Gentoo Archives: gentoo-commits

From: "Donnie Berkholz (dberkholz)" <dberkholz@g.o>
To: gentoo-commits@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs: 20071108-summary.txt 20071108.txt
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:22:33
Message-Id: E1IqFlZ-00058O-9n@stork.gentoo.org
1 dberkholz 07/11/08 22:22:25
2
3 Added: 20071108-summary.txt 20071108.txt
4 Log:
5 Add 8 November meeting.
6
7 Revision Changes Path
8 1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20071108-summary.txt
9
10 file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20071108-summary.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
11 plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20071108-summary.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
12
13 Index: 20071108-summary.txt
14 ===================================================================
15 amne here
16 betelgeuse absent (1 hour late)
17 dberkholz here
18 flameeyes here
19 lu_zero here
20 vapier absent (no show)
21 uberlord resigned
22 jokey here (replacing uberlord)
23
24 Agenda:
25 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52772
26
27 Also continuing discussion on CoC enforcement. Proposal:
28 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/82
29
30 ==============================================================================
31
32 Empty council slot: vote for Jokey to happen on gentoo-council list
33 -------------------------------------------------------------------
34
35 Jokey is the candidate to replace uberlord [1], and it requires a
36 unanimous council vote [2]. Since not all council members are present,
37 we'll do this vote on the gentoo-council list. All 6 present council
38 members supported Jokey's addition.
39
40 1. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt
41 2. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/voting-logs/council-2007-vote-distribution.txt
42
43
44 Daylight savings change: no slacker marks
45 -----------------------------------------
46
47 In the US and Europe, 2000 UTC shifted by an hour in local time. The
48 email announcement was wrong, so we will not give slacker marks to the
49 two absent council members.
50
51 vapier needs to fix his script before the next announcement.
52
53
54 EAPI=1 approved for use in the main tree
55 ----------------------------------------
56
57 Stable portage version 2.1.3.12 supports EAPI=1. It's now officially OK
58 to start using it in the main tree. From the ebuild ChangeLog for
59 portage:
60
61 This release is the first to have support for EAPI-1 (#194876), which
62 includes SLOT dependencies (#174405), IUSE defaults (#174410), and
63 ECONF_SOURCE support for the default src_compile function (#179380).
64 Package maintainers should carefully consider the backward compatibility
65 consequences before defining EAPI="1" in any ebuilds, especially if
66 other packages depend on those ebuilds. See the ebuild(5) and emerge(1)
67 manual pages for EAPI related documentation.
68
69 EAPI=1 features are documented in PMS as well as the man pages, but they
70 are not yet documented in the devmanual or the dev handbook.
71
72 Code of Conduct enforcement proposal: generally positive feedback
73 -----------------------------------------------------------------
74
75 dberkholz sent out a proposal this morning [1], so we just discussed it
76 today instead of voting. Initial feedback from council members was
77 positive. Some concerns came up on the list about time zone differences
78 and coverage, which were brought up again during the meeting.
79
80 People generally agreed that although the environment is better now, it
81 hasn't been before and won't always be good.
82
83 lu_zero brought up the point that since things are fairly good now, we
84 don't need to rush through this process and we can take our time and do
85 things right.
86
87 Council support for the team's actions should not be as controversial
88 with the requirement that all actions be private.
89
90 The team will need to create the tools to deal with the actions it needs
91 to take (short-term moderation on IRC, mailing lists, and Bugzilla).
92 This could happen during the initial training period suggested on the
93 gentoo-council list.
94
95 If there's already existing moderation somewhere (for example many of
96 the #gentoo-* IRC channels or the forums), the team will first liaise
97 with them rather than preempt them. All official Gentoo forums must
98 adhere to the CoC, however; having their own moderation does not exclude
99 them from following Gentoo's standards as a whole.
100
101 The expectation is that successive actions against the same person will
102 increase in length, eventually reaching the 3-day cutoff that requires
103 council approval and forwarding to devrel/userrel. The idea is that if
104 someone keeps violating the CoC after a given length of moderation, it
105 apparently wasn't enough so it shouldn't be repeated.
106
107 Next month, we will vote on a concrete proposal.
108
109 1. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/82
110
111
112 Baselayout-2: uberlord will continue to maintain it
113 ---------------------------------------------------
114
115 lu_zero asked whether we had anything to do about baselayout-2 since
116 uberlord resigned. He's continuing to maintain it in a git repository
117 and will remain upstream for it. More details will emerge over time.
118
119 kingtaco raised the question of trusting external releases and hosts.
120 Some responses suggested that using git may prevent the malicious host,
121 because of the possibility of GPG-signed tags. He mentioned the
122 possibility of the infra team hosting Gentoo-critical repositories with
123 access by non-Gentoo developers. It's just an idea at this point, but
124 he's going to talk to the rest of the infra team.
125
126
127
128 1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20071108.txt
129
130 file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20071108.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
131 plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20071108.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain
132
133 Index: 20071108.txt
134 ===================================================================
135 20:01 <@dberkholz> anyone got a web link to the agenda thread? not a whole lot on it
136 20:01 * jokey ties amne to $chair
137 20:01 -!- nox-Hand [i=johnhand@unaffiliated/nox-hand] has joined #gentoo-council
138 20:01 -!- Netsplit anthony.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: cruxeternus, peper, koxta
139 20:01 < nox-Hand> Am I too late to talk?
140 20:01 < nox-Hand> And HAI by the way if I can talk
141 20:02 <@dberkholz> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52772
142 20:02 -!- Netsplit over, joins: cruxeternus, koxta, peper
143 20:03 <@dberkholz> alright, roll call
144 20:03 <@dberkholz> who's here?
145 20:03 <@amne> amne:
146 20:03 * Flameeyes present
147 20:03 * jokey me
148 20:03 <@amne> uberlord is absent due to his resignation, which also makes it a point for the agenda
149 20:03 <@amne> ah, hi jokey :-)
150 20:04 <@dberkholz> amne: yes, that's on the linked thread
151 20:05 <@amne> dberkholz: yupp
152 20:06 <@amne> so where's the rest?
153 20:06 <@dberkholz> lu_zero, vapier, SpanKY, Betelgeuse: where are ya?
154 20:07 < nox-Hand> Late reply to the roll call, I am here, but not sure if that matters any..
155 20:07 <@dberkholz> nox-Hand: just council members; feel free to chip in later on, when the discussion you're interested in is happening
156 20:07 <+jokey> nox-Hand: erm nop, council people now...
157 20:07 -!- NeddySeagoon [n=NeddySea@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon] has joined #gentoo-council
158 20:08 < nox-Hand> jokey: dberkholz I Figured as much, cheers, I'll start chirping at my allocated chirpy time :]
159 20:09 -!- uberpinguin [n=uberping@unaffiliated/uberpinguin] has joined #gentoo-council
160 20:09 <@amne> hm
161 20:10 * igli gags nox-Hand
162 20:10 <@amne> due to the change to daylight savings in europe the meeting is an hour earlier today
163 20:10 < NeddySeagoon> amne, everyone beaten by the hour change last week ?
164 20:10 <@amne> i guess that could explain why lu_zero and Betelgeuse aren't here (both europeans, aren't they?)
165 20:10 < fmccor> Even US has changed now.
166 20:10 <@Flameeyes> amne, yeah they are, but as fmccor, us already catched up
167 20:11 <@amne> ah
168 20:11 <@dberkholz> can someone help me find the council summary link where it says the next highest voted person will fill an empty spot
169 20:11 <+jokey> so should we delay another bit? ;)
170 20:11 <@Flameeyes> dberkholz, should be around february last year
171 20:11 <@amne> council.g.o doesn't work for me right now, anyone else got the same problem?
172 20:12 <@amne> http://c.g.o to be more accurate
173 20:12 <@Flameeyes> dberkholz, http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070208-summary.txt
174 20:12 < NeddySeagoon> dberkholz, I don't think it was ever written down in the process but its established as custom and practice now
175 20:12 <+jokey> amne: WORKSFORME
176 20:12 <@Flameeyes> NeddySeagoon, that link above
177 20:12 -!- Netsplit anthony.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: musikc, mpagano__, genone, zxy_64
178 20:12 <@amne> jokey: strange, but as long it works for everyone else :-)
179 20:12 <@lu_zero> cough...
180 20:13 * lu_zero is alive
181 20:13 <@lu_zero> distracted but alive...
182 20:13 < NeddySeagoon> Flameeyes, thank you
183 20:13 -!- Netsplit over, joins: musikc, mpagano__, zxy_64, genone
184 20:13 <@Flameeyes> [I remembered it easily, it was just before I left :)]
185 20:13 <@amne> gentoofan23 just pointed out there still was some confusion: gentoofan23> amne, the time is 15:12 EST right now whereas the e-mail said 16:00 EST so maybe that explains it..
186 20:14 <@dberkholz> well, that means we'll have 5 of 7 people
187 20:14 <@lu_zero> legal/solar time mismatch?
188 20:14 <@Flameeyes> [21:10] [Whois] Betelgeuse has been idle for 20 hours, 0 minutes, and 20 seconds.
189 20:14 <@Flameeyes> Betelgeuse seems not around
190 20:14 <@dberkholz> the other two should've paid closer attention
191 20:15 <@Flameeyes> mike will probably appear midway through the meeting as usual
192 20:15 <@dberkholz> we might as well move on, today will be primarily discussion
193 20:15 <@lu_zero> ok
194 20:15 <@amne> works for me
195 20:15 <@dberkholz> first item requires no voting
196 20:15 <@Flameeyes> fine
197 20:15 <@dberkholz> we're welcoming jokey to the council, filling the spot left vacant by uberlord
198 20:16 <@Flameeyes> and I lost my liason :)
199 20:16 <+jokey> poor Flameeyes ;)
200 20:16 <@lu_zero> eh...
201 20:16 <@dberkholz> so, welcome jokey!
202 20:16 <@dberkholz> how do we get the ops status fixed?
203 20:17 <+jokey> tomaw should be able to
204 20:17 < tomaw> Hi
205 20:17 <@Flameeyes> /tomaw access #gentoo-council add jokey 30
206 20:17 <@Flameeyes> :P
207 20:17 < tomaw> You people should really equip yourselves to do this on your own.
208 20:18 < tomaw> Let me check, as I probably shouldn't be doing it without a nod from the right people
209 20:18 <@lu_zero> hmm
210 20:18 <@amne> vapier is listed as channel contact, he should be able to do it
211 20:18 < tomaw> yeah, he can do it, but noone else (bar staff) can
212 20:18 <@dberkholz> tomaw: aren't we the right people? =P
213 20:19 <@lu_zero> what about having all of us marked as contact/with an higher level?
214 20:19 < tomaw> No, freenode requires that the group contact ask staff. group contacts are currently phreak, christel and whoever your recruitment lead is now
215 20:19 <@dberkholz> you can only add people to levels below your own
216 20:19 <@Flameeyes> lu_zero, beside owner and staff, anyone else can add up to (hislevel-1)
217 20:19 < fmccor> tomaw, Betelgeuse is.
218 20:19 <@amne> uhm
219 20:20 <@amne> dberkholz: If they accept and the current Council unanimously accepts the new person, they get the position with a 'reduced' term such that the yearly elections still elect a full group.
220 20:20 < tomaw> fmccor: that's the guy!
221 20:20 <@Flameeyes> fmccor, let's get someone who's around, don't we? :P
222 20:20 <@amne> dberkholz: doesn't that mean we actually need to vote on jokey?
223 20:20 < fmccor> tomaw, phreak might be.
224 20:21 < tomaw> I pinged him already :)
225 20:21 <@dberkholz> amne: it certainly reads that way. i wonder if we already effectively did so on the mailing list thread about it
226 20:21 <+jokey> just do again so we're set ;)
227 20:21 <@Flameeyes> if we were all around we could vote on it, but I doubt Betelgeuse is around now
228 20:22 <@lu_zero> we could just use the email...
229 20:22 <@amne> works for me
230 20:22 <@lu_zero> next item?
231 20:23 <@dberkholz> the daylight savings change mentioned
232 20:23 <@dberkholz> announcement email was wrong, so i say we don't give slacker marks this week
233 20:24 <@amne> yupp
234 20:24 <@lu_zero> fine
235 20:25 <@Flameeyes> oky doky
236 20:25 <@amne> vapier: plz fix your announcement mail kthx :-)
237 20:25 <@dberkholz> alright, next item
238 20:26 <@dberkholz> approving EAPI=1 for use in the main tree
239 20:26 <@dberkholz> i wish Betelgeuse were here for this because he had some points
240 20:27 <@lu_zero> dberkholz which portage version won't be able to handle it?
241 20:27 <@dberkholz> portage has supported the EAPI variable for more than a year, and stable portage (2.1.3.12) now has EAPI=1 support.
242 20:27 <@lu_zero> and how old would it be?
243 20:27 <@lu_zero> fine to start using it then
244 20:28 <@dberkholz> documentation is in PMS, ebuild and emerge manpages, but it should be added to the devmanual and dev handbook
245 20:28 <@lu_zero> I see
246 20:28 <@Flameeyes> what were the finalised features in EAPI=1?
247 20:28 <@dberkholz> This release is the first to have support for EAPI-1 (#194876), which includes SLOT dependencies (#174405), IUSE defaults (#174410), and ECONF_SOURCE support for the default src_compile function (#179380).
248 20:29 <+jokey> slot deps and iuse defaults being the more important parts
249 20:29 <@Flameeyes> I'm fine for it just at slot deps
250 20:29 <@dberkholz> what EAPI=1 means is already finalized, we're just saying it's fine to start using it in gentoo-x86.
251 20:30 <@Flameeyes> yeah
252 20:30 <@dberkholz> i talked to zmedico yesterday and he thought it would be a good idea for the council to approve it
253 20:30 <@lu_zero> it's fine
254 20:30 <@amne> ++
255 20:30 <+jokey> ack
256 20:31 <@Flameeyes> dberkholz, your vote?
257 20:31 <@dberkholz> yes from me
258 20:31 <@Flameeyes> so it's fine for five out of seven (two missing)
259 20:33 <@dberkholz> alright, last agenda item is discussion of the CoC enforcement proposal
260 20:33 <@dberkholz> i got it together too late for a vote
261 20:33 -!- phreak`` [n=phreak``@gentoo/developer/phreak] has joined #gentoo-council
262 20:33 <@lu_zero> dberkholz I read it and seems fine
263 20:34 <@lu_zero> probably I should take a bit of time to rethink it
264 20:34 <+jokey> the idea of it is good imho
265 20:34 <@amne> i also like it
266 20:35 <@Flameeyes> I join lu_zero
267 20:37 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o jokey] by ChanServ
268 20:37 <@lu_zero> oh =)
269 20:37 <@amne> duck and cover!
270 20:38 <@amne> so, which points from the proposal need specific discussion?
271 20:38 -!- phreak`` [n=phreak``@gentoo/developer/phreak] has left #gentoo-council ["................. do I need to say anything else ?"]
272 20:39 -!- Netsplit anthony.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: musikc, mpagano__, genone, zxy_64
273 20:39 <@dberkholz> amne: you're probably in the best position to talk about whether my understanding of the situation was correct
274 20:39 <@jokey> I think one valid point was the timezone problem
275 20:39 -!- Netsplit over, joins: musikc, mpagano__, zxy_64, genone
276 20:39 <@dberkholz> yeah, but there are distinct times of day that are much more active than others
277 20:40 <@amne> yeah, i think that's the main point, i'll take a quick look at the mails agani
278 20:40 <@dberkholz> i don't think we need to try for 100% coverage of people watching everywhere every second
279 20:40 <@amne> i also like the idea of having a test run as suggested - during that time we can also evaluate how the coverage works
280 20:40 <@dberkholz> we just need to show that we will enforce it if it's violated
281 20:40 <@lu_zero> there were violations lately?
282 20:41 < fmccor> lu_zero, off and on --- some things devrel sees now are really CoC issues in my opinion.
283 20:42 <@amne> fmccor: agreed
284 20:42 < fmccor> lu_zero, but rather low volume to us.
285 20:42 <@dberkholz> i'm not sure how closely y'all read it for devrel/userrel connections, i did add a line about that
286 20:42 <@lu_zero> fmccor so there isn't a dire need for them
287 20:43 <@lu_zero> _so_ nobody would start talking about us putting them up in hurry because of crisis
288 20:43 <@amne> lu_zero: still things may explode again some day, so we shouldn't wait until then
289 20:43 <@jokey> lu_zero: just that history has proven we could use it from time to time
290 20:43 <@Flameeyes> agreed with amne
291 20:43 <@dberkholz> my earnest hope is that we can create a group of people who spend 99% of the time taking no actions
292 20:43 * jokey resyncs brainlink with amne
293 20:44 <@amne> jokey: get out of my head! :-P
294 20:44 <@amne> dberkholz: yes
295 20:44 <@lu_zero> amne the main point is the second
296 20:44 <@Flameeyes> dberkholz, and 1% doing drills organised by us councilers?
297 20:44 <@dberkholz> heh. they could look over old irc logs. =P
298 20:44 < fmccor> lu_zero, remember, devrel typically does not watch for these very quick things unless we happen to see them in passing.
299 20:44 <@lu_zero> since there isn't need we can approve/appoint them
300 20:45 <@lu_zero> s/need/immediate need/
301 20:46 < NeddySeagoon> My hope is that the council will back the body while they work - and hold a 'lessons learned' after every incident
302 20:47 <@amne> good idea
303 20:47 <@jokey> I don't see a reason to not back stuff up atm, but we'll how stuff goes
304 20:48 <@amne> otherwise the people execute CoC don't know what the council wants in the first place
305 20:48 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: An important point about userrel, Is that userrel hasn't been doing the "user control" role for a long time
306 20:48 <@lu_zero> why not?
307 20:48 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: userrel can definitely have that role, but it's something that has been lost for some time
308 20:48 <@dberkholz> that makes me think of a couple of points. first, the council won't back up decisions it disagrees with. second, the council needs to be careful not to overreact
309 20:48 <@Betelgeuse> hmm it's winter time
310 20:48 <@Betelgeuse> damn it
311 20:48 <@lu_zero> hi Betelgeuse
312 20:48 <@Betelgeuse> stupid UTC
313 20:49 <@amne> Betelgeuse: welcome
314 20:49 <@jokey> heya Betelgeuse
315 20:49 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/summary-20071108.txt
316 20:49 <@dberkholz> summary so far
317 20:49 -!- Netsplit anthony.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: musikc, mpagano__, genone, zxy_64
318 20:49 <@amne> dberkholz: agreed, but they still should back up the team doing the work, even if they disagree with a single decision
319 20:50 <@dberkholz> and on the other side of that, the team needs to handle its actions appropriately
320 20:50 -!- Netsplit over, joins: musikc, mpagano__, zxy_64, genone
321 20:50 <@dberkholz> doing the right thing in the wrong way will ruin it
322 20:50 * amne nods
323 20:50 < NeddySeagoon> dberkholz, My point is that the council supports any action in progress until its concluded, so we don't have incidents like the one that killed proctors
324 20:50 < igli> amne's point is critical though, imo
325 20:50 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: Did you want my input on something?
326 20:50 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: nah, was just mentioning some points you brought up about EAPI=1
327 20:51 <@amne> i guess a --dry-run phase would help a lot with these issues
328 20:51 < jmbsvicetto> lu_zero: I think that role hasn't been carried by userrel because the current members have focused more on other projects
329 20:51 < NeddySeagoon> dberkholz, The council 'interfering' in a work in progress will undermine the team
330 20:51 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: Well it's documented in the current PMS version so that's good.
331 20:52 <@dberkholz> NeddySeagoon: i think that will be difficult if not impossible with the change to only private actions
332 20:52 -!- Tabasco [i=rhcp@gateway/tor/x-91a87846c415d662] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
333 20:53 <@dberkholz> all the team would do release is anonymous statistics; X people modded for 6 hours; Y for 12 hours; etc
334 20:53 <@dberkholz> s/ do//
335 20:53 < NeddySeagoon> dberkholz, Thats a change I welcome - much procting was done in private anyway
336 20:55 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: while you're here; do you support just adding jokey to council? we need unanimous
337 20:55 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: sure if he is the next one on the list
338 20:55 <@Betelgeuse> I thought that was already decided by the last counci
339 20:56 <@amne> i think we should also discuss which tools are available for moderation or even needed to implement
340 20:56 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: the last council said that the next person would be offered the spot, contingent upon unanimous council approval
341 20:56 <@dberkholz> amne: yes that's very true, i thought about that and didn't add anything to the proposal
342 20:57 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: okay
343 20:58 <@amne> last proctors had some mailing list interface (which was done by robbat2 iirc) to block emails from people, was there anything else?
344 20:59 <@jokey> I'm with the mail that stated we don't need another set of moderation for irc and forums where it is in place already
345 20:59 <@jokey> so we don't need more than this interface imho
346 20:59 <@amne> other stuff (that's not implemented, but i think was planned) would have been delaying messages until someone approves they are flame free
347 21:00 <@amne> well, that feature could be potentially useful - otoh if mailing list bans are short term it may not be worth the effort to implement
348 21:00 <@jokey> ack
349 21:00 -!- gentoofan23 [n=gentoofa@gentoo/contributor/gentoofan23] has quit [Client Quit]
350 21:01 <@lu_zero> ++
351 21:02 <@Flameeyes> [I'm not saying anything because I'm fine for what you're saying :)]
352 21:02 * Philantrop wonders what jokey and lu_zero ack'ed - "potentially useful" or "not worth the effort".
353 21:02 <@amne> also the bans would need to be unset manually after the time of ban/silencing/foo is over
354 21:02 <@dberkholz> jokey: yep, mailing lists and #gentoo-dev are the main things
355 21:02 <@amne> this means people should also be there to unban people in a timely manner
356 21:02 <@dberkholz> might be able to script that sorta thing
357 21:03 <@amne> dberkholz: atm the mailing list has a web-interface for that
358 21:03 <@amne> but that's all technicalities that i think can be solved. i think it would be best to ask robbat2 about these things, too
359 21:03 <@jokey> if needed, scripting it shouldn't be too hard iirc
360 21:03 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: I think that would require some sort of cron for that
361 21:04 <@amne> perhaps he can easily implement a self-destruct timer for bans
362 21:04 < igli> at would be better
363 21:04 <@amne> ban amne@g.o for 12 hours -> done
364 21:04 <@dberkholz> that's really just a detail that can be figured out after we decide whether to do this at all
365 21:04 <@amne> nod
366 21:04 <@dberkholz> let whoever's doing the work deal with it
367 21:04 <@jokey> yup
368 21:05 < NeddySeagoon> amne, it directs mail to /dev/null just now
369 21:05 <@amne> NeddySeagoon: ack
370 21:05 <@amne> is anyone aware of any other big issues that we haven't discussed yet?
371 21:06 <@dberkholz> regarding CoC, or in general?
372 21:06 <@amne> CoC
373 21:08 * jokey assigns silence to None ;)
374 21:08 <@dberkholz> i wrote down all my ideas, so i'm waiting for others to respond. =)
375 21:08 < fmccor> Is bugzilla covered by it?
376 21:09 <@dberkholz> anywhere without existing moderation should be, so i'd say so
377 21:09 <@dberkholz> which i would interpret as "anything gentoo except for #gentoo and forums"
378 21:09 * fmccor had guessed that, but did not recall.
379 21:09 <@amne> dberkholz: i like the proposal (including the things that have been discussed now)
380 21:09 < igli> i don't think having one strong leader is a good idea. better a strong collective imo.
381 21:09 * fmccor wanted to hear "yes" :)
382 21:10 <@amne> i think it would be good to continue in that direction and finalize it
383 21:10 < NeddySeagoon> dberkholz I was expecting your paper to be discussed on -project rather than -council. As an ex proctor, I intend to provide the benefit of my experiance. I've just been reading the thread
384 21:11 <@amne> discussing it further on -project sounds like a good idea to me
385 21:11 <@lu_zero> we could try -project if the noise ratio increase we'll fallback on -council
386 21:11 <@lu_zero> deadlines for it?
387 21:11 < NeddySeagoon> amne, That was what the last council meetting decided
388 21:11 < igli> project is pretty quiet ;-)
389 21:12 <@dberkholz> project list had an opportunity to express its interests, which it did
390 21:12 <@dberkholz> from those interests i created a concrete proposal
391 21:12 <@dberkholz> i don't think that concrete details are well-designed by committees
392 21:13 <@dberkholz> i do think basic interests are, though
393 21:13 < NeddySeagoon> dberkholz, agreed
394 21:13 <@dberkholz> so if any of the basic interests are incorrect or need refinement, i'd be happy to hear about that wherever
395 21:13 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: One word of caution, your comment of everything gentoo except #gentoo and forums caused a lot of grievance for proctors
396 21:13 <@dberkholz> jmbsvicetto: could you expand on that?
397 21:14 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: Most #gentoo-* irc channels feel they already have a moderation team and are not to keen on having outside interference
398 21:14 <@dberkholz> if they want to be an official channel, they have to deal with the CoC
399 21:14 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: Also, no one has ever been able to come up with a consensous list of official #gentoo-* channels
400 21:15 <@dberkholz> whatever's on the IRC channels page
401 21:15 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: all #gentoo-* is official
402 21:15 <@Flameeyes> ##gentoo-* should be the unofficial ones
403 21:15 <@jokey> amne: I don't think so, some are driven by users
404 21:15 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: if you want it to be non-official, it's ##gentoo-*
405 21:15 <@dberkholz> but certainly this team would need to work with the existing moderation, it doesn't need to take direct action to preempt them
406 21:15 <@Flameeyes> [like we have ##gentoo-anime]
407 21:15 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: I agree, but for instace, #gentoo-userrel, #gentoo-devrel, #gentoo-sparc or #gentoo-pt, just random examples, are not likely to welcome that interpretation
408 21:16 <@lu_zero> Flameeyes we should have #gentoo-anime
409 21:16 <@dberkholz> are they part of gentoo? if so, the CoC affects them.
410 21:16 <@Flameeyes> lu_zero, let's keep it unofficial ;)
411 21:16 <@dberkholz> we just need to figure out the best way to deal with that
412 21:16 <@Flameeyes> dberkholz, regional channels are a problem though, that I agree with
413 21:16 <@Flameeyes> [it so happens I'm one of the #gentoo-it moderators btw]
414 21:17 <@dberkholz> that's why the team would liaise with existing moderation
415 21:17 <@amne> yes
416 21:17 < jmbsvicetto> amne: ok, though question then, is #gentoo-xeffects an official gentoo channel? Also, has freenode changed their policy? Last time we had this discussion the gentoo contacts left it very clear that is was impossible to refuse anyone from registering #gentoo-my-channel
417 21:18 <@jokey> tomaw: have some up-to-date details there ^^
418 21:18 <@lu_zero> jmbsvicetto if they have the gut to register it as different project
419 21:18 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: yes; not that i am aware of; i've seen channels being removed because they were not official and used # instead of ##
420 21:18 <@lu_zero> and we aren't knocking them with a trademark hammer
421 21:18 <@lu_zero> sure
422 21:19 <@amne> lu_zero: yeah, it were some special cases where people used the official #gentoo-* to be abusive
423 21:19 <@amne> lu_zero: don't remember the exact details any more
424 21:19 <@amne> i don't think anyone who does some good work will get slapped by us for not being official enough or whatsoever
425 21:19 < jmbsvicetto> So I'm not misunderstood, I do agree that #gentoo channels should be official channels, but that is not the case currently and freenode doesn't seem to be willing to support that claim
426 21:20 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: how come?
427 21:20 < jmbsvicetto> amne: well, if they will allow anyone to register any #<whatever> channel, how can you enforce that #gentoo-* channels are official gentoo channels?
428 21:21 <@jokey> from what I know, at least within europe you can't enforce trademark over channel names, I think there was something with #debian.de in the past...
429 21:21 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: freenode staff can get it back
430 21:21 < jmbsvicetto> amne: But I think that working with existing teams and working with people that are doing "good work" is the best way
431 21:21 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: yes
432 21:22 <@lu_zero> agreed
433 21:22 < jmbsvicetto> However, I urge you to have a "crystal clear" definition of where you want/expect that team to work
434 21:22 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: i think the only problem would be someone managing an official (#gentoo-*) channel and refusing to accept CoC at all by allowing attacks and other nasty stuff
435 21:23 < NeddySeagoon> amne, like in -dev ?
436 21:23 < jmbsvicetto> amne: You were on the proctors team, so you know the answer to that ;)
437 21:23 <@amne> NeddySeagoon: #gentoo-dev?
438 21:23 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: heh
439 21:23 < NeddySeagoon> amne, yes. With everone an op, its impossible to enforce
440 21:24 < tomaw> jmbsvicetto: it's difficult to refuse them being registered, but a contact could reclaim it if they felt they should
441 21:24 < tomaw> jmbsvicetto: that's freenode policy - I have no idea of gentoo policy
442 21:24 <@amne> NeddySeagoon: #gentoo-dev has no clearly defined people in charge, does it? (so it's up to the new team to manage it imho)
443 21:25 <@lu_zero> everybody should be in charge
444 21:25 < NeddySeagoon> lu_zero, everbody == nobody
445 21:25 <@dberkholz> in general it's sort of devrel, since they're the ones who add/remove ops
446 21:26 < jmbsvicetto> tomaw: At least that's what I gathered from my talks with some gentoo contacts while I worked on the proctors
447 21:26 < NeddySeagoon> Its a detail to think about
448 21:26 <@jokey> indeed
449 21:26 < jmbsvicetto> amne: I agree, but you should expect resistance to a "controlled" #gentoo-dev
450 21:27 <@amne> i think #-dev should fall under the same treatment as the mailing list
451 21:27 < tomaw> jmbsvicetto: yes, the gentoo project registered with freenode and claimed #gentoo-* channels. Currently, it's possible for anyone to register a channel in that namespace, but it can still be turned over the to gentoo project on request.
452 21:27 < kingtaco|laptop> not really, tell them to go somewhere else
453 21:27 < kingtaco|laptop> freedom of speech(if we even have it) is the freedom to say what you want, not where you want
454 21:27 < jmbsvicetto> tomaw: Thanks for clearing that
455 21:27 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: i told you :-P
456 21:28 < jmbsvicetto> amne: :)
457 21:28 < tomaw> jmbsvicetto: note that a single project cannot own #gentoo-* and ##gentoo-*, so gentoo has no control over ##gentoo-* channels
458 21:30 <@jokey> despite talking on details, are there big points we missed?
459 21:31 <@amne> seems everyone's happy (or fallen asleep)
460 21:31 <@amne> perhaps it hasn't been said explicitely, but from my understanding, if someone gets into trouble frequently, issues will be escalated to devrel, right?
461 21:32 <@lu_zero> I think it's sane
462 21:32 <@jokey> amne: devrel or userrel
463 21:32 <@amne> jokey: right
464 21:33 <@dberkholz> my presumption is that successive actions against the same person will eventually extend to the 3-day cutoff that means they need council approval and forwarding to devrel
465 21:33 <@amne> dberkholz: ack
466 21:33 <@dberkholz> but i didn't really allow for someone getting a million 6-12 hour blocks
467 21:33 <@amne> heh
468 21:33 <@dberkholz> maybe i should expressly disallow that, as it's the same "warnings go on forever" problem that means nothing ever gets fixed
469 21:34 <@amne> hm
470 21:35 <@amne> personally i'd prefer loose guidelines and individual treatment depending on the situation
471 21:35 <@amne> but if someone is warned and repeats his behaviour, action should follow
472 21:36 <@lu_zero> ok
473 21:36 <@dberkholz> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/summary-20071108.txt has my summary of the discussion so far
474 21:36 <@dberkholz> we should wrap it up soon and send back to the -council list
475 21:38 <@lu_zero> do we have anything to discuss about baselayout2 and uberlord?
476 21:39 <@amne> dberkholz: summary looks good to me
477 21:39 <@Betelgeuse> lu_zero: Not much if Uberlord contains to maintain it externally
478 21:39 <@Betelgeuse> lu_zero: Otherwise we do need to find someone who works on it.
479 21:39 <@lu_zero> Betelgeuse BSD license switch included?
480 21:39 <@dberkholz> it wasn't a switch, it was an addition
481 21:39 <@dberkholz> so dual GPL/BSD
482 21:40 <@dberkholz> both of which are FSF free, fwiw, so fits our social contract fine
483 21:40 <@lu_zero> held on git on our infrastructure?
484 21:40 <@dberkholz> not sure about the infrastructure bit. anyone know?
485 21:41 <@Flameeyes> I think the idea was to use our git
486 21:41 <@Betelgeuse> I think infra does not allow commit access to non devs but I could be wrong.
487 21:41 <@dberkholz> i'm also unsure how much it matters; i suspect other distros use init systems they don't personally keep on their infra
488 21:42 <@jokey> imho it doesn't matter where it resides as long as someone packages it for gentoo ;)
489 21:42 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: yeah like upstart
490 21:42 <@Flameeyes> dberkholz, yeah doesn't really matter, it just means we have to split baselayout (base files) from the rc system
491 21:42 <@Flameeyes> and that was probably a good idea to begin with
492 21:42 <@lu_zero> as long it doesn't break for us...
493 21:43 <@dberkholz> Flameeyes: i'm sure upstream would be glad to include distro files for any distros that wish to use it. =)
494 21:43 <@Flameeyes> dberkholz, I think Roy's idea was splitting them, anyway I'll certainly follow up with him about it as I do have interest in it
495 21:43 <@dberkholz> sure, i don't know the details
496 21:43 <@lu_zero> ok
497 21:44 <@dberkholz> anyway it seems that baselayout-2 remains in good hands and maintained
498 21:45 <@dberkholz> anyone got another open floor topic?
499 21:46 <@jokey> nox-Hand: you wanted?
500 21:46 < kingtaco|laptop> what about infra?
501 21:46 <@dberkholz> kingtaco|laptop: is there something in particular about infra you'd like to bring up?
502 21:47 < kingtaco|laptop> nope, just cought my eye
503 21:47 < kingtaco|laptop> you guys were talking about infra
504 21:47 <@dberkholz> kingtaco|laptop: oh, we're just not exactly sure where baselayout-2 repository will end up
505 21:47 <@amne> kingtaco|laptop: we decided infra needs to provide the ice cream machine i promised in the election :-)
506 21:47 < kingtaco|laptop> amne, sure, just send me the money
507 21:47 <@amne> heh
508 21:47 <@lu_zero> kingtaco|laptop we were thinking about overhauling one of the boxes
509 21:47 < kingtaco|laptop> dberkholz, yeah, thats a problem.
510 21:48 < jmbsvicetto> amne: Please put it next to bender. kthxbye :P
511 21:48 < kingtaco|laptop> lu_zero, ?
512 21:48 <@dberkholz> kingtaco|laptop: i see it as an open question, certainly
513 21:48 <@lu_zero> kingtaco|laptop for the icecreams
514 21:48 <@dberkholz> it's fine on any site that hosts git, as far as i'm concerned
515 21:48 < kingtaco|laptop> lu_zero, no recycled icecream please
516 21:49 <@lu_zero> dberkholz so far repo.or.cz
517 21:49 < kingtaco|laptop> dberkholz, tbh, I don't know if that's good
518 21:49 <@dberkholz> kingtaco|laptop: why?
519 21:50 < kingtaco|laptop> well, put something as critical as baselayout on anything other than our hardware and it's hard to trust. that said the guy who write the stuff is no longer a dev so it's hard to trust him as well
520 21:50 <@lu_zero> kingtaco|laptop solutions?
521 21:50 <@jokey> it's open source so you take a look at the diffs
522 21:50 <@dberkholz> kingtaco|laptop: how about all the other code on your system?
523 21:50 < kingtaco|laptop> whoever is importing it into gentoo is going to have to keep a close eye on whats going on
524 21:50 <@lu_zero> beside abducting roy
525 21:50 < kingtaco|laptop> lu_zero, sadly, no
526 21:50 < kingtaco|laptop> dberkholz, well, baselayout is critical
527 21:50 < kingtaco|laptop> other stuff is not
528 21:51 <@dberkholz> baselayout is just as critical as glibc, gcc, coreutils
529 21:51 <@jokey> ack
530 21:51 < jmbsvicetto> I agree with kingtaco|laptop in particular if we take into account the decision regarding the PMS
531 21:51 <@lu_zero> still we can keep a local git
532 21:51 <@lu_zero> and pull from roy from time to time
533 21:51 <@dberkholz> and yes, it's git so we can do whatever we want
534 21:51 <@dberkholz> we can maintain our own patchset on top, we can track his branch, we can fork off, whatever
535 21:52 < kingtaco|laptop> I'm not saying not do it, I'm saying whichever gentoo dev is the one who is importing it is going to have to audit each and every import. there is just too much chance for an exploit. projects like coreutils/gcc/glibc have built up a reputation which is why they are different
536 21:52 <@jokey> and not trusting him because he just is no longer a dev tastes very very bad imho
537 21:52 <@dberkholz> that's disgusting
538 21:52 <@Betelgeuse> I would trust Uberlord lot more than new devs.
539 21:53 <@dberkholz> roy's built a reputation too, and quitting gentoo does not affect my view of it in any way
540 21:53 < kingtaco|laptop> would you trust whatever random host he hosts the repo on?
541 21:53 < kingtaco|laptop> I know I wouldn't
542 21:53 <@dberkholz> i trust sha512
543 21:53 <@jokey> if he uses git ans signs it, then yes
544 21:53 <@jokey> *and
545 21:53 < kingtaco|laptop> SCM doesn't matter here
546 21:53 < kingtaco|laptop> signs it perhaps
547 21:54 < kingtaco|laptop> however, you're still trusting uberlord to audit his own code before he releases
548 21:54 <@dberkholz> how's that different? =)
549 21:54 <@amne> (i have to slack off and take care of some stuff, hope no one minds)
550 21:54 < kingtaco|laptop> it's where you put the trust
551 21:55 < igli> isn't that what the testing releases are for?
552 21:55 -!- desultory [n=dean@gentoo/developer/desultory] has joined #gentoo-council
553 21:56 < kingtaco|laptop> when it was on gentoo hardware developed by a gentoo dev there was a lot of trust. now it's on random hardware by a (trusted) ex dev
554 21:56 <@jokey> kingtaco|laptop: re trust... we had exploitable code for year(s) on packages. and we controlled the repo and had a gentoo dev maintaining it. so I really don't see a point
555 21:56 < kingtaco|laptop> I think you need to consider how it can be attacked before you decide on trivialities like git
556 21:56 <@dberkholz> git supports gpg-signed tags and the whole thing is based on sha1 sums
557 21:57 < kingtaco|laptop> jokey, packages is not an attack vector for each and every single gentoo install
558 21:57 < kingtaco|laptop> baselayout is
559 21:58 < kingtaco|laptop> dberkholz, I don't know enough about git to comment on it's trustworthness
560 21:59 -!- leio_ is now known as leio
561 21:59 < igli> hang on; uber signs it so it's verifiably his code. base-system bring it in and sign off on review, then it goes thru testing. where's the vector?
562 21:59 <@dberkholz> the suggestion is that nobody will audit the code, either roy or ebuild maintainers
563 21:59 <@dberkholz> and the git host will somehow be the vector
564 21:59 <@dberkholz> i'm just asking in #git about that
565 22:01 < kingtaco|laptop> when it was on gentoo hardware, you could trust the repo as much as you trusted a combination of gentoos security, arch, and infra teams. when it's somewhere random, you can't trust that git doesn't have a bug or that the host of the git repo isn't doing something malicious
566 22:01 <@dberkholz> i don't think malicious hosts are possible with how git is implemented
567 22:02 <@dberkholz> but i'm asking for clarification
568 22:02 -!- uberpinguin [n=uberping@unaffiliated/uberpinguin] has quit ["Leaving"]
569 22:02 < Philantrop> kingtaco|laptop: Would infra allow non-devs to commit to the repository if it was on Gentoo hardware?
570 22:02 < bonsaikitten> apart from bugs in git itself the signing should be as tamper-resistant as any other system
571 22:02 < igli> sorry i don't see it; only vector is a bug in gpg, which i agree has happened before
572 22:02 < kingtaco|laptop> dberkholz, this is a package that's so important that infra would entertain allowing a baselayout repo for uberloard to use
573 22:02 -!- fmccor_ is now known as fmccor|home
574 22:03 -!- Ingmar^ [n=ingmar@83.101.12.48] has joined #gentoo-council
575 22:03 < kingtaco|laptop> Philantrop, normally no, this is an extrodonary case where I would bring it up with the other infra folks
576 22:03 -!- Ingmar [n=ingmar@83.101.12.89] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
577 22:04 <@jokey> anyway there are no full rewrites near so a diff shouldn't be hard to look into (at least when looking at last updates)
578 22:05 < Philantrop> kingtaco|laptop: Well, if I had anything to say about it, I'd prefer the Gentoo hardware under that circumstances even though I don't think there are any attack vectors but gpg itself.
579 22:05 < igli> would be better
580 22:05 < kingtaco|laptop> Philantrop, on the surface, I would prefer that too, but infra has to have a pow-wow to look deeper
581 22:06 < kingtaco|laptop> dberkholz, jokey can you table this until next month so I have time to talk to infra peeps?
582 22:06 <@dberkholz> repo.or.cz is a git hosting site from the git developers, so i guess if you trust git, you can trust the site
583 22:06 <@dberkholz> kingtaco|laptop: we're not making any decisions so we have nothing to table
584 22:06 < kingtaco|laptop> if we can't do it, then I'll shut up
585 22:06 < eroyf> kingtaco|laptop: infra is willing to let uberlord work on baselayout even though he's not a developer?
586 22:06 < kingtaco|laptop> eroyf, not exactly
587 22:06 < eroyf> then what exactly
588 22:07 < kingtaco|laptop> what I proposed is that infra might create a seperate repo for him to use for the sole purpose of his baselayout development
589 22:07 < eroyf> so he's going to stay as a developer or what?
590 22:08 < kingtaco|laptop> afaik, he quit
591 22:08 < kingtaco|laptop> if he's intending on coming back, I don't know about it
592 22:08 <@dberkholz> basically the proposal is that we'd become a very limited project-hosting site for non-gentoo devs working on critical gentoo packages
593 22:08 < eroyf> or do you create a repo for him to work on and then let someone with an @gentoo.org commit it to the *right* repo?
594 22:08 < eroyf> with svn support?
595 22:09 < kingtaco|laptop> I don't care about the scm
596 22:09 < igli> which other packages are so critical, and not dev'ed by gentoo?
597 22:09 < kingtaco|laptop> if I had my way everyone would still use RCS :p
598 22:09 < eroyf> PMS for example.
599 22:09 < eroyf> which is not a package.
600 22:09 < eroyf> but infra simply refused to let non-developers get access to that repo
601 22:09 < eroyf> so this is somehow interesting.
602 22:09 < igli> if moot
603 22:10 < kingtaco|laptop> extremely moot
604 22:10 < eroyf> well, i'm looking forward to see what you decide
605 22:10 < kingtaco|laptop> ok...
606 22:10 <@dberkholz> since we're not going to make any progress at this meeting, let's just adjourn the meeting
607 22:11 <@dberkholz> feel free to keep talking about it afterwards
608 22:11 -!- igli [n=igli@unaffiliated/igli] has left #gentoo-council ["Have a good one ;-)"]
609 22:11 < kingtaco|laptop> I don't have much more to say, I need to talk to my team about it and work out the details. I'll send you guys an email when infra agrees on something
610 22:16 < fmccor|home> A final thanks to dberkholz for his CoC proposal, which I view as great progress.
611 22:17 <@dberkholz> thanks fmccor|home, i'm glad it went over fairly well
612 22:17 -!- windzor [n=windzor@84.238.69.202] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
613 22:18 < fmccor|home> In my opinion, better than "fairly well". :)
614
615
616
617 --
618 gentoo-commits@g.o mailing list