
\summary{2017}{5}{14}

Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-project}{079a51bf7f588e6b9f0cb6692cf36700}

Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-project}{a698bb4ef56217c7fa7bff97ab9d852c}

\agendaitem{Discussion on Guidelines for the council summaries}
\index{council!summaries}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-project}{7d6a15b12347ce173609e0f50595fbc0}

There was agreement that the guidelines make sense and should be added to the 
Wiki for future use.\footnote{This was done later as 
\wgoref{Project:Council/Meeting_summary_guidelines}.}

\agendaitem{GLEP 72: arches.desc}
\index{GLEP!72}

References:
\begin{itemize}
 \item
 \agoref{gentoo-project}{a0babd1fcfd6471bfa9afd76e51a4c3b}
 \item
 \glep{72}
\end{itemize}

\dev{dilfridge} gave a short introduction what problems the proposal addresses: 
1), algorithmically finding out which arches are ``stable'', 2) introducing an 
official state for arches that have stable keywords for arch team usage only, 
3), easing transitions from and to stable state of an arch. This is achieved by 
introducing a new file arches.desc in profiles.

After some discussion and clarification, about the corresponding user 
configuration as well as the impact on catalyst, the topic was tabled for 
further discussion on the mailing lists and revisiting at the next meeting.

An additional suggestion was to add a column to the arches.desc file that 
specifies whether an arch is security-supported.

\agendaitem{Open bugs with council involvement}

\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 \bug{618254}: Handling this issue was postponed; also it is actually ComRel 
 business.
 \item
 \bug{616206}: The modifications to EAPI 6 have already been approved via a 
 vote on the bug; the bug can be closed.
 \item
 \bug{565566}: No progress has been made.
\end{itemize}

\agendaitem{Mailing list moderation}
\index{mailing lists!moderation}\index{mailing list!gentoo-project}
\index{mailing list!gentoo-dev}\index{developer!wltjr}
\index{project!comrel}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-project}{ad3bbffe2286cced97b64571edc1245d}

This topic boiled down into a lengthy discussion how single participants 
dominate mailing list threads, inhowfar that influences Gentoo's public 
perception, and what could be done to improve the situation. In addition, it 
was discussed whether the ComRel team should become involved. In the end a vote 
was taken:

\vote{Do we want moderation of gentoo-dev and gentoo-project?}{not passed, with
5 no, 1 yes, 1 absent}


\agendaitem{Open floor}
\index{MetaManifest}\index{arch!sparc}\index{arch!ia64}\index{arch!ppc}

\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 OpenPGP verification of the gentoo repository: a brief discussion of the 
 current status and possible next steps took place
 \item
 Arch status of sparc, ia64, ppc: While several people voiced support for 
 moving sparc and ia64 to dev or exp status, no action was taken.
\end{itemize}

