Log for 20221211 meeting.

License: CC-PDM-1.0 (raw IRC log, not copyrightable)
Signed-off-by: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>

2 files changed, 227 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20221211.txt b/meeting-logs/20221211.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..33f29ba
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20221211.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,217 @@
+14:00 <@   mattst88> | meeting time!
+14:00 <@  dilfridge> | ta-daaa
+14:00              * | dilfridge here
+14:00 <@   mattst88> | agenda is here: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/4baee34e9171963d1527d8e319a801ef
+14:00              * | ajak here
+14:00              * | mattst88 here
+14:00              * | mgorny here
+14:00              * | sam_ here
+14:00              * | gyakovlev here
+14:00 <       ajak> | mattst88: + arch thing i think (but there shouldn't be anything to do)
+14:00 <@   mattst88> | ulm: ping
+14:00 <@   mattst88> | ajak: yep
+14:01              * | ulm here
+14:01 <@   mattst88> | yay
+14:01 <@   mattst88> | okay, let's get arch testing out of the way first
+14:02 <@   mattst88> | are we in agreement that arch testing is in relatively good shape?
+14:02 <@   mattst88> | i.e. no unfolding disasters that need attention?
+14:02 <@       sam_> | i think so
+14:02 <@       ajak> | https://www.akhuettel.de/gentoo-bugs/arches.php yes
+14:02 <@  dilfridge> | bug numbers look good
+14:02 <@     mgorny> | let's leave a written record that loong profiles are no longer exp
+14:02 <@  dilfridge> | ooh
+14:02 <@   mattst88> | ah, nice
+14:03 <@  dilfridge> | your info is newer than mine 
+14:03 <@     mgorny> | we're in avantgarde now
+14:03 <@  dilfridge> | I was just about to say "going stable soon"
+14:03 <@  gyakovlev> | looks like arches are in decent state, at least from my POV and some others.
+14:03 <@  gyakovlev> | blips happen, but nothing bad, more like special cases/missed bugs.
+14:03              * | ajak waybacks that page for posterity
+14:03            <-- | mpagano [~quassel@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has quit (Client Quit)
+14:03 <@   mattst88> | alright, moving on to GLEP76
+14:03            --> | mpagano [~quassel@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has joined #gentoo-council
+14:03            --- | ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-council +v mpagano]
+14:03 <@   mattst88> | I don't think anyone followed up with their concerns on the mailing list thread
+14:04 <@        ulm> | not much progress there
+14:04 <@       ajak> | yeah, nobody did
+14:04 <@     mgorny> | i don't think anyone has really resumed the discussion
+14:04 <@       ajak> | (despite my prodding)
+14:04 <@   mattst88> | so I take that to mean that we're ready to vote
+14:04 <@     mgorny> | we're still waiting for a "final" version of the patch
+14:04 <@     mgorny> | or at least clear explanation what the author meant
+14:04 <@  dilfridge> | we can also vote on the existing version of the patch, we never did that
+14:04 <@       ajak> | "still"?
+14:04 <@       ajak> | nobody ever brought anything up on the ML like we decided to last meeting
+14:04 <@     mgorny> | ajak: since last meeting?
+14:04 <@       sam_> | i'd like to just vote on what the proposal was before 
+14:05 <@       ajak> | yeah, let's do that
+14:05            <-- | mpagano [~quassel@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has quit (Client Quit)
+14:05 <@        ulm> | the understanding is that "records" mean "government records", right?
+14:05 <@     mgorny> | i think we've established that how we read the patch and what the author meant didn't align
+14:05 <@  gyakovlev> | grep link for log purposes:
+14:05 <@  gyakovlev> | https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/c85b78ca69802522534ee8ab0804f665
+14:05 <@     mgorny> | particularly "records" part
+14:05            --> | mpagano [~quassel@gentoo/developer/mpagano] has joined #gentoo-council
+14:05            --- | ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-council +v mpagano]
+14:05 <@  gyakovlev> | s/grep/glep/
+14:06 <@        ulm> | that's not the last version
+14:06 <@     mgorny> | i'm not against the change but i'm against pushing it as-is
+14:06 <@  gyakovlev> | that's link from agenda.
+14:06 <@       ajak> | i suppose we should vote regardless
+14:06 <@        ulm> | latest version is here: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep76
+14:06 <@        ulm> | i.e. this patch: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/commit/?h=glep76&id=f8c192768983929e0d028d58e32e3e6e9b4d8458
+14:06 <@   mattst88> | I agree because I think that would demonstrate good faith on our part, especially given the lack of follow up after the last meeting
+14:06 <@     mgorny> | ajak: "Gentoo Council votes against proposal making Gentoo more open and welcoming"?
+14:07 <@  dilfridge> | eh
+14:07 <@        ulm> | mgorny: that's nonsense
+14:07 <@     mgorny> | i'd rather table the vote until we have something good to vote on
+14:07 <       sam_> | mattst88: yes
+14:07 <@     mgorny> | well, unless you think the change is good
+14:08 <@  dilfridge> | so how do we find that out without a vote?
+14:08 <@        ulm> | the change is ok when "records" means "government records"
+14:08 <@       sam_> | that's how i interpreted it too
+14:08 <@        ulm> | because that's the author's understanding
+14:08 <@     mgorny> | ulm: but it doesn't say that
+14:08 <@       sam_> | (I don't think it's meaningful if it was something else)
+14:08 <@   mattst88> | Proposed motion: Vote to approve GLEP76 changes, with the understanding that there may be further small changes soon
+14:08              * | ajak is not really interested in discussion given we already agreed here isn't the place for it
+14:08 <@     mgorny> | the author had a whole month to add that word
+14:08              * | ajak yes
+14:08              * | sam_ yes
+14:08              * | ulm no
+14:08              * | mgorny no
+14:09 <@       sam_> | mgorny: (and nobody wrote to the ML to say that was needed)
+14:09              * | dilfridge yes with "government records", abstain otherwise
+14:09 <@        ulm> | it makes no sense to vote on a preliminary version
+14:09 <@       ajak> | mgorny: i don't think that's really fair when everybody's had several months to bring up such problems with it to the mailing list
+14:09              * | mattst88 yes
+14:09 <@     mgorny> | sam_: but the author was here during the meeting?
+14:09 <@   mattst88> | ulm: whose failing do you see this to be?
+14:09 <@       sam_> | mgorny: and it was a massive farce where it was really hard to keep track of what the problem(s) were
+14:10 <@  dilfridge> | the author was against the clarification "government records"
+14:10 <@        ulm> | trustees must agree to it too, so how would we proceed from here?
+14:10 <@        ulm> | dilfridge: that's not what I remember
+14:10 <@       sam_> | i don't understand how anyone is voting no here given none of them raised the issue on the mailing list afterwards like they were supposed to
+14:10 <@        ulm> | it was robbat2's wording
+14:10 <@     mgorny> | dilfridge: but *which* author?
+14:10 <@  dilfridge> | the one who is most likely to be against anything
+14:10              * | ajak recalls only one person making patches
+14:11 <@       sam_> | gyakovlev: 
+14:11              * | gyakovlev abstain (sorry, notclear)
+14:11 <@  dilfridge> | independent of the authors, we can make amendments and vote on them here
+14:11 <@       sam_> | yep
+14:11 <@  dilfridge> | but we should make clear what we vote on precisely
+14:11 <@        ulm> | sam_: I voted no because I think we should have voted on a final version
+14:11 <@        ulm> | not a preliminary one
+14:12 <@  dilfridge> | ok so
+14:12 <@     mgorny> | well, fwiu this vote effectively means that the "preliminary" version is now the official version
+14:12 <@       sam_> | ulm: if mattst88 is fine with it, perhaps we should vote on a version with "government records"
+14:12 <@  dilfridge> | as far as I can see most of us here thought "records" means "government records" and would be ok with that
+14:12 <@       sam_> | then we can move on, and revisit if required
+14:12              * | ajak not sure if we should be voting on things without prior community discussion
+14:12 <@  dilfridge> | so the patch + this precise change is what we should vote on
+14:13 <@        ulm> | sam_: was such a version posted to the ML?
+14:13 <@  dilfridge> | it was discussed in detail at the last meeting
+14:13 <@       ajak> | and then nobody brought it to the ML
+14:13 <@  dilfridge> | anyone with a stake in it could have brought it up
+14:14 <@       sam_> | I don't think it's wild to interpret "records" as "government records" given anything else is tenuous (a facebook account would never be a "record")
+14:14 <@  dilfridge> | also do broken records count?
+14:14 <@       sam_> | :)
+14:14              * | ajak is again not really interested in discussion given we already agreed here isn't the place for it
+14:14 <@       ajak> | the ML is the right place for it
+14:14 <@     mgorny> | i honestly still don't understand what records we're supposed to search and for what
+14:14 <@   mattst88> | personally, I think it's the responsibility of a Council member with concerns to bring up any concerns they have that are required to get their vote
+14:15 <@       ajak> | the people with problems with the patch as-is *need* to bring those problems to the ML
+14:15 <@       ajak> | yeah
+14:15 <@  dilfridge> | you go to the vicar in the village of your ancestors and ask them to have a look at the church records of the last 500 years
+14:15 <@     mgorny> | then perhaps you should have said that when i asked people if they're going to restart the discussion as decided in the last meeting?
+14:15 <@       sam_> | it's obvious and also polite
+14:15 <@     mgorny> | because i honestly think this is asinine
+14:16 <@     mgorny> | first we decide the discussion needs to happen
+14:16 <@     mgorny> | no discussion happens
+14:16 <@     mgorny> | then we suddenly vote out of the blue disregarding what we said before
+14:16 <@       ajak> | the onus is on the detractors
+14:16 <@       sam_> | i don't think what you're saying contradicts what mattst88 is saying at all
+14:16 <@   mattst88> | yes, I'm asking why no one with these concerns responded to the mailing list thread in the last few months, but *especially* since the last council meeting
+14:17 <@       ajak> | also, i *tried* to get discussion going in the time between last meeting and this meeting
+14:17 <@  dilfridge> | the other point is, what we are doing here does not really have immediate consequences, so we could still amend it month on if really someone objects
+14:17 <        ulm> | mattst88: since you haven't counted yet, I change my vote to yes
+14:17 <@       ajak> | 0 response from council members
+14:17 <@     mgorny> | because i waited for the proponents to send a new version to discuss?
+14:17 <@     mgorny> | as i openly indicated
+14:17 <@  dilfridge> | compromises are out of fashion
+14:17 <@       sam_> | if you're going to vote down a proposal, you then take some responsibility for moving the discussion forward and explaining why
+14:17 <@     mgorny> | i think it's reasonable to assume that if remarks have been made, then you wait for the new version before sending the same remarks again
+14:18 <@        ulm> | it would have been the proponents' task to follow up on it
+14:18              * | mattst88 /o\
+14:18            <-- | josef64 [~quassel@user/josef64] has quit ()
+14:18 <@       sam_> | anyway ulm changed his vote to yes, so mattst88, can you do the count?
+14:18 <@  dilfridge> | the third rail of gentoo politics, touch it and you die
+14:18 <@   mattst88> | okay, I'm personally ready to move on. Further changes can be made as needed
+14:18 <@     mgorny> | or we should set a formal rule "remarks should be resent every week because if you fail to repeat them, the author is free to assume there are no remarks"
+14:18 <@   mattst88> | sam_: yes, vote is 5-1-1. motion passes
+14:19 <@       sam_> | excellent
+14:19 <@  dilfridge> | what for now, exactly?
+14:19 <@       ajak> | @mattst88 | Proposed motion: Vote to approve GLEP76 changes, with the understanding that there may be further small changes soon
+14:19 <@        ulm> | so we send the version from the glep76 branch to trustees?
+14:19 <@   mattst88> | yes, sounds fine to me
+14:19 <@       ajak> | why is it on the trustees, again?
+14:19 <@   mattst88> | ajak: because we need more discussion :P
+14:20 <@  dilfridge> | <headdesk />
+14:20 <@        ulm> | ajak: they're mentioned in the GLEP
+14:20 <@       sam_> | ulm: I think that sounds fine, yes
+14:20 <@       sam_> | it's what we've done for previous revisions of the glep
+14:20 <@        ulm> | that too
+14:20 <@   mattst88> | bug 729062 -- this was infinitely assigned to Whissi. has fallen to council@. no updates AFAIK
+14:20 <  willikins> | mattst88: https://bugs.gentoo.org/729062 "Services and Software which is critical for Gentoo should be developed/run in the Gentoo namespace"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; jstein:council
+14:21 <@       sam_> | I think that's really something which should: 1. have a new proposer; 2. ML discussion
+14:21 <@       sam_> | nothing for us to do really, we already discussed (and sorted out) pkgcheck etc
+14:21 <@       sam_> | (which are now hosted primarily on git.gentoo.org)
+14:21 <@   mattst88> | bug 882643 -- 7-0 vote in the bug itself. left open until this council meeting for record keeping purposes. now closing :)
+14:21 <  willikins> | mattst88: https://bugs.gentoo.org/882643 "Approve econf --disable-static change retroactively for EAPI 8"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council
+14:21 <@       ajak> | yeah, seems more like on ongoing community thing that council doesn't have much of an interest in
+14:21 <@        ulm> | that one is done
+14:21 <@        ulm> | I'm going to close it
+14:22 <@       sam_> | ulm: i'll comment once you've closed it just to note that it was implemented in portage-3.0.40
+14:22 <@       sam_> | (or you can mention it, whatever is fine)
+14:22 <@   mattst88> | bug 883715 -- this ties in with GLEP76. not sure there's anything to do with it at the moment, but GLEP76 should kinda unblock it
+14:22 <@  dilfridge> | Bug 883715 - (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous
+14:22 <@   mattst88> | I don't see any other bugs, so I think we're on to...
+14:22 <@   mattst88> | 4. Open Floor
+14:23 <@       ajak> | it's a private bug so not sure how much we should discuss here anyway
+14:23 <+  arthurzam> | I want to request meeting logs + summaries
+14:23 <@  dilfridge> | hrhr
+14:24 <@       sam_> | yes, sorry, I'll get mine done
+14:24 <+  arthurzam> | Also looks like one missing from previous council https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Meeting_logs
+14:24 <@   mattst88> | arthurzam: I'm planning to upload meeting logs for last month and today later today
+14:24 <@   mattst88> | hopefully summaries too
+14:24 <  arthurzam> | mattst88: thanks
+14:24 <@  dilfridge> | fwiw, there's a preliminary directory tree of 23.0 profiles for amd64, alpha, and arm
+14:24 <@       sam_> | yeah, I'm just going to do it today so it's done with
+14:24 <@       sam_> | there's no good time to do it
+14:24 <@       ajak> | wrt glep76, the accepted motion from the last meeting was: @mattst88 | motion to table this and continue discussion on the mailing list?
+14:24 <@  gyakovlev> | I'm working on my summaries RN, so will be posted today for review and comitted after that.
+14:25 <@  dilfridge> | not in profiles.desc yet because new and untested
+14:25 <@       ajak> | so... i tried to continue discussion on the mailing list
+14:25 <@   mattst88> | ajak: yes, I think so
+14:25 <@   mattst88> | ajak: yeah, you did :)
+14:25 <@       ajak> | i'm baffled and frustrated that even with prodding that no discussion has happened
+14:26 <@       ajak> | so can those with concerns please bring the to the ML? "i said so in the council meeting" isn't really actionable by the patch authors nor is it a useful way to have a discussion like this
+14:26 <@       ajak> | bring them* rather
+14:27 <@       ajak> | "patch authors rework the patch based on council discussion" also wasn't what the passed motion was :p
+14:27 <@   mattst88> | yes, please. it was my understanding from the last council meeting that those with objections/concerns/feedback were agreeing to reply to the mailing list
+14:28 <@  dilfridge> | we have accepted their version now as per vote
+14:28 <@   mattst88> | okay, it doesn't sound like there are further topics for open floor?
+14:28 <@  dilfridge> | so why do we need further discussion?
+14:28 <@       ajak> | the motion was: @mattst88 | Proposed motion: Vote to approve GLEP76 changes, with the understanding that there may be further small changes soon
+14:28 <@  dilfridge> | (from them... if we want to change something that is something else)
+14:28 <@       ajak> | are there no further small changes that anybody wants?
+14:28 <@  dilfridge> | exactly, who wants changes proposes them
+14:29 <@   mattst88> | dilfridge: I understood mgorny and ulm wanted some changes or clarifications
+14:29            <-- | xgqt [~xgqt@gentoo/developer/xgqt] has quit (Ping timeout: 256 seconds)
+14:29 <@     mgorny> | sorry, i'm hurried to leave
+14:29 <@     mgorny> | thanks, everyone
+14:29            --> | xgqt [~xgqt@gentoo/developer/xgqt] has joined #gentoo-council
+14:29            --- | ChanServ sets modes [#gentoo-council +v xgqt]
+14:29 <        ulm> | mattst88: I'm fine with the wording as-is, if it's clear that things like https://twitter.com/jesus don't count as "records"
+14:30 <@   mattst88> | hearing no more open floor topics, meeting adjourned
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20221211.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20221211.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9ff0dc7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20221211.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: GnuPG v2
+
+iOoEABYKAJIWIQReryEEmoa4pUzLG/qs6yl0DJpOlwUCY5YzDF8UgAAAAAAuAChp
+c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0NUVB
+RjIxMDQ5QTg2QjhBNTRDQ0IxQkZBQUNFQjI5NzQwQzlBNEU5NxQcbWF0dHN0ODhA
+Z2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRCs6yl0DJpOl1vqAQDAsmNMm5uOYfuQ53E9D3B+nrqNjptX
+Jud0mm1i2/7aywEA9qHDxgjkS6WjRngpkvzJBI1cGQrKMJ1pDDurigM0kQw=
+=dTLr
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----