[gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Fabian Groffen]

With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
still is to send it out a week in advance.

As from the summary from the 2011-07-15 meeting, the "required advance
notice for council meetings" has to be discussed and probably voted
upon, if different from the current 1 week rule.

Roy Bamford made a suggestion for getting a more continuous experience
when the council is replaced after a year [2].  In short he proposed to
have 2 slots overlapping in time, each slot taking 2 years.

Finally, I sent out myself a decision item right after the last meeting
of the previous council [1].  I would like to put it on the agenda, and
volunteer to prepare it even further, of course.

Please add items to the agenda, and/or start discussions on this list so
we can prepare and see if it needs to be discussed (preferably just
voted on!) in the council meeting.


[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2ff02d6910d797045af3659fb21c712f.xml
[2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_57311d9d940106bc9b4c039707e0c953.xml

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 960 bytes --]

>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Fabian Groffen wrote:

> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
> I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
> still is to send it out a week in advance.

> [...]

> Please add items to the agenda, and/or start discussions on this list so
> we can prepare and see if it needs to be discussed (preferably just
> voted on!) in the council meeting.

Please add the following item to the agenda:
Should gentoo-council be used as a dedicated mailing list for council
related topics (i.e. such topics that are in -project currently)?

Rationale see here:
<http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_6cad9409772fa44415e84005ff922145.xml>

If accepted, this would revert the decision of the previous council in
its 2010-08-09 meeting that -project and -council lists should be
merged into one (which however has not been implemented; the -council
list is still functional).

Ulrich

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

[gentoo-project] Re: reopening gentoo-council

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2097 bytes --]

On 31.07.2011 19:51, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> 
>> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
>> I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
>> still is to send it out a week in advance.
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> Please add items to the agenda, and/or start discussions on this list so
>> we can prepare and see if it needs to be discussed (preferably just
>> voted on!) in the council meeting.
> 
> Please add the following item to the agenda:
> Should gentoo-council be used as a dedicated mailing list for council
> related topics (i.e. such topics that are in -project currently)?
> 
> Rationale see here:
> <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_6cad9409772fa44415e84005ff922145.xml>
> 
> If accepted, this would revert the decision of the previous council in
> its 2010-08-09 meeting that -project and -council lists should be
> merged into one (which however has not been implemented; the -council
> list is still functional).
> 

Some background information for why the decision was initially made is
available at:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/787
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100726.txt

Your rational is a bit off or can be understood incorrectly in how the
current rules go. Discussion should happen on the on topic mailing list
(most of the time gentoo-dev or gentoo-project). gentoo-project is only
used to submit threads to the agenda regardless of where the discussion
happens. gentoo-dev-announce can be used to draw attention to important
things. How do you propose people decide if something is gentoo-council
material or do we go back to the situation where threads get fragmented
to multiple mailing lists? If actual discussion happens elsewhere than
gentoo-council then I don't think we need a separate mailing list just
for handling agendas etc. Finally I think gentoo-project / gentoo-dev
reach a wider audencience but we should get verified numbers from infra.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

[gentoo-project] Re: reopening gentoo-council

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011, Petteri Räty wrote:

> Your rational is a bit off or can be understood incorrectly in how
> the current rules go. Discussion should happen on the on topic
> mailing list (most of the time gentoo-dev or gentoo-project).
> gentoo-project is only used to submit threads to the agenda
> regardless of where the discussion happens. gentoo-dev-announce can
> be used to draw attention to important things. How do you propose
> people decide if something is gentoo-council material or do we go
> back to the situation where threads get fragmented to multiple
> mailing lists? If actual discussion happens elsewhere than
> gentoo-council then I don't think we need a separate mailing list
> just for handling agendas etc. Finally I think gentoo-project /
> gentoo-dev reach a wider audencience but we should get verified
> numbers from infra.

gentoo-dev, -project, -dev-announce ... this would mean that we split
discussions between three mailing lists at least. (Probably more, for
example PMS/EAPI related stuff should be discussed on gentoo-pms then.)

That's too complicated for my simple mind.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: reopening gentoo-council

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01-08-2011 21:02, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011, Petteri Räty wrote:
> 
>> Your rational is a bit off or can be understood incorrectly in how 
>> the current rules go. Discussion should happen on the on topic 
>> mailing list (most of the time gentoo-dev or gentoo-project). 
>> gentoo-project is only used to submit threads to the agenda 
>> regardless of where the discussion happens. gentoo-dev-announce
>> can be used to draw attention to important things. How do you
>> propose people decide if something is gentoo-council material or do
>> we go back to the situation where threads get fragmented to
>> multiple mailing lists? If actual discussion happens elsewhere
>> than gentoo-council then I don't think we need a separate mailing
>> list just for handling agendas etc. Finally I think gentoo-project
>> / gentoo-dev reach a wider audencience but we should get verified 
>> numbers from infra.
> 
> gentoo-dev, -project, -dev-announce ... this would mean that we
> split discussions between three mailing lists at least. (Probably
> more, for example PMS/EAPI related stuff should be discussed on
> gentoo-pms then.)
> 
> That's too complicated for my simple mind.

Unfortunately you can't prevent it. You won't be able to force people to
use gentoo-council to discuss any technical issues that have always been
discussed on the gentoo-dev ml because it's simpler for the council members.

> Ulrich
> 

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=KtRh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Re: reopening gentoo-council

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote:
> On 01-08-2011 21:02, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> gentoo-dev, -project, -dev-announce ... this would mean that we
>> split discussions between three mailing lists at least. (Probably
>> more, for example PMS/EAPI related stuff should be discussed on
>> gentoo-pms then.)

>> That's too complicated for my simple mind.

> Unfortunately you can't prevent it. You won't be able to force
> people to use gentoo-council to discuss any technical issues that
> have always been discussed on the gentoo-dev ml because it's simpler
> for the council members.

Technical discussions started on -dev could stay there, of course.
Generally, trying to move a thread from one mailing list to another
won't work (and only lead to a discussion split between both lists).

The point is that the current scheme does not really work and we end
up discussing technical issues on -project where they are off-topic.
Two examples from today are the sub-threads about "signed commits" [1]
and "optional runtime dependencies" [2].

Ulrich

[1] <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_cb85cb70b49c12b6194f972dbc7fbcdb.xml>
[2] <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_5e6199cb16f1af820200fa4bcebbf08d.xml>

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 07/29/2011 06:55 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
> I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
> still is to send it out a week in advance.
> 
> As from the summary from the 2011-07-15 meeting, the "required advance
> notice for council meetings" has to be discussed and probably voted
> upon, if different from the current 1 week rule.
> 
> Roy Bamford made a suggestion for getting a more continuous experience
> when the council is replaced after a year [2].  In short he proposed to
> have 2 slots overlapping in time, each slot taking 2 years.
> 
> Finally, I sent out myself a decision item right after the last meeting
> of the previous council [1].  I would like to put it on the agenda, and
> volunteer to prepare it even further, of course.
> 
> Please add items to the agenda, and/or start discussions on this list so
> we can prepare and see if it needs to be discussed (preferably just
> voted on!) in the council meeting.
> 
> 
> [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2ff02d6910d797045af3659fb21c712f.xml
> [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_57311d9d940106bc9b4c039707e0c953.xml
> 

I would like to add the following item to the agenda

* Optional runtime dependencies [1],[2]

[1]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_808590a7c34401a8761d793bbb68a280.xml

[2]
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2342bd1cad57e432a319c55e3ef7e6df.xml

I volunteer to prepare a summary with the key points as discussed on the
listed threads and discuss the possibility to include a solution as a
future EAPI feature

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=xbIv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Fabian Groffen]

On 31-07-2011 20:03:23 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I would like to add the following item to the agenda
> 
> * Optional runtime dependencies [1],[2]
> 
> [1]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_808590a7c34401a8761d793bbb68a280.xml
> 
> [2]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2342bd1cad57e432a319c55e3ef7e6df.xml
> 
> I volunteer to prepare a summary with the key points as discussed on the
> listed threads and discuss the possibility to include a solution as a
> future EAPI feature

Please do, and make it clear what the council has to vote on.  If no
voting is necessary yet, make it clear what question(s) you like to have
answers from council members for.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 07/29/2011 06:55 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
> I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
> still is to send it out a week in advance.
> 
> As from the summary from the 2011-07-15 meeting, the "required advance
> notice for council meetings" has to be discussed and probably voted
> upon, if different from the current 1 week rule.
> 
> Roy Bamford made a suggestion for getting a more continuous experience
> when the council is replaced after a year [2].  In short he proposed to
> have 2 slots overlapping in time, each slot taking 2 years.
> 
> Finally, I sent out myself a decision item right after the last meeting
> of the previous council [1].  I would like to put it on the agenda, and
> volunteer to prepare it even further, of course.
> 
> Please add items to the agenda, and/or start discussions on this list so
> we can prepare and see if it needs to be discussed (preferably just
> voted on!) in the council meeting.
> 
> 
> [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2ff02d6910d797045af3659fb21c712f.xml
> [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_57311d9d940106bc9b4c039707e0c953.xml
> 
Thanks to Theo ( tampakrap ) for reminding me, I would like to add the
gentoo/user/cloaks issue[1] to the agenda. Based on this comment[2], it
seems like we need a council vote on the matter, so I would like to get
this sorted as soon as possible.

[1]http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_3acf985a8e1a9a13a8972eb68e74b44e.xml

[2]http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_6305759d01eb0957505f8cc0a05bf595.xml

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=KPTZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Fabian Groffen]

On 01-08-2011 18:57:43 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Thanks to Theo ( tampakrap ) for reminding me, I would like to add the
> gentoo/user/cloaks issue[1] to the agenda. Based on this comment[2], it
> seems like we need a council vote on the matter, so I would like to get
> this sorted as soon as possible.

Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and who
can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that Petteri
refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic without that GLEP
in place?


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/01/2011 07:59 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 01-08-2011 18:57:43 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Thanks to Theo ( tampakrap ) for reminding me, I would like to add the
>> gentoo/user/cloaks issue[1] to the agenda. Based on this comment[2], it
>> seems like we need a council vote on the matter, so I would like to get
>> this sorted as soon as possible.
> 
> Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and who
> can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that Petteri
> refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic without that GLEP
> in place?
> 
> 
Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request. Petteri
suggested to have the council vote and transfer the responsibility to
devrel, which in accordance will include this in a new GLEP defining the
devrel policy just like then one for QA.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJONvuSAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC020QAJbevVeConMChaEBY5GL00oU
3rIksIdzV9JULOUAbydntS3s5mCojtBMzUddZrVBuObFvu2LYv2X2pvHSM0ojhyS
nwi2D0a5mXGdSGnP9ehfSlHt1IY2d8fC18PyOTDCdHbwlH66kLkmn+/GN8nU1ieI
mc9sMqwlB4nVkMI1Qd4LkRRtCBx/3AMhK5JmXSNuU+Rwocfd0S/sAXzuKoh9sj58
lVhu92+CyaFu/rL5t82vyj8fc2YZyCgtn92xF8N3666ZwT+/an+G+qA5WFLmA6K3
20068avLhSTT9yNmBVFP3D0j/WD1ROYdngvyjFH/ouEZQgwve0sBsQk6N6HRDnw8
Kq8aLOhYZrnRDD/Q5w4wHwJ1JWOxFn/7EI5RCfAWDIAX2VkVkkxOcXAcofF0WsEo
QjNNpb9D0IKDWDxfmfNlVVlptEIOjz9LWotJ7WcSXcwtWhG2tepV/xMwF0OS8Djv
tVy2fvQ2vVnspkqsdfJzwkcBfk0zlsCpZazrQ1FelRL04BmLjb10Bpn27QiEKrcZ
Wx8Vyn5O2PqY4gTIjeHXUrquWXFw49eYcY9Xok2PXzU0U+Q5xxD304nZQ/ieO7Vp
5LV/DOTaeX9tFEIBVX3oFsKa+/pFBPDTBNQWec/ZuXq0mqElnffHThZR9/WcCGVF
xgfwVgKbhvZhPwv50J15
=LE4M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Fabian Groffen]

On 01-08-2011 20:16:34 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and who
> > can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that Petteri
> > refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic without that GLEP
> > in place?
> > 
> Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request. Petteri
> suggested to have the council vote and transfer the responsibility to
> devrel, which in accordance will include this in a new GLEP defining the
> devrel policy just like then one for QA.

Ok, thanks.
Am I correct by summarising this point as simply a vote for transferring
the cloak responsibility to devrel?


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/01/2011 08:32 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 01-08-2011 20:16:34 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and who
>>> can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that Petteri
>>> refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic without that GLEP
>>> in place?
>>>
>> Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request. Petteri
>> suggested to have the council vote and transfer the responsibility to
>> devrel, which in accordance will include this in a new GLEP defining the
>> devrel policy just like then one for QA.
> 
> Ok, thanks.
> Am I correct by summarising this point as simply a vote for transferring
> the cloak responsibility to devrel?
> 
> 
Yes I think this is pretty much the gist.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=W/1o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01-08-2011 20:46, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 08:32 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 01-08-2011 20:16:34 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>> Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can
>>>> and who can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the
>>>> GLEP that Petteri refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for
>>>> this topic without that GLEP in place?
>>>> 
>>> Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request.
>>> Petteri suggested to have the council vote and transfer the
>>> responsibility to devrel, which in accordance will include this
>>> in a new GLEP defining the devrel policy just like then one for
>>> QA.
> 
>> Ok, thanks. Am I correct by summarising this point as simply a vote
>> for transferring the cloak responsibility to devrel?
> 
> 
> Yes I think this is pretty much the gist.

No, I'm sorry but that's not the point.
First, these users issues need to be moved to "community relations", the
project I and Petteri have been talking about to unite DevRel and UserRel.
In any case, the 2 issues at stake here are:

1. Do we want / support gentoo/user cloaks or not? If so, what is needed
for anyone to get them.
2. What should gentoo/contributor cloaks mean? Should they be reserved
to ATs/HTs/other official project members? How can they be requested /
validated?

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=HviO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Fabian Groffen]

On 01-08-2011 23:10:43 +0000, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> >> Ok, thanks. Am I correct by summarising this point as simply a vote
> >> for transferring the cloak responsibility to devrel?
> > 
> > Yes I think this is pretty much the gist.
> 
> No, I'm sorry but that's not the point.
> First, these users issues need to be moved to "community relations", the
> project I and Petteri have been talking about to unite DevRel and UserRel.
> In any case, the 2 issues at stake here are:
> 
> 1. Do we want / support gentoo/user cloaks or not? If so, what is needed
> for anyone to get them.

I think the council in general should only decide on the first question.
The second one should not be an open discussion, but instead
pre-discussed such that the council can simply vote on the whole (yes
support cloaks, and like this)

> 2. What should gentoo/contributor cloaks mean? Should they be reserved
> to ATs/HTs/other official project members? How can they be requested /
> validated?

This seems totally out of the domain of council to me.  We have
specialised sub-projects to deal with these kinds of grey areas.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/02/2011 12:10 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 01-08-2011 20:46, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/01/2011 08:32 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 01-08-2011 20:16:34 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>>> Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can
>>>>> and who can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the
>>>>> GLEP that Petteri refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for
>>>>> this topic without that GLEP in place?
>>>>>
>>>> Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request.
>>>> Petteri suggested to have the council vote and transfer the
>>>> responsibility to devrel, which in accordance will include this
>>>> in a new GLEP defining the devrel policy just like then one for
>>>> QA.
> 
>>> Ok, thanks. Am I correct by summarising this point as simply a vote
>>> for transferring the cloak responsibility to devrel?
> 
> 
>> Yes I think this is pretty much the gist.
> 
> No, I'm sorry but that's not the point.
> First, these users issues need to be moved to "community relations", the
> project I and Petteri have been talking about to unite DevRel and UserRel.
> In any case, the 2 issues at stake here are:
> 
> 1. Do we want / support gentoo/user cloaks or not? If so, what is needed
> for anyone to get them.

Based on the thread I used as a reference on the original e-mail nobody
raised any objections so I assumed that "Yes we want them".

> 2. What should gentoo/contributor cloaks mean? Should they be reserved
> to ATs/HTs/other official project members? How can they be requested /
> validated?
> 

This does not look like a council issue. It fits perfectly to the
"community relations" you mentioned before.

That's why I said that the council has to transfer the responsibility to
the one of the two *Rel projects.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
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=zlZH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01-08-2011 19:16, Markos Chandras wrote:
> On 08/01/2011 07:59 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 01-08-2011 18:57:43 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>> Thanks to Theo ( tampakrap ) for reminding me, I would like to
>>> add the gentoo/user/cloaks issue[1] to the agenda. Based on this
>>> comment[2], it seems like we need a council vote on the matter,
>>> so I would like to get this sorted as soon as possible.
> 
>> Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and
>> who can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that
>> Petteri refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic
>> without that GLEP in place?
> 
> 
> Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request. Petteri 
> suggested to have the council vote and transfer the responsibility
> to devrel, which in accordance will include this in a new GLEP
> defining the devrel policy just like then one for QA.

Just to be clear, one thing is having a GLEP about DevRel policy,
another that has been mentioned before is having a GLEP about DevRel. I
strongly disagree with the latter. For the former I prefer the current
format of having DevRel work on a policy and have the council approve it
or not.

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=SJRT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 08/02/2011 12:12 AM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> On 01-08-2011 19:16, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On 08/01/2011 07:59 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 01-08-2011 18:57:43 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>>> Thanks to Theo ( tampakrap ) for reminding me, I would like to
>>>> add the gentoo/user/cloaks issue[1] to the agenda. Based on this
>>>> comment[2], it seems like we need a council vote on the matter,
>>>> so I would like to get this sorted as soon as possible.
> 
>>> Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and
>>> who can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that
>>> Petteri refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic
>>> without that GLEP in place?
> 
> 
>> Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request. Petteri 
>> suggested to have the council vote and transfer the responsibility
>> to devrel, which in accordance will include this in a new GLEP
>> defining the devrel policy just like then one for QA.
> 
> Just to be clear, one thing is having a GLEP about DevRel policy,
> another that has been mentioned before is having a GLEP about DevRel. I
> strongly disagree with the latter. For the former I prefer the current
> format of having DevRel work on a policy and have the council approve it
> or not.
> 
I don't understand the difference between "DevRel policy" and "Devrel".
Which other aspects of Devrel will the second one include?

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJON7G+AAoJEPqDWhW0r/LC0FEP/2IO8sSdrDPHhL59/+jeBu5j
U/k73ubSm6wOZuB6Ny7s0X1jVPXipN91F7Yol1FGorObN6RHY6Ua3V1h/FKh4Uhs
Kk6Ls3FXto7Zdnd/rAqwF051jY+tlSMAy3d1hxv+mZFmRGnw76fnT8kMGRxzas+6
JaeZUz15uY1dR5LiTrQcfjAWp/26Pdgu3cLebJ6UV5uR+eV0uTbEQLC3wEYio56/
nNknYduJnAbC3TtIC0CoSfnLIREO7ebGxF+jxP/a8S7SNRFhS5r2Ll4+z0GV75g9
AUj19Po0i3jTePSXnQgFH0YBOgGjvcY0xZAR/G0k89hFwsfSKF9Xub8oJFLDIdB3
HsR4j/o7qP+wLzpS3ZF3Bq4y6x7XgUp2GhFINZrXI+7k3247XBKndT21ZLwBFS+e
G0JqulKBDGJdk6QZsppYtblsI1yAW/0OueQu/6zd6S8Gljq18teZuMtAucHT/iSP
ChFDogAcuVrFPAVxzoAZ5lgbY3607/Y/+rXG/+Lmk+mSRVzaP2JI+DNR+ktMRq2S
LRiR3irovf0q0gzc9p36RalAT7hAUDjvsZfzeKyiqKuVg151vo2d2eKoXt99BeLI
OiMtMNVb3T64wvLwgkdaHVJLLGW9plPxVYT1+XyqFGTbQxYey62sL3l2X+i8vbNo
qx3RZLjy69nhAtoLQC1F
=Z3MY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Patrick Lauer]

On 07/29/11 19:55, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
> I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
> still is to send it out a week in advance.

A small thing which I've brought up for discussion twice (and both times
it was mostly ignored), but which I'd really like to see discussed or
even agreed on:

A simple policy making signed commits mandatory, plus a simple policy on
key length, permissible encryption/signature algorithms, and a
well-defined place where (public) keys are made available for verifying
and checking the validity of the signatures.


It would greatly improve the current status quo and remove any ambiguity
which might motivate people to use a 4-bit key for signing to be within
the letter of the law.


Thanks,

Patrick

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Aaron W. Swenson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08/01/2011 05:51 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 07/29/11 19:55, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council
>> meeting, I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current
>> practice still is to send it out a week in advance.
> 
> A small thing which I've brought up for discussion twice (and both
> times it was mostly ignored), but which I'd really like to see
> discussed or even agreed on:
> 
> A simple policy making signed commits mandatory, plus a simple policy
> on key length, permissible encryption/signature algorithms, and a 
> well-defined place where (public) keys are made available for
> verifying and checking the validity of the signatures.
> 
> 
> It would greatly improve the current status quo and remove any
> ambiguity which might motivate people to use a 4-bit key for signing
> to be within the letter of the law.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Patrick
> 

I second this.

The Developer's Handbook specifies[1] that a DSA key with a minimum 1024
bit length is required, but not whether 'DSA and Elgamal' or 'DSA (sign
only)' should be used, and it does not specify to which key server the
key must be submitted.

Inquiring minds need to know.

- - Aaron

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk43L1MACgkQCOhwUhu5AEkRIQD9EEn6+lXi5CHmqxLh0ltCQY41
w9Kh+Ck2KOnH+QDPUvMA/2gL13ROr6fZDgyufKrS6yCA4LFxkigs2d0hAkw9V6ce
=Tm3U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Fabian Groffen]

On 01-08-2011 23:51:16 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> A small thing which I've brought up for discussion twice (and both times
> it was mostly ignored), but which I'd really like to see discussed or
> even agreed on:
> 
> A simple policy making signed commits mandatory, plus a simple policy on
> key length, permissible encryption/signature algorithms, and a
> well-defined place where (public) keys are made available for verifying
> and checking the validity of the signatures.

That's fine, but I'm not in favour of a random open-ended discussion
between council members.  Please come with a proposal that describes the
trade-offs and has with clear voting points for the council.  Link back
to the community discussion on -dev (or -project?) and preferably sum up
the thread(s).


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Dane Smith]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 08/01/2011 05:51 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 07/29/11 19:55, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
>> I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
>> still is to send it out a week in advance.
> 
> A small thing which I've brought up for discussion twice (and both times
> it was mostly ignored), but which I'd really like to see discussed or
> even agreed on:
> 
> A simple policy making signed commits mandatory, plus a simple policy on
> key length, permissible encryption/signature algorithms, and a
> well-defined place where (public) keys are made available for verifying
> and checking the validity of the signatures.
> 
> 

IMHO:
Key Length: 2048
Enc/Sig: RSA Signatures, sha256 hashes
Last part: Still working on that.

Which reminds me, I need to get moving on that. I've been swamped at
work for the past couple weeks, so I've been scarce. More on all of this
soon hopefully.

> It would greatly improve the current status quo and remove any ambiguity
> which might motivate people to use a 4-bit key for signing to be within
> the letter of the law.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Patrick
> 

Regards,
- -- 
Dane Smith (c1pher)
Gentoo Linux Developer -- QA / Crypto / Sunrise / x86
RSA Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x0C2E1531&op=index
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=zyVH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Patrick Lauer]

On 08/04/11 15:24, Dane Smith wrote:
>> A small thing which I've brought up for discussion twice (and both times
>> it was mostly ignored), but which I'd really like to see discussed or
>> even agreed on:
>>
>> A simple policy making signed commits mandatory, plus a simple policy on
>> key length, permissible encryption/signature algorithms, and a
>> well-defined place where (public) keys are made available for verifying
>> and checking the validity of the signatures.
>>
>>
> 
> IMHO:
> Key Length: 2048
> Enc/Sig: RSA Signatures, sha256 hashes
As a first iteration I think this is "good enough", we can still discuss
the finer details (but I think that'll mostly be bikeshedding and should
not stop us now from defining an initial standard)

> Last part: Still working on that.

Can we store the keys in LDAP ?
If yes it would be trivial to write a cute little script that just
generates a tarball of them all and put it somewhere in the public webspace.

Re: [gentoo-project] Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1084 bytes --]

On 16:33 Thu 04 Aug     , Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 08/04/11 15:24, Dane Smith wrote:
> >> A small thing which I've brought up for discussion twice (and both times
> >> it was mostly ignored), but which I'd really like to see discussed or
> >> even agreed on:
> >>
> >> A simple policy making signed commits mandatory, plus a simple policy on
> >> key length, permissible encryption/signature algorithms, and a
> >> well-defined place where (public) keys are made available for verifying
> >> and checking the validity of the signatures.
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > IMHO:
> > Key Length: 2048
> > Enc/Sig: RSA Signatures, sha256 hashes
> As a first iteration I think this is "good enough", we can still discuss
> the finer details (but I think that'll mostly be bikeshedding and should
> not stop us now from defining an initial standard)

I'm happy to vote on a standard whenever you experts can come up with a 
concrete set of requirements to propose.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Council Member / Sr. Developer
Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

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