|author||Ulrich Müller <email@example.com>||2019-07-21 23:01:24 +0200|
|committer||Ulrich Müller <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2019-07-22 08:33:41 +0200|
|parent||council/meeting-logs: add 20190609 logs summary (diff)|
Log for 20190721 meeting.
License: CC-PDM-1.0 (raw IRC log, not copyrightable) Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <email@example.com>
2 files changed, 916 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20190721.txt b/meeting-logs/20190721.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,905 @@
+<@ulm> time [21:00]
+<@ulm> !proj council
+<+willikins> (firstname.lastname@example.org) dilfridge, gyakovlev, patrick, slyfox, ulm,
+ whissi, williamh
+* gyakovlev here
+* dilfridge here
+* Whissi here
+<@ulm> anyone else wants the chair? otherwise I'll take it
+<@slyfox> go ahead
+* xiaomiao here
+<@dilfridge> go ahead :)
+* WilliamH here [21:01]
+<@ulm> 1. roll call
+* slyfox here
+* Whissi here
+* WilliamH here
+<@dilfridge> everyone's here!
+<@ulm> yep :)
+<@ulm> gyakovlev: xiaomiao: welcome :)
+<@ulm> 2. Constitute the new council [21:02]
+<@ulm> time of meetings, evryone ok with 2nd Sunday of every month at 19:00
+* Shentino pays attention
+* dilfridge is in favour of the bavarian constitution (lots of freibeer)
+<@slyfox> 19:00 UTC ok for me
+<@dilfridge> ok for metoo [21:03]
+<@Whissi> OK for me.
+<@ulm> I don't see any objections
+<@gyakovlev> works for me as well, a bit in the middle of the day but fine.
+<@ulm> any objections against continuing last council's workflow?
+<@WilliamH> none here [21:04]
+<@ulm> i.e., call for agenda items two weeks in advance, agenda 1 week in
+<@dilfridge> it works
+<@dilfridge> so why change it
+<@ulm> major discussions on -project ML prior to the meeting
+<@slyfox> sounds good
+<@Whissi> Not in general but see my mail I wrote today, maybe something for
+ open floor.
+* WilliamH thinks major discussions applies to us as the council too. ;-)
+<@gyakovlev> Whissi sent out an email with some suggestions, consider it
+<@dilfridge> link? [21:05]
+<@Whissi> council@ only
+<@ulm> Whissi: let's postpone to open floor [21:06]
+<@dilfridge> Whissi: reading your mail, that's how it's usually supposed to
+ be... so, wfm
+<@Whissi> ulm: OK, move one
+<@ulm> chairmen for this term
+<@ulm> any volunteers? [21:07]
+<@Whissi> Maybe you explain charmen first, we have new members ;)
+<@slyfox> i can take next two meetings
+<@WilliamH> I'll chair some meetings. I'm not really picky when other than I
+ don't want nov or dec. [21:08]
+<@gyakovlev> I can chair at winter time or spring time, fall/autumn is pretty
+ busy and I'd like to learn a bit how you do it.
+<@ulm> Whissi: should be obvious?
+<@WilliamH> Normally what we do is each of us takes two meetings in a row but
+ we all don't have to
+<@ulm> August/September: slyfox
+* WilliamH Jan/Feb I guess [21:09]
+<@dilfridge> I can do something, but I'm not too eager volunteering... would
+ rather restart working on the summary document
+<@ulm> gyakovlev: March/April?
+<@dilfridge> can do Nov/Dec [21:10]
+<@dilfridge> october is bad for me
+<@ulm> I'll do October then
+<@Whissi> I'll take May/Jun? [21:11]
+<@ulm> xiaomiao hasn't got any
+<@dilfridge> there's always one lazy guy... was me last year :) [21:12]
+<@ulm> are you fine with this?
+<@ulm> I'll update the table later
+<@xiaomiao> my time planning is chaotic enough as it is :)
+<@ulm> 3. GLEP 81 approval
+<@ulm> mgorny: are you there?
+<@gyakovlev> he mentioned he may not make it. [21:13]
+<+mgorny> I'm via phone
+<@ulm> mgorny: want to say anything before we vote on it?
+<@dilfridge> so, I like the whole thing a lot, just have one question / remark
+ (which I already asked mgorny on the channel)
+<@dilfridge> how can we make sure that "re-enabling a user or group" doesnt
+ open any security problems? [21:14]
+<@dilfridge> like, admin had it disabled by hand, then it gets enabled
+<@Whissi> Touching existing users is always a problem. Even disabling... you
+ can't know if someone else is using... [21:15]
+<@dilfridge> "Appropriately, the packages must be able to reenable users when
+ they are installed again."
+<@dilfridge> ^that's the glep sentence
+<+mgorny> We provide explicit override option via local overlay
+<@WilliamH> Is there a place a developer can look to see which uids/gids are
+ used in case their package requires a specific one? [21:16]
+<@WilliamH> I don't know if that affects the glep or not, but it is a question
+ that has run through my mind on this subject. [21:17]
+<+mgorny> We collect them on wiki now
+<+mgorny> And i still remember your request about different format [21:18]
+<+mgorny> You can also grep ebuilds
+<@gyakovlev> mgorny: what about installing users to alternative ROOT, for
+ example if crosscompiling, was it adressed? I haven't got a
+ chance to use reference implementation yet. [21:20]
+<+mgorny> Works same as user eclass [21:21]
+<@ulm> gyakovlev: not different from what ebuilds are doing now
+<+mgorny> Ie i dunno
+<@ulm> are we ready to vote? [21:22]
+<@dilfridge> well, worst case things just dont improve, so...
+<@ulm> motion: accept GLEP 81 [21:23]
+* slyfox yes
+* gyakovlev yes
+* dilfridge yes
+* Whissi yes [21:24]
+* xiaomiao yes
+<@ulm> WilliamH: ?
+* WilliamH yes
+* ulm yes
+<@ulm> next [21:25]
+<@ulm> 4. Unrestrict gentoo-dev mailing list
+* WilliamH yes
+<@ulm> mgorny again :)
+<@ulm> WilliamH: we don't vote yet
+<@WilliamH> heh ;-)
+<@ulm> so the motion is to revert the previous council decision and open the
+ gentoo-dev mailing list again [21:26]
+<@ulm> anyone wants to discuss?
+<@Whissi> Is there anything to discuss? I don't think so: Let's unrestrict
+ mailing list again. If there will be someone *spamming* we will take
+ action like one is spamming in IRC, bugzilla... the decision from
+ the past was wrong from my POV so let's fix it. [21:27]
+<@ulm> yeah, we could give it a try, and revert againif it doesn't work
+<@WilliamH> ulm: we shouldn't revert again, this is a comrel/proctors issue.
+<@ulm> than means infra should save the whitelist, for the time being [21:28]
+<@gyakovlev> haha, yeah, just don't delete whitelist repo right away
+<@ulm> WilliamH: if it doesn't work at all, then we have the option to
+ restrict again
+<@dilfridge> let's give it a try, we have the proctors now
+<@WilliamH> ulm: from my pov we should have never restricted to begin with.
+<@Whissi> ulm: GDPR... :D
+<@dilfridge> we know
+<@dilfridge> you told us [21:29]
+<@ulm> WilliamH: we all know your opinion, I guess :)
+<@ulm> ok then
+<@slyfox> time to vote?
+<@ulm> motion: removing posting restrictions from gentoo-dev mailing list
+* slyfox yes
+* gyakovlev yes
+* Whissi yes
+* WilliamH yes
+* dilfridge yes
+<@ulm> xiaomiao: ?
+* xiaomiao yes [21:30]
+* ulm yes
+<@ulm> 5. Real name requirement
+<@ulm> discussion? anybody? [21:31]
+<@WilliamH> I'm all for the real name requirement, it hasn't really affected
+ us that much.
+<@gyakovlev> WilliamH: it did affect proxy-main project
+<@ulm> yeah, but we have a procedure [21:32]
+<@Whissi> +1. I don't see a reason to change. When we voted for this, we
+ wanted real names. I don't see that a majority is disagreeing and
+ changed mind.
+<@ulm> proxy maintainer can signoff
+<@xiaomiao> I don't see how we can verify names
+<+mgorny> it's internal proxy-maint decision not to accept fake names
+<@xiaomiao> so to me it looks like an empty gesture that creates lots of
+<+mgorny> as it's been already established, individual developers can decide
+ differently but it's their choice [21:33]
+<@Whissi> xiaomiao: We don't really have to. If we will learn that contributor
+ makes fun of us we will probably stop working with him/her just
+ because the attitude of this person doesn't match what we expect.
+<@xiaomiao> I mean - I have no idea if the entity present here as Whissi is
+ using the name their passport(s) have or not, and I don't even
+ know how to verify that
+<@xiaomiao> so it's all just faith and assuming we can "common sense" our way
+ through it [21:34]
+<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: Sure, but you at least have a reasonable idea that he
+ his, whissi is more than likely Thomas.
+<@WilliamH> I can say that here because he is listed as such on our dev page.
+<@slyfox> who knows what is the subtlety in legal vs. preferred name :)
+<@ulm> ok, in order to keep this focussed, I suggest than someone come up with
+ a motion [21:35]
+<@ulm> otherwise, we move on
+<@dilfridge> motion: no changes
+<@xiaomiao> WilliamH: I don't even know if it's a single person driving the
+* WilliamH yes
+* slyfox abstains
+* xiaomiao no [21:36]
+* dilfridge yes
+* Whissi yes
+* gyakovlev no [21:37]
+* ulm yes
+<@ulm> 4 yes 2 no 1 abstention
+<@xiaomiao> people have more faith than I do :)
+<@ulm> no changes to real name policy
+<@Whissi> gyakovlev / xiaomiao: Let me ask you a different way: Just the way
+ that we can never 100% be sure that an identity is real, is that
+ enough for you to stop requiring real names?
+<@Whissi> *fact [21:38]
+<@xiaomiao> Whissi: it's an unenforceable policy, so I don't see why it should
+<@ulm> the same would be true for linux [21:39]
+<@ulm> and all other projects that require signed-off-by
+<+mgorny> xiaomiao: we have a lot of those, and yet we don't disband gentoo
+ just yet
+<@xiaomiao> would anyone even notice a chinese person with the name "spicy
+ chicken soup" ?
+<@ulm> anyway, let's move on
+<@ulm> 6. Proctors policy
+<@gyakovlev> Whissi: I personally don't care if it's real or not. If I see a
+ person submitting quality ebuild/code written by them which was
+ accepter to other projects under same pseudonym I'm ok
+ signing-off this as my name. my position is we still need to
+ require names for developers (committers) but authors in some
+<@Whissi> Thank you two for explanation. [21:40]
+<@dilfridge> somehow my joke about the spicy chicken soup took on a life of
+ its own...
+<@ulm> is anybody from proctors present?
+<@ulm> !proj proctors
+<+willikins> ulm: (email@example.com) dolsen, leio, rich0, tamiko, zlogene
+<@slyfox> "Lead(s): none" :) [21:41]
+<@dilfridge> well they dont
+<@WilliamH> If they aren't here, should we even vote on this? [21:42]
+<@ulm> not even sure what the motion would be
+<@dilfridge> I'm not fully sure what the whole thing is about [21:43]
+<@dilfridge> but I am *very* reluctant to immediately start dictating policy
+ to the proctors
+<@ulm> we had delegated authority to them in a CoC update
+<@Whissi> I agree with desultory that proctors project must change policy. See
+ my bug... I still cannot believe that there was _no_ team decision.
+ I.e. proctors is a group of people but two people are enough to
+ issue public statements. That's _WRONG_. That's a statement of a
+ single person acked by a second one. It isn't more.
+<+mgorny> i think he's just flaming for the sake of it
+<+mgorny> he kinda does that since i told that forum mods are isolating
+ themselving from distro life [21:44]
+* WilliamH tends to agree with mgorny on this
+<+mgorny> so he now tries to make us wish they did that again
+<@Whissi> No. He is not flaming.
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: I feel like any posts I've seen from him tend to be pretty
+ combative. [21:45]
+<@xiaomiao> what do you expect to happen ... [21:46]
+<veremitz> they're aggressive, but thats hardly unusual *cough* sorry ..
+<@Whissi> WilliamH: Interesting. I read most of them differently. Yes, they
+ are hard... but he is dealing with people using the same wording
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: there's some pretty crazy stuff on the forums and from
+ what I've seen which is very little they just tend to let it go
+ rather than call people out. [21:47]
+<+leio> Lets try to adhere to the CoC, e.g., not accuse people of flaming for
+ the sake it
+<+mgorny> Whissi: could you elaborate on why you believe he's not flaming? in
+ particular, if *you* have any suggestion on what should happen?
+<+mgorny> Whissi: do you consider yourself to be a victim of bad proctor
+ action? [21:48]
+<+leio> Regarding team decisions vs 2 people, it's about reaction speed and
+ the whole current theory "small slap on the wrist quickly", which
+ can't be achieved with a big team decision and waiting for all votes
+ and whatnot
+<@ulm> I tend to agree
+<@slyfox> I read the question as "should proctors have a publushed policy"
+<@Whissi> mgorny: Not a bad one but proctors have lost all my credits and I
+ can't take the project serious anymore given that two people are
+ enough when you hear they didn't even discuss. [21:49]
+* WilliamH tends to agree with ulm
+<@ulm> slyfox: if they have policies then they should publish them
+<@Whissi> The policy is published. [21:50]
+<@slyfox> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proctors this one?
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: if someone doesn't like a proctors action they go to
+<+rich0> leio: intent is to be able to react to flame war threads while
+ they're still going, not two weeks later. IMO that is the worse
+ approach - re-starting a debate after the original debate is long
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: and if that doesn't satisfy them they come to us.
+<@Whissi> WilliamH: No, my problem is that 2 people can speak for proctors
+ project. That's my problem. Like said, one person is proposing
+ something and a second will just ack. BOOM. Enough. That's wrong
+ from my POV. You should have at least a public vote. [21:51]
+<@Whissi> (=require a majority) [21:52]
+<+rich0> Whissi: all votes are public, and there is a required delay to
+ prevent action. Also, all actions DO require a majority of those
+<@ulm> Whissi: that would be slow decision making
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: that's why comrel is so slow to do anything and things
+ have gotten out of hand in our community.
+<@Whissi> ulm: No. I don't take that argument. If that's true, proctors
+ consists of the wrong people.
+<+rich0> In any case, do we really have too many proctors decisions in the
+ last year?
+<+mgorny> Whissi: so how does the alternative work: a person knows he's going
+ to be banned but the actual ban is getting delayed by waiting on
+ votes from remaining team members? [21:53]
+<@dilfridge> the "two people rule" was part of proctors setup from the very
+ start [21:54]
+<+rich0> mgorny: my issue with the delay is that it just leads to endless
+ flame progression. People go back and forth on lists because they
+ feel like there is no alternative. IMO proctors might as well exist
+ if decisions take more than 24h to be decided from the time an issue
+ comes up
+<@Whissi> Again, if it will take so much time for proctors, the members are
+ the problem. And this should get fixed.
+<@Whissi> Don't lower requirements just because you don't get enough people to
+ vote in time.
+<+rich0> I guess we could require a vote one way or another (abstentions being
+ allowed but not counted as no), within some period like 12h, and if
+ too many votes are late we boot proctors out, but I suspect we won't
+ have many proctors left after long. I doubt any project in Gentoo
+ consistently has all its members take actions within 12-24h.
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: The same thing is true in QA I think. two people can ask
+ for a ban, which can be put in place immediately, but the rest of
+ the team or the lead can override within 72 hours.
+<@Whissi> It's like the police will require a judge. But no judge is
+ available. No problem... just ask another cop... if he/she acks, do
+ whatever you wanted to do which normally will require a judge... no.
+ That's wrong. [21:56]
+<+mgorny> WilliamH: nope
+<+rich0> Whissi: if a violation happens at 5PM EDT, half the proctors won't
+ even be awake for 12h.
+<+Amynka> WilliamH: qa requires whole team to vote usually
+<@dilfridge> Whissi: we designed proctors to be able to act fast this way.
+ your ideas go against the entire design.
+<@WilliamH> mgorny: Ok, I thought qa was set up that way.
+<+mgorny> Whissi: actually, a police can lock you up for short time before
+ getting evidence afaik
+<+rich0> WilliamH: we already have a policy that actions can be overturned
+ after the fact if a new majority emerges
+<@WilliamH> rich0: ah ok. in that case, what's the deal Whissi? [21:57]
+<+rich0> as slyfox linked - the process is documented on the page
+<+mgorny> Whissi: what you saying sounds like you assume that you need at
+ least half of proctors to establish whether discpilinary action is
+<+rich0> it was intended to be as transparent as possible
+<+mgorny> does that imply that individual proctors are unprofessional but as a
+ group they suddenly become professional?
+<@Whissi> Gentoo will survive if a decision to ban someone will take up to 48
+ hours. Srly, about what we are talking here? It's not like there's
+ something ongoing requiring immediate action. And in case something
+ like this would really happen, like a dev will delete gentoo
+ repository... people will apply common sense and take action to stop
+ such a behavior IN TIME. [21:58]
+<+rich0> fwiw, proctors has yet to take any disciplinary action against
+ anybody in the community aside from that spammer a while ago
+<+mgorny> i don't really see why do you believe that decision made by 4 people
+ is that different from decision made by 2 people
+<+mgorny> either the action was justified, in which case it doesn't require
+ everyone to sign off it
+<+rich0> The intent is to stop the 100 post reply-fests before they get to 100
+ posts. :) If you wait 48h, then you get a 100 post reply-fest.
+ Then you start a new 100 post reply-fest. [21:59]
+<@ulm> I don't see this discussion going anywhere, and by the workflow we have
+ just accepted, it should have taken place on the ML prior to the
+<@WilliamH> I'm not for dictating proctor policy, especially since the policy
+ is already published.
+<+mgorny> or it wasn't justified, in which case the people who decided it
+ shouldn't be proctors
+<@Whissi> ulm: ACK
+<@ulm> so unless anyone comes up with a concrete action item, I suggest that
+ we move on
+<@slyfox> let's move on
+<@WilliamH> let's move on
+<+mgorny> and ftr, we have 5 proctors, so we're talking 2 vs 3 people
+<@dilfridge> move on
+<+rich0> ulm++ btw, we're certainly open to feedback/discussion on the policy
+<@ulm> 7. Open bugs with council involvement
+<@ulm> bug 637328 [22:00]
+<+willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be
+ updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
+<@Whissi> No update.
+<@ulm> no news, I suppose?
+<@ulm> bug 642072
+<+willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 " [Tracker] Copyright policy";
+ Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council
+<+mgorny> last i heard, security team wants to kill it
+<@ulm> that one is just a tracker
+<@ulm> bug 662982
+<+willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/662982 " [TRACKER] New default
+ locations for the Gentoo repository, distfiles, and binary
+ packages"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF;
+<@ulm> any news there? catalyst was a blocker IIRC? [22:01]
+<@Whissi> stage3 are using new /var/db/repos location already
+<veremitz> WIP from my observations
+<@Whissi> Just installed a new system this week
+<@ulm> ok, so some progress there
+<@ulm> bug 677824
+<+willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/677824 "Deferred decision: Forums
+ (specifically OTW)"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P;
+<@ulm> not sure, what is the status there? [22:02]
+<+mgorny> some bits of discussion were happening but nothing solid
+<+mgorny> i'd suggest closing it until somebody comes with a proper agenda
+ item [22:03]
+<@Whissi> Discussion happened... but because there is no clear motion
+ formulated (nothing actionable), I would move one.
+<@ulm> RESO NEEDINFO?
+<@slyfox> sounds good
+<@Whissi> NEEDINFO or CANTFIX :)
+<@ulm> finally, bug 687938 [22:04]
+<+willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/687938 "QA lead approval 2019: soap
+ edition"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; mgorny:council
+<@ulm> that misses one vote
+<@ulm> but was a vote for the previous council
+<@ulm> which is no longer in office, so I guess it can be closed
+<+mgorny> i think it's WilliamH
+<@dilfridge> let's consider it timed out and count the votes
+<@Whissi> It's too late. So you have to count the missed vote as absent
+<+mgorny> (who didn't vote)
+<@ulm> result is clear in any case, 6 yes votes [22:05]
+<@ulm> moving on
+<@WilliamH> I was the one who missed this I guess, so I can vote, and would
+ vote yes.
+<@Whissi> You cannot vote anymore for past year. :)
+<@ulm> WilliamH: I think you can't, since it's a new council term now [22:06]
+<@ulm> 8. Open floor
+<@dilfridge> we should calculate the new geometric center of the council!
+* Shentino raises his hand
+<Shentino> I heard that someone on the ml was repeatedly evading bans
+<@dilfridge> that too
+<@gyakovlev> dilfridge: professors should do that =)
+<veremitz> ^ :D
+<Shentino> I am curious if consequences for that should escalate beyond just
+ repeatedly getting re-banned [22:08]
+<+mgorny> Shentino: isn't that trustee business?
+<Shentino> particularly if such escalations can avoid collateral damage
+ against innocent bystanders
+* dilfridge gets some Domina Trocken.
+<Shentino> mgorny: I don't know, but if the MLs are being hosted on infra
+ managed hardware I think it *should* be trustee business at the
+ very least
+<Shentino> perhaps the foundation can send a C&D notice to ban evaders on the
+<@WilliamH> Shentino: Yeah, I think that would be a trustee issue (it is
+ possibly a legal issue).
+<Shentino> I agree [22:09]
+<veremitz> Shentino: perhaps you mean how does that affect white/black-listing
+ efforts as prescribed by the council ?
+<+mgorny> at least until we take down the foundation and switch to umbrella
+* mgorny hides
+<Shentino> but the coc and proctors comrel etc who issue the bans answer to
+<Shentino> mgorny: perhaps later but for now we work with what we have atm
+<Shentino> my point is that people who defy bans need stronger handling than
+ comrel/proctors atm can provide
+<Shentino> at least in my opinion
+<veremitz> OT: but shifting the blame to another authority ain't gonna solve
+ anything </2cents> [22:10]
+<@WilliamH> Shentino: I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
+<Shentino> and whitelisting just causes collateral damage against innocent
+<+Amynka> Shentino: why?
+<@WilliamH> Amynka: that's possibly a CFAA issue at that point.
+<+mgorny> oh *beep*, i forgot one thing
+<+mgorny> what should we do about people who were explicitly blacklisted (i.e.
+ removed from whitelist)?
+<@dilfridge> nothing for the moment?
+<+mgorny> should they get access back now, or should it be moved to comrel?
+<Shentino> mgorny: let me elaborate [22:11]
+<veremitz> probably be moved to comrel ..
+<Shentino> I'm saying that evading a ban on the ml (or on the forums or irc
+ for that matter) should be treated as a separate offense of its own
+<@gyakovlev> veremitz: are you blacklisted? =D
+<@dilfridge> mgorny: let's just give access back now, and leave the followup
+ to comrel/proctors
+<Shentino> separate from whatever offense provoked the ban
+<+zlogene> mgorny: which ones?
+<+willikins> zlogene, you have notes! [Jul-21 19:21] <dilfridge> beamer 3.55
+ seems to have some problems, my presentations fail with it
+<veremitz> gyakovlev: no idea...
+<Shentino> and I propose that ban evasion get escalated to stronger measures
+ that trustees could probably handle
+<@WilliamH> Shentino: I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
+<+zlogene> dilfridge: oh my [22:12]
+<veremitz> Shentino: trustees can't be trusted ...
+<veremitz> I should go see a doctor :(
+<+Amynka> veremitz: i am not sure if they can help you *cough*
+<Shentino> william: so what is necessary to actually implement such responses
+ to ban evasion?
+<veremitz> Amynka: maybe you can ;P
+<Shentino> do we need to talk to trustees abou tit?
+<@Whissi> Can we move on are we still discussing the ml spammer?
+<@WilliamH> Shentino: I would say go to the trustees. [22:13]
+<@dilfridge> no family feuds during council session!
+<Shentino> william: will do
+<Shentino> I'll mention that I have council blessing to approach them about it
+<Shentino> NOW we can move on i think
+<@dilfridge> you have what?
+<@dilfridge> Amynka: bless you
+<veremitz> dilfridge: its a catholic thing :)
+<@WilliamH> Shentino: what you have is one member of council suggesting it.
+ :-) [22:14]
+<Shentino> that's more than zero
+<@WilliamH> Shentino: but yeah let's move on.
+<@dilfridge> Shentino: we can think and talk for ourselves, thankyouverymuch
+<+Amynka> dilfridge: bless you too
+<@Whissi> I wouldn't say that council voted on this. I mean, this isn't our
+<Shentino> sorry dil, no harm meant
+<Shentino> I'm just tired of ban evasion
+<@ulm> let's move on
+<Shentino> and I don't like collateral damage against innocent bystanders,
+ that's all
+<@ulm> anything else for open floor?
+<@Whissi> Yes, I'd like to discuss my mail.
+<+Amynka> Recruitment process change
+* veremitz just compiling.
+<+mgorny> oh u
+* mgorny wants to go visit his kittens before it gets too dark [22:15]
+<+Amynka> I believe we should drop quizzes and make it strictly contribution
+<@ulm> Whissi: by what you suggest there, you should submit it as an item for
+ the next meeting :p
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: that's how things are supposed to be actually, so there
+ really isn't a lot to discuss, we should just start following it.
+<veremitz> Amynka: erm What?!
+<@Whissi> It's an internal thing but let's dicuss Amynka first.
+<@ulm> Amynka: please hold on, let's discuss Whissi's item first
+<veremitz> or is that Amy-sarcarm :P
+<@Whissi> Now we have a loop.
+* dilfridge checks the Domina Trocken.
+<+Amynka> veremitz: deadly serious
+<@ulm> *sigh* [22:16]
+<+Amynka> ulm: ok
+<@ulm> Whissi: you go first
+<@Whissi> To summarize my mail: People who put something on the agenda must
+ add specific motions; Council will only vote on motions published
+ with agenda 1w before meeting; Council will NOT formulate *new*
+ motions during meeting (like motion "change foo=X to foo=Y" was
+ added to agenda, changing to to foo=Z based on discussion during
+ meeting is a no-go -- new motions must be on mailing list before)
+<+mgorny> Whissi: what about out-of-meeting votes? [22:17]
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: Like I said above, that is how it is supposed to be done,
+ so we should just start following it.
+<+mgorny> Whissi: and how do we prevent from things being stalled forever due
+ to council members voting 'no' because of last-minute ideas?
+<@WilliamH> mgorny: there was really no criteria for when an out-of-meeting
+ vote could happen.
+<@ulm> Whissi: IMHO council is free to vote on any motion brought forward
+ during the meeting, as long as it's related to the agenda
+<@Whissi> mgorny: Example? Things like new QA lead approval don't have to be
+ an agenda item I think.
+<@dilfridge> "Council will NOT formulate *new* motions during meeting" makes
+ it *very* difficult to get anything done.
+<@dilfridge> So this is not a good idea. [22:18]
+<+mgorny> Whissi: i recall at least few of my ideas being approved after
+ adding minor change requests on meeting
+<@ulm> basically it would mean to delay decisions until next meeting, or to
+ have extra meetings
+<@dilfridge> at least we need the flexibility to adapt a motion to discussion
+ on the list and to discussion during council meeting
+<+mgorny> with your proposal, that would mean they would be rejected and i
+ would have to wait another month, and hopefully they wouldn't be
+ rejected then...
+<@WilliamH> I understand what you are talking about mgorny, I'm not sure what
+ the answer is... maybe what you are talking about would work...
+<@Whissi> dilfridge: But it's not a good idea to say "Must discuss on meeting"
+ and someone interested in X believes his/her idea/motion was
+ accepted because nobody raised objections just to learn the day
+ after the meeting council voted on a different proposal than he/she
+ proposed. That's not good either.
+<@ulm> Whissi: the other part of it is fine, agenda items should be specific
+<@dilfridge> that is precisely why we usually ask the champions to be present
+<+mgorny> Whissi: the other idea would be to kill meetings entirely, and just
+ vote on mailing lists
+<@Whissi> And don't just think about the person proposing the first motion.
+ Also think about people not sharing their concerns because current
+ proposed motion is fine for them. But when we are going to change
+ during meeting and the one who proposed it is fine with that other
+ can still disagree...
+<@WilliamH> We can't kill meetings without a full dev vote so that's a no-go
+<@ulm> mgorny: we can't do that because of the slackers rule
+<@dilfridge> well, we can do a 5min meeting "everyone here, let's do the rest
+ via bugs" [22:21]
+<@dilfridge> that fulfills requirements
+<+mgorny> + open floor
+<@xiaomiao> I like the idea, makes the meeting just a simple yes/no/abstain
+ vote without complex discussion and confusion
+<@WilliamH> ulm: the slacker rule isn't the issue, the glep requires us to
+ meet once a month.
+* Shentino is contacting trustees [22:22]
+<+mgorny> in any case, this is something that needs to be discussed on ml
+<+mgorny> in depth
+<@ulm> anyway, we won't vote on it today
+<@Whissi> No. This is council workflow.
+<@Whissi> We already have to follow official rule and this is discussion must
+ be on ml before
+<veremitz> vote to discuss?!
+<@Whissi> So this is not really NEW
+<@ulm> Whissi: can we move on?
+<+mgorny> Whissi: if it prevents people from having their motion accepted,
+ people should have a right to express their opinion [22:23]
+<@dilfridge> we need to make sure that bureaucracy doesnt get too much into
+ the way of getting things done
+<+mgorny> it's silly when you say you want to change X because people don't
+ give a chance to give their opinion, and then don't give their
+ chance to give their opinion on this change
+<@ulm> ok, let's move on [22:24]
+<@ulm> Amynka: you have the floor
+<+Amynka> as I said I believe quizzes should be entirely dropped from the
+ recruitment process since they bring 0 value to gentoo.. and we
+ should focus more to contributions of the developers
+<+Amynka> of course some mandatory review and talk with the person will be
+ placed [22:25]
+<+mgorny> quizzes still have some educational value; do you have an idea how
+ to reuse that?
+<+Amynka> mgorny: they dont
+<+Amynka> people dont remember anything
+<@gyakovlev> just fyi, the new merged completed quiz from a recruit was almost
+ 3000 lines of text. [22:26]
+<+Amynka> mgorny: we will of course use questions in the review
+<veremitz> that is onerous ..
+<veremitz> for both sides.
+<+Amynka> but filling up some quizz is just complete waste of time
+<+mgorny> i mean, the questions target specific problems, so i think it would
+ make sense to convert them into at least 'please read these things'
+<+mgorny> Amynka: for that, i agree
+<+mgorny> and i don't think most of the people in this room would have done
+ them again if they had too [22:27]
+<@WilliamH> Amynka: I don't see a problem with it as long as the interview
+ process includes questions about things that were in the quizzes.
+<@WilliamH> Amynka: like the council etc.
+<+Amynka> WilliamH: that of course is mandatory
+<+Amynka> some general knowledge have to be verified of course [22:28]
+<@WilliamH> I don't think the council set the recruitment process right?
+<+Amynka> No but this is very big change
+<+Amynka> and we do not have agreement with zlogene
+<@WilliamH> So, technically Amynka, I think your team can change it. [22:29]
+<+Amynka> well I am not in the team anymore
+<+mgorny> though i think you ought to discuss that on mls
+<+mgorny> council deciding on it is kinda gray area
+<+mgorny> since it effectively means council deciding on who can vote for
+<+zlogene> Amynka: we have not discussed it seriously
+<+Amynka> mgorny: i think the amount of flamewar that would bring is not worth
+<@WilliamH> Yeah, council shouldn't decide that, good point mgorny.
+<+Amynka> who should then? [22:30]
+<@dilfridge> but who should then?
+<@ulm> might be a subject for -core
+<@Whissi> The person who want to the such a motion pass. :)
+<+mgorny> if you want it really formal, probably whole dev vote
+<+mgorny> if you don't want it that formal, internal recruiters decision
+<@WilliamH> dilfridge: Hmm, I think we should be able to trust the recruiters.
+<@dilfridge> besides, it's not deciding about "xxx will become developer" but
+ deciding about general procedure
+<@dilfridge> works for me
+<+Amynka> which bring us to another point
+<+Amynka> you have one recruiter.. what are you going to do about it? [22:31]
+<@gyakovlev> WilliamH: recruiter(s) is a single person now
+<@ulm> mgorny: was the current recruiters' policy decided by an all-devs vote?
+<@dilfridge> !expn recruiters
+<+willikins> dilfridge: recruiters = amynka,zlogene,
+<@Whissi> Amynka: I'll probably join the project next month.
+<@dilfridge> !proj recruiters
+<+willikins> dilfridge: (firstname.lastname@example.org) zlogene
+<+Amynka> Whissi: you cannot
+<+mgorny> ulm: doubt it
+<+Amynka> Whissi: training of recruiter takes 6 months
+<+mgorny> it probably grew out of historical procedures
+<+Amynka> zlogene: am i right?
+<@ulm> mgorny: might even go back to managers times [22:32]
+<+zlogene> Amynka: 6 months or longer, you are right
+<+mgorny> indeed, quizzes are very old
+<@dilfridge> ok so just for clarification: Amynka you first left the team and
+ now want the council to reorganize team procedures?
+<@Whissi> Show me that policy please... but anyway, at some point this process
+ has to be started.
+<+Amynka> dilfridge: maybe, I can always come back if I see that we are all
+ nice people and stuff :D [22:33]
+<+zlogene> to clarify, I have never insisted Amynka left the team, I always
+ welcome contrubutions from her
+<+Amynka> dilfridge: i wanted to show that the current situation is not
+<+Amynka> if something happens to me or zlogene
+<+Amynka> what are you going to do?
+<@ulm> so who would train new recruiters if zlogene gets hit by a bus?[22:34]
+<+Amynka> seems that council doesnt care till its too late :)
+<@dilfridge> I think both of you should immediately start training two new
+ recruiter candidates.
+<+Amynka> dilfridge: oh we did.. except they gave up
+<+mgorny> didn't last trained recruiters turned out completely useless?
+<+Amynka> zlogene: right? :D
+<+zlogene> dilfridge: bad news\
+<@dilfridge> Yes I heard about that.
+<+zlogene> 4 will not fly
+<+Amynka> zlogene: 4 out of 4
+<@WilliamH> I've wondered about the value of the quizzes also. I know we have
+ proxied maintainers who have been in that project for years
+ because they don't want to mess with the quizzes.
+<+mgorny> let's disband recruiters and accept new people via proxy-maint
+<+Amynka> mgorny: not bad idea
+<+zlogene> long story short: there are always only 2 active recruiters
+* mgorny hides
+<Shentino> you're biased mgorny, you're the pmaint head
+<@dilfridge> Shentino: shuddup
+<+Amynka> i think it might be wort thinking about setting up some process
+<+zlogene> in short, gentelmen and lady
+<+Amynka> which would not rely on two people
+<@WilliamH> dilfridge: :p
+<+zlogene> I propose I discuss the changes wuth Amynka first
+<+zlogene> we always find a consensus first [22:36]
+<+mgorny> wanna hear how recuiting in netbsd works?
+<@dilfridge> so in the past we had recruiters too, maybe we could ask them for
+<@dilfridge> jmbsvicetto: ^
+<+mgorny> they have some interesting things we could steal
+<+Amynka> either way.. its something to consider.. could I have council vote
+ on what they think about abadoning the quizzes?
+<+Amynka> not decion one
+<+Amynka> i am curious about if people agree or not
+<@ulm> Amynka: no vote in open floor, sorry
+<+Amynka> so no opinions?
+<veremitz> show of hands?
+<@WilliamH> Well, I'm not sure there's a need for a vote since the council
+ didn't institute the quizzes to start with.
+<@gyakovlev> mgorny: they get tried of your patches and give you commit bit?
+ that's how openbsd works afaik.
+<+Amynka> fingers? :D
+<@Whissi> To be honest, you haven't shown me enough reasons why I would say
+ "quizzes are bad" yet.
+<@ulm> yes, we could do a straw poll [22:37]
+<+Amynka> Whissi: and you want to join recruiters?
+* dilfridge polls a straw
+<@Whissi> I still believe in quizzes for the moment.
+<@Whissi> Amynka: Yes
+<+Amynka> Whissi: they are not bad.. they are useless?
+<+Amynka> tell me one usefull thing about them
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: see my comment above wrt quizzes
+<+mgorny> gyakovlev: nah, they actually have people process your request but
+ they also have some interesting things [22:38]
+<@ulm> Amynka: they may be more objective than an interview
+<@ulm> like written vs oral exam
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: I know off some proxied maintainers who have been so for
+ years because they don't want to mess with them.
+<+mgorny> for example, before a new dev is accepted, an rfc is sent to ask if
+ anyone is opposed to that
+<+Amynka> ulm: not true
+<+Amynka> i can still reject anyone
+<+Amynka> if i have bad mood
+<+Amynka> in theory
+<+Amynka> even with perfect quizzes
+<+Amynka> you got me that power
+* veremitz stifles a cough.
+<+mgorny> WilliamH: i also know proxied maintainers who were along for long
+ and i also know that they can't become devs because they're too
+<@ulm> you shouldn't base decisions on your mood :/
+<+Amynka> i agree [22:39]
+<+Amynka> and I dont
+<+Amynka> i am just saying nothing is objective at this point
+<@WilliamH> mgorny: that's true.
+<+Amynka> you have to pick objective people
+<+Amynka> the process never will be objective enough
+<@Whissi> Amynka: The quizzes will demonstrate knowledge. Because everyone has
+ to do them, everyone at one time demonstrated same knowledge. If you
+ do it via interview and don't follow same process....
+<+Amynka> Whissi: its not true
+<@ulm> well, I see it mostly as written vs oral exam, so not fundamentally
+<+Amynka> i passed quizzes and my knowledge was almost 0
+<+mgorny> Whissi: except people who joined before had easier quizzes
+<veremitz> people are prone to forget the knowledge .. [22:40]
+<Shentino> we also require new devs to be mentored, and to some exten tthe
+ mentor is on the hook for the mentee's foulups
+<+mgorny> so 'everyone has to do them' is not really exactly true
+<veremitz> Shentino: fair point
+<Shentino> in essence new devs start out as probationary devs
+<+Amynka> Whissi: plus from neuroscience point of view its short term memory..
+ which means in 3 weeks you have no clue
+<+zlogene> mentors is another pain of gentoo
+<@WilliamH> The mentoring is fine, I think we should still do that.
+<Shentino> I would like mentors to be let off the hook to some extent cuz
+ otherwise they could be gun shy about onboarding a noob
+<+zlogene> Amynka and I saw totally careless mentors
+<@dilfridge> do we still mentor?
+<veremitz> dilfridge: I should hope so! [22:41]
+<@WilliamH> dilfridge: yes afaik we do. :)
+<Shentino> dill: I would guess so, if it's still a formal part of the
+ recruiting process
+<+Amynka> dilfridge: kinda
+<+mgorny> dilfridge: technically yes but we fail to enforce responsibility on
+<@WilliamH> zlogene: Amynka: If a mentor is careless, I would think that
+ person shouldn't be a mentor again for a while?
+<+mgorny> Whissi: that's actually a nice idea [22:42]
+<+zlogene> WilliamH: I tried to rise that time ago, but have not found support
+ with jlec in the past
+<+Amynka> WilliamH: agreed but if the person has contributions and knowledge..
+ and these contributions can be reviewed by various people mentor is
+ not such a critical point
+<+Amynka> if people are trained by the work
+<+Amynka> they dont need mentors thatm uch
+<@WilliamH> How do other distros bring in new devs? [22:43]
+<veremitz> zlogene: is jlec still aruond even?
+<+zlogene> gyakovlev: gonna pivk up yours tommorrow once home ;)
+<+Amynka> WilliamH: i think its mostly contribution based too
+<+Amynka> like opensuse
+<@Whissi> Well, how many people start becoming a dev without contributing
+ first? You say that in a way like they start becoming dev out of the
+<+zlogene> veremitz: no, this was like five years ago
+<veremitz> zlogene: ah!
+<+zlogene> the main problem with quizzzes is that really skilled people write
+ them reluctantly [22:44]
+<+zlogene> and bad skilled people try to cite the devmanual
+<@Whissi> Someone who already contribute should be able to do quizzes without
+ many problems... is that not what you are experiencing?
+<@WilliamH> This is definitely not something we are going to decide today, but
+ I"m not opposed to changing the recruitment process.
+<+mgorny> quizzes worked for me when i was a student
+<+mgorny> today i wouldn't find time for them [22:45]
+<@WilliamH> We do not control the process specifically at the council level.
+<+mgorny> today i don't find time for such prolonged meetings!
+<+zlogene> WilliamH: well, and honestly council is not about to control
+ recruiters, so everything is right :)
+<+mgorny> Amynka: i'd say if you need council to do something, go with a
+ motion [22:46]
+<@Whissi> ulm: Let's move on.
+<+mgorny> if you don't, just do your thing
+<+zlogene> only in case of appeals
+<+mgorny> if recruiters break gentoo, council will complain
+<@ulm> Amynka: zlogene: can you discuss it, and maybe bring it up on mailing
+<+mgorny> if things continue working, i don't think there will be a reason for
+ council to complain
+<+zlogene> ulm: we will I hope
+<@ulm> any other item for open floor? [22:47]
+<@dilfridge> oh somebody always complains
+<@WilliamH> zlogene: Amynka: recruitment is your process. :-)
+* mgorny notes he had kinda adopted 3 stray kittens
+<@dilfridge> and get your shit together please.
+<+mgorny> that for open floor summary
+<@ulm> I don't see anything else
+<@dilfridge> no [22:48]
+<@ulm> next meeting will be on 2019-08-11
+<+zlogene> dilfridge: what a rude sentense, but ok :p
+<@ulm> slyfox: you'll have the chair
+<@ulm> meeting closed
+<@slyfox> \o/ thanks all!
+* ulm bangs the virtual gavel
+<+mgorny> thanks and good night
+<@Whissi> Thanks for chairing.
+*** ulm (~ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm) has set the topic for #gentoo-council:
+ "191st meeting: 2019-08-11 19:00 UTC |
+ https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20190811T19 |
+ https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council |
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20190721.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20190721.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----