[gentoo-dev] Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[gentoo-dev] Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Tomáš Chvátal]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 913 bytes --]

Hi,
since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our
agenda.

I am adding this mail only to g-dev and g-dev-announce to see if
everyone notice, sorry if it slip your radar. Also if you have something
to say on this mail please reply to gentoo-dev, or you will render me
quite sad about thread breaking.

Without much ado here goes THE PLAN:

1) allow all members to show up (5 min)
2) voting
2a) we have nothing to vote this time, nobody wanted anything YAY :)
3) discussion
3a) from last council meeting: the mailing list situation
3b) from last council meeting: eclass API changes
3c) EAPI 4 status (jmbsvicetto nominate this so we actualy do something new)
4) Bugs assigned to council@ in bugzilla and their progress
5) select the chair for following meeting
6) open floor: community/developers can smash us here :)
Z) buy some cookies (30 min)

Cheers

Tomas


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 647 bytes --]

On 8/6/10 12:26 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our
> agenda.

I'd like to add some points to the agenda.

1. The Gentoo Security team is severly understaffed, they have an entry
on the Staffing Needs page, but no long-term improvement is visible over
the last 6 months. The status visibility is low, and it's even hard to
ask for tasks to help with.

2. Can we get more project visibility about the git migration? Like what
is happening, what is blocking us, some roadmaps? Maybe the data is
there and I can't find it - but that would be another problem.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Alex Legler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:49:19 -0700, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
<phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> 1. The Gentoo Security team is severly understaffed, they have an
> entry on the Staffing Needs page, but no long-term improvement is
> visible over the last 6 months. The status visibility is low, and
> it's even hard to ask for tasks to help with.

And you'd like the council to do what about that exactly?

-- 
Alex Legler | Gentoo Security / Ruby
a3li@gentoo.org | a3li@jabber.ccc.de

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]

On 8/6/10 3:36 PM, Alex Legler wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:49:19 -0700, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
> <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 1. The Gentoo Security team is severly understaffed, they have an
>> entry on the Staffing Needs page, but no long-term improvement is
>> visible over the last 6 months. The status visibility is low, and
>> it's even hard to ask for tasks to help with.
> 
> And you'd like the council to do what about that exactly?

I'd like the council to help with improving the situation. I tried to
help at the project level, and I'll probably do some work for the team.

However, it still seems to me that a more long-term solution needs to be
applied. Are the project leads active? Why is the security team so busy
it can't train new team members?

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 797 bytes --]

Am 06.08.2010 23:49, schrieb "Paweł Hajdan, Jr.":
> On 8/6/10 12:26 PM, Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
>> since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our
>> agenda.
> 
> 2. Can we get more project visibility about the git migration? Like what
> is happening, what is blocking us, some roadmaps? Maybe the data is
> there and I can't find it - but that would be another problem.
> 
> Paweł
> 

We have the gentoo-scm list, which is used for the git migration tracing. If you think, there may be
updates, but they are not written there, just write a mail and ask for a status update. ;-) And i
think, there have already been mails about what has to be done before we can think about git
migration of the main tree.

-- 
Thomas Sachau

Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

On 8/7/10 12:53 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> We have the gentoo-scm list, which is used for the git migration
> tracing.

The list seems quite low-traffic. Why not keep the discussions on
gentoo-dev/gentoo-project?

> If you think, there may be updates, but they are not written there,
> just write a mail and ask for a status update. ;-) And i think, there
> have already been mails about what has to be done before we can think
> about git migration of the main tree.

Right, the point is - can we get a web page with that information?
Locating it from e-mails is not the easiest way.

I think that the easier it is to get the list of tasks to be done, the
more likely you are to get the needed help.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 9:46 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr."
<phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 8/7/10 12:53 AM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> We have the gentoo-scm list, which is used for the git migration
>> tracing.
>
> The list seems quite low-traffic. Why not keep the discussions on
> gentoo-dev/gentoo-project?
>

The fact that it's low-traffic is good. It means that progress doesn't
get lost in the flood of emails on -dev. Also, discussion about
development work would be offtopic on -project.

>> If you think, there may be updates, but they are not written there,
>> just write a mail and ask for a status update. ;-) And i think, there
>> have already been mails about what has to be done before we can think
>> about git migration of the main tree.
>
> Right, the point is - can we get a web page with that information?

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-scm

> Locating it from e-mails is not the easiest way.
>

http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-scm/msg_f827a8dd519e2d831f77bb32895342bb.xml

I found that email right there on the archives page under "Re: Status"
by Robin H. Johnson.

> I think that the easier it is to get the list of tasks to be done, the
> more likely you are to get the needed help.
>

If people aren't willing to visit the archives of a very-low-traffic
ML and browse a few emails, I don't think they'd be motivated enough
to get some actual work done.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

[gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1608 bytes --]

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:26:46PM +0200, Tommmmm Chvvvtal wrote:
> Hi,
> since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our
> agenda.
> 
> I am adding this mail only to g-dev and g-dev-announce to see if
> everyone notice, sorry if it slip your radar. Also if you have something
> to say on this mail please reply to gentoo-dev, or you will render me
> quite sad about thread breaking.
> 
> Without much ado here goes THE PLAN:
> 
> 1) allow all members to show up (5 min)
> 2) voting
> 2a) we have nothing to vote this time, nobody wanted anything YAY :)
> 3) discussion
> 3a) from last council meeting: the mailing list situation
> 3b) from last council meeting: eclass API changes
> 3c) EAPI 4 status (jmbsvicetto nominate this so we actualy do something new)
> 4) Bugs assigned to council@ in bugzilla and their progress
> 5) select the chair for following meeting
> 6) open floor: community/developers can smash us here :)
> Z) buy some cookies (30 min)

I suspect we may not wind up being able to get to it in the coming 
meeting, but I'd like g55 sorted.

Specifically, if the authors of it (cc'd) want it to move forward, 
request the council vote on it.  If you don't want it voted on, mark 
it moribund.

The purpose behind this is to put to end this discussion rather than 
having it flare up and make a mess every few months.

Simply put, it's nothing but divisive noise at this point with no real 
new technical discourse occuring- meaning it's realistically time for 
a decision (either push it to a vote or put it to bed).

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1952 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 06:16:30AM -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 09:26:46PM +0200, Tommmmm Chvvvtal wrote:
> > Hi,
> > since I am this meetings girl for everything here is first pass on our
> > agenda.
> > 
> > I am adding this mail only to g-dev and g-dev-announce to see if
> > everyone notice, sorry if it slip your radar. Also if you have something
> > to say on this mail please reply to gentoo-dev, or you will render me
> > quite sad about thread breaking.
> > 
> > Without much ado here goes THE PLAN:
> > 
> > 1) allow all members to show up (5 min)
> > 2) voting
> > 2a) we have nothing to vote this time, nobody wanted anything YAY :)
> > 3) discussion
> > 3a) from last council meeting: the mailing list situation
> > 3b) from last council meeting: eclass API changes
> > 3c) EAPI 4 status (jmbsvicetto nominate this so we actualy do something new)
> > 4) Bugs assigned to council@ in bugzilla and their progress
> > 5) select the chair for following meeting
> > 6) open floor: community/developers can smash us here :)
> > Z) buy some cookies (30 min)
> 
> I suspect we may not wind up being able to get to it in the coming 
> meeting, but I'd like g55 sorted.
> 
> Specifically, if the authors of it (cc'd) want it to move forward, 
> request the council vote on it.  If you don't want it voted on, mark 
> it moribund.
> 
> The purpose behind this is to put to end this discussion rather than 
> having it flare up and make a mess every few months.
> 
> Simply put, it's nothing but divisive noise at this point with no real 
> new technical discourse occuring- meaning it's realistically time for 
> a decision (either push it to a vote or put it to bed).

Regardless of my personal opinions about the technical issues on this
glep, I agree with the above statement.  I am personally tired of seeing
the discussion flare up every few months and go nowhere.

William


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 498 bytes --]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:48:32 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Regardless of my personal opinions about the technical issues on this
> glep, I agree with the above statement.  I am personally tired of
> seeing the discussion flare up every few months and go nowhere.

Have you considered that it flares up every few months because every
few months people want new functionality from EAPIs that can't be
delivered using the existing EAPI mechanisms?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 878 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 08:46:07AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 15:48:32 -0500
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Regardless of my personal opinions about the technical issues on this
> > glep, I agree with the above statement.  I am personally tired of
> > seeing the discussion flare up every few months and go nowhere.
> 
> Have you considered that it flares up every few months because every
> few months people want new functionality from EAPIs that can't be
> delivered using the existing EAPI mechanisms?

Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 
solves all EAPI issues/world hunger.

Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and make 
their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is 
trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time.

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 577 bytes --]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 
> solves all EAPI issues/world hunger.
> 
> Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and
> make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is 
> trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time.

GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. GLEP
54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on GLEP 55
was a tie.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1642 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700
> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 
> > solves all EAPI issues/world hunger.
> > 
> > Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and
> > make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is 
> > trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time.
> 
> GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. GLEP
> 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on GLEP 55
> was a tie.

A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it 
was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real 
issue.  And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be 
voted on, or revisited.

That's the thing; the quibbling in details is lovely, as is the 
repeated rehashing of the same technical matter, over and over, but 
the path required to get it approved is established.

Push it to the council and ask for a vote.  They drop it from their 
plate, push it back to the council again.  That route at least has the 
chance of being productive.  Hell, run for council if you're tired of 
them dropping things.

Instead we've got continual sniping over the damned glep instead of 
taking the proactive steps.  Either way, unless I get beat down by 
the other council members this will be on the next council agenda.

If it can be squeezed into the coming monday meeting, I'd prefer it, 
but it's short notice I realize.

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Tomáš Chvátal]

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

Dne 8.8.2010 12:05, Brian Harring napsal(a):
> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:10:01AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 01:55:26 -0700
>> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Put it to a vote then, rather than flaming every few months that g55 
>>> solves all EAPI issues/world hunger.
>>>
>>> Seriously, if the people wanting g55 can't be bothered to try and
>>> make their proposal accepted/official, than all they're doing is 
>>> trolling/flaming/bitching, and wasting other peoples time.
>>
>> GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514. GLEP
>> 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on GLEP 55
>> was a tie.
> 
> A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it 
> was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real 
> issue.  And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be 
> voted on, or revisited.
> 
> That's the thing; the quibbling in details is lovely, as is the 
> repeated rehashing of the same technical matter, over and over, but 
> the path required to get it approved is established.
> 
> Push it to the council and ask for a vote.  They drop it from their 
> plate, push it back to the council again.  That route at least has the 
> chance of being productive.  Hell, run for council if you're tired of 
> them dropping things.
> 
> Instead we've got continual sniping over the damned glep instead of 
> taking the proactive steps.  Either way, unless I get beat down by 
> the other council members this will be on the next council agenda.
> 
> If it can be squeezed into the coming monday meeting, I'd prefer it, 
> but it's short notice I realize.
> 
> ~harring
We can nominate it for next meeting, but not this one, we cant asure
that all members are aware of all details for glep-55 so they need some
time to investigate them.

Tom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkxeg6oACgkQHB6c3gNBRYd2NgCeJrmHrapWDHqpyXlnn8c+HLhJ
xUoAoLDRfSRc+ejByoMQ/1v+0O1VyyEb
=KGMd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1086 bytes --]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:05:34 -0700
Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514.
> > GLEP 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on
> > GLEP 55 was a tie.
> 
> A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it 
> was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real 
> issue.  And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be 
> voted on, or revisited.

Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead to
vote on something else and not upon what was asked.

If you want to try to get the Council to commit to something, feel
free. But asking the Council to vote on it hasn't worked so far, and
there comes a point where asking the same thing over and over again
becomes rude and counterproductive.

It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the responsibility
of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at this point. That
was already tried several times, and got nowhere.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2343 bytes --]

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 11:18:03AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:05:34 -0700
> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > GLEP 55 *was* put up for a vote, along with GLEP 54, on 20090514.
> > > GLEP 54 was accepted subject to GLEP 55 being approved. The vote on
> > > GLEP 55 was a tie.
> > 
> > A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it 
> > was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real 
> > issue.  And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be 
> > voted on, or revisited.
> 
> It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the responsibility
> of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at this point. That
> was already tried several times, and got nowhere.

Whether you like it or not, it *is* the authors responsibility.
If you want something passed/accepted it's ultimately your 
responsibility to see it through to the finish- even if the last 
council dropped it on the ground.

Hopefully to make this clear so that this claim never shows up again, 
shit happens.  The "request for topics" and "agenda" emails that are 
sent out are your chance to request council discussion, to point out 
that they dropped something, etc.  Things don't always make it onto 
the council agenda- you keep pushing, refining the proposal, etc, till 
you get it in there.  Like it or not, that's the system.

If in doubt, I'll just point out that both mtime and REQUIRED_USE were 
dropped multiple months- pushing them forward I deemed worthwhile so I 
kept bringing it up till it made it into an agenda instead of 
silently dropped.

Either way, those are your options- if you want something implemented, 
ultimately it's your responsibility to see it through.

I'd strongly argue this applies beyond just the council- for PMS as an 
example, even if you manage to get something approved ultimately if 
you want it to move forward the implementation falls to your plate.  
Same thing goes for cvs/git, either you're reliant on other peoples 
time, or you contribute your own time to try and move it forward.

For the Heinlein fans, TANSTAFL is appropriate.

Either way, it's on the agenda.  In the future ask for stuff to be 
readded if it falls off, saves a lot of grief in the process.

~harring

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Nirbheek Chauhan]

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 03:05:34 -0700
> Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A tie, with a decision to revisit next meeting- the next meeting it
>> was decided that yes, g55 is addressing what can be considered a real
>> issue.  And in the 14 months since then, no one has requested it be
>> voted on, or revisited.
>
> Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead to
> vote on something else and not upon what was asked.
>

So you ask again in the next meeting. And if it happens again, you
file a protest. If it still happens, write a GLEP to prevent issues
from being deferred indefinitely. Do I really need to give you ideas
on how to stubbornly push proposals through?

> If you want to try to get the Council to commit to something, feel
> free. But asking the Council to vote on it hasn't worked so far, and
> there comes a point where asking the same thing over and over again
> becomes rude and counterproductive.
>

There also comes a time when repeatedly bringing up a GLEP that you
have no interest in getting approved becomes rude and
counterproductive.

> It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the responsibility
> of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at this point. That
> was already tried several times, and got nowhere.
>

It is excessively misleading of you to claim that Brian said that the
GLEP 55 *authors* should push it to the Council. Nice strawman. He
made a simple statement: The people who want the GLEP should either
put it up for vote and settle it's status, or stop wasting everyone's
time and let it die.

-- 
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2179 bytes --]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:47:42 +0530
Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead
> > to vote on something else and not upon what was asked.
> 
> So you ask again in the next meeting. And if it happens again, you
> file a protest. If it still happens, write a GLEP to prevent issues
> from being deferred indefinitely. Do I really need to give you ideas
> on how to stubbornly push proposals through?

When we *did* repeatedly push for GLEP 55 discussion and acceptance, we
were told that we were pushing it too hard and that it was creating too
much noise. When we scale back and only give it a minimum of attention
when related topics come up, we're told we should be pushing over and
over again and protesting.

Whichever way we go, someone's going to moan. I am glad to see,
however, that the only remaining objections to GLEP 55 are on purely
procedural matters...

> There also comes a time when repeatedly bringing up a GLEP that you
> have no interest in getting approved becomes rude and
> counterproductive.

GLEP 55 is brought up when it's the appropriate answer to a problem
someone raises. It is no longer being pushed purely on its own,
because when it was pushed on its own there were complaints that it
was being discussed too much.

As for no interest in getting it approved, that's clearly nonsense as
you know fine well. Past experience has shown that repeatedly asking
for Council discussion on it does absolutely nothing to get it
approved, so we don't do that any more.

> > It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the
> > responsibility of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at
> > this point. That was already tried several times, and got nowhere.
> 
> It is excessively misleading of you to claim that Brian said that the
> GLEP 55 *authors* should push it to the Council. Nice strawman. He
> made a simple statement: The people who want the GLEP should either
> put it up for vote and settle it's status, or stop wasting everyone's
> time and let it die.

Been there, done that, got nowhere.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

On 08-08-2010 11:28, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 16:47:42 +0530
> Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Uh, it *was* requested for a vote, and the Council decided instead
>>> to vote on something else and not upon what was asked.
>>
>> So you ask again in the next meeting. And if it happens again, you
>> file a protest. If it still happens, write a GLEP to prevent issues
>> from being deferred indefinitely. Do I really need to give you ideas
>> on how to stubbornly push proposals through?
> 
> When we *did* repeatedly push for GLEP 55 discussion and acceptance, we
> were told that we were pushing it too hard and that it was creating too
> much noise. When we scale back and only give it a minimum of attention
> when related topics come up, we're told we should be pushing over and
> over again and protesting.
> 
> Whichever way we go, someone's going to moan. I am glad to see,
> however, that the only remaining objections to GLEP 55 are on purely
> procedural matters...

I have to agree with Ciaran in that the GLEP55 supporters did repeatedly
push for its support and that it was a previous Council that didn't got
a vote out about it and left it in "the limbo".
At the time, quite a few Gentoo Developers got upset about how many
times GLEP55 was brought to the council and the amount of traffic it
generated in the gentoo-dev ml for months.
I agree with Brian that GLEP55 could have been brought to council again
by now, but there's nothing preventing the current council members to
determine whether the author still wants it to be approved and put it to
a vote so that we can set the status of this GLEP.

>> There also comes a time when repeatedly bringing up a GLEP that you
>> have no interest in getting approved becomes rude and
>> counterproductive.
> 
> GLEP 55 is brought up when it's the appropriate answer to a problem
> someone raises. It is no longer being pushed purely on its own,
> because when it was pushed on its own there were complaints that it
> was being discussed too much.
> 
> As for no interest in getting it approved, that's clearly nonsense as
> you know fine well. Past experience has shown that repeatedly asking
> for Council discussion on it does absolutely nothing to get it
> approved, so we don't do that any more.
> 
>>> It's extremely misleading of you to claim that it's the
>>> responsibility of the GLEP 55 authors to push it to the Council at
>>> this point. That was already tried several times, and got nowhere.
>>
>> It is excessively misleading of you to claim that Brian said that the
>> GLEP 55 *authors* should push it to the Council. Nice strawman. He
>> made a simple statement: The people who want the GLEP should either
>> put it up for vote and settle it's status, or stop wasting everyone's
>> time and let it die.
> 
> Been there, done that, got nowhere.
> 

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=Cp/0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: Council Agenda 20100809 rev 01

[Piotr Jaroszyński]

On 7 August 2010 15:16, Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com> wrote:
> I suspect we may not wind up being able to get to it in the coming
> meeting, but I'd like g55 sorted.
>
> Specifically, if the authors of it (cc'd) want it to move forward,
> request the council vote on it.  If you don't want it voted on, mark
> it moribund.

As I stated at the last meeting, go ahead and vote on it.

I still think it would be very useful for Gentoo to accept it, I just
kinda lost hope after 2 or 3 times when it was supposed to be voted
upon already.

-- 
Best Regards
Piotr Jaroszyński