|author||William Hubbs <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2017-03-12 15:07:07 -0500|
|committer||William Hubbs <email@example.com>||2017-03-12 15:07:07 -0500|
|parent||Add 2015/10 summary and signature (diff)|
Add mar 2017 log
2 files changed, 150 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20170312.txt b/meeting-logs/20170312.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+14:05 <@WilliamH> Ok, let's get started...
+14:05 <@WilliamH> agenda is here: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/5d66170039af5d5e76c348a51bb32aef
+14:05 <@WilliamH> roll call:
+14:05 * jlec here
+14:05 * rich0 here
+14:05 * dilfridge here
+14:05 * K_F here
+14:05 * ulm here
+14:06 * WilliamH here
+14:06 <@blueness> hello
+14:06 <@blueness> who’s chair?
+14:06 <@blueness> let’s do this thing!
+14:06 <@dilfridge> hrhr :D
+14:06 <@WilliamH> We have a light agenda today...
+14:06 * ulm admires blueness's utf-8 apostrophs
+14:06 <@WilliamH> first topic:
+14:06 <@WilliamH> bugs with council involvement:
+14:07 <@WilliamH> bug 565566
+14:07 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/565566 "New ChangeLogs are in chronological order"; Gentoo Infrastructure, CVS/SVN/Git; CONF; patrick:infra-bugs
+14:07 * blueness here
+14:07 <@blueness> ulm: huh? are yo seeing something i ‘m not?
+14:08 <@dilfridge> blueness: are you on a mac by any chance?
+14:08 <@blueness> yep
+14:08 <@WilliamH> still no response from infra...
+14:08 <@dilfridge> :)
+14:08 <@K_F> WilliamH: we pinged it after the january meeting, if someone cares strongly they can follow up, but there really isn't much for council to do on it at this point
+14:09 <@dilfridge> ‘ versus ' versus ` versus ´
+14:09 <@WilliamH> K_F: so we are just monitoring that then?
+14:09 <@K_F> WilliamH: that'd be my suggestion
+14:09 <@WilliamH> ok.
+14:09 <@dilfridge> I dont care what happens in the separate rsync module
+14:09 <@WilliamH> bug 571490
+14:09 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/571490 "Missing summary for 20151025 council meeting"; Documentation, Project-specific documentation; CONF; mgorny:council
+14:09 <@dilfridge> that one is in all of your inboxen, but noone replied so far
+14:10 <@ulm> dilfridge: looks good to me
+14:10 <@K_F> dilfridge: I don't have any comment for the updated version
+14:10 <@dilfridge> ok then I'll commit it
+14:10 <@WilliamH> I don't have any comments either.
+14:10 <@K_F> good to get rid of that bug report :)
+14:10 <@dilfridge> heh, yes
+14:11 <@WilliamH> bug 611234
+14:11 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/611234 "Council vote: CVS headers and git expansion"; Community Relations, Developer Relations; IN_P; k_f:council
+14:11 * dilfridge is glad that we handled that so quickly
+14:11 <@K_F> indeed
+14:11 <@WilliamH> Agreed
+14:11 <@K_F> WilliamH: should just include the resolution and vote count in today's meeting summary and then we can close bug
+14:11 <@ulm> could the motion and the result of the vote be included in the meeting's summary
+14:11 <@dilfridge> yep
+14:12 <@ulm> K_F: :)
+14:12 <@WilliamH> yes
+14:12 <@rich0> ++
+14:12 <@WilliamH> bug 610990
+14:12 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/610990 "Please create a BZ product "Gentoo Council" similar to "Gentoo Foundation""; Gentoo Infrastructure, Bugzilla; CONF; dilfridge:bugzilla
+14:12 * dilfridge forgot about this completely
+14:13 <@K_F> it'll be nice to have, but waiting for infra action
+14:13 <@dilfridge> the council bz group already exists
+14:13 <@blueness> what is a BZ product?
+14:13 <@dilfridge> (and is kept updated)
+14:13 <@K_F> blueness: bugzilla category
+14:13 <@blueness> oh oh
+14:13 <@K_F> dilfridge: yeah, but it needs to be enabled somewhere to restrict access
+14:13 <@dilfridge> https://bugs.gentoo.org/enter_bug.cgi < what you select on this page
+14:14 <@dilfridge> yep, same as for comrel and qa and trustees
+14:15 <@WilliamH> next topic: open floor...
+14:15 * WilliamH listens
+14:15 <@dilfridge> so,
+14:15 < mrueg> Can I get the council's position on bug 611376? Is there any immediate action required with the new ToS?
+14:15 < willikins> mrueg: https://bugs.gentoo.org/611376 "New GitHub Terms of Service"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; ulm:trustees
+14:16 <@K_F> mrueg: that is a trustee matter
+14:16 <@WilliamH> That's a trustee matter.
+14:16 * ulm agrees
+14:16 <@jlec> I think so too
+14:16 <@dilfridge> yep
+14:17 <@blueness> mrueg: i warned about that but no one listened
+14:17 < mrueg> K_F: so in theory we have projects that cause these issues, so it becomes a council matter
+14:17 <@blueness> once your data is locked in, they change the TOS
+14:17 <@dilfridge> so if they feel like burning off some calories and springing into some activity...
+14:17 <@K_F> mrueg: sounds like a round-trip via QA then :)
+14:18 <@WilliamH> It is also debatable whether that really affects anything... There's another discussion online about it.
+14:18 <@rich0> FWIW, no other projects seem all that concerned with it, nor do fairly well-known names on the Foundation list.
+14:18 <@K_F> there are debates on debian legal, but they don't seem to well informed
+14:18 <@K_F> seems most of the issue is nobody want to touch it with a pole, due to the potential imapct
+14:18 <@K_F> impact*
+14:19 <@K_F> must say, haven't been too impressed with some of the "analysis" from these names going out protecting it
+14:19 < Soap__> here's an idea, once python or some major project moves due to legal concerns, lets revisit
+14:19 <@rich0> My sense is that Github may tweak the wording based on feedback.
+14:19 <@dilfridge> in a way this type of muddiness is precisely what everyone was worried about in the first point
+14:19 <@K_F> rich0: but do they still have your trust?
+14:20 <@ulm> Soap__: the largest problem are nonfree files in our tree
+14:20 <@rich0> K_F: most of them are more conservative than I am. :)
+14:20 <@ulm> and I guess other projects are not so much affected by that
+14:20 <@dilfridge> debian should be mostly fine w/r to nonfree files
+14:21 <@dilfridge> python probably too if the whole project is under one and the same license
+14:21 <@dilfridge> shall we
+14:21 < Soap__> mrueg: better move your overlay quickly!
+14:21 <@K_F> yeah. it requires independent review for each project, in any case, trustee matter
+14:22 <@WilliamH> ok... anything else?
+14:22 <@dilfridge> put up a motion like "the council kinly asks the trustees to watch the situation carefully"
+14:22 <@dilfridge> kindly
+14:22 <@dilfridge> not needed, really, since that's their job anyway
+14:22 <@WilliamH> Is a motion really necessary for this since we agree this is a trustee matter?
+14:22 <@K_F> dilfridge: its their job to begin with
+14:22 <@rich0> And the situation doesn't warrant special watching anyway, IMO.
+14:23 <@dilfridge> k
+14:23 <@dilfridge> something else,
+14:23 <@dilfridge> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dilfridge/decisions.pdf < this project is slowly progressing
+14:23 <@WilliamH> any other topics for open floor?
+14:23 <@dilfridge> the main point of it imho is to get a keyword index
+14:23 <@K_F> dilfridge: nice :)
+14:24 <@dilfridge> the index is right now still a mess, but that will improve over time :)
+14:24 <@jlec> dilfridge: sweet
+14:24 <@dilfridge> it's reached now the point where I see the first "epoch cycles", of e.g. slacking arches discussions repeating themselves...
+14:24 <@dilfridge> (hi jmbsvicetto :)
+14:25 <@dilfridge> anyway
+14:25 <@dilfridge> just so you know :)
+14:26 <@WilliamH> anything else?
+14:26 <@K_F> as another FYI; finally got around to writing up draft of security GLEP, so at least that discussion is progressing on ML, so please participate in discussion there and propose updates
+14:26 <@K_F> ComRel one is down the line , but prefer to do it sequentially
+14:27 <@WilliamH> last call for open floor....
+14:27 <@rich0> I think Comrel could use a GLEP, but honestly I think Security is pushing it a bit.
+14:27 < Soap__> dilfridge: every cycle I delay writing the mail to drop ia64/ppc/sparc to dev
+14:28 <@dilfridge> rich0: well, either we say "security has no special powers", then we dont need a GLEP
+14:28 <@K_F> rich0: I prefer it like that anyways as long as the project has certain tree-wide permissions, and want to restrict @gentoo.org participation on security MLs etc
+14:28 <@WilliamH> Soap__: Actually that doesn't require council action if you can get the arch team members to do it.
+14:28 <@dilfridge> (and security will strongly disagree with that)
+14:28 < Soap__> WilliamH: which arch members :P
+14:28 <@dilfridge> or we say "they do", and then they should be codified somehow
+14:28 < Soap__> I never got a reply from ia64 or sparc
+14:28 <@rich0> K_F: and that is why I'm not really opposed to it either
+14:29 <@K_F> rich0: I agree Comrel is more important in many ways, but it is also a more complex issue so will take a bit of time and I need to get a bit more familiar, been active in security longer than comrel after all :)
+14:29 <@dilfridge> rich0: for the comrel one we only just started team-internal discussion about details
+14:30 < jmbsvicetto> Hi dilfridge
+14:30 * WilliamH bangs the gavel
+14:30 <@WilliamH> meeting closed
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20170312.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20170312.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----