Add Nov 2023 meeting log

Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <dilfridge@gentoo.org>

1 files changed, 110 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20231112.txt b/meeting-logs/20231112.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..628780b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20231112.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+[20:00:03] <mattst88> meeting time
+[20:00:08] <mattst88> !proj council
+[20:00:09] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
+[20:00:13] <sam_> \o
+[20:00:16] <mattst88> roll call
+[20:00:18] -*- mattst88 here
+[20:00:19] -*- dilfridge here
+[20:00:22] -*- sam_ here
+[20:00:33] -*- mgorny here
+[20:01:11] -*- ulm here
+[20:02:20] <mattst88> we'll wait until 19:05 for ajak and soap
+[20:02:28] <sam_> ajak_:
+[20:02:33] <sam_> i know soap is travelling atm 
+[20:03:17] <sam_> I wonder if anyone will be caught out by DST too..
+[20:03:17] -*- soap here
+[20:03:18] -*- ajak_ here
+[20:03:25] <sam_> yay
+[20:03:25] <Arsen> the plot thickens!
+[20:03:27] <mattst88> cool, everyone is here
+[20:03:51] -*- ajak_ was, calendar somehow didn't fix the time for me...
+[20:03:54] <mattst88> > Foundation dissolution status update
+[20:04:00] <-> ajak_ heißt jetzt ajak
+[20:04:09] <mattst88> dilfridge, ulm: would either of y'all like to give an update?
+[20:04:16] <dilfridge> ulm: did you see the latest mail already?
+[20:04:22] <dilfridge> like, 5min ago
+[20:04:23] <ulm> yes, I did
+[20:04:26] <dilfridge> \o/
+[20:04:34] <dilfridge> you or me?
+[20:04:45] <ulm> dilfridge: go ahead :)
+[20:04:47] <dilfridge> k
+[20:05:00] <dilfridge> so, we contacted SPI
+[20:05:17] <dilfridge> at first basically just asking, are you interested (response: yes)
+[20:05:33] <dilfridge> and then asking specific questions that were still unclear from our last round
+[20:05:54] <dilfridge> As far as I can see, we got swift responses that were quite positive
+[20:06:02] <mattst88> agreed
+[20:06:19] <dilfridge> the next SPI board meeting is in a month
+[20:06:44] <dilfridge> in principle, we could request onboarding as an associated project then
+[20:07:11] <sam_> we had some concern from another org which had experience with SPI about responsiveness but so far that hasn't been borne out and things seem positive indeed
+[20:07:25] <dilfridge> this is basically "opening our account", needed for the next steps of transferring stuff
+[20:07:43] <mattst88> yeah -- that was the X.Org Foundation. I've emailed their board@ to try to hear about their experience
+[20:08:11] <mattst88> but I haven't heard anything yet, and I suspect I'll have to ping people directly or attend their IRC meeting to get more info
+[20:08:31] <mattst88> thank you, ulm and dilfridge for reaching out to SPI!
+[20:08:33] <dilfridge> the proposed structure so far would be that the council votes on a liaison and a deputy, who represent it towards spi
+[20:08:34] <sam_> yes, big thanks
+[20:08:44] <ulm> maybe we could contact debian or archlinux and ask about their experience with SPI
+[20:08:46] <ajak> indeed, thanks guys!
+[20:08:48] <dilfridge> a bit like a treasurer
+[20:08:48] <sam_> dilfridge: they are OK with the liaison/deputy possibly changing yearly?
+[20:08:55] <ulm> but personally I don't know anyone there
+[20:08:55] <sam_> i assume so but just worth raising
+[20:09:11] <mattst88> ulm: yeah, I agree that would be good. let's do some searching and see if we can figure out who to contact
+[20:09:34] <dilfridge> we asked about turnaround time for the liaison, and got a response "it depends, at most a month"
+[20:09:47] <dilfridge> "normally faster than you actually need it"
+[20:10:10] <ulm> so far all their responses have been very quick
+[20:10:25] <ulm> like one hour
+[20:10:51] <mattst88> yeah, pretty happy about that :)
+[20:11:18] <dilfridge> I mean, we need to compare that turnaround time with the time we'd need to update bank signees and business register :P
+[20:11:28] <sam_> yes I was thinking that :p
+[20:11:34] <mattst88> so I think tl;dr is: SPI has responded positively and we're going to ask other organizations that are under SPI about their experiences
+[20:11:40] <sam_> sgtm
+[20:11:51] <mattst88> cool, anything else on the Foundations topic?
+[20:12:03] <dilfridge> do we want to target the 11/Dec meeting? then we need to hand in our request by 4/Dec
+[20:12:11] <dilfridge> or a month later?
+[20:12:46] <mgorny> i think it would be nice to do that
+[20:12:52] <mgorny> i.e. Dec
+[20:12:58] <mgorny> while things are still hot
+[20:13:02] <mattst88> I think if we get positive feedback from Debian/Arch and learn something about X.Org's apparently-negative experience, that seems possible to me
+[20:13:27] <dilfridge> we may want to confirm this with a bug vote then sometime shorter before the deadline
+[20:13:45] <mattst88> yeah, sounds good
+[20:13:46] <sam_> i'm ok with that as a target conditional on what mattst88 said, yeah
+[20:13:56] <ulm> sounds good
+[20:13:59] <ajak> i definitely think it's worth getting other (similar) org's experiences before pursuing to completion (but that doesn't stop preparing)
+[20:14:30] <mattst88> great, next topic
+[20:14:52] <mattst88> > Open bugs with council participation
+[20:14:58] <mattst88> as far as I can tell, there are none
+[20:15:29] <mattst88> anything I've missed, or anything we should discuss?
+[20:16:22] <mattst88> I think the answer is no -- so next topic
+[20:16:28] <mattst88> > Open Floor
+[20:16:40] <mattst88> Anyone have anything for open floor?
+[20:17:10] <arthurzam> It looks like there were no comments on latest revision of GLEP 84 (package.masks)
+[20:17:10] <arthurzam> Could I request final confirmation from dev here over it before I go ahead with impl?
+[20:17:24] <arthurzam> (Note: not final GLEP acceptance by council)
+[20:17:44] <ulm> arthurzam: I've read the last version and had no comments
+[20:17:46] <mgorny> arthurzam: could you link the current version?
+[20:18:00] <arthurzam> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/tree/glep-0084.rst?h=glep-0084
+[20:18:38] <ulm> only point I've thought about was whether the regexps should be case insensitive
+[20:18:58] <ulm> but that's very minor and I guess it doesn't really matter
+[20:19:09] <mattst88> I have not reviewed it myself yet, but given the v3 status and the previous feedback has been handled, it seems ready for implementation to me
+[20:19:34] <dilfridge> same here
+[20:20:02] <mgorny> arthurzam: lgtm
+[20:20:05] <arthurzam> OK, thank you, so I'll work on impls here, and bring it for review to Council next month :)
+[20:20:14] <mgorny> is the file complaint right now?
+[20:20:15] <mattst88> thank you, arthurzam!
+[20:20:33] <arthurzam> mgorny: not yet, mainly minor stuff, I'll solve them
+[20:20:56] <ulm> last time I checked, some entries had duplicate dates
+[20:21:09] <ulm> but that was maybe one or two
+[20:21:09] <dilfridge> double dates
+[20:21:23] <mgorny> hmm, right
+[20:21:24] <arthurzam> mainly on the last removal line (after, on, after 30 days)...
+[20:21:26] <ulm> yeah, double, not duplicate :)
+[20:21:34] <mattst88> any other topics for open floor? we'll wait another 3 minutes for more topics
+[20:21:43] <mgorny> i think we used to sometimes do more than one dev on p.mask
+[20:22:03] <mgorny> e.g. when someone appends stuff, or when we want to list proxied maintainer
+[20:22:05] <dilfridge> yes, specifically for team stuff like toolchain... but we can also put the team there
+[20:22:59] <ulm> then the second line would count as regular comment I guess?
+[20:23:11] <ulm> which shouldn't be a problem
+[20:23:47] <ulm> i.e. part of "explanation"
+[20:25:56] <mattst88> okay, I don't think we have any more topics
+[20:26:00] <mattst88> meeting closed!
+[20:26:02] <mattst88> thanks all!