From 9a036812c83df0872d37953ec6fc84d01ad4e38c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "Andreas K. Hüttel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 22:45:29 +0200
Subject: Proof of concept for an index

---
 decisions/.gitignore    |   8 +++
 decisions/decisions.tex | 132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 140 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 decisions/.gitignore
 create mode 100644 decisions/decisions.tex

diff --git a/decisions/.gitignore b/decisions/.gitignore
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8c7f375
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/.gitignore
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+decisions.aux
+decisions.idx
+decisions.ilg
+decisions.ind
+decisions.log
+decisions.out
+decisions.pdf
+decisions.toc
diff --git a/decisions/decisions.tex b/decisions/decisions.tex
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fe0d705
--- /dev/null
+++ b/decisions/decisions.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+\documentclass{article}
+
+\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
+\usepackage{color}
+\usepackage{hyperref}
+\usepackage{makeidx}
+
+\newcommand{\todo}[1]{\textcolor{red}{\bf todo: {#1}}}
+
+\makeindex
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\title{Council decision and summary overview}
+
+\author{A. K. Hüttel}
+
+\maketitle
+
+
+\printindex
+
+
+
+\tableofcontents
+
+
+\section{14 February 2016}
+
+\subsection{Options for new XML validation language}\index{XML validation}
+
+https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/3ebf4ccf0d4f27d6240888a3100d0d58
+https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/fa05f5319ef4255d3e3fe34da79a2534
+
+The situation of what would be the best option to choose wasn't completely
+clear to the council and the proposing party wasn't present.
+
+Any further decision have been postponed until better metrics are available.
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Which are Gentoo's requirements for an xml validation language?
+\item Can both options provide the necessary capabilities?
+\item What are the pros and cons specific for our requirements?
+\item What are the advantages over our current system? Specifically what cannot
+  be done currently?
+\item Which tools are impacted when switching from DTD to an alternative?
+\end{itemize}
+
+Michał Górny volunteered to do some research on the output of all three
+validators.
+
+\subsection{Discuss situation of libressl support maintenance}\index{LibreSSL}
+
+https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/dc5406af670aebc050362fcbd8cd528e
+
+The libressl situation sums up as following:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item main maintainer is currently inactive
+\item no team is present for libressl in Gentoo
+\item 1/2 of the tree has libressl support implemented
+\item a quite solid transition plan [1] is in place
+\end{itemize}
+
+The council shortly touched various topics around the introduction of
+libressl into the Gentoo ecosystem, but concluded that a project team
+is needed, to which questions and concerns can be directed.
+
+Some question which arise and should be answered by the project comprise
+\begin{itemize}
+\item Finish the work or remove it again?
+\item Does it make sense to introduce a second highly security relevant library 
+  to the tree?
+\item Who adds the necessary code to the packages, the libressl team directly, or
+  via patch and bugs, or just the maintainers?
+\item Who is maintaining the libressl support in the packages, the libressl project
+  or the individual maintainers?
+\item What happens in case of API divergence between libressl and openssl? Who
+  maintains the necessary patches?
+\end{itemize}
+
+1)
+https://github.com/gentoo/libressl/wiki/Transition-plan
+
+
+\subsection{Automatic bug assignments}\index{Bug assignment}\index{Bug wrangling}
+ 
+https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/00e02ff494857599633e2bbc30520ca3
+
+The general preference of the council is positive towards automatic bug
+assignments. But so far no working solution has been proposed. At this
+point the Council sees no reason for any decision to be made itself.
+The community or the bug wrangling project should draft an implementation.
+
+
+\subsection{The usage of use() in global scope violates PMS}\index{use()}\index{PMS}\index{Dynamic SLOT}
+
+https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/69ed522b3b53de90e616267a77441012
+
+The council members unanimously request all global usage of use() violating 
+PMS (\verb+https://projects.gentoo.org/pms/6/pms.html#x1-650007.1\verb+) to be fixed 
+until the March 2016 council meeting. After that members of the QA are 
+asked to fix remaining ebuilds/eclasses.
+
+This decision renders the proposed solution for dynamic SLOTs [2] impossible.
+This topic was deferred to a later meeting to give time for an alternative solution to be found.
+
+2)
+\verb+https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=174407\verb+
+
+\subsection{Bugs with council involvement}
+
+569914:
+dilfridge is kindly to be asked to provide the missing council meeting logs
+and summary for the 20150727 meeting
+
+568068:
+ulm volunteered to prepare an updated GLEP 42 for the next meeting.\index{GLEP 42}
+The only open question is if the new news item format should include a
+Display-If-Visible header.
+
+\subsection{Open floor}
+
+--
+
+
+
+
+
+
+\end{document}
+
-- 
cgit v1.2.3-65-gdbad