[gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 708 bytes --]

The Council will have its next meeting on the 26th of July, 2010.

The meeting will begin at 1900 UTC.

You may use [0] to find out the correct time in your timezone.

Here's a draft list of the meeting topics so far:
* vote on adding --as-needed to the default profile's LDFLAGS
* discuss (and maybe vote on) required-use
        http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/required-use.html

A detailed agenda will follow in a few days.

If you have anything you'd like to push to the council for
discussion, feel free to reply to this thread.

[0] meeting time in your timezone:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~wired/localtime.php?time=1900
-- 
Alex Alexander :: wired
Gentoo Developer
www.linuxized.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

On 17-07-2010 23:33, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 01:05:02AM +0300, Alex Alexander wrote:
>> The Council will have its next meeting on the 26th of July, 2010.
>>
>> The meeting will begin at 1900 UTC.
>>
>> You may use [0] to find out the correct time in your timezone.
>>
>> Here's a draft list of the meeting topics so far:
>> * vote on adding --as-needed to the default profile's LDFLAGS
>> * discuss (and maybe vote on) required-use
>>         http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/required-use.html
> 
> Adding eclass removal policy to the agenda; it directly affects devs, 
> and the previous policy (imo) is misinterpretted slightly.
> 
> Specifically, 06/01/08, portage 2.1.4.4 went stable; this had env 
> saving/restoration support.  The original council decree was that 
> eclasses had to sit for 2 years- I very strongly posit that the time 
> period there should've been bound to portage env capabilities rather 
> than eclass timelines.
> 
> Reasoning is simple enough- w/ a proper PM, eclasses can be 
> removed/modified at will without affecting binpkgs/installed pkgs.
> 
> So the question I'd like on the agenda is basically if there is any 
> reason to preserve the decree- if not, punt it.

I would like to have the council discuss this issue again. We should
probably also address the issue of EAPI changes in eclasses that was
subject of a recent thread in the dev ml.

> ~harring

Let's add to the agenda the use of the invalid DEPEND atom
"EAPI_TOO_OLD" instead of calling die in global scope on eclasses.

I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
ML do we want to use?

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=N+f/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
> Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
> ML do we want to use?

IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this.
Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda.

Any topic that needs further discussion before a meeting should be moved
to its own -dev thread anyway.
-- 
Alex Alexander :: wired
Gentoo Developer
www.linuxized.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 716 bytes --]

On Saturday, July 17, 2010 23:47:39 Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
> > Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
> > ML do we want to use?
> 
> IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this.
> Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda.
> 
> Any topic that needs further discussion before a meeting should be moved
> to its own -dev thread anyway.

reality is that this probably wont work in practice.  cc-ing both lists isnt a 
problem and lets devs know that the council is indeed doing work.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]

On 07/18/2010 07:42 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday, July 17, 2010 23:47:39 Alex Alexander wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>>> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
>>> Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
>>> ML do we want to use?
>>
>> IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this.
>> Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda.
>>
>> Any topic that needs further discussion before a meeting should be moved
>> to its own -dev thread anyway.
> 
> reality is that this probably wont work in practice.  cc-ing both lists isnt a 
> problem and lets devs know that the council is indeed doing work.
> -mike

Cross posting is annoying if you are on both lists and can lead to the
fragmentation of the thread. There should only be one list (+
dev-announce for the initial post if needed).

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1065 bytes --]

On Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:20:57 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 07/18/2010 07:42 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 17, 2010 23:47:39 Alex Alexander wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. wrote:
> >>> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
> >>> Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
> >>> ML do we want to use?
> >> 
> >> IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this.
> >> Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda.
> >> 
> >> Any topic that needs further discussion before a meeting should be moved
> >> to its own -dev thread anyway.
> > 
> > reality is that this probably wont work in practice.  cc-ing both lists
> > isnt a problem and lets devs know that the council is indeed doing work.
> 
> Cross posting is annoying if you are on both lists and can lead to the
> fragmentation of the thread.

get a real mail client then.  any modern one worth using handles duplicate 
mail ids just fine.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1395 bytes --]

On 07/18/2010 10:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:20:57 Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 07/18/2010 07:42 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Saturday, July 17, 2010 23:47:39 Alex Alexander wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. wrote:
>>>>> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
>>>>> Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
>>>>> ML do we want to use?
>>>>
>>>> IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this.
>>>> Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Any topic that needs further discussion before a meeting should be moved
>>>> to its own -dev thread anyway.
>>>
>>> reality is that this probably wont work in practice.  cc-ing both lists
>>> isnt a problem and lets devs know that the council is indeed doing work.
>>
>> Cross posting is annoying if you are on both lists and can lead to the
>> fragmentation of the thread.
> 
> get a real mail client then.  any modern one worth using handles duplicate 
> mail ids just fine.
> -mike

Yes the first can be worked around (although archives still have
multiple copies). The second is a worse problem in my opinion. The
current rules are not to cross post. If you are not happy with them you
should start a thread on changing them.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1617 bytes --]

On Sunday, July 18, 2010 15:51:11 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 07/18/2010 10:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 18, 2010 11:20:57 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> On 07/18/2010 07:42 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, July 17, 2010 23:47:39 Alex Alexander wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. wrote:
> >>>>> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls
> >>>>> as Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter.
> >>>>> Which ML do we want to use?
> >>>> 
> >>>> IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this.
> >>>> Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Any topic that needs further discussion before a meeting should be
> >>>> moved to its own -dev thread anyway.
> >>> 
> >>> reality is that this probably wont work in practice.  cc-ing both lists
> >>> isnt a problem and lets devs know that the council is indeed doing
> >>> work.
> >> 
> >> Cross posting is annoying if you are on both lists and can lead to the
> >> fragmentation of the thread.
> > 
> > get a real mail client then.  any modern one worth using handles
> > duplicate mail ids just fine.
> 
> Yes the first can be worked around (although archives still have
> multiple copies). The second is a worse problem in my opinion. The
> current rules are not to cross post. If you are not happy with them you
> should start a thread on changing them.

there was a debate on the issue, but there was never a clear edict on it.  so 
dont quote the situation as if there was.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 694 bytes --]

On 07/18/2010 06:47 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
>> Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
>> ML do we want to use?
> 
> IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this.
> Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda.
> 

I have advocated shutting down this mailing list because usually the
threads could as well be handled on gentoo-dev or gentoo-project (would
start to have more use for gentoo-project). Maybe this council is
supportive of the idea.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

On 07/18/2010 11:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> 
> there was a debate on the issue, but there was never a clear edict on it.  so 
> dont quote the situation as if there was.
> -mike

Currently it's only hinted by http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html that's
linked from http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml but of course
getting the link there is my doing. I will start a thread on
gentoo-project so we can add a clear statement to the FAQ.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1436 bytes --]

On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:06:15PM +0300, Petteri RRRty wrote:
> On 07/18/2010 06:47 AM, Alex Alexander wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 03:13:22AM +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> >> I cross-posted this email to both gentoo-dev and gentoo-council mls as
> >> Brian used the former and Alex started this thread in the latter. Which
> >> ML do we want to use?
> > 
> > IMO we should be using gentoo-council@lists.g.o for this.
> > Afterall, we are talking about the Council meeting agenda.
> > 
> 
> I have advocated shutting down this mailing list because usually the
> threads could as well be handled on gentoo-dev or gentoo-project (would
> start to have more use for gentoo-project). Maybe this council is
> supportive of the idea.

From my standpoint, -project was created purely to bannish threads of 
pointless bickering to; -council theoretically *should* serve a 
purpose, but the cross posting crap really limits that.

I'm well aware there are RFC's out there, and some folk w/ strong 
opinions that cross posting is the path to hell- that said it's *very* 
useful for getting folks attention, keeping people in the loop.

If there is to be no cross posting, then -council ml is kind of 
worthless.  As for -project... from a growth standpoint we probably 
need to keep the two seperate although I personally do not find that 
divide to be useful.

My 2 cents, as it were.
~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 410 bytes --]

On 07/18/2010 11:24 PM, Brian Harring wrote:

> 
> I'm well aware there are RFC's out there, and some folk w/ strong 
> opinions that cross posting is the path to hell- that said it's *very* 
> useful for getting folks attention, keeping people in the loop.
> 

For getting attention we have gentoo-dev-announce. Is there something
you consider problematic with that approach?

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-council] Upcoming Council meeting on July 26th, 1900 UTC

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 527 bytes --]

On Sunday, July 18, 2010 16:18:36 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 07/18/2010 11:02 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > there was a debate on the issue, but there was never a clear edict on it.
> >  so dont quote the situation as if there was.
> 
> Currently it's only hinted by http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html that's
> linked from http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/lists.xml but of course
> getting the link there is my doing. I will start a thread on
> gentoo-project so we can add a clear statement to the FAQ.

thanks
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]