Add the last 2 months of meetings. Also fix a typo in my nick from a summary I didn't add.

1 files changed, 91 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20080828-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20080828-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2bd1887
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20080828-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+Roll call
+=========
+betelgeuse here
+dberkholz  here
+dertobi123 here
+flameeyes  here [cardoe]
+halcy0n    here
+jokey      here
+lu_zero    here
+
+
+Old topics
+==========
+
+Reactions to dev banned from freenode
+-------------------------------------
+Update: none. Assume lack of interest.
+
+
+Moving meetings to a location we control
+----------------------------------------
+Update: none. Assume lack of interest.
+
+
+Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in docs, etc
+---------------------------------------
+Update: Freenode acknowledgments page thanks people for doing this, so 
+the potential issue with confusion apparently isn't a large problem.
+
+Goal: Can we decide today?
+
+Decision: Update all our pointers to IRC to use irc.gentoo.org. (But 
+please mention FreeNode is our provider.)
+
+
+Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they
+displayed this behavior?
+---------------------------------------------------------------
+Update:
+
+For banning from those channels: halcy0n, dertobi123 (on gentoo-dev)
+No opinions from the rest of us
+
+Goal: Get yes or no on banning from the same channels. If no, ask for 
+alternate suggestions if there are any. (Example: let devrel decide)
+
+Summary: halcy0n, dertobi123, lu_zero think fired devs should be banned 
+from the places where they behaved in the way that got them fired. 
+dberkholz and cardoe think that this should be handled by devrel and 
+council shouldn't set policy on it. halcy0n later agreed with letting 
+devrel address it, as did lu_zero and betelgeuse.
+
+
+PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0
+---------------------------------
+What changes are required before this is true?
+
+Update: The main thing that needs to get figured out is conflict 
+resolution.
+
+Idea: Ask portage devs & PMS authors to develop a process that both 
+groups will respect, then present it to the council for approval. 
+Options include a "neutral" third party as PMS czar, having council 
+decide, just trying harder to come to agreement, deciding that e.g. 
+portage's choice always wins, random, etc.
+
+spb and ciaranm agree that a third party or council would work well. 
+Since such a third party would probably be better invested in actually 
+working on the spec, the council seems reasonable if PMS editors & PM 
+developers can't work it out.
+
+20:46 < dberkholz@> zmedico, ferringb, ciaranm, spb: so you'll all agree to 
+                    follow council decisions on conflicts you aren't able to 
+                    resolve otherwise?
+20:46 <   zmedico > dberkholz: I agree
+20:47 <  ferringb > dberkholz: either way, game to attempt something different- 
+                    what's in place doesn't particularly work imo
+20:47 <   ciaranm > dberkholz: so long as the council's prepared to follow 
+                    through with its resolutions
+20:49 <  ferringb > either way, council as arbitrator flies.
+
+Decision: Council will vote to resolve conflicts that the PMS editors 
+and PM developers weren't able to resolve.
+
+zmedico, ferringb & ciaranm (developers of each PM) all agree that 
+having a written specification is worthwhile.
+
+Next meeting is Sept 11, and we request that everyone involved with PM 
+development or the spec email gentoo-dev about any issues with it. 
+Otherwise, it's likely to be approved as a draft standard.
+