summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'decisions/summary-20080814.tex')
-rw-r--r--decisions/summary-20080814.tex196
1 files changed, 72 insertions, 124 deletions
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20080814.tex b/decisions/summary-20080814.tex
index cd736f5..c63fbf7 100644
--- a/decisions/summary-20080814.tex
+++ b/decisions/summary-20080814.tex
@@ -1,6 +1,12 @@
\summary{2008}{8}{14}
+Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{9b3f0e9ed1c97b033b563ea68b4d123e}
+
+Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{b6f6ca201c154cdc17f1d582497c9995}
+
+
+
\agendaitem{Unplanned topics}
\index{council!meeting!default proxies}
@@ -8,81 +14,65 @@ All the council members should nominate default proxies.
\agendaitem{Reactions to dev banned from freenode}
-\index{freenode}
+\index{freenode!ban}
-rane:
-I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our developer
-being banned from Freenode without providing us with a reason. ... It
-would be good if Council officially protested against that ban and
-demanded a detailed explanation from Freenode staff.
+Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}
-\begin{verbatim}
-20:14 < Halcy0n@> Do we have a history of how many times this has happened?
- I believe another dev was klined after this was initially
- brought up.
-20:14 < musikc > ive spoken with the second dev actually
-20:16 < musikc > the guy said he'd done what he was told to do and was still
- waiting for some resolution
-20:17 < musikc > i last spoke to him on the 10th
-\end{verbatim}
+\dev{rane}: ``I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our
+developer\footnote{According to the meeting log this was \dev{ricmm}.} being
+banned from Freenode without providing us with a reason. [...] It would be good
+if Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed
+explanation from Freenode staff.''
+
+It seems this happened twice; a second developer was klined after the issue was
+initially brought up. \dev{musikc} spoke to the second one; he said he'd done
+what he was told to do and was still waiting for some resolution. Several
+people volunteered to talk to the developer in question to find out more
+details. According to freenode staff tomaw, the issue was already resolved on
+the day he (tomaw) was made aware of it.
\agendaitem{Moving meetings to a location we control}
-\index{council!meeting!location}
-
-rane:
-I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where third
-parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. Like our
-own small and created just for this purpose IRC server.
-
-\begin{verbatim}
-20:26 < Cardoe > We already have a public ML where predominately a lot of
- the discussion takes place. Is there really any actual
- supression occurring because of our use of Freenode?
-20:26 * jokey is still not in favour of running an irc network
-20:27 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: motivation is that when our devs get klined, it's
- really hard for them to work with others on irc
-20:28 < dberkholz@> antarus: as i was saying earlier, freenode is a tool for
- us. if that tool is getting in our way, it needs to change
-20:29 < Cardoe > dberkholz: the question is the tool getting in our way or
- hindering us. Or will devising our own tool hinder us more..
-20:30 < Halcy0n@> Cardoe: I think us having to maintain it will be more of a
- headache.
-20:30 < Cardoe > Halcy0n: I'm in agreement with you on that.
-20:30 <dertobi123@> dito
-20:31 < jokey@> indeed, let's discuss this there
-20:32 < Cardoe > We have other things to use manpower on, like developing a
- distribution.
-\end{verbatim}
-
-We currently have 2 freenode group contacts: fmccor and rane.
+\index{council!meeting!location}\index{freenode}
+
+Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}
+
+\dev{rane}: ``I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where
+third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who cannot. Like our
+own small and created just for this purpose IRC server.''
+
+We already have public mailing lists where a lot of the discussion takes place.
+On one hand when freenode as a tool becomes impractical changes need to be
+made. On the other hand there was conclusion that running an irc server would
+be a serious headache and a waste of manpower. Thus no action was taken.
+
+We currently have 2 freenode group contacts: \dev{fmccor} and \dev{rane}.
\agendaitem{Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in docs, etc}
\index{irc.gentoo.org}\index{irc!channel!\#gentoo-java}
-rane:
-I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org alias
-instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The alias
-would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we ever
-decide to do so.
+Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}
+
+\dev{rane}: ``I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org
+alias instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The alias
+would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we ever decide to
+do so.''
-spb brought up a good point to think about.
-\begin{verbatim}
-20:35 < spb > as people connect to irc.gentoo.org and assume that
- generic-sounding channel names are all about gentoo
-20:35 <Betelgeuse@> spb: And people connect to freenode and assume gentoo-java
- is about generic Java
-20:37 < jokey@> I'd say at least one user every 3-4 days over in #gentoo-php
-20:37 <Betelgeuse@> jokey: Quite common on #gentoo-java too even with the
- warnings all over the place.
-\end{verbatim}
+There was supprort for this idea. However, \dev{spb} brought up the point that
+people connecting to irc.gentoo.org may assume that generic-sounding channel
+names are all about gentoo. On the other hand it was argued that people
+connecting to gentoo channels also ask generic questions as well.
\agendaitem{Banning fired developers}
-\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}
+\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}\index{irc!autodevoice}
+\index{project!devrel}
+
+Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{31d62c8526814c29a1d166a82ec889db}
+
-yngwin:
+\dev{yngwin}:
It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for
anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places
where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channels. What
@@ -90,76 +80,34 @@ good is it to retire developers, but allow them to continue to be
disruptive? I would like the Council to decide for a change in our
policy on this point.
+It wasn't entirely clear if this question applied to a specific person. One
+could consider applying a ban for the same channel where the misbehaviour took
+place, and allow other channels to be handled separately. \dev{spb} commented
+that the three fired devs were actually banned from \#gentoo-dev for quite some
+time.
-\begin{verbatim}
-20:44 <dleverton_ > As I said on the list (maybe too late for anyone to have
- noticed), since yngwin said there were're actually any devs
- that this applies to, is there anything to discuss?
-20:45 < dberkholz@> dleverton_: i must've interpreted his response differently
- from you
-20:45 < yngwin > i didnt say it like that, dleverton_
-20:45 < dberkholz@> what i understood was that we should ban them from the same
- communication channel
-20:46 < dberkholz@> and allow other ones where they handled themselves
- differently
-\end{verbatim}
-
-spb commented that the three fired devs were actually banned from
-\#gentoo-dev for quite some time.
-
-\begin{verbatim}
-20:51 < musikc > from a devrel perspective, we do not give voice to every
- dev who is retired so why should a forcibly retired dev be
- any different?
-
-20:51 < tomaw > Is the council interested in the autodevoice feature or is
- this rambling off topic?
-20:51 <jmbsvicett > tomaw: As long as we stick to freenode, -1 is something
- that interests us
-
-20:52 < Cardoe+> Standardize a policy for what happens to voluntarily
- retired devs and forcibly retired devs.
-20:53 < Cardoe+> Can we actually tweak it?
-20:53 < Cardoe+> the council direct devrel to come up with a proposed
- solution/policy
-20:55 < musikc > dberkholz, your call. happy to assist by doing work or by
- just stating current process and devrel stance :)
-\end{verbatim}
+Discussion went off the tangents that giving voice to ex-developers is a right,
+not a privilege, that Gentoo is in principle interested in the Freenode
+autodevoice feature, and that a standardized policy on how to handle
+voluntarily or forcibly retired developers might be useful.
\agendaitem{PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!0}
-spb:
-It should be treated as a draft standard, and any deviations from it
-found in the gentoo tree or package managers should have a bug filed
-against either the deviator or PMS to resolve the differences.
-
-Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such a
-statement can be made?
-
-The portage devs need to commit to it. How do conflicts get resolved?
-\begin{verbatim}
-20:56 < dberkholz@> we were talking about this earlier today in here
-<20:57 < dberkholz@> to quickly summarize, EAPI 0 and portage need to agree.
- there are some conflicts of opinion, and the question is
- how do they get resolved?
-20:58 < dberkholz@> 17:24 < zmedico > dberkholz: mainly these two:
- http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222721
- http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=232990
-20:58 < dberkholz@> 17:25 < zmedico > In both cases I consider something to
- be negligible that the pms folks do not
-
-20:59 < Cardoe+> potentially creating a PMS editor post.
-21:00 < Cardoe+> Put it in the hands of a third party
-21:00 < Cardoe+> and if there's a conflict, let the council decide
-
-21:01 < musikc > dberkholz, conflict in that some feel PMS is biased?
-
-21:07 < spb > differences will be resolved by filing a bug, so what needs
- to be sorted is what sort of escalation/mediation mechanism
- there is
-\end{verbatim}
+Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{b8a13279805378353df627cbb10d72cc}
+
+\dev{spb}: (PMS) should be treated as a draft standard, and any deviations from
+it found in the gentoo tree or package managers should have a bug filed against
+either the deviator or PMS to resolve the differences.
+
+According to \dev{zmedico} at the moment the main conflicts of opinion are
+\bug{222721} and \bug{232990}. \dev{ciaranm} stated that Portage was in the
+wrong since it broke existing stuff in the tree, \dev{zmedico} disagreed. A
+discussion ensued.
+
+How shall conflicts get resolved here? The idea of creating a PMS editor
+position for escalation/mediation was discussed.
We ran past the 1-hour mark, so this is pushed back to the list. It will
be on the next agenda in 2 weeks if it's not resolved by then.