Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-council
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: gentoo-council@g.o
From: Thomas Anderson <gentoofan23@g.o>
Subject: Log from council meeting on June 25, 2009
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:45:37 -0400
Calchan buggered me to post the log until I was finished with the summary, so
here goes.

Also, I'll choose the lollipop(this is evidence for if I ever meet him at a
conference) :P
Thomas Anderson
Gentoo Developer
Areas of responsibility:
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council
--- Log opened Thu Jun 25 00:00:43 2009
00:09 -!- reavertm [n=reavertm@gentoo/contributor/reavertm] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
02:55 -!- alexxy [n=alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
02:59 -!- alexxy [n=alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy] has joined #gentoo-council
02:59 -!- alexxy [n=alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
03:01 -!- alexxy [n=alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy] has joined #gentoo-council
03:04 -!- togge|laptop [n=togge@gentoo/contributor/togge] has quit ["No Ping reply in 90 seconds."]
03:04 -!- togge [n=togge@...] has joined #gentoo-council
03:43 -!- hkBst [n=hkBst@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has joined #gentoo-council
04:36 -!- touparx [n=toupar@...] has joined #gentoo-council
05:27 -!- reavertm_ is now known as reavertm
05:45 < Poly-C_atwork> Is there some page where I can read the manifestos of the council nominees?
05:45 <@lu_zero> Poly-C_atwork mine is the same as the last year so you can get from the gwn article ^^
05:46 <@lu_zero> let me dig
05:47 <@lu_zero> Poly-C_atwork
05:48 < rbrown>
05:51 < Poly-C_atwork> thanks :)
06:32 -!- mpagano [n=mpagano@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has joined #gentoo-council
09:00 -!- mescalinum [n=mescalin@gentoo/developer/mescalinum] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
09:16 -!- ulm [n=ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has joined #gentoo-council
09:16 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o ulm] by ChanServ
09:38 -!- alexxy [n=alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
09:40 -!- FuzzyRay [n=pvarner@...] has joined #gentoo-council
10:22 -!- ulm [n=ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has quit ["ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs)"]
11:15 -!- touparx [n=toupar@...] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
11:19 -!- Cardoe [n=Cardoe@gentoo/developer/Cardoe] has joined #gentoo-council
11:19 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o Cardoe] by ChanServ
11:20 -!- Thargor [n=quassel@unaffiliated/thargor] has joined #gentoo-council
11:21 <+tanderson> Folks, would you all tell me how you would react to a last-minute agenda addition? We may need to clarify glep 39 as it pertains to what "all active develeopers" means regarding elections (active devs before nominations, before voting etc.)
11:22 <+ciaranm> people who have joined during an election have voted in previous years
11:25 <+tanderson> Me sort of
11:25 <+tanderson> But elections project isn't really making a decision on this
11:29 -!- billie [n=billie@gentoo/developer/billie] has joined #gentoo-council
11:56 -!- reavertm [n=reavertm@gentoo/contributor/reavertm] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:06 -!- alexxy [n=alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy] has joined #gentoo-council
12:16 -!- ulm [n=ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has joined #gentoo-council
12:16 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o ulm] by ChanServ
12:37 -!- ssuominen [n=ssuomine@gentoo/developer/ssuominen] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:46 -!- leio-dl [n=leio@gentoo/developer/leio] has joined #gentoo-council
12:46 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o leio-dl] by ChanServ
13:02 -!- billie80 [n=billie@gentoo/developer/billie] has joined #gentoo-council
13:15 -!- leio_ [n=leio@gentoo/developer/leio] has joined #gentoo-council
13:15 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o leio_] by ChanServ
13:15 -!- leio-dl [n=leio@gentoo/developer/leio] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
13:15 -!- leio_ is now known as leio-dl
13:18 -!- billie [n=billie@gentoo/developer/billie] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
13:50 < mpagano> IIRC I had to wait a year before I could vote for council
13:54 <@leio-dl> wasn't that trustees maybe?
13:55 <+tanderson> trustees is different because non-devs can even vote if they're members
13:55 <@leio-dl> I remember trustees having been about that year as dev thing
13:55 <+tanderson> oh, yeah that was a while back
13:56 <@leio-dl> due to having to be a foundation member for voting
13:56 <@leio-dl> and foundation membership being possible after a year as a dev, or something along those lines
13:56 <@leio-dl> before it was reformed to allow non-devs
13:57  * billie80 has just run votify --submit without errors
13:57 -!- ulm [n=ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
13:57 < mpagano> i t was defintely council
13:57 -!- ulm [n=ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has joined #gentoo-council
13:57 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o ulm] by ChanServ
13:57 < billie80> and i am a dev for a few weeks now :)
13:58 < mpagano> maybe I'm losing it
14:03 < mpagano>
14:03 < mpagano> statement about 'elgible voter'
14:03 < mpagano> eligibile
14:04 < mpagano> but no clarification of that
14:05 < mpagano>  "All active Gentoo developers are eligible to vote."
14:15 -!- ulm [n=ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
14:15 -!- ulm [n=ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has joined #gentoo-council
14:15 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o ulm] by ChanServ
14:24 -!- leio-dl [n=leio@gentoo/developer/leio] has quit ["Leaving"]
15:03 -!- spatz [n=spatz@unaffiliated/spatz] has joined #gentoo-council
15:14 -!- darkside_ [n=darkside@gentoo/developer/darkside] has joined #gentoo-council
15:31 -!- mkelly32 [n=pioto@paludis/spork-wielder/exherbo.pioto] has joined #gentoo-council
15:45 -!- leio-dl [n=leio@gentoo/developer/leio] has joined #gentoo-council
15:45 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o leio-dl] by ChanServ
15:47 -!- comprookie2000 [n=david@gentoo/contributor/comprookie2000] has joined #gentoo-council
15:54 -!- Caster [i=Caster@gentoo/developer/caster] has joined #gentoo-council
16:01 <@dertobi123> so
16:01 <@dertobi123> heya
16:01 <+tanderson> hi folks, I'm present
16:01 <+ciaranm> evenin'
16:01 <+ciaranm> <-- dev-zero's proxy, unless he finds internet
16:02 <@leio-dl> sorry, but no
16:03 <@dertobi123> so, first of all: roll-call - who's here?
16:03 <@ulm> here
16:03 <@leio-dl> here
16:03 <+tanderson> dertobi123: are you chairing the meeting?
16:03 < spatz> can you please change the topic?
16:03 <@dertobi123> tanderson: if you'd like to, go ahead
16:03 -!- dertobi123 changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next Meeting: now.
16:04 <@Cardoe> now as in right now!
16:04 -!- lavajoe [n=joe@...] has joined #gentoo-council
16:04 -!- dertobi123 changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next Meeting: now. Agenda:
16:04 <+tanderson> ok, we have enough
16:04 -!- mescalinum [n=mescalin@gentoo/developer/mescalinum] has joined #gentoo-council
16:04 -!- ABCD [n=ABCD@wikipedia/ABCD] has joined #gentoo-council
16:04 <+tanderson> first topic, EAPI development/deployment cycles
16:05 <@dertobi123> stop
16:05 -!- drantin [n=drantin@pdpc/supporter/active/Drantin] has joined #gentoo-council
16:05 <@Cardoe> dertobi123: hammer time?
16:05 <@dertobi123> Cardoe: just for the record ...
16:06 <@dertobi123> for the record: dev-zero appointed ciaranm as his proxy. 4 out of 7 council members agreed that proxies must be gentoo developer, just like regular council members. therefore ciaranm isn't accepted as dev-zero's proxy for today.
16:06 <+ciaranm> could you point to where that rule is documented please?
16:06 <+ciaranm> glep 39 imposes only one restriction on proxies, which is that you can't have one person with multiple votes
16:06 <@dertobi123> council members must be gentoo developers. proxies therefore need to be, too.
16:06 <+tanderson> dertobi123: ok
16:06 <+ciaranm> dertobi123: where is that documented?
16:06 -!- Pesa [n=Pesa@...] has joined #gentoo-council
16:07 <@dertobi123> that's what 4 out 7 council members did agree on and this is not going to be discussed now.
16:07 <+ciaranm> dertobi123: glep 39 does not impose requirements upon council members
16:07 <@ulm> ciaranm: custom and practice
16:07 <@ulm> and common sense
16:07 <@Cardoe> Anyway, 4 out of 7 voted and it takes a majority vote to make something a reality
16:07 <@Cardoe> so that's all the justification necessary
16:07 <@dertobi123> exactly.
16:07 <@Cardoe> on to EAPI development/deployment cycles
16:07 <@dertobi123> end of discussion, first topic pklease
16:07 <@dertobi123> Cardoe: *5*
16:08 <+ciaranm> the council's ignoring glep 39 then?
16:08 <+ciaranm> you're going against the direct request of an elected council member here
16:09 <@Cardoe> So who had items to discuss wrt to the EAPI development cycles?
16:09 -!- zhick [n=henning@...] has joined #gentoo-council
16:09 <@Cardoe> cause if no one has anything to discuss...
16:09 <@Betelgeuse> \o/
16:09 <@dertobi123> this topic is split up into development and deployment
16:09 <+tanderson> Cardoe: well, my agenda points to a process that quite a few people acknowledged was a step in the right direction
16:10 <@dertobi123> as for the deployment part ciaranm described a possible way which i'd like to try for eapi-4 development
16:10 <+tanderson> Cardoe: we were sidetracked last meeting unfortunately..
16:10 <+tanderson> for development, we just NeedCode(TM)
16:11 <@dertobi123> tanderson: for implementation, not for eapi-development
16:11 <@Cardoe> tanderson: yep. which points to agenda item 2... talking to zmedico
16:11 <+tanderson> dertobi123: right
16:11 <+tanderson> Cardoe: I can pretty much guarantee that there's been no progress
16:12 < zmedico> well, we got KV taken care of :)
16:12 <+ciaranm>
16:12 <@Betelgeuse> For the record I don't think proxies need to be Gentoo developers. But in the end it shouldn't matter today as I don't plan on us having a vote on anything major.
16:12 <+tanderson> zmedico: oops, my apologies ;-)
16:13 <@dertobi123> <- anyone having something to discuss on the development part described there?
16:13 <+tanderson> zmedico: nothing on the substantial things though, right?
16:13 <@dertobi123> tanderson: can we please discuss #1?
16:13 <@dertobi123> +first
16:13 <+ciaranm> i just consulted with the person who wrote the proxy rules. he says that there's deliberately no restriction other than the one vote per person thing.
16:13 <+tanderson> dertobi123: yeah...
16:14 < zmedico> tanderson: no, not really. I've been pretty active working on portage the last week though (unlike the previous month), and I plan to stay pretty active and I should get eapi 3 done after not too long.
16:14 <+tanderson> dertobi123: other than that I in general agree, no
16:15 <@dertobi123> other opinions?
16:15 <+ciaranm> afaik the only disagreement on the eapi stuff was over the codenames
16:15 <@ulm> dertobi123: generally agree too, except that we should use reasonable and descriptive names for features
16:15 <+tanderson> codenames isn't really crucial. It can go away if need be.
16:15 <@leio-dl> ulm++
16:15 <@dertobi123> ulm++, yeah
16:16 <+tanderson> *aren't
16:16 <+ciaranm> the problem with not using codenames is that certain people didn't bother to read pms and just started commenting based upon what they thought something was, not what it was
16:16 <@Cardoe> this is such a nit picky argument that isn't meaningful or technical. it's just personal attacks.
16:17 <@dertobi123> agreed
16:17 <@dertobi123> the codenames should describe what it's about and that's it
16:17 <+ciaranm> it's the best solution i've found to a problem we encountered for EAPI 3
16:17 <@leio-dl> I believe he might have something in mind I might have talked about in the council channel while working through the features outside a meeting
16:17 <+ciaranm> if you've got a better way of ensuring that people read the material they're discussing, please present it
16:17 -!- darkside_ [n=darkside@gentoo/developer/darkside] has left #gentoo-council []
16:17 <@Cardoe> again, completely non-technical in nature
16:18 <+ciaranm> we're discussing process here. half of it's non-technical.
16:18 <+ciaranm> whether or not we use a wiki or google docs is non-technical.
16:18 <@leio-dl> if something was not clear at meeting time, then due to rushing this to the very next meeting, when the material to work through is immense
16:19 <@dertobi123> besides this being a personal thing between leio-dl and ciaranm I don't see any argument why should've nonsense codenames
16:19 <@dertobi123> +we
16:19 <+ciaranm> dertobi123: please present a better solution for ensuring that material has been read before being discussed
16:19 <@leio-dl> the take-away point here is that maybe the meeting 1-2 weeks after EAPI-3 draft shouldn't have it in the agenda yet, but give some time to actually work through things
16:20 <@Cardoe> ok this is just a circular and pointless argument
16:20 <@dertobi123> ciaranm: there is none and we don't need one.
16:20 <@dertobi123> Cardoe: indeed
16:20 <@leio-dl> err, after an EAPI draft is ready
16:20 <+ciaranm> dertobi123: it was a considerable problem during the EAPI 3 process
16:20 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: i don't want to waste time writing draft-quality material for features that definitely won't be accepted
16:21 <@leio-dl> then what kind of a material should be worked through
16:21 <+ciaranm> i want features written in a couple of paragraphs of semi-spec-quality material, then a rough vote on whether to proceed to draft quality material for those
16:21 <+ciaranm> and then a final vote on the draft quality material
16:22 -!- psychoschlumpf [i=lars@unaffiliated/psychoschlumpf] has joined #gentoo-council
16:22 <+ciaranm> but the voting needs to be on those couple of paragraphs and then the real draft material, not just the name
16:22 <@dertobi123> sure
16:23 <@dertobi123> but in the end it's everyone's (council member) responsability to be informed and to know what to vote on
16:23 <@ulm> ciaranm: so there will be a bug # for every feature?
16:23 <@dertobi123> so, if someone screws up by voting just on some random names ...
16:23 <+ciaranm> ulm: roughly, yeah, although we might end up with a shared bug if features are closely related but independently votable (doexample, doinclude for example)
16:24 <@ulm> ciaranm: so use the bug number as your codename if you want, but don't introduce any additional nonsense names
16:24 <+ciaranm> could do that. although then people might just read the bug summary...
16:24 <@ulm> ciaranm: you can't control what people will read anyway
16:25 <+ciaranm> ulm: no, but we can modify the process based upon past experience to reduce the likelihood of problems cropping up
16:25 <@dertobi123> serious, this is not kindergarten. you can't control who will read what and vote based on what he had red before.
16:26 <+ciaranm> you can modify the process to decrease the possibility of abuse
16:26 <@ulm> anyone has new arguments on this point? if not, i suggest that we proceed
16:26 <@dertobi123> ulm: yeah ...
16:26 <@leio-dl> So, simply to make sure everything is worked through (not just mindlessly read through), make sure there is enough time between material to be worked through presented and a vote
16:27 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: there was plenty of time last time around. and people didn't even say "i haven't read it yet", they said "i have objections and questions"
16:27 <@leio-dl> The only past experience perceived bad comes from there. I wasn't just reading through. I was thinking every single point  through and might not have gotten to one fourth of them by the time voting had to happen.
16:27 <@dertobi123> leio-dl: we introduced that requirment lately with requiring an agenda sent out a week before the meeting (though it ended being just a couple of days, but we're making progress on that!)
16:28 <@leio-dl> didn't help when it situated at a time I had no time for gentoo for one week. Anyways, I don't remember all the timeline and I don't care to
16:28 <@leio-dl> lets move on
16:28 <@dertobi123> leio-dl: in that case you should've appointed a proxy *cough*
16:28 -!- NeddySeagoon [n=NeddySea@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon] has joined #gentoo-council
16:28 <@dertobi123> i think we reached a consensus on that and can move on
16:29 <@dertobi123> right?
16:29 <@leio-dl> because I was unable to work on gentoo stuff during the time in the middle of two meetings?
16:29 <@ulm> dertobi123: yes
16:29 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: you aren't just a council member for one hour every two weeks
16:29 <+tanderson> This is pretty unproductive
16:29 <@dertobi123> somewhat, but we're making kind of progress
16:29 <@dertobi123> *cough*
16:29 < bonsaikitten> ciaranm: people may have jobs and other things that take up time ...
16:30 <+ciaranm> bonsaikitten: and they are more than welcome to appoint a proxy
16:30 < bonsaikitten> how does that help?
16:30 <@dertobi123> so, next part of the development/deployment discussion is the deployment part
16:30 <@dertobi123> guess that's a topic for the next council and we can move on again.
16:30 <@dertobi123> other input on that?
16:30 <@leio-dl> yes, and I was responsible enough to actually work deeply through all of the points I managed by the time that meeting came on by the time some voting had to happen. It takes time. Hours and hours.
16:31 <@Betelgeuse> In general getting EAPIs specified is a minor concern compared to getting the code into Portage.
16:31 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: no, you were irresponsible enough to raise queries and say "i object to this" rather than "i haven't read this yet"
16:31 <@leio-dl> nope, we just need more portage developers
16:32 <@dertobi123> guys, can we please just follow our agenda???
16:32 <@leio-dl> ciaranm: I'm done with this. Apparently I need to waste my time on re-reading thousands of lines of council channel log to deal with these claims.
16:32 <@ulm> silence please ;)
16:32 <@dertobi123> there's space left for some metadiscussions on #3
16:33 <@dertobi123> so any other comments on the deployment part?
16:35 <@dertobi123> can we at least get a quick overview if the council thinks that describing a deployment process for new eapis is important?
16:35 <@dertobi123> i for one do think we do need such a process.
16:36 <+ciaranm> i think we need one, but the one we've been using seems to work
16:36 <+ciaranm> i'd really rather not see portage to stable without having had main-tree testing of new EAPIs
16:37 <@ulm> but we have no writeup of the current process, right?
16:37 <+tanderson> isn't ciaran's mail a pretty good summary of the current process?
16:37 <+ciaranm> nothing documented in stone that i'm aware of
16:38 <@dertobi123> i don't think the process used for now is perfect. we have the problems i described in my mail and other problems as well. the process i described some weeks ago isn't perfect as well, that's for sure. but in the end i think this is an important topic, but sadly noone seems to be really interested in that.
16:38 <+ciaranm> i don't think we're going to get a perfect process
16:39 <@dertobi123> not if we're not going to improve what we do
16:39 <+ciaranm> i think we'd do best by paying more attention to where things go wrong with EAPI 3 and then addressing those next time
16:39 -!- musikc_mobile [n=musikc@...] has joined #gentoo-council
16:40 <@dertobi123> well, i described problems i've seen going wrong with eapi-2 i'd like to see improved for eapi-3 deployment
16:40 <+ciaranm> with EAPI 2 the big one i saw was portage releasing something that didn't conform to the spec we'd agreed upon and that clearly hadn't undergone any kind of testing
16:42 <@dertobi123> and what i've seen is that people immediately started using eapi-2 features (which isn't bad at all), but in the end packages needed to be backported to older eapis for security bugs
16:42 <@dertobi123> anyway, 20 minutes left. we have to move on.
16:42 <+ciaranm> the unfortunate reality is that for security, occasionally extra work has to be done
16:43 <@dertobi123> ciaranm: security's one example, but that whole topic needs to be discussed on the dev-ml first of all
16:44 <@dertobi123> so, eapi-3 progress
16:44 <@dertobi123> zmedico: please :)
16:44 <+ciaranm> <-- portage's eapi 3 progress
16:45 < zmedico> dertobi123: I estimate it will be done within about a month
16:45 <@leio-dl> ciaranm: Maybe you could help with some of that, btw?
16:46 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: afaik the only code that's realistically shareable between portage and paludis is on the amazingly easy shell stuff that's not worth copying
16:46 <@leio-dl> I didn't have code sharing in mind, I had portage contributing in mind :)
16:46 <@dertobi123> zmedico: ok
16:46 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: there's a reason i gave up on fixing portage a long time ago...
16:46 <@leio-dl> ok, lets leave it at that.
16:47 <@dertobi123> zmedico: seen that arfrever is helping out, you mentioned a recruit 2 weeks ago (iirc?) - how's that process going?
16:48 <@ulm> zmedico: any features where you see particular difficulties?
16:49 < zmedico> dertobi123: I've been getting lots of help from the fellow who filed bug 273620 . that's going very well
16:49 < Willikins> zmedico: "[TRACKER] sys-apps/portage EAPI 3 implementation"; Portage Development, Core; NEW; s.mingramm@...:dev-portage@g.o
16:49 <@dertobi123> zmedico: cool!
16:50 < zmedico> ulm: not really, seems like it should go pretty smoothly
16:50 <+ciaranm> i was hoping we'd eliminated the "this'll be a pain for portage to implement" stuff early on in the process
16:51 < zmedico> if anything comes up I'll let you know :)
16:52 <@Betelgeuse> Who can be bride to get the features done?
16:52 <@Cardoe> Betelgeuse: stop trying to marry developers ;)
16:53 <@Betelgeuse> Cardoe: Ah yes. Oh well I stopped my night out drinking for this.
16:54 <@dertobi123> ok, thanks for the update zac :)
16:54 <@dertobi123> so we have a couple of minutes left to discuss the past year
16:55 < bonsaikitten> bonus points for trying to streamline and optimize the meeting process
16:55  * NeddySeagoon realises that this is the last meeting of this council and thanks the members for serving 
16:56 <+tanderson> seconded. I want to thank you guys for allowing me to work with you
16:56 <+tanderson> It's been great.
16:56 < Philantrop> tanderson: Slimebag! ;-)
16:57 <@dertobi123> bonsaikitten: well, we made a start with that. having a secretary makes life much easier. making it a requirement to post (and ack!) an agenda some days (preferrably a week) in advance is another improvement, too
16:57 < bonsaikitten> hope to see y'all next year ;)
16:57 <+tanderson> I hope to be able to work with you next year as a member or as a continuing secretary(if so requested)
16:58 <@dertobi123> tanderson: thanks for being our wonderful secretary :) everyone thanks for being on the council as well (and we had lots of members this year *cough*)
16:58 <@Cardoe> You guys will all miss me
16:58 <@Cardoe> I know
16:58 <@dertobi123> one thing i like the next council to improve is to announce a host for the meeting in advance
16:59 <@dertobi123> chairing the meetings quite effective is thing all of us did fail for mostly the whole year.
16:59 <@dertobi123> +a
16:59 <@Betelgeuse> If I find the time I will take a shot at writing a web app for handling agenda etc.
16:59 < bonsaikitten> good point
16:59 <@dertobi123> Cardoe: oh yeah, we will do so :)
16:59 <@Betelgeuse> But likely I will slack.
16:59 <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: keep it simple. just do it. if a webapp then can make things easier, ok ...
16:59 <+tanderson> dertobi123: np,it's been a great ride
17:00 <+tanderson> why a webapp for what can be done in vim?
17:00 <@Betelgeuse> dertobi123: It should help tacking acks and prioritizin.
17:00 <@Betelgeuse> s/tack/track/
17:00 <@Betelgeuse> tanderson: A single person can handle it but when you need to get input from man.
17:00 <@Betelgeuse> tanderson: y
17:00 <@Betelgeuse> tanderson: Reminders etc would be helpful and can be automated.
17:00 <+tanderson> ok
17:01 <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: there are some steps between. first get the basics done, then make it bright and shiny
17:02 <@Cardoe> Or you can follow the Windows development model
17:02 <@Cardoe> make it bright and shiny... then when you get some time... make it work
17:02 <@dertobi123> Cardoe: i personally do prefer the other way 'round ;)
17:03 <@dertobi123> so, if there's nothing left we would like to write down for our next council we're done.
17:03 <@dertobi123> thanks again for that somewhat interesting experience during the past year, hopefully we see us again in 14 days.
17:03 <+ciaranm> dev-zero would like you to write down the rules you're following, since they're clearly not glep 39
17:03 <@dertobi123> thanks guys!
17:04 <+tanderson> dertobi123: lol "we see us again" 
17:04 <@dertobi123> sorry, i'm not a native speaker
17:04 <@dertobi123> *cough*
17:04 <@Cardoe> dertobi123: we'll forgive you
17:05 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: I guess this point comes down to having a good vote of no confidence system in place.
17:05 < NeddySeagoon> dertobi123, "we'll meet again"
17:05 <+tanderson> dertobi123: no, it's fine. It's just a funny way of saying it that made me chuckle
17:05 <@dertobi123> NeddySeagoon: thanks, will say that next year :P
17:05 <@dertobi123> tanderson: hehe
17:05 < NeddySeagoon> dertobi123, np
17:05 <+ciaranm> Betelgeuse: it's more whether the council can rewrite its rules on the spot after something's already happened in such a way that it goes directly against the terms under which the council was elected
17:06 <@Betelgeuse> ciaranm: Well it's like with a dictator writing rules, no-one really opposes.
17:06 <+ciaranm> Betelgeuse: can the council vote 4-3 to expel those 3?
17:07 <@Betelgeuse> We should get a GLEP in place to get a good vote of no confidence system in place to have some control and then if council members get out of control there's a process.
17:08 <+ciaranm> by discounting a council member's vote you're effectively overriding the electorate
17:09 < spatz> the meeting's over, please change the channel topic :)
17:10 -!- dertobi123 changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: We're done. Next meeting will be announced when the new elected council did agree on meeting times.
17:10 -!- billie80 is now known as billie
17:10 <+tanderson> byebye
17:10 -!- Betelgeuse changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: We're done. Next meeting will be announced when the new elected council agrees on meeting times.
17:10 <@dertobi123> bye tanderson
17:10 -!- Betelgeuse changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: We're done. Next meeting will be announced when the new elected council agree on meeting times.
17:10 <@Betelgeuse> blah
17:11 <@Betelgeuse> someone with good English crasp please fix
17:11 <@dertobi123> heh
17:11 <+tanderson> *agrees
17:11 <+tanderson> That's the only fix needed
17:11 -!- Betelgeuse changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: We're done. Next meeting will be announced when the new elected council members agree on meeting times.
17:11 -!- zhick [n=henning@...] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
17:11 <+ciaranm> agrees is american
17:11 < Philantrop> "newly"?
17:11 < dleverton> Also, "crasp"
17:12 < NeddySeagoon>  new -> newly
17:12 <+tanderson> Philantrop: that too
17:12 <+ciaranm> they're not newly elected yet
17:12 <+tanderson> with members in there you don't need a 's' I guess
17:12 < Philantrop> ciaranm: "agreed" :-)
17:12 <+ciaranm> in english english a corporation or organisation is plural. in american english it's singular.
17:13 < dleverton> Obviously you mean "a corporation or organisation are plural"
17:13 <+tanderson> ah, didn't know english english was like that
17:13 < Philantrop> ciaranm: There's no such thing as American English.
17:13 <@dertobi123> kinda funny to see ya discussing english grammar ... as all p??eopl doe think only german is a difficult language :P
17:13 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, Its hard for a republic to have the royal We
17:13 <@dertobi123> people do*
17:13 < Philantrop> ciaranm: There's only a degenerated language... ;->
17:13 <+ciaranm> Philantrop: yes there is. webster invented it because he hated the british.
17:13 <@leio-dl> and the language here is American English in case of dispute, I'd think :)
17:14 <@leio-dl> now, GLEP39 doesn't say it can be anyone, neither does it directly say it has to be a developer
17:14 <@Betelgeuse> English is a great language to learn poorly.
17:14 <@leio-dl> it doesn't matter what the person writing GLEP39 had in mind
17:14 <+ciaranm> glep 39 deliberately imposes only a single restriction
17:14 <+ciaranm> there is no other rule
17:15 <@Betelgeuse> !away betelgeuse
17:15 < Willikins> Betelgeuse: betelgeuse:  At a summer cottage until 2009-06-29. Contact herds or touch my packages. @ 2009/06/25 20:51Z
17:15 <@Betelgeuse> See you \o/
17:15 <+ciaranm> unfortunately glep 39 doesn't have a mechanism for impeaching council members who go against the council's constitution
17:16 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, I suppose someone (anyone?) can propose a vote of no confidence
17:16 <@dertobi123> ciaranm: that's how you do read glep 39
17:16 <@leio-dl> I read glep 39 different.
17:16 <@leio-dl> It says council members must be developers
17:16 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: where does it say that?
17:16 <@leio-dl> in the lack of specifying if a proxy must be or not, the logical conclusion is that he/she must be.
17:16 -!- Pesa [n=Pesa@...] has left #gentoo-council []
17:17 <@leio-dl> meh, even that is left out for free interpretation?
17:17 <+ciaranm> it says that the council is elected by developers. it does not say that the council is made up of developers. the council is made up of whoever developers elect.
17:17 <@dertobi123> leio-dl: it is
17:17 <+ciaranm> there's nothing in 39 preventing developers from deciding to elect anyone they want
17:17 <@dertobi123> "Only Gentoo developers may be nominated
17:17 <@dertobi123> "
17:17 <@dertobi123>
17:18 <+ciaranm> dertobi123: that's not in 39
17:18 <+ciaranm> dertobi123: that's something the election officals made up
17:18 < dleverton> leio-dl: Council members have to be elected, but that doesn't mean proxies have to be, even though the GLEP doesn't specify either way.  Clearly it's more complex than "rule X applies to Council members, therefore rule X applies to proxies unless otherwise stated"
17:18 <@dertobi123> it's not stated in glep39, but what's been done for ages. period. people call it common sense.
17:18 < spatz> status quo
17:18 <@leio-dl> so who's the ruling body on deciding which way deliberate non-specifications go?
17:18 <+ciaranm> it's not what's been done for ages. the issue merely hasn't come up previously.
17:18 <@dertobi123> no
17:18 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: the rules are as written. no rule, so it's not forbidden
17:19 <@dertobi123> for all council votes i can remember the rule always has been "only developers can be nominated"
17:19 < dleverton> If something isn't specified, the logical assumption is that there is no restriction
17:19 <+ciaranm> dertobi123: no-one has ever tried to do anything else. there's nothing in 39 about it.
17:19 < spatz> that's a loophole, so common sense applies
17:19 <@dertobi123> spatz: yeah ...
17:19 <@dertobi123> but as usual ...
17:19 <@dertobi123> anyways
17:19 <@dertobi123> good night
17:19 <+ciaranm> it's not a loophole. it's a deliberate lack of restriction.
17:19 <+ciaranm> the electorate should be able to vote in whoever they want
17:20 <@dertobi123> that's your opinion
17:20 <+ciaranm> in cases where there are restrictions, glep 39 explicitly states them. it says that only developers can vote in the council, and it says that council members can't hold multiple votes by proxy.
17:20 <+ciaranm> if there were other restrictions grant and i would have included them too
17:20 <+ciaranm> there aren't because the will of the electorate is sufficient
17:21 <@ulm> then the glep should state that explicitly
17:21 <@ulm> because it's against common sense
17:21 <+ciaranm> common sense says the electorate can do whatever it wants
17:21 <@ulm> no
17:21 <@dertobi123> ulm: that's a useless discussion
17:22 <@ulm> dertobi123: right ;)
17:22 < Philantrop> ulm: Yup, we're Germans. We need to be told how to bend a banana by law. ;->
17:22 <+ciaranm> constitutions that impose restrictions upon who can be elected explicitly say so
17:22 < bonsaikitten> german Gruendlichkeit makes rules so difficult ;)
17:22 <@dertobi123> common sense says that gentoos leadership should be gentoo developers, not exherbo developers.
17:22 <+ciaranm> common sense says that if the electorate wants to vote kloeri as supreme overlord, it can do so
17:22 <@dertobi123> s/exherbo/every other project/
17:23 <+tanderson> dertobi123: count lu_zero out, he's a ffmpeg dev
17:23 <+ciaranm> count tanderson out, he's an exherbo dev
17:23 <@dertobi123> *sigh*
17:23 <+tanderson> uh, That's untrue
17:23 <+tanderson> I'm not an exherbo dev
17:23 < bonsaikitten> count me out, I'm a gentoo dev
17:23 < bonsaikitten> wait, what? :)
17:23 <+ciaranm> tanderson: by exherbo's standards you are
17:23 < hwoarang> lol
17:24 <+tanderson> ciaranm: clearly they need modification
17:24 < NeddySeagoon> bonsaikitten for President ... no, wait ... thats my job
17:24 < bonsaikitten> NeddySeagoon: can I be Chancelor instead?
17:24 < NeddySeagoon> :)
17:24 < spatz> only if you get another nick, palpatine
17:25 -!- bonsaikitten is now known as AmazingPudding
17:25 <@dertobi123> mh, pudding :)
17:25 < AmazingPudding> Can haz kanzler ?
17:25 <+ciaranm> honestly, you lot sound like the people who are saying "it should be illegal to vote for the bnp / hezbollah / the republican party"
17:25 -!- AmazingPudding is now known as bonsaikitten
17:26 -!- ABCD [n=ABCD@wikipedia/ABCD] has left #gentoo-council [" - Chat comfortably. Anywhere."]
17:26 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, not illegal, just bad taste
17:26 <@leio-dl> to go by those analogies
17:26 <@leio-dl> you are saying that citizens of France must be able to elect the government of UK
17:26 <@leio-dl> or rather
17:27 <@leio-dl> A French citizen should be able to run for an UK office
17:27 <+ciaranm> i'm saying that if the citizens of france want to vote gordon brown as prime minister, they should be allowed to do so, unless their constitution explictly states otherwise
17:27 <+ciaranm> french citizens do run for UK office
17:27 < spatz> several democratic states do have banned parties
17:27 < NeddySeagoon> leio-dl, They do just that, via some silly EU laws
17:27 <@leio-dl> oh, bad example ;p
17:27 <+ciaranm> the us constition has explicit laws about who can run for office. most countries don't.
17:27 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, No citizens vote for a UK PM
17:27 <@leio-dl> Should have went with my initial USA and Canada thought.
17:27 < Philantrop> No, good example because that should be perfectly fine. Silly are *nations*.
17:27 < yngwin> we're not a country
17:27 <+tanderson> leio-dl: I don't think anyone's saying we can vote non gentoo-devs onto the council.
17:28 <+ciaranm> the uk just has some ancient stuff about being "of sound mind and body", and the latter part's been ignored for centuries
17:28 <@leio-dl> tanderson: ciaranm is
17:28 <+tanderson> ciaranm: well, that's wrong then
17:28 <+ciaranm> tanderson: please point to where in glep 39 it says that the electorate can't elect non-developers if it wants to
17:28 < Philantrop> tanderson: Why? If a majority wants it?
17:29 < Philantrop> tanderson: Quite a few devs wanted drobbins to take Gentoo back as its supreme leader...
17:29 < bonsaikitten> Philantrop: and he became a dev again
17:29 < Philantrop> bonsaikitten: No, the short dev epsiode was before his "offer".
17:30 <+ciaranm> quite a few of those devs weren't around when drobbins was supreme leader...
17:30 < bonsaikitten> stop agreeing so violently :)
17:30 < spatz> it is common for loopholes to exist unnoticed for a long time until they are exploited and then explicitly banned, that's how law usually works
17:31 <+ciaranm> it's not a loophole. it's a deliberate choice.
17:31 < bonsaikitten> quite similar to code :)
17:31 <@leio-dl> heresay
17:31 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: no, sorry, i asked the person that wrote those rules.
17:31 < spatz> if the status quo is that only devs can be elected and that's not in glep39 then that's a loophole
17:31 <+ciaranm> spatz: the status quo doesn't say that. it's just never come up before.
17:32 <+ciaranm> spatz: by your argument, the status quo says that females can't be elected.
17:32 < Philantrop> ciaranm: Uhm... That's common sense!
17:32 < bonsaikitten> sanity is overrated!
17:32 <+tanderson> Ok, the glep doesn't say anything about it (even if the spirit of the document indicates that to me). I still don't see how this whole thing is related to anything however
17:32 <@leio-dl> well, per GLEP process concensus decides GLEP approval. If this wasn't documented in the GLEP, it is "heresay"
17:33 <+tanderson> what is heresay?
17:33 <+tanderson> hearsay or heresy?
17:33 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: the glep says nothing about electing or appointing either females or non-developers
17:33 <@leio-dl> that it is a deliberate choice of leaving out a restriction
17:33 <@leio-dl> hearsay
17:33 <@leio-dl> whatever is the spelling, yeah.
17:33 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: so you're saying that females can't run for council?
17:33 <+tanderson> ok, makes sense
17:33 < spatz> council election announcements always said only devs can be elected but never said anything about females
17:34 <+ciaranm> spatz: council election announcements aren't the rules
17:34 <+tanderson> spatz: I can send out any mail I want, doesn't make it right
17:34 < spatz> they're the status quot
17:34 < spatz> quo
17:34 < spatz> it was never disputed
17:34 <+ciaranm> it's never been an issue
17:34 <@leio-dl> I'm saying that the common sense is that an elected body being voted by a certain group of people is formed from members of that group
17:34 < spatz> all elections went by with those rules
17:34 <+tanderson> I don't see why it should be disputed, and I don't see how this thing is relevant at all?
17:34 < NeddySeagoon> leio-dl, that follows
17:35 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: uh. i'll remind you that most democracies allow non-voters to be elected.
17:35 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: those that don't have explicit rules to the contrary in their constitution.
17:35 <@leio-dl> this became relevant with assertions that as council members must be developers, their proxies therefore must too
17:36 <+tanderson> leio-dl: that's a pretty big jump
17:36 <@ulm> "A project is a group of developers" says GLEP 39
17:36 <@ulm> and the council is a project
17:36 <@leio-dl> have fun figuring out what to write in summaries rollcall section
17:36 <+tanderson> ulm: nice, that cleans that up I guess
17:36 <+ciaranm> does glep 39 say the council's a project?
17:37 <+tanderson> leio-dl: yeah really. I'll have to find a way to write it balanced and not get trolled by steve
17:37 <@ulm> "A project exists if it has a web page at www.g.o/proj/en/whatever that is maintained."
17:37 <@ulm> there's /proj/en/council
17:37 <@ulm> and it's maintained i hope ;)
17:37 <+ciaranm> that doesn't mean the council project is the same as the council
17:37 <+ciaranm> it can mean that the council has a project
17:37 <@ulm> now that's nitpicking ;)
17:38 <+ciaranm> for that matter, developers != devs
17:38 <+ciaranm> the council's voted in by devs, not developers, according to glep 39
17:38 < NeddySeagoon> tanderson, A summary of a meeting it just that. If the meeting discusses something that is factually incorrect, you report the discussion without comment as it its accuracy or otherwise
17:38 <+ciaranm> so your attempt at stretching glep 39 to say something it doesn't falls apart
17:38 <@leio-dl> apparently glep 39 also need sa glossary on what a devs is
17:38 <+tanderson> NeddySeagoon: that's what I did last time and look what happened...
17:39 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: only if people keep on trying to find rules in 39 that don't exist
17:39 < NeddySeagoon> tanderson, yeah :(
17:39 <@leio-dl> devs isn't a word
17:40 < NeddySeagoon> Maybe its American ?
17:41 <+tanderson> maybe you mean singular? dev ?
17:41 <@ulm> seems to me that glep 39 uses "developers" and "devs" as synonyms
17:41 <@leio-dl> a Dev is synonym to "a god"
17:41 <@leio-dl> apparently.
17:42 < bonsaikitten> do we really need to hire lawyers to interpret our own rules?
17:42 <+ciaranm> no, you need to stop trying to find clever ways of reading glep 39 to invent new rules that it doesn't list.
17:43 < NeddySeagoon> bonsaikitten, We have one of our own
17:43 < spatz> we need to stop exploting loopholes in our own rules
17:43 < bonsaikitten> spatz: more trust, more common sense
17:44 -!- leio-dl [n=leio@gentoo/developer/leio] has quit ["Leaving"]
17:44 <+ciaranm> note that the foundation's rules *do* explicitly restrict who can be a trustee
17:45 <+ciaranm> whereas the council's don't, because there's no such restriction intended
17:46 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, the foundation also has officers and there are no restrictions there. The foundation is quite different to the council, it being a legal entitity
17:46 < yngwin> bonsaikitten: only problem is that common sense doesnt seem to be as common as it should be ;)
17:47 <+ciaranm> NeddySeagoon: the point remains: where restrictions are intended upon who can be elected, they are explicitly and clearly documented
17:47 < bonsaikitten> yngwin: yeah ... imagine the average idiot ... now realize that half the idiots are even more stupid :)
17:47 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, that is normally the case
17:47 < yngwin> lol
17:47 < NeddySeagoon> hehe
17:48 < spatz> this restriction should be added as it seems to be a concensus
17:48 <+ciaranm> NeddySeagoon: thus, given that 39 does not say anything about who the electorate can elect, nor does it say anything about who can be appointed a proxy beyond that no-one can hold more than one vote in a meeting, no such restriction exists
17:48 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, you probably need to propose an update to glep39 to clarify it
17:49 <+ciaranm> NeddySeagoon: why? the council are quite happy ignoring their own rules if they feel like it
17:50 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, the gelp talks anoyo the council be representitive of the electorate.  Its hard to see (in the extreme case) a council being composed of all non-devs as representative
17:50 <+ciaranm> NeddySeagoon: if the electorate decides to elect that, they're representative
17:50 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, that does not follow
17:51 < NeddySeagoon> They may represent, without being  representative
17:52 <+ciaranm> i don't see 'representative' in 39 anywhere
17:52 <+ciaranm> 4. Since everybody gets to vote for the council members, at least in principle the council members represent all developers, not just a particular subset.
17:52 <+ciaranm> is all i see
17:52 <+ciaranm> which is there because of how things used to be, where most developers didn't have a manager representing them
17:53 <+ciaranm> and because under the fosdem proposal, you'd end up with people with no or several elected representatives
17:55 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, I agree I cannot find  "representative" in the document.
17:59 -!- Philantrop [n=Philantr@exherbo/developer/philantrop] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:00 -!- hkBst [n=hkBst@gentoo/developer/hkbst] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
18:00 < NeddySeagoon> glep39 created the council which replaced, the TLP meeting leads.   The TLP meeting leads were all dev(elopers) so by precedent, so are council members.  That says nothing about council member proxies.  Its my opinion that proxies are a bad idea as they can never be as well prepared as the council member should be
18:01 <+ciaranm> there's no precedent there at all
18:02 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, One group replaced the other
18:02 <+ciaranm> NeddySeagoon: with a whole new and entirely different set of rules
18:03 < spatz> the precedent is the election announcement mails which everybody read and nobody disputed, including you
18:03 < spatz> and by which all elections took place
18:04 < spatz> they are the de facto rules for council elections
18:04 <+ciaranm> and they run against the de jure rules, which take priority
18:04 <@ulm> glep 39 is informational only
18:05 <+ciaranm> glep 39's informational because the glep process wasn't used to decide the council's rules
18:05 < spatz> so all elections so far were "illegal"?
18:05 <+ciaranm> glep 39's just a copy of the council's rules turned into glep format
18:05 <+ciaranm> spatz: no, merely the restrictions were
18:06 <+ciaranm> spatz: you can think of them as similar to the voter literacy tests applied by the southern states if you like
18:07 < spatz> status quo, tradition and common sense take precedence in this case against the dry rules nobody seemed to follow so far
18:08 <+ciaranm> the council has very much been following glep 39, and refers to it regularly. it's just that every now and again, they get things wrong.
18:08 <+ciaranm> it's like saying "the us constitution was meaningless because in the 1950s the southern states routinely ignored it"
18:08 < trelane> point of order
18:09 < trelane> seperate but equal was constitutionally valid until Plessy.
18:09 < spatz> that's a bad example. they violated the constitution, this restriction is simply implicit in the glep
18:09 < trelane> the south was not in fact ignoring the Constitution
18:10 <+ciaranm> the south was coming up with creative ways of inventing new restrictions that were not in the constitution, if you prefer
18:10 < trelane> spatz: indeed they did not until "Seperate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional.  Plessy overturned almost 100 years of caselaw which said that it was in fact Constitutional.
18:10 < spatz> so when gentoo has a court it can rule in this case
18:10 < spatz> until then common sense applies
18:11 <+ciaranm> common sense says that had i wanted to impose restrictions upon who could run or be a proxy, i would have done so. and, in fact, i did impose such restrictions.
18:11 < bonsaikitten> sucks to be you then.
18:12 < trelane> spatz: could we please?  Lets empanel the Supreme Court of the Internet.  Thus we can rule on all injustice.  We can buy them capes.
18:12 < trelane> (my point here being that empaneling a Gentoo court is asinine)
18:12 < yngwin> we already have devrel
18:13 < trelane> yngwin: indeed.  Though I hope that their goals are mediation and not ajudication.
18:13 < musikc_mobile> trelane: devrel has no desire for domination
18:14 <@ulm> if we come to the point that we need something like a court then we should better shut down the whole distro
18:14 <+ciaranm> these days devrel answers to the council
18:14 < yngwin> ulm++
18:14 < trelane> musikc_mobile: then I shall look for others to buy my jackboots of oppression.  (I really do have some, they're cumfy)
18:14 < trelane> ulm: here here!
18:15 < musikc_mobile> according to last council, council grants certain powers/rights to devrel lead who decides how such powers/rights are delegated
18:15 <+ciaranm> ulm: if it comes to the point that the council goes to great lengths to try to come up with justifications to stop an elected member from appointing a proxy, you'd better shut down the whole distro
18:15 < spatz> good, so we all agree that's absurd. so is comparing glep39 to a constitution. just wanted to raise that point.
18:15 < musikc_mobile> ulm, and i agree whole heartedly
18:15 <@ulm> ciaranm: if the council fails then its members can be kicked out in the next election
18:15 < trelane> ciaranm: so long as you're not the proxy I'll agree.
18:16 <+ciaranm> trelane: ah, so you agree it's about me, not about being a non-dev
18:16 < trelane> ciaranm: no, and nor did I say that.  I believe what I said is there's no way in hell I'd want you voting on anything.
18:16 < trelane> please don't put words in my mouth.
18:17 <+ciaranm> trelane: fortunately, you don't get to decide, since you haven't been appointed anyone's proxy or elected to the council
18:18 < trelane> the Politburo, in an effort to encourage the great Soviet Worker decreed that the earth's revolution should slow thus giving the workers an additional hour of sunlight.  Your ideas are roughly as practical.
18:18 < spatz> but luckily the council represented him faithfully
18:18 <+ciaranm> the council doesn't represent trelane
18:18 < musikc_mobile> there's always the matter of whether to differentiate people on not being a dev and those who were devs and forcibly removed
18:18 <+ciaranm> musikc_mobile: i see no such differentiation in glep 39
18:19 < yngwin> i would think it to be common sense that anyone booted from gentoo doesnt get to vote
18:19 < musikc_mobile> ciaranm, and as you pointed out, there are some finer points lacking so perhaps modification is necessary
18:19 < spatz> that's not in the glep!
18:19 < trelane> ciaranm: I should point out that 1. I've not offered to run, nor been nominated, nor asked anyone to so nominate, and have not requested to be someone's proxy, or thrown a hissy-fit when I was told I wasn't eligable.
18:19 < trelane> (the view from the mirror is always harshest)
18:19 <+ciaranm> i would think it to be not just common sense but also rules as written that if a council member appoints a proxy as per glep 39, that person gets  o vote
18:19 < spatz> the glep says nothing about common sense, so we conclude it doesn't exist.
18:20 <+ciaranm> trelane: i haven't requested to be someone's proxy. i was asked to be someone's proxy, in accordance with the rules.
18:20 < trelane> spatz: seriously, I love you after that.
18:20 -!- agaffney [n=agaffney@gentoo/developer/agaffney] has joined #gentoo-council
18:20 < musikc_mobile> trelane, ditto on spatz ++
18:20 < trelane> ciaranm: and yet here we are, and it is not according to the rules it seems.
18:20 <+ciaranm> trelane: and yet no-one's found the rule in question
18:21 <+ciaranm> trelane: it should be very easy for someone to point out the part of glep 39 that says who can and cannot be appointed a proxy
18:21 <+ciaranm> trelane: and in fact it is. glep 39 says "A proxy must not be an existing council member, and any single person may not be a proxy for more than one council member at any given meeting.", and nothing else
18:21 < musikc_mobile> or said things should be updated to reflect the desired direction
18:21 < bonsaikitten> troll, troll, troll the boat, gently down upstream ...
18:21 < yngwin> lol
18:22 < FuzzyRay> I've just been reading through my -core archives.  The following was stated by Grant Goodyear and no objections were raised that I can find: "We also need to elect council members.  All devs would have a vote, and although the proposal isn't specific, I'd like to think that all devs would be eligible for nomination."
18:22 <+ciaranm> musikc_mobile: a council member desired me to be appointed his proxy, so yes, you can update the glep for that if you like
18:22 < trelane> ciaranm: I have finally figured out who you are.  You're the reason why there's labels on pesticides warning you not to drink them.  "You should be able to point to where it says you shouldn't drink poison"
18:22 < trelane> when one eliminates folly from the world, one creates at the same time a world of fools.
18:22 < FuzzyRay> Beyond that, I can find nothing stating one way or the other about being a developer or not.
18:23 < musikc_mobile> ciaranm, my comments are in general and not specific to you. sorry for the disappointment.
18:23 <+ciaranm> trelane: clearly if it were a folly, an elected council member would not have done it
18:23 < trelane> ciaranm: your parser broke, try agian.
18:23 < yngwin> being elected is not guarantee against folly
18:24 <+ciaranm> trelane: i shall remind you that appointing me as proxy was dev-zero's idea and dev-zero's decision, and no-one else's
18:24 <+ciaranm> trelane: i merely agreed to his request
18:24 < musikc_mobile> i do agree with ciaranm, dev-zero appointed him proxy. if someone doesnt like it, well it was dev-zero's action.
18:24  * musikc_mobile makes a note on her calendar that she agreed with ciaranm ;)
18:25 < yngwin> yes
18:25 < trelane> musikc_mobile: even a broken clock
18:25 < agaffney> musikc_mobile: the fourth horseman, eh?
18:26 < trelane> musikc_mobile: the question is was dev-zero within his authority as a council person, and that seems to be up to considerable debate
18:26 < musikc_mobile> agaffney, stranger things have happened... oh wait
18:26 < trelane> agaffney: and behold I looked and saw a white horse, and he upon him was named Death, and Hell was with him.
18:26 <+ciaranm> if he were not within his authority, there would be a clear rule saying so, as there is a clear rule saying that he can't appoint an existing council member as a proxy
18:27 < musikc_mobile> well let's be fair, perhaps there should be more documentation to support what can sand cant happen. like when dev-zero banned someone from #council wihtout a vote from council members
18:27 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, elected council members are not immune from folly
18:27 < musikc_mobile> clearly, not all council members act within the same understood guidelines
18:27 -!- leio-dl [n=leio@gentoo/developer/leio] has joined #gentoo-council
18:27 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o leio-dl] by ChanServ
18:28 <+ciaranm> NeddySeagoon: were it folly, you'd have six votes against it, not four
18:28 < musikc_mobile> so perhaps removing 'understood' and such 'implications' is best served via actual documents and said documents could be updated to reflect the growth and shift of the life that is Gentoo
18:28 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, I missed the start of the meeting sorry
18:29 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm council members is plural
18:30 < musikc_mobile> real life work calls
18:30  * trelane notes that thankfully there is at least a plurality of council members who thought it stupid
18:30 < musikc_mobile> later
18:30 <+ciaranm> NeddySeagoon: if you're saying that the slimmest majority possible are all that's standing between gentoo and folly, gentoo's screwed
18:30 < trelane> ciaranm: I'm assuming you abstained from the vote?
18:30 < trelane> ciaranm: correct.
18:30 < spatz> hopefully this decision will have a concensus among the new council
18:31 < yngwin> we dont know if the other two voted at all and what their reasoning was, if any
18:31 <+ciaranm> 21:12 <@Betelgeuse> For the record I don't think proxies need to be Gentoo developers.
18:32 < Naib> *think*
18:32 < Naib> thinking != bylaw
18:32 <+ciaranm> well, thinking's better than yelling "a witch! a witch!"
18:32 <+ciaranm> Naib: point to the bylaw that forbids it please
18:32 < Naib> why should i
18:33 < spatz> lol
18:33 -!- FuzzyRay [n=pvarner@gentoo/developer/FuzzyRay] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
18:33 <+ciaranm> because if you can, i'll agree that dev-zero was wrong and apologise for missing it every previous time i've looked for it
18:33 < yngwin> there's a distinction between 'not gentoo developer' and 'forcefully removed ex-developer'
18:33 <+ciaranm> yngwin: please point to that distinction in glep 39
18:34 < Naib> ciaranm: quote me where I said it was wrong or where i said it was allowed
18:34 < yngwin> i'm not talking about the glep
18:34 < trelane> ciaranm: how's about the majority (and I'm counting 5 here, not 4) of the board voted no.
18:34 <+ciaranm> i'll remind you also that my vote was counted in the most recent foundation election
18:34 < spatz> pointing isn't allowed in glep39
18:34 < spatz> so yngwin can't comply with that request
18:34 -!- musikc_mobile [n=musikc@...] has quit [Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)]
18:34 -!- billie [n=billie@gentoo/developer/billie] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
18:34 < trelane> ciaranm: and dead pets vote in Chicago, what's your point?
18:34 < spatz> lol
18:35 < agaffney> ciaranm: foundation is different than council
18:35 <+ciaranm> agaffney: i know that
18:35 < trelane> ciaranm: the foundation election has a pretty non-exclusive quorum, I think my cat voted.
18:35 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, that depends on the new council, not the outgoing one and how much influence it has over the direction Gentoo moves in. So far, its a mostly reactive body
18:35 < agaffney> iirc, non-devs can apply to be a member of the foundation
18:35 < rane> yes, they can
18:35 < rane> and there's a few of those already
18:35 < rane> they become members by decision of the board
18:36 <+ciaranm> my point is that were i the great satan as a few of you seem to believe, the foundation would not have asked me to vote in the most recent election
18:36 < agaffney> ciaranm: so the fact that your foundation vote was counted means nothing for the current conversation
18:36 < spatz> i voted to allow wikipedia to relicense it's content, does that count?
18:36 < rane> ciaranm, maybe you just aren't important enough to change foundation rules just to exclude your vote
18:37 < agaffney> heh
18:37 <+ciaranm> rane: yet i am important enough to change the council rules to do so?
18:37 < trelane> ciaranm: I think you're more like Israel, but take your pick.  Would you ride my white horse? (it's symbolic of course)
18:37 <@ulm> ciaranm: i don't think that today's vote had anything to do with your person
18:38 < agaffney> you brought the issue to attention, but it wasn't targetting you
18:38 < rane> my point is: it's not always about you
18:38 < agaffney> despite what your ego may think
18:38 <+ciaranm> 23:33 < yngwin> there's a distinction between 'not gentoo developer' and 'forcefully removed ex-developer'
18:38 <+ciaranm> *cough*
18:38  * spatz hands ciaranm a tissue
18:38 <+ciaranm> 23:18 < musikc_mobile> there's always the matter of whether to differentiate people on not being a dev and those who were devs and forcibly removed
18:39 < trelane> I this musikc has a point
18:39 < trelane> you were removed from the project due to disciplinary problems which can only be described as myriad, manifest, and ongoing.
18:39 <+tanderson> trelane: is there currently a devrel bug open against ciaran?
18:40 <+ciaranm> trelane: learn your history
18:40 < trelane> tanderson: not that I'm aware of. I've been asked to file one because of his treatment towards me (I have not yet), and have spoken to several develrel people about it.
18:41 < trelane> ciaranm: I've quoted conlaw, the bible, and ozzy osbourne.  Do you think for a moment I don't know my history? (factual, religious, otherwise?)
18:41 < NeddySeagoon> ciaranm, Nobody has been expelled from the foundation yet
18:41 <+tanderson> trelane: then the problem is not ongoing. I've had complaints against me and I'd hardly say that I had disciplinary problems because of that
18:41 <+ciaranm> trelane: i was actually removed for saying that the prefix project had several large unanswered holes in its design
18:41 < solar> actually the problems are ongoing.
18:42 < spatz> the bug about you is longer than the us constitution
18:42 <+tanderson> solar: well, I mean the problem is not ongoing based on that reason
18:42 < trelane> ciaranm: if you can't figure out that you're an ongoing problem, I can't help you.
18:42 < solar> false accusations etc. But I don't feel like getting into it today.
18:42 < solar> good day all.
18:42 < trelane> solar: greetings :)
18:43 < spatz> solar: may the fsm be with you
18:43 <+ciaranm> trelane: if you want an example of an on-going problem, look at, say, pappy
18:44 < trelane> ciaranm: you also seem to think that it's unfair in a situation where this is because you are being singled out.  You've repeatedly spoken about how GLEP's 54/5 were brought up by, to quote you, "The wrong people".  It seems like you don't understand how that status quo came to be.
18:44 < trelane> I'm neither for nor against you.  After talking with peper I was 100% turned on GLEP-54.  I'm trying to stop the fight.  Right now it seems like the best way to do that is taking you out to a sandbox and beating you with a 2x4.  I've got the stomach to do it, so that's no big deal.
18:45 <+ciaranm> trelane: peper is fully aware of why i didn't think him pushing 54 and 55 would get anywhere
18:45 <+ciaranm> trelane: and history has shown that i was right on that
18:46  * ciaranm wonders when trelane will work out that peper is one of those paludis people whom he thinks are always wrong no matter what they say
18:47 < trelane> I don't think the problem is peper.  In my discussion with him he is both rational, and is capable of making valid arguments for the need for GLEP-54.  He can also do it in such a manner as that I don't want to take him out to the sandbox with a 2x4.
18:47 < trelane> ciaranm: I don't have a problem with everyone at paludis
18:48 <+ciaranm> *cough*
18:48 <+ciaranm> that pretty much sums up all we need to know
18:48 < spatz> you seem to have a coughing problem, you should see a doctor
18:49 < trelane> ciaranm: and yet here I am, with no problem dealing with peper.  Perhaps it is louder, and dare I say more visibly obnoxious paludis devs.
18:49 -!- tsunam_ [n=tsunam@gentoo/developer/tsunam] has joined #gentoo-council
18:49 < trelane> (obviously I'm more than happy to answer any _factual_ concerns with that e-mail, as always)
18:50 <+ciaranm> trelane: or perhaps your fundamentalism is standing in the way of you realising that i am not the great satan and paludis is not the source of all evil
18:50 < trelane> ditto the more extensive followup
18:50 <@leio-dl> The natural follow-up to that particular mailing list reference would be
18:50 < trelane> ciaranm: I already said you're not the great satan.  Much more like the little satan.  You may still however ride my white horse (which is still symbolic of course)
18:50 < trelane> (remind me to learn the rest of that guitar solo)
18:51 < trelane> leio-dl: indeed.
18:51 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: yes, it reads like something rush limbaugh would come up with. i especially like the part where paludis is blamed for the tree's diminishing quality.
18:52 <@leio-dl> That one might need some further followup to make you happy
18:52 <@leio-dl> I however don't particularly care about those posts there, but as you brought some out of context stuff up, I linked the explanation.
18:53 < trelane> ciaranm: I'd like to thank you for the compliment.
18:53 <+ciaranm> i'm quite happy to hear specific suggestions of "paludis does this. it would be better doing this instead because blah."
18:53 < trelane> leio-dl: I'm beating up paludis devs with half my brain tied behind my back (just to make it fair)
18:53 <+ciaranm> that's helpful and gets things changed. "everything paludis does is evil and i want paludis to fail" is rush limbaugh
18:53  * trelane with talent on loan from God.
18:53 < trelane> ciaranm: you don't want to turn this into my imitation of a Rush Limbaugh show, you'll lose.
18:54 < trelane> ciaranm: I want Paludis to fail.  It's unhealthy (or at least the loudest and most visible of it's devs are) for Gentoo.
18:54 < trelane> lets be VERY clear on that point.  So long as Paludis, and the culture it creates are unhealthy for Gentoo I want it to fail.
18:55 <+ciaranm> and that is the difference between us: i want things to be improved. you want things to fail.
18:55 < trelane> the difference is I see that what you're doing does not improve things.
18:56 < NeddySeagoon> good night
18:56 < trelane> NeddySeagoon: sleep well :)
18:56 <+ciaranm> trelane: you think EAPIs 2 and 3 aren't an improvement?
18:56 < NeddySeagoon> trelane, thanks
18:56 -!- NeddySeagoon [n=NeddySea@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon] has quit [Client Quit]
18:56 < spatz> NeddySeagoon: gn :)
18:56 < spatz> ah, crap
18:56 < trelane> ciaranm: EAPI's 2 and 3 aren't relevent to your behavior.
18:57 < spatz> the road to hell is paved with good intentions
18:57 < trelane> Neitzche tells us destruction is inherently creative, there will be some positive outcomes, that does not however negate the destruction.
18:57 < trelane> spatz: correct.
19:05  * trelane wonders if people that bash Rush Limbaugh have ever listened to what he has to say, or just assume they know what he's saying because the media tells us Rush Limbaugh is EVIL.
19:07 <@leio-dl> who's Rush Limbaugh and why haven't I heard about him from Colbert? ;p
19:08 < trelane> leio-dl: Rush is a conservative talk radio show host. noon-3 EST
19:09 <@leio-dl> ok. Other continent or something that got known within the last 6 months, thanks for clarifying
19:11 <+ciaranm> rush limbaugh is the sort of person who, if obama said that kittens were adorable, would drown a hundred kittens just because to do otherwise would be agreeing with obama and thus supporting liberalism
19:12 <+ciaranm> replace paludis with liberalism in and you pretty much have it
19:13 < trelane> ciaranm: good writers borrow, great writers steal outright :)
19:13 <@leio-dl> from the outside I have no clue how those two american parties differ from eachother at all, they seem all the same.
19:13 <@leio-dl> but this is really off-topic ;p
19:13 <@leio-dl> not that much of the above was very on-topic
19:13 < trelane> leio: Rush isn't a member of either party, but believes in a concept called Conservatism as envisioned by Reagan, and defined by the Economist Hayek.
19:14 <@leio-dl> we in Europe like to have left and right wing parties, socialist parties, green parties, lots of party all around
19:15 -!- peper [n=peper@gentoo/developer/paludis.lackey.peper] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
19:16 -!- ulm [n=ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm] has quit ["ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)"]
19:16 -!- trelane [i=trelane@funtoo/staff/trelane] has quit []
19:16 < tsunam_> leio-dl: aye, US is still a crazy 2 party system where, really they are not so different from each other, just like to claim they are
19:16 -!- trelane [i=trelane@...] has joined #gentoo-council
19:16 <@leio-dl> we are party people!
19:17 -!- peper [n=peper@gentoo/developer/paludis.lackey.peper] has joined #gentoo-council
19:17 < trelane> leio-dl: yeah the two party issue here isn't ideal
19:19 < spatz> gn folks :)
19:20 -!- spatz [n=spatz@unaffiliated/spatz] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
19:21 -!- tsunam_ [n=tsunam@gentoo/developer/tsunam] has left #gentoo-council []
19:30 < trelane> by the way, since it was requested that I clarify my remarks on tree quality and paludis.  I was specifically referring to spb's stint as head of QA.
19:30 < trelane> and the degredation that occurred under his leadership
19:32 <+ciaranm> yes, that's so obviously very clear from all those remarks you made. you were very explicit that it was all about spb.
19:33 < trelane> no, the portion about tree quality was about sbp
19:33 < trelane> again, do NOT put words in my mouth.
19:34 <+ciaranm> i'm also curious how you equate spb as head of qa, whatever tree quality decline you noticed and paludis
19:35 < trelane> my memory is around 2006 it became harder and harder to even run x86 stable, I left gentoo and switched to ubuntu.  I came back when Daniel requested I join him on Funtoo
19:36 <+ciaranm> i still see no connection between that, spb as head of qa and paludis
19:36 < trelane> well the last isn't quite true.  I set up one box a few months before that to run as a headless workstation via VNC
19:36 <+ciaranm> especially given the whole "x86 arch team" thing
19:37 < trelane> ciaranm: might I suggest a visit to an optomitrist then?  With your NHS system (That goes broke every few years) the trip's free.
19:38 <+ciaranm> trelane: you appear to be under the mistaken impression that a) qa had the power to influence x86 stable (quite the contrary -- qa's efforts there were obstructed), and b) that that is in any way related to paludis
19:38 < trelane> exherbo dev run QA, quality assurance suck, exherbo dev leave, QA stops with the suck.  Now I know I may be guilty of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking
19:39 < trelane> but I think there's both causation and correlation
19:40 < trelane> and I'm not about to waste a reasonable portion of my life debating the technical merits of every proposal you or any other paludis or exherbo dev ever made.
19:40 <+ciaranm> there was no exherbo then, the quality decline you speak of didn't happen correlating to that time, a large part of the problem was that x86 wasn't under qa's control and that qa had very little power, and it's a bit of a long shot to consider spb to be a major contributor to paludis or exherbo
19:41 < trelane> ciaranm: your project problems aren't mine.  Perhaps you could get him to do more work?  Gentoo certainly didn't
19:41 < trelane> and my argument and yours both seem to be that 'spb is asleep at the switch'
19:41 < trelane> but he's your dev
19:41 < trelane> and not my problem anymore
19:42 <+ciaranm> uh what. no. i'm saying that spb, like many others, is a contributor to paludis and exherbo, but that he isn't amongst the most prolific. and, for that matter, as head of qa he put in considerably more work than others have done in that role.
19:42 <+ciaranm> but again, i know you like to blame the great satan and all his little minions for everything, and somehow see the devil's hand everywhere
19:42 <@leio-dl> unfortunately I saw none, but I have a optometrist visit long overdue
19:42 <@leio-dl> but don't see this important either way
19:43 < trelane> ciaranm: do you enjoy constructing strawman arguments, or are you just losing control of your temper?
19:44 <+ciaranm> trelane: there's no straw man, and i am in perfect control of my temper
19:44 < trelane> <ciaranm> but again, i know you like to blame the great satan and all his little minions for everything, and somehow see the devil's hand everywhere
19:45 < trelane> that's a straw man argument
19:45 <+ciaranm> not at all. you suddenly start blaming exherbo for x86 stable's problems several years before exherbo even existed
19:45 < trelane> I've never taken that position, you've at the same time created that position, refuted it and therefore claimed that my position which has nothing to do with any sort of satan (though you may still ride my white horse, it's symbolic of course)
19:45 < trelane> ciaranm: I believe I blaimed 'spb'
19:46 < trelane> I don't think I blamed exherbo
19:46 <+ciaranm> < trelane> exherbo dev run QA, quality assurance suck, exherbo dev leave, QA stops with the suck.
19:46 < trelane> and I am fully aware of when exherbo was started
19:46 -!- Cardoe [n=Cardoe@gentoo/developer/Cardoe] has quit ["Leaving"]
19:46 <+ciaranm> there has never been an exherbo dev running gentoo qa
19:46 < trelane> why don't you try dealing with my argument instead of a veriation thereon
19:46 < trelane> variation
19:47 <+ciaranm> you're coming up with these amazing string of non-existent correlations to try to go from x86 sucking to it being the fault of paludis, exherbo, spb or me
19:48 < trelane> ciaranm: but you aren't arguing those, you're arguing something about you being the great satan
19:48 < trelane> and when exherbo was founded
19:48 < trelane> none of which I give a flying.... about
19:49 < trelane> I also have it in /msg from an infra guy that spb did at least attempt to take over QA, whether it was de facto or de jure it did occur
19:49 <+ciaranm> trelane: my point is that you're in the same kind of self-reinforcing delusion that leads religious fundamentalists to see the hand of the devil everywhere, or conservative fundamentalists to see absolutely everything as a vast liberal conspiracy
19:49 <+ciaranm> spb was for a time qa lead, yes
19:49 < trelane> and he's now an exherbo dev QED
19:49 < trelane> and now I'm a fundamentalist
19:50 <+ciaranm> what is the connection between the two events?
19:50 <+ciaranm> spb's time as gentoo qa lead or lack thereof had nothing to do with his exherbo developerhoodship
19:50 < trelane> no, lets discuss my being a fundamentalist, that's going to be WAY more fun.
19:50 < trelane> because I want to make sure I understand your argument
19:50 <+ciaranm> you see everything as part of a vast plot controlled by exherbo / paludis / spb / me
19:51 < trelane> btw the conspiracy in the US is vast, it's also right wing. (I'm a member of the conspiracy)
19:51 < trelane> ciaranm: no I see you complaining _constantly_ and because of that you created a situation where you, and other paludis devs are "the wrong people" regardless of whether they are or not.
19:51 < trelane> You, because of your poor social skills have made it nearly impossible to work with paludis
19:52 < trelane> instead of supporting funtoo's profile hierarchy system as portage has you filed a bug out of spite to try to remove and curtail the functionality
19:52 <+ciaranm> trelane: you see that because that's what you want to see. you should instead look and notice that paludis has a large active developer team, that pms is coming along nicely and that we're getting new EAPI work done
19:52 < trelane> we aren't part of gentoo, there's no reason we should comply with it's PMS, which I should point out you and spb wrote (Which I'm sure will make Coast to Coast AM any second now)
19:53 <+ciaranm> funtoo is more than welcome to come up with its own specification for package managers, and if it does portage and paludis will both likely give it consideration
19:53 < trelane> portage already did, we asked Zac and he supported it
19:53 < trelane> amazingly we didn't have to kill a tree writing specifications to make that happen
19:54 <+ciaranm> and i asked zac to ensure, *on gentoo*, that portage would enforce pms
19:54 <+ciaranm> so that people couldn't accidentally use funtoo features on gentoo-specified trees
19:55 < trelane> and repoman already prevents that as I understand it.
19:55 -!- Thargor [n=quassel@unaffiliated/thargor] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
19:55 < trelane> if it doesn't tree quality is handled largely in repoman
19:55 <+ciaranm> repoman on profiles? not so much...
19:56 <+ciaranm> no, portage does issue qa warnings for things where it can do so
19:56 < trelane> my question here is what I asked Zac, if I wanted a warning over every trivial problem, I'd install paludis
19:57 < trelane> I have before
19:57 <+ciaranm> what you're missing is that those warnings improve qa. you know, the thing that put you off gentoo...
19:58 <@leio-dl> yeah, we need a qa check for making sure no-one completely deletes profiles/package.mask
19:58 < trelane> leio-dl: we should also make sure it's not a device node.
19:59 <+ciaranm> you shouldn't check that it's not a device node. you should check that it is what it's supposed to be.
20:01 < trelane> leio: we should also check that it's not a fat32 file system
20:01 < trelane> not sure why, but it could cause problem
20:01 < trelane> s
20:01 <+ciaranm> the specification does not say anything about fat32
20:02 <+ciaranm> it does say that package.mask is a file, not a directory
20:02 < trelane> no, but that could be a QA problem, all those little files and directories that we can now use outside the main tree
20:02 <@leio-dl> but but my local linux guru says a device node is a file
20:02 < trelane> they take up FAT entries
20:02 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: pms covers that issue
20:02 < trelane> leio-dl: we have to be sure.
20:02 <@leio-dl> I'll set him straight!
20:02 < trelane> ciaranm: I've not yet really commented on PMS, so I'm going to now
20:03 < trelane> it is perhaps the most aptly acronymed document I've ever come across
20:03 <@leio-dl> shit, I'm the local linux guru
20:03 < trelane> <include midol.h> in the next version please
20:04 <+ciaranm> thanks for that as constructive as ever criticism, trelane. i'll get right on to addressing your concerns and applying your patches.
20:04 < trelane> ciaranm: and as always I'm glad to bring you paludroids one step back closer to reality :)
20:05 <+ciaranm> ...and you wonder why you're dismissed as a troll
20:05 < trelane> by whom?
20:05 < trelane> you?
20:05 < trelane> go for it
20:05 < trelane> I think I've got plenty of traction with a majority of the council
20:05 < trelane> common sense does that
20:06 <@leio-dl> trelane: Maybe you shouldn't have rented that troll costume
20:06 <+ciaranm> the majority of the council does not share your views on pms or paludis
20:06 < trelane> leio-dl: I thought it was the bridge :/
20:07 <@leio-dl> I think we should form a #gentoo-entertainment channel and move all this there.
20:07 <@leio-dl> You are replacing my pre-sleep Colbert here.
20:07 < trelane> ciaranm: I don't care about either of them (I think I've shown that).  I care that the personalities behind both have been destructive for gentoo.
20:07 < trelane> leio-dl: Sir, I'm way funnier than Colbert
20:07 <+ciaranm> trelane: again, self-reinforcing delusion. you see nothing we do as good because you think nothing we do is good.
20:08 < trelane> ciaranm: I already noted that after talking with peper that GLEP 54 is a good idea
20:08 < trelane> I think that dealing with you to any degree results in nothing good
20:08 <@leio-dl> trelane: might explain why I haven't managed to start my video player. That, or I was reading manifestos.
20:08 < trelane> and for the third time you've put words in my mouth
20:08 <+ciaranm> trelane: but peper's one of those personalities you hate
20:08 < trelane> and for the third time I've asked you to stop
20:08 < trelane> no, his personality's fine, yours leaves much to be desired.
20:09 < trelane> you have been weighed, measured, and found wanting, biblically speaking.
20:09 <+ciaranm> and so as a result, you go against absolutely anything you can in some way associate with me
20:10 < trelane> ciaranm: that's put in a manner that seems to be a somewhat knee-jerk reaction.  It should be clear that opposing you and everything you do was an initiative I started only after careful consideration.
20:10 < trelane> I'd like to clarify a remark I made earlier.  I'm really probably as interested in seeing you, your endless bickering and harassment, and your browbeating the council, that's the stuff I want to fail
20:11 <+ciaranm> trelane: so you admit that you oppose everything i do based upon it being done by me, not based upon that thing's own merits or lack thereof
20:11 < trelane> that's the stuff that has gridlocked the council since it's inception
20:11 < trelane> I would say that your involvement mitigates the merit
20:11 < trelane> and that if your involvement is removed the merit is increased.
20:11 < trelane> you yourself said that you are "The wrong people" in reference to GLEP 54/5
20:11 <+ciaranm> so you want to gridlock the council so that nothing i do can get through
20:12 < trelane> I'm merely agreeing with you
20:12 < trelane> no I'm looking to get rid of you to free up the gridlock you cause
20:12 <+ciaranm> i said that there are people who will argue against 54 and 55 simply because it can be associated with me, regardless of merit
20:13 < trelane> I am not amongst those people.  I agree with peper on 54.  I agree with Neddy that 55 isn't there.  I don't agree that 54 requires 55 (which has been proposed), and I think that 55 needs more work.
20:13 < trelane> I'm not convinced that there aren't better ways of handling 55.  I think Patrick Lauer outlined some potential performance problems, as has Neddy.
20:13 < trelane> I think those have to be addressed.
20:14 <+ciaranm> i'd also be interested to see how you think that i in any way hindered the EAPI 3 process
20:14 <+ciaranm> or how you think it would have progressed had i not put in the work that i did
20:14 < trelane> I think I noted already that I couldn't care less about EAPI-3
20:14 <+ciaranm> you don't care about what several council members consider to be the major thing they accomplished this year?
20:14 < trelane> I possibly could care less, I'm investigating manners and methods I could use to care less about it than I already do.
20:16 <+ciaranm> you think the council got gridlocked by me because you're dismissing the biggest thing the council did with my involvement?
20:16 <+ciaranm> yes, i suppose if you ignore every result, then you can claim that the process is broken
20:16 < trelane> I know that 54/55 is gridlocked, and I've seen the astroturf you've laid down over the issue
20:16 < trelane> I'm not talking about EAPI-3, that's old business as you so aptly pointed out.
20:17 <+ciaranm> "yes, you cured cancer, but i don't care about that, therefore you suck for not curing hiv"
20:17 < trelane> seriously?
20:17 < trelane> you're equating EAPI-3 with curing cancer?
20:17 < trelane> anyone here a tenured professor
20:18 < trelane> we've got to get ciaranm a Nobel!
20:18 <+ciaranm> i'm saying that EAPI 3 is a major achievement for gentoo
20:19 < trelane> that's great, do you want a medal or a chest to pin it on? I  am, for what I swear is the 10th time, from Funtoo
20:20 <+ciaranm> and your complaint that i'm gridlocking the gentoo council by delivering something of great benefit to gentoo relates to you being from funtoo how? would you like the gentoo council to spend more time on funtoo?
20:20 <+ciaranm> do you feel that funtoo's needs can better be addressed by the gentoo council if it spends less time on 54 and 55?
20:21 < trelane> my complaint is that you're gridlocking the council, EAPI-3 is so insignificant compared to what could be accomplished as to not matter, and I'd like the council to spend as little time on funtoo as possible, that's my job
20:21 < trelane> (and I fulfill the responsibilities of my job perfectly every day.)
20:21 <+ciaranm> so what would you have the council accomplish, and where are your proposals for it?
20:22 < trelane> first off, and I'm disheartened that it hasn't happened, but a proposal to take you out to the sandbox with a 2x4 would be where I'd start.
20:22 < trelane> in fact I should write a manifesto based on having the council beat the crap out of you.
20:22 < trelane> while not serious there are a lot of people who, because they are frustrated trying to deal with you, would _really_ enjoy reading it.
20:23 <+ciaranm> and here you show that you don't want the council to do anything at all. you just want to disrupt progress for fun.
20:23 < trelane> and here again for the fourth time you've put words in my mouth.
20:23 < trelane> I assure you that my ego is sufficiently massive that I am fully capable of speaking for myself (indeed I've done so for hte past 2.5 hours)
20:23 <+ciaranm> your first proposal would be for the council to "take you out to the sandbox with a 2x4"
20:24 -!- hparker [n=hparker@gentoo/developer/hparker] has joined #gentoo-council
20:24 <+ciaranm> yes, that's a very productive use of gentoo's time
20:24 < trelane> no, to take YOU out to the sandbox with a 2x4 ciaran
20:24 < trelane> heya Homer
20:24 <+ciaranm> i'm glad you have something useful for the council to do instead of eapi work
20:25 < hparker> heya trelane
20:25 <@leio-dl> eapi work IS useful. The assertion is that a lot of other things are more useful. More value for the time, etc
20:25 < trelane> ciaranm: how's about developer social networking, developer conferences, hell spending the time trying to figure out how to get some beer to the developers doing the work would be more effective than EAPI-3
20:26 <+ciaranm> leio-dl: and i've yet to see trelane's proposals for any of them
20:26 <+ciaranm> trelane: then write them up as proposals and put them to the council
20:26 < trelane> leio-dl: if I formally propose a 2x4 from Lowes, a plane ticket and a taxi to Ciaran's house, how would I go about submitting it?
20:27 < trelane> note that the 2x4 might increase the ticket cost due to additional storage
20:27 <@leio-dl> council mailing list sounds good. You might get a visit from your local authorities though if someone monitors
20:28 < trelane> leio-dl: they all know me, not too worried about that.  I can call someone and make sure the board gets checked ok at the airport :)
20:28 <@leio-dl> for many things (technical proposal) gentoo-dev sounds better, with an emphasize of separately also making sure council is keeping themselves in the loop, or something like that
20:29 <+ciaranm> the only reason the council spends so much time on 54 and 55 is that no-one's given them anything else to discuss... any time something else comes up, 54 and 55 get relegated
20:29 < trelane> hparker: finally I get to use a 2x4 on someone without the permission of the lumber cartel (TINLC)
20:30 <+ciaranm> and a two sentence "talk about this un-thought-out idea" thing solar-style doesn't count...
20:30 < hparker> trelane: lol
20:31 < trelane> ciaranm: so the previous revision of GLEP-55 before Neddy's proposed rewrite should never have been discussed?
20:31 <+ciaranm> trelane: had there been more pressing business, the council should have discussed it first, which when there was they did
20:31 < solar> I've thought about flying over many times. quite franky you are not worth my time. Angry should not get the best of me
20:32 < solar> so lets try to keep avoiding each other
20:32 < solar> I'm leaving your bugs alone. I expect you leave my name out of shit
20:32 < trelane> solar: you can be the first yea vote for my proposal before the next council to utterly expunge ciaranm from the Gentoo project.
20:34 <+ciaranm> trelane: if you think gentoo should have no devmanual, no versionator, no pms, no paludis, no eapi 3 and no eselect then go for it
20:34 < solar> unless you want to moot that treaty
20:35 < trelane> ciaranm: sold.
20:35 < jmbsvicetto> Was the voting about the proxy done on a public medium?
20:36 <@leio-dl> No
20:36 < jmbsvicetto> ciaranm: as you know the rules for Gentoo Foundation membership and the Gentoo Project membership are different
20:36 <@leio-dl> and I wouldn't call what happened elsewhere voting.
20:36 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: thanks. I didn't notice any mails about it, thus wanted to confirm if I had missed anything
20:37 < jmbsvicetto> ciaranm: also, for the record the council project page has included for a long while the following: "# Only Gentoo developers may be nominated" under section 7
20:38 <+ciaranm> jmbsvicetto: where does glep 39 back that up?
20:38 <@leio-dl> ok, good if that's all you wanted to know. Can't go into the details of the non-public medium alone, etc
20:38 < jmbsvicetto> ciaranm: Looking through Google, the oldest reference to that I could find is which quotes a mail from the 2006 election. IIRC, the first council was elected on 2005, so that rule is *old*
20:39 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: sure. I just noticed some discussion in the channel about that "vote", but couldn't see any mails about it.
20:39 <+ciaranm> jmbsvicetto: so it's a mistake that just hasn't been an issue until now
20:39 < jmbsvicetto> ciaranm: and iirc, you were still a dev on 2006 and 2007 and I don't think you ever disputed those mails then
20:39 < trelane> oops
20:39 <@leio-dl> jmbsvicetto: why are old manifesto links broken?
20:40 <+ciaranm> jmbsvicetto: it wasn't an issue back then. the only reason it's an issue now is because people are trying desperately to find ways of making 39 say something it doesn't
20:40 < trelane> ciaranm: GLEP-39 doesn't have to
20:40 < jmbsvicetto> ciaranm: I do agree with you that neither the GLEP nor any documents impose a restriction on the proxy - although I find it reasonable to demand the same condition to be a proxy than what is demanded to be elected
20:40 < trelane> you're the _only_ one talking about GLEP 39
20:40 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: what do you mean?
20:41 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: In the council project page? I don't have anything to do with that
20:41 <@leio-dl> I mean that the links on are broken :)
20:41 <@leio-dl> ok, no big matter
20:41 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: they may have moved the manifestos somewhere else
20:41 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: As a council member, you may commit there - I can't
20:42 <@leio-dl> we didn't do outside linking before the current election
20:42 <@leio-dl> election officials CVS added the manifestos and linked
20:42 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: By the way, I will probably suggest we use a different page for the next council election (page for the elections project)
20:42 <@leio-dl> I think 2008b was merely moved from elections project to council and maybe the manifestos were relative links
20:43 <@leio-dl> might be misremembering some bits of who did what too
20:44 < trelane> wait a sec
20:44 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: 2008b wasn't in the council page last week, iirc
20:44 < trelane> ciaranm: you WROTE GLEP-39.  Why wasn't it clear on this?
20:45 < trelane> where else wasn't this GLEP that you wrote clear?
20:45 <+ciaranm> trelane: glep 39 was very clear in all the restrictions that are on council membership and proxies
20:45 < trelane> I just read it
20:45 < trelane> you asserted that about GLEP-55 before it got rewritten due to manifest flaws as well
20:45 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: If you guys don't object, I would suggest we move all the council election pages under the elections project space and you'll just need to link from the council page to the elections space
20:45 < trelane> and it is not
20:45 < trelane> and obviously it is not because we're having this argument
20:45 <+ciaranm> trelane: glep 39 lists all the restrictions
20:45 <+ciaranm> trelane: it doesn't list all the non-restrictions since that's an infinite set
20:46 < jmbsvicetto> leio-dl: I was thinking on elections/council/*
20:46 <+ciaranm> trelane: glep 39 does not, for example, explicitly say that there is no rule against a female being appointed a proxy, although it has never happened
20:46 < jmbsvicetto> we still need to write a project page to put there
20:46  * jmbsvicetto looks to rane 
20:47 < trelane> ciaranm: that you know of
20:48 < trelane> ciaranm: you aren't out looking up developers kilts at the conferences are you?
20:52 < solar> trelane: tbh I don't think the council has the power to remove devs. It can serve as for conflict resolution if devrel can't work something out.
20:52 < solar> or non-devs.
20:52 < trelane> solar: Ciaran isn't a dev
20:52 < trelane> hrm
20:52 < trelane> ok, as with any cryptographic problem, there's always brute force :)
20:53 -!- comprookie2000 [n=david@gentoo/contributor/comprookie2000] has quit ["ZZZzzz..."]
21:01 -!- HedgeMage [n=HedgeMag@.../user/13813/view] has joined #gentoo-council
21:03 -!- comprookie2000 [n=david@gentoo/contributor/comprookie2000] has joined #gentoo-council
21:15 < trelane> question: were all else equal, ciaran is invested in both paludis (unsupported) and exherbo (not gentoo).  How can he POSSIBLY serve on the council even as a proxy?  There are clearcut ethical conflicts
21:16 < trelane> I mean, no he's not banging a hot chick from argentina (were that we all...) but he cannot vote on GLEP's 54/55, there's no way he can act in good faith for the council
21:17 < rane> let's elect him just for the drama of it
21:18 < solar> the drama is what kills my core ;/
21:18 < trelane> rane: hell no, I want to put him in charge of userrel/devrel (it's in the best interests of funtoo to pick up the rapid exodus of talent from Gentoo
21:18 < trelane> (you see the problem)
21:18 < trelane> I certainly could not in good faith serve as anyone's proxy
21:19  * solar just wants to work and make gentoo(aka portage) better for all of us.
21:19 < rane> but ciaranm is talent even if he drives people around him mad
21:19 < rane> you have to admit that :-)
21:19 < trelane> rane: the cost to benefit ratio is simply too low
21:19 < trelane> I do, but I don't see the ratio as you do
21:19 < rane> i don't know, paludis is cool stuff
21:20 < trelane> probably costing a fortune in RSI surgery for the command line arguments, but ok if meaningless typing is your thing, go for it
21:20 < solar> sure. As an external tool
21:20 < rane> i think being external serves paludis very well
21:20 < rane> no councils looking above your shoulder, no fanbase to serve and protect
21:21 < rane> you write and if someone doesn't like it, he just doesn't use it
21:21 < trelane> rane: then perhaps we should minimize the council
21:21 < trelane> and the fan base may be a result of the personality
21:21 < solar> imo it's a shame that he even bothers with gentoo. Vs taking/making the tool be all it can be on it's own.
21:21 < trelane> solar: it's the majority of his userbase
21:21 < solar> without a tree. Don't half fork !@#$%
21:21 < trelane> I'd guess that fewer than 1000 people use exherbo
21:21 < solar> s/a/our/
21:22 < solar> I think you are right.
21:22 < rane> 1000 isn't bad
21:22 < trelane> rane: no it's not, he should go serve them
21:22 < solar> it can't get it's own users. It wants to take gentoos
21:22 < rane> what about funtoo? do you have stats?
21:22 < solar> which is blah. But oh well
21:22 < rane> what do they need our users for? :-)
21:22 < trelane> rane: to some extent.  We're trying to figure out if we can trust them
21:23 < trelane> rane: funtoo is two projects, our tree, and our stage builder
21:23 < trelane> metro has a fairly large adoption.
21:23 < rane> yeah, i've read, never tried though
21:23 < trelane> the tree isn't as high, but you don't have to use our tree toget the advantages of metro
21:23 < rane> i don't feel like cheating on my gentoo, even in Argentina :-)
21:23 < solar> heh :)
21:24 < trelane> rane: dunno, those Argentinean women....
21:24  * trelane would hit it
21:24 < rane> we've been together half a decade already
21:24 < solar> tools are tools. Just that and nothing more to me.
21:24 < rane> everyone has favourite tools
21:25 < rane> and gentoo still gets the job done
21:25 < solar> yep
21:33 -!- hparker [n=hparker@gentoo/developer/hparker] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
21:38 -!- mpagano [n=mpagano@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has quit ["cya"]
23:06 -!- Philantrop [n=Philantr@exherbo/developer/philantrop] has joined #gentoo-council
23:07 -!- Poly-C [n=Poly-C@gentoo/developer/Polynomial-C] has joined #gentoo-council
23:23 -!- Polynomial-C [n=Poly-C@gentoo/developer/Polynomial-C] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed Fri Jun 26 00:00:43 2009
Re: Log from council meeting on June 25, 2009
-- Andrew D Kirch
Lists: gentoo-council: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Metting log bot
Next by thread:
Re: Log from council meeting on June 25, 2009
Previous by date:
Re: Meeting format
Next by date:
Re: Log from council meeting on June 25, 2009

Updated Nov 13, 2011

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-council mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.