[15:59] get things rolling ? or we want to wait until exactly 2000UTC [15:59] heh. odd. I just /msg taco asking him what time the meeting way [15:59] was [16:00] I'm here [16:00] --> UberLord (n=uberlord@gentoo/developer/UberLord) has joined #gentoo-council [16:00] --- ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-council +o UberLord] [16:00] I'm semi-here [16:00] I'm semi here - only just got home [16:00] anyone feel like chairing it ? if not i can do it up doggy style [16:01] I think you just volunteered [16:01] err, that wasnt meant to be [16:01] vapier: tell sejo to sod of till after the meeting [16:01] vapier: you can't be humped right now [16:01] fine, roll call [16:01] i need a kloeri and a robbat2 [16:02] hi [16:02] kloeri: wake up [16:02] we can start with http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/47673 [16:02] --- vapier sets modes [#gentoo-council +m] [16:02] - documentation for mail servers still pending i believe (SPF / reply-to) [16:03] king of tacos wanted to commit it [16:03] kingtaco|work: right? [16:03] wolf31o2 / KingTaco / robbat2: ? [16:03] i think the docs on those are done, just not commited yet [16:03] --> YosWinK (n=yoswink@gentoo/developer/yoswink) has joined #gentoo-council [16:03] vapier: someone from infra was to commit it... if it hasn't been done, I can take the lead on doing the commit... since /proj is free game to everyone anyway [16:04] do it! [16:04] :-) [16:04] yeah, do it [16:05] people keep saying their done [16:05] proooove it and post em [16:05] i'm not sure who's got the latest revisions of them, so just grab those and commit :-) [16:05] if they arent up by next meeting, you guys die [16:05] no that isnt a joke [16:05] --> frangor (n=frangor@unaffiliated/frangor) has joined #gentoo-council [16:05] next topic [16:05] robbat2: well, I did reply-to, so I know I have the latest there, and kloeri has latest spf [16:05] vapier: the can still appeal before execution [16:05] - sync Social Contract with Gentoo Foundation statement (external entities) [16:06] anyone against that ? need that be moved to trustees ? [16:06] what exactly did you mean by that one? [16:06] well, here's what I think... the social contract applies to what we *make* [16:06] http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/#doc_chap2 [16:06] anything regarding what we *use* should be directed to the trustees [16:06] last part "Gentoo is independent" [16:07] social contract is a promise to the people who use Gentoo [16:07] it just largely covers what we make as that is largely how people use Gentoo [16:07] that doesn't change what I said... :P [16:07] me neither ! [16:07] err, which direction are you wanting to sync things in? [16:07] foundation -> social contract [16:07] as they seem orthagonal atm [16:08] right... I guess I just see no point in duplicating those statements... though it might make more sense to have the foundation page clarified more [16:08] hi guys [16:08] the rest of the principles are duped [16:08] more or less [16:08] --> welp (n=welp@gentoo/developer/welp) has joined #gentoo-council [16:09] vapier: do you have a patch against the social contract? [16:09] i'm all for taking it in, but i need to read the diff first before i make up my mind [16:09] copy and paste the part from the foundation [16:09] wrap it in

[16:09] profit [16:10] s/Gentoo Foundation/Gentoo/ [16:10] by all means, do it [16:10] kloeri, you had the SPF document somewhere? commit it please? [16:10] robbat2: I'll get it... it needs to be guidexml'd [16:10] anyone else have an opinion ? [16:10] yeah, I think it is pointless to duplicate it [16:10] yeah, http://dev.gentoo.org/~kloeri/spf.txt [16:10] I'd much prefer see the trustees qualify those statements more [16:10] wolf31o2: you dont fall into the "else" category [16:11] heh [16:11] wolf31o2: sure, we can do that first [16:11] i'd insert like "outside" before "organization" [16:11] and fix the spelling so it reads "organization" [16:12] vapier, I agree in concept, but i'd like to see the diff first [16:12] * UberLord agrees with robbat2 [16:12] --> diox (n=diox@gentoo/developer/diox) has joined #gentoo-council [16:12] you guys really cant use your imagination huh [16:13] * UberLord has none :( [16:13] the content is unchanged, the diff would only show formatting [16:13] i gotta split for a few minutes [16:13] we can simply slack and ask the trustees to tweak it a bit [16:13] then chat more next time [16:14] just bounce it in the -council mailing list after you hear from them? [16:14] no, -dev [16:14] just like all the other stuff we vote on [16:14] i say we make wolf31o2 do it [16:14] if somebody wants to give input then i'd like to hear it [16:14] vapier, could we let him put out the 2007 release first? [16:14] it doesn't really belong on either, since the social contract is really something that pre-dates the foundation and should be completely superseded by the foundation now [16:15] robbat2: heh... that's what I'm working on right now... which is why I said I am only "semi-here" [16:16] then let the trustees do their thing and we'll talk about syncing once they have [16:16] that work for everyone ? [16:16] yup [16:16] sure [16:16] yup [16:16] wfm [16:16] yes [16:16] <-- JaysonB has quit (Client Quit) [16:17] wolf31o2: it's on your head then kthx [16:17] up next, CoC [16:17] --- vapier sets modes [#gentoo-council +vv christel amne] [16:17] CoC is building up proctors [16:17] --- kingtaco|work sets modes [#gentoo-council -v christel] [16:17] pwnt [16:18] she removed herself [16:18] i missed that [16:18] quick CoC suggestion... we discuss changes here, then write them up and send them to -dev for discussion... as far as changes to the actual document [16:18] amne is heading it up now then ? [16:18] yes [16:18] --> Blacksito (i=koko@unaffiliated/blacksito) has joined #gentoo-council [16:19] he is building up proctors in different timezones, seemed to be a bit heavy on #gentoo people at first, but that's subsided [16:19] they've done nothing other than that [16:19] what else is there for them to do now other than recruit their foot soldiers [16:19] not much else [16:20] so the notes i posted were based on e-mails no one responded to in the big CoC thread [16:20] mainly kevinquinn and g2boojum [16:20] not sure what you're refering to [16:20] - add a "mission" statement [16:20] - fix wording to have a positive spin [16:20] I think most of us stopped reading that after the trolls invaded [16:20] i dont have the gmane links atm to the specific e-mails [16:20] on the infra end, they've got the first tool they need to block stuff that they need to, the second one is taking longer than I thought due to upstream bits with mlmmj, but i'm working on it still [16:21] good [16:21] vapier, can you send that to proctors@ so they can work on it? [16:21] what's the second tool supposed to do? [16:21] i thought the "positive spin" comment was meant against the initial version, before we revised it? [16:21] robbat2: i dont feel like any of our revisions addressed that [16:21] --> beu (n=beu@foreignvoid.co.uk) has joined #gentoo-council [16:21] it's still an angry document [16:22] Kugelfang, see the original implementation plan - the second tool will provide proper consensus support for proctors [16:22] i see [16:22] i'm not sure we want to redraft it, just have the proctors do it and bring it back [16:23] you want it to look more like the ubuntu stuff? [16:23] not everything needs to have sugar on-top [16:23] i'd prefer we were one big amoeba [16:23] na... i don't want to share one cell with you! [16:24] but until then, i feel that the way ubuntu's is written and the way ours is written are different polls [16:24] i can live with middle ground [16:25] Kugelfang, keep your puesdopods to yourself? [16:25] puesdopods? [16:25] ah, pseudopods! [16:25] gotcha [16:25] anywho [16:26] any opinions ? [16:26] amne: any input from your side? [16:26] nope. - after the PMS stuff, I've got one other quick question for council before the open floor [16:26] I think it's worded fine, but I don't care one way or the other' [16:27] you're an angry man, this i know [16:27] <-- frangor (n=frangor@unaffiliated/frangor) has left #gentoo-council [16:27] haha [16:27] --> Fieldy (i=S55UT4Nw@gentoo/contributor/Fieldy) has joined #gentoo-council [16:28] amne: you awake ? or you just mostly for show ? [16:28] vapier: well, this is to vague... as with the social contract, show me a diff and i say something [16:28] Kugelfang: I think the point is to assign making the diff to someone [16:28] ahh [16:28] arn't we off that topic? [16:29] kingtaco|laptop: the CoC updates, we mean [16:29] and if nobody else steps up... I can do it... not like I have anything else to do [16:29] you can work with amne on it [16:29] wolf31o2|mobile: let amne handle it... i don't think council should be any more involved than saying yay or nay to it [16:29] and by work with amne i mean have amne do it but tell us you helped [16:29] Kugelfang: sure [16:30] vapier: sounds like a plan [16:30] anyone else ? UberLord / kloeri / robbat2 ? [16:30] where is kloeri? [16:30] no problems with that [16:30] is he a slacker? [16:30] no [16:30] [16:07] hi guys [16:30] ok [16:30] he pasted the spf link too [16:30] 20 minutes back [16:31] okok [16:31] robbat2: keep kingtaco|work's lack of short-time memory in mind [16:31] :-P [16:31] they can chime in later but i'm pretty sure they'll be ok with that [16:31] moving on to hopefully a quickie [16:31] - splitting gentoo-dev mailing lists ? [16:31] I think it's a stupid idea [16:31] -dev-announce and -dev? [16:31] i think people were generally against this [16:31] dont post crap to -dev is the answer ? [16:31] it comes up everytime we have a flamewar [16:32] I think we should clean up the current lists instead [16:32] when the proctors work we don't need the split [16:32] it puts more load on infra boxes and doesn't solve anything [16:32] yeah, don't post crap to -dev. [16:32] seems like splitting the lists just moves the problem around [16:32] vapier: agreed [16:32] and when the problem surfaces elsewhere, people will split that [16:32] if anything, I'd like to see lists removed [16:32] consolidated with other lists [16:32] back [16:33] we have a plethora of lists that are meaningless [16:33] hmm i think the lists of lists is outdated [16:33] yeah, I was looking at list stuff the other day, there's at least a dozen lists we should declare closed [16:33] ive had some of the embedded ones killed off and consolidated [16:33] because nobody has used them for more than a year [16:33] --> Uber (n=uberlord@gentoo/developer/UberLord) has joined #gentoo-council [16:33] --- ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-council +o Uber] [16:33] i'll take point on that if you want [16:33] robbat2: can you compile said list and post to dev ? [16:34] yeah, will do [16:34] Uber: flakey connection? [16:34] <-- UberLord (n=uberlord@gentoo/developer/UberLord) has left #gentoo-council [16:34] i think he has multiple computers [16:34] multiple locations - am now at home [16:34] sorry, my internet connection dropped out - been on and off all evening [16:35] "I think some people are arguing that splitting gentoo-dev and *requiring* devs to follow a list with only announcements, would reduce the stress to devs" [16:35] yeah / neah ? [16:35] nay [16:35] nay [16:35] a lot don't follow -dev already [16:36] I think it would... but I'd say nay for now... let's see what the proctors do for the situation before enacting any further measures [16:36] so it's a pointless request [16:36] wolf31o2|mobile: agreed with the later [16:36] who here didn't mark at least some part of the flamewars threads as read without reading the entire thing? [16:36] sounds like a plan man [16:36] * wolf31o2|mobile didn't [16:36] kmail has an option to mark a thread as read automatically [16:36] robbat2: i can claim i read it all [16:36] though I probably should have [16:36] I mark a thread as spam as soon as ciaranm has more than 3 posts in it [16:37] usually a safe bet [16:37] i can claim that I bined most of them. Probably not the best thing but they waste my time. [16:37] Kugelfang, wolf31o2|mobile: and how many hours of your life would you like back? [16:37] any other input or shall we close out here ? [16:37] robbat2: several [16:37] nothing more for this topic I think [16:37] I'm happy to see what the proctors and CoC can do to help clean the lists up for now [16:37] moving on [16:37] PMS next, then my short item (surveys) [16:38] excellent [16:38] --- vapier sets modes [#gentoo-council +v spb] [16:38] --- Kugelfang sets modes [#gentoo-council +v spb] [16:38] - PMS: [16:38] - status update from spb [16:38] - moving it to Gentoo svn [16:38] - schedule for getting remaining issues settled [16:38] darn [16:38] spb: are you here? [16:38] yes [16:38] --> Betelgeuse (n=betelgeu@gentoo/developer/Betelgeuse) has joined #gentoo-council [16:39] you're in the spotlight bub [16:40] status: you presumably saw my latest -dev mail [16:40] plus http://tinyurl.com/2z58xn [16:40] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/47944 [16:40] yes, that one [16:40] i count 15 open bugs of 50 [16:40] nice work [16:41] i dont think the buglist covers all the TODO's that are in the src ? [16:41] i havent checked recently [16:41] ahn, and i think some of those bugs are already fixed in SVN [16:41] vapier: i think ciaranm made sure they are in sync some days ago... [16:41] vapier: probably not; there's at least one TODO that says "write dohtml" [16:41] or was [16:42] now that we have proper bugzilla tracking, no more TODO's in the src [16:42] at least none w/out a bug # [16:42] but the general idea is to resolve the current round of bug reports and TODOs, then repeat the process until new ones stop appearing [16:42] sure [16:42] KingTaco: ? [16:42] vapier, ? [16:43] just making sure you're happy with current status [16:43] dont want any blue balls [16:43] it's following the timelines we decided last month, I don't have any complaints on that [16:44] k, so getting it moved to gentoo infra [16:44] robbat2 has a plan for it [16:44] robbat2: ? [16:44] will happen once gentoo infra can offer what the project needs [16:44] that allows both solar and ciaran do contribute to it [16:44] I didn't heard a solid yes on spb from that when we discussed it in -infra [16:44] frankly i dont think external entities should hold up any move [16:45] agreed [16:45] vapier: but moves shouldn't be rushed either [16:45] the plan there was since infra won't allow outside people to commit to SVN, was everybody happy if they could commit to GIT instead [16:45] (and yes, that includes ciaranm) [16:45] via proxy which git allows trivially, sure [16:45] if git can work with the central repository model without introducing extra overhead [16:45] vapier: plan was: people commit to git, spb pulls from git and commits to svn [16:46] that sounds like a pita to me [16:46] no [16:46] that wasn [16:46] 't it [16:46] robbat2: mail? [16:46] robbat2: i'm sorry [16:46] it was that it was moving to git directly, and those that spb wanted, could direct-commit for the moment, but that there would be a reviewed branch that only spb could commit to [16:46] i see [16:47] where are we moving the EAPI project here ? sub project of portage ? [16:47] vapier: QA [16:47] vapier: it is already a QA subproject [16:47] because spb wasn't compromising on wanting ciaranm to have direct-commit to it at the moment [16:47] well no external entities should have direct access to gentoo infra [16:48] that's why you become a developer [16:48] vapier: not true [16:48] vapier: see overlays [16:48] true [16:48] vapier: it's the very same process [16:48] it depends how you define direct access [16:48] people commit, but it needs to be reviewed [16:48] but i consider this a little more important than overlays [16:48] which spb does [16:48] k [16:49] infra won't give any access to non-devs that needs SSH keys. [16:49] put a timeframe on it to be done by next meeting then ? [16:49] and if you look at the sort of changes that have been going in, it's easy for me to look over them and say "yes, ok" [16:49] it would however be a complete pita to proxy each commit [16:49] spb: you don't have to proxy each one with git [16:49] depends on the scm [16:49] you can just do: 'git pull foo-from-ciaranm && git push ...' [16:49] done [16:50] if git lets him commit to one branch and have me pull all updates since i last did in one command then that works for me [16:50] where foo-from-ciaranm is the tree of all his changes [16:50] i think here we just need to agree on a time frame [16:50] you guys can hash it out in -infra [16:50] ok, then that's solved without any extra access :-) [16:50] this also relies upon him being able and willing to use git [16:50] since the merging is easier than you thought [16:51] --> ferringb (n=bharring@c-67-171-130-60.hsd1.or.comcast.net) has joined #gentoo-council [16:52] eh eh eh ? [16:52] get the infra stuff resolved by next meeting ? [16:52] i'm willing to try it, but there are other parties than me involved [16:52] yeah, i'll have a git tree for people to suck down before the weekend is over [16:52] thats the other parties problem [16:52] not ours [16:52] it's not just him that gets a say [16:52] it's our devs [16:53] * Uber nods [16:53] 'our devs' has to include the people actually working on pms [16:53] no it doesnt [16:53] because i'm not going to move if it means losing those contributions [16:53] basically [16:54] well either it gets moved voluntarily or not so much voluntarily [16:54] you guys can hash it out in #-infra and post notes to the council alias as "significant" issues arise [16:55] council ML, not the alias [16:55] err yes, sorry [16:55] nod [16:55] anything more on PMS? [16:55] do we want to talk about a timeframe for EAPI-0 ? [16:56] or let the current round of feedback go through and assume that it'll work itself out in the next month [16:56] I think it's best to let the devs figure it out [16:56] it is [16:56] k [16:57] agreed [16:57] agreed [16:57] robbat2: can you write some lines for me on your implementation plan? [16:57] yeah, let it work itself out in the next month [16:57] robbat2: per mail or /msg? [16:57] Kugelfang, I will later, I have to go out after this meeting [16:57] robbat2: re PMS on gentoo infra that is [16:57] robbat2: sure, sure! [16:57] ok, the one last item I had, just as a quick show of hands from council [16:58] sure [16:58] i think the last checklist items i have will get knocked out quickly [16:58] AFTER the 2007.0 release is out, I feel we should redo the original user survey [16:58] that lead to the releases being bi-annual [16:58] I vote yes [16:58] to see what users consider of the various directions of Gentoo [16:58] how were the previous ones handled ? [16:58] i didnt know we had a survey until it was completed [16:59] we've only done one before [16:59] but yes, a new survey posted to frontpage and such sounds good [16:59] robbat2: that survey had nothing to do with the releases being bi-annual, by the way [16:59] wolf31o2|mobile, oh, the way it read there was overwelming support for bi-annual releases [16:59] agreed... I wouldn't mind seeing a new survey done... and hopefully, done on a regular basis [17:00] we should do a survey after each release ;P [17:00] robbat2: sure it does... but it was after we'd already switched... heh [17:00] bi annual surveys [17:00] slashdot poll style [17:00] and on a second part of surveying, could we add a specific developer survey, to help identify the demographics and activity level of developers? [17:01] sounds good [17:01] i'm willing to take on both of these items [17:01] could make that part of the recruitment process [17:01] and leave it open all the time ... [17:01] vapier: no, just annually, closer to a census [17:01] so you have "up-to-date" numbers all the time ... [17:01] pfft [17:01] Kugelfang / kloeri / Uber ? [17:02] * Uber votes yes [17:02] moment [17:02] http://staff.osuosl.org/~cshields/gentoosurvey/#doc_chap8 [17:02] annual: yes [17:03] s/annual/doing surveys/ :p [17:03] robbat2: i think that shows we like the idea of surveys [17:03] cshields' previous one would prob be a good starting point, but we'll leave that to you [17:03] do it under the pr project ? [17:03] userrel ? [17:03] yeah, i'll look at them for after the 2007.0 release is completed, since I want releng's help on some of the user questions [17:04] PR probably [17:04] just wanting the surveys on gentoo.org/ rather than random dev space [17:04] a few quickies i think [17:04] yeah, definetly. we previously used survey.gentoo.org [17:05] nattfodd: limiting ourselves [17:05] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/47683 [17:05] i think the response seemed to be "if you dont like actions, then let us know on -dev and/or vote the bums out" [17:06] i agree there, if we overstep our bounds, more than just the usual vocal minority will complain [17:06] i'm big on g2boojum in general and his opinion was that the original structure was designed this way on purpose [17:06] so i'm happy to defer to him [17:07] <-- pioto has quit (Client Quit) [17:07] I'd agree [17:07] anyone else ? KingTaco kloeri Kugelfang Uber ? [17:07] we are elected for one year. the next council can revert anything we do [17:07] true [17:07] i don't see a problem there [17:07] --> |mpagano| (n=mpagano@pool-70-105-167-17.nwrknj.fios.verizon.net) has joined #gentoo-council [17:07] i'm fine [17:07] this still about surveys? [17:08] yes [17:08] heh [17:08] I still vote yes [17:08] KingTaco: limiting council's power [17:08] eh? [17:08] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/47683 [17:08] limiting to what or how [17:08] I agree... about the only thing I would see would be adding a provision allowing for reopening nominations/voting if >=50% of the entire developer pool votes to do so... since that would mean we majorly screwed the pooch [17:08] oh, I think that's stilly [17:08] *silly [17:09] k [17:09] you don't like it, don't vote for those people next time [17:09] wolf31o2: you mean a vote of no confidence ? [17:10] vapier: right... just currently there's nothing in place for such a thing to occur... I tend to agree with taco that it should just wait for the next elections... but a compromise could be to add that specific wording to allow a >=50% vote [17:10] and this wouldn't be on a specific issue [17:10] we dont have any real way of measuring that [17:10] I mean on the whole council... just like a vote of no confidence [17:10] we know how many devs we have [17:10] right [17:11]