[18:00:06] <@sam_> !proj council
[18:00:07] <willikins> sam_: (council@gentoo.org) arthurzam, dilfridge, eschwartz, floppym, mgorny, sam, ulm
[18:00:08] <@sam_> hello!
[18:00:12] <@sam_> agenda: https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/685694fb97633730cb3a4cc9b9bb764f77790d19.camel@gentoo.org/T/#u
[18:00:15] <@dilfridge> yeth
[18:00:17] <@sam_> 1. Roll call
[18:00:19] -*- sam_ here
[18:00:20] -*- arthurzam here
[18:00:20] -*- dilfridge here
[18:00:24] -*- floppym here
[18:00:25] -*- mgorny here
[18:00:27] -*- laumann here
[18:00:47] <@arthurzam> ^ laumann is proxy for ztrawhcse
[18:01:01] <+laumann> yes
[18:01:09] <@mgorny> ok, booted
[18:01:13] -*- mgorny forgot Gentoo booted so fast
[18:01:20] <@sam_> no ulm yet but that gives mgorny time ;)
[18:03:19] <@mgorny> does anyone have ulm-pingator handy?
[18:03:35] <@sam_> I think dilfridge may have his phone to SMS
[18:03:44] <@dilfridge> on it
[18:03:46] <@sam_> I do but I'm not in germany so I dunno if there's fees or what, not that it matters much
[18:03:52] <@sam_> just easier if he can
[18:03:54] <@sam_> ah, fab
[18:04:23] <@dilfridge> sent
[18:07:51] <@mgorny> let's wait until 18.10, i guess?
[18:07:54] <@dilfridge> ok
[18:10:14] <@mgorny> ok, let's proceed, noting ulm's absence
[18:10:23] <@mgorny> 2. Open bugs with Council participation
[18:10:36] <@mgorny> 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=8179359&query_format=advanced
[18:10:49] <@mgorny> bug 936211
[18:10:50] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/936211 "[Tracker] Gentoo Foundation dissolution"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; ulm:trustees
[18:11:02] <@mgorny> any news here?
[18:11:26] <@sam_> afaik it's been quite quiet 
[18:11:50] <@mgorny> don't see anything new on the linked bugs either
[18:12:06] <@mgorny> bug 961301
[18:12:07] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/961301 "[Tracker] Requests for metadata/AUTHORS"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; ulm:council
[18:12:11] <@mgorny> no new requests fwics
[18:12:20] <@mgorny> bug 961811
[18:12:21] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/961811 "Consider procuring Token2 PIN+ security keys for developers"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; tamiko:council
[18:12:37] <@mgorny> someone was supposed to contact someone, right?
[18:12:49] <@arthurzam> If I'm not wrong, it was ztrawhcse
[18:12:49] <+laumann> from ztrawhcse: "I'm waiting to hear more news"
[18:13:10] <+laumann> "soap said he was going to speak to token2 as soon as he finds some time, hopefully very soon. He is rather busy at the moment but said he'd try to do so about a week ago, but I haven't heard back from him yet. I asked him a couple days ago for a status update, waiting to hear back"
[18:13:18] <+laumann> (quoting from ztrawhcse)
[18:13:42] <@mgorny> okay, thanks
[18:14:02] <@mgorny> and the bug of the evening, bug 962281
[18:14:03] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/962281 "Clean up consultants list"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; negril.nx+gentoo:council
[18:14:30] <@sam_> uh oh :)
[18:14:31] <@arthurzam> it looked like quite a good ML conversation
[18:14:37] <@mgorny> https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/8e85e00fc320c7b403034cb679dba9c88d581b07.camel@gentoo.org/T/#m8e2e7a887fd09c270c04a7fc4a2e4bf1fa4bbc83
[18:14:38] <@floppym> Do we discuss private bugs here?
[18:14:46] <@mgorny> floppym: no, we have the other channel for that
[18:14:51] <@floppym> OK
[18:15:18] <@mgorny> so out of my points, i'd like to push for 1-3
[18:15:25] <@mgorny> 4 is too controversial
[18:15:41] <@mgorny> any comments?
[18:15:51] <@arthurzam> .
[18:16:33] <@mgorny> do we want to vote on them, separately or all at once?
[18:16:34] <@arthurzam> I think the addition of the council can decide to remove someone based on a vote (private I guess) is the best option to handle edge cases
[18:16:45] <@mgorny> arthurzam: makes sense
[18:16:49] <@sam_> 1-3 seem uncontroversial to me
[18:17:08] <@sam_> and 3 was the subject of the off-list (but trustees were cc'd, so council was) discussion with some people
[18:17:10] <@arthurzam> I agree on 1-3, am against 4 as it can be a hard to handle
[18:17:21] <@arthurzam> and not sure about 5
[18:17:33] <@arthurzam> (as I can't understand 5)
[18:17:35] <@sam_> 3 is pretty dubious and I think just serves to act as a form of endorsement that we can't quantify 
[18:17:46] <@sam_> which is why we should accept that change
[18:18:04] <@mgorny> arthurzam: it was just a rant
[18:18:22] <@mgorny> on how some developers have almost zero time to work on Gentoo, yet offer Gentoo services
[18:18:22] <@dilfridge> 1-3 yes
[18:18:34] <@floppym> No objections to 1-3 from me.
[18:18:57] <@arthurzam> so should we vote on 1-3 + a council vote as a possible way to handle edge cases for removal
[18:18:59] <@arthurzam> ?
[18:19:08] <@dilfridge> 4, it's complicated ... imagine someone provides localai services by (manually) packaging stuff for gentoo
[18:20:02] <@mgorny> arthurzam: perhaps a generic rule like "Council approves new entries, and may remove entries at their discretion"?
[18:20:24] <@arthurzam> should we also approve additions? (I'm asking, am not sure myself)
[18:20:46] <@mgorny> i think right now it isn't clear how the list is maintained. it says people should start discussion, but no clue if it implies everyone gets added or not
[18:22:16] <@mgorny> either way, 1 implies someone has to actually get the feedback and act upon it
[18:22:32] <@arthurzam> ok, sounds good to me
[18:22:49] <@arthurzam> should we also define those request to add/remove as private bugs with council vote inside?
[18:23:01] <@mgorny> makes sense to me
[18:23:04] <@mgorny> let's do two motions then
[18:23:40] <@mgorny> motion 1: "Add a note that we're open to feedback from customers, limit the list to one entry per person, and remove the 'donates back?' column"
[18:24:04] -*- arthurzam yes
[18:24:18] <@mgorny> (per https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/a5ef4fc1177b0f76e0480b73d94cb9d5df08fc6c.camel@gentoo.org/)
[18:24:34] -*- sam_ yes
[18:24:40] -*- floppym yes
[18:25:10] -*- mgorny yes
[18:25:36] <@mgorny> dilfridge, laumann:
[18:25:45] -*- laumann yes
[18:25:48] -*- dilfridge yes
[18:26:11] <@mgorny> motion passed, 6 yes, 1 absent
[18:26:42] <@mgorny> motion 2: "Gentoo Council approves new entries to the consultant list and may remove existing entries via a private vote on a bug"
[18:27:08] <@arthurzam> (where the person in question is CC-ed of course)
[18:27:12] -*- arthurzam yes
[18:27:39] <@floppym> To clarify: private bug is only used for removal?
[18:27:53] <@mgorny> the idea was for both
[18:28:09] <@mgorny> so there's symmetry to the process
[18:28:16] <@floppym> Ah, I misunderstood. Ok thansk.
[18:28:20] -*- floppym yes
[18:28:27] -*- sam_ yes
[18:28:27] -*- laumann yes
[18:28:31] -*- mgorny yes
[18:29:10] -*- dilfridge yes
[18:29:18] <@mgorny> motion passed, 6 yes, 1 absent
[18:29:24] <@mgorny> anything else before we move on?
[18:30:06] <@mgorny> bug 965900 then
[18:30:07] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/965900 "GLEP 63: update key recommendations"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; CONF; mgorny:council
[18:30:13] <@mgorny> i think we're waiting on Token2 here
[18:30:44] <@mgorny> bug 980497
[18:30:45] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/980497 "Missing summary for 20260510 and 20260614 council meetings"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; ulm:dilfridge
[18:30:51] -*- mgorny gives the floor to dilfridge
[18:31:01] -*- dilfridge gives the floor back for the moment
[18:31:33] *** Mode #gentoo-council +v billie by ChanServ
[18:31:45] <@mgorny> okay, there's one more bug to discuss privately, so let's give people open floor for the moment
[18:31:54] <@mgorny> 3. Open floor
[18:32:19] <@arthurzam> I do want to note that laumann isn't in the private chan
[18:32:41] <@sam_> invited
[18:32:45] <@mgorny> thanks
[18:33:03] <@mgorny> tbh i don't know if we have a precedent here
[18:33:15] <@mgorny> given the bug is technically Council eyes only
[18:33:32] <@arthurzam> he can understand from the title
[18:33:44] <@sam_> my assumption is eli briefed him 
[18:33:47] <@mgorny> okay
[18:33:55] <@sam_> i think it's fine to add him to the bug, i'll do that unless someone says no
[18:33:57] <+laumann> maybe not
[18:34:16] <@mgorny> well, let's move there for the time, and look back here in case something shows up during the open floor
[18:34:20] <@sam_> ok
[18:48:32] <@mgorny> no items here, the discussion in the private channel is closed
[18:48:35] -*- mgorny bangs the gavel
[18:48:38] <@mgorny> thanks, everyone!
[18:48:39] <@sam_> thank you!
[18:48:48] <@floppym> See ya next time.
[18:48:49] <@mgorny> see you in month's time, same time
[18:48:55] <+laumann> thanks
[18:48:56] <@arthurzam> thank you
[18:49:12] <@arthurzam> laumann: thank you for proxing
[18:49:27] <@mgorny> sam_: thanks for handling the early chairing
[18:49:30] <+laumann> arthurzam: thanks for having me
[18:49:39] <tachyonray_> thanks council <3