20:00 <@slyfox> !proj council
20:00 <+willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
20:00 <@slyfox> The meeting is about to start. Today's agenda: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/5379f1fd18aa2ed75d47fb4989192f6d
20:00 <@dilfridge> hallelujah
20:00 <@slyfox> 1. Roll call
20:00  * leio here
20:00 <@slyfox> !proj council
20:00 <+willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
20:00  * Whissi here
20:01  * ulm here
20:01  * K_F here
20:01  * slyfox here
20:01  * dilfridge here
20:01 <@slyfox> WilliamH: ^ \o/
20:01  * WilliamH here
20:01 <@slyfox> woohoo!
20:01 <@dilfridge> that was fast
20:01 <@slyfox> 2. Proposal to decide on copyright attribution on GLEP 76:
20:01 <@slyfox>     https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/70c47e0bf98f485316e3e744614bef68
20:01 <@slyfox> What do we do about that?
20:02 <@ulm> I propose the following wording for a motion:
20:02 <@ulm> The simplified form of the copyright attribution according to GLEP 76 [1], i.e., "Copyright YEARS Gentoo Authors", SHOULD [2] be used for ebuilds and profile files in the Gentoo repository.
20:02 <@ulm> [1] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0076.html#simplified-attribution
20:02 <@ulm> [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
20:02 <@K_F> personally I don't have any issues with some flexibility in copyright line, they are there defensively , the DCO and license is the important part.. but I'm fine with the SHOULD
20:03 <@slyfox> ulm: that's a glep-76 diff, right? is there a diff to look at?
20:03 <@ulm> no diff, but tree policy
20:03  * WilliamH thinks we need a formal diff
20:03 <@ulm> i.e. that's on top of GLEP 76
20:03 <@K_F> there isn't anything to diff
20:04 <@ulm> and the intention is to strongly recommend using the simplified attribution
20:04 <@ulm> but exceptions would still be possible
20:04 <@WilliamH> like employment contracts?
20:04 <@WilliamH> ulm: ^^
20:04 <@ulm> *sigh*
20:04 <@ulm> yes
20:05 <@slyfox> i'm afraid i didn't follow recent distcussion. where this tree policy be stored?
20:05 <@ulm> in the meeting summary :)
20:06 <@K_F> presumably devmanual should be updated
20:06 <@dilfridge> yes
20:06 <@WilliamH> K_F++
20:06 <@ulm> yeah, devmanual and maybe wiki later
20:06 <@slyfox> devmanual sounds good. Everyone ready to vote?
20:07 <@slyfox> (as in, no followup/clarifying questiona left?)
20:07  * Whissi is ready
20:07 <@K_F> go ahead
20:07 <@WilliamH> one question.
20:08 <@WilliamH> How do we say what the circumstances are when it is ok to useother attributions?
20:08 <@WilliamH> use other
20:09 <@dilfridge> you need to sacrifice a black goat at midnight, burn incense, and just before you black out daniel robbins will appear in avision
20:09 <@WilliamH> dilfridge: heh
20:09 <@WilliamH> or do we even need to say?
20:09 <@Whissi> or just 100% council and 75% foundation approval.
20:09 <@dilfridge> probably not
20:09 <@dilfridge> "use common sense"
20:09 <@ulm> I guess it boils down to "don't ignore the policy unless you're forced to"
20:09 <@slyfox> I think point of contast would be nice to say
20:09 <@K_F> you should be prepared to explain any deviation
20:09 <@dilfridge> what ulm says
20:10 <@WilliamH> that's reasonable.
20:10 <@K_F> other than that I don't think we need anything explicit, it is ultimately a QA matter if complaints
20:10 <@K_F> or, its ultimately a council one, it is firstly a qa...
20:10 <@ulm> yes, ultimately it's tree policy, to appeal to council
20:10 <@slyfox> sounds good
20:11 <@WilliamH> K_F: not really qa for this because it isn't technical...
20:11 <@K_F> yeah, bad phrasing
20:11 <@ulm> unless the foundation has a copyright claim on the ebuild, then it's theirs
20:11 <@K_F> WilliamH: it is QA for tree policy
20:11 <@dilfridge> you need to ask comrel, who will say it's qa matter, and qa, who will say it's comrel matter
20:13 <@slyfox> Allright. Let's vote! The motion (copied ulm's text as-is): "The simplified form of the copyright attribution according to GLEP 76 [1], i.e., "Copyright YEARS Gentoo Authors", SHOULD [2] be used for ebuilds and profile files in the Gentoo repository."
20:13  * slyfox votes yes
20:13  * ulm yes
20:13  * Whissi yes
20:13  * dilfridge yes
20:13  * K_F yes
20:13  * leio yes
20:13 <@slyfox> WilliamH: ^
20:13  * WilliamH is reading
20:14 <@K_F> nitpick, we mention ebuilds and profiles explicitly, I expect that also includes eclasses
20:14 <@K_F> as an extension of ebuilds?
20:14 <@slyfox> yep
20:14  * WilliamH yes with the understanding that employment contracts, etc can pre-empt this
20:14 <@ulm> K_F: nope, omitted intentionally
20:15 <@K_F> ulm: right, since those likely have more elements of copyrightable matieral and fewer maintainers..
20:15 <@slyfox> 7 yes \o/
20:15 <@ulm> many eclasses have explicit author lists even now, so I'd say we can me more lenient there
20:15 <@leio> I note that glep non-simplified form allows for multiple copyrighted work owners in one line, not separate lines, so it's not so bad for length
20:15 <@K_F> thats fair, but nice to have it explicit here in logs and summary
20:15 <@ulm> also code isn't so much copied between eclasses, I think
20:15 <@slyfox> 3. Open bugs with council involvement
20:15 <@slyfox>     https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation
20:16 <@slyfox> 5 bugs
20:16 <@slyfox> 637328 Document GLEP Cha security@gentoo.org IN_P --- GLEP 14 needs to be updated 
20:16 <@Whissi> I am sorry to say but security project is currently dysfunctional (no GLSA last month, we can only keep up with coordinated security releases and critical things at the moment. Not even normal bug wrangling) due to unavailable members. So no progress here :(
20:16 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328
20:16 <@slyfox> Is it an intermediate state or expected to be a prolonged state?
20:16 <@K_F> right, what Whissi said.. sorry, been travelling too much myself to have been too active but will try to pick it up
20:17 <@Whissi> slyfox: To be honest, we need new members.
20:17 <@K_F> slyfox: this part is intermediate, but we do need more manpower
20:17 <@slyfox> *nod*
20:17 <@K_F> to have more backup and rotation
20:18 <@slyfox> perhaps worth having a blog noise to get more attention :)
20:18 <@slyfox> allright. I assume there is a chance of some progress by next month.
20:18 <@slyfox> (for this bug specifically)
20:18 <@slyfox> moving on
20:18 <@slyfox> 642072 Gentoo C unspecif council@gentoo.org IN_P --- [Tracker] Copyright policy 
20:18 <@ulm> that's just a tracker
20:18 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072
20:19 <@WilliamH> phone call
20:19 <@ulm> will be closed as soon as its blockers are closed
20:19 <@slyfox> *nod*
20:19 <@slyfox> nice tracker
20:19 <@slyfox> 653118 Document New GLEP glep@gentoo.org IN_P --- GLEP 76: Copyright Policy 
20:19 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/653118
20:20 <@ulm> we have a council majority there (unanimous) for the latest change
20:20 <@ulm> waiting for trustees
20:20 <@slyfox> *nod*
20:20 <@ulm> 2 out of 5 votes cast
20:20 <@slyfox> 666128 Gentoo C unspecif council@gentoo.org CONF --- Clarify GLEP 39 "majority vote of those who show up" 
20:21 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/666128
20:21 <@ulm> antarus says they'll vote on it in their next meeting (about 653118)
20:21 <@ulm> sorry, another bug of mine :)
20:21 <@slyfox> What do we do about 666128? Vote in the bug?
20:22 <@slyfox> Or it needs some polishing first?
20:23 <@Whissi> Let me ask a question here: If we don't have a quorum during meeting, we cannot vote, right?
20:23 <@ulm> there's no meeting without a quorum
20:23 <@ulm> and new elections
20:23 <@K_F> its more defined than that, it is immediate reelection if more than half fail
20:23 <@Whissi> That's my understanding.
20:24 <@Whissi> So I am not sure what needs clarification here.
20:24 <@K_F> so yes, I read the rest as a simple majority, ignoring abstains /non-voters
20:24 <@K_F> Whissi: agreed
20:24 <@slyfox> Whissi: the question is what if most people abstain from voting
20:24 <@ulm> I would move that council decisions are by majority vote of those members (or proxies) that show up
20:25 <@slyfox> like, '1:yes, 6 abstain' is it a legit vote?
20:25 <@K_F> yes
20:25 <@dilfridge> example: all 7 council members are present. 1 no, 2 yes, 4 abstain. accepted or not?
20:25 <@ulm> "more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions" is the Robert's Rules definition
20:25 <@K_F> dilfridge: accepted
20:25 <@Whissi> Number of people voting doesn't affect quorum. So if we have a quorum but only one person will vote... this person can pass motions.
20:25 <@ulm> yep
20:25 <@dilfridge> K_F: yes, that is how it was handled in the past, and how I would like to keep it
20:26 <@K_F> that is standard voting rules, if you want to say no you have to vote it
20:26 <@ulm> if 1 member cares and 6 don't care, then the vote will pass
20:26 <@Whissi> ACK.
20:27 <@ulm> the other could have voted no if they don't want it to pass
20:27 <@ulm> *others
20:27 <@leio> the main open question for me was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority#%22Majority_of_the_members_present%22
20:27 <@leio> because glep wording kind of suggests "member present"
20:27 <@K_F> leio: I read that to be explicit it doesn't have to be majority of council
20:28 <@leio> that practice means "In any situation which specifies such a requirement for a vote, an abstention would have the same effect as a "no" vote"
20:28 <@K_F> so if we are 5 members instead of 7 due to absenses, 3 votes is anough for yes (presuming 2 no)
20:28 <@ulm> leio: the subtle difference is between "majority *vote* of those who show up" and "majority of those who show up"
20:28 <@ulm> GLEP 39 wording is the former
20:28 <@leio> (and that's also Robert's Rules)
20:29 <@K_F> abstain != no
20:29 <@slyfox> would be nice to clarify GLEP wording for layman like me so i would know how to count :)
20:29 <@ulm> that's what we are trying to do?
20:31 <@leio> ulm: yes, sure, that's the different, but I'm saying that "of those who show up" could be taken as such a qualification that means "Majority of the members present" rules.
20:31 <@leio> difference*
20:32 <@ulm> leio: I think that's unlikely, in g2boojum's mail the wording was "Those who show up get to vote."
20:33 <@K_F> yes, I read it to try to be explicit that a full council majority is not needed across all members
20:33 <@Whissi> A motion only passes if it has MORE YES than NO votes. But we don't need x% in total votes.
20:33 <@K_F> exactly
20:34 <@leio> ok, so  1) the point is that the glep, under which we exist, reads like it does, and my english understanding clearly tells me it's "majority of the members present", so if you are invoking Robert's Rules here, then abstain = no for counting; 2) I am not eager to change the status quo here, but to clarify it; however I do think for some kind of topic voting we should have an overall majority rule.
20:35 <@leio> councils existence isn't codified in a mail by g2boojum
20:35 <@Whissi> Ah, now I got at least leio's point.
20:35 <@K_F> the glep says "Council decisions are by majority vote of those who show up (or their proxies)."
20:35 <@K_F> it doesn't say it requires a full majority of those who shows up
20:36 <@ulm> the wording is "majority vote of those who show up"
20:36 <@K_F> abstain is excluded in regular majority vote
20:36 <@leio> those who show up = "members present"
20:36 <@ulm> yeah, majority vote of the members that are present
20:36 <@K_F> its still a majority vote amongst members, not vote needing to have majority
20:36 <@leio> I got "Robert's Rules" as justification why that means abstain = excluded, but "Robert's Rules" says abstain = no in this case.
20:36 <@Whissi> If we would require x% total votes, abstain would be like an active NO.
20:36 <@K_F> leio: I don't agree it does
20:37 <@K_F> a member can abstain in a majority vote
20:37 <@ulm> leio: the case is "majority vote" though
20:37 <@leio> The
20:37 <@leio> err, keyboard acting up
20:37 <@leio> need to change batteries
20:38 <@slyfox> technology is amazing :)
20:39 <@leio> ulm: "majority vote" as opposed to "Majority of the members present"?
20:40 <@ulm> I just think it's paradoxical that a council with 5 members present can accept a motion with 3 yes 2 no, but the full council could not with 3 yes 2 no 2 abstentions
20:40 <@ulm> unless the 2 members leave the meeting before the vote
20:41 <@K_F> yes, that isn't common voting counting
20:41 <@ulm> IMHO it would be a strange and unusual rule
20:41  * WilliamH back after call
20:41 <@slyfox> \o/
20:41 <@leio> ulm: well, you brought up Robert's Rules
20:42 <@ulm> leio: yes, and the wording is "majority vote"
20:42 <@leio> and "majority vote of those who show up" is "Majority of the members present" in different wording; if that doesn't apply per his book specifically if it's not the EXACT wording, then sure, but all I'm hearing is "this is how we've always done it" and "no, it's a majority vote" despite the glep saying something else.
20:42 <@ulm> leio: no it isn't
20:43 <@ulm> it is "majority *vote* of the members present" and that's different
20:43 <@K_F> yup
20:44 <@ulm> *shrug* we could leave it undefined, the case doesn't seem to occur very often anyway
20:44 <@leio> ok, either way we've spent enouggh meeting time onthiis
20:44 <@leio> alsso iit wasnn't the batteries
20:45 <@K_F> ulm: I prefer to just settle it once and for all, but I agree with the interprentation as outlined, its not a majority of those present, but a majority vote amongst those present
20:45 <@K_F> and abstain != no
20:45 <@K_F> so you can have a majority of the vote without a majority of members present
20:46 <@slyfox> So when do settle it down? Now or later?
20:46 <@slyfox> It it to happen now please propose clear wording and we'll vote on it.
20:46 <@ulm> I propose to adopt it now, as a "standing rule" (another Robert's Rules term :)
20:46 <@leio> I don't see how we vote on this anyways, it's the glep that makes us exist at all
20:47 <@K_F> right, and the glep says "majority vote of those who show up (or their proxies")
20:47 <@K_F> a majority vote allows for abstainations
20:47 <@ulm> "Council decisions are by more than half of the votes cast by the members (or their proxies) showing up at a meeting, excluding blanks or abstentions."
20:48 <@ulm> ?
20:48 <@WilliamH> abstain = "don't count me, I'm not voting."
20:48 <@slyfox> sounds good
20:48 <@slyfox> Let's vote!
20:48  * slyfox yes
20:48  * ulm yes
20:48  * K_F yes
20:48  * leio yes
20:48  * Whissi yes
20:49  * WilliamH yes
20:49 <@dilfridge> huh?
20:49  * dilfridge yes
20:49 <@slyfox> \o/ unanimous
20:49 <@ulm> in any case, accepted by both possible prior interpretations of the wording :)
20:49 <@Whissi> BTW: What's the half of votes when only one person will vote and rest will abstain?
20:49 <@dilfridge> one is more than half
20:50 <@K_F> Whissi: that is 100% yes then
20:50 <@slyfox> half = 0
20:50 <@Whissi> OK.
20:50 <@K_F> Whissi: since abstains are excluded
20:50 <@leio> I consider this vote as something of an assertion that this is how the current council understands the wording of the glep, not that we affect the glep
20:50 <@slyfox> correct
20:50 <@K_F> leio: correct
20:50 <@WilliamH> leio++
20:50 <@ulm> yeah, "standing rule"
20:50 <@slyfox> Moving on
20:50 <@slyfox> 667602 Gentoo I Other infra-bugs@gentoo.org CONF --- please allow a transitional period for sign-off-by lines in commits 
20:50 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/667602
20:51 <@WilliamH> I want to keep that open until we hear back from legal.
20:51 <@WilliamH> That's also at the request of my lead.
20:51 <@ulm> only 2 trustees have voted in -nfp
20:52 <@WilliamH> That's true too.
20:52 <@Whissi> Is this still a thing given that foundation missed the quorum/deadline?
20:52 <@slyfox> What do we do about it today? Just an FYI?
20:52 <@ulm> antarus had called for a 7 days timeout in https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/2fd105484069ccd0f05271da5a622067
20:52 <@WilliamH> slyfox: probably so for now.
20:52 <@slyfox> *nod*
20:52 <@ulm> slyfox: no council action for now
20:52 <@slyfox> sounds good
20:53 <@slyfox> 4. Open floor
20:53 <@K_F> but no action means it is still actively enforced, right?
20:53 <+promehteanfire> K_F: afaik, yes
20:53 <@slyfox> yup
20:53 <@slyfox> cat pics time \o/
20:54 <+promehteanfire> https://i.imgur.com/rxktaGg.jpg
20:54 <@Whissi> No pic, but a video! https://twitter.com/i/status/1050225668187987970 ;)
20:54 <@slyfox> :)
20:55  * slyfox starts 2 minute countdown
20:55 <@K_F> fosdem stand proposal is made, scheduled announcement for acceptance is 11th november
20:55 <@K_F> just FYI..
20:56 <@ulm> K_F++
20:59 <@slyfox> -ETIMEDOUT
20:59 <@slyfox> I hereby the meeting concluded. Thanks all!