
\summary{2009}{2}{12}

Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{221d6a37687a1512034bb2757c560d0a}

Agenda announcement: ?



\agendaitem{Should the council have a dedicated secretary?}
\index{council!secretary}

Previously \dev{dberkholz} fulfilled this role, but he became busy. Because 
fulfilling the secretary duties can distract from the meeting, a dedicated, 
non-council member secretary is ideal.

Conclusion: \dev{tanderson} volunteered and is the new secretary. Logs and 
summary are to be posted on the -council mailing list. If no objections to them
are raised within one day, they are posted to the council page and the lists.


\agendaitem{Council Elections}
\index{council!election}

Should there be staggered elections every 6 months where half the council 
members stand for reelection?

Conclusion: Leave things as they are; elections every 6 months is too 
cumbersome. Full elections will be held once a year.

What happens if there aren't enough candidates nominated to fill all the 
council seats?

Conclusion: If the pseudo-candidate '_reopen_nominations' appears in 7th place
or higher those candidates that rank above '_reopen_nominations' will be the 
current council. A second period of nominations will be opened for the remaining 
council seats. No third period of nominations will be opened in the event 
'_reopen_nominations' ranks higher than the candidates necessary to fill the 
council.


\agendaitem{Prepalldocs}
\index{prepalldocs}\index{EAPI!0}\index{EAPI!1}\index{EAPI!2}

Reference: \bug{250077}

Should 'prepalldocs' be allowed in current EAPIs?

Conclusion: Prepalldocs is banned in current EAPIs (0, 1, 2). It should be 
removed from ebuilds. \dev{betelgeuse} will make QA checks for repoman.



\agendaitem{BASH version allowed in the tree}
\index{bash!features in ebuilds}\index{PMS}

PMS states that ebuilds can only rely on BASH 3.0 features. However, some code 
in gentoo-x86 uses BASH 3.1 features('+=' being the most notable) and so is not 
in conformance with PMS. It was suggested that BASH versions newer than 3.0 be 
allowed in a future EAPI. \dev{ciaranm}, however, commented that this would 
require \glep{55} being accepted so that a package manager would not have to 
source the ebuild before knowing what BASH version it requires.\footnote{This 
discussion cannot be found in the meeting log. However, it is referenced in the 
meeting log during the ``open bugs'' discussion.}

Conclusion: No decision. \dev{cardoe} will follow this up with \dev{dev-zero} 
as a backup.


\agendaitem{Open Bugs}

\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 \bug{234711}:
 \glep{54} solves two problems, version ordering\footnote{This was actually a 
 matter of debate during the meeting.} and periodic reinstall of live packages. 
 The Live Template proposal  
 http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/liveebuild.rst\footnote{See 
 \ref{2000-02-luzero-live} for the text.} overlaps in that it also allows for 
 periodic reinstall of live packages. \dev{lu_zero} maintains that Live Template 
 provides proper version ordering, while \dev{ciaranm} maintains that it does 
 not.\\
 Conclusion: No decision. The council cracked the whip on \dev{lu_zero} and
 he is going to handle the issue.
 \item
 \glep{55}: Should .ebuild-\$eapi be approved? This ties in with "BASH version
 allowed in the tree" issue mentioned above.\\
 Conclusion: No decision. \dev{dev-zero} will be handling this bug.
\end{itemize}


