[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11

[gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11

[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 2018-02-04.

Please reply to the gentoo-project list.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11

[Michał Górny]

W dniu nie, 28.01.2018 o godzinie 14∶05 +0100, użytkownik Ulrich Mueller
napisał:
> 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 can think of two past items that need our attention:


1. Continuation on status of nios2/riscv.
=========================================

The bug has gotten no attention so far from the person adding those
keywords. If he doesn't show any sign of good faith in the next two
weeks, I think we should vote for removing the arch along with
the relevant profiles.

For the record: nios2 was added in Apr 2015, riscv in Aug 2015. Neither
has a backing arch team, mail alias, or a single package with keywords.
Furthermore, the original committer didn't make a single commit
to the relevant profiles since the inception (which looks like copy-
paste of some other profile) and the only commits were parts of mass
cleanups done by other developers (stale packages, USE flags, etc.) 

All that considered, I seriously doubt the work done so far has any
value for a future support of those arches.


2. Continuation on mailing list posting restrictions
====================================================

We haven't enforced the gentoo-dev posting restrictions so far. I have
been approached by a user yesterday who wrongly thought he couldn't post
to the list. I think this situation is at least confusing.

I believe we should either withdraw the earlier decision and explicitly
announce that posting to gentoo-dev will not be restricted to avoid
further confusion, or enforce it (how?).

That said, I think the list has improved for now, so maybe we don't need
to do that after all. Especially given the upcoming possibility of
Proctors revival and/or moderation via mailman.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11

[Michael Palimaka]

On 01/30/2018 04:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> 2. Continuation on mailing list posting restrictions
> ====================================================
> 
> We haven't enforced the gentoo-dev posting restrictions so far. I have
> been approached by a user yesterday who wrongly thought he couldn't post
> to the list. I think this situation is at least confusing.
> 
> I believe we should either withdraw the earlier decision and explicitly
> announce that posting to gentoo-dev will not be restricted to avoid
> further confusion, or enforce it (how?).
> 
> That said, I think the list has improved for now, so maybe we don't need
> to do that after all. Especially given the upcoming possibility of
> Proctors revival and/or moderation via mailman.
> 

I'd just like to voice my support for withdrawing the earlier decision
and keeping the mailing list open to all. Open communication channels
are critical for maintaining an open community.

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-02-11

[Raymond Jennings]

I second the motion.

That said however I would personally not be against having individuals
personally banned or blacklisted or restricted or whatnot at the
discretion of the proper authorities should they engage in misconduct.

Such as proctors for example.

I also would be ok with people being sanctioned on a separate basis if
they should evade such a restriction.

Blatant spammers are an obvious example of being worthy of restriction.

All of the above said, however...I would not be against requiring
messages posted to the list (or any list for that example) to be
required to pass anti-spam measures, such as SPF or DKIM.

In that note, I would also like to suggest that SPF/DKIM be used as a
filter for messages being posted to the lists if they aren't already.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:02 AM, Michael Palimaka <kensington@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 01/30/2018 04:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> 2. Continuation on mailing list posting restrictions
>> ====================================================
>>
>> We haven't enforced the gentoo-dev posting restrictions so far. I have
>> been approached by a user yesterday who wrongly thought he couldn't post
>> to the list. I think this situation is at least confusing.
>>
>> I believe we should either withdraw the earlier decision and explicitly
>> announce that posting to gentoo-dev will not be restricted to avoid
>> further confusion, or enforce it (how?).
>>
>> That said, I think the list has improved for now, so maybe we don't need
>> to do that after all. Especially given the upcoming possibility of
>> Proctors revival and/or moderation via mailman.
>>
>
> I'd just like to voice my support for withdrawing the earlier decision
> and keeping the mailing list open to all. Open communication channels
> are critical for maintaining an open community.
>