Add October council logs/summary.

4 files changed, 905 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20141014-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20141014-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b05493e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20141014-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+Roll call
+=========
+
+
+Present: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, williamh 
+Absent: 
+
+
+The future of einstall
+======================
+"Einstall will be removed from EAPI6."
+aye: creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, radhermit, rich0, williamh
+
+
+GLEP 64
+=======
+"We approve GLEP64 as documented at
+https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64 with API versioning
+added."
+
+
+aye: blueness, dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0
+abstain: creffett (proxy for ulm), williamh
+
+
+Git Migration Issues
+====================
+"The yyyy/ prefix can be dropped from gentoo-news, timing to be
+determined by those implementing the change."
+
+Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, williamh 
+
+Can we drop CVS headers post-migration?
+
+Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, williamh 
+
+"The git migration should produce a separate historical and current
+repository, which can be spliced using git replace, but which are
+otherwise not connected."
+
+Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, williamh 
+
+"we don't see any big remaining obstacles and advise infra / the git
+migration project to proceed at their pace"
+
+Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, williamh 
+
+(Meeting was called due to time, with remaining items to be covered following week.)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20141014.txt b/meeting-logs/20141014.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e012d37
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20141014.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,395 @@
+[15:00:07] <rich0> Ok, roll call :)
+[15:00:10] <radhermit> here
+[15:00:15] <WilliamH> here
+[15:00:16] <dberkholz|mob> Sup
+[15:00:49] -*- creffett|irssi here for ulm, unless ulm is here already
+[15:01:02] <rich0> blueness, dilfridge, ulm?
+[15:01:57] <rich0> Ok, let's get started.
+[15:02:04] <rich0> First item, future of einstall
+[15:02:14] <rich0> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/92713
+[15:02:14] <rich0> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel.announce/2212/focus=4025
+[15:02:27] <rich0> Should einstall be banned in EAPI6.
+[15:02:32] <rich0> Any comments beyond the lists?
+[15:02:37] -*- creffett|irssi reviews his notes
+[15:02:49] <creffett|irssi> no comments here
+[15:02:54] <WilliamH> none here
+[15:03:27] <radhermit> I don't have anything more to say
+[15:03:32] <rich0> Ok, let's vote then.  "Einstall will be removed from EAPI6."
+[15:04:07] -*- creffett|irssi yes
+[15:04:12] <dberkholz|mob> Yep
+[15:04:13] <radhermit> yes
+[15:04:16] <WilliamH> yes
+[15:04:31] -*- rich0 yes
+[15:04:49] <rich0> Ok, that's all of us
+[15:05:02] <rich0> Next item...
+[15:05:11] <rich0> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64
+[15:05:20] <rich0> Blueness is requesting approval on this.
+[15:05:24] <radhermit> someone want to text blueness?
+[15:05:30] <rich0> good idea
+[15:06:24] <dilfridge> sorry, here
+[15:06:26] <rich0> I just texted him
+[15:06:55] <rich0> Do we want to move on to git?
+[15:07:05] <radhermit> sure
+[15:07:06] <rich0> I'd prefer to give him the option to present.
+[15:07:11] <blueness> here!!!
+[15:07:11] <rich0> Ok, let's move on to git.
+[15:07:16] <blueness> sorry thanks rich
+[15:07:18] <rich0> never mind. :)
+[15:07:22] <blueness> rich0,
+[15:07:24] <rich0> let's do glep64 - I think it will be faster
+[15:07:41] <rich0> blueness: do you have any comments you want to make?
+[15:07:51] <blueness> rich0, just a few points
+[15:07:58] <blueness> its was discussed on gentoo-dev@
+[15:08:14] <blueness> it got feedback for ciarian and incorportated it
+[15:08:28] <blueness> do you need me to repeate the motivation?
+[15:08:39] <rich0> Nah - at least not for me.
+[15:08:42] <rich0> I can read.  :)
+[15:08:52] <rich0> My only real comment is that it is a bit vague - deliberately so.
+[15:09:07] <blueness> this is the latest version -> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64
+[15:09:11] <rich0> I don't mind approving it per se, but do we think that it will go anywhere?
+[15:09:37] <rich0> Ie are the various package managers behind it?
+[15:09:37] <dberkholz|mob> Do we have agreement in theory from PM implementers?
+[15:09:38] <blueness> rich0, i will try to work with ciarian and actually write code
+[15:09:55] <WilliamH> blueness: what about pkgcore?
+[15:09:56] <blueness> i'd like to hear from radhermit and package core
+[15:09:56] -*- dberkholz|mob high-fives rich0
+[15:10:32] <blueness> radhermit, ping ^^^
+[15:10:45] <blueness> also zmedico was in support
+[15:10:46] -*- radhermit is trying to skim through the mailing list thread :)
+[15:10:53] <blueness> radhermit, okay
+[15:10:58] <rich0> It sounds like most of this is in portage, it just needs the API to be written.
+[15:11:08] <rich0> From what I know of portage, it won't be hard to do there.
+[15:11:17] <rich0> Just needs commitment to the API.
+[15:11:27] <radhermit> can we version the vdb or something if we start properly specifying it?
+[15:11:40] <radhermit> maybe that's already in the glep
+[15:11:53] <blueness> radhermit, i didn't mention a version to vdb
+[15:12:00] <rich0> This GLEP doesn't really specify the VDB, so much as require an interface to it (without actually specifying it).
+[15:12:17] <radhermit> so mainly it's about standardized file naming?
+[15:12:17] <blueness> for the reason rich0 just mentioned ^^^
+[15:12:24] <rich0> It might not hurt to incorporate some kind of VAPI versioning.
+[15:12:35] <blueness> radhermit and standardizing what's exported
+[15:12:40] <dberkholz|mob> Seems to me that vdb version would be a portage internal matter
+[15:12:47] <rich0> It basically is a spec for the spec.
+[15:12:48] <dberkholz|mob> What I care about is an API version on this
+[15:13:23] <blueness> dberkholz|mob, i can add a sentence to that effect
+[15:13:24] <rich0> dberkholz|mob: ++
+[15:13:30] <dilfridge> good idea
+[15:13:36] <rich0> That should be a part of the API when it is specified.
+[15:13:58] <radhermit> basically what I meant
+[15:14:20] <rich0> It feels a bit odd to approve this other than going along with the general sentiment that it is a good idea, but I have no objections to it.
+[15:14:33] <rich0> It just feels a bit like approving a business case, vs a spec.
+[15:14:51] <blueness> yeah, it turns out now there are not only several packages but also one eclass depending on vdb information from portage, none of which work with other pm's but could
+[15:15:18] <rich0> SELinux and such sounded like a really good use case here.
+[15:15:27] <rich0> You'd want that to work with any PM.
+[15:15:48] <rich0> Or PaX in your example.
+[15:15:58] <blueness> rich0, the way selinux eclass works now is it looks for reverse deps to do the markings
+[15:15:59] <radhermit> mostly I'd like to quit having to read through portage code to make stuff like eix work :)
+[15:16:04] <radhermit> with pkgcore-merged pkgs
+[15:16:35] <rich0> Yeah, I have an EAPI hunter that depends on portage APIs, though to be fair this only pertains to installed packages I believel.
+[15:16:45] <rich0> It might make sense to extend that API to installable packages as well.
+[15:16:46] <blueness> yeah, i didn't even know about pkgcore until recently and it could benefit from this too
+[15:17:06] <rich0> Ok, do we want to vote to approve this?
+[15:17:13] <dilfridge> +
+[15:17:48] <rich0> "We approve GLEP64 as documented at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64 "
+[15:17:56] <rich0> Does that work?
+[15:18:00] <blueness> sure
+[15:18:10] <rich0> You can promise not to change it too much.  :)
+[15:18:13] <rich0> Ok, let's vote.
+[15:18:17] <blueness> o
+[15:18:21] -*- rich0 yes
+[15:18:26] <dilfridge> yes
+[15:18:27] -*- blueness yes
+[15:18:32] -*- creffett|irssi abstain
+[15:18:36] <dberkholz|mob> Yes + API version
+[15:18:45] -*- WilliamH abstain
+[15:19:09] <radhermit> yes with API version stuff
+[15:19:28] <blueness> ulm, ?
+[15:19:37] <radhermit> creffett|irssi is ulm
+[15:19:49] <rich0> Ok, that's everybody - 5-0
+[15:20:03] <rich0> And that includes the API version - I'll note that in the sumary.
+[15:20:21] <blueness> rich0, and everyone, i think that just a one sentencer no?
+[15:20:26] <rich0> I'll document it as: "We approve GLEP64 as documented at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Blueness/GLEP64 with API versioning added."
+[15:20:33] <rich0> blueness: wfm
+[15:20:52] <rich0> Ok, now the fun topic.
+[15:20:54] <rich0> Git migration
+[15:21:11] <dilfridge> wheee
+[15:21:14] <blueness> shudder
+[15:21:19] <rich0> My personal goal here would be to get opinions recorded anywhere we think they matter.
+[15:21:25] <rich0> We're not going to bikeshed every detail.
+[15:21:39] -*- mgorny is around to help :P
+[15:21:41] <rich0> But, if there are things that we feel must be in place to do a migration, we should try to get them documented.
+[15:21:44] <rich0> That is my sense of it.
+[15:21:48] -*- WilliamH thinks we need to stop waiting for a perfect world and get it done ;-)
+[15:22:05] <rich0> Any other comments before we dive in?
+[15:22:34] <creffett|irssi> bring it on!
+[15:22:44] <rich0> The first question in the agenda, is do we need to continue to create new ChangeLog entries once we're operating in git?
+[15:22:54] -*- WilliamH no
+[15:22:59] <dilfridge> no
+[15:23:02] <rich0> no
+[15:23:07] <creffett|irssi> nope.
+[15:23:09] -*- blueness no
+[15:23:18] <dberkholz|mob> hell no
+[15:23:43] <radhermit> no
+[15:23:51] <rich0> Ok, well, let's just call that a vote.  :)
+[15:23:52] <dilfridge> !
+[15:24:26] <rich0> Ok, let's skip "are we done yet" and move that to the end after we tackle all the specifics
+[15:24:34] <rich0> Can yyyy/ prefix be dropped from gentoo-news?
+[15:24:44] <rich0> We've been through that one once before.
+[15:24:54] <rich0> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_00f0a83b760b78c1baf32f118d1cb008.xml
+[15:25:01] <rich0> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=523828
+[15:25:23] <rich0> mgorny: will dropping this still make your life easier with metadata?
+[15:25:38] <mgorny> rich0: a bit
+[15:25:59] <mgorny> i just find it utterly stupid that 'reading' and 'writing' formats are different
+[15:26:06] <rich0> ++
+[15:26:11] <dilfridge> drop it
+[15:26:27] <rich0> Any opposing commentary?
+[15:26:38] <blueness> nah, no contraversy here
+[15:26:46] <dberkholz|mob> Nope
+[15:26:49] <blueness> who needs to implement this infra?
+[15:27:07] <mgorny> someone commit to repo + infra change the script used for gen
+[15:27:32] <rich0> Ok, let's vote "The yyyy/ prefix can be dropped from gentoo-news, timing to be determined by those implementing the change."
+[15:27:44] <rich0> Does that work?
+[15:27:44] -*- blueness yes
+[15:27:47] -*- rich0 yes
+[15:27:50] -*- creffett|irssi yes
+[15:27:50] -*- WilliamH yes
+[15:27:51] <dilfridge> yes
+[15:27:59] <radhermit> yes
+[15:28:04] <dberkholz|mob> Sure
+[15:28:49] <rich0> ok
+[15:29:10] <rich0> Ok, going in order of controversy...
+[15:29:15] <rich0> Can we drop CVS headers post-migration?
+[15:29:24] -*- WilliamH yes
+[15:29:29] -*- rich0 burn with nuclear fire
+[15:29:31] <dilfridge> yes please
+[15:29:33] <creffett|irssi> KILL IT
+[15:29:38] <blueness> heh
+[15:29:41] <WilliamH> I don't think ghere is an equivalent to that in git.
+[15:29:43] <creffett|irssi> er, I mean, yes
+[15:30:24] <rich0> dberkholz|mob, radhermit - care to make it a vote?
+[15:30:37] <rich0> blueness: also?
+[15:30:39] <dberkholz|mob> Yes pls
+[15:30:48] <radhermit> kill it of course
+[15:31:06] <rich0> blueness: heh==yes?
+[15:31:18] <blueness> yes
+[15:31:23] <dilfridge> heh we're fast :)
+[15:31:33] <rich0> ok
+[15:31:39] <rich0> Now a bit more controversy.
+[15:31:49] <rich0> Should we have separate git trees for historical vs current portage (with no parent commit reference from the one to the other)?  
+[15:32:02] <rich0> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/4030/
+[15:32:37] <creffett|irssi> rich0: here's my question -- if someone did want to join the two trees locally, how much work would it be?
+[15:32:43] <dilfridge> if we can arrangeit that they can be combined seamlessly into one, yes
+[15:32:51] <dberkholz|mob> I would prefer a spliceable one
+[15:32:55] <rich0> mgorny: you probably have more git replace experience than I
+[15:33:19] <mgorny> git fetch history-remote; git replace ${first_commit_id} ${history_commit_id}
+[15:33:23] <rich0> I'd think you could just fetch a second origin into another branch and then git replace the one into the history of the other
+[15:33:29] <mgorny> (or teh other way around :P, easy to put on wiki)
+[15:33:47] <radhermit> I'd vote for spliceable too
+[15:33:55] <rich0> Yeah, you'd make the last commit in the history repo = the first commit in the active tree when doing a history
+[15:33:55] <dilfridge> means?
+[15:34:06] <radhermit> meaning you can graft the old tree onto the new one
+[15:34:12] <rich0> radhermit: exactly
+[15:34:14] <radhermit> if you want a giant, historical repo
+[15:34:24] <WilliamH> Which ever one can get us up and running sooner. ;-)
+[15:34:33] <rich0> Git will treat references to the first commit in the current tree as if it pointed to the last commit in the history tree.
+[15:34:33] <creffett|irssi> so it's fairly simple to do the join if someone wants to?
+[15:34:39] <radhermit> the old graft can technically be done later
+[15:34:39] <rich0> So it would appear to have a continuous history.
+[15:34:45] <mgorny> creffett|irssi: yes, only time consuming for fetch :)
+[15:34:53] <creffett|irssi> mgorny: okay
+[15:34:58] <creffett|irssi> then yes, separate is fine with me
+[15:35:01] <dilfridge> radhermit: dberkholz|mob: I don't understand what your "spliceable" version does different
+[15:35:06] <WilliamH> I have a question...
+[15:35:06] <blueness> rich0, what's the gain on the divisionb between historical and current?
+[15:35:14] <rich0> blueness: I outlined that in my post.
+[15:35:22] <blueness> k
+[15:35:25] <rich0> The current historical migrations have issues.
+[15:35:43] <rich0> If we improve on them, then the original "official" migration turns into baggage.
+[15:35:55] <dilfridge> blueness: we can start immediately and care about the exact history later
+[15:35:56] <rich0> You could still splice a new migration over the old one.
+[15:36:05] <WilliamH> So, if we have two trees: one would contain the history before the migration, and we would update the other from that point forward not worrying about the historical tree right?
+[15:36:14] <mgorny> blueness: 1.5G
+[15:36:24] <rich0> It also sidesteps arguments over whether the current migration is good enough, and makes the migration MUCH faster.
+[15:36:25] <dilfridge> WilliamH: basically, yes. we start from a current point.
+[15:36:26] <mgorny> 70M is 'current' afresh and grows
+[15:36:29] <mgorny> 1.5G is historical and grows
+[15:36:30] <blueness> so speed size and simplicity
+[15:36:57] <blueness> what happens in the far future when it gets 1.5GB again, can it be sliced again?
+[15:36:57] <dberkholz|mob> Ah I hadn't tracked the work on git replace. I'm fine with that
+[15:36:57] <dilfridge> the conversion of the cvs history becomes a non-blocker, and non-critical project
+[15:37:16] <rich0> exactly.  I'd still run the best migration that I could.
+[15:37:32] <rich0> But, issues with it don't hold things up, and it could be improved on later.
+[15:37:54] <rich0> Any other questions/concerns?
+[15:38:10] <dilfridge> git question, if you end up pulling two separate histories, is there a way to prune the old, unused objects?
+[15:38:16] <dilfridge> mgorny: ^
+[15:38:36] <WilliamH> I think "git gc" will do that.
+[15:38:37] <dilfridge> (not important now, just curiosity)
+[15:38:42] <mgorny> dilfridge: there will be no unused objects if you merge them via replace
+[15:38:55] <dilfridge> ok
+[15:38:56] <mgorny> unless you mean after removing the history replace, then gc should catch them
+[15:39:02] <dilfridge> ok
+[15:39:03] <dilfridge> good
+[15:39:25] <rich0> Yeah, the beauty of having separate repos is that you can easily get rid of the 750k bad commits if you have 750k better ones to replace them with.
+[15:39:42] <dilfridge> hehe
+[15:39:56] <rich0> The converted repository is pretty impressive, for all its faults.  :)
+[15:40:04] <rich0> Something like 3M objects I think.
+[15:40:27] <rich0> Ok, anything else before we vote?
+[15:40:33] <blueness> i'm good
+[15:40:48] <mgorny> if you mean having history1 repo and replacing part of it with history2, then objects from both repos will have to be kept
+[15:40:53] <dberkholz|mob> I just want to make sure that the join gets tested, but I'm assuming that will happen
+[15:41:07] <mgorny> dberkholz|mob: i've already tested it initially
+[15:41:09] <rich0> "The git migration should produce a separate migrated and current repository, which can be spliced using git replace, but which are otherwise not connected."
+[15:41:11] <dberkholz|mob> Awesome.
+[15:41:20] <rich0> Any issues with the wording?
+[15:41:31] <dberkholz|mob> What does "current" mean
+[15:41:32] <rich0> The "which can be spliced with git replace" should cover the testing concerns.
+[15:41:40] <dberkholz|mob> Last year, last X commits to each file, etch
+[15:41:45] <rich0> Maybe historical and current ?
+[15:41:47] <dberkholz|mob> etc*
+[15:42:07] <rich0> Current means basically what you have in /usr/portage, really.
+[15:42:10] <mgorny> newest version snapshot
+[15:42:14] <rich0> Minus metadata/etc.
+[15:42:14] <dberkholz|mob> And i'd go with s/migrated/historical/ , "full history" or something like that
+[15:42:15] <mgorny> 'cvs up -dP'
+[15:42:20] <rich0> Agree
+[15:42:23] <mgorny> with some cleanup
+[15:42:27] <dberkholz|mob> Oh a funtoo style thing with zero history
+[15:42:35] <mgorny> that's the safe way of ensuring that we don't end up starting with broken repo
+[15:42:35] <rich0> "The git migration should produce a separate historical and current repository, which can be spliced using git replace, but which are otherwise not connected."
+[15:42:39] <mgorny> like current history migration causes
+[15:43:15] <rich0> Well, we can at least get the CURRENT tree right with the migration.  It is identical now.
+[15:43:25] <rich0> Go one commit back and it is less so.
+[15:43:35] <rich0> Ok, if no issues with the wording...
+[15:43:51] <rich0> Let's vote: "The git migration should produce a separate historical and current repository, which can be spliced using git replace, but which are otherwise not connected."
+[15:43:55] -*- rich0 yes
+[15:44:10] -*- blueness yes
+[15:44:18] <radhermit> yes
+[15:44:21] <creffett|irssi> yes
+[15:44:30] -*- dilfridge yes
+[15:44:31] -*- WilliamH yes
+[15:44:44] <dberkholz|mob> k
+[15:44:56] <rich0> ok, 7-0
+[15:45:13] <rich0> That brings us to, "are we done yet?"
+[15:45:37] <rich0> Are there any other high-level blockers we should consider, beyond just getting everything implemented and coordinated with infra, the migration team, etc?
+[15:45:59] <dberkholz|mob> Beyond implementation. Like that's a minor issue. heh
+[15:46:05] <dilfridge> mgorny: how's the status of whatever server-side hooks we need?
+[15:46:07] <rich0> Also, what do we want the actual migration to look like?  Do we need to approve the final cutover, etc?
+[15:46:23] <dberkholz|mob> It would be helpful if we could open up whatever backend code possible to enable more people to easily work on it
+[15:46:37] <rich0> dberkholz|mob: ++ that is a problem with our current infra I think.
+[15:46:42] <blueness> dberkholz|mob, yeah i'd like to see that
+[15:46:46] <rich0> No reason the hooks/etc can't be FOSS.
+[15:46:53] <mgorny> dilfridge: mostly done, i think infra will handle the remaining updates
+[15:46:55] <rich0> Obviously passwords/configs/etc can be private.
+[15:47:22] <dilfridge> is anyone from infra around who cares to comment? _robbat21irssi?
+[15:47:45] <rich0> Making this FOSS would help a lot with anybody interested in "rolling your own Gentoo" 
+[15:47:59] <mgorny> my code is on github, i think
+[15:48:01] <mgorny> or bitbucket ;P
+[15:48:11] <rich0> mgorny: I believe so.  
+[15:48:49] <dilfridge> ok, let's consider a wurst-case scenario
+[15:49:03] <rich0> dilfridge: systemd eats the repo?  :)
+[15:49:04] <blueness> mgorny, email the community whree the hooks are so we can take a look at them
+[15:49:07] <dilfridge> mgorny: if things fail badly, can we go back to cvs?
+[15:49:25] -*- radhermit is going afk for a bit
+[15:49:25] <dilfridge> (not that I want to, this is merely contingency planning)
+[15:49:25] <mgorny> they were linked in my mails :P
+[15:49:36] <rich0> dilfridge: that would be painful, at least if you wanted to preserve all the individual commits.
+[15:49:44] <creffett|irssi> dilfridge: we would need a way to go git -> CVS to dump the history back into CVS
+[15:49:44] <mgorny> dilfridge: i guess so though 'over dead commit access' of many people :)
+[15:49:50] <rich0> If we want to do some kind of big test, better to do it first.
+[15:50:12] <creffett|irssi> dilfridge: you could compromise, get a git->CVS bridge and keep the old CVS repo around for a little while until we're sure the bugs have been ironed out
+[15:50:14] <dilfridge> preserving individual commits is second order problem, first priority would be to keep us functional.
+[15:50:19] <dberkholz|mob> Can we stand up a beta, tell people to play with it for a week or so, then do the real cutover
+[15:50:34] <dberkholz|mob> Or is our infra setup not able to cope with that kind of duplication
+[15:50:44] <rich0> Well, having a read-only cvs for reference for a while makes sense.  We can keep a CVSROOT tarball forever, basically.
+[15:50:48] <dilfridge> in this emergency case I'd be happy enough with seeing one big cvs commit "forward one week"
+[15:51:06] <rich0> dberkholz|mob: we're basically doing the beta on github already.
+[15:51:19] <rich0> I suppose it could be done on infra as well.
+[15:51:22] <dberkholz|mob> Yeah but it's not full fledged
+[15:51:27] <dberkholz|mob> That's a repo test, not a full distribution test
+[15:51:43] <rich0> It certainly doesn't involve mirrors and all that.
+[15:51:49] <mgorny> excelsior has all the git+rsync bits
+[15:51:49] <rich0> Were you thinking full-scale end-to-end?
+[15:51:53] <dilfridge> not sure how it could be full-fledged without switching e.g. the rsync mirror generation etc
+[15:52:05] <dilfridge> and that would also affect our users, so no beta
+[15:52:07] <dberkholz|mob> Don't need full scale, but at least full stack
+[15:52:11] <rich0> We do generate all the way up to rsync trees though.
+[15:52:24] <rich0> We can try to aggressively promote them.
+[15:52:27] <dilfridge> sounds good.
+[15:52:34] <WilliamH> So are we keeping rsync after the migration (I'm confused about that part)
+[15:52:40] <mgorny> yes
+[15:52:45] <mgorny> users can choose between git & rsync
+[15:52:47] <rich0> Though all users can really do is sync them.  Unless we systematically sync all cvs commits it won't be the same as cvs.
+[15:53:04] <rich0> mgorny: ++ - at least for now.
+[15:53:14] <rich0> I think we should just generate the existing rsync, webrsync stuff.
+[15:53:18] <rich0> Allow git as another option.
+[15:53:24] <mgorny> this also means end users will not notice much of a difference
+[15:53:24] <rich0> Then maybe consider more change down the road.
+[15:53:38] <mgorny> except for disappearing changelogs and possibly resigned manifests
+[15:53:45] <blueness> hmm ... will there be a delay between developer commits and staging to the mirrors like there currently is?
+[15:54:23] <rich0> blueness: there would have to be some
+[15:54:35] <rich0> mgorny: any idea what it would be?
+[15:54:37] <mgorny> depends on exact implementation
+[15:54:49] <rich0> It shouldn't be any worse than what we have now, at least.
+[15:54:49] <blueness> we should try to keep one, just in case
+[15:54:55] <mgorny> right now, there's ~3 minutes between dev git & master rsync, i think
+[15:54:57] <rich0> I'd think that git will sync faster if nothing else.
+[15:55:06] <mgorny> mirrors could fetch more often than rsync
+[15:55:12] <mgorny> than with rsync*
+[15:55:13] <dberkholz|mob> With git we could take a more push-driven approach
+[15:55:20] <rich0> cvs syncing requires a full tree traversal.  git syncing is a lot smarter.
+[15:55:21] <dberkholz|mob> Instead of 30 minute cron jobs or whatever
+[15:55:37] <rich0> (you basically have COW at each level of the tree)
+[15:56:20] <rich0> Ok, I have a hard stop in 4 mins.
+[15:56:26] <rich0> Anything else on this?
+[15:56:37] <rich0> I guess my question is, what next from us?
+[15:56:43] <rich0> Do we need to approve some final cutover plan?
+[15:56:51] <mgorny> 'd love to have games team decision today thouhg :P
+[15:56:55] <rich0> Or do we just leave it up to infra and the migration team to just tell everybody what to do?
+[15:57:21] <rich0> I don't necessarily mind if the rest continue on without me, but somebody else would have to chair that.
+[15:57:30] <rich0> But, if we can wrap up git...
+[15:57:45] <rich0> Does anybody feel that we need a final council vote on "all systems go?"
+[15:57:48] -*- WilliamH thinks we really can't do anything more at this point.
+[15:57:55] <rich0> Or can we just hand over the keys?
+[15:58:10] <dilfridge> we need to take the step at some point.
+[15:58:14] <dilfridge> so why not now.
+[15:58:20] <rich0> Obviously we can step in off-schedule if we see cause to panic.  :)
+[15:58:22] <blueness> i'd like to hear from infra about this
+[15:58:27] <dilfridge> that said, *some* input from infra would be nice.
+[15:58:30] <blueness> since they have to brunt the work
+[15:58:40] <rich0> Well, nothing happens until they do something anyway.
+[15:58:40] <blueness> dilfridge, collision!
+[15:58:47] <dilfridge> :]
+[15:58:58] <blueness> rich0, yeah but we really need to know if they're okay with this plan
+[15:59:06] <rich0> I was thinking more in terms of whether we can just let infra and the git migration project run with the rest.
+[15:59:24] -*- WilliamH doesn't see any reason not to
+[15:59:40] -*- creffett|irssi needs to go shortly as well
+[15:59:46] <rich0> Ok, I think we're basically all for moving forward, but we just want to make sure that infra is coordinated.
+[15:59:49] <dilfridge> why not... we could just do a vote along "we don't see any big remaining obstacles and advise infra / the git migration project to proceed at their pace"
+[16:00:05] <rich0> dilfridge: I'm fine with that.
+[16:00:08] <rich0> Any strong objections?
+[16:00:15] <blueness> not really
+[16:00:27] <rich0> Ok. Let's vote, I have to RUN!  :)
+[16:00:27] <creffett|irssi> no objections
+[16:00:29] -*- rich0 yes
+[16:00:31] -*- creffett|irssi yes
+[16:00:34] -*- dilfridge yes
+[16:00:34] -*- blueness yes
+[16:00:38] -*- WilliamH yes
+[16:00:44] <dberkholz|mob> ye
+[16:00:45] <dberkholz|mob> s
+[16:00:56] <dilfridge> rich0: shall I take over or do we postpone the rest?
+[16:01:05] <dberkholz|mob> I've gotta run too, as did somebody else
+[16:01:06] <rich0> radhermit ?
+[16:01:13] <rich0> I suggest we adjourn.
+[16:01:13] <dilfridge> ok then postpone I guess
+[16:01:16] <rich0> Next week?
+[16:01:20] <blueness> next week
+[16:01:24] -*- WilliamH is fine with next week
+[16:01:24] <dilfridge> next week
+[16:01:49] <dberkholz|mob> wfm
+[16:02:00] <rich0> Ok, we are adjourned until next week.  Radhermit, ping me with your vote on the last bit.  :)
+[16:02:17] <rich0> I'll post log/summary
+[16:02:20] <rich0> Thanks, all!
+[16:02:32] <rich0> sorry, mgorny
+[16:02:40] <rich0> games + herds next time
+[16:02:42] <rich0> adios
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20141021-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20141021-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3ba9d84
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20141021-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+Roll call
+=========
+
+Present: blueness, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, ulm, williamh 
+Absent: dberkholz
+
+
+Deprecating and killing the concept of herds
+============================================
+"The council is in favor of retiring herds, allowing non-maintainer
+aliases to exist, and having a way to distinguish between individuals,
+projects, and non-maintainer aliases in metadata.xml.  The details of
+how to implement this will be worked out in the lists before the next
+meeting."
+
+Aye: blueness, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, ulm, williamh 
+
+
+Status of Games Team
+====================
+"Council deferrs to radhermit to continue working with the games team on
+the organization issues for another month.  Council will reach out to
+QA/Treecleaners and support their reviewing games packages as any other
+as far as bugs/security/QA/etc goes."
+
+Aye: blueness, dilfridge, radhermit, rich0, ulm, williamh 
+
+
+
+Status of Projects
+==================
+1) the multilib porting and subsequent disposal of emul-... packages
+2) the migration of project web pages to our wiki
+
+http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel.announce/2212/
+
+See meeting log for further details.  No actions by council.
+
+
+Bugs assigned to Council
+========================
+
+(5 minutes)
+
+Bug #503382 - Missing summaries for 20131210, 20140114, and 20140225 council meetings
+
+dberkholz is reminded to follow-up...  
+
+
+Open floor
+==========
+
+(5 minutes)
+
+
+
+
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20141021.txt b/meeting-logs/20141021.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..28360bc
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20141021.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,405 @@
+[15:00:23] <rich0> Ok, I have 19:00 on my watch.
+[15:00:27] <rich0> Roll call...
+[15:00:32] -*- ulm here
+[15:00:36] -*- WilliamH here
+[15:01:20] <rich0> blueness, dilfridge, radhermit?
+[15:01:20] <radhermit> here
+[15:02:45] <rich0> I just sent a text to dberkholz
+[15:02:59] <dilfridge> here
+[15:03:07] <rich0> Ok, just blueness
+[15:03:44] <blueness> here!
+[15:03:55] <blueness> shit i got busy in another channel
+[15:03:58] <blueness> but i'm ready :)
+[15:04:06] <rich0> Ok, let's get started - no word from dberkholz but I did text him.
+[15:04:09] <blueness> and there's the text :)
+[15:04:15] <blueness> at least this time i wasn't asleep
+[15:04:43] <rich0> Ok, same agenda, but we're up to Deprecating and killing the concept of herds
+[15:04:55] <rich0> Looks like mgorny is at the center of every agenda item today.  :)
+[15:04:57] <WilliamH> kill them with fire and nukes
+[15:05:11] <blueness> WilliamH, no kill them with loooove
+[15:05:17] <rich0> Nah, nukes are reserved for cvs keywords.
+[15:05:26] <blueness> ah yes
+[15:05:29] <dilfridge> not kill but correct the definition (people not packages)
+[15:05:37] <ulm> I'm o.k. with killing herds, as long as we keep a distinction in metadata if the maintaining entity is a person or a team
+[15:05:38] <blueness> okay i'm all for killing herds, but two things
+[15:06:00] <blueness> 1) we keep the mail aliases somehow so that we can track packages
+[15:06:04] <WilliamH> ulm: you can tell that in the <maintainer> tags
+[15:06:14] <blueness> so maybe change <herd> to just <email>
+[15:06:24] <dilfridge> <maintainer><email>kde@gentoo.org</email><name>Gentoo KDE team</name></maintainer>
+[15:06:31] <dilfridge> compare this ^ to
+[15:06:36] <dilfridge> <herd>kde</herd>
+[15:06:38] <blueness> i like that
+[15:06:48] <rich0> Would we require all packages to have a maintainer or project listed to be considered maintained?
+[15:06:54] <WilliamH> dilfridge: nuke the <herd> tag
+[15:06:57] <ulm> dilfridge: that's not what the DTD defines as name
+[15:07:00] <rich0> That is, just an alias isn't good enough unless it is a real project?
+[15:07:01] <blueness> 2) we need to really figure out what the relationship between herds and projects are
+[15:07:02] <WilliamH> dilfridge: it is unnecessary
+[15:07:05] <ulm> name is for a person
+[15:07:27] <blueness> i don't even know what teams i'm on anymore because i've just been working with herds aka mail aliases
+[15:07:35] <WilliamH> blueness: herds are groups of packages, maintained by devs who are members of projects.
+[15:07:36] <dilfridge> if we can come up with a similarly concise metadata fomulation then I am for nuking something. I'm not happy to blow up all metadata files to infinity.
+[15:07:46] <radhermit> so this doesn't kill herds, just changes metadata? I'm fine with that, never liked the 2nd layer of redirection
+[15:08:13] <blueness> radhermit, that's my understanding
+[15:08:14] <ulm> dilfridge: +1
+[15:08:15] <WilliamH> blueness: for example, the accessibility project maintains the accessibility and gnome-accessibility herds.
+[15:08:19] <blueness> so we're really not loosing any data
+[15:08:21] <rich0> I think we're all for simplifying things here.  I'm not quite sure we are solid on what we want to change TO.
+[15:08:40] <dilfridge> a) keep metadata.xml somehow short and concise.
+[15:08:55] <radhermit> just use straight email addresses in metadata only
+[15:09:01] <ulm> WilliamH: same for emacs team, it maintains emacs and xemacs herds
+[15:09:08] <dilfridge> b) kill the concept "herds=sets of packages" (because noone uses it like that)
+[15:09:19] <blueness> on point b correct
+[15:09:42] <WilliamH> The <herd> tag should go
+[15:10:11] <ulm> WilliamH: replace it by <project> or <team>?
+[15:10:13] <dilfridge> which leads us to - what else is needed after a) and b) is done? redefine former herds as teams?
+[15:10:23] <rich0> Should metadata have a way to distinguish between personal and alias emails?  Can alias emails be "maintainers" unless they're projects?  Where do non-maintaining aliases go?
+[15:11:00] <rich0> dilfridge: I think we should define where we want to be.  Getting there is a simpler problem.
+[15:11:14] <dilfridge> we could introduce a <team> tag that goes to a xxx@gentoo.org alias
+[15:11:23] <blueness> dilfridge, that would be better
+[15:11:26] <dilfridge> same usage as herd today
+[15:11:33] <mgorny> why extra tags? <maintainer type="xxx">
+[15:11:41] <rich0> mgorny: ++
+[15:11:44] <rich0> That was my thought.
+[15:11:47] -*- WilliamH agrees with mgorny here, why keep tags?
+[15:11:51] <blueness> i've got this gut feeling that we need to define the existing and members so we know who is taking care of what packages
+[15:11:54] <dilfridge> because it's an extra 20 characters that I have to type.
+[15:11:54] <radhermit> <maintainer type="bot">
+[15:12:02] <rich0> But what about aliases that aren't maintainers?  Do we want to ban them?  Only true projects can have aliases?
+[15:12:17] <blueness> we want aliases that are not maintaiers
+[15:12:25] <dilfridge> sure
+[15:12:27] <WilliamH> dilfridge: here specifically does *not* go to an email@g.o I don't think, you have to look it up in herds.xml
+[15:12:34] <WilliamH> s/here/herd/
+[15:12:38] <rich0> Maybe the tag should be <email type="maintainer">
+[15:12:42] <dilfridge> WilliamH: yes, but that's an abomination
+[15:12:56] <blueness> rich0, interesting idea
+[15:12:59] <dilfridge> one level of indirection beyond sanity
+[15:14:16] <rich0> So, some principles.  Get rid of herds.  Have email in metadata, and have a way to tell if the email is personal, proejct, or just non-maintaining alias.
+[15:14:21] <ulm> just rename <herd> to <team>
+[15:14:26] <WilliamH> Ok, a maintainer tag contains a name and an email... that email could be an alias, just like we do now...
+[15:14:35] <ulm> no attributes or other such xml abominations
+[15:14:36] <dilfridge> rich0, ulm: ++
+[15:15:00] <mgorny> ulm: that's extra work for no benefit
+[15:15:02] <blueness> rich0, yeah that sounds okay
+[15:15:03] <rich0> ulm: what is a "team"?  :)  Just an email address, that may or may not be a project, and which may or may not maintain a package?
+[15:15:15] <dilfridge> with the distinction that <team>x</team> directly maps to x@gentoo.org without exceptions
+[15:15:22] <ulm> mgorny: we'll have to update the dtd in any case
+[15:15:31] <rich0> Ok, is our goal to fully spec this out today, or do we want to punt on the details and resolve next meeting?
+[15:15:43] -*- WilliamH is against a team tag
+[15:15:46] <rich0> Maybe we just vote on the direction, and then let the DTD be fixed on the lists or something.
+[15:15:49] <ulm> rich0: a team is the group of devs maintaining what is currently called a herd
+[15:15:50] <blueness> rich0, this is too complex for me to think on the fly
+[15:16:03] <WilliamH> just use a maintainer tag...
+[15:16:08] <rich0> blueness: that is my concern - I don't just want to bikeshed the solution in 10mins.
+[15:16:12] <WilliamH> maintainers can be aliases...
+[15:16:33] <rich0> We can vote on the general direction and requirements, but then let the implementation be worked out on the lists with a final vote.
+[15:16:38] <rich0> We can also propose a migration plan on the lists.
+[15:16:51] <rich0> Until today we didn't really know where everybody stood on it.
+[15:17:05] <dilfridge> please migrate after git, it will make it so much more sane
+[15:17:08] <rich0> That would be my proposal.  
+[15:17:28] <WilliamH> That's reasonable because it could all be done in one commit.
+[15:17:42] <rich0> ++ - Git will be done next Tuesday anyway.  :)
+[15:17:49] -*- rich0 ducks
+[15:17:50] <WilliamH> heh
+[15:17:52] <radhermit> heh ok
+[15:18:13] <ulm> while we're at it, we could also make the maintainer tag for individual devs more concise
+[15:18:24] <ulm> nick should be enough for gentoo devs
+[15:18:39] <dilfridge> true
+[15:18:40] <rich0> ulm: what about proxies?
+[15:18:45] <rich0> Shoudl they get a different tag?
+[15:18:50] <rich0> (or attribute)
+[15:18:59] <radhermit> do we need to bikeshed this all now?
+[15:18:59] <rich0> I'm thinking about software that has to parse this stuff.
+[15:18:59] <ulm> rich0: they would keep full e-mail addresses of course
+[15:19:05] <radhermit> seems like something for lists
+[15:19:11] <WilliamH> rich0: I'm not sure that's necessary, because you can list multiple maintainers
+[15:19:14] <dilfridge> no @ -> dev
+[15:19:16] <rich0> radhermit: ++
+[15:19:20] <dilfridge> ++
+[15:19:21] <ulm> yeah, let's discuss it on lists
+[15:19:21] <blueness> http://dpaste.com/1J2YMFS
+[15:19:29] <rich0> Ok, then how about this for a quick summary:
+[15:19:32] <blueness> ^^ this seems to be what we are all saying
+[15:19:42] <mgorny> also note that metadata.xml is not only for gx86 but also for other repos
+[15:19:45] <mgorny> including non-gentoo
+[15:20:07] <WilliamH> mgorny: all we have to be concerned about is gentoo-x86
+[15:20:24] <rich0> "The council is in favor of retiring herds, allowing non-maintainer aliases to exist, and having a way to distinguish between individuals, projects, and non-maintainer aliases in metadata.xml.  The details of how to implement this will be worked out in the lists before the next meeting."
+[15:20:43] <blueness> yes!
+[15:20:47] <blueness> perfect
+[15:20:47] <ulm> +1
+[15:20:51] -*- WilliamH yes
+[15:20:54] <radhermit> yes
+[15:20:57] -*- rich0 yes
+[15:20:57] -*- ulm yes
+[15:20:57] <dilfridge> yes
+[15:21:19] <rich0> Ok, I think that is all six of us
+[15:21:44] <rich0> Ok, recorded.
+[15:21:46] <rich0> Next topic.
+[15:21:51] <rich0> Status of Games Team
+[15:22:05] <rich0> Looking at the past summary, I believe radhermit was going to try to coordinate an election.
+[15:22:06] <radhermit> I sent one email, probably should have sent a followup one at some point
+[15:22:13] <radhermit> but that didn't happen
+[15:22:35] <radhermit> and no election happened because no new members stepped forward afaik
+[15:23:03] <WilliamH> So should we disband the team and assign everything to m-n then?
+[15:23:12] <rich0> I guess my question is whether the urgency to do something is the same?
+[15:23:15] <blueness> there's no real way of asking "who's on such and such a team" is there?
+[15:23:17] <dilfridge> WilliamH: would that help?
+[15:23:38] <rich0> We did give the go-ahead for people to avoid the team if they felt the need.
+[15:23:48] <rich0> So, it should be less of a barrier to progress.
+[15:23:50] <radhermit> I'll probably be in the same room as the current team leader sometime later today if that helps anything :P
+[15:23:55] <WilliamH> blueness: the project page should list the members
+[15:24:05] <radhermit> if you want me to force him to relinquish his crown ;)
+[15:24:20] <blueness> radhermit, how is that?
+[15:24:29] <blueness> i'm not even sure who's who on that team
+[15:24:33] <radhermit> We're both located near Boston
+[15:24:36] <dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Games
+[15:24:49] <blueness> oh mike
+[15:25:05] <radhermit> afaik, vapier probably doesn't care about being lead in games anymore
+[15:25:05] <ulm> heh, they moved the project page to the wiki?
+[15:25:10] <radhermit> I can ask him though
+[15:25:21] <dilfridge> btw that page is incorrect as per council decision
+[15:25:30] <dilfridge> "The Gentoo Games Project manages all games that are added into the Portage tree."
+[15:26:04] <rich0> radhermit: I definitely think you should talk to him if you have the opportunity.  
+[15:26:10] <rich0> I'd be interested in how he feels about things.
+[15:26:23] <dilfridge> it was migrated by creffett|irssi by the way, most likely together with a bunch of others
+[15:26:30] <rich0> I don't want to block somebody from contributing - really most of this issue is about making sure games doesn't block others from contributing.
+[15:27:07] <blueness> mgorny, is my understanding correct that games is blocking the removal of emul-* stuff which is blocking multilib stuff from progressing?
+[15:27:22] <mgorny> not anymore
+[15:27:23] <radhermit> uh, I don't think so
+[15:27:27] <mgorny> multilib team did all the work for them
+[15:27:30] <radhermit> multilib should just fix stuff
+[15:27:33] <radhermit> since they want it done
+[15:27:39] <mgorny> though most of the dependencies are still insane
+[15:27:42] <radhermit> like how most stuff works in the tree
+[15:28:05] <blueness> okay so isn't that the original issue with that team?  i mean if the original problem is gone, can we just leave it alone?
+[15:28:10] <blueness> or are there other issues?
+[15:28:26] <mgorny> did they solve the 10-year security issue?
+[15:28:27] <rich0> blueness: that is what I'm thinking.  I don't want to just outright disband the team if they're doing something and they aren't really a problem.
+[15:28:29] <radhermit> people mentioned wanting to rework how games were installed/policies/etc
+[15:28:32] <mgorny> about nethack?
+[15:28:53] <rich0> mgorny: I guess I'd ask whether anybody else wants to solve that issue.  If games is standing in the way that is one thing.
+[15:28:54] <blueness> hey! leave nethack alone ... its legendary!
+[15:28:58] <blueness> j/k
+[15:29:12] <WilliamH> <qa hat on> There are a number of games that are hard masked in the tree because of security issues. these are closed-source binaries so will probably not be fixed. </qa hat>
+[15:29:18] <radhermit> imo, if people are serious about changing stuff just join and start discussing more
+[15:29:22] <mgorny> it's not nethack being broken, it's games.eclass install of it
+[15:29:32] <rich0> WilliamH: If they're hard-masked, then it isn't a problem, right?
+[15:29:48] <rich0> If something is truly broken and isn't maintained, then that is a treecleaning issue.
+[15:29:50] <blueness> mgorny, okay thanks for that clarification
+[15:29:58] <WilliamH> rich0: what's the point of them being in the tree if they are hard masked for security and have been for years?
+[15:30:07] <rich0> WilliamH: do they still work?
+[15:30:14] <rich0> Maybe people still want to use it?
+[15:30:26] <blueness> mgorny, can we have a clear list of what's wrong with games team and then we can decide whether or not to leave lying dogs alone
+[15:30:55] <rich0> I'll buy that nethack is doing something wrong.  The question is, is somebody gong to fix it, or are we talking about treecleaning nethack/
+[15:30:56] <blueness> if the problems are big, we already get the picture that there's no movement there, we'll just disband and treeclean
+[15:31:00] <WilliamH> rich0: I'm not saying people shouldn't use it if they want to, I'm just questioning why it is still in the main tree instead of an overlay?
+[15:31:18] <blueness> WilliamH, that's a good idea, move it to an overlay
+[15:31:20] <ulm> blueness: it's all in mgorny's e-mail message, requiring an agenda item for a previous meeting
+[15:31:35] <ulm> mgorny: do you have a pointer to it?
+[15:31:37] <rich0> WilliamH: I get that, but why not allow it in the main tree?  Does it hurt anything?
+[15:31:42] <mgorny> ulm: a minute
+[15:31:49] <blueness> ulm, mgorny i read it but i need a reminder
+[15:31:49] <mgorny> i think it's still in qa agenda
+[15:32:23] <WilliamH> rich0: we should unmask if it is going to stay in the main tree; p.mask should not be permanent.
+[15:32:28] <rich0> Making all of games m-n won't make the bugs disappear.
+[15:32:35] <ulm> mgorny: this on, I think: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3919
+[15:32:35] <mgorny> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3919
+[15:32:36] <blueness> rich0, if there's a real problem(s) here, then let's act by saying we're give QA the power to move that stuff to an overlay and disband the game team
+[15:32:38] <ulm> *one
+[15:32:39] <rich0> WilliamH: I don't see why not, but we can take that offline.
+[15:32:44] <ulm> heh :)
+[15:33:07] <rich0> I'm not sure that there is a policy against having masked security problems in the tree permanently.
+[15:33:14] <rich0> As long as they build/etc.
+[15:33:19] <mgorny> but QA's dead!
+[15:33:24] <mgorny> we need to disband it too :P
+[15:33:29] <WilliamH> mgorny: not completely.
+[15:33:30] <radhermit> ...
+[15:33:32] <dilfridge> how about we state "everyone is free to join games team" instead?
+[15:33:45] <radhermit> didn't I sort of state that already?
+[15:33:50] <mgorny> but seriously, since last failed meeting i don't know if qa can work
+[15:34:04] <dilfridge> hmm? what did I miss this time?
+[15:34:08] <dilfridge> never mind, later
+[15:34:14] <mgorny> i also mailed the -qa@ list about games team, and never got any response
+[15:34:24] <blueness> mgorny, two problems i see: 1) political.  demanding exclusivity.  2) the games.eclass breaking things like LFH
+[15:34:36] <dilfridge> 1) is solved
+[15:34:52] <dilfridge> 2) is solved by solving 1), noone is forced to use games.eclass
+[15:35:00] <dilfridge> what's the problem?
+[15:35:27] <blueness> dilfridge, well there's only one problem remaining and that is a treecleaning of bad packages
+[15:35:41] <rich0> blueness: I suggest we let QA/treecleaners do that per-package.
+[15:35:43] <blueness> if we remove that cruft from the tree than i'd be happy with the state of things
+[15:35:46] <ulm> dilfridge: lack of consistency throughout the tree is an issue
+[15:35:48] <mgorny> well, the problem is that even if not everyone is forced to use it, we end up being inconsistent
+[15:35:50] <dilfridge> ok, but that applies to all packages, not just games
+[15:35:55] <radhermit> it would be nice to do things in a uniform fashion
+[15:35:57] <radhermit> right
+[15:36:07] -*- WilliamH agrees with dilfridge
+[15:36:09] <mgorny> recently gnome team rewrote their packages to use games.eclass
+[15:36:15] <radhermit> seriously?
+[15:36:15] <dilfridge> huh?
+[15:36:15] <mgorny> because someone told them to
+[15:36:26] <dilfridge> that is kinda stupid.
+[15:36:29] <WilliamH> mgorny: who told them to?
+[15:36:34] <mgorny> hasufell, i think
+[15:36:39] <rich0> Still, I don't buy that we can NEVER have a package with a potential security issue in the tree if it is masked.  But, I think we can let QA/tree-cleaners do their job first.
+[15:36:40] <dilfridge> LOL
+[15:36:49] <WilliamH> gees
+[15:36:49] <mgorny> now if i tell them to switch back, we end up in kinda stupid way
+[15:36:57] <WilliamH> mgorny: go for it.
+[15:37:08] <WilliamH> mgorny: they don't need to use games.eclass
+[15:37:35] <rich0> I don't have a problem with people using the eclass.  It just shouldn't be mandatory, and of course that makes it kind of useless.
+[15:37:35] <dilfridge> this is getting slightly bizarr
+[15:37:39] <blueness> rich0, this looks messier than i thought.  how about as a first line of action the council asks treecleaners to focus on games that are abondoned or seroius disrepair
+[15:38:03] <rich0> Well, first line of action is that radhermit chats with vapier, but yes, agree blueness
+[15:38:11] <blueness> rich0, yeah true
+[15:38:15] <rich0> I think we should separate org vs package issues.
+[15:38:18] <WilliamH> blueness: basically we just need to do the work in qa;
+[15:38:21] <radhermit> don't treecleaners scan for all pkgs with tons of open bugs anyway?
+[15:38:26] <WilliamH> blueness: following up on p.mask.
+[15:38:32] <WilliamH> blueness: not just games
+[15:38:34] <radhermit> i.e. they should already be catching things
+[15:38:46] <radhermit> open bugs that are ancient at least
+[15:38:47] <WilliamH> blueness: so I don't think there is any need for the council to do anything on that.
+[15:39:14] -*- WilliamH really isn't part of treecleaners
+[15:39:22] <WilliamH> I can't really speak for how they do things
+[15:39:47] <rich0> So, how about something like this:
+[15:39:47] <ulm> should we make any statement about policy? like games group, or non-FHS directory layout in games.eclass?
+[15:39:50] <ulm> or do we leave this to qa?
+[15:40:07] -*- WilliamH votes leave p.mask to qa
+[15:40:28] <dilfridge> leave it to qa for now, since the question of exclusivity has been decided
+[15:40:30] <radhermit> right, if people have serious issues with certain pkgs, contact qa
+[15:40:34] <radhermit> we don't micromanage
+[15:40:49] <blueness> right
+[15:41:03] <radhermit> if QA is unresponsive... well then
+[15:41:11] <radhermit> find some new QA members? :)
+[15:41:20] <mgorny> i'm the new QA member :P
+[15:41:21] <rich0> "Council deferrs to radhermit to continue working with the games team on the organization issues for another month.  Council will reach out to QA/Treecleaners and support their reviewing games packages as any other as far as bugs/security/QA/etc goes."
+[15:41:38] <mgorny> but i don't feel like stating 'i decide this because nobody else responded and qa was unable to meet properly'
+[15:41:49] <radhermit> heh that is always fun
+[15:42:06] <radhermit> we've had QA dictators in the past... ;)
+[15:42:08] <rich0> is creffett still the QA lead?
+[15:42:17] <WilliamH> rich0: yes
+[15:42:51] <rich0> Is there another election due soon?
+[15:42:58] <rich0> I'd think that would be coming up soon.
+[15:43:00] <dilfridge> december according to schedule, I think
+[15:43:12] <dilfridge> let me look it up
+[15:43:16] <rich0> Maybe we should just ping them and figure out where things stand.
+[15:43:25] <rich0> Thankless job I'm sure.  :)
+[15:43:45] <rich0> In any case, I suggest we defer on games to radhermit and QA/treecleaners for another month.
+[15:43:50] <rich0> Maybe continue to monitor.
+[15:43:56] <ulm> dilfridge: 2013-12-16 was last election
+[15:44:00] <rich0> I don't think anybody wants to take any kind of direct action right now.
+[15:44:02] <dilfridge> yes
+[15:44:19] <rich0> Ok, was my proposal above worth voting on?  We don't necessarily need to vote.
+[15:44:20] <dilfridge> bug 494454
+[15:44:22] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/494454 "Vote of confirmation QA lead creffett"; Community Relations, Developer Relations; RESO, FIXE; dilfridge:council
+[15:44:23] <rich0> We can just ping them.
+[15:45:05] <dilfridge> rich0: you get a yes from me
+[15:45:07] <rich0> Ok, any objections to moving on in the agenda.
+[15:45:10] <ulm> rich0: voting is ok for me
+[15:45:19] <ulm> moving on, too :)
+[15:45:23] <rich0> ok, then let's vote: "Council deferrs to radhermit to continue working with the games team on the organization issues for another month.  Council will reach out to QA/Treecleaners and support their reviewing games packages as any other as far as bugs/security/QA/etc goes."
+[15:45:27] -*- rich0 yes
+[15:45:30] -*- ulm yes
+[15:45:31] -*- dilfridge yes
+[15:45:35] <radhermit> sure
+[15:45:36] <blueness> yes
+[15:45:36] -*- WilliamH yes
+[15:45:43] <rich0> ok
+[15:45:48] <rich0> next item.
+[15:45:53] <rich0> Status of projects:\
+[15:45:59] <rich0> the multilib porting and subsequent disposal of emul-... packages
+[15:46:12] <mgorny> i replide to the mail
+[15:46:19] <rich0> Anybody want anything further?
+[15:46:21] <mgorny> replied*
+[15:46:26] <rich0> I don't need to see mgorny dance...
+[15:46:37] <ulm> mgorny: any eta for stable unmasking?
+[15:46:43] <mgorny> i'm currently working on finishing qt work for qt folks
+[15:47:00] <mgorny> i think all issues are being worked out, so it's a matter of review + moving to the tree
+[15:47:02] <mgorny> then stabilizations
+[15:47:05] <radhermit> do qt5 work too while you're at it ;)
+[15:47:11] <dilfridge> ugh I see dev-lang/perl in the list :(
+[15:47:12] <mgorny> with arch teams... i'd say 1-2 months :P
+[15:47:33] <dilfridge> ok let's summarize, things are moving ahead.
+[15:47:34] <dilfridge> ok?
+[15:47:39] <radhermit> oh I see we finally have it in the tree masked, nevermind...
+[15:48:13] <dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Multilib_porting_status < the ultimate list
+[15:48:20] <mgorny> qt4 is probably ~1 month too
+[15:48:38] <radhermit> libperl?
+[15:48:43] <dilfridge> yes
+[15:48:45] <radhermit> isn't that dead?
+[15:49:00] <dilfridge> the libperl package is dead, but that's just a library in dev-lang/perl
+[15:49:01] <radhermit> or merged with perl itself
+[15:49:04] <radhermit> right
+[15:49:10] <radhermit> but that list has the actual pkg
+[15:49:14] <mgorny> the emul- list is not 100% necessary
+[15:49:21] <radhermit> alright
+[15:49:22] <mgorny> we only port the packages that are actually necessary
+[15:49:28] <dilfridge> sys-devel/libperl is gone soon.
+[15:49:43] <mgorny> perl won't need to be multilib most likely
+[15:49:47] <dilfridge> phew
+[15:49:47] <mgorny> python may be necessary for samba-5
+[15:49:51] <mgorny> unless we find way around it
+[15:50:07] <radhermit> next up... multilib PMS ;)
+[15:50:27] -*- dilfridge feels like kicking someone :o)
+[15:50:57] <dilfridge> ok about the migration of packages to the wiki
+[15:51:07] <dilfridge> s/packages/project pages/
+[15:51:19] <rich0> dilfridge: go ahead
+[15:51:36] <dilfridge> the silly thing is, being in the metastructure project I'm probably the right person to talk to myself
+[15:52:02] <dilfridge> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Wiki/Project_Page_Migration_Status
+[15:52:08] <dilfridge> this is the definitive list here
+[15:52:29] <dilfridge> just translating a page is in most cases (imho) trivial
+[15:52:41] <dilfridge> maybe we should propose a deadline?
+[15:53:07] <rich0> dilfridge: after that we disband x86 and amd64?  :)
+[15:53:18] <dilfridge> :P
+[15:54:00] <rich0> I do think a deadline does make sense all the same.
+[15:54:07] <dilfridge> but seriously, it is not too much work per page. of course for one person doing all is a lot of work.
+[15:54:23] <rich0> For obviously-critical projects we may just have to do something, but some of those projects may be defunct.
+[15:55:45] <rich0> Ok, anything else on that?
+[15:55:55] <rich0> Do we want to actually take action?  The agenda is just for status.
+[15:56:09] <dilfridge> status is "stalled in the middle" right now
+[15:56:22] <ulm> maybe send a reminder to the mailing list?
+[15:56:28] <dilfridge> yes, good idea.
+[15:56:38] <rich0> yeah, talk is cheap at least :)
+[15:56:59] <rich0> Ok, next agenda item is bug 503382
+[15:57:01] <willikins> rich0: https://bugs.gentoo.org/503382 "Missing summaries for 20131210, 20140114, and 20140225 council meetings"; Doc Other, Project-specific documentation; CONF; ulm:council
+[15:57:10] -*- rich0 looks around the room
+[15:57:14] -*- blueness smacks head
+[15:57:34] <mgorny> i say disband previous council
+[15:58:10] <rich0> ok, moment of silence observed...
+[15:58:20] <ulm> that was dberkholz
+[15:58:22] <blueness> hd=eh
+[15:58:24] <rich0> yup
+[15:58:27] <blueness> erre heh
+[15:58:30] <rich0> Ok, we'll prod him.
+[15:58:40] <rich0> I don't see him on the list of chairs for this term
+[15:58:48] <dilfridge> :)
+[15:58:53] <rich0> Ok...
+[15:59:00] <rich0> Open floor
+[15:59:06] <rich0> Anybody want to take a shot?
+[16:00:00] <WilliamH> Ok, I have a question about a procedure...
+[16:00:02] <mgorny> i can say that bashcomp2 is progressing fast too :P
+[16:00:10] <mgorny> i filed a lot new bugs today
+[16:00:11] <rich0> WilliamH: go ahead
+[16:00:21] <WilliamH> I know that generally a package needs a last rites and 30 days before removing it from the main tree.
+[16:00:36] <WilliamH> Is that also true for a package that is in p.mask?
+[16:00:42] <rich0> WilliamH: might as well
+[16:00:44] <WilliamH> s/p.mask/p.mask already/
+[16:00:48] <rich0> Unless there is some reason to rush.
+[16:00:57] <rich0> Or unless of course it is already masked for removal.
+[16:01:15] <rich0> My two cents at least.
+[16:01:21] <ulm> WilliamH: I'd keep the 30 days between last rites and removal there too
+[16:01:29] <ulm> but it's a guideline only
+[16:01:34] <dilfridge> I used to give a few days then too, as e.g. sending a last-rites mail "has been masked since..., will be removed in 10 days"
+[16:01:38] <blueness> rich0, et al.  i have to run.  i'll read the backlog
+[16:01:38] <rich0> Obviously copyright issues or such warrant an exception
+[16:01:45] <rich0> blueness: ok, 
+[16:01:51] <WilliamH> dilfridge: that's reasonable.
+[16:02:22] <WilliamH> dilfridge: that's one reason I haven't pushed hard personally to work on p.mask.
+[16:02:33] <WilliamH> dilfridge: I wasn't sure how to go about that.
+[16:02:39] <dilfridge> ok
+[16:03:01] <rich0> Anything else on that?
+[16:03:16] <rich0> mgorny: ++ on bashcomp2.   Just in time for my switch to zsh.  :)
+[16:03:55] <rich0> Anything else for open floor?
+[16:04:36] <rich0> If not, we're done.  Next meeting will be Nov 11
+[16:05:10] <rich0> I'll post the summary shortly, and start the agenda for next month.
+[16:05:13] <rich0> Thanks all :)