| 1 |
dilfridge 13/12/04 23:19:33 |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Added: 20131008-summary.txt |
| 4 |
Log: |
| 5 |
add 8/Oct summary |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Revision Changes Path |
| 8 |
1.1 xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20131008-summary.txt |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20131008-summary.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup |
| 11 |
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20131008-summary.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Index: 20131008-summary.txt |
| 14 |
=================================================================== |
| 15 |
Summary of the Gentoo Council meeting 08 October 2013 |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Agenda |
| 19 |
====== |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
1. Introduction and roll call |
| 22 |
2. Resume discussion on the new Code of Conduct [1-4] |
| 23 |
3. Open bugs with council involvement |
| 24 |
Bug 477030: Missing summary for 20130611 council meeting [5] |
| 25 |
Bug 481202: Tracker - Documentation or Implementation Issues for |
| 26 |
Dropping of Separate /usr Support [6] |
| 27 |
4. Open floor |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3061 |
| 30 |
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2470 |
| 31 |
[3] http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~scarabeus/gentoo-coc.txt |
| 32 |
[4] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130611.txt |
| 33 |
[5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477030 |
| 34 |
[6] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481202 |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Roll call |
| 38 |
========= |
| 39 |
Present: |
| 40 |
blueness, dberkholz, dilfridge, rich0, scarabeus, ulm, williamh |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Code of Conduct discussion |
| 44 |
========================== |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Vote: |
| 47 |
- Should the current code of conduct undergo "minor" or "major" |
| 48 |
revision, with minor revision being just updating the wording in |
| 49 |
the old text to current organizational structures? |
| 50 |
4 votes for minor, 3 for major revision |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
In the subsequent discussion it was suggested to incorporate changes |
| 53 |
from Scarabeus' text proposal [3] into the existing Code of Conduct. |
| 54 |
To ease discussion on this during next month's meeting, a comparison |
| 55 |
of the files should be circulated among the council members during |
| 56 |
the upcoming weeks. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Dilfridge volunteers to go through the old Code of Conduct text and |
| 59 |
fix the worst outdated passages. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Open bugs with council involvement |
| 63 |
================================== |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
- Bug 477030 "Missing summary for 20130611 council meeting" [5] |
| 66 |
No progress since last meeting. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
- Bug 481202: Tracker - Documentation or Implementation Issues for |
| 69 |
Dropping of Separate /usr Support [6] |
| 70 |
Consensus is that all is done here and that both the last bug |
| 71 |
blocking [6] and the tracker [6] itself can be resolved. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Open floor |
| 75 |
========== |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
WilliamH brings up the issue of using INSTALL_MASK for avoiding |
| 78 |
installation of small utility files. His question is how we could |
| 79 |
avoid requiring a re-build of the entire installed package set when |
| 80 |
the value of INSTALL_MASK is changed. As a possible solution, a |
| 81 |
feature for the package manager is proposed: it could record whether |
| 82 |
a package is affected by INSTALL_MASK during installation, and offer |
| 83 |
a switch to only rebuild all these packages. Implementation should |
| 84 |
not have high priority though. |
Archives