
\summary{2008}{8}{28}

Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{9b3f0e9ed1c97b033b563ea68b4d123e}

Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{f6a084b9acf5a19b38000fbfaab93733}


\agendaitem{Reactions to dev banned from freenode}
\index{freenode}\index{irc!ban}

There were no updates on this topic. Assume lack of interest.


\agendaitem{Moving meetings to a location we control}
\index{council!meeting!location}

There were no updates on this topic. Assume lack of interest.


\agendaitem{Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in documentation}
\index{irc.gentoo.org}\index{Freenode}

The Freenode acknowledgments page thanks people for doing this, so the 
potential issue with confusion apparently isn't a large problem.

\vote{Update all our pointers to IRC to use irc.gentoo.org. (But 
please mention FreeNode is our provider.)}{Accepted with 7 yes votes}


\agendaitem{Fired developers}
\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}\index{project!devrel}

Why aren't fired developers banned from the channels where they displayed 
misbehavior?

\dev{halcy0n}, \dev{dertobi123}, \dev{lu_zero} think fired devs should be 
banned from the places where they behaved in the way that got them fired. 
\dev{dberkholz} and \dev{cardoe} think that this should be handled by devrel 
and council shouldn't set policy on it. \dev{halcy0n} later agreed with letting 
devrel address it, as did \dev{lu_zero} and \dev{betelgeuse}.

A lengthy discussion took place whether such bans should also extend to Gentoo 
project channels.


\agendaitem{PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!0}

What changes are required before PMS becomes a draft standard of EAPI 0?
$\longrightarrow$ The main thing that needs to be clarified is conflict 
resolution.

Idea: Ask the portage developers and PMS authors to develop a process that both 
groups will respect, then present it to the council for approval. Options 
include a "neutral" third party as PMS czar, having council decide, just trying 
harder to come to agreement, deciding that e.g. portage's choice always wins, 
random, etc.

\dev{spb} and \dev{ciaranm} agreed that a third party or council would work 
well. Since such a third party would probably be better invested in actually 
working on the spec, the council seems reasonable a reasonable choice if PMS 
editors and PM developers can't work it out. \dev{zmedico} and \dev{ferringb} 
also agreed with this.

Decision: The Council will vote to resolve conflicts that the PMS editors 
and PM developers weren't able to resolve.

\dev{zmedico}, \dev{ferringb}, and \dev{ciaranm} (developers of each PM) all 
agree that having a written specification is worthwhile.

Next meeting is Sept 11, and we request that everyone involved with PM 
development or the spec email gentoo-dev about any issues with it. 
Otherwise, it's likely to be approved as a draft standard.

