20:03 < dberkholz> Betelgeuse, cardoe, dberkholz, dertobi123, dev-zero, Halcy0n, lu_zero -- who's here?
20:03 <@dertobi123> <-
20:03 <@lu_zero> \o
20:03 < dev-zero> me
20:03 < dberkholz> Halcy0n informed me half an hour ago that he couldn't make it because of work obligations that came up
20:03 -!- piotao [i=piotao@p323.math.univ.gda.pl] has joined #gentoo-council
20:04 < dberkholz> didn't have time to find a proxy
20:04 -!- Atigo [n=atigo@azx122.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl] has joined #gentoo-council
20:04 < dev-zero> where is cardoe?
20:05 < dberkholz> i just pinged him in #-dev
20:05 < dberkholz> ok, we've got 5 because Betelgeuse was here 6 minutes ago
20:06 < dberkholz> let's get rolling on the secretary thing
20:07 < dev-zero> should I summarize it?
20:07 < dberkholz> sure
20:07 < dev-zero> ok
20:07 < dev-zero> we need someone doing the summary and upload the logs
20:07 < dev-zero> in the past dberkholz did it but he got busy
20:08 < dev-zero> so, to ensure we get those things done I proposed the job of a Secretary
20:08 < dev-zero> option 1) have someone of use doing it
20:08 < dev-zero> possibly in a rotating scheme
20:08 < dev-zero> option 2) have a dedicated person doing it
20:08 < dev-zero> luckily tanderson volunteered
20:09 < dev-zero> has someone a better idea?
20:09 <@dertobi123> no, i like it (that being option 2)
20:09 -!- Cardoe [n=Cardoe@gentoo/developer/Cardoe] has joined #gentoo-council
20:09 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o Cardoe] by ChanServ
20:09 <@Cardoe> sorry
20:09 <@lu_zero> I'm fine with both
20:09 < dberkholz> i agree that we should have a dedicated, non-council member do the secretary tasks
20:10 <@Cardoe> Did we have any volunteers?
20:10 < rane> -> tanderson
20:10 < dberkholz> yes, tanderson volunteered
20:10 < dev-zero> I think that's always up to the council deciding what they want
20:10 < dev-zero> since we got a volunteer I'd say we accept the offer :)
20:11 <@Cardoe> I'd agree with that
20:11 < dev-zero> but I think (and that's what I meant with rules) that every council has to clear that question at the beginning of their term
20:11 < dev-zero> and stick to it
20:11 < dberkholz> which question?
20:11 < dev-zero> the question who's doing the job of the Secretary
20:11 -!- en0x [i=en0x@unaffiliated/en0x] has left #gentoo-council ["*Dead girls don't say no*"]
20:11 < dberkholz> oh, sure.
20:12 <@lu_zero> and in what it consists
20:12 < dev-zero> yes
20:12 < dberkholz> ok, here's what i think
20:13  * dev-zero thinks it would be useful to see when someone's typing
20:13 < dberkholz> we should make a decision now about how it works. obviously later councils could change the process if they want, but making them rethink the whole thing every time doesn't make sense
20:13 < dev-zero> good
20:13 < dberkholz> so we should say, at the beginning of each council term, you pick a secretary who is not a council member (for justification previously provided)
20:14 < dberkholz> and you have to pick someone who actually volunteers for it
20:14 -!- PapaDelta [n=PapaDelt@p5B025427.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #gentoo-council
20:14 < dev-zero> I already prepared something like this: "the council should appoint a Secretary. If possible, a volunteer who's not council member. If not, they can decide whether a council-member is doing it every time or whether they stick to a rotating scheme."
20:14 <@lu_zero> I think you can pick as many people as they voluteer
20:14 <@Betelgeuse> lost connection
20:14 < dev-zero> no, maximum two
20:15 <@lu_zero> dev-zero why?
20:15 <@Betelgeuse> stupid 3G is slow as hell atm
20:15 < dev-zero> lu_zero: avoiding a mess and you surely get the "what, it wasn't my turn, it was his" play
20:15 < dberkholz> i really think you need to give each person sufficient experience to do a good job at it.
20:15 < NeddySeagoon> You want consistancy ... 1 or 2 people max
20:16 <@lu_zero> ok then it's 2
20:16 < dev-zero> ok, do we need to discuss it here or can we just decide that we have a Secretary now and phrase it out on the ml?
20:17 < dev-zero> sorry, shouldn't have been so rude
20:17 < dberkholz> who's ok w/ tanderson as secretary?
20:17 < dev-zero> me
20:17 < dberkholz> i am
20:17  * dertobi123 is
20:17  * lu_zero is
20:17 < dberkholz> ok.
20:18 <@lu_zero> tanderson are you really _sure_ ?
20:18 < dberkholz> i would like a 1-day review period on -council before summaries get posted everywhere else
20:18 < tanderson> lu_zero: yes
20:18 < dev-zero> dberkholz: agreed
20:18 <@dertobi123> dberkholz: agreed
20:18 <@lu_zero> dberkholz ok
20:18 < dberkholz> tanderson: ok it's all you baby. show us what you've got!
20:18 < dev-zero> dberkholz: but organized as "published if no complaints"
20:18 < dberkholz> agreed.
20:18 < tanderson> dberkholz: I'm working on it1
20:18 < tanderson> s/1/!
20:19 < dberkholz> tanderson: just waiting to be impressed after the meeting. =)
20:19 < dev-zero> tanderson: s/1/\!
20:19 < tanderson> dev-zero: hrmph
20:20 < dberkholz> to summarize: tanderson is the new secretary. he will post summaries for 1 day of review on council, after which they default to being posted everywhere. we will work out further details about the process on the list, if people care enough to do so.
20:20 < dev-zero> perfect :)
20:20 <@lu_zero> next item
20:21 < dev-zero> staggered elections?
20:21 -!- comprookie2000 [n=david@gentoo/contributor/comprookie2000] has joined #gentoo-council
20:21 < dberkholz> my opinion's already up =)
20:21 < dberkholz>         DB: Leave as is if 1-year terms. Don't want 6-month staggering.
20:22 <@dertobi123> leave it as is, 6-month are way too short
20:22 <@lu_zero> leave it as is.
20:22 < dev-zero> agreed, 6-month are too short
20:22 < dberkholz> ok, sounds good.
20:22 <@Betelgeuse> as is is fine
20:22 < dberkholz> let's move on then
20:22 < dberkholz> What if we don't get enough candidates?
20:22 < dev-zero> good
20:22 -!- quantumsummers|a [n=quantums@gentoo/developer/quantumsummers] has joined #gentoo-council
20:23 < dberkholz> my thoughts -- Deal with it when it happens. No rules for hypothetical situations.
20:23 < dev-zero> I think this question is important because if you once get there not having enough candidates it might get messy
20:23 <@Betelgeuse> boohoo those running do a reduced council
20:24 < dev-zero> well, it would already help if you would do a second nomination-period for the remaining slots
20:24 < dev-zero> after that we can still say we deal with it when it happens
20:24 <@lu_zero> ok
20:25 <@dertobi123> sounds good
20:25 < dberkholz> fine
20:26 <@Cardoe> trying to come up with every hypothetical situation will waste everyone's time
20:26 <@Betelgeuse> I don't see a need but majority rules
20:26 <@Cardoe> look at most governing bodies, they allow this flexibility
20:26 < dberkholz> we're pretty much just specifying what already happens
20:26 < dev-zero> Cardoe: no, they ruled it all out
20:27 < dev-zero> but we're not a governing body
20:27 < dev-zero> so, simple rules should be applied
20:27 <@Cardoe> dev-zero: we're governing ourselves and our election process
20:28 < dev-zero> Cardoe: allright
20:29 < dev-zero> next?
20:29 < dberkholz> i want to clarify this
20:29 < dev-zero> sorry
20:29 < dberkholz> are we saying that if "reopen noms" turns up in position #6, we will run with the new 5-person council and hold a 2nd election for the last 2 spots?
20:29 < dev-zero> I'd say so
20:30 <@lu_zero> could work
20:30 < dev-zero> put rephrase it to "if not all slots are filled after the first election period a second one should be held"
20:30 < darkside_> and a third? etc
20:30 < dev-zero> no
20:31 < dberkholz> i'd like to avoid a ton of "what if's", so let's move on
20:31 < dev-zero> agreed
20:31 < darkside_> just stop at 2 until the next year
20:31 < dberkholz> we can deal with other stuff if it actually comes up
20:31 < dev-zero> exactly
20:31 < dev-zero> if we get to that point something's wrong anyway
20:32 < dberkholz> ok, i'd like to move on to the next topic, prepalldocs.
20:32 < dberkholz> dev-zero had 2 questions. do we need more info, and should we ask for discussion on -dev?
20:32 < dev-zero> I asked because we didn't decide last time
20:33 < dev-zero> my opinion is basically set, what about yours?
20:33 <@Cardoe> dev-zero: I say we just allow it to happen twice, total
20:33 <@Betelgeuse> The less the better
20:34 -!- Atigo [n=atigo@azx122.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl] has left #gentoo-council ["Konversation terminated!"]
20:35 < dberkholz> ok, sure.
20:35 < dberkholz> opinions on prepalldocs in pms (bug #250077)?
20:35 < Willikins> dberkholz: https://bugs.gentoo.org/250077 "prepalldocs should be documented in PMS"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; ASSI; ulm@g.o:pms-bugs@g.o
20:35 < dev-zero> prepalldocs should be kept internal and usage should be avoided
20:36 < dev-zero> reason: internal function and change of it's implementation prooves it
20:36 < dev-zero> if someone want's it's functionality he should propose a solution for a future eapi
20:36 <@Betelgeuse> agreed
20:37 <@dertobi123> dito, agreed on that
20:37 <@lu_zero> sounds sensible
20:37 < dberkholz> Cardoe: any thoughts?
20:38 <@Cardoe> yeah getting a little caught up
20:38 <@Cardoe> but I think dev-zero hit it on the head
20:39 < dberkholz> ok, so what we're saying is prepalldocs won't be in any current EAPI and needs to be removed from ebuilds. is that accurate?
20:39 <@Betelgeuse> I can make a check for repoman
20:39 < dev-zero> yes
20:40 < dev-zero> Betelgeuse: great :)
20:40 <@dertobi123> dberkholz: yep
20:41 < dberkholz> alrighty then
20:41 < dberkholz> open bug status
20:41 < dberkholz> glep 54, any change?
20:42 < ciaranm> most of the objectors to glep 54 have surrendered
20:42 <@Cardoe> putting it that way makes it sounds like something that we'd really want to adopt
20:43 <@Cardoe> "we've managed to beat down anyone opposing until they just can't care anymore or have quit the project"
20:43 <@lu_zero> nobody updated the bug according my thunderbird
20:43 < ciaranm> Cardoe: the person doing the objecting wasn
20:43 < ciaranm> Cardoe: 't a gentoo developer
20:43 < ciaranm> the objections to 54 came from igli aka slong aka ranjit singh
20:43 < ciaranm> and he objected to it because it came from the wrong people
20:43 <@Cardoe> I'm just saying. How you put it wasn't the most positive light possible
20:44 <@Betelgeuse> doesn't 54 still come bundled with 55?
20:44 < ciaranm> Betelgeuse: 54 works best if 55 is also accepted
20:44 < dev-zero> a possibility to avoid *.ebuild-123456789 would be to have it as a separate number being incremented only when needed
20:44 < ciaranm> dev-zero: you're confusing 54 and 55
20:44 < ciaranm> 54's -scm
20:44 < dev-zero> yes
20:45 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: there's probably still opposition to that around
20:45  * tanderson confused them in the summary too, dangit
20:45 < dberkholz> i like PROPERTIES=live
20:45 <@Betelgeuse> but if their arguments have merit is an another matter
20:45  * lu_zero likes that too
20:45  * dev-zero likes -scm
20:45 < ciaranm> properties=live doesn't solve anything
20:45 < ciaranm> you can't have proper version numbers just through properties
20:45 <@lu_zero> "proper"
20:46 < dberkholz> you can't put git tag names in a version either
20:46 < ciaranm> there's no way of using the existing version number syntax to correctly express scm versions
20:46 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: but it does give some of the things that scm is used to provide
20:46 < ciaranm> Betelgeuse: it doesn't, though
20:46 < ciaranm> scm's designed to solve the lack of proper ordering with existing version syntax
20:46 <@Cardoe> I'm in favor of PROPERTIES=live myself.
20:46 < dleverton> And scm gives all of the things that scm is used to provide.
20:46 <@lu_zero> depends on what you want to put in the tree
20:47 < ciaranm> properties=live does nothing
20:47 <@lu_zero> ciaranm -scm does the same nothing
20:47 < ciaranm> lu_zero: no, -scm provides correct ordering
20:47 < dberkholz> looking at this from a bit different approach
20:47 <@lu_zero> live templates do something
20:47 < dberkholz> having some way to do this seems like a good thing
20:47 <@lu_zero> ciaranm "correct"
20:47 < dberkholz> and having someone who will actively work on finding a solution would be nice
20:47 < dev-zero> and you can't have foo-1.2.ebuild and foo-1.2.ebuild where one of them has "properties=live" in it
20:47 < ciaranm> lu_zero: yes, correct
20:48 <@lu_zero> dev-zero why not?
20:48 < dev-zero> lu_zero: because they're named the same
20:48 <@Cardoe> Again.. people are bringing up hypothetical without any real need or defect discussed
20:48 < dev-zero> Cardoe: wrong, they're not hypothetical
20:48 < ciaranm> Cardoe: the real was covered the first ten times the glep was discussed
20:49 <@lu_zero> and again everything got up in the last 1/2 hour
20:49 < ciaranm> Cardoe: you are aware of the original justifications, right?
20:49 < ciaranm> lu_zero: you too, since you seem to have forgotten them
20:49 < dev-zero> ok, people, let's stop it
20:49 < dberkholz> if they aren't in the glep, they might as well not exist
20:49 < dev-zero> won't have a conclusion now
20:49 < ciaranm> dberkholz: they are in the glep
20:50 < dberkholz> it would be better if it had a comparison with the other suggestions
20:50 < dev-zero> dberkholz: not the point of a glep
20:50 < ciaranm> it's the only suggestion that solves the problem. there. easy.
20:50 < dberkholz> the point of a solution isn't to say why it's the best solution?
20:50 <@lu_zero> false
20:50 < dberkholz> that seems ludicrous to me
20:50 <@lu_zero> and there is a problem defined
20:51 < dberkholz> anyway, i do agree with dev-zero that we won't suddenly resolve this during the meeting
20:51 < dev-zero> good
20:51 < dberkholz> lu_zero: will you pick this up more actively and run with it, or should someone else?
20:51 -!- hparker [n=hparker@gentoo/developer/hparker] has joined #gentoo-council
20:51 <@lu_zero> dberkholz I was waiting for zmedico
20:51 <@Betelgeuse> yeah we should at least put someone actively wroking on these
20:51 < dev-zero> yes
20:51 <@lu_zero> and/or other getting input
20:51 < dev-zero> this is what I proposed on the -ml as well
20:51 < ciaranm> for as long as people think PROPERTIES=live and -scm have anything to do with each other, this won't get solved because they don't have a frickin' clue what the point of either is
20:52 < dev-zero> good, then the person who's taking care of should investigate this
20:52 <@lu_zero> apparently the people using -9999 are happy with it
20:52 < ciaranm> lu_zero: -9999 is a hack and it's wrong
20:52 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: from end user view they can be used to provide same things
20:52 <@lu_zero> ciaranm people using it disagree
20:52 < tanderson> my question: does properties=live solve version ordering issues?
20:52 < dev-zero> lu_zero: I agree with ciaranm there
20:52 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm:  but not all what each other enables of course
20:52 < dev-zero> lu_zero: I'm using it and I agree
20:52 < ciaranm> Betelgeuse: no, they're not the same for end users
20:52 < ciaranm> lu_zero: people using -9999 use it because they have to
20:52 <@lu_zero> dev-zero you hadn't update the related bug
20:53 < ciaranm> lu_zero: they do not use it because it is right
20:53 <@lu_zero> please do now
20:53 < ciaranm> the implications of PROPERTIES=live and -scm are entirely different and largely unrelated
20:53 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: what's the problem with doing periodic reinstalls with properties live?
20:53 < dev-zero> ok, people, please
20:53 < ciaranm> Betelgeuse: nothing, but that's not the entire point of -scm, and -scm isn't the only time you'd want periodic reinstalls
20:53 < dev-zero> we have other things to discuss
20:54 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: so you validate my earlier point?
20:54 < ciaranm> Betelgeuse: uh, no
20:54 < dberkholz> could you guys bounce this over to #-dev?
20:54 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: first you say what I say is wrong and then right?
20:54 <@Betelgeuse> You lost me.
20:54 <@lu_zero> better ml-dev
20:54 < dberkholz> i have another meeting coming up, and i'd like to at least mention the other topics first
20:54 <@lu_zero> next one
20:55 < dev-zero> yes
20:55 < ciaranm> Betelgeuse: i'm saying you've missed the mark by about three miles and are about to fly into a wall
20:55 < dev-zero> lu_zero: are you taking care of this topic?
20:55 < tanderson> Who should I put down as responsible for handling glep 54?
20:55 <@lu_zero> dev-zero I'll poll ml-dev and people and hopefully get the thing discussed again
20:55 <@Cardoe> The only thing you've said so far is "-scm is the only right solution. people don't have a clue about prop=live vs -scm"
20:56 < dev-zero> lu_zero: ok, thanks
20:56 <@Cardoe> the only thing we've gotten thus far are fear mongering statements
20:56 < dberkholz> tanderson: put luca, and say something about us cracking the whip at him
20:56 < ciaranm> Cardoe: read the GLEP
20:56 < ciaranm> PROPERTIES=live and -scm should not be mentioned within the same meeting because they'll just lead to people thinking they're somehow related
20:56 <@Cardoe> ciaranm: I was asking you to provide us with a reasonable issue and how -scm fixes it while prop=live does not
20:56 < ciaranm> Cardoe: ordering
20:56 < tanderson> dberkholz: k
20:57 <@Cardoe> instead we just had 15 minutes of time wasting
20:57 <@Cardoe> next topic since we can't seem to get any info
20:57 < ciaranm> Cardoe: ordering. which part don't you get?
20:57 < dev-zero> the point is that we currently do all ordering by comparing names of the ebuild, prop=live breaks that
20:57 -!- hparker [n=hparker@gentoo/developer/hparker] has left #gentoo-council ["uhm.... bye!"]
20:57 < dberkholz> ciaranm: feel free to continue bringing up glep 54 on the list, since it would be nice to see some progress there
20:57 < dev-zero> good
20:58 <@Cardoe> when I say bring up a concrete example with some details.. providing a one word answer doesn't suffice
20:58 < ciaranm> Cardoe: have you read the glep?
20:58 < dev-zero> Cardoe, ciaranm: stop it -> ml
20:58 < dberkholz> the only real thing left besides glep 54 is glep 55, and i think we'll have to push that to the list, much to my regret.
20:58 < ciaranm> dberkholz: i don't think we're going to get anywhere until Cardoe reads the glep... we're back to my email earlier about people doing their homework...
20:58 < dev-zero> I'd like to know who's going to take care of GLEP-55 and the bash-issue
20:59 <@Cardoe> ciaranm: I have read the GLEP.
20:59 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: my opinion still is that 55 needs something using it when it goes in
20:59 <@Cardoe> ciaranm: I'm asking for a concrete example here in the council discussion
20:59 < dberkholz> i really think that glep needs more enhancement. if you keep saying nobody gets it, that means it needs to be improved so people do get it
20:59 < ciaranm> Cardoe: ordering
20:59 <@Cardoe> to explain it clearly to everyone
20:59 <@Cardoe> I think the GLEP is lacking and needs work
20:59 < dev-zero> Cardoe: 55?
20:59 < ciaranm> there's a whole section in the glep on ordering
21:00 < darkside_> 55 is the best glep i have seen =/
21:00 < ciaranm> do you really not understand it?
21:00 -!- Ken69267 [n=Ken69267@gentoo/developer/ken69267] has joined #gentoo-council
21:00 <@lu_zero> Cardoe I'm reading again what was the first thing happened when 54 got proposed
21:00 < dberkholz> i need to go now. dev-zero, could you wrap up the meeting either now or whenever people finish talking?
21:00 < tanderson> which glep are you guys talking about?
21:00 < dev-zero> dberkholz: sure
21:01 <@Cardoe> at this point I would say the meeting is over since there won't be any productive discussion happening on either GLEP
21:01 < dev-zero> tanderson: of 54 and 55 at the same time, thus the mess
21:01 < dev-zero> Cardoe: not yet
21:01 < dev-zero> do we have someone taking care of GLEP-55?
21:01 < tanderson> dev-zero: exactly my dilemma for the summary
21:01 <@Cardoe> dev-zero: we haven't had anyone taking care of it for ages because no one has been interested.
21:02 < tanderson> darkside apparently is
21:02 < dev-zero> Cardoe: then you do the bash-3.1 issue?
21:02 <@Betelgeuse> I will be writing a new GLEP soon so I would like to focus on that.
21:02 <@Betelgeuse> Itäs not related to 54 or 55.
21:02 < ciaranm> no, we haven't had anyone taking care of 55 because every time it gets pushed the same already-answered questions get raised
21:02 < dev-zero> dberkholz is taking care of CoC
21:02 <@lu_zero> ciaranm basically not enough people wants anything about it
21:02 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: probably also because zac has not been interested
21:03 <@lu_zero> so is a non-issue to most of the people
21:03 < dev-zero> Betelgeuse: so, do you mind bringing GLEP 55 up on the mailing-list? I'll also join in
21:03 < ciaranm> 55's necessary, it's just that every time it comes along it gets trolled to death by a couple of malcontents
21:03 < dev-zero> ciaranm: can you please step aside for a moment
21:03 <@lu_zero> ciaranm statistics say otherwise
21:03 < ciaranm> lu_zero: please point me to the legitimate technical objections to 55
21:04 <@lu_zero> ciaranm I do not need any
21:04 <@Cardoe> Just because there's no technical objectives to something doesn't mean there's a need for someone.
21:04 <@Cardoe> er something
21:04 <@lu_zero> I could plug it getting portage scream about non undersandable files in it's dirs
21:04 < dev-zero> tanderson: I think we have someone for every point, don't we?
21:04 < ciaranm> which of the many reasons for 55 being necessary do you not accept?
21:04 <@lu_zero> and that is a good behaviour.
21:05 <@Betelgeuse> dev-zero: I thought I said to the contrary
21:05 <@lu_zero> ciaranm the fact it started as a solution looking for a problem
21:05  * NeddySeagoon is reminded of VHS vs Betamax ... marketing beat technical excellence
21:05 <@lu_zero> an hack over a fail tolerance measure
21:05 <@lu_zero> and so on.
21:05 < dev-zero> Betelgeuse: then I didn't understand you :)
21:05 < ciaranm> lu_zero: which of the many problems listed for 55 do you not consider legitimate?
21:05 < dev-zero> Betelgeuse: I'll take care of it then
21:05 < tanderson> dev-zero: would that be you for glep 55?
21:05 < dev-zero> tanderson: yes
21:05 < ciaranm> lu_zero: 55 came about to solve a half dozen real and nasty problems
21:05 < tanderson> ok
21:05 <@lu_zero> ciaranm there is a list of 6 points in the glep?
21:06 < dev-zero> we're done then
21:06 <@Betelgeuse> good I need to go as it's getting late
21:06 < ciaranm> lu_zero: yup
21:06 <@lu_zero> no
21:06 <@Cardoe> Additionally, I would oppose the acceptance of both GLEPs until we had sample code for Portage to implement them as well.
21:06 < ciaranm> lu_zero: the glep lists three bullet points that cover at least six real problems
21:07 < dev-zero> ok, the meeting is over