20:00 <@slyfox> !proj council
20:00 <+willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
20:00 <@slyfox> Meeting time!
20:00  * dilfridge here
20:00  * WilliamH here
20:00  * leio here
20:00  * Whissi here
20:00  * ulm here
20:01 <@slyfox> Today's agenda: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/dde9d858d8fdb825ca932b484d1e691d
20:01 <@dilfridge> anyone got an agenda link?
20:01 <@K_F> the actual roll call hasn't been called for yet.. but
20:01 <@dilfridge> o/
20:01 <@slyfox> 1. Roll call (5/7 done)
20:01  * K_F here
20:01  * slyfox here
20:01  * ulm still here
20:01 <@slyfox> \o/ Next item
20:01 <@slyfox> 2. Proposal to accept GLEP 76 "Copyright Policy"
20:01 <@slyfox>     https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/733d402088fe09685660363450a04692
20:02 <@ulm> up-to-date version is at https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0076.html
20:02 <@slyfox> ulm: would you like to provide 2-3 sentences as a summary? Like, what will change in developer's workflow
20:03 <@ulm> main changes are:
20:03 <@ulm> copyright line will change from "Gentoo Foundation" to "Gentoo Authors"
20:03 <@ulm> (or explicit list of authors)
20:03 <@ulm> all commits will be required to have a Signed-off-by line
20:04 <@WilliamH> ulm: if we allow specific authors,  repoman can't check that.
20:04 <@ulm> certifying their origin, and that they're free software (or a license file)
20:04 <@slyfox> *nod*
20:04 <@ulm> WilliamH: most likely we won't for the gentoo repo
20:04 <@dilfridge> WilliamH: gentoo repo should use generic "Gentoo Authors"
20:04 <@ulm> but I think for project repos we should allow it
20:05 <@dilfridge> which can be enforced sufficiently by repoman
20:05 <@WilliamH> ulm: Does that imply that if something is moved to the Gentoo repo from an overlay we change the copyright line?
20:05 <@ulm> it's close to impossible to trace actual authorship for ebuilds in the gentoo repo
20:05 <@Whissi> Do authors listed in the file need to be registered somewhere or only listed?
20:06 <@ulm> they're listed in the git log
20:06 <@K_F> Whissi: the git repo itself should document it
20:06 <@ulm> or in the commit message
20:06 <@dilfridge> WilliamH: if you move something from main tree to overlay, you usually indicate so in the commit message... so it can in principle be traced without additional info in the copyright header
20:06 <@K_F> but yeah.. if someone copies an ebuild from somewhere else they need to document the copyright in accordance with the other items anyways
20:06 <@ulm> WilliamH: the problem doesn't arise if we require "Gentoo Authors" for ebuild repos
20:07 <@WilliamH> dilfridge: I'm talking about the other way, e.g. moving from an external overlay to our tree.
20:07 <@dilfridge> then you should already now indicate where you got it from!
20:07 <@WilliamH> dilfridge: True.
20:07 <@ulm> WilliamH: no big change to what we have now, it must be foundation copyright if it's in the main tree
20:08 <@slyfox> will there ibe a Gread Sed minute in main tree? How would transition look like?
20:08 <@dilfridge> err?
20:08 <@dilfridge> slyfox: no sudden changes
20:08 <@slyfox> nice
20:08 <@slyfox> ::haskell overlay has a few thousands ebuilds generated by a tool (not modified manually). what should be it's copyright? :)
20:08 <@dilfridge> only gradual
20:08 <@dilfridge> non copyrightable?
20:08 <@dilfridge> since autogenerated?
20:08 <@leio> but repoman requires a copyright header ;)
20:08 <@slyfox> No header then?
20:09 <@slyfox> glep-0076 asks for GPL-2+ :)
20:10 <@ulm> slyfox: CC0 or CC-PDM is fine too
20:10 <@slyfox> ok. i'll ned a few examples later to sort it out :)
20:10 <@dilfridge> ulm: I thought the idea was to get rid of foundation copyright... also, wouldnt the initial commit, indicating the source of the ebuild, include the original source as "Gentoo Author"?
20:11 <@K_F> dilfridge: foundation header should dissapear over time as new ebuilds are added
20:11 <@ulm> dilfridge: not sure if I understand your question
20:11 <@dilfridge> it's not about attribution
20:11 <@K_F> the foundation header today is false assertion in many cases
20:11 <@dilfridge> ulm: williamh asked what happens to ebuilds with existing, possibly different copyright headers (which are gpl-2 though)
20:11 <@dilfridge> say, wltjr's overlay :P
20:12 <@ulm> in principle, copyright law doesn't require any copyright line
20:12 <@WilliamH> ulm: correct.
20:12 <@ulm> it only there to protect us against the defense that someone didn't know that it's copyrighted
20:12 <@dilfridge> my working hypothesis is "by mentioning the original source in the commit log, it's properly attributed and logically included in 'Gentoo Authors'"
20:13 <@WilliamH> sounds reasonable to me.
20:13 <@ulm> so there has to be *some* line, but it doesn't matter too much what is there
20:13 <@slyfox> sounds good
20:13 <@ulm> at least that's what I've been told by a lawyer
20:13 <@slyfox> if no major uncertainties left, voting time?
20:13 <@ulm> dilfridge: something like that, yes
20:14 <@dilfridge> wfm
20:14 <@Whissi> Short question regarding license files.
20:14 <@slyfox> go ahead
20:14 <@Whissi> Is there any problem with current /usr/portage/licenses folder or is there a problem in future when we add new licenses?
20:14 <@dilfridge> no current problem (that I know of)
20:15 <@K_F> Whissi: you can't use the kernel DCO for it, its not a problem with Gentoo one
20:15 <@ulm> Whissi: possible, but that's a problem separate from the copyright policy GLEP
20:15 <@leio> so we boot pseudonym devs?
20:15 <@dilfridge> the dco question is about adding (and modifying, but that's not important here) licenses
20:15 <@leio> (I mean, they won't be able to commit; the GLEP reads the real name requirement is for committer, not author)
20:16 <@ulm> leio: it's in the rationale why anonymous contributions are not a great idea
20:17 <@dilfridge> well, the practical question here is mainly "did we check passports in the past".
20:17 <@Whissi> Do we have a number of affected people with commit flag?
20:17 <@leio> yes, albeit they happen to not be very active right now
20:18 <@dilfridge> we may have to refuse commits from a dev with realname "Biggus Dickus" though.
20:18 <@leio> and I don't understand the difference here from non-committing author
20:18 <@ulm> also, none of them has spoken up during discussion
20:18 <@dilfridge> and it was an elaborate discussion.
20:18 <@K_F> leio: the difference is, in particular where we use a patch from other source, even if we can verify it is published under license, we can't really request a real ID check
20:19 <@K_F> however we can do that for gentoo developers (the commiter)
20:19 <@dilfridge> so the person who pushes it into the gentoo repo needs to be able to legally certify (which results in the real name requirement).
20:20 <@dilfridge> (side note, we need to update the recruitment docs then.)
20:20 <@ulm> I think it all boils down to the fact that we undertake a reasonable effort to require real identities
20:21 <@Whissi> I see only one listed in https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/developers/ so I think that this isn't a real show stopper for that GLEP.
20:21 <@ulm> Whissi: one with commit access
20:21 <@ulm> and another obvious name from a manga (without commit access though)
20:21 <@Whissi> If NP cannot find a proxy and wants to remain anonym... sad but that's acceptable.
20:23 <@ulm> the DC comics name has been resolved in some magic way
20:23 <@dilfridge> yes and I've seen the ID there.
20:23 <@slyfox> *nod*. Ready to vote on?
20:23 <@Whissi> Last question on this:
20:24 <@Whissi> If we get a commit like https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/9790.patch ... imagine it would have a Sign-Off line... we would have to react or add our own line because this is obiously violating realname rule, right?
20:24 <@Whissi> s/react/reject/
20:24 <@Whissi> :>
20:25 <@leio> we would be adding our own name regardless, if we are to push it
20:25 <@dilfridge> ^this
20:25 <@slyfox> namely, 'git am -s' appends your signoff
20:25 <@ulm> right, the committer would add his own S-o-b line
20:25 <@Whissi> We will ever add our own sign-off even for user contribution?
20:26 <@dilfridge> you need to add the dev gpg signature anyway
20:26 <@Whissi> s/ever/always/ :>
20:26 <@dilfridge> yes
20:26 <@K_F> Whissi: yes, you will add own S-o-b for that, likely chaining to the user contributed S-o-b line
20:27 <@Whissi> Huh. Even if I cannot say for sure that the origin of that contribution was correct?
20:27 <@ulm> Whissi: indeed you should ask them if it's their real name
20:27 <@dilfridge> it boils down to "reasonable diligence"
20:28 <@ulm> the whole point of this effort is to ensure that we don't commit randon stuff found in the internet :)
20:28 <@ulm> *random
20:28 <@WilliamH> ulm: so, if the user has a s-o-b, that line should have their real name.
20:28 <@Whissi> I thought we would require sign-off for contribution... but how should someone sign-off something from a person he/she don't know? "Yeah, I created that patch..." ="OK, I'll trust you *sign-off*"?
20:28 <@dilfridge> KITTENS!
20:28 <@ulm> Whissi: see above, reasonable diligence
20:28 <@dilfridge> (sorry was thinking about random stuffon the internet...)
20:29 <@Whissi> Mh, ok.
20:29 <@Whissi> So it doesn't matter that the shown contribution via GitHub is coming from a dog... because in the end it will be my sign-off line
20:30 <@ulm> if you can vouch for its origin it is fine
20:30 <@Whissi> heh, I am not sure if all devs doing proxy main stuff are aware of that. But OK, I am ready to vote.
20:31 <@slyfox> \o/
20:31 <@slyfox> Allright, voting time! Proposal to accept GLEP 76 "Copyright Policy" as stated in https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0076.html
20:31 <@dilfridge> this is in the end no different from what you do now somewhat implicitly
20:31 <@ulm> note that it will need a trustees vote too for final acceptance
20:31  * slyfox yes
20:31  * dilfridge yes
20:31  * ulm yes
20:31  * K_F yes
20:31  * Whissi yes
20:32  * leio yes
20:32 <@slyfox> WilliamH: ^
20:32 <@dilfridge> ulm: and a repoman release
20:32  * WilliamH yes
20:32 <@slyfox> woohoo! 7 of 7
20:32 <@WilliamH> It doesn't go into affect until Trustee approval right?
20:32 <@ulm> dilfridge: for Final status, yes
20:32 <@ulm> WilliamH: yep
20:33 <@slyfox> Moving on to next topic
20:33 <@slyfox> 3. Open bugs with council involvement
20:33 <@slyfox>     https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation
20:33 <@slyfox> 3 bugs:
20:33 <@slyfox> 637328 Document GLEP Cha security@gentoo.org IN_P --- GLEP 14 needs to be updated 
20:33 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328
20:34 <@K_F> yeah.. its progressing, we have an almost final version circulating internally
20:34 <@Whissi> Security project is reaching final status... hopefully next meeting we will vote.
20:34 <@slyfox> Sounds good!
20:34 <@leio> next security meeting?
20:34 <@Whissi> Security meeting, yes
20:34 <@leio> or council or both
20:35 <@slyfox> 642072 Gentoo C unspecif council@gentoo.org CONF --- Joint venture to deal with copyright issues 
20:35 <@K_F> leio: hopefully both :)
20:35 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072
20:35 <@leio> if ready, please put it on the agenda explicitly
20:35 <@K_F> leio: the security meeting are montly, normally ahead of the council one
20:35 <@leio> (meaning at least a week before meeting)
20:36 <@slyfox> 'copyright issues' is straightforward. part of it being sorted out right here. Moving on to last item.
20:36 <@slyfox> 663466 Gentoo C unspecif council@gentoo.org CONF --- Please review the latest Code of Conduct changes 
20:36 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/663466
20:36 <@slyfox> As I understand the request is to approve https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&diff=727730&oldid=723544 change
20:36 <@slyfox> but it has a bit of discussion in the bug after wards
20:37 <@K_F> the bug is still under discussion
20:37 <@dilfridge> well
20:37 <@slyfox> Not sure it's ready to be reviewed as-is.
20:37 <@dilfridge> this needs to be approved for anything to move forward at all
20:37 <@Whissi> zlogene said today he is awaiting a vote.
20:37 <@dilfridge> (regarding proctors)
20:37 <@slyfox> this meaning the diff, right?
20:37 <@K_F> dilfridge: setting out the proper scope of the proctors sounds like something good to begin with though
20:37 <@dilfridge> yes
20:38 <@Whissi> https://bugs.gentoo.org/665538#c3
20:38 <@dilfridge> and to be honest I've put this all before the council at least twice on the alias before
20:38 <@leio> I've asked zlogene to join channel
20:38 -!- zlogene [~zlogene@gentoo/developer/zlogene] has joined #gentoo-council
20:38 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v zlogene] by ChanServ
20:38 <@dilfridge> (even back at a time when rich0 was still on the council, I think)
20:39 <@dilfridge> some feedback got integrated, but most of it came from jmbsvicetto I think
20:39 <@slyfox> zlogene: is https://bugs.gentoo.org/663466 diff change ready for review as-is and needs no followups?
20:39 <@dilfridge> so it's one of these "we never bothered to read it, but let's wait for some more discussion" things
20:39 <@K_F> Whissi: yes, that comment seems odd, that seems outside of proctor's scope to begin with
20:39 <@K_F> as it isn't a CoC violation
20:40 <@K_F> but if the current lead of comrel thinks it is within scope, we better make sure it is properly scoped in policy
20:41 <+zlogene> slyfox: the only thing I would change is some wording (see #c6), the rest looks ok as it changes literally nothing but points to proctors rather than comrel
20:41 <@dilfridge> my intention was to keep the scope and the abilities of the proctors rather narrow, and let comrel keep all the things that go beyond it
20:42 <+zlogene> dilfridge: ++
20:43 <@Whissi> Where can I find information about who is a proctor and how to become a proctor?
20:44 <@dilfridge> ok so the vote would be on
20:44 <@dilfridge> * https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&diff=727730&oldid=723544
20:44 <@dilfridge> * plus the changes from bug 663466 comment 6
20:44 <+willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/663466#c6 "Please review the latest Code of Conduct changes"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; zlogene:council
20:44 <@dilfridge> Whissi: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proctors
20:44 <@ulm> dilfridge: that page should stay in [[Category:Council]] though
20:45 <@ulm> otherwise wfm
20:45 <@dilfridge> the selection of the initial team was done together by comrel and council during the end of the last council term
20:45  * WilliamH would rather see the CoC as a markdown document under council instead of on the wiki.
20:46 <@dilfridge> true... but that's a technicality
20:46 <@slyfox> yeah, the diff is not ideal but reasonaby small to reason about
20:46 <@slyfox> Motion: pease approve changes of https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&diff=727730&oldid=723544 and https://bugs.gentoo.org/663466#c6 to code of conduct.
20:46  * dilfridge yes (I wrote it)
20:46  * K_F no (I don't believe it is ready in its current state)
20:46 <@ulm> sorry, what are these #c6 changes exactly?
20:46  * leio abstain
20:47 <@ulm> does this replace the whole paragraph, or only part of it?
20:47 <@ulm> can someone provide a consolidated diff, please?
20:47 <@WilliamH> ulm++
20:47 <+zlogene> ulm: only part which may seem like proctors can revoke the access like comrel may
20:48 <@Whissi> I do not yet understand the demarcation(?) between ComRel and Proctors
20:48 <@slyfox> zlogene/dilfridge: can you do a diff in a few minutes or should we postpone for a next meeting or do it over council@ email?
20:48 <@dilfridge> the easiest way to do the diff is to make the change on the wiki... ok? :D
20:48 <@ulm> zlogene: so it replaces the first two sentences of that paragraph?
20:48 -!- toralf [~toralf@gentoo/developer/toralf] has joined #gentoo-council
20:48 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v toralf] by ChanServ
20:48 <@K_F> Whissi: proctors is a "swift response team" with delegation from comrel
20:48 <@ulm> "Proctors may attempt ... developer privileges.
20:48 <@dilfridge> Whissi: "swift response team with limited authority"
20:49 <+zlogene> ulm: right
20:49 <@ulm> k
20:49 <@ulm> so this will take away comrel's ability to suspend dev privileges?
20:50 <@K_F> but the comment on bug referenced above makes me believe we need to be more precise on scope of proctors' authority
20:50 <@Whissi> OK, and ComRel asked for such a team because of...?
20:50 <@dilfridge> Whissi: can precisely and only do what is outlined on the Project:Proctors page.
20:50 <@dilfridge> Whissi: because comrel members are often people who have been around for a long time and are not so often quickly reachable anymore,
20:50 <@K_F> Whissi: mainly the ML discussions recently.. although proctors is a historic concept that have existed in the past
20:51 <@dilfridge> Whissi: and because code of conduct enforcement *never was* comrel responsibility until recently (historical accident)
20:51 <@Whissi> dilfridge: Ah, proctors should be only really active people?
20:51 <@dilfridge> yes, people active on irc / lists / ...
20:51 <@Whissi> I understand, thanks.
20:52 <@leio> i don't think the intention is to take away comrel ability to suspend privileges, rather extend it to proctors for its limited scope
20:52 <@dilfridge> yes
20:52 <@dilfridge> ^ this
20:52 <@K_F> leio: correct
20:53 <@dilfridge> it's comrel outsourcing part of its (current) job
20:53 <@slyfox> So, what do we do to bring everyone on the same page? Would it be reasonable to apply more wordsmithing before revieweing, or is everyone comfortabe procceding with a vote above, or something else?
20:54 <@K_F> I can likely vote yes if we make it part of the vote that proctors is for CoC enforcement only
20:55 <@K_F> I really didn't like it being brought up in QA case
20:55 <@dilfridge> proctors and qa makes no sense, what did I miss there?
20:55 <@K_F> https://bugs.gentoo.org/665538#c3
20:56 <@leio> zlogene asserted some -Werror bugzilla bug closing/reopening would be under proctors handling
20:56 <@leio> I will abstain vote anyways, but I think some proper wording diff should be made, but the whole thing not delayed for a month
20:57 <@ulm> leio: the issue is entirely about closing a bug several times after qa had reopened it
20:57 <@dilfridge> that sounds more like a qa issue. (while theoretically comrel could step in in case of a revert war.) both isnt really CoC.
20:58 <@ulm> leio: otherwise this wouldn't have been a problem at all
20:58 <@leio> I don't agree with that assertion either, I was just explaining what it was about as someone asked.
20:58 <+zlogene> leio: well, I started from the point where mgorny assigned the bug to proctors@ and then alonbl cced comrel, clearly nothing to do there for comrel, may be qa+proctors chain, but not comrel
20:58 <@K_F> zlogene: no, it would be comrel
20:58 <@K_F> proctors has nothing to do with that
20:58 <+mgorny> technically, glep requires qa to apply disciplinary actions via comrel
20:59 <@dilfridge> sigh, that is another discussion.
20:59 <+mgorny> though in this case the problem was the developer's disrespectful behavior on the bug and not the qa issue itself
21:00 <@WilliamH> QA used to be able to go straight to infra and have access blocked if a dev kept breaking things.
21:00 <@dilfridge> yes, and that is perfectly fine.
21:00 <@dilfridge> (qa lead)
21:00 <+mgorny> WilliamH: a lot of things in gentoo used to have happened just because nobody bothered to read the policies
21:00 <@WilliamH> dilfridge: right.
21:01 <@WilliamH> mgorny: No, that was the policy originally. someone changed it.
21:01  * zlogene agrees with WilliamH, if the team decides a violation, any other appeal bodies are just irrelevant
21:01 <@leio> but this is not relevant to the topic, other than perhaps about proctors scope
21:01 <@WilliamH> mgorny: The qa lead could directly request that infra block someone's access if they kept breaking things.
21:01 <@leio> which it does demonstrate to be fuzzy, as the CoC is fuzzy
21:01 <@dilfridge> mgorny: the current state (regarding qa / comrel interplay) exists because there was a council discussion and decision, but someone failed at writing the summary.
21:02 <@WilliamH> leio: the CoC is pretty bad, in a lot of ways. There are better ones out there.
21:02 <+mgorny> WilliamH: it's already like this in original glep48 from 2006
21:02 <@dilfridge> mgorny: I need to dig this out and collect some info on it (me waves to scarabeus)
21:02 <+mgorny> (except it originally listed 'devrel')
21:03 <@slyfox> Allright. Let's finish the voting (it's ok to explicitly state its not ready). We need an answer from: slyfox ulm WilliamH Whissi 
21:03  * slyfox yes
21:03 <@WilliamH> mgorny: There was a diff back in the day that took that out which was never posted anywhere.
21:03 <@Whissi> If this is about the wiki diff then:
21:03  * Whissi yes
21:04 <@slyfox> it is two: https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project:Council/Code_of_conduct&diff=727730&oldid=723544 and https://bugs.gentoo.org/663466#c6
21:04  * WilliamH abstains due to not having a consolidated diff to be able to read
21:05  * ulm abstain
21:05  * slyfox counts
21:05 <@ulm> (no diff, no proper agenda item)
21:06  * WilliamH no because of no clear record of what the changes are
21:07 <@dilfridge> wait
21:08 <@slyfox> 2 : no, 3: yes, 2: abstain. Given the confusion zlogene/dilfridge please prepare clear diff for next meeting or coordinate via council@ alias. Sounds reasonable?
21:08 <@dilfridge> we can use my draft page which should have all the changes
21:08 <@ulm> slyfox: technically, the motion has passed (with 3:2)
21:08 <@leio> Can we please handle this within a week via council alias+bugzilla and voting on the bug or something?
21:08 <@K_F> lets take it next meeting, or in bug vote in between if things gets ready
21:08 <@dilfridge> bug please, waiting another month is stupid
21:09 <@Whissi> Bug is OK for me.
21:09 <+zlogene> lets just make an alias business then, poor dilfridge tries to accomplish it for a year already
21:09 <@leio> I wasn't aware we are doing majority, not qualified majority
21:09 <+zlogene> (sincle last august?)
21:10 <@WilliamH> leio: that's the problem with abstaining, it lowers the count for the majority. ;-)
21:10 <@WilliamH> That's why I switched to no.
21:11 <@leio> right, glep 39 does talk about simple majority of who shows up, but doesn't assert abstention means as if didn't show up
21:11 < veremitz> abstention is a vote .. I believe. Of sorts.
21:12 <@ulm> I can switch to yes, if that will simplify things (assuming the text won't change) :)
21:12 <@WilliamH> veremitz: No, it means "count me out, neither yes nor no".
21:12  * ulm yes
21:12 < veremitz> mkay
21:12 < veremitz> counts for quorum though. Or should.
21:12 <@slyfox> Allright, ulm: 2 : no, 4: yes, 1: abstain. Passed.
21:12 <@slyfox> Worst decision making ever.
21:12 <@ulm> sorry :)
21:12 <@dilfridge> not by far
21:12 <@slyfox> 4. Open floor
21:14  * slyfox sets a 5 minute timeout to declare victory.
21:15 < veremitz> "majority of who shows up" surely means >50% of present vote either yes or no.. ?
21:15 < veremitz> its semantics anyhow.
21:15  * veremitz shups
21:15 <@dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=User%3ADilfridge%2FCoC&type=revision&diff=732428&oldid=633448
21:15 <@ulm> an abstention is like not voting, so it's not taken into account
21:16 <@dilfridge> ^ this should be the precise changes
21:16 <@leio> ulm: I don't see any backing to that in glep.
21:16 <@ulm> leio: "simple majority"
21:16 <@dilfridge> (unless zlogene has added anything else to my draft)
21:16 <@leio> it doesn't say "simple", could be "qualified" ;p
21:17 <+zlogene> dilfridge: I have not
21:17 <@ulm> leio: there also is precedent that we've handled it as simple majority
21:17 <@leio> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge/CoC being the final version after diff?
21:18 <@ulm> I would have to dig it out, though
21:18 <@dilfridge> yes
21:19 <@leio> and why did we have impressions to some of comrel giving up any disciplinary power?
21:19 < veremitz> A simple majority is a vote taken by an organization where at least 51% of the members must vote yes to approve a bill before it is accepted. [0] - https://study.com/academy/lesson/simple-majority-definition-system-rule.html
21:19 < veremitz> fwiw. *poof*
21:21 <@dilfridge> sigh, there have been many motions in the past that were passed with yes>no
21:21 <@dilfridge> can we please NOT derail this now?
21:21 <@dilfridge> I'm making the motion that we vote on this precise change:
21:21 <@leio> we had 4 yes now in this case already, no? ;p
21:21 <@dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=User%3ADilfridge%2FCoC&type=revision&diff=732428&oldid=633448
21:22 <@dilfridge> yes, true, it's pointless now.
21:22 <@dilfridge> may I kick veremitz?
21:22 <@K_F> dilfridge: why?
21:22 <@ulm> veremitz: "Most motions require a majority of those present and voting to pass. ... Abstentions are not counted and have no effect on the result." - Robert's Rules of Order
21:22 <@dilfridge> because it would be fun?
21:23 <@slyfox> not for him perhaps
21:24 <+zlogene> only for the whole audience ;)
21:24 <@WilliamH> ;-)
21:25  * K_F doesn't even find it funny, it is unprofessional and we should try to be better than that
21:25 <@dilfridge> right. back to serious business.
21:25 <@dilfridge> motion accepted.
21:25 <@ulm> dilfridge: please keep the [[Category:Council]] though
21:26 <@Whissi> slyfox: 5min timer reached. Meeting closed?
21:26 <@WilliamH> ulm++
21:26 <@dilfridge> yeah
21:26 <@slyfox> Whissi: yup
21:26 <@slyfox> I hereby declare meeting finished! Thanks all!