summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
blob: cd736f5866c9e85b39e1965931bd1edac73fa908 (plain)
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
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
\summary{2008}{8}{14}

\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}

rane:
I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our developer 
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.

\begin{verbatim}
20:14 <   Halcy0n@> Do we have a history of how many times this has happened?  
                    I believe another dev was klined after this was initially 
                    brought up.
20:14 <    musikc > ive spoken with the second dev actually
20:16 <    musikc > the guy said he'd done what he was told to do and was still 
                    waiting for some resolution
20:17 <    musikc > i last spoke to him on the 10th
\end{verbatim}


\agendaitem{Moving meetings to a location we control}
\index{council!meeting!location}

rane:
I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where third 
parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who can't. Like our 
own small and created just for this purpose IRC server.

\begin{verbatim}
20:26 <    Cardoe > We already have a public ML where predominately a lot of 
                    the discussion takes place. Is there really any actual 
                    supression occurring because of our use of Freenode?
20:26  *    jokey is still not in favour of running an irc network
20:27 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: motivation is that when our devs get klined, it's 
                    really hard for them to work with others on irc
20:28 < dberkholz@> antarus: as i was saying earlier, freenode is a tool for 
                    us. if that tool is getting in our way, it needs to change
20:29 <    Cardoe > dberkholz: the question is the tool getting in our way or 
                    hindering us. Or will devising our own tool hinder us more..
20:30 <   Halcy0n@> Cardoe: I think us having to maintain it will be more of a 
                    headache.
20:30 <    Cardoe > Halcy0n: I'm in agreement with you on that.
20:30 <dertobi123@> dito
20:31 <     jokey@> indeed, let's discuss this there
20:32 <    Cardoe > We have other things to use manpower on, like developing a 
                    distribution.
\end{verbatim}

We currently have 2 freenode group contacts: fmccor and rane.


\agendaitem{Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in docs, etc}
\index{irc.gentoo.org}\index{irc!channel!\#gentoo-java}

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.

spb brought up a good point to think about.
\begin{verbatim}
20:35 <       spb > as people connect to irc.gentoo.org and assume that 
                    generic-sounding channel names are all about gentoo
20:35 <Betelgeuse@> spb: And people connect to freenode and assume gentoo-java 
                    is about generic Java
20:37 <     jokey@> I'd say at least one user every 3-4 days over in #gentoo-php
20:37 <Betelgeuse@> jokey: Quite common on #gentoo-java too even with the 
                    warnings all over the place.
\end{verbatim}


\agendaitem{Banning fired developers}
\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}

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.


\begin{verbatim}
20:44 <dleverton_ > As I said on the list (maybe too late for anyone to have 
                    noticed), since yngwin said there were're actually any devs 
                    that this applies to, is there anything to discuss?
20:45 < dberkholz@> dleverton_: i must've interpreted his response differently 
                    from you
20:45 <    yngwin > i didnt say it like that, dleverton_
20:45 < dberkholz@> what i understood was that we should ban them from the same 
                    communication channel
20:46 < dberkholz@> and allow other ones where they handled themselves 
                    differently
\end{verbatim}

spb commented that the three fired devs were actually banned from
\#gentoo-dev for quite some time.

\begin{verbatim}
20:51 <    musikc > from a devrel perspective, we do not give voice to every 
                    dev who is retired so why should a forcibly retired dev be 
                    any different?

20:51 <     tomaw > Is the council interested in the autodevoice feature or is 
                    this rambling off topic?
20:51 <jmbsvicett > tomaw: As long as we stick to freenode, -1 is something 
                    that interests us

20:52 <    Cardoe+> Standardize a policy for what happens to voluntarily 
                    retired devs and forcibly retired devs.
20:53 <    Cardoe+> Can we actually tweak it?
20:53 <    Cardoe+> the council direct devrel to come up with a proposed 
                    solution/policy
20:55 <    musikc > dberkholz, your call. happy to assist by doing work or by 
                    just stating current process and devrel stance :)
\end{verbatim}


\agendaitem{PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!0}

spb:
It 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.

Alternatively, what (specific) changes are required to PMS before such a 
statement can be made?

The portage devs need to commit to it. How do conflicts get resolved?
\begin{verbatim}
20:56 < dberkholz@> we were talking about this earlier today in here
<20:57 < dberkholz@> to quickly summarize, EAPI 0 and portage need to agree. 
                    there are some conflicts of opinion, and the question is 
                    how do they get resolved?
20:58 < dberkholz@> 17:24 <   zmedico > dberkholz: mainly these two:  
                    http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=222721  
                    http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=232990
20:58 < dberkholz@> 17:25 <   zmedico > In both cases I consider something to 
                    be negligible that  the pms folks do not

20:59 <    Cardoe+> potentially creating a PMS editor post.
21:00 <    Cardoe+> Put it in the hands of a third party
21:00 <    Cardoe+> and if there's a conflict, let the council decide

21:01 <    musikc > dberkholz, conflict in that some feel PMS is biased?

21:07 <       spb > differences will be resolved by filing a bug, so what needs 
                    to be sorted is what sort of escalation/mediation mechanism 
                    there is
\end{verbatim}

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.