council/meeting-logs: add 20181014 logs (no summary yet)

Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>

2 files changed, 281 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20181014.txt b/meeting-logs/20181014.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4547ab4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20181014.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,262 @@
+20:00 <@slyfox> !proj council
+20:00 <+willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
+20:00 <@slyfox> The meeting is about to start. Today's agenda: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/5379f1fd18aa2ed75d47fb4989192f6d
+20:00 <@dilfridge> hallelujah
+20:00 <@slyfox> 1. Roll call
+20:00  * leio here
+20:00 <@slyfox> !proj council
+20:00 <+willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
+20:00  * Whissi here
+20:01  * ulm here
+20:01  * K_F here
+20:01  * slyfox here
+20:01  * dilfridge here
+20:01 <@slyfox> WilliamH: ^ \o/
+20:01  * WilliamH here
+20:01 <@slyfox> woohoo!
+20:01 <@dilfridge> that was fast
+20:01 <@slyfox> 2. Proposal to decide on copyright attribution on GLEP 76:
+20:01 <@slyfox>     https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/70c47e0bf98f485316e3e744614bef68
+20:01 <@slyfox> What do we do about that?
+20:02 <@ulm> I propose the following wording for a motion:
+20:02 <@ulm> The simplified form of the copyright attribution according to GLEP 76 [1], i.e., "Copyright YEARS Gentoo Authors", SHOULD [2] be used for ebuilds and profile files in the Gentoo repository.
+20:02 <@ulm> [1] https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0076.html#simplified-attribution
+20:02 <@ulm> [2] https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
+20:02 <@K_F> personally I don't have any issues with some flexibility in copyright line, they are there defensively , the DCO and license is the important part.. but I'm fine with the SHOULD
+20:03 <@slyfox> ulm: that's a glep-76 diff, right? is there a diff to look at?
+20:03 <@ulm> no diff, but tree policy
+20:03  * WilliamH thinks we need a formal diff
+20:03 <@ulm> i.e. that's on top of GLEP 76
+20:03 <@K_F> there isn't anything to diff
+20:04 <@ulm> and the intention is to strongly recommend using the simplified attribution
+20:04 <@ulm> but exceptions would still be possible
+20:04 <@WilliamH> like employment contracts?
+20:04 <@WilliamH> ulm: ^^
+20:04 <@ulm> *sigh*
+20:04 <@ulm> yes
+20:05 <@slyfox> i'm afraid i didn't follow recent distcussion. where this tree policy be stored?
+20:05 <@ulm> in the meeting summary :)
+20:06 <@K_F> presumably devmanual should be updated
+20:06 <@dilfridge> yes
+20:06 <@WilliamH> K_F++
+20:06 <@ulm> yeah, devmanual and maybe wiki later
+20:06 <@slyfox> devmanual sounds good. Everyone ready to vote?
+20:07 <@slyfox> (as in, no followup/clarifying questiona left?)
+20:07  * Whissi is ready
+20:07 <@K_F> go ahead
+20:07 <@WilliamH> one question.
+20:08 <@WilliamH> How do we say what the circumstances are when it is ok to useother attributions?
+20:08 <@WilliamH> use other
+20:09 <@dilfridge> you need to sacrifice a black goat at midnight, burn incense, and just before you black out daniel robbins will appear in avision
+20:09 <@WilliamH> dilfridge: heh
+20:09 <@WilliamH> or do we even need to say?
+20:09 <@Whissi> or just 100% council and 75% foundation approval.
+20:09 <@dilfridge> probably not
+20:09 <@dilfridge> "use common sense"
+20:09 <@ulm> I guess it boils down to "don't ignore the policy unless you're forced to"
+20:09 <@slyfox> I think point of contast would be nice to say
+20:09 <@K_F> you should be prepared to explain any deviation
+20:09 <@dilfridge> what ulm says
+20:10 <@WilliamH> that's reasonable.
+20:10 <@K_F> other than that I don't think we need anything explicit, it is ultimately a QA matter if complaints
+20:10 <@K_F> or, its ultimately a council one, it is firstly a qa...
+20:10 <@ulm> yes, ultimately it's tree policy, to appeal to council
+20:10 <@slyfox> sounds good
+20:11 <@WilliamH> K_F: not really qa for this because it isn't technical...
+20:11 <@K_F> yeah, bad phrasing
+20:11 <@ulm> unless the foundation has a copyright claim on the ebuild, then it's theirs
+20:11 <@K_F> WilliamH: it is QA for tree policy
+20:11 <@dilfridge> you need to ask comrel, who will say it's qa matter, and qa, who will say it's comrel matter
+20:13 <@slyfox> Allright. Let's vote! The motion (copied ulm's text as-is): "The simplified form of the copyright attribution according to GLEP 76 [1], i.e., "Copyright YEARS Gentoo Authors", SHOULD [2] be used for ebuilds and profile files in the Gentoo repository."
+20:13  * slyfox votes yes
+20:13  * ulm yes
+20:13  * Whissi yes
+20:13  * dilfridge yes
+20:13  * K_F yes
+20:13  * leio yes
+20:13 <@slyfox> WilliamH: ^
+20:13  * WilliamH is reading
+20:14 <@K_F> nitpick, we mention ebuilds and profiles explicitly, I expect that also includes eclasses
+20:14 <@K_F> as an extension of ebuilds?
+20:14 <@slyfox> yep
+20:14  * WilliamH yes with the understanding that employment contracts, etc can pre-empt this
+20:14 <@ulm> K_F: nope, omitted intentionally
+20:15 <@K_F> ulm: right, since those likely have more elements of copyrightable matieral and fewer maintainers..
+20:15 <@slyfox> 7 yes \o/
+20:15 <@ulm> many eclasses have explicit author lists even now, so I'd say we can me more lenient there
+20:15 <@leio> I note that glep non-simplified form allows for multiple copyrighted work owners in one line, not separate lines, so it's not so bad for length
+20:15 <@K_F> thats fair, but nice to have it explicit here in logs and summary
+20:15 <@ulm> also code isn't so much copied between eclasses, I think
+20:15 <@slyfox> 3. Open bugs with council involvement
+20:15 <@slyfox>     https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation
+20:16 <@slyfox> 5 bugs
+20:16 <@slyfox> 637328 Document GLEP Cha security@gentoo.org IN_P --- GLEP 14 needs to be updated 
+20:16 <@Whissi> I am sorry to say but security project is currently dysfunctional (no GLSA last month, we can only keep up with coordinated security releases and critical things at the moment. Not even normal bug wrangling) due to unavailable members. So no progress here :(
+20:16 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328
+20:16 <@slyfox> Is it an intermediate state or expected to be a prolonged state?
+20:16 <@K_F> right, what Whissi said.. sorry, been travelling too much myself to have been too active but will try to pick it up
+20:17 <@Whissi> slyfox: To be honest, we need new members.
+20:17 <@K_F> slyfox: this part is intermediate, but we do need more manpower
+20:17 <@slyfox> *nod*
+20:17 <@K_F> to have more backup and rotation
+20:18 <@slyfox> perhaps worth having a blog noise to get more attention :)
+20:18 <@slyfox> allright. I assume there is a chance of some progress by next month.
+20:18 <@slyfox> (for this bug specifically)
+20:18 <@slyfox> moving on
+20:18 <@slyfox> 642072 Gentoo C unspecif council@gentoo.org IN_P --- [Tracker] Copyright policy 
+20:18 <@ulm> that's just a tracker
+20:18 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072
+20:19 <@WilliamH> phone call
+20:19 <@ulm> will be closed as soon as its blockers are closed
+20:19 <@slyfox> *nod*
+20:19 <@slyfox> nice tracker
+20:19 <@slyfox> 653118 Document New GLEP glep@gentoo.org IN_P --- GLEP 76: Copyright Policy 
+20:19 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/653118
+20:20 <@ulm> we have a council majority there (unanimous) for the latest change
+20:20 <@ulm> waiting for trustees
+20:20 <@slyfox> *nod*
+20:20 <@ulm> 2 out of 5 votes cast
+20:20 <@slyfox> 666128 Gentoo C unspecif council@gentoo.org CONF --- Clarify GLEP 39 "majority vote of those who show up" 
+20:21 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/666128
+20:21 <@ulm> antarus says they'll vote on it in their next meeting (about 653118)
+20:21 <@ulm> sorry, another bug of mine :)
+20:21 <@slyfox> What do we do about 666128? Vote in the bug?
+20:22 <@slyfox> Or it needs some polishing first?
+20:23 <@Whissi> Let me ask a question here: If we don't have a quorum during meeting, we cannot vote, right?
+20:23 <@ulm> there's no meeting without a quorum
+20:23 <@ulm> and new elections
+20:23 <@K_F> its more defined than that, it is immediate reelection if more than half fail
+20:23 <@Whissi> That's my understanding.
+20:24 <@Whissi> So I am not sure what needs clarification here.
+20:24 <@K_F> so yes, I read the rest as a simple majority, ignoring abstains /non-voters
+20:24 <@K_F> Whissi: agreed
+20:24 <@slyfox> Whissi: the question is what if most people abstain from voting
+20:24 <@ulm> I would move that council decisions are by majority vote of those members (or proxies) that show up
+20:25 <@slyfox> like, '1:yes, 6 abstain' is it a legit vote?
+20:25 <@K_F> yes
+20:25 <@dilfridge> example: all 7 council members are present. 1 no, 2 yes, 4 abstain. accepted or not?
+20:25 <@ulm> "more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions" is the Robert's Rules definition
+20:25 <@K_F> dilfridge: accepted
+20:25 <@Whissi> Number of people voting doesn't affect quorum. So if we have a quorum but only one person will vote... this person can pass motions.
+20:25 <@ulm> yep
+20:25 <@dilfridge> K_F: yes, that is how it was handled in the past, and how I would like to keep it
+20:26 <@K_F> that is standard voting rules, if you want to say no you have to vote it
+20:26 <@ulm> if 1 member cares and 6 don't care, then the vote will pass
+20:26 <@Whissi> ACK.
+20:27 <@ulm> the other could have voted no if they don't want it to pass
+20:27 <@ulm> *others
+20:27 <@leio> the main open question for me was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority#%22Majority_of_the_members_present%22
+20:27 <@leio> because glep wording kind of suggests "member present"
+20:27 <@K_F> leio: I read that to be explicit it doesn't have to be majority of council
+20:28 <@leio> that practice means "In any situation which specifies such a requirement for a vote, an abstention would have the same effect as a "no" vote"
+20:28 <@K_F> so if we are 5 members instead of 7 due to absenses, 3 votes is anough for yes (presuming 2 no)
+20:28 <@ulm> leio: the subtle difference is between "majority *vote* of those who show up" and "majority of those who show up"
+20:28 <@ulm> GLEP 39 wording is the former
+20:28 <@leio> (and that's also Robert's Rules)
+20:29 <@K_F> abstain != no
+20:29 <@slyfox> would be nice to clarify GLEP wording for layman like me so i would know how to count :)
+20:29 <@ulm> that's what we are trying to do?
+20:31 <@leio> ulm: yes, sure, that's the different, but I'm saying that "of those who show up" could be taken as such a qualification that means "Majority of the members present" rules.
+20:31 <@leio> difference*
+20:32 <@ulm> leio: I think that's unlikely, in g2boojum's mail the wording was "Those who show up get to vote."
+20:33 <@K_F> yes, I read it to try to be explicit that a full council majority is not needed across all members
+20:33 <@Whissi> A motion only passes if it has MORE YES than NO votes. But we don't need x% in total votes.
+20:33 <@K_F> exactly
+20:34 <@leio> ok, so  1) the point is that the glep, under which we exist, reads like it does, and my english understanding clearly tells me it's "majority of the members present", so if you are invoking Robert's Rules here, then abstain = no for counting; 2) I am not eager to change the status quo here, but to clarify it; however I do think for some kind of topic voting we should have an overall majority rule.
+20:35 <@leio> councils existence isn't codified in a mail by g2boojum
+20:35 <@Whissi> Ah, now I got at least leio's point.
+20:35 <@K_F> the glep says "Council decisions are by majority vote of those who show up (or their proxies)."
+20:35 <@K_F> it doesn't say it requires a full majority of those who shows up
+20:36 <@ulm> the wording is "majority vote of those who show up"
+20:36 <@K_F> abstain is excluded in regular majority vote
+20:36 <@leio> those who show up = "members present"
+20:36 <@ulm> yeah, majority vote of the members that are present
+20:36 <@K_F> its still a majority vote amongst members, not vote needing to have majority
+20:36 <@leio> I got "Robert's Rules" as justification why that means abstain = excluded, but "Robert's Rules" says abstain = no in this case.
+20:36 <@Whissi> If we would require x% total votes, abstain would be like an active NO.
+20:36 <@K_F> leio: I don't agree it does
+20:37 <@K_F> a member can abstain in a majority vote
+20:37 <@ulm> leio: the case is "majority vote" though
+20:37 <@leio> The
+20:37 <@leio> err, keyboard acting up
+20:37 <@leio> need to change batteries
+20:38 <@slyfox> technology is amazing :)
+20:39 <@leio> ulm: "majority vote" as opposed to "Majority of the members present"?
+20:40 <@ulm> I just think it's paradoxical that a council with 5 members present can accept a motion with 3 yes 2 no, but the full council could not with 3 yes 2 no 2 abstentions
+20:40 <@ulm> unless the 2 members leave the meeting before the vote
+20:41 <@K_F> yes, that isn't common voting counting
+20:41 <@ulm> IMHO it would be a strange and unusual rule
+20:41  * WilliamH back after call
+20:41 <@slyfox> \o/
+20:41 <@leio> ulm: well, you brought up Robert's Rules
+20:42 <@ulm> leio: yes, and the wording is "majority vote"
+20:42 <@leio> and "majority vote of those who show up" is "Majority of the members present" in different wording; if that doesn't apply per his book specifically if it's not the EXACT wording, then sure, but all I'm hearing is "this is how we've always done it" and "no, it's a majority vote" despite the glep saying something else.
+20:42 <@ulm> leio: no it isn't
+20:43 <@ulm> it is "majority *vote* of the members present" and that's different
+20:43 <@K_F> yup
+20:44 <@ulm> *shrug* we could leave it undefined, the case doesn't seem to occur very often anyway
+20:44 <@leio> ok, either way we've spent enouggh meeting time onthiis
+20:44 <@leio> alsso iit wasnn't the batteries
+20:45 <@K_F> ulm: I prefer to just settle it once and for all, but I agree with the interprentation as outlined, its not a majority of those present, but a majority vote amongst those present
+20:45 <@K_F> and abstain != no
+20:45 <@K_F> so you can have a majority of the vote without a majority of members present
+20:46 <@slyfox> So when do settle it down? Now or later?
+20:46 <@slyfox> It it to happen now please propose clear wording and we'll vote on it.
+20:46 <@ulm> I propose to adopt it now, as a "standing rule" (another Robert's Rules term :)
+20:46 <@leio> I don't see how we vote on this anyways, it's the glep that makes us exist at all
+20:47 <@K_F> right, and the glep says "majority vote of those who show up (or their proxies")
+20:47 <@K_F> a majority vote allows for abstainations
+20:47 <@ulm> "Council decisions are by more than half of the votes cast by the members (or their proxies) showing up at a meeting, excluding blanks or abstentions."
+20:48 <@ulm> ?
+20:48 <@WilliamH> abstain = "don't count me, I'm not voting."
+20:48 <@slyfox> sounds good
+20:48 <@slyfox> Let's vote!
+20:48  * slyfox yes
+20:48  * ulm yes
+20:48  * K_F yes
+20:48  * leio yes
+20:48  * Whissi yes
+20:49  * WilliamH yes
+20:49 <@dilfridge> huh?
+20:49  * dilfridge yes
+20:49 <@slyfox> \o/ unanimous
+20:49 <@ulm> in any case, accepted by both possible prior interpretations of the wording :)
+20:49 <@Whissi> BTW: What's the half of votes when only one person will vote and rest will abstain?
+20:49 <@dilfridge> one is more than half
+20:50 <@K_F> Whissi: that is 100% yes then
+20:50 <@slyfox> half = 0
+20:50 <@Whissi> OK.
+20:50 <@K_F> Whissi: since abstains are excluded
+20:50 <@leio> I consider this vote as something of an assertion that this is how the current council understands the wording of the glep, not that we affect the glep
+20:50 <@slyfox> correct
+20:50 <@K_F> leio: correct
+20:50 <@WilliamH> leio++
+20:50 <@ulm> yeah, "standing rule"
+20:50 <@slyfox> Moving on
+20:50 <@slyfox> 667602 Gentoo I Other infra-bugs@gentoo.org CONF --- please allow a transitional period for sign-off-by lines in commits 
+20:50 <@slyfox> https://bugs.gentoo.org/667602
+20:51 <@WilliamH> I want to keep that open until we hear back from legal.
+20:51 <@WilliamH> That's also at the request of my lead.
+20:51 <@ulm> only 2 trustees have voted in -nfp
+20:52 <@WilliamH> That's true too.
+20:52 <@Whissi> Is this still a thing given that foundation missed the quorum/deadline?
+20:52 <@slyfox> What do we do about it today? Just an FYI?
+20:52 <@ulm> antarus had called for a 7 days timeout in https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/2fd105484069ccd0f05271da5a622067
+20:52 <@WilliamH> slyfox: probably so for now.
+20:52 <@slyfox> *nod*
+20:52 <@ulm> slyfox: no council action for now
+20:52 <@slyfox> sounds good
+20:53 <@slyfox> 4. Open floor
+20:53 <@K_F> but no action means it is still actively enforced, right?
+20:53 <+promehteanfire> K_F: afaik, yes
+20:53 <@slyfox> yup
+20:53 <@slyfox> cat pics time \o/
+20:54 <+promehteanfire> https://i.imgur.com/rxktaGg.jpg
+20:54 <@Whissi> No pic, but a video! https://twitter.com/i/status/1050225668187987970 ;)
+20:54 <@slyfox> :)
+20:55  * slyfox starts 2 minute countdown
+20:55 <@K_F> fosdem stand proposal is made, scheduled announcement for acceptance is 11th november
+20:55 <@K_F> just FYI..
+20:56 <@ulm> K_F++
+20:59 <@slyfox> -ETIMEDOUT
+20:59 <@slyfox> I hereby the meeting concluded. Thanks all!
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20181014.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20181014.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a5293a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20181014.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: GnuPG v2
+
+iQKTBAABCgB9FiEE+g11JqJ4cL44QkmN7V5F4G8qwpMFAlvDoThfFIAAAAAALgAo
+aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldEZB
+MEQ3NTI2QTI3ODcwQkUzODQyNDk4REVENUU0NUUwNkYyQUMyOTMACgkQ7V5F4G8q
+wpPVBw/+LHeJRA+siCFZ1bU6anGmU8hr+o8ZcgbYAkJf+3U2bqBS9BLHX/aSDewZ
+Nt9Mm4iM0w8cfSuIPc8dWIDAZ8HL81KwFQjJxr0WvWw2Dkg2JuifC5/i8EobjiRE
+Y6N+IWwYrsy7qZbk3NOF+RxBTqMQJZ4tZhfKXTv6xx98dW/wpjDXScIxojs/H1gJ
+xpSSu2D1vtE94iGehK/tk4p6XpyBJADO+cgndIj+3smXhl13lIr5VX1txSLRNz2Z
+gcEGKN6ZVp5XsHQBo/4+u2SCTwx4YWWdAQ//9fyIdWtsBb8XU146Kknen9NTYfzJ
+zzkF3MkBarAAcnlNQ01A0eBAOvU80BlXB0qSd0kPPdMnrbP6wMueB/1z4K+2Gt7G
+dpPvmZAQVuyn6af0asZQqMsQNpNhbtuSLLWLNNcr0fPJ+vHxdhENs8v3YoAebeAK
+4XdfkdMYlcvt+jWMLo5u9AUhKDuiTzMDA6W+wrLVYpnIE7qxyhwRP/DqCGvtrlIR
+3+8XzBiV/EZDxct1Qh11gC6SG09irIJYikgiPdayghFV8aZEH/HV1Of6x99930LK
+peI4hXjZltDE1wGotXnEXKyoBAgA2RFkOY9i8KWuMwVDZ2o87wSJEk9BecY8hXCV
+uA4LfncFELwGzAouaBUoH8SngQZyoEHdU1aR92BcEfpYfW0nRqw=
+=+hPv
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----