path: root/meeting-logs/20100809.txt

[22:00:43] <wired> its about time
[22:00:44] <scarabeus> well it is supposed to start now :]
[22:00:55] <wired> scarabeus: ah you're here :p do the honors =]
[22:01:32] *** scarabeus changes topic to 'Meeting in progress: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_73124be313f6404c92a6ccc033970a6b.xml | http://dev.gentoo.org/~wired/localtime.php?time=1900'
[22:01:52] <scarabeus> so lets start with rollcall
[22:02:06] *** ferringb is now known as he-man
[22:02:14] * scarabeus here :]
[22:02:18] <jmbsvicetto> here
[22:02:20] <he-man> yes, let's continue w/ rollcall ;)
[22:02:22] *** Joins: NeddySeagoon (~NeddySeag@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon)
[22:02:25] <Chainsaw> Chainsaw is present.
[22:02:29] *** he-man is now known as ferringb
[22:02:30] <Chainsaw> NeddySeagoon just appeared as well.
[22:02:35] * wired here
[22:02:37] <Chainsaw> Ah, and ferringb came out of hiding.
[22:02:39] <Chainsaw> Halcy0n: ping
[22:02:50] <ferringb> Chainsaw: I put the sword away you see.
[22:03:10] <ferringb> anyone care to chair?
[22:03:16] <wired> ferringb: scarabeus is chairing
[22:03:21] <ferringb> 'k.
[22:03:27] <scarabeus> yes i am chairing, i am just writting summary as we speak
[22:03:35] <scarabeus> they killed our wave :(
[22:03:53] <wired> scarabeus: wave works
[22:03:56] <scarabeus> so we wait few more minutes for the last 2 people
[22:04:04] <scarabeus> wired: i read blog it is going to be killed
[22:04:08] <wired> scarabeus: end of year
[22:04:11] <wired> so we have time to replace it
[22:04:12] <wired> ;p
[22:04:14] <scarabeus> wired: aha
[22:04:22] <scarabeus> wired: erm, could you create the wave thingie then plz
[22:04:25] <wired> yeah
[22:04:36] <ferringb> halcy0n?
[22:04:41] <scarabeus> so we will wait couple of minutes on Peteri and Mark anyone against?
[22:05:14] <Chainsaw> Not a problem. Let me get some water.
[22:06:00] * NeddySeagoon fetches beer
[22:07:04] <wired> scarabeus: ready
[22:07:16] <jmbsvicetto> who is missing?
[22:07:25] <Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Halcy0n.
[22:07:36] <scarabeus> and Peteri
[22:07:37] <wired> and betelgeuse
[22:07:48] <Chainsaw> Did we exchange phone numbers?
[22:07:53] <Chainsaw> Because if we did, we can call them.
[22:08:14] <Chainsaw> (I know I left mine, and nobody called me when I missed one...)
[22:09:02] <scarabeus> i changed my quassel core, and i didnt print it before, so i lack them :/
[22:09:21] * ferringb notes meetings should start at 19:00... roll call should start at 18:50
[22:09:21] <wired> !seen betelgeuse
[22:09:22] <willikins> wired: Betelgeuse was last seen 1 day, 2 hours, 6 minutes and 33 seconds ago, saying "zmedico, ferringb: #gentoo-libbash if around" in #gentoo-portage
[22:09:37] <scarabeus> !seen Halcy0n
[22:09:38] <willikins> scarabeus: Halcy0n was last seen 2 days, 3 hours, 2 minutes and 44 seconds ago, saying "NeddySeagoon: sure" in #gentoo-qa
[22:09:58] <wired> Chainsaw: good point, it didn't cross our minds...
[22:09:59] <ferringb> just a general comment, since council wise, the 'hourly' meeting has a good chunk of time consumed for waiting on folk to show... should lock down a 60 minute block
[22:10:25] <scarabeus> well max vaiting is 10 minutes
[22:10:32] <ferringb> and it be 10 minutes
[22:10:36] * wired doesn't think we should be limited to an hour, unless you guys have to go
[22:10:37] <Chainsaw> scarabeus: I agree, we have vaited long enough. Let's proceed.
[22:10:49] <scarabeus> ok any remarks on agenda?
[22:10:51] <scarabeus> in topic
[22:10:56] <ferringb> Chainsaw: you realize this gets logged and than posted (normally) in full to the site, right?  ;)
[22:11:04] <wired> we'll strip it
[22:11:05] <wired> ;p
[22:11:08] <ferringb> yeah, just saying
[22:11:09] <Chainsaw> wired: Thank you.
[22:11:22] <ferringb> well.  halcy0n's earned his slacker mark I guess
[22:11:32] <scarabeus> Chainsaw: you need to talk with infra to strip it, and hope noone else will log it
[22:11:45] <scarabeus> anyway i guess no remarks, nor voting proposals
[22:11:55] <scarabeus> so lets get to the point 3a)
[22:12:00] *** Joins: Betelgeuse (~betelgeus@gentoo/developer/Betelgeuse)
[22:12:00] <scarabeus> the mailing lists situation
[22:12:11] <Chainsaw> There he is! Hi :)
[22:12:14] <Betelgeuse> hi
[22:12:17] <scarabeus> cool
[22:12:20] <Chainsaw> We are at point 3a in the agenda.
[22:12:29] <Betelgeuse> I need to find out why autojoin here is not working
[22:12:36] <ferringb> Betelgeuse: query if you want backlogs... nothing particularly pressing in it however
[22:12:47] <wired> backlogs for what? roll call? :P
[22:12:54] <scarabeus> so last time we tried to vote about it, and we ended up in tie
[22:12:58] <scarabeus> wanna try it again?
[22:13:09] <Chainsaw> scarabeus: What are we voting about?
[22:13:16] <scarabeus> the proposal was to disband gentoo-council ml in favor of gentoo-project
[22:13:34] <scarabeus> so there wont be so much cross mails
[22:13:56] <Chainsaw> Both are so very quiet that I don't see any harm in combining them.
[22:13:57] <Chainsaw> In favour.
[22:14:03] <Betelgeuse> scarabeus: in favor
[22:14:08] <scarabeus> in favor
[22:14:09] * ferringb is more inclined to vote for the destruction of -project, rather than shifting council ml to -project
[22:14:22] <Halcy0n> here now.
[22:14:34] <jmbsvicetto> I'd like to keep both
[22:14:55] <Chainsaw> Halcy0n: Move -council ML to -project, in favour or against?
[22:15:01] <Halcy0n> Computer problems at work.
[22:15:02] <Halcy0n> For.
[22:15:17] <Chainsaw> ferringb: Is that for or against?
[22:16:06] <ferringb> for, I guess, although I'd want this to be an experiment initially
[22:16:29] * wired is against,
[22:16:30] <Chainsaw> ferringb: Everything we do is an experiment, because anyone can put it up for a vote again.
[22:16:37] <ferringb> I'm not convinced project, with it's flamey nature, is the best place, but having council off in it's own ml isn't particuarly useful.  frankly I'd shift it to -dev rather than -project.
[22:17:34] <Halcy0n> ferringb: basically my thinking as well.  I don't like having so many lists.
[22:17:36] <Chainsaw> scarabeus: Are we tied again or did that solve it?
[22:17:43] <scarabeus> we are not tied
[22:17:44] <ferringb> 4 yays == majority
[22:17:48] <scarabeus> i was writting it
[22:17:53] <ferringb> at least when all 7 folk are around
[22:17:56] <scarabeus> 5 yays if we count mark
[22:18:32] <scarabeus> ok so anyone knows how to do the merge?
[22:18:44] <Betelgeuse> scarabeus: file bug to infra
[22:18:45] <Chainsaw> Infra does! Can you ask them to strip my phone number as well?
[22:19:00] <ferringb> Chainsaw: we commit the logs ourselves, so yeah, it'll get stripped
[22:19:08] <Chainsaw> ferringb: Thank you.
[22:19:10] <scarabeus> Chainsaw: are you sure you dont want to file own bug?, i would recommend something with high priority
[22:19:45] <Chainsaw> scarabeus: It's alright, they don't like me anymore after that e-mail adventure.
[22:19:52] <scarabeus> ah
[22:19:57] <wired> lets move on :)
[22:20:00] <scarabeus> ok 1 minute left on this topic
[22:20:02] <scarabeus> or we move on
[22:20:03] <scarabeus> :]
[22:20:09] <Chainsaw> Yes, let's move on.
[22:20:16] <ferringb> clarification of 3.b would be useful btw
[22:20:22] <ferringb> phrasing there is a bit vague
[22:20:44] <scarabeus> it is about arfrever changes in eclasses
[22:20:59] <scarabeus> he essentialy changed complete eclass api and modified ebuilds in tree to suit this
[22:21:05] <wired> 	* should there a policy about eclass API changes?
[22:21:07] <wired> 		-> we didn't reach a decision here, talk will continue in the mailing lists
[22:21:15] <wired> ^^ last agenda/summary
[22:21:35] <scarabeus> i assume better would be to have quite static api and for such major rewrites new eclass should be deployed
[22:21:41] * ferringb notes we're in shitty territory here- basically trying to legislate common sense
[22:21:43] <scarabeus> see x-modular versus xorg-2
[22:21:50] <Betelgeuse> scarabeus: that's already the rule
[22:21:58] <Chainsaw> ferringb: Recent actions suggest we will have to.
[22:22:06] <Betelgeuse> Chainsaw: dealt with
[22:22:24] <wired> legislation won't change much in cases like this
[22:22:58] <ferringb> Chainsaw: the issue there is more speeding up the devrel/qa feedback loop, rather than legislating the definition of sanity imo
[22:23:22] <Chainsaw> ferringb: As long as something gets done. Recovering portage was not fun.
[22:23:26] <ferringb> said loop has done it's job (a suspension is active) also, so the mechanism does work, albeit a bit slow
[22:23:32] <scarabeus> how about leaving this one for QA, i guess we acted quite fast when he broke portage
[22:23:35] <ferringb> Chainsaw: whiner.  you're not stuck cleaning up the python versions :P
[22:23:41] <wired> imo we don't need a strict policy. these things can happen, policy or not
[22:23:55] <Chainsaw> wired: I see that action has been taken, so I'm willing to back off now.
[22:23:58] <scarabeus> we can do the stop/revert and then devrel do their vote, and if is against QA must explain stuff
[22:24:09] <ferringb> scarabeus: rephrase that statement please
[22:24:24] <Chainsaw> Yes, I was also unable to decode that.
[22:24:53] <scarabeus> QA can do the stop access/revert commit and then devrel do their vote if it was fair (if dev complains), and if  devrel is against QA decision, QA must explain :]
[22:25:22] <ferringb> scarabeus: in other words, leave it to the appropriate organ of gentoo to handle rather than the council sticking it's nose in?
[22:25:28] <wired> +1
[22:25:40] <Halcy0n> Agreed.
[22:25:43] * ferringb notes by and large, that's his view of how the council should be operating in cases like this.
[22:25:47] <scarabeus> yes but expect unhappy devs, because i wont let python happen again
[22:26:00] <wired> unhappy devs > broken systems
[22:26:02] <ferringb> when shit's screwed up or not getting done properly, step in and knock some heads and sort it out, but stay out of it the rest of the time ;)
[22:26:14] <scarabeus> okay
[22:26:23] <scarabeus> so any ideas how to summarise it?
[22:26:25] <ferringb> scarabeus: python is in the process of being cleaned up.  this situation should not re-occur in that project.
[22:26:34] <wired> > as in "preferred than"
[22:26:47] <scarabeus> Betelgeuse: any objections to above, since you are devrel boss? :]
[22:26:54] <ferringb> Halcy0n: can you clarify the policy documentation for this by chance?
[22:27:05] <Betelgeuse> ferringb: GLEP 48
[22:27:08] <ferringb> specifically "don't make 2.6.5 be in reality 2.6.6" ?
[22:27:12] *** Joins: tanderson (tanderson@gentoo/developer/tanderson)
[22:27:16] <Betelgeuse> ferringb: ah that
[22:27:30] <Halcy0n> ferringb: We can make it more clear in devmanual.
[22:27:33] <Betelgeuse> scarabeus: I agree with ferringb.
[22:27:35] <ferringb> Halcy0n: would be helpful
[22:27:43] <scarabeus> ook goodie
[22:27:56] <ferringb> at the very least, it removes the wiggle room for people pulling shit like this and makes it easier for qa/devrel to smack 'em on the nose
[22:28:12] <jmbsvicetto> scarabeus / Halcy0n: I think one thing we can change is the current rule about how QA can ask for access to be suspended
[22:28:47] <ferringb> or QA needs to delegate the powers for that to more than just one person
[22:28:56] <Halcy0n> You mean going to infra for suspension?  Or who can ask for it?
[22:29:05] <Betelgeuse> bug 331921
[22:29:07] <jmbsvicetto> at the moment it falls to the QA lead. In case he's absent, we can have at least 2 QA members ask for the suspension of access and later deal with that - full QA meeting, devrel review, etc
[22:29:07] <willikins> Betelgeuse: https://bugs.gentoo.org/331921 "Clarify what PV represents in devmanual"; Doc Other, Devmanual; NEW; betelgeuse@g.o:qa@g.o
[22:29:28] <Halcy0n> I can agree with that.
[22:29:59] * ferringb notes that works
[22:30:06] <Chainsaw> That looks sensible.
[22:30:12] <Chainsaw> I don't believe that needs change.
[22:30:21] <scarabeus> Halcy0n: ok will you sent
[22:30:25] <ferringb> although a single QA dev asking for it should work still in my opinion- the simple fact is that if they abused that ability, they would very quickly have their ass in the sling
[22:30:27] <scarabeus> Halcy0n: erm turncated
[22:30:33] <ferringb> either way, the 2 qa members thing works ;)
[22:30:38] <Halcy0n> It would mean modifying GLEP 48.  If you want, I can bring it up with the whole team and get everyone on board, or just make it the change?
[22:30:41] <scarabeus> Halcy0n: will you sent mail to qa ml so we can have some discussion about it in team? :]
[22:30:57] <Halcy0n> scarabeus: yup.
[22:31:08] <Betelgeuse> Halcy0n: GLEP 48 is already: "If a particular developer persistently causes breakage, the QA team may request that devrel re-evaluates that developer's commit rights. "
[22:31:17] <Betelgeuse> Halcy0n: So you are just clarifying what the QA team means
[22:31:32] <jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: Do you think we need to talk about it inside devrel? If it's a change to GLEP48 I don't think we need to change anything else on devrel pocliy
[22:31:34] <ferringb> Halcy0n: eitherw ay, the glep should be amended regardless of the process to get that point- really would be nice if we can keep that doc authorative. ;)
[22:31:35] <jmbsvicetto> policy*
[22:31:55] <Halcy0n> Betelgeuse, ferringb: I'll bring it up with the team and we'll come back with something.
[22:32:18] <ferringb> works for me.
[22:32:36] <ferringb> scarabeus: mind if we deviate for a second while we're on the topic of the suspension btw?
[22:33:07] <scarabeus> go ahead
[22:33:09] <ferringb> specifically, there doesn't seem to be a helluva lot of awareness of it... which makes sense, 'cept in doing cleanup python wise for example, folks who should know don't
[22:33:12] <scarabeus> we have one topic left anyway :]
[22:33:19] <scarabeus> if others are not against
[22:33:31] <ferringb> which leaves people in a slightly dicey situation
[22:33:34] <Betelgeuse> ferringb: We are not in the business of public humiliation.
[22:33:42] <ferringb> Betelgeuse: agreed
[22:34:11] <ferringb> Betelgeuse: problem is, the team members do need to know when it's a direct affect on the work/responsibilities
[22:34:49] <ferringb> point is, and I'm well aware there is no right/wrong in this case, it's something that needs consideration next time around
[22:35:10] <ferringb> could just leave it at that if desired
[22:35:10] <Betelgeuse> ferringb: Not really anything council needs to address. Seems like an oversight on my part.
[22:35:39] <ferringb> Betelgeuse: fair enough.  honestly the discussion got me thinking about that issue, and I brought it up- may not have been the best forum for it.
[22:35:42] <jmbsvicetto> ferringb: My concern about this issue is from a different angle. We (Gentoo) should acknowledge this incident, we should ensure users are not hitting it without finding any info on how to fix it and make it clear that the practices that lead to it are not appropriate nor acceptable
[22:36:05] <ferringb> jmbsvicetto: you're blurring a breakage/QA incident, vs the repercussions to the dev
[22:36:25] <Chainsaw> On that subject, the planet post from Diego has a mangled patch URL.
[22:36:36] <Chainsaw> (And is truncated!)
[22:37:01] <ferringb> blar.  will get it sorted
[22:37:02] <jmbsvicetto> I don't care about the specific dev. The concern here is about Gentoo, the users and practices that shouldn't exist - the particular dev that caused it is irreleavnt
[22:37:06] <jmbsvicetto> irrelevant*
[22:37:26] <Chainsaw> ferringb: Would a news item work? I believe affected users can still read those?
[22:37:32] <wired> you're just talking about different things
[22:37:36] <ferringb> Chainsaw: affected users couldn't even sync
[22:37:42] <jmbsvicetto> Chainsaw: I'd prefer to see a full article in our homepage
[22:37:43] <ferringb> Chainsaw: so a news item is pointless
[22:37:45] <scarabeus> guys you are talking about 2 things now
[22:37:49] <Chainsaw> Oh right. I could cvs up, so I never really noticed that.
[22:37:51] <Chainsaw> jmbsvicetto: Agreed.
[22:38:00] <scarabeus> 1) the breakage and its fixing
[22:38:00] <scarabeus> 2) the policy around the situation
[22:38:12] <Chainsaw> scarabeus: Yes, I am making a concerted effort to move away from a difficult subject. It was working.
[22:38:23] <scarabeus> :P
[22:38:23] <ferringb> #1 is sorted at this point, doesn't need discussion.  the python version issues are being worked on also (I'm tracking that right now)
[22:38:33] <scarabeus> great
[22:38:44] <ferringb> #2 was the main point I was curious about, although perhaps delaying it to the next meeting is wise
[22:39:00] <scarabeus> ferringb: so i take it as "QA is over python now" :P
[22:39:07] <scarabeus> and yes deffering might be good idea
[22:39:14] <scarabeus> but fire up discussion on -project :]
[22:39:21] <Betelgeuse> I think drafting a process how to handle bad breakages is in order.
[22:39:22] <scarabeus> so we dont start empty handed discussion
[22:39:29] <Betelgeuse> Someone needs to champion that.
[22:39:33] <Betelgeuse> Any volunteers?
[22:39:44] * ferringb can offer advice, but has enough on his plate already
[22:39:52] <scarabeus> me with my english and social skills, bad idea
[22:39:56] <jmbsvicetto> scarabeus: I think we already have policies for this. At this point I think all we need to do is to recall everyone this case shows why they're important
[22:40:08] <ferringb> scarabeus: get a copy editor than... :P
[22:40:16] <Betelgeuse> jmbsvicetto: We don't really have anything for the communication to users.
[22:40:23] <scarabeus> jmbsvicetto: so you want to make this more of example how not to do things and how it should be delt with?
[22:40:33] <jmbsvicetto> So it's not about assigning blame, but about having people understand the importance of some policies and practices
[22:40:54] <wired> and how thousands of users depend on those
[22:41:18] <jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: That is true. I meant about devs following certain policies
[22:41:46] <jmbsvicetto> Betelgeuse: talking about how to ensure a safe / quick recovery and how to reach users in such cases might be productive
[22:42:25] <scarabeus> ok guys so lets move it to the ml, we are on this stuff for 20 minutes
[22:42:28] <jmbsvicetto> scarabeus: I'd start the discussion with that tone
[22:42:38] <scarabeus> jmbsvicetto: oky :]
[22:42:44] <scarabeus> jmbsvicetto: hope you are reading summary on wave
[22:42:57] <Betelgeuse> I can put that on my list of things to do after GSoC is over if no-one else wants to take it now.
[22:42:57] <scarabeus> jmbsvicetto: and feel free to adjust my wording there
[22:43:35] <scarabeus> ok rest of this stuff -> ml
[22:43:39] <scarabeus> so 3c
[22:43:42] <scarabeus> eapi4 status
[22:43:54] <scarabeus> jmbsvicetto: i have no idea what you ment by nominating this
[22:43:56] <scarabeus> so amuse us :]
[22:44:02] <jmbsvicetto> peper / zmedico: ping ?
[22:44:14] <ferringb> jmbsvicetto: you trying to find out the state of eapi4 support in portage, or
[22:44:19] <jmbsvicetto> scarabeus: I forgot to ask you to ping them about the status
[22:44:44] <jmbsvicetto> ferringb: mostly that and what is still desired / relevant from the original EAPI-4 specification
[22:44:52] <scarabeus> i had no idea what was to the topic, i was thinking a) status report b) what we want to merge into the specs
[22:45:00] <jmbsvicetto> ferringb: given the recent proposals for a new EAPI
[22:45:11] <jmbsvicetto> scarabeus: that too
[22:45:22] <ferringb> yeah, it would be good to go through eapi4 with a fine toothed comb and spot exactly what is desired that's in it, versus what got shoved in without much review
[22:45:32] <ferringb> (community/develop review specifically)
[22:45:47] <scarabeus> ferringb: wanna do it?
[22:45:53] <ferringb> not really, no
[22:45:57] <ferringb> but I'm suited to do so I suppose
[22:46:15] <jmbsvicetto> How about we use our powers to nominate a person / group to look at this for X weeks?
[22:46:15] <scarabeus> i guess you have most skills for that
[22:46:18] <Betelgeuse> What I would be interested in is if there's enough new stuff ready in Portage to get a new EAPI out.
[22:46:22] <jmbsvicetto> and then report back
[22:46:34] <jmbsvicetto> unless some of us want to deal directly with this
[22:46:34] <peper> jmbsvicetto: ?
[22:46:49] <ferringb> Betelgeuse: there is a fair amount of support in portage for eapi4 bits at this point- few is the main person to talk to in re: to the status of it (he was the one doing the work)
[22:47:02] <Betelgeuse> few_: ping
[22:47:07] <jmbsvicetto> peper: Is there anything you can tell us about the current status of EAPI-4 ?
[22:47:29] <jmbsvicetto> peper: or about new features desired for a later EAPI that could possibly be added to the next EAPI
[22:47:30] <peper> I think you are mistaking me for someone else ;)
[22:47:33] <scarabeus> i would like eapi done otherwise a bit; new features developed into portage/paludis/anything else and documented with EAPI="in-move" or whatever for just testing (banned for in-tree usage of course) and when people want all the new shiny stuff they just ask for eapi bump.
[22:47:45] * ferringb suggests this should be delayaed till next meeting- we can do a fast rev meeting in 2-3 weeks if needed
[22:47:53] <Chainsaw> scarabeus: Please don't, EAPI is messy enough as it is.
[22:47:54] <jmbsvicetto> peper: Weren't you in the PMS team?
[22:47:58] <ferringb> namely, no one has dug into it, and the folk who can comment on it aren't around
[22:48:02] <ferringb> jmbsvicetto: you're thinking of ulm
[22:48:02] <jmbsvicetto> peper: If not, sorry
[22:48:07] <jmbsvicetto> peper: sorry
[22:48:17] <jmbsvicetto> ulm: ping ^^
[22:48:17] <ferringb> peper is g55 guy
[22:48:33] <jmbsvicetto> I thought he was leading the PMS team. Sorry
[22:48:42] <tanderson> fauli is lead iirc
[22:49:11] <peper> I can tell you that you should adopt g55 though
[22:49:13] * peper hides
[22:49:26] <jmbsvicetto> ferringb: we can talk about nominating someone to look at EAPI-4 status
[22:49:28] <scarabeus> peper: its nominated for vote on next meeting :P
[22:49:40] <tanderson> Since this is obviously a democracy, I vote for g55 too =P
[22:49:41] <scarabeus> peper: if you as proposer will agree to that
[22:49:43] <ferringb> any takers to do the eapi4 investigation?
[22:50:02] * ferringb can do it if no one else will
[22:50:24] <jmbsvicetto> anyone from the community interested in joining the "quest"?
[22:50:30] <peper> scarabeus: I don't mind :)
[22:50:58] <ferringb> how about we take the "find a minion" part offline.  if no one is found in a week, I'll do it.
[22:51:04] <scarabeus> ook
[22:51:05] * ferringb won't get to it for at least a week anyways
[22:51:20] *** Quits: yporti (~yporti@hyadesinc/pub/yporti) (Quit: Leaving)
[22:51:23] <ferringb> bugs being next?
[22:51:26] <scarabeus> oky
[22:51:29] <scarabeus> bugs on road
[22:51:30] <jmbsvicetto> ok, works for me :)
[22:51:42] <scarabeus> so Halcy0n first question on you, are you interested in that bug of yours?
[22:52:04] <wired> bug 234706
[22:52:07] <willikins> wired: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234706 "Slacker arches"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:council@g.o
[22:52:15] <Halcy0n> scarabeus: yes.  I started digging through all of the threads from way back.  I'll try to come up with another proposal to get people talking about it again.
[22:52:22] <scarabeus> oka
[22:52:40] <scarabeus> just FTR kde has now just arm, amd64, ppc, ppc64 and x86 keywords
[22:53:16] *** Joins: tove (~tove@smtp.gentoo.org)
[22:53:41] <scarabeus> next bug then, ferringb its yours
[22:54:07] <ferringb> err. what's the bug #?
[22:54:10] <wired> bug 256451
[22:54:13] <willikins> wired: https://bugs.gentoo.org/256451 "Council meeting notes appear to be missing"; Doc Other, Other; NEW; gentoo-bugs@allenjb.me.uk:council@g.o
[22:54:24] <ferringb> sorted, although october 2009 is missing
[22:54:33] <ferringb> (just noticed it, it's the only summary that's not up there)
[22:54:50] <scarabeus> i see
[22:54:52] <ferringb> would be nice if someone else does it since frankly it's shitty work, but I'll kill it by next council meeting if no one steps up
[22:55:09] <scarabeus> oka
[22:55:15] <Betelgeuse> ferringb: I can write it.
[22:55:19] <ferringb> Betelgeuse: really appreciate it
[22:55:30] <ferringb> !@#*ing sucks writing those things months/years after the fact
[22:55:57] <wired> next one is mine, bug #256453
[22:55:58] <scarabeus> wired: your bug?
[22:56:00] <willikins> wired: https://bugs.gentoo.org/256453 "Documentation on Gentoo Council meeting processes, particularly regarding agenda items"; Doc Other, Other; NEW; gentoo-bugs@allenjb.me.uk:council@g.o
[22:56:12] <wired> i have a patch http://paste.pocoo.org/show/248114/
[22:56:17] <scarabeus> ferringb: why do you think that i for kde and this do it on run time
[22:56:23] <scarabeus> ferringb: later you always lack the motivation :D
[22:56:31] <ferringb> scarabeus: yep.
[22:56:59] <scarabeus> hmm that patch is not bad
[22:57:27] <scarabeus> altho is there possibility to place php script into cvs not to have rely on wired's devspace
[22:57:51] <scarabeus> ?
[22:57:54] <Betelgeuse> yeah official documents should not rely on devspaces
[22:57:56] <wired> no idea, i'll have to ask
[22:58:32] <wired> any other comments?
[22:58:42] <scarabeus> ok i agree with applying this patch, when the devspace uri is sorted out (taken out to be static 19:00 or placed into the proj folder in cvs)
[22:59:03] <scarabeus> so your yays and nays plz :]
[22:59:11] <jmbsvicetto> wired: I like your patch but have 2 or 3 suggestions: one is to include some notes about items to be included in the Agenda, including timelines for proposed GLEPs to be voted
[22:59:54] <scarabeus> 2 weeks for announcement, 1 week for last nomination of vote item so we can all prepare
[23:00:02] <jmbsvicetto> The other is to add a note in the beginning that the dates and times of the meeting are set by each council and that for the current council the preferred time/date is X
[23:00:08] *** Quits: zmedico (~zmedico@gentoo/developer/zmedico) (Ping timeout: 258 seconds)
[23:00:12] <wired> mm
[23:00:12] <wired> ok
[23:00:29] <wired> i'll improve it send it to -project for final comments and observations then
[23:00:35] <wired> before committing
[23:00:38] <scarabeus> yep sounds reasonable
[23:00:45] <ferringb> wired: one nit- note we keep a higher frequency of meetings than once a month.  might want to incorporate that in some respect
[23:00:59] <jmbsvicetto> scarabeus: the old rule is the GLEP must be submitted to the dev ml one week before the agenda is sent and that the agenda must be sent 1 week before the meeting
[23:01:02] <wired> ferringb: noted
[23:01:39] <scarabeus> hmm first you announce meeting and then people ask for stuff to be on it
[23:01:47] <scarabeus> not that people ask for stuff and then you base meeting on it
[23:01:47] <jmbsvicetto> ferringb: we have up until now, but our decision was for 1 monthly meeting unless certain conditions are met
[23:01:54] <scarabeus> (just saying how people work)
[23:02:18] <wired> announcement -> possible item submissions -> agenda -> more possible item submissions + discussion on existing items
[23:02:28] *** Joins: zmedico (~zmedico@gentoo/developer/zmedico)
[23:02:35] <scarabeus> wired: that sounds nices
[23:02:43] <scarabeus> but lets move this discussion to list seriously
[23:02:49] <wired> sure
[23:02:57] <scarabeus> last bug is your jmbsvicetto, i guess it is bit long-term so no status update :]
[23:03:16] <wired> bug 237381
[23:03:19] <willikins> wired: https://bugs.gentoo.org/237381 "Document appeals process"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:dberkholz@g.o
[23:03:20] <jmbsvicetto> I didn't got to it yet, but I plan to present some proposal in the next meeting
[23:03:25] <scarabeus> ook
[23:03:27] <ferringb> curious, but how are you tracking who owns what?
[23:03:37] <wired> ferringb: last agenda
[23:03:39] <wired> :p
[23:03:45] *** Joins: yporti (~yporti@hyadesinc/pub/yporti)
[23:03:48] <jmbsvicetto> let me fix that on my bug ;)
[23:03:49] <ferringb> wired: yeah, point is shift the owner into the bug itself
[23:04:13] <wired> ferringb: mm that'll make it harder to track.. lets just add owners as CC?
[23:04:29] <scarabeus> just cc, just for query purposes
[23:04:35] <scarabeus> we should all care about this stuff somehow :D
[23:04:39] <jmbsvicetto> ferringb: I was reassigning the bug to me :P
[23:04:48] * ferringb would just reassign, and cc council
[23:05:02] <jmbsvicetto> wired: you can also search bugs council is cc'ed to
[23:05:03] <scarabeus> actualy you are right it does not really much matter :]
[23:05:05] <ferringb> my search query I use as is pulls anything that has the council cc'd
[23:05:18] <scarabeus> aaanyway back to topics, item 5, who wants the shiny chair :]
[23:05:18] <jmbsvicetto> by the way the curent list includes 8 bugs
[23:05:35] <wired> jmbsvicetto: yes, but thats just getting messy, council can be cc'd to bugs for various reasons
[23:06:00] <jmbsvicetto> there are only 8 bugs assigned to council or where council is cc'ed
[23:06:05] <ferringb> offline it... we don't need to bikeshed in person during a meeting ;)
[23:06:11] <wired> :)
[23:06:19] <jmbsvicetto> bug 234711 is probably coming back when discussing GLEP55
[23:06:21] <ferringb> suspect whoever does the work can just enforce the standard...
[23:06:22] <willikins> jmbsvicetto: https://bugs.gentoo.org/234711 "GLEP 54: scm package version suffix"; Gentoo Linux, Unspecified; NEW; dberkholz@g.o:lu_zero@g.o
[23:06:33] <ferringb> actually, I do have a vote I'd like to request on that
[23:06:42] <scarabeus> brm
[23:06:48] <scarabeus> pumpkins, this is ml stuff :]
[23:06:49] <ferringb> the last council basically bound g54 to auto-pass if g55 passes
[23:07:16] <ferringb> I'd like to see g54 go through a vote again this time around- the situation has changed a bit in terms of what portage can do, potential of capabilities, etc.
[23:07:25] <ferringb> decouple the suckers namely
[23:07:31] <Halcy0n> We are just about done right, because I have to run, and don't want to miss anything :)
[23:07:41] <scarabeus> yes
[23:07:41] * ferringb can take it to the ml
[23:07:48] <scarabeus> just decision about the next chair
[23:07:56] <jmbsvicetto> just for record and so it gets logged there's also b. 316401, 316403 and 316405 - which iirc are all waiting on infra
[23:07:59] <wired> next meeting in a month?
[23:08:01] <scarabeus> (i am fallback, i dont mind doing so, just if anyone else wants to do it)
[23:08:08] <ferringb> wired: actually... sooner gets my vote
[23:08:22] <scarabeus> 23.
[23:08:22] <ferringb> it may be not obvious, but we've got some EAPI shit that needs discussing
[23:08:22] <scarabeus> ?
[23:08:24] <wired> ferringb: two weeks?
[23:08:28] <scarabeus> too soon
[23:08:29] <scarabeus> 23.
[23:08:42] <scarabeus> eh it is 2 weeks
[23:08:43] <scarabeus> :D
[23:08:45] <ferringb> scarabeus: two weeks is enough time imo.
[23:08:57] <scarabeus> so others
[23:08:59] <jmbsvicetto> I'm not likely to have much free time in the week of 23rd August
[23:09:06] <ferringb> if the two weeks approaches and we're not ready, fine, we just cancel the meeting
[23:09:18] <wired> +1 for 23rd here
[23:09:22] <scarabeus> ferringb: not really, it needs to be announced right away
[23:09:26] <Betelgeuse> 23 should be fine but I won't chair as GSoC is still running.
[23:09:29] <scarabeus> so people would expect it
[23:09:42] <jmbsvicetto> I was also getting back on my bug in 1 month, not 2 weeks
[23:10:12] <scarabeus> jmbsvicetto: no worries i updated summary
[23:10:18] <scarabeus> ok I chair
[23:10:23] <scarabeus> date is fine and dandy?
[23:10:26] <wired> so we're good for 23rd?
[23:10:38] <wired> scarabeus: i'll chair, seems its just the two of us, lets rotate :)
[23:10:39] <ferringb> option of the 30th as a fallback comes to mind, but yep
[23:10:43] <jmbsvicetto> I'll let you know if I can make it, but at this time it doesn't sound too promising
[23:10:44] <scarabeus> wired: ok
[23:10:47] <scarabeus> wired: update summary
[23:10:59] <ferringb> jmbsvicetto: afaik you're going to want to be there being EAPI related- any idea when you'll know if you can be there?  that's ignoring if you just sent a proxy
[23:11:06] <Halcy0n> 23 works for me as well.
[23:11:06] <jmbsvicetto> scarabeus: I plan to chair future meeting
[23:11:09] <jmbsvicetto> +s
[23:11:12] <scarabeus> jmbsvicetto: find good proxy if you are really gone :]
[23:11:15] <ferringb> that said it's probably going to be more of a discussion
[23:11:55] <scarabeus> ok, so lets proceed with more bikeshed + open floor
[23:12:01] <scarabeus> and i am going to tuneup the summary
[23:12:03] <scarabeus> ack?
[23:12:10] <scarabeus> and go get cookies :P
[23:12:13] <jmbsvicetto> ferringb: we're planning a domain migration in that week at work. It all depends at what hour we end the preparation meetings on Monday
[23:13:01] <wired> we can also do something like early 28th (saturday) for our US friends
[23:13:16] <ferringb> jmbsvicetto: ah... yeah, those weeks suck ass
[23:13:32] <jmbsvicetto> I can do weekends if others are willing to do it
[23:14:49] <Chainsaw> I can do weekends, yes. Not a problem.
[23:15:30] <jmbsvicetto> wired: but I guess our US friends would prefer a late meeting ;)
[23:15:36] <few_> Betelgeuse: pong
[23:15:39] <wired> jmbsvicetto: late for them, early for us
[23:15:41] <wired> ;p
[23:15:57] <jmbsvicetto> wired: hmm, that would be a fun time for me :P
[23:16:15] <wired> heheh
[23:16:18] <scarabeus> http://paste.pocoo.org/show/248127/
[23:16:21] <scarabeus> summary :]
[23:16:27] <NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, you and your tropical island
[23:16:30] <scarabeus> also guys did someone log? i forgot to ask :/
[23:16:34] <wired> i always log
[23:16:34] <jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: :)
[23:16:39] <wired> i have like 3mil log lines
[23:16:41] <wired> ;p
[23:16:48] <jmbsvicetto> I also have log
[23:16:48] <scarabeus> wired: could you commit the log plz, i will attach the above summary to it soonish
[23:16:54] <wired> ok
[23:16:56] <scarabeus> wired: and remove the phone number
[23:17:01] <wired> ofcourse
[23:17:05] <wired> did the meeting end? :p
[23:17:16] <ferringb> wired: could substitute in a sex line instead of chainsaws...
[23:17:20] <ferringb> that might be fun
[23:17:21] <wired> lmao
[23:17:21] <scarabeus> yes dismissed, community is silent