[gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Tobias Scherbaum]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2345 bytes --]

Here's the agenda for our september 14th meeting (18 UTC), held on
#gentoo-council

1. Intro (10 minutes including late arrivals)

  1.1. Make sure that at least a couple people are logging the meeting.

  1.2. Roll call.

  1.3. Any volunteers to chair this meeting?

2. 10 Years Gentoo (5 Minutes)

  2.1. Update on LiveCD/DVD and other activities

3. EAPI/PMS (30 Minutes)

  3.1. A process to modify PMS standard that doesn't directly involve
  the EAPI process.
  As requested by "Joshua Jackson" <tsunam@tsunam.org> / User relations:
     Required people: tsuname, ulm

"Per bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261 I'm requesting an
AOB for the decision that was made by the PMS team about a process or
system to modify the PMS standard that doesn't directly involve the EAPI
process currently.

I've set the hard date for them for the sept 10th meeting and this gives
them 3 weeks to work on this so it should be no issue for them to come
to this. I'm expecting them to be able to have a result by then."

  3.2 EAPI / PMS comittee. If we do need/want one, vote on a structure:
	Required people: ulm

    3.2.1  Either we form a new committee / working group for EAPI and  
    PMS questions (more or less Calchan's proposal). I'd guess there   
    should be one or two members from the council, plus someone from 
    the PMS project, and a representative for each package manager.

    3.2.2  In principle also the PMS project could play this role, but 
    with its current membership of only three devs it is too weak. So
    some relevant people (see above) would have to join. OTOH, there's
    already a bugzie alias (pms-bugs), a mailing list (gentoo-pms) and
    an IRC channel set up.

    3.2.3  Something (completely) different.

4. Establish a process to amend GLEP 39 (10 Minutes)

   "discuss and initiate an all-developer vote on a process to amend
    GLEP 39."
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev-announce/msg_663d96f01e096234c601c01220126da3.xml

5. Next meeting (5 minutes)

  5.1. When? (October 12th is 4 weeks ahead)

  5.2. Who makes sure we have an agenda beforehand?

6. Wrap up, comments, open questions.


- Tobias

-- 
Praxisbuch Nagios
http://www.oreilly.de/catalog/pbnagiosger/

https://www.xing.com/profile/Tobias_Scherbaum

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1353 bytes --]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:14:09 +0200
Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 3. EAPI/PMS (30 Minutes)
> 
>   3.1. A process to modify PMS standard that doesn't directly involve
>   the EAPI process.
>   As requested by "Joshua Jackson" <tsunam@tsunam.org> / User
> relations: Required people: tsuname, ulm
> 
> "Per bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261 I'm requesting
> an AOB for the decision that was made by the PMS team about a process
> or system to modify the PMS standard that doesn't directly involve
> the EAPI process currently.
> 
> I've set the hard date for them for the sept 10th meeting and this
> gives them 3 weeks to work on this so it should be no issue for them
> to come to this. I'm expecting them to be able to have a result by
> then."

I asked Joshua to retract this request because he was basing it on the
mistaken impression that profiles weren't EAPI controlled (the Council
voted to put profiles under EAPI control a while ago). Unfortunately he
hasn't responded, so instead I'll ask the Council to disregard this
since between the EAPI mechanism and the way we've used previously of
not introducing changes that will break older things (by not reusing
names, and not requiring support except on EAPI change) we've already
got the whole thing covered.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:14:09 +0200
> Tobias Scherbaum <dertobi123@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 3. EAPI/PMS (30 Minutes)
>>
>>   3.1. A process to modify PMS standard that doesn't directly involve
>>   the EAPI process.
>>   As requested by "Joshua Jackson" <tsunam@tsunam.org> / User
>> relations: Required people: tsuname, ulm
>>
>> "Per bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261 I'm requesting
>> an AOB for the decision that was made by the PMS team about a process
>> or system to modify the PMS standard that doesn't directly involve
>> the EAPI process currently.
>>
>> I've set the hard date for them for the sept 10th meeting and this
>> gives them 3 weeks to work on this so it should be no issue for them
>> to come to this. I'm expecting them to be able to have a result by
>> then."
>
> I asked Joshua to retract this request because he was basing it on the
> mistaken impression that profiles weren't EAPI controlled (the Council
> voted to put profiles under EAPI control a while ago). Unfortunately he
> hasn't responded, so instead I'll ask the Council to disregard this
> since between the EAPI mechanism and the way we've used previously of
> not introducing changes that will break older things (by not reusing
> names, and not requiring support except on EAPI change) we've already
> got the whole thing covered.
>
Ciaran,

it isn't a "mistaken impression". Both Joshua and me think there are
alternatives and that the choice to put profiles/* under EAPI was
unfortunate and should be reviewed. It's also my opinion that what the
council approved was the use of a EAPI file under each profile to mark
the type of atoms that can be used in the profile files (slots, etc).

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkqsNSoACgkQcAWygvVEyAIrNgCcCGPWrj68Om56L3+vxpwnxWmF
VGwAnj+m1ay8F84C9YDBumJQu7Ihv9iQ
=osL8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1004 bytes --]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:56:26 +0000
"Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
> it isn't a "mistaken impression". Both Joshua and me think there are
> alternatives and that the choice to put profiles/* under EAPI was
> unfortunate and should be reviewed.

Why were those alternatives never expressed? Why were your objections
not raised at the time, and why have you never explained what you think
is wrong with it or what you think a better option would be?

> It's also my opinion that what the council approved was the use of a
> EAPI file under each profile to mark the type of atoms that can be
> used in the profile files (slots, etc).

What the council agreed upon is not a matter of opinion. The council
agreed to introduce EAPI control to profiles/. This was in no way
limited to "the types of atoms that can be used", and the wording and
design were very deliberately constructed *not* to limit the changes to
those kinds of things.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:56:26 +0000 "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto"
> <jmbsvicetto@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> it isn't a "mistaken impression". Both Joshua and me think there
>> are alternatives and that the choice to put profiles/* under EAPI
>> was unfortunate and should be reviewed.
>
> Why were those alternatives never expressed? Why were your
> objections not raised at the time, and why have you never explained
> what you think is wrong with it or what you think a better option
> would be?
>
Because at the time we didn't thought about them, didn't had time to
follow the infinite discussions about EAPI, just plain didn't cared
about it or some other reason. That's why we would like the council to
discuss about alternatives.
>> It's also my opinion that what the council approved was the use
>> of a EAPI file under each profile to mark the type of atoms that
>> can be used in the profile files (slots, etc).
>
> What the council agreed upon is not a matter of opinion. The
> council agreed to introduce EAPI control to profiles/. This was in
> no way limited to "the types of atoms that can be used", and the
> wording and design were very deliberately constructed *not* to
> limit the changes to those kinds of things.
>
I'd have to check the exact wording as I never followed EAPI
discussions that closely - you have. However, I'm pretty sure that
everything I saw leading up to the discussion addressed the concern of
using new atom syntaxes in files under profiles (in particular
package.mask/package.keywords/package.use files) and I do recall the
discussion about profiles/ itself having to be restricted to EAPI-0
which meant that we couldn't use newer syntax (in particular slots)
for the global package.mask. I don't recall any discussion regarding
other use of EAPI in profiles - at that time.

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkqsOfsACgkQcAWygvVEyAKxJACeJSVu/aoKr5EER7lpubWYM82C
kgQAn2hX2yI79cHwpnDV1z6f3lEP3EDT
=JlzE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:14:09 +0200 Tobias Scherbaum
> <dertobi123@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 3. EAPI/PMS (30 Minutes)
>>
>> 3.1. A process to modify PMS standard that doesn't directly
>> involve the EAPI process. As requested by "Joshua Jackson"
>> <tsunam@tsunam.org> / User relations: Required people: tsuname,
>> ulm
>>
>> "Per bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261 I'm
>> requesting an AOB for the decision that was made by the PMS team
>> about a process or system to modify the PMS standard that doesn't
>> directly involve the EAPI process currently.
>>
>> I've set the hard date for them for the sept 10th meeting and
>> this gives them 3 weeks to work on this so it should be no issue
>> for them to come to this. I'm expecting them to be able to have a
>> result by then."
>
> I asked Joshua to retract this request because he was basing it on
> the mistaken impression that profiles weren't EAPI controlled (the
> Council voted to put profiles under EAPI control a while ago).
> Unfortunately he hasn't responded, so instead I'll ask the Council
> to disregard this since between the EAPI mechanism and the way
> we've used previously of not introducing changes that will break
> older things (by not reusing names, and not requiring support
> except on EAPI change) we've already got the whole thing covered.
>
Let me address another point that I missed in my previous email.
We are not disputing that profiles/ fall under PMS. Instead, we're
just arguing that EAPI should be restricted to its intended purpose
"Ebuild API".

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / SPARC / KDE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkqsO/kACgkQcAWygvVEyAIGxgCfegzIuf4my9ANzl1kZZGPCEgY
ZagAnRa2TeRmIIKKaMjUQrIk9/jJEyrS
=TDrz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Andrew D Kirch]

Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
> Here's the agenda for our september 14th meeting (18 UTC), held on
> #gentoo-council
>
>
>
> 3. EAPI/PMS (30 Minutes)
>
>   3.1. A process to modify PMS standard that doesn't directly involve
>   the EAPI process.
>   As requested by "Joshua Jackson" <tsunam@tsunam.org> / User relations:
>      Required people: tsuname, ulm
>
> "Per bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273261 I'm requesting an
> AOB for the decision that was made by the PMS team about a process or
> system to modify the PMS standard that doesn't directly involve the EAPI
> process currently.
>
> I've set the hard date for them for the sept 10th meeting and this gives
> them 3 weeks to work on this so it should be no issue for them to come
> to this. I'm expecting them to be able to have a result by then."
>
>   3.2 EAPI / PMS comittee. If we do need/want one, vote on a structure:
> 	Required people: ulm
>
>     3.2.1  Either we form a new committee / working group for EAPI and  
>     PMS questions (more or less Calchan's proposal). I'd guess there   
>     should be one or two members from the council, plus someone from 
>     the PMS project, and a representative for each package manager.
>
>     3.2.2  In principle also the PMS project could play this role, but 
>     with its current membership of only three devs it is too weak. So
>     some relevant people (see above) would have to join. OTOH, there's
>     already a bugzie alias (pms-bugs), a mailing list (gentoo-pms) and
>     an IRC channel set up.
>
>     3.2.3  Something (completely) different.
>   
This failed to include USERREL's actions taken in:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=282157,
these include a request that the leadership in PMS change:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=282157#c16

"About the recurring issues involving PMS, the User Relations team decided to
make the following recommendation:

Its the opinion of the User Relations team that the Council should reconsider
the current Leadership in charge of the PMS Standards Working group. Its the
feeling of User Relations that interested parties in the PMS standard are being
hindered by communication issues on the process and procedures required to
implement changes.

For the User Relations team,
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto, Joshua Jackson and Homer Parker"

I would like to see a slight expansion in time for 3. (possibly 10 minutes) to address
this issue.



-- 
Andrew D Kirch
President
Trance Communications Corp.
317-436-1024

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1266 bytes --]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:45:48 -0400
Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
> Its the opinion of the User Relations team that the Council should
> reconsider the current Leadership in charge of the PMS Standards
> Working group. Its the feeling of User Relations that interested
> parties in the PMS standard are being hindered by communication
> issues on the process and procedures required to implement changes.

I agree. I'd like the Council to appoint a qualitied PMS leader who is
empowered to moderate posts to gentoo-dev@ from people who consistently
post FUD about EAPI and PMS related issues. I believe that doing so
will substantially reduce the amount of noise involved in the
discussion, and will enable us to have sensible PMS related discussions
without them being derailed by trolls. Also, it'll be harder for those
trolls to post nonsense like "PMS isn't for Portage" and "PMS is about
Exherbo, not Gentoo" if a Gentoo developer is prepared to step in and
address all the crap instead of leaving it to me...

I suggest asking any potential candidates to start by addressing bug
282470. That should give a good indication of how well they're going to
work with the people who do the grunt work on PMS.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Andrew D Kirch]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:45:48 -0400
> Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
>   
>> Its the opinion of the User Relations team that the Council should
>> reconsider the current Leadership in charge of the PMS Standards
>> Working group. Its the feeling of User Relations that interested
>> parties in the PMS standard are being hindered by communication
>> issues on the process and procedures required to implement changes.
>>     
>
> I suggest asking any potential candidates to start by addressing bug
> 282470. That should give a good indication of how well they're going to
> work with the people who do the grunt work on PMS

I'll happily take over PMS, I'll start by summarily closing that USERREL
bug with my newfound
PMS powers.  See, all we need is a bit of benevolent dictatorship...
wait, what?

-- 
Andrew D Kirch
President
Trance Communications Corp.
317-436-1024

Re: [gentoo-council] Agenda for September 14th meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 856 bytes --]

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 17:49:35 -0400
Andrew D Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
> > I suggest asking any potential candidates to start by addressing bug
> > 282470. That should give a good indication of how well they're
> > going to work with the people who do the grunt work on PMS
> 
> I'll happily take over PMS, I'll start by summarily closing that
> USERREL bug with my newfound
> PMS powers.  See, all we need is a bit of benevolent dictatorship...
> wait, what?

Whilst I appreciate the offer Andrew, I'd hope the Council would
appoint someone who has a long history of working with the PMS team and
who understands the processes involved and the implications of the
various kinds of changes that can be made. I'm afraid I find it hard to
see your qualifications for the role from your contributions thus far.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]