[gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?

[gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?

[Andreas K. Huettel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 313 bytes --]

The next council meeting will be on Sunday 2019-12-08, 19:00 UTC in the 
#gentoo-council channel on Freenode. Please reply to this mail with desired 
agenda topics.

Cheers, 
Andreas

-- 
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] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?

[Ulrich Mueller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 434 bytes --]

>>>>> On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Andreas K Huettel wrote:

> The next council meeting will be on Sunday 2019-12-08, 19:00 UTC in
> the #gentoo-council channel on Freenode. Please reply to this mail
> with desired agenda topics.

Please approve the changes to GLEPs 1 and 2, as posted in [1]:
"New GLEPs are to be licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0."

Ulrich

[1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/8080529bd32cceb6439cfd3dabb7d9f5

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1121 bytes --]

On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 00:26 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> The next council meeting will be on Sunday 2019-12-08, 19:00 UTC in the 
> #gentoo-council channel on Freenode. Please reply to this mail with desired 
> agenda topics.
> 

I'd like to pass a big question™ towards the Council since there seems
to be some disagreement on the direction Gentoo should take:

===
Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work
together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be
allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore
everybody else?
===

To explain what I mean with an extreme example: in the past we had
a developer who blocked adding systemd units to his own packages because
of his own personal agenda against systemd.  This was obviously harmful
to systemd users who couldn't install use those packages normally,
and was harmful to consistent user experience across Gentoo.

In my opinion, such behavior is unacceptable but given that similar
issues regularly emerge, maybe I'm wrong.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


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

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?

[Lars Wendler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1704 bytes --]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:10:55 +0100 Michał Górny wrote:

>On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 00:26 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> The next council meeting will be on Sunday 2019-12-08, 19:00 UTC in
>> the #gentoo-council channel on Freenode. Please reply to this mail
>> with desired agenda topics.
>> 
>
>I'd like to pass a big question™ towards the Council since there seems
>to be some disagreement on the direction Gentoo should take:
>
>===
>Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work
>together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be
>allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore
>everybody else?
>===
>
>To explain what I mean with an extreme example: in the past we had
>a developer who blocked adding systemd units to his own packages
>because of his own personal agenda against systemd.  This was
>obviously harmful to systemd users who couldn't install use those
>packages normally, and was harmful to consistent user experience
>across Gentoo.

Perhaps you even mean my past actions here because that was exactly
what I did with my packages. The reason is not because I want to
actively sabotage systemd in Gentoo but because I cannot test the
unit files as I do not use/have a Gentoo installation with systemd
available. What I did was to assign such request bugs to our systemd
team and gave them permission to add these systemd units to my packages.

>In my opinion, such behavior is unacceptable but given that similar
>issues regularly emerge, maybe I'm wrong.
>

Cheers
Lars

-- 
Lars Wendler
Gentoo package maintainer
GPG: 21CC CF02 4586 0A07 ED93  9F68 498F E765 960E 9B39

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1823 bytes --]

On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 10:44 +0100, Lars Wendler wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 10:10:55 +0100 Michał Górny wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2019-11-27 at 00:26 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > > The next council meeting will be on Sunday 2019-12-08, 19:00 UTC in
> > > the #gentoo-council channel on Freenode. Please reply to this mail
> > > with desired agenda topics.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'd like to pass a big question™ towards the Council since there seems
> > to be some disagreement on the direction Gentoo should take:
> > 
> > ===
> > Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work
> > together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be
> > allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore
> > everybody else?
> > ===
> > 
> > To explain what I mean with an extreme example: in the past we had
> > a developer who blocked adding systemd units to his own packages
> > because of his own personal agenda against systemd.  This was
> > obviously harmful to systemd users who couldn't install use those
> > packages normally, and was harmful to consistent user experience
> > across Gentoo.
> 
> Perhaps you even mean my past actions here because that was exactly
> what I did with my packages. The reason is not because I want to
> actively sabotage systemd in Gentoo but because I cannot test the
> unit files as I do not use/have a Gentoo installation with systemd
> available. What I did was to assign such request bugs to our systemd
> team and gave them permission to add these systemd units to my packages.
> 

No, that's fine and understandable.  It's one thing to ask somebody else
to take care of setup he needs.  It's another to actively block it 'over
my dead commit access'.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


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

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC - Agenda topics?

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 4:10 AM Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> ===
> Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work
> together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be
> allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore
> everybody else?
> ===
>
> To explain what I mean with an extreme example: in the past we had
> a developer who blocked adding systemd units to his own packages because
> of his own personal agenda against systemd.  This was obviously harmful
> to systemd users who couldn't install use those packages normally,
> and was harmful to consistent user experience across Gentoo.

Without wanting to start a flame war, is there a more contemporary
example, or even a hypothetical?

That particular systemd issue was resolved years ago by escalation to
the Council, which set a policy that was a reasonable compromise, and
it appears to have worked as there has been little argument over that
particular matter since.

I'd assume that if other specific issues come up, they would be also
escalated, and Council would again set a reasonable policy that
everybody could live with.

I guess we could ask the Council to have a purely ideological
discussion, but IMO it isn't necessary.  If we didn't want to have a
mechanism to ensure a reasonable level of consistency we wouldn't have
the Council in the first place.  Having a mechanism to resolve these
conflicts won't prevent them from happening in the first place.  I
think that Gentoo's key attributes of being flexible/FOSS/etc probably
attract people with strong opinions on matters, and there are bound to
be cases where they can't be resolved by mutual agreement.

I'll go ahead and toss out a more recent example without naming
names/etc (not that anybody couldn't find it if they went looking).
There was some heated discussion over disagreement on appropriate use
or naming of a USE flag.  Ultimately the package maintainer made the
call (at least implicitly via their commit).  There was some
disagreement over that call.  Nothing was formally escalated to
QA/Council/etc or any other technical governing body.  Is that an
example of the system working as intended (if the issue were important
enough it would have been escalated, and work got done without undue
delay), or is it an example of it being broken (nobody wants to have
to deal with escalating things, so maybe the maintainer should have
sought approval/consensus/etc first, plus if it were escalated now
we're changing things already in the repo)?  I could cite the
specifics if needed - my goal is to raise a contemporary example that
might or might not be what you're getting at, without dragging actual
debate over that specific issue into this thread...

-- 
Rich