20:00 < dberkholz@> ok, let's get started
20:00 < dberkholz@> who's here?
20:01  *   musikc does a bigger wave
20:01  *   fmccor waves
20:01  *  edit_21 hides behind musikc 
20:01  *   musikc ducks so everyone sees edit_21 
20:01 -!- Irssi: #gentoo-council: Total of 66 nicks [6 ops, 0 halfops, 2 voices, 58 normal]
20:01  *  edit_21 swan dives
20:01 < dberkholz@> flameeyes isn't in the channel
20:01 <    musikc > into a wall
20:01  *   musikc snickers at edit_21 
20:02 < dberkholz@> lu_zero mentioned late last night that he's traveling today again
20:02 <   edit_21 > :/
20:02 <    musikc > blah
20:02 <    musikc > dberkholz, can you speak for those on council who may not be present?
20:02 < dberkholz@> amne just talked, so he's here
20:02 < dberkholz@> Betelgeuse, vapier, SpanKY, jokey: here?
20:03 < dberkholz@> i can only speak for them insomuch as i can tell you what they've already said
20:03 <    musikc > fmccor is that satisfactory for you or should we just reschedule?
20:04 < dberkholz@> we need at least 4 council members here, or we can't do this.
20:04 <    musikc > well i mean we should give them 5-10 mins but if no show, should we reschedule
20:04 <      amne@> agenda looks good to me and as noted by dberkholz i'm around
20:04 <    fmccor > musikc, dberkholz depends on what is to come out of this.
20:04  *   musikc pokes amne, Betelgeuse, jokey, SpanKY, and vapier 
20:04 <   antarus > this was supposed to be a meeting about process was it not?
20:04 <   antarus > maybe if I had read the agenda.. ;)
20:04 <    fmccor > as dberkholz said, can't vote without 4 present.
20:05 < dberkholz@> well, technically 2 of us could make a decision that can be overturned by a full vote, but that kinda sucks
20:05 <    musikc > can someone toss me the agenda link?
20:05 < dberkholz@> 19:32 < dberkholz@> here's a reminder of the agenda pushed forward from last  week: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080515-summary.txt
20:06 -!- dberkholz changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Meeting now, pending council member attendance || Agenda: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080515-summary.txt
20:07 <    fmccor > dberkholz, Since this might effect spb, rbrown , or Philantrop , if they are around perhaps they might indicate how they'd like to proceed if there are only 2 Council members present?
20:07 <    musikc > fmccor, this is not a vote on their appeal
20:08 <    fmccor > musikc, No, but it is a discussion of process
20:08 <    musikc > and dberkholz already said we cant have this unless there are 4 or more members
20:08 <   antarus > indeed, this is wrapping their in a bunch of beauracratic crap! :P
20:08 <    musikc > fmccor, only a vote on council process, not what happened to them
20:08 <   antarus > +appeal somewhere in there
20:09 <    musikc > dberkholz, did flameeyes or lu_zero appoint proxies?
20:09 < dberkholz@> not to my knowledge
20:09  *   musikc almost typed pixies  hehe
20:10 < dberkholz@> i intend to end the meeting and send a public censure to the council people who didn't show up, if there aren't at least 4 of us by :15
20:10 <    musikc > well it looks like only one council member showed up :(
20:10 < dberkholz@> amne's here
20:10 <    fmccor > amne is around
20:10 <      tove > GLEP39 says: "If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one year' is then reset from that point."
20:10 <    fmccor > Er, like dberkholz said. :)
20:10 <    musikc > amne is very quiet for being around
20:11  * dberkhol  grins -- nice, tove
20:11 <    fmccor > <amne> agenda looks good to me and as noted by dberkholz i'm around at 20:04
20:11 <   edit_21 > hes about
20:11  *  antarus laughs
20:11 <    musikc > tove, ouch. not sure if that counts for impromptu meetings. donnie?
20:11  *  antarus goes to infra to get an election ready
20:11 <    fmccor > Well, it is a meeting which was previously scheduled. :)
20:12 <      amne@> i just didn't say much as i was primarily waiting for the other punks to show up
20:12  *   musikc hugs amne 
20:12 <    musikc > you ARE here :)
20:12 <   antarus > I love how the glep says must instead of may
20:12 <   antarus > ;P
20:12 <      amne@> surely
20:12 <      amne@> i'm not always late for meetings just because i was last time
20:12 <    fmccor > Not enough Council members here to interpret tove's point.  Interesting little problem. :)
20:13 <   antarus > you don't need a council to hold an election
20:13 <   antarus > technically
20:13 <    musikc > antarus, not sure when that glep was made it if had considered non-standard meetings
20:13 <     eroyf > 'any meeting'
20:13 <     eroyf > means.. any meeting.
20:13 < dberkholz@> i don't think there's much interpretation to do, unless you think we did such a poor job of announcing it that it doesn't count.
20:14 <   antarus > If you take its intention to 'boot out a slacker council' than I think it would not count in this case
20:14 <    fmccor > The GLEP says any meeting, and requires at least one per month.
20:14 < dberkholz@> which would imply that most council members don't actually read the meeting summary
20:14 <    musikc > its an interesting scenario for sure
20:14 <    fmccor > If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members,  [to quote]
20:14 <    Fieldy > certainly annoying. ah well next week i guess (grumble)
20:14 <    musikc > dberkholz, that's like RTFM, we dont do that around here *snciker*
20:15 <    musikc > or spell check evidently ;)
20:15 <      amne@> gah
20:15 <    musikc > omg it would so suck to have to do elections again
20:15  *  antarus quickly edits the glep to say may
20:15 <   antarus > problem solved!
20:15 <    fmccor > Sort of suck just to ignore policy, too. :)
20:16 < dberkholz@> for what it's worth, i've briefly written up my positions here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080515-pov.txt
20:16 <    musikc > fmccor, again i think there may be some debate as to the intention
20:16 <     ferdy > musikc: well... it sucks to have a council that wouldn't show up to a meeting :)
20:17 <    musikc > ferdy, no doubt
20:17 <     eroyf > let us debate something some former developer decided to vote for ages ago first time it might be useful.
20:17 <    fmccor > musikc, For intention, just ask g2boojum and ciaranm --- they wrote it and Gentoo hald a vote on it.
20:17 <    musikc > fmccor, i dont really think it is relevant
20:17 < dberkholz@> if you want to be a lawyer about it, we could just keep the meeting open until they show up.
20:17 <   edit_21 > out of intrest - how many are in the council ?
20:18 < dberkholz@> i'd rather not do that
20:18 <   edit_21 > 8?
20:18 <    musikc > if it leaves doubt, then it needs revision
20:18 <    fmccor > And it was last updated 4 months ago.
20:18 <    fmccor > 5
20:18 <    fmccor > (on council)
20:18  *  edit_21 nods
20:18 <   edit_21 > ta
20:18 <    musikc > fmccor, thats why we dont write on stone tablets
20:18 <Philantrop > musikc: If I may ask, what doubt might that be considering what tove quoted?
20:18 <    musikc > it allows for revisions :-P
20:18 <    fmccor > So the GLEP is current as of late January, 2008.
20:19 <     eroyf > what
20:19 < dberkholz@> my view is that this was a meeting, doesn't matter if it was the regular one because it was scheduled in advance, and the only possibility i'm considering is that it wasn't well-enough announced because the council members might not be expected to read summaries of a meeting they attended
20:19 <     eroyf > you are going to change a rule when someone is about to be hit by the rule?
20:19 <   antarus > This was updated by the glep editor
20:19 <   antarus > (aka me)
20:19 <    musikc > Philantrop, i question whether others will interpret to mean standard monthly meetings. personally im a bit irritated that more council didnt show up, but im not allowing my personal feeling to dictate how others may interpret
20:20 <      amne@> dberkholz: i second your POV on the meeting issue
20:20 <    fmccor > If there is some reason not to, I think it has to be interpreted to mean what it says.
20:20 <      zlin > edit_21: 7
20:20 <   antarus > Philantrop: I don't doubt the wording; I doubt the intention of the clause
20:20 <     ferdy > dberkholz: said GLEP doesn't state what the requirements for a meeting are
20:21 <  blackace > dberkholz: was the scheduling of this meeting voted on by the attendees in the last meeting?
20:21 <      amne@> dberkholz: as one of the council members who vanished during the end of the meeting the least you should expect from a council member is to read the backlog or summary
20:21 < dberkholz@> ferdy: that means i could declare a meeting in a text file on my computer and reelect the council if they don't show up
20:21 <    fmccor > This was announced a week ago as a single subject meeting.
20:21 <     ferdy > dberkholz: common sense states otherwise
20:21 <     eroyf > lol.
20:21 <    musikc > ferdy, there is sadly fault in your logic... sense isnt common ;-)
20:22 <     ferdy > musikc: you mean common sense isn't as common as one would like? :)
20:22 <    musikc > ferdy++
20:22 <  arkanoid > dberkholz: the date was discussed at the last meeting as well, so council members should either have read their backlogs or the summary
20:23 <    fmccor > ferdy, This one was openly announced and is again mentioned in the summary.
20:23 < dberkholz@> i'm going to send a email to the -council and -project lists right now about the lack of people, and we'll go from there