
\summary{2007}{11}{8}

Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ded25cba302bfc6580c998d7ba33e1c7}

Also continuing the discussion on Code of Conduct enforcement. Proposal: 
\agoref{gentoo-council}{cbfe572adb090dfba1cc004b1cca6979}


\agendaitem{Empty council slot: vote for jokey}

\dev{jokey} is the candidate to replace \dev{uberlord} who 
resigned,\footnote{It's unclear whether he resigned from the council or also 
from Gentoo in general.} and this requires a 
unanimous council vote. Since not all council members are present, we'll do 
this vote on the gentoo-council list.\footnote{See also the
\agoref{gentoo-council}{704eaff864d5f3484d940e6a2bc058d9}.} All 6 present 
council members supported Jokey's addition.


\agendaitem{Daylight savings change: no slacker marks}

In the US and Europe, 2000 UTC shifted by an hour in local time. The 
email announcement was wrong, so we will not give slacker marks to the 
two absent council members.

\dev{vapier} needs to fix his script before the next announcement.


\agendaitem{EAPI 1 approved for use in the main tree}
\index{EAPI!1}\index{EAPI!1!in the tree}

Stable portage version 2.1.3.12 supports EAPI=1. It's now officially OK 
to start using it in the main tree. From the ebuild ChangeLog for 
portage:
\begin{quote}
  This release is the first to have support for EAPI-1 (\bug{194876}), which 
  includes SLOT dependencies (\bug{174405}), IUSE defaults (\bug{174410}), and 
  ECONF_SOURCE support for the default src_compile function (\bug{179380}). 
  Package maintainers should carefully consider the backward compatibility 
  consequences before defining EAPI="1" in any ebuilds, especially if
  other packages depend on those ebuilds. See the ebuild(5) and emerge(1) 
  manual pages for EAPI related documentation.
\end{quote}
EAPI=1 features are documented in PMS as well as the man pages, but they 
are not yet documented in the devmanual or the dev handbook.


\agendaitem{Code of Conduct enforcement proposal: generally positive feedback}
\index{Code of Conduct}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-council}{cbfe572adb090dfba1cc004b1cca6979} (for the 
attachment see \ref{2007-11-dberkholz-coc})

\dev{dberkholz} sent out a proposal this morning, so we just discussed it today 
instead of voting. Initial feedback from council members was positive. Some 
concerns came up on the list about time zone differences and coverage, which 
were brought up again during the meeting. People generally agreed that although 
the environment is better now, it hasn't been before and won't always be good.
\dev{lu_zero} brought up the point that since things are fairly good now, we 
don't need to rush through this process and we can take our time and do things 
right.

Council support for the team's actions should not be as controversial with the 
requirement that all actions be private. The team will need to create the tools 
to deal with the actions it needs to take (short-term moderation on IRC, 
mailing lists, and Bugzilla). This could happen during the initial training 
period suggested on the gentoo-council list.

If there's already existing moderation somewhere (for example many of the 
\#gentoo-* IRC channels or the forums), the team will first liaise with them 
rather than preempt them. All official Gentoo forums must adhere to the CoC, 
however; having their own moderation does not exclude them from following 
Gentoo's standards as a whole.

The expectation is that successive actions against the same person will 
increase in length, eventually reaching the 3-day cutoff that requires council 
approval and forwarding to devrel/userrel. The idea is that if someone keeps 
violating the CoC after a given length of moderation, it apparently wasn't 
enough so it shouldn't be repeated.

Next month, we will vote on a concrete proposal.


\agendaitem{Baselayout-2: uberlord will continue to maintain it}
\index{package!sys-apps/baselayout}

\dev{lu_zero} asked whether we had anything to do about baselayout-2 since 
\dev{uberlord} resigned. He's continuing to maintain it in a git repository and 
will remain upstream for it. More details will emerge over time.

\dev{kingtaco} raised the question of trusting external releases and hosts. 
Some responses suggested that using git may prevent the malicious host, because 
of the possibility of GPG-signed tags. He mentioned the possibility of the 
infra team hosting Gentoo-critical repositories with access by non-Gentoo 
developers. It's just an idea at this point, but he's going to talk to the rest 
of the infra team.
