path: root/meeting-logs/20170409.txt

14:01 <@WilliamH> agenda is here: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/716e138cd834ab29e1f74bcc2e35eb41
14:01 <@WilliamH> roll call
14:01  * WilliamH here
14:01  * K_F here
14:01  * kent\n here for dilfridge
14:01  * ulm here
14:01  * rich0 here
14:02 <@WilliamH> Soap__: ping?
14:03 <@WilliamH> The  only topic we have is open bugs with council involvement...
14:04 <@WilliamH> bug 571490
14:04 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/571490 "Missing summary for 20151025 council meeting"; Documentation, Project-specific documentation; CONF; mgorny:council
14:04 <@K_F> lets give it some minutes to see if blueness and soap doesn't show up
14:04 <@K_F> anyone can SMS blueness?
14:05 <@ulm> yeah, I have his number
14:05 <@ulm> I've texted him
14:05 <@K_F> ulm: thanks
14:09 <@K_F> hmm, guess they won't show up then..
14:09 <@WilliamH> moving on...
14:10 <@WilliamH> bug 571490
14:10 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/571490 "Missing summary for 20151025 council meeting"; Documentation, Project-specific documentation; CONF; mgorny:council
14:10 <@K_F> summary is in git repo, I can update wiki, then that is closed
14:10 <@WilliamH> K_F: ok, cool.
14:10 <@WilliamH> bug 565566
14:11 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/565566 "New ChangeLogs are in chronological order"; Gentoo Infrastructure, CVS/SVN/Git; CONF; patrick:infra-bugs
14:11 <@WilliamH> still nothing from infra
14:11 <@K_F> I'm keeping same sentiment as last meeting on it
14:12 <@K_F> if anyone feel strongly for it they can follow up, but it is not really much for council to do (decisions etc) at this point
14:12 <@WilliamH> bug 610990
14:12 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/610990 "Please create a BZ product "Gentoo Council" similar to "Gentoo Foundation""; Gentoo Infrastructure, Bugzilla; CONF; dilfridge:bugzilla
14:13 <@WilliamH> before 990.
14:13 <@WilliamH> should we remove council from the cc on 566 since there's nothing we can do?
14:14 <@ulm> I think that we should keep watching it
14:14 <@WilliamH> ok, no problem.
14:14 <@WilliamH> then for bug 610990
14:14 < willikins> WilliamH: https://bugs.gentoo.org/610990 "Please create a BZ product "Gentoo Council" similar to "Gentoo Foundation""; Gentoo Infrastructure, Bugzilla; CONF; dilfridge:bugzilla
14:15 <@WilliamH> Any comments on this one?
14:15 < kent\n> side thought, an "Administration" product could contain Council and Foundation. *shrug*
14:16 <@K_F> mgorny already propose something of the sort
14:16 <@rich0> You could lump in comrel and a bunch of other stuff in there.
14:17 <@rich0> Including infra, actually.
14:17 < kent\n> Infra seems better descriptor of "physical admininistration" where as this is more "Social Administration"
14:18 <@rich0> Seems related to me.  Comrel and recruiters would fall into the social bucket.
14:18 <@K_F> to me it comes down to the point on access restriction and group permissions
14:18 <@rich0> But, sure, there is a gray area.
14:18 <@K_F> mgorny wasn't sure if that can be done on component level or if it needs to be on product level, if it can't that is moot discussion
14:18 <@K_F> so before that can be discussed at all needs to get confirmation it is possible
14:19  * WilliamH agrees with k_f
14:19  * kent\n ack
14:19 <@K_F> but it is really irrelevant for the bug on setting up a council project to begin with
14:19 < kent\n> The gist though I think its "Council should have a thing maybe", and we can work out the details later?
14:20 <@rich0> yup
14:20 <@K_F> "maybe"?
14:20 < kent\n> (~ no point in researching how if council decide it not wanted )
14:20 < dwfreed> the issue with being a component under a product vs being your own product is that you don't have further categorization possible if you're a component
14:21  * WilliamH still thinks gentoo council should be a product not a component
14:21 <@ulm> +1
14:22 < kent\n> Yeah. It is more future proof.
14:22 <@K_F> yup
14:22 <@K_F> and not confusing users as its not selectable by default
14:22 <@K_F> similar to trustees
14:23 <@WilliamH> Who is supposed to be working on this bug?
14:23 < kent\n> Can we think of 2 potential sub-categories of Council as a starter?
14:23 <@K_F> WilliamH: waiting for infra action
14:24 <@WilliamH> K_F: ah ok.
14:24 <@ulm> but maybe we should clarify that we want a product?
14:24 <@WilliamH> ulm: that seems pretty clear from the bug
14:24 <@K_F> no harm in confirming it again after this discussion
14:25 <@ulm> K_F: can you take care of it?
14:25 <@K_F> yup
14:25 <@WilliamH> ok, moving on...
14:25 <@WilliamH> open floor.
14:25  * WilliamH listens
14:26 <@ulm> it was suggested that we should get council approval on the current pms version again
14:26 <@WilliamH> why?
14:26 <@ulm> because there were a few clarifications, mainly on scope of variables
14:27 <@K_F> the FILESDIR and PATCHES one?
14:27 <@WilliamH> Do we have to approve clarifications?
14:27 <@ulm> K_F: yep, plus DISTDIR, WORKDIR, S, A, AA
14:27 <@ulm> WilliamH: that's the question
14:28 <@K_F> the clafification seems well within bounds of how I was thinking it to begin with, but I've seen the discussions so don't have any issue re-confirming it
14:28 <@K_F> can you write up a proposal for statement?
14:28 <@ulm> K_F: I can do for the next meeting
14:28 <@ulm> also including a list of changes
14:28 <@K_F> yeah, either next meeting or just a bug in mean time should be fine
14:28 <@WilliamH> sgtm
14:29 <@ulm> yeah, bug sounds good
14:30 <@WilliamH> anything else?
14:30  * WilliamH bangs the gavel.... meeting closed
14:31 <@WilliamH> Thanks folks. :-)