1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
|
\summary{2008}{8}{14}
Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{9b3f0e9ed1c97b033b563ea68b4d123e}
Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{b6f6ca201c154cdc17f1d582497c9995}
\agendaitem{Unplanned topics}
\index{council!meeting!default proxies}
All the council members should nominate default proxies.
\agendaitem{Reactions to dev banned from freenode}
\index{freenode!ban}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}
\dev{rane}: ``I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our
developer\footnote{According to the meeting log this was \dev{ricmm}.} being
banned from Freenode without providing us with a reason. [...] It would be good
if Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed
explanation from Freenode staff.''
It seems this happened twice; a second developer was klined after the issue was
initially brought up. \dev{musikc} spoke to the second one; he said he'd done
what he was told to do and was still waiting for some resolution. Several
people volunteered to talk to the developer in question to find out more
details. According to freenode staff tomaw, the issue was already resolved on
the day he (tomaw) was made aware of it.
\agendaitem{Moving meetings to a location we control}
\index{council!meeting!location}\index{freenode}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}
\dev{rane}: ``I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where
third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who cannot. Like our
own small and created just for this purpose IRC server.''
We already have public mailing lists where a lot of the discussion takes place.
On one hand when freenode as a tool becomes impractical changes need to be
made. On the other hand there was conclusion that running an irc server would
be a serious headache and a waste of manpower. Thus no action was taken.
We currently have 2 freenode group contacts: \dev{fmccor} and \dev{rane}.
\agendaitem{Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in docs, etc}
\index{irc.gentoo.org}\index{irc!channel!\#gentoo-java}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}
\dev{rane}: ``I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org
alias instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The alias
would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we ever decide to
do so.''
There was supprort for this idea. However, \dev{spb} brought up the point that
people connecting to irc.gentoo.org may assume that generic-sounding channel
names are all about gentoo. On the other hand it was argued that people
connecting to gentoo channels also ask generic questions as well.
\agendaitem{Banning fired developers}
\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}\index{irc!autodevoice}
\index{project!devrel}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{31d62c8526814c29a1d166a82ec889db}
\dev{yngwin}:
It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for
anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places
where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channels. What
good is it to retire developers, but allow them to continue to be
disruptive? I would like the Council to decide for a change in our
policy on this point.
It wasn't entirely clear if this question applied to a specific person. One
could consider applying a ban for the same channel where the misbehaviour took
place, and allow other channels to be handled separately. \dev{spb} commented
that the three fired devs were actually banned from \#gentoo-dev for quite some
time.
Discussion went off the tangents that giving voice to ex-developers is a right,
not a privilege, that Gentoo is in principle interested in the Freenode
autodevoice feature, and that a standardized policy on how to handle
voluntarily or forcibly retired developers might be useful.
\agendaitem{PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!0}
Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{b8a13279805378353df627cbb10d72cc}
\dev{spb}: (PMS) should be treated as a draft standard, and any deviations from
it found in the gentoo tree or package managers should have a bug filed against
either the deviator or PMS to resolve the differences.
According to \dev{zmedico} at the moment the main conflicts of opinion are
\bug{222721} and \bug{232990}. \dev{ciaranm} stated that Portage was in the
wrong since it broke existing stuff in the tree, \dev{zmedico} disagreed. A
discussion ensued.
How shall conflicts get resolved here? The idea of creating a PMS editor
position for escalation/mediation was discussed.
We ran past the 1-hour mark, so this is pushed back to the list. It will
be on the next agenda in 2 weeks if it's not resolved by then.
|
GitWeb