[gentoo-project] Council meeting 2024-03-10 - Call for agenda items

[gentoo-project] Council meeting 2024-03-10 - Call for agenda items

[Sam James]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 562 bytes --]

The next Gentoo Council meeting is scheduled for 2024-03-10. This is
a call for agenda items to be discussed and voted on.

Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).

The final agenda will be sent out before the meeting.

So far, there's the regular Foundation/SPI update, and
also the AI discussion taking place on gentoo-dev which may
merit discussion in the council meeting.

Please reply to the gentoo-project list.

thanks,
sam

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

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2024-03-10 - Call for agenda items

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 846 bytes --]

On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 05:33 +0000, Sam James wrote:
> The next Gentoo Council meeting is scheduled for 2024-03-10. This is
> a call for agenda items to be discussed and voted on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The final agenda will be sent out before the meeting.
> 
> So far, there's the regular Foundation/SPI update, and
> also the AI discussion taking place on gentoo-dev which may
> merit discussion in the council meeting.
> 
And accordingly, I'd like to add an explicit agenda item for it:

- Ban contributions using "generative AI" to Gentoo [1].

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg99042.html


-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 512 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-project] Council meeting 2024-03-10 - Call for agenda items

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2406 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 05:33:30AM +0000, Sam James wrote:
> The next Gentoo Council meeting is scheduled for 2024-03-10. This is
> a call for agenda items to be discussed and voted on.
> 
> Please respond to this message with agenda items. Do not hesitate to
> repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The final agenda will be sent out before the meeting.
> 
> So far, there's the regular Foundation/SPI update, and
> also the AI discussion taking place on gentoo-dev which may
> merit discussion in the council meeting.
> 
> Please reply to the gentoo-project list.
Apologies for the last minute agenda item, but I'd like council's
re-approval on something, due to market pricing shifts.

Previously, the council had approved a capital purchase for bug 834712,
the historical distfiles mirror.

My originally submitted cost estimate was:
> Min qty would be 2x15.36T drives, 1 per server.
> Max qty would be 4x30.72T drives, 2 per server (running RAID1)
> Cost range $2250-$8400, plus applicable US sales taxes

I'd tried to get the ordering completed, but none of the vendors seem to
be able to fulfilled my order at my intended price due to market shifts.

The same 30TB drives have increased in price to a range of
$3000-$4000/ea; if stock is even actually available.

15TB QLC drives are now listed as $1400-$1800/ea, with similar stock
concerns.

Should we eat the cost difference?

As an alternate, should Infra consider 15TB drives in a RAID5 setup (to
get the same usable 30TB of space)?

30TB usable via 30TB RAID1 drives would be 4x$4000=$16000 (for 2 servers).
30TB usable via 15TB RAID5 drives would be 6x$1800=$10800 (for 2 servers).

This is for archival content with hot reads, so I have no concerns about
durability or the RAID5 write overhead: once the archive distfiles are
written, I do not expect re-writes (just many reads).

(If we forego single-host durability as we use DRBD, 1x30TB per server
is an option as well, but I don't like that level of risk: a 2nd failure
would put us needing to restore from AWS Glacier as well).

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Dev, Infra Lead, Foundation President & 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 --]