[19:50:29] <dilfridge|mobile> Uh.
[19:58:08] <dilfridge|mobile> May be a minute or two late
[19:58:49] -*- gyakovlev is here
[20:02:38] <dilfridge> ok
[20:02:42] <dilfridge> !proj council
[20:02:43] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, gyakovlev, patrick, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
[20:02:50] <dilfridge> roll call, meeting time!
[20:02:55] -*- ulm here
[20:02:56] -*- Whissi here
[20:02:56] -*- WilliamH here
[20:02:58] -*- slyfox here
[20:02:59] -*- dilfridge here
[20:03:44] <dilfridge> only xiaomiao missing
[20:04:16] <dilfridge> let's give him a minute or two and then we start (anyone wants to text him?)
[20:05:00] <xiaomiao> present
[20:05:12] <dilfridge> excellent, have a seat, take a cookie.
[20:05:46] * dilfridge has changed topic for #gentoo-council to: "195th meeting: 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC | https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20191208T19 | https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council | https://dev.gentoo.org/~dilfridge/decisions.html | Agenda: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/7aa2c541d22d1bbcf1ab8dd9213bde4f"
[20:05:50] <dilfridge> ^ agenda link
[20:06:10] <dilfridge> and with this we get to 1) 
[20:06:13] <dilfridge> Approval of the changes to GLEPs 1 and 2, as posted in [1]:
[20:06:13] <dilfridge> "New GLEPs are to be licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0."
[20:06:20] <dilfridge> [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/8080529bd32cceb6439cfd3dabb7d9f5
[20:06:39] <dilfridge> ulm: do you want to still say anything about that, or should we directly go to vote?
[20:07:00] <ulm> from my side, no need for discussion
[20:07:08] <dilfridge> me neither. anyone else?
[20:07:22] <Whissi> no
[20:07:25] <gyakovlev> just a question, we got everyone's ack so far?
[20:07:28] <slyfox> the change says glep license should change when it's updated
[20:07:44] <slyfox> that requires consent of original authors, right?
[20:08:02] <slyfox> (even if it's 3.0 to 4.0 change)
[20:08:07] <ulm> slyfox: the cc-by-sa license has an upgrade clause
[20:08:43] <slyfox> ok. for clarity i take the answer is "no"
[20:09:07] <ulm> slyfox: clause 4b of cc-by-sa-3.0
[20:09:10] <ulm> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License;"
[20:09:28] <ulm> so an "adaptation" can be distributed under 4.0
[20:09:49] <slyfox> *nod*
[20:09:58] <dilfridge> ++
[20:10:17] <dilfridge> ok so then we can vote: 1)
[20:10:19] <dilfridge> Approval of the changes to GLEPs 1 and 2, as posted in [1]:
[20:10:19] <dilfridge> "New GLEPs are to be licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0."
[20:10:22] -*- dilfridge yes
[20:10:24] -*- slyfox yes
[20:10:28] -*- ulm yes
[20:10:28] -*- Whissi yes
[20:10:35] -*- gyakovlev yes
[20:10:42] -*- WilliamH yes
[20:10:51] -*- xiaomiao yes
[20:10:58] <dilfridge> excellent, unanimous.
[20:11:00] <ulm> thank you :)
[20:11:02] <dilfridge> motion passed.
[20:11:34] <dilfridge> with this we proceed to 2), which I circumscribed as "Discussion on the importance of cooperation"
[20:11:43] <dilfridge> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/4a97a1a397436c00b543ca84c3b02164
[20:11:51] <dilfridge> "Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work
[20:11:51] <dilfridge> together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be
[20:11:51] <dilfridge> allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore
[20:11:51] <dilfridge> everybody else?"
[20:12:03] <Whissi> I don't understand this motion. Especially the given example is common sense for me. So what's the purpose of this motion?
[20:12:12] <dilfridge> mgorny: ^
[20:12:48] <dilfridge> Whissi: common sense is not handed out in spoons to everyone, unfortunately
[20:13:00] <WilliamH> If what a dev is doing is breaking the distro isn't that qa terratory first?
[20:13:20] <gyakovlev> ignoring systemd support example provided in email thread.
[20:13:33] <dilfridge> I suspect it's not about "breaking the distro", but about doing things inconsistently
[20:13:40] <slyfox> that sounds more like a social problem than technical one
[20:13:47] <WilliamH> Isn't that still qa before it  comes to us?
[20:13:48] <xiaomiao> and it's nothing actionable
[20:14:10] <slyfox> Gentoo already has a few vehicles to govern changes: GLEPs and Gentoo projects. It takes a leader to implement both.
[20:14:13] <xiaomiao> we already have rules for the technical side of things, the social side is too subjective and random to manage with fixed rules
[20:14:20] <slyfox> We already have a conflict resolution mechanism.
[20:14:35] <xiaomiao> so we all agree that the idea of this diffuse suggestion is good? ;)
[20:14:41] <dilfridge> slyfox: you're right about that - but the main result of corresponding "not social" behaviour is that then qa and council is asked to decide on every detail
[20:14:51] <slyfox> If something is unclear then explicit policy should be stated.
[20:14:52] <ulm> I also think that the motion won't add anything new
[20:14:55] <xiaomiao> (there's nothing actionable in it, so I see noting for us to do)
[20:15:09] <dilfridge> I dont know the detailed motivation behind the mail
[20:15:16] <WilliamH> I don't either.
[20:15:21] <WilliamH> dilfridge: ^^
[20:15:27] <ulm> we could approve it as posted, with the logical disjunction :)
[20:15:30] <slyfox> dilfridge: someone has to solve the conflict. whether it be devs themselves, project lead, QA project or council.
[20:15:56] <dilfridge> I *do* know that in the past I was occasionally "frustrated", because Gentoo seemed like a bunch of headless chicken running around without talking to each other
[20:16:27] <dilfridge> That's why I think the council should be willing to set direction
[20:16:34] <slyfox> I suggest looking at the concrete problems and not make overbroad statements.
[20:16:44] <dilfridge> Yes. 
[20:16:57] <Whissi> +1
[20:17:08] <dilfridge> I'm just pointing out, this goes into the old discussion of "council - proactive or reactive?"
[20:17:37] <ulm> as a matter of fact, direction is most often set by discussing things in the -dev ML
[20:18:10] <ulm> most of the time with one champion trying to build consensus
[20:18:22] <dilfridge> which makes a lot of sense
[20:18:25] <ulm> (and I see nothing wrong with that)
[20:18:41] <slyfox> I personally don't see council body as a leader of implementing most technical projects. It's only 7 of us :)
[20:19:06] <dilfridge> yeah
[20:19:18] <Whissi> So skipping this one because we don't see an actionable item for now?
[20:19:24] <slyfox> Yup.
[20:19:24] <ulm> please move on, it's not actionable
[20:19:37] <dilfridge> but I see also the point that *if* you participate in a larger project (like Gentoo) you *should* be willing to adapt to community consensus
[20:19:46] <dilfridge> yes, let's move on
[20:20:02] <dilfridge> if this pops up as a specific item we can revisit it
[20:20:03] <xiaomiao> sidenote: we should not have such non-actionable-items on the agenda
[20:20:08] <slyfox> +1
[20:20:12] <Whissi> +1
[20:20:31] <dilfridge> I see nothing bad with it, it's "asking council opinion"
[20:20:42] <dilfridge> without any plans to make binding decision
[20:20:43] <slyfox> It would be fine for open floor
[20:21:16] <dilfridge> but then we wouldnt have a chance for clarifications on the list
[20:21:18] <dilfridge> anyway
[20:21:18] <slyfox> (or -ML discussion, that did not happen)
[20:21:31] <dilfridge> 3) Bugs with council involvment
[20:21:51] <dilfridge> !botsnack
[20:21:52] <willikins> dilfridge: thanks :)
[20:21:54] <dilfridge> aaaah
[20:21:58] <dilfridge> bug 642072
[20:22:01] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 "[Tracker] Copyright policy"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council
[20:22:16] <ulm> one blocker for this one
[20:22:22] <dilfridge> no news there
[20:22:33] <ulm> actually it's in portage
[20:22:41] <dilfridge> oh
[20:22:43] <dilfridge> right
[20:22:45] <ulm> waiting for stabilisation of 2.3.81
[20:22:56] <slyfox> \o/
[20:23:06] <dilfridge> #667432 Rename DCO_SIGNED_OFF_BY config variable to SIGNED_OFF_BY.
[20:23:15] <ulm> yes, this one
[20:23:18] <dilfridge> good then this is done at some point.
[20:23:36] <dilfridge> bug 662982
[20:23:39] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/662982 "[TRACKER] New default locations for the Gentoo repository, distfiles, and binary packages"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF; zmedico:dev-portage
[20:24:04] <Whissi> Infra is currently rolling out fixed portage tarball (the one containing the repository)
[20:24:08] <dilfridge> one blocker and I heard some recent whining^H^H^H^H^Harguments
[20:24:15] <ulm> only bug 574752 as blocker
[20:24:17] <willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/574752 "Rename portage-YYYYMMDD.tar* snapshots with gentoo-YYYYMMDD.tar*"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Other; IN_P; mgorny:infra-bugs
[20:24:22] <Whissi> Once we have this tarball, portage will update.
[20:24:24] <slyfox> looks like progress
[20:24:43] <WilliamH> what was the whining?
[20:24:47] <dilfridge> ok then we have progress
[20:24:50] <Whissi> yes
[20:24:56] <dilfridge> mostly "why do we have to change this?"
[20:25:02] <dilfridge> "it worked for ages"
[20:25:05] <dilfridge> ...
[20:25:06] <WilliamH> dilfridge: heh :p
[20:25:26] <dilfridge> bug 696882
[20:25:29] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/696882 "Register /EFI/Gentoo namespace in UEFI Subdirectory Registry"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; ulm:council
[20:25:30] <WilliamH> it never belonged on /usr to start with ;-)
[20:25:47] <ulm> can we reassign this one to trustees?
[20:25:49] <dilfridge> !note antarus any news on /EFI/Gentoo?
[20:25:49] <willikins> okies, dilfridge
[20:25:50] <dilfridge> yes
[20:25:57] <slyfox> sounds good
[20:26:05] <dilfridge> let's have them do something important
[20:26:06] <WilliamH> yeah there's nothing we can do there.
[20:26:15] <ulm> they own the name, and antarus has taken action already
[20:26:19] <dilfridge> done
[20:26:24] <slyfox> \o/
[20:26:36] <dilfridge> bug 700364
[20:26:39] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/700364 "License council summaries under CC-BY-SA-4.0"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council
[20:26:42] <dilfridge> we can close thos one now
[20:26:54] <dilfridge> and finally
[20:26:57] <slyfox> *nod*, was done as part of the agenda list
[20:27:01] <dilfridge> we come to one of our evergreens, 
[20:27:05] <dilfridge> bug 637328
[20:27:07] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
[20:27:14] <Whissi> Last time!
[20:27:26] <dilfridge> Last christmas?
[20:27:39] <ulm> it can be closed as WONTFIX
[20:27:39] <Whissi>     glep-0014: Mark as Deferred.
[20:27:53] <slyfox> time to un-CC council@?
[20:28:00] <Whissi> Bug will be closed I think
[20:28:01] <dilfridge> well when it's closed who cares
[20:28:07] -*- ulm just closed it
[20:28:12] <slyfox> thank you!
[20:28:17] <dilfridge> excellent
[20:28:20] <dilfridge> with that
[20:28:23] <dilfridge> we get to
[20:28:31] <dilfridge> 4) Open floor
[20:28:50] -*- dilfridge watches the floor open and swallow the council... err... wrong novel...
[20:29:00] <dilfridge> anyone?
[20:29:26] <Whissi> Py..no I have nothing.
[20:29:35] <dilfridge> hrhr
[20:30:10] <dilfridge> Whissi: blink if someone is standing behind you with a cluebat :P
[20:30:35] <Whissi> ;)
[20:31:39] <dilfridge> ok so seems we really have nothing
[20:31:46] -*- ulm is pondering about floor(exp(1.0)*10)*0.1
[20:32:17] <dilfridge> too much higher math for the time of day
[20:32:27] <dilfridge> right then
[20:32:31] <dilfridge> /bang/
[20:32:35] <dilfridge> meeting closed!