[gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008

[gentoo-council] Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 156 bytes --]

Hi all,

Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The complete log will
show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.

Thanks,
Donnie

[-- Attachment #2: 20080508-summary.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 7116 bytes --]

Quick summary
=============

Active-developer document: We reviewed it and made some suggestions for 
improving both the document and the online developer list (adding 
dates).

ChangeLog entries: Always required. If you aren't making them now, fix 
your script to call echangelog.

Ignored arch-team bugs: What's the workflow for undermanned arch teams? 
Can we improve it?

8-digit versions: Ask package maintainers with extremely long PVs 
whether they were needed and test the impact of extending 
versionator.eclass. Make decision once this data is available.

Enforced retirement: After 2.5 hours on the previous topics, people had 
to go to sleep and jokey's computer broke. Instead of waiting till the 
next regular meeting, because of its urgency, we scheduled a special 
session next week at the same time. The appeals will *not* be decided 
then -- it's about figuring out the validity and the process.

New meeting process: 105 minutes were closed and 57 were open. It might 
save some time if we always moderated, but it won't cut it in half. 
Should we keep doing this, or modify it a little to have a moderated 
#-council and open backchannel?


Roll call
=========

(here, proxy [by whom] or slacker?)

amne        slacker [30 minutes late]
betelgeuse  here
dberkholz   here
flameeyes   here
lu_zero	    here
vapier      proxy [solar]
jokey       here

We gave amne 15 minutes to show up before getting a slacker mark.


New process
===========

The last few meetings have dragged out for hours unnecessarily. This 
time, we tried moderating the channel during discussion of each topic, 
then temporarily opening the floor for that topic before a vote so 
anyone could contribute. Here's the time breakdown:

	2000-2030: closed, 30 min
	2030-2046: open, 16 min
	2046-2056: closed, 10 min
	2056-2114: open, 18 min
	2114-2146: closed, 32 min
	2146-2209: open, 23 min
	2209-2242: closed, 33 min
	2242-    : open floor

Total before open floor: 105 minutes closed, 57 minutes open.

Optimistically, we could have saved an hour if the channel was moderated 
throughout the meeting. That's unlikely to be the case in reality, 
because we'd be redirecting people's comments from queries into the 
channel.

Should we keep it moderated until the final open floor? Should we have 
an open "backchannel"?


Updates to last month's topics
==============================

	http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20080410-summary.txt

	Document of being an active developer
	-------------------------------------
	Last month:
		No updates
	Updates:
		araujo made http://dev.gentoo.org/~araujo/gcert1.pdf in Scribus. 
		He'd like to ask for approval of this design and discuss the 
		script, in particular its infrastructure requirements.

		Suggestions on certificate content:
			-Add title to the top: "Developer Certification"
			-Add devrel contact info (general devrel email address)
			-Add link to devrel userinfo page
			-Add start and end dates to devrel retired developers page
			-Add a sentence saying e.g. "This certifies that XXX was a 
			 Gentoo developer from START_DATE to TODAY_DATE." The point 
			 is to avoid implying that the developer is certified 
			 forever, or will be a developer in the future.

		The information should be gotten from LDAP, for example using 
		python-ldap. Could base this script on devrel's slacker script.

		It's unsure how signatures are going to happen, but one option 
		is to keep a GPG-encrypted image of a signature and decrypt it 
		on-demand for certificate creation. This should be discussed 
		with the person doing the signing.


	Slacker arches
	--------------
	4 months ago:
		vapier will work on rich0's suggestion and repost it for 
		discussion on -dev ML
	2 months ago:
		vapier said he was going to work on it that weekend.
	Last month:
		No updates
	Updates:


New topics
==========

	When are ChangeLog entries required?
	------------------------------------
	This question mainly relates to arch stabilizations.

	The consensus was that ChangeLog entries even for arch 
	stabilizations provide valuable information that is unique without 
	network access and more accessible than CVS logs even with network 
	access.

	Some people were curious what proportion of space ChangeLogs take in 
	the tree, but most people didn't think that was relevant.

	welp suggested making a changelog message part of repoman commit.

	It would be helpful for the QA team to help with checking for and 
	enforcing ChangeLog messages. If that doesn't help matters, the 
	council may have to take action.


	Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams?
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	The work happens, but Mart says it's not communicated to anyone and 
	has no relationship to whether bugs are open.

	We need to understand the workflow of undermanned arch teams and see 
	whether there's anything we can help improve.

	Possibly improving recuitment -- add a good, motivating 
	staffing-needs entry.


	PMS: Are versions allowed to have more than 8 digits?
	-----------------------------------------------------
	http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_db2f5c09c2c0c8b042ca3d0dcec7cdaf.xml
	https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188449

	What do various PMs/tools support? Portage, Pkgcore, Paludis all 
	handle >8. portage-utils does not but could be fixed to use longs 
	instead of ints, with some loss of performance (magnitude unclear).

	versionator.eclass also needs fixing for >8 digits.

	Apparently [ ]-style tests break with large numbers, but [[ ]] 
	works. Have to be careful which tests are getting used anywhere 
	large versions are compared.

	The council generally favored allowing versions to have <=18 digits. 
	This allows them to fit into 64 bits (18 signed digits or 19 
	unsigned) and gives them an upper bound, which some implementations 
	of version parsing could find useful.

	We voted to do more research and testing, specifically to ask the 
	package maintainers with extremely long PVs whether they were needed 
	and to test the impact of extending versionator.eclass. The involved 
	packages:

		sys-process/fuser-bsd
		sys-apps/net-tools
		sys-apps/gradm
		net-im/ntame
		media-video/captury
		media-libs/libcaptury
		media-libs/capseo
		sys-block/btrace
		www-apache/mod_depends
		net-wireless/rt2500
		sys-fs/unionfs


	Enforced retirement
	-------------------

	The meeting had already gone 2.5 hours and we were short multiple 
	council members because of the late hour in their timezone, or 
	broken hardware in the case of jokey. Because of the urgency of 
	getting this resolved, we decided it couldn't wait for next month's 
	meeting and scheduled a special session for next week at the same 
	time.


	Open floor
	----------

	Some people thought that we were going to make a final decision on 
	the above appeals today, because the agenda was insufficiently clear 
	on that. That was not the case. What we intended to do was explain 
	why we can take the appeal and then figure out the process for it
	because we haven't done any appeals before.

[gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 16:33 Thu 08 May     , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Enforced retirement: After 2.5 hours on the previous topics, people had 
> to go to sleep and jokey's computer broke. Instead of waiting till the 
> next regular meeting, because of its urgency, we scheduled a special 
> session next week at the same time. The appeals will *not* be decided 
> then -- it's about figuring out the validity and the process.

2 of us have shown up -- amne and me. That's really pathetic, guys. What 
happened? Did the rest of you miss the announcement in the summary? I 
was looking at the IRC log from last week, and here's what I saw 
(relevant parts only):

< FlameBook+> I'm fine with the reschedule, as I'm probably going away soon, too
< dberkholz@> amne, Betelgeuse, FlameBook, solar -- rescheduling to a special session work?
< dberkholz@> ah, FlameBook already said yes
<Betelgeuse@> o
<Betelgeuse@> k
< dberkholz@> looks like amne went to bed
< dberkholz@> enough of us agree on that, so let's do it

lu_zero said on IRC last night that he was going to be traveling today, 
but nobody's shown up to proxy for him:

<   lu_zero@> dberkholz today we'll the extended council meeting, isn't it?
< dberkholz@> i optimistically hope it's not "extended" in the "taking a long time" sense
< dberkholz@> but the postponed topics from last week, yes
<   lu_zero@> dberkholz again I'll be travelling
< dberkholz@> lu_zero: oh, did it just come up?
<   lu_zero@> dberkholz pretty much =_=
<   lu_zero@> lately my time-space position is quite random
<   lu_zero@> _Hopefully_ I'll be there
<   lu_zero@> but 4 hours of travel can be extended =_=

That means that it's conceivable that if solar (vapier's proxy), vapier 
and jokey didn't check IRC again or read the council summary, they 
could've missed the announcement. I guess I can see how people who are 
at the meeting might not read the summary, because they sat through it. 
I blame myself for not sending a standalone announcement outside of the 
summary.

tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:

    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.

musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
meetings or also irregular ones like this.

Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? I 
look forward to hearing your advice.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Roy Bamford]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.05.15 21:49, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
[snip]
> 
> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> 
>     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.
> 
> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> 
> Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? 
> I look forward to hearing your advice.
> 
> Thanks,
> Donnie
> -- 
> gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
Donnie,

The council have met monthly as required by the GLEP.  This meeting is 
single topic about policy, it neither requires to be in public, nor 
does it require anyone other than -council. A closed session or emails 
or teleconference would be quite in order for determining and agreeing 
policy.

Forcing an election over this issue, is in effect, a vote of no 
confidence in our council   

Delaying the policy setting for three months, until a new council is 
elected (1 month nominations, 1 month elections, a few weeks for admin) 
is not in the best interests of Gentoo, nor those whose appeals will be 
delayed.

While the present council would remain in office until replaced, they 
could hardly make a ruling on the very issue that forced the vote of no 
confidence.

An election now, over this, is just silly. 

- -- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(NeddySeagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
treecleaners
trustees

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm writing as an individual developer, not 
on behalf of any office or team I am a part of.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkgsqt8ACgkQTE4/y7nJvasTCwCbBmfHQhQaKS+yh4EXtl5Z/FMw
2NYAoJ5pGK5DD6SjX36sZXE0czXJzdpG
=kC4P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Luca Barbato]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> lu_zero said on IRC last night that he was going to be traveling today, 
> but nobody's shown up to proxy for him:

I'm just back, the travel took quite a lot of time for the return trip...

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo Council Member
Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Paul Varner]

On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 13:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> 
>     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.
> 
> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> 
> Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? I 
> look forward to hearing your advice.

Clarify the GLEP so that it refers to reqularly scheduled meetings only.
I see no reason to kick the council out and rehold elections over a
miscommunicated special meeting.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Ferris McCormick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1770 bytes --]


On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 09:59 -0500, Paul Varner wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 13:49 -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> > 
> >     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.
> > 
> > musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular 
> > meetings or also irregular ones like this.
> > 
> > Open up the floodgates, folks. What do you think, what should we do? I 
> > look forward to hearing your advice.
> 
> Clarify the GLEP so that it refers to reqularly scheduled meetings only.
> I see no reason to kick the council out and rehold elections over a
> miscommunicated special meeting.
> 
> Regards,
> Paul

It's at least as hard to modify the GLEP as it is to follow it.  And I
don't think we want to be in the business of changing policies then
applying the new policies retroactively.  If we do that, what's the
point of having policies in the first place?  And, as ciaranm (one of
the GLEP's authors) pointed out, the GLEP requires at least one open
meeting per month, not regularly scheduled meetings.  This month,
Council scheduled two meetings, and the GLEP applies to all Council
meetings.

It's very hard to see how this meeting was "miscommunicated" since it
was discussed in the 08.v.08 meeting, was called out in the summary for
that meeting, and is there in the log file of course.  I think we can
expect the Council members to read the summaries of their own meetings,
no?

Regards,
Ferris
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@gentoo.org>
Developer, Gentoo Linux (Devrel, Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Paul Varner]

On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 15:09 +0000, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-16 at 09:59 -0500, Paul Varner wrote:
> > Clarify the GLEP so that it refers to reqularly scheduled meetings only.
> > I see no reason to kick the council out and rehold elections over a
> > miscommunicated special meeting.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Paul
> 
> It's at least as hard to modify the GLEP as it is to follow it.  And I
> don't think we want to be in the business of changing policies then
> applying the new policies retroactively.  If we do that, what's the
> point of having policies in the first place?  And, as ciaranm (one of
> the GLEP's authors) pointed out, the GLEP requires at least one open
> meeting per month, not regularly scheduled meetings.  This month,
> Council scheduled two meetings, and the GLEP applies to all Council
> meetings.

(Now that I've read through all of the responses on -project.)

Back when we voted on the new metastructure I read the GLEP as meaning
the regularly scheduled meeting.  However, since ciaranm wrote the
proposal and has stated that he clearly meant it to be any meeting at
all, then I guess it means it is time for an election.  However, I still
would like the intent of the GLEP clarified.  If I can misread the
intent of the GLEP, then so can others as well.

As far as miscommunication for holding the meeting, I am giving the
council the benefit of the doubt based upon Donnie's intial email.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-council] RE: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev] Special meeting [WAS: Council meeting summary for 8 May 2008]

[Chrissy Fullam]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> 
> On 16:33 Thu 08 May     , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Enforced retirement: After 2.5 hours on the previous topics, people had
> > to go to sleep and jokey's computer broke. Instead of waiting till the
> > next regular meeting, because of its urgency, we scheduled a special
> > session next week at the same time. The appeals will *not* be decided
> > then -- it's about figuring out the validity and the process.
> 
> 2 of us have shown up -- amne and me. That's really pathetic, guys. What
> happened? Did the rest of you miss the announcement in the summary? 
> 
> tove brought up an interesting point from GLEP 39:
> 
>     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.
> 
> musikc questioned whether that was only intended for the regular
> meetings or also irregular ones like this.

I've decided to just respond to the original post, however my comments will
include responses to a variety of posts I've read. As a result, this is
somewhat long so I apologize in advance for the lengthy read.

GLEP changes do not have to be voted by the entire developer community, so
if you wish to entertain this line of discussion please help me understand
what policy you base it off of. 

Council votes on GLEP's. Council, in my opinion, is quite capable of editing
a GLEP if something is deemed unclear or would benefit from more exact
wording, we did after all vote for them to make decisions - not to ask our
approval on every decision they wish to make.
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html. I reference that link for
this section: "GLEPs are reviewed by the appropriate Gentoo Manager [8], who
may approve or reject a GLEP outright, or send it back to the author(s) for
revision." I see Council as our appropriate Gentoo Managers. Perhaps this
should be better spelled out?

I don't see the relevance in hearing from the authors of this GLEP on how a
section was intended post-creation. 
I see nothing wrong with acknowledging a policy, or in this case a GLEP,
needs to be revised, revising it, and immediately following it. Perhaps this
is why our policies are digital and not carved into stone tablets? We are a
fluid distro, subject to make changes as new needs or awareness arises. We
are not a legal or official government body, so I have no interest in people
trying to complicate this more than necessary. Please note I see nothing
wrong with sanely and civilly stating your opinion, not to be confused with
arguing because others do not share your opinion.

I am frustrated that more Council members did not show up, however I have no
interest in voting for another Council at this time. Personally, I would
vote for the exact same Council members. They made a mistake and several
have explained how it happened. For me to want to remove someone for a
single mistake, it would have to be such a catastrophic error, which I do
not feel this is. 

I think any Council meeting in the future should be publicized better than
this one was. That is where we can learn from our mistakes. Perhaps more
Council members would have shown up if they received the standard email
reminders that we currently enjoy for our scheduled monthly meetings.
Perhaps this reminder would have reminded those who were unlikely to show up
to assign a proxy. There are several perhaps here, but again they all center
around hindsight being 20/20 and us learning and moving forward in a
positive direction.

Council,
You fill a necessary role that many of us would not want to do ourselves, it
is indeed quite challenging to make a decision that you believe in and
balance that with what you think may best represent the wishes of the
developers, so I thank you for the hard work and the good job that you have
done thus far.


Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 




-- 
gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org mailing list