Summary of the Gentoo Council meeting 08 October 2013


Agenda
======

1. Introduction and roll call
2. Resume discussion on the new Code of Conduct [1-4]
3. Open bugs with council involvement
   Bug 477030: Missing summary for 20130611 council meeting [5]
   Bug 481202: Tracker - Documentation or Implementation Issues for 
               Dropping of Separate /usr Support [6]
4. Open floor

[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3061
[2] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2470
[3] http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~scarabeus/gentoo-coc.txt
[4] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130611.txt
[5] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=477030
[6] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481202


Roll call
=========
Present:
   blueness, dberkholz, dilfridge, rich0, scarabeus, ulm, williamh


Code of Conduct discussion
==========================

Vote: 
- Should the current code of conduct undergo "minor" or "major" 
  revision, with minor revision being just updating the wording in 
  the old text to current organizational structures?
4 votes for minor, 3 for major revision

In the subsequent discussion it was suggested to incorporate changes 
from Scarabeus' text proposal [3] into the existing Code of Conduct. 
To ease discussion on this during next month's meeting, a comparison 
of the files should be circulated among the council members during 
the upcoming weeks.

Dilfridge volunteers to go through the old Code of Conduct text and 
fix the worst outdated passages.


Open bugs with council involvement
==================================

- Bug 477030 "Missing summary for 20130611 council meeting" [5]
  No progress since last meeting.

- Bug 481202: Tracker - Documentation or Implementation Issues for 
  Dropping of Separate /usr Support [6]
  Consensus is that all is done here and that both the last bug 
  blocking [6] and the tracker [6] itself can be resolved.


Open floor
==========

WilliamH brings up the issue of using INSTALL_MASK for avoiding 
installation of small utility files. His question is how we could 
avoid requiring a re-build of the entire installed package set when 
the value of INSTALL_MASK is changed. As a possible solution, a 
feature for the package manager is proposed: it could record whether 
a package is affected by INSTALL_MASK during installation, and offer 
a switch to only rebuild all these packages. Implementation should 
not have high priority though.