19:10 <NeddySeago > Is there an agenda for tonight ?
19:10 <    fmccor > I haven't seen one, although someone requested a review of all open Council bugs.
19:12 <   lu_zero@> ^^
19:22 < darksiide > Cardoe requested it and commented on some i think.
19:24 < dberkholz@> that is the agenda
19:28 < dberkholz@> here's how i think we can make this most useful
19:29 < dberkholz@> for each bug, come up with a concrete next step and who's going to do it. if it's the council, a specific member should take responsibility
19:32 <dertobi123@> sounds good to me :)
19:33 < dberkholz@> and i think the bug should actually get reassigned to that person with council in cc
19:54 < dberkholz@> i'm wandering to another building. brb
20:01 <Betelgeuse@> hiihoo
20:01 <   lu_zero@> hi Betelgeuse
20:03 <dertobi123@> heya
20:03 <   lu_zero@> who's missing?
20:03 <Betelgeuse@> Cardoe at least
20:03 <Betelgeuse@> jokey:
20:03 <Betelgeuse@> Halcy0n:
20:03 <Betelgeuse@> !expn council
20:03 < Willikins > Betelgeuse: council = (private)
20:03 <    Cardoe@> I'm here
20:04 <    Cardoe@> I tried to comment on a few of the bugs to see where we're at
20:06 <   Halcy0n@> Here.
20:08 < dberkholz@> back, sorry
20:08 < dberkholz@> first building had a congested network
20:08 < dberkholz@> so, are people on board with what i suggested?
20:09 <   Halcy0n@> Yup.
20:09 <dertobi123@> jokey has his cellphone switched off, tried to reach him
20:09 <dertobi123@> dberkholz: yep
20:11 <   Halcy0n@> I went through some of the bugs and identified where they are at: http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/council_bugs.txt
20:11 < dberkholz@> i'll repaste quick, since i said it before 2000
20:11 < dberkholz@> 20:01 <   lu_zero@> hi Betelgeuse
20:11 < dberkholz@> err.
20:11 < dberkholz@> 19:28 < dberkholz@> here's how i think we can make this most useful
20:11 < dberkholz@> 19:29 < dberkholz@> for each bug, come up with a concrete next step and who's  going to do it. if it's the council, a specific member  should take responsibility
20:11 < dberkholz@> 19:32 <dertobi123@> sounds good to me :)
20:11 < dberkholz@> 19:33 < dberkholz@> and i think the bug should actually get reassigned to that  person with council in cc
20:12 < dberkholz@> dertobi123 & Halcy0n agree, waiting on others' input
20:12 <Betelgeuse@> yeah having someone in charge could help
20:12 <   lu_zero@> sounds fine
20:13 < dberkholz@> ok, let's just run through 'em in order
20:13 < dberkholz@> bug #185572
20:13 < Willikins > dberkholz: https://bugs.gentoo.org/185572 "As the proctors no longer exist the code of conduct needs an upate"; Doc Other, Project-specific documentation; NEW; neddyseagoon@g.o:council@g.o
20:14 <dertobi123@> i agree to Cardoe, re-assigning to devrel
20:14 < dberkholz@> i'm fine with letting devrel members update it to reflect reality of how it's enforced, as cardoe said
20:14 <   lu_zero@> I do agree as well
20:14 <   Halcy0n@> Agreed.
20:15 <Betelgeuse@> fine
20:15 < dberkholz@> ok, saying so on the bug
20:16 < dberkholz@> bug #234705
20:16 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/234705 "Document of being an active developer"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
20:17 < dberkholz@> seems like a good way forward is letting araujo finish his prototype, then reassign to devrel
20:18 <   lu_zero@> yup
20:18 <   Halcy0n@> Sounds reasonable.
20:18 <Philantrop > dberkholz: araujo raised a few questions on the bug for the council (?) to answer, though.
20:18 < dberkholz@> i don't think the council should be the group answering them. i think devrel should
20:18 <dertobi123@> is it already decided who's going to sign the documents later on? the prototype reads like it is being by the trustees
20:18 < dberkholz@> i really don't think that bug has anything to do with the council at all
20:19 <dertobi123@> if the trustees are going to sign the documents then they should deal with the questions araujo raised
20:19 <dertobi123@> dberkholz: indeed
20:19 < dberkholz@> here's what i suggest. we assign to araujo, CC devrel and trustees, and tell them to decide amongst themselves which of them should handle it
20:20 < dberkholz@> and un-CC council because it isn't our thing
20:20 <   lu_zero@> I'd rather have devrel sign
20:20 <dertobi123@> dberkholz: agreed
20:20 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: I agree with that.  Doesn't make sense for us to be involved really.
20:20 <Betelgeuse@> Well probably someone with a legal status should do it.
20:21 < dberkholz@> i also have an opinion who should sign but i don't want to bikeshed about it
20:21 < dberkholz@> we don't handle legal issues, so talking about legal status within the council doesn't make sense
20:21 <NeddySeago > lu_zero, what is the legal status of this certificate ?
20:21 <   lu_zero@> NeddySeagoon selfcertification from gentoo I think
20:21 <   lu_zero@> or otherwise a formal reference
20:22 <NeddySeago > lu_zero, I mean, if a developer users it in applying for a job ... like a reference
20:23 < dberkholz@> araujo's requirement was that mentioning gentoo on his résumé requires some sort of proof in the form of written documentation
20:24 <NeddySeago > cc the trustees, we will discuss it
20:24 <   lu_zero@> NeddySeagoon ok
20:24 <dertobi123@> it's like a lpic or microsoft certification reference, imho it should be signed by one of the trustees
20:24 <dertobi123@> but that's something devrel and trustee can discuss
20:24 <NeddySeago > dertobi123, I don't have a prolem with that
20:25 < dberkholz@> anyone in addition to dertobi123 & Betelgeuse with me on pushing the open questions to devrel+trustees?
20:25 <   Halcy0n@> I agreed :)
20:25 <NeddySeago > heh
20:25 <   lu_zero@> I'm fine
20:25 < dberkholz@> err, Betelgeuse didn't agree. that was a typo.
20:25 < dberkholz@> ok, that's 4
20:26 <dertobi123@> NeddySeagoon: of course, didn't meant it that way
20:26 <Betelgeuse@> Well does someone else besides trustees have legal status?
20:26 <NeddySeago > Not as far as I know
20:26 <    fmccor > No, I don't think so.
20:27 <Betelgeuse@> ok so I agreed :D
20:27 <dertobi123@> heh
20:28 < dberkholz@> ok
20:28 < dberkholz@> bug #234706
20:28 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/234706 "Slacker arches"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
20:29 <dertobi123@> that bug sounds like ping timed-out?
20:29 <   lu_zero@> vapier had something?
20:29 < dberkholz@> he never actually got around to writing it
20:30 <   Halcy0n@> This came up on the list the other day again, so one of us should really try to get this resolved in some way.
20:30 < dberkholz@> i understand he was basing it off something richard freeman about it
20:30 < darksiide > that was raised on the gentoo-dev list
20:30 < dberkholz@> s/about it/said about it/
20:30 <   Halcy0n@> I can take it as something to try and get some input from the masses.
20:31 < darksiide > its rather annoying to cc the "slackers" for no reason, they don't have the manpower to maintain a stable tree
20:31 < darksiide > not a fault of there, but..if you are using s390, you should be prepared to deal with package.keywords, etc
20:32 < dberkholz@> i would expect the annoying part is that it leaves the maintaining teams with lots of open bugs that are hard to hide if you want to see "real" stabilization requests
20:32 <   lu_zero@> well I'd do s/slacker/understaffed/
20:32 <   lu_zero@> and keep arch as transient and ignore ~ for those
20:33 < dberkholz@>  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/54103
20:33 <   lu_zero@> with a bit fat warning telling that
20:34 < dberkholz@> that's rich0's proposal from a while back
20:34 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: ok. you want to take this bug and follow it through?
20:35 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: Yea, I'll handle it.
20:35 < darksiide > well, break the stable tree with understaffed arches or just remove the stable tree (ala ~mips)
20:35 <    Cardoe@> dberkholz: I got rich0's proposal in my mail
20:36 <    Cardoe@> I think we need to establish some reasonable rules.
20:36 <    Cardoe@> i.e. for an arch not to be considered "understaffed" they need a dedicated security liaison
20:37 <dertobi123@> having a security liaison doesn't prevent an arch from not being understaffed
20:37 <    Cardoe@> no
20:37 <dertobi123@> -not
20:37 <    Cardoe@> But I'm just saying that we need a set of rules
20:38 < dberkholz@> what purpose does defining an arch as understaffed serve?
20:38 <dertobi123@> first of all we'd need some input from those so-called slacker arches
20:38 <    Cardoe@> if an arch can not reasonable handle security bugs in 120 days... what's the point of having that arch be stable?
20:38 < darksiide > how about not 200 stablereqs open? ;)
20:38 <    Cardoe@> dberkholz: once we define an arch as understaffed, we drop the stabilization for that arch
20:38 < dberkholz@> i think people are interested in how to handle individual packages, so let's approach it from that perspective
20:38 <   Halcy0n@> I think it would be best to put together an actual proposal before we discuss this any further.
20:38 <dertobi123@> darksiide: using this as a criteria we'd be starting to drop ppc stable keywords soonish *cough*
20:38 <    Cardoe@> Halcy0n: who's volunteering?
20:39 < dberkholz@> he is, read your scrollback
20:39 <    Cardoe@> ok
20:39 <    Cardoe@> so let's update the bug with Mark writing a proposal
20:39 < dberkholz@> done
20:39 <    Cardoe@> Are we going to set a suspense for it?
20:40 < darksiide > ty for addressing it guys. maintainers need something here (ie. i don't give a rip about s390, sh, etc especially when they never get done)
20:40 < dberkholz@> is a "suspense" supposed to mean a due date?
20:40 <    Cardoe@> yes and no
20:40 <    Cardoe@> a date when we revisit the issue if no feedback is received
20:41 < dberkholz@> i like your idea about running through open bugs at meetings so much that i think any time we don't have suggested topics, we should do this
20:41 <dertobi123@> yep
20:41 <    Cardoe@> thanks.
20:42 < dberkholz@> would've been nice to do it at the last meeting too, since it looks like we won't get through all of them today
20:42 <dertobi123@> what about setting the second november meeting as a due date?
20:42 <   Halcy0n@> How many more do we have?  I have a meeting at 2100UTC that I have to attend.
20:42 < dberkholz@> 6
20:42 <    Cardoe@> Halcy0n: we can cut it short and discuss some more next meeting
20:42 < dberkholz@> i think we could dupe bug #234708 on the slacker bug though
20:43 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/234708 "Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams?"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
20:43 <   Halcy0n@> I just have to walk 40 feet to the conference room, so I can go right until 2100.
20:43 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: yea, I agree.
20:43 <dertobi123@> dberkholz: agreed
20:43 <    Cardoe@> I figured if we can just keep the idea of these opened bugs somewhere in our minds, we drive the community to resolve them quicker.
20:43 <    Cardoe@> I agree with dup'ing.
20:43 <   lu_zero@> fine
20:43 < dberkholz@> k, done
20:44 < dberkholz@> Halcy0n: how about you tell us on the bug when we should expect something? 
20:44 < dberkholz@> might be more meaningful if we can get dates from the people doing the work than arbitrarily setting them
20:44 <    Cardoe@> that'd be even better
20:45 < dberkholz@> so, next is bug #234710
20:45 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/234710 "as-needed by default"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
20:46 <   Halcy0n@> dberkholz: done.
20:46 < dberkholz@> ColdWind: you seem to know what's required here. do you want to put it together?
20:46 < dberkholz@> perhaps bonsaikitten would help with the tree testing since he's already compiling stuff all the time
20:47 < darksiide > (or diego)
20:47 <    Cardoe@> I believe he's using as-needed in his compiling tests. So his feedback would be helpful.
20:47 <    Cardoe@> bonsaikitten's that is
20:47 < dberkholz@> eh, ColdWind has been idle for almost a day.
20:47 <    Cardoe@> I assume Diego uses it as well
20:47 < dberkholz@> i use it too, but i don't build the entire tree
20:47 <Betelgeuse@> yeah same here
20:48 < darksiide > someone said something about gcc-spec files? put it in ~arch gcc and call for testers
20:48 <Betelgeuse@> but it hasn't caused any problems in ages
20:48 < darksiide > (same with my ldflags - no isses)
20:48 <Betelgeuse@> But to turn it on by default I would rather have some comprehensive runs.
20:48 < dberkholz@> ok, so how do we proceed with this bug?
20:49 <Betelgeuse@> It's not like the benefit to normals users it earth shaking.
20:49 <    Cardoe@> Betelgeuse: it will reduce the amount of rebuilt packages
20:49 < dberkholz@> we can CC bonsai and ask what he's doing. is anyone here willing to take the lead on getting this done? you don't necessarily have to do the work yourself, just get other people to do it
20:49 <    Cardoe@> Betelgeuse: i.e. next time I bump cairo, the entire X stack won't have to be rebuilt
20:49 <Betelgeuse@> Cardoe: I don't consider that earth shaking as you can just leave those running int he background.
20:50 <Betelgeuse@> Stupid typos.
20:50 <    Cardoe@> dberkholz: You can assign it to me.
20:51 <    Cardoe@> I'll get something together within the next 30 days.
20:51 < darksiide > i condsider that earth shattering on my 1ghz laptop
20:51 <    Cardoe@> I had an "emergency" agenda item.
20:52 <Betelgeuse@> darksiide: Bigger rebuilds really don't come that often.
20:52 <Betelgeuse@> Or then I have missed them.
20:52 <    Cardoe@> 2nd meeting in November is Thanksgiving in the US and a decent portion of the council is US-ian.
20:52 <   Halcy0n@> Yea...that isn't going to work :)
20:53 <    Cardoe@> and the 2nd meeting in December is Christmas
20:53 <dertobi123@> so we move that meeting to the 3rd thursday in november or just skip it?
20:54 < dberkholz@> let's do 3rd if we have any open bugs, otherwise skip
20:54 <dertobi123@> sounds good
20:54 <   lu_zero@> ok
20:54 <dertobi123@> for the 2nd december meeting it should be safe to just skip
20:54 <dertobi123@> probably everyone of us has other things to do in that time ;)
20:54 <Betelgeuse@> Not really.
20:55 <NeddySeago > playing with new toys :)
20:55 < dberkholz@> dertobi123: all the more reason to get those bugs closed. =)
20:55 <Betelgeuse@> Nothing happens here on the 25th around midnight.
20:55 <   lu_zero@> Betelgeuse =)
20:55 <dertobi123@> oh, neddy is going to send us new toys? =)
20:55 <Betelgeuse@> Santa Claus comes on Christmas Eve.
20:56 < dberkholz@> does a 4th person agree with moving the 2nd meeting in nov & dec one week earlier?
20:56 <   Halcy0n@> Yes
20:56 <    Cardoe@> I agree with it.
20:56 <NeddySeago > dertobi123, Oh ... Father Christmas, if you are good and get your bugs closed
20:56 < dberkholz@> ok, good
20:56 <    Cardoe@> I say we address the remaining bugs next meeting.
20:56 < dberkholz@> we're just about out of time, so i just wanted to say i'll take bug #237381 because i've already started working on it
20:56 <dertobi123@> NeddySeagoon: we'll see :)
20:56 < Willikins > https://bugs.gentoo.org/237381 "Document appeals process"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
20:57 <Betelgeuse@> dberkholz: go ahead
20:57 <    Cardoe@> great
20:57 <   Halcy0n@> Cool, thanks
20:57 <dertobi123@> fine :)
20:57 < dberkholz@> that leaves 3 unhandled bugs
20:57 < dberkholz@> good enough for today
20:58 <   Halcy0n@> Sounds good.  Now I have to run to another meeting.
20:59 < dberkholz@> ok, that's it for today