Adding summary and log for today council's meeting.

2 files changed, 359 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20120508-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20120508-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fb7349e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20120508-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+Council 2012/05/08 meeting summary
+==================================
+
+
+Agenda
+------
+
+ * Introduction and roll call (5 minutes)
+ * EAPI specification in ebuilds [2] (20 minutes)
+
+   1. Vote on final PMS wording [3] (discussion [4])
+   2. Vote to change the status of GLEP55 [5]
+
+ * Separate /usr partition vote of last meeting (20 minutes)
+
+   Following the vote about Gentoo supporting separate /usr
+   installations in the last meeting, the mls became active
+   about the meaning and consequences of such vote.
+   William made a direct request to the council to review the
+   vote [6].
+
+ * Review of the council term (10 minutes)
+
+   Roy suggested [7] the council members do a review of their
+   mandate in the last meeting before the election.
+
+ * Open floor
+
+ [1] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=1900
+ [2] -
+http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_e6eafd6be25794ca503e0ac9d6968cd3.xml
+ [3] -
+http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/msg_3a441be5e49cc06689ecab00da461278.xml
+ [4] -
+http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/msg_ef7635aa655913f2386e64e385f5a6ae.xml
+ [5] - http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0055.html
+ [6] -
+http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_5a3e7a62abc3f6f529cbb18d85f2fbcf.xml
+ [7] -
+http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_0e09e374488d2393c6cf794e349dc614.xml
+
+
+Meeting
+-------
+
+ * roll call
+
+    here:
+
+    Betelgeuse (late)
+    chainsaw
+    dberkholz
+    grobian
+    hwoarang
+    jmbsvicetto
+    ulm
+
+ * vote/discuss:
+
+   * EAPI specification in ebuilds
+
+     * Vote on final PMS wording
+
+       The council approved with 6 yes votes the final PMS wording as submitted on
+       http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_e6eafd6be25794ca503e0ac9d6968cd3.xml
+
+     * Vote to change the status of GLEP55
+
+       The council approved with 6 yes votes to change the status of GLEP55 to rejected.
+       Per Ulrich's suggestion, the GLEP status heading will be changed to "the council
+       rejected this GLEP in its 2012-05-08 meeting in favor of parsing the EAPI from
+       the first non-blank and non-comment line of ebuilds.
+
+
+    * Separate /usr partition vote of last meeting
+
+      Following the discussions in the dev and project threads about the last meeting
+      vote on the separate /usr partition as well as the thread on this meeting's agenda,
+      the council members agreed that as Tony stated "sufficient understanding & agreement
+      has been built on the mailing lists".
+
+
+    * Review of the council term
+
+      As suggested by Roy, the council members did a review of this council term.
+      Tony remarked he feels this council did particularly well on attendance. Fabian
+      collected his thoughts on http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/achievements-council-1112.txt
+      Donnie suggests having fewer rotating chairs and have them do a few meetings in
+      a row to improve efficiency. Jorge also noted that picking chairs in advance
+      does help getting meetings prepared. Several members argued be prepared is very
+      important. Petteri noted council members should be proactive and Jorge noted how
+      work got a toll on his time for council duties.
+      Donnie was bothered by the "red tape" and the amount of time council spent on issues
+      that weren't really up to it. He also maintains the believe that innovations should
+      be pushed by individuals and that the council should do everything to quickly get out
+      of the way.
+   
+
+    * Open bugs with council involvement
+
+      * bug 383467
+
+        Jorge noted this bug was his and that the council voting results are already available
+        at the elections page http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council/ . He also promised
+        to complete the conversion of the 2005 nominees file, fix the master ballot for last year
+        election as noted by Ulrich, to drop http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/#doc_chap9
+        and link back to the elections page.
+
+      * bug 411069
+
+        Ulrich argued the council shouldn't be CC'ed on this bug and as other council members
+        agreed this isn't a council issue, the council has been removed from CC of this bug.
+
+
+ * next meeting:
+
+   Tuesday, 20120612 1900 UTC
+
+
+ * open floor:
+
+   No issues were brought to the council attention.
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20120508.txt b/meeting-logs/20120508.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9565fce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20120508.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,237 @@
+19:02 -!- jmbsvicetto changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: meeting: now - agenda: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/msg_f360c5b4fc50c6a3238f403475db6479.xml | Meeting chairs: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/#doc_chap5 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=1900 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
+19:02 <@jmbsvicetto> roll-call
+19:02  * Chainsaw would just like to confirm that he is present, on time and without any phone calls
+19:02 <@ulm> here
+19:02 <+dberkholz> .
+19:03 <@jmbsvicetto> here
+19:03 <@grobian> here
+19:03 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: ping
+19:03 <@hwoarang> im here
+19:04 <@jmbsvicetto> Let's wait 2 more minutes for Betelgeuse. I'll call him if he doesn't show up
+19:04 <@grobian> ok
+19:05 <@jmbsvicetto> any comments about the agenda?
+19:05 <@grobian> agenda is ok
+19:06 <@Chainsaw> It is agreeable. Let's proceed.
+19:06 <@jmbsvicetto> I'm calling Betelgeuse
+19:06 <@jmbsvicetto> He says he'll be joining us in a couple minutes
+19:07 <@jmbsvicetto> so let's start
+19:07 < _AxS_> jmbsvicetto: re agenda - review of open bugs?
+19:07 <@jmbsvicetto> 2. EAPI specification in ebuilds
+19:07 <@jmbsvicetto> _AxS_: true, I left that out
+19:07 <@jmbsvicetto> _AxS_: we'll address that before open floor
+19:07 <@jmbsvicetto> Are we ready to vote in the final PMS wording?
+19:07 <@grobian> yup
+19:08 <@ulm> wording is here: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_e6eafd6be25794ca503e0ac9d6968cd3.xml
+19:08 <+dberkholz> sounds good to me.
+19:09  * Chainsaw votes yes
+19:09 <@jmbsvicetto> I vote yes
+19:09 <@hwoarang> sounds good
+19:09 <@grobian> I vote yes
+19:09 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang / dberkholz / ulm: your vote?
+19:09 <+dberkholz> 19:08 < dberkholz+> sounds good to me.
+19:10 <@hwoarang> i said it sounds good to me
+19:10 <@ulm> of course yes
+19:10 <@jmbsvicetto> so 6 yes votes
+19:10 <+dberkholz> when you ask whether we're ready to vote without asking us to actually vote, it can be a little confusing.
+19:10 <@jmbsvicetto> Shall we vote to change the status of GLEP55?
+19:10 <@ulm> pushed ;)
+19:10 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: yes, let's vote
+19:10 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: yes
+19:10 <@jmbsvicetto> So how do you vote?
+19:11 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: ask for our vote
+19:11 < NeddySeagoon> change it to what ?
+19:11 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, let me rephrase
+19:12 <@ulm> NeddySeagoon: I have propose to change its status to rejected
+19:12 <@ulm> *proposed
+19:12 <@hwoarang> i agree
+19:12 <@jmbsvicetto> Vote: Should we change the status of GLEP55 to rejected?
+19:12 < _AxS_> NeddySeagoon: starting at 'If the EAPI ...' and continuing to '... these values are different'
+19:12 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: yes
+19:12 <@jmbsvicetto> yes
+19:12  * Chainsaw votes that GLEP55 is to be rejected, so, yes
+19:12 <@ulm> yes
+19:12 <+dberkholz> re-JEC-ted
+19:12 <@grobian> eapi pms wording: vote yes
+19:13 <@grobian> glep 55 reject: vote yes
+19:13 <@jmbsvicetto> so the motion was approved with 6 yes votes
+19:13 -!- Betelgeuse [~betelgeus@gentoo/developer/Betelgeuse] has joined #gentoo-council
+19:13 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o Betelgeuse] by ChanServ
+19:13 <@jmbsvicetto> 3. Separate /usr partition vote of last meeting
+19:13 <@Betelgeuse> osrry guys
+19:13 <@ulm> do we need to agree on a short sentence for that glep's status line?
+19:13 <@Betelgeuse> All parking lots for my building were taken
+19:14 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: we just finshed voting for point 2. yes to the pms wording and yes to reject GLEP55
+19:14 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm: do you have any proposal?
+19:15 <+dberkholz> my understanding was that the status line was predefined to be one of the available statuses at the bottom of the glep page.
+19:15 <@ulm> "Status: The council rejected this GLEP in its 2012-05-08 meeting in favor of parsing the EAPI from the first non-blank and non-comment line of ebuilds."
+19:15 <@ulm> dberkholz: usually there's a short Status section
+19:16 <@ulm> see glep 49 or 50 for example
+19:16 <@grobian> I can agree with ulm's status line
+19:16 <@hwoarang> so do i
+19:16 <+dberkholz> oh, i thought you were referring to the other status section in the header.
+19:16 <+dberkholz> that's not confusing at all =P
+19:16 <@jmbsvicetto> I agree with the proposal
+19:17 <+dberkholz> that's fine, i don't think we need to even vote on it.
+19:17 <+dberkholz> but whatever
+19:17 <@jmbsvicetto> we should also add a history note about it having been rejected before
+19:17 <@jmbsvicetto> but I'll leave that for the GLEP editors to address
+19:17 <@jmbsvicetto> so, shall we move to point 3?
+19:18 <@ulm> well, probably we don't need a formal vote on it
+19:18 <@Chainsaw> Yes please.
+19:18 <@grobian> yes plese
+19:18 <@jmbsvicetto> Separate /usr partition vote of last meeting 
+19:18 <@jmbsvicetto> WilliamH / dberkholz / grobian / Chainsaw: is there anything left to address at this meeting?
+19:18 <@Chainsaw> I believe sufficient understanding & agreement has been built on the mailing lists.
+19:18 <@grobian> my current understanding is there there are no more questions on this topic
+19:18 <+dberkholz> seems like the busybox thing has addressed the concerns i saw.
+19:18 < WilliamH> It seems that agreement has been built to me also. I brought
+19:19 <@Chainsaw> i.e. I much prefer "option 2" and WilliamH much prefers "option 1", but we both agree that both solutions are valid.
+19:19 < WilliamH> Chainsaw: agreed, either option should work well for users now, and we have documentation for how to make initramfs if folks want to go that way.
+19:20 <@jmbsvicetto> In that case, shall we move to point 4?
+19:20 <@Chainsaw> Please do.
+19:20 <@grobian> yes please
+19:20 <@jmbsvicetto> Does anyone want to do a review of this council's term?
+19:20 <@jmbsvicetto> Let me just add a quick note that next month we will have the election for the next council
+19:20 <@Chainsaw> I believe we did particularly well on attendance this year.
+19:20 <@grobian> NeddySeagoon: mine's here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/achievements-council-1112.txt
+19:21 <@Chainsaw> With regards to slacker marks, appointing of proxies, meetings going ahead as planned, etc.
+19:21 < NeddySeagoon> pass on 'lessons learned' for the new council - if any
+19:21 <+dberkholz> i'd recommend that we have fewer rotating chairs, and have them do a few meetings in a row to improve efficiency.
+19:21 <@ulm> certainly it helps if everyone is well prepared for the meetings
+19:22 <@grobian> dberkholz: nod
+19:22 <@hwoarang> when does the nomication period start?
+19:22 <@ulm> which generally was the case in this council's term
+19:22 < NeddySeagoon> grobian, thank you
+19:22 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: HAasn't the new council usually started in July?
+19:22 <@Betelgeuse> So we would still meet in June.
+19:22 <@jmbsvicetto> picking chairs in advance helps getting meetings prepared
+19:22 <@Chainsaw> Yes, be prepared is a great life motto.
+19:22 <@hwoarang> Betelgeuse: the elections were always in june
+19:22 <@Betelgeuse> hwoarang: elections != first meeting
+19:22 <@hwoarang> yes we do have one more meeting
+19:22 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: sure, but the election takes place next month
+19:22 <+dberkholz> two things that particularly bothered me were the apparent desire for lots of bureaucratic handwaving as well as spending council times on things that weren't really our call
+19:23 <@Betelgeuse> Of course it doesn't matter if we skip the monthly meeting
+19:23 < NeddySeagoon> Betelgeuse, yes - June is your last meeting
+19:23 <@Betelgeuse> as there will any way be a new council
+19:23 <@Betelgeuse> Any way for review what I have been doing is that I have been mostly reactive and a good council member would be proactive.
+19:24 <@Betelgeuse> In some discussions anyw ay
+19:24 < NeddySeagoon> Betelgeuse, the new council should take over in early July.  July 4th actually
+19:24 <@jmbsvicetto> One thing that hit me this term was free time - the move of the hospital sucked most of my life - much more than what I was already expecting
+19:24 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: Bureaucracy is a bad thing. Can you call out the red tape so it can be cut?
+19:24 <@hwoarang> yeah two months without meeting is too much i guess
+19:24 <@jmbsvicetto> It also prevented me from being chair when I had planned to and led to me missing my first meeting
+19:24 < _AxS_> ...so, council meeting and then vote meeting?
+19:24 <+dberkholz> Chainsaw: one example that stands out in my mind is doing an official roll call after everyone on the council has already spoken since the meeting's start time
+19:25 <+dberkholz> not a big time sink, but it made me want to punch a hole in the wall
+19:25 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: Yes, that could just be "I see we're all here, moving on".
+19:25 < NeddySeagoon> waiting 5 minutes after there is a quorum
+19:25 <@ulm> dberkholz: when was that the case?
+19:25 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: Hope it wasn't my meeting.
+19:25 <@jmbsvicetto> _AxS_: the council voting isn't done through a meeting
+19:25 < _AxS_> jmbsvicetto: ah. nvm
+19:25 <@grobian> I like the roll-call, makes it nicely explicit
+19:26 <+dberkholz> that said, if that's the biggest complaint, we don't seem to have major issues
+19:26 <@jmbsvicetto> just to let you guys know, I've decided I won't run for another term and plan instead to run the next council election
+19:26 <+dberkholz> i continue to believe that innovations in gentoo should be pushed by individuals, and the council should do everything we can to quickly get out of their way
+19:26 <+dberkholz> with *quickly* being the key point, especially in the case of gleps
+19:27 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: What? But who would place the phone calls?
+19:27 <@hwoarang> yeah council is sort of a bottleneck
+19:27 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I'm sure we can find someone to do that ;)
+19:27 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto-bot
+19:28 <+dberkholz> i mean, we really have no excuse for the whole glep 55 issue. that's been what, like 4 years?
+19:28 <@jmbsvicetto> :P
+19:28 <@ulm> dberkholz: yeah, this really sucks
+19:28 <@Chainsaw> dberkholz: We've said no twice now. I'm sure it'll stick.
+19:28 <@Betelgeuse> I fealt like there weren't that many agenda items in general. Not necessarily a bad thing but maybe people were not submitting everything that could have been.
+19:29 <@ulm> that's why I pushed it so vehemently
+19:29 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: iirc, it was rejected 2 times before. But if you mean the time it took to approve an alternative, then I agree
+19:29 <+dberkholz> Chainsaw: i mean the problem being solved by it, not the specific implementation in the glep
+19:29 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: rejeted 2 times?
+19:29 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: one time was a tie
+19:29 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: my memory has failed me then
+19:30 <@Betelgeuse> I should have brought it for a revote quickly though
+19:30 <@Betelgeuse> To get an actual opinion
+19:30 < NeddySeagoon> Betelgeuse, maybe it means things were resolved among the devs - no arbitration needed
+19:30 <@Betelgeuse> NeddySeagoon: I don't think it was in this case
+19:31 <@Betelgeuse> There's no consensus to this day either
+19:31 < NeddySeagoon> Betelgeuse, in the case of GLEP 55 - thats true
+19:31 <@jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: One thing that looking back I regret is that the council didn't solve the whole python3 issue quickly
+19:31 <@jmbsvicetto> I spent much more time as a devrel member on that, than as a council member.
+19:32 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: disagree
+19:32 < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, how would you help another council to avoid that mistake?
+19:33 <@jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: I feel that in trying not to get involved on specific issues (at least I as a council member was trying to do that), the council didn't realize or valued the impact that had in the whole distro and community
+19:34 <@hwoarang> you can't really realize that unless you are really involved in the development
+19:34 <@hwoarang> i mean really *daily* development
+19:35 <@hwoarang> observing a distro from the far top is not the ideal way to understand this sort of problems
+19:35 <@jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: so in my case I'd say the balance between letting issues be sorted by individual teams and trying to have a common ground in the distro / community wasn't attained in this case
+19:35 < NeddySeagoon> Thats the 10 minutes on this topic ... thank you
+19:36 < NeddySeagoon> unless you want to add more of course
+19:36 <@jmbsvicetto> anyone has anything else left to say?
+19:36 <+dberkholz> we have 9 gsoc students this year, doing all kinds of cool stuff.
+19:36 <@Chainsaw> I think we did well. Vote for us.
+19:37 <@hwoarang> hopefully this year we make use of the gsoc projects
+19:37 < NeddySeagoon> Chainsaw, no comment as I may be an election official again
+19:37 <@jmbsvicetto> Thank you Donnie and Alec for your work on GSoC
+19:37 <@grobian> ok, can we do open bugs/open floor?
+19:37 <@jmbsvicetto> let's move on
+19:37 <@Chainsaw> Let's do bugs first then please.
+19:38 <@Chainsaw> What do we have?
+19:38 <@jmbsvicetto> can one of you please list the bugs? Unfortunately I don't have access to bugzilla from work
+19:38 <@jmbsvicetto> (I refuse to accept a "forged" certificate)
+19:38 <@ulm> bug 383467 and bug 411069 only
+19:38 < willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/383467 "Council webpage lacks results for 2010 and 2011 elections"; Website www.gentoo.org, Projects; CONF; hwoarang:jmbsvicetto
+19:38 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, the first one is mine
+19:39 <@jmbsvicetto> as you can check on http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council/ we already have the votes there
+19:39 <@jmbsvicetto> voting results*
+19:39 < _AxS_> willikins: bug 411069 is?
+19:39 < willikins> _AxS_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/411069 "Portage shouldn't check $EAPI to get the EAPI"; Portage Development, Core - Ebuild Support; CONF; ciaran.mccreesh:dev-portage
+19:40 <@ulm> jmbsvicetto: the "master ballot" for the last election isn't the master ballot
+19:40 <@jmbsvicetto> I need to convert an html page to xml from 2005 and will try to convert the results page to something along http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/trustees/2008/foundation-200802.xml
+19:40 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm: thanks, I'll fix that
+19:41 <@jmbsvicetto> So, if you're happy with the current result, I plan to drop http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/#doc_chap9 from the council page and link to the election's page instead
+19:41 <@ulm> yes, please do
+19:41 <@jmbsvicetto> unless there's any objection, I'll take care of that tonight
+19:42 <@jmbsvicetto> !bug 411069
+19:42 < willikins> jmbsvicetto: https://bugs.gentoo.org/411069 "Portage shouldn't check $EAPI to get the EAPI"; Portage Development, Core - Ebuild Support; CONF; ciaran.mccreesh:dev-portage
+19:42 <@jmbsvicetto> anything left to do on this one?
+19:42  * ulm doesn't think the council should be CCed on this one
+19:43 < _AxS_> is this part of what agenda item #2 covered?
+19:43 <@ulm> _AxS_: no, it's a different issue
+19:44 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm: so should we remove ourselves from that bug?
+19:44 <@ulm> I'd say so. leave it to Zac
+19:45 < _AxS_> ulm: ..the decision affects it tho; the use case they present is no longer valid, since inherit can't be prior to eapi now ..?
+19:45 <@ulm> as it's a very technical issue and only affects few cases
+19:45 <@ulm> _AxS_: yes, part of it isn't relevant any more
+19:46 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse / Chainsaw / grobian / hwoarang / dberkholz: any comments?
+19:46 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Don't see work for us to do.
+19:46 <@grobian> I tend to think it's not a council issue at the moment
+19:46 <@hwoarang> we shouldnt be there anymore
+19:47 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm: please remove us from the bug then
+19:47 <@ulm> done
+19:47 <@jmbsvicetto> 5. Open floor
+19:47 <@jmbsvicetto> Does anyone have any issues for the council to look at?
+19:48 <@Betelgeuse> interesting case in that bug
+19:51 <@jmbsvicetto> I'll wait 5 more minutes before closing the meeting
+19:51 <@hwoarang> just to be clear. are we having a meeting next month?
+19:51 <@jmbsvicetto> yes
+19:52 <@hwoarang> ok
+19:52 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: you're the apppointed chair
+19:52 <@grobian> when?
+19:52 < NeddySeagoon> you should even with the election in progress
+19:52 <@jmbsvicetto> Tuesday, June 12th 1900 UTC is the predefined date
+19:52 <@grobian> ok
+19:52 <@hwoarang> is there an ETA for the nomination/election period?
+19:53 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: I'll talk to Roy and other interested election officials about it and send an email to the dev ml this week
+19:54 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: thank you
+19:54 <@grobian> meeting closed?
+19:54 <@jmbsvicetto> 2 - 15 (nomination) and 17 - 30 (voting) are the likely dates
+19:55 <@jmbsvicetto> yes
+19:55  * jmbsvicetto closes the meeting
+19:55 <@grobian> ok, thanks for chairing jmbsvicetto
+19:55 -!- nelchael [~nelchael@gentoo/developer/nelchael] has quit [Quit: Backups? We doan *NEED* no steenking baX%^~,VbKx NO CARRIER]
+19:55 <@hwoarang> thanks jmbsvicetto
+19:55 < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, that works for me
+19:55 <@Betelgeuse> thanks
+19:55 <@ulm> thanks
+19:55 -!- jmbsvicetto changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: next meeting: June 12th 1900 UTC | Meeting chairs: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/#doc_chap5 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=1900 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/