diff options
authorAndreas K. Hüttel <>2017-03-25 19:43:57 +0100
committerAndreas K. Hüttel <>2017-03-25 19:43:57 +0100
commite260038ea82465ed6793d0d948c224ebb89e6e57 (patch)
treeba986af792eafccbf6e77f7c6071422506e22025 /decisions
parentIndex 2011/5 to 2011/7 (diff)
Index 2005/10,11,12
Diffstat (limited to 'decisions')
4 files changed, 88 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/decisions/decisions.tex b/decisions/decisions.tex
index 0771e68..b196a00 100644
--- a/decisions/decisions.tex
+++ b/decisions/decisions.tex
@@ -136,6 +136,9 @@ pdfauthor={Andreas K. Huettel}
Council members: agriffis, azarah, Koon, seemant, solar, SwifT, vapier
\chapter{Meeting summaries 2006/07}
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20051013.tex b/decisions/summary-20051013.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..15b65da
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/summary-20051013.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+\agendaitem{Review of GLEP 41 (Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff)}
+\index{GLEP!41}\index{arch testers}
+\glep{41} was rejected due to the following criticisms:
+\item AT's should get an e-mail address on a subdomain (
+\item AT's should get r/o access to livecvs
+\item a longer probation period to make sure they know their way around
+\item either they get same privileges as current "staff", or they get a new
+ classification other than "staff" or "dev" (voting, access to resources,
+ etc...)
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20051115.tex b/decisions/summary-20051115.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4b10778
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/summary-20051115.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+\agendaitem{GLEP 41}
+\index{arch testers}\index{GLEP!process}
+The authors of \glep{41} made the changes to the GLEP's wording as
+requested by the council during October's meeting. Thus, it was brought
+to vote. Before I relieve you of the suspense of the vote's outcome,
+let me say that a policy decision also came about as a result of last
+night's vote.
+GLEP 41 was never resubmitted to this mailing list (gentoo-dev) after
+the wording changed. Most of the council members were uncomfortable
+with this idea. That was the first and *only* time the council will
+vote that way again. Following this, every resubmission must be
+discussed on -dev for 7 days minimum before being resubmitted to the
+council 7 days before that meeting.
+As such, GLEP 41 was voted in by majority (only one dissenting vote).
+The subdomain for the arch tester email aliases has not been decided (it
+is beyond the scope of the council's role in the GLEP).
+\agendaitem{Portage signing}
+\index{portage signing}
+The last agenda item was a summary of the progress of portage signing as
+presented by Marius Mauch (genone). The story is dismal -- no progress
+has really been made because nobody has taken ownership of implementing
+it yet. Thus, the Council decided that its members would scratch the
+beginnings of the GLEP together and forward that GLEP to the original
+participants/proposers in the prior discussion (which was carried out
+last year under the old metastructure management). From there the GLEP
+will be presented to -dev for discussion before the Council takes
+further action on it. The Council has agreed to forward their scratch
+GLEP to the original proposers/partcipants before December's Council
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20051215.tex b/decisions/summary-20051215.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a38d54e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/summary-20051215.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+\agendaitem{Decision on multi-hash for Manifest1}
+There was a bit of hearsay about why the council was asked to review/decide
+on this issue since we werent able to locate any portage devs at the time of
+the meeting ... so our decision comes with a slight caveat. assuming the
+reasons our input was asked for was summarized in the e-mail originally sent
+by Marius, then we're for what we dubbed option (2.5.1). that is, the
+portage team should go ahead with portage 2.0.54 and include support for
+SHA256/RMD160 hashes on top of MD5 hashes. SHA1 should not be included as
+having both SHA256/SHA1 is pointless. further more, we hope this is just a
+hold over until Manifest2 is ironed out/approved/implemented/deployed. it
+was also noted that we should probably omit ChangeLog and metadata.xml files
+from the current Manifest schema as digesting them serves no real purpose.
+\agendaitem{Portage signing}
+\index{portage signing}
+Shortly after our November meeting, a nice summary was posted by Robin
+Johnson that covered signing issues from top to bottom. as such, it was felt
+that trying to throw together a GLEP would not be beneficial. instead we
+will be adding a constant agenda item to future council meetings as to the
+status of portage signing issues to keep the project from slipping into
+obscurity again.