21:00:33 somebody logging? 21:00:46 I am as usual 21:00:51 I'm not logging 21:00:51 committing after meeting 21:00:57 thanks leio 21:01:04 * dertobi123 yawns 21:01:13 hi guys, I just want to warn you that I'm feeling terrible today health wise 21:01:33 and I haven't slept in 30 hours so if I stop responding you'll know I'm sleeping 21:01:33 don't cough on us then. But noted you are here. 21:01:50 solar, it's not that, don't worry 21:01:57 Betelgeuse? 21:02:00 ulm: yes 21:02:13 ok, everyone is there 21:02:13 so everyone here we can say :] 21:02:28 ok. well that means Calchan probably wont chair today due to his health problems. 21:02:38 ulm: would you be willing to chair this meeting? 21:02:49 solar, good point, thanks 21:03:04 solar: can do, unless someone else wants to 21:03:37 any objections? if not lets get started please 21:04:09 ok, I'll take the chair then 21:04:17 we're at 1.4 already :) 21:04:35 any remarks on the agenda? 21:04:47 no 21:04:53 no 21:05:03 nope 21:05:44 none it seems 21:05:54 so 2. Follow-ups from previous meeting 21:06:21 do I start? 21:06:25 Calchan: you want to say something about GLEP 39? 21:06:32 yes 21:06:52 I have posted the discussion topics as planned in order to gether inpu tfrom the community 21:07:09 I forgot one and maybe more will come 21:07:52 the target is to have everything dpone before the nominations for next term 21:08:16 I will work backward from there to make a planning 21:08:39 ok 21:08:44 I'm a bit disappointed by the small number of reactions so far but not surprised 21:09:14 any comments from you guys about what has been done so far? 21:09:14 so not much to discuss until we have more responses on the ML 21:09:18 Calchan: easier to push for your own ideas :) 21:09:18 maybe we really could inspire ourselves by debian approach, how was suggested there 21:09:28 :] 21:09:30 or that 21:09:35 I've not had a chance to read that yet. 21:09:52 scarabeus, good point, I didn't have the strength to answer that comment but yes 21:10:04 I'll need to work through it later this week or so too, been busy with GSoC with the time I have 21:10:12 well their document is well written and easy to understand 21:10:15 just add any idea even from debian to the thread 21:10:16 so we can at least base off it 21:10:22 same as solar for me ... 21:10:22 the point of this is to brainstorm 21:11:04 that's ok, it's a long term effort anyway 21:11:23 we should just make sure to cook it before next elections :] 21:11:33 ulm, I'm done if there are no more questions 21:11:40 scarabeus, I'll make sure of that 21:11:51 can you link to the thread somewhere (summary or agenda?) 21:12:23 antarus, http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_642482b9a9bc12e7d87fde8e6878f13c.xml 21:12:34 and all the depending threads 21:12:36 antarus: no open floor yet ;) 21:13:12 any other comments on this topic? 21:13:16 --> reavertm (~quassel@gentoo/developer/reavertm) has joined #gentoo-council 21:13:36 other then just to say thanks to Calchan for following up. 21:13:49 next is "policy for changes in metadata.xml" 21:13:52 --> darkside_ (~darkside@gentoo/developer/darkside) has joined #gentoo-council 21:13:56 scarabeus? 21:14:13 ok, i sent fancy mail to the wrong lists as Denis properly pointed out 21:14:24 but the reaction was slightly more than zero 21:14:25 scarabeus, sorry I was a bit harsh that day 21:14:34 scarabeus: where did you send it? 21:14:40 core and council 21:14:43 i should've use dev 21:14:59 scarabeus, I think it should have been appraoched differently, we can discuss that after the meeting if you want 21:15:49 scarabeus: can you summarise the replies, or post a pointer to them? 21:16:20 or should we reiterate and postpone to next meeting? 21:16:33 my mail addressed 2 points 21:16:33 devrel is not reacting on qa reported issues -> that one we can say is solved 21:16:33 users are touching ebuild they dont maintain -> here i want to say something :] 21:16:33 ulm, I'd say postpone, let's reboot that 21:16:58 or we can postprone it, and we can discuss the policy with rest qa guys, and Calchan or any other of you guys can chip in 21:17:09 actualy i think the policy text i wrote is quite nice 21:17:09 http://dpaste.com/185381/ 21:17:19 do we still have some qa guys around? 21:17:21 yet it needs some sane override mechanism, where some poeple dont mind touching 21:17:23 scarabeus: and maybe resend the message to -dev ml 21:17:56 scarabeus, it looks good to me, but it's only nice if it's what devs want 21:18:23 dertobi123: we do qa ;] even tho people mostly see the removals ;D 21:18:32 scarabeus: a typo in exceptions? ws and breaking installs in same category? 21:18:32 at least it's a good starting point for discussion 21:18:41 ok i will sent one more mailie to the -dev 21:18:54 and we see what responses we will collect till next meeting then 21:18:55 ah know I got it 21:20:01 can we move to the next topic? 21:20:10 mh yeah 21:20:12 yes please 21:20:19 move move :] 21:20:34 3. "doman -i18n" option 21:20:55 I hope everybody had a look at bug 303919 21:20:57 ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/303919 "Prefer -i18n option of doman to filename language suffix"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; NEW; billie@g.o:pms-bugs@g.o 21:21:14 it seems like it's been worked out, and only needs approval 21:21:20 in a nutshell: 21:21:24 I don't get the tying to EAPI 21:21:28 go on 21:21:36 - PMS doesn't document -i18n 21:21:51 - we wnat to fix the behaviour for the next EAPI 21:21:54 *want 21:22:07 leio: it's a slight change of behaviour 21:22:36 I'm concerned about the gradual switchover. Isn't it about where the files get installed on the system, what directory, or I misunderstood completely? 21:22:37 i.e. the option should be preferred to the filename language tag 21:23:08 leio: right 21:23:19 it's about man pages like foo.pl.1 21:23:44 which are most likely about a perl script, not a page in Polish 21:23:56 Why with a fresh install I should get some localized man pages under one name, and others in another 21:23:59 in EAPI 3 there's no way to handle that 21:25:35 ulm: we could try a vote as people should be prepared, if for some reason someone doesn't understand they can abstain / vote no. 21:25:47 Betelgeuse: right 21:25:49 wfm 21:26:07 lets vote 21:26:37 I vote yes for this in eapi4 21:26:41 yes 21:26:50 i vote yes 21:26:50 as an english only speaker and knowing very little about i18n behaviors. I have no objections as long as those ebuilds don't die on uclibc. so yes 21:27:03 yes 21:27:04 please vote on "doman -i18n as outlined in bug 303919 should be included in EAPI 4" 21:27:07 ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/303919 "Prefer -i18n option of doman to filename language suffix"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; NEW; billie@g.o:pms-bugs@g.o 21:27:12 I vote yes, obviously 21:27:16 heh 21:27:22 ulm: slow :) 21:27:25 :] 21:27:49 leio? 21:27:52 I have no objections against an extra argument possibility, so if I understand what we are voting on right, then yes 21:28:09 ok, unanimous then 21:28:25 ok my stuff then 21:28:27 Any questions? 21:28:28 next topic 4. bugzilla policy 21:28:55 or clarifications rather 21:29:00 Does the bugzilla votes consider bugs where initially there are multiple arches involved? 21:29:42 --> ferringb (~ferringb@gentoo/developer/ferringb) has joined #gentoo-council 21:29:48 Initially with multiple arches you CC them all. 21:29:56 like currently - no change 21:30:16 --> billie (~billie@gentoo/developer/billie) has joined #gentoo-council 21:30:29 guess leio's talking about when there's only a single left on a bug 21:30:33 yes 21:30:39 eh, single arch* 21:30:46 I didn't remember to put that on the list but we can vote on that too if everyone is ready. 21:30:48 I don't like things getting reassigned to that one remaining last arch then 21:31:17 leio: maybe we should vote on this point separately 21:31:20 let's handle this first 21:31:32 on 4.1 (b) seems ideal to me as it allows to most flexibility. 21:31:35 if there's time at the end we can revisit 21:32:00 i would go with b too 21:32:08 Read the instructions. 21:32:19 having worked on both ppc and hppa arch teams ... i'm for 4.1 (b) ... both ways work for me 21:32:26 Let's start voting on a: 21:32:28 I vote yes. 21:32:29 (but I think this [when one arch is left] can be a maintainer decision if to reassign or not, if we don't disallow assigning to arches for keyword/stable bugs with 4c) 21:32:37 err. 21:32:45 a) no b) yes c) no 21:32:49 same thing Betelgeuse 21:32:54 what is a? 21:33:01 leio: see agenda 21:33:06 a) no b) yes c) no 21:33:14 I see it as a three-way choice, not three yes/no's? 21:33:14 b) yes, a) and c) no 21:33:15 leio: The single arch in question is the assignee 21:33:26 solar: that way is not the same thing 21:33:40 right, it's a three-way choice :] 21:33:42 solar: I only vote yes to b) if a doesn't get majority 21:33:47 Betelgeuse, we're only talking about stabilizations here right? not about adding a new ~arch keyword 21:33:48 so vote on 4.1 a, b, or c as outlined in the agenda 21:33:56 Calchan: keywording bugs 21:34:06 Calchan: the descriptions needs to be more clear 21:34:21 solar, scarabeus, dertobi123: I take this as "b" from you 21:34:25 Calchan: +For example to the start. 21:34:29 ulm: yes 21:34:31 ulm: yeah ;) 21:34:38 so only about new ~arch keywords? 21:34:39 I vote "b" too 21:34:53 IF you guys had problems the voting method, why didn't you comment on the agenda? 21:34:58 +with 21:35:28 the agenda says it's a choice between a, b and c as far as my english deciphers 21:35:32 I vote "b" 21:35:43 Betelgeuse: it's a choice between 3 possibilities 21:35:45 he is asking for the entire lot sorta. 21:35:51 Betelgeuse: you can only have one of them 21:36:00 whatever I vote a 21:36:11 guys, kiss - keep it simple and stupid ... 21:36:16 Calchan: your vote? 21:36:23 ulm: voting a,b,c could scatter 21:36:35 --> djc (~djc@gentoo/developer/djc) has joined #gentoo-council 21:36:42 ulm, b with the mention that I would like the maintainer to at least be CCed 21:36:47 Betelgeuse: that's why I included a run-off vote ;) 21:37:04 err, ok, we are voting on STABLEREQ, right? Sorry for the confusion 21:37:12 We waste more time arguing on the change than just going with the agenda says. 21:37:20 Calchan: doesn't always make sense 21:37:25 leio: we are still on 4.1 21:37:27 e.g. if the maintainer is the reporter 21:37:31 <-- djc (~djc@gentoo/developer/djc) has left #gentoo-council 21:37:35 leio: We should have same policy for all keywording bugs. 21:37:49 ulm, I think the maintainer deserves to know at least, he can then remove himsel fif he wants 21:37:52 ok, I count 1 a, 6 b, 0 c 21:37:58 Calchan: That was already covered in the threads. 21:38:08 --> NeddySeagoon (~NeddySeag@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon) has joined #gentoo-council 21:38:17 I should have done a better job for the agenda text. 21:38:19 Betelgeuse, I just wanted to mention it in the meeting :o) 21:38:28 But stuff is clear if you read the thread. 21:38:31 b, but if maintainer isn't the assignee, it should get CCed at first 21:38:33 <-- Ford_Prefect has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat) 21:38:56 Betelgeuse: the outcome of the vote would've been the same regardless of voting procedure 21:39:03 ulm: in this case yes 21:39:30 ulm: I put it there because I considered my way fastests to reach a decision. 21:39:31 next is "bugzilla resolutions" 21:39:39 I personaly tend to think the order they are listed in the metadata.xml is how they want it assigned. 21:39:53 solar: there's nothing to say it works that way 21:40:46 --> Zorry_N900 (~user@gentoo/developer/zorry) has joined #gentoo-council 21:40:50 questions/discussion about LATER and REMIND resolutions? 21:40:53 --> PSYCHO___ (~scarab@gentoo/developer/scarabeus) has joined #gentoo-council 21:40:53 --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to PSYCHO___ 21:41:04 * PSYCHO___ slightly disconnected 21:41:12 something relevant on that vote already happened? 21:41:21 Just a note that infra could take a while to implement it. 21:41:30 We can still make it a policy already to not use them. 21:41:32 PSYCHO___: no 21:41:40 oka 21:42:00 4.2 Infra said it could do it around to the removal of the existing bug resolutions in the bugs-3 migration. Can add later and bosolete 21:42:01 Betelgeuse: urm, policy won't work quite well for that 21:42:14 So my vote is yes 21:42:34 Also note that Remove means remove for new markings. 21:42:42 Not Remove from already resolved. 21:43:21 I vote yes. 21:43:25 from what robbat said in infra an hour ago, that won't be possible? (i might be wrong on that?) 21:43:55 i'll add the new RESO+keyword for now, but disabling the others is going to get RESO AFTER_BUGZILLA3 21:44:11 ah, ok 21:44:27 whatever, yes on all 3 proposed changes then 21:44:57 we could send an email to -dev-announce to not use them and remove them from the docs to start 21:45:18 Calchan: I can also try to remember to run a periodic search and yell at people. 21:45:21 ulm, and yes on all 3 questions 21:45:22 yes from me but we could wait to the bugzie 3 migration with actualy turning it on :] 21:45:37 Betelgeuse, in case you need help with the yelling you know who to ask ;o) 21:45:37 he might not be able to purge them w/o mass bug spam. So it may just be a hidden resolution for while 21:46:00 I vote yes too 21:46:02 leio? 21:46:13 PSYCHO___: $nick -> scarab.. please 21:46:33 i cant :( 21:46:38 it is still here 21:46:39 can the chair please spell out what we are actually voting here to avoid confusion again? 21:46:40 wait a sec 21:46:56 are we voting on the first point of removing LATER and REMIND, or all of them right now, or what 21:46:58 leio: vote on "Remove LATER and REMIND from resolutions." 21:47:21 one point after the other ;) 21:47:29 yes, but conditionally on "Add LATER as a keyword" getting decided as a "yes" too. 21:47:53 next vote: "Add LATER as a KEYWORD" 21:47:57 yes 21:47:59 yes 21:48:01 I vote yes 21:48:22 yes 21:48:31 still yes 21:49:16 5 yes, so we've a majority 21:49:20 scarabeus, solar? 21:49:29 we already voted 21:49:32 both said yes 21:49:34 well i can say yes on this acc 21:49:41 For OBSOLETE there's some overlap with CANTFIX 21:50:28 i vote yes for all 3 21:50:31 but I still like for more accurate describing 21:50:36 Betelgeuse, but OBSOLETE can be considered a special case of CANTFIX 21:50:43 so that still works imo 21:50:46 yes, but that can't be avoided. 21:50:46 now lets hope now the connection to quassel core holds :] 21:50:55 Calchan: basically what I was saying 21:51:07 Betelgeuse, sorry, slow brain today 21:52:40 ulm, are we voting on OBSOLETE? 21:52:40 I suggest we just vote on "Add resolution OBSOLETE". if you think it's redundant you can vote no 21:52:49 Calchan: we do 21:52:53 yes 21:52:58 I vote yes 21:52:58 ok, it's a yes from me then 21:52:58 yes 21:53:03 yup 21:53:09 yes 21:53:41 yes 21:53:57 all three votes unanimous then 21:54:14 and we are in time :) 21:54:24 5 conclusion 21:54:35 5.1 action list 21:54:35 nearly an unanimous entire agenda 21:55:21 scarabeus: you follow up on 2.2? 21:55:42 yes 21:55:47 i sent the text via quasell 21:55:49 it will arrive 21:55:52 give it some time ;D 21:56:06 k 21:56:18 anything else for 5.1? 21:56:31 ulm: documentation needs updating 21:56:41 ulm: I'll see if I can find a volunteer 21:57:01 ok i will do my postproned item and sent the mail to the -dev as soon as i gather opinion of other qa members, and i hope there will be some constructive updates :] 21:57:01 ok i will do my postproned item and sent the mail to the -dev as soon as i gather opinion of other qa members, and i hope there will be some constructive updates :] 21:57:09 see it works :] 21:57:19 I'll take care of "doman" for pms 21:57:42 scarabeus, make sure you gather input from all devs, not just QA 21:58:08 Please. I dislike putting that into policy myself. 21:58:28 scarabeus, a policy that devs don't want has no chance of being respected 21:58:37 cuz something bonsaikitten did. sucks to punish all devs 21:58:57 well thats why i want simple override method 21:59:03 5.2 who takes care of log and summary? 21:59:17 and dont worry, just qa first then -dev-ml 21:59:26 I take care of log 21:59:38 ulm, I can take care of the summary tomorrow 21:59:43 i guess each of us is there rite? :] 21:59:54 Calchan, leio: thanks 22:00:11 5.3 next meeting date 22:00:20 May 17th 22:00:49 works for me 22:00:59 or 12th. If we don't have more then 3 items. then 17th would be better imo 22:01:02 I'm open all mondays next month 22:01:22 sorry 10th 22:01:33 solar, let's do 17th, we may have a rich agenda next time due to glep 39 22:01:36 both 10th and 17th work for me 22:01:55 17th is better 22:01:59 any objections on May 17th? 22:02:00 both work for me 22:02:10 18 UTC as usual 22:02:14 yes 22:02:41 17 ok for me 22:02:53 time ok too :] 22:02:59 ok, 2010-05-17 18 UTC then 22:03:07 5.4 who will follow-up discussions and prepare the agenda? 22:03:14 I can take care of the agenda, makes sense if there's alot about glep 39, unless somebody want sot do it 22:03:41 sounds good 22:04:05 Calchan: thank you again 22:04:10 sure 22:04:26 open floor then 22:04:45 6.1) is not for the council. Kick it over to the foundation 22:04:47 ulm, thanks for chairing, you did a good job, it's not an easy task 22:05:03 or PR 22:05:19 solar, good point 22:05:20 Can the council publish a meetings calendar for the remainder of their term ? 22:05:29 scarabeus: please don't forget to add an exception for when the maintainer is away 22:05:31 solar: formally infra is responsible for the website 22:05:36 NeddySeagoon, what do you mean? decide on the dates now? 22:05:36 so... anyone mind clarifying why REQUIRED_USE original discussion from the ml (consensus among other things, and more than enough time), why it got dropped, and when it'll actually be addressed? :) 22:05:43 Calchan, yes 22:06:00 * ferringb has poked a few folk about this, but considering no response and the proper forms were followed... 22:06:04 and try to stick with them 22:06:07 ulm: we did this years ago. there were www contests etc. 22:06:09 ferringb: I thought we had discussed this already 22:06:27 when new code is ready that meets the requirements infra set some years ago. It can be done 22:06:33 NeddySeagoon, difficult for me, these meetings happen during office hours and the best I can do is lock a date one month in advance 22:06:47 but that is outside the scope of the council imo 22:07:29 ferringb, you need to get your glep accepted, discussed and then approved before the council can vote on it 22:07:36 Calchan: it's not a glep 22:07:51 Calchan: I may've used the glep format to write the sucker up, but that was purely so the council would have the data in one place 22:07:52 ferringb, oh I thought you were talking about a glep 22:08:00 sorry then 22:08:23 ulm: partially. I'm still not particularly happy w/ the reasoning, and I'm intent on making enough noise stuff like this doesn't get dropped on the floor without at least telling people why 22:08:40 it's not like it was a backroom request. the call for requests went out, pretty clear it was asked for 22:08:53 ferringb: I had also thought it was a GLEP, due to http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/gleps/required-use.html 22:09:00 * ferringb sighs 22:09:10 fine, if that's your thought 22:09:18 why didn't you publically state "can't vote on it due to xyz" ? 22:09:25 well you gave it a number, called it a "This GLEP proposes" 22:09:29 instead it sits, and I have to run y'alls asses down to find out why it got ignored 22:09:32 so it looks like a draft glep to us 22:09:39 solar: number is actually required to generate html 22:09:45 ferringb, you are talking to council members here, so make sure you're unambiguous and explicit as much as possible as we're kinda thinck ;o) 22:09:45 an annoying restriction actually 22:10:09 Calchan: ok, explicit: do not go dropping requests without explaining why 22:10:13 even a "don't have time" is fine 22:10:19 ferringb: we've discussed that before I finalised the agenda :( 22:10:37 ulm: I think what ferringb would have wanted as a faster reaction 22:10:43 ulm: aware of the justifications; the point I'm after here is the lack of response ;) 22:11:26 think of it this way; y'all think it's a glep. thus far no pms change has been glepped, but whatever, ok. if someone had even *commented* on it stating "sorry, can't touch it", could've done something about it. instead it's 5-6 weeks of wait, instead of 1-2. 22:11:29 To note for the people doing agenda in the future: Answer all requests int he thread. 22:11:35 Betelgeuse: exactly 22:11:58 preferably not 5 minutes before you've assembled a proto agenda also 22:12:06 ferringb, we suck more often than not, sorry 22:12:16 Calchan: people suck more often than not, welcome to the human race 22:12:26 Betelgeuse: I've contacted everyone on irc, should be as good 22:12:35 the people who don't suck are the ones who correct mistakes so they don't repeat 'em ;) 22:12:41 ferringb, don't look at me, I don't look human today ;o) 22:13:03 I'd like to see ^^ in it's own section. It's easy to overlook the introduction of new operators that we know will probably become a desired feature elsewhere that !? ( :[] ) syntax is used 22:13:15 solar: well, we've got a month to discuss that, don't we? ;) 22:13:18 and yes, that was cheap 22:13:34 solar: I'll work on splitting that up for potential license reuse 22:13:36 ulm: yeah but hard for others to know you have talked on IRC 22:14:00 ulm: also, I poked you... and that was after the schedule was set (I find out on my own) ;) 22:14:52 basically, if you put out a "request for council discussion points" on dev, stuff that shows up there either include, or respond explaining why not. simple enough request, and preferably done during the week/two, rather than last minute 22:14:58 last minute being fine if the schedule doesn't fit mind you 22:15:03 either way, 22:15:23 ok. well you have all our ears now for input/feedback. 22:16:00 alternatively, approve everything I hand your way... preferably w/ a resolution stating that my word is law so I don't have to burn a month or two for everything I'm after :P 22:16:09 I think the idea is neat. I don't see you saying the PM has to do anything. It's just a key that can be used if it exists right? 22:16:19 <-- PSYCHO___ has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.1.1) 22:16:35 solar: rephrase your question... also, can it wait a bit? need to run down someone work wise for a second 22:17:10 <-- Zorry_N900 has quit (Quit: Leaving) 22:17:15 ferringb: You actually said yourself it's a GLEP: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/66105 22:17:52 ferringb, /win 11 22:17:56 dammit 22:18:31 ulm: did we cover OpenFloor 6.2 ? 22:18:53 Philantrop: "wrote it up as a glep" doesn't mean drop it on the floor with zero explanation 22:19:24 solar: not yet 22:19:28 6.2 "centralise developer documentation" 22:19:29 solar, it's open floor so anybody who wants to discuss it is welcome, it doesn't necessarily have to be council members though 22:19:53 yeah it's not open floor if it's rigidly controlled :) 22:19:59 ferringb: No, I just wanted to make clear why the council may have seen it as a GLEP. 22:19:59 I'd thought yngwin would comment on 6.1 and 6.2 22:20:01 Philantrop: further, preceeding proposal still had zero commentary from the council, my intent in writing that doc was purely so they had all the details/info in a single spot, not to get nailed by fricking red tape 22:20:09 butt looks like he isn't here 22:20:12 *but 22:20:25 Philantrop: I grok the view. annoyance there is the wasted month ahead due to no communication ;) 22:20:29 ferringb: Don't shoot the messenger. :-) 22:20:34 I just want to make sure it does not get lost. 22:20:36 * ferringb is in a shooty mood 22:20:54 solar: around in a few hours re: discussing ^^ btw 22:21:17 on 6.1. Sounds good if yngwin is going to voluenteer to take lead on it. Or so is my suggestion to him 22:21:40 I have been giving tasks related to 6.2 for people contacting me for small tasks. 22:21:45 ferringb: I need to get out after this meeting is over. Around this evening 22:21:52 solar: he already volunteered on that one 22:21:59 but so far most have failed to deliver anything 22:22:15 * yngwin is not volunteering for anything until my devrel issue is resolved 22:22:35