Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2018-12-09

[Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>]

On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 19:16:04 -0500
Aaron Bauman <bman@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > On 25.11.2018 15:31, Mart Raudsepp wrote:  
> > > In two weeks from now, there will be a council meeting again. Now is
> > > the time to raise and prepare agenda items that you want us to discuss
> > > and/or vote upon.
> > >
> > > Please respond to this message on the gentoo-project mailing list with
> > > agenda items.
> > > The final agenda will be sent out on 2018-12-02, so please make sure
> > > you post any agenda items before that, or we may not be able to
> > > accommodate it into the next meeting.
> > >
> > > The meeting itself will happen on 2018-12-09 19:00 UTC [1] in the
> > > #gentoo-council FreeNode IRC channel.
> > >
> > >
> > > 1. https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20181209T19
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mart Raudsepp  
> 
> I would like to propose, once again, that the council vote on the
> following items:

If it's not the first instance can you link to previous discussion of
the problem?

> 1. The council approves all architectures that are maintained as stable
> architectures.
>  - e.g. alpha, amd64, arm, arm64, ia64, ppc, ppc64, and x86.

What is the definition of "maintained as stable architectures" in this
context? I don't think Gentoo defines those today.

The ones that have at least one stable profile in profiles.desc?
"Security Project Structure" defines it in even more vague terms:
'the ebuilds in the Gentoo official ebuild repository marked as "stable"'

Or you plan to introduce/maintain a separate list of stable arches?

> Conversely, the council also may remove/drop such architectures as
> needed (c.f. item 2).
> 
> 2. The council approves that all stable architectures are subsequently
> determined to be security supported. Thus, an architecture may not be
> stable and *not* security supported.  This disparity has implications in
> processes and timeliness of actions taken to mitigate vulnerabilities
> reported.
>  - e.g. amd64 is approved as stable arch and thus is security supported.
>  - e.g. arm is dropped as a stable arch thus is no longer security supported.
> 
> Overall, both of these items will provide a much clearer understanding
> of how security is able to proceed with mitigating vulnerabilities in
> the tree, how users view and understand what architectures are stable
> and security supported, and allow the security team and maintainers a
> clearer/cleaner process to follow.
> 
> Standing by to answer RFI's.
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> Aaron


-- 

  Sergei