summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
blob: d8f4abd89ac82274a4227bd4f8c94a995d1175ae (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
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
[19:50:29] <dilfridge|mobile> Uh.
[19:58:08] <dilfridge|mobile> May be a minute or two late
[19:58:49] -*- gyakovlev is here
[20:02:38] <dilfridge> ok
[20:02:42] <dilfridge> !proj council
[20:02:43] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, gyakovlev, patrick, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
[20:02:50] <dilfridge> roll call, meeting time!
[20:02:55] -*- ulm here
[20:02:56] -*- Whissi here
[20:02:56] -*- WilliamH here
[20:02:58] -*- slyfox here
[20:02:59] -*- dilfridge here
[20:03:44] <dilfridge> only xiaomiao missing
[20:04:16] <dilfridge> let's give him a minute or two and then we start (anyone wants to text him?)
[20:05:00] <xiaomiao> present
[20:05:12] <dilfridge> excellent, have a seat, take a cookie.
[20:05:46] * dilfridge has changed topic for #gentoo-council to: "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 | Agenda: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/7aa2c541d22d1bbcf1ab8dd9213bde4f"
[20:05:50] <dilfridge> ^ agenda link
[20:06:10] <dilfridge> and with this we get to 1) 
[20:06:13] <dilfridge> Approval of the changes to GLEPs 1 and 2, as posted in [1]:
[20:06:13] <dilfridge> "New GLEPs are to be licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0."
[20:06:20] <dilfridge> [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/8080529bd32cceb6439cfd3dabb7d9f5
[20:06:39] <dilfridge> ulm: do you want to still say anything about that, or should we directly go to vote?
[20:07:00] <ulm> from my side, no need for discussion
[20:07:08] <dilfridge> me neither. anyone else?
[20:07:22] <Whissi> no
[20:07:25] <gyakovlev> just a question, we got everyone's ack so far?
[20:07:28] <slyfox> the change says glep license should change when it's updated
[20:07:44] <slyfox> that requires consent of original authors, right?
[20:08:02] <slyfox> (even if it's 3.0 to 4.0 change)
[20:08:07] <ulm> slyfox: the cc-by-sa license has an upgrade clause
[20:08:43] <slyfox> ok. for clarity i take the answer is "no"
[20:09:07] <ulm> slyfox: clause 4b of cc-by-sa-3.0
[20:09:10] <ulm> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License;"
[20:09:28] <ulm> so an "adaptation" can be distributed under 4.0
[20:09:49] <slyfox> *nod*
[20:09:58] <dilfridge> ++
[20:10:17] <dilfridge> ok so then we can vote: 1)
[20:10:19] <dilfridge> Approval of the changes to GLEPs 1 and 2, as posted in [1]:
[20:10:19] <dilfridge> "New GLEPs are to be licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0."
[20:10:22] -*- dilfridge yes
[20:10:24] -*- slyfox yes
[20:10:28] -*- ulm yes
[20:10:28] -*- Whissi yes
[20:10:35] -*- gyakovlev yes
[20:10:42] -*- WilliamH yes
[20:10:51] -*- xiaomiao yes
[20:10:58] <dilfridge> excellent, unanimous.
[20:11:00] <ulm> thank you :)
[20:11:02] <dilfridge> motion passed.
[20:11:34] <dilfridge> with this we proceed to 2), which I circumscribed as "Discussion on the importance of cooperation"
[20:11:43] <dilfridge> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/4a97a1a397436c00b543ca84c3b02164
[20:11:51] <dilfridge> "Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work
[20:11:51] <dilfridge> together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be
[20:11:51] <dilfridge> allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore
[20:11:51] <dilfridge> everybody else?"
[20:12:03] <Whissi> I don't understand this motion. Especially the given example is common sense for me. So what's the purpose of this motion?
[20:12:12] <dilfridge> mgorny: ^
[20:12:48] <dilfridge> Whissi: common sense is not handed out in spoons to everyone, unfortunately
[20:13:00] <WilliamH> If what a dev is doing is breaking the distro isn't that qa terratory first?
[20:13:20] <gyakovlev> ignoring systemd support example provided in email thread.
[20:13:33] <dilfridge> I suspect it's not about "breaking the distro", but about doing things inconsistently
[20:13:40] <slyfox> that sounds more like a social problem than technical one
[20:13:47] <WilliamH> Isn't that still qa before it  comes to us?
[20:13:48] <xiaomiao> and it's nothing actionable
[20:14:10] <slyfox> Gentoo already has a few vehicles to govern changes: GLEPs and Gentoo projects. It takes a leader to implement both.
[20:14:13] <xiaomiao> we already have rules for the technical side of things, the social side is too subjective and random to manage with fixed rules
[20:14:20] <slyfox> We already have a conflict resolution mechanism.
[20:14:35] <xiaomiao> so we all agree that the idea of this diffuse suggestion is good? ;)
[20:14:41] <dilfridge> slyfox: you're right about that - but the main result of corresponding "not social" behaviour is that then qa and council is asked to decide on every detail
[20:14:51] <slyfox> If something is unclear then explicit policy should be stated.
[20:14:52] <ulm> I also think that the motion won't add anything new
[20:14:55] <xiaomiao> (there's nothing actionable in it, so I see noting for us to do)
[20:15:09] <dilfridge> I dont know the detailed motivation behind the mail
[20:15:16] <WilliamH> I don't either.
[20:15:21] <WilliamH> dilfridge: ^^
[20:15:27] <ulm> we could approve it as posted, with the logical disjunction :)
[20:15:30] <slyfox> dilfridge: someone has to solve the conflict. whether it be devs themselves, project lead, QA project or council.
[20:15:56] <dilfridge> I *do* know that in the past I was occasionally "frustrated", because Gentoo seemed like a bunch of headless chicken running around without talking to each other
[20:16:27] <dilfridge> That's why I think the council should be willing to set direction
[20:16:34] <slyfox> I suggest looking at the concrete problems and not make overbroad statements.
[20:16:44] <dilfridge> Yes. 
[20:16:57] <Whissi> +1
[20:17:08] <dilfridge> I'm just pointing out, this goes into the old discussion of "council - proactive or reactive?"
[20:17:37] <ulm> as a matter of fact, direction is most often set by discussing things in the -dev ML
[20:18:10] <ulm> most of the time with one champion trying to build consensus
[20:18:22] <dilfridge> which makes a lot of sense
[20:18:25] <ulm> (and I see nothing wrong with that)
[20:18:41] <slyfox> I personally don't see council body as a leader of implementing most technical projects. It's only 7 of us :)
[20:19:06] <dilfridge> yeah
[20:19:18] <Whissi> So skipping this one because we don't see an actionable item for now?
[20:19:24] <slyfox> Yup.
[20:19:24] <ulm> please move on, it's not actionable
[20:19:37] <dilfridge> but I see also the point that *if* you participate in a larger project (like Gentoo) you *should* be willing to adapt to community consensus
[20:19:46] <dilfridge> yes, let's move on
[20:20:02] <dilfridge> if this pops up as a specific item we can revisit it
[20:20:03] <xiaomiao> sidenote: we should not have such non-actionable-items on the agenda
[20:20:08] <slyfox> +1
[20:20:12] <Whissi> +1
[20:20:31] <dilfridge> I see nothing bad with it, it's "asking council opinion"
[20:20:42] <dilfridge> without any plans to make binding decision
[20:20:43] <slyfox> It would be fine for open floor
[20:21:16] <dilfridge> but then we wouldnt have a chance for clarifications on the list
[20:21:18] <dilfridge> anyway
[20:21:18] <slyfox> (or -ML discussion, that did not happen)
[20:21:31] <dilfridge> 3) Bugs with council involvment
[20:21:51] <dilfridge> !botsnack
[20:21:52] <willikins> dilfridge: thanks :)
[20:21:54] <dilfridge> aaaah
[20:21:58] <dilfridge> bug 642072
[20:22:01] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 "[Tracker] Copyright policy"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council
[20:22:16] <ulm> one blocker for this one
[20:22:22] <dilfridge> no news there
[20:22:33] <ulm> actually it's in portage
[20:22:41] <dilfridge> oh
[20:22:43] <dilfridge> right
[20:22:45] <ulm> waiting for stabilisation of 2.3.81
[20:22:56] <slyfox> \o/
[20:23:06] <dilfridge> #667432 Rename DCO_SIGNED_OFF_BY config variable to SIGNED_OFF_BY.
[20:23:15] <ulm> yes, this one
[20:23:18] <dilfridge> good then this is done at some point.
[20:23:36] <dilfridge> bug 662982
[20:23:39] <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
[20:24:04] <Whissi> Infra is currently rolling out fixed portage tarball (the one containing the repository)
[20:24:08] <dilfridge> one blocker and I heard some recent whining^H^H^H^H^Harguments
[20:24:15] <ulm> only bug 574752 as blocker
[20:24:17] <willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/574752 "Rename portage-YYYYMMDD.tar* snapshots with gentoo-YYYYMMDD.tar*"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Other; IN_P; mgorny:infra-bugs
[20:24:22] <Whissi> Once we have this tarball, portage will update.
[20:24:24] <slyfox> looks like progress
[20:24:43] <WilliamH> what was the whining?
[20:24:47] <dilfridge> ok then we have progress
[20:24:50] <Whissi> yes
[20:24:56] <dilfridge> mostly "why do we have to change this?"
[20:25:02] <dilfridge> "it worked for ages"
[20:25:05] <dilfridge> ...
[20:25:06] <WilliamH> dilfridge: heh :p
[20:25:26] <dilfridge> bug 696882
[20:25:29] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/696882 "Register /EFI/Gentoo namespace in UEFI Subdirectory Registry"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; ulm:council
[20:25:30] <WilliamH> it never belonged on /usr to start with ;-)
[20:25:47] <ulm> can we reassign this one to trustees?
[20:25:49] <dilfridge> !note antarus any news on /EFI/Gentoo?
[20:25:49] <willikins> okies, dilfridge
[20:25:50] <dilfridge> yes
[20:25:57] <slyfox> sounds good
[20:26:05] <dilfridge> let's have them do something important
[20:26:06] <WilliamH> yeah there's nothing we can do there.
[20:26:15] <ulm> they own the name, and antarus has taken action already
[20:26:19] <dilfridge> done
[20:26:24] <slyfox> \o/
[20:26:36] <dilfridge> bug 700364
[20:26:39] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/700364 "License council summaries under CC-BY-SA-4.0"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council
[20:26:42] <dilfridge> we can close thos one now
[20:26:54] <dilfridge> and finally
[20:26:57] <slyfox> *nod*, was done as part of the agenda list
[20:27:01] <dilfridge> we come to one of our evergreens, 
[20:27:05] <dilfridge> bug 637328
[20:27:07] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
[20:27:14] <Whissi> Last time!
[20:27:26] <dilfridge> Last christmas?
[20:27:39] <ulm> it can be closed as WONTFIX
[20:27:39] <Whissi>     glep-0014: Mark as Deferred.
[20:27:53] <slyfox> time to un-CC council@?
[20:28:00] <Whissi> Bug will be closed I think
[20:28:01] <dilfridge> well when it's closed who cares
[20:28:07] -*- ulm just closed it
[20:28:12] <slyfox> thank you!
[20:28:17] <dilfridge> excellent
[20:28:20] <dilfridge> with that
[20:28:23] <dilfridge> we get to
[20:28:31] <dilfridge> 4) Open floor
[20:28:50] -*- dilfridge watches the floor open and swallow the council... err... wrong novel...
[20:29:00] <dilfridge> anyone?
[20:29:26] <Whissi> Py..no I have nothing.
[20:29:35] <dilfridge> hrhr
[20:30:10] <dilfridge> Whissi: blink if someone is standing behind you with a cluebat :P
[20:30:35] <Whissi> ;)
[20:31:39] <dilfridge> ok so seems we really have nothing
[20:31:46] -*- ulm is pondering about floor(exp(1.0)*10)*0.1
[20:32:17] <dilfridge> too much higher math for the time of day
[20:32:27] <dilfridge> right then
[20:32:31] <dilfridge> /bang/
[20:32:35] <dilfridge> meeting closed!