[2024-03-10T19:00:03+0000] <@sam_> !proj council
[2024-03-10T19:00:03+0000] <willikins> sam_: (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
[2024-03-10T19:00:05+0000] <@sam_> hello!
[2024-03-10T19:00:10+0000] <@sam_> arthurzam: ^
[2024-03-10T19:00:19+0000] • arthurzam: here
[2024-03-10T19:00:24+0000] • mattst88: here
[2024-03-10T19:00:27+0000] <@sam_> dilfridge has informed us he's got some chaos going on at the conference so he may not be here immediately but hopes to join us later / intermittently at least
[2024-03-10T19:00:29+0000] • ajak: here
[2024-03-10T19:00:31+0000] • ulm: here
[2024-03-10T19:00:33+0000] • sam_: here
[2024-03-10T19:00:35+0000] • mgorny: here
[2024-03-10T19:00:48+0000] <@sam_> excellent
[2024-03-10T19:00:50+0000] <+robbat2> (here, per sam's request; not valid to the quorum)
[2024-03-10T19:00:54+0000] <+arthurzam> Oh, just for paper trail, I'm proxy for soap
[2024-03-10T19:01:13+0000] <@sam_> agenda: https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=170951152305279&w=2
[2024-03-10T19:01:28+0000] <@sam_> we do have an additional last-minute item which we'll squeeze in before open floor, for some infra expenditure
[2024-03-10T19:01:37+0000] <@sam_> but for now:
[2024-03-10T19:01:48+0000] <@sam_> 2. Foundation dissolution status update (following vote in bug 925736)
[2024-03-10T19:01:49+0000] <willikins> sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/925736 "Vote: Gentoo Linux applies to become an SPI associated project"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; dilfridge:council
[2024-03-10T19:01:57+0000] <@sam_> dilfridge, ulm: what's the current status?
[2024-03-10T19:02:24+0000] <@ulm> we've sent the letter to the SPI and they will discuss us in their March meeting
[2024-03-10T19:02:24+0000] <@mgorny> SPI should be meeting tomorrow
[2024-03-10T19:02:41+0000] <@sam_> i'm glad we made it for the March meeting
[2024-03-10T19:02:45+0000] <@mattst88> and for note, the Council voted (7-0) and the Trustees voted (5-0)
[2024-03-10T19:02:49+0000] <@sam_> I also notice one of the SPI people appeared on our CC list in the bug
[2024-03-10T19:03:02+0000] <@ulm> right, SPI meeting is tomorrow at 20:00 UTC
[2024-03-10T19:03:12+0000] <@ulm> in #spi on OFTC
[2024-03-10T19:03:13+0000] <@sam_> is it on IRC and publicly availabl-
[2024-03-10T19:03:16+0000] <@sam_> great
[2024-03-10T19:03:22+0000] <@mattst88> ah, great
[2024-03-10T19:03:23+0000] <@ajak> \o/
[2024-03-10T19:03:35+0000] <@mattst88> is that when/where they would approve our joining?
[2024-03-10T19:03:47+0000] <@mgorny> probably
[2024-03-10T19:04:04+0000] <@sam_> I've just joined over there in advance to observe; I recommend others do too 
[2024-03-10T19:04:05+0000] <@mgorny> i think it'd be good if ulm and robbat2 were around
[2024-03-10T19:04:08+0000] <@ulm> we got reply from them, one second ...
[2024-03-10T19:04:40+0000] <@sam_> we appear on their agenda: https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2024/2024-03-11/
[2024-03-10T19:05:29+0000] • dilfridge: here
[2024-03-10T19:05:35+0000] <@ulm> sam_: yes, that's the same info as in the mail message
[2024-03-10T19:05:59+0000] <@ulm> 2024-03-04, and council was in CC
[2024-03-10T19:06:23+0000] <@sam_> thanks
[2024-03-10T19:06:28+0000] <@sam_> dilfridge: anything you want to add? 
[2024-03-10T19:06:38+0000] <@dilfridge> not really
[2024-03-10T19:06:38+0000] <@sam_> at the moment things seem progressing well and i'm optimistic
[2024-03-10T19:06:49+0000] <@dilfridge> we're on track for becoming an spi associated project tomorrow
[2024-03-10T19:07:02+0000] <@dilfridge> and the formalities are going to be as discussed
[2024-03-10T19:07:12+0000] <@dilfridge> liaison and deputy decided per council vote
[2024-03-10T19:07:16+0000] <@mattst88> cool, then the real work can begin?
[2024-03-10T19:07:18+0000] <@dilfridge> sure
[2024-03-10T19:07:19+0000] <@ajak> thank you guys very much for getting us to this point, very exciting
[2024-03-10T19:07:23+0000] <@sam_> yes, absolutely 
[2024-03-10T19:07:56+0000] <@sam_> we may want to do that vote on a bug if/when things get accepted to show good faith and such, but i think we're all in agreement on getting things done here
[2024-03-10T19:07:59+0000] <@sam_> alright
[2024-03-10T19:08:06+0000] <@sam_> anything else to say on that?
[2024-03-10T19:08:26+0000] <+robbat2> i think we need a vote of all foundation members anyway to make it official
[2024-03-10T19:08:31+0000] <@sam_> ah right
[2024-03-10T19:09:14+0000] <@sam_> ok, let's not count our chickens yet, but we should discuss all of this on a bug or possibly even another meeting depending on how it goes tomorrow
[2024-03-10T19:09:22+0000] <@sam_> plenty of options, I think
[2024-03-10T19:09:37+0000] <@dilfridge> well
[2024-03-10T19:09:48+0000] <@dilfridge> now it's "moving stuff to spi, step by step"
[2024-03-10T19:10:10+0000] <@ajak> pending their meeting and such yeah
[2024-03-10T19:10:29+0000] <@sam_> dilfridge: right, but we're talking about how we might need to arrange some Foundation voting to make that official
[2024-03-10T19:10:34+0000] <@sam_> and sequencing
[2024-03-10T19:10:37+0000] <@dilfridge> yes
[2024-03-10T19:10:46+0000] <@sam_> I think we're okay on this for now though
[2024-03-10T19:10:58+0000] <@sam_> unless there's anything else on this..
[2024-03-10T19:11:11+0000] <@sam_> ok
[2024-03-10T19:11:13+0000] <@sam_> 3. Policy on AI contributions and tooling 
[2024-03-10T19:11:17+0000] <@sam_> https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=170904501611467&w=2
[2024-03-10T19:11:26+0000] <+robbat2> for the record, the voting stuff is because of this part of new mexico law: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2009/chapter-53/article-8/section-53-8-47/
[2024-03-10T19:11:34+0000] <+robbat2> 2009 New Mexico Statutes
[2024-03-10T19:11:34+0000] <+robbat2> Chapter 53 - Corporations.
[2024-03-10T19:11:34+0000] <+robbat2> Article 8 - Nonprofit Corporations
[2024-03-10T19:11:34+0000] <+robbat2> Section 53-8-47 - Voluntary dissolution.
[2024-03-10T19:11:48+0000] <@sam_>  
[2024-03-10T19:11:51+0000] <@sam_> this was (as expected) somewhat heated; mgorny brought up the topic on the ML
[2024-03-10T19:12:05+0000] <@sam_> we did end up discussing it more in -infra afterwards where some more nuance was maybe taken
[2024-03-10T19:12:08+0000] <@sam_> anyway, mgorny: it's your item
[2024-03-10T19:13:02+0000] <@dilfridge> meow?
[2024-03-10T19:13:28+0000] <@sam_> mgorny: you with us?
[2024-03-10T19:13:33+0000] <@mgorny> sec
[2024-03-10T19:13:36+0000] <@sam_> ok
[2024-03-10T19:14:45+0000] <@mgorny> oh, i thought i had a specific motion on the mail but i didn't
[2024-03-10T19:14:54+0000] <@mgorny> well, to summarize the ml discussion
[2024-03-10T19:14:58+0000] <@mgorny> all initial replies were positive
[2024-03-10T19:15:01+0000] <@mgorny> some doubts came later
[2024-03-10T19:15:05+0000] <@mgorny> and potentially trolling at the very end
[2024-03-10T19:15:14+0000] <@sam_> as all good ML discussions do
[2024-03-10T19:15:18+0000] <@mgorny> my gut feeling is that there is a clear agreement that we should put some restrictons right now
[2024-03-10T19:15:53+0000] <@dilfridge> we can always revisit it at a later point
[2024-03-10T19:16:00+0000] <@mgorny> from what i gather, there is no "good" use for generative AI proposed yet, the replies were more in the "may" territory
[2024-03-10T19:16:13+0000] <@mgorny> and the experiments people said about weren't really successful
[2024-03-10T19:16:36+0000] <@sam_> the problem is, emotions don't make great policy, and I feel like it's not really clear if we should ban the tools or just using stuff derived from them (see also the discussion you, robin, I, and others, had in -infra)
[2024-03-10T19:16:47+0000] <@sam_> i mean, i agree with your feeling on the gut consensus
[2024-03-10T19:16:54+0000] <@mgorny> therefore, my proposal would be to ban them officially and entirely right now, and revisit later if someone files for a specific use case
[2024-03-10T19:16:54+0000] <@sam_> it's just not clear what to actually then formulate
[2024-03-10T19:17:52+0000] <@sam_> we did have some specific cases raised, some privately with me, e.g. working on a gentoo project where say, copilot is restricted to our repo
[2024-03-10T19:17:55+0000] Anon4711 (~Anon4711@user/Anon4711) joined the channel
[2024-03-10T19:18:10+0000] <@mgorny> something along the lines of 'Use of "generative AI" for creating or submitting code, documentation etc. to Gentoo is prohibited."
[2024-03-10T19:18:29+0000] <@mattst88> wfm
[2024-03-10T19:18:41+0000] <@mgorny> sam_: but does that guarantee that copilot is trained only on our repo, or is it artificially restricted *after* training on potentially copyrighted data?
[2024-03-10T19:18:49+0000] <+arthurzam> I think mgorny is also creating distinction between any AI and "generative AI" - it is an important distinction
[2024-03-10T19:19:00+0000] <@sam_> arthurzam: what is the actual distinction in reality for our purposes?
[2024-03-10T19:19:07+0000] <@sam_> arthurzam: give me an example?
[2024-03-10T19:19:21+0000] <@sam_> mgorny: right, i think it's only the latter in the case of copilot
[2024-03-10T19:19:31+0000] <+arthurzam> sam_: AI which translates and helps you understand text - not generative. Creates you code based on comment instructions - generative
[2024-03-10T19:19:34+0000] <@sam_> mgorny: but then i'm not sure it matters that much if it only gives suggestions based on the repo we're in
[2024-03-10T19:19:49+0000] <@sam_> arthurzam: is it not generative to translate something? 
[2024-03-10T19:20:02+0000] <@sam_> it's just a different perspective
[2024-03-10T19:20:04+0000] <@ajak> i support the restriction; but are we in a position to motion on particular policy here without a community discussion on the exact working and such (given that wasn't in the original mail)?
[2024-03-10T19:20:12+0000] <@sam_> i don't want to be too philosophical here, but i do think it matters
[2024-03-10T19:20:14+0000] <@ajak> s/working/wording/
[2024-03-10T19:20:23+0000] <+arthurzam> By academic distinction in some papers I've read somewhere, those aren't included as generated
[2024-03-10T19:20:50+0000] <@sam_> my own feeling would be that I'd prefer to see some proposed motion on the ML 
[2024-03-10T19:20:54+0000] <@mgorny> my point is mostly: people are free to write tools (algorithms) that generate good ebuilds, provided all legalese is met
[2024-03-10T19:20:55+0000] <@sam_> I don't really feel like it's clear what to do, other than "do something"
[2024-03-10T19:21:01+0000] <@sam_> mgorny: right
[2024-03-10T19:21:11+0000] <@sam_> mgorny: if someone trains some model and legalese is handled, it's fine with me
[2024-03-10T19:21:16+0000] <@mgorny> we don't want people using ML to absord random stuff and randomly generate junk from it
[2024-03-10T19:21:25+0000] <@mgorny> absorb*
[2024-03-10T19:21:42+0000] <@mattst88> sounds like we need a concrete proposal and then some more discussion
[2024-03-10T19:21:47+0000] <@mgorny> i don't know enough about ML to tell how actually reliable will that be
[2024-03-10T19:21:49+0000] <@sam_> that's what I lean towards
[2024-03-10T19:22:01+0000] <@sam_> I really don't want to rush to formulate policy based on feelings 
[2024-03-10T19:22:05+0000] <@sam_> it doesn't lead to good outcomes
[2024-03-10T19:22:07+0000] <@mgorny> and i don't know if there is really a benefit to doing that
[2024-03-10T19:22:18+0000] <@mgorny> like literally reading metadata and outputting ebuild from template has clear benefit
[2024-03-10T19:22:20+0000] <+arthurzam> mgorny: I believe we would need to rethink the policy in ~1 year, but it should be good enough for now
[2024-03-10T19:22:21+0000] <@sam_> but it's not like we've got some swarm of AI stuff right now?
[2024-03-10T19:22:29+0000] <@sam_> there's no emergency here really?
[2024-03-10T19:22:53+0000] <@mgorny> sam_: the point is that it's a good time to handle it beforehand
[2024-03-10T19:22:56+0000] <@sam_> I would be willing to vote on mgorny's motion with a revisit clause 
[2024-03-10T19:22:59+0000] <+arthurzam> sam_: it will come. GPT4 will be made much more public soon, and in some other places we at work already noticed a lot of spam generated
[2024-03-10T19:23:01+0000] <@mgorny> and it's a good statement to make when everything turns to shit
[2024-03-10T19:23:02+0000] <@sam_> that is an ok compromise for me 
[2024-03-10T19:23:21+0000] <@sam_> things may have changed a lot (or not at all) by a year, as things are moving quickly
[2024-03-10T19:23:22+0000] • ajak: isn't sure april will be a worse time
[2024-03-10T19:23:25+0000] <@mgorny> like, literally putting "Gentoo: made by humans, for humans"
[2024-03-10T19:24:41+0000] <@mgorny> also, i think it makes sense to warn contributors up front
[2024-03-10T19:24:50+0000] <@mgorny> rather than having to reject their contributions later
[2024-03-10T19:25:03+0000] <@mgorny> note that also copyright situation ain't clear in EU right now
[2024-03-10T19:25:05+0000] <@sam_> do you want to put it to a vote then?
[2024-03-10T19:25:19+0000] <@sam_> and with or without the revisit bit?
[2024-03-10T19:25:29+0000] <@mgorny> revisit bit is redundant
[2024-03-10T19:25:34+0000] <@sam_> we had 2.5 people say they'd rather see more ML discussion on an exact motion
[2024-03-10T19:25:39+0000] <@mgorny> we can always revisit
[2024-03-10T19:25:45+0000] <@sam_> platitudes aren't meaningless, but yes, ok
[2024-03-10T19:26:02+0000] <@sam_> right
[2024-03-10T19:26:12+0000] <@mgorny> arthurzam: would you have a good idea how to word it? you know more about that stuff than i do
[2024-03-10T19:26:19+0000] <@sam_> is there anyone who actually wants to put this right now, and not next month after some discussion on motion on ML?
[2024-03-10T19:26:25+0000] <@sam_> i don't see the hurry for a month delay 
[2024-03-10T19:26:29+0000] <@mgorny> sam_: i do
[2024-03-10T19:26:37+0000] <@sam_> okay, formulate something then? :)
[2024-03-10T19:26:38+0000] <+arthurzam> mgorny: with my English writing, we would need AI to understand what I wrote
[2024-03-10T19:26:47+0000] <@ajak> lol
[2024-03-10T19:27:01+0000] <@mgorny> arthurzam: ok, a different question: "AI", "generative AI" or perhaps "LLM"?
[2024-03-10T19:27:08+0000] <@ulm> work out a good wording and put it to vote next time
[2024-03-10T19:27:11+0000] <@sam_> see, the fact we're discussing this means this is premature for the meeting, sorry
[2024-03-10T19:27:12+0000] <@ajak> i see no necessity to hash this out in this meeting
[2024-03-10T19:27:18+0000] <@ulm> makes no sense to knee-jerk it now
[2024-03-10T19:27:20+0000] <@sam_> agreed
[2024-03-10T19:27:22+0000] <@mattst88> yes, we've been discussing this for 15 minutes now
[2024-03-10T19:27:23+0000] <@sam_> i'm tabling it
[2024-03-10T19:27:28+0000] <@ajak> ++
[2024-03-10T19:27:39+0000] <@sam_>  
[2024-03-10T19:27:41+0000] • mgorny: ragequits! (joke)
[2024-03-10T19:27:44+0000] <@sam_> :)
[2024-03-10T19:27:47+0000] <@sam_> 4. Open bugs with Council participation [3]
[2024-03-10T19:27:54+0000] <@mgorny> sam_: you've missed robin's item
[2024-03-10T19:27:59+0000] <@sam_> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&email2=council%40gentoo.org&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&list_id=7096767&query_format=advanced
[2024-03-10T19:28:00+0000] <+arthurzam> mgorny: I would recommend LLM, since this is the type which does the issues now. Most other AI model types are mathematical more, so less spammy
[2024-03-10T19:28:02+0000] <@sam_> I'm going to do it before open floor
[2024-03-10T19:28:15+0000] <@sam_> the only bug is bug 925736, which is SPI, which we've already discussed as item #2
[2024-03-10T19:28:15+0000] <willikins> sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/925736 "Vote: Gentoo Linux applies to become an SPI associated project"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; dilfridge:council
[2024-03-10T19:28:18+0000] <@sam_> so...
[2024-03-10T19:28:29+0000] <@sam_> 5. Robin's emergency item on infra expenditure for the archival project
[2024-03-10T19:28:32+0000] <@ajak> back to no council bugs soon!
[2024-03-10T19:28:33+0000] <@sam_> robbat2: hi
[2024-03-10T19:28:41+0000] <+robbat2> *waves*
[2024-03-10T19:28:57+0000] <@mgorny> robbat2: could you shortly summarize which option you think better?
[2024-03-10T19:29:36+0000] <+robbat2> i'd *prefer* the 30TB option, but I don't know if it's a good use of funds
[2024-03-10T19:29:48+0000] <@sam_> this is https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=171005060402007&w=2, btw, sorry :)
[2024-03-10T19:30:04+0000] <@sam_> reapproval is needed because of market availability of inventory
[2024-03-10T19:30:18+0000] <+robbat2> i'll recap for the record
[2024-03-10T19:30:20+0000] <+arthurzam> After SPI taking the "tax" from moved "not-used" money, is it a big difference?
[2024-03-10T19:30:46+0000] <+robbat2> (the SPI does not take a percentage of transfered funds, only new donations after we join)
[2024-03-10T19:31:16+0000] <+robbat2> back in January, I had submitted a proposal for the historical *online* distfiles archive, based on market prices of drives at the time
[2024-03-10T19:31:29+0000] <+robbat2> notably, 30TB QLC drives were $2300/ea
[2024-03-10T19:32:19+0000] <+robbat2> however, while trying to actually order them, multiple vendors claimed they were out of stock, and that the restock was at a much higher price point
[2024-03-10T19:32:23+0000] <+robbat2> $3000-$4000/ea
[2024-03-10T19:33:47+0000] <+robbat2> i don't know if the market price will go back down
[2024-03-10T19:34:23+0000] <@mgorny> robbat2: how's reliability of both options?
[2024-03-10T19:35:06+0000] <+robbat2> the options I proposed are:
[2024-03-10T19:35:19+0000] <+robbat2> stay with the RAID1 of 30TB, eat the extra cost
[2024-03-10T19:35:31+0000] <+robbat2> use RAID5 of 3x15TB instead
[2024-03-10T19:35:43+0000] <@mattst88> do we know the actual size of a historical distfiles archive? is it actually >=15TB?
[2024-03-10T19:36:32+0000] <+robbat2> 10TB+ for historical so far; and in the original proposal, we were going to move dipper's content onto this as well, to cheaply cross-link existing distfiles/releases (~8TB right now iirc)
[2024-03-10T19:36:40+0000] <@sam_> one commenter says it's currently about ~6.2TB according to bug 834712, but robin had ~4.82TB for just aug 2015 - nov 2023, so..
[2024-03-10T19:36:41+0000] <willikins> sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/834712 ""Old" or "historical" Gentoo distfiles mirror"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Other; CONF; badatcomputerslongytemail:infra-bugs
[2024-03-10T19:36:43+0000] <@mgorny> to be honest, i like the smaller option better. esp. if a single drive fails, replacement would be less of a hassle
[2024-03-10T19:37:14+0000] <@ajak> yeah i'm not sure what the benefit of the larger drives would be?
[2024-03-10T19:37:23+0000] <@mgorny> robbat2: do 15TB drives have better availability than 30TB drives?
[2024-03-10T19:37:27+0000] <@mgorny> or just price differs?
[2024-03-10T19:37:55+0000] <@sam_> my own feeling is 15TB/RAID5, unless someone gives a good reason not to
[2024-03-10T19:37:58+0000] <+robbat2> better, but not by a huge margin
[2024-03-10T19:38:27+0000] <+robbat2> only technical benefit is using less drive slots in those servers
[2024-03-10T19:38:45+0000] <@sam_> i think we can live with that
[2024-03-10T19:38:51+0000] <@ajak> not high contention currently, is there?
[2024-03-10T19:39:14+0000] <+robbat2> iirc using 3 out of 6 right now
[2024-03-10T19:39:37+0000] <@ajak> ok, might have to consolidate some things or something eventually but certainly livable
[2024-03-10T19:40:28+0000] <@sam_> let's vote on "30TB usable via 15TB RAID5 drives would be 6x$1800=$10800 (for 2 servers)." then?
[2024-03-10T19:40:52+0000] <+robbat2> the existing 3 slots are 3x7.68TB TLC (high-endurance) w/ a mix of RAID1/RAID5/non-RAID LVs [per-VM drive basically]
[2024-03-10T19:40:56+0000] • ajak: yes
[2024-03-10T19:41:14+0000] <@sam_> motion: approve new expenditure, replacing previous motion from bug 834712, for the historical distfile archive (30TB usable via 15TB RAID5 drives would be 6x$1800=$10800 (for 2 servers)
[2024-03-10T19:41:14+0000] <willikins> sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/834712 ""Old" or "historical" Gentoo distfiles mirror"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Other; CONF; badatcomputerslongytemail:infra-bugs
[2024-03-10T19:41:16+0000] • sam_: yes
[2024-03-10T19:41:18+0000] • ajak: yes
[2024-03-10T19:41:23+0000] • arthurzam: yes
[2024-03-10T19:41:34+0000] • mgorny: yes
[2024-03-10T19:41:35+0000] • ulm: yes
[2024-03-10T19:41:44+0000] <@ulm> 6 x 15 TB IIUC
[2024-03-10T19:41:52+0000] • mattst88: yes
[2024-03-10T19:42:03+0000] <@sam_> dilfridge: you around?
[2024-03-10T19:43:18+0000] <@sam_> let's carry on as we know he's got the event ongoing
[2024-03-10T19:43:26+0000] <@sam_> 6 yes, 0 no, 1 absent - motion passes 
[2024-03-10T19:43:47+0000] <@sam_> which brings us to..
[2024-03-10T19:43:49+0000] <@sam_> 6. Open floor
[2024-03-10T19:43:56+0000] <@sam_> anything?
[2024-03-10T19:44:06+0000] <@ajak> yes
[2024-03-10T19:44:37+0000] <@ajak> https://www.spi-inc.org/meetings/agendas/2024/2024-03-11/ says "to be held.. in #spi on irc.spi-inc.org"; though it was said in here that it was #spi in OFTC
[2024-03-10T19:44:44+0000] <@ajak> they're bridged or something, i guess?
[2024-03-10T19:44:55+0000] <@sam_> $ host irc.spi-inc.org
[2024-03-10T19:44:55+0000] <@sam_> irc.spi-inc.org is an alias for irc.oftc.net.
[2024-03-10T19:44:55+0000] <@sam_> irc.oftc.net is an alias for irc.geo.oftc.net.
[2024-03-10T19:44:56+0000] <@sam_> [...]
[2024-03-10T19:45:01+0000] <@ajak> aha, thanks
[2024-03-10T19:45:05+0000] <@sam_> so it's like we used to have for irc.gentoo.org -> freenode
[2024-03-10T19:45:10+0000] <@ajak> yeah
[2024-03-10T19:45:28+0000] <@mgorny> now we have to libera
[2024-03-10T19:45:45+0000] <@sam_> :)
[2024-03-10T19:45:47+0000] <@sam_> ok, anything else?
[2024-03-10T19:46:19+0000] <@sam_> again, would encourage council members to get connected to oftc & join and lurk in #spi for tomorrow. I don't expect any of us to say anything but being there just in case we're needed is important.
[2024-03-10T19:46:29+0000] • ajak: nods
[2024-03-10T19:46:38+0000] <@sam_> also, to obviously try be around tomorrow at the meeting time 
[2024-03-10T19:46:45+0000] <@sam_> (at 8PM UTC)
[2024-03-10T19:46:58+0000] <@sam_> not required, but some of us should be around, ideally especially dilfridge / ulm / robbat2
[2024-03-10T19:47:02+0000] <+arthurzam> we need a timeanddate link for that :)
[2024-03-10T19:47:04+0000] <@mgorny> i'm going to lurk but i'll probably go to sleep before the topic comes
[2024-03-10T19:47:08+0000] <@sam_> np
[2024-03-10T19:47:29+0000] <@sam_> arthurzam: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20240311T20
[2024-03-10T19:47:34+0000] <+robbat2> yup; i'll be in the SPI meeting
[2024-03-10T19:47:50+0000] <@sam_> excellent
[2024-03-10T19:47:52+0000] <@mgorny> thakns
[2024-03-10T19:47:52+0000] <@sam_> okay, thank you everybody
[2024-03-10T19:47:57+0000] • sam_: bangs the meeting gavel