path: root/meeting-logs/20230514.txt

[21:00:30] <@mgorny> DING DING DING!
[21:00:32] <@mgorny> !proj council
[21:00:34] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, gyakovlev, mattst88, mgorny, sam, ulm
[21:00:46] <@sam_> feels rough to be the only person without their dev name as a nick..
[21:00:49] <@mgorny> it's time for our 237th meeting (according to /topic, didn't verify)
[21:01:10] <@mgorny> agenda: https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168403323301173&w=2
[21:01:16] <@mgorny> 1. Roll call
[21:01:18] -*- ajak here
[21:01:20] -*- arthurzam here (as proxy for mattst88)
[21:01:23] -*- mgorny here
[21:01:25] -*- gyakovlev here
[21:01:26] -*- ulm here
[21:01:39] -*- dilfridge here
[21:01:41] -*- sam_ here
[21:01:48] <@mgorny> thanks
[21:01:59] <@mgorny> 2. Mark GLEP 78 as final [1,2]
[21:02:05] <@mgorny> [2] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep78
[21:02:05] <@mgorny> [3] https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168396622312449&w=2
[21:02:30] <@mgorny> long story short, we have the spec implemented thanks to Sheng Yu
[21:02:40] <@ajak> mispaste i think
[21:02:54] <@mgorny> oops
[21:03:06] <@mgorny> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/672672
[21:03:06] <@mgorny> [2] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep78
[21:03:07] <@mgorny> these two
[21:03:32] <@mgorny> does anyone have any questions?
[21:05:21] <@mgorny> ok, i guess not
[21:05:34] <@mgorny> motion: Mark GLEP 78 as final
[21:05:38] -*- ajak yes
[21:05:41] -*- sam_ yes
[21:05:43] -*- mgorny yes
[21:05:43] -*- arthurzam yes
[21:05:47] -*- ulm yes
[21:05:49] -*- dilfridge yes
[21:06:38] -*- gyakovlev yes
[21:06:48] <@mgorny> thansk, passed unanimously
[21:06:59] <@mgorny> 3. Undeprecated EGO_SUM [3,4]
[21:07:03] <@mgorny> [3] https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168396622312449&w=2
[21:07:03] <@mgorny> [4] https://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg97310.html
[21:07:32] <@sam_> I still don't feel it's appropriate for us to even be discussing this
[21:07:41] <@sam_> there's no consensus and various concerns have not been addressed on the ML
[21:07:47] -*- ajak nods
[21:08:15] <+arthurzam> mattst88 have said the same
[21:08:35] <@ulm> I'd also say it's not ready for a vote
[21:08:58] <@gyakovlev> well, there has been lengthy discussion.
[21:08:58] <@gyakovlev> I'm in favor of returning it, but with some limits set for per-manifest or per package directory or both.
[21:08:58] <@gyakovlev> I even suggested specific numbers before, need to find them.
[21:08:58] <@gyakovlev> but yeah it needs to be presented as actionable item. 
[21:09:09] <@ajak> by discussing it we'll be giving justification to the idea that anybody can bring up anything and have the council discuss it, great way to waste time by bureaucracy
[21:09:57] <+arthurzam> I also want to note that various people have given quite good "middle" ground in multiple places (IRC, ML), but I'm not sure where have it been stuck?
[21:10:03] <@sam_> right
[21:10:05] <@mgorny> well, i think at least some of us have made good points on the ml and they haven't been addressed in any way
[21:10:24] <@sam_> ulm probably put it best
[21:10:26] <@sam_> and gyakovlev 
[21:10:31] <@sam_> it's not actionable as-is/not ready as a proposal
[21:10:38] <@ajak> yes, let's move to kick it back to MLs?
[21:10:44] <@sam_> that doesn't mean the topic isn't worth talking about in the dev community, but it needs to be kicked back i agree
[21:11:09] <+arthurzam> I also want to note that I think the thing should be split into multiple parts, for example split ::gentoo from overlays and such...
[21:11:09] <+arthurzam> Not one huge "action"
[21:11:21] <+soap> (it doesnt apply to overlays anyways)
[21:11:40] <@mgorny> also the maintainer should really take part in this
[21:11:52] <@sam_> it doesn't appear flow is here right now either
[21:11:55] <@sam_> mgorny: ok if we dismiss and move on?
[21:11:59] <@gyakovlev> yeah per repo qa settings is a thing. ok enough discussion =) it has to be finalized on ML
[21:12:06] <@mgorny> i don't think it's a good idea for Council to arbitrarily override how eclasses work without having anyone to maintain the resulting eclass
[21:12:30] <@mgorny> ok then, back to the ml
[21:12:32] <@mgorny> 4. Open bugs with Council participation [5]
[21:13:00] <@mgorny> https://bugs.gentoo.org/520156
[21:13:06] <@mgorny> Bug 520156 - Give the council authority to change GLEP 39 like any other GLEP
[21:13:07] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/520156 "Give the council authority to change GLEP 39 like any other GLEP"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; wking:council
[21:13:21] <@ulm> this should be closed
[21:13:30] <@mgorny> close WONTFIX per comment?
[21:13:35] <@ajak> yes
[21:13:38] <@ulm> I wanted to have it in the meeting log
[21:13:57] <@mgorny> now you do ;-)
[21:14:22] <@ulm> closed
[21:14:24] <@mgorny> Bug 672672 - GLEP 78: Gentoo binpkg container format
[21:14:25] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/672672 "GLEP 78: Gentoo binpkg container format"; Documentation, New GLEP submissions; IN_P; mgorny:glep
[21:14:31] <@mgorny> we've just discussed this one
[21:14:48] <@mgorny> ulm: will you push the GLEP update and close the bug afterwards?
[21:14:54] <@ulm> just pushed it
[21:15:03] <@ulm> refresh the bug :)
[21:15:10] <@mgorny> Bug 883715 - (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous
[21:15:10] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:council
[21:15:39] <@sam_> i don't know if i love this but i don't have a solid logical argument against it, in theory this is a recruitment policy thing, not a GLEP copyright policy thing in isolation
[21:15:48] <@sam_> unfortunately the recruiters lead is AWOL and due to be retired soon enough
[21:16:17] <@ajak> yeah, not sure what we'd do here
[21:16:19] <@sam_> I don't think it's really for us yet, recruiters should get in order first
[21:16:38] <@sam_> (with discussion on the ML, as well, given this affects everybody)
[21:17:09] <@mgorny> does anyone want to write a comment to the bug or should i?
[21:17:18] <@sam_> would you mind?
[21:17:28] <@mgorny> i'll do it after closing the meeting
[21:17:38] <@mgorny> 5. Open floor time
[21:20:04] <@mgorny> anyone?
[21:23:06] <+arthurzam> seems like no?
[21:23:20] -*- ajak looks both ways
[21:23:42] <@mgorny> ok, meeting adjourned!
[21:23:45] <@mgorny> thanks, everyone