Fix filenames.

1 files changed, 218 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20081023.txt b/meeting-logs/20081023.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a7d7fe0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20081023.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,218 @@
+19:10 <NeddySeago > Is there an agenda for tonight ?
+19:10 <    fmccor > I haven't seen one, although someone requested a review of all open Council bugs.
+19:12 <   lu_zero@> ^^
+19:22 < darksiide > Cardoe requested it and commented on some i think.
+19:24 < dberkholz@> that is the agenda
+19:28 < dberkholz@> here's how i think we can make this most useful
+19:29 < dberkholz@> for each bug, come up with a concrete next step and who's going to do it. if it's the council, a specific member should take responsibility
+19:32 <dertobi123@> sounds good to me :)
+19:33 < dberkholz@> and i think the bug should actually get reassigned to that person with council in cc
+19:54 < dberkholz@> i'm wandering to another building. brb
+20:01 <Betelgeuse@> hiihoo
+20:01 <   lu_zero@> hi Betelgeuse
+20:03 <dertobi123@> heya
+20:03 <   lu_zero@> who's missing?
+20:03 <Betelgeuse@> Cardoe at least
+20:03 <Betelgeuse@> jokey:
+20:03 <Betelgeuse@> Halcy0n:
+20:03 <Betelgeuse@> !expn council
+20:03 < Willikins > Betelgeuse: council = (private)
+20:03 <    Cardoe@> I'm here
+20:04 <    Cardoe@> I tried to comment on a few of the bugs to see where we're at
+20:06 <   Halcy0n@> Here.
+20:08 < dberkholz@> back, sorry
+20:08 < dberkholz@> first building had a congested network
+20:08 < dberkholz@> so, are people on board with what i suggested?
+20:09 <   Halcy0n@> Yup.
+20:09 <dertobi123@> jokey has his cellphone switched off, tried to reach him
+20:09 <dertobi123@> dberkholz: yep
+20:11 <   Halcy0n@> I went through some of the bugs and identified where they are at: http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/council_bugs.txt
+20:11 < dberkholz@> i'll repaste quick, since i said it before 2000
+20:11 < dberkholz@> 20:01 <   lu_zero@> hi Betelgeuse
+20:11 < dberkholz@> err.
+20:11 < dberkholz@> 19:28 < dberkholz@> here's how i think we can make this most useful
+20:11 < dberkholz@> 19:29 < dberkholz@> for each bug, come up with a concrete next step and who's  going to do it. if it's the council, a specific member  should take responsibility
+20:11 < dberkholz@> 19:32 <dertobi123@> sounds good to me :)
+20:11 < dberkholz@> 19:33 < dberkholz@> and i think the bug should actually get reassigned to that  person with council in cc
+20:12 < dberkholz@> dertobi123 & Halcy0n agree, waiting on others' input
+20:12 <Betelgeuse@> yeah having someone in charge could help
+20:12 <   lu_zero@> sounds fine
+20:13 < dberkholz@> ok, let's just run through 'em in order
+20:13 < dberkholz@> bug #185572
+20:13 < Willikins > dberkholz: https://bugs.gentoo.org/185572 "As the proctors no longer exist the code of conduct needs an upate"; Doc Other, Project-specific documentation; NEW; neddyseagoon@g.o:council@g.o
+20:14 <dertobi123@> i agree to Cardoe, re-assigning to devrel
+20:14 < dberkholz@> i'm fine with letting devrel members update it to reflect reality of how it's enforced, as cardoe said
+20:14 <   lu_zero@> I do agree as well
+20:14 <   Halcy0n@> Agreed.
+20:15 <Betelgeuse@> fine
+20:15 < dberkholz@> ok, saying so on the bug
+20:16 < dberkholz@> bug #234705
+20:16 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/234705 "Document of being an active developer"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
+20:17 < dberkholz@> seems like a good way forward is letting araujo finish his prototype, then reassign to devrel
+20:18 <   lu_zero@> yup
+20:18 <   Halcy0n@> Sounds reasonable.
+20:18 <Philantrop > dberkholz: araujo raised a few questions on the bug for the council (?) to answer, though.
+20:18 < dberkholz@> i don't think the council should be the group answering them. i think devrel should
+20:18 <dertobi123@> is it already decided who's going to sign the documents later on? the prototype reads like it is being by the trustees
+20:18 < dberkholz@> i really don't think that bug has anything to do with the council at all
+20:19 <dertobi123@> if the trustees are going to sign the documents then they should deal with the questions araujo raised
+20:19 <dertobi123@> dberkholz: indeed
+20:19 < dberkholz@> here's what i suggest. we assign to araujo, CC devrel and trustees, and tell them to decide amongst themselves which of them should handle it
+20:20 < dberkholz@> and un-CC council because it isn't our thing
+20:20 <   lu_zero@> I'd rather have devrel sign
+20:20 <dertobi123@> dberkholz: agreed
+20:20 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: I agree with that.  Doesn't make sense for us to be involved really.
+20:20 <Betelgeuse@> Well probably someone with a legal status should do it.
+20:21 < dberkholz@> i also have an opinion who should sign but i don't want to bikeshed about it
+20:21 < dberkholz@> we don't handle legal issues, so talking about legal status within the council doesn't make sense
+20:21 <NeddySeago > lu_zero, what is the legal status of this certificate ?
+20:21 <   lu_zero@> NeddySeagoon selfcertification from gentoo I think
+20:21 <   lu_zero@> or otherwise a formal reference
+20:22 <NeddySeago > lu_zero, I mean, if a developer users it in applying for a job ... like a reference
+20:23 < dberkholz@> araujo's requirement was that mentioning gentoo on his résumé requires some sort of proof in the form of written documentation
+20:24 <NeddySeago > cc the trustees, we will discuss it
+20:24 <   lu_zero@> NeddySeagoon ok
+20:24 <dertobi123@> it's like a lpic or microsoft certification reference, imho it should be signed by one of the trustees
+20:24 <dertobi123@> but that's something devrel and trustee can discuss
+20:24 <NeddySeago > dertobi123, I don't have a prolem with that
+20:25 < dberkholz@> anyone in addition to dertobi123 & Betelgeuse with me on pushing the open questions to devrel+trustees?
+20:25 <   Halcy0n@> I agreed :)
+20:25 <NeddySeago > heh
+20:25 <   lu_zero@> I'm fine
+20:25 < dberkholz@> err, Betelgeuse didn't agree. that was a typo.
+20:25 < dberkholz@> ok, that's 4
+20:26 <dertobi123@> NeddySeagoon: of course, didn't meant it that way
+20:26 <Betelgeuse@> Well does someone else besides trustees have legal status?
+20:26 <NeddySeago > Not as far as I know
+20:26 <    fmccor > No, I don't think so.
+20:27 <Betelgeuse@> ok so I agreed :D
+20:27 <dertobi123@> heh
+20:28 < dberkholz@> ok
+20:28 < dberkholz@> bug #234706
+20:28 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/234706 "Slacker arches"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
+20:29 <dertobi123@> that bug sounds like ping timed-out?
+20:29 <   lu_zero@> vapier had something?
+20:29 < dberkholz@> he never actually got around to writing it
+20:30 <   Halcy0n@> This came up on the list the other day again, so one of us should really try to get this resolved in some way.
+20:30 < dberkholz@> i understand he was basing it off something richard freeman about it
+20:30 < darksiide > that was raised on the gentoo-dev list
+20:30 < dberkholz@> s/about it/said about it/
+20:30 <   Halcy0n@> I can take it as something to try and get some input from the masses.
+20:31 < darksiide > its rather annoying to cc the "slackers" for no reason, they don't have the manpower to maintain a stable tree
+20:31 < darksiide > not a fault of there, but..if you are using s390, you should be prepared to deal with package.keywords, etc
+20:32 < dberkholz@> i would expect the annoying part is that it leaves the maintaining teams with lots of open bugs that are hard to hide if you want to see "real" stabilization requests
+20:32 <   lu_zero@> well I'd do s/slacker/understaffed/
+20:32 <   lu_zero@> and keep arch as transient and ignore ~ for those
+20:33 < dberkholz@>  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/54103
+20:33 <   lu_zero@> with a bit fat warning telling that
+20:34 < dberkholz@> that's rich0's proposal from a while back
+20:34 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: ok. you want to take this bug and follow it through?
+20:35 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: Yea, I'll handle it.
+20:35 < darksiide > well, break the stable tree with understaffed arches or just remove the stable tree (ala ~mips)
+20:35 <    Cardoe@> dberkholz: I got rich0's proposal in my mail
+20:36 <    Cardoe@> I think we need to establish some reasonable rules.
+20:36 <    Cardoe@> i.e. for an arch not to be considered "understaffed" they need a dedicated security liaison
+20:37 <dertobi123@> having a security liaison doesn't prevent an arch from not being understaffed
+20:37 <    Cardoe@> no
+20:37 <dertobi123@> -not
+20:37 <    Cardoe@> But I'm just saying that we need a set of rules
+20:38 < dberkholz@> what purpose does defining an arch as understaffed serve?
+20:38 <dertobi123@> first of all we'd need some input from those so-called slacker arches
+20:38 <    Cardoe@> if an arch can not reasonable handle security bugs in 120 days... what's the point of having that arch be stable?
+20:38 < darksiide > how about not 200 stablereqs open? ;)
+20:38 <    Cardoe@> dberkholz: once we define an arch as understaffed, we drop the stabilization for that arch
+20:38 < dberkholz@> i think people are interested in how to handle individual packages, so let's approach it from that perspective
+20:38 <   Halcy0n@> I think it would be best to put together an actual proposal before we discuss this any further.
+20:38 <dertobi123@> darksiide: using this as a criteria we'd be starting to drop ppc stable keywords soonish *cough*
+20:38 <    Cardoe@> Halcy0n: who's volunteering?
+20:39 < dberkholz@> he is, read your scrollback
+20:39 <    Cardoe@> ok
+20:39 <    Cardoe@> so let's update the bug with Mark writing a proposal
+20:39 < dberkholz@> done
+20:39 <    Cardoe@> Are we going to set a suspense for it?
+20:40 < darksiide > ty for addressing it guys. maintainers need something here (ie. i don't give a rip about s390, sh, etc especially when they never get done)
+20:40 < dberkholz@> is a "suspense" supposed to mean a due date?
+20:40 <    Cardoe@> yes and no
+20:40 <    Cardoe@> a date when we revisit the issue if no feedback is received
+20:41 < dberkholz@> i like your idea about running through open bugs at meetings so much that i think any time we don't have suggested topics, we should do this
+20:41 <dertobi123@> yep
+20:41 <    Cardoe@> thanks.
+20:42 < dberkholz@> would've been nice to do it at the last meeting too, since it looks like we won't get through all of them today
+20:42 <dertobi123@> what about setting the second november meeting as a due date?
+20:42 <   Halcy0n@> How many more do we have?  I have a meeting at 2100UTC that I have to attend.
+20:42 < dberkholz@> 6
+20:42 <    Cardoe@> Halcy0n: we can cut it short and discuss some more next meeting
+20:42 < dberkholz@> i think we could dupe bug #234708 on the slacker bug though
+20:43 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/234708 "Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams?"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
+20:43 <   Halcy0n@> I just have to walk 40 feet to the conference room, so I can go right until 2100.
+20:43 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: yea, I agree.
+20:43 <dertobi123@> dberkholz: agreed
+20:43 <    Cardoe@> I figured if we can just keep the idea of these opened bugs somewhere in our minds, we drive the community to resolve them quicker.
+20:43 <    Cardoe@> I agree with dup'ing.
+20:43 <   lu_zero@> fine
+20:43 < dberkholz@> k, done
+20:44 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: how about you tell us on the bug when we should expect something? 
+20:44 < dberkholz@> might be more meaningful if we can get dates from the people doing the work than arbitrarily setting them
+20:44 <    Cardoe@> that'd be even better
+20:45 < dberkholz@> so, next is bug #234710
+20:45 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/234710 "as-needed by default"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
+20:46 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: done.
+20:46 < dberkholz@> ColdWind: you seem to know what's required here. do you want to put it together?
+20:46 < dberkholz@> perhaps bonsaikitten would help with the tree testing since he's already compiling stuff all the time
+20:47 < darksiide > (or diego)
+20:47 <    Cardoe@> I believe he's using as-needed in his compiling tests. So his feedback would be helpful.
+20:47 <    Cardoe@> bonsaikitten's that is
+20:47 < dberkholz@> eh, ColdWind has been idle for almost a day.
+20:47 <    Cardoe@> I assume Diego uses it as well
+20:47 < dberkholz@> i use it too, but i don't build the entire tree
+20:47 <Betelgeuse@> yeah same here
+20:48 < darksiide > someone said something about gcc-spec files? put it in ~arch gcc and call for testers
+20:48 <Betelgeuse@> but it hasn't caused any problems in ages
+20:48 < darksiide > (same with my ldflags - no isses)
+20:48 <Betelgeuse@> But to turn it on by default I would rather have some comprehensive runs.
+20:48 < dberkholz@> ok, so how do we proceed with this bug?
+20:49 <Betelgeuse@> It's not like the benefit to normals users it earth shaking.
+20:49 <    Cardoe@> Betelgeuse: it will reduce the amount of rebuilt packages
+20:49 < dberkholz@> we can CC bonsai and ask what he's doing. is anyone here willing to take the lead on getting this done? you don't necessarily have to do the work yourself, just get other people to do it
+20:49 <    Cardoe@> Betelgeuse: i.e. next time I bump cairo, the entire X stack won't have to be rebuilt
+20:49 <Betelgeuse@> Cardoe: I don't consider that earth shaking as you can just leave those running int he background.
+20:50 <Betelgeuse@> Stupid typos.
+20:50 <    Cardoe@> dberkholz: You can assign it to me.
+20:51 <    Cardoe@> I'll get something together within the next 30 days.
+20:51 < darksiide > i condsider that earth shattering on my 1ghz laptop
+20:51 <    Cardoe@> I had an "emergency" agenda item.
+20:52 <Betelgeuse@> darksiide: Bigger rebuilds really don't come that often.
+20:52 <Betelgeuse@> Or then I have missed them.
+20:52 <    Cardoe@> 2nd meeting in November is Thanksgiving in the US and a decent portion of the council is US-ian.
+20:52 <   Halcy0n@> Yea...that isn't going to work :)
+20:53 <    Cardoe@> and the 2nd meeting in December is Christmas
+20:53 <dertobi123@> so we move that meeting to the 3rd thursday in november or just skip it?
+20:54 < dberkholz@> let's do 3rd if we have any open bugs, otherwise skip
+20:54 <dertobi123@> sounds good
+20:54 <   lu_zero@> ok
+20:54 <dertobi123@> for the 2nd december meeting it should be safe to just skip
+20:54 <dertobi123@> probably everyone of us has other things to do in that time ;)
+20:54 <Betelgeuse@> Not really.
+20:55 <NeddySeago > playing with new toys :)
+20:55 < dberkholz@> dertobi123: all the more reason to get those bugs closed. =)
+20:55 <Betelgeuse@> Nothing happens here on the 25th around midnight.
+20:55 <   lu_zero@> Betelgeuse =)
+20:55 <dertobi123@> oh, neddy is going to send us new toys? =)
+20:55 <Betelgeuse@> Santa Claus comes on Christmas Eve.
+20:56 < dberkholz@> does a 4th person agree with moving the 2nd meeting in nov & dec one week earlier?
+20:56 <   Halcy0n@> Yes
+20:56 <    Cardoe@> I agree with it.
+20:56 <NeddySeago > dertobi123, Oh ... Father Christmas, if you are good and get your bugs closed
+20:56 < dberkholz@> ok, good
+20:56 <    Cardoe@> I say we address the remaining bugs next meeting.
+20:56 < dberkholz@> we're just about out of time, so i just wanted to say i'll take bug #237381 because i've already started working on it
+20:56 <dertobi123@> NeddySeagoon: we'll see :)
+20:56 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/237381 "Document appeals process"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
+20:57 <Betelgeuse@> dberkholz: go ahead
+20:57 <    Cardoe@> great
+20:57 <   Halcy0n@> Cool, thanks
+20:57 <dertobi123@> fine :)
+20:57 < dberkholz@> that leaves 3 unhandled bugs
+20:57 < dberkholz@> good enough for today
+20:58 <   Halcy0n@> Sounds good.  Now I have to run to another meeting.
+20:59 < dberkholz@> ok, that's it for today