diff options
author | Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> | 2016-07-10 21:15:45 +0200 |
---|---|---|
committer | Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> | 2016-07-10 21:15:45 +0200 |
commit | fd0f6960691f06b604dfb47b20dd28dee1a73524 (patch) | |
tree | 7553189ddf6fed4b40c2a925f8ff8e3b71be3a85 /meeting-logs/20160710.txt | |
parent | Add 2016/05/08 summary (diff) | |
download | council-fd0f6960691f06b604dfb47b20dd28dee1a73524.tar.gz council-fd0f6960691f06b604dfb47b20dd28dee1a73524.tar.bz2 council-fd0f6960691f06b604dfb47b20dd28dee1a73524.zip |
Log for 20160710 meeting.
Diffstat (limited to 'meeting-logs/20160710.txt')
-rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20160710.txt | 383 |
1 files changed, 383 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20160710.txt b/meeting-logs/20160710.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d683ddc --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20160710.txt @@ -0,0 +1,383 @@ +<ulm> so, should we start? +<dilfridge> no worry I only just arrived +<ulm> who wants to chair? +<dilfridge> whoever asks that question first :D +<ulm> k +<WilliamH> heh +<ulm> agenda: + https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/message/6b32250b8bf53cd3016331aebd75c956 +* jlec here +<ulm> roll call [20:07] +* dilfridge here +* WilliamH here +* jlec still here +* rich0 here +* K_F here +<ulm> blueness was here a few minutes ago +<blueness> here [20:08] +<dilfridge> :) +<ulm> 1. Vote for holding meetings every 2nd Sunday of the month at 1900 UTC +<dilfridge> wfm +* jlec yes +* WilliamH yes +* dilfridge yes +<ulm> everyone o.k. with Sunday, or should we shift to another day? +* K_F yes +<rich0> The current schedule has worked well for me [20:09] +* ulm yes +<blueness> yep +<K_F> I prefer keeping sundays at least [20:10] +<ulm> unanimous, if I count dilfridge and rich0 as yes +* dilfridge yes +* rich0 yes +* dilfridge yes yes yes +<rich0> :) +<ulm> 2. Vote for continuing last council's workflow considering sending call + for agenda items (2 weeks in advance), sending the agenda (1 week in + advance) and have the meeting focussed, e.g., have major discussions on + -project ML prior to the meeting [20:11] +* K_F yes +* WilliamH yes +* jlec yes +<ulm> anyone wants to discuss this? +* dilfridge yes +<ulm> seems not :) +<WilliamH> ulm: what would there be to discuss? +* ulm yes +<jlec> I haven't seen any issues with this workflow +<jlec> ever +<blueness> ulm: to be clear, this is the only time we’re meeting at 1800 UTC? +* blueness yes +<blueness> except for the fact that i always need to be reminded, i’m okay + with this :) [20:12] +<ulm> blueness: yep, will be 19:00 UTC +<blueness> i’m like that in real life too, i always get lost in time +<rich0> All works for me +<ulm> rich0: is that a yes? +* rich0 yes yes yes [20:13] +<ulm> unanimous then +<ulm> 3. Appoint chairmen for this term's meetings +<ulm> I can take November and/or December +* dilfridge volunteers for nov,dec,jan +<K_F> I don't have any particular requirements +<blueness> i’d like to have the last two again, because i don’t teach during + the summer +<dilfridge> ok then I do jan/feb/mar +<blueness> so i’d like may and jun [20:14] +* WilliamH will take a couple, not nov or dec though +<jlec> I take what is left over. No preference for any date +<rich0> I should be able to take any two +<ulm> hmm +<ulm> blueness may/june +<ulm> dilfridge jan/feb/mar +<blueness> ulm: yes please +<ulm> ulm nov/dec +<K_F> anyone actually need to take 3? [20:15] +<ulm> K_F: no +<rich0> NOpe - that's why I didn't do any last year :) +<K_F> iirc last year we didnt have enough to go around :) +<ulm> WilliamH: mar/apr? +<rich0> Too many eager people taking 3... :) +<WilliamH> ulm: ok, that should work. +* K_F signs rich0 up to write a few summaries :p +<rich0> But, don't let me stop you :) +<ulm> dilfridge: jan/feb then :p +<dilfridge> works for me +<ulm> so what's left? aug/sep/oct [20:16] +<K_F> I can take aug/sept +<jlec> Let me take Sep/Oct then +<WilliamH> Are we going to do a meeting w/ agenda items this month or just + start that in Aug? +<K_F> ok I can take aug +<K_F> WilliamH: my understanding is the latter [20:17] +<ulm> K_F aug, jlec sep/oct +<jlec> copy that +<WilliamH> K_F: ok +<ulm> all settled, except rich0 wants to take one +<rich0> What's untaken? +<ulm> nothing, but I have 3 if I count this meeting too [20:18] +<rich0> If all are taken, I can just be backup/etc. +<ulm> rich0: nov/dec? +<ulm> one of them, I mean +<rich0> Sure, either is fine [20:19] +<ulm> ulm nov, rich0 dec then +<ulm> 4. Open bugs with council involvement [20:20] +<ulm> + https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&email2=council%40gentoo.org&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=3227130&query_format=advanced +<dilfridge> eh right. soon. +<ulm> bug 565566 +<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/565566 "New ChangeLogs are in + chronological order"; Gentoo Infrastructure, CVS/SVN/Git; CONF; + patrick:infra-bugs +<WilliamH> Did folks see my msg in here about the May summary? [20:21] +<ulm> WilliamH: I did +<WilliamH> ChangeLogs are dead, infra just hasn't removed them yet. [20:22] +<ulm> currently no action for the council in #565566 I think +<WilliamH> We made that decision a few meetings back +<WilliamH> So that bug is obsolete +<ulm> then we have #566498 #574080 #574082 [20:23] +<blueness> WilliamH: i honestly have no recollection of that, but imo + ChangeLogs should go bye bye +<ulm> all about games.eclass +<dilfridge> well someone is working on it, which is progress +<ulm> blueness: yeah, we left that to infra +<blueness> ulm: yeah bug #574952 is particularly disturbing +<willikins> blueness: https://bugs.gentoo.org/574952 "Extremely uncooperative + behavior from games team"; Community Relations, Developer + Relations; CONF; mgorny:comrel +<WilliamH> Yes, the games.eclass work is being done. [20:24] +<ulm> blueness: right, four games.eclass bugs by now +<ulm> all with council in CC +<ulm> any suggestion how to proceed? +<rich0> Is anything actually blocking progress? [20:25] +<jlec> I htink we need to encourage QA to do their job here. +<dilfridge> leave it for the moment, I'll try to trigger some internal + discussion in comrel first +<ulm> dilfridge: noted +<rich0> dilfridge++ +<K_F> good enough for me +<WilliamH> ulm: I think the tech work is being done, last time I checked + wizardedit is working with others on games.eclass deprecation +<jlec> We decided the direction but now it is up to QA to have a look onto + this and have to executed +<rich0> IT seems more like a people issue at this point, not a policy one. +<WilliamH> dilfridge: I can attest to the comrel issue as well. [20:26] +<ulm> ok, so waiting for qa and comrel +<blueness> if work is getting done, let’s wait and see +<jlec> sounds good +<ulm> then, bug 571490 +<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/571490 "Missing summary for 20151025 + council meeting"; Documentation, Project-specific documentation; + CONF; mgorny:council +<jlec> who? +<K_F> dilfridge: ^^ [20:27] +<ulm> that's the people volunteering for 3 chairs :p +<K_F> ulm: :) +<blueness> i just remembered i have to do the summary for the last meeting +<jlec> exactly my thought +<ulm> anyway, action item for dilfridge [20:28] +<dilfridge> yep +<ulm> last, bug 579460 +<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/579460 "please make repoman ignore a + missing "# $Id$" header line"; Portage Development, Repoman; IN_P; + dilfridge:dev-portage +<WilliamH> Is that in 2.3? [20:29] +<K_F> nothing for us to do there and it is implemented already +<ulm> WilliamH: no idea +<K_F> dol-sen mentioned it being in 2.3.0_rc1 +<ulm> it's blocking the portage-2.2.30 bug +<WilliamH> The person to talk to would be dol-sen probably [20:30] +<K_F> but yeah, he already commented it is included.. nothing for us to do +*** blueness (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) has quit: Quit: blueness +<ulm> ok, I'll check if that bug can be closed +<ulm> 5. Open floor [20:31] +<WilliamH> hang on a sec, I have one wrt m-n and old packages. +<K_F> ulm: can be closed once it is in stable +<WilliamH> maybe discussion +<K_F> ulm: so if anything should be InVCS keyword etc +<WilliamH> no vote +<WilliamH> hang on +<WilliamH> wrt the discussion about old packages. [20:32] +<WilliamH> I got a couple of suggestions. +<WilliamH> 1. when a maintainer puts a package up for grabs, they assign it to + m-n and p.mask it to encourage someone to take it. [20:33] +<WilliamH> after 30 days, they remove it. +<WilliamH> or +<WilliamH> (i'm pulling this from an email) +*** blueness (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) has joined channel + #gentoo-council [20:34] +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #gentoo-council to +o + blueness +<WilliamH> 2. only remove broken packages... leave m-n as is. +<rich0> Personally, I say leave them in the tree until they actually cause a + problem, then aggressively treeclean. +<jlec> rich0: ++ +<awilfox> blueness: https://bpaste.net/show/e97e7ff9b121 +<WilliamH> But if a bug is filed against a m-n package, that would be when we + would mask it to get someone to step up and fix the bug and take + the package. [20:35] +<rich0> Well, a serious bug. +<rich0> If some package is missing a desktop entry or something, I doubt the + submitter would have wanted it removed as the solution. +<K_F> I tend to prefer packages being actively maintained and some + responsible for its state, at least for stable tree +<ulm> I wouldn't mask it unless there is a good reason +<ulm> missing ebuild maintainer alone isn't sufficient for masking +<WilliamH> ulm: missing maintainer + a bug is [20:36] +<WilliamH> ulm: open bugs against m-n packages aren't good. +<WilliamH> ulm: especially packages with stable versions [20:37] +<rich0> Many bugs are trivial. I don't see the need to clean just because a + package isn't perfect. +<jlec> I didn't completely followed the bitcoin package thread, but for + packages which can cause real world problems like those, or scientific + packages potentionally creating false results or packages closely + related to security, I think we should also allow/encourage tree + cleaning instead simple dorpping to m-n +<rich0> But, if it is serious, of course. Just get rid of it. +<ulm> rich0: +1 +<rich0> jlec: sure, if we're talking about things with a serious impact. + [20:38] +<rich0> I think some discretion is needed. +<blueness> sorry guys, connection dropped :( +<blueness> awilfox: ty +<blueness> jlec: i was going to p.mask a bunch of *coin pkgs +* WilliamH also likes the graveyard overlay. +<rich0> I just don't like the rush to just close bugs and get rid of things +<WilliamH> I'm surprised we haven't been using it. +<blueness> i was able to give away a few, the rest i’m going to drop to m-n + except for namecoin which has issues, its getting p.masked and + dropped to m-n +<rich0> WilliamH: why would anybody want to put that overlay in their repos, + given that overlays are all-or-nothing? [20:39] +<rich0> If it isn't actually cared for? +<rich0> If it weren't horribly broken, it would be in the tree. +<jlec> similar for testing vs stable, we should strive to get everything + stable, but there is no harm in keeping packages testing. Bu twe should + give a false impression of a package being maintained if actually it + isn't +<rich0> blueness: something like that seems reasonable +<rich0> jlec: stable =/= maintained, IMO +<rich0> stable just means it has been tested, and works [20:40] +<jlec> Some packages doesn't simply get shiny features or security pathcing, + but sometimes it turns out that calculations are wrong and updates + tackle that +<K_F> stable has security support, testing does not +<jlec> rich0: this also can happen to stable packages +<jlec> But if they are mn, no one will update and care [20:41] +<rich0> jlec: sure, but those calculations still work as well as the day we + considered them stable :) +<rich0> I think that people using a package in some kind of serious + application probably do their own QA, and closely monitor it. +<jlec> sure, but if latest research says thet are wrong we shouldn't tell the + user today that old version is stable and should be used [20:42] +<rich0> But, known serious bugs are of course a fair reason to drop something +<rich0> I'd just prefer to assume innocent until proven guilty. +<jlec> I just want to mae sure, we are banning pm if the stepping down + maintainer sees a requirement for active maintainership for a package + [20:43] +<WilliamH> The problem with packages sitting in m-n is that no one cares about + them. +<jlec> *are not banning +<ulm> WilliamH: which is fine as long as the package is working +<WilliamH> ulm: so, is it also ok to drop a new package in the tree straight + to m-n? [20:44] +<ulm> WilliamH: no +<ulm> but the maintainer can step down at any later time +<blueness> WilliamH: under what circumstances would that happen? [20:45] +<jlec> blueness: people dodo that +<WilliamH> blueness: I asked, because I thought I heard that people do that. +<jlec> mike, mr_bones and others +<blueness> jlec: WilliamH that’s just crazy, why?! +* jlec not exactly sure about mr_bones [20:46] +<dilfridge> seriously +<ulm> why would someone commit a package when he's not interested in + maintaining it? +<dilfridge> if someone commits to the tree straight maintainer-needed, I + recommend a quick patrick solution +<dilfridge> (immediate revert) +<dilfridge> I doubt anyone (be it qa, comrel, council) would see any problems + with that +<ulm> maybe we should make a statement on this very point +<jlec> I think mgorny pointed out sch a case either to comrel or g-dev lately + [20:47] +<dilfridge> yes +<WilliamH> But, ulm just said a maintainer can step down whenever, so if I + commit to the tree, then drop to mn aseparate commit that's ok. +<blueness> it is very strange indeed, are they suggesting that someone else + pick it up? +<dilfridge> but that was already some time ago +<rich0> IF nothing else it should make sense to care for it for a short time. + In a more communal world maybe everything woudl be m-n, but we don't + really work that way. +<ulm> dilfridge: wording for motion? +<mgorny> just to be clear, i don't remember anymore what package was that and + what happened with it [20:48] +<blueness> rich0: no, its just like real socialism, no one takes + responsibility ;) +<K_F> I really siggest no voting during open floor +<WilliamH> Yeah this should not be a voting issue +<K_F> can have it on agenda for next meeting +<ulm> WilliamH: IMHO "any time" means after a reasonable period +<ulm> not after 5 minutes :) +<dilfridge> The council affirms existing policy that packages added to the + gentoo repository must have a declared maintainer. Commits adding + packages without such should be immediately reverted. +<WilliamH> dilfridge: no voting on an open floor issue, let's do that next + meeting [20:49] +<ulm> yeah, maybe we should postpone it +<ulm> it's not an urgent issue +<K_F> besides, gate opens here soon, so will be off in few mins anyways +<ulm> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Meeting_chairs +*** prometheanfire (~promethea@gentoo/developer/prometheanfire) has joined + channel #gentoo-council +<ulm> ^^ please check if I've got things right there +<rich0> Agree, might not hurt to include general point in the summary as + non-binding for now, except insofar as existing policy applies. +<jlec> ulm: lgtm [20:50] +<rich0> wfm +<blueness> ulm: looks good +<ulm> anything else for open floor? +* awilfox politely raises hand; are users and proxy maintainers allowed to + suggest topic for open floor? [20:51] +<dilfridge> go +<ulm> sure +<K_F> awilfox: yes +<WilliamH> sure, open floor is open floor ;-) +<blueness> [20:52] +<awilfox> I am very interested in becoming a gentoo developer myself, too, + actually, I just had a small suggestion: I am quite happy that + gentoo finally has a working comrel project that seems to be able to + give justice where it is needed, but I have been a little + disappointed with the lack of response to my inquiries in places + where I have personally been involved. is there any way to make it + so that comrel +<awilfox> is a little less.. black-box-y is the word I want? so that devs and + users can know what is happening... +<awilfox> I understand that issues need to be kept private so that there is no + spill of drama and such, but I am personally involved in a case + where someone was harrassing me both on the bugzilla and followed me + to my social media... and I don't even know what happened in that + case [20:53] +<blueness> awilfox: i think comrel is best for more senior devs just because +<ulm> dilfridge: that's a question for you, I think +<awilfox> was this person talked to, was it handled, did nothing happen, etc.. + makes me a bit hesitant on doing quizzes and becoming a dev + [20:54] +<blueness> awilfox: oh strike my comment i misunderstood [20:55] +<dilfridge> ok I vaguely remember that incident. I *think* nothing happened, + since at the time everyone was busy otherwise. (e-mail 5 Feb?) +<K_F> likely best to email comrel alias for that +<awilfox> dilfridge: yes, with a follow up near 1 Mar +<ulm> awilfox: can you try to work this out with comrel? [20:56] +<dilfridge> we can talk about this +<awilfox> ulm, sure, I can fire another email out. +<WilliamH> dilfridge, awilfox, go ahead. :-) [20:57] +<awilfox> but this was in general, I know someone else who had similar + experience, basically my question was is there any support in + council on making comrel a bit more transparent so people are not + kept out of the loop +<jlec> awilfox: I would suggest, please try to contect comrel and see if you + can get some more clarity. If that doesn't work out, Council can + potentionally check if ComRel is really reacting in a timely manner and + provides adequate information to the parties involved +<jlec> Would that work for you? +<awilfox> jlec, certainly! +<dilfridge> comrel was very inactive for a long time. mostly because some team + members were completely absent and some others were busy with real + life. +<dilfridge> this is hopefully getting better now. +<awilfox> glad to hear this :) [20:58] +<awilfox> thank you for your time. +<rich0> Certainly I support as much transparency as possible, considering, and + I think most of us do. +<ulm> anything else? +<ulm> seems not [20:59] +<ulm> meeting is closed then +<jlec> ulm: thanks for chairing +<K_F> thanks for chairing +*** ulm (~ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm) has set the topic for #gentoo-council: + "Next meeting: 2016-08-14 19:00 UTC | + http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20160814T19 | + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council" +<rich0> ulm: ++ +<ulm> thanks everybody [21:00] |