\summary{2008}{5}{8} \agendaitem{New process} The last few meetings have dragged out for hours unnecessarily. This time, we tried moderating the channel during discussion of each topic, then temporarily opening the floor for that topic before a vote so anyone could contribute. Here's the time breakdown: \begin{verbatim} 2000-2030: closed, 30 min 2030-2046: open, 16 min 2046-2056: closed, 10 min 2056-2114: open, 18 min 2114-2146: closed, 32 min 2146-2209: open, 23 min 2209-2242: closed, 33 min 2242- : open floor \end{verbatim} Total before open floor: 105 minutes closed, 57 minutes open. Optimistically, we could have saved an hour if the channel was moderated throughout the meeting. That's unlikely to be the case in reality, because we'd be redirecting people's comments from queries into the channel. Should we keep it moderated until the final open floor? Should we have an open "backchannel"? \agendaitem{Document of being an active developer} \index{developer certificate} Last month: No updates Updates: araujo made http://dev.gentoo.org/~araujo/gcert1.pdf in Scribus. He'd like to ask for approval of this design and discuss the script, in particular its infrastructure requirements. Suggestions on certificate content: \begin{itemize} \item Add title to the top: "Developer Certification" \item Add devrel contact info (general devrel email address) \item Add link to devrel userinfo page \item Add start and end dates to devrel retired developers page \item Add a sentence saying e.g. "This certifies that XXX was a Gentoo developer from START_DATE to TODAY_DATE." The point is to avoid implying that the developer is certified forever, or will be a developer in the future. The information should be gotten from LDAP, for example using python-ldap. Could base this script on devrel's slacker script. It's unsure how signatures are going to happen, but one option is to keep a GPG-encrypted image of a signature and decrypt it on-demand for certificate creation. This should be discussed with the person doing the signing. \end{itemize} \agendaitem{Slacker arches} \index{arches!slacking} 4 months ago: vapier will work on rich0's suggestion and repost it for discussion on -dev ML 2 months ago: vapier said he was going to work on it that weekend. Last month: No updates Updates: --- \agendaitem{When are ChangeLog entries required?} \index{ChangeLog} This question mainly relates to arch stabilizations. The consensus was that ChangeLog entries even for arch stabilizations provide valuable information that is unique without network access and more accessible than CVS logs even with network access. So, Always required. If you aren't making them now, fix your script to call echangelog. Some people were curious what proportion of space ChangeLogs take in the tree, but most people didn't think that was relevant. welp suggested making a changelog message part of repoman commit. It would be helpful for the QA team to help with checking for and enforcing ChangeLog messages. If that doesn't help matters, the council may have to take action. \agendaitem{Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams?} \index{arch!arm}\index{arch!sh}\index{arch!s390} The work happens, but Mart says it's not communicated to anyone and has no relationship to whether bugs are open. We need to understand the workflow of undermanned arch teams and see whether there's anything we can help improve. Possibly improving recuitment -- add a good, motivating staffing-needs entry. \agendaitem{PMS: Are versions allowed to have more than 8 digits?} References: \begin{itemize} \item \agoref{gentoo-dev}{db2f5c09c2c0c8b042ca3d0dcec7cdaf} \item \bug{188449} \end{itemize} What do various PMs/tools support? Portage, Pkgcore, Paludis all handle >8. portage-utils does not but could be fixed to use longs instead of ints, with some loss of performance (magnitude unclear). versionator.eclass also needs fixing for >8 digits. Apparently [ ]-style tests break with large numbers, but [[ ]] works. Have to be careful which tests are getting used anywhere large versions are compared. The council generally favored allowing versions to have <=18 digits. This allows them to fit into 64 bits (18 signed digits or 19 unsigned) and gives them an upper bound, which some implementations of version parsing could find useful. We voted to do more research and testing, specifically to ask the package maintainers with extremely long PVs whether they were needed and to test the impact of extending versionator.eclass. The involved packages: \begin{verbatim} sys-process/fuser-bsd sys-apps/net-tools sys-apps/gradm net-im/ntame media-video/captury media-libs/libcaptury media-libs/capseo sys-block/btrace www-apache/mod_depends net-wireless/rt2500 sys-fs/unionfs \end{verbatim} \agendaitem{Enforced retirement} \index{retirement!enforced}\index{project!devrel} The meeting had already gone 2.5 hours and we were short multiple council members because of the late hour in their timezone, or broken hardware in the case of jokey. Because of the urgency of getting this resolved, we decided it couldn't wait for next month's meeting and scheduled a special session for next week at the same time. \agendaitem{Open floor} \index{retirement!appeal} Some people thought that we were going to make a final decision on the above appeals today, because the agenda was insufficiently clear on that. That was not the case. What we intended to do was explain why we can take the appeal and then figure out the process for it because we haven't done any appeals before.