19:00 <@dberkholz> afternoon everybody
19:01 <@dberkholz> who's here?
19:01 <@Chainsaw> Ready and waiting.
19:02 -!- adeel [~adeel@c-67-174-60-55.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #gentoo-council
19:02 <@grobian> ready
19:02 <@jmbsvicetto> time
19:02 <@jmbsvicetto> so let's have roll call
19:02  * hwoarang here
19:02 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-oo bonsaikitten DrEeevil] by jmbsvicetto
19:02  * Chainsaw salutes
19:02 <@jmbsvicetto> here
19:02 <@grobian> here
19:03 <@Chainsaw> Yes, present.
19:03 <@dberkholz> jmbsvicetto: here, and i think your clock is a couple of minutes slow =P
19:03 <@jmbsvicetto> yeah, I was writing a few things for the meeting. Sorry
19:03 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: pong
19:04 <@dberkholz> ulm: around?
19:05 <@jmbsvicetto> let me grab my phone to poke Betelgeuse 
19:05 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: hello
19:05 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: just in time ;)
19:06 <@jmbsvicetto> I'm calling ulm 
19:07 -!- adeel [~adeel@c-67-174-60-55.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
19:07 <@jmbsvicetto> He should be poking in soon
19:07 <@ulm> hi :)
19:07 <@jmbsvicetto> so the agenda is on http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/msg_aff1618a1bd37eb4f991d4e386b74b77.xml
19:08 <@jmbsvicetto> shall we move to the probable meeting schedule?
19:08 <@Chainsaw> Please proceed.
19:09 <@jmbsvicetto> Those of you that replied seem to prefer 1800 - 2200 UTC on weekdays, correct'
19:09 <@jmbsvicetto> s/'/?/
19:09 <@Chainsaw> Indeed, that would work very well for me.
19:09 <@hwoarang> yeah seems better
19:09 <@Chainsaw> Can't do the first Tuesday of each month, but no other restrictions Mon-Fri.
19:09 <@grobian> ok, ready here
19:09 <@jmbsvicetto> seems you may all be happy with keeping the 2nd Tuesday of the month too
19:09 <@Chainsaw> I'll sign for that, yeah.
19:09 <@hwoarang> +1
19:09 <@grobian> tuesday is ok for me
19:09 <@ulm> tuesday is fine
19:10 <@Betelgeuse> ok
19:10 <@dberkholz> 2nd tuesday at 1900 is the same as before, right? that would be fine with me
19:10 <@jmbsvicetto> we might do 1900 until the day savings time kicks in and 1800 after that. But there's time to think about it (should happen on October irc)
19:10 <@jmbsvicetto> iirc*
19:11 <@Chainsaw> Yes, let's cross that bridge when we get there.
19:11 <@Chainsaw> Sounds unanimous then.
19:11 <@jmbsvicetto> So, we can keep the 2nd Tuesday of the month 1900UTC as the "default" schedule for meetings.
19:11 <@ulm> jmbsvicetto: shouldn't it be the other way around, 1900 in summer and 2000 in winter
19:12 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm: yeah, I think I went the wrong direction
19:12 <@jmbsvicetto> So, do we want to set a desired "model of operation"?
19:13 <@hwoarang> what exactly do you mean by that/
19:13 <@grobian> what exactly do you mean?
19:13 <@Betelgeuse> starting earlier works for me though :)
19:14 <@Chainsaw> Can we lock the agenda 48 hours in advance of the meeting, rather than a week in advance of the meeting?
19:14 <@jmbsvicetto> How do we want to conduct our meetings
19:14 <@dberkholz> jmbsvicetto: could you remind those of us who are new of the current mode of operation?
19:14 <@Chainsaw> That should still prevent us from booking stealth meetings and passing resolutions without scrutiny.
19:14 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, a few things we decided for last term:
19:14 <@Chainsaw> But we would be able to respond sooner to concerns.
19:15 <@jmbsvicetto> no secretary. we rotate the role between members
19:15 <@jmbsvicetto> we've used google's wave for a while to do summaries during meeting
19:15 <@jmbsvicetto> use bugs to track council issues and try to discuss progress on each meeting
19:16 <@jmbsvicetto> be open for 2nd monthly meeting or improptu meeting when required
19:16 <@grobian> ok, sounds good, except for the google wave thing
19:16 <@jmbsvicetto> This won't "release" us from having the regular meetings with enough advance notice
19:17 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse / Chainsaw: Can you think of anything else?
19:17 <@hwoarang> i wonder if one meeting per month suffices
19:17 <@jmbsvicetto> btw, I'm logging this meeting and will do log and summary
19:18 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: It is appreciated.
19:18 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: You would prefer to meet once a fortnight?
19:18 <@dberkholz> i really appreciated having a dedicated secretary in the past. it can be a bit of a distraction to deal with that and maintain an active meeting
19:18 <@jmbsvicetto> Do we want to set any other "rules" for meetings?
19:18 <@hwoarang> Chainsaw: i would prefer to have two meetings/month each one of them being a short one
19:18 <@hwoarang> instead of having a long one every month
19:19 <@ulm> can we discuss topics on the council mailing list in advance, so that less time during the meetings will be spent for discussions?
19:19 <@Chainsaw> hwoarang: There is no such thing as a short meeting. Not with 7 participants and an open floor segment.
19:19 <@hwoarang> this will guarantee the continuity of the agenda
19:19 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: from last year experience, I can tell you that at times there's no need for that
19:19 <@dberkholz> Chainsaw: there is if you set a time limit =)
19:19 <@ulm> i.e. during the meetings there should be mostly votes, and the discussion could take place in advance
19:19 <@hwoarang> Chainsaw: yeah but you will have shorter agendas
19:19 <@grobian> +1 for discussing more and in-depth on the ML
19:19 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: well, I think we kept a very good track of logs and summaries in the last year
19:19 <@dberkholz> ulm: yes, i greatly prefer that
19:20 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: the web app is progressing
19:20 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: the meeting bot should help reduce the need for a secretary
19:20 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: fair enough. I trust your experience
19:20 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm: that's also something we did / tried to do last year (get things discussed on ml before meetings)
19:20 <@hwoarang> i seems though that the 31 days gap is quite large
19:21 <@dberkholz> perhaps we could reserve the 4th tuesday as needed, but not schedule meetings in advance for it.
19:21 <@hwoarang> unless of course there is active discussion on alias/ML beforehand
19:21 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: I'm fine with that
19:22 <@jmbsvicetto> so, to address some of the points, no secretary for now? We'll pick someone at the end of the meeting to chair the following meeting?
19:22 <@ulm> dberkholz/hwoarang: sounds good
19:22 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: yes
19:22 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: ok
19:22 <@dberkholz> i'd like to discuss neddy's proposal that we select a permanent meeting chair
19:22 <@hwoarang> this worked well in the previous term
19:23 <@dberkholz> if you hate the idea, just say so and we can move on, but i think there's value to it.
19:23 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: ok. I'm against that idea, but let's discuss it
19:24 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: If someone is willing then perhaps.
19:24 <@grobian> Not sure if I misunderstood, but "permanent" doesn't sound good
19:24 <@dberkholz> with 7 people and only 1 meeting a month, it seems like people may not have time to get experienced enough at running a meeting really effectively
19:24 <@grobian> I think the suggestion for two overlapping terms is a good one
19:24 <@hwoarang> I don't like this option either. You have a "single point of failure" :)
19:24 <@jmbsvicetto> in my view the council is a colective body that shouldn't have individual roles - all members should be "equal"
19:24 <@ulm> yeah, chair should rotate
19:25 <@dberkholz> you already know my view from my manifesto =P
19:25 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: about the experience on chairing, last term it was a "voluntary" job
19:25 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: I don't know if all council members ended up doing it and a few of us did it a few times
19:25 -!- tove [~tove@smtp.gentoo.org] has left #gentoo-council []
19:26 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: but I'd rather have it as something that people volunteer when they can than to make it a "title"
19:26 <@dberkholz> ok, let's do it then.
19:26 <@jmbsvicetto> or "role"
19:27 <@jmbsvicetto> Are you guys happy with the rest or do you want to discuss any of it?
19:27 < Smiley> Am I allowed to talk?
19:27 < Smiley> Surely once the bot is done, that'll do the "chairing" for you
19:28 <@dberkholz> somebody will need to run the bot, and it won't write a summary on its own either
19:28 < Smiley> #
19:28 <@dberkholz> i don't think it eliminates the need for chairs or secretaries, maybe just makes the jobs a little easier
19:29 <@Betelgeuse> jbartosik: if you are around feel free to contribute but check the logs later at least
19:29 <@jmbsvicetto> just to list them again, the 2 other things I mentioned (with some update from this meeting) are:
19:29 <@jmbsvicetto>    use bugs to track issues and discuss progress on each meeting
19:29 <@jmbsvicetto>    be open for a 2nd monthy meeting (4th Tuesday of the month) or improptu meeting when
19:29 <@jmbsvicetto> required
19:29 <@jmbsvicetto> Oh and we should always appoint a council member to track a bug
19:29 <@dberkholz> i must have missed how we were going to get summaries
19:29 < NeddySeagoon> dberkholz, my fixed chair suggestion was aimed at cutting out the 10 minutes every meeting agreeing the chair for next time.  Rotating works too, if the rotation is agreed in advance
19:29 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: The bugs didn't always seem to work last year.
19:29 <@dberkholz> collaborative editing on google wave still?
19:29 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: But I can't think of a better way.
19:30 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: bugs - yes, open - yes but not restricted to one day
19:30 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: That can be a good tool. In any case, the chair is responsible for sending the emails announcing a meeting, doing the agenda and submitting logs / summaries at the end of the meeting
19:30 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: sorry, one day?
19:31 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: yes, as in only the 4th tuesday
19:31 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: I meant to say that we should have a dedicated council member tracking each bug
19:31 < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, even more important that the chair is fixed well in advance
19:31 <@dberkholz> we could just say who's interested in being chair right now, and rotate evenly among those people for the rest of the year.
19:31 <@jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: that's why we do it in the previous meeting - that should be 1 month in advance
19:32 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: seems a bit pointless to me at this stage (me being new)
19:32 <@dberkholz> that way we wouldn't ever need to think about it again
19:32 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: I can do a meeting or two
19:32 < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, it costs 10 minutes ... its not productive time
19:32 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: that works for me too. There just might be a few times where I won't be available for a specific date
19:32  * antarus throws chairs
19:32 <@jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: in the past it has taken 3 or 4 minutes tops
19:32 <@dberkholz> if you aren't available during your "scheduled" date, just trade with somebody and update the webpage.
19:33 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: the 4th Tuesday was meant for the 2nd montly meeting (if we have it)
19:33 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: I'm fine with that
19:33 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: yes, and I wouldn't restrict to that.
19:33 <@jmbsvicetto> and I volunteer to be chair on a rotating base
19:33 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: ok
19:33 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: NeddySeagoon: could we do the chair discussion upfront on the ML perhaps? When the agenda is announced or something?
19:34 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: I was adding Donnie's suggestion that we make the 4th Tuesday the "default" option for the 2nd meeting
19:34 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: no, the chair is the one sending that email
19:34 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: at most we need to do it shortly after a meeting
19:34 < NeddySeagoon> grobian, thats a little late as the chair has to announce the agenda
19:34 <@grobian> then shift it with a week :)
19:35 <@jmbsvicetto> But I like Donnie's idea of rotating between those of us willing to do it
19:35 <@dberkholz> man, i can't keep straight what we've decided on and what's left. jmbsvicetto, are you keeping a summary during the meeting already that we could follow?
19:35 <@grobian> but this kind of discussions are better suited for a ML IMO
19:35 < NeddySeagoon> grobian, it works on list, if its done just after the meeting
19:35 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: I'm trying too :)
19:35 <@grobian> NeddySeagoon: fine with me
19:35 <@dberkholz> jmbsvicetto: is there a link to it somewhere?
19:35 <@jmbsvicetto> at this point we haven't decided how to do the summaries or how to choose the chair
19:36 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: sorry, not yet. I'm doing it locally on kwrite
19:36 <@jmbsvicetto> let me see if I can open wave quickly
19:36 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: google wave might not work for a long time since google announced that i will stop it sooner or later
19:36 <@dberkholz> google docs does collaborative stuff too
19:36 <@hwoarang> we can use google docs
19:36 <@hwoarang> just a plain text file
19:36 <@jmbsvicetto> ok
19:37 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: what's the purpose of meeting in IRC all at the same time?  (what are the goals?)
19:37 <@Betelgeuse> grobian: GLEP 39 says it must be an open meeting
19:37 <@Betelgeuse> grobian: Any suggestions on other ways to do that?
19:37 < NeddySeagoon> grobian, GLEP 39 requires it
19:38 <@grobian> fine, but we don't have to be chatting around here and throwing in random ideas all the time, do we?
19:38 <@Betelgeuse> grobian: we don't
19:38 < Smiley> thats why you need a chair.
19:38 < Smiley> and an agenda.
19:38 < Smiley> and then you mute everyone, and ask each persons view, one by one. Unmuting them in turn.
19:38 < NeddySeagoon> and up front work, so the meeting is focused
19:38 <@grobian> is it also ok to just vote on matters, and perhaps talk to persons involved with discussions
19:39 <@grobian> fine, doit.
19:39 <@Betelgeuse> grobian: yes
19:39  * Smiley shuts up again.
19:39 <@jmbsvicetto> I'd say it has at least the following goals: to have the council as a team and not just a group of people, to spark discussions, to open up scrutiny on council's decisions, to allow community members to track meetings and to try to participate (even if by poking members privately)
19:39 <@Betelgeuse> No format will automatically make people prepare.
19:40 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: ok, thanks
19:40 < NeddySeagoon> Betelgeuse, nope but it makes for shorter meetings
19:40 <@dberkholz> as far as i'm concerned, we could do pretty much everything on list, vote on the webapp, and meetings would just serve as due dates for tasks as well as open floor.
19:40 < NeddySeagoon> then you get to bead early :)
19:40 < Smiley> What is the obcession with being so quick?
19:40 <@Betelgeuse> NeddySeagoon: What I have also noticed that helps is that chairs push things to vote.
19:40 < NeddySeagoon> Betelgeuse, yep.
19:40 < Smiley> If you have so little time - maybe you should reconcider if you have time to be on the council?
19:40 <@jmbsvicetto> and yes, people have been talking about up front discussion for a long time, but talking doesn't make it happen
19:40 <@grobian> Smiley: not quick, but effective
19:41 < Smiley> effective needs a leader. imo.
19:41 <@grobian> Smiley: yes
19:41 <@hwoarang> council acts as a leader
19:41 <@hwoarang> or it should
19:41 < Smiley> Hum. This seems to be getting no where. :S
19:42 < NeddySeagoon> hwoarang, The council needs an effective leader during meetings to keep meetings focused.
19:42 <@jmbsvicetto> Smiley: focus is directly related to the topic in an agenda
19:42 < Smiley> otherwise you'll end up like anon.
19:43 <@jmbsvicetto> The topics in this first meeting aren't probably "too interesting". This is all about how we want to conduct in the future
19:43 <@dberkholz> ok, so i think we've settled on rotating chairs (volunteers on list will be put into a schedule), and chairs will handle summaries too (ideally in a collaborative doc like gdocs)
19:43 <@jmbsvicetto> after we get this sorted out we can focus on actually doing what we have / need to
19:43 < Smiley> Right, Ok :)
19:44 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: yes, seems there's no objection to that
19:44 <@hwoarang> yes
19:45 <@grobian> ok, so it seems we can end the model of operation here sort of
19:45 <@grobian> it probably needs to be revisited after a meeting or two
19:45 <@dberkholz> the other main question that Chainsaw brought up was announcing meetings and agendas with a little less than 7 days notice. more like 2 or 3.
19:45 <@jmbsvicetto> So shall we move forward? Does anyone have any topics you would like to address on this term?
19:45 <@dberkholz> that way people don't need to do things so far in advance to get them into a meeting
19:45 <@hwoarang> i agree
19:46 <@jmbsvicetto> I still think the annoucement should be sent with at least 1 week in advance
19:46 <@jmbsvicetto> The agenda can and has traditonally been discussed after that
19:47 <@grobian> ok, so this is a thing to put on the agenda of the next meeting to decide?
19:47 <@jmbsvicetto> we can talk / vote on it in the mls before next meeting
19:48 <@ulm> dberkholz: if we want to discuss things on the ml before the meeting, then 48 hours is very little time
19:48 <@dberkholz> ulm: yeah, i was thinking about that too.
19:48 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: I think that would be useful
19:50 <@jmbsvicetto> There's also the 15 days in advance for GLEP votes - 8 days before meeting announcement. IIRC, that isn't written down on any GLEP but should be in a council meeting summary / log
19:50 <@dberkholz> i agree, we should discuss this in more detail on the lists.
19:50 <@jmbsvicetto> So no one wants to talk about any topic you would like to address this term?
19:50 <@dberkholz> i've already posted them, i'm going to continue working toward those things
19:51 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: i liked dberkholz idea about no replacing all the council members every year
19:52 <@grobian> I'd like some things to be done (cvs migration, multirepo, changelog, etc.) but I don't see them as special council things... it's community driven, isn't it?
19:52 < NeddySeagoon> that works for the foundation
19:52 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: that's GLEP 39 reform
19:52 <@Betelgeuse> grobian: yeah I also have plenty of ideas but they can be surved by one person driving them
19:52 <@hwoarang> it seems to be a pretty good idead to keep things rolling
19:52 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: yes indeed
19:53 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, then let me just add a quick topic
19:53 <@jmbsvicetto> Move past council election results to the elections space and make
19:53 <@jmbsvicetto> links from the council project to the elections pages
19:53 <@Betelgeuse> s/surve/serve/
19:53 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: i dont follow
19:54 <@jmbsvicetto> hwoarang: This topic was raised this week. The election results are (were?) recorded in the council and elections project space. There were also some divergences
19:54 <@ulm> jmbsvicetto: you mean the pre-2009 results of council elections?
19:54 <@jmbsvicetto> So if there's no objections, we'll store the results in the elections project space and link to them from the council space
19:54 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: ok
19:54 <@hwoarang> ok
19:54 <@jmbsvicetto> ulm: those would need to be moved to the elections space, yes
19:55 <@dberkholz> yeah.
19:55 <@ulm> makes sense, yes
19:55 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, I'll take care of this one (if it's still pending)
19:55 <@hwoarang> thanks
19:56 <@dberkholz> something i'd like to sort out right away.
19:56 <@jmbsvicetto> In that case, it's time to see if the community has any issues they like this council to address on this term
19:56 <@dberkholz> do you think that glep 39 changes require a full developer vote?
19:56 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: yes
19:56 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: yes
19:56 < antarus> no
19:56 < antarus> :):)
19:56 <@ulm> dberkholz: yes
19:56 <@dberkholz> i don't either, but majority rules =)
19:57 < Calchan> dberkholz, these guys have voted against the council being able to change gelp 39 2 years ago
19:57 < Calchan> explicitely
19:57 <@jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I didn't vote (wasn't on council), but argued for it ;)
19:57 < antarus> I'm a fan of the council being like parliment
19:57 < antarus> it has real utlimate power ;)
19:58 <@dberkholz> i'm still waiting to hear on the rest of the council folks
19:58 <@hwoarang> i think we need a full dev vote
19:58 <@grobian> dberkholz: yes
19:58 <@dberkholz> as it will have a significant influence on how i conduct the rest of my term =)
19:58 <@dberkholz> ok, sounds good.
19:58 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: You can ask the elections team do hold an election to give council the powers.
19:59 < Calchan> dberkholz, just take the first part of my council agenda almost 2 years ago and have them revote on it
19:59 <@Betelgeuse> But votify should also work to ask opinions on multiple individual items at once.
19:59 <@jmbsvicetto> antarus: most parliament's require a 2/3 to be able to change a constitution :P
19:59 <@hwoarang> Betelgeuse: i am not sure about that. I think Robin said this is on TODO list
20:00 <@dberkholz> jmbsvicetto: interestingly, glep 39 makes no such prohibition against changes by the group that it explicitly gives power over global issues
20:00 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: true
20:00 <@Betelgeuse> hwoarang: probably works by ranking things below and above a pass item
20:00 <@dberkholz> that's the basis of my opinion, but i can see where people might see it differently
20:00 <@Betelgeuse> hwoarang: Robin was talking about multiple elections going simultaneously
20:01 <@Betelgeuse> hwoarang: but you should be able to do it with one ballot
20:01 <@hwoarang> right
20:01 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: but GLEP39 isn't a real GLEP. If you want, as a GLEP it should be marked as an information GLEP as it wasn't written or voted as a GLEP, but was instead subject to a global dev vote
20:01 <@jmbsvicetto> about the multiple items vote, we can / should look at devotee
20:02 <@jmbsvicetto> I've already suggested in the elections team that we should try to move to devotee instead of maintaining our own scripts
20:02 <@Betelgeuse> antarus: I don't think most parliaments can change constitutions with a simple majority
20:03 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, so if there's nothing else, we can adjourn this meeting
20:03 <@jmbsvicetto> items to take care before next meeting:
20:03 <@jmbsvicetto> 1. have interested council members send an email manifesting their willingness to do chair work
20:04 <@jmbsvicetto> 2. create a schedule and distribute the chair role to the above list
20:04 <@dberkholz> once we've got volunteers, i can put the schedule together and stick it on the council webpage
20:04 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: ok
20:05 <@jmbsvicetto> 3. vote / decided pending issues
20:05 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: 4. work to fill the agenda with items important to each one :)
20:05 <@hwoarang> what is the preferred way to talk about these? using alias or ML ?
20:05 <@jmbsvicetto> One last thing, when will we have the next meeting?
20:05 <@dberkholz> 2nd tuesday, which would be august 9
20:06 <@grobian> must have this month, as discussed on ML
20:06 <@jmbsvicetto> Do we want to wait for next month (there's the issue of this meeting not having the 1 week advance notice) or shall we schedule another meeting this month?
20:06 <@dberkholz> that's incorrect
20:06 <@dberkholz> we must have a meeting this month, and we're having it right now
20:06 <@Betelgeuse> this one is sufficient
20:06 <@grobian> ok, cool
20:07 <@hwoarang> this should also go to the Google Calendar :)
20:07 <@jmbsvicetto> I still argue that we didn't satisfy one of the requirements - the 1 week advance notice
20:07 <@dberkholz> i was attempting to put it on, but chromium kept crashing.
20:07 <@Betelgeuse> (unless a majority wants to oppose)
20:07 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: well you voted that council can't change GLEP 39
20:07 <@jmbsvicetto> I did
20:07 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: GLEP 39 states nothing about a week notice
20:08 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: so by that logic re-election can't follow
20:08 <@jmbsvicetto> yes, but previous Councils "decided" that
20:08 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: yes, but by that logic the rule that we pick the next runner up in case a council member quits, wouldn't apply as well
20:08 < NeddySeagoon> are councils bound by decisions of pervious councils ?
20:09 <@jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: and at least the last 2 or 3 councils have followed that rule
20:09 <@dberkholz> i see that requirement as another part of the mode of operation of a given council, and i'm pretty sure we decided to discuss advance notice on the mailing list
20:09 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: I have wondered that practise myself but it can be thought to fall within the GLEP 39 text
20:09 < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, its become a standard operating procedure then ?
20:10 <@jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: I think we need to do a GLEP 39 reform. But until we get it done and things properly documented, I'd avoid ignoring previous councils rules - to me that could only "mess things more"
20:10 <@jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: I'd argue it has
20:11 <@jmbsvicetto> but anyway, are we done for this month or not?
20:11 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: I don't think a hard rule for a week notice being required to have a valid meeting makes sense.
20:11 <@dberkholz> fyi everybody, i stuck our monthly meeting on the google calendar.
20:11 < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, The council needs to distinguish between the requirements of GLEP39 and things that have become custom and practice.
20:11 <@Betelgeuse> Opinions?
20:12 <@Betelgeuse> We should of course do our best to send notices on time.
20:12 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: thanks
20:13 <@hwoarang> personally, i think we need another meeting as well
20:13 <@jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: yes, that's why I want to split GLEP39 into the rules and the model of operation (which should fall under council's decision)
20:13 < NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, that makes sense
20:13 <@dberkholz> we've got multiple vacations in between now and the next meeting such that we can't even get everybody to a meeting with 1-week notice until august 9
20:14 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw / grobian / ulm: ^^
20:14 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: on what?
20:15 <@jmbsvicetto> I don't think you've expressed your opinion on this subject yet
20:15 <@dberkholz> i need to leave now, but if you really want to vote on it, i don't think another meeting is in any way required.
20:15 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: You know my opinion on advance notice; we disagree on that.
20:15 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: do we need another meeting this month or do we meet again on August 9th?
20:15 <@jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: ok
20:15 <@ulm> jmbsvicetto: I'll be away end of the month, so it'll be difficult for me to attend to another meeting in july
20:15 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: August 9 I would say, don't see the need for more.
20:16 <@jmbsvicetto> so, let's vote this so we can end this meeting:
20:16 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: I would prefer to do another meeting this month, but give the current circumstances I can live with the 9th August
20:16 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: End of July means start of school holidays; anyone with kids is going to be burdened.
20:16 <@jmbsvicetto> Do we need another meeting this month to follow some perceived rule about the 1 week advance notice?
20:16 <@Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: No, we do not.
20:16 <@hwoarang> jmbsvicetto: yes
20:16 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: yes
20:16 <@ulm> jmbsvicetto: no
20:16 <@Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: no
20:16 <@jmbsvicetto> yes
20:17 <@jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: no
20:17 <@jmbsvicetto> who's missing?
20:17 < NeddySeagoon> The nays have it
20:17 <@jmbsvicetto> sorry, right
20:17 <@grobian> you've got al 7
20:17 <@jmbsvicetto> so 4 no and 3 yes votes
20:17 <@jmbsvicetto> grobian: yes, I forgot to council dberkholz's vote. Sorry
20:18 <@grobian> jmbsvicetto: hehe, :D
20:18 <@jmbsvicetto> ok, so we're done for today and this month :)
20:18 <@jmbsvicetto> bah, s/council/count/
20:18  * Chainsaw salutes and marches off
20:18 <@jmbsvicetto> Thank you all for showing up
20:18 < Mepho> o/
20:18 -!- Chainsaw [~chainsaw@gentoo/developer/atheme.member.chainsaw] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
20:18  * hwoarang is out. bbl
20:18 <@jmbsvicetto> I'll take care of the summary and log after dinner
20:18 < NeddySeagoon> I wish we could get 55 for Foundation meetings
20:18 <@jmbsvicetto> see you later
20:19 < Mepho> meh forgot to ask stuff I wanted to, maybe next time
20:19 <@grobian> throw it in
20:19 < NeddySeagoon> Mepho, ask anyway, the council will read the backlog
20:19 < Mepho> 1) having gentoo.org linked with "official" sites on social networks (encouraging users to join such groups on website) - though I am not on any of these, many people are.
20:20 < chithead> I think any possible "1 week" rule violation has been healed by everybody showing up
20:20 < Mepho> 2) Adding localisation category to handbooks, many people do work in pure english environment and do not really need useflags like "nls" in default profile (nto saying it should be removed, just that there could be few words said about -nls USE flag in "setting useflags" caregory)
20:20 < Mepho> 3) another documentation proposal - strongly encourage newbies to read entire handbook, many of them stop using it after booting step, so later they can come to IRC channel and ask about USEflags etc.. rewriting handbook is probably too drastic, however adding line or two could save their time and ours (on irc, forums).
20:20 < antarus> Mepho: for 2 and three you should contact nightmorph@
20:20 < antarus> two and three
20:20 < antarus> silly numbers
20:20 <@grobian> are 2) and 3) really council territory?
20:20 <@grobian> ^^^ see antarus
20:21 < antarus> for social networking...contact pr@ ?
20:21 < NeddySeagoon> file doc bugs
20:21 < Mepho> I wasnt sure, yes
20:21 < NeddySeagoon> is there a #gentoo-pr ?
20:21 < Mepho> who to contact for propaganda?
20:21 < Smiley> You'll never fix users tbh.
20:21 < antarus> Mepho: email pr@, donnie and myself are both on it
20:21 < Smiley> (I presume I'm ok to speak now the meeting is "over"? )
20:21 < antarus> among others ;)
20:21 < NeddySeagoon> Mepho, dabbott/comprookie2000
20:22 < NeddySeagoon> Smiley, Open floor was on the agenda ... they skipped that bit
20:22 < Smiley> NeddySeagoon: I thought so :S - I was being careful not to interuppt anymore ;)
20:23 < NeddySeagoon> Smiley when council does not like the interruptions, they set +m
20:23 <@grobian> NeddySeagoon: was announced, but nobody started talking, but the council members :)
20:24 < NeddySeagoon> grobian, I missed the announce - but I was fairly vocal during the meeting anyway :)
20:24 <@grobian> yeah, much appreciated
20:24 < Smiley> I missed it too. Hope I didn't intrude too much. First time here.
20:25 <@grobian> I'd say you didn't
20:25 < NeddySeagoon> Smiley, Its like your local council meeting - you can go along and ask questions as long as you are not disrumptive
20:26 < Smiley> NeddySeagoon: I've never been to a local council meeting :/ but cool. Makes sense.
20:26 < Smiley> On that point, do you want more people to turn up for the meetings and take notice?
20:27 < Mepho> maybe sending some message on other gentoo-* channels 10 minutes before (or other interval, announcements day before?)
20:27 <@grobian> I guess that would show more involvement
20:28 <@grobian> but I don't think it really helps to get something useful out of the meeting
20:28 < Smiley> Mepho: I was thinking more like a document explaining what to expect, when your expected to talk, etc.
20:28 <@grobian> you can always send questions/issues to the ML, IMO
20:28 < NeddySeagoon> could post in #gentoo 10 min before the meeting start
20:30 < Mepho> wouldn't it be possible to create some rank between arch tester and dev? Sometimes I think bugzilla is filled with confirmed bugs, with included patches, which just won't get to mainstream because there are not enough devs (or maybe arch testers?).
20:32 < chithead> I can't speak for other teams, but x11 team is reluctant to apply patches if upstream has not accepted them
20:33 < Mepho> Right now I am thinking of becoming arch tester myself, but I find myself trapped in wast ammount of documentation to read (hadnbook, dev guide, ebuild guide, other docs), though I consider myself experienced gentoo user (did some ebuilds for my own needs and stuff).
20:33 <@grobian> Mepho: common complaint
20:34 < Mepho> for example there is open bug for g15daemon, patch is well known (included in ubuntu upstream), but only shows on amd64 (buffer overflow, one line patch) and I guess there are just no people who could test it and accept
20:35 < Mepho> especially because not everyone have g15 keyboard
20:35 < Mepho> and we cant do much about this as development cycle of that sw is dead
20:35 <@grobian> ok, but then it's really how the team deals with that, and how much they trust a user for something
20:35 < Mepho> and there are many other examples like this :/
20:36 <@grobian> even devs can't just commit anything/everything
20:37 < Mepho> I understand
20:38 <@grobian> ok, I'm off, laterzzz
20:38 -!- grobian [~grobian@gentoo/developer/grobian] has quit [Quit: Zzzzzz]
20:38 < Mepho> bb