[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-10-13

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-10-13

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 450 bytes --]

In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
to discuss or vote on.

Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).

The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2019-10-06.

Please reply to the gentoo-project list.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-10-13

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 828 bytes --]

On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 14:06 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
> to discuss or vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the meeting will be sent out on Sunday 2019-10-06.
> 
> Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
> 

I'd like to request Council's blessing on my proposal to allow using
pkgcheck alternatively to repoman for verifying ::gentoo ebuilds prior
to committing [1].

[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/6b236365a2876fc2b96a60445d146e23

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2019-10-13

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1205 bytes --]

On Sun, 2019-09-29 at 14:06 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> In two weeks from now, the council will meet again. This is the time
> to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the agenda
> to discuss or vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 

I would like to request the Council to clarify/generalize their decision
from 2019-05-12 meeting regarding valid forms of activity for
a developer.

In this meeting, the Council confirmed that committing a proxy (without
direct commit access) is a suitable form of activity for an existing
developer not to be retired.  I would like to ask whether the same form
of activity (i.e. high level of activity as a proxied maintainer) is
suitable for recruiting someone as non-commit access developer.

If yes, then I'd like to ask why Recruiters are rejecting such
a recruit, and requiring him to go through full procedure including
establishing commit access.


[1] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20190512-summary.txt

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]