summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'decisions/summary-20071108.tex')
-rw-r--r--decisions/summary-20071108.tex104
1 files changed, 50 insertions, 54 deletions
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20071108.tex b/decisions/summary-20071108.tex
index 8d34a84..9fda1c9 100644
--- a/decisions/summary-20071108.tex
+++ b/decisions/summary-20071108.tex
@@ -1,19 +1,21 @@
\summary{2007}{11}{8}
-Agenda: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52772 (dead link)
+Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ded25cba302bfc6580c998d7ba33e1c7}
-Also continuing discussion on CoC enforcement. Proposal:
-http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/82 (dead link)
+Also continuing the discussion on Code of Conduct enforcement. Proposal:
+\agoref{gentoo-council}{cbfe572adb090dfba1cc004b1cca6979}
+\agendaitem{Empty council slot: vote for jokey}
-\agendaitem{Empty council slot: vote for Jokey to happen on gentoo-council list}
-
-Jokey is the candidate to replace uberlord, and it requires a
-unanimous council vote. Since not all council members are present,
-we'll do this vote on the gentoo-council list. All 6 present council
-members supported Jokey's addition.
+\dev{jokey} is the candidate to replace \dev{uberlord} who
+resigned,\footnote{It's unclear whether he resigned from the council or also
+from Gentoo in general.} and this requires a
+unanimous council vote. Since not all council members are present, we'll do
+this vote on the gentoo-council list.\footnote{See also the
+\agoref{gentoo-council}{704eaff864d5f3484d940e6a2bc058d9}.} All 6 present
+council members supported Jokey's addition.
\agendaitem{Daylight savings change: no slacker marks}
@@ -22,16 +24,15 @@ In the US and Europe, 2000 UTC shifted by an hour in local time. The
email announcement was wrong, so we will not give slacker marks to the
two absent council members.
-vapier needs to fix his script before the next announcement.
+\dev{vapier} needs to fix his script before the next announcement.
-\agendaitem{EAPI=1 approved for use in the main tree}
-\index{EAPI!1}
+\agendaitem{EAPI 1 approved for use in the main tree}
+\index{EAPI!1}\index{EAPI!1!in the tree}
Stable portage version 2.1.3.12 supports EAPI=1. It's now officially OK
to start using it in the main tree. From the ebuild ChangeLog for
portage:
-
\begin{quote}
This release is the first to have support for EAPI-1 (\bug{194876}), which
includes SLOT dependencies (\bug{174405}), IUSE defaults (\bug{174410}), and
@@ -41,7 +42,6 @@ portage:
other packages depend on those ebuilds. See the ebuild(5) and emerge(1)
manual pages for EAPI related documentation.
\end{quote}
-
EAPI=1 features are documented in PMS as well as the man pages, but they
are not yet documented in the devmanual or the dev handbook.
@@ -49,39 +49,35 @@ are not yet documented in the devmanual or the dev handbook.
\agendaitem{Code of Conduct enforcement proposal: generally positive feedback}
\index{Code of Conduct}
-Reference: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/82 (dead link)
-
-dberkholz sent out a proposal this morning, so we just discussed it
-today instead of voting. Initial feedback from council members was
-positive. Some concerns came up on the list about time zone differences
-and coverage, which were brought up again during the meeting.
-
-People generally agreed that although the environment is better now, it
-hasn't been before and won't always be good.
-
-lu_zero brought up the point that since things are fairly good now, we
-don't need to rush through this process and we can take our time and do
-things right.
-
-Council support for the team's actions should not be as controversial
-with the requirement that all actions be private.
-
-The team will need to create the tools to deal with the actions it needs
-to take (short-term moderation on IRC, mailing lists, and Bugzilla).
-This could happen during the initial training period suggested on the
-gentoo-council list.
-
-If there's already existing moderation somewhere (for example many of
-the \#gentoo-* IRC channels or the forums), the team will first liaise
-with them rather than preempt them. All official Gentoo forums must
-adhere to the CoC, however; having their own moderation does not exclude
-them from following Gentoo's standards as a whole.
+Reference: \agoref{gentoo-council}{cbfe572adb090dfba1cc004b1cca6979} (sadly the
+actual text proposal is in an attachment)
+
+\dev{dberkholz} sent out a proposal this morning, so we just discussed it today
+instead of voting. Initial feedback from council members was positive. Some
+concerns came up on the list about time zone differences and coverage, which
+were brought up again during the meeting. People generally agreed that although
+the environment is better now, it hasn't been before and won't always be good.
+\dev{lu_zero} brought up the point that since things are fairly good now, we
+don't need to rush through this process and we can take our time and do things
+right.
+
+Council support for the team's actions should not be as controversial with the
+requirement that all actions be private. The team will need to create the tools
+to deal with the actions it needs to take (short-term moderation on IRC,
+mailing lists, and Bugzilla). This could happen during the initial training
+period suggested on the gentoo-council list.
+
+If there's already existing moderation somewhere (for example many of the
+\#gentoo-* IRC channels or the forums), the team will first liaise with them
+rather than preempt them. All official Gentoo forums must adhere to the CoC,
+however; having their own moderation does not exclude them from following
+Gentoo's standards as a whole.
The expectation is that successive actions against the same person will
-increase in length, eventually reaching the 3-day cutoff that requires
-council approval and forwarding to devrel/userrel. The idea is that if
-someone keeps violating the CoC after a given length of moderation, it
-apparently wasn't enough so it shouldn't be repeated.
+increase in length, eventually reaching the 3-day cutoff that requires council
+approval and forwarding to devrel/userrel. The idea is that if someone keeps
+violating the CoC after a given length of moderation, it apparently wasn't
+enough so it shouldn't be repeated.
Next month, we will vote on a concrete proposal.
@@ -89,13 +85,13 @@ Next month, we will vote on a concrete proposal.
\agendaitem{Baselayout-2: uberlord will continue to maintain it}
\index{package!sys-apps/baselayout}
-lu_zero asked whether we had anything to do about baselayout-2 since
-uberlord resigned. He's continuing to maintain it in a git repository
-and will remain upstream for it. More details will emerge over time.
+\dev{lu_zero} asked whether we had anything to do about baselayout-2 since
+\dev{uberlord} resigned. He's continuing to maintain it in a git repository and
+will remain upstream for it. More details will emerge over time.
-kingtaco raised the question of trusting external releases and hosts.
-Some responses suggested that using git may prevent the malicious host,
-because of the possibility of GPG-signed tags. He mentioned the
-possibility of the infra team hosting Gentoo-critical repositories with
-access by non-Gentoo developers. It's just an idea at this point, but
-he's going to talk to the rest of the infra team.
+\dev{kingtaco} raised the question of trusting external releases and hosts.
+Some responses suggested that using git may prevent the malicious host, because
+of the possibility of GPG-signed tags. He mentioned the possibility of the
+infra team hosting Gentoo-critical repositories with access by non-Gentoo
+developers. It's just an idea at this point, but he's going to talk to the rest
+of the infra team.