[gentoo-dev] April Council meeting summary

[gentoo-dev] April Council meeting summary

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2447 bytes --]

here is a summary of this month's meeting.  people seem to think that the CoC 
is set in stone now when in reality it is not ... feel free to hilite 
anything you feel wasnt addressed in the previous discussion or anything new 
you've thought of (i went through the previous threads and tried to distill 
out things that were missed, but i cant catch it all).

CoC:
	- amne has been doing a good job putting the group together
	- ask proctors to address these two issues for next meeting:
		- add a "mission" statement
		- fix wording to have a positive spin
sync Social Contract with Gentoo Foundation (external entities):
	- trustees will review the statement to clarify things and then
	  we'll look again at syncing
documentation for mail servers:
	- they are supposed to be finished in terms of content
	- wolf will look at getting them actually committed
PMS:
	- current status looks good in getting issues resolved
	- should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting
	- let the devs sort out the todo as the current work flow seems
	  to be getting things done finally
splitting gentoo-dev mailing lists:
	- no real favorable backing for this
	- people dont like -dev because of the crap, splitting the lists
	  will just move the crap else where, not really solving anything
	- let proctors do their thing and if need be, review this again
limiting of council powers:
	- doesnt seem to be real backing for this from dev community or
	  the council itself
	- if a majority of developers are truly upset/disturbed by a
	  council decision, it should show easily
	- if you dont like a council member, dont vote for them next time
moving gentoo-core to public archives:
	- many people dislike this moving forward
	- use -dev over -core for most things
	- not going to happen at this time
	- look into getting a dev-only archive finally
surveys:
	- robbat2 will look at getting user/dev surveys in place after the
	  release of 2007.0
	- probably try and take fresh surveys after each bi-annual release
	  from now on to see if we're meeting many of users' desires
new metastructure proposal:
	- doesnt seem to address any of the problems it proposes to
	- a large majority of developers and users prefer the single tree
	  development style that Gentoo has versus many smaller trees

full log at the normal place:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070412.txt
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] April Council meeting summary

[galevsky]

Very good job.

2007/4/13, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>:
> here is a summary of this month's meeting.  people seem to think that the CoC
> is set in stone now when in reality it is not ... feel free to hilite
> anything you feel wasnt addressed in the previous discussion or anything new
> you've thought of (i went through the previous threads and tried to distill
> out things that were missed, but i cant catch it all).
>
> CoC:
>         - amne has been doing a good job putting the group together
>         - ask proctors to address these two issues for next meeting:
>                 - add a "mission" statement
>                 - fix wording to have a positive spin
> sync Social Contract with Gentoo Foundation (external entities):
>         - trustees will review the statement to clarify things and then
>           we'll look again at syncing
> documentation for mail servers:
>         - they are supposed to be finished in terms of content
>         - wolf will look at getting them actually committed
> PMS:
>         - current status looks good in getting issues resolved
>         - should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting
>         - let the devs sort out the todo as the current work flow seems
>           to be getting things done finally
> splitting gentoo-dev mailing lists:
>         - no real favorable backing for this
>         - people dont like -dev because of the crap, splitting the lists
>           will just move the crap else where, not really solving anything
>         - let proctors do their thing and if need be, review this again
> limiting of council powers:
>         - doesnt seem to be real backing for this from dev community or
>           the council itself
>         - if a majority of developers are truly upset/disturbed by a
>           council decision, it should show easily
>         - if you dont like a council member, dont vote for them next time
> moving gentoo-core to public archives:
>         - many people dislike this moving forward
>         - use -dev over -core for most things
>         - not going to happen at this time
>         - look into getting a dev-only archive finally
> surveys:
>         - robbat2 will look at getting user/dev surveys in place after the
>           release of 2007.0
>         - probably try and take fresh surveys after each bi-annual release
>           from now on to see if we're meeting many of users' desires
> new metastructure proposal:
>         - doesnt seem to address any of the problems it proposes to
>         - a large majority of developers and users prefer the single tree
>           development style that Gentoo has versus many smaller trees
>
> full log at the normal place:
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20070412.txt
> -mike
>
>
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] April Council meeting summary

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 425 bytes --]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:45:13 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> PMS:
> 	- should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting

What is the justification for making this change? It's already
inconvenient enough having to have someone else make bugzilla changes
for me on PMS bugs that I didn't submit; what reason is there for
extending this annoyance to the source too?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] April Council meeting summary

[Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 18:45:13 -0400
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>   
>> PMS:
>> 	- should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting
>>     
>
> What is the justification for making this change? It's already
> inconvenient enough having to have someone else make bugzilla changes
> for me on PMS bugs that I didn't submit; what reason is there for
> extending this annoyance to the source too?
>
>   
I'd say Ciaran has to have write access to any such repository,
as one of the main contributors.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: April Council meeting summary

[Steve Long]

Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> I'd say Ciaran has to have write access to any such repository,
> as one of the main contributors.
> 
Face it, he's never going to get write access to gentoo infra. The best
gentoo can give him is access via spb, who has made it clear he'll simply
be pulling in whatever ciaran commits. What is the issue?

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: April Council meeting summary

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1078 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:58:52 +0100
Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> PMS:
> >> - should be up and running on Gentoo infra by next meeting
> > 
> > What is the justification for making this change? It's already
> > inconvenient enough having to have someone else make bugzilla
> > changes for me on PMS bugs that I didn't submit; what reason is
> > there for extending this annoyance to the source too?
> > 
> [16:47] <Kugelfang> vapier: it is already a QA subproject
> 
> It's not such a big deal in practise is it?

Yes, it is. It's a change in workflow, and it at least doubles the
amount of work for each commit.

> Unless you're saying you can't use git? Which would be decidedly
> strange for a kernel contributor..

I'm saying I don't see any point in it when svn is doing the job just
fine now.

If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: April Council meeting summary

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 533 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
> more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.

Maybe if you actually read the council log, you'd see the reason? yeah,
it's indeed there, believe me.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net: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: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: April Council meeting summary

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 482 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:20:46 +0200
Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> > If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
> > more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.
> 
> Maybe if you actually read the council log, you'd see the reason?
> yeah, it's indeed there, believe me.

I did, and I don't see it. Perhaps you'd care to paste what you think
the relevant parts are?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: April Council meeting summary

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --]

Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:20:46 +0200
> Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
>>> If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
>>> more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.
>> Maybe if you actually read the council log, you'd see the reason?
>> yeah, it's indeed there, believe me.
> 
> I did, and I don't see it. Perhaps you'd care to paste what you think
> the relevant parts are?
> 

[16:49] <robbat2> infra won't give any access to non-devs that needs SSH
keys.

Isn't that hard to find I'd say?

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net: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: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: April Council meeting summary

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 296 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:43:51 +0200
Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [16:49] <robbat2> infra won't give any access to non-devs that needs
> SSH keys.
> 
> Isn't that hard to find I'd say?

That's not a reason for moving. That's a reason for not using infra.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: April Council meeting summary

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 07:20:46PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> > If someone can provide a good reason for changing to a system that's
> > more work, I'll change. If there isn't a good reason, I won't.
> 
> Maybe if you actually read the council log, you'd see the reason? yeah,
> it's indeed there, believe me.

<proctor>
Jakub: Please refrain from comments like that one, it does not help
creating a productive atmosphere.

Everyone else: Please do not feel tempted to reply with a snappish
answer here.

Thanks everyone,
       Wernfried
</proctor>

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: April Council meeting summary

[Steve Long]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> It's not such a big deal in practise is it?
> 
> Yes, it is. It's a change in workflow, and it at least doubles the
> amount of work for each commit.
>
do what? if it's so tricky write a script..


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list