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
|
\summary{2008}{8}{28}
Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{9b3f0e9ed1c97b033b563ea68b4d123e}
Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{f6a084b9acf5a19b38000fbfaab93733}
\agendaitem{Reactions to dev banned from freenode}
\index{freenode}\index{irc!ban}
There were no updates on this topic. Assume lack of interest.
\agendaitem{Moving meetings to a location we control}
\index{council!meeting!location}
There were no updates on this topic. Assume lack of interest.
\agendaitem{Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in documentation}
\index{irc.gentoo.org}\index{Freenode}
The Freenode acknowledgments page thanks people for doing this, so the
potential issue with confusion apparently isn't a large problem.
\vote{Update all our pointers to IRC to use irc.gentoo.org. (But
please mention FreeNode is our provider.)}{Accepted with 7 yes votes}
\agendaitem{Fired developers}
\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}\index{project!devrel}
Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they displayed
misbehavior?
\dev{halcy0n}, \dev{dertobi123}, \dev{lu_zero} think fired devs should be
banned from the places where they behaved in the way that got them fired.
\dev{dberkholz} and \dev{cardoe} think that this should be handled by devrel
and council shouldn't set policy on it. \dev{halcy0n} later agreed with letting
devrel address it, as did \dev{lu_zero} and \dev{betelgeuse}.
A lengthy discussion took place whether such bans should also extend to Gentoo
project channels.
\agendaitem{PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!0}
What changes are required before PMS becomes a draft standard of EAPI 0?
$\longrightarrow$ The main thing that needs to be clarified is conflict
resolution.
Idea: Ask the portage developers and PMS authors to develop a process that both
groups will respect, then present it to the council for approval. Options
include a "neutral" third party as PMS czar, having council decide, just trying
harder to come to agreement, deciding that e.g. portage's choice always wins,
random, etc.
\dev{spb} and \dev{ciaranm} agreed that a third party or council would work
well. Since such a third party would probably be better invested in actually
working on the spec, the council seems reasonable a reasonable choice if PMS
editors and PM developers can't work it out. \dev{zmedico} and \dev{ferringb}
also agreed with this.
Decision: The Council will vote to resolve conflicts that the PMS editors
and PM developers weren't able to resolve.
\dev{zmedico}, \dev{ferringb}, and \dev{ciaranm} (developers of each PM) all
agree that having a written specification is worthwhile.
Next meeting is Sept 11, and we request that everyone involved with PM
development or the spec email gentoo-dev about any issues with it.
Otherwise, it's likely to be approved as a draft standard.
|
GitWeb
