferringb> the site redesign got me wondering if there is any rules regarding accessibility for our pages...
15:54 <@Koon> seemant: maybe the core announcement glep will be ready by then
15:54 <@az> if bum touching in dev channels is allowed ?
15:54 < ferringb> seemant: conversion to the smart pkg manager fex?
15:54 <@seemant> ferringb: I thought the original requirements for the page redesign had that in?
15:54 < ferringb> rpm or dpkg, yay!
15:55 <+g2boojum> SwifT: Still here?
15:55 < ferringb> seemant: no clue
15:55 <@seemant> ferringb: we're not voting on that -- we're putting that as a rider to an already existing vote that's virtually guaranteed to go through
15:55 <@seemant> ferringb: like when we vote to have the AT subdomain be cheese.gentoo.org, fex.
15:55 < ferringb> hmm.  tag on a "pay harring to sit on his ass" rider to said rider, and you've got my vote
15:56 < ferringb> ahh, politics.
15:56 < ferringb> hmm
15:56 <@vapier> well if this has degenerated into listening to ferringb talk, i'm outs
15:56 -!- vapier [i=UserBah@wh0rd.org] has left #gentoo-council []
15:56 < ferringb> seemant: has been brought up earlier and resulted in a massive flaming (yay for knee jerk reactions), but social contract y'all might want to do a careful read through again
15:57 < ferringb> wonderful timing...
15:57 <@seemant> ferringb: that might well be a good thing to discuss in December or January's meeting, actually
15:58 < ferringb> ...and find out what's going on with the copyright assignement (are we doing it, aren't we, were are we at, etc)
15:58 -!- tove [n=tove@p54A61965.dip0.t-ipconnect.de] has left #gentoo-council []
15:58 <@seemant> ferringb: ah we'll have to get the trustees to inform us about that
15:58 < ferringb> crack that whip.
15:58 -!- agaffney [n=agaffney@gentoo/developer/pdpc.active.agaffney] has left #gentoo-council []