diff options
authorAndreas K. Hüttel <>2019-12-10 17:17:11 +0100
committerAndreas K. Hüttel <>2019-12-10 17:17:11 +0100
commit09f774c6fc228181b79112b690341feead849b30 (patch)
parentLog for 20191110 meeting. (diff)
Log for December 2019 meeting
License: CC-PDM-1.0 (raw IRC log, not copyrightable) Signed-off-by: Andreas K. Hüttel <>
2 files changed, 198 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20191208.txt b/meeting-logs/20191208.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d8f4abd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20191208.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+[19:50:29] <dilfridge|mobile> Uh.
+[19:58:08] <dilfridge|mobile> May be a minute or two late
+[19:58:49] -*- gyakovlev is here
+[20:02:38] <dilfridge> ok
+[20:02:42] <dilfridge> !proj council
+[20:02:43] <willikins> ( dilfridge, gyakovlev, patrick, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
+[20:02:50] <dilfridge> roll call, meeting time!
+[20:02:55] -*- ulm here
+[20:02:56] -*- Whissi here
+[20:02:56] -*- WilliamH here
+[20:02:58] -*- slyfox here
+[20:02:59] -*- dilfridge here
+[20:03:44] <dilfridge> only xiaomiao missing
+[20:04:16] <dilfridge> let's give him a minute or two and then we start (anyone wants to text him?)
+[20:05:00] <xiaomiao> present
+[20:05:12] <dilfridge> excellent, have a seat, take a cookie.
+[20:05:46] * dilfridge has changed topic for #gentoo-council to: "195th meeting: 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC | | | | Agenda:"
+[20:05:50] <dilfridge> ^ agenda link
+[20:06:10] <dilfridge> and with this we get to 1)
+[20:06:13] <dilfridge> Approval of the changes to GLEPs 1 and 2, as posted in [1]:
+[20:06:13] <dilfridge> "New GLEPs are to be licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0."
+[20:06:20] <dilfridge> [1]
+[20:06:39] <dilfridge> ulm: do you want to still say anything about that, or should we directly go to vote?
+[20:07:00] <ulm> from my side, no need for discussion
+[20:07:08] <dilfridge> me neither. anyone else?
+[20:07:22] <Whissi> no
+[20:07:25] <gyakovlev> just a question, we got everyone's ack so far?
+[20:07:28] <slyfox> the change says glep license should change when it's updated
+[20:07:44] <slyfox> that requires consent of original authors, right?
+[20:08:02] <slyfox> (even if it's 3.0 to 4.0 change)
+[20:08:07] <ulm> slyfox: the cc-by-sa license has an upgrade clause
+[20:08:43] <slyfox> ok. for clarity i take the answer is "no"
+[20:09:07] <ulm> slyfox: clause 4b of cc-by-sa-3.0
+[20:09:10] <ulm> "You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License;"
+[20:09:28] <ulm> so an "adaptation" can be distributed under 4.0
+[20:09:49] <slyfox> *nod*
+[20:09:58] <dilfridge> ++
+[20:10:17] <dilfridge> ok so then we can vote: 1)
+[20:10:19] <dilfridge> Approval of the changes to GLEPs 1 and 2, as posted in [1]:
+[20:10:19] <dilfridge> "New GLEPs are to be licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0."
+[20:10:22] -*- dilfridge yes
+[20:10:24] -*- slyfox yes
+[20:10:28] -*- ulm yes
+[20:10:28] -*- Whissi yes
+[20:10:35] -*- gyakovlev yes
+[20:10:42] -*- WilliamH yes
+[20:10:51] -*- xiaomiao yes
+[20:10:58] <dilfridge> excellent, unanimous.
+[20:11:00] <ulm> thank you :)
+[20:11:02] <dilfridge> motion passed.
+[20:11:34] <dilfridge> with this we proceed to 2), which I circumscribed as "Discussion on the importance of cooperation"
+[20:11:43] <dilfridge>
+[20:11:51] <dilfridge> "Should Gentoo developers be expected to be able to find a way to work
+[20:11:51] <dilfridge> together to build a somewhat consistent distribution, or should it be
+[20:11:51] <dilfridge> allowed for individual developers to 'run their own shops' and ignore
+[20:11:51] <dilfridge> everybody else?"
+[20:12:03] <Whissi> I don't understand this motion. Especially the given example is common sense for me. So what's the purpose of this motion?
+[20:12:12] <dilfridge> mgorny: ^
+[20:12:48] <dilfridge> Whissi: common sense is not handed out in spoons to everyone, unfortunately
+[20:13:00] <WilliamH> If what a dev is doing is breaking the distro isn't that qa terratory first?
+[20:13:20] <gyakovlev> ignoring systemd support example provided in email thread.
+[20:13:33] <dilfridge> I suspect it's not about "breaking the distro", but about doing things inconsistently
+[20:13:40] <slyfox> that sounds more like a social problem than technical one
+[20:13:47] <WilliamH> Isn't that still qa before it comes to us?
+[20:13:48] <xiaomiao> and it's nothing actionable
+[20:14:10] <slyfox> Gentoo already has a few vehicles to govern changes: GLEPs and Gentoo projects. It takes a leader to implement both.
+[20:14:13] <xiaomiao> we already have rules for the technical side of things, the social side is too subjective and random to manage with fixed rules
+[20:14:20] <slyfox> We already have a conflict resolution mechanism.
+[20:14:35] <xiaomiao> so we all agree that the idea of this diffuse suggestion is good? ;)
+[20:14:41] <dilfridge> slyfox: you're right about that - but the main result of corresponding "not social" behaviour is that then qa and council is asked to decide on every detail
+[20:14:51] <slyfox> If something is unclear then explicit policy should be stated.
+[20:14:52] <ulm> I also think that the motion won't add anything new
+[20:14:55] <xiaomiao> (there's nothing actionable in it, so I see noting for us to do)
+[20:15:09] <dilfridge> I dont know the detailed motivation behind the mail
+[20:15:16] <WilliamH> I don't either.
+[20:15:21] <WilliamH> dilfridge: ^^
+[20:15:27] <ulm> we could approve it as posted, with the logical disjunction :)
+[20:15:30] <slyfox> dilfridge: someone has to solve the conflict. whether it be devs themselves, project lead, QA project or council.
+[20:15:56] <dilfridge> I *do* know that in the past I was occasionally "frustrated", because Gentoo seemed like a bunch of headless chicken running around without talking to each other
+[20:16:27] <dilfridge> That's why I think the council should be willing to set direction
+[20:16:34] <slyfox> I suggest looking at the concrete problems and not make overbroad statements.
+[20:16:44] <dilfridge> Yes.
+[20:16:57] <Whissi> +1
+[20:17:08] <dilfridge> I'm just pointing out, this goes into the old discussion of "council - proactive or reactive?"
+[20:17:37] <ulm> as a matter of fact, direction is most often set by discussing things in the -dev ML
+[20:18:10] <ulm> most of the time with one champion trying to build consensus
+[20:18:22] <dilfridge> which makes a lot of sense
+[20:18:25] <ulm> (and I see nothing wrong with that)
+[20:18:41] <slyfox> I personally don't see council body as a leader of implementing most technical projects. It's only 7 of us :)
+[20:19:06] <dilfridge> yeah
+[20:19:18] <Whissi> So skipping this one because we don't see an actionable item for now?
+[20:19:24] <slyfox> Yup.
+[20:19:24] <ulm> please move on, it's not actionable
+[20:19:37] <dilfridge> but I see also the point that *if* you participate in a larger project (like Gentoo) you *should* be willing to adapt to community consensus
+[20:19:46] <dilfridge> yes, let's move on
+[20:20:02] <dilfridge> if this pops up as a specific item we can revisit it
+[20:20:03] <xiaomiao> sidenote: we should not have such non-actionable-items on the agenda
+[20:20:08] <slyfox> +1
+[20:20:12] <Whissi> +1
+[20:20:31] <dilfridge> I see nothing bad with it, it's "asking council opinion"
+[20:20:42] <dilfridge> without any plans to make binding decision
+[20:20:43] <slyfox> It would be fine for open floor
+[20:21:16] <dilfridge> but then we wouldnt have a chance for clarifications on the list
+[20:21:18] <dilfridge> anyway
+[20:21:18] <slyfox> (or -ML discussion, that did not happen)
+[20:21:31] <dilfridge> 3) Bugs with council involvment
+[20:21:51] <dilfridge> !botsnack
+[20:21:52] <willikins> dilfridge: thanks :)
+[20:21:54] <dilfridge> aaaah
+[20:21:58] <dilfridge> bug 642072
+[20:22:01] <willikins> dilfridge: "[Tracker] Copyright policy"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council
+[20:22:16] <ulm> one blocker for this one
+[20:22:22] <dilfridge> no news there
+[20:22:33] <ulm> actually it's in portage
+[20:22:41] <dilfridge> oh
+[20:22:43] <dilfridge> right
+[20:22:45] <ulm> waiting for stabilisation of 2.3.81
+[20:22:56] <slyfox> \o/
+[20:23:06] <dilfridge> #667432 Rename DCO_SIGNED_OFF_BY config variable to SIGNED_OFF_BY.
+[20:23:15] <ulm> yes, this one
+[20:23:18] <dilfridge> good then this is done at some point.
+[20:23:36] <dilfridge> bug 662982
+[20:23:39] <willikins> dilfridge: "[TRACKER] New default locations for the Gentoo repository, distfiles, and binary packages"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF; zmedico:dev-portage
+[20:24:04] <Whissi> Infra is currently rolling out fixed portage tarball (the one containing the repository)
+[20:24:08] <dilfridge> one blocker and I heard some recent whining^H^H^H^H^Harguments
+[20:24:15] <ulm> only bug 574752 as blocker
+[20:24:17] <willikins> ulm: "Rename portage-YYYYMMDD.tar* snapshots with gentoo-YYYYMMDD.tar*"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Other; IN_P; mgorny:infra-bugs
+[20:24:22] <Whissi> Once we have this tarball, portage will update.
+[20:24:24] <slyfox> looks like progress
+[20:24:43] <WilliamH> what was the whining?
+[20:24:47] <dilfridge> ok then we have progress
+[20:24:50] <Whissi> yes
+[20:24:56] <dilfridge> mostly "why do we have to change this?"
+[20:25:02] <dilfridge> "it worked for ages"
+[20:25:05] <dilfridge> ...
+[20:25:06] <WilliamH> dilfridge: heh :p
+[20:25:26] <dilfridge> bug 696882
+[20:25:29] <willikins> dilfridge: "Register /EFI/Gentoo namespace in UEFI Subdirectory Registry"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; ulm:council
+[20:25:30] <WilliamH> it never belonged on /usr to start with ;-)
+[20:25:47] <ulm> can we reassign this one to trustees?
+[20:25:49] <dilfridge> !note antarus any news on /EFI/Gentoo?
+[20:25:49] <willikins> okies, dilfridge
+[20:25:50] <dilfridge> yes
+[20:25:57] <slyfox> sounds good
+[20:26:05] <dilfridge> let's have them do something important
+[20:26:06] <WilliamH> yeah there's nothing we can do there.
+[20:26:15] <ulm> they own the name, and antarus has taken action already
+[20:26:19] <dilfridge> done
+[20:26:24] <slyfox> \o/
+[20:26:36] <dilfridge> bug 700364
+[20:26:39] <willikins> dilfridge: "License council summaries under CC-BY-SA-4.0"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council
+[20:26:42] <dilfridge> we can close thos one now
+[20:26:54] <dilfridge> and finally
+[20:26:57] <slyfox> *nod*, was done as part of the agenda list
+[20:27:01] <dilfridge> we come to one of our evergreens,
+[20:27:05] <dilfridge> bug 637328
+[20:27:07] <willikins> dilfridge: "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
+[20:27:14] <Whissi> Last time!
+[20:27:26] <dilfridge> Last christmas?
+[20:27:39] <ulm> it can be closed as WONTFIX
+[20:27:39] <Whissi> glep-0014: Mark as Deferred.
+[20:27:53] <slyfox> time to un-CC council@?
+[20:28:00] <Whissi> Bug will be closed I think
+[20:28:01] <dilfridge> well when it's closed who cares
+[20:28:07] -*- ulm just closed it
+[20:28:12] <slyfox> thank you!
+[20:28:17] <dilfridge> excellent
+[20:28:20] <dilfridge> with that
+[20:28:23] <dilfridge> we get to
+[20:28:31] <dilfridge> 4) Open floor
+[20:28:50] -*- dilfridge watches the floor open and swallow the council... err... wrong novel...
+[20:29:00] <dilfridge> anyone?
+[20:29:26] <Whissi> I have nothing.
+[20:29:35] <dilfridge> hrhr
+[20:30:10] <dilfridge> Whissi: blink if someone is standing behind you with a cluebat :P
+[20:30:35] <Whissi> ;)
+[20:31:39] <dilfridge> ok so seems we really have nothing
+[20:31:46] -*- ulm is pondering about floor(exp(1.0)*10)*0.1
+[20:32:17] <dilfridge> too much higher math for the time of day
+[20:32:27] <dilfridge> right then
+[20:32:31] <dilfridge> /bang/
+[20:32:35] <dilfridge> meeting closed!
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20191208.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20191208.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b245da8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20191208.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@