path: root/meeting-logs/20051013.txt

15:05 <@az> ok, first and only thing on the agenda, is GLEP 41 (Making Arch Testers official Gentoo Staff)
15:05 <@vapier> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0041.html
15:05 <@az> vapier: except if you wanted to add the syslog thing still ?
15:06 <@vapier> i think everyone in base said we got better things to do then fight over something that trivial
15:06 <@vapier> mr bones is dependable, so just going to syslog-ng should be fine
15:06 <@Koon> I'll let that to the "base" project
15:06 <@az> i dont care either way, as i just merge what i use, but guess we should just ask SwifT to pretty please fix the docs either way
15:06 <@SwifT> about the AT... as I voiced before on -council, the two week period seems a bit too short to me personally
15:06 <@seemant> wait wait wait
15:07 <@seemant> how does syslog thing relate to glep 41?
15:07 <@az> ok, back to glep 41 ;p
15:07 <@seemant> I'm completely confused
15:07 <@seemant> ah
15:07 <@Koon> seemant: it's just az not chairing properly :)
15:07 <@seemant> ok, if syslogging isn't an issue, I'm more or less ok with glep41 -- with one change
15:07 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v blubb] by vapier
15:07 <@az> ok, back to glep 41!
15:07 <@seemant> I propose 2 weeks mentoring period to be "minimum 2 weeks" instead
15:08 <@SwifT> gdp uses two months...
15:08  * agriffis raises his hand
15:08 <@SwifT> security 4 iirc
15:08 <@az> im pretty much in agreement with the period as well
15:08 <@seemant> because even as an arch tester, I don't know that people are guaranteed to get the necessary ebuild training
15:08 <@Koon> security uses 4-6 yes
15:08 <@az> and solar have some issues as well
15:08  * agriffis lowers his hand and talks out of turn
15:08 <@seemant> agriffis: talk to us, baby
15:08 <@agriffis> I'm not in favor of GLEP 41 actually.
15:08 <@az> he said either his vote is no if no changes, or asks for a postponement
15:08 <@agriffis> I don't like the concept of half-devs.
15:09 <@SwifT> who sais half-dev?
15:09 <@Koon> agriffis: we already have them in the form of forum staffers
15:09 <@SwifT> to me, they seem like full devs but with no write access to gentoo-x86...
15:09 <@SwifT> which, afaik, is not mandatory to be called a "real dev" :)
15:10 <@agriffis> yeah, I'm not sure, I suppose my thought is breaking precedent that is set with the forum staffers.
15:10 <@agriffis> have patience, I'll try to get my thoughts out.
15:11 <@Koon> ..
15:11 <@agriffis> basically, you're just *calling* them full devs, but they're not.  they don't have cvs write.  they don't have voting privs.  they don't have access to -core.
15:11 <+blubb> (could you please +v hparker? it was his idea and he's the AT lead, i just wrote the GLEP)
15:11 <@agriffis> Forums devs are full devs -- they can vote, and they are on -core, etc, just w/ no write-access to cvs.
15:11 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v hparker] by Koon
15:12 <@agriffis> So basically we have two kinds of full devs presently.
15:12 <@agriffis> Those with and those without write access.
15:12 <+hparker> ty Koon
15:12 <@agriffis> You're proposing adding a third type with even less access, but still wanting to call them "full devs"
15:12 <@Koon> agriffis: it's alittle more complicated. Security devs are special
15:12 <@agriffis> Koon: ah, you're right, so we have 3 and we're adding a 4th
15:13 <@Koon> agriffis: yes
15:13 <@agriffis> I would rather just see ATs recognized as power users who are reporting bugs.  I would like to see them with r/o cvs access.  I don't see the point in calling them "full devs", giving them an email address, etc.
15:13 <@seemant> Koon: can you outline what's special about sec. devs please?
15:13 <@seemant> (for the record, as it were)
15:13 <@az> dont we have some documentation guys without cvs access as well ?
15:13 <@Koon> seemant: no gentoo-x86 access, GLSA commit access, gentoo-announce access
15:13 <@SwifT> az: only those in recruitment
15:14 <@az> SwifT: noted, thanks
15:14 <@agriffis> Regarding the r/o cvs access, that can be accomplished without needing accounts on our infrastructure, it's a pretty simple matter really.
15:14 <@agriffis> I don't mean to be the one voice against, and if I am, I'll willingly back down.
15:14 <@agriffis> I'm just not happy with introducing so many different dev types with different levels of access, some can vote, some can't, etc.
15:15 <@vapier> we already mentioned the e-mail thing
15:15  * agriffis sits back down
15:15 <@vapier> blubb seemed to be ok with using a sub-domain since SwifT and i did like giving them top-level ones
15:15 <@SwifT> I do agree that, if they have a title that contains "dev(eloper)", they should have the voting rights as other developers have (like council voting, ...)
15:15 <@Koon> agriffis: I agree wit hyou that "gentoo dev" should cover a minimal commitment requirement and basic things like core access and e-mail address (and #-dev op etc)
15:15 <@vapier> the glep says staff, not developer
15:15 <@vapier> specifically for this reason
15:16 <@az> agriffis: i *think* the main thing about them having @g.o emails, is to show them some form of apprciation, or achievement if you want for the work they do (hparker/blubb can correct me) ... this said, is one of the main reasons i think the training period might be fine, but there should be an additional 1-3 month evaluation time
15:16 <@Koon> I am concerned that people not willing to contribte more are given a second-rate dev class
15:16 <@Koon> if they are needed we need to find some kind of retribution, secondary email domains might be the solution
15:17 <+blubb> az: correct :)
15:17  * agriffis doesn't understand how @....gentoo.org is a reward
15:17 <@SwifT> if they are needed, getting them on-board as developers is good for me as well
15:17 <@agriffis> I don't know who that would appeal to.
15:17 <@SwifT> I mean, actively testing packages is a daunting task
15:17 <@az> which might bring in additionally some improvement in general developer quality/dependability if you enforce being an accepted AT before being able to become a developer
15:17 <@agriffis> I suppose it's good for gentoo devs to be able to recognize ATs via their email addresses, but I don't think it's really a reward of any sort to have a gentoo address, particularly with a subdomain.
15:18 <@Koon> good ATs are offered to become full devs, if they refuse they remain ATs
15:18 <+blubb> there are users (just normal users) who got a @g.o mail address, which kinda astonished me...
15:18 <@agriffis> blubb: huh?
15:18 <+blubb> agriffis: one of them is an amd64 AT
15:18 <@Koon> -infra boyfriends ?
15:18 <@az> blubb: clarify ?
15:18 <@SwifT> I think the few non-devs that have @g.o are an exception which hasn't been granted in a while afaik
15:18 <+hparker> The @*.g.o address also makes it easier to spot them in bugz
15:19 <+blubb> agriffis: i asked him how he got that mail addy, and he said there once was a period where power users got a @g.o addy
15:19 <@Koon> also @amd64.gentoo.org doesn't sound too bad
15:19 <@agriffis> hparker: true, and that might be a good reason to consider it.  but not on the basis of reward imho
15:19 <+blubb> Koon: i'm against $(arch).g.o
15:19 <+hparker> Even @at.g.o
15:19 <+hparker> blubb wants @@.g.o
15:19 <@vapier> the specific name doesnt really matter, just the concept of using a subdomain
15:19 <+blubb> *g*
15:20 <+blubb> vapier: agreed
15:20  * agriffis nods
15:20 <@agriffis> ok, so to sum up:
15:20 <@Koon> vapier: would it include a touca account ?
15:20 <@Koon> toucan
15:20 <+blubb> just please don't make it $(arch). that will lead to confusion
15:20 <@SwifT> anyone heard the voice of an active AT about his/her opinion?
15:20 <@az> Koon: think taht will depend on if infra can host annon cvs or not
15:21 <@agriffis> az: I've been talking with carpaski about that.
15:21 <@az> last time we asked, they did not have the infrastructure/bandwidth if i remember
15:21 <@agriffis> az: It's not necessary to give out accounts on toucan or cvs.gentoo.org for the ATs to get r/o access.
15:21 <+hparker> SwifT: We've discussed it with the amd64 ATs, they are ok with it all
15:21 <@az> agriffis: from carpaski's servers via the cvsup thing ?
15:22 <@agriffis> az: They can just provide their id_dsa.pub which goes in a general arch-tester user's allowed keys, then they get r/o access as a single user.
15:22 <@SwifT> hparker: the glep, or the subdomain, or any of them?
15:22 <@az> ah, ok
15:22 <+hparker> SwifT: The whole package ;)
15:22 <@agriffis> az: I also talked with carpaski about cvsup and stuff, yes, but nothing that's helpful for this topic.
15:23 <@az> true, just wanted to know if we could do it some way or other
15:23 <@Koon> so they wouldn't be considered "Gentoo devs" if I understand the consensus here
15:23 <@SwifT> afaik, we're talking about a few dozen people, no?
15:23 <@az> ok, anybody have anything to say regarding my '2 weeks training is fine, but might need an additional evaluation period' ?
15:23 <@Koon> no core, no vote, subdomain
15:23 <@Koon> I would say 1 month minimal
15:23 <@az> to make sure they do not dissapear after 3 weeks
15:24 <@Koon> we had plenty of people that can stay very active for 2 weeks and then disappear (in security)
15:24 <@SwifT> you can't "make sure" about that, but the recruitee knows that we are expecting continuous support and not a short burst
15:25 <@SwifT> the GDP had the same... lots of activity, then developer-status and *poof*, goner
15:25 <+hparker> SwifT: Currently, a couple dozen... Hoping for more though
15:25 <@az> yes, but sombody sticking around 1-3 months is more likely to stay for another few
15:25 <@seemant> az: I stand by "minimum 2 weeks"
15:25 <@agriffis> btw, if a user becomes an AT then wants to be a dev, is it a longer road than simply becoming a dev directly?
15:25 <@SwifT> longer? naha, hope not :)
15:25 <+blubb> agriffis: with the proposal in the GLEP, i'd be exactly the same period
15:25 <@agriffis> blubb: ok, thanks
15:26 <@az> agriffis: which comes to my next point .. maybe enforcing being at before being able to become a dev ?
15:26 <+blubb> agriffis: that's actually why we included it... we don't want to punish ATs
15:26 <+hparker> az: That's how amd64 handles it
15:26  * SwifT doesn't like taht
15:26 <@Koon> az: a lot of people enter by co-maintaining package, not arch testing
15:26 -!- code|work [n=code@gentoo/developer/codeman] has joined #gentoo-council
15:26 <@SwifT> or documentation, or infrastructure, ...
15:26 <@az> true, why i was asking for opinions
15:27 <@az> it obviously would not work for docs
15:27 <@az> yeah
15:27 <+blubb> Koon: well, you don't get into an arch team by co-maintaining packages :D
15:27 <@Koon> az: before becoming an arch member, sure
15:27 <@vapier> we already have read-only cvs stuff being exported by carpaski ...
15:27 <@agriffis> vapier: updated once every 3 hours... not useful
15:28 <@vapier> hrm, true
15:28 <@SwifT> well, viewcvs is also an (hourly) export, but infra doesn't like people updating from viewcvs
15:28 <@agriffis> also if we were to use that, I would definitely not suggest giving ATs official status and telling them to use an unofficial server.
15:28 <@Koon> ok, let's focus, maybe each council member can in turn sum up what needs to be changed in the GLEP so that he accepts it ?
15:29 <@agriffis> SwifT: yeah, and rsync isn't far behind that.  I think the point here is for ATs to be able to test stuff immediately after it is committed.
15:29 <@agriffis> should we go in alpha order?
15:29 <@az> sure
15:29 <@Koon> agriffis: good idea
15:30 <@az> agriffis: first if not mistaken
15:30 <@agriffis> ok, guess it's me.
15:30 <@agriffis> I'd like to see subdomain and r/o access without needing an account on toucan, cvs.gentoo.org, etc.
15:31 <@agriffis> i.e. subdomain for email.
15:31 <@az> right
15:32 <@az> im ok with what agriffis said, and i really think an probation peroid after the training phase is completed should be considered
15:32 <@az> Koon: ?
15:33 <+hparker> az: Probation after becoming an at?
15:33 <@az> no, before .. to see if they learnt the ropes ok
15:33 <@Koon> what agriffis said + a specific designation for this class of contributors (other than "dev" or "staff")
15:33 <@az> seemant: ?
15:33 <@Koon> + a longer training/probation period (1 month of activity minimum)
15:34 <@seemant> combine agriffis + koon's last sentence
15:34 <@Koon> + open this class to other contributors (security GLSA drafters come to mind)
15:34 <@seemant> I don't want to guarantee a 2 week mentorship (or any fixed period)
15:34 <@az> ok, SwifT ?
15:34 <@SwifT> I don't want the AT staff to be treated differently wrt. permissions than forum staff (except for domain-specific stuff of course)... I don't mind the subdomains though. The 2-week period should be lengthened a bit
15:35 <@az> SwifT: the 'to be treated differently wrt. permissions' meaning voting ?
15:35 <@SwifT> so either get the perms for "staff" on the same level, or call them differently
15:35 <@Koon> SwifT: forum staff is official devs (core + vote), no ?
15:35 <@Koon> hence my call for a specific designation
15:35 <@agriffis> One more thought: perhaps the subdomain should be staff.gentoo.org to accomodate arch-testers, herd-testers, glsa-drafters, etc.
15:36 <@SwifT> Koon: yes
15:36 <@agriffis> Obviously people with existing @gentoo.org addresses don't need to change to staff.gentoo.org, they're grandfathered in.
15:36 <@az> bit late though to change it for the forum guys
15:36 <@az> ok, we can touch that again just now
15:36 <@az> vapier, anything to add ?
15:37 <@vapier> nope, others covered it
15:37 <@Koon> I'm a bit concerned about ATs becoming devs and forced to update their email, but I guess that's secondary
15:37 <@vapier> give em temp forwards
15:37 <@az> right, anything else on the point SwifT touched ?
15:37 <@agriffis> Koon: not an issue, really, just give them a forward
15:37 <@agriffis> right
15:37 <@az> SwifT: especially, do you just mean they should not be called devs, or do you think they need voting as well ?
15:38 <@SwifT> az: either be called "devs" and get voting, or call them different
15:38 <@SwifT> but I actually don't really mind... depends on what the ATs themselves want
15:38 <@Koon> az: I would go for two big classes, "devs" with core, vote and commit somewhere, and "XXX" without core, without vote, and with r/o access
15:39 <@az> i think Koon touched that in ' + a specific designation for this class of contributors (other than
15:39 <@az>                 "dev" or "staff")'
15:39 <+blubb> az: i think they shouldn't get voting rights without having to read -core, and they don't want to have to wade through tons of mails, so...
15:39 <+hparker> And the one's we talked with were fine with that
15:40 <@az> right, i am thinking that should be fairly that
15:40 <@agriffis> Koon: btw, I would really like that (two big classes)
15:40  * SwifT too
15:40 <@az> we can either decide on the 'class' name now
15:40 <@SwifT> and don't diversitate anymore :)
15:40 <@agriffis> diversify
15:40 <@Koon> when i say r/o access, it might be other special power (forum mod, GLSAMaker access...)
15:40 <@az> or as it seems we will have to postpone voting on this anyhow, give hparker and blubb a time to ponder it ?
15:41 <@SwifT> whatever :p
15:41 <+blubb> az: well, i can update the GLEP within a few minutes and you can vote on a specific cvs revision ;)
15:41 <@agriffis> az: hour isn't up, we can keep talking it over now if it's ok
15:42 <@az> agriffis: sure, just feeling the water
15:42 <@az> ok, i we had two suggestions up to now if not mistaken
15:42 <@Koon> ideas for the "class" name ?
15:42 <@Koon> "minions"
15:42 <@az> staff or something else
15:43 <+blubb> ATs?
15:43  * agriffis looks in the thesaurus
15:43 <@SwifT> llamas
15:43 <@az> blubb: too specific
15:43 <+blubb> hrm, true
15:43 <@az> spb would like minions though
15:44 <@Koon> the problem with "staff" is that some people consider as "staff" all devs that don't have gentoo-x86 commit
15:44 <@SwifT> kewl, I'm staff :)
15:44 <@Koon> "monkeys" ?
15:44 <@agriffis> conspirators
15:44 <@Koon> SwifT: I was, but I bribed some devrel member
15:44 <@SwifT> samaritan ?
15:44 <+blubb> call them assistants ;)
15:44 <+blubb> "Hi, I'm your dev assistant. It looks like you're trying to test a package. May I help you?"
15:44 <@SwifT> lol
15:45 <@SwifT> coadjutrix?
15:45 <@agriffis> cows
15:45 <+hparker> moo
15:45 <+blubb> any relation to microsoft products is pure accident
15:45 <@az> heh, ok, back on track please ;p
15:45 <@vapier> no one likes the label 'Tester'
15:45 <@vapier> Official Gentoo Tester
15:46 <@agriffis> staff is fine with me, does anybody really have a problem with it?
15:46 <@Koon> vapier: kinda excludes other uses for the class, like our security apprentices whoi draft GLSAs
15:46 <@SwifT> no, staff is fine... what about the current "staff" who are actually full devs? :)
15:46 <@Koon> agriffis: see my concern above
15:47 <@az> supportstaff ? ;p
15:47 <@agriffis> Koon: yeah, I saw it, I don't know if it's really an issue though...  perhaps it is.
15:47 <@agriffis> crew
15:47 <@vapier> be part of the gentoo crew ? :p
15:47 <@az> bit korney, but might work ;p
15:47 <@Koon> agriffis: it probably isn't. We /make/ policy here
15:47 <@SwifT> or just don't call them anything and give them at.gentoo.org e-mail addies
15:48 <@vapier> Tester Staff ... Security Staff ... Infra Staff ... Forums Staff
15:48 <@vapier> Staff Staff
15:48 <+blubb> the subdomain and the naming should match IMHO
15:48 <@agriffis> SwifT: nah, I personally think the name is important.  just like it means something to be a "dev", there needs to be a real name for these people, especially if it's the only other big bucket
15:48 <@SwifT> lieutenant?
15:49  * agriffis likes crew personally
15:49  * Koon fires up Google sets to the rescue
15:49 <+blubb> SwifT: larry the cow looks to peaceful to introduce military names ;)
15:49 <@vapier> Tester Crew ... Security Crew ... Infra Crew ... Forums Crew
15:49 <@agriffis> vapier: right!
15:49 <@az> forum screw
15:49 <@agriffis> heh
15:49 <@SwifT> but crew... even developers are crew members
15:50 <@vapier> Developers
15:50 <@az> developers are staff as well if you go by that argument
15:50 <@SwifT> which is, actually, a good way of talking about a group :)
15:50 <@SwifT> crew= entire lot, developers= -core flamers
15:50 <@az> ++ on the flames
15:50 <@az> ok, i dont have an issue with either crew or staff
15:51 <@az> so anybody that have issues with staff, how does crew sound ?
15:51 <@SwifT> peachy
15:51 <@vapier> we could just keep 'staff' and just qualify it
15:51 <@SwifT> I mean, good
15:51 <@Koon> sounds like "screw", I like it
15:51 <@agriffis> I like staff better personally, but if people don't like staff, crew is good.
15:51 <@agriffis> (I know I suggested crew, it was because some people didn't like staff...1)
15:51 <@vapier> we can save crew for when we start to recruit pirates
15:51 <@Koon> well, we can keep "staff", just make sure that what was once named staff is not whet the new staff is
15:52 <@vapier> Koon: there wont be a "staff"
15:52 <@vapier> there will be "tester staff"
15:52 <@agriffis> and a "vapier staff"
15:52 <@agriffis> jk
15:52 <@Koon> okok
15:53 <@agriffis> g2boojum has a comment I'd like him to speak here.
15:53 <@Koon> I guess the GLEP now needs heavy rewriting
15:53 <+g2boojum> Personally, I suggest you folks just vote on the existing GLEP.  You've already voiced your comments, so let the community go back to it and draft new solutions.
15:53 <@az> g2boojum: go ahead please
15:53 <@Koon> maybe under the form of a more global dev/staff definition
15:53 <@Koon> I'd reject the GLEP under its current form
15:54 <@Koon> and call for a new, more global GLEP
15:54 <+g2boojum> It's not necessary to fix everything right now.  It can wait another month for a new, hopefully improved version.
15:54 <@agriffis> Thanks g2boojum.
15:54 <@az> question though .. should we vote now then ?
15:54 <@agriffis> az: yes, that's the idea
15:54 <@Koon> az: yes, we can't vote on somethig that's not written
15:54 <@az> as solar's current vote is no, except on postponement
15:54 <+hparker> Koon: Will it then be Gelp 42, the answer to all questions?
15:54 <@SwifT> well, in its current form, "no"
15:55 <@Koon> hparker: I hope so
15:55 <@az> and i think thiings might have changed sufficiently for him to be able to reconsider
15:55 <@SwifT> 42?
15:55 <@Koon> I was kinda hoping our -core/-dev MLs refurbishment would be GLEP 42
15:55 <@SwifT> ah, that :)
15:55 <@Koon> the answer to all spam
15:55 <@agriffis> let's collect votes on 41 before talking 42, eh?
15:55  * agriffis votes no to 41
15:55  * az votes no
15:55  * az proxy no for solar
15:56 <@SwifT> (btw, "no" is not "don't go there" but rather "update it a bit")
15:56 <@agriffis> right
15:56 <@az> yes
15:56  * Koon votes no (as in "update more")
15:56 <@az> seemant: ?
15:56  * vapier jumps on the 'no;needs-update' pig pile
15:56 <@az> SwifT: ?
15:57 <@SwifT> no, needs update
15:57 <@agriffis> do blubb and hparker understand the updates we want to see?
15:58 <+hparker> agriffis: Yes
15:58 <+blubb> agriffis: yup
15:58 <@agriffis> ok, good
15:58 <@Koon> az: Q&A ?
15:58 <@az> waiting for seemant still, but while we do, ferringb wanted to mention something regarding the classes
15:58 <@az> Koon: yeah
15:58 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v ferringb] by az
15:58 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by Koon
15:59 <+ferringb> heh, timing++ :P
15:59 <+ferringb> comment was that the arbitrary grouppings don't really fit well; consider portage devs, doc devs, etc.  are they devs under the proposed grouping, which seems a bit gentoo-x86 orientated, or staff?
15:59 -!- Koon changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Meeting today at 1900UTC (1500EST) || open Q&A
15:59 <+ferringb> staff doesn't exactly fit perfectly obviously.
16:00 <@Koon> ferringb: if you commit somewhere, you are dev
16:00 <@SwifT> contribute, participate on -core and have vote, then you're a dev
16:01 <+ferringb> Koon: forums are staff, yet they're effectively 'commiting' via thread mangling :P
16:01 <@vapier> stupid
16:01 <+ferringb> heh
16:01 <@SwifT> but, mind you, the term "developer" is for the foundation
16:01 <+ferringb> figured that response.  was trying to point out that pure write access is kind of an iffy delimiter.
16:01 <@Koon> ferringb: forum mods should be staff
16:01 -!- mkay [i=aye@gentoo/developer/mkay] has joined #gentoo-council
16:01 <@Koon> IMHO
16:02 <@vapier> they are staff last i checked
16:02  * ferringb agrees in that scenario
16:02 <@Koon> vapier: no, they are devs, they are on core iirc
16:02 <@vapier> weak !
16:02 < mkay> hmm - i've got strange feeling i'm late;>
16:02 <+blubb> just a general thought about this naming discussion: we really shouldn't overrate the classes. it'd kinda piss me off if staff feels like mr. nobody and dev has half-god status
16:03 <@az> they should not, but like anything if mr. nobody dev makes a valid point, they should respect that due to his hopeful more experience
16:03 <@agriffis> blubb: I think everybody agrees with you.  It's just easier to start with two big buckets as a starting point to define responsibilities and privileges.
16:03 <+blubb> agriffis: sure
16:03 <@agriffis> blubb: rather, I agree with you, I don't know what everybody else thinks :-)
16:04 <+ferringb> blubb: agreed on that... rather see devs on effectively equal footing, rather then the current non-stinking poo that occurs with some devs.
16:04 <@Koon> blubb: I just want a clear definition so that we can stick more in
16:05 <@Koon> I've to go
16:06 <@agriffis> ok, good time to end the log