path: root/meeting-logs/20111213.txt

21:00 -!- grobian changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: meeting now: December 13, 20:00 UTC - agenda: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/agenda-13-12-2011.txt | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=2000 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
21:00 <@  grobian> my clock is off by 3 minutes?
21:00 <@dberkholz> Current UTC (or GMT/Zulu)-time used: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 at 20:00:54
21:01 <@dberkholz> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
21:01 <@  grobian> hehe
21:01 <@  grobian> shall we wait a little to see if ssuominen shows up?
21:01 *** grobian prefers so
21:01 <@ Chainsaw> Yes, our agenda is not all that full.
21:01 <@ Chainsaw> Let's give it a moment.
21:01 <@Betelgeus> jmbsvicetto: yes
21:01 <@  grobian> so, the agenda for today, I'll update it online: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/agenda-13-12-2011.txt
21:02 <@  grobian> who's here already?
21:02 *** Chainsaw is present
21:02 <@      ulm> here
21:02 <@jmbsvicet> Here
21:02 <@  grobian> good
21:02 <@dberkholz> sounds fine, that way i won't have to do as much of this while my call's still running.
21:02 <@jmbsvicet> so we're only missing Samuli, right?
21:02 <@  grobian> so, seems like we're waiting for samuli
21:02 <@  grobian> yeah
21:03 <@jmbsvicet> He hasn't replied to my poke on #-dev yet
21:03 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Would you happen to have a phone number for him?
21:03 <@  grobian> yeah :/
21:03 <@jmbsvicet> Anyone has any other way to reach him?
21:03 <@dberkholz> apparently we should require email confirmation from proxies
21:03 <@jmbsvicet> Chainsaw: sorry, no.
21:03 <@  grobian> dberkholz: well, it's a slacker mark for hwoarang, I'd suppose
21:04 <@dberkholz> yeah, if he doesn't show up in the next min or two
21:04 <@  grobian> give it a few more minutes
21:04 <@  grobian> agenda is small, like you said
21:04 <@jmbsvicet> we could 5 while we wait for Samuli
21:04 <@jmbsvicet> +do
21:05 <@  grobian> the open actions thing?
21:05 <@jmbsvicet> yes
21:05 <@  grobian> fine with me, everyone agrees?
21:05 <@      ulm> fine
21:05 <@dberkholz> k
21:05 <@dberkholz> got links to the stuff?
21:05 <@  grobian> ok, all: so I've added point 5 to the agenda, if everyone agrees with it
21:06 <@ Chainsaw> Agreed with point 5, please proceed.
21:06 <@  grobian> it's basically progress reports
21:06 <@jmbsvicet> dberkholz: http://dev.gentoo.org/~grobian/agenda-13-12-2011.txt
21:06 <@  grobian> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20111108-summary.txt
21:06 <@  grobian> last meeting we had this API thing with eclasses
21:06 <@dberkholz> jmbsvicetto: i meant in that agenda, nothing in pt 5 is linked. so i'll go refer back to it
21:06 <@jmbsvicet> dberkholz: I see
21:06 <@      ulm> grobian: there's two points called 5 ;)
21:06 <@jmbsvicet> ulm: first 5 ;)
21:06 <@  grobian> ulm: reload
21:06 <@  grobian> :D
21:07 <@  grobian> dberkholz: that previous council meeting summary link
21:07 <@dberkholz> checking now
21:07 <@  grobian> Betelgeuse: did you finish/commit that devmanual patch you would do?
21:07 <@Betelgeus> grobian: let me check
21:08 <@Betelgeus> grobian: apparently not :(
21:08 <@  grobian> ok, well, me and jmbsvicetto didn't do anythijng either :)
21:08 <@Betelgeus> I will work on it on the side while waiting
21:09 <@dberkholz> well, i guess that's an easy item
21:09 <@dberkholz> just slap these guys upside the head and move on
21:09 <@  grobian> ok, done
21:09 <@jmbsvicet> I'll either ask through the mls for some help regarding some of the old elections dates or I'll pick some dates myself
21:09 <@  grobian> ok, wait timeout?
21:10 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: let's move forward. If Samuli shows up he can join the discussion
21:10 <@  grobian> yeah, ok
21:10 <@  grobian> let's go to point 2 then
21:10 <@  grobian> does anybody feel like we should be voting on that wiki feature?
21:11 <@jmbsvicet> I think that should be discussed by the wiki team
21:11 <@  grobian> ok
21:11 <@      ulm> grobian: It's a good thing IMO, but I think the decision is with the wiki team
21:11 <@  grobian> that's 2
21:12 <@jmbsvicet> if there's no agreement, people can then appeal to the council
21:12 <@Betelgeus> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/520427/
21:12 <@Betelgeus> ok?
21:12 <@  grobian> Betelgeuse: ok with me, how about point 2?
21:13 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: dberkholz: do you think the wiki change is a council issue?
21:13 <@ Chainsaw> It's not even apparent to me what the required feature is.
21:13 <@      ulm> Betelgeuse: That's exactly the wording we've decided upon in the previous meeting, so obviously it's o.k.
21:14 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: you haven't stated your opinion yet either
21:14 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: allow me to take that as a no?
21:14 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: Certainly.
21:14 <@  grobian> jmbsvicetto: I agree with hwoarang in ML, not a council issue at the moment
21:14 <@dberkholz> grobian: nope
21:15 <@dberkholz> i think the wiki team can decide on that just fine
21:15 <@      ulm> Chainsaw: Normal wiki users would only see "sighted pages", i.e. pages tagged as o.k. by somebody who has sighting status
21:15 <@  grobian> dberkholz: agreed
21:15 <@      ulm> It's sort of a protection against vadalism
21:15 <@  grobian> Betelgeuse: your vote?
21:15 <@      ulm> *vandalism
21:15 <@dberkholz> basically "approved pages" since the term "sighted" doesn't make any sense to me
21:15 <@  grobian> might be a translation from german
21:16 <@ Chainsaw> Approved or reviewed, please.
21:16 <@ Chainsaw> Because sighted made no sense to me either. Hence my failure to form an opinion on the subject.
21:16 <@jmbsvicet> Given our "vote", you should suggest that to the wiki team ;)
21:16 <@dberkholz> reviewed is actually a lot better
21:16 <@Betelgeus> grobian: agree with jmbsvicetto
21:17 <@  grobian> ok, thanks
21:17 <@  grobian> I'll add the suggestions
21:17 <@      ulm> well, english wikipedia calls it "sighted versions" too
21:17 <@dberkholz> probably written by a native german =P
21:17 <@  grobian> (I update agenda as we go)
21:17 <@ Chainsaw> ulm: Still made no sense to me.
21:18 <@  grobian> ok, does anyone wants to make another statement about this topic?
21:18 <@  grobian> if not, I'd like to continue to the more pressing point 3
21:18 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: Point 3 please, let's get to the proper discussion.
21:19 <@  grobian> OK, quiet build default of Portage
21:19 <@  grobian> before going into pros cons, I think it's good to just get opinions:
21:19 <@ Chainsaw> This behaviour change has been forced on users on an opt-out basis. That should have been opt-in.
21:19 <@  grobian> who would like portage to remain printing build information by default
21:19 <@ Chainsaw> Yes. Restore previous defaults immediately.
21:19 <@  grobian> (differently: who wants portage to have --quiet-build=n)
21:20 <@dberkholz> again, i'm fine letting the portage team make this decision. i don't think we need to determine the UI
21:20 <@jmbsvicet> http://dpaste.com/673022/ <- that's my "starting point" for this discussion
21:20 <@      ulm> I'm indifferent about it. It's a default and it can be changed.
21:20 <@  grobian> jmbsvicetto: so, you do, or you don't want to have a say on the default
21:21 <@  grobian> if we're all indifferent about it, we don't have to discuss either
21:21 <@  grobian> in a way
21:21 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: pending the discussion here, I'm inclined to go with: Revert the change, announce the new setting and enable it on stages
21:21 <@  grobian> ok
21:21 <@      ulm> jmbsvicetto: can you line-wrap that pastebin?
21:21 <@jmbsvicet> ulm: let me do it
21:22 <@  grobian> me: make it opt-in (so with chainsaw here)
21:22 <@  grobian> Betelgeuse: should portage quiet output change?
21:23 <@jmbsvicet> ulm: http://dpaste.com/673023/
21:23 <@Betelgeus> Was there a poll on forums?
21:23 <@      ulm> jmbsvicetto: much better :)
21:23 <@  grobian> Betelgeuse: I recall yes, and it was all over with people disliking
21:23 <@  grobian> but then you get in that discussion on the vocal minority
21:24 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: The most important issue to me here isn't whether I want opt-in or opt-out, but whether I want to move away from the delegate position and call this to the council because of the way it was done and of the results
21:24 <@jmbsvicet> ulm: sorry, I'm spoiled by my 1920x1080 screen ;)
21:24 <@  grobian> jmbsvicetto: I'm not there yet ;)
21:25 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: would you be ok with jmbsvicetto's suggestion, to disable  build info by a default setting in the stages?
21:26 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: that's just a possible vote about this.
21:26 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: I'm not sure I follow.
21:26 <@ Chainsaw> grobian: I want the change to be backed out, because it has been forced on users. They should have a choice in this matter.
21:26 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: yeah, the poll was still pretty split. a little in favor of revert but not a ton
21:26 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: I mean echo "EMERGE_OPTS='--quiet-build=y'" >> etc/make.conf
21:26 <@jmbsvicet> The idea on that would be: opt-in for current installs, widely publicize that new option and change the default for new installs (people should have some sort of control on new installs - even on large installs)
21:27 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: take that back, more like 116 in favor of the current situation vs 211 for reverting
21:27 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: I try to figure out if you're lenient towards changing the default for new users, ^^^ see jmbsvicetto
21:27 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: That sounds acceptable.
21:27 <@  grobian> ok
21:28 <@  grobian> who would accept this behaviour to be changed for new installs?
21:28 <@dberkholz> i would be fine with defaults as a setting in make.conf, so even existing users see it as an etc-update change
21:28 <@dberkholz> not just new installs
21:28 <@jmbsvicet> bonsaikitten: Does that also sound good to you?
21:28 <@Betelgeus> CONFIG_PROTECT change or stage shouldn't be a problem
21:29 <@  grobian> dberkholz: so, you're ok with changing the defautl for a new install
21:29 <@dberkholz> oh, wait, make.conf doesn't come in like that.
21:29 <@dberkholz> forgot.
21:29 <@jmbsvicet> Chainsaw / bonsaikitten: given your issues with large installs, would that also work for you? ^^
21:29 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: It won't, no. But that style of change would have been better. As it would have given me a choice.
21:29 <@dberkholz> grobian: well, i find it frustrating that new installs would be different from existing ones, in terms of changing the default
21:29 <@  grobian> Betelgeuse: that means you're ok with changing the default for new installs?
21:29 <@dberkholz> the path-dependent behavior bothers me
21:29 <@jmbsvicet> dberkholz: the idea is that on a new install (using a stage), you're already touching a system
21:29 <@Betelgeus> grobian: yes
21:30 <@  grobian> dberkholz: so you're indifferent about the setting, but you don't like the default changing?
21:30 <@jmbsvicet> dberkholz: my idea is to add the setting through catalyst
21:30 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: just to verify, you could live with a default change set like this, right?
21:30 <@dberkholz> i'm fine with the default changing, i don't really care. but if people want a mechanism for "accepting" a change in the default, i want it to behave the same way on new and existing systems
21:30 <@jmbsvicet> another option that has been mentioned is adding the default commented to /etc/make.conf so users can read it and enable it if desired
21:31 <@dberkholz> otherwise you end up with existing users who would've loved the change but have nfc how to enable it, then it's suddenly magically different when they reinstall
21:31 <@  grobian> ulm: jmbsvicetto: what do you think about changing the default for new installs?
21:32 <@  grobian> dberkholz: can solve with news item or elog, no?
21:32 <@      ulm> As I said, I'm indifferent on it. Let the Portage team decide.
21:32 <@jmbsvicet> I don't know if I was clear about what I meant. My idea is for the default to be verbose output and to add to the new stages in /etc/make.conf a FEATURES="quiet-build" (whatever is the correct option) so that by default new install would have quiet output
21:32 <@      ulm> Adding it commented to the example make.conf is a good idea though.
21:33 <@jmbsvicet> another option is for that line to be commented out so users would have to opt-in on new installs as well
21:33 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Yes, that sounds very good. Opting in.
21:33 <@dberkholz> i've been using parallel builds for years, so it's not a change for me, it's making things behave consistently across the board
21:33 <@jmbsvicet> Chainsaw: It might be a "harder" sale for those that prefer / favour the silent output, though
21:34 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: They should opt into their behaviour change, not force it upon everyone else.
21:34 <@dberkholz> grobian: are you tracking who's voted which way to see where everyone stands?
21:34 <@jmbsvicet> zmedico: Do you want to say anything about this?
21:34 <@  grobian> yes
21:34 <@  grobian> jmbsvicetto: reload
21:34 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: I don't think the portage team is unwilling to do anything on this matter
21:35 <@  grobian> they did this with best intentions
21:35 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: As said, I am delighted that they have developed features that people like. And I hope that lots of people opt in and sing their praises.
21:35 <@ Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: But I do not want it, and I do not want my Gentoo system to shift the goal posts arbitrarily when I update it.
21:35 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: you forgot me on change default for new installs
21:35 <@  grobian> you like, or not, or no idea?
21:35 <@jmbsvicet> I like
21:36 <@  grobian> reload
21:36 <@jmbsvicet> that's part of my "tentative" proposal ;)
21:36 <@dberkholz> Chainsaw: but it's different for when you reinstall it? then moving the goal posts is fine?
21:36 <@  grobian> I like that approach as well
21:36 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: you might want to add a note about doing it from catalyst
21:36 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: I have to customise a new install anyway. It is not a hassle there.
21:36 <@  grobian> defaults change, but this way, we don't change for exising users
21:36 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: But a system that has behaved a specific way for years, should continue to behave that way unless I tell it to change. You're welcome to suggest changes to me with news articles.
21:36 <@  grobian> we've had other changes in the past, like openrc and so on
21:37 <@dberkholz> honestly, the thing that confused me the most was when -v didn't "fix" it, and i had to go digging through the man page.
21:37 <@dberkholz> other than that, i didn't care at all
21:37 <@  grobian> it should be documented better how to change it
21:37 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: i.e. my cars steering wheel should not suddenly invert "because all computer games are like that" when I take it for the next service.
21:37 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: It violates the principle of least astonishment. Even if it makes sense for a lot of people, and some want it.
21:37 <@dberkholz> umm, you also don't update your car on a regular basis, do you?
21:38 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: It goes for MOT annually.
21:39 <@  grobian> let's try to get back on the solutions track here
21:39 <@  grobian> it seems like jmbsvicetto's solution of changing the default via make.conf for new installs is serving both camps
21:39 <@ Chainsaw> Yes, I am happy to sign on for that.
21:40 <@  grobian> people building their own stages (with catalyst/metro) control their make.conf anyway, so not affected
21:40 <@ Chainsaw> Portage should behave as it always has, and I expect the next update to fix the regression.
21:40 -!- Polynomial-C [~Poly-C@gentoo/developer/Polynomial-C] has quit [Quit: GNU/Linux, because I'd rather own a free OS than steal one that's not worth paying for.]
21:40 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: ok
21:41 <@dberkholz> ok, so you're saying portage should not ever change its default behavior. got it.
21:41 <@  grobian> Chainsaw: I think that's actually by vote of 3-to-2 is what the council decided now
21:41 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: Indeed. Changes in behaviour should be initiated by the user through the configuration file.
21:42 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: to be clear, I'm going to use catalyst to add a commented line to make.conf warning about the setting and showing how to activate it - so it will be opt-in for current and new installs
21:42 <@ Chainsaw> dberkholz: And if you believe you have a killer new feature that many want, you write a news article suggesting that they add FEATURES="snowplow" to their config.
21:42 <@  grobian> jmbsvicetto: hmm, how does that solve anythinjg?
21:43 <@  grobian> jmbsvicetto: that changes no out-of-the-box behaviour at all, does it?
21:43 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: right, but it shows users in make.conf how to do it. It also addresses the inconsistency point raised by dberkholz
21:44 <@  grobian> what you suggest is a note
21:44 <@  grobian> in my agenda
21:44 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: I'm open to add it commented or not, if there's an agreement about changing the defaults for new installs
21:44 <@  grobian> jmbsvicetto: by vote there sort of is
21:45 <@  grobian> at least that's my understanding of it
21:45 <@  grobian> 3 people in favour
21:45 <@jmbsvicet> ok
21:45 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: catalyst can be updated either way if needed
21:46 <@  grobian> so, dberkholz, ulm and Betelgeuse don't want to make a statement about the default
21:46 <@  grobian> the remaining three people are in favour of keeping the current default (for all existing users)
21:47 <@  grobian> as compromise, we have that new installs get this new quiet output by default (via make.conf), 5 people in favour
21:48 <@jmbsvicet> ok
21:48 <@  grobian> if anyone disagrees with that, now's the time
21:48 <@Betelgeus> For future reference hopefully people learn to discuss changes like this beforehand
21:48 <@  grobian> Betelgeuse: I'll add that as note
21:48 <@ Chainsaw> Betelgeuse: That would certainly by less disruptive.
21:48 <@ Chainsaw> be, even.
21:48 <@jmbsvicet> I do agree we should ask people to discuss this stuff well before implementing it
21:49 <@  grobian> it was already implemented a long time ago
21:49 <@  grobian> the default just changed
21:49 <@  grobian> anyway
21:49 <@  grobian> I made that note
21:49 <@jmbsvicet> implement the change
21:49 <@dberkholz> that's the implementation he's talking about.
21:49 <@  grobian> heh
21:49 <@  grobian> is there anyone who wants to say more about this point?
21:49 <@  grobian> if not, let's move on
21:50 <@dberkholz> for future reference to zmedico, i'm betting that if you had done things differently by talking/announcing in advance, it would've stayed the way you made it.
21:50 <@jmbsvicet> move on
21:50 <@  grobian> ok, well, point 4 is kind of simple
21:50 <@  grobian> done
21:50 <@  grobian> point 5 we already did
21:51 <@  grobian> updated with Betelgeuse's input now ;)
21:51 <@  grobian> so, open floor
21:51 <@  grobian> anyone who would like to bring up a topic?
21:52 <@  grobian> sounds like not
21:52 -!- Polynomial-C [~Poly-C@gentoo/developer/Polynomial-C] has joined #gentoo-council
21:52 <@jmbsvicet> just as a heads-up, I've switched the chairing of next meeting with Fabian. So he's doing January and I'll do May.
21:52 <@  grobian> everybody ok with closing the meeting here?
21:52 <@jmbsvicet> I'm fine with it
21:52 <@  grobian> next meeting 10 of january 2012
21:53 <@Betelgeus> jmbsvicetto: Could we get teh chari list to the toipc
21:53 <@Betelgeus> typo++
21:53 <@  grobian> ok, thanks all!
21:53 <@ Chainsaw> Yes, I think we're done.
21:53 <@ Chainsaw> Thank you.
21:53 <@  grobian> I'll send the agenda around after polising up a bit
21:54 <@jmbsvicet> grobian: Thanks for chairing
21:54 <@  grobian> yw
21:55 -!- jmbsvicetto changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting: January 10th, 20:00 UTC | Meeting chairs: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/#doc_chap5 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/utctolocal.html?time=2000 | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/
21:55 <@jmbsvicet> Betelgeuse: ^^
21:55 <@      ulm> grobian: thanks for chairing
21:56 -!- Zorry [~zorry@gentoo/developer/zorry] has left #gentoo-council ["http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere."]
21:56 <@  grobian> how about this slacker point, by the way?
21:57 <@Betelgeus> msising meeting != slacker point
21:57 <@  grobian> who updates that?
21:57 <@Betelgeus> hwoarang: is just marked as unattending
21:57 <@Betelgeus> you only get a slacker mark for two consecutive
21:59 <@  grobian> oh
21:59 <@  grobian> ok
22:01 <@Betelgeus> jmbsvicetto: thanks
22:03 -!- jbartosik [~jbartosik@gentoo/developer/jbartosik] has joined #gentoo-council
22:09 -!- Chainsaw [~chainsaw@gentoo/developer/atheme.member.chainsaw] has left #gentoo-council ["Leaving"]
22:10 -!- pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has quit [Quit: leaving]
22:10 -!- pchrist [~spirit@gentoo/developer/pchrist] has joined #gentoo-council
22:11 -!- NeddySeagoon [~NeddySeag@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon] has joined #gentoo-council
--- Log closed Tue Dec 13 22:18:47 2011