From 83a61bb856eb2b87588b679de13c59a02ef36ba2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matt Turner Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 14:43:15 -0500 Subject: Log for 20221211 meeting. License: CC-PDM-1.0 (raw IRC log, not copyrightable) Signed-off-by: Matt Turner --- meeting-logs/20221211.txt | 217 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ meeting-logs/20221211.txt.asc | 10 ++ 2 files changed, 227 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meeting-logs/20221211.txt create mode 100644 meeting-logs/20221211.txt.asc diff --git a/meeting-logs/20221211.txt b/meeting-logs/20221211.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..33f29ba --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20221211.txt @@ -0,0 +1,217 @@ +14:00 <@ mattst88> | meeting time! +14:00 <@ dilfridge> | ta-daaa +14:00 * | dilfridge here +14:00 <@ mattst88> | agenda is here: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/4baee34e9171963d1527d8e319a801ef +14:00 * | ajak here +14:00 * | mattst88 here +14:00 * | mgorny here +14:00 * | sam_ here +14:00 * | gyakovlev here +14:00 < ajak> | mattst88: + arch thing i think (but there shouldn't be anything to do) +14:00 <@ mattst88> | ulm: ping +14:00 <@ mattst88> | ajak: yep +14:01 * | ulm here +14:01 <@ mattst88> | yay +14:01 <@ mattst88> | okay, let's get arch testing out of the way first +14:02 <@ mattst88> | are we in agreement that arch testing is in relatively good shape? +14:02 <@ mattst88> | i.e. no unfolding disasters that need attention? +14:02 <@ sam_> | i think so +14:02 <@ ajak> | https://www.akhuettel.de/gentoo-bugs/arches.php yes +14:02 <@ dilfridge> | bug numbers look good +14:02 <@ mgorny> | let's leave a written record that loong profiles are no longer exp +14:02 <@ dilfridge> | ooh +14:02 <@ mattst88> | ah, nice +14:03 <@ dilfridge> | your info is newer than mine +14:03 <@ mgorny> | we're in avantgarde now +14:03 <@ dilfridge> | I was just about to say "going stable soon" +14:03 <@ gyakovlev> | looks like arches are in decent state, at least from my POV and some others. +14:03 <@ gyakovlev> | blips happen, but nothing bad, more like special cases/missed bugs. +14:03 * | ajak waybacks that page for posterity +14:03 <-- | mpagano [~quassel@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has quit (Client Quit) +14:03 <@ mattst88> | alright, moving on to GLEP76 +14:03 --> | mpagano [~quassel@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has joined #gentoo-council +14:03 --- | ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-council +v mpagano] +14:03 <@ mattst88> | I don't think anyone followed up with their concerns on the mailing list thread +14:04 <@ ulm> | not much progress there +14:04 <@ ajak> | yeah, nobody did +14:04 <@ mgorny> | i don't think anyone has really resumed the discussion +14:04 <@ ajak> | (despite my prodding) +14:04 <@ mattst88> | so I take that to mean that we're ready to vote +14:04 <@ mgorny> | we're still waiting for a "final" version of the patch +14:04 <@ mgorny> | or at least clear explanation what the author meant +14:04 <@ dilfridge> | we can also vote on the existing version of the patch, we never did that +14:04 <@ ajak> | "still"? +14:04 <@ ajak> | nobody ever brought anything up on the ML like we decided to last meeting +14:04 <@ mgorny> | ajak: since last meeting? +14:04 <@ sam_> | i'd like to just vote on what the proposal was before +14:05 <@ ajak> | yeah, let's do that +14:05 <-- | mpagano [~quassel@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has quit (Client Quit) +14:05 <@ ulm> | the understanding is that "records" mean "government records", right? +14:05 <@ mgorny> | i think we've established that how we read the patch and what the author meant didn't align +14:05 <@ gyakovlev> | grep link for log purposes: +14:05 <@ gyakovlev> | https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/c85b78ca69802522534ee8ab0804f665 +14:05 <@ mgorny> | particularly "records" part +14:05 --> | mpagano [~quassel@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has joined #gentoo-council +14:05 --- | ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-council +v mpagano] +14:05 <@ gyakovlev> | s/grep/glep/ +14:06 <@ ulm> | that's not the last version +14:06 <@ mgorny> | i'm not against the change but i'm against pushing it as-is +14:06 <@ gyakovlev> | that's link from agenda. +14:06 <@ ajak> | i suppose we should vote regardless +14:06 <@ ulm> | latest version is here: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep76 +14:06 <@ ulm> | i.e. this patch: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/commit/?h=glep76&id=f8c192768983929e0d028d58e32e3e6e9b4d8458 +14:06 <@ mattst88> | I agree because I think that would demonstrate good faith on our part, especially given the lack of follow up after the last meeting +14:06 <@ mgorny> | ajak: "Gentoo Council votes against proposal making Gentoo more open and welcoming"? +14:07 <@ dilfridge> | eh +14:07 <@ ulm> | mgorny: that's nonsense +14:07 <@ mgorny> | i'd rather table the vote until we have something good to vote on +14:07 < sam_> | mattst88: yes +14:07 <@ mgorny> | well, unless you think the change is good +14:08 <@ dilfridge> | so how do we find that out without a vote? +14:08 <@ ulm> | the change is ok when "records" means "government records" +14:08 <@ sam_> | that's how i interpreted it too +14:08 <@ ulm> | because that's the author's understanding +14:08 <@ mgorny> | ulm: but it doesn't say that +14:08 <@ sam_> | (I don't think it's meaningful if it was something else) +14:08 <@ mattst88> | Proposed motion: Vote to approve GLEP76 changes, with the understanding that there may be further small changes soon +14:08 * | ajak is not really interested in discussion given we already agreed here isn't the place for it +14:08 <@ mgorny> | the author had a whole month to add that word +14:08 * | ajak yes +14:08 * | sam_ yes +14:08 * | ulm no +14:08 * | mgorny no +14:09 <@ sam_> | mgorny: (and nobody wrote to the ML to say that was needed) +14:09 * | dilfridge yes with "government records", abstain otherwise +14:09 <@ ulm> | it makes no sense to vote on a preliminary version +14:09 <@ ajak> | mgorny: i don't think that's really fair when everybody's had several months to bring up such problems with it to the mailing list +14:09 * | mattst88 yes +14:09 <@ mgorny> | sam_: but the author was here during the meeting? +14:09 <@ mattst88> | ulm: whose failing do you see this to be? +14:09 <@ sam_> | mgorny: and it was a massive farce where it was really hard to keep track of what the problem(s) were +14:10 <@ dilfridge> | the author was against the clarification "government records" +14:10 <@ ulm> | trustees must agree to it too, so how would we proceed from here? +14:10 <@ ulm> | dilfridge: that's not what I remember +14:10 <@ sam_> | i don't understand how anyone is voting no here given none of them raised the issue on the mailing list afterwards like they were supposed to +14:10 <@ ulm> | it was robbat2's wording +14:10 <@ mgorny> | dilfridge: but *which* author? +14:10 <@ dilfridge> | the one who is most likely to be against anything +14:10 * | ajak recalls only one person making patches +14:11 <@ sam_> | gyakovlev: +14:11 * | gyakovlev abstain (sorry, notclear) +14:11 <@ dilfridge> | independent of the authors, we can make amendments and vote on them here +14:11 <@ sam_> | yep +14:11 <@ dilfridge> | but we should make clear what we vote on precisely +14:11 <@ ulm> | sam_: I voted no because I think we should have voted on a final version +14:11 <@ ulm> | not a preliminary one +14:12 <@ dilfridge> | ok so +14:12 <@ mgorny> | well, fwiu this vote effectively means that the "preliminary" version is now the official version +14:12 <@ sam_> | ulm: if mattst88 is fine with it, perhaps we should vote on a version with "government records" +14:12 <@ dilfridge> | as far as I can see most of us here thought "records" means "government records" and would be ok with that +14:12 <@ sam_> | then we can move on, and revisit if required +14:12 * | ajak not sure if we should be voting on things without prior community discussion +14:12 <@ dilfridge> | so the patch + this precise change is what we should vote on +14:13 <@ ulm> | sam_: was such a version posted to the ML? +14:13 <@ dilfridge> | it was discussed in detail at the last meeting +14:13 <@ ajak> | and then nobody brought it to the ML +14:13 <@ dilfridge> | anyone with a stake in it could have brought it up +14:14 <@ sam_> | I don't think it's wild to interpret "records" as "government records" given anything else is tenuous (a facebook account would never be a "record") +14:14 <@ dilfridge> | also do broken records count? +14:14 <@ sam_> | :) +14:14 * | ajak is again not really interested in discussion given we already agreed here isn't the place for it +14:14 <@ ajak> | the ML is the right place for it +14:14 <@ mgorny> | i honestly still don't understand what records we're supposed to search and for what +14:14 <@ mattst88> | personally, I think it's the responsibility of a Council member with concerns to bring up any concerns they have that are required to get their vote +14:15 <@ ajak> | the people with problems with the patch as-is *need* to bring those problems to the ML +14:15 <@ ajak> | yeah +14:15 <@ dilfridge> | you go to the vicar in the village of your ancestors and ask them to have a look at the church records of the last 500 years +14:15 <@ mgorny> | then perhaps you should have said that when i asked people if they're going to restart the discussion as decided in the last meeting? +14:15 <@ sam_> | it's obvious and also polite +14:15 <@ mgorny> | because i honestly think this is asinine +14:16 <@ mgorny> | first we decide the discussion needs to happen +14:16 <@ mgorny> | no discussion happens +14:16 <@ mgorny> | then we suddenly vote out of the blue disregarding what we said before +14:16 <@ ajak> | the onus is on the detractors +14:16 <@ sam_> | i don't think what you're saying contradicts what mattst88 is saying at all +14:16 <@ mattst88> | yes, I'm asking why no one with these concerns responded to the mailing list thread in the last few months, but *especially* since the last council meeting +14:17 <@ ajak> | also, i *tried* to get discussion going in the time between last meeting and this meeting +14:17 <@ dilfridge> | the other point is, what we are doing here does not really have immediate consequences, so we could still amend it month on if really someone objects +14:17 < ulm> | mattst88: since you haven't counted yet, I change my vote to yes +14:17 <@ ajak> | 0 response from council members +14:17 <@ mgorny> | because i waited for the proponents to send a new version to discuss? +14:17 <@ mgorny> | as i openly indicated +14:17 <@ dilfridge> | compromises are out of fashion +14:17 <@ sam_> | if you're going to vote down a proposal, you then take some responsibility for moving the discussion forward and explaining why +14:17 <@ mgorny> | i think it's reasonable to assume that if remarks have been made, then you wait for the new version before sending the same remarks again +14:18 <@ ulm> | it would have been the proponents' task to follow up on it +14:18 * | mattst88 /o\ +14:18 <-- | josef64 [~quassel@user/josef64] has quit () +14:18 <@ sam_> | anyway ulm changed his vote to yes, so mattst88, can you do the count? +14:18 <@ dilfridge> | the third rail of gentoo politics, touch it and you die +14:18 <@ mattst88> | okay, I'm personally ready to move on. Further changes can be made as needed +14:18 <@ mgorny> | or we should set a formal rule "remarks should be resent every week because if you fail to repeat them, the author is free to assume there are no remarks" +14:18 <@ mattst88> | sam_: yes, vote is 5-1-1. motion passes +14:19 <@ sam_> | excellent +14:19 <@ dilfridge> | what for now, exactly? +14:19 <@ ajak> | @mattst88 | Proposed motion: Vote to approve GLEP76 changes, with the understanding that there may be further small changes soon +14:19 <@ ulm> | so we send the version from the glep76 branch to trustees? +14:19 <@ mattst88> | yes, sounds fine to me +14:19 <@ ajak> | why is it on the trustees, again? +14:19 <@ mattst88> | ajak: because we need more discussion :P +14:20 <@ dilfridge> | +14:20 <@ ulm> | ajak: they're mentioned in the GLEP +14:20 <@ sam_> | ulm: I think that sounds fine, yes +14:20 <@ sam_> | it's what we've done for previous revisions of the glep +14:20 <@ ulm> | that too +14:20 <@ mattst88> | bug 729062 -- this was infinitely assigned to Whissi. has fallen to council@. no updates AFAIK +14:20 < willikins> | mattst88: https://bugs.gentoo.org/729062 "Services and Software which is critical for Gentoo should be developed/run in the Gentoo namespace"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; jstein:council +14:21 <@ sam_> | I think that's really something which should: 1. have a new proposer; 2. ML discussion +14:21 <@ sam_> | nothing for us to do really, we already discussed (and sorted out) pkgcheck etc +14:21 <@ sam_> | (which are now hosted primarily on git.gentoo.org) +14:21 <@ mattst88> | bug 882643 -- 7-0 vote in the bug itself. left open until this council meeting for record keeping purposes. now closing :) +14:21 < willikins> | mattst88: https://bugs.gentoo.org/882643 "Approve econf --disable-static change retroactively for EAPI 8"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council +14:21 <@ ajak> | yeah, seems more like on ongoing community thing that council doesn't have much of an interest in +14:21 <@ ulm> | that one is done +14:21 <@ ulm> | I'm going to close it +14:22 <@ sam_> | ulm: i'll comment once you've closed it just to note that it was implemented in portage-3.0.40 +14:22 <@ sam_> | (or you can mention it, whatever is fine) +14:22 <@ mattst88> | bug 883715 -- this ties in with GLEP76. not sure there's anything to do with it at the moment, but GLEP76 should kinda unblock it +14:22 <@ dilfridge> | Bug 883715 - (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous +14:22 <@ mattst88> | I don't see any other bugs, so I think we're on to... +14:22 <@ mattst88> | 4. Open Floor +14:23 <@ ajak> | it's a private bug so not sure how much we should discuss here anyway +14:23 <+ arthurzam> | I want to request meeting logs + summaries +14:23 <@ dilfridge> | hrhr +14:24 <@ sam_> | yes, sorry, I'll get mine done +14:24 <+ arthurzam> | Also looks like one missing from previous council https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Meeting_logs +14:24 <@ mattst88> | arthurzam: I'm planning to upload meeting logs for last month and today later today +14:24 <@ mattst88> | hopefully summaries too +14:24 < arthurzam> | mattst88: thanks +14:24 <@ dilfridge> | fwiw, there's a preliminary directory tree of 23.0 profiles for amd64, alpha, and arm +14:24 <@ sam_> | yeah, I'm just going to do it today so it's done with +14:24 <@ sam_> | there's no good time to do it +14:24 <@ ajak> | wrt glep76, the accepted motion from the last meeting was: @mattst88 | motion to table this and continue discussion on the mailing list? +14:24 <@ gyakovlev> | I'm working on my summaries RN, so will be posted today for review and comitted after that. +14:25 <@ dilfridge> | not in profiles.desc yet because new and untested +14:25 <@ ajak> | so... i tried to continue discussion on the mailing list +14:25 <@ mattst88> | ajak: yes, I think so +14:25 <@ mattst88> | ajak: yeah, you did :) +14:25 <@ ajak> | i'm baffled and frustrated that even with prodding that no discussion has happened +14:26 <@ ajak> | so can those with concerns please bring the to the ML? "i said so in the council meeting" isn't really actionable by the patch authors nor is it a useful way to have a discussion like this +14:26 <@ ajak> | bring them* rather +14:27 <@ ajak> | "patch authors rework the patch based on council discussion" also wasn't what the passed motion was :p +14:27 <@ mattst88> | yes, please. it was my understanding from the last council meeting that those with objections/concerns/feedback were agreeing to reply to the mailing list +14:28 <@ dilfridge> | we have accepted their version now as per vote +14:28 <@ mattst88> | okay, it doesn't sound like there are further topics for open floor? +14:28 <@ dilfridge> | so why do we need further discussion? +14:28 <@ ajak> | the motion was: @mattst88 | Proposed motion: Vote to approve GLEP76 changes, with the understanding that there may be further small changes soon +14:28 <@ dilfridge> | (from them... if we want to change something that is something else) +14:28 <@ ajak> | are there no further small changes that anybody wants? +14:28 <@ dilfridge> | exactly, who wants changes proposes them +14:29 <@ mattst88> | dilfridge: I understood mgorny and ulm wanted some changes or clarifications +14:29 <-- | xgqt [~xgqt@gentoo/developer/xgqt] has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) +14:29 <@ mgorny> | sorry, i'm hurried to leave +14:29 <@ mgorny> | thanks, everyone +14:29 --> | xgqt [~xgqt@gentoo/developer/xgqt] has joined #gentoo-council +14:29 --- | ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-council +v xgqt] +14:29 < ulm> | mattst88: I'm fine with the wording as-is, if it's clear that things like https://twitter.com/jesus don't count as "records" +14:30 <@ mattst88> | hearing no more open floor topics, meeting adjourned diff --git a/meeting-logs/20221211.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20221211.txt.asc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9ff0dc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20221211.txt.asc @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- +Version: GnuPG v2 + +iOoEABYKAJIWIQReryEEmoa4pUzLG/qs6yl0DJpOlwUCY5YzDF8UgAAAAAAuAChp +c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0NUVB +RjIxMDQ5QTg2QjhBNTRDQ0IxQkZBQUNFQjI5NzQwQzlBNEU5NxQcbWF0dHN0ODhA +Z2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRCs6yl0DJpOl1vqAQDAsmNMm5uOYfuQ53E9D3B+nrqNjptX +Jud0mm1i2/7aywEA9qHDxgjkS6WjRngpkvzJBI1cGQrKMJ1pDDurigM0kQw= +=dTLr +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- cgit v1.2.3-65-gdbad