[gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 594 bytes --]

Team,

Did you spot the error in my original announce?

Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
end of the Friday for two weeks total. 

Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
election officials.

Rules ... 
Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@

On behalf of the election officials.

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Arthur Zamarin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1391 bytes --]

On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Team,
> 
> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> 
> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
> 
> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> election officials.

OK, then let me start sending nominations :)

I quite liked the current council, and want to thank all of you, and it
was also my honor to proxy in multiple occasions. So I want to nominate
the current council members (ordered by name, not priority):

ajak
dilfridge
gyakovlev
mattst88
mgorny
sam
ulm

I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):

ago
asturm
flow
ionen
jsmolic
juippis
soap
toralf
williamh

If there is a dev who I speak a lot with and didn't nominate here,
please don't be offended, I might have just missed you name in the IRC
users list. I value each Gentoo dev!

> Rules ... 
> Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
> 
> On behalf of the election officials.
> 

-- 
Arthur Zamarin
arthurzam@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (Python, pkgcore stack, Arch Teams, GURU)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Toralf Förster]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 282 bytes --]

On 6/17/23 10:37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> 
...
> toralf

Thank you, but I have to decline.

-- 
Toralf
PGP 23217DA7 9B888F45


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Ionen Wolkens]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 282 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 11:37:39AM +0300, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
... 
> ionen

Thanks, but I'll decline again this year.
-- 
ionen

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 892 bytes --]


Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Team,
>> 
>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
>> 
>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
>> end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
>> 
>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
>> election officials.
>
> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
>
> I quite liked the current council, and want to thank all of you, and it
> was also my honor to proxy in multiple occasions. So I want to nominate
> the current council members (ordered by name, not priority):
>
> ajak
> dilfridge
> gyakovlev
> mattst88
> mgorny
> sam

I accept, thanks!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote:

> I quite liked the current council, and want to thank all of you, and it
> was also my honor to proxy in multiple occasions. So I want to nominate
> the current council members (ordered by name, not priority):

> ajak
> dilfridge
> gyakovlev
> mattst88
> mgorny
> sam
> ulm

Thank you. I accept the nomination. 

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[John Helmert III]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1617 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 11:37:39AM +0300, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Team,
> > 
> > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > 
> > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
> > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> > end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
> > 
> > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > election officials.
> 
> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> 
> I quite liked the current council, and want to thank all of you, and it
> was also my honor to proxy in multiple occasions. So I want to nominate
> the current council members (ordered by name, not priority):
> 
> ajak

Thank you for the nomination! I accept.

> dilfridge
> gyakovlev
> mattst88
> mgorny
> sam
> ulm
> 
> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> 
> ago
> asturm
> flow
> ionen
> jsmolic
> juippis
> soap
> toralf
> williamh
> 
> If there is a dev who I speak a lot with and didn't nominate here,
> please don't be offended, I might have just missed you name in the IRC
> users list. I value each Gentoo dev!
> 
> > Rules ... 
> > Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
> > 
> > On behalf of the election officials.
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Arthur Zamarin
> arthurzam@gentoo.org
> Gentoo Linux developer (Python, pkgcore stack, Arch Teams, GURU)
> 




[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[John Helmert III]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1054 bytes --]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 11:22:11AM -0700, John Helmert III wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 11:37:39AM +0300, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> > On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > > Team,
> > > 
> > > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > > 
> > > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
> > > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> > > end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
> > > 
> > > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > > election officials.
> > 
> > OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> > 
> > I quite liked the current council, and want to thank all of you, and it
> > was also my honor to proxy in multiple occasions. So I want to nominate
> > the current council members (ordered by name, not priority):
> > 
> > ajak
> 
> Thank you for the nomination! I accept.

And here's my manifesto:

https://dev.gentoo.org/~ajak/council-manifesto-2023.txt

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Joonas Niilola]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 580 bytes --]

On 17.6.2023 11.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> 
> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> 
> ago
> asturm
> flow
> ionen
> jsmolic
> juippis
> soap
> toralf
> williamh
> 

Hey,

thanks for the nomination but I currently can't keep up with my active
projects either so now's really not a good time for me. I know being a
council member doesn't bring much more work to the table, but I still
want to focus on doing better, not doing more next.

-- juippis


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 480 bytes --]

> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> 
> I quite liked the current council, and want to thank all of you, and it
> was also my honor to proxy in multiple occasions. So I want to nominate
> the current council members (ordered by name, not priority):
> 
> ajak
> dilfridge

Thanks Arthur. I accept the nomination. Happy to do it again.

-- 
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfridge@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer
(council, toolchain, base-system, perl, libreoffice)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 1:37 AM Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> wrote:
> mattst88

Thank you. I accept.

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2023-06-17 at 11:37 +0300, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> mgorny

Thank you.  I accept.  Here is my Manifesto for this year:

https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/council-manifesto-2023.txt

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[David Seifert]

On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> soap

Thanks, I accept this round

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Jakov Smolić]

On 6/17/23 10:37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> jsmolic

I appreciate the nomination but I'll decline this year.

-- 
Jakov

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Florian Schmaus]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1389 bytes --]

On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Team,
>>
>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
>>
>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
>> end of the Friday for two weeks total.
>>
>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
>> election officials.
> 
> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> 
> […]
 >
> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> 
> […]
> flow

I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I am 
honored and accept.

As many of you know, I am spending a lot of time on the EGO_SUM 
situation, as it is one of the most critical issues to solve.

I have used the last few days to carefully consider whether a seat on 
the council is more harmful or beneficial to my efforts regarding 
EGO_SUM. On the one hand, council work means I have less time to improve 
the EGO_SUM situation. On the other hand, a seat in the council 
increases the probability of positively influencing Gentoo's future, 
also regarding EGO_SUM.

As you can see, I have made a decision. :)

- Flow

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 17273 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1824 bytes --]


Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>> On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
>>>
>>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
>>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
>>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
>>> end of the Friday for two weeks total.
>>>
>>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
>>> election officials.
>> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
>> […]
>>
>> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
>> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
>> […]
>> flow
>
> I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I am
> honored and accept.
>
> As many of you know, I am spending a lot of time on the EGO_SUM
> situation, as it is one of the most critical issues to solve.
>
> I have used the last few days to carefully consider whether a seat on
> the council is more harmful or beneficial to my efforts regarding
> EGO_SUM. On the one hand, council work means I have less time to
> improve the EGO_SUM situation. On the other hand, a seat in the
> council increases the probability of positively influencing Gentoo's
> future, also regarding EGO_SUM.
>

That's fine and it's great to see more people running!

But with regard to EGO_SUM: you didn't appear at the meeting where we discussed
your previous EGO_SUM proposal, and questions remain unanswered on the
ML (why not implement a check in pkgcheck similar to what is in Portage,
for example)?

The blocker is not a council seat, it's about addressing people's
concerns...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Florian Schmaus]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1378 bytes --]

On 28/06/2023 11.51, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>> On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
>>>
>>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
>>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
>>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
>>> end of the Friday for two weeks total.
>>>
>>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
>>> election officials.
>>
>> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
>>
>> […]
>  >
>> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
>> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
>>
>> […]
>> flow
> 
> I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I am 
> honored and accept.

Here is my Manifesto:

     https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/council-manifesto-2023.txt


I'd also like to ask the nominees about their stance regarding EGO_SUM.

Any answer, ranging from, for example, "don't care" to "keep the status 
quo" to "reintroduce EGO_SUM," is appreciated. But I kindly ask that 
your answer does not lack details. For example, if you can think of 
re-introducing EGO_SUM with some constraints, then clearly specify those 
constraints.

- Flow

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 17273 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2023-07-08 at 12:10 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 28/06/2023 11.51, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> > > On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > > > Team,
> > > > 
> > > > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > > > 
> > > > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > > > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
> > > > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> > > > end of the Friday for two weeks total.
> > > > 
> > > > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > > > election officials.
> > > 
> > > OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> > > 
> > > […]
> >  >
> > > I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> > > I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> > > 
> > > […]
> > > flow
> > 
> > I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I am 
> > honored and accept.
> 
> Here is my Manifesto:
> 
>      https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/council-manifesto-2023.txt
> 
> 
> I'd also like to ask the nominees about their stance regarding EGO_SUM.

1. First and foremost, eclass API is maintainer's decision, and EGO_SUM
mustn't be deprecated against the maintainer.  You need to either
convince the maintainer or (co-)maintain it going forward.

2. We need ebuild and Manifest size limits independently of whether
EGO_SUM is undeprecated or not.  However, since EGO_SUM is clearly
related to that, it makes sense to me to focus on setting the limits for
::gentoo first.

3. Once both points are met, there is no reason not to undeprecate it.


Since we're asking questions, I have two questions regarding your
Manifesto:

1. You point out that we have a "shortage of workforce".  Don't you
think that before we lure more contributors in, we should ensure that
our current contributors are respected?  Don't you think that it is
disrespectful when instead of looking for a compromise, you insist on
long arguments over every single thing, and when you fail to fail to get
things your way, you start over and over again?  A quick search for
"EGO_SUM" counts *4* threads started by you (not counting subthreads),
total of 127 mails that sum up over 1 MiB (in mbox format)?  [1] is yet
another example of needless arguing for the sake of arguing.

2. You seem to have proposals to improve GURU.  Why are you throwing
them out of the blue as part of election campaign instead of joining
the project and discussing them openly?


[1] https://github.com/gentoo/baselayout/pull/4#issuecomment-1624859895

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2038 bytes --]


Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> writes:

> On Sat, 2023-07-08 at 12:10 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>> On 28/06/2023 11.51, Florian Schmaus wrote:
>> > On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
>> > > On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> > > > Team,
>> > > > 
>> > > > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
>> > > > 
>> > > > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
>> > > > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
>> > > > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
>> > > > end of the Friday for two weeks total.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
>> > > > election officials.
>> > > 
>> > > OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
>> > > 
>> > > […]
>> >  >
>> > > I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
>> > > I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
>> > > 
>> > > […]
>> > > flow
>> > 
>> > I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I am 
>> > honored and accept.
>> 
>> Here is my Manifesto:
>> 
>>      https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/council-manifesto-2023.txt
>> 
>> 
>> I'd also like to ask the nominees about their stance regarding EGO_SUM.
>
> 1. First and foremost, eclass API is maintainer's decision, and EGO_SUM
> mustn't be deprecated against the maintainer.  You need to either
> convince the maintainer or (co-)maintain it going forward.

I raised a similar point before too (after you'd initially raised it)
but have not seen a reply.

>
> Since we're asking questions, I have two questions regarding your
> [...]
>
> 2. You seem to have proposals to improve GURU.  Why are you throwing
> them out of the blue as part of election campaign instead of joining
> the project and discussing them openly?

This also feels related to the point of trying to override eclass
maintainers. The council is not a strong-handed body, nor should it be.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2023-07-08 at 14:33 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-07-08 at 12:10 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > On 28/06/2023 11.51, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > > On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> > > > On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > > > > Team,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > > > > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
> > > > > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> > > > > end of the Friday for two weeks total.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > > > > election officials.
> > > > 
> > > > OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> > > > 
> > > > […]
> > >  >
> > > > I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> > > > I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> > > > 
> > > > […]
> > > > flow
> > > 
> > > I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I am 
> > > honored and accept.
> > 
> > Here is my Manifesto:
> > 
> >      https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/council-manifesto-2023.txt
> > 
> > 
> > I'd also like to ask the nominees about their stance regarding EGO_SUM.
> 
> 1. First and foremost, eclass API is maintainer's decision, and EGO_SUM
> mustn't be deprecated against the maintainer.  You need to either
> convince the maintainer or (co-)maintain it going forward.
> 

Sorry, I meant "mustn't be *un*deprecated".

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[gentoo-project] Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1337 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2023, Florian Schmaus wrote:

> I'd also like to ask the nominees about their stance regarding EGO_SUM.

> Any answer, ranging from, for example, "don't care" to "keep the
> status quo" to "reintroduce EGO_SUM," is appreciated. But I kindly ask
> that your answer does not lack details. For example, if you can think
> of re-introducing EGO_SUM with some constraints, then clearly specify
> those constraints.

Normally the council doesn't do micro-management down to the level of
eclass variables. How language specific eclasses and packages work is up
to their respective projects or maintainers.

That said, when design decisions affect the total size of the Gentoo
repo (which is present on all users' systems), then it becomes a global
issue and therefore council territory. So far we didn't need a policy
for this, because with few exceptions (some packages in dev-texlive come
to mind) packages don't have more than a couple of distfiles.
Presumably, we're now at the point where the council should define such
a policy about Manifest and ebuild file size.

The discussion about export of variables (in particular, A) by the
package manager is separate from this. IMHO not exporting A won't imply
that packages can have arbitrary many distfiles, i.e. we would still
need a policy for the Gentoo repo.

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[David Seifert]

On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 28/06/2023 11.51, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> > > On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > > > Team,
> > > > 
> > > > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > > > 
> > > > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > > > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
> > > > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday
> > > > until the
> > > > end of the Friday for two weeks total.
> > > > 
> > > > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for
> > > > the
> > > > election officials.
> > > 
> > > OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> > > 
> > > […]
> >  >
> > > I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to
> > > Gentoo and
> > > I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> > > 
> > > […]
> > > flow
> > 
> > I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I
> > am 
> > honored and accept.
> 
> Here is my Manifesto:
> 
>      https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/council-manifesto-2023.txt
> 
> 
> I'd also like to ask the nominees about their stance regarding
> EGO_SUM.

Let me ask the opposite: when do you accept the discussion on EGO_SUM
settled? If you submit it to the next council's meeting without
materially changing it, and it gets rejected again, will you submit your
proposal over and over again? When do you consider an issue settled?

It's clear what most nominees think (at least those that are already on
the council and renominated) and I agree with them. You suggest we have
"democratic means and tools to resolve such disagreements".
Unfortunately, there will be many a disagreement in most democracies
that will not be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Right now, I don't
see you accepting a compromise on EGO_SUM, least of all the status quo.

> 
> Any answer, ranging from, for example, "don't care" to "keep the
> status 
> quo" to "reintroduce EGO_SUM," is appreciated. But I kindly ask that 
> your answer does not lack details. For example, if you can think of 
> re-introducing EGO_SUM with some constraints, then clearly specify
> those 
> constraints.
> 
> - Flow

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[John Helmert III]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2078 bytes --]

On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 12:10:46PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 28/06/2023 11.51, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> >> On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> >>> Team,
> >>>
> >>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> >>>
> >>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> >>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
> >>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> >>> end of the Friday for two weeks total.
> >>>
> >>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> >>> election officials.
> >>
> >> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> >>
> >> […]
> >  >
> >> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> >> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> >>
> >> […]
> >> flow
> > 
> > I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I am 
> > honored and accept.
> 
> Here is my Manifesto:
> 
>      https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/council-manifesto-2023.txt
> 
> 
> I'd also like to ask the nominees about their stance regarding EGO_SUM.

I echo other's sentiments that the council isn't really the right body
to make determinations about these kinds of things, and note that you
didn't champion this topic in the council meeting in which you added
this topic to the agenda. During the meeting, the council noted that
there existed concerns that were not addressed before the topic was
brought to the council. I think a lack of consensus is fine, but the
council shouldn't be expected to have discussions which should be
happening on the mailing lists beforehand, don't you agree?

> Any answer, ranging from, for example, "don't care" to "keep the status 
> quo" to "reintroduce EGO_SUM," is appreciated. But I kindly ask that 
> your answer does not lack details. For example, if you can think of 
> re-introducing EGO_SUM with some constraints, then clearly specify those 
> constraints.
> 
> - Flow

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Matt Turner]

On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 6:11 AM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 28/06/2023 11.51, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> > On 17/06/2023 10.37, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> >> On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> >>> Team,
> >>>
> >>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> >>>
> >>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> >>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
> >>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> >>> end of the Friday for two weeks total.
> >>>
> >>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> >>> election officials.
> >>
> >> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> >>
> >> […]
> >  >
> >> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo and
> >> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> >>
> >> […]
> >> flow
> >
> > I apologize for the late reply, and thank you for the nomination. I am
> > honored and accept.
>
> Here is my Manifesto:
>
>      https://dev.gentoo.org/~flow/council-manifesto-2023.txt
>
>
> I'd also like to ask the nominees about their stance regarding EGO_SUM.
>
> Any answer, ranging from, for example, "don't care" to "keep the status
> quo" to "reintroduce EGO_SUM," is appreciated. But I kindly ask that
> your answer does not lack details. For example, if you can think of
> re-introducing EGO_SUM with some constraints, then clearly specify those
> constraints.

To be perfectly frank, I think you're leading these discussions in circles.

I think I explained how I felt to you privately:

<    Flow> You feel like my reply to your mail was not serious?
<mattst88> I don't question whether it was serious; I think it's an
invitation for others to try to convince you of something
<mattst88> it seems that you want others to present arguments in favor
of the status quo to you
<mattst88> but that seems to me to be backwards—you want a change, it
should be you who is presenting an argument
<mattst88> to this point, many people have contributed to the thread,
mostly to explain why EGO_SUM was deprecated
<mattst88> if, this information had convinced you, we would have
produced nothing. no change in policy for a non-trivial amount of
effort
<mattst88> others have acknowledged some situations where the lack of
EGO_SUM has made things difficult and offered support in relaxing
those requirements
<mattst88> (e.g. by allowing EGO_SUM in overlays, and by allowing
EGO_SUM to be used if Manifest size is below some limit)
<mattst88> I believe you have rejected both of those
<mattst88> so to me, it seems that others have spent significant
effort explaining why things are the way they are and have suggested
improvements
<mattst88> and you appear to still want further justification of the
status quo and have not softened your position at all
<mattst88> as a result, I don't feel it would be a productive use of
my time to further elaborate on why I think you've unintentionally
provided data in support of a Manifest size limit
<    Flow> That discussion appears stuck, I can see why you feel that
its unproductive

but I think it's worth it to post that publicly as well because I
don't sense that your approach has changed since that conversation
(which took place on ~May 11).

My advice for you is to take a step back, stop arguing so
intransigently for your position, listen to others' concerns and begin
working to resolve them. E.g. Sam has said that he thinks implementing
a check in pkgcheck (equivalent to the one you implemented in Portage)
is a blocker. You disagree, but that just leaves us with no obvious
path forward.

I'd posit that you could have probably implemented the change in
pkgcheck in significantly less time than you've spent writing emails
disagreeing with the suggestion.

So tl;dr is: I really don't think there's more to discuss at this
point, and I'm aggravated that you keep bringing it up (someone else
counted 4 separate threads on the topic, and now the meta-discussion
here) seemingly without any willingness to compromise. A seat on
Council isn't the thing you need.

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Florian Schmaus]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2946 bytes --]

Apologies for not replying to everyone individually.

I thank my fellow council candidates who took the time to reply to this 
sensitive and obviously controversial matter. I understand that not 
everyone feels comfortable taking a stance in this discussion.

I asked the other council candidates about their opinion on EGO_SUM. 
Unfortunately, some replies included only a rather shallow answer. A few 
focused on criticism of my actions and how I approach the issue. Which 
is obviously fine. I read it all and have empathy for everyone who feels 
aggravated. You may or may not share the complaints. But let us focus on 
the actual matter for a moment.

Even the voices raised for a restricted reintroduction of EGO_SUM just 
mention an abstract limit [1]. A concrete limit is not mentioned, 
although I asked for it and provided my idea including specific limits. 
Not knowing the concrete figures others have in mind makes it difficult 
to find a compromise. For example, a fellow council candidate postulated 
that it would be quicker for me to implement a limit-check in pkgcheck 
than discuss EGO_SUM. I wish that were the case. Unfortunately it is 
potentially not trivial to implement if we want such a check to be 
robust. But even worse, a specific limit must be known before 
implementing such a check. And we currently have none.

But the real crux of an EGO_SUM reintroduction with a limit is the 
following. Either the limit is too restrictive, and most packages are 
affected by it and can not use EGO_SUM, which ultimately only 
corresponds to the current state. Or the limit only affects a fraction 
of the packages, so you should not bother having a limit.

The deprecation of EGO_SUM was and is unnecessary, a security issue, and 
was almost wholly *not* driven by technical problems. EGO_SUM should be 
re-instated.

I know that some think likewise. I also know that others disagree. The 
latter group includes some prominent and visible Gentoo developers. 
People to whom I am thankful for their work on Gentoo and to whom Gentoo 
owes a lot. However, it is unclear what the majority of Gentoo 
developers thinks. I could very well be that the consensus amongst 
Gentoo developers agrees with some of my fellow council candidates and 
would like to keep the current state. It would be great if we find that 
out. If we had a mechanism to perform a non-binding opinion poll amongst 
Gentoo developers, and if that poll turns out that the consensus is to 
keep EGO_SUM deprecated, then I could save myself a lot of time and effort.

However, as of now, my conscience demands that I try to improve this 
situation for the sake of our users. In a previous mail, I wrote that I 
seek closure by asking the council to vote on that matter. And I will, 
of course, accept any outcome of that vote.

- Flow


1: Sorry if I have missed something. If so, then please let me know.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 17843 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:07 PM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Apologies for not replying to everyone individually.
>
> I thank my fellow council candidates who took the time to reply to this
> sensitive and obviously controversial matter. I understand that not
> everyone feels comfortable taking a stance in this discussion.
>
> I asked the other council candidates about their opinion on EGO_SUM.
> Unfortunately, some replies included only a rather shallow answer. A few
> focused on criticism of my actions and how I approach the issue. Which
> is obviously fine. I read it all and have empathy for everyone who feels
> aggravated. You may or may not share the complaints. But let us focus on
> the actual matter for a moment.
>
> Even the voices raised for a restricted reintroduction of EGO_SUM just
> mention an abstract limit [1]. A concrete limit is not mentioned,
> although I asked for it and provided my idea including specific limits.
> Not knowing the concrete figures others have in mind makes it difficult
> to find a compromise. For example, a fellow council candidate postulated
> that it would be quicker for me to implement a limit-check in pkgcheck
> than discuss EGO_SUM. I wish that were the case. Unfortunately it is
> potentially not trivial to implement if we want such a check to be
> robust. But even worse, a specific limit must be known before
> implementing such a check. And we currently have none.

I think my concern here is that I don't expect the Council to really
'vote on a specific limit.' The limit is an implementation detail, it
can change, it shouldn't require a council vote to change.

So my advice is "pick something reasonable that you think holds up to
scrutiny, and implement with that" and "expect the limit to change,
either because of the scrutiny, or because it might change in the
future" and implement your check accordingly (so e.g. the limit is
easily changeable.)

>
> But the real crux of an EGO_SUM reintroduction with a limit is the
> following. Either the limit is too restrictive, and most packages are
> affected by it and can not use EGO_SUM, which ultimately only
> corresponds to the current state. Or the limit only affects a fraction
> of the packages, so you should not bother having a limit.

Again the idea is there is already a limit ( the aforementioned
environment limit ) and one of the goals is to have a QA check that
says your ebuild is approaching that limit so you can do something
productive about it, as well as to avoid ebuilds that are not
installable. So just implement that. If you need a number, I think
"90% of the env limit" is defensible (but again, any reasonable number
will do fine.)

>
> The deprecation of EGO_SUM was and is unnecessary, a security issue, and
> was almost wholly *not* driven by technical problems. EGO_SUM should be
> re-instated.
>
> I know that some think likewise. I also know that others disagree. The
> latter group includes some prominent and visible Gentoo developers.
> People to whom I am thankful for their work on Gentoo and to whom Gentoo
> owes a lot. However, it is unclear what the majority of Gentoo
> developers thinks. I could very well be that the consensus amongst
> Gentoo developers agrees with some of my fellow council candidates and
> would like to keep the current state. It would be great if we find that
> out. If we had a mechanism to perform a non-binding opinion poll amongst
> Gentoo developers, and if that poll turns out that the consensus is to
> keep EGO_SUM deprecated, then I could save myself a lot of time and effort.

I'm confused why you are asking about the 'consensus amongst
developers' and then ask the council to vote.

The council is not all developers, you just need the council to approve it.

>
> However, as of now, my conscience demands that I try to improve this
> situation for the sake of our users. In a previous mail, I wrote that I
> seek closure by asking the council to vote on that matter. And I will,
> of course, accept any outcome of that vote.

My impression of the situation is that:
 - Currently if asked, the council would likely vote no.
 - They have requested you implement a QA check with a limit, and if
you did that, many swing voters would vote yes.

My guidance from above is "implement the check with some reasonable
limit" to unblock your swing voters, so they vote yes...

We don't need everyone to vote on what the limit is ..it's just
wasting time IMHO.

-A

>
> - Flow
>
>
> 1: Sorry if I have missed something. If so, then please let me know.

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Florian Schmaus]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7592 bytes --]

Posted to gentoo-dev@ since we are now entering a technical discussion 
again.

For those who did not follow gentoo-project@, the previous posts include:

https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168918875000738&w=2
https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168881103930591&w=2

On 12/07/2023 21.28, Alec Warner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:07 PM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Apologies for not replying to everyone individually.
>>
>> I thank my fellow council candidates who took the time to reply to this
>> sensitive and obviously controversial matter. I understand that not
>> everyone feels comfortable taking a stance in this discussion.
>>
>> I asked the other council candidates about their opinion on EGO_SUM.
>> Unfortunately, some replies included only a rather shallow answer. A few
>> focused on criticism of my actions and how I approach the issue. Which
>> is obviously fine. I read it all and have empathy for everyone who feels
>> aggravated. You may or may not share the complaints. But let us focus on
>> the actual matter for a moment.
>>
>> Even the voices raised for a restricted reintroduction of EGO_SUM just
>> mention an abstract limit [1]. A concrete limit is not mentioned,
>> although I asked for it and provided my idea including specific limits.
>> Not knowing the concrete figures others have in mind makes it difficult
>> to find a compromise. For example, a fellow council candidate postulated
>> that it would be quicker for me to implement a limit-check in pkgcheck
>> than discuss EGO_SUM. I wish that were the case. Unfortunately it is
>> potentially not trivial to implement if we want such a check to be
>> robust. But even worse, a specific limit must be known before
>> implementing such a check. And we currently have none.
> 
> I think my concern here is that I don't expect the Council to really
> 'vote on a specific limit.' The limit is an implementation detail, it
> can change, it shouldn't require a council vote to change.
> 
> So my advice is "pick something reasonable that you think holds up to
> scrutiny, and implement with that" and "expect the limit to change,
> either because of the scrutiny, or because it might change in the
> future" and implement your check accordingly (so e.g. the limit is
> easily changeable.)

Please find below why this may not be enough.


>> But the real crux of an EGO_SUM reintroduction with a limit is the
>> following. Either the limit is too restrictive, and most packages are
>> affected by it and can not use EGO_SUM, which ultimately only
>> corresponds to the current state. Or the limit only affects a fraction
>> of the packages, so you should not bother having a limit.
> 
> Again the idea is there is already a limit ( the aforementioned
> environment limit ) and one of the goals is to have a QA check that
> says your ebuild is approaching that limit so you can do something
> productive about it, as well as to avoid ebuilds that are not
> installable. So just implement that. If you need a number, I think
> "90% of the env limit" is defensible (but again, any reasonable number
> will do fine.)

EGO_SUM affects two dimensions that could be limited/restricted:
A) the process environment, which may run into the Linux kernel
    environment limit on exec(3)
B) the size of the package directory, where EGO_SUM affects the size of
    ebuilds and the Manifest

I would be happy to put in any effort required to implement A) in 
pkgcheck, as I did for portage, if this check is the only thing that 
keeps us from reintroducing EGO_SUM.

Unfortunately, some argue that we need to limit B). Much of the effort I 
put into researching the EGO_SUM situation was analyzing how EGO_SUM's 
impact on package-directory size affects Gentoo. The result of the 
analysis strongly indicates that rather large package-directories can be 
sustained by ::gentoo in the foreseeable future. Especially since we are 
only talking about ~250 EGO_SUM packages currently, and a significant 
fraction of those packages will not have enormous package directories. 
And I also suggested that the policy is reconsidered at least every two 
years or once the number of EGO_SUM packages has doubled (whatever comes 
first).

My investigation of the history of EGO_SUM's deprecation has not 
surfaced any technical issue which justified EGO_SUM's deprecation with 
regard to B). It appears that technical issues do not drive the desire 
to limit B), but by esthetic preferences, which are highly subjective.

A), however, is a different beast. There is undeniably a kernel-enforced 
limit that we could hit due to an extremely large EGO_SUM (among other 
things). However, the only bug report I know that runs into this kernel 
limit was with texlive (bug #719202). The low number of recorded bugs 
caused by the environment limit matches with the fact that even the 
ebuild with the most EGO_SUM entries that I ever analyzed, 
app-containers/cri-o-1.23.1 (2022-02-16) with 2052 EGO_SUM entries, does 
*not* run into the environment limit.


>> The deprecation of EGO_SUM was and is unnecessary, a security issue, and
>> was almost wholly *not* driven by technical problems. EGO_SUM should be
>> re-instated.
>>
>> I know that some think likewise. I also know that others disagree. The
>> latter group includes some prominent and visible Gentoo developers.
>> People to whom I am thankful for their work on Gentoo and to whom Gentoo
>> owes a lot. However, it is unclear what the majority of Gentoo
>> developers thinks. I could very well be that the consensus amongst
>> Gentoo developers agrees with some of my fellow council candidates and
>> would like to keep the current state. It would be great if we find that
>> out. If we had a mechanism to perform a non-binding opinion poll amongst
>> Gentoo developers, and if that poll turns out that the consensus is to
>> keep EGO_SUM deprecated, then I could save myself a lot of time and effort.
> 
> I'm confused why you are asking about the 'consensus amongst
> developers' and then ask the council to vote.

If I knew that the majority of Gentoo developer's is fine with the 
deprecation of EGO_SUM, then I would not put in effort in re-instating 
EGO_SUM.


>> However, as of now, my conscience demands that I try to improve this
>> situation for the sake of our users. In a previous mail, I wrote that I
>> seek closure by asking the council to vote on that matter. And I will,
>> of course, accept any outcome of that vote.
> 
> My impression of the situation is that:
>   - Currently if asked, the council would likely vote no.
>   - They have requested you implement a QA check with a limit, and if
> you did that, many swing voters would vote yes.
> 
> My guidance from above is "implement the check with some reasonable
> limit" to unblock your swing voters, so they vote yes...
> 
> We don't need everyone to vote on what the limit is ..it's just
> wasting time IMHO.

It is not about everyone voting on that matter.

It is about asking everyone of their opinion on that matter, in a 
non-binding opinion poll where multiple options can be ranked [1]. 
Chances are that this would surface the consensus amongst Gentoo 
developers, and ideally, the Council would take the result of the poll 
into consideration when voting on that matter.

- Flow


1: I think that it is probably trivial to re-purpose our current voting 
infrastructure to perform opinion poll using the condorcet method.

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 17273 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Sam James]

Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> Posted to gentoo-dev@ since we are now entering a technical discussion
> again.
>
> For those who did not follow gentoo-project@, the previous posts include:
>
> https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168918875000738&w=2
> https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168881103930591&w=2
>
> On 12/07/2023 21.28, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:07 PM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> Apologies for not replying to everyone individually.
>>>
>>> I thank my fellow council candidates who took the time to reply to this
>>> sensitive and obviously controversial matter. I understand that not
>>> everyone feels comfortable taking a stance in this discussion.
>>>
>>> I asked the other council candidates about their opinion on EGO_SUM.
>>> Unfortunately, some replies included only a rather shallow answer. A few
>>> focused on criticism of my actions and how I approach the issue. Which
>>> is obviously fine. I read it all and have empathy for everyone who feels
>>> aggravated. You may or may not share the complaints. But let us focus on
>>> the actual matter for a moment.
>>>
>>> Even the voices raised for a restricted reintroduction of EGO_SUM just
>>> mention an abstract limit [1]. A concrete limit is not mentioned,
>>> although I asked for it and provided my idea including specific limits.
>>> Not knowing the concrete figures others have in mind makes it difficult
>>> to find a compromise. For example, a fellow council candidate postulated
>>> that it would be quicker for me to implement a limit-check in pkgcheck
>>> than discuss EGO_SUM. I wish that were the case. Unfortunately it is

I think this misrepresents my point. All I said was that a bound should
be added matching what's in Portage right now.

Please in future respond to me directly if you're going to claim something about what I've said.

> [...]
> EGO_SUM affects two dimensions that could be limited/restricted:
> A) the process environment, which may run into the Linux kernel
>    environment limit on exec(3)
> B) the size of the package directory, where EGO_SUM affects the size of
>    ebuilds and the Manifest
>
> [...]
>
> A), however, is a different beast. There is undeniably a
> kernel-enforced limit that we could hit due to an extremely large
> EGO_SUM (among other things). However, the only bug report I know that
> runs into this kernel limit was with texlive (bug #719202). The low
> number of recorded bugs caused by the environment limit matches with
> the fact that even the ebuild with the most EGO_SUM entries that I
> ever analyzed, app-containers/cri-o-1.23.1 (2022-02-16) with 2052
> EGO_SUM entries, does *not* run into the environment limit.
>

I thought I'd gave you a list before, but maybe it was someone else.

Anyway, a non-exhaustive list (I remember maybe two more but I got bored):
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/829545 ("app-admin/vault-1.9.1 - find: The environment is too large for exec().")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/829684 ("app-metrics/prometheus-2.31.1 - find: The environment is too large for exec().")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/830187 (you're CC'd on this) ("go lang ebuild: SRC_URI too long that it causes "Argument list too long" error")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/831265 ("sys-cluster/minikube-1.24.0 - find: The environment is too large for exec().")
* a0be89b772474e3336d3de699d71482aa89d2444 ("app-emulation/nerdctl: drop 0.14.0")

Other related bugs (as it's useful as a summary of where we are):
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/540146 ("sys-apps/portage: limit no of exported variables in EAPI 6")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/720180 ("sys-apps/portage: add support to delay export of "A" variable until last moment")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/721088 ("[Future EAPI] Don't export A")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/833567 ("[Future EAPI] src_fetch_extra phase the runs after src_unpack")

I am not aware of a bug (yet?) for radhermit's suggestion wrt external
helpers which is related but different to exporting fewer variables.

thanks,
sam

Re: Flow's Manifesto and questions for nominees (was: Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.)

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4933 bytes --]


Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> writes:

> Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:
>
>> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>> Posted to gentoo-dev@ since we are now entering a technical discussion
>> again.
>>
>> For those who did not follow gentoo-project@, the previous posts include:
>>
>> https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168918875000738&w=2
>> https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168881103930591&w=2
>>
>> On 12/07/2023 21.28, Alec Warner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 12:07 PM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>> Apologies for not replying to everyone individually.
>>>>
>>>> I thank my fellow council candidates who took the time to reply to this
>>>> sensitive and obviously controversial matter. I understand that not
>>>> everyone feels comfortable taking a stance in this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> I asked the other council candidates about their opinion on EGO_SUM.
>>>> Unfortunately, some replies included only a rather shallow answer. A few
>>>> focused on criticism of my actions and how I approach the issue. Which
>>>> is obviously fine. I read it all and have empathy for everyone who feels
>>>> aggravated. You may or may not share the complaints. But let us focus on
>>>> the actual matter for a moment.
>>>>
>>>> Even the voices raised for a restricted reintroduction of EGO_SUM just
>>>> mention an abstract limit [1]. A concrete limit is not mentioned,
>>>> although I asked for it and provided my idea including specific limits.
>>>> Not knowing the concrete figures others have in mind makes it difficult
>>>> to find a compromise. For example, a fellow council candidate postulated
>>>> that it would be quicker for me to implement a limit-check in pkgcheck
>>>> than discuss EGO_SUM. I wish that were the case. Unfortunately it is
>
> I think this misrepresents my point. All I said was that a bound should
> be added matching what's in Portage right now.
>
> Please in future respond to me directly if you're going to claim something about what I've said.
>
>> [...]
>> EGO_SUM affects two dimensions that could be limited/restricted:
>> A) the process environment, which may run into the Linux kernel
>>    environment limit on exec(3)
>> B) the size of the package directory, where EGO_SUM affects the size of
>>    ebuilds and the Manifest
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> A), however, is a different beast. There is undeniably a
>> kernel-enforced limit that we could hit due to an extremely large
>> EGO_SUM (among other things). However, the only bug report I know that
>> runs into this kernel limit was with texlive (bug #719202). The low
>> number of recorded bugs caused by the environment limit matches with
>> the fact that even the ebuild with the most EGO_SUM entries that I
>> ever analyzed, app-containers/cri-o-1.23.1 (2022-02-16) with 2052
>> EGO_SUM entries, does *not* run into the environment limit.
>>
>
> I thought I'd gave you a list before, but maybe it was someone else.
>
> Anyway, a non-exhaustive list (I remember maybe two more but I got bored):
> * https://bugs.gentoo.org/829545 ("app-admin/vault-1.9.1 - find: The environment is too large for exec().")
> * https://bugs.gentoo.org/829684 ("app-metrics/prometheus-2.31.1 - find: The environment is too large for exec().")
> * https://bugs.gentoo.org/830187 (you're CC'd on this) ("go lang ebuild: SRC_URI too long that it causes "Argument list too long" error")
> * https://bugs.gentoo.org/831265 ("sys-cluster/minikube-1.24.0 - find: The environment is too large for exec().")
> * a0be89b772474e3336d3de699d71482aa89d2444 ("app-emulation/nerdctl: drop 0.14.0")
>

Sorry, as I said this, I came across some more. These are the ones I was
thinking of:
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/830266 ("app-admin/filebeat-7.16.2 fails to compile: Assertion failed: bc_ctl.arg_max >= LINE_MAX (xargs.c: main: 511)")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/832964 ("sys-cluster/kops-1.21.0 fails to compile: Assertion failed: bc_ctl.arg_max >= LINE_MAX (xargs.c: main: 511)")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/833961 ("net-p2p/go-ipfs-0.11.0 - Assertion failed: bc_ctl.arg_max >= LINE_MAX (xargs.c: main: 511)")
* https://bugs.gentoo.org/835712 ("dev-util/packer-1.7.9 fails to compile: Assertion failed: bc_ctl.arg_max >= LINE_MAX (xargs.c: main: 511)")

> Other related bugs (as it's useful as a summary of where we are):
> * https://bugs.gentoo.org/540146 ("sys-apps/portage: limit no of exported variables in EAPI 6")
> * https://bugs.gentoo.org/720180 ("sys-apps/portage: add support to delay export of "A" variable until last moment")
> * https://bugs.gentoo.org/721088 ("[Future EAPI] Don't export A")
> * https://bugs.gentoo.org/833567 ("[Future EAPI] src_fetch_extra phase the runs after src_unpack")
>
> I am not aware of a bug (yet?) for radhermit's suggestion wrt external
> helpers which is related but different to exporting fewer variables.
>
> thanks,
> sam


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Andreas Sturmlechner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 164 bytes --]

On Samstag, 17. Juni 2023 10:37:39 CEST Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> asturm

Thanks, but I'll decline. I can not possibly dedicate more time to Gentoo.

Regards,
Andreas

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 789 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[David Seifert]

On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> On 15/06/2023 19.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Team,
> > 
> > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > 
> > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
> > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until
> > the
> > end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
> > 
> > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > election officials.
> 
> OK, then let me start sending nominations :)
> 
> I quite liked the current council, and want to thank all of you, and
> it
> was also my honor to proxy in multiple occasions. So I want to
> nominate
> the current council members (ordered by name, not priority):
> 
> ajak
> dilfridge
> gyakovlev
> mattst88
> mgorny
> sam
> ulm
> 
> I also want to nominate people who I feel contribute a lot to Gentoo
> and
> I have a lot of interaction with (ordered by name, not priority):
> 
> ago
> asturm
> flow
> ionen
> jsmolic
> juippis
> soap
> toralf
> williamh
> 
> If there is a dev who I speak a lot with and didn't nominate here,
> please don't be offended, I might have just missed you name in the IRC
> users list. I value each Gentoo dev!
> 
> > Rules ... 
> > Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
> > 
> > On behalf of the election officials.
> > 
> 

Manifesto is up at
https://dev.gentoo.org/~soap/council-manifesto-2023.txt

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Florian Schmaus]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 224 bytes --]

On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Write your nominations email now

The more the merrier. I nominate:

amadio
arthurzam
bkohler
chewi
chutzpah
conikonst
floppym
fordfrog
mjo
pacho
radhermit

- Flow

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 17273 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Arthur Zamarin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 542 bytes --]

On 17/06/2023 17.41, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Write your nominations email now
> 
> The more the merrier. I nominate:
> 
> arthurzam

Thank you for the nomination, but I decided to not go for current year
Council (I do plan for next year one, already started work on my
Manifesto), and I also decided to go as election official this time, so
at least I can help that way :)

-- 
Arthur Zamarin
arthurzam@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (Python, pkgcore stack, Arch Teams, GURU)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[James Le Cuirot]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 363 bytes --]

On Sat, 2023-06-17 at 16:41 +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Write your nominations email now
> 
> The more the merrier. I nominate:
> 
> amadio
> arthurzam
> bkohler
> chewi
> chutzpah
> conikonst
> floppym
> fordfrog
> mjo
> pacho
> radhermit
> 
> - Flow

Thank you, but as usual, I must decline.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 858 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

El sáb, 17-06-2023 a las 16:41 +0200, Florian Schmaus escribió:
> On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Write your nominations email now
> 
> The more the merrier. I nominate:
> 
> amadio
> arthurzam
> bkohler
> chewi
> chutzpah
> conikonst
> floppym
> fordfrog
> mjo
> pacho
> radhermit
> 
> - Flow

Thanks a lot

But I don't think I will have enough time for that this year

Best regards!

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Florian Schmaus]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 328 bytes --]

On 17.06.23 16:41, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Write your nominations email now
> 
> The more the merrier. I nominate:
> 
> amadio
> arthurzam
> bkohler
> chewi
> chutzpah
> conikonst
> floppym
> fordfrog
> mjo
> pacho
> radhermit

and, in addition,

arsen

- Flow

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 17843 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Arsen Arsenović]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 572 bytes --]

Hi,

Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:

> [...]
> and, in addition,
>
> arsen

I'm flattered, but I'll have to decline for this year, due to time
constraints, and being fairly new to the project :-)

I'll take this opportunity to re-nominate the current council and a few
more people, though, rather than delaying it further.

In no particular order and by no particular selection method:

ago
ajak
astrum
dilfridge
floppym
gyakovlev
ionen
mattst88
mgorny
sam
soap
ulm
williamh

Thank you, have a lovely day.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 381 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Guilherme Amadio]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 04:41:48PM +0200, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Write your nominations email now
> 
> The more the merrier. I nominate:
> 
> amadio

Thank you very much for the nomination, but I cannot accept as I do not
really have the time to dedicate to council.

Best regards,
-Guilherme

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Patrick McLean]

On 2023-06-17 07:41, Florian Schmaus wrote:

> On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Write your nominations email now
>
> The more the merrier. I nominate:
>
> chutzpah

Thank you for the nomination, I appreciate the vote of confidence. 
Unfortunately, I am unlikely to have the time to devote to serving on 
the council this year.

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Conrad Kostecki]

Am 17.06.2023 um 16:41 schrieb Florian Schmaus:
> On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Write your nominations email now
>
> The more the merrier. I nominate:
>
> conikonst


Thank you for the nomination, but I have to decline this time, since I 
have a big relocation behind me and still lot's to do. Hope to have 
finally much more time next year :-)

Conrad

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 10:41 AM Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 15/06/2023 18.05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Write your nominations email now
>
> The more the merrier. I nominate:
>
> floppym

Thank you, but after thinking about it I must decline.

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1083 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:05:16PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Team,
> 
> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> 
> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
> 
> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> election officials.
> 
> Rules ... 
> Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included some
election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well, it's
easier to find election officials than candidates!).

andrewammerlaan
chiitoo
dabbott
dlan
graaf
gyakovlev
marecki
mpagano
neddyaeagoon
rich0
tupone
xgqt

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1113 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Maciej Barć]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1295 bytes --]

I have to decline this time.
Maybe next time when I am ready with my agenda and mindset.

On June 30, 2023 6:35:13 AM UTC, "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:05:16PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Team,
>> 
>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
>> 
>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
>> end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
>> 
>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
>> election officials.
>> 
>> Rules ... 
>> Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
>More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included some
>election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well, it's
>easier to find election officials than candidates!).
>
>andrewammerlaan
>chiitoo
>dabbott
>dlan
>graaf
>gyakovlev
>marecki
>mpagano
>neddyaeagoon
>rich0
>tupone
>xgqt
>
>-- 
>Robin Hugh Johnson
>Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
>E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
>GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
>GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1950 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Andrew Ammerlaan]

On 30/06/2023 08:35, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:05:16PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Team,
>>
>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
>>
>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
>> end of the Friday for two weeks total.
>>
>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
>> election officials.
>>
>> Rules ...
>> Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included some
> election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well, it's
> easier to find election officials than candidates!).
> 
> andrewammerlaan

I'm honored, but unfortunately I am also super busy and I should really 
focus on finishing my PhD project. Therefore I must decline.

Best regards,
Andrew

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Hans de Graaff]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 447 bytes --]

On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> 
> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included
> some
> election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well,
> it's
> easier to find election officials than candidates!).
> 
> 
> graaf

I'm afraid that my current personal situation is too uncertain to take
on additional commitments, so I will have to decline.

Kind regards,

Hans

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Mike Pagano]

On 6/30/23 02:35, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:05:16PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
>> Team,
>>
>> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
>>
>> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
>> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
>> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
>> end of the Friday for two weeks total.
>>
>> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
>> election officials.
>>
>> Rules ...
>> Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included some
> election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well, it's
> easier to find election officials than candidates!).
> 
> andrewammerlaan
> chiitoo
> dabbott
> dlan
> graaf
> gyakovlev
> marecki
> mpagano
> neddyaeagoon
> rich0
> tupone
> xgqt
> 


Thank-you so much for this vote of confidence. At this moment, I would not be able
to commit the time required to be an effective council member.

Mike

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[David Abbott]

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 2:35 AM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:05:16PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Team,
> >
> > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> >
> > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
> > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> > end of the Friday for two weeks total.
> >
> > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > election officials.
> >
> > Rules ...
> > Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included some
> election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well, it's
> easier to find election officials than candidates!).
>
> andrewammerlaan
> chiitoo
> dabbott
Robin thanks for the nomination, but I will have to decline, I don't
have the time and most importantly, I really don't have the technical
skill set to be a good council member.
Thank you

> dlan
> graaf
> gyakovlev
> marecki
> mpagano
> neddyaeagoon
> rich0
> tupone
> xgqt
>
> --
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Jimi Huotari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1201 bytes --]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 06:35:13 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:05:16PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Team,
> > 
> > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > 
> > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
> > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> > end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
> > 
> > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > election officials.
> > 
> > Rules ... 
> > Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@  
> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included some
> election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well, it's
> easier to find election officials than candidates!).
> 
> andrewammerlaan
> chiitoo


Many thanks!

I will decline this time around, as I'm being rather busy with work, and
haven't had as much time and/or energy for things like our Qt packages as
I would like, and as such, this probably is not a good time for me to add
even more things to do...

Again though, thank you!

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1802 bytes --]

On 2023.06.30 07:35, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:05:16PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Team,
> > 
> > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > 
> > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
> > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until
> the
> > end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
> > 
> > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > election officials.
> > 
> > Rules ... 
> > Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included
> some
> election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well,
> it's
> easier to find election officials than candidates!).
> 
> andrewammerlaan
> chiitoo
> dabbott
> dlan
> graaf
> gyakovlev
> marecki
> mpagano
> neddyaeagoon
> rich0
> tupone
> xgqt
> 
> -- 
> Robin Hugh Johnson
> Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation Treasurer
> E-Mail   : robbat2@gentoo.org
> GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
> GnuPG FP : 7D0B3CEB E9B85B1F 825BCECF EE05E6F6 A48F6136
> 

Robin,

Thank you for the nomination. I can see in the not to distant that the
non technical workload for the council will ramp up when they take over
the work that will not transfer to an umbrella, so there will be a need
for non technical skills too.

I'm going to decline tor the same reason I stepped down as a trustee in
2016. I'm retired from paid employment and conditions permitting I may
not have the regular time to commit to Gentoo an official capacity. 

-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
elections
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
arm64



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Alfredo Tupone]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 06:35:13 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 05:05:16PM +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > Team,
> > 
> > Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> > 
> > Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> > Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until 
> > Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until
> > the end of the Friday for two weeks total. 
> > 
> > Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> > election officials.
> > 
> > Rules ... 
> > Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@  
> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included
> some election officials, but I hope they will consider running as
> well, it's easier to find election officials than candidates!).
> 
> andrewammerlaan
> chiitoo
> dabbott
> dlan
> graaf
> gyakovlev
> marecki
> mpagano
> neddyaeagoon
> rich0
> tupone
> xgqt
> 
I have to decline. No time available

Thank you 

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 2:35 AM Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included some
> election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well, it's
> easier to find election officials than candidates!).
>
> rich0

While I really appreciate the gesture, I'm going to decline.  I think
the distance has definitely helped, but this isn't a plunge I'm ready
to take right now...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Marek Szuba]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 453 bytes --]

On 2023-06-30 07:35, Robin H. Johnson wrote:

> More nominations, in alphabetical order (yes, I know this included some
> election officials, but I hope they will consider running as well, it's
> easier to find election officials than candidates!).
[...]
> marecki

Thank you very much for the nomination. However, my work load has if 
anything somewhat increased since last year so like then, I am afraid I 
shall decline.

-- 
Marecki


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Patrick Lauer]

On 6/15/23 16:05, Roy Bamford wrote:
> Team,
> 
> Did you spot the error in my original announce?
> 
> Write your nominations email now but don't send it until ...
> Nominations are Saturday, 23-06-17 00:00:00 until
> Friday 23-06-30 23:59:59. That's from the start of Saturday until the
> end of the Friday for two weeks total.
> 
> Replies to this message will make nominations easy to find for the
> election officials.
> 
> Rules ...
> Nominations must be both made and accepted on gentoo-project@
> 
> On behalf of the election officials.
> 

Heyhey,

so I'll nominate patrick

And I guess I'll accept the nomination.


Have fun times,

Patrick

[gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Arthur Zamarin]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --]

Hi to all candidates of council election, here is my list of questions
to candidates:

1. How will you take active part in foundation dissolution? How will you
make sure this is finally done and not missed? (replying to queries,
following issues and such)

2. How will you try to make Gentoo more "public", so more users can
learn about it and use, to make us "news" competitive with other distros?

3. What are some of your active ideas to suggest for the coming council
meetings?

-- 
Arthur Zamarin
arthurzam@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (Python, pkgcore stack, Arch Teams, GURU)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Michał Górny]

On Sat, 2023-07-08 at 21:06 +0300, Arthur Zamarin wrote:
> Hi to all candidates of council election, here is my list of questions
> to candidates:
> 
> 1. How will you take active part in foundation dissolution? How will you
> make sure this is finally done and not missed? (replying to queries,
> following issues and such)

I don't think I would be the one specifically to champion it but what we
need to do is choose one Council member directly responsible for
communicating with the umbrella and moving things forward.  It is also
important to keep everyone in the loop and keep track of the process
on every meeting.

> 2. How will you try to make Gentoo more "public", so more users can
> learn about it and use, to make us "news" competitive with other distros?

We *are* competitive with other distros, and we have our features that
make us unique.  On my part, I'm already announcing our minor and major
successes on Mastodon, with my specific selling point of superior Python
support.

A part of this is also finding compromises between "going with the flow"
and "staying oldschool" that makes it possible to reasonably work
on Gentoo and for it to remain attractive both to new users, and to
people who use it for years.

> 3. What are some of your active ideas to suggest for the coming council
> meetings?

Nothing specific right now, besides the umbrella point.  It's clear that
we're going to have to deal with Manifest sizes eventually, though.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Matt Turner]

Here's my manifesto:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Mattst88/Council_Manifesto

On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 2:06 PM Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Hi to all candidates of council election, here is my list of questions
> to candidates:
>
> 1. How will you take active part in foundation dissolution? How will you
> make sure this is finally done and not missed? (replying to queries,
> following issues and such)

I believe it's time for Council to take charge of this. It's just not
going to happen otherwise.

If elected, I'm going to make sure that Council reaches out to Open
Collective to restart the process. I already made brief contact with
them here: https://fosstodon.org/@benjam@opencollective.com/110587815984647713

Secondly, even with Council driving this, we're going to need help
from robbat2 and antarus regardless of whether they're trustees. I
suggest that we have a standing agenda item for the monthly Council
meetings to discuss the status of joining an umbrella.

> 2. How will you try to make Gentoo more "public", so more users can
> learn about it and use, to make us "news" competitive with other distros?

I'll continue posting about potentially interesting work I've done for
Gentoo on Mastadon and r/gentoo. E.g.

https://fosstodon.org/@mattst88/110505343631103448 (fixing unaligned
accesses in Mesa and GTK, getting gdb fixed on sparc64)
https://fosstodon.org/@mattst88/109478769111923921 (GNOME 43, libsoup
2.4 -> 3.0 transition)

GNOME announcements on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Gentoo/comments/nc6u1v/gnome_40_available_in_gentoo/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gentoo/comments/tpqyzo/gnome_420_now_in_gentoo/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gentoo/comments/zq4qqv/gnome_43_is_now_stable_on_amd64/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gentoo/comments/138s3el/gnome_441_now_stable/

These have had surprisingly good engagement, I'm happy to say.

> 3. What are some of your active ideas to suggest for the coming council
> meetings?

Like I mentioned previously, I think it's time for Council to take
over the effort to dissolve the Foundation, and we should do that by
having a standing item on the agenda.

Re: [gentoo-project] Gentoo Council Election 202306 ... Nominations Open in Just Over 24 Hours.

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1441 bytes --]

>>>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2023, Arthur Zamarin wrote:

> Hi to all candidates of council election, here is my list of questions
> to candidates:

> 1. How will you take active part in foundation dissolution? How will you
> make sure this is finally done and not missed? (replying to queries,
> following issues and such)

IMHO the council will have to take over the process at some point.
We must also improve information flow; in the last few months the
council has only received part of the communication with Open
Collective.

Some structures must defined on our side, e.g. we will need some kind
of liaison with the umbrella. The Social Contract and several GLEPs
should be updated because they mention the Foundation or the Trustees.

Last but not least, we should be very open about the whole process,
and communicate clearly what we are going to do and why. I'd rather
avoid another PR disaster like "the Foundation has dissolved - Gentoo
is dying!!!"

> 2. How will you try to make Gentoo more "public", so more users can
> learn about it and use, to make us "news" competitive with other
> distros?

I am doing some outreach as president of the Gentoo e.V., for example
by organising online workshops (in German and English) and by
representing Gentoo at events.

> 3. What are some of your active ideas to suggest for the coming
> council meetings?

Hah. No manifesto here, not even as a reply to sneaky questions like
this. :)

Ulrich

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 507 bytes --]