diff options
authorUlrich Müller <>2019-11-18 16:52:36 +0100
committerUlrich Müller <>2019-11-18 16:52:36 +0100
commit85d9434726466e5856dc89bf285829f63fc5c67a (patch)
parentSummary for 20191013 meeting. (diff)
Log for 20191110 meeting.
License: CC-PDM-1.0 (raw IRC log, not copyrightable) Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <>
2 files changed, 271 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20191110.txt b/meeting-logs/20191110.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a2d2f6d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20191110.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
+<@Whissi> dilfridge: ping [20:01]
+<@ulm> !time
+<+willikins> ulm: Europe - Berlin - Sun Nov 10 20:01 CET
+<@dilfridge> pong [20:02]
+<@dilfridge> one minute
+<@dilfridge> k [20:03]
+<@dilfridge> here
+<@dilfridge> sooo
+<@dilfridge> !proj council
+<+willikins> ( dilfridge, gyakovlev, patrick, slyfox, ulm,
+ whissi, williamh
+<@dilfridge> roll call [20:04]
+* slyfox here
+* WilliamH here
+* Whissi here
+* ulm here
+* DrEeevil here
+<@dilfridge> gyakovlev: ping
+*** dilfridge (~quassel@gentoo/developer/dilfridge) has set the topic for
+ #gentoo-council: "194th meeting: 2019-11-10 19:00 UTC |
+ |
+ |
+ | Agenda:
+ [20:05]
+<@dilfridge> does anyone have gyakovlev's phone and can text him?
+<@dilfridge> anyway let's start, the agenda is rather light [20:06]
+<@WilliamH> I can get it before the next meeting.
+<@WilliamH> But I don't have it now.
+<@dilfridge> 2) Late approval of GLEP 75
+<@dilfridge> anything to talk about?
+<@WilliamH> Well, I'm not sure there's much to say other than I would like to
+ have seen something a bit more human-friendly than the hashes.
+ [20:07]
+<@WilliamH> But I guess that can be a later change. It doesn't stop this glep
+ from going into place.
+<@dilfridge> true, on the other hand hashes give the best distribution across
+ dirs
+<@ulm> mgorny confirmed that the implemetation is ready, so we could skip
+ Accepted and go to Final status already [20:08]
+<@dilfridge> yeah
+<@dilfridge> ok then let's vote
+<@Whissi> It's bad that we can only accept in retro perspective, given that
+ there are some criticism... but nothing severe enough to roll back.
+<@dilfridge> "glep 75: accepted and final" yes/no
+<@WilliamH> We could reject on principal and come up with something better.
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: ^^ [20:09]
+<@dilfridge> let's not go there
+<@Whissi> No need to reject, we can work on improving this later
+<@WilliamH> Whissi: that's true too.
+* Whissi yes
+<@dilfridge> also feel free to write a small util to convert filename to path
+* ulm yes
+* dilfridge yes
+* slyfox yes
+* WilliamH yes
+* DrEeevil abstain [20:10]
+<@dilfridge> ok that's 5 yes, 1 abstain, 1 absent
+<@dilfridge> motion carried
+<@dilfridge> which brings us to
+<@ulm> dilfridge: before we move on, I just see that open bugs are missing
+ from the agenda?
+<@dilfridge> oops ok
+<@dilfridge> yes let's add them before the open floor [20:11]
+<@dilfridge> 3) License of meeting summaries and marking of logs
+<@dilfridge> ulm: your topic
+<@slyfox> i'm not opposed :)
+<@ulm> well, it's all in the message I've sent
+<@ulm> and I think it's a no-brainer for the summaries
+<@Whissi> What do you want us to do? I don't think that anyone will ever look
+ up license from commit... so I think we should add a license file to
+ that directory and be done. [20:12]
+<@slyfox> any other license we could chose from? :)
+<@ulm> Whissi: in my last log I had added a line at the botton
+<@ulm> "This work is licensed under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License."
+<@Whissi> But to the commit msg...
+<@ulm> s/log/summary/ [20:13]
+<@WilliamH> I would prefer a license file in the directory I think...
+<@dilfridge> ok so a motion would be "future meeting summaries are explicitly
+ licensed as CC-BY-SA-4.0 and should carry a brief notice stating
+ that"
+<@dilfridge> does that sound good?
+<@ulm> +1
+<@Whissi> So you want that every new log should contain a message regarding
+ license? [20:14]
+<@ulm> as for the logs, I would argue that raw IRC logs aren't copyrightable
+<@ulm> Whissi: why not?
+<@WilliamH> ulm: if they aren't copyrightable why bother?
+<@Whissi> Like said, I would go with a single LICENSE file and be done.
+<@Whissi> No need to add this for every log.
+<@ulm> WilliamH: logs != summaries
+<@ulm> Whissi: wfm as well [20:15]
+<@dilfridge> single license file also means retroactively, do you think this
+ is OK?
+<@WilliamH> ulm: sure, I thought we were talking about adding a msg to the
+ logs though.
+<@slyfox> also arguably changing license of past files should not be done
+ without consent of the main contributor
+<@ulm> dilfridge: nope, we cannot apply it retroactively
+<@WilliamH> If the logs aren't copyrightable they don't need it.
+<@WilliamH> slyfox++
+<@slyfox> voting time?
+<@dilfridge> "future meeting summaries are explicitly licensed as
+ CC-BY-SA-4.0; a file will be dropped in the directory to state
+ that" [20:16]
+<@WilliamH> We could also wave the sign-off for this repo
+<@dilfridge> ^ this?
+<@ulm> WilliamH: no, that doesn't sound good
+<@ulm> let's go for a license file in the directory then [20:17]
+<@gyakovlev> I got confused by timechange, here.
+<@slyfox> \o/
+<@Whissi> Welcome!
+<@WilliamH> gyakovlev: :-)
+<@dilfridge> /o\
+<@dilfridge> :)
+<@ulm> dilfridge: are we voting already? [20:18]
+<@dilfridge> ok so, motion: "From now on meeting summaries are explicitly
+ licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0; a license file stating this and that the
+ log files are not copyrightable will be added to the directory."
+<@dilfridge> ^ this? [20:19]
+<@dilfridge> please vote
+* ulm yes
+* slyfox yes
+* dilfridge yes
+* gyakovlev yes
+* DrEeevil yes
+* Whissi yes
+<@dilfridge> that's 7 yes, unanimous, motion carried [20:20]
+<@ulm> dilfridge: you should add something in the decisions/ dir too
+* WilliamH yes
+<@dilfridge> now it is :)
+<@dilfridge> ulm: yeah good point, but since I use all old summaries there,
+ what can I do?
+<@dilfridge> let's discuss this later [20:21]
+<@ulm> dilfridge: state the license for your changes at least
+<@dilfridge> ack
+<@dilfridge> ok so now we get to
+<@dilfridge> 3B) Open bugs
+<@ulm> I don't see this as a large issue anyway [20:22]
+<@dilfridge> bug 646068
+<+willikins> dilfridge: "GLEP 75: Split
+ distfile mirror directory structure"; Documentation, New GLEP
+ submissions; IN_P; mgorny:glep
+<@dilfridge> we just handled that, so already done
+<@dilfridge> bug 695172
+<+willikins> dilfridge: "Please clarify QA
+ policy regarding USE flags with underscores"; Gentoo Council,
+ unspecified; CONF; arfrever.fta:council
+<@slyfox> i think that was covered in past meeting
+<@ulm> yes, that can be closed [20:23]
+<@dilfridge> ok will do later
+<@dilfridge> after I've read up the conclusion
+<@dilfridge> bug 696882
+<+willikins> dilfridge: "Register /EFI/Gentoo
+ namespace in UEFI Subdirectory Registry"; Gentoo Council,
+ unspecified; CONF; ulm:council
+<@dilfridge> anyone heard anything? [20:24]
+<@Whissi> no
+<@dilfridge> !note antarus any news from the uefi registration?
+<+willikins> lemme take care of that for you, dilfridge
+<@dilfridge> ok then we can only postpone it
+<@dilfridge> bug 662982 [20:25]
+<+willikins> dilfridge: "[TRACKER] New default
+ locations for the Gentoo repository, distfiles, and binary
+ packages"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF;
+ zmedico:dev-portage
+<@dilfridge> is there anything still to be done there? I see the snapshot
+ names as only remaining blocker
+<@Whissi> Who is responsible for snapshot hosting? Infra? [20:27]
+<@dilfridge> ok seems like this is blocked somewhere in portage team
+<@dilfridge> (effectively bug 693454 for emerge-webrsync)
+<+willikins> dilfridge: "sys-apps/portage:
+ emerge-webrsync support for arbitrary top-level directory name in
+ gentoo repository snapshots"; Portage Development, Tools; CONF;
+ zmedico:tools-portage
+<@dilfridge> who wants to ping zac/infra/...? [20:28]
+<@Whissi> I can do that.
+<@dilfridge> ++
+<@dilfridge> now we come to the eternal goodies
+<@dilfridge> bug 637328
+<+willikins> dilfridge: "GLEP 14 needs to be
+ updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
+<@Whissi> No update. But I'll promise this will be resolved for December
+ meeting. ;]
+<@dilfridge> \o/
+* dilfridge hands over the Glühwein. [20:29]
+<@dilfridge> and lastly
+<@dilfridge> bug 642072
+<+willikins> dilfridge: "[Tracker] Copyright
+ policy"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council
+<@WilliamH> What is that waiting for?
+<@dilfridge> only devmanual updates it seems [20:30]
+<@WilliamH> I mean, sure it is a tracker, but what's blocking it?
+<@ulm> devmanual, mainly
+<@WilliamH> Ah ok.
+<@dilfridge> bug 668686
+<+willikins> dilfridge: "Update devmanual for
+ GLEP 76 copyright policy"; Documentation, Devmanual; CONF;
+ ulm:devmanual
+<@dilfridge> ulm: do you want to keep pushing there?
+<@ulm> yeah, I'll check what's still missing there [20:31]
+<@dilfridge> great thanks!
+<@dilfridge> with that
+<@ulm> some things seems to be in place already
+<@dilfridge> we come to
+<@dilfridge> 4) Open Floor
+<@dilfridge> anyone?
+<@Whissi> Wasn't there a pending issue from ikelos? [20:32]
+<@Whissi> But I guess we missed it again and no clear call for action.
+<@WilliamH> one sec let me look
+<@ulm> Whissi: can you ping him at least, to resubmit for december? [20:33]
+<@Whissi> bug 699344
+<+willikins> Whissi: "Policy review:
+ Undertakers policy should be reviewed and updated";
+ Documentation, Project-specific documentation; CONF;
+ ikelos:retirement
+<@dilfridge> I have the e-mail in the council box
+<@WilliamH> We were asked to review the undertakers policy.
+<@dilfridge> but I think it should've gone to project and didnt [20:34]
+<@WilliamH> I don't know that this is a policy issue, but it may be a
+ behavioral issue.
+<@dilfridge> ok so several options:
+<@Whissi> I can answer him that he/the community has to come up with something
+ (now it looks like he started the process through the bug). It's not
+ our job to solve this. We can only vote on motions.
+<@WilliamH> But, yeah if we want to be technical it should have gone to
+ -project. [20:35]
+<@ulm> IMHO it's not something to be decided in open floor, but should be a
+ regular agenda item
+<@dilfridge> 1), we forward it to the list for discussion (and potential
+ resubmission as agenda item), 2), we ask him to resubmit also to
+ -project (and as agenda item), 3) we do nothing
+<@gyakovlev> agreed, needs a discussion with undertakers participation in
+ -project, can't be decided here. [20:36]
+* dilfridge suggests 2
+<@ulm> +2
+<@Whissi> ack
+<@dilfridge> ok since there are no other suggestions let's go with option 2
+ [20:37]
+<@dilfridge> I'll write the response mail
+<@dilfridge> anything else?
+* Whissi has nothing else [20:38]
+<@dilfridge> ok then [20:39]
+* dilfridge bangs the gavel "meeting closed"
+<@Whissi> \o/
+<@dilfridge> thanks everyone
+<@ulm> thanks for chairing
+<@dilfridge> hhmm less than 40min!
+<@Whissi> Thank you for chairing
+<@slyfox> thank you!
+<@WilliamH> Thanks folks. [20:40]
+*** ulm (~ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm) has set the topic for #gentoo-council:
+ "195th meeting: 2019-12-08 19:00 UTC |
+ |
+ |
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20191110.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20191110.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0ecc35a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20191110.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@