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