[19:05] *** You set the channel mode to 'moderated'. [19:05] i suppose the timing decision can wait till vapier comes (if he's just late) [19:05] there we got [19:05] -t [19:06] especially as he seems to need to change that :) [19:06] yeah, we can hold that one off until near the end [19:06] <-- GurliOnTheRoad has left this server (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)). [19:06] or just email it [19:06] heh [19:06] should be a no brainer [19:06] anywho [19:06] true... we don't need that to be done during the official meeting, really [19:07] so we can either start with antarus|work's topic or with wolf31o2|mobile's, which one first? [19:07] wolf [19:07] --> ChrisWhite|Work has joined this channel (n=chris@gentoo/developer/ChrisWhite). [19:07] ack wolf for me too [19:07] do it [19:07] wolf31o2|mobile: you have the floor [19:08] err... well, there's probably two different questions... the first is; can the council make a decision without it being put on an agenda and have to wait for the monthly meeting? [19:09] that's why I suggested a 2nd meeting if there was something to discuss [19:09] i say yes, while this decision should be only intermediate until a proper meeting takes place [19:09] I'd say yes as long as we use some common sense, eg. don't rush GLEPs through without prior discussion [19:09] i'd say yes, for urgent matters or non-controversial decisions [19:10] ok... so what is considered an urgent matter? [19:10] that's up to us :-) [19:11] decisions that has to be discussed upon asap or they might "fly away"... probably depends on what the issue is [19:11] heh... I'd be fine with that [19:11] ditto [19:12] ok... so we allow "impromptu" meetings, at our own request, to discuss possible time-sensitive issues? [19:12] kingtaco|laptop, robbat2? [19:12] sure [19:12] vote with yes or no [19:12] yes [19:12] yes [19:12] yes [19:12] yes [19:12] yes, common sense to delay things that have unanswered issues still, but be more flexible in allowing [19:12] yes [19:12] 6 of 7, vapier is late, this one passed [19:12] ok... and how many should we require present to have one of these meetings? [19:13] 5 [19:13] 4+? 5? [19:13] Kugelfang, which one passed? both or just the first? [19:13] more than the half and an odd number [19:13] 5 [19:13] 5+ [19:13] 5+ [19:13] agreed [19:13] Flameeyes: the first one [19:13] <-- GurliGebis has left this server (No route to host). [19:13] what about the slacker rule for such meetings? [19:13] 5+ sounds good [19:13] i think we have consense of 5 council members [19:13] should it still rule? [19:13] Flameeyes: applies only to regular meetings [19:13] I don't think so [19:14] Kugelfang, agreed [19:14] no, regular meetings only imo [19:14] I don't think the slacker rule shoudl count, since it is impromptu, and we don't allow the meeting if we have below the proper threshol [19:14] +d [19:14] so even the second one passed [19:14] robbat2? [19:14] how much notice for one of these meetings? [19:14] 7days? [19:14] list 2 possible times? [19:15] no slacker rule, because we do need time to get ourselves [19:15] I would think "impromptu" means it should be possible on the spur of the moment [19:15] let's say more than 5 days [19:15] means: we can say on monday "We'll discuss it" and act on firday [19:15] i'd say the time needed, after all if it's "on the fly", we might need it now [19:15] friday... i think that's a good rule of thumb... [19:15] Flameeyes: you mean: no limit at all? [19:15] 3 days, or as long as every council member (all 7 of us) agree we need to meet on it immediately [19:16] that works [19:16] sure [19:16] i like robbat2's solution [19:16] i like robbat2's proposal [19:16] heh [19:16] 3 days gives us space for the 5+ people, but if it's really urgent, people will find a way to get us [19:16] --> dostrow has joined this channel (n=dostrow@gentoo/developer/dostrow). [19:17] so... allow meetings outside of the schedule on time sensitive issues, the meeting needs more than 5 members, and it should be done with no less than 3 days notice, unless the council unanimously decides to hold it sooner? [19:17] yes [19:17] yes [19:17] (that should cover everything) [19:17] at least 5 members [19:17] yes [19:17] (>= rather than >) [19:17] it says that [19:18] and yes on that anyway [19:18] err... ok [19:18] good point Flameeyes [19:18] 5+ [19:18] heh [19:18] yes [19:18] yes [19:18] kloeri, wolf31o2|mobile? [19:19] yes [19:19] wolf31o2|mobile said yes already [19:19] okay, so kloeri? [19:19] kloeri honey, we're waiting [19:19] sounds good [19:19] excellent [19:20] i think this point is done then, isn't it? [19:20] i'd say so [19:20] yup [19:20] *** You give antarus|work the permission to talk. [19:20] i still wonder where vapier is [19:20] antarus|work, are you here? [19:20] unless wolf31o2 wanted to say more about the possible 4th thursday [19:20] we'll do this instead [19:21] works better [19:21] yeah... doesn't restrict us to a time [19:21] ok [19:21] so we can be like "hey, friday at 5:30 works for me" [19:22] strange tho that mike is this late [19:22] kingtaco|laptop, not you :P [19:22] does anybody have his cell phone number? [19:22] oh, that reminds me, shall we exchange contact information via the alias? [19:23] yes [19:23] i suppose that's good [19:23] robbat2: yes to what? [19:23] yes to contact info [19:23] good, let's do it right after the meetings :-) [19:23] -s [19:23] shall we proceed with antarus then? [19:23] did Mike get a new cell phone? last I knew (LWE) his was somewhere in a gutter in Shanghai [19:24] let's [19:24] wolf31o2|mobile, ouch, that's bad [19:24] antarus|work: you have have the floor [19:25] * kloeri pokes antarus|work [19:25] er [19:25] sorry [19:25] * antarus|work is back! [19:26] sure, just give us some beer and we'll forget about it :-P [19:27] or just talk, that works too [19:27] Quiet you :p [19:27] Moreso I think the current QA policy doesn't work completely [19:28] explain [19:28] The current policy seems rather vague in areas; to both users and developers [19:29] which areas [19:29] things like having packages build properly; releng will tell you that it should build properly with default USE flags; Ciaran will tell you it should build properly with the ebuild choosing sane flag defaults [19:30] well, both sounds sane to me, we gotta find a way in the middle here [19:30] At least for me; the QA team should not be the guys who fix stuff; the team is too small and the amount of work too large. [19:30] well, I'd say that both should be true... ;] [19:30] * antarus|work doesn't expect the council to come up with new policy ;) [19:31] antarus|work: i think we should expand the QA team then [19:31] Kugelfang: How? [19:31] i think one of the point should be that no qa should be enforced unless the policy is properly agreed upon [19:31] * antarus|work would rather have QA policy that is followed; then qa that is ignored [19:31] antarus|work: get people to search for QAcanfix keyword and fix it [19:32] Kugelfang: eh, and if that doesn't work? [19:32] why don't you revise/rewrite the policy to resolve these problems you see and then we can look at that? [19:32] agreed... I think we need a policy to look at and agree to... we can still discuss, to help brainstorm some ideas, btu we can't really decide on a concept so much [19:33] I mean, we'll all agree "we need good qa" [19:33] agreed, we should have a policy to look at before decide on most of the matters there, or we're not making a point [19:33] wolf31o2|mobile: are you willing to sacrifice people for it? [19:33] wolf31o2|mobile: right [19:33] eh, what wolf31o2|mobile said basically [19:33] antarus|work: sacrifice, meaning? [19:34] antarus|work: you mean like: remove persistent offenders, or at least suspend them? [19:34] if you mean have disciplinary action taken against repeated offenders, then absolutely... but that's not our job, perse [19:34] Kugelfang: yes [19:34] but I would definitely back that action being taken [19:34] antarus|work: write it up. i'm not against it per se [19:34] agreed [19:35] wolf31o2|mobile: I think moreso the thought is 'I can break QA and essentially have no reprecussions" [19:35] devrel would be happy to suspend or kick off repeat offenders based on proper complaints from qa [19:35] which is obviously a problem [19:35] right [19:35] antarus|work, i think the problem is we don't have an *official* policy [19:35] Flameeyes: actually, we have, GLEP 39 iirc [19:35] * antarus|work notes having a half-dead qa team for large amounts of time [19:35] antarus|work: document the offences and complain to devrel after you warned the offender [19:35] Kugelfang: 48 you mean? [19:35] i'm not sure that suspend/kick directly is the right solution - re-education first [19:36] Kugelfang, no i mean, there are still obsure points [19:36] robbat2: I would agree; can't be too hasty ;) [19:36] antarus|work: eh, yes [19:36] devmanual wasn't updated in its entirety and there are still debatable points [19:36] Flameeyes: devmanual was discusses on QA meeting, i attended there [19:36] robbat2: qa would need to warn etc. before filing a devrel complaint or I'll bounce it back [19:36] Flameeyes: the turnout was, unsatisfactory to say the least [19:37] Kugelfang, can you summarise? [19:37] Flameeyes: I have the log.. [19:37] spb just asked for voice [19:37] he can if you want [19:37] Flameeyes: it's not pretty :P [19:37] antarus|work, that's why i asked a summary [19:37] *** You give spb the permission to talk. [19:37] *** kloeri gives spb the permission to talk. [19:38] uh, i have op here...... forgot competely :-P [19:38] Kugelfang: :) [19:38] the summary, in short terms and based on what i remember, goes something like this [19:38] first item devmanual. it's listed as a qa project yet qa has no access to it, we don't like this, but plasmaroo is resisting any change [19:39] then there was the lack of any properly documented qa policy, which we would like to fix [19:39] this has to be relevated: plasmaroo doesn'T want to give out SVN access to anybody.. he said he'd include patches as soon as he gets them [19:39] relevated? [19:40] antarus|work, made notice of [19:40] plasmaroo is resisting any change [19:40] ^^^ [19:40] Flameeyes: thanks ;) [19:40] also the EAPI-0 spec / package manager standard / whatever you want to call it [19:40] what is required to move the devmanual to gentoo infrastructure? and has there been a problem getting patches accepted, so far? (in other words, has the current process proven broken) [19:41] wolf31o2|mobile: the SVN repo is on halcy0n.org [19:41] wolf31o2|mobile: it could easily be moved [19:41] wolf31o2|mobile: what's required is an svn repo and someone having access to whichever box hosts devmanual.g.o to pull updates from svn manually [19:41] i think that can be automated [19:41] at the moment the svn is external and only one person has the latter [19:41] it would need to be... [19:41] and what about my second question? [19:42] wolf31o2|mobile: No one has submitted actual patches; as far as I'm aware [19:42] answer is no [19:42] i think wolf's second question is the important one here [19:42] there's a bug open with some needed changes; it had no response until he was asked in the qa meeting yesterday why that was, at which point he said he was waiting for patches [19:42] which is fine as long as he says he's waiting for patches [19:42] * antarus|work nods [19:42] ok [19:43] communication was a bit slow there [19:43] so now we all know [19:43] =] [19:43] we do [19:43] what exactly it is that we know is left as an exercise for the reader [19:43] I guess my last question is; is there a better way to create policy besides doing it internally to QA [19:43] i can understand that plasmaroo doesn't want every dev to have commit access, on the other hand i think that the Gentoo devmanual should be in Gentoo SVN [19:43] there's another problem of backups that nobody have addressed afaik (which would point towards hosting it on gentoo svn) [19:44] my assumption there is that qa drafts something and sends it to $other_party for review [19:44] i think we shouldn't really try to force anything until it's proven broken, to use wolf's words [19:44] Flameeyes: I was thinking moreso; of making some kind of sub-project [19:44] Kugelfang, on Gentoo SVN/CVS we do offer access restrictions if desired [19:44] where we invite people interested in forming poicy [19:44] your second point... the qa policy... I think we all agree that we'd like to see one hammered down... what do you need for that to happen? [19:44] robbat2: i know, i use them for eselect :-P [19:44] maybe thats just too gay [19:44] I dunno :p [19:45] * antarus|work spices up the council logs [19:45] antarus|work, you mean people not involved in the qa project itself? [19:45] Flameeyes: yes [19:45] separating legislative from executive, basically [19:45] antarus|work: well, as was already said: come up with a proposal and council can discuss [19:46] Flameeyes: Yeah, basically ;) [19:46] agreed, we need something to look at to decide, we can only think of the concept this way [19:46] wolf31o2|mobile: for QA policy i suspect just time and the right people [19:46] actually... let's do this... for issue #1, the devmanual, there's not been anything shown to be necessarily broken, but points were brought up why moving it to gentoo infrastructure would be desirable... I say we defer on any decision regarding this until a plan has been put in place for migration, as well as any requirements from/for infra... as in, scripts to automate pulls from SVN and access restrictions that need to be p [19:46] laced... agreed? [19:47] yes [19:47] yes [19:47] * antarus|work was hoping to avoid the devmanual entirely in this meeting ;P [19:47] yes [19:47] yes [19:47] heh [19:47] yes [19:47] kloeri: ? [19:47] kingtaco|laptop: ? [19:47] kloeri: sorry [19:47] :-) [19:49] what are we voting on? [19:49] that qa needs to be defined? [19:49] 19:46 <@wolf31o2|mobile> actually... let's do this... for issue #1, the devmanual, there's not been anything shown to be necessarily broken, but points were brought up why moving it to gentoo infrastructure would be desirable... I say we defer on any decision regarding this until a plan has been put in place for [19:49] migration, as well as ny requirements from/for infra... as in, scripts to automate pull s from SVN and access restrictions that need to be p [19:49] --> iluxa has joined this channel (n=anonymou@gentoo/developer/iluxa). [19:49] yes [19:49] * antarus|work will talk to qa about creating a subproject for policy authoring then [19:50] a cross-project subproject ;P [19:50] * spb doesn't see the point [19:50] * antarus|work nods [19:50] re: qa policy... from the discussion here, we'd really like something that we can look at and say that we'd stand behind it 100%... I would say that the best thing would be to try to come up with a somewhat representative (and informal) group to assist in writing/modifying existing policy... [19:50] wolf31o2|mobile's decision is then agreed upon, [19:50] spb, antarus|work: please get in contact with infra to work out details of a possible migration [19:50] Kugelfang: I'll do that [19:50] wolf31o2|mobile: that one needs no vote :-P [19:51] qa heads it up... and again, it doesn't have to be formal... since i'm not sure I see the point... but, for example, you'd probably want to grab a bug-wrangler or two... and some toolchain people, etc [19:51] and arches [19:51] * antarus|work nods [19:51] wolf31o2|mobile: don't forget releng! [19:51] --> nephros has joined this channel (n=nephros@gentoo/userrep/nephros). [19:51] Kugelfang: right... heh... I'm just trying to rephrase some stuff that's spread over lots of lines into something coherent [19:51] wolf31o2|mobile: you've been doing a great job too ;) [19:52] spb: you had something to say about the EAPI thing? it kinda got lost [19:52] wolf31o2|mobile: that was part of the QA meeting summary [19:52] i think the conclusion there was that it's probably best as it is for the moment, since the bulk of the work has been/is being done by a non-current-developer [19:53] once it's got some substance to it i'm thinking in terms of forming it into a glep that you guys can vote on [19:53] wfm [19:53] WFM [19:53] =] [19:53] i can say it looks promising already [19:53] works [19:53] if nothing else, the introduction of it would be a fairly major change to the way we do things [19:53] wfm2 [19:53] * kloeri agrees [19:54] * antarus|work shall go poof now [19:54] there's a slight question of who would maintain it once that happens, but we can deal with that later [19:54] unless you need more from me? [19:54] if you guys want to look at it: http://svn.pioto.org/viewvc/paludis/scratch/eapispec/EAPI-0.txt?view=markup [19:54] antarus|work: I think we're good [19:54] wolf31o2|mobile: cool, thanks for the input. [19:55] spb: hopefully, it would be a joint operation between QA and the portage team (or $package_managers, if you prefer) [19:56] that's certainly one of the options, yeah [19:56] ok... so was there anything else? [19:56] yeah, the slacker mark for vapier [19:56] :-/ [19:56] heh [19:57] nothing i can think of [19:57] ok [19:57] anything else on the agenda? [19:57] i can update the project page [19:57] who's going to do the summary? [19:57] Flameeyes: please do [19:57] wolf31o2|mobile: can you do the summary? [19:57] in which case i shall move myself down the road and reappear in a few minutes [19:57] wolf31o2|mobile: you had some good summaries in between already :-) [19:57] hrm [19:57] meeting today huh [19:57] that's what i get for getting up late [19:57] vapier: hehehe [19:57] Kugelfang: I can try... I'll need to log it [19:58] now that vapier is here [19:58] so no slacker mark for vapier? [19:58] what about open discussion [19:58] or whatever [19:58] can we decide quickly on times for the meeting? [19:58] yes please [19:58] --> eroyf|out has joined this channel (n=eroyf@gentoo/developer/eroyf). [19:58] vapier: YOU ARE LATE! [19:58] *** spb is now known as peer. [19:58] well... my availability is pretty simple... 10am-6pm UTC -5 [19:59] mon-fri [19:59] while 1900UTC does work presently for me, I'd prefer it 2-3 hours later [19:59] wolf31o2|mobile, could you state as UTC for the moment please? [19:59] yeah, please only UTC times [19:59] that's 15-23 utc [19:59] umm... 1500-2300 [19:59] heh... the -5 made it kinda easy [19:59] that works for me too [19:59] for me too [20:00] pretty much any time as long as it's not sundays [20:00] i'd like to keep the thursday [20:00] my availability is reliably 2000-0300UTC weekdays, and mixed on weekends [20:00] 15-23 for me too [20:00] so, thursdays at 2000UTC ? [20:00] ok... so thursday... maybe at 2000? [20:00] heh [20:00] 2100UTC would probably be the latest for me - unless I'm planning to be late for work once a month :) [20:00] 2000 wfm [20:00] 2000 Thursdays yes [20:00] 2000 utc, second thursday then? [20:00] 2000UTC wfm2 [20:00] yes [20:00] vapier: how about you? [20:01] whatever [20:01] i dislike sleep [20:01] <-- inc_ has left this channel. [20:01] (now that you're awake) [20:01] ok [20:01] heh [20:01] vapier: care to change your little script? [20:01] * g2boojum notes that DST ends fairly soon; does that affect anybody's times? [20:01] was not aware that devmanual wasnt on gentoo hardware [20:01] g2boojum: not mine... I took it into account [20:01] g2boojum, that's why 1900UTC isn't ideal for me presently ;-) [20:02] vapier: devmanual (the page) is... devmanual's repo isn't [20:02] ah [20:02] so I guess that's it? [20:02] open floor? [20:02] yup [20:02] sure [20:02] *** wolf31o2|mobile sets the channel mode to 'unmoderated'. [20:02] nod [20:02] so, outside of DST, 2000UTC is the same as 1900ZUTC in DST, right? [20:02] i dont think anyone commented on my "review" clause [20:02] we're talking just GLEPs right [20:02] but thursday's a school night! :o [20:03] vapier: when the meeting is over, email the alias with your contact details [20:03] Kugelfang: 2000utc is always the same [20:03] Hey! I can talk again? [20:03] I got a little thing I would like the council to have a look at [20:03] wolf31o2|mobile: :-) [20:03] vapier: they've missed you! :o [20:03] welp[lap]: poke? [20:03] what contact details [20:03] nox-Hand: unforunatly, yes you can [20:03] brb... boss [20:03] welp[lap]: lol [20:03] vapier, phone number, mostly [20:03] Interesting meeting. Very.....diplomatic [20:04] vapier, real world ones, so we can phone you next time you're late [20:04] `jwhois wh0rd.org` [20:04] GurliGebis_: state your question please [20:04] is it possible to get you to have a look at the bug about the wildcard ssl cert, and come to a conclusion? ( https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117837 ) [20:04] it's holding back the new bugday site [20:05] *** GurliGebis_ is now known as GurliGebis. [20:05] shouldn't that be a question for foundation? [20:05] GurliGebis_: i thought we were waiting for the trustees on that one? [20:05] could we consider StartCom for certs instead? [20:05] they'd be free for the Class 1 CA [20:05] Night folks, and thanks for an interesting meeting :P [20:05] and have better inclusion than CACert [20:05] we leave funding as a foundation exercise ? [20:05] christel, the bug has been standing still for a while [20:06] <-- nox-Hand has left this server ("leaving"). [20:06] maybe they have forgot it [20:06] funding is a foundation issue [20:06] their Class 2 CA is not free, but still very cheap [20:06] GurliGebis: i know :/ [20:06] <-- nephros has left this channel ("A trap door opens under you!"). [20:06] but I thought some company donated a wildcard cert a while back? [20:06] GurliGebis, you just got a new foundation, try talking to them [20:06] then there isnt much for the council to say other than "the trustees should be notified" [20:07] okay, I'll try and contact them [20:07] wasn't sure who to ask about it ;) [20:07] there is a nfp list [20:07] please use that rather than e-mailing the trustees alias [20:07] nfp list? [20:07] We're waiting on -infra, incidentally, because a wildcard cert was donated. [20:08] GurliGebis: gentoo-nfp (not for profit) [20:08] If -infra would rather we just buy one, I'm okay w/ that. [20:08] g2boojum: that's my understanding as well [20:09] hmm, waiting on -infra :( [20:09] should I poke them? [20:09] seems to be the common theme [20:09] yes, infra needs much poking before something happens [20:09] GurliGebis: Go right ahead. [20:09] :) [20:10] <-- beu has left this server ("brb"). [20:10] not like we don't have the cash :0 [20:10] wihch reminds me...we have a few grand in SoC money coming [20:11] cash could have been squandered away since the last report :) [20:11] vapier: you may poke us, but we are working on things [20:11] --> beu has joined this channel (i=beu@freenode/developer/gentoo.developer.beu). [20:11] okay leaving a part the certificate issue [20:11] robbat2: you hiring? :) [20:11] where's my image gallery :p [20:11] [that's now infra/foundation matter] [20:11] any other question for the council? [20:12]