diff options
authorKristian Fiskerstrand <>2019-02-12 20:39:50 +0100
committerKristian Fiskerstrand <>2019-02-12 20:39:50 +0100
commit68069d9d90f972bc1d4f44d005a34f42c47ff88e (patch)
parentcouncil/meeting-logs: Add signatures for previous addition (diff)
Add log for 2019-02-10 meeting
Signed-off-by: Kristian Fiskerstrand <>
2 files changed, 945 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20190210.txt b/meeting-logs/20190210.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4fe00fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20190210.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,934 @@
+2019-02-10 19:50:15<@K_F> today's agenda;
+2019-02-10 19:56:00 * WilliamH is here
+2019-02-10 20:00:02<@K_F> 1. Roll call
+2019-02-10 20:00:07<@K_F> !proj council
+2019-02-10 20:00:08<+willikins> K_F: ( dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
+2019-02-10 20:00:08 * WilliamH here
+2019-02-10 20:00:09 * K_F here
+2019-02-10 20:00:14<@dilfridge> good morning!
+2019-02-10 20:00:19 * ulm here
+2019-02-10 20:00:20 * Whissi here
+2019-02-10 20:00:22 * dilfridge here
+2019-02-10 20:00:34 * slyfox here
+2019-02-10 20:00:50<@K_F> leio: ?
+2019-02-10 20:00:54 * leio here
+2019-02-10 20:01:05<@K_F> goodies, everyone present
+2019-02-10 20:01:24<@K_F> lets get started then...
+2019-02-10 20:01:25<@K_F> 2. Appeals of Moderation Decisions
+2019-02-10 20:01:26<@K_F>
+2019-02-10 20:01:35<@K_F> so, this case seems to have mostly resolved itself
+2019-02-10 20:01:44<@dilfridge> hmm? what happened?
+2019-02-10 20:02:09<@K_F> but lets confirm the results, that appeals can be made to ComRel for longer term bans (>1w) , without going through proctors
+2019-02-10 20:02:35<@K_F> but the underlying foundation is to try to solve the issue as low as level as possible
+2019-02-10 20:03:03<@K_F> dilfridge: nothing except the discussion on the ML itself
+2019-02-10 20:03:08<@dilfridge> ack
+2019-02-10 20:04:12<@K_F> comrel definitely has a community-wide responsibility
+2019-02-10 20:04:13<@Whissi> So what's the problem here? Someone can get banned >1w from forum staff. The person who got banned can ask ComRel to check if the ban is correct?
+2019-02-10 20:04:17<@K_F> including forums and irc channels
+2019-02-10 20:04:22<@dilfridge> sounds reasonable and good to me (but it is a change from previous policy)
+2019-02-10 20:04:24<@K_F> but normally try to not interefere
+2019-02-10 20:04:42<@K_F> dilfridge: is it really a change?
+2019-02-10 20:04:53<@dilfridge> depends on who you ask
+2019-02-10 20:04:58<@dilfridge> but yes, I think so
+2019-02-10 20:05:24<@K_F> well, in that case it makes sense for us to have a vote on it
+2019-02-10 20:05:47<@K_F> which aspects do you believe actually represents a change and we should make a motion on?
+2019-02-10 20:06:04<@dilfridge> let's also make sure it applies to every ban by one of the "moderation teams", and not mention forums / forum-ops explicitly
+2019-02-10 20:06:14<@K_F> indeed
+2019-02-10 20:06:49<@dilfridge> well, comrel was in the past rather unwilling to touch anything related to gentoo-ops or forum-mods ("these teams are running themselves")
+2019-02-10 20:07:28<@dilfridge> so clarifying that there is a general appeal path and that it leads to comrel (next) would be the statement
+2019-02-10 20:07:34<@K_F> well, it still does... but it is ultimately part of community so I don't necessarily see it actually being change to have appeal possibility to comrel, in particular for longer term bans etc
+2019-02-10 20:07:43<@dilfridge> yes
+2019-02-10 20:08:02<@dilfridge> did anyone from gentoo-ops speak out btw?
+2019-02-10 20:08:08<@dilfridge> like, jer, patrick, ...?
+2019-02-10 20:08:25<@K_F> depending on how we want to phrase it , the one asking for appeal has the burden of providing evidence for misuse of power in the lower instance
+2019-02-10 20:08:37<@K_F> I haven't seen anything from them
+2019-02-10 20:09:28<@dilfridge> K_F: I guess since you're also comrel, you're the best person to provide a first text suggestion :D
+2019-02-10 20:10:05<@K_F> dilfridge: I'm writing it up in our etherpad atm
+2019-02-10 20:11:23<@K_F> so, first draft
+2019-02-10 20:11:27<@K_F> "The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from moderation teams to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide burden of proof of misuse of power."
+2019-02-10 20:12:30<@ulm> hm, that last part is redundant
+2019-02-10 20:12:42<@K_F> ulm: not necessarily
+2019-02-10 20:12:55<@K_F> without it a user can ask for a full review
+2019-02-10 20:12:57<@dilfridge> "and other sanctions of similarly severe impact" ?
+2019-02-10 20:13:19<@K_F> dilfridge: can you elaborate a bit on it?
+2019-02-10 20:13:20<@ulm> "burden of proof is on the one appealing" or "is their responsibility to provide proof"
+2019-02-10 20:13:36<@ulm> but not "provide burden of proof"
+2019-02-10 20:13:46<@slyfox> What resources are in scope? For example is #gentoo-powerpc in scope? How one would find out?
+2019-02-10 20:14:00<@K_F> ulm: I like the latter, feel free to update the draft in etherpad
+2019-02-10 20:14:10<@K_F> slyfox: yes, all gentoo namespace is in scope of that
+2019-02-10 20:14:26<@dilfridge> K_F: it's a get-out-clause, right now I cant imagine any other sanctions, but if someone comes up with one and it is heavyhanded, I dont want it to be excluded
+2019-02-10 20:14:43<@slyfox> what is "gentoo namespace"?
+2019-02-10 20:15:00<@K_F> dilfridge: well, arguably if ti happens we can make it a new decision then, otoh, I'm fine with a general scope of things, so wfm
+2019-02-10 20:15:10<@K_F> slyfox: for IRC it'd be what we control through groupcontacts
+2019-02-10 20:15:15<@K_F> but it also impacts forums etc
+2019-02-10 20:15:25<@Whissi> But let's imagine a user will get banned because forum staff don't like that guy. No other real reason. How should that guy proof the misuse? So I would delete the last part and yes, allow anyone facing a longer ban, maybe raise to >2w, requesting a full review through ComRel.
+2019-02-10 20:15:37<+jmbsvicetto> slyfox: actually the gentoo namespace falls to group contacts ;-)
+2019-02-10 20:15:38<@K_F> slyfox: for freenode we control #gentoo-*
+2019-02-10 20:15:40<+jmbsvicetto> slyfox: sorry
+2019-02-10 20:15:43<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: ^^
+2019-02-10 20:16:09<@dilfridge> heh, slyfox has a point, people banned from an irc channel by channel ops will fall under this
+2019-02-10 20:16:16<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: that is a technical matter, they will do what is directed by gentoo mostly
+2019-02-10 20:16:36<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I believe in the past no one was too worried about providing appeals for individual team project's irc channels. I doubt ComRel is too keen on having to deal with those or that there is any benefit
+2019-02-10 20:16:50<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: abuse of power complaints about moderation teams are a different subject
+2019-02-10 20:17:06<@K_F> well, that is mostly what we're discussing here, isn't it?
+2019-02-10 20:17:23<@dilfridge> that's why probably the explicit abuse of power clause is good
+2019-02-10 20:18:07<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I feel some people are trying to "force" or "coerce" all teams to have to go through extra hoops
+2019-02-10 20:18:35<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I also haven't seen compeling evidence of abuse of power by existing moderation teams to warrant the change
+2019-02-10 20:18:47<@K_F> well, there are several avenues in this.. the initial motion proposed gives an appeal process in case of misuse of powerr
+2019-02-10 20:18:50<@dilfridge> lol
+2019-02-10 20:19:03<@K_F> but there is no doubt that all of gentoo is under the same direction that ultimately falls under council
+2019-02-10 20:19:23<@K_F> and whether there is existence of abuse of power doesn't change the appeals path
+2019-02-10 20:19:40<@K_F> that needs to be part of policy on general matter
+2019-02-10 20:19:55<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: that has always been the case. Any developer, and to an extent every team, is subject to ComRel if they misbehave - there's no need to create "extra rules"
+2019-02-10 20:20:00<@K_F> but yes, it should only be escalated in case of abuse of power, and in that case the burden of proof is on the one making the complaint
+2019-02-10 20:20:23<@K_F> that is my point, this isn't a new rule, we're just affirming that it is the way it is
+2019-02-10 20:20:45<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: but if you want to document that, that at least might avoid the same issues being raised time after time
+2019-02-10 20:20:45<@K_F> "The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from all moderation teams to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide proof of misuse of power."
+2019-02-10 20:21:02<@K_F> "affirms" implies no new rule
+2019-02-10 20:21:31<@K_F> but since there is obviously some questions on it, we're stating it, and the conditions where it applies
+2019-02-10 20:21:44<@K_F> at least in that special case
+2019-02-10 20:22:23<@dilfridge> "Longer term bans (>1w) and similarly impactful sanctions by moderation teams can be appealed to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide proof of misuse of power."
+2019-02-10 20:22:42<@Whissi> Is would delete the last sentence... like said, how do you expect that someone proves misuse of power?
+2019-02-10 20:22:43<@K_F> dilfridge: sgtm
+2019-02-10 20:22:50<@Whissi> s/Is/I/
+2019-02-10 20:23:04<@K_F> Whissi: that is an important aspect of it, that I wouldn't delete actually
+2019-02-10 20:23:08<@WilliamH> Yeah, I'm with Whissi
+2019-02-10 20:23:10<@dilfridge> Whissi: you explain that nothing bad happened and moderation team overreacted badly
+2019-02-10 20:23:44<@WilliamH> dilfridge: how do you do that if say, you get a sanction out of the blue with no warnings from the moderation team etc?
+2019-02-10 20:23:56<@dilfridge> if you can make that point in a believable and reasonable way, it's time to hear the side of the moderation team for that
+2019-02-10 20:24:10<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / dilfridge: If #gentoo ops or forums moderators decide to ban someone for an extended time for abusive behaviour / obvious trolling or spamming, I don't see why ComRel needs to get involved
+2019-02-10 20:24:16<@dilfridge> you state precisely that
+2019-02-10 20:24:23<@WilliamH> "Hey Moderation team, I'm appealing to comrel, can you give me logs of your conversations about your sanction against me?"
+2019-02-10 20:24:31<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / dilfridge: or for that matter any project deciding to ban anyone from the project irc channel (for similar behaviour)
+2019-02-10 20:24:36<@WilliamH> That probably wouldn't go over well.
+2019-02-10 20:25:00<@Whissi> ACK.
+2019-02-10 20:25:03<@dilfridge> jmbsvicetto: precisely... so in that case it's kinda hard to show "I didnt do anything"
+2019-02-10 20:26:03<@WilliamH> I would rather see the last sentence removed I think.
+2019-02-10 20:26:18<@K_F> ok, lets make it a two-component vote
+2019-02-10 20:26:20<@dilfridge> so one of the ideas of the latter sentence is that the appeal needs to have merit, you can't just go to comrel
+2019-02-10 20:26:37<@K_F> 1st is on the generla path, the 2nd is the burden of proof
+2019-02-10 20:26:39<@ulm> "... provide evidence that the ban was unjustified"?
+2019-02-10 20:26:48<@dilfridge> ulm++
+2019-02-10 20:26:54<@dilfridge> that's a nice alternative
+2019-02-10 20:27:02<@dilfridge> and much more clear
+2019-02-10 20:27:16<+NeddySeagoon> I would expect the normal appeal loop to be used before anything goes to comrel. So there will be the incident and the local appeal. That will take more than a week
+2019-02-10 20:27:21<@ulm> s/ban/sanction/
+2019-02-10 20:27:23<@K_F> ulm: wfm, will yup update etherpad?
+2019-02-10 20:27:48<@Whissi> I would delete the last sentence. Should ComRel experience the problem that everyone is now going to ComRel to appeal any decision from lower instance ComRel can ask us to find a solution for that new problem. But until there is one, I wouldn't try to find a solution.
+2019-02-10 20:28:03<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: well, yes, normally the single ban would be appealed to the broader moderation team, before it goes to comrel
+2019-02-10 20:28:25<@K_F> Whissi: there are often issues like that ... and it causes a lot of work on comrel
+2019-02-10 20:28:27<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: As long as thats inferred somehow
+2019-02-10 20:28:32<@K_F> in any case, lets split it in two votes
+2019-02-10 20:28:36<@dilfridge> we could insert a sentence
+2019-02-10 20:28:59<@dilfridge> "if the moderation team has an appeal procedure itself, that path has to be used first."
+2019-02-10 20:29:15<@dilfridge> has a formal appeal procedure
+2019-02-10 20:29:17<@K_F> dilfridge: that wfm, will you add?
+2019-02-10 20:29:25<+NeddySeagoon> wfm
+2019-02-10 20:30:03<@dilfridge> done
+2019-02-10 20:30:44<@WilliamH> paste the draft here again?
+2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> Vote 2.1:
+2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from all moderation teams to comrel.. If the moderation team in question has a formal appeal procedure, that path has to be used before an appeal to comrel.
+2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> Vote:2.2 (as an addemdum to vote 2.1)
+2019-02-10 20:31:13<@K_F> or an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide evidence that the sanction was unjustified
+2019-02-10 20:31:30<@dilfridge> *For
+2019-02-10 20:31:31<@K_F> s/or/for
+2019-02-10 20:31:47<@dilfridge> I would still remove the "affirm"
+2019-02-10 20:31:51<@dilfridge> wait a sec
+2019-02-10 20:32:18<@Whissi> Do we really need 2.2? I mean, isn't it normal that the one complaining will tell us WHY?
+2019-02-10 20:32:34<@K_F> Whissi: no, the "normal" is them asking or a full review
+2019-02-10 20:32:50<@K_F> so there is a much larger burden of comrel if the burden of proof isn't on the one complaining
+2019-02-10 20:32:51 * WilliamH is against 2.2
+2019-02-10 20:33:02<@K_F> WilliamH: that is why we're making it a separate vote
+2019-02-10 20:33:11<@dilfridge> we're a bit overformalizing this, but that seems to be needed
+2019-02-10 20:33:59<@K_F> so , lets vote... 2.1 is
+2019-02-10 20:34:05<@K_F> Vote 2.1:
+2019-02-10 20:34:05<@K_F> Longer term bans (>1w) and similarly impactful sanctions by moderation teams can be appealed to comrel. If the moderation team in question has a formal appeal procedure, that path has to be used before an appeal to comrel.
+2019-02-10 20:34:07<@WilliamH> imo once an appeal gets to comrel it should be a full review.
+2019-02-10 20:34:13 * K_F yes
+2019-02-10 20:34:25 * dilfridge yes
+2019-02-10 20:34:30 * WilliamH yes
+2019-02-10 20:34:32 * ulm yes
+2019-02-10 20:34:36 * slyfox yes
+2019-02-10 20:34:39<+NeddySeagoon> Hmm individual mods, to teams, to comrel to council ...
+2019-02-10 20:34:49 * leio yes
+2019-02-10 20:35:21 * Whissi yes
+2019-02-10 20:35:29<@K_F> so that is unanumous
+2019-02-10 20:35:41<@K_F> Vote 2.2 (as an addemdum to vote 2.1)
+2019-02-10 20:35:43<@K_F> For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide evidence that the sanction was unjustified
+2019-02-10 20:35:49 * K_F yes
+2019-02-10 20:35:52 * WilliamH no
+2019-02-10 20:35:53 * Whissi no
+2019-02-10 20:35:58 * ulm yes
+2019-02-10 20:36:02 * dilfridge abstain
+2019-02-10 20:36:26 * leio no
+2019-02-10 20:36:52 * slyfox no
+2019-02-10 20:37:09<@K_F> ok, so that does not carry.. i.e comrel needs to do a full review if requested
+2019-02-10 20:37:38<+NeddySeagoon> To the naysayers ... you expect comrel to do the data gathering?
+2019-02-10 20:37:46<@K_F> that is implied, yes
+2019-02-10 20:37:50<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: for the record, comrel was already requiring the "burden of proof"
+2019-02-10 20:37:55<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: I think that's reasonable, yes.
+2019-02-10 20:37:56<@Whissi> K_F: If ComRel wants 2.2 for some reason, maybe you need a better explanation but at the moment I don't understand why this is needed and fear that it will be used to block any review request
+2019-02-10 20:38:22<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so I guess we (comrel) will have to see if we feel this vote is making a requirement for us or is just the opinion of council
+2019-02-10 20:38:39<@K_F> it certainly makes a requirement for us
+2019-02-10 20:39:01<+NeddySeagoon> How does comrel get access to forums PMs?
+2019-02-10 20:39:19<@WilliamH> The problem with making the person who appeals do the data gathering is that the mods wouldn't want to give that person the data.
+2019-02-10 20:39:29<@dilfridge> please take that debate to the private comrel channel :D
+2019-02-10 20:39:32<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: we'll have to request it from the teams if necessary
+2019-02-10 20:39:34<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: first, because we trust individual moderation teams. second, because we don't want to review complaints as "bad dev on #gentoo-x is a $$#$# doesn't like me and banned me".
+2019-02-10 20:39:58<@K_F> but the vote is done, lets move on to next case
+2019-02-10 20:40:10<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: For the second, you'll have to provide evidence that "bad dev" and the entire moderation team on "gentoo-x" really misbehaved
+2019-02-10 20:40:19<@K_F> 3. Forums (specifically OTW)
+2019-02-10 20:40:21<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Lets see how it works in real life
+2019-02-10 20:40:53<@dilfridge> ok so
+2019-02-10 20:41:01<@K_F> so, we have discussed this a bit in private , and come up with the current motion that is general instead of going into micro-decisions
+2019-02-10 20:41:23<@K_F> Vote 3.1
+2019-02-10 20:41:26<@K_F> All activity on Gentoo infrastructure and in the name of Gentoo shall predominantly be used to serve the Gentoo distribution. It is not Gentoo's responsibility to host and moderate content outside the scope of free software, in particular the Gentoo distribution.
+2019-02-10 20:41:48 * K_F yes
+2019-02-10 20:41:56<+NeddySeagoon> The Forums also discuss hardware.
+2019-02-10 20:42:34<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: fair enough, do you have a proposal for amendment?
+2019-02-10 20:42:56<@K_F> note that we say "predominatly", and hardware can certainly be covered in "serve the Gentoo distribution"
+2019-02-10 20:43:27<@slyfox> For some reason i read "distribution" as "literally ship Gentoo" :)
+2019-02-10 20:43:31<@Whissi> Sorry, if 3.1 will be used to get rid of OTW or kick everything which is not 100% Gentoo I cannot vote "yes" here. This would need more details...
+2019-02-10 20:43:36<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so is the council really going to vote on how the forums should be conducted moderated and go over the forums administrators / moderators?
+2019-02-10 20:43:39<+NeddySeagoon> Just that discussions related to hardware to support Gentoo needs to be permitted
+2019-02-10 20:43:45<@WilliamH> Hmm, something like, "... in particular, the Gentoo distribution and hardware where it can be run."
+2019-02-10 20:44:13<+jmbsvicetto> run and moderated*
+2019-02-10 20:44:18<@K_F> WilliamH: that works for me, will you update the etherpad?
+2019-02-10 20:44:20<+NeddySeagoon> can -> may
+2019-02-10 20:44:31<@WilliamH> K_F: I'm not sure how to do that.
+2019-02-10 20:44:41<@dilfridge> this is not really helpful
+2019-02-10 20:44:41<@K_F> WilliamH: see link in the private channel
+2019-02-10 20:44:44<@WilliamH> K_F: or if it is accessible. ;-)
+2019-02-10 20:45:22<@dilfridge> good point
+2019-02-10 20:45:32<+NeddySeagoon> If I want to talk about Gentoo on new_arch it belongs on the forum but its not yet running on new_arch
+2019-02-10 20:45:32<@K_F> it was discussed there for a week already, but if there is uncertainty about hardware being in-scope lets fix it
+2019-02-10 20:45:42<@WilliamH> pulling it up now
+2019-02-10 20:46:11<@K_F> the point is mainly that things related to the distribution is in-scope, and that includes hardware discussions
+2019-02-10 20:46:14<@K_F> it does not involve kittens
+2019-02-10 20:46:43<@K_F> and since comrel has responsibility to moderate things as stated in vote 2.1, we reduce the burden on other projects by setting the scope
+2019-02-10 20:46:51<+NeddySeagoon> My kitten has a tracking collar that runs Gentoo.
+2019-02-10 20:46:51<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so no #gentoo-kittens?
+2019-02-10 20:46:53<@leio> kittens are a very important factor for the mental health of gentoo users and developers alike
+2019-02-10 20:46:53<@K_F> so yes, we decide what is relevant for Gentoo and what is not
+2019-02-10 20:47:12<@WilliamH> Hmm doesn't seem very usable.
+2019-02-10 20:47:27<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: we = council?
+2019-02-10 20:47:35<@slyfox> royal we
+2019-02-10 20:47:35<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: yes
+2019-02-10 20:47:41<@Whissi> I would agree on what your are saying but I have to feeling that you will use 3.1 to close OTW sub forum for example...
+2019-02-10 20:47:46<@Whissi> -to
+2019-02-10 20:48:13<@dilfridge> this makes no sense, because I think you're trying to come up with a rule that doesnt fit what you actually want to do
+2019-02-10 20:48:45<@K_F> dilfridge: well, 3.1 is the statement that came out of last week's discussion in the private channel
+2019-02-10 20:48:50<@WilliamH> I don't have access to the forums, but hasn't otw been the wild west where people talk about anything, linux or not?
+2019-02-10 20:49:08<@K_F> WilliamH: you do have access, it isn't requiring a user to see
+2019-02-10 20:49:27<@WilliamH> K_F: I mean accessibility wise, I don't go to the forums.
+2019-02-10 20:49:50<@dilfridge> K_F: yes, I kind of realized that now, but last week has been a bit horrible time-wise for me
+2019-02-10 20:49:51<@K_F> but it follows from 2.1 that comrel has a reponsibility to handle appeals from such forums, and discussions not gentoo-related can cause additional work on other projects if they are not limited
+2019-02-10 20:50:13<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Does it already ?
+2019-02-10 20:50:15<@K_F> and in particular given 2.2 that burden is increased
+2019-02-10 20:50:18<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: yes
+2019-02-10 20:50:44 * dilfridge goes register #gentoo-kittens
+2019-02-10 20:50:58<+b-man> leio: unless K_F is involved... He hates kittens.
+2019-02-10 20:51:12<@dilfridge> meow
+2019-02-10 20:51:45<@leio> I do not understand the purpose here
+2019-02-10 20:51:59<@Whissi> I really don't like the idea of 3.1... the topic is too complex to solve it with such a simple statement.
+2019-02-10 20:52:16<@slyfox> we had an interesting case on #gentoo-powerpc where a person kept bringing up problems they have on hppa and x86 and refused to provide any ppc-specific logs :)
+2019-02-10 20:52:17<@leio> at this rate I will have to go and make a new blog account somewhere, because if after 10 years I want to write a blog post, it might not exactly be all gentoo-relevant
+2019-02-10 20:52:25<@K_F> leio: the primary question is whether we should provide gentoo infrastructure and resources (incluing appeals etc) for matters not related to Gentoo
+2019-02-10 20:52:55<@dilfridge> no
+2019-02-10 20:52:59<@Whissi> It is a community. Not everying is a 1 and 0.
+2019-02-10 20:53:16<@dilfridge> the primary question is whether "Off The Wall" should be hosted in the gentoo forums
+2019-02-10 20:53:28<@K_F> well, OTW is just a specific case
+2019-02-10 20:53:29<@dilfridge> let's not talk around it
+2019-02-10 20:53:35<@leio> there is no community if it's just strictly technical
+2019-02-10 20:53:36<@Whissi> dilfridge++
+2019-02-10 20:53:38<@K_F> any decision would need to be generic
+2019-02-10 20:53:50<@leio> in IRC we do stuff similar to OTW as well; talk politics and so on
+2019-02-10 20:53:56<@ulm> as I said before, the council cannot micromanage how forum mods sort and classify forums postings
+2019-02-10 20:53:59<@leio> but we don't own that infrastructure
+2019-02-10 20:54:07<@leio> but other people don't like real time chat kind of things, and use the forums instead
+2019-02-10 20:54:14<@dilfridge> in general, I think the forums are a useful and very helpful thing
+2019-02-10 20:54:21<@K_F> dilfridge: indeed
+2019-02-10 20:54:21<@ulm> so IMHO we cannot say that they should shut down a particular forum
+2019-02-10 20:54:22<+NeddySeagoon> The hardware that hosts the forums was donated for that explicit purpose. Its not avaiable for anything else.
+2019-02-10 20:54:37<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I hope the next step isn't a rule stating that you'll control what gentoo developers do or can think about - because the proposal for 3.1 seems we'll be "falling down the rabbit hole"
+2019-02-10 20:54:41<@dilfridge> I'm not really averse to off-topic chatter as well
+2019-02-10 20:55:04<+NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto: Mext up, the ML
+2019-02-10 20:55:10<@dilfridge> my main problem is a different one, namely that OTW is "a dongle waiting to happen"
+2019-02-10 20:55:12<@Whissi> This is like the idea some politicians have: Just forbid something and the problem is solved. No. That's not how it works.
+2019-02-10 20:55:22<@K_F> ok, one alternative is deferring this to more discussion on ML
+2019-02-10 20:55:35<@ulm> +1
+2019-02-10 20:55:48<@K_F> and re-opening for next meeting
+2019-02-10 20:55:52<+NeddySeagoon> dilfridge: The Striesland effect :)
+2019-02-10 20:56:04<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: presumably Streisand :)
+2019-02-10 20:56:15<@dilfridge> not really
+2019-02-10 20:56:27<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Yes, sorry for my spelling
+2019-02-10 20:56:40<@dilfridge> ok you could say, as long as we dont talk about otw, maybe noone notices it
+2019-02-10 20:56:48<@K_F> ok, Vote 3.1: This topic is deferred to further discussion on the ML
+2019-02-10 20:56:56<+NeddySeagoon> It can be logged in users only
+2019-02-10 20:57:11<@dilfridge> NeddySeagoon: right now it's indexed by google
+2019-02-10 20:57:22<@dilfridge> so that can't really be true
+2019-02-10 20:57:28<@K_F> dilfridge: whether indexed by google or not isn't really material
+2019-02-10 20:57:32<@Whissi> But this can be fixed.
+2019-02-10 20:57:38<+NeddySeagoon> As desultory said on the ML, that can be changed.
+2019-02-10 20:57:49<@dilfridge> yes, fine. just replying to the remark
+2019-02-10 20:57:57<+NeddySeagoon> OK
+2019-02-10 20:58:06<@K_F> it doesn't affect gentoo's exposure whether it is impacted by search engines or not
+2019-02-10 20:58:13<@dilfridge> OK so I'm all for deferring to the lists
+2019-02-10 20:58:15 * dilfridge yes
+2019-02-10 20:58:16<@K_F> any journalist writing about it will go to the direct soruce
+2019-02-10 20:58:18<@K_F> source*
+2019-02-10 20:58:20 * K_F yes
+2019-02-10 20:58:25 * slyfox yes for deferral
+2019-02-10 20:58:28 * ulm yes
+2019-02-10 20:58:29 * leio yes
+2019-02-10 20:58:34 * Whissi yes for deferral
+2019-02-10 20:58:35 * WilliamH yes for deferral
+2019-02-10 20:59:08<@K_F> good, lets continue discussion on this
+2019-02-10 20:59:15<@K_F> 4. Default ACCEPT_LICENSE
+2019-02-10 20:59:30<@K_F>
+2019-02-10 20:59:35<+NeddySeagoon> Lets be consistent and include mailing lists too.
+2019-02-10 20:59:40<@K_F>
+2019-02-10 20:59:59<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: lets take that discussion on ML, but indeed..
+2019-02-10 21:00:05<@WilliamH> I think we should leave the accept_license default the way it is and document how users can change it.
+2019-02-10 21:00:12-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v kentnl] by ChanServ
+2019-02-10 21:00:24<@Whissi> Has anyone tested if changing ACCEPT_LICENSE from "* -@EULA" to "@FREE" will affect stage3 generation?
+2019-02-10 21:00:25<@dilfridge> NeddySeagoon: I dont think we have much conspiracy theory or alt-right discussions on the lists.
+2019-02-10 21:00:57<@K_F> lets drop discussion on the previous point and move on... that is already deferred for forther discussion
+2019-02-10 21:00:59<@ulm> Whissi: stage3 should only contain free software, at least that was so a couple of years ago
+2019-02-10 21:01:47<@ulm> if not, it might even violate the social contract
+2019-02-10 21:01:56<@Whissi> Well, if stage3 is not affected, I want that change. It doesn't really affect users... some users only have to do an additional change. But it will raise awareness. Not a hard blocker.
+2019-02-10 21:01:58<@slyfox> Is there an exact list of licences removed in '"* -@EULA" -> "@FREE"' posted anywhere?
+2019-02-10 21:02:37<@ulm> slyfox: there's no @non-free group
+2019-02-10 21:02:44<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: hmm, what type of licenses wouldn't be accepted with the new default?
+2019-02-10 21:02:44<@K_F> slyfox: the FREE license group is found in profiles/license_groups
+2019-02-10 21:02:48<@ulm> i.e. non-free is all without @FREE
+2019-02-10 21:03:05<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: any that isn't covered by OSI or FSF
+2019-02-10 21:03:12<@dilfridge> so you'd need @non-free without @EULA
+2019-02-10 21:03:16<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: FWIW, we already have USE="bindist" on official stages, so anything that doesn't allow binary distribution is already "out" of the stages
+2019-02-10 21:03:37<@leio> that's not how USE=bindist works.
+2019-02-10 21:03:43<@Whissi> jauhien: BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE group would be missing. So no Intel microcodes for example without accepting intel-ucode license.
+2019-02-10 21:03:59<@Whissi> s/jauhien/jmbsvicetto
+2019-02-10 21:04:05<@K_F> you wouldn't require those in the stage3 though
+2019-02-10 21:04:13<+jmbsvicetto> leio: ok, true.
+2019-02-10 21:04:22<@K_F> but yes, we should do handbook alterations to explain how to add various things
+2019-02-10 21:04:43<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: ah, then that might cause issues for the install-cd / stage4
+2019-02-10 21:04:53<@dilfridge> also, maybe ask for an expanded portage error message on "masked by license" (with a link to somewhere)
+2019-02-10 21:05:07<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: let me do a quick grep for firmware packages, but I believe we do have some in the ISO targets
+2019-02-10 21:05:14<@K_F> so, my own take on this is described in
+2019-02-10 21:05:22<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: The live DVD is not the problem. They will probably add that package.
+2019-02-10 21:06:13<@Whissi> Well, from my POV and my talk with mattst88.
+2019-02-10 21:06:24<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: I'm talking about the install-cd / stage4
+2019-02-10 21:06:25<@Whissi> Not sure about ulm and the social contract.
+2019-02-10 21:06:35<@ulm> live dvd and install cds could have "-* @FREE @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE"
+2019-02-10 21:06:46<@Whissi> OK, so no problem.
+2019-02-10 21:06:50<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: we do have for example the ipw{2100,2200}-firmware packages on the install-cd
+2019-02-10 21:07:08<@ulm> which still won't cover all firmwares
+2019-02-10 21:07:14<@K_F> from Gentoo SOC, chapter "Gentoo is and will remain free software"
+2019-02-10 21:07:31<@K_F> but we're not actually living up to that for our users atm
+2019-02-10 21:07:53<@K_F> so users can end up in various situations where they install proprietary software by default
+2019-02-10 21:07:58<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: ipw*-firmware package doesn't make gentoo "non free software". All it does is all users with that hardware to run Gentoo
+2019-02-10 21:08:05<@K_F> the only sane default for us is to offer free software
+2019-02-10 21:08:16<@K_F> the alternative would be to not approve any license at all to begin with
+2019-02-10 21:08:27<@K_F> but describe how to set it... but I don't believe that is a good alternative
+2019-02-10 21:08:35<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: That forces thinking
+2019-02-10 21:08:47<@WilliamH> jmbsvicetto++
+2019-02-10 21:08:48<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: I thought the old discussion about this issue was that Gentoo will not rely on non-free software, but that we are pragmatic and won't go "debian"
+2019-02-10 21:08:48<@Whissi> For me, the motion is to raise awareness. We are not really adding a blocker for anyone. Maybe we need to adjust the DVD or things like that... but that's not a blocker.
+2019-02-10 21:08:48<@K_F> we should default to free software to cover our social contract, and any exception from that should be up to users
+2019-02-10 21:08:51<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: yeah, ipw-* is binary distributable
+2019-02-10 21:09:02<+jmbsvicetto> s/all/allow/
+2019-02-10 21:09:05<@ulm> some of the blobs in sys-kernel/linux-firmware aren't, though
+2019-02-10 21:09:23<@K_F> but definitely we should describe it in handbook how to set license exceptions, and linux-firmware and no-source-code are good examples of things that should be listed for certain packages
+2019-02-10 21:09:25<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: is that package included with any install media?
+2019-02-10 21:09:33<@WilliamH> I'm with jmbsvicetto here, let's not go so far as to break installation for users.
+2019-02-10 21:10:05<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: yes, on the amd64 install-cd
+2019-02-10 21:10:10<+jmbsvicetto> I just grepped the specs
+2019-02-10 21:10:34<+NeddySeagoon> From a helpdesk workload PoV I prefer to stay with what we have and document how to go free.
+2019-02-10 21:10:37<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: that may be problematic then
+2019-02-10 21:10:49<@WilliamH> I think some kernel components are also non-free?
+2019-02-10 21:11:05<@WilliamH> I've heard something about deblobbing the kernel if we go free only.
+2019-02-10 21:11:20<@K_F> WilliamH: citation needed
+2019-02-10 21:11:25<+jmbsvicetto> Are we going to say Gentoo can only be run on hardware without proprietary blobs?
+2019-02-10 21:11:27<@ulm> WilliamH: non-free is mostly fine in context of firmware
+2019-02-10 21:11:41<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: No.
+2019-02-10 21:11:42<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: no, we're talking about the default ACCEPT_LICENSE
+2019-02-10 21:11:43<@ulm> the problem are blobs that are not distributable
+2019-02-10 21:11:53<@K_F> we're not talking about what is allowed in gentoo ebuild repository altogether
+2019-02-10 21:11:58<+NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto: That kicks lots of arm hardware into touch
+2019-02-10 21:12:09<@K_F> so it doesn't change status quo wrt adding things
+2019-02-10 21:12:43<@Whissi> And to be honest, I epexect that user asking in #gentoo, mailing list or forum will get the answer 'just restore old "* -@EULA" value' but that's ok because the user changed this. Our defaults would be fine. That's the only thing I care about. Raising people's awareness...
+2019-02-10 21:12:59<@WilliamH> I'm with NeddySeagoon here, let's document how to go free and let users do that if they want.
+2019-02-10 21:13:03<@K_F> but yes, most users wants to add >=sys-firmware/intel-microcode-20170511 intel-ucode
+2019-02-10 21:13:03<@K_F> >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.9.95 linux-firmware
+2019-02-10 21:13:06<@K_F> and the likes
+2019-02-10 21:13:30<@Whissi> WilliamH: No. Defaults must be sane. We cannot expect that anyone will fix it.
+2019-02-10 21:13:36<@K_F> WilliamH: I don't belive that is sufficient, and I belive it is against our social contract
+2019-02-10 21:13:54<+jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: iirc, no x86 / amd64 hardware could be run, as all intel processors are filled with closed source blobs - before I meant closed source blobs, not necessarily proprietary
+2019-02-10 21:14:05<@K_F> we should default to free software and describe how users can have exceptions
+2019-02-10 21:14:17<@K_F> and we definitely should describe normal exceptions for firmware blobs
+2019-02-10 21:14:29<@Whissi> Wasn't there already an update for the handbook?
+2019-02-10 21:14:31<+NeddySeagoon> Lots of users will set "*" to get over the nagging.
+2019-02-10 21:14:47<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: that is their prerogative
+2019-02-10 21:15:10<@ulm> that means that we cannot change the default to @FREE tomorrow, but will first need a tracker bug for updating of documentation, and maybe stage3
+2019-02-10 21:15:12<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: yes, but is that contributing to the "awareness" goal?
+2019-02-10 21:15:40<@ulm> portage shouldn't even accept "*" there :(
+2019-02-10 21:15:56<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: at least it doesn't mean users gets installs against our social contract without making explicit action
+2019-02-10 21:16:22<@Whissi> Exactly.
+2019-02-10 21:16:34<@WilliamH> ulm: Portage shouldn't accept USE="-* foo bar bas" imo but it does.
+2019-02-10 21:16:53<@Whissi> This is a handy feature
+2019-02-10 21:16:53<@K_F> WilliamH: why shouldn't it?
+2019-02-10 21:17:16<@slyfox> i use it all the time :)
+2019-02-10 21:17:18<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: Has anyone even checked how many "non free" packages are pulled in by the stages / install-cd?
+2019-02-10 21:17:48<@dilfridge> K_F: well at least it should warn loudly about it
+2019-02-10 21:17:51<@ulm> WilliamH: for ACCEPT_LICENSE, * means to accept any license currently in the tree, and any that may be added at a later time
+2019-02-10 21:17:52<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: I've been running on ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE -AGPL-3 -AGPL-3+ freedist "
+2019-02-10 21:17:52<@slyfox> i think we'll ned an exact breakdown by licences in stae3 before doing any decision
+2019-02-10 21:17:57<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: ... for a long time...
+2019-02-10 21:17:57<@dilfridge> ok
+2019-02-10 21:17:59<@dilfridge> so
+2019-02-10 21:18:00<@dilfridge> defer?
+2019-02-10 21:18:05<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: if the issue is the packages they can pull in when the users add packages to their system, then it stops being about Gentoo providing stages / isos that "violate the social contract"
+2019-02-10 21:18:09<@K_F> no, I don't want to defer this
+2019-02-10 21:18:48<@K_F> we should continue discussing it a bit more at least since we don't have further motions on the table today
+2019-02-10 21:18:55<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: do you know how many packages are going to be affected? (stages and isos)
+2019-02-10 21:19:01<@WilliamH> I also think we should defer We don't have any idea how the stages and install cds will be affected.
+2019-02-10 21:19:06 * dilfridge looks at the palm trees outside...
+2019-02-10 21:19:14<@Whissi> I also don't see a need to defer.
+2019-02-10 21:19:25<@ulm> I fear that deferring to the ML won't provide any new information
+2019-02-10 21:19:28<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: the gentoo social contract says we're about free software
+2019-02-10 21:19:38<@K_F> today we're not persuing that goal
+2019-02-10 21:19:41<@ulm> and we know that the cummunity is divided about the question
+2019-02-10 21:19:43<@K_F> so that si wrong
+2019-02-10 21:19:53<@Whissi> WilliamH: The thing is, install dvd will adjust. If install cd needs another package, they will just allow that license. They won't be affected by that change.
+2019-02-10 21:19:54<@K_F> so we should at least have a vote on it
+2019-02-10 21:20:11<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: my question above wasn't about the "political view", it was a simple technical question.
+2019-02-10 21:20:20<@WilliamH> jmbsvicetto++
+2019-02-10 21:20:21<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I have no idea how mahy packages are going to be affected
+2019-02-10 21:20:41<@WilliamH> We have to let releng take a look at what would be affected before we do this.
+2019-02-10 21:20:43<+jmbsvicetto> apologies for the spelling
+2019-02-10 21:21:06<@dilfridge> well the main reason for deferring was that I think we should figure out the impact
+2019-02-10 21:21:10<@Whissi> WilliamH: Again, why? If they need something, they will accept that package for their need.
+2019-02-10 21:21:14<@dilfridge> not really more discussion
+2019-02-10 21:21:27 * ulm uses ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" since a long time, with few exceptions in package.license
+2019-02-10 21:21:35<@dilfridge> ok
+2019-02-10 21:21:42<@K_F> the live CDs aren't necessarily required to follow the ACCEPT_LICENSE of the distro
+2019-02-10 21:21:47<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I can argue the "political" question as well, but I was arguing as releng and wanting to have an idea of how we will be affected
+2019-02-10 21:21:53<+NeddySeagoon> Whissi: So we make a non free install cd to install a free gentoo ... that seems wrong
+2019-02-10 21:22:03<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon++
+2019-02-10 21:22:07<@Whissi> It is really just about the default value in profile. Any project is free to accept whatever license they need.
+2019-02-10 21:22:09<@K_F> as long as there is legal backing for binary redistribution
+2019-02-10 21:22:52<@K_F> but ultimately the installed gentoo should have a default we can agree on
+2019-02-10 21:22:53<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: Well, we cannot force a project to do what we think is right... that's just pragmatism.
+2019-02-10 21:23:17<@Whissi> If people running install project want X I will not fight with them.
+2019-02-10 21:23:31<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / Whissi: let me turn the question around: you both agree that we should provide a way for users with hardware that requires blobs to be able to install Gentoo, correct?
+2019-02-10 21:23:56<+NeddySeagoon> Whissi: So leave the status quo asd document how to set a free system for the few that actually want to. Thats pragmatism
+2019-02-10 21:24:07<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon++
+2019-02-10 21:24:08<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / Whissi: your argument is about the required licenses for that not to be in the default portage config. Am I correct?
+2019-02-10 21:24:26<@ulm> it's all about the portage default
+2019-02-10 21:24:34<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: Yes. And they are still able to do that. They maybe have to accept a new license which was accepted for them before. That's all.
+2019-02-10 21:24:36<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: the primary issue there is linux-firmware for the blobs , we can make an exception for that for install media
+2019-02-10 21:25:02<@K_F> as there is reasonable argument that we shouldn't force a user to use ubnuntu livecde to install gentoo
+2019-02-10 21:25:06<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: ok, but if releng will need to modify that to build the stages / isos and that ends up in every new install, would that be ok?
+2019-02-10 21:25:08<@WilliamH> K_F: why should we though if we are going to take a hard line about free software?
+2019-02-10 21:25:16<@K_F> but that ultimately doesn't actually impact changing the default ACCEPT_LICENSE
+2019-02-10 21:25:24<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: sure
+2019-02-10 21:25:32<@K_F> for the installed software
+2019-02-10 21:25:36<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: For me it is really just the awareness. Someone installing Gentoo should know that he/she is requring package X which uses license FOO which isn't free.
+2019-02-10 21:26:11<@Whissi> And emerge will prompt you to accept license... there's no silent breakage.
+2019-02-10 21:26:14<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: AFAIR stage3 should require no change, but I'll double check later
+2019-02-10 21:26:23<@K_F> so yes, I'm fine with installation medium allowing linux-firmware
+2019-02-10 21:26:41<+NeddySeagoon> Would this be rolled out in a new profile or will users get nagged about ACCEPT_LICENCE next update?
+2019-02-10 21:26:41<@K_F> but the installed distro requiring explicit acceptance of it on the installed software
+2019-02-10 21:26:56<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: That's a good question.
+2019-02-10 21:26:57<+jmbsvicetto> I'm just trying to make you guys understand that we can have a "clean" @system and make portage config "clean", but if releng needs to change that in order to be able to build stages / isos, users are likely to get the changed environment and not the "clean" environment for new installs
+2019-02-10 21:27:03<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: I don't see a need for new profile for it
+2019-02-10 21:27:08<@K_F> but that can be a way to go
+2019-02-10 21:27:39-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v blueness] by ChanServ
+2019-02-10 21:27:44<@K_F> stage3 shouldn't include it though
+2019-02-10 21:28:04<@K_F> but for certain installation medium can have broader allowances for binary blobs
+2019-02-10 21:28:16<@Whissi> I think I agree with K_F. If we would roll that change today, nothing would break. During next emerge run, you would get prompted to accept a lot of missing licenses. That's all. But nothing will get removed or will stop working due to that change.
+2019-02-10 21:28:20<+jmbsvicetto> To be clear, this is the type of changes (on catalyst / releng side) that I like to make non-permanent. I just don't know if that will be possible for this and I already have some people complaining about the "emerge -eav @world" on a new stage causing rebuilds and "wow" moments
+2019-02-10 21:28:26<@dilfridge> installcd and stage3 are different things though
+2019-02-10 21:28:38<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: A new profile ensures that users are not taken by surprise. Its a part of the profile upgrade path.
+2019-02-10 21:29:02<@ulm> ACCEPT_LICENSE isn't defined in profiles
+2019-02-10 21:29:04<@WilliamH> wrt profiles, we are still quite behind, 17.1 is not the default yet.
+2019-02-10 21:29:04<@slyfox> on the other hand it's not a subtly breaking change
+2019-02-10 21:29:46<@WilliamH> But, yeah, accept_license isn't defined in profiles.
+2019-02-10 21:29:47<+NeddySeagoon> slyfox: No ... but users are mostly lazy. The will set ="*"
+2019-02-10 21:30:03<@slyfox> or just accept default autounmask suggestion
+2019-02-10 21:30:14<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: nobody in his sane mind would set "*"
+2019-02-10 21:30:17<+jmbsvicetto> by non permanent (for those of you not following releng discussions), I mean making the change for the build but reverting it in the compressed stage (so we would "pollute" the build environment, but keep the end result "clean"
+2019-02-10 21:30:26<@ulm> that like eating everything you find on the street
+2019-02-10 21:30:52<@ulm> *that's
+2019-02-10 21:30:55<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: You need to read the forums more :)
+2019-02-10 21:31:12<@K_F> ulm: some end-users are very likely to set that, but that is fine
+2019-02-10 21:31:22<@WilliamH> ulm: don't count on it. ;-)
+2019-02-10 21:31:35<@K_F> they don't care about license because they are using it for their personal use and have expectation of it not being an issue
+2019-02-10 21:31:47<@K_F> but for others, where licenses does matter, this is a great deal of impact
+2019-02-10 21:32:06<@K_F> I refer to my previous example (in my ML post)
+2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> "Developers don’t always pay attention and given they have stated any
+2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> updates to older versions moving forward are SSPL a developer just
+2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> grabbing a security update suddenly means you’re not under AGPL anymore
+2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> but SSPL."
+2019-02-10 21:32:21<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Agreed that licence aware uners will do it properly
+2019-02-10 21:32:35<@K_F> what we're discussing here is what is a sane default
+2019-02-10 21:32:53<@K_F> and the only sane default , given our social contract, is only allowing free software (as defined by FSF and OSI)
+2019-02-10 21:33:04<@slyfox> same applies for silent BSD->GPL change for a proprietary software vendor based on gentoo. it's not a safe transition
+2019-02-10 21:33:06<@K_F> and everything else is up to the user
+2019-02-10 21:33:39<@K_F> slyfox: that is more difficult to do anything about, but it doesn't impact our social contract per se
+2019-02-10 21:33:43<@K_F> as both are defined as free
+2019-02-10 21:34:04<@K_F> but I agree it impacts users ... its just not our issue
+2019-02-10 21:34:18<@slyfox> defines GPL only on work gentoo makes
+2019-02-10 21:34:20<@K_F> I'd argue that our current default goes against our social contract
+2019-02-10 21:35:22<+NeddySeagoon> Gentoo i ::gentoo and portage. Everything else is upstream.
+2019-02-10 21:35:28<@K_F> slyfox: that only goes to what we contribute
+2019-02-10 21:35:29<+NeddySeagoon> is*
+2019-02-10 21:35:38<@K_F> slyfox: not what we accept in the distro
+2019-02-10 21:35:53<@K_F> but yes, it says that gentoo projects needs to be of those licenses
+2019-02-10 21:35:55<@Whissi> And now let's hope SSPL won't get OSI approval ( :D
+2019-02-10 21:36:13<@K_F> Whissi: it won't... but if it does that fine enough
+2019-02-10 21:36:26<@K_F> we should stick to FSF and OSI acceptance
+2019-02-10 21:36:42<@K_F> (otherwise AGPL is gone ... and it is in my mind already...)
+2019-02-10 21:37:32 * dilfridge was already wondering why noone thinks of AGPL as controversial anymore...
+2019-02-10 21:38:04<@ulm> K_F: in fact, we also have our own list in @MISC-FREE using the free software definition (in addition to the FSF's and OSI's explicit lists)
+2019-02-10 21:38:09-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v grknight] by ChanServ
+2019-02-10 21:39:48<@K_F> ulm: do you have an alternative proposal to ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE freedist"
+2019-02-10 21:40:00<@K_F> (or just @FREE)
+2019-02-10 21:40:07<@ulm> why freedist? that's not free
+2019-02-10 21:40:18<@ulm> so only "@FREE"
+2019-02-10 21:40:23<@K_F> fair enough, @FREE only..
+2019-02-10 21:41:29<@K_F> @MISC-FREE is already included in @FREE
+2019-02-10 21:42:07<@K_F> FREE @FREE-SOFTWARE @FREE-DOCUMENTS
+2019-02-10 21:42:08<@ulm> yes
+2019-02-10 21:42:30<@K_F> ok, lets vote...
+2019-02-10 21:42:46<@ulm> we track @MISC-FREE there:
+2019-02-10 21:42:51<@K_F> the default ACCEPT_LICENSE should be ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE"
+2019-02-10 21:42:59 * K_F yes
+2019-02-10 21:43:36<@ulm> K_F: do we vote about a statement of intent, or about changing the default tomorrow?
+2019-02-10 21:44:08<@K_F> I was thinking changing the default tomorrow, but we can always do a second vote on implementation
+2019-02-10 21:44:17<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: It needs a news item so users are forewarned
+2019-02-10 21:44:30<@K_F> news item is anyways required, so I'd expect a bit of delay
+2019-02-10 21:44:44<@ulm> it also needs an update of documentation
+2019-02-10 21:44:53<@K_F> yes, we need to update handbook
+2019-02-10 21:45:37<@K_F> so I suggest 2 votes, one for the actual decision, and another for implementation
+2019-02-10 21:45:49<@K_F> (given 1st carries)
+2019-02-10 21:46:35<@Whissi> Not sure why we need an additional vote for implementation but sure. Let's move on an do at least the first vote for the change in general.
+2019-02-10 21:46:51<@K_F> well, implementation doesn't matter if the principle doesn't carry
+2019-02-10 21:47:04<@Whissi> yeah, that's for sure. :)
+2019-02-10 21:47:20<@K_F> so yes, first vote is on principle only
+2019-02-10 21:48:54<@K_F> Vote: 4.1 the default ACCEPT_LICENSE should be ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" (subject to implementation details in further vote)
+2019-02-10 21:49:04 * K_F yes
+2019-02-10 21:49:08 * ulm yes
+2019-02-10 21:49:09 * Whissi yes
+2019-02-10 21:49:16 * dilfridge yes
+2019-02-10 21:49:25 * WilliamH no
+2019-02-10 21:49:56 * leio yes
+2019-02-10 21:50:00 * slyfox yes
+2019-02-10 21:50:13<@K_F> carries
+2019-02-10 21:50:43<@K_F> so we need to update docs, we need a news item, any further items neeeded?
+2019-02-10 21:51:12<@WilliamH> I just want to say on the record I voted no because I feel like we haven't really given releng time to research how they may be affected.
+2019-02-10 21:51:12<@slyfox> should be ok
+2019-02-10 21:52:11<@Whissi> Should be ok, let's add releng to that list but I don't expect that they are really affected
+2019-02-10 21:52:17<@K_F> WilliamH: they have had a bit of time already on the ML, and aditionally the install medium doesn't necessarily require changing.. we're talking about the specific distro application
+2019-02-10 21:52:27<@WilliamH> We should not be dictating things from on high without hearing from possibly affected teams.
+2019-02-10 21:52:41<@K_F> they have had their chance in commenting on the ML theread
+2019-02-10 21:53:20<@K_F> but to move on, lets do another vote on the specifics on it
+2019-02-10 21:54:11<@K_F> draft 4.2
+2019-02-10 21:54:14<@K_F> Vote 4.2
+2019-02-10 21:54:16<@K_F> Installation medium is permitted to accept additional licenses necessary for binary blobs as long as these are binary redistributable
+2019-02-10 21:54:28<@K_F> comments on the motion?
+2019-02-10 21:54:43<@WilliamH> That also violates the social contract.
+2019-02-10 21:54:53<@slyfox> should council decide that?
+2019-02-10 21:54:55<@K_F> not necessarily
+2019-02-10 21:55:13<@K_F> slyfox: well, we could make it more generic, but normally, yes
+2019-02-10 21:55:30<@dilfridge> " The precise settings for installation media are at the discretion of releng. "
+2019-02-10 21:55:30<@Whissi> I wouldn't dictate releng anything here.
+2019-02-10 21:55:38<@Whissi> They are free to create whatever they like.
+2019-02-10 21:55:49<@K_F> Whissi: not necessarily
+2019-02-10 21:55:54<@ulm> I'd rather have a tracker bug and vote on issues when they arise (if any)
+2019-02-10 21:56:00<@dilfridge> also, installation media != stages
+2019-02-10 21:56:05<@WilliamH> Whissi: that's the problem with taking a hardline approach like this.
+2019-02-10 21:56:07<@K_F> dilfridge: that is on purpose
+2019-02-10 21:56:07<@Whissi> If you installl using that medium, you will end up with stage3 which will contain the new ACCEPT_LICENSE default.
+2019-02-10 21:56:27<@dilfridge> yes I know
+2019-02-10 21:56:29<@Whissi> But the medium itself is not forced to be limited to free software only
+2019-02-10 21:56:29<@K_F> we wouldn't want to force our users to use debian to install gentoo
+2019-02-10 21:56:43<@K_F> but the stage3 is installed on all systems, so it should conform to council decision
+2019-02-10 21:56:52<@WilliamH> Whissi: it could be argued that it is since it is produced by Gentoo.
+2019-02-10 21:57:02<@K_F> but if they need a firmware blob to use wifi...
+2019-02-10 21:57:05<@dilfridge> and to be honest there's no point micromanaging releng regarding installation media
+2019-02-10 21:57:16<@K_F> there is
+2019-02-10 21:57:22<@Whissi> And yes, the medium shouldn't be limited to free software. For example I want them to add storcli and other non-free software required to access Dell or HP raid controller...
+2019-02-10 21:57:31<@K_F> if what they provide isn't binary redistributable it is our responsibility
+2019-02-10 21:57:36<@K_F> hence the phrasing above
+2019-02-10 21:57:39<+NeddySeagoon> Lots of people use Sys Res CD
+2019-02-10 21:57:45<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: that uses arch
+2019-02-10 21:57:53<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: You are not allowed to use that name anymore! :p
+2019-02-10 21:58:01<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: The new one does :(
+2019-02-10 21:58:13<@K_F> and anyways is outside of our scope
+2019-02-10 21:58:29<@Whissi> Yeah, I hope we will get our own install dvd at the same level like previous sysrescd
+2019-02-10 21:59:01<@dilfridge> lots of people are using "you know what"
+2019-02-10 21:59:03<@K_F> but we should require what we provide to be binary redistributable even if it isn't FREE
+2019-02-10 21:59:15<@K_F> that is council responsibility
+2019-02-10 21:59:23<@WilliamH> K_F: that would require modifying the social contract?
+2019-02-10 21:59:30<@K_F> WilliamH: not necessarily
+2019-02-10 21:59:33<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Isn't that a legal requirement anyway?
+2019-02-10 21:59:45<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: it is
+2019-02-10 21:59:48<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: it is
+2019-02-10 22:00:06<+NeddySeagoon> So the council do not need to mandate it too.
+2019-02-10 22:00:09<@K_F> but we still given them explicit allowance greater than the stage3
+2019-02-10 22:00:41<@K_F> well, the vote would be in place to ensure they aren't bound strictly by 4.1
+2019-02-10 22:00:50<@K_F> but if we agree it isn't needed, then all is fine
+2019-02-10 22:01:16<@K_F> it is just a specification that the requirement for install medium is that it is binary redistributable and not FREE
+2019-02-10 22:01:23<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng."
+2019-02-10 22:01:39<@slyfox> sounds good
+2019-02-10 22:01:59<@K_F> dilfridge: that wfm.. although I'd prefer a specification that it is permitted by law
+2019-02-10 22:02:22<+NeddySeagoon> Thats a good point K_F
+2019-02-10 22:02:34<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng, while not murdering anyone."
+2019-02-10 22:02:39<+prometheanfire> in what region for that law?
+2019-02-10 22:02:54<@K_F> prometheanfire: well, in this case the foundation is US
+2019-02-10 22:03:13<+prometheanfire> that'd make the most sense, but if bringing law into it, it always complicates things
+2019-02-10 22:03:22<@K_F> but the proposal doesn't specify it explicitly, only to the extent of the content being binary redistributable
+2019-02-10 22:03:25<@dilfridge> do we have a mirror in the UAE?
+2019-02-10 22:03:33<+prometheanfire> K_F: which I think wfm
+2019-02-10 22:03:57<@K_F> mirrors are a separte issues, we can handle that
+2019-02-10 22:04:21<@K_F> in any case I propose the following motion, if it is seconded lets vote for it
+2019-02-10 22:04:22<@K_F> Vote 4.2
+2019-02-10 22:04:22<@K_F> Installation medium is permitted to accept additional licenses necessary for binary blobs as long as these are binary redistributable
+2019-02-10 22:04:39 * slyfox yes
+2019-02-10 22:04:42<@Whissi> So no EC ciphers on install DVD because US doesn't allow...? :)
+2019-02-10 22:04:43<@K_F> seconded?
+2019-02-10 22:04:55<@K_F> Whissi: that'd be a natural consequence
+2019-02-10 22:05:01 * ulm yes
+2019-02-10 22:05:09 * K_F yes
+2019-02-10 22:05:13 * dilfridge no
+2019-02-10 22:05:19 * Whissi no
+2019-02-10 22:05:24<@dilfridge> because of micromanaging
+2019-02-10 22:05:49<@Whissi> Yeah, I agree. We don't need 4.2.
+2019-02-10 22:06:08<@K_F> well, feel free to vote no then :)
+2019-02-10 22:06:12 * leio no
+2019-02-10 22:06:16 * WilliamH no
+2019-02-10 22:06:58<@K_F> ok, so the motion does not carry, alternative proposal or no further votes on this action?
+2019-02-10 22:07:23<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng."
+2019-02-10 22:07:37<@K_F> dilfridge: even if that is against law?
+2019-02-10 22:07:55<@dilfridge> I expect everyone to keep the law intrinsically.
+2019-02-10 22:07:59<@ulm> dilfridge: that doesn't add anything
+2019-02-10 22:08:05<@dilfridge> If not that's a different issue.
+2019-02-10 22:08:13<@Whissi> You don't need to mention that you have to comply with law.
+2019-02-10 22:08:34<@dilfridge> well, maybe this one gets more votes? :P
+2019-02-10 22:08:45<@K_F> the intention of 4.2 is to provide a broader allowance for installation medum, as long as that is permitted by law
+2019-02-10 22:09:19<@K_F> I'm not going to vote for a motion giving a project allowance that isn't in line with that
+2019-02-10 22:09:20<@leio> I don't see anything restricting that allowance, to have to explicitly allow something again
+2019-02-10 22:09:24<@ulm> @BINARY-DISTRIBUTABLE was created exactly for that purpose
+2019-02-10 22:09:25<@WilliamH> K_F: why do we need to talk about the law? as dilfridge says, we expect people to follow it anyway.
+2019-02-10 22:09:40<@K_F> and the lowest common denominator I can think is it being binary direstributable
+2019-02-10 22:09:49<@K_F> but I'm open to alternatives
+2019-02-10 22:09:55<@dilfridge> ok motion 4.2a: "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng."
+2019-02-10 22:09:56<@dilfridge> please vote
+2019-02-10 22:10:07<@K_F> ok, lets vote for 4.2a
+2019-02-10 22:10:09 * K_F no
+2019-02-10 22:10:40 * slyfox yes
+2019-02-10 22:10:56 * dilfridge yes
+2019-02-10 22:11:20 * WilliamH yes
+2019-02-10 22:11:46 * Whissi yes
+2019-02-10 22:12:00 * ulm abstain
+2019-02-10 22:12:12 * leio no
+2019-02-10 22:12:22<@K_F> so that carries
+2019-02-10 22:12:27<@leio> (as I don't understand why we need to affirm anything)
+2019-02-10 22:13:09<@K_F> in any case, we have a decision on it
+2019-02-10 22:13:18<@K_F> 5. Open bugs with council involvement
+2019-02-10 22:13:24<@WilliamH> leio: Well, an affirmation just means that we won't get in the way of releng in this case.
+2019-02-10 22:13:50<@K_F> bug 637328
+2019-02-10 22:13:52<+willikins> K_F: "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
+2019-02-10 22:14:06<@K_F> no updates (we haven't had time to work in it... yes, this is a repeating one....)
+2019-02-10 22:14:24<@K_F> if it wasn't for all other matters, we might get around to it :)
+2019-02-10 22:14:26<@Whissi> :p
+2019-02-10 22:14:38<@slyfox> 1.5 years :)
+2019-02-10 22:14:52<@K_F> well, things are happening
+2019-02-10 22:14:59<@K_F> just not very quickly
+2019-02-10 22:15:01<@K_F> in any case
+2019-02-10 22:15:05<@K_F> 6. Open floor
+2019-02-10 22:15:19<@K_F> this is the possibility for others in the community to raise questions
+2019-02-10 22:15:22<@WilliamH> It looks like we need a new portage release for this accept_license change
+2019-02-10 22:15:32<@K_F> so lets keep floor open for 5 minutes to allow for any questions
+2019-02-10 22:15:38<@WilliamH> That's where accept_license is defined
+2019-02-10 22:15:49<@WilliamH> in /usr/share/portage/make.globals
+2019-02-10 22:16:09<@slyfox> sounds about right
+2019-02-10 22:16:11<@WilliamH> sorry, /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals
+2019-02-10 22:16:15<@K_F> WilliamH: indeed
+2019-02-10 22:16:52<@ulm> yes, make.globals and make.conf.example
+2019-02-10 22:16:57<+xiaomiao> did y'all just decide to make linux-firmware uninstallable by default?
+2019-02-10 22:17:15<@slyfox> yep
+2019-02-10 22:17:17<+xiaomiao> cool
+2019-02-10 22:17:28<+xiaomiao> so that's a default that doesn't work outside of VMs
+2019-02-10 22:17:37<@Whissi> It is not uninstallable by default. You will get a prompt.
+2019-02-10 22:17:38<@slyfox> correct
+2019-02-10 22:18:03<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: I was very against this.
+2019-02-10 22:18:28<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: I think this is an unnecessary change.
+2019-02-10 22:18:35<+xiaomiao> it's equivalent to package.mask in terms of message and complexity of config
+2019-02-10 22:18:55<@K_F> the discussion isn't really for open floor though...
+2019-02-10 22:19:02<@K_F> are there further issues wanting to be dsicusssed?
+2019-02-10 22:19:06<+xiaomiao> just wanted to make sure people understand what just happen
+2019-02-10 22:19:12<@leio> to be clear, I voted yes knowing that the implementation will be good and not rushed
+2019-02-10 22:19:18<@ulm> from a license point of view, linux-firmware is one of the worst packages
+2019-02-10 22:19:31<@slyfox> yup
+2019-02-10 22:19:39<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: what we basically did is decide to go full debian with our licenses.
+2019-02-10 22:19:40<@ulm> we shouldn't even distribute it via our mirrors
+2019-02-10 22:20:21<+grknight> linux-firmware is essential to more and more installs
+2019-02-10 22:20:37< veremitz> distributing linux-firmware is debatable, yes
+2019-02-10 22:20:47< veremitz> but many devices are cheese without it, correct
+2019-02-10 22:20:51<@ulm> grknight: unfortunately, that doesn't make it distributable
+2019-02-10 22:21:03< veremitz> but that can be fetch-restricted easily enough
+2019-02-10 22:21:07<@ulm> also upstream doesn't really care
+2019-02-10 22:21:18<@Whissi> xiaomiao: Once council meeting is closed I would like to hear your opinion why this change is bad because I don't really see what's changing (yes, I expect that user are somehow actively managing /etc/portage/ so I don't see any breakage)
+2019-02-10 22:22:02<+chithead> (linux-firmware maintainer here) fortunately, linux-firmware will see proper releases starting this year, using mirrors
+2019-02-10 22:22:14<@slyfox> \o/
+2019-02-10 22:22:28<@slyfox> what do we use today? gentoo space?
+2019-02-10 22:22:28<@ulm> chithead: that's good news
+2019-02-10 22:22:33<@K_F> the open floor is formally closed
+2019-02-10 22:22:39<@Whissi> slyfox: Normal mirror system.
+2019-02-10 22:22:40<@K_F> so meeting is closed
+2019-02-10 22:22:44<@slyfox> woohoo \o/
+2019-02-10 22:22:49<@K_F> any further discussion is outside of meeting notes
+2019-02-10 22:22:55<@slyfox> Whissi: without non-mirror SRC_URI?
+2019-02-10 22:22:56<+xiaomiao> Whissi: it's a bad default for /all/ machines I have, that's all
+2019-02-10 22:22:57<@Whissi> chithead: You want to set RESTRICT=mirrors?
+2019-02-10 22:23:26<@slyfox> xiaomiao: are USE-defaults good for any of your machines?
+2019-02-10 22:23:50<@Whissi> xiaomiao: Well, you are now forced to get your used licenses managed. That's all. But you can also distribute a cfg which will set ACCEPT_LICENSE to "*" if you still don't care ;)
+2019-02-10 22:23:50<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: I was against this from the start, I thought we should have left accept_licenses alone and documented for users how to change it.
+2019-02-10 22:24:21<@slyfox> /etc/portage/package.license can be a directory, right?
+2019-02-10 22:24:29<@dilfridge> (me rolling eyes at WilliamH)
+2019-02-10 22:24:42<@Whissi> slyfox: yes
+2019-02-10 22:24:58<+chithead> Whissi: currently linux-firmware is all git snapshots hosted on gentoo mirrors
+2019-02-10 22:25:00<@WilliamH> dilfridge: Just stating my opinion on the matter.
+2019-02-10 22:25:04<+NeddySeagoon> What licence covers the blobs in the kernel ?
+2019-02-10 22:25:32<@WilliamH> dilfridge: I get the feeling this decision was pushed without proper research.
+2019-02-10 22:25:41<+grknight> Whissi: wonderful, more confused new users ;)
+2019-02-10 22:26:05<@Whissi> chithead: Yeah, but we don't upload on our own... we are using normal mirror system. So what do you want to change? I can only think about RESTRICT=mirror...
+2019-02-10 22:26:07<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: the once listed in WHENCE of the package
+2019-02-10 22:26:21<@dilfridge> maybe time to improve portage error "messages"?
+2019-02-10 22:26:29<+chithead> Whissi: once linux-firmware is hosted on mirrors, we can stop distributing it via gentoo mirrors
+2019-02-10 22:26:31<@ulm> which is too complicated and changes to often for including it in the tree
+2019-02-10 22:26:35<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: So lots then.
+2019-02-10 22:26:44<@ulm> so we have only this note:
+2019-02-10 22:26:51<+chithead> Whissi: so that would mean RESTRICT=mirror (nomirror?)
+2019-02-10 22:27:16<@K_F> sgtm
+2019-02-10 22:27:51<@WilliamH> grknight: I would support a discussion and putting this back on the agenda next month.
+2019-02-10 22:27:51<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: not the linux-firmware package. The blobs that are/were in the kernel sources that could be deblobed at one time
+2019-02-10 22:28:38<@ulm> I haven't closely followed which ones are left there
+2019-02-10 22:28:40<@Whissi> grknight: Well, yes... but Gentoo is about choices. Let's imagine you are running something like AWS on Gentoo. You don't want silent upgrades to SSPL for example because default is set to "* -@EULA". ;)
+2019-02-10 22:29:03<@slyfox> how about AGPL?
+2019-02-10 22:29:10<@WilliamH> Whissi: Well, if sspl ends up getting approval...
+2019-02-10 22:29:23<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: so is gentoo-sources included in @FREE ? It sounds like its not.
+2019-02-10 22:29:42<+grknight> NeddySeagoon: no, it is not
+2019-02-10 22:29:46<@leio> NeddySeagoon: the stuff from firmware_install or such is gone since 4.14; I don't know about the portions that were deeper in the code that deblob did
+2019-02-10 22:29:49<@Whissi> WilliamH: To be honest, in this case we maybe have to discuss topic again if @FREE must be changed...
+2019-02-10 22:30:07<+NeddySeagoon> leio: Thanks
+2019-02-10 22:30:17<+grknight> deblob breaks hardware support
+2019-02-10 22:31:20<@WilliamH> I thought there was a problem with deblobbing
+2019-02-10 22:31:22<+NeddySeagoon> So You can't actually install Gentoo with the new default ACCEPT_LICENCE because you can't have a kernel.
+2019-02-10 22:31:35<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: indeed, kernel packages still have linux-firmware in LICENSE
+2019-02-10 22:31:44<@WilliamH> I didn't know the exact reference, but I guess we broke gentoo-sources.
+2019-02-10 22:31:50< veremitz> -facepalm-
+2019-02-10 22:31:51<@ulm> that has to be checked too
+2019-02-10 22:32:09<+NeddySeagoon> Heh testing my install >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.20.7 linux-firmware
+2019-02-10 22:32:14<@WilliamH> Again, a result of this decision being pushed through without research.
+2019-02-10 22:32:30<@K_F> WilliamH: no, that is within the expected result
+2019-02-10 22:32:44<+xiaomiao> NeddySeagoon: Gentoo/FreeBSD wins at last ;)
+2019-02-10 22:32:44<+chithead> um, nobody suggest changing the default immediately?
+2019-02-10 22:32:59<@WilliamH> chithead: Yeah, k_f wanted to change it tomorrow.
+2019-02-10 22:33:02<@K_F> the gentoo-sources itself isn't linux-firmware, but it has dependencies that requires it
+2019-02-10 22:33:10<+NeddySeagoon> chithead: It was suggested but it didn't happen
+2019-02-10 22:33:12<@K_F> which is fine..
+2019-02-10 22:33:21<+grknight> K_F: incorrect
+2019-02-10 22:34:04<+grknight>
+2019-02-10 22:34:07<@dilfridge> ok I think we know now that this needs preparation
+2019-02-10 22:34:26<@WilliamH> I think we need to do an emergency vote to recend the decision.
+2019-02-10 22:34:31<@leio> the vote was about end goal, I don't think we want to rush this in tomorrow with everything falling over.
+2019-02-10 22:35:03<@ulm> exactly
+2019-02-10 22:35:05<+NeddySeagoon> WilliamH: There is no emergency. Implementation date is TBD
+2019-02-10 22:35:06<@K_F> leio: exactly
+2019-02-10 22:35:22<@WilliamH> dilfridge, K_F, ulm: we should have known that before you pushed this through.
+2019-02-10 22:35:30<@K_F> WilliamH: we did
+2019-02-10 22:35:45<+xiaomiao> K_F: ... what did you expect to happen?
+2019-02-10 22:35:48<@K_F> hence the motions as they were
+2019-02-10 22:35:56<@dilfridge> that's what agenda calls and discussions on the mailing list are good for, you can prepare yourself!
+2019-02-10 22:36:07<@K_F> dilfridge++
+2019-02-10 22:37:16<@slyfox> Un related question: why agenda items are ported to -project but ont meeting outcomes? :)
+2019-02-10 22:37:16<@K_F> the reason gentoo-sources has linux-firmware is because of a dependency, if not in today's implementation, that is the reason
+2019-02-10 22:37:34<@K_F> slyfox: not following?
+2019-02-10 22:37:45<@ulm> in any case we need an audit if the kernel-2.eclass setting is still correct
+2019-02-10 22:38:25<@slyfox> K_F: meeting summaries are not posted to -project, are they?
+2019-02-10 22:38:25<@WilliamH> And if it is, we need to re-visit this vote.
+2019-02-10 22:38:40 * dilfridge looks at the palm trees and goes in search of a brunch
+2019-02-10 22:38:47<@K_F> slyfox: that is a good point , we can always post summaries there as well
+2019-02-10 22:39:02<@WilliamH> K_F: obviously you didn't know this would break the kernel.
+2019-02-10 22:39:07<@WilliamH> K_F: or care.
+2019-02-10 22:39:09<@slyfox> I think it would increase visibility of how council works
+2019-02-10 22:39:12<@WilliamH> K_F: if you did know.
+2019-02-10 22:39:25<@K_F> WilliamH: it doesn't break the kernel...
+2019-02-10 22:39:47<@ulm> WilliamH: unless there's non-free code in the kernel git repo, there should be no problem
+2019-02-10 22:39:52<@K_F> it changes how users needs to explicitly approve non-free licenses to install certain aspects
+2019-02-10 22:40:00<@K_F> and gentoo-sources does it due to a dependency
+2019-02-10 22:40:37<@K_F> so yes, that requires user action
+2019-02-10 22:40:39<@K_F> but that is fine
+2019-02-10 22:40:42 * kentnl observes dilfridge face palm ... trees
+2019-02-10 22:40:53<@WilliamH> My point is we should have looked into that before we forced a vote.
+2019-02-10 22:41:06<@K_F> that is all within expected action
+2019-02-10 22:41:31<@ulm> K_F: actually, gentoo-sources has "linux-firmware" in LICENSE itself
+2019-02-10 22:41:33<@K_F> you were voted down.. which is fine
+2019-02-10 22:41:45<@ulm> but I suspect that's not accurate any more
+2019-02-10 22:41:46<@K_F> ulm: yes, but that can easily be changed
+2019-02-10 22:42:03<@K_F> exactly, it is just a lazy appropriation
+2019-02-10 22:42:30<@K_F> there isn't anything in the kernel itself requiring it, but the dep it has
+2019-02-10 22:42:52<@WilliamH> So we have to remove the dep.
+2019-02-10 22:43:04<@K_F> no, you have to correctly specify the dep
+2019-02-10 22:43:32<@K_F> or yes, remove the dep itself and make that a matter of documentation
+2019-02-10 22:43:37<@WilliamH> We don't have license-based deps?
+2019-02-10 22:43:58 * ulm doesn't see any dependency on linux-firmware in kernel packages
+2019-02-10 22:45:15<@WilliamH> ulm: see kernel-2.eclass
+2019-02-10 22:45:44<@Whissi> There was the deblob thing
+2019-02-10 22:46:05<@WilliamH> kernel-2.eclass, line 628
+2019-02-10 22:46:26<@ulm> yep, it used to have "!deblob? ( linux-firmware )"
+2019-02-10 22:46:43<@ulm> and at some point it got unconditional
+2019-02-10 22:47:08<@K_F> which is a good reason for council to react
+2019-02-10 22:47:13< veremitz> iirc there was some issue with deblobbing .. something to do with python?
+2019-02-10 22:47:28<@WilliamH> Actually that's what it has.
+2019-02-10 22:47:32<@WilliamH> still.
+2019-02-10 22:47:36< veremitz> although I believe there's only one kernel package that needs it ..
+2019-02-10 22:47:52<@K_F> it doesn't change the outcome in any way
+2019-02-10 22:47:59<@Whissi> Cause by bug 266157
+2019-02-10 22:48:01<+willikins> Whissi: "sys-kernel/libre-sources ebuild request"; Gentoo Linux, New packages; RESO, FIXE; bugs_gentoo_org.Tim_OKelly:kernel
+2019-02-10 22:48:17<@K_F> gentoo should be free software
+2019-02-10 22:48:32< veremitz> K_F: which definition are you using for 'free' ;)
+2019-02-10 22:48:37<@Whissi> But I see no deblobing happening in current gentoo-sources anymore
+2019-02-10 22:48:40<@K_F> veremitz: OSI/FSF
+2019-02-10 22:49:17<@K_F> and additional exception by the license team for MISC-FREE
+2019-02-10 22:50:12<@K_F> i.e @FREE
+2019-02-10 22:50:41 * veremitz just shrugs, and adds ACCEPT_LICENCE= to his standard make.conf template
+2019-02-10 22:51:50<+NeddySeagoon> veremitz: ACCEPT_LICENCE="*" ? :)
+2019-02-10 22:51:54< veremitz> I'm sure one of the council will be doing a test install from a new virgin installcd with virgin stage3 with all these new optoins applied
+2019-02-10 22:52:15<@WilliamH> veremitz: Good luck finding someone from the council to do that ;-)
+2019-02-10 22:52:34<@K_F> veremitz: all the installs I've been doing over the past several years have been more restrictive than the one proposed today
+2019-02-10 22:52:42<+NeddySeagoon> On another topic ... Gentoo is 20 this year. We need a party!
+2019-02-10 22:52:49< veremitz> NeddySeagoon: I think I can afford to extract the present (as of 1h previous) setting before the change happens
+2019-02-10 22:53:02< veremitz> K_F: yes, and I hear you stumbled across a compiler bug recently ...
+2019-02-10 22:53:04<@K_F> (I don't allow AGPL by default)
+2019-02-10 22:53:28<@K_F> veremitz: sure, that happens
+2019-02-10 22:53:45<@WilliamH> K_F: about me being voted down, you are right I was, but that doesn't mean I have to agree since I was voted down. :p
+2019-02-10 22:54:03<@K_F> WilliamH: not following?
+2019-02-10 22:54:12<+xiaomiao> who has hardware that even allows this idealism?
+2019-02-10 22:54:14< veremitz> NeddySeagoon: 'reaper' that's the word I was looking for :D
+2019-02-10 22:54:21< veremitz> xiaomiao: doesn't matter
+2019-02-10 22:54:29<@WilliamH> K_F: I was voted down, but that doesn't mean I have to be quiet about it. ;-)
+2019-02-10 22:54:30<+xiaomiao> ... I guess that's the Talos and X200 people, all 4 of them ;)
+2019-02-10 22:54:30< veremitz> WilliamH: stop being a sore loser, j/s :)
+2019-02-10 22:54:41<+NeddySeagoon> veremitz: The test is not required ACCEPT_LICENCE="-* @FREE" emerge -epv @world will tell what you need to know, if you spell LICENCE properly
+2019-02-10 22:54:41<@WilliamH> ;-)
+2019-02-10 22:54:45< veremitz> xiaomiao: users will simply have to adjust their settings. Again.
+2019-02-10 22:54:58< veremitz> NeddySeagoon: the US way?!
+2019-02-10 22:55:07<@Whissi> "if you spell LICENCE properly" :-D
+2019-02-10 22:55:18<@WilliamH> I wouldn't have an issue with it, except that I think it was done quickly without researching the ramifications.
+2019-02-10 22:55:27< veremitz> WilliamH: wait, this IS council, right?
+2019-02-10 22:55:30<+NeddySeagoon> veremitz: yeah, Its a bug like --color
+2019-02-10 22:55:31<+xiaomiao> veremitz: yes but wouldn't it be more reasonable to have working defaults?
+2019-02-10 22:55:39< veremitz> xiaomiao: pfft.
+2019-02-10 22:55:48<@K_F> WilliamH: if so, why didn't you voice your concern in the ML?
+2019-02-10 22:55:51<@ulm> actually, PMS says "licence" in the text but "LICENSE" when referring to the variable :)
+2019-02-10 22:56:00<+NeddySeagoon> heh
+2019-02-10 22:56:03< veremitz> ulm: patch it!
+2019-02-10 22:56:41<@ulm> it's BE throughout, by its original authors
+2019-02-10 22:56:43< veremitz> Gentoo has to be agile, and change things, because $change.
+2019-02-10 22:56:50<@WilliamH> K_F: Well, I thought others said something about this, and I didn't really have a whole lot of time for the ml this week.
+2019-02-10 22:56:51< veremitz> ulm: Big-Endian?!
+2019-02-10 22:57:03<@ulm> british english
+2019-02-10 22:57:03<@K_F> WilliamH: this was discussed in the -project ML ahead of decision as the appropriate point of venue
+2019-02-10 22:57:25<@K_F> WilliamH: and as a council member that is a preprequsite for discussion
+2019-02-10 22:57:43<@K_F> in any case, the decision carries
+2019-02-10 22:58:06< veremitz> if you find the voting process to be concerning, you can stand down :)
+2019-02-10 22:58:20<@K_F> we made certain deferrals as to implementation, whish makes good sense
+2019-02-10 22:58:20< veremitz> and/or resign, depending on your interpretation :)
+2019-02-10 22:58:29<@WilliamH> K_F: as council members, it is up to all of us to listen to what the community has to say about things like this before we vote on them. I was just asking in the meeting for more research before we made a decision.
+2019-02-10 22:58:42<@WilliamH> K_F: you specifically forced a vote.
+2019-02-10 22:58:43< veremitz> WilliamH: meetings are for decisions.
+2019-02-10 22:59:05<@WilliamH> K_F: I wasn't the only one who asked for deferring this.
+2019-02-10 22:59:05<@K_F> WilliamH: and the majority chose against your request
+2019-02-10 22:59:08< veremitz> meetings are monthly, decisions are monthly...
+2019-02-10 22:59:49<@WilliamH> K_F: one sec.
+2019-02-10 23:00:17<@K_F> WilliamH: chair's preprogative...
+2019-02-10 23:00:26<@K_F> on how to proceed for a specific motion
+2019-02-10 23:00:54<@K_F> but the motion itself carried with majority of council members
+2019-02-10 23:01:35<@WilliamH> K_F: dilfridge also suggested deferring this.
+2019-02-10 23:01:41<@K_F> that is why we have different chairs arranging the meetings
+2019-02-10 23:01:55< veremitz> WilliamH: propose a revisit next meeting ..
+2019-02-10 23:01:57<@ulm> WilliamH: I think it's not a real problem, but boils down to LICENSE of gentoo-sources being inaccurate
+2019-02-10 23:02:06<@K_F> in rather standard procedures
+2019-02-10 23:02:31<@WilliamH> ulm: if that's true, that's cool, but we should figure that out asap
+2019-02-10 23:02:31<@K_F> ulm: sure, but that doesn't change anything
+2019-02-10 23:02:49<@ulm> WilliamH: we will
+2019-02-10 23:02:53<@K_F> and certainly not something that influences the decision
+2019-02-10 23:03:07<@K_F> it certainly wasn't news to me
+2019-02-10 23:03:50<@K_F> that is why we, the council, make decisions
+2019-02-10 23:04:07<@K_F> if someone hasn't prepared ahead of meetings it is on them
+2019-02-10 23:04:46<@K_F> in particular if not participating in ML discussions
+2019-02-10 23:07:37<@WilliamH> heh vanilla-sources is an issue as well.
+2019-02-10 23:08:10<@ulm> because it inherits the same kernel-2.eclass
+2019-02-10 23:09:03< veremitz> WilliamH: git-sources?
+2019-02-10 23:13:16<@WilliamH> veremitz: yes.
+2019-02-10 23:13:34<@WilliamH> veremitz: same reason. it looks like all kernel sources ebuilds inherit the eclass.
+2019-02-10 23:14:12 * veremitz nods
+2019-02-10 23:15:04<@WilliamH> Also, about me not reading the ml, I was pretty comfortable with leaving thi default as it was; I see no reason to make this change other than a political one.
+2019-02-10 23:15:17<@WilliamH> s/thi/this/
+2019-02-10 23:15:23<@WilliamH> K_F: ^^
+2019-02-10 23:15:40<@K_F> WilliamH: I don't see how that changes anything?
+2019-02-10 23:15:46<@WilliamH> We have always been fine with the current default, so I didn't see a compelling reason to change it.
+2019-02-10 23:16:08<@K_F> the council is asked to make decision on global issues, today we made one
+2019-02-10 23:16:32<@K_F> yes, some people disagree.. but that is the way of things
+2019-02-10 23:16:48<@K_F> there is a majority to the decision
+2019-02-10 23:17:13<@K_F> if you want it changed, file a GLEP or another council decision
+2019-02-10 23:17:30<@K_F> but I'm disappointed by your behavior in general
+2019-02-10 23:18:12<@WilliamH> K_F: If I have attacked anyone or violated CoC, educate me, I am not attempting to do that. I just disagree with the decision.
+2019-02-10 23:18:21<@K_F> (incidentally look at the various bsd variants where the board decisions are only presented as a whole without different opinions)
+2019-02-10 23:18:49<@K_F> WilliamH: which is your prerogative... but I don't see it being very useful
+2019-02-10 23:19:17<@WilliamH> K_F: So what about my behavior is disappointing? that I disagree?
+2019-02-10 23:19:51<@K_F> WilliamH: you're certainly allowed to have a different opinion, but we coted on it, and you're in minority
+2019-02-10 23:20:21<@K_F> voted*
+2019-02-10 23:21:54<@K_F> that is why we have a majority rule in council and not requiring unanimous decisions for all actions
+2019-02-10 23:22:40< veremitz> hell .. nothing would ever move :/
+2019-02-10 23:23:05< veremitz> trustees can barely agree a time/date to meet!
+2019-02-10 23:23:47 * veremitz mutters, and goes back to hacking ARM ..
+2019-02-10 23:24:05<@K_F> and I haven't seen any good argument for re-opening any vote, if anything it sounds like you're not prepared for the meeting
+2019-02-10 23:27:06<@WilliamH> K_F: I knew what my position was, and knew about the deblobbing issue in the kernel eclass.
+2019-02-10 23:27:33<@WilliamH> K_F: as of now, if you set ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" you can't emerge our kernels.
+2019-02-10 23:28:44<@K_F> which is OK.. because we deferred the implementation and that is a technical aspect of things
+2019-02-10 23:29:09<@WilliamH> K_F: Whether that is an argument for reopening a vote I'm not sure.
+2019-02-10 23:29:10<@K_F> there isn't anything in the kernel itself that requeires those specifications, but it was a laziness factor to it, which we will fix
+2019-02-10 23:29:29<@K_F> before the action itself is enforced
+2019-02-10 23:29:56<@K_F> point remains, the council has voted that the default ACCEPT_LICENSE in gentoo should be @FREE software
+2019-02-10 23:30:07<@K_F> and we'll fix that some way
+2019-02-10 23:30:49<@K_F> whether a current kernel eclass has made shortcuts due to dependencies is beside the point... and well within the expected bahavior
+2019-02-10 23:31:13<@K_F> yes, we need to update the handbook, and we need to update a few other things, but so be it
+2019-02-10 23:31:49<@WilliamH> K_F: see my comment in the private channel.
+2019-02-10 23:32:15<@K_F> WilliamH: I've seen it, but it belongs here as well
+2019-02-10 23:35:04<@K_F> the most of what we do should be in public, after all
+2019-02-10 23:35:30<@K_F> and yes, I'm dissapointed of members not accepting majority rule in such a body
+2019-02-10 23:35:45< veremitz> K_F: the decision is rather moot unless there is a timeline set .. rather like the changes to /usr/portage, and friends
+2019-02-10 23:35:59< veremitz> (still not implemented nor documented)
+2019-02-10 23:36:28<@K_F> veremitz: I don't expect much of an issue wrt this decision, actually
+2019-02-10 23:36:33<@WilliamH> Today I have made some strong comments against a council vote that happened earlier. These comments were not meant to disrespect the council as a body, they were my opinion alone. I will take more care in the future to not come off as disrespecting the council.
+2019-02-10 23:37:17<@WilliamH> veremitz: and although this isn't a council decision, we still haven't moved on the 17.1 profiles.
+2019-02-10 23:37:51< veremitz> WilliamH: I don't see that happening comprehensively in my lifetime .. :)
+2019-02-10 23:38:16<@WilliamH> veremitz: heh we should because it cleans up the lib symlink.
+2019-02-10 23:38:21<@WilliamH> we should *
+2019-02-10 23:38:28< veremitz> And breaks multilib ?!
+2019-02-10 23:38:41<@WilliamH> veremitz: no
+2019-02-10 23:38:48 * veremitz just shrugs
+2019-02-10 23:39:05<@WilliamH> veremitz: I'm not sure what you mean about breaking multilib.
+2019-02-10 23:39:18<@WilliamH> veremitz: I've been running it on this box for some time with no issues.
+2019-02-10 23:39:33< veremitz> 17.1 profiles with multilib and no-symlink? great!
+2019-02-10 23:39:36<@WilliamH> veremitz: how does it break multilib?
+2019-02-10 23:40:03< veremitz> perhaps I underestimate the toolchain/multilib eclasses
+2019-02-10 23:41:32< veremitz> WilliamH: anyhow, in a poor analogy, in the same way the British government triggered article 50 in Europe, a decision was made here in council meeting tonight, so lets get on with implementing it .. ;)
+2019-02-10 23:41:50 * veremitz smiles and slinks off
+2019-02-10 23:41:51<+xiaomiao> veremitz: to quote Merkel: ... Alternativlos
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20190210.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20190210.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e566050
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20190210.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@