summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'decisions/summary-20080828.tex')
-rw-r--r--decisions/summary-20080828.tex90
1 files changed, 38 insertions, 52 deletions
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20080828.tex b/decisions/summary-20080828.tex
index cce8d2d..dce25b8 100644
--- a/decisions/summary-20080828.tex
+++ b/decisions/summary-20080828.tex
@@ -1,87 +1,73 @@
\summary{2008}{8}{28}
+Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{9b3f0e9ed1c97b033b563ea68b4d123e}
+
+Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{f6a084b9acf5a19b38000fbfaab93733}
\agendaitem{Reactions to dev banned from freenode}
\index{freenode}\index{irc!ban}
-Update: none. Assume lack of interest.
+There were no updates on this topic. Assume lack of interest.
\agendaitem{Moving meetings to a location we control}
\index{council!meeting!location}
-Update: none. Assume lack of interest.
-
+There were no updates on this topic. Assume lack of interest.
-\agendaitem{Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in docs, etc}
-\index{irc.gentoo.org}
-Update: Freenode acknowledgments page thanks people for doing this, so
-the potential issue with confusion apparently isn't a large problem.
+\agendaitem{Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in documentation}
+\index{irc.gentoo.org}\index{Freenode}
-Goal: Can we decide today?
+The Freenode acknowledgments page thanks people for doing this, so the
+potential issue with confusion apparently isn't a large problem.
-Decision: Update all our pointers to IRC to use irc.gentoo.org. (But
-please mention FreeNode is our provider.)
+\vote{Update all our pointers to IRC to use irc.gentoo.org. (But
+please mention FreeNode is our provider.)}{Accepted with 7 yes votes}
\agendaitem{Fired developers}
-\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}
-
-Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they
-displayed this behavior?
+\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}\index{project!devrel}
-Update: For banning from those channels: halcy0n, dertobi123 (on gentoo-dev)
-No opinions from the rest of us
+Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they displayed
+misbehavior?
-Goal: Get yes or no on banning from the same channels. If no, ask for
-alternate suggestions if there are any. (Example: let devrel decide)
+\dev{halcy0n}, \dev{dertobi123}, \dev{lu_zero} think fired devs should be
+banned from the places where they behaved in the way that got them fired.
+\dev{dberkholz} and \dev{cardoe} think that this should be handled by devrel
+and council shouldn't set policy on it. \dev{halcy0n} later agreed with letting
+devrel address it, as did \dev{lu_zero} and \dev{betelgeuse}.
-Summary: halcy0n, dertobi123, lu_zero think fired devs should be banned
-from the places where they behaved in the way that got them fired.
-dberkholz and cardoe think that this should be handled by devrel and
-council shouldn't set policy on it. halcy0n later agreed with letting
-devrel address it, as did lu_zero and betelgeuse.
+A lengthy discussion took place whether such bans should also extend to Gentoo
+project channels.
\agendaitem{PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!0}
-What changes are required before this is true?
-
-Update: The main thing that needs to get figured out is conflict
+What changes are required before PMS becomes a draft standard of EAPI 0?
+$\longrightarrow$ The main thing that needs to be clarified is conflict
resolution.
-Idea: Ask portage devs \& PMS authors to develop a process that both
-groups will respect, then present it to the council for approval.
-Options include a "neutral" third party as PMS czar, having council
-decide, just trying harder to come to agreement, deciding that e.g.
-portage's choice always wins, random, etc.
-
-spb and ciaranm agree that a third party or council would work well.
-Since such a third party would probably be better invested in actually
-working on the spec, the council seems reasonable if PMS editors \& PM
-developers can't work it out.
-
-\begin{verbatim}
-20:46 < dberkholz@> zmedico, ferringb, ciaranm, spb: so you'll all agree to
- follow council decisions on conflicts you aren't able to
- resolve otherwise?
-20:46 < zmedico > dberkholz: I agree
-20:47 < ferringb > dberkholz: either way, game to attempt something different-
- what's in place doesn't particularly work imo
-20:47 < ciaranm > dberkholz: so long as the council's prepared to follow
- through with its resolutions
-20:49 < ferringb > either way, council as arbitrator flies.
-\end{verbatim}
-
-Decision: Council will vote to resolve conflicts that the PMS editors
+Idea: Ask the portage developers and PMS authors to develop a process that both
+groups will respect, then present it to the council for approval. Options
+include a "neutral" third party as PMS czar, having council decide, just trying
+harder to come to agreement, deciding that e.g. portage's choice always wins,
+random, etc.
+
+\dev{spb} and \dev{ciaranm} agreed that a third party or council would work
+well. Since such a third party would probably be better invested in actually
+working on the spec, the council seems reasonable a reasonable choice if PMS
+editors and PM developers can't work it out. \dev{zmedico} and \dev{ferringb}
+also agreed with this.
+
+Decision: The Council will vote to resolve conflicts that the PMS editors
and PM developers weren't able to resolve.
-zmedico, ferringb \& ciaranm (developers of each PM) all agree that
-having a written specification is worthwhile.
+\dev{zmedico}, \dev{ferringb}, and \dev{ciaranm} (developers of each PM) all
+agree that having a written specification is worthwhile.
Next meeting is Sept 11, and we request that everyone involved with PM
development or the spec email gentoo-dev about any issues with it.