4 files changed, 97 insertions, 249 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20190210-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20190210-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+Summary of Gentoo council meeting 13 January 2019
+1. Roll call
+2. Appeals of Moderation Decisions
+3. Forums (specifically OTW)
+4. Default ACCEPT_LICENSE
+5. Open bugs with council involvement
+ - bug #637328: "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"
+4. Open floor
+7 attendees: dilfridge, K_F, leio, slyfox, ulm, Whissi, WilliamH
+Appeals of Moderation Decisions
+The council decided unanimously that:
+"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."
+A second vote was called as an addemdum to vote 2.1, with a motion that
+"For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to
+provide evidence that the sanction was unjustified". This motion did not carry
+with 2 yes, 4 no and 1 abstaining vote.
+Forums (specifically OTW)
+No decisions were made during this item, but discussion was deferred to
+mailing lists for further discussions and re-opening at next meeting.
+A tracking bug is opened at https://bugs.gentoo.org/677824 to ensure this is
+followed up later.
+The default ACCEPT_LICENSE was discussed and the following two motions were
+"the default ACCEPT_LICENSE should be ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" (subject to
+implementation details in further vote)" with 6 yes and 1 no vote, and;
+"The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are
+at the discretion of releng." with 4 yes votes, 2 no votes and 1 abstain.
+The latter motion carried after the motion "Installation medium is permitted
+to accept additional licenses necessary for binary blobs as long as these are
+binary redistributable" did not carry with 3 yes and 4 no votes.
+It was highligted that the implementation for the change needs to be done in a
+way that is not rushed in order to minimize negative user impact.
+Open bugs with council involvement
+- bug #637328: GLEP 14 needs to be updated
+ Nothing new for council at this point.
+No new items were raised during the open floor
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20190210-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20190210-summary.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20190210.txt b/meeting-logs/20190210.txt
index 4fe00fa..2101365 100644
@@ -691,244 +691,3 @@
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 kernel.org 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: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/licenses/linux-firmware
-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> http://dpaste.com/3AA2GKV
-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: https://bugs.gentoo.org/266157 "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
index e566050..edb67a6 100644
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----