
\summary{2008}{4}{10}


Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{0f6f6f5118a06929565edd2dbca8ae46}

Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{46bf3619625ec081d4c5c858e375c011}



\agendaitem{Document of being an active developer}
\index{developer certificate}

There were no updates to this.



\agendaitem{Slacker arches}
\index{arches!slacking}


\dev{vapier} said he's finishing this up and will have it posted tonight.



\agendaitem{GLEP 46: Allow upstream tags in metadata.xml}
\index{GLEP!46!approval}

Reference: \glep{46}

The restriction to http/https has been dropped as pointed out by \dev{amne}.  
The point for restricting the URLs to the mentioned protocols was that they 
shouldn't link to automatically updated ressources.  This has been replaced by 
an explicit specification and a recommendation that http/http should be 
favoured over ftp/svn/gopher/etc to make the implementation for automated 
update discovery tools easier (they should of course ignore URLs they can't 
handle).

\vote{Approval of \glep{46}}{Approved with 5 yes votes, 1 abstention}



\agendaitem{Minimal activity for ebuild devs}
\index{developers!minimal activity}\index{cia.vc}\index{ohloh}

The current expected minimal activity for ebuild developers is 1 commit every 
60 days. Should it be higher?

Agreement was hard to find. Some people thought it should be 1 commit / week, 
others said that people have busy lives and questioned the benefits.

A number of people did agree that we should trust the judgment of the 
undertakers.

\dev{dberkholz} suggested that low commit rates may not maintain the quality of 
the committer, and that we should more carefully review the commits of these 
people.

Various ways to track commit statistics were discussed, such as cia.vc and 
ohloh. cia.vc seems to have too much downtime to rely on. \dev{ciaranm} talked 
with ohloh people already. ohloh would require some modifications to ohcount to 
recognize ebuilds and eclasses, and a full copy of the cvs repository to start, 
but it seems worth exploring. Betelgeuse said he would tar up a copy of the 
gentoo-x86 repository.



\agendaitem{Initial comments on PMS}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!kdebuild-1}

Reference: \url{https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/}

Are there any major changes needed, or just tuning details? A list of remaining 
items to be done was posted in the 
\agoref{gentoo-dev}{21de1bcb87913938d804afa39f8f1d35}.

The council voted that kdebuild-1 and other unapproved EAPIs could not be in an 
approved PMS document. The spec isn't a place for proposals or things that will 
never be submitted for approval by the council. It's a specification, a 
reference of what is allowed in the main tree.\footnote{Haven't found a clear 
vote in the log yet, this seems to have been more of a conclusion that slowly 
crystallized.}


\agendaitem{Open floor}
\index{project!devrel}

\dev{blackace} asked about complaints against \dev{philantrop}, \dev{eroyf}, 
and \dev{spb}. \dev{vapier} referred that to devrel. \dev{betelgeuse} said that 
there's been no rejection or action on those complaints yet, and internal 
discussion is ongoing. \dev{philantrop} complained that he hadn't heard 
anything about complaints, and \dev{betelgeuse} said that since some members 
already left, he didn't want to take matters into his own hands in sharing 
private information.
