1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
|
20:00 < dberkholz@> ok, let's get started
20:00 < dberkholz@> who's here?
20:01 * musikc does a bigger wave
20:01 * fmccor waves
20:01 * edit_21 hides behind musikc
20:01 * musikc ducks so everyone sees edit_21
20:01 -!- Irssi: #gentoo-council: Total of 66 nicks [6 ops, 0 halfops, 2 voices, 58 normal]
20:01 * edit_21 swan dives
20:01 < dberkholz@> flameeyes isn't in the channel
20:01 < musikc > into a wall
20:01 * musikc snickers at edit_21
20:02 < dberkholz@> lu_zero mentioned late last night that he's traveling today again
20:02 < edit_21 > :/
20:02 < musikc > blah
20:02 < musikc > dberkholz, can you speak for those on council who may not be present?
20:02 < dberkholz@> amne just talked, so he's here
20:02 < dberkholz@> Betelgeuse, vapier, SpanKY, jokey: here?
20:03 < dberkholz@> i can only speak for them insomuch as i can tell you what they've already said
20:03 < musikc > fmccor is that satisfactory for you or should we just reschedule?
20:04 < dberkholz@> we need at least 4 council members here, or we can't do this.
20:04 < musikc > well i mean we should give them 5-10 mins but if no show, should we reschedule
20:04 < amne@> agenda looks good to me and as noted by dberkholz i'm around
20:04 < fmccor > musikc, dberkholz depends on what is to come out of this.
20:04 * musikc pokes amne, Betelgeuse, jokey, SpanKY, and vapier
20:04 < antarus > this was supposed to be a meeting about process was it not?
20:04 < antarus > maybe if I had read the agenda.. ;)
20:04 < fmccor > as dberkholz said, can't vote without 4 present.
20:05 < dberkholz@> well, technically 2 of us could make a decision that can be overturned by a full vote, but that kinda sucks
20:05 < musikc > can someone toss me the agenda link?
20:05 < dberkholz@> 19:32 < dberkholz@> here's a reminder of the agenda pushed forward from last week: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080515-summary.txt
20:06 -!- dberkholz changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Meeting now, pending council member attendance || Agenda: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080515-summary.txt
20:07 < fmccor > dberkholz, Since this might effect spb, rbrown , or Philantrop , if they are around perhaps they might indicate how they'd like to proceed if there are only 2 Council members present?
20:07 < musikc > fmccor, this is not a vote on their appeal
20:08 < fmccor > musikc, No, but it is a discussion of process
20:08 < musikc > and dberkholz already said we cant have this unless there are 4 or more members
20:08 < antarus > indeed, this is wrapping their in a bunch of beauracratic crap! :P
20:08 < musikc > fmccor, only a vote on council process, not what happened to them
20:08 < antarus > +appeal somewhere in there
20:09 < musikc > dberkholz, did flameeyes or lu_zero appoint proxies?
20:09 < dberkholz@> not to my knowledge
20:09 * musikc almost typed pixies hehe
20:10 < dberkholz@> i intend to end the meeting and send a public censure to the council people who didn't show up, if there aren't at least 4 of us by :15
20:10 < musikc > well it looks like only one council member showed up :(
20:10 < dberkholz@> amne's here
20:10 < fmccor > amne is around
20:10 < tove > GLEP39 says: "If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, a new election for all places must be held within a month. The 'one year' is then reset from that point."
20:10 < fmccor > Er, like dberkholz said. :)
20:10 < musikc > amne is very quiet for being around
20:11 * dberkhol grins -- nice, tove
20:11 < fmccor > <amne> agenda looks good to me and as noted by dberkholz i'm around at 20:04
20:11 < edit_21 > hes about
20:11 * antarus laughs
20:11 < musikc > tove, ouch. not sure if that counts for impromptu meetings. donnie?
20:11 * antarus goes to infra to get an election ready
20:11 < fmccor > Well, it is a meeting which was previously scheduled. :)
20:12 < amne@> i just didn't say much as i was primarily waiting for the other punks to show up
20:12 * musikc hugs amne
20:12 < musikc > you ARE here :)
20:12 < antarus > I love how the glep says must instead of may
20:12 < antarus > ;P
20:12 < amne@> surely
20:12 < amne@> i'm not always late for meetings just because i was last time
20:12 < fmccor > Not enough Council members here to interpret tove's point. Interesting little problem. :)
20:13 < antarus > you don't need a council to hold an election
20:13 < antarus > technically
20:13 < musikc > antarus, not sure when that glep was made it if had considered non-standard meetings
20:13 < eroyf > 'any meeting'
20:13 < eroyf > means.. any meeting.
20:13 < dberkholz@> i don't think there's much interpretation to do, unless you think we did such a poor job of announcing it that it doesn't count.
20:14 < antarus > If you take its intention to 'boot out a slacker council' than I think it would not count in this case
20:14 < fmccor > The GLEP says any meeting, and requires at least one per month.
20:14 < dberkholz@> which would imply that most council members don't actually read the meeting summary
20:14 < musikc > its an interesting scenario for sure
20:14 < fmccor > If any meeting has less than 50% attendance by council members, [to quote]
20:14 < Fieldy > certainly annoying. ah well next week i guess (grumble)
20:14 < musikc > dberkholz, that's like RTFM, we dont do that around here *snciker*
20:15 < musikc > or spell check evidently ;)
20:15 < amne@> gah
20:15 < musikc > omg it would so suck to have to do elections again
20:15 * antarus quickly edits the glep to say may
20:15 < antarus > problem solved!
20:15 < fmccor > Sort of suck just to ignore policy, too. :)
20:16 < dberkholz@> for what it's worth, i've briefly written up my positions here: http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20080515-pov.txt
20:16 < musikc > fmccor, again i think there may be some debate as to the intention
20:16 < ferdy > musikc: well... it sucks to have a council that wouldn't show up to a meeting :)
20:17 < musikc > ferdy, no doubt
20:17 < eroyf > let us debate something some former developer decided to vote for ages ago first time it might be useful.
20:17 < fmccor > musikc, For intention, just ask g2boojum and ciaranm --- they wrote it and Gentoo hald a vote on it.
20:17 < musikc > fmccor, i dont really think it is relevant
20:17 < dberkholz@> if you want to be a lawyer about it, we could just keep the meeting open until they show up.
20:17 < edit_21 > out of intrest - how many are in the council ?
20:18 < dberkholz@> i'd rather not do that
20:18 < edit_21 > 8?
20:18 < musikc > if it leaves doubt, then it needs revision
20:18 < fmccor > And it was last updated 4 months ago.
20:18 < fmccor > 5
20:18 < fmccor > (on council)
20:18 * edit_21 nods
20:18 < edit_21 > ta
20:18 < musikc > fmccor, thats why we dont write on stone tablets
20:18 <Philantrop > musikc: If I may ask, what doubt might that be considering what tove quoted?
20:18 < musikc > it allows for revisions :-P
20:18 < fmccor > So the GLEP is current as of late January, 2008.
20:19 < eroyf > what
20:19 < dberkholz@> my view is that this was a meeting, doesn't matter if it was the regular one because it was scheduled in advance, and the only possibility i'm considering is that it wasn't well-enough announced because the council members might not be expected to read summaries of a meeting they attended
20:19 < eroyf > you are going to change a rule when someone is about to be hit by the rule?
20:19 < antarus > This was updated by the glep editor
20:19 < antarus > (aka me)
20:19 < musikc > Philantrop, i question whether others will interpret to mean standard monthly meetings. personally im a bit irritated that more council didnt show up, but im not allowing my personal feeling to dictate how others may interpret
20:20 < amne@> dberkholz: i second your POV on the meeting issue
20:20 < fmccor > If there is some reason not to, I think it has to be interpreted to mean what it says.
20:20 < zlin > edit_21: 7
20:20 < antarus > Philantrop: I don't doubt the wording; I doubt the intention of the clause
20:20 < ferdy > dberkholz: said GLEP doesn't state what the requirements for a meeting are
20:21 < blackace > dberkholz: was the scheduling of this meeting voted on by the attendees in the last meeting?
20:21 < amne@> dberkholz: as one of the council members who vanished during the end of the meeting the least you should expect from a council member is to read the backlog or summary
20:21 < dberkholz@> ferdy: that means i could declare a meeting in a text file on my computer and reelect the council if they don't show up
20:21 < fmccor > This was announced a week ago as a single subject meeting.
20:21 < ferdy > dberkholz: common sense states otherwise
20:21 < eroyf > lol.
20:21 < musikc > ferdy, there is sadly fault in your logic... sense isnt common ;-)
20:22 < ferdy > musikc: you mean common sense isn't as common as one would like? :)
20:22 < musikc > ferdy++
20:22 < arkanoid > dberkholz: the date was discussed at the last meeting as well, so council members should either have read their backlogs or the summary
20:23 < fmccor > ferdy, This one was openly announced and is again mentioned in the summary.
20:23 < dberkholz@> i'm going to send a email to the -council and -project lists right now about the lack of people, and we'll go from there
|
GitWeb