summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'decisions/summary-20151025.tex')
-rw-r--r--decisions/summary-20151025.tex80
1 files changed, 80 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/decisions/summary-20151025.tex b/decisions/summary-20151025.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..488a18f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/summary-20151025.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+
+\summary{2015}{10}{25}
+
+
+\agendaitem{Projects, herds, etc.}
+\index{herds}\index{project identification}\index{metadata.xml}
+
+References:
+\begin{itemize}
+\item
+\agoref{gentoo-project}{179d5d298333dfeef45a6eb78f0d6f17}
+\item
+\agoref{gentoo-project}{70451197c3109e61ddd27e14a7bf89fa}
+\item
+\agoref{gentoo-project}{3cf270a336636b94187b2a2b8f1b7e7f}
+\item
+\agoref{gentoo-project}{f595f9fef4bce02c875e980ec5d21841}
+\end{itemize}
+
+A lengthy discussion on the merits of deprecating herds and on how to
+precisely do that resulted. The suggestion to use GUIDs for project
+identification was dismissed as slightly impractical, even though they
+provide for a near-unlimited number of projects.
+
+\vote{A: The concept of "herds" is abandoned, and the usage of the term
+deprecated. As a replacement, a package may be maintained by a
+project.}{
+7 yes, unanimous}
+
+\vote{B: do we want
+\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*)]
+\item "$<$project$>$bla$<$/project$>$" or
+\item "$<$maintainer$><$project$>$bla$<$/project$><$/maintainer$>$" or
+\item "$<$maintainer type="project"$>$bla$<$/maintainer$>$" or
+\item "$<$maintainer$><$email$>$bla@gentoo.org$<$/email$><$/maintainer$>$" ?
+\end{enumerate}
+}{
+3x a, 2x c, 2x d}
+
+This led to a discussion on the meaning of the vote outcome, and it
+was decided to re-formulate the question into several votes.
+
+\vote{C: New $<$project$>$ tag, or add something to existing $<$maintainer$>$
+tag?}{
+4x project and 3x maintainer}
+
+\vote{D: what goes into the $<$project$>$ tag? a project shortname or an
+e-mail address?}{
+4x shortname, 1x e-mail, 2x abstain}
+
+\vote{E: do we want a 1:1 mapping of a new e-mail address to the
+project shortname?}{
+4 yes, 2 no}
+
+\vote{F: define the project shortname on the wiki project page, and
+expect that any project is *also* reachable as
+shortname@proj.gentoo.org}{
+4 yes, 2 abstain}
+
+After these decisions several council members stated that things were
+going the wrong way and that they would like to change their votes for
+earlier decisions, thereby making latter decisions obsolete. As a
+consequence, it was suggested to scrap the just-made decisions again
+and request a GLEP on the issue.
+
+\vote{All votes today from vote B on are anulled. The council recommends
+that the details on herds to projects transition should be worked out
+in a GLEP.}{
+6 yes, 1 abstain}
+
+
+\agendaitem{Open bugs with council participation}
+
+\bug{503382}: Ulm stated that the 20131210 summary has been written and submitted,
+and minor corrections were suggested.
+
+
+\agendaitem{Open floor}
+
+No issues were brought up.