[gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs: 20130730.txt

[Andreas HAttel (dilfridge)]

dilfridge    13/07/30 20:46:56

  Added:                20130730.txt
  Log:
  add meeting log

Revision  Changes    Path
1.1                  xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130730.txt

file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130730.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130730.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain

Index: 20130730.txt
===================================================================
[21:05:50] <dilfridge> ok
[21:06:00] <dilfridge> let us officially 
[21:06:07] <dilfridge> declare this meeting opened
[21:06:09] <dberkholz> fwiw i wrote up some notes a while back on making these meetings work less poorly -- http://dberkholz.com/2008/05/13/how-to-run-an-effective-meeting-on-irc/
[21:06:43] <dilfridge> should we do another roll call?
[21:06:45] <rich0> dberkholz: does that include having everybody stop and read a blog midway?  :)  Seriously though - thanks for the link.
[21:07:01] <blueness|chromeb> here
[21:07:03] <dilfridge> here
[21:07:06] <ulm> here
[21:07:10] <dberkholz> sure.
[21:07:12] <WilliamH> here
[21:07:18] <scarabeus> here
[21:07:22] <dilfridge> excellent
[21:07:33] <rich0> here
[21:07:34] <dilfridge> agenda point 1
[21:07:44] <dilfridge> - vote for holding meetings every 2nd Tuesday of the month at 2000 UTC (or 
[21:07:44] <dilfridge> 1900 UTC depending on daylight savings)
[21:07:57] -*- ulm votes yes
[21:07:58] <dilfridge> a) general objections?
[21:08:01] <rich0> aye
[21:08:02] -*- WilliamH votes yes
[21:08:02] <dilfridge> b) utc?
[21:08:06] <dilfridge> aye
[21:08:09] <scarabeus> ack from me
[21:08:14] -*- blueness|chromeb votes yes
[21:08:16] <rich0> Err, let's clarify the utc/dst bit
[21:08:19] <dberkholz> so 1900 now, and 2000 during US daylight savings? (since we have more US members)
[21:08:27] <rich0> Is this UTC/BST?
[21:08:33] <rich0> Or US DST?
[21:08:55] <WilliamH> Can we just pick a utc time and stick to it all year?
[21:09:04] <dilfridge> ok we have 5 general yes about the overall plan
[21:09:06] <blueness|chromeb> WilliamH, that works for me
[21:09:09] <rich0> FYI - it is 1900 now and we are currently in DST.
[21:09:13] <dberkholz> i don't really care one way or the other, just pick something
[21:09:15] <scarabeus> works for me too for utc whole year
[21:09:15] <dilfridge> now about the dst question
[21:09:18] <rich0> Ditto.
[21:09:20] <dberkholz> anything works for me
[21:09:23] <dilfridge> I'm for same utc always
[21:09:26] <ulm> works for me either way
[21:09:44] <rich0> How about 1900 UTC always then.
[21:09:51] <blueness|chromeb> yes
[21:09:52] <dilfridge> ok let's have a quick vote, 1b) 19:00 UTC always?
[21:09:52] <ulm> fine
[21:10:04] -*- dilfridge yes
[21:10:08] -*- ulm yes
[21:10:10] -*- WilliamH yes
[21:10:14] -*- blueness|chromeb votes yes 
[21:10:15] <dberkholz> cool. 1900 utc year-round on 2nd tuesdays
[21:10:22] <dberkholz> i will update the google calendar
[21:10:36] <dilfridge> ok that was point 1!
[21:11:00] <dilfridge> 2: "vote for continuing last council's workflow considering sending call for 
[21:11:00] <dilfridge> agenda items (2 weeks in advance), sending the agenda (1 week in advance) and 
[21:11:00] <dilfridge> have the meeting focussed, e.g., have major discussions on -project ML prior 
[21:11:00] <dilfridge> to the meeting"
[21:11:00] <ulm> council.g.o has to be updated too, it says 2000 UTC
[21:11:12] -*- ulm will update the council page
[21:11:16] <dilfridge> thanks!
[21:11:44] <dilfridge> I guess 2 will also be unproblematic
[21:11:45] -*- scarabeus looks forward to see that wikified :P
[21:11:54] <scarabeus> yay for agenda sending from me :-)
[21:12:15] -*- WilliamH yes
[21:12:18] <dilfridge> does point 2 need discussion?
[21:12:18] <rich0> works for me
[21:12:20] -*- dilfridge yes
[21:12:24] -*- ulm yes
[21:12:25] -*- blueness|chromeb yes
[21:12:45] <rich0> dilfridge: I'm fine with aiming for discussions on-list as much as possible.  Not so much a rule as a principle.
[21:13:01] <dberkholz> yep
[21:13:01] <dilfridge> yeah
[21:13:05] <blueness|chromeb> agreed
[21:13:06] <rich0> Oh, and ideally not the day before the meeting.
[21:13:10] <blueness|chromeb> heh yeah
[21:13:16] <dilfridge> having the discussion on ml first makes sense, also since we may want to prepare
[21:13:22] <rich0> The whole point is to give topic submitters time to refine before the meeting and cut down on churn.
[21:13:36] <dberkholz> s/may want/need/
[21:13:40] <rich0> Instead of showing up and getting shot down.
[21:13:41] <blueness|chromeb> who can read the list? only concil members or is it public?
[21:13:46] <blueness|chromeb> and who can post?
[21:13:55] <rich0> Gentoo-project - open list.
[21:13:58] <blueness|chromeb> k
[21:14:00] <WilliamH> -project is public
[21:14:00] <dberkholz> we're talking about the gentoo-project list in most cases
[21:14:05] <blueness|chromeb> oh on -project
[21:14:12] <dberkholz> or gentoo-dev if it's ebuildy
[21:14:12] <blueness|chromeb> thanks for the clarification
[21:14:22] <rich0> Or -dev if it makes more sense.  We can always cross-ref the thread in the agenda where appropriate.
[21:14:57] <dilfridge> the only closed list that we have is -core, and council topic discussions there do NOT make sense.
[21:15:17] <blueness|chromeb> k
[21:15:21] <dilfridge> ok anything else about 2?
[21:15:47] <dilfridge> seems not, I guess this is carried then
[21:16:05] <dilfridge> 3: "appoint chairman for this term's meetings"
[21:16:14] <dilfridge> how was this handled in the past?
[21:16:25] <scarabeus> somebody usually volunteered
[21:16:28] <scarabeus> or it was rotation
[21:16:32] <WilliamH> people usually just volunteer to do it.
[21:16:36] <scarabeus> whatever rocks your chair :-)
[21:16:39] <ulm> I can do september and october
[21:16:53] <dberkholz> we've tried to have people do 2-3 in a row to make it a little less awkward
[21:16:57] <dilfridge> ok... do we need to decide on a full list now? /me does not think so
[21:17:09] <WilliamH> Not necessarily
[21:17:13] <ulm> dilfridge: we should decide until end of the year
[21:17:16] <blueness|chromeb> i'm busy-ish till dec
[21:17:22] <dberkholz> and last year we just settled on the whole year since that's really just like 6 slots of 2 meetings a piece
[21:17:30] <dilfridge> ok i can do november and december
[21:17:41] <dberkholz> anyone taking notes for the summary?
[21:17:42] <scarabeus> ulm: i would more say we caould appoint one at end of each meeting
[21:17:46] <scarabeus> *could
[21:18:22] <dilfridge> dberkholz: I'm logging this anyway... taking notes and typing at the same time is not so easy
[21:18:23] <rich0> Suggest we appoint for next meeting now and take the rest offline.
[21:18:31] <scarabeus> also when is next meeting; 13.8.?
[21:18:44] <rich0> If somebody just wants to toss out a schedule feel free.
[21:18:45] <dilfridge> yes
[21:18:51] <rich0> I can volunteer for that if it helps.
[21:19:25] <blueness|chromeb> rich0, okay
[21:19:26] <dilfridge> 13.8., 10.9., 8.10., 12.11., 10.12.
[21:19:44] <dberkholz> whoa, you europeans and your logical dates are confusing me
[21:19:49] <dilfridge> :)
[21:20:16] <rich0> That's why I get fired if I don't write them as 13-Aug-2013 at my company.
[21:20:35] <dilfridge> 2013/08/13 
[21:20:35] <rich0> Or 01-Aug-2013 - ##-###-####
[21:20:37] <dberkholz> 20130813
[21:20:52] <scarabeus> only correct and mandatory is 2013-08-13 :P
[21:20:54] <rich0> Gotta love lawyers.
[21:21:00] <scarabeus> but dd.mm.yyyy is our syntax
[21:21:13] <dilfridge> unset LC_ALL
[21:21:17] <ulm> in 2014 it's 14-Jan, 11-Feb, 11-Mar, 8-Apr, 13-May, 10-Jun
[21:21:31] <dilfridge> ok
[21:21:32] <dilfridge> anyway
[21:21:35] <dilfridge> we are disgressing
[21:21:43] <blueness|chromeb> ulm, if we rotate i'll take some of the 2014 days
[21:21:56] <blueness|chromeb> but next semester is a bit heavy
[21:22:03] <blueness|chromeb> then i'm on sabattical and very free
[21:22:07] <dilfridge> I just noticed I probably can't do december, but oct and nov is no problem
[21:22:11] <dilfridge> so how about 
[21:22:28] <dilfridge> ulm starts aug sep, I do oct now and the rest will be decided on the way?
[21:22:32] <ulm> dilfridge: I could take aug and sep as well
[21:22:35] <ulm> :)
[21:22:43] <dilfridge> s/now/nov/
[21:23:01] <blueness|chromeb> works for me
[21:23:21] <WilliamH> works for me also we don't have to decide all of them now
[21:23:33] <dberkholz> i can do jan-feb.
[21:23:57] <blueness|chromeb> i can do mar-apr
[21:24:04] <dilfridge> ok
[21:24:07] <dilfridge> fine 
[21:24:09] <dberkholz> i can also do dec if needed
[21:24:28] <dilfridge> so we have the next ones and provisorical list for later
[21:24:43] <dilfridge> that should conclude point 3
[21:25:02] <dilfridge> now come the first tricky parts
[21:25:12] <dberkholz> fwiw i would prefer to schedule earlier rather than later, my calendar fills up. so let's do "later" on the council alias post-meeting vs some unspecified time
[21:25:13] <ulm> dilfridge: it would pay to number items in the agenda already ;)
[21:25:22] <dilfridge> 4: "vote on meeting format 1: "the open floor is the mailing list discussion", 
[21:25:22] <dilfridge> i.e. no open floor during the meeting anymore"
[21:25:25] <dilfridge> ulm: indeed
[21:25:34] <dilfridge> opinions?
[21:25:54] <rich0> How long has open floor tended to take in the past?
[21:25:58] <WilliamH> I tend to agree with Roy on that.
[21:26:03] <scarabeus> almost 0
[21:26:05] <blueness|chromeb> dilfridge, with the hardened meetings we do openfloor only at the very end
[21:26:07] <ulm> dilfridge: I won't dismiss neddyseagoon's argument lightly
[21:26:09] <scarabeus> molsty people are silent
[21:26:12] <blueness|chromeb> people are not allowed to interrupt
[21:26:16] <rich0> I appreciate the value of openness, but honestly I don't think there is much opportunity to actually resolve issues in open floor.
[21:26:20] <ulm> and open floor tends to be short anyway
[21:26:21] <dberkholz> when it takes any time, it will just suck up whatever time is leftover
[21:26:42] <dberkholz> it's kind of a binary thing, because there's usually not much but when there is something, it goes nowhere for 45 minutes
[21:26:42] <rich0> If it isn't currently a real problem I suggest we leave it alone.
[21:27:03] <rich0> I'm fine with reining in open floor.  Open floor doesn't mean open rant...
[21:27:11] <dilfridge> I'm undecided... I dont think we can really decide something because of lack of information, but it never hurts to listen to people
[21:27:15] <rich0> Open it up, and then recognize when we aren't getting anywhere.
[21:27:16] <ulm> rich0: it wasn't a problem during last term
[21:27:45] <rich0> ulm: I was just talking about the 45min example.
[21:28:02] <dberkholz> last meeting it sucked up 15 minutes, the meeting before it was 20 min
[21:28:12] <dberkholz> just looking at the logs
[21:28:16] <dilfridge> yeah but then the chair should probably just call it off at some point
[21:28:16] -*- WilliamH thinks we should keep the open floor at the endof the meeting like last term
[21:28:42] <scarabeus> it is up for chair to drive, after all it can be cut off and moved to ml when needed
[21:28:45] <WilliamH> dilfridge: Yes, that could happen too
[21:28:47] <dberkholz> the open floor is just an opportunity to spit out unstructured thoughts in a form that's not conducive to thoughtful discussion about them
[21:28:49] <blueness|chromeb> dberkholz, can't the chairman call an end to ranting and refer it back to the lists
[21:28:49] <rich0> dilfridge: ++ we don't HAVE to use the full 60 mins just because we end early.
[21:29:04] <dilfridge> yeah
[21:29:06] <dilfridge> so
[21:29:18] <dilfridge> shall we vote? /me will formulate what on
[21:29:18] <ulm> dilfridge: vote?
[21:29:28] <dberkholz> so, chairs, don't be afraid to shake your big stick. because it typically takes a while to realize that.
[21:29:45] <dilfridge> 4: "Should we discontinue open floor at the end of the meeting?"
[21:29:49] <blueness|chromeb> dilfridge, formalate what we are voting on
[21:29:55] -*- dilfridge no
[21:29:57] <blueness|chromeb> s/formalate/formulate/
[21:30:01] -*- WilliamH votes no
[21:30:02] -*- ulm no
[21:30:06] <dberkholz> yes
[21:30:07] <rich0> no
[21:30:15] -*- scarabeus nope, chair to handle this
[21:30:18] -*- blueness|chromeb voites yes
[21:30:35] <dilfridge> that's 5 no, 2 yes
[21:30:42] <dilfridge> means things stay as they are
[21:30:55] <rich0> we can revisit if we regret it.  :)
[21:31:00] <dilfridge> indeed
[21:31:02] <dilfridge> next point
[21:31:14] <dilfridge> 5: vote on meeting format 2: "shift council votes to mail instead of IRC"
[21:31:28] <dilfridge> I'm not sure I summarized that correctly for the agenda
[21:31:40] -*- WilliamH is against that
[21:31:44] <ulm> I'm against it, because actual voting is usually the quickest part of a decision
[21:31:46] <dberkholz> i should note that i suggested mail or bugzilla. some format where we can respond more quickly than a meeting that's 4-5 weeks out
[21:31:48] <blueness|chromeb> yeah i don't like this
[21:31:51] <blueness|chromeb> i like the discussion
[21:31:56] <ulm> and it's nice having the votes in the log
[21:32:02] <dilfridge> indeed
[21:32:06] <scarabeus> voting is okay on irc, we need to chat on mails, not on the meetings
[21:32:09] <rich0> I'I suggest allowing votes in bugzilla in addition to in meetings, not in place of.
[21:32:33] <rich0> And not as the default.
[21:32:51] <dilfridge> ok let's first vote on the version as in the agenda, and then afterwards discuss possible alternatives
[21:32:57] <dilfridge> 5:  "shift council votes to mail instead of IRC"
[21:32:59] -*- dilfridge no
[21:33:00] <blueness|chromeb> rich0, the agenda would have to make it clear where the vote will take place if we us both irc and bugz
[21:33:03] <rich0> no
[21:33:05] -*- ulm no
[21:33:07] -*- scarabeus no
[21:33:10] -*- blueness|chromeb no
[21:33:14] -*- WilliamH thinks that what this was about then is finding a way for the council to vote on high priority issues between meetings
[21:33:36] <rich0> blueness|chromeb: in general when voting in bugzilla it wouldn't be on an agenda at all.  It would be for items that come up that would benefit from resolution prior to the next meeting.
[21:33:52] <dilfridge> that's already 5 no
[21:33:57] <blueness|chromeb> rich0, yeah that works, for more urgent issues
[21:34:00] <rich0> If we're going to always stick it on an agenda might as well just vote in a meeting.
[21:34:18] <dilfridge> now, about "additions" to irc
[21:34:33] <rich0> Proposal:  "Allow voting via bugzilla for urgent issues, with prior notice to -project whenever practical."
[21:34:36] <ulm> rich0: in practice, asking for votes per e-mail never worked well
[21:34:39] <blueness|chromeb> i like the idea of urgent issues being delt with in bugz
[21:34:58] <ulm> but maybe bugzilla works better
[21:34:58] <dberkholz> i like the idea of considering every issue urgent unless we need to defer it to a meeting for some reason
[21:35:31] <rich0> dberkholz: That is how the trustees generally operated - many issues did get decided in meetings, but if an issue was resolved prior we'd just deal with it.
[21:35:31] <dberkholz> the default should be getting things done faster
[21:35:33] <dilfridge> yeah... rich0, how about something like "prior notice at least 3 days earlier"
[21:35:58] <rich0> dilfridge: fine with the 3 days, but again I'd include "whenever practical" - there could always be emergencies.
[21:36:01] <WilliamH> dberkholz:  does that mean we just allow bugs to be assigned to council and deal with them there?
[21:36:31] <rich0> WilliamH: I think that is fine.  Oh, we can always summarize the results in the next meeting summary.
[21:36:42] <WilliamH> dberkholz: then if we defer things to a meeting those end up on an agenda?
[21:36:51] <dilfridge> WilliamH: I fear a bit that's the road to micromanagement... but for important stuff, fine
[21:37:16] <WilliamH> Ok...
[21:37:16] <dberkholz> i'm not sure i see how communicating in a different forum is micromanagement?
[21:37:38] <dilfridge> dberkholz: more like "ah well let's cc council quickly"
[21:37:54] <dilfridge> but then we can always defer to meeting if it's not important / not urgent
[21:38:09] <dilfridge> ok
[21:38:13] <dberkholz> oh, yeah i had more in mind that people might specifically file bugs for council agenda items. we could attempt to vote on the bugs, or discuss them at the meeting
[21:38:46] <dilfridge> 5A: "Allow voting via bugzilla for urgent issues, with prior notice (at least 3 days earlier) to -project whenever practical.
[21:38:52] <dilfridge> votes for 5A?
[21:38:58] -*- blueness|chromeb yes
[21:39:00] -*- ulm no
[21:39:13] -*- dilfridge abstains
[21:39:15] <dberkholz> yes
[21:39:46] <dberkholz> the prior notice is probably a good idea for transparency, so everyone doesn't need to track council bugs
[21:39:48] <rich0> yes
[21:39:48] -*- scarabeus yes
[21:40:29] -*- WilliamH is unsure about this as a separate item
[21:40:48] <dilfridge> what do you mean?
[21:40:49] <dberkholz> we've got 4 yes's, vote for posterity if you choose, otherwise let's move on =)
[21:40:58] <WilliamH> This has sort of ended up confusing...
[21:41:09] <ulm> voting on bugzilla is lousy
[21:41:13] <ulm> can you actually vote "no" with its voting system?
[21:41:25] <ulm> or abstain?
[21:41:27] <blueness|chromeb> ulm, why not?
[21:41:29] <rich0> I wasn't suggesting that we actually use the voting feature in bugzilla.
[21:41:30] <dberkholz> we've always just commented in the past
[21:41:34] <rich0> You can just do it via comments/etc.
[21:41:34] <dberkholz> not used actual "votes"
[21:41:38] <dilfridge> I guess we mean more "leave a comment on a bug saying yes/no/abstain"
[21:41:46] <dilfridge> not using bugzilla's voting system
[21:41:56] <dberkholz> if you suggest building a voting engine, i'm going to come to your house and take away your keyboard
[21:41:56] <blueness|chromeb> dilfridge, that was my understadning, use comments
[21:42:07] <blueness|chromeb> dberkholz, heh
[21:42:08] <WilliamH> Ok, use comments to vote...
[21:42:11] <dilfridge> ok let's clarify this
[21:42:30] <dberkholz> rich0: can you point to an example of a bug the trustees voted on, so it's perfectly clear
[21:42:58] <dilfridge> 5B: "Allow voting via leaving comments YES/NO/ABSTAIN on a bug for urgent issues, with prior notice (at least 3 days earlier) to -project whenever practical"
[21:43:08] <dilfridge> better?
[21:43:14] -*- blueness|chromeb votes yes
[21:43:23] -*- dilfridge abstains still
[21:43:28] -*- ulm no
[21:43:39] <dberkholz> yes again
[21:44:01] <dilfridge> scarabeus: WilliamH: ?
[21:44:03] <rich0> yes
[21:44:31] <rich0> bug 474774 is an example
[21:44:33] <willikins> rich0: https://bugs.gentoo.org/474774 "Proposal to purchase parts for Alpha development system"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; RESO, FIXE; mattst88:trustees
[21:45:12] <dilfridge> we have 3 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention so far
[21:45:54] -*- WilliamH is looking at the bug
[21:46:06] <dilfridge> ok
[21:46:11] <dilfridge> any more votes?
[21:47:07] <ulm> bugzilla is not the right medium, neither for discussion nor for voting
[21:47:12] <dilfridge> seems not
[21:47:26] <rich0> True, much discussion ends up in email/lists.
[21:47:30] <dilfridge> so it's carried with 3 yes, 1 no, 1 abstention
[21:47:37] <rich0> It is a good medium for openly recording votes.
[21:47:51] <ulm> rich0: wiki works much better
[21:48:03] <blueness|chromeb> if we try this at some point and ulm is right, we can revisit the issue and stop the practice
[21:48:09] <dilfridge> 6: "open floor to council members to introduce themselves to the others, and/or raise issues they would like to deal with"
[21:48:27] <dilfridge> should we go around so everyone has a chance to say something?
[21:48:33] <blueness|chromeb> sure
[21:48:34] -*- scarabeus checked the bug (it looks for yes from me)
[21:48:46] <dilfridge> blueness|chromeb: how about you start?
[21:48:51] <blueness|chromeb> okay
[21:49:16] <blueness|chromeb> about me: i'm mostly working in hardened, alternatie libcs like uclibc and musl, and minor arches
[21:49:43] <blueness|chromeb> my main current project is migrating pax flags out of elf binaries to xattr so our elfs are more in line with other distros
[21:50:05] <blueness|chromeb> and one issue i'd like the council to look at is documenting pms's vdb directory
[21:50:27] <blueness|chromeb> getting things like NEEDED.ELF.2 into pms specs ... more details on that later
[21:50:37] <blueness|chromeb> okay ... very quick intro
[21:51:19] <dilfridge> next one, dberkholz :)
[21:51:19] <blueness|chromeb> next?
[21:51:46] <dberkholz> hi, i've done lots of stuff. i described most of it in my "manifesto" thing
[21:52:39] <dberkholz> my main project right now is doing some research into quantifying our community
[21:52:47] <dberkholz> so we can figure out potential problems more easily
[21:53:00] <dberkholz> and opportunities, like people who should become devs
[21:53:22] <dberkholz> also doing the gsoc thing, which is at midterms this week.
[21:53:24] <dberkholz> that's about it
[21:53:52] <dilfridge> ok next one in the alphabet is myself
[21:54:40] <dilfridge> I "grew up" in Gentoo in the KDE team, and am still to a large part active there, in the meantime 
[21:55:10] <dilfridge> a few other things have been added, I'm taking care of cups and part of printing and generate libreoffice-bin
[21:55:11] --> NeddySeagoon (~NeddySeag@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[21:55:28] <dilfridge> what I'm interested in...
[21:55:55] <dilfridge> well, one thing I am unhappy about is when discussions about some topic on the mailing lists just branch out and branch out
[21:56:14] <dilfridge> and noone can make a decision because no real consensus is reached. 
[21:57:01] <dilfridge> this is one of the reasons why I wanted to join the council, so maybe we can make some well-informed decisions when decisions are needed
[21:57:12] <dilfridge> that's it
[21:57:31] <dilfridge> next one -rich0
[21:57:39] <rich0> I won't take up everybody's time.  I'm happy to be a part of the team, and I've already written most of how I feel in my manifesto.  I'd like to see more indirect influence by the council beyond voting on the lists and out in the community - we have a power to encourage/influence/etc that we should better use.  However, we shouldn't be afraid to settle disputes - sometimes any resolution is better than none.  That said, I'm always willing to
[21:57:40] <rich0> discuss anything.  As far as who I am goes - I work in IT at a Pharma company with a Biochemistry background.  I'm a tinkerer, and Gentoo is a tinkerer's distro.  As far as things around Gentoo that interest me - I have an interest in the git migration and anything that can be done to help move it along.  next?
[21:58:13] <dilfridge> ok scarabeus
[21:58:57] <scarabeus> ok most of you know what i did and what i break on daily basis, apart from that i am now in opensuse team ;-) and I really wish we in gentoo could generate better binary distro to attract more people
[21:59:27] <scarabeus> apart fromt hat the regular stuff, better communication, more fun, booze, etc, whatever rocks your boat to contribute we as council should provide :-)
[21:59:30] <scarabeus> thats it
[21:59:35] <dilfridge> ulm?
[21:59:43] <ulm> ok, very short intro
[22:00:08] <ulm> I've started in Gentoo working on GNU Emacs packages and I'm still maintaining them
[22:00:21] <ulm> and for some reason I've inherited eselect ;)
[22:00:47] <ulm> one of my priorities for this term is to finalise EAPI 6
[22:01:04] <ulm> that's about it - next?
[22:01:10] <dilfridge> WilliamH?
[22:01:26] <WilliamH> Hi all, I have been a gentoo dev for quite a while.
[22:01:43] <WilliamH> I started in accessibility, and I'm still the lead there.
[22:02:04] <WilliamH> I'm also a member of base-system, upstream for OpenRc, and involved in several other things.
[22:03:07] <WilliamH> I also maintain some things for Releng, particularly livecd-tools
[22:03:39] <WilliamH> I am interested in making sure that our distro is accessible to users withdisabilities, and also some base-system and distro wide issues.
[22:04:30] <WilliamH> One thing I want to do this term (I'll be putting this on the next agenda if no one else brings it up) is to settle the separate /usr support issue that has been a hot button for a while.
[22:05:00] <WilliamH> That's all I can think of right now. :-)
[22:05:26] <dilfridge> ok excellent
[22:05:48] <dilfridge> means we can conclude point 6
[22:06:05] <dilfridge> 7: "general discussion on the introduction of a "Bikeshed of the month" "
[22:06:10] <dilfridge> that's my baby
[22:06:21] <dilfridge> more or less for the protocol, 
[22:06:30] <dilfridge> let me quickly explain what this is about
[22:07:01] <dilfridge> the idea is to pick topics where a decision clearly makes sense, but people could not agree during bikeshedding
[22:07:22] <dilfridge> put them on the agenda and try to settle things
[22:07:31] <dberkholz> i don't really think we need to formalize that
[22:07:37] <dilfridge> fine with me
[22:07:46] <dberkholz> but i do agree with the idea, of council members proposing topics from the ML instead of waiting for someone else to do so
[22:08:24] <rich0> I'm fine with the concept, agree it doesn't need to be formalized.  However, before we step into something we should at least confirm that SOMEBODY wants us to do so.
[22:08:26] <dilfridge> some of the stuff is so trivial, and a lack of a decision is sometimes just blocking things
[22:08:27] <blueness|chromeb> yeah we can take more of a leadership roll in resolving contraversial issues
[22:08:35] <dilfridge> yes
[22:08:39] <rich0> If all the parties are already fine with where things stand or are working things out, we don't need to interfere.
[22:08:58] <dilfridge> rich0: true
[22:09:03] <rich0> We can be proactive though - just suggest we poll the community for whether we should get involved.
[22:09:22] <rich0> So, put on agenda, and maybe just ask for opinions.  Utter silence might be a reason to not disturb the silence.
[22:09:31] <blueness|chromeb> rich0, for some of the bikeshedding we already know where they stand
[22:09:32] <dilfridge> rich0: but we should see that if we put somethign on the agenda and noone cares
[22:10:03] <dilfridge> ok
[22:10:23] <dilfridge> to be honest, I dont think we really need to discuss here much... anything else to say?
[22:10:32] <blueness|chromeb> dilfridge, one closing comment
[22:10:57] <blueness|chromeb> might i suggest that you pastebin the agenda just before the meeting and put the url in the topic for everyone to see
[22:11:10] <dberkholz> or perhaps something more editable like an etherpad
[22:11:13] <dilfridge> yes
[22:11:15] <dberkholz> or even our wiki
[22:11:23] <blueness|chromeb> yeah anything like that
[22:11:32] <dberkholz> then we could do some crowdsourcing of summaries
[22:11:41] <dilfridge> did not do anything this time because we already had the link but next time, true
[22:11:47] <WilliamH> question...
[22:11:50] <blueness|chromeb> people followign the meeting may not have the agenda in front of them ... like even me on my chromebook
[22:12:04] <WilliamH> separate subject so I'll wait
[22:12:12] <blueness|chromeb> i'm done
[22:12:15] <ulm> blueness|chromeb: agenda is in the topic
[22:12:16] <rich0> I like the idea of live summaries.
[22:12:19] <rich0> Etherpad or whatever.
[22:12:26] <dilfridge> ok anyone else?
[22:12:30] <blueness|chromeb> ulm, oh yeah so it is!
[22:12:38] -*- WilliamH has something
[22:12:40] <rich0> I often do this at work - anybody can chime in on errors as they happen, and after meeting you just hit send.
[22:13:06] <dilfridge> WilliamH: let's finish the agenda points and then do the new thing, ok?
[22:13:10] <WilliamH> Sure.
[22:13:23] <dilfridge> 8: "open bugs with council involvement (currently only #477030)"
[22:13:27] <dilfridge> bug 477030
[22:13:29] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/477030 "Missing summary for 20130611 council meeting"; Doc Other, Project-specific documentation; CONF; ulm:council
[22:13:47] <dilfridge> who should we kick?
[22:13:52] <blueness|chromeb> does anyone have that log?
[22:14:15] <ulm> dilfridge: we should kick betelgeuse, unless we want to do the summary ourselves
[22:14:25] <ulm> he had chaired that meeting
[22:14:44] <dilfridge> ok since he's not around, anyone volunteering (for kicking him)?
[22:15:06] <ulm> blueness|chromeb: log is linked from the council page already, only summary is missing
[22:15:06] <blueness|chromeb> how about any or all of us when we see him ;)
[22:15:14] <dilfridge> ok fine
[22:15:22] <dilfridge> that concludes point 8
[22:15:26] <dilfridge> WilliamH: your turn
[22:15:26] <blueness|chromeb> heh
[22:15:37] <WilliamH> Actually a couple of quick questions...
[22:16:14] <WilliamH> Since we have added bugs as action items, does that change how we put things on the agenda -- should we respond to the call for agenda items on -project, and open bugs assigned to council?
[22:16:32] <-- blueness|chromeb (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) hat #gentoo-council verlassen
[22:16:32] --> blueness|chromeb (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[22:17:15] <dberkholz> i would suggest we document on the council homepage that anyone may file any bugs at any time for council consideration
[22:17:40] <blueness|chromeb> nice idea
[22:17:41] <dilfridge> my opinion, let's keep things as they are as much as possible (except if something urgent and important happens)
[22:17:52] <dberkholz> and also get people to file bugs for agenda items so they don't get lost
[22:18:02] <dberkholz> (yeah, that happens regularly)
[22:18:28] <dilfridge> bugs for agenda items are fine, but discussion should still be on mailing list
[22:18:34] <WilliamH> dberkholz: Ok, so if we file bugs for agenda items should we link to them from -project but ask that discussion stay on the list?
[22:18:46] <dberkholz> basically what's gonna happen is that you'll have people asking for agenda items all over the place.
[22:18:58] <dberkholz> council alias, personal email, every list you can imagine, even irc
[22:19:16] <dberkholz> unless you say this is how you do it
[22:19:40] <dberkholz> yeah discussion should definitely be on the list.
[22:19:54] <dberkholz> as ulm pointed out, bugs just aren't a great format for long threads
[22:19:54] <rich0> dberkholz: ++  for trustees recently that became a problem so we've been trying to log bugs for everything.  Bugs are good for tracking.
[22:20:04] <rich0> But discussion elsewhere.
[22:20:34] <NeddySeagoon> dberkholz, you mean -project@ not council@  ?
[22:20:56] <WilliamH> Ok, so we tell people to 1) assign a bug to council and 2) link to it in a post on -project and the discussion should take place on -project.
[22:21:10] <dberkholz> when i say list, i'm referring to a mailing list. -project or -dev
[22:21:17] <dberkholz> i will not say list if i mean alias =)
[22:21:18] <dilfridge> WilliamH: yes and (NeddySeagoon Iguess that answers the question)
[22:21:48] <WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: is that how the trustees do it?
[22:22:04] <NeddySeagoon> dberkholz, I'm not really a techie  :)  I just wanted to ensure discussion was public, as far as possible
[22:22:17] <dilfridge> ok I suggest we formalize that with a vote, let me write down a proposal
[22:22:21] <dberkholz> yep that's my preference too. open by default
[22:22:38] <WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: How are agenda items proposed and discussed by the trustees?
[22:22:44] <NeddySeagoon> WilliamH Yes, its public as far as possible,
[22:23:12] <rich0> WilliamH: The trustees just publish agendas on the IRC topic line and add to it whatever comes in via email, lists, bugs, ESP, whatever.
[22:23:15] <rich0> A very informal process.
[22:23:28] <rich0> Many end up getting logged as bugs if they aren't handled immediately.
[22:23:33] <NeddySeagoon> WilliamH, we invite email to trustees@  and post the growing agenda in /topic in -trustees
[22:23:38] <rich0> The documentation of resolution is more formal.
[22:23:40] <dilfridge> 9: "For adding an agenda item for consideration by the council we request 1) assign a bug to council and 2) link to it in a post on -project or -dev; the discussion shoudl take place on -project or -dev"
[22:23:55] <dilfridge> how about this?
[22:24:10] <ulm> dilfridge: I really think that we should avoid voting on topics that are not on the agenda
[22:24:22] <dilfridge> yes
[22:24:25] <dilfridge> sure
[22:24:26] <NeddySeagoon> ulm++
[22:24:33] <dberkholz> when they are about how we run the council?
[22:24:34] <dilfridge> that's not what I mean
[22:24:43] <ulm> we can try e-mail or bugzie voting for that one ;)
[22:24:56] <dberkholz> lol. good plan
[22:25:00] <WilliamH> ulm: in other words you are against voting on topics out side of meetings?
[22:25:10] <dilfridge> clarification: 
[22:25:12] <rich0> ulm: in general I think your advice is good, but perhaps overkill on this particular issue.
[22:25:35] <ulm> WilliamH: no, but I'm against ad-hoc voting on topics that haven't been announced at least a few days in advance
[22:25:37] <rich0> I'd be more concerned if this were some kind of decision that was beyond administrative in nature
[22:25:43] <dilfridge> 9A: "For adding an item to the agenda of the next council meeting, please 1) assign a bug to council and 2) link to it in a post on -project or -dev; the discussion shoudl take place on -project or -dev"
[22:25:48] <dberkholz> heh.
[22:25:55] <NeddySeagoon> ulm that avoids ill considered 'knee jerk' votes
[22:26:02] <dberkholz> rich0: should i propose that we restructure glep 39 today? after all, it is open floor
[22:26:04] <dilfridge> this 9A is what I actually meant
[22:26:05] <ulm> NeddySeagoon: exactly
[22:26:17] <blueness|chromeb> i need to go guys, i'm in favor of this direction though
[22:26:24] <rich0> dberkholz: ok, trivial administrative details
[22:26:32] <rich0> yikes, we're at 90 minutes already?
[22:26:35] <dberkholz> rich0: just messin' with ya.
[22:26:36] <dilfridge> yep
[22:26:37] <WilliamH> I'm not sure about the two mailing lists. We have always had agenda-related discussions on -project only
[22:26:45] <dilfridge> ok
[22:26:50] <blueness|chromeb> dilfridge, may i please be excused?
[22:26:52] <dilfridge> then let's keep it on project
[22:26:56] <dilfridge> sure, blueness|chromeb
[22:27:09] <blueness|chromeb> thank you, i vote yes to 9a and any minor variation
[22:27:10] <dilfridge> next, hopefully last version
[22:27:11] <blueness|chromeb> ta ta guys
[22:27:25] <-- blueness|chromeb (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Remote host closed the connection)
[22:27:34] <dilfridge> 9B  "For adding an item to the agenda of the next council meeting, please 1) assign a bug to council and 2) link to it in a post on -project; the discussion shoudl take place on -project"
[22:27:44] <dberkholz> k
[22:28:10] <dilfridge> votes on this?
[22:28:22] -*- ulm abstains
[22:28:26] <ulm> not on the agenda
[22:28:47] -*- dilfridge abstains
[22:29:03] <dberkholz> i guess i'm pretty close on that part. but i'd prefer to change the wording so it's not so tied to meetings, since we just agreed on bugs w/ 3 days notice
[22:29:23] <dberkholz> "For adding an item to the council agenda for consideration, please..."
[22:29:29] <dberkholz> rather "To add"
[22:29:38] <dilfridge> ok
[22:29:44] <ulm> dilfridge: can we send this to the mailing list please?
[22:30:06] <dilfridge> in my opinion, yes, we can send this to the ml
[22:30:07] <rich0> Why not hash this out offline, post the final proposal to -project, and vote on bugzilla?  :)
[22:30:12] <dilfridge> :P
[22:30:14] <WilliamH> ulm: ah ok, I  see what you are saying, let's propose this for next agenda.
[22:30:15] <ulm> rich0: ++
[22:30:29] <dilfridge> ok
[22:30:37] <WilliamH> sounds reasonable to me.
[22:30:41] <rich0> We could have it done for the next meeting (well, barely - time to send out the agenda on that now).
[22:30:41] <dilfridge> this sounds like we won't decide on it now.
[22:30:49] <dilfridge> that means, 
[22:30:53] <dilfridge> last agenda item
[22:31:02] <dilfridge> 10 "open floor to community"
[22:31:08] <dilfridge> anyone?
[22:31:57] <dilfridge> seems not
[22:32:38] <scarabeus> nobody around :P
[22:32:49] <rich0> Suggest we move on.
[22:32:50] <dilfridge> then, let me announce that according to our schedule we need to send the call for agenda items for the next meeting out TODAY
[22:33:01] <dilfridge> and with that said, 
[22:33:04] <dilfridge> meeting closed