[00:00:00] - {Tageswechsel: Sonntag, 8. Dezember 2024} [20:00:01] !proj council [20:00:01] sam_: (council@gentoo.org) arthurzam, dilfridge, mgorny, robbat2, sam, soap, ulm [20:00:05] meeting time! [20:00:06] agenda: https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/87seqyvj02.fsf@gentoo.org/ [20:00:12] 1. roll call [20:00:15] -*- arthurzam here [20:00:16] present [20:00:16] -*- sam_ here [20:00:17] -*- mgorny here [20:00:20] -*- soap here [20:00:31] -*- dilfridge here [20:00:35] -*- ulm here [20:00:40] \o/ [20:00:55] 2. (Further) pre-approval of EAPI 9 features [1][2] [20:00:57] [1] https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/ua5djagbz@gentoo.org/ [20:00:58] [2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Future_EAPI/EAPI_9_tentative_features [20:01:06] ulm: over to you [20:01:31] it's three changes [20:01:52] the first is not to mangle symlink targets [20:02:14] bug 934514 [20:02:15] mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/934514 "[Future EAPI] Drop rewriting of absolute symbolic links (section 13.4)"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; CONF; ulm:pms [20:02:16] Portage currently drops any ${D} from them when merging, which is broken [20:02:30] right, the bug has all the rationale :) [20:03:09] i think we recommended using relative symlinks anyway [20:03:13] ulm: Do we know the impact of this? Is this common issue, or very rare? [20:03:16] esp. with dosym -r [20:03:19] to me, it's obviously fine, and if anything, rewriting would need to be handled differently anyway (not just for symlinks, and ideally just as a QA warning on any references to the image dir) [20:03:23] i think it's surprising we did it at all [20:03:25] but yeah [20:03:43] arthurzam: I haven't seen any warnings about it, and portage should emit them now [20:03:52] ulm: good enough for me :) [20:03:53] so I'd say rewriting is rare [20:04:08] and it's broken for binpkgs [20:04:09] and since EAPI 9 is clean slate... [20:04:10] Will need to somehow understand where and if pkgcore does it [20:04:11] is tinderbox checking for them? [20:04:39] I don't know, but I'll ask toralf to add it [20:04:42] mgorny: of course, I just wanted to know if this is a big speed-bump for EAPI=9 migration, or just a rare annoyance [20:04:56] Got answered :) [20:06:13] Should we vote for that? [20:06:14] seems likely very rare [20:06:16] so, should we approve every item separately, or all in one go? [20:06:36] I think individually [20:06:39] seperately is likely less decisive [20:06:52] *divisive [20:07:36] the precise spec is here: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/commit/?h=eapi-9&id=a331bd4241cecfe6b124408f345979f126d519e7 [20:08:20] ok [20:08:32] 2a: Pre-approve the EAPI 9 feature "No longer rewrite absolute symlinks (bug #934514)" [20:08:32] sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/934514 "[Future EAPI] Drop rewriting of absolute symbolic links (section 13.4)"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; CONF; ulm:pms [20:08:35] -*- sam_ yes [20:08:39] -*- arthurzam yes [20:08:40] -*- mgorny yes [20:08:46] -*- dilfridge yes [20:08:58] -*- soap yes [20:09:03] -*- ulm yes [20:09:25] yes [20:09:30] excellent [20:09:33] motion passes [20:09:47] 2b: New pipestatus command (bug #566342#c37) (not voting yet) [20:09:47] sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/566342#c37 "[Future EAPI] Ban or rename assert"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; CONF; mgorny:pms [20:09:55] and then: [20:09:59] 2c: * Ban assert (only if we accept pipestatus, bug #566342) (not voting yet) [20:09:59] sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/566342 "[Future EAPI] Ban or rename assert"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; CONF; mgorny:pms [20:10:03] bug 566342 [20:10:03] ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/566342 "[Future EAPI] Ban or rename assert"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; CONF; mgorny:pms [20:10:05] this has prompted quite a lot of discussion [20:10:17] and exact spec is here: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/commit/?h=eapi-9&id=286f95a9661bff8086450fe06d4fee3a45053a8c [20:10:47] we have a proposed eclass, eapi9-pipestatus.eclass, to preview and battletest the feature: https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/u4j3wrf90@urania.mail-host-address-is-not-set/T/#u [20:10:54] not everybody is happy, but I think it's the best compromise as it is [20:11:13] ulm: let's say we want to add a new flag to this command - can we do it in EAPI=9 or would we need to wait for =10? [20:11:14] (sorry about the bad message-id :) [20:11:26] i think it's good enough to pre-approve as-is [20:11:30] hehe [20:11:45] we can always revisit after the initial testing [20:11:48] arthurzam: we can still change it as long as EAPI 9 isn't finally approved [20:12:01] adding commands shouldn't break existing consumes [20:12:05] personally I'm inclined to say yes on 2b, no on 2c for now (depending on how the eclass adoption and real-life testing goes) [20:12:23] then we revisit 2c (and the rest if needed, of course) depending on that feedback [20:12:31] adding as mgorny says is easy, removing not so much :) [20:12:35] ulm: ok, I see. For now it seems like aggreeable base, but I suspect some more features will be wanted, so let's be flexible for additions until SPEC is done [20:12:59] I'd strongly prefer having 2c in 9 [20:13:03] IMO: yes on pipestatus; introduce new assert-like helper; mark "assert" deprecated for EAPI9 and ban in EAPI10 [20:13:04] let's not repeat the mistake from epatch/eapply [20:13:10] let's just vote [20:13:24] why not ban immediately? [20:13:43] Umm, is there a usage of "assert" we might want? [20:13:46] yes, I suppose tat's fine as long we can undo it [20:13:48] even the simplest form of pipestatus defeats the purpose of assert [20:13:50] *that's [20:13:55] 2b: Pre-approve the EAPI 9 feature "New pipestatus command (bug #566342#c37)" [20:13:55] sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/566342#c37 "[Future EAPI] Ban or rename assert"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; CONF; mgorny:pms [20:13:57] -*- sam_ yes [20:13:59] there's really no need for a transition time there [20:14:02] -*- mgorny yes [20:14:10] -*- robbat2 yes to pipestatus [20:14:25] -*- arthurzam yes (pipestatus) [20:14:27] -*- ulm yes [20:14:30] -*- soap yes [20:14:34] the motion is entirely about pipestatus, you need not specify :) [20:14:41] -*- dilfridge yes [20:14:51] sam_: (the bugno says otherwise) [20:14:57] the motion is what matters [20:15:23] ok [20:15:53] 2c. Pre-approve the EAPI 9 feature "Ban assert (bug #566342)" [20:15:54] sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/566342 "[Future EAPI] Ban or rename assert"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; CONF; mgorny:pms [20:16:18] -*- dilfridge yes [20:16:19] -*- sam_ yes (of course we can revisit based on how eclass adoption goes; assert adoption is already pretty poor as discussed in the bug) [20:16:24] assert is literally 'pipestatus || die' [20:16:26] -*- mgorny yes [20:16:28] -*- ulm yes [20:16:47] -*- robbat2 yes to rename or deprecate; no to ban [20:16:51] -*- soap yes [20:16:58] robbat2: the motion is "ban", so your vote is no [20:17:10] -*- arthurzam yes [20:17:29] ok, all done [20:17:41] ulm: do you have anything else to say on it, or shall I move on? [20:17:52] thank you! [20:17:56] sam_: don't you need to summarise the vote count? [20:18:04] (here in logs?) [20:18:13] please let me chair if I'm chairing, it's already going to be in the summary we all review, but.. [20:18:21] yes, it passed unanimously [20:18:29] 2c didn't? [20:18:39] 2b didn't but it doesn't matter, I'll summarise that in the.. summary [20:18:51] that's what we always do and vote counts aren't always clear in the log anyway [20:19:11] i'd ask that you generally let the chair do their role and if we want to discuss what the chair should do, we should do that separately [20:19:27] ok, after meeting [20:19:31] sorry [20:19:31] thanks [20:19:35] sam_: ok, do your count later :) all motions passed [20:20:10] 3. Social media links on website footer [3] (whether or not we remain on X is a separate topic, #4, so please don't consider that for now) [20:20:12] [3] https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/uzflj8yd3@gentoo.org/ [20:20:31] we currently link to twitter (x) and facebook [20:20:53] the question is if we should keep linking to twitter/x (supposing we stay on it for the purposes of #3, please), facebook, or add/remove other sites [20:20:53] xtsmpfkat :) [20:21:21] I've concerned a little on the topic of technical, the icons. I'll want to see it solved, because I've some issues doing it [20:21:41] When I tried to use "Font Awesome 5" it failed [20:21:42] arthurzam: to be clear, the icons or other technical concerns? [20:21:44] that's yet another separate issue [20:22:02] arthurzam: I think we can use "FA 5 Brands" together with FA 4 [20:22:02] please keep on track [20:22:05] I suggest we keep twitter/x, but we add mastodon too, and we keep facebook (any other sites to add?) [20:22:10] linkedin [20:22:20] but let's discuss the technical details later [20:22:47] linkedin feels really quite niche for something like us but i don't use it [20:22:50] the PR team should have good practices [e.g. no SPOF, planned posts, reviews] for any service we decide to list here; is that the case for all of the sites? [20:22:51] the overall response on linkedin is quite positive [20:22:52] I think facebook, mastodon, linkedin. Do we want reddit? [20:22:54] is anyone ever looking for e.g. debian's linkedin? [20:22:58] oh, really? [20:23:21] linkedin I agree with dilfridge, because I think we need the representation to "business" [20:23:21] arthurzam: yeah, reddit might be a good shout [20:23:46] a few years ago I wouldn't have agreed, but linkedin is used a lot more as a social blog post now [20:24:05] business-oriented social network with hiring/job ad functionality [20:24:21] heck, even our research programs now want to be on linkedin because publicity [20:24:33] do we want to vote on them separately? [20:24:53] it's more of a consensus issue IMO and not worth it (really not something to vote on at all I think) [20:25:10] I'd be in favour of Mastodon + Facebook, no Twitter, indifferent about Linkedin [20:25:13] We want them to be maintained socials! Do all our lists match this criteria? [20:25:19] FB, mastodon, LinkedIn, X (if maintained) [20:25:25] dilfridge has said a few times that nobody really wants to run FB [20:25:28] i htink [20:25:34] well, I do it now again [20:25:51] that plus linkedin [20:26:06] then dilfridge's list is fine with me, I'd like to see reddit on there _but_ the subreddit often has dubious advice on it [20:26:06] is comment moderation the problem on these? [20:26:10] i think we should add mastodon [20:26:19] as for the others, i don't care / consider them negative [20:26:22] re the "nobody really wants to run FB" [20:26:33] no, I havent seen a single one yet I'd have to moderate [20:26:57] what I dont want to run anymore is X / the network formerly known as twitter [20:27:11] (this is next topic) [20:27:14] but maffblaster and mpagano were both interested in doing it [20:27:16] in the end, i don't really see what we gain exactly by linking to these networks [20:27:18] that's fine, we have a volunteer for that, but that's the next topic [20:27:27] mgorny: mostly letting people follow us and find out news [20:27:37] that [20:27:44] especially for event time [20:27:50] ok [20:27:53] which reminds me [20:28:00] we really should have a visible RSS/ATOM feed [20:28:04] FB, mastodon, LinkedIn, X (if maintained) (and let's leave reddit for now given its quality is a bit mixed IMO) [20:28:09] anyone object to that? [20:28:15] -*- dilfridge fine with that [20:28:19] sam_: add RSS/ATOM xP [20:28:23] let's drop X please [20:28:24] it's good a cool icon too [20:28:27] -*- arthurzam is fine (hopes no vote on the order of them) [20:28:33] ulm: next thing [20:28:33] https://www.gentoo.org/feeds/news.xml has been there the entire time [20:28:49] robbat2: maybe we just need to add icon + link to it [20:29:06] right [20:29:12] i think this is settled and the remaining stuff is tangential [20:29:19] 4. Handling of Twitter / X account [4] [20:29:22] [4] https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/13936474.dW097sEU6C@noumea/ [20:29:35] my position on this is really that if someone we trust is happy to run the account, it's no bother to me [20:29:45] mpagano has kindly volunteered [20:29:52] dilfridge mentioned maffblaster may be willing too [20:30:03] no SPOF; clear password handling policies for future turnover; then happy to let it continue running [20:30:06] my personal position is that we should leave X for good, same as many others [20:30:08] nobody is making individual devs use it [20:30:27] dilfridge: umm, why? How is that different from facebook or matsodon? [20:30:45] dilfridge: personally i'd rather us stay out of any sort of political judgement on it, and it's up to whether someone wants to run it or not. anything else is going to involve offending someone or making a (silly) "gentoo judgement" [20:30:57] making an official declaration of leaving looks embarrassing [20:31:01] (and dramatic) [20:31:13] my concern is: say we *stop* using it; mark the account as frozen; then we risk X saying "inactive accounts can be shut down" [20:31:26] and the handle ends up in somebody else's control [20:31:29] yes that's a good point, kind of like freenode did at one point during that debacle [20:31:38] robbat2: they can shut down any account, active or not? [20:31:48] X *have* done that to inactive accounts in the past [20:31:53] shrug, yes... just be aware that the point of moderation is more critical there... [20:31:58] anyway I dont care so much [20:32:27] for all of these, if we do not have staffing to moderate responses, we should turn off commenting/responses [20:32:42] and use them as broadcast mediums primarily [20:33:05] wasn't the point rather to remove the account altogether? [20:33:15] that would have been my suggestion [20:33:22] (not parking it) [20:33:24] freezing is also fine [20:33:38] But we have volunteers for it? Why freeze/delete it? [20:33:41] exactly [20:33:44] remove/freeze both end up with somebody else potentially in control of the name [20:33:52] which is what I want to avoid [20:34:05] that can happen without us doing anything either [20:34:05] for me, given what arthurzam said, it's not a matter for us [20:34:12] it's enough i say publicly how much i hate nazis [20:34:33] mgorny: but they are everywhere? Not in only specific social? [20:34:33] oh my. Godwin's law? [20:34:33] -*- mgorny wait for whole Gentoo to be banned now [20:34:39] oh dear [20:34:41] convert them to broadcast mediums, wire up automation to news posts, done [20:34:59] arthurzam: X is nowadays the bad end [20:35:18] nope, that's TruthSocial or whatever they renamed to [20:35:27] mpagano: not sure if you're around but feel free to speak if you are [20:35:31] that's not relevant outside of Ameristan [20:35:32] but by staying there, Gentoo can be the light in the darkness [20:35:46] Happy to maintain twitter, but Robbat2's idea is pretty good [20:35:47] Also, here it is just a normal social network [20:35:49] I mean X [20:36:10] The idea is to reach people to further our goals in Gentoo [20:36:13] yes [20:36:21] wherever they might be, and keep them posted on developments [20:36:22] and with 900MM users, that's good visibility [20:36:46] arthurzam: or be another organization that brings more users and therefore profit to nazis [20:36:50] Agism aside, I don't like FB, but we should eb on there also [20:36:53] i wouldn't have started using twitter in the first place if not for gentoo [20:37:09] the blade has two sides [20:37:20] ok, clearly do need to vote on it [20:37:35] motion: remain on X (given we have 1, possibly 2, volunteers) [20:37:36] -*- sam_ yes [20:37:53] -*- arthurzam yes [20:37:57] -*- mgorny no [20:38:00] -*- dilfridge abstain [20:38:04] -*- soap yes [20:38:27] -*- robbat2 yes [20:38:30] -*- ulm no [20:38:33] hh [20:38:43] 4 yes, 2 no, 1 abstention [20:38:46] motion passes [20:38:58] [20:38:59] 5. Open bugs with Council participation [5] [20:39:01] [5] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation [20:39:10] [5] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation [20:39:12] oops [20:39:14] 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=7321875&query_format=advanced [20:39:20] * bug 925014 (heh) [20:39:20] sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/925014 "PR services lacking developer redundancy"; Community Relations, User Relations; CONF; ajak:pr [20:39:21] mpagano: would be great if you could forward frontpage posts if/when they happen, thank you!!! [20:39:35] I think we agreed to drop ourselves from that and it's sort of hard to do anything there [20:39:59] sam_: just to make sure, did X/twitter creds also pass into the secrets vault? [20:40:18] as the council, should we set better policies on how to handle these? my comment earlier that non-SPOF moderation team or broadcast-only mode [20:41:08] robbat2: mostly it's probably enough if people talk to each other [20:41:30] (realistically, I've done all frontpage posts of the last >3 years I think) [20:42:04] something like hootsuite would be great, but costs and social contract ... [20:43:39] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users [20:44:12] arthurzam: i don't think so [20:44:25] dilfridge: skype? :) [20:44:28] sam_: so maybe add it as requirement xD [20:44:32] I have these, so easy [20:44:38] dilfridge: ah, thanks [20:45:11] ok [20:45:26] so remove council from this bug then? [20:45:30] yeah [20:45:40] * bug 936211 [20:45:41] sam_: https://bugs.gentoo.org/936211 "[Tracker] Gentoo Foundation dissolution"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; ulm:trustees [20:45:47] not sure if there's any news here [20:45:55] I saw robin I think had progress with the paypal bits? [20:47:10] i really should have split every item in bug 936233 to seperate tasks [20:47:33] DONE - Move one-time donations to SPI accounts [20:47:48] DONE - Move (new) recurring donations to SPI accounts [20:48:11] existing recurring donations are not moved; we need to reach out to the donors [20:48:17] which I was planning to do this month [20:48:32] with the carrot that they get tax credits via SPI starting in January [20:48:41] the bug could still be split [20:48:45] \o/ [20:49:06] also reminds me I think the CPA owes us a confirming they filed the taxes [20:50:13] ok [20:50:17] all alright otherwise for now? [20:50:33] 6. Open floor [20:51:07] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Meeting_logs is quite empty :( [20:51:21] sorry my fault, gets better soon [20:51:58] I have done mine :D [20:52:04] May and June missing too, who was chairing these? [20:52:13] I think dilfridge [20:52:22] think so [20:52:41] holidays are coming [20:54:07] ok [20:54:09] -*- sam_ bangs gavel [20:54:11] thank you all [20:54:21] * ulm has changed topic for #gentoo-council to: "257th meeting: 2025-01-12 19:00 UTC | https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20250112T19 | https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council | https://dev.gentoo.org/~dilfridge/decisions.pdf" [20:54:22] sam_: thank you for chairing [20:54:22] Thank you everyone [20:54:23] thanks sam_ [20:54:28] thanks