summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'decisions/summary-20080828.tex')
-rw-r--r--decisions/summary-20080828.tex89
1 files changed, 89 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20080828.tex b/decisions/summary-20080828.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cce8d2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/summary-20080828.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+
+\summary{2008}{8}{28}
+
+
+
+\agendaitem{Reactions to dev banned from freenode}
+\index{freenode}\index{irc!ban}
+
+Update: none. Assume lack of interest.
+
+
+\agendaitem{Moving meetings to a location we control}
+\index{council!meeting!location}
+
+Update: none. 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.
+
+Goal: Can we decide today?
+
+Decision: Update all our pointers to IRC to use irc.gentoo.org. (But
+please mention FreeNode is our provider.)
+
+
+\agendaitem{Fired developers}
+\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}
+
+Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they
+displayed this behavior?
+
+Update: For banning from those channels: halcy0n, dertobi123 (on gentoo-dev)
+No opinions from the rest of us
+
+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)
+
+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.
+
+
+\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
+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
+and PM developers weren't able to resolve.
+
+zmedico, ferringb \& 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.
+Otherwise, it's likely to be approved as a draft standard.
+