summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
blob: 488a18fee4e607777bcef9845f75972b68b7badd (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
\summary{2015}{10}{25}


\agendaitem{Projects, herds, etc.}
\index{herds}\index{project identification}\index{metadata.xml}

References:
\begin{itemize}
\item
\agoref{gentoo-project}{179d5d298333dfeef45a6eb78f0d6f17}
\item
\agoref{gentoo-project}{70451197c3109e61ddd27e14a7bf89fa}
\item
\agoref{gentoo-project}{3cf270a336636b94187b2a2b8f1b7e7f}
\item
\agoref{gentoo-project}{f595f9fef4bce02c875e980ec5d21841}
\end{itemize}

A lengthy discussion on the merits of deprecating herds and on how to
precisely do that resulted. The suggestion to use GUIDs for project
identification was dismissed as slightly impractical, even though they
provide for a near-unlimited number of projects.

\vote{A: The concept of "herds" is abandoned, and the usage of the term 
deprecated. As a replacement, a package may be maintained by a 
project.}{
7 yes, unanimous}

\vote{B: do we want
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*)]
\item "$<$project$>$bla$<$/project$>$" or 
\item "$<$maintainer$><$project$>$bla$<$/project$><$/maintainer$>$" or 
\item "$<$maintainer type="project"$>$bla$<$/maintainer$>$" or 
\item "$<$maintainer$><$email$>$bla@gentoo.org$<$/email$><$/maintainer$>$" ?
\end{enumerate}
}{
3x a, 2x c, 2x d}

This led to a discussion on the meaning of the vote outcome, and it 
was decided to re-formulate the question into several votes. 

\vote{C: New $<$project$>$ tag, or add something to existing $<$maintainer$>$ 
tag?}{
4x project and 3x maintainer}

\vote{D: what goes into the $<$project$>$ tag?  a project shortname or an 
e-mail address?}{
4x shortname, 1x e-mail, 2x abstain}

\vote{E: do we want a 1:1 mapping of a new e-mail address to the 
project shortname?}{
4 yes, 2 no}

\vote{F: define the project shortname on the wiki project page, and 
expect that any project is *also* reachable as 
shortname@proj.gentoo.org}{
4 yes, 2 abstain}

After these decisions several council members stated that things were 
going the wrong way and that they would like to change their votes for 
earlier decisions, thereby making latter decisions obsolete. As a 
consequence, it was suggested to scrap the just-made decisions again 
and request a GLEP on the issue.

\vote{All votes today from vote B on are anulled. The council recommends 
that the details on herds to projects transition should be worked out 
in a GLEP.}{
6 yes, 1 abstain}


\agendaitem{Open bugs with council participation}

\bug{503382}: Ulm stated that the 20131210 summary has been written and submitted, 
and minor corrections were suggested.


\agendaitem{Open floor}

No issues were brought up.