19:59 <@solar> I'm seeing most of the other council people are idle for long periods of time. 20:00 <@Betelgeuse> solar: of course we are! 20:00 <@Betelgeuse> I said in my manifesto that I am slacking but got voted in regardless \o/ 20:01 <@solar> you just broke your 4h8m of idle time :p 20:01 <@Calchan> I'm ready 20:01 * dertobi123 waves 20:01 <@Betelgeuse> At some point I thought this was 20UTC like before but luckily it was temporary. 20:01 * jmbsvicetto takes a seat in the backrow 20:02 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: could you link the agenda to the topic 20:02 * ulm is here too 20:02 <@Calchan> anybody logging? I am, but would apprecaite a backup in case of splits 20:02 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: I always log everything 20:02 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, ok 20:02 -!- Topic for #gentoo-council: Next meeting Monday July 20th 1800UTC. 20:02 -!- Topic set by Calchan [i=calchan@gentoo/developer/calchan] [Thu Jul 16 23:16:52 2009] 20:02 <@solar> so only lu_zero is missing? 20:03 * fmccor|home also always logs everything if needed. 20:03 -!- Calchan changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting Monday July 20th 1800UTC. Agenda: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_14756d9207e877f124a36b54f6e43f65.xml 20:03 <@Calchan> solar, and leio who should be back any time 20:03 <@Calchan> we can wait a bit for those 2 20:04 <@leio> here now 20:04 -!- ssuominen [n=ssuomine@gentoo/developer/ssuominen] has joined #gentoo-council 20:04 <@Calchan> good, let's give lu_zero a last chance 20:05 <@Calchan> so, any volunteers to chair? 20:06 <@solar> sure let get this party started. 20:06 <@solar> 1. Intro (10 minutes inlcuding late arrivals) 20:06 <@Calchan> If you agree I would like us to focus on voting today, and keep the discussions and comments to what's required and stick to the agenda 20:07 <@solar> This is the first council meeting of the 5th council. It's clear we want to take a slighly different path that has been done in the past. 20:07 -!- tampakrap [n=tuxicity@gentoo/developer/tampakrap] has joined #gentoo-council 20:07 <@solar> 1.1) fmccor/Betelgeuse and others are logging. 20:07 <@Calchan> we have plenty of time to discuss on the list, I encourage everbody to do that, dev or not 20:08 <@solar> 1.2) Everybody is present minus lu_zero so far. 20:08 -!- spatz [n=spatz@unaffiliated/spatz] has quit [Remote closed the connection] 20:08 <@solar> 1.3) I'm happy to do it this time. 20:08 <@Calchan> thanks 20:09 <@solar> 2) Meeting format. 20:09 <@solar> 2.1. Should the channel be moderated during council meetings? 20:09 <@solar> I'll vote: yes 20:09 <@Calchan> I vote yes too 20:09 <@dertobi123> yes 20:09 <@ulm> yes 20:10 <@solar> that is a majority rule of 4 votes. 20:10 <@leio> yes 20:10 <@Calchan> we should still let Betelgeuse vote though 20:10 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: I wouldn't mind using it just when needed but find by moderating too. 20:10 <@Betelgeuse> s/find/fine/ 20:11 <@Calchan> What we can also do is leave the channel open and the first one of us who's uncomfortable with how things go can moderate it without asking us 20:11 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: yeah that's what I was saying 20:11 -!- mrpouet [n=mrpouet@gentoo/developer/mrpouet] has joined #gentoo-council 20:11 <@solar> 2.1.2. If yes, should council members watch another channel in order to 20:11 <@solar> paste ideas/propositions from the latter to the council channel? 20:11 <@leio> yes 20:12 <@solar> I would vote No on that. People wanting a voice often would request it via /msg council-guy please +v me so I can talk about item. 20:12 <@Calchan> I say no, devs and users have plenty of time to express ideas, request discussion topics etc.. on the list 20:12 <@Betelgeuse> yeah and can use priv / #gentoo-dev 20:12 <@dertobi123> no, too 20:13 <@leio> under my vote I have discussional agenda items in mind 20:13 <@ulm> i vote no, any discussion can take place on the -dev ml beforehand 20:13 <@Calchan> ulm, I'd prefer gentoo-council@ 20:13 <@solar> note that -dev ml is no longer a requirement 20:13 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: I don't like gentoo-council existing at all. 20:13 <@ulm> Calchan: also fine, I don't mind if it's -dev or -council 20:13 <@Betelgeuse> gentoo-project and gentoo-dev cover what's there currently 20:14 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, true, let's make a note to put discuss that asap after this meeting 20:14 <@Calchan> /put/d 20:14 <@leio> and I don't like gentoo-project existing at all, but yeah, lets not go there now :) 20:15 <@Calchan> look slike we definitely need to discuss this :o) 20:15 <@dertobi123> looks like, yes ;) 20:15 <@solar> so +m is the vote with 2.1.2* not being a requirement? 20:16 <@dertobi123> yeah 20:16 <@ulm> yes 20:16 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by solar 20:16 <@solar> 2.2) Do we need a secretary? 20:17 <@Calchan> yes 20:17 <@Betelgeuse> yes 20:17 <@dertobi123> we do, yeah 20:17 <@ulm> i think it worked well, so yes 20:17 <@solar> I'm in favor of it. 20:17 <@Calchan> lerio? 20:17 <@Calchan> leio? 20:18 <@leio> Define secretaries tasks/responsibilities? 20:18 <@Calchan> good point 20:18 <@leio> If the same as before, I'll go with yes 20:18 <@Calchan> we should still define it now 20:18 <@Calchan> can we say agendas, logs and summaries? 20:19 <@Betelgeuse> fine by me 20:19 <@ulm> sounds good 20:19 <@dertobi123> Calchan: as before, yeah 20:20 <@solar> agendas? I don't recall those being part of the role directly. 20:20 <@Calchan> solar, I seem to remember tanderson slacking on those, so he must have 20:20 <@Betelgeuse> they weren't I think 20:20 <@Calchan> oh ok 20:21 <@leio> I remember dev-zero doing agendas often 20:21 <@Betelgeuse> and dberkholz at the beginning 20:21 <@leio> Calchan seems to be good at it now as a replacement *grin* 20:21 <@Betelgeuse> small toilet break 20:21 <@Calchan> leio, thanks for volunteering me ;o) 20:22 <@leio> but that's a separate topic I guess. I agree with logs and summaries being secretary tasks 20:22 <@leio> and we can maybe sometimes convince the secretary to sometimes volunteer to do something more 20:22 <@Calchan> btw, we could add agendas to the mix in case we end up deciding the secretary needs to be a council memebr 20:23 <@solar> I would say yes on the logs and summary. But think mostly it should be council people defining the agenda items based on what we feel the devs/others are calling for. 20:23 <@solar> 2.2.1. If yes, does the secretary need to be a council member? 20:23 <@ulm> no 20:23 <@solar> My input would be 'no' 20:24 <@Calchan> let's give Betelgeuse a chance to not wet himself before we go forward :o) 20:24 <@leio> igli made a good comment on the topic of logs and summaries 20:24 <@dertobi123> dito, no 20:24 <@leio> "logs and summaries to appointed officer seems good to me; good precedence for trustees (ie officer doesn't decide policy.)" 20:24 <@leio> which I agree with from the neutrality view 20:26 -!- Zorry [n=zorry@fu/coder/zorry] has quit [Client Quit] 20:26 <@Betelgeuse> back 20:26 <@Betelgeuse> and the secretary doesn't need to be a council member 20:26 <@Calchan> leio, true, but on the other hand as summaries can't hardly be biased there is a responsibility issue 20:26 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, we weren't there yet ;o) 20:26 <@leio> I guess it's a bigger point in regards to agendas 20:27 <@Calchan> oh we were, sorry, I had lost my screen for a while 20:27 <@solar> in the past it was my understanding that the role would mail the council with drafts of the summary. it would then be approved/rejected by the council before being sent to any mailing lists 20:27 <@leio> anyhow, I think we can easily "outsource" logs and summaries, and we might as well call the person who's supposed to do that the secretary 20:28 * dertobi123 nods 20:28 <@ulm> solar: yes, the summary needs approval by the council 20:28 <@leio> and yes, we read first before it being official 20:28 <@Calchan> looks like everybody agrees then 20:28 <@leio> up to now it has been a preliminary summary to gentoo-council ml, we comment (often in IRC), and then it gets posted to -dev after fixes 20:29 <@solar> you did not vote that I saw Calchan 20:29 <@Calchan> count it as a no to "does the secretary need to be a council member" 20:29 <@solar> ok so that moves us to. 20:29 <@solar> 2.2.1.2. If no, do we confirm tanderson? 20:29 -!- NeddySeagoon [n=NeddySea@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon] has joined #gentoo-council 20:29 <@Calchan> only if he agrees to wear shorter skirts 20:30 <@solar> I think it's pretty much a given that he wants the role again. 20:30 <@Calchan> agreed, and I vote yes 20:30 <@leio> yes 20:30 * dertobi123 too, yes 20:30 <@ulm> yes 20:30 <@solar> igli is asking that the summary be posted to -project for open comments 20:31 <@Betelgeuse> fine by me (it has been posted to -council before though) 20:31 <@Betelgeuse> as long as we have -council it's best there 20:31 <@ulm> solar: before it's approved by the council? 20:31 <@solar> I would hope not. 20:31 <@Calchan> solar, he can comment on -council it's open, at least until we decide what we do with it 20:31 <@solar> he just /msg me saying after. 20:32 <@Calchan> solar, and I'd agree with you there 20:32 <@solar> personaly I would only happen to see -council as being a requirement to where it's sent. 20:32 <@leio> I find -dev more appropriate for that, as it has been before iirc 20:32 <@dertobi123> Calchan: indeed. -council for now. and of course, after our approval. 20:33 <@Calchan> was it usually cross posted on -dev-announce? 20:33 <@Calchan> can't remember 20:33 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: after being approved 20:33 <@Betelgeuse> and yes approved summaries to -dev-announce 20:33 <@leio> so we handle the summary through private alias first from now on? 20:33 <@solar> drafts should really hit aliases only. 20:33 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, thanks, ok then no need to post to dev, -council or -project is enough 20:33 <@Calchan> solar, agreed, alias only for drafts 20:34 <@solar> and -dev-announce seems logical. 20:34 <@solar> ok so moving on. 20:34 <@Calchan> solar, and cross-posted on 0council until we decide else 20:34 <@leio> well, where do we forward the discussion to (Reply-to) 20:34 <@solar> 2.2.2. Do we need a backup? 20:34 <@leio> -council until decided otherwise sounds good. 20:35 <@Calchan> leio, where it's cross posted 20:35 <@dertobi123> we don't need a backup, but it'll be nice to have one 20:35 <@leio> no, if necessary the council members should pick it up anyway 20:35 <@Calchan> dertobi123, we don;t *if* we can know soon enough when he isn't available 20:36 <@Calchan> and in his case I think we can 20:36 <@dertobi123> hrm 20:37 <@Calchan> for example he warned early enough that he wouldn' 20:37 <@Betelgeuse> I think we should vote on whether to use private or public for summary drafts 20:37 <@Calchan> t be available this week 20:37 <@Betelgeuse> I don't like putting the secretary to the private alias so then there would be some public communication unless something else private is created. 20:37 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, good point 20:38 <@leio> doesn't have to be on the private alias, we just use reply to all 20:38 <@ulm> leio: exactly 20:38 <@solar> likewise is what I would think. 20:38 <@leio> which we need to often do anyway when replying an outside e-mail 20:38 <@Betelgeuse> I don't like making stuff private unless absolutely necessary. 20:39 <@Calchan> solar, why don't we simply vote on this? 20:39 <@solar> but vs sending out what could be heated hot topics it's imo to get the tone set by what we all felt was the outcome of a given meeting. 20:39 <@ulm> Betelgeuse: we don't want any third party pick up our draft summaries 20:39 <@solar> vs what the sec alone thinks it might of been 20:41 <@leio> if meetings go smooth, making a summary out of a clear log doesn't really involve any interpretation. We just haven't had clear resolutions on some topics in the past, slipping to the next thing, etc 20:41 <@leio> (relates to meeting chairing) 20:42 <@solar> Do we need to vote on this? public vs private drafts? 20:42 <@Calchan> solar, I think we should 20:42 <@solar> I vote for private drafts then 20:42 <@Calchan> and honestly I'm torn between both 20:42 <@Betelgeuse> public 20:43 <@dertobi123> private 20:43 <@ulm> private 20:43 <@Calchan> I'll say public, it worked until now 20:43 <@Calchan> leio? 20:43 <@leio> public 20:44 <@Calchan> dammit 20:44 <@solar> 3 private / 3 public = tie for now. 20:44 <@Calchan> let's ask for lu_zero's vote by mail 20:44 <@Calchan> there's no emergency on that 20:44 <@dertobi123> agreed 20:45 <@solar> fair enough. Ready to move on? 20:45 <@Calchan> sure 20:45 <@leio> I have a compromise suggestion though - gets posted to private when ready from secretary, if no hard objections within ~12 hours it becomes a public draft, and then gets confirmed as final. 20:45 <@leio> Waiting for lu_zero vote sounds good. 20:45 <@Calchan> leio, 12 hours is tough due to timezones 20:46 <@leio> it's to ensure 1-2 council members get a chance to read it before it goes public, not to have everyone do it 20:46 <@leio> if those 1-2+ don't see anything bad, there probably isn't 20:46 <@leio> anyways, lets just wait for lu_zero 20:46 <@Calchan> leio, I'd disagree with that, but let's move on 20:47 <@solar> 3) GLEP 39 20:47 <@solar> 3.1. Can the council decide on the process of voting amendments to GLEP 39 20:47 <@solar> without an all-developers vote? 20:47 <@Calchan> yes 20:47 <@Betelgeuse> I think we can just use votify and have an approved marker to vote on multiple changes at once. 20:48 <@Betelgeuse> those above pass and those below don't 20:48 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, that would be for a later question, but does this imply you vote yes to this one? 20:49 -!- comprookie2000 [n=david@gentoo/developer/comprookie2000] has quit [Client Quit] 20:49 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: What I said is the existing process imho so there's no need for council to say everything so no. 20:49 <@Calchan> specifically that would be for the implementation of 3.2, not even 3.2 itself 20:49 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, OK 20:49 <@dertobi123> i tend to say no 20:50 <@Calchan> others? 20:50 <@solar> Having lived in the USA. I've seen first hand what happens when a group/pres can give itself unlimited powers. They powers granted to the council were given to them by the devs. So imo it's the devs via votify who can change GLEP-039 20:51 <@dertobi123> solar: well, same goes for germans 20:51 <@dertobi123> that's why i tend to "no" 20:51 <@Betelgeuse> solar: I don't specifically understand what you refer in the first sentence but guessing it's not terrible important. 20:52 <@Betelgeuse> Absolute power corrupts absolute etc. 20:52 <@dertobi123> plus i'd like to see glep-39 being moved to something non-glep (formal counciil-constituion or something similiar, jmbsvicetto has made a proposal on that) 20:52 <@Betelgeuse> +ly 20:52 <@solar> Betelgeuse: in the US Bush gave himself powers that he was not really in power to give to himself. But being he was in a power posiion. Nobody questioned it (no matter how scary the choices) 20:52 <@solar> Betelgeuse: or that exactly. "Absolute power corrupts absolute etc." 20:53 <@Calchan> dertobi123, and others before but apparently nobody cared 20:53 <@dertobi123> well, at least jmbsvicetto and i do care 20:53 <@Betelgeuse> I don't see that being a priority. 20:53 <@dertobi123> that's something to start with 20:53 <@Betelgeuse> But feel free to drive the action. 20:53 <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: indeed. that's something longer-term for the next year 20:53 <@solar> I also do somewhat think 3.2.2 has some merit. 20:54 <@Calchan> solar, if we vote no to 3.1, it's up to devs to vote on 3.2 20:54 <@Calchan> solar, so let's get 3.1 voted first 20:54 <@solar> but lets face it. over time the council will have less qualified people in it so it concerns me. 20:55 <@leio> I vote yes to 3.1 20:55 * dertobi123 still no 20:55 <@Calchan> yes too 20:55 <@Betelgeuse> no 20:55 <@solar> no 20:55 <@leio> ulm? 20:55 <@ulm> no 20:56 <@solar> 2 yes / 4 no. 20:56 <@solar> 3.3. If no to 3.1 make it an action to see with the elections project that 20:56 <@solar> all developers vote on 3.2 (who, by when?). 20:57 <@Betelgeuse> no need 20:57 <@ulm> too special 20:57 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v jmbsvicetto] by dertobi123 20:57 <@ulm> we should prepare a son-of-glep39 and let devs vote on that 20:57 <@Betelgeuse> for example 20:58 <@Calchan> ulm, I don't see why it prevents us from filling the hole in glep39 that forgets to say how to amend it in the meantime 20:59 <@Calchan> an all dev vote would be very quick to organize, and at leat we'd know for sure what devs think 21:00 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I do think we might take the chance and rethink our "metastructure organization" 21:01 <@dertobi123> can we agree on to discuss this on-list until the next meeting? 21:01 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: Do we want to have a "Gentoo constitution", do we want to have the organization details discussed through and documented on a GLEP? If so, a regular GLEP or do we want to create a new type and set particular rules for it? 21:01 <@solar> I'm in full agreement with thinking it's time to rethink the structure. 21:01 <@Calchan> my point with a text whic tires to replace glep 39 is I've been working on one for almost a year, have called for help, abd very few cares, even fewer helped 21:02 <@Calchan> solar, thining is not enough, assuming we even do it 21:02 <@Calchan> thinking 21:02 <@Calchan> at some point we need to start doing something and doing it little by little on glep39 is one way to go 21:02 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I think we can split the "thinking" in 2 parts: 1. the process, how to change it and where to document it, 2. What type of structure we want 21:03 -!- Arfrever [n=Arfrever@gentoo/developer/arfrever] has joined #gentoo-council 21:03 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I think 1 is doable in a "short" timeframe. 2 might take a longer time 21:03 <@Calchan> jmbsvicetto, you'll soon see that you'll be alone, I've been experiencing that for a year now 21:04 <@Calchan> but this is getting off topic, do we do 3.3 or not? 21:04 <@leio> first part of part 1) was what we were voting about here 21:04 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I understand that, but if can reach some agreement about 1, then people can put forth proposals about 2 and get it decided through a vote 21:04 <+jmbsvicetto> +we 21:05 <@solar> I would expect that proccess to take ~2-3 months 21:05 <@Calchan> let's decide abpout 3.3 first 21:05 <@Calchan> we're getting awfully late here 21:06 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: The evening is young :D 21:06 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, I'm at work if you don't mind, and feeding my kids takes priority 21:07 <@solar> ok. So what do you want to accomplish with 3.3 exactly Calchan? 21:07 <@Calchan> solar, I want to ask devs how they wantgentoo to modify glep39, and that implies replacing it 21:08 <@solar> ok so start a thread? 21:08 <@solar> And CC: -council and -dev ml 21:08 <@Betelgeuse> no 21:08 <@Betelgeuse> only one mailing list 21:08 <@solar> cross-posting kinda sucks. 21:08 <@Calchan> solar, there was a thread to which nobody replied 21:09 <@solar> but -dev reaches the max number of devs. -council to keep it official 21:09 <@Calchan> if you guys really cared you would have given your opionion on this already 21:09 <@Calchan> so don't pretend you do now 21:09 <@Betelgeuse> solar: You can start the thread via -dev-announce 21:09 <@Betelgeuse> solar: that's the way to reach all 21:11 -!- hparker [n=hparker@gentoo/developer/hparker] has joined #gentoo-council 21:11 <@solar> -dev-announce seems logical. But it's been mostly a post-only mailing list with very little interactive threads 21:11 <@dertobi123> -dev-announce and f'up to -council 21:11 <+jmbsvicetto> solar: set reply-to to the dev ml 21:11 <@Calchan> solar, we're not going to cross post anything on -council to -dev-announce 21:13 <@Calchan> solar, so how about we vote whether we want to do 3.3 and get done with it? 21:13 <@Calchan> again, we're late 21:13 -!- ed-209 [n=cc@pool-98-114-205-197.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #gentoo-council 21:13 <@leio> ok, so I understand we need an action for "No" having happened for 3.1 and 3.3 wasn't something that everyone agreed on afterall (while commenting agenda)? 21:13 <@solar> Calchan: I'm not sure what exactly you want to vote on. 21:13 <@solar> but sure. Let the devs decide if they want a restructure. 21:14 <@Calchan> can we move on? 21:14 <@solar> and elections handles the vote. it only seems like somebody needs to fire up a thread on the topic. If it gets no feedback then nobody cares 21:14 <@solar> Please yes. 21:14 <@solar> 4. Meeting schedule (10 minutes) 21:15 <@solar> I vote for 4.1.2 at this time every month. 21:15 <@Calchan> same here 21:16 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: will it be that you only have an hour? 21:16 <@Betelgeuse> Of course having it biweekly eats more hours too. 21:16 * dertobi123 agrees, once a month, same time as today 21:16 <@Betelgeuse> monday is good 21:16 <@ulm> once a month is fine 21:17 <@ulm> and monday is o.k. for me 21:17 <@Betelgeuse> Let's try to phrase the exact things to vote on in the agenda. 21:17 <@Calchan> ys please 21:17 <@solar> the same time UTC as this one? 21:17 <@Betelgeuse> Otherwise once a month is problematic to get things done. 21:17 <@Betelgeuse> works for me 21:17 <@dertobi123> wfm, too 21:17 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, we don't have to wait fo rthe meeting to get anything done though 21:18 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: yes sure 21:18 <@leio> once a month is fine, given more mailing list activity. Same time is fine for me (at least while its summer time) 21:18 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: but we need to change from past behavior 21:19 <@leio> or actually we can discuss more in this channel too outside meetings. 21:19 <@ulm> that would be the third monday every month, ri 21:19 <@ulm> ght? 21:19 <@Calchan> leio, email is best because backlogs disappear 21:19 <@solar> If something comes up that calls for a vote of something before the monthly meeting. I would have no objection for a quick get together. Or if we handle it via email it needs to be made very clear we are voting 21:20 <@leio> Calchan: realtime discussion to prep something for e-mail vs more official records, etc, yeah 21:20 <@Calchan> solar, have we reached a decision on 4.1? 21:21 <@solar> ok so it seems like we reached a consensus on 4.1.2 21:21 <@solar> that this time works good for everybody (cept maybe lu_zero?) 21:21 <@Calchan> solar, I didn't say it would work for me all the time 21:22 <@Calchan> hence 4.2 21:22 <@Calchan> sorry, 4.3 21:22 <@solar> 4.3) I would rather not. By default I think we should assume it's exactly 4 weeks from the last one. 21:23 <@solar> however. I will be on vacation then next month 21:24 <@Calchan> solar, I can't promise I'm available on mondays or any other days, so dertobi123's doodle poll made sense in my case 21:24 <@dertobi123> we should have a default meeting time. 21:24 <@leio> so you mean every 4 weeks but possibly changing day within the week..? 21:24 <@Calchan> k on a default though 21:24 <@dertobi123> if the default doesn't work -> announce it *early* and we can arrange to find a better date 21:25 <@Betelgeuse> indeed 21:25 <@solar> I'm in favor of 1100PST/1800UTC 21:25 <@Calchan> dertobi123, ok with that, what is early? 21:25 <@dertobi123> solar: me too 21:25 <@dertobi123> 18utc on mondays seems to work in general for everyone 21:25 <@dertobi123> so i'd prefer to switch just the weeks 21:25 <@dertobi123> and stick to mondays 21:26 <@dertobi123> if that doesn't work too - well, we should be able to arrange something different then 21:26 <@dertobi123> Calchan: and early is something like "at least 10 days before the default meeting date" 21:26 <@Calchan> dertobi123, will try 21:26 <@leio> (I think per GLEP39 we still have proxies and slacker marks) 21:27 <@leio> (but accommodating when possible and early enough sounds ok) 21:28 <@solar> 5. Wrap up, comments, open questions. 21:29 <@solar> now seems a good time to remove the +m ? 21:29 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by solar 21:29 <@leio> ok, so did we go with "We meet monthly on mondays 18.00 UTC and with at least 10 day notice a doodle poll can be arranged for a different time" or should we vote on that, and is monthly every 4 weeks or every n'th week of the month 21:30 <@dertobi123> leio: we go with that, yeah. every 4 weeks by default 21:30 < igli> I'd just like to say I'm impressed: I've never seen an executive group not vote more power to themselves. Also, please bear in mind that users find -council ML intimidating to post to. previous councils have been quite clear on keeping it to discussion around meetings and for external, not wider issues within community; there was -dev, now there's -project too. And it's much easier (less flames) to move it from -project to -dev than the other way round. 21:30 <+jmbsvicetto> About my mail, I've left out proxies and slacker marks as I'd like to see other opinions before making a proposal - I think we can even left that open for the vote 21:31 < fmccor|home> Thanks. As some of you know, I have strong feelings about GLEP39 --- we (the developers) did choose it from a list of several alternatives. 21:31 <@solar> note that every for weeks as pointed out might not be ideal as saying every First/Last week of the month. 21:31 <@solar> four 21:31 <@Betelgeuse> Last week is fine by me. 21:31 <@dertobi123> solar: we should announce the default meeting time at the end of each meeting plus in the summary. 21:32 <@dertobi123> and then it doesn't matter which week it is 21:32 <+jmbsvicetto> The 4 weeks problem is summed up as 52/4 = 13 ;) 21:32 <@solar> Oh one last thing. Who wants to do the summary for the this meeting? 21:32 <@Calchan> sorry, I had lost my screen due to internet issues, consider me out now 21:33 <@Calchan> I'll post comments on the meeting to the alias later 21:33 <@leio> I can do the summary draft 21:33 <@solar> thank you 21:33 <@dertobi123> ok, next meeting on august 17th? 21:34 <@ulm> fine with me 21:34 <@leio> fine 21:34 <@Betelgeuse> fine 21:34 <@solar> no objections