<@ulm> meeting time [20:00] <@ulm> !proj council (council@gentoo.org) arthurzam, dilfridge, mgorny, robbat2, sam, soap, ulm <@ulm> roll call * soap here <@robbat2> present * arthurzam here * ulm here * mgorny here * sam_ here <@ulm> dilfridge: ? [20:01] <@ulm> let's wait until 19:05 [20:02] <@dilfridge> here [20:03] <@arthurzam> \o/ <@ulm> agenda: https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/ujza8u2we@gentoo.org/ <@ulm> we had one additional item but it was late: https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/bde39fcf-8614-4917-8b36-965d96bcc32e@gentoo.org/ <@ulm> and IMHO not in an actionable state [20:04] <@arthurzam> Let's do it in order? <@mgorny> i don't think we're in a hurry here <@ulm> so, can we accept the agenda as posted? <@arthurzam> yes <@robbat2> aye <@soap> yes please <@ulm> ok, including myself that's a majority <@dilfridge> yes <@sam_> (yes) <@ulm> 2. pre-approve ver_replacing: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/8142ed0a-7643-4d91-a94a-135f6f94b525@gentoo.org/ [20:05] <@ulm> and bug 947530 ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/947530 "[Future EAPI] Add ver_replacing PMS helper"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; CONF; flow:pms <@arthurzam> Do we want to port it to eapi8 as eclass helper? [20:06] <@sam_> I really like doing that as it gives us experience in the wild before fully finally committing to it <@ulm> when we accept it, then why not <@arthurzam> ACK <@sam_> I think the suggested change is good, people get this wrong all the time, and it's clean <@arthurzam> as pre vote say, it looks nice and logical for me :) <@ulm> so, we pre-approve today, make an eclass, and finally approve with EAPI 9 later? [20:07] <@mgorny> wfm <@dilfridge> ++ <@arthurzam> wfm <@sam_> yes <@soap> I mean, is anything lost in not doing it like that? * mgorny kinda wonders if we should have eapi9-everyfeature.eclass or one eapi9.eclass <@ulm> so, motion: pre-approve ver_replacing() for EAPI 9 * arthurzam yes [20:08] * dilfridge yes * mgorny yes * robbat2 aye * sam_ yes <@sam_> soap: you mean why bother with the eclass, or what * soap yes * ulm yes <@soap> I meant, no need to approve it now <@sam_> oh, right <@ulm> I count 7 yes votes, i.e. unanimous <@soap> but I'm fine either way <@arthurzam> mgorny: on your suggesting, let's open in open floor? <@sam_> yeah, I agree on that, there's nothing wrong with doing the eclass bit first (and really, if anything, that's preferable) [20:09] <@sam_> in general <@mgorny> arthurzam: sure, that's just a minor point <@ulm> anything else for this item? <@ulm> otherwise [20:10] <@ulm> 3. open bugs with council participation <@ulm> 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=7373343&query_format=advanced <@dilfridge> the logs are all uploaded <@ulm> bug 936211 https://bugs.gentoo.org/936211 "[Tracker] Gentoo Foundation dissolution"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; ulm:trustees <@ulm> dilfridge: let's do them in order :) <@dilfridge> which order <@ulm> numerical order of bug # <@arthurzam> order by ID [20:11] <@ulm> robbat2: any news? looks like you're doing all the work <@robbat2> i'm hoping the SPI will update their financials soon <@robbat2> i got an unofficial update on it <@robbat2> but I want it to be reflected in the official numbers <@ulm> do we have any numbers how many donors have moved? [20:12] <@robbat2> no - that data is not available from SPI <@ulm> ah <@robbat2> I *think* but do not have data to confirm, that our monthly income on the SPI side should now be large enough to switch over the small AWS bill <@robbat2> but not yet the Hetzner bill <@robbat2> our AWS bill is sub-$100/month [20:13] <@robbat2> (for FY2024, was $65USD/mo) <@ulm> are we in a hurry? the foundation still has a large positive balance on their accounts IIUC <@robbat2> i would like to be able to close it within this current foundation's financial year - to drop the $2k/year we pay in tax preperation [20:14] <@robbat2> since that's 5-10% of our annual expenses [20:15] <@ulm> makes sense <@robbat2> SPI also hadn't responded about moving the trademarks :-( <@robbat2> i think we may have to just get enough info to get it done ourselves <@robbat2> instead of relying on them to do it <@robbat2> which brings me to something I was going to ask in open floo [20:16] <@robbat2> *floor <@robbat2> anything else for this topic however? <@ulm> anyone? <@ulm> seems not <@ulm> bug 948001 ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/948001 "[Future EAPI] Do not export special profile variables"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; IN_P; mgorny:pms <@sam_> didn't floppym have some concern about this for crossdev? [20:17] <@ulm> this one is just open to have it in the log <@sam_> or did that get solved? <@ulm> nothing in the bug <@sam_> it was in #gentoo-pms, I think <@ulm> let's follow up on this after the meeting? [20:18] <@sam_> sure <@arthurzam> Worst case we unaccept it next council <@ulm> yep <@sam_> yeah, np [20:19] <@ulm> bug 948683 and following https://bugs.gentoo.org/948683 "Missing log and summary for 20240511 council meeting"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; ulm:dilfridge <@ulm> up to bug 948687 https://bugs.gentoo.org/948687 "Missing log and summary for 20241208 council meeting"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; ulm:sam <@arthurzam> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Meeting_logs <@ulm> dilfridge: sam_: ^^ <@sam_> as I said already a few days ago to you, I've been in bed ill since coming back from fosdem <@sam_> i'll be doing it when i'm well again [20:20] <@soap> seriously, did everyone get sick after fosdem :D <@dilfridge> not me <@sam_> i managed to get to my desk yesterday at least <@arthurzam> I got sick without fosdem, got to 40.6C <@dilfridge> also, all logs are uploaded <@dilfridge> only summaries missing <@arthurzam> Which is progress! <@ulm> dilfridge: and will follow when? :) [20:21] <@dilfridge> tell me when <@dilfridge> :P <@ulm> until next meeting <@dilfridge> okokok <@ulm> I mean, oldest one is 20240511 [20:22] <@ulm> anyway <@ulm> 4. open floor <@robbat2> my item is hopefully short on that <@arthurzam> mgorny: so about your eapi9.eclass or eapi9-feature.eclass <@arthurzam> I think the latter is better? <@sam_> yeah i prefer the latter [20:23] <@sam_> but we should definitely encourage most new features to be in an eclass whreever possible <@mgorny> sure <@ulm> let's do one eclass per feature, it helps to measure actual usage <@arthurzam> yep <@ulm> no new eutils.eclass please :) <@ulm> robbat2: you have the floor [20:24] <@robbat2> if I were to run as a director or secretary for SPI; I feel there is a risk of conflict of interest, since I represent Gentoo to the SPI, and lead Gentoo's infra <@robbat2> would the council want me to drop the role of gentoo liason, or council member in that regard? I would like to remain leading Gentoo's infra [20:25] <@soap> robbat2: aren't you stretched thin as is already? [20:26] <@arthurzam> Just to verify I'm translating it correctly, "drop council member" means you must abstain in the vote, or fully be dropped from council? <@sam_> i'm a bit worried about us becoming involved in SPI administration <@sam_> we're not even liberated from the foundation yet <@robbat2> withdraw from being a council member <@robbat2> i've already set it as I won't be Foundation & SPI concurrently <@robbat2> need to finish winding up the Foundation <@dilfridge> ugh that needs some thinking [20:27] <@sam_> I agree there's a risk of conflict of interest -- infra could propose expenditure, council would approve, and you'd possibly have a vote / oversight again on the SPI side <@robbat2> yes, it would likely mean dilfridge has to step up as primary gentoo liason to SPI <@sam_> so my inclination is to say possibly withdraw from council but that's just a first thought, I'd need to consider it properly <@dilfridge> right now I see less problem with liaison than with council member [20:28] <@ulm> robbat2: indeed, might be problematic if you're council member and have a role on the SPI side <@ulm> the liaison should be a council member though <@robbat2> too much single point of failure; and not enough checks & balances [20:29] <@ulm> robbat2: maybe step down but run for council in the follow-up election, with all facts disclosed to the electorate? <@sam_> yeah <@sam_> (yeah wrt robin's last message, race condition - hadn't read ulm's yet) <@robbat2> i have to finish winding up the Foundation first anyway [20:30] <@arthurzam> (I have another issue for open floor, so ulm, please ping when I can speak it) <@robbat2> this came out of me asking SPI for more up to date financials <@robbat2> since I already know ledger <@robbat2> thanks; that's all <@ulm> we can discuss this again in another meeting <@ulm> arthurzam: [20:31] <@arthurzam> OK, so: <@arthurzam> Now the council is mostly built from the infra developers. We need someone to be the infra person during election, but: <@arthurzam> we have an automation using "at" to trigger this stuff automatically instead of an infra developer, but: <@arthurzam> We still need infra person to add that trigger. [20:32] <@arthurzam> Can we change the requirements so we can use a candidate trigger this script, and then be out of the loop? <@ulm> I see some other persons in the list at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Infrastructure <@dilfridge> maybe clean up inactive members? [20:33] <@robbat2> arthurzam: i would suggest looking at how to go a step further - can we remove the need for infra overall <@robbat2> w/ replacing much of the system [20:34] <@robbat2> and stop having to maintain the home-grown votify engine <@dilfridge> at least ajak_ and prom should be around <@ulm> robbat2: if it can be done until June <@robbat2> do you mean before June? <@ulm> yes [20:35] <@sam_> I think more "self-service" is good, like we have for recruiters <@arthurzam> robbat2: we could use the system I developed by research paper (not yet published) https://github.com/arthurzam/SecureVoting <@arthurzam> But then it would mean I can't be candidate <@sam_> retirement is sensitive but might be some scope to do a bit there <@sam_> (right now the automation is a bit broken) <@arthurzam> (can send the draft paper private after) <@robbat2> arthurzam: as much as I applaud you for writing such a thing, that is just trading one maintainer-dependent system for another [20:36] <@robbat2> and doesn't improve the overall problem <@arthurzam> yeah <@arthurzam> OK, it feels to big for open floor, so I'm done <@robbat2> what is the actionable ask here? <@arthurzam> You have both gave better suggestions than my idea [20:37] <@ulm> arthurzam: thanks for raising this [20:38] <@ulm> anything else for open floor? <@sam_> nothing from me <@arthurzam> nothing else from me <@dilfridge> nope <@robbat2> nothing from me <@ulm> let's wait for 1 minute [20:39] <@ulm> meeting closed, thanks all! [20:40] <@sam_> thanks! <@mgorny> thanks! <@arthurzam> Thank you *** ulm (~ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm) has set the topic for #gentoo-council: "259th meeting: 2025-03-09 19:00 UTC | https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20250309T19 | https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council | https://dev.gentoo.org/~dilfridge/decisions.pdf"