[gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Thierry Carrez]

Reminder:

Next council meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. Deadline to submit
discussion items and/or GLEPs is set to Tuesday, October 11th, 1900 UTC.

-- 
Thierry Carrez (Koon)
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 446 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 14:33 +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Reminder:
> 
> Next council meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. Deadline to submit
> discussion items and/or GLEPs is set to Tuesday, October 11th, 1900 UTC.

I'd like to see the council fight it out over^W^W^W^Wdiscuss which
logger should be the default.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 649 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 08:00:57AM CDT]
> I'd like to see the council fight it out over^W^W^W^Wdiscuss which
> logger should be the default.

Gads, what a horrible idea (in my opinion, anyway). Surely we can come
to some sort of decision on this issue without involving the council?
My suggestion: leave it up to base-system to choose a default,
and if it differs from what's in the docs then it would be nice if
they'd let the docs folks know.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 792 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:00:57AM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'd like to see the council fight it out over^W^W^W^Wdiscuss which
> logger should be the default.

*lol*

That gave me a good laugh. Oh well, anyway. What's "default"? As in
"recommended by the documentation"? Or "installed as dependency of
virtual/logger"?

If the former: hump the GDP.
If the latter: hump the baselayout team.

If both, try humping one of them at a time. Doing both just makes funny
pictures, but doesn't give much results.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
  Gentoo Foundation Trustee          |  http://foundation.gentoo.org
  Gentoo Documentation Project Lead  |  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp
  Gentoo Council Member  

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 363 bytes --]

On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 17:54 Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> That gave me a good laugh. Oh well, anyway. What's "default"? As in
> "recommended by the documentation"? Or "installed as dependency of
> virtual/logger"?

Both of that should be equal, but they aren't, see another -dev ML thread.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1254 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 17:54 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> That gave me a good laugh. Oh well, anyway. What's "default"? As in
> "recommended by the documentation"? Or "installed as dependency of
> virtual/logger"?

The documentation recommends syslog-ng, as that was requested by Release
Engineering for 2005.0's release.

As for virtual/logger, it installs metalog.

I think the point is that they should match.  It was also quite obvious
after the comments on the thread, that this is one of those things that
probably won't ever be solved by consensus.  Is this not the exact thing
that the Council is there to do, to make decisions that we cannot agree
on ourselves?

Yes, it is a minor decision.  No, it doesn't really matter much.  The
main thrust of the whole thing is that they should be equal.

> If the former: hump the GDP.

I already did.  You guys changed it to syslog-ng a while back.

> If the latter: hump the baselayout team.

What does baselayout have to do with this?

> If both, try humping one of them at a time. Doing both just makes funny
> pictures, but doesn't give much results.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 540 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 05:10:28PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > If the latter: hump the baselayout team.
> 
> What does baselayout have to do with this?

They're to blame for about everything.

Nah, my bad. Of course I meant those responsible for the profiles.

Wkr,
      Sven Vermeulen

-- 
  Gentoo Foundation Trustee          |  http://foundation.gentoo.org
  Gentoo Documentation Project Lead  |  http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp
  Gentoo Council Member  

  The Gentoo Project   <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Roy Marples]

On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 18:35 +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 05:10:28PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > If the latter: hump the baselayout team.
> > 
> > What does baselayout have to do with this?
> 
> They're to blame for about everything.

That's ok, we have thick skin.

Probably because everyone wants to hump us :P

Roy

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1467 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote: [Tue Oct 11 2005, 04:10:28PM CDT]
> I think the point is that they should match.  It was also quite obvious
> after the comments on the thread, that this is one of those things that
> probably won't ever be solved by consensus.  Is this not the exact thing
> that the Council is there to do, to make decisions that we cannot agree
> on ourselves?

Um, sort of?  The council exists mainly to make cross-project decisions.
I suppose that this issue counts, since it involves both the baselayout
folks and the GDP, but the GDP doesn't really care which logger is
installed by virtual/logger, as long as they know when it changes.  As
such, I would say that it's up to the package maintainers (base-system)
to make that decision.  Oh, I suppose that if base-system were to choose
poorly, and large numbers of devs were upset, then the council would get
involved, but this issue just doesn't seem that contentious.  I've heard
lots of people state that they would rather have logger "foo" as the
default, but those same people will just shrug and install their
favorite if foo isn't chosen.  It's just not that big a deal.
If the council chooses to address this issue I'm hardly going to
complain, but I don't really think that it's worth their time.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Donnie Berkholz]

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

Grant Goodyear wrote:
| Um, sort of?  The council exists mainly to make cross-project decisions.
| I suppose that this issue counts, since it involves both the baselayout
| folks and the GDP, but the GDP doesn't really care which logger is
| installed by virtual/logger, as long as they know when it changes.  As
| such, I would say that it's up to the package maintainers (base-system)
| to make that decision.  Oh, I suppose that if base-system were to choose
| poorly, and large numbers of devs were upset, then the council would get
| involved, but this issue just doesn't seem that contentious.  I've heard
| lots of people state that they would rather have logger "foo" as the
| default, but those same people will just shrug and install their
| favorite if foo isn't chosen.  It's just not that big a deal.
| If the council chooses to address this issue I'm hardly going to
| complain, but I don't really think that it's worth their time.

Somebody already pointed this out, but baselayout has nothing to do with
the profiles, where virtual/logger is specified. That's the base system
project, and in particular the arch teams. Although it's not clear who
controls the top-level profiles, since it could be either releng or base
the way I see it.

Thanks,
Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDTUr1XVaO67S1rtsRAgnvAJ9hCzay9NmGdojgzaW9cQNGcqXDhQCeP+Lk
0I79vRe3r6wamAd47rDdAHI=
=Kjlq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Marcin Kryczek]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1008 bytes --]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 02:33:45PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Reminder:
> 
> Next council meeting is scheduled for this Thursday. Deadline to submit
> discussion items and/or GLEPs is set to Tuesday, October 11th, 1900 UTC.
> 
someone (sorry - but i can't remind who exactly and i can't find that 
mail) mentiond it'd be nice to have some ~weekly summary of important 
(for developers) decisions made in community. 
i think it's good idea, becouse there's often just to many mails to read
(well - we can fix some bugs in that time;>) and we can miss something 
we certainly shouldn't:|
council could decide if it's worth to try and put some herd (GDP?) to be 
responsible for it.

-- 
   . . Marcin Kryczek  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .RLU: #316599 . .
  . . Gentoo Linux Developer.  .  .  .  .  .  .mail: mkay@gentoo.org . .  
 . .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .PGP: 0xD6CFCCF1 . .    
. Key Fingerprint: EE8F E832 54E4 2456 C582 5B32 E10F EEDC D6CF CCF1 . 


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 914 bytes --]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:36:36 +0200 Marcin Kryczek <mkay@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| someone (sorry - but i can't remind who exactly and i can't find that 
| mail) mentiond it'd be nice to have some ~weekly summary of important 
| (for developers) decisions made in community. 
| i think it's good idea, becouse there's often just to many mails to
| read (well - we can fix some bugs in that time;>) and we can miss
| something we certainly shouldn't:|
| council could decide if it's worth to try and put some herd (GDP?) to
| be responsible for it.

Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
with the GLEP) *before* pushing things to the council?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 790 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 04:43:19PM CDT]
> Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
> discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
> with the GLEP) *before* pushing things to the council?

I disagree, but only very slightly.  I never expected everybody to be
happy before a GLEP is voted upon, but a GLEP should address areas of
controversy and either incorporate the new ideas or explain why the
authors do not wish to do so.  In this way the folks voting on the GLEP
are able to make a more informed decision.  See GLEP 40 for an example.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 953 bytes --]

Grant Goodyear wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 05:22:07PM CDT]
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 04:43:19PM CDT]
> > Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
> > discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
> > with the GLEP) *before* pushing things to the council?
> 
> I disagree, but only very slightly.  I never expected everybody to be
> happy before a GLEP is voted upon, but a GLEP should address areas of
> controversy and either incorporate the new ideas or explain why the
> authors do not wish to do so.  In this way the folks voting on the GLEP
> are able to make a more informed decision.  See GLEP 40 for an example.

I should add that the iterative process, however, _is_ exactly what I
envisioned.

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1140 bytes --]

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:22:07 -0500 Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 04:43:19PM CDT]
| > Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
| > discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
| > with the GLEP) *before* pushing things to the council?
| 
| I disagree, but only very slightly.  I never expected everybody to be
| happy before a GLEP is voted upon, but a GLEP should address areas of
| controversy and either incorporate the new ideas or explain why the
| authors do not wish to do so.  In this way the folks voting on the
| GLEP are able to make a more informed decision.  See GLEP 40 for an
| example.

I see the number of objections raised regarding GLEP 40 as a sign that
it needs rewriting, not a sign that it should be pushed to voting...
Perhaps making everyone happy is impossible, but equally there
shouldn't be huge amounts of unhappiness...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote: [Mon Oct 10 2005, 05:40:37PM CDT]
> I see the number of objections raised regarding GLEP 40 as a sign that
> it needs rewriting, not a sign that it should be pushed to voting...
> Perhaps making everyone happy is impossible, but equally there
> shouldn't be huge amounts of unhappiness...

Yep, I'll certainly agree w/ that (except that it's GLEP 41, not 40, I
believe).

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Thierry Carrez]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:36:36 +0200 Marcin Kryczek <mkay@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | someone (sorry - but i can't remind who exactly and i can't find that 
> | mail) mentiond it'd be nice to have some ~weekly summary of important 
> | (for developers) decisions made in community. 
> | i think it's good idea, becouse there's often just to many mails to
> | read (well - we can fix some bugs in that time;>) and we can miss
> | something we certainly shouldn't:|
> | council could decide if it's worth to try and put some herd (GDP?) to
> | be responsible for it.

There are many ways to fix this. Forcing some group to do it is not a
solution. One work in progress (that will be proposed in a GLEP) is to
change the current ML system to add a dev announcement list that would
let everyone know of current discussions and decisions without requiring
to follow endless threads. That may cut the "required reading"
sufficiently so that a weekly summary is not necessary.

> Isn't the idea that someone writes out a draft GLEP and gets it
> discussed on -dev (and repeats said process until everyone is happy
> with the GLEP) *before* pushing things to the council?

It's certainly the idea. It should be at least put into words and
discussed in the community before being voted on.

-- 
Koon
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On Monday 10 of October 2005 23:36 Marcin Kryczek wrote:
> council could decide if it's worth to try and put some herd (GDP?) to be
> responsible for it.

Uh, and what *exactly* do you mean by "be responsible for it"? I mean, are we 
supposed to watch every possible communication channel or would the people 
involved submit bugs to us about newly made decisions?

Anyway, what about some weekly message to -core?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 915 bytes --]


11.10.2005, 10:39:56, Jan Kundrát wrote:

> On Monday 10 of October 2005 23:36 Marcin Kryczek wrote:
>> council could decide if it's worth to try and put some herd (GDP?) to be
>> responsible for it.

> Uh, and what *exactly* do you mean by "be responsible for it"? I mean, are we
> supposed to watch every possible communication channel or would the people 
> involved submit bugs to us about newly made decisions?

> Anyway, what about some weekly message to -core?

> Cheers,
> -jkt


Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
flames...

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 379 bytes --]

On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:47 Jakub Moc wrote:
> Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
> would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
> flames...

Nothing, of course. But how would you prevent flames from happening on a new 
list? :-)

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 456 bytes --]


11.10.2005, 10:52:35, Jan Kundrát wrote:

> On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:47 Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
>> would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
>> flames...

> Nothing, of course. But how would you prevent flames from happening on a new 
> list? :-)

> Cheers,
> -jkt

Hint: read-only ml? :=)


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Marius Mauch]

Jakub Moc wrote:
> 11.10.2005, 10:52:35, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:47 Jakub Moc wrote:
>>
>>>Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or whatever it
>>>would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due to the constant
>>>flames...
> 
> 
>>Nothing, of course. But how would you prevent flames from happening on a new 
>>list? :-)
> 
> 
>>Cheers,
>>-jkt
> 
> Hint: read-only ml? :=)

Bad idea, we have that already with -announce (only a handful of people 
can post there IIRC). Better let Reply-To and similar headers point back 
to -core or -dev (and/or reject any messages with present In-Reply-To 
headers).

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 179 bytes --]

On Tuesday 11 of October 2005 10:55 Jakub Moc wrote:
> Hint: read-only ml? :=)

And who will submit the news?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:47:08 +0200 Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
| Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or
| whatever it would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due
| to the constant flames...

The problem is that no-one has put together a proper specification for
it yet.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council meeting Thursday October 13th

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 802 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 12:32 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:47:08 +0200 Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | Bleh, what's wrong w/ the idea to create gentoo-dev-annouce or
> | whatever it would be called? Many people gave up on reading -core due
> | to the constant flames...
> 
> The problem is that no-one has put together a proper specification for
> it yet.

There's actually a group of us working on this.  If you're interested in
helping out, feel free to shoot me an email.  I'm working on getting a
group together to brainstorm up ideas to introduce a GLEP that makes
things a bit easier on developers by reducing the required reading.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]