20:00 < Halcy0n@> Alright, so roll-call...who is here? 20:01 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v Cardoe] by Halcy0n 20:01 <- 20:02 * Calchan is proxying for Betelgeuse 20:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v Calchan] by Halcy0n 20:02 < Halcy0n@> Yup, saw the email earlier as well. Thanks 20:02 here 20:03 < Halcy0n@> jokey or cardoe? 20:04 < Cardoe+> sorry 20:04 < Cardoe+> Halcy0n: technically I'm not on the roll call yet since Diego resigned so I'm not officially taking his position 20:05 < Cardoe+> Halcy0n: and you guys have to vote for the next person on the ballot to take his place 20:05 < Halcy0n@> Cardoe: true, but its good you are here anyhow since that's the first discussion point. 20:05 i tried to call jokey on his cellÃphone, no success :/ 20:05 < Halcy0n@> Well, is everyone that is here ready to start then? jokey and lu_zero seem to be MIA. 20:07 -!- Halcy0n changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting: 2000 UTC Sept. 11 - Agenda: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_619e8ac19efadb77a5c24add7a7b529b.xml - #1 Filling the empty slot 20:07 < Cardoe+> oo Halcy0n has the shiny gavel today 20:07 < Halcy0n@> Cardoe: well, since it looks like dberkholz|bb is on his blackberry, I figured it would be easier if I took the lead :P 20:09 < Halcy0n@> So, last time the council voted in the next person in line when a council member retired. Is everyone that is present ready to vote on whether or not to follow what was done last time? This would mean Cardoe would become our 7th council member in Diego's place. 20:09 we only need 4 to vote 20:10 < Cardoe+> as a reference point, http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel.announce/243 are the results from the election officials 20:10 I'm ready 20:10 <- ready to vote 20:10 < Calchan+> ready too 20:11 mark? 20:11 < Halcy0n@> Yup. It has a yes from me. 20:11 Same here -- yes 20:11 < Calchan+> yes from me too 20:11 yes here, too 20:12 < Halcy0n@> Congrats Cardoe :) 20:12 cardoe: welcome to the caba... er, council! 20:12 < Cardoe+> heh thank you 20:12 < Calchan+> Cardoe, all other choices were worse ;o) 20:13 < Cardoe+> Calchan: hah. Sounds like a Futurama quote 20:13 remember to get the mail alias updated 20:13 < Calchan+> is this effective now ? 20:13 yep 20:13 < Calchan+> ok 20:13 -!- Halcy0n changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting: 2000 UTC Sept. 11 - Agenda: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_619e8ac19efadb77a5c24add7a7b529b.xml - #2 PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0 20:14 since we got conflict resolution figured out, I haven't heard any other blockers 20:15 < Halcy0n@> I haven't seen any issues raise, so I'm assuming the PM developers are fine with it. 20:15 < Calchan+> dberkholz|bb, do we have gentoo dev in charge ? 20:16 does it matter, if we have a way to resolve conflicts with portage, and the council has to approve it? 20:16 < Cardoe+> Calchan: not exactly. It's technically a sub-project of QA, which is Halcy0n's dept. 20:16 < Cardoe+> Calchan: however, it's something that's being driven by the developers of the Package Managers with a conflict resolution policy in place 20:17 < Cardoe+> which is they try to work it out among themselves, there are 3 after all so that's a pretty easy way to get a majority vote 20:17 < Calchan+> I haven't seen the mail on the conflict resolution thing 20:17 < Cardoe+> and if it doesn't work, it gets kicked up to the council 20:17 < ciaranm > a majority isn't enough. we're not microsoft... 20:18 < Calchan+> who are the 3 ? 20:18 < Cardoe+> Calchan: Portage, Paludis, and pkgcore 20:18 < ciaranm > zac for portage, ferringb for pkgcore, about ten of us for paludis 20:18 < Calchan+> oh, I thought you were talking about persons 20:19 < Calchan+> and who's doing the conflict resolution ? (anybody got a pointer to the mail ?) 20:20 < ciaranm > Calchan: the pms editors, if possible, and the council if we can't get everyone to agree 20:20 < Calchan+> ciaranm, thanks, and who are the pms editors ? 20:20 < Halcy0n@> This still seems like somewhat of a undocumented process to me. I'd really like there to be some structure to something as important as this. 20:20 < musikc > so PMS is maintained by zmedico, ferringb, and ciaranm? i thought it was just ciaranm and spb? 20:20 < Calchan+> Halcy0n, this is where I was getting at 20:20 < ciaranm > Calchan: me and spb are editors at the moment 20:20 < Calchan+> musikc, this was my impression too 20:20 < Cardoe+> Halcy0n: I was going to suggest a patch to the pms.xml 20:21 < musikc > ciaranm, shouldnt all of you be editors? 20:21 < ciaranm > musikc: anyone who sends lots of good patches can be an editor if they want 20:21 < musikc > since it's a collaboration and not led by any one PM? 20:21 < antarus > musikc: no one else has asked... 20:21 < spb > pms is just like any other open source project 20:21 < Calchan+> ciaranm, please define "lots of good patches" and who will decide 20:21 < spb > it's developed by those who develop it 20:21 < musikc > so zmedico and ferringb have access to edit it as well then? 20:22 antarus: Are you sure they were willing or they had reasons to expect becoming editors? 20:22 < musikc > they should have the same access to edit the doc since its a group effort 20:22 < ciaranm > Calchan: i'll define that when someone asks 20:22 < ciaranm > musikc: they can send patches, same as everyone else 20:22 < musikc > why patches? 20:22 < musikc > why cant they edit it? 20:22 < musikc > who gets to decide what goes in and what doesnt? 20:22 < ColdWind > musikc: if they haven't sent patches, why would they need access? 20:22 < ciaranm > because nothing gets committed to pms without peer review 20:22 < musikc > who gets to say what a good patch is? 20:22 < zmedico > honestly I'm perfectly happy leaving others to edit PMS. I've got other things to work on. 20:23 < Calchan+> ciaranm, you'll define ? sorry, unacceptable 20:23 < ciaranm > musikc: anyone who wants to can review patches and raise objections 20:23 < musikc > ciaranm, ok that makes sense. who are the peers? 20:23 < ciaranm > musikc: anyone who wants to do reviewing can do so 20:23 < spb > anyone who's watching the pms-bugs alias 20:23 < antarus > I should correct that 20:23 < antarus > 'anyone knowledgeable who wants to do reviewing' ;p 20:23 < spb > since any changes go there for people to complain before they're committed 20:23 < dberkholz@> ok, i'm on my laptop now 20:23 < musikc > ciaranm, so only you and spb have commit access and final say unless someone wants to escalate to council? 20:23 < ciaranm > Calchan: why? it's not an issue yet, and if it ever becomes one we can raise it to the council if necessary 20:24 < ciaranm > musikc: for now, yes, since no-one else has asked 20:24 < Calchan+> Halcy0n, we obviously need a gentoo dev in charge here, and if that's not you we need somebody to volunteer 20:24 musikc: The same discussion was held during the last meeting and that's how the escalation process got created. 20:24 < antarus > Calchan: why is it obvious? 20:24 "Obviously"? 20:24 < spb > musikc: ultimately, the council has final say since any disagreements can get escalated there 20:24 < ciaranm > Calchan: what's wrong with the current process? specific examples of where it's gone wrong please. 20:24 < musikc > Philantrop, i thought the escalation process was for any conflicts. i recall ciaranm stating what if PM's didnt follow PMS, hence the need for resolution process 20:25 < dberkholz@> it seems clear to me that as a QA subproject, Halcy0n would have the final say on who could commit to it, although if there happens to be a specific pms lead, or consensus by the existing pms team, that would also be fine 20:25 < ciaranm > musikc: you mean the resolution process being "if we can't work it out then we send it to the council", which is what's being discussed? 20:25 < Calchan+> ciaranm, if it's a gentoo project it needs a gentoo dev as lead, if it's an external project I don't know why we're discussing it 20:25 < ciaranm > Calchan: uh, since when? 20:26 < ColdWind > Calchan: what does that gentoo dev need to do? 20:26 < musikc > dberkholz, ya, it'd make sense if there was a lead or representation from all PM's 20:26 < spb > there's representation from anyone who sees bugs and writes patches 20:26 < ciaranm > *if* anyone ever has a problem that can't be resolved, they can just ask the council to discuss it. what's the problem? 20:26 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: to me, this seems to still be a hot topic that clearly isn't getting the discussion it deserves on the mailing lists. I'd recommend the council members bringing up their concerns so its all documented somewhere. 20:27 < antarus > this is all irrelevant to the actual question 20:27 < antarus > which was is PMS the draft spec for EAPI 0 20:27 < antarus > yes/no? 20:27 antarus++ 20:27 < Cardoe+> I'm actually working on a revised pms page for the QA sub-project 20:27 < antarus > I don't think 'who can commit to PMS' has anything to do with that 20:27 < musikc > Halcy0n, makes sense to me 20:27 < Calchan+> Halcy0n, makes sense to me too 20:28 < lack > antarus: 'PMS' as in a snapshot of what the repository is now, or 'PMS' as in the entire future of the repository's contents? 20:28 < antarus > you can discuss all teh beauracratic bullshit later ;p 20:28 < ciaranm > wasn't this "sent to the mailing lists" last month? 20:28 < ciaranm > why weren't objections raised then? 20:28 antarus: Last time there were 2 or 3 issues on the draft that were raised as not being accepted by all parties 20:28 < dberkholz@> that's a good question. 20:28 < musikc > ciaranm, that was 2 weeks ago, perhaps peoples obligations delayed responses? 20:28 antarus: There was also a request to present all such issues to the mls - I didn't notice any mails about them 20:28 < ciaranm > musikc: for two weeks? 20:28 < musikc > seems to spark questions again, whats the problem with suggesting it goes to the mailing list 20:29 jmbsvicetto: Which seems to imply that these issues were resolved. 20:29 < musikc > ciaranm, sure. i myself was on vacation and in the middle of a lot of project work. just one person's example. 20:29 < ciaranm > musikc: i was hoping for a decision three months ago... 20:29 < Cardoe+> musikc: You seem to have some objections. Please send them to the list. 20:29 < antarus > Philantrop: no it implies no one talked about them ;) 20:29 antarus: Actually, I know they were talked about. :-) 20:29 < antarus > if it goes back to the lists you should set a deadline 20:29 < musikc > Cardoe, not so much objections as thoughts and interest in wht other people think 20:29 < ColdWind > the same problem is going on since way before the last meeting iirc, and it never gets discussed on the ML 20:29 < musikc > antarus, that makes complete sense also 20:29 < antarus > such that issusea are actively being resolved before the deadline 20:29 < antarus > otherwise we will discuss this forever 20:30 < ColdWind > it seems you've entered a deadlock 20:30 < dberkholz@> at least having a council meeting every 2 weeks forces people to bring it up that often. 20:30 < ciaranm > every two weeks people ask the same questions that were asked four weeks ago 20:30 < antarus > so we are not ready to vote because there were issues from last meeting that were not resolved? 20:30 < antarus > you have 2 weeks to fix them 20:30 < antarus > lets move on ;p 20:30 < dberkholz@> i'm trying to put together a list of things people say are blockers 20:30 < dberkholz@> could whoever had one please say it again, directed at me? 20:31 < musikc > blockers? 20:31 < dberkholz@> we don't want to delay this without specific things that need to be resolved before approving it 20:31 < Calchan+> dberkholz, lead, doc on structure and processes 20:31 dberkholz: Please consider the topic and the iussues that were raised here today. 20:31 < dberkholz@> otherwise it goes into the nebulous nowhere 20:31 < musikc > ahhhh, agree with Calchan 20:31 < Calchan+> dberkholz, was the conflict resolution discussed on council@ ? 20:31 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: what calchan said. I'd like to see a process since it seems people aren't clear on it. 20:31 < antarus > I will volunteer as lead if you need for one some reason 20:32 * antarus shrugs 20:32 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: a process for what? 20:32 * musikc votes Halcy0n for lead :) 20:32 < musikc > HEHE 20:32 < ciaranm > antarus: i've already got a volunteer gentoo developer to be an arbitrary and pointless figurehead if anyone needs one 20:32 < antarus > ciaranm: ok :) 20:32 < Calchan+> dberkholz, I was talking about conflict resolution, I haven't seen anything 20:32 < dberkholz@> Calchan: it was agreed upon at the last meeting. first PM devs & PMS editors try to resolve, and they request council to resolve by vote if they cannot 20:32 < ciaranm > Calchan: did you see what was discussed at the last meeting? 20:32 dberkholz / Halcy0n: People should also raise any objection to the current content of the PMS draft, before it gets approved 20:33 < ciaranm > jmbsvicetto: did you see what the question was? 20:33 < Cardoe+> ciaranm: me? or someone else. Cause I volunteered a few weeks back if that would ease the approval of this. 20:33 < musikc > jmbsvicetto, good point. has that been raised by anyone yet? 20:33 < ciaranm > Cardoe: oh, you're number three then :P 20:33 < ciaranm > musikc: why is it a good point? include references to the question in your answer 20:33 ciaranm: I did. That's why I'm saying anyone with any objection has a last chance to present it before the doc gets approved - "speak now, ..." 20:33 < Calchan+> dberkholz, then who are the pms editors ? where is this documented ? 20:33 < ciaranm > jmbsvicetto: er, why is there a last chance? 20:33 < Cardoe+> Does anyone have any objections to the current content of the PMS? 20:33 < musikc > ciaranm, what was my question? i think you confised me with someone else 20:34 < ciaranm > jmbsvicetto: clearly you *didn't* read the question 20:34 < ciaranm > musikc: you agreeing with jmbsvicetto. i want to know why you're doing that. 20:34 < ciaranm > especially given how spb specifically covered it being ok to find issues with the EAPI 0 definition even after the level of approval being requested 20:35 < musikc > b/c i agree with him saying that people should raise any objections to the current content before it gets approved. sounds reasonable to me. :) 20:35 < Calchan+> Cardoe, I have no problem with the content 20:35 < ciaranm > except that we're not asking for and never will ask for "this will never change" approval 20:35 ciaranm: Let me be clear. dberkholz is trying to collect issues about PMS and its approval. I'm suggesting that in the next 2 weeks anyone having the slightest objection to the current content of the draft should sent it to the ml and have it discussed before the doc is approved - otherwise, they'll have to live with the doc. This is all I'm saying 20:35 < musikc > ciaranm, i understand the concept of 'fluid' documents, thanks though 20:35 < ciaranm > musikc: then why are you agreeing with jmbsvicetto over "last chance"? 20:35 jmbsvicetto: That has been the case for *months* now and nothing was brought up. 20:36 < ciaranm > jmbsvicetto: how does that differ from the last three times that's been said? 20:36 < Halcy0n@> Lets get back on topic here. The underlying question is should we approve PMS as a draft for EAPI 0 only. We seem to have some other major concerns, and we should leave it open for us to amend this decision later. 20:36 < musikc > ciaranm, b/c if someone has an objection currently, wouldnt it make sense that they bring it up? why wait. seems silly if they already know they have an objection. 20:36 < dberkholz@> ok, i have 2 issues as blockers right now 20:36 < musikc > Halcy0n ++ 20:36 Halcy0n: The concerns are about process, not the contents, though. 20:36 < dberkholz@> one is a PMS lead who is a gentoo dev, and the other is documenting conflict resolution 20:36 Philantrop: true, but it seems no one has ever felt it as a "deadline" 20:37 < antarus > Philantrop: processes are important 20:37 < ciaranm > every time we do this a different group of people jumps up and asks the same questions that were asked at the previous meeting, and then it's always postponed to the next meeting for the same questions to be asked over again 20:37 < antarus > (certainly I'm with you that this should have been approved months ago) 20:37 antarus: Yes, if they don't work. 20:37 < musikc > dberkholz, i dont see the process for approval of patches, etc documented. that'd probably be worthwhile as well 20:37 < antarus > that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to document how things work now ;p 20:37 < Halcy0n@> Can we stay on topic please? I have other things I need to run to after this. 20:38 < ColdWind > So, on one hand, people is not discussing problems with the contents even when that's what's council requested for months. On the other hand, people can still bring up those concerns after PMS approval as a draft standard... that's why it's a draft. Is there any reason to block the approval of the draft forever? 20:38 < musikc > ColdWind, forever? of course not. postponed while ppl still work to understand the process? sure. 20:38 < Halcy0n@> Calchan, Cardoe, dberkholz|bb : Are you guys comfortable with the statement I made above? Lets vote on whether or not to approve PMS as a draft for EAPI 0 only, and leave it open for us to amend the decision later should we find the need to. 20:38 < antarus > ColdWind: thats what the two week deadline is for ;) 20:38 < Cardoe+> Halcy0n: yes 20:39 < dberkholz@> do any council members think that documenting a process for patch acceptance is a requirement? 20:39 < Halcy0n@> dertobi123: ^ that was directed to you as well 20:39 < ColdWind > musikc: there will be *always* someone who still doesn't understands the process, so yes, with this dynamic... this is effectively blocked forever. 20:40 < musikc > ColdWind, agreed so documentation helps :) 20:40 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: I don't see it as a blocker for approving it as an initial draft right now, but I want it documented. 20:40 < Cardoe+> alright. everyone let's take a breather for a second. Let's us wrap up the actual question at hand. Further concerns can be approached on list. 20:40 Halcy0n: yep 20:40 sorry, apparently my irc proxy went down 20:41 < musikc > so post poned until documented Halcy0n? 20:41 < Calchan+> ColdWind, 20:41 < Cardoe+> ciaranm: what's the official ml to bring up discussions about patches? or should it remain on the bug? 20:41 < ciaranm > Cardoe: we're using the pms-bugs alias for now 20:41 < Halcy0n@> musikc: no, I don't mind doing the initial approval, and getting the documentation laid down afterwards. 20:41 * musikc nods 20:42 < Cardoe+> ciaranm: any requirements to join the alias? or just get someone with commit access to that file to add you? 20:42 < musikc > Halcy0n, that makes sense and goes with ciaranm's expressed view of PMS always up for change 20:42 < ciaranm > Cardoe: the only requirement is that you not be so amazingly annoying that we feel obliged to move somewhere else 20:42 < dberkholz@> could you tone it down a bit, ciaranm .. 20:42 < musikc > ciaranm, any gentoo dev should be welcome since PMS is a standard for Gentoo :) 20:43 < Halcy0n@> Council people, are we ready to vote? 20:43 < Cardoe+> Halcy0n: yes 20:43 < Calchan+> I'm ready to vote 20:43 < ciaranm > dberkholz: mm? what did i say? 20:43 yes 20:43 < ciaranm > musikc: any qualified gentoo developer 20:43 < musikc > ciaranm, who determines who is qualified? 20:43 < ciaranm > any qualified anyone. being a gentoo developer is neither here not there 20:43 < musikc > Gentoo has determined any dev is qualified as this is a standard for Gentoo so they should all be welcome 20:43 < ciaranm > musikc: it's yet to be an issue, so we haven't had to determine it 20:44 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: are you? 20:44 < musikc > ciaranm, so all Gentoo devs should be welcome 20:44 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: i'm thinking 20:44 < ciaranm > musikc: dunno. does gentoo still have developers who don't know what 'grep' is? 20:44 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by Halcy0n 20:44 < Halcy0n@> Just to reduce the noise so we can make a decision on the original topic. 20:45 thanks Halcy0n 20:45 < dberkholz@> here's what i'm thinking. we have these 2 blocking issues. will either of them have an impact on pms as a draft standard? 20:45 < Cardoe+> dberkholz: what do you see as the two? 20:45 < dberkholz@> the two i said earlier 20:46 < dberkholz@> 20:36 < dberkholz@> one is a PMS lead who is a gentoo dev, and the other is documenting conflict resolution 20:47 one of these issues is about having a puppet or not having a puppet as a lead, this is a non-issue from my pov 20:47 < dberkholz@> what exact benefits would having a pms lead as a gentoo dev gain us? 20:47 < Calchan+> dberkholz, a half baked pms project is the best way to have it crash into a wall, so we want this ? 20:47 < Calchan+> s/so/do/ 20:47 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: if we want the project to remain useful, I think we should document it before we start pushing it on people as a standard, in draft form or any other. 20:48 < Cardoe+> While people might feel emotional about a PMS lead that is a Gentoo dev, it's not necessarily a requirement. It's a Gentoo project controlled by the Gentoo QA project as a whole. Who runs the PMS sub-project is no consequence to how good or bad it is. 20:48 < dberkholz@> document what? 20:48 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: sorry, the conflict resolution and patch approval process. 20:49 < Cardoe+> Halcy0n: do we want to create a pms ML so that the pms-bugs alias isn't being used/abused? 20:49 < Cardoe+> bugzilla can mail changes to the ML for affected bugs 20:49 Cardoe: agreed, ideally there would be a gentoo dev interested in that - but as long there's noone ... 20:49 < Halcy0n@> Cardoe: it would be best so others could join the list and conversations. 20:50 < Cardoe+> and publicly provide archives 20:50 < dberkholz@> are there discussions happening on pms-bugs rather than just bugs posted to it? 20:50 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: that has been the case in the past, yes. 20:52 < Cardoe+> Halcy0n: can you tell us the last e-mail across it? 20:52 < Cardoe+> actually never mind 20:53 < Cardoe+> Creating a mailing list I don't believe would be opposed (anyone opposing can PM me now) and would allow public transparency into the process and would allow for review of the process in the future so I think it's a plus moving forward. 20:53 < Halcy0n@> Cardoe: its mostly been submitted patches. 20:53 < Halcy0n@> And discussions of those patches. 20:53 < Cardoe+> which sounds a bit like a ML already 20:54 < dberkholz@> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080911-agenda.txt has the list of requirements i've collected 20:54 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: that looks good to me. 20:55 < Calchan+> dberkholz, yes, looks good 20:55 < Cardoe+> So from that list does anyone see any that would prevent you from voting yes today to the PMS as a draft standard for EAPI 0 and 1? 20:55 < Cardoe+> I don't see any that would prevent me from voting yes today. Of course, I reserve the option to change that going forward since we are working with a live document. 20:56 < Calchan+> Cardoe, yes, I don't see the point voting for something unfinished when we could vote for the same finished thing in 2 weeks 20:56 < dberkholz@> by making it a draft standard, what we're saying is that it is now a requirement to resolve conflicts between it and package managers 20:56 < dberkholz@> there's not much value in approving a spec that doesn't match reality 20:57 < Cardoe+> correct 20:57 < Cardoe+> I think we have 2 outstanding issues between Portage/pkgcore & PMS/Paludis 20:58 < Cardoe+> Which can be a very good test to see how people will resolve this. 20:59 < Halcy0n@> Alright, we are at the end, can we vote? 20:59 < Calchan+> Halcy0n, yes 20:59 < Calchan+> I mean, yes I can vote 21:00 < Cardoe+> let's do it 21:00 < dberkholz@> ok 21:00 yep, let's vote 21:00 < dberkholz@> do we want to specify that our acceptance is conditional upon those requirements being resolved? 21:00 < Cardoe+> 3 choices.. 21:01 < Cardoe+> Yes, Yes conditional upon requirements being resolved, No 21:01 < dberkholz@> i'm gonna go with #2. 21:01 < Halcy0n@> I'm with #2 as well 21:02 < Cardoe+> #2 here 21:02 #2 too 21:02 < Calchan+> I vot 3 in the present state 21:02 being solved until the next meeting i'd suggest in addition 21:02 < Calchan+> s/vot/vote/ 21:02 < dberkholz@> i agree w/ dertobi123 -- 2 weeks to resolve. there's nothing major there 21:03 < Cardoe+> Do we want to vote on creating a ML now or let it be discussed on the ML first? 21:03 creating that ML sounds like a logical thing to me, so vote and yes please 21:03 < dberkholz@> i'm pretty sure that's what we just did. making a list was one of the reqs, and we just voted to accept given the reqs. 21:04 < Halcy0n@> dberkholz: agreed. I have to run now. 21:04 < dberkholz@> ok 21:04 < Calchan+> thanks Halcy0n 21:05 < dberkholz@> that's it for this meeting 21:05 < Cardoe+> I agree with creating the ML 21:05 < Calchan+> dberkholz, weren't we supposed to discuss eapi2 ? 21:05 < dberkholz@> do people not read my posts? 21:05 < dberkholz@> that kind of discussion is for lists, not meetings 21:05 < dberkholz@> plus we hit our hourly limit 21:06 < Calchan+> dberkholz, ah sorry, I understood we'd discuss it here 21:06 < Cardoe+> dberkholz: The discussion was over.. the final list was submitted afaik 21:06 < dberkholz@> there have been multiple replies on it today 21:07 < dberkholz@> that just isn't enough time 21:07 < dberkholz@> i'm happy to vote on it on -council though 21:07 < dberkholz@> if not, we can vote it in 2 wks 21:07 < Calchan+> somebody should reopen the channel then 21:08 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by dberkholz 21:08 < dberkholz@> meeting's over 21:08 < dberkholz@> thanks for playing 21:08 < dberkholz@> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080911-agenda.txt has summary