[gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Mike Frysinger]

this is your [belated] reminder of the December council meeting.
future reminders will not be late anymore ... we've proven that we cant
remember it so i've gone ahead and crontab-ed future reminders to go
out on the first :)

current agenda:
none ?!
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 587 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 +0000
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> this is your [belated] reminder of the December council meeting.
> future reminders will not be late anymore ... we've proven that we
> cant remember it so i've gone ahead and crontab-ed future reminders
> to go out on the first :)
> 
> current agenda:
decision on multi-hash for Manifest1

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 705 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 +0000
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> this is your [belated] reminder of the December council meeting.
> future reminders will not be late anymore ... we've proven that we
> cant remember it so i've gone ahead and crontab-ed future reminders
> to go out on the first :)

Would be nice if you'd inform -dev when you change the meeting date
again in the future, esp. when both the channel and the council project
page still refer to the old date.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:24:57PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 +0000
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > this is your [belated] reminder of the December council meeting.
> > future reminders will not be late anymore ... we've proven that we
> > cant remember it so i've gone ahead and crontab-ed future reminders
> > to go out on the first :)
> 
> Would be nice if you'd inform -dev when you change the meeting date
> again in the future, esp. when both the channel and the council project
> page still refer to the old date.

the upcoming date is supposed to be 'tentative' which the council page
says right above 'Dec 8th'

but in the future we'll label future meetings dates with 'tentative'
so there isnt any confusion
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Sven Vermeulen]

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

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:56:37AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > current agenda:
> decision on multi-hash for Manifest1

You mean the Manifest2 GLEP, or did I miss something?

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] December Council Meeting

[Mike Frysinger]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:24:57PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 +0000
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > this is your [belated] reminder of the December council meeting.
> > future reminders will not be late anymore ... we've proven that we
> > cant remember it so i've gone ahead and crontab-ed future reminders
> > to go out on the first :)
> 
> Would be nice if you'd inform -dev when you change the meeting date
> again in the future, esp. when both the channel and the council project
> page still refer to the old date.

yet another reminder ...

council meeting: Dec 15th

current agenda:
portage hash funk decision asked by Marius

web page status:
UPDATED
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Marius Mauch]

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:56:37AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> 
>>>current agenda:
>>
>>decision on multi-hash for Manifest1
> 
> 
> You mean the Manifest2 GLEP, or did I miss something?

No, I mean the mail I sent to council@ a few weeks ago (relating to an 
earier -dev thread).

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 474 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:15:15AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> No, I mean the mail I sent to council@ a few weeks ago (relating to an 
> earier -dev thread).

Oh, the tree signing stuff. Got it. Sorry. 

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] December Council Meeting

[Marius Mauch]

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:15:15AM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> 
>>No, I mean the mail I sent to council@ a few weeks ago (relating to an 
>>earier -dev thread).
> 
> 
> Oh, the tree signing stuff. Got it. Sorry. 

Nope, not the signing stuff ;)
But some update on that would be nice too. I'm talking about this mail:

Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 21:13:35 +0200
From: Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>
To:  council@gentoo.org
Subject: Decision on multi hash support required

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 345 bytes --]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| current agenda:
| none ?!

How about a decision on what's to be done to fix the GLEP 41 mess?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Dan Meltzer]

On 12/10/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | current agenda:
> | none ?!
>
> How about a decision on what's to be done to fix the GLEP 41 mess?

glep 41 was approved... people ranted, it fell off the maps... I don't
see where the mess is, its between infra and the glep authors, who
seem to have fallen off the screen for at least a little while

>
> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1013 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:07:19 -0500 Dan Meltzer
<parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com> wrote:
| On 12/10/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
| > wrote:
| > | current agenda:
| > | none ?!
| >
| > How about a decision on what's to be done to fix the GLEP 41 mess?
| 
| glep 41 was approved... people ranted, it fell off the maps... I don't
| see where the mess is, its between infra and the glep authors, who
| seem to have fallen off the screen for at least a little while

GLEP 41 was approved when it should not have been, people pointed out a
huge number of flaws demonstrating its unimplementability and it's not
going to go anywhere in its current state. It's back to the council to
either unaccept it or explain how they intend to make pigs fly.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 06:21:20PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:07:19 -0500 Dan Meltzer
> <parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com> wrote:
> | On 12/10/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | > On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:49:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> | > wrote:
> | > | current agenda:
> | > | none ?!
> | >
> | > How about a decision on what's to be done to fix the GLEP 41 mess?
> | 
> | glep 41 was approved... people ranted, it fell off the maps... I don't
> | see where the mess is, its between infra and the glep authors, who
> | seem to have fallen off the screen for at least a little while
> 
> GLEP 41 was approved when it should not have been, people pointed out a
> huge number of flaws demonstrating its unimplementability and it's not
> going to go anywhere in its current state. It's back to the council to
> either unaccept it or explain how they intend to make pigs fly.

there's no point in bringing it back to the council in the current form
as we're just likely to approve it again
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:40:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| there's no point in bringing it back to the council in the current
| form as we're just likely to approve it again

So the council is aware of all the shortcomings and impossibilities
with the GLEP in its current form, and would still approve it?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:05:40PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:40:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | there's no point in bringing it back to the council in the current
> | form as we're just likely to approve it again
> 
> So the council is aware of all the shortcomings and impossibilities
> with the GLEP in its current form, and would still approve it?

we were happy with the state of things with the GLEP in its current
state.  if others are not, then fix the GLEP and send it back.  theres
no point in trying to get the council to "fix" the GLEP when we were
for the current changes (such as the e-mail domains idea).
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2438 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 08:05:40PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> 
>>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:40:59 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
>>wrote:
>>| there's no point in bringing it back to the council in the current
>>| form as we're just likely to approve it again
>>
>>So the council is aware of all the shortcomings and impossibilities
>>with the GLEP in its current form, and would still approve it?
> 
> 
> we were happy with the state of things with the GLEP in its current
> state.  if others are not, then fix the GLEP and send it back.  theres
> no point in trying to get the council to "fix" the GLEP when we were
> for the current changes (such as the e-mail domains idea).

You're happy even after all the discussion and points we made AFTER it
was voted upon? I still find it outrageous that it went through with the
revised GLEP being posted a day BEFORE the vote.

I think we'll be able to work out the anonymous CVS access soon, however
it will not be implemented as stated in the GLEP. It will be synced
every 30 minutes and no user accounts will be issued. The ATs that
responded on the list felt that this would be an 'OK' route to go. I do
not want to add 50-100 people onto our primary CVS server for the only
reason of having anonymous cvs access.

On the other point, infra has serious issues trying to manage a
subdomain for email addresses.  This part of the GLEP we cannot
implement and we ask the GLEP authors to come up with a better solution.
Either we give them an alias that recruiters can manage, or we don't do
anything. The logistical headache of managing moving people around is
too much of a hassle for us to deal with.

Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it
had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead
of one day. I do not feel that improper planning on their part should
have let the GLEP get approved in the first place. No matter if all the
council members thought it was ok, not giving any of the other
developers proper time to respond to the GLEP is not a good decision.
That's just asking me to scream 'cabal!' ;-) (even though I know that
wasn't the case at all).

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Mike Frysinger]

On Saturday 10 December 2005 18:13, Lance Albertson wrote:
> I think we'll be able to work out the anonymous CVS access soon, however
> it will not be implemented as stated in the GLEP.

exact spec in the GLEP was more of an idea ... anon cvs is available -> OK

> On the other point, infra has serious issues trying to manage a
> subdomain for email addresses.  This part of the GLEP we cannot
> implement and we ask the GLEP authors to come up with a better solution.
> Either we give them an alias that recruiters can manage, or we don't do
> anything. The logistical headache of managing moving people around is
> too much of a hassle for us to deal with.

i would still vote for the subdomain e-mail addresses

> Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it
> had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead
> of one day.

harping on this old point solves nothing.  we've already established quite 
clearly that this will not happen again in the future.
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Ned Ludd]

On Sun, 2005-12-11 at 22:43 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 10 December 2005 18:13, Lance Albertson wrote:
> > I think we'll be able to work out the anonymous CVS access soon, however
> > it will not be implemented as stated in the GLEP.
> 
> exact spec in the GLEP was more of an idea ... anon cvs is available -> OK
> 
> > On the other point, infra has serious issues trying to manage a
> > subdomain for email addresses.  This part of the GLEP we cannot
> > implement and we ask the GLEP authors to come up with a better solution.
> > Either we give them an alias that recruiters can manage, or we don't do
> > anything. The logistical headache of managing moving people around is
> > too much of a hassle for us to deal with.
> 
> i would still vote for the subdomain e-mail addresses

from an infra POV vs a council POV I would say here is what we can do
right away to solve this. Arch testers will get added to an alias that 
fordwards to the users normal email address. The aliases will be 
maintained by the arch testing leads. The arch testers will have access
via the anoncvs repo when that is setup. If the arch testing lead fails
to keep his/her aliases up2date (excessive bounces, stale AT's etc..) 
than they lose g+w rights to maintain the alias.


> > Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it
> > had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead
> > of one day.
> 
> harping on this old point solves nothing.  we've already established quite 
> clearly that this will not happen again in the future.
> -mike
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1553 bytes --]

Ned Ludd wrote:

> from an infra POV vs a council POV I would say here is what we can do
> right away to solve this. Arch testers will get added to an alias that 
> fordwards to the users normal email address. The aliases will be 
> maintained by the arch testing leads. The arch testers will have access
> via the anoncvs repo when that is setup. If the arch testing lead fails
> to keep his/her aliases up2date (excessive bounces, stale AT's etc..) 
> than they lose g+w rights to maintain the alias.

Actually, if this gets to the point where those leads have 100+ ATs to
watch out for, I'd rather put the load of 'renewing' their alias on the
AT themselves. The basic idea is, make them 'renew' their alias every 6
months via some php app (or whatever we come up with). A reminder could
be sent out a month in advance. If they fail to update their renewal,
their alias will expire and the lead will get a notification of that
expiration. To me, if the ATs want to stick around, they should put
forth the effort of keeping their info up to date.

I know that devrel is having a hard enough time keeping up with
developer staleness, and to me this is the 'simplest' solution to that
problem. If they can't keep up with  doing a simple renewal every 6 mo,
then they don't have enough time to be an AT in my mind.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Stephen P. Becker]

>>Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it
>>had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead
>>of one day.
> 
> 
> harping on this old point solves nothing.  we've already established quite 
> clearly that this will not happen again in the future.

Technically, no.  It does, however, point out that the council basically 
screwed infra up the rear without using lube, and then told infra, "we 
don't care, we won't discuss changing it, and we would approve it again!"

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 08:25:52AM -0500, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> >>Of course, all of these points would have made it into the GLEP *if* it
> >>had been posted with plenty of time for people to comment on it instead
> >>of one day.
> >
> >
> >harping on this old point solves nothing.  we've already established quite 
> >clearly that this will not happen again in the future.
> 
> Technically, no.  It does, however, point out that the council basically 
> screwed infra up the rear without using lube, and then told infra, "we 
> don't care, we won't discuss changing it, and we would approve it again!"

it's really more up to the GLEP author(s) and infra to find the middle
ground as to what's feasible.  if none can be found, then yes, i would
whip out my virtual wang and take it to infra again with the subdomain
idea (i would however offer lube; more for myself though).
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Stephen P. Becker]

> it's really more up to the GLEP author(s) and infra to find the middle
> ground as to what's feasible.  if none can be found, then yes, i would
> whip out my virtual wang and take it to infra again with the subdomain
> idea (i would however offer lube; more for myself though).

I'm not sure the GLEP author(s) have much say here, especially 
considering the lack of discussion, which is what Lance has been trying 
to say all along.  It is one thing to tell infra they need to make pigs 
fly, and completely another for them to achieve this.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] December Council Meeting

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 753 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:06:04 +0000 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| it's really more up to the GLEP author(s) and infra to find the middle
| ground as to what's feasible.  if none can be found, then yes, i would
| whip out my virtual wang and take it to infra again with the subdomain
| idea (i would however offer lube; more for myself though).

You're assuming that the GLEP authors are competent and willing to
listen to feedback. When this isn't the case, it's the council's job to
stand there and say "go away and don't come back until you do this
properly".

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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