path: root/meeting-logs/20191110.txt

<@Whissi> dilfridge: ping                                               [20:01]
<@ulm> !time
<+willikins> ulm: Europe - Berlin - Sun Nov 10 20:01 CET
<@dilfridge> pong                                                       [20:02]
<@dilfridge> one minute
<@dilfridge> k                                                          [20:03]
<@dilfridge> here
<@dilfridge> sooo
<@dilfridge> !proj council
<+willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, gyakovlev, patrick, slyfox, ulm,
             whissi, williamh
<@dilfridge> roll call                                                  [20:04]
* slyfox here
* WilliamH here
* Whissi here
* ulm here
* DrEeevil here
<@dilfridge> gyakovlev: ping
*** dilfridge (~quassel@gentoo/developer/dilfridge) has set the topic for
    #gentoo-council: "194th meeting: 2019-11-10 19:00 UTC |
    https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20191110T19 |
    https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council |
    https://dev.gentoo.org/~dilfridge/decisions.html | Agenda:
    https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/1e48a5cd4459562648f74f0bdcd12f23"
                                                                        [20:05]
<@dilfridge> does anyone have gyakovlev's phone and can text him?
<@dilfridge> anyway let's start, the agenda is rather light             [20:06]
<@WilliamH> I can get it before the next meeting.
<@WilliamH> But I don't have it now.
<@dilfridge> 2) Late approval of GLEP 75
<@dilfridge> anything to talk about?
<@WilliamH> Well, I'm not sure there's much to say other than I would like to
            have seen something a bit more human-friendly than the hashes.
                                                                        [20:07]
<@WilliamH> But I guess that can be a later change. It doesn't stop this glep
            from going into place.
<@dilfridge> true, on the other hand hashes give the best distribution across
             dirs
<@ulm> mgorny confirmed that the implemetation is ready, so we could skip
       Accepted and go to Final status already                          [20:08]
<@dilfridge> yeah
<@dilfridge> ok then let's vote
<@Whissi> It's bad that we can only accept in retro perspective, given that
          there are some criticism... but nothing severe enough to roll back.
<@dilfridge> "glep 75: accepted and final" yes/no
<@WilliamH> We could reject on principal and come up with something better.
<@WilliamH> Whissi: ^^                                                  [20:09]
<@dilfridge> let's not go there
<@Whissi> No need to reject, we can work on improving this later
<@WilliamH> Whissi: that's true too.
* Whissi yes
<@dilfridge> also feel free to write a small util to convert filename to path
* ulm yes
* dilfridge yes
* slyfox yes
* WilliamH yes 
* DrEeevil abstain                                                      [20:10]
<@dilfridge> ok that's 5 yes, 1 abstain, 1 absent
<@dilfridge> motion carried
<@dilfridge> which brings us to
<@ulm> dilfridge: before we move on, I just see that open bugs are missing
       from the agenda?
<@dilfridge> oops ok
<@dilfridge> yes let's add them before the open floor                   [20:11]
<@dilfridge> 3) License of meeting summaries and marking of logs
<@dilfridge>
             https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/02fba3d8f6094f6095ec56fa44b9a059
<@dilfridge> ulm: your topic
<@slyfox> i'm not opposed :)
<@ulm> well, it's all in the message I've sent
<@ulm> and I think it's a no-brainer for the summaries
<@Whissi> What do you want us to do? I don't think that anyone will ever look
          up license from commit... so I think we should add a license file to
          that directory and be done.                                   [20:12]
<@slyfox> any other license we could chose from? :)
<@ulm> Whissi: in my last log I had added a line at the botton
<@ulm> "This work is licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License."
<@Whissi> But to the commit msg...
<@ulm> s/log/summary/                                                   [20:13]
<@WilliamH> I would prefer a license file in the directory I think...
<@dilfridge> ok so a motion would be "future meeting summaries are explicitly
             licensed as CC-BY-SA-4.0 and should carry a brief notice stating
             that"
<@dilfridge> does that sound good?
<@ulm> +1
<@Whissi> So you want that every new log should contain a message regarding
          license?                                                      [20:14]
<@ulm> as for the logs, I would argue that raw IRC logs aren't copyrightable
<@ulm> Whissi: why not?
<@WilliamH> ulm: if they aren't copyrightable why bother?
<@Whissi> Like said, I would go with a single LICENSE file and be done.
<@Whissi> No need to add this for every log.
<@ulm> WilliamH: logs != summaries
<@ulm> Whissi: wfm as well                                              [20:15]
<@dilfridge> single license file also means retroactively, do you think this
             is OK?
<@WilliamH> ulm: sure, I thought we were talking about adding a msg to the
            logs though.
<@slyfox> also arguably changing license of past files should not be done
          without consent of the main contributor
<@ulm> dilfridge: nope, we cannot apply it retroactively
<@WilliamH> If the logs aren't copyrightable they don't need it.
<@WilliamH> slyfox++
<@slyfox> voting time?
<@dilfridge> "future meeting summaries are explicitly licensed as
             CC-BY-SA-4.0; a file will be dropped in the directory to state
             that"                                                      [20:16]
<@WilliamH> We could also wave the sign-off for this repo
<@dilfridge> ^ this?
<@ulm> WilliamH: no, that doesn't sound good
<@ulm> let's go for a license file in the directory then                [20:17]
<@gyakovlev> I got confused by timechange, here.
<@slyfox> \o/
<@Whissi> Welcome!
<@WilliamH> gyakovlev: :-)
<@dilfridge>  /o\
<@dilfridge> :)
<@ulm> dilfridge: are we voting already?                                [20:18]
<@dilfridge> ok so, motion: "From now on meeting summaries are explicitly
             licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0; a license file stating this and that the
             log files are not copyrightable will be added to the directory."
<@dilfridge> ^ this?                                                    [20:19]
<@dilfridge> please vote
* ulm yes
* slyfox yes
* dilfridge yes
* gyakovlev yes
* DrEeevil yes
* Whissi yes
<@dilfridge> that's 7 yes, unanimous, motion carried                    [20:20]
<@ulm> dilfridge: you should add something in the decisions/ dir too
* WilliamH yes
<@dilfridge> now it is :)
<@dilfridge> ulm: yeah good point, but since I use all old summaries there,
             what can I do?
<@dilfridge> let's discuss this later                                   [20:21]
<@ulm> dilfridge: state the license for your changes at least
<@dilfridge> ack
<@dilfridge> ok so now we get to
<@dilfridge> 3B) Open bugs
<@ulm> I don't see this as a large issue anyway                         [20:22]
<@dilfridge>
             https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?f1=cc&f2=assigned_to&j_top=OR&list_id=4380812&o1=substring&o2=substring&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&v1=council%40&v2=council%40
<@dilfridge> bug 646068
<+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/646068 "GLEP 75: Split
             distfile mirror directory structure"; Documentation, New GLEP
             submissions; IN_P; mgorny:glep
<@dilfridge> we just handled that, so already done
<@dilfridge> bug 695172
<+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/695172 "Please clarify QA
             policy regarding USE flags with underscores"; Gentoo Council,
             unspecified; CONF; arfrever.fta:council
<@slyfox> i think that was covered in past meeting
<@ulm> yes, that can be closed                                          [20:23]
<@dilfridge> ok will do later
<@dilfridge> after I've read up the conclusion
<@dilfridge> bug 696882
<+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/696882 "Register /EFI/Gentoo
             namespace in UEFI Subdirectory Registry"; Gentoo Council,
             unspecified; CONF; ulm:council
<@dilfridge> anyone heard anything?                                     [20:24]
<@Whissi> no
<@dilfridge> !note antarus any news from the uefi registration?
<+willikins> lemme take care of that for you, dilfridge
<@dilfridge> ok then we can only postpone it
<@dilfridge> bug 662982                                                 [20:25]
<+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/662982 "[TRACKER] New default
             locations for the Gentoo repository, distfiles, and binary
             packages"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF;
             zmedico:dev-portage
<@dilfridge> is there anything still to be done there? I see the snapshot
             names as only remaining blocker
<@Whissi> Who is responsible for snapshot hosting? Infra?               [20:27]
<@dilfridge> ok seems like this is blocked somewhere in portage team
<@dilfridge> (effectively bug 693454 for emerge-webrsync)
<+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/693454 "sys-apps/portage:
             emerge-webrsync support for arbitrary top-level directory name in
             gentoo repository snapshots"; Portage Development, Tools; CONF;
             zmedico:tools-portage
<@dilfridge> who wants to ping zac/infra/...?                           [20:28]
<@Whissi> I can do that.
<@dilfridge> ++
<@dilfridge> now we come to the eternal goodies
<@dilfridge> bug 637328
<+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be
             updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
<@Whissi> No update. But I'll promise this will be resolved for December
          meeting. ;]
<@dilfridge> \o/
* dilfridge hands over the Glühwein.                                    [20:29]
<@dilfridge> and lastly
<@dilfridge> bug 642072
<+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 "[Tracker] Copyright
             policy"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council
<@WilliamH> What is that waiting for?
<@dilfridge> only devmanual updates it seems                            [20:30]
<@WilliamH> I mean, sure it is a tracker, but what's blocking it?
<@ulm> devmanual, mainly
<@WilliamH> Ah ok.
<@dilfridge> bug 668686
<+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/668686 "Update devmanual for
             GLEP 76 copyright policy"; Documentation, Devmanual; CONF;
             ulm:devmanual
<@dilfridge> ulm: do you want to keep pushing there?
<@ulm> yeah, I'll check what's still missing there                      [20:31]
<@dilfridge> great thanks!
<@dilfridge> with that
<@ulm> some things seems to be in place already
<@dilfridge> we come to
<@dilfridge> 4) Open Floor
<@dilfridge> anyone?
<@Whissi> Wasn't there a pending issue from ikelos?                     [20:32]
<@Whissi> But I guess we missed it again and no clear call for action.
<@WilliamH> one sec let me look
<@ulm> Whissi: can you ping him at least, to resubmit for december?     [20:33]
<@Whissi> bug 699344
<+willikins> Whissi: https://bugs.gentoo.org/699344 "Policy review:
             Undertakers policy should be reviewed and updated";
             Documentation, Project-specific documentation; CONF;
             ikelos:retirement
<@dilfridge> I have the e-mail in the council box
<@WilliamH> We were asked to review the undertakers policy.
<@dilfridge> but I think it should've gone to project and didnt         [20:34]
<@WilliamH> I don't know that this is a policy issue, but it may be a
            behavioral issue.
<@dilfridge> ok so several options:
<@Whissi> I can answer him that he/the community has to come up with something
          (now it looks like he started the process through the bug). It's not
          our job to solve this. We can only vote on motions.
<@WilliamH> But, yeah if we want to be technical it should have gone to
            -project.                                                   [20:35]
<@ulm> IMHO it's not something to be decided in open floor, but should be a
       regular agenda item
<@dilfridge> 1), we forward it to the list for discussion (and potential
             resubmission as agenda item), 2), we ask him to resubmit also to
             -project (and as agenda item), 3) we do nothing
<@gyakovlev> agreed, needs a discussion with undertakers participation in
             -project, can't be decided here.                           [20:36]
* dilfridge suggests 2
<@ulm> +2
<@Whissi> ack
<@dilfridge> ok since there are no other suggestions let's go with option 2
                                                                        [20:37]
<@dilfridge> I'll write the response mail
<@dilfridge> anything else?
* Whissi has nothing else                                               [20:38]
<@dilfridge> ok then                                                    [20:39]
* dilfridge bangs the gavel "meeting closed"
<@Whissi> \o/
<@dilfridge> thanks everyone
<@ulm> thanks for chairing
<@dilfridge> hhmm less than 40min!
<@Whissi> Thank you for chairing
<@slyfox> thank you!
<@WilliamH> Thanks folks.                                               [20:40]
*** ulm (~ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm) has set the topic for #gentoo-council:
    "195th meeting: 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC |
    https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20191208T19 |
    https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council |
    https://dev.gentoo.org/~dilfridge/decisions.html"