path: root/meeting-logs/20171210.txt

[19:00:31] <dilfridge> !proj council 
[19:00:32] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, mgorny, slyfox, tamiko, ulm, williamh
[19:00:37] -*- slyfox is here
[19:00:38] <dilfridge> + mrueg
[19:00:41] <dilfridge> meeting time!
[19:00:48] <dilfridge> 0. roll call 
[19:00:49] <drobbins> :)
[19:00:51] -*- K_F here
[19:00:54] -*- dilfridge here
[19:00:54] -*- slyfox here
[19:00:55] -*- WilliamH here
[19:00:57] -*- mgorny here
[19:01:06] -*- ulm here
[19:01:36] <dwfreed> mrueg:
[19:01:39] <dilfridge> ok let's give mrueg a moment to turn up
[19:02:35] <dilfridge> I sent him a text
[19:02:47] <K_F> to have it mentioned during the meeting logs, as requested by tamiko , mrueg is the assigned proxy for this meeting
[19:02:59] <mrueg> jo
[19:03:01] <prometheanfire> o/
[19:03:08] <dilfridge> excellent
[19:03:11] <mrueg> was on the phone, I'm here
[19:03:13] <dilfridge> soo...
[19:03:22] <dilfridge> 1. Lack of enough package maintainers
[19:03:28] <dilfridge> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/4771bc564060b7ab1f64d5c094105493
[19:03:36] <dilfridge> is there anything we can do?
[19:03:49] <mgorny> who brought the crystal ball today?
[19:03:51] <K_F> Well, its certainly not a voting action, but it is always interesting to discuss a bit
[19:03:51] <prometheanfire> recruitment drive?
[19:03:54] <WilliamH> Not really, it is up to devs to recruite more people.
[19:03:56] <K_F> The resources availble to Gentoo is defined by (i) amount of time spent on the project and the level of knowledge from existing developers (ii) efficiency in processes (iii) Attracting new developers with knowledge to contribute to the project (either as developers or proxied). Now, (iii), requires an active userbase, which agains requires a precense to get known, e.g at various conferences.
[19:04:06] <WilliamH> recruit
[19:04:32] <mgorny> this might be related to the other problem
[19:04:33] <K_F> of those, having a properly working community, resulting in wanting to spend more time, c.f. (i) is the less costly , if every existing dev increases 5% it is much higher than number of new recruits
[19:04:34] <dilfridge> let's give this 10min brainstorming and then go on
[19:04:34] <drobbins> maybe we can have a proxy and get some maintainers on funtoo side?
[19:04:50] <mgorny> kill some of the negative energy towards gentoo
[19:04:52] <drobbins> with a good QA check? Then I can advertise the option to funtoo people
[19:04:53] <slyfox> Yes, devs shoud spend less time fighting in public media and help users (and other devs) more :)
[19:05:00] <dilfridge> drobbins: possible, but not sure how much it helps
[19:05:24] <dilfridge> the proxy maints are already doing such stuff, the bottleneck is people again...
[19:05:46] <drobbins> is there a list of outdated catpkgs?
[19:05:48] <mgorny> yep, proxy-maint would use any help it can get
[19:05:51] <slyfox> do we have any recruiter backlog?
[19:06:16] <mgorny> AFAIK recruiting is going quite smoothly for competent candidates
[19:06:19] <K_F> slyfox: my impression is it is better than ever in that department
[19:06:22] <dilfridge> slyfox: no
[19:06:28] <dilfridge> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&email1=recruiters&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=3763516&query_format=advanced
[19:06:28] <drobbins> hard to generate interest in maintaining catpkgs if we are not clear what those catpkgs are
[19:06:38] <dilfridge> the bug list is very short
[19:06:54] <dilfridge> https://www.akhuettel.de/gentoo-bugs/ < you need to scroll down
[19:06:55] <mgorny> drobbins: there's a lot of maintainer-needed@
[19:07:02] <drobbins> hmm
[19:07:09] <dwfreed> ^ was just going to suggest that
[19:07:24] <K_F> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/maintainer-needed.html
[19:07:40] <Soap__> literally only KDE is fine
[19:07:46] <Soap__> every other project is understaffed
[19:07:49] <drobbins> I would suggest a first step of differentiating between 'important' non-maintained catpkgs and 'misc' ones
[19:08:03] <drobbins> when resources are tight, gotta prioritze the important ones and focus on those
[19:08:03] <ulm> K_F: need to filter that by open bugs
[19:08:23] <ulm> if a package is working then m-n isn't a big problem
[19:08:35] <K_F> ulm: maybe, maybe not.. some of them might have glaring security holes but nobody is looking at it, and a poor user walks into the trap
[19:08:53] <K_F> ulm: so without a maintainer, should at the very elast consider dropping to ~arch
[19:09:10] <K_F> but that is somewhat parallel discussion, so not something for today
[19:09:18] <dilfridge> actually that's an interesting point, but different issue
[19:09:27] <dilfridge> m-n -> not stable ?
[19:09:38] <K_F> dilfridge: lets put that up for discussion at next meeting
[19:09:42] <ulm> K_F: if there is a known security hole then there should be a bug open for it
[19:09:42] <dilfridge> yep
[19:09:58] <mgorny> from time to time i'm spending the time to enlarge that list by killing dead projects
[19:09:58] <mgorny> at some point lastriting is also an option
[19:09:58] <mgorny> if we have less packages to maintain, we can focus better on those we do maintain
[19:10:29] <dilfridge> yeah
[19:10:29] <K_F> yes, I'm proposing drop to testing since there has been some pushback on that historically
[19:10:32] <K_F> I agree on the principle
[19:10:40] <mgorny> sorry, had a huge lag
[19:11:04] <dilfridge> about recruitment drive
[19:11:10] <dilfridge> we could start at fosdem
[19:11:37] <mgorny> for a start, by preventing non-developer non-contributors from pretending to be important people in gentoo?
[19:11:45] <dilfridge> hehe
[19:11:51] <dilfridge> mgorny: I'll bring name tags
[19:12:08] <K_F> dilfridge: right, precense at conferences are important, imho, for gentoo to be considered part of the "major" distros to consider altogether
[19:12:11] <mgorny> i think it's a bit of chicken-and-egg problem
[19:12:16] <slyfox> to get new people in some occasional blog noise about gentoo is constantly recruiting might help
[19:12:17] <K_F> and having a professional representation at such conferences..
[19:12:22] <mgorny> we have less people, gentoo becomes worse
[19:12:32] <mgorny> gentoo becomes worse, we have less candidates and less incentive to do things
[19:12:32] <K_F> as for FOSDEM, I'm very happy to receive input on the flyer we're creating for this year's stand
[19:12:33] <drobbins> I think there are general actions that can be taken to get new maintainers.... we all know those. Recruitment, etc.
[19:12:36] <dilfridge> well, we also need to figure out what is cool about gentoo that we want to emphasize
[19:12:39] <dilfridge> yes, flyer!
[19:12:58] <drobbins> I am more interested in specific actions to address critical ebuilds in need of maintainership
[19:12:59] <K_F> but thats more for #gentoo-fosdem and #gentoo-pr
[19:13:04] <dilfridge> yes
[19:13:05] <drobbins> but I am not sure if that is a different topic
[19:13:35] <dilfridge> most of the times some dev is taking mercy on really critical ebuilds
[19:13:39] <mgorny> i think to some degree candidates don't really know what to do in gentoo
[19:13:50] <dilfridge> unless noone knows what is critical (see sgml)
[19:13:53] <mgorny> i've seen a lot of potential candidates try to find some niche to work on
[19:13:59] <mgorny> but most of the time those weren't ebuilds
[19:14:05] <drobbins> how hard would it to be to maintain a list of critical ebuilds that need maintainers? or does such a list exist?
[19:14:20] <WilliamH> drobbins: I don't know of a list myself.
[19:14:22] <drobbins> this would provide some focus
[19:14:32] <drobbins> maybe a first step is to figure out how to create one?
[19:15:01] <K_F> if we really did have a package considered critical without maintainer, simply a list isn't sufficient, that would recruite a pro-active approach to getting people to take over it
[19:15:09] <mgorny> i have some graphviz-based dependency graphing in gpyutils
[19:15:13] <WilliamH> drobbins: the problem, as I see it is, what is "critical"?
[19:15:23] <WilliamH> drobbins: other than anything in @system
[19:15:26] <mgorny> but it'd need some work to apply to this
[19:15:39] <drobbins> WilliamH: here is my idea
[19:15:46] <drobbins> a cute little script, grabs catpkgs on a user's system
[19:15:52] <drobbins> sends them to gentoo
[19:16:09] <drobbins> we can then get a count of most popular catpkgs
[19:16:17] <drobbins> then we have another db of last commit of each catpkg
[19:16:26] <K_F> that sounds like gentoostats, and it isn't really interesting on a number of reasons, privacy part of it, but mainly critical isn't a popularity contest
[19:16:28] <drobbins> then correlate -- viola, automatic list of where to focus
[19:16:38] <drobbins> it's a starting point
[19:16:45] <K_F> you'd likely have fringe users running that script, but someone with 1000 servers would never do it
[19:16:51] <mgorny> drobbins: i think we're getting too deep into details now
[19:16:54] <drobbins> ok
[19:17:00] <mgorny> please leave this until after the meeting
[19:17:00] <dilfridge> right
[19:17:03] <WilliamH> That does sound like something gentoo-stats could do, but no one seems interested in picking that up for some reason.
[19:17:06] <K_F> so you know from the start that you get biased results, with very little value
[19:17:15] <dilfridge> I think we should postpone this and send it to the lists for general discussion
[19:17:21] <slyfox> agreed
[19:17:21] <dilfridge> any last words?
[19:17:31] <drobbins> WilliamH: potentially interested in helping. I have lots of experiencing pulling stuff out of portage and putting them in db.
[19:17:40] <dilfridge> right.
[19:17:44] <dilfridge> next topic
[19:17:54] <dilfridge> 2. Update of GLEP 42
[19:17:55] <mrueg> dilfridge: instead of general discussion a working group might be the better idea
[19:18:03] <mgorny> drobbins: ping me post the meeting and i'll give you a quick run of problems with gentoostats
[19:18:09] <drobbins> mgorny: will do
[19:18:15] <dilfridge> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/6f070b64892d2e351bd51b2ffa1dc64e
[19:18:22] <dilfridge> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep42-update
[19:18:36] <dilfridge> do we need any discussion here?
[19:18:46] -*- dilfridge doesnt think so
[19:18:51] <K_F> not from my point of view, thanks for the update, it is technical in nature
[19:19:09] <ulm> rationale is in the message
[19:19:22] -*- WilliamH is reading
[19:19:37] <mgorny> infra approved™
[19:19:44] <ulm> main point is dropping detached sigs, because it is covered by tree signing now
[19:20:10] <K_F> ulm: the only comment I made during my readthrough is whether that should involve a metadata requires on 74, but I dropped it :)
[19:20:32] <dilfridge> so let's vote on the glep42 update as presented in the e-mail(s)
[19:20:41] <ulm> K_F: that's outside the scope of 42
[19:20:48] -*- dilfridge yes
[19:20:50] <ulm> it's covered by 74
[19:20:53] -*- mgorny yes
[19:20:53] -*- K_F yes
[19:20:54] -*- ulm yes
[19:20:58] -*- WilliamH yes
[19:20:58] -*- slyfox yes
[19:21:04] <dilfridge> mrueg: ?
[19:21:22] <mrueg> yes
[19:21:31] <dilfridge> ok approved unanimously
[19:21:34] <dilfridge> next topic
[19:21:42] <dilfridge> 3. Final review of GLEP 74
[19:21:51] <dilfridge> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/7d189934e371842fc799ba1eead3d01f
[19:21:58] <dilfridge> https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0074.html
[19:22:22] <mgorny> i've pushed gemato 9.2 today, and it adds repo.postsync.d that verifies the signatures
[19:22:28] <dilfridge> mgorny: afaik this is already implemented and running on the infra side?
[19:22:35] <mgorny> so we have it implemented on both ends now
[19:22:40] <K_F> mgorny: nice!
[19:22:46] <slyfox> did security@ have any feedback? postivie/negative?
[19:22:47] <K_F> mgorny: thanks for your work on that
[19:22:59] <mrueg> will this be implemented in the PM itself as well at some point?
[19:22:59] <K_F> slyfox: no
[19:23:08] <mgorny> slyfox: not that i know of. or at least i didn't see anything explicitly marked as 'security'
[19:23:10] <slyfox> *sigh*, assuming OK then :)
[19:23:14] <ulm> also 99.4% of distfiles have blake2b by today
[19:23:19] --> robbat2-alt (~androirc@199.119.235.216) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[19:23:21] <mgorny> mrueg: hope so
[19:23:30] <ulm> only 377 left, mostly fetch restricted stuff
[19:23:33] <K_F> slyfox: well, given I'm the one mostly involved on that front, the comments have gotten already, including no compression on top manifest
[19:24:03] <K_F> (that was already incorporated after last meeting)
[19:24:14] <mgorny> iow, i think we can mark it Final now
[19:24:15] <slyfox> time to vote then?
[19:24:24] <dilfridge> works for me
[19:24:27] <drobbins> my opinion on this is that GLEP 74 is trying to solve a problem that outside the scope of the package manager
[19:24:46] <dilfridge> please vote: final approval of glep74 as linked
[19:24:49] <K_F> verification of tree has to be part of PM to ensure it is consistent across
[19:24:52] -*- K_F yes
[19:24:54] -*- dilfridge yes
[19:24:54] -*- slyfox yes
[19:24:55] -*- mgorny yes
[19:24:56] <mrueg> yes
[19:25:02] -*- ulm yes
[19:25:22] -*- WilliamH yes
[19:25:30] <dilfridge> excellent, unanimous
[19:25:38] <dilfridge> next topic
[19:25:39] <drobbins> my non-vote: you're all idiots :)
[19:25:43] <robbat2-alt> (I'm here just in time, but expect to loose signal again)
[19:25:47] *** Modus #gentoo-council +m by dilfridge
[19:25:50] <slyfox> drobbins: acknowledged :)
[19:25:53] <-* ulm hat drobbins aus dem Chat #gentoo-council geworfen (Kicked by ulm)
[19:26:07] <WilliamH> ulm: why?
[19:26:10] --> drobbins (~drobbins@funtoo/bdfl/drobbins) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[19:26:28] <K_F> I don't really believe that was necessary
[19:26:33] -*- WilliamH agrees
[19:26:57] <K_F> but it is within the chair's right to put +m
[19:27:08] <K_F> drobbins: if you have any useful comment, you can proxy it through me
[19:27:11] <mgorny> let's move on
[19:27:27] <mgorny> the next topic is going to take hours ;-)
[19:27:41] <WilliamH> ulm: I'm saying this so it will be in the log. your action, kicking drobbins  was inappropriate.
[19:27:41] <dilfridge> 4. Restricting gentoo-dev/-project posting
[19:27:52] <dilfridge> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/6e7cc13cd850be7dbd86376d3a197a16
[19:28:07] <ulm> WilliamH: I'm not suffering to be insulted here
[19:28:08] <slyfox> i guess it's not the time for debate but for decision
[19:28:24] <mgorny> as i've said, i think we should split it into smaller sub-topics
[19:28:28] <K_F> if doing a straw vote, I'm against a split
[19:28:34] <dilfridge> right... I think about every argument for the lists has already been made
[19:28:40] <mgorny> for a start, ulm has suggested we may benefit from gentoo-council list for agendas
[19:28:47] <dilfridge> mgorny: how would you suggest splitting it?
[19:28:55] <mgorny> right now they kinda end up mixed with random discussions
[19:28:58] <ulm> mgorny: I have retracted this
[19:29:14] -*- dilfridge is for g-dev restricted and used for all official business, g-project unchanged (as originally intended)
[19:29:28] <-- jlec (~jlec@gentoo/developer/jlec) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Quit: Leaving.)
[19:29:29] <ulm> splitting the lists up even more isn't the right thing to do
[19:29:43] <WilliamH> I tend to agree with ulm  about splitting the lists.
[19:29:53] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v robbat2-alt by dilfridge
[19:29:54] <mgorny> i'd agree with dilfridge, split & merge
[19:29:56] <WilliamH> there are too many as it is. :-)
[19:30:04] <mgorny> stop the weird topic split between -dev and -project which most of the people are getting wrong anyway
[19:30:12] <mgorny> make -dev developer-to-developer, and -project developer-to-user
[19:30:26] <mgorny> not sure if that'll be easy to organize though
[19:30:39] <K_F> comment from robbat2-alt
[19:30:40] <K_F> 19:29 <robbat2-alt> My comment: i strongly oppose the further split, but do welcome proactive
[19:30:40] <WilliamH> mgorny: how is -project then different from -user?
[19:30:43] <K_F>                     moderation (not reactive) after a switch to mailman
[19:30:45] <K_F> 19:29 <robbat2-alt> And all people, incl devs should be told if they are too inflammatory
[19:30:51] <WilliamH> mgorny: there's nothing stopping devs from being on -user.
[19:31:00] <K_F> I'm taking that in a infra point of view, in particular noting the requirement for a new infrastructure for mailing lists
[19:31:04] <ulm> as a first step we could move follow-ups to council agenda to -dev
[19:31:25] <mgorny> WilliamH: i think -user should be more on topic for helping users with problems, not deciding how gentoo works
[19:32:41] -*- ulm notes that there already is a past council decision that -dev should be moderated
[19:32:56] <K_F> my basis is that discussion, and discussions allowing a broad take on things, with general acceptance of input, is the best way to get good end results
[19:33:02] <ulm> but I see the problem with implementing it
[19:33:10] <K_F> if we don't agree, it is all fine as long as we accept eachothers opinions
[19:33:19] <dilfridge> ok here's a suggestion on how to proceed: A) do we want to add/reactivate any new lists? yes/no, B) should -dev be for devs+selected posting only? yes/no, C) where should official business go? dev/new list
[19:33:21] <K_F> and most forms of censorships have a tendency to result in group think
[19:33:28] <mgorny> i think we may proactively approve moderation as a tool for comrel
[19:33:42] <mrueg> it might be an option to introduce a gentoo-core-public
[19:34:02] <mgorny> i.e. let comrel enforce moderation (when it's technically supported) when things go out of control
[19:34:14] <K_F> dilfridge: (A) and (B) are likely fine, (C) seems to exclude -project as it is today for council etc
[19:34:18] <mgorny> ether on specific people or on the ml in general
[19:34:48] <mgorny> or on new subscribers
[19:34:50] <dilfridge> K_F: well, it's actually a decision tree, and the further down you go the more it depends on previous votes
[19:35:03] <K_F> dilfridge: nothing in C depends on A or B
[19:35:39] <mgorny> maybe we should start with something simpler
[19:35:56] <mgorny> 'do we want a public mailing list with posting restricted to devs (+ voiced contributors)'?
[19:36:06] <dilfridge> mgorny: well, someone would have to do the moderation, yes, but I'm not so happy about comrel (which brings us back to the plan to revive the proctors, WIP)
[19:36:20] <dilfridge> mgorny: sounds good
[19:36:21] <ulm> theoretically, agenda items of technical nature should be discussed in -dev already now, but follow-up to -project normally leads to them being discussed there
[19:36:31] <mrueg> mgorny: who's managing access for voiced contributors?
[19:36:33] <ulm> and -project was never intended for that
[19:36:33] <K_F> dilfridge: you avoid that issue if it is proactive approval
[19:36:48] <K_F> dilfridge: it'd actually be similar to +v in #gentoo-dev
[19:36:53] -*- NeddySeagoon supports revive proctors as long as it 100% council support
[19:36:59] <mgorny> mrueg: any active developer can vouch for someone
[19:37:07] <WilliamH> I have no problem with reviving the proctors.
[19:37:09] <slyfox> what is proctors?
[19:37:16] <K_F> mgorny: and what is the concequences if said person gets kicked out?
[19:37:21] <K_F> or, if more than one vouced by a dev
[19:37:22] <WilliamH> slyfox: basically moderators for the mailing lists.
[19:37:25] <slyfox> aha
[19:37:27] <mrueg> mgorny: yeah but who does the account managment?  infra?
[19:37:33] <dilfridge> the proctors were a short-lived team that was tasked with enforcing the code of conduct
[19:37:42] <WilliamH> slyfox: ^
[19:37:48] <mgorny> mrueg: yep, either infra or if we develop some automated way
[19:37:56] <dilfridge> unfortunately the first ones to misbehave were council members, thus shortlived
[19:38:06] <mgorny> K_F: we keep bugs to track that
[19:38:16] <mgorny> much like editbugs
[19:38:31] <mgorny> so if someone is given posting access, there's a bug for that
[19:38:31] <K_F> mgorny: I agree that is a fair anology
[19:38:33] <dilfridge> that sounds reasonable
[19:38:35] <mgorny> if comrel bans him, it's on bug
[19:38:40] <NeddySeagoon> The proctors moderated a council memeber. Council didn't like it
[19:39:30] <mgorny> moderation has generally one, very important problem: what do to if one mail is aggressive but also carries valuable info?
[19:39:51] <K_F> it has more issues than that, the most important one is defining what is agressive
[19:39:51] <mgorny> if you deny it, you lose the info
[19:39:57] <mgorny> if you accept it, people have easy way around moderation
[19:40:06] <robbat2-alt> (storms ahead, flightcrew announced my in-flight internet might cut out)
[19:40:09] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: email the poster.  Dropping mail on the floor won't work
[19:40:14] <robbat2-alt> Ask the person to rewrite it
[19:40:21] <WilliamH> robbat2-alt: ++
[19:40:23] <mgorny> assuming he will
[19:40:24] <dilfridge> robbat2-alt++
[19:40:27] <robbat2-alt> Have a trashcan of visible rejected mail?
[19:40:36] <mgorny> yeah, that might be an option
[19:40:38] <WilliamH> mgorny: if he won't, the email doesn't get posted.
[19:40:39] <robbat2-alt> With why it was denied
[19:40:54] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: Its the posters choice.  Moderation needs to be interactive.
[19:41:07] <mgorny> wfm
[19:41:24] <mgorny> but as K_F said, we also need to decide what needs to be moderated
[19:41:26] <mrueg> maybe we can tackle it differently? Have an open mailing list, but every gentoo dev has the possibility to request someone to vouch for X if there is abusive behaviour. if the person doesn't find someone that vouches for her or him, the person will loose write access
[19:41:31] <K_F> I wouldn't be fan of trashcan , it can open a whole different can of worms
[19:41:55] <dilfridge> I think we're debating hypothetical issues.
[19:41:57] <mgorny> but given it's bilateral, i suppose it could help people improve
[19:42:06] <K_F> dilfridge: it won't be hypotethical if implemented
[19:42:20] <dilfridge> well
[19:42:23] <K_F> dilfridge: and it consists of things that should be a clear meaning on before imposing any measures
[19:42:29] <dilfridge> then we solve the problems as they come
[19:42:32] <K_F> otherwise it _will_ result in issues down the road
[19:42:35] <mgorny> i believe if we enforce moderation, then we should also moderate off-topics
[19:42:43] <K_F> dilfridge: I'm not a big fan of kicking the can down the road
[19:42:48] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: Anfthing off topic needs to be moderated.  We probably need to (re)define /topics so its clear to posters
[19:42:49] <dilfridge> that's better than debating for ages and not coming to any conclusion
[19:42:56] <dilfridge> right
[19:42:57] <K_F> we've seen the disagreements with the current discussions that has prompted this action
[19:43:07] <K_F> personally I don't find the postings to be in violation of the gentoo CoC
[19:43:13] <dilfridge> and now we get to the point where we maybe see that moderation is not really easy
[19:43:19] <dilfridge> so
[19:43:24] <ulm> I actually like the editbugs model
[19:43:38] <K_F> ulm: yes, I'm for that one as well
[19:43:40] <dilfridge> to cut this short, I suggest we vote on the wording by mgorny, 'do we want a public mailing list with posting restricted to devs (+ voiced contributors)'
[19:43:44] <ulm> and users could be tracked in analogy to bug 236218
[19:43:47] <willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/236218 "all users with editbugs privileges"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Bugzilla; IN_P; betelgeuse:bugzilla
[19:43:51] <K_F> no retroactive moderation, but dev+approved users for -dev is all good
[19:44:00] <dilfridge> (to clarify the fundamental issue first)
[19:44:00] <K_F> where any dev can approve users c.f editbugs smodel
[19:44:14] <mgorny> K_F: please don't apply a specific mailing list yet
[19:44:29] <dilfridge> vote: 'do we want a public mailing list with posting restricted to devs (+ voiced contributors)'
[19:44:42] -*- slyfox no
[19:44:46] -*- K_F yes
[19:44:51] -*- dilfridge yes
[19:44:53] -*- mgorny yes
[19:44:56] -*- mrueg yes
[19:45:14] -*- ulm yes (under the condition that it will be -dev)
[19:45:23] -*- K_F adds same condition as ulm
[19:45:33] <dilfridge> ok
[19:45:38] -*- WilliamH  not a new mailing list
[19:45:46] <ulm> K_F: it's a majority without that anyway
[19:45:49] <dilfridge> motion passed in any case
[19:45:51] -*- WilliamH no
[19:46:03] <-- robbat2-alt (~androirc@199.119.235.216) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
[19:46:08] <dilfridge> then the next question would be "do we want this to be gentoo-dev"?
[19:46:15] <mgorny> so, if we apply this to -dev, what would be the criteria between -dev and -project?
[19:46:41] <K_F> mgorny: project is free to subscribe to without voiced approval
[19:46:41] <ulm> -dev is for developer discussion, that always was its description
[19:46:54] <mgorny> it would be nice to avoid cross-posting every second topic
[19:46:54] <NeddySeagoon> People that can't post to -dev post to -project
[19:47:04] <ulm> NeddySeagoon: exactly
[19:47:14] <mgorny> e.g. devs discuss X in -dev, user wants to add something, he posts same topic to -project
[19:47:20] <K_F> mgorny: I agree on avoiding cross-posing, but that is a matter of defining where things should go
[19:47:23] <NeddySeagoon> ulm: and devs won't read -project.
[19:47:26] <slyfox> Currently -project has the following description: "For the discussion of non-technical matters in Gentoo"
[19:47:39] <K_F> NeddySeagoon: I'd disagree with that, I read it to begin with..
[19:47:41] <dilfridge> I suggest we clarify, all official business (including council stuff etc) goes to -dev
[19:48:03] <K_F> dilfridge: that is likely further down after we have established how -dev looks
[19:48:04] <slyfox> K_F: i didn't know it even exists before i was nominated for council
[19:48:06] <ulm> NeddySeagoon: I read it too (again)
[19:48:35] <NeddySeagoon> K_F: Well, we are not all going to agree ... I don't have a problem agreeing to disagree
[19:48:39] <mgorny> maybe we should define how users should reply if they want to get involved in something discussed in -dev
[19:48:58] <WilliamH> mgorny: they would have to be able to post to -dev
[19:48:59] <K_F> mgorny: likely if they aren't pre-approved, they should find a dev to proxy them
[19:49:00] <mgorny> i.e. whether they should just mail -project, or proxy via dev, or file a bug, or...
[19:49:22] <NeddySeagoon> Its getting messy
[19:49:24] <K_F> bug would be different channel, so only causing same split as -project
[19:49:28] <WilliamH> mgorny: they would have to be able to post to -dev so that what they say gets included in the thread on -dev.
[19:49:44] <mgorny> WilliamH: developer can proxy their message, or vouch for them
[19:49:50] <WilliamH> mgorny: Otherwise you will have a lot of broken threads.
[19:49:50] <K_F> so they would either need to find a dev to sponsor them, and get +v (equiv) , or the dev to proxy the specific message
[19:49:54] <mgorny> well, technically they can reply to poster
[19:50:07] <mgorny> and the poster can decide to proxy it or voice them
[19:50:20] <K_F> mgorny: right, but I don't think we should limit it to that specifically
[19:50:26] <ulm> we would also need a transition phase for existing user subscriptions to -dev
[19:50:35] <mgorny> (i've actually seen users reply to me when they weren't subscribed to -dev)
[19:50:38] <ulm> like one or two months
[19:50:58] <mgorny> ulm: that sounds like it's going to incite some drama
[19:51:14] <ulm> mgorny: why that?
[19:51:20] <slyfox> people still will be able to subscribe and read -dev without hassle, right?
[19:51:25] <mgorny> slyfox: yes
[19:51:44] <mgorny> ulm: i'm afraid some people will find it more convenient to complain for those two months than request voice
[19:51:45] <NeddySeagoon> Maybe not.  It may get posters foucused, so it s not actually required
[19:52:08] <K_F> mgorny: does the current mailing list software allow for read-only users?
[19:52:14] <mgorny> and do we really need it, tbh? i think current posters shouldn't have a major problem requesting dev to vouch for them
[19:52:30] <ulm> mgorny: the alternative is that they won't have voice for some time, which I think is worse
[19:52:30] <K_F> mgorny: and how much work is it to flip that bit for infra?
[19:52:33] <mgorny> K_F: yes
[19:52:40] <mrueg> again: why not the other way around? blacklist people if others complain about their behaviour and they don't find anyone that vouches for them
[19:52:42] <mgorny> K_F: we have ACLs
[19:53:08] <ulm> mgorny: maybe s/transition phase/delay between announcement and implementation/
[19:53:10] <mgorny> mrueg: what if people resub with new address over and over again?
[19:53:23] <K_F> I'm actually for a clean slate in that case, every non-@gentoo addresse would immediately be read-only, and they can start finding a sponsoring dev, but only after we have established the protocol for other devs to request it (similar to editbugs)
[19:53:31] <dilfridge> blacklisting doesnt work
[19:53:37] <mrueg> mgorny: that's ban evasion and should be handled by comrel
[19:53:37] <dilfridge> not for what is planned
[19:53:41] <mgorny> i agree with K_F
[19:53:44] <K_F> with a 1-2 week max implementation
[19:53:50] <dilfridge> yep
[19:53:55] <mgorny> i'd say it's like this
[19:53:56] -*- dilfridge too
[19:53:57] <mgorny> you read the list
[19:54:09] <mgorny> you want to reply, you can't -> you ask someone to proxy it or vouch for you
[19:54:14] <WilliamH> I tend to agree with mrueg
[19:54:31] <mgorny> generally the cleanest way i see it, people start posting via proxies and proxies eventually +v them when they see they behave
[19:54:45] --> jlec (~jlec@gentoo/developer/jlec) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[19:54:45] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v jlec by ChanServ
[19:54:46] <mrueg> if we have a whitelist, this will make it only more difficult for contributors to start with gentoo
[19:55:04] <K_F> mgorny: not really
[19:55:08] <K_F> ehrm, mrueg
[19:55:14] <WilliamH> How do other distros handle this?
[19:55:22] <mgorny> mrueg: truth is, most of contributors don't start gentoo with -dev
[19:55:25] <WilliamH> e.g. in Debian, are all of the lists open?
[19:55:26] <K_F> mrueg: they can contribute through b.g.o and proxied maintainers
[19:55:38] <mgorny> most of people start with bugzilla, github etc.
[19:55:45] <K_F> mrueg: or any other mailing list than -dev
[19:55:56] <NeddySeagoon> Proxying makes all +v modorators
[19:56:17] <mrueg> K_F, mgorny:  all I'm saying is you're adding more steps than necessary
[19:56:19] <mgorny> NeddySeagoon: more like distributed moderation
[19:56:23] <dilfridge> ok so this discussion already intrinsically assumes that -dev is going to be the restricted list
[19:56:25] <K_F> NeddySeagoon: technically true, it just makes it more difficult to identify non-devs
[19:56:57] <dilfridge> so we need to get back to the question, how do we describe the topics
[19:57:20] <NeddySeagoon> IF messages afe forwarded to the list, headers will still be there
[19:57:24] <K_F> for one, i still believe council matters should be discussed on -project, it involves the whole community
[19:57:52] <dilfridge> "dev - gentoo developer discussion, project - issues pertaining to gentoo, technical or otherwise" ?!
[19:57:59] <K_F> even devs not wanting to follow that daily for some reason, can use it for specific purposes
[19:58:04] <dilfridge> K_F: then we lose the entire advantage again
[19:58:05] <mgorny> to be honest, i don't see a point in having one list restricted without the other
[19:58:06] --> Chewi (~chewi@gentoo/developer/chewi) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[19:58:06] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v Chewi by ChanServ
[19:58:12] <K_F> dilfridge: we really do not
[19:58:23] <-- jlec (~jlec@gentoo/developer/jlec) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Client Quit)
[19:58:23] <K_F> dilfridge: they wouldn't need to follow it daily
[19:58:28] <mgorny> otherwise we just move the problem instead of solving it
[19:58:42] <K_F> agenda item would link discussion on on project, so at least a week (generally) to comment on issues
[19:58:49] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: Thats what the -dev -project split did
[19:58:57] <mgorny> K_F: this sounds like getting back to the point of letting users believe in lies about gentoo because nobody is there to deny them
[19:59:11] <dilfridge> well, there's no reason why things cannot be discussed on -project too...
[19:59:20] <K_F> mgorny: I'm not sure of characterising some of the opinions as lies is generally fruitful
[19:59:32] <slyfox> +1
[19:59:42] <K_F> dilfridge: split disussion doesn't benefit anyone
[19:59:50] <mgorny> i'd say we either go for both restricted, or just kill -project and focus on one restricted list
[19:59:52] <dilfridge> it is well-known that facts have a distinct left-wing bias.
[20:00:16] <mgorny> yes, it's going to hurt for a while but people'll get used to that and things will settle down in month or two
[20:00:23] <NeddySeagoon> There is no requirement for opinions to have any basis in fact
[20:00:26] <ulm> when we don't move council traffic to the restricted list then the whole proposal doesn't make much sense
[20:00:35] <dilfridge> ulm++
[20:00:47] <WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: ++
[20:01:23] <dilfridge> ok
[20:01:23] <ulm> if we restrict -project too then there would be no need for the split between -dev and -project, in the first place
[20:01:27] <K_F> ulm: it gives developers room for discussion , but council matters affect the whole community
[20:01:39] <K_F> ulm: and it is easy for a dev to ignore -project except for agenda-relevant discussions
[20:01:48] <mgorny> ulm: well, technically we could split between technical and non-technical matters
[20:02:08] <WilliamH> mgorny: that's what we have now.
[20:02:18] <WilliamH> mgorny: or what we are supposed to have.
[20:02:23] <mgorny> i.e. -dev would be of interest to people who write ebuilds etc., and -project to others
[20:02:27] <dilfridge> yes, but it's not what project was intended for in the beginning
[20:02:29] <ulm> WilliamH: except that technical matters are being discussed in -project
[20:02:30] <K_F> mgorny: exactly
[20:02:38] <ulm> if they are on the council agenda
[20:02:48] <K_F> ulm: but council isn't strictly technical
[20:03:01] <dilfridge> and I see no point in creating yet another list when we already have so many
[20:03:02] <K_F> so a council matter is part of non-technical discussion to begin with
[20:03:02] <slyfox> (we also have gentoo-devhelp)
[20:03:10] <ulm> K_F: some are
[20:03:10] <WilliamH> ulm: you're right, there's been a lot of cross-posting and people just reply wherever.
[20:03:28] <WilliamH> dilfridge: ++
[20:03:29] <K_F> WilliamH: yes, and we want to avoid that
[20:03:36] <mgorny> so kill -project?
[20:03:39] <K_F> no
[20:03:48] -*- WilliamH would consider killing -project
[20:03:56] <ulm> K_F: discussions about technical topics like EAPIs or GLEP 74 should be in -dev
[20:03:59] <dilfridge> no, keep project open as devs-plus-users meeting place
[20:04:12] <mgorny> i'm still not convinced that's helpful
[20:04:16] <K_F> ulm: in particular EAPIs , being part of PMS, should not be in -dev in this case
[20:04:24] <mrueg> agreeing with dilfridge
[20:04:26] <K_F> as there can be valuable feedback from other distros as well as power users
[20:04:37] <K_F> GLEP 74 falls in with that as it affects package managers
[20:04:49] <K_F> 20:04 <drobbins> I would like to keep -project. -dev makes it harder to wade through for org
[20:04:51] <ulm> K_F: our EAPIs are entirely specific to us
[20:04:52] <K_F>                  specific stuff
[20:05:01] <dilfridge> K_F: we end up with precisely the same mess then
[20:05:06] <ulm> other projects like exherbo use their own EAPIs
[20:05:38] <mgorny> maybe we need to split and refocus here
[20:05:39] <K_F> ulm: I'd consider that more an extension
[20:05:51] <mgorny> do we want a split between technical and organization mailing lists?
[20:06:29] <dilfridge> I suspect a split between adressees makes more sense
[20:06:32] <K_F> I'm fine with that, but lets be specific, -dev (restricted) and -project (for organizational, council etc)
[20:06:51] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: With what aim?  If you have to read both lists, nothing is achieved
[20:07:00] <dilfridge> NeddySeagoon++
[20:07:08] <ulm> the split should be between devs and enabled users on the one hand, and the general public on the other hand
[20:07:09] <mgorny> NeddySeagoon: that's why i'm asking the question, to determine if someone sees a need for that
[20:07:28] <mgorny> but then, i suppose developers without commit access aren't e.g. interested in eclass reviews
[20:07:32] <WilliamH> If we restrict -dev to developers, we have to allow technical discussions on -prject as well
[20:07:34] <mgorny> or Manifest hashes
[20:07:51] <NeddySeagoon> Its interesting stuff even to me :)
[20:08:02] <dilfridge> so, "no topic difference between dev and project, but people difference"
[20:08:10] <mgorny> well, i'm talking theoretically this could be a reason to have topic split
[20:08:11] <NeddySeagoon> Thats a mess
[20:08:41] <mgorny> let's forget about who is on what and decide if splitting on topic makes sense
[20:08:44] <WilliamH> Folks, what we are trying to do is solve a people issue with technology.
[20:09:00] <dilfridge> sure
[20:09:05] <WilliamH> that doesn't work.
[20:09:06] -*- ulm less and less dislikes the idea of abandoning -project
[20:09:22] <slyfox> triple inversion
[20:09:27] <K_F> ulm: i.e a double negative -> you want to kill it?
[20:09:29] <ulm> :)
[20:09:32] <WilliamH> If the only difference between -dev and -project is people, devs would have to keep up with both.
[20:09:35] <NeddySeagoon> WilliamH: Interactive, procative moderation to educate people is about the only way
[20:09:41] <ulm> K_F: yes
[20:09:45] <mgorny> skipping ACLs for now, does having one list for purely technical matters and one for organization matters that affects people who don't write ebuilds, make sense?
[20:09:48] <WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: ++
[20:09:55] <mrueg> mgorny: yes
[20:10:33] <K_F> mgorny: I'm fine with that. I don't necessarily see it being much of an issue currently, but to that point I'm fine with a change
[20:10:36] <ulm> mgorny: I would say yes, too
[20:10:50] <mgorny> so we need at least two lists
[20:10:54] --> jlec (~jlec@gentoo/developer/jlec) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[20:10:54] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v jlec by ChanServ
[20:11:01] <ulm> but there are really two aspects, topic and audience
[20:11:08] <mgorny> now, is there a reason why non-devs would be restricted from discussing technical matters, and at the same allowed to freely discuss organizational matters?
[20:11:20] <ulm> or rather, not audience, but people allowed to post
[20:11:24] <mgorny> i think that doesn't make sense
[20:11:25] <WilliamH> mgorny: no
[20:11:42] <dilfridge> so, one option would be "dev, council: restricted, project: open" "dev, technical; project organizational"
[20:11:50] <mgorny> so at this point, we're either talking about 2 restricted lists, or 2+2
[20:12:03] <dilfridge> mgorny: nah
[20:12:04] <mgorny> (or 2+1)
[20:12:07] <dilfridge> we end up at most with 3
[20:12:08] <WilliamH> mgorny: or better moderation
[20:12:20] <K_F> WilliamH: I don't believe moderation is realistic
[20:12:26] <mgorny> and i don't think it really makes sense to have audience split like this if it's going to cause split of discussion
[20:12:37] <-- jlec (~jlec@gentoo/developer/jlec) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[20:12:41] <K_F> mgorny: I'd agree with that
[20:12:45] <mgorny> so my idea would be to have 1 or 2 lists, split by topic
[20:12:48] <dilfridge> "dev: restricted, technical" "project: open, organizational" "council: restricted, anything goes, important stuff"
[20:12:49] <prometheanfire> I know I won't follow the third list if there ends up being one
[20:12:58] <mgorny> both defined to devs+voiced
[20:12:59] --> jlec (~jlec@gentoo/developer/jlec) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[20:12:59] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v jlec by ChanServ
[20:13:08] <mgorny> outsiders reply straight to devs
[20:13:10] -*- WilliamH doesn't want a separate list
[20:13:11] <mgorny> devs proxy or voice them
[20:13:20] <ulm> mgorny: identical, or separate access lists?
[20:13:20] <K_F> mgorny: right, but I don't believe "technical" is a good definition of topic
[20:13:34] <mgorny> ulm: that's a minor problem to be defined later
[20:13:35] <K_F> on some level most of what we do is technical as it affects the distro
[20:13:38] <ulm> k
[20:13:50] <K_F> but I would say all council-matters belongs in the non-restricted list
[20:14:06] <mgorny> K_F: i'd say 'whether it would be of interest to someone not reading/writing ebuilds' would be a good criteria
[20:14:06] <ulm> K_F: I disagree
[20:14:17] -*- prometheanfire is not a fan of any restricted list, moderated sure, but not restricted
[20:14:25] <WilliamH> prometheanfire: ++
[20:14:31] <mgorny> i see this restriction as 'cheap man's moderation'
[20:14:42] <mgorny> except you don't moderate via list but via people on the list
[20:14:44] <K_F> prometheanfire: pro-active (+v setup) actually requires less work and broader discussion than a moderated list
[20:15:16] <mgorny> K_F: if someone sends an agenda item, he can just send it straight to council@
[20:15:32] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: It sends an unpleasent message to the outside world
[20:15:35] <mgorny> (or to the chair)
[20:15:36] <K_F> mgorny: it would still need an avenue for discussion
[20:15:56] <K_F> as most issues, _should_ be discussed on the list ahead of the meeting
[20:16:20] <ulm> K_F: there's bugzie
[20:16:26] <dilfridge> nah
[20:16:27] <K_F> ulm: that only brings in another channel
[20:16:33] <K_F> so further split
[20:16:34] <dilfridge> not bugzie
[20:16:38] <mgorny> people can reply to the poster, and get their message in
[20:16:41] <K_F> and improper threading
[20:16:45] <prometheanfire> how about we move to the new mailing list backend and see what moderation actually means there
[20:16:48] <prometheanfire> before deciding
[20:16:59] <mgorny> prometheanfire: that means deferring the decission 'potentially forever'
[20:17:00] <K_F> prometheanfire: I don't believe it matters
[20:17:02] <ulm> prometheanfire: when? in 5 years?
[20:17:11] <dilfridge> I take care of three mailman lists myself
[20:17:13] <K_F> prometheanfire: you'd need a very active moderation team
[20:17:18] <mgorny> for how many years we were deferring for moderation already?
[20:17:29] <ulm> 10 years
[20:17:41] <ulm> decision was in 2007
[20:17:41] <prometheanfire> defer for a month to see what plan can be taken to move it, near term
[20:18:18] <prometheanfire> it's being brough up again now, while the decision was made then it wasn't carried out
[20:18:21] <mgorny> prometheanfire: a month won't change what hasn't happened in 10 years
[20:18:34] <prometheanfire> exactly, so wait a month
[20:18:53] <ulm> prometheanfire: the motion on having a restricted list has passed already, see above
[20:18:56] <mgorny> and one month from now, we'll spend another 2 hours discussing the same thing again
[20:18:57] <WilliamH> As I asked earlier, what do other distros do? are their dev lists restricted?
[20:19:03] <dilfridge> ok so the questions that need to be answered are "do we want a topic split", "shall official business take place on non-restricted lists"
[20:19:11] <prometheanfire> ulm: well, that's sad
[20:19:19] <slyfox> WilliamH: some are fully open
[20:19:38] <prometheanfire> mgorny: don't put words in infra's mouth
[20:19:40] <K_F> dilfridge: I'd say (i) yes and (ii) yes
[20:19:44] <WilliamH> If we aren't fully open, couldn't that also be interpreted as a social contract issue?
[20:19:49] <dilfridge> so let's have a vote on the first question, "do we want a topic split"
[20:19:51] <K_F> where (ii) specifically refers to council matters
[20:20:00] <ulm> WilliamH: it is open for reading
[20:20:08] <K_F> but we need a topic split to avoid cross-posting and general messiness
[20:20:26] <prometheanfire> agreed on topic split
[20:20:28] <WilliamH> We already have a topic split, it is just not  inforced.
[20:20:32] <WilliamH> enforced *
[20:20:33] <dilfridge> more precisely, do we want to split topics between mailing lists similar to now (one technical, one organizational)
[20:20:33] <prometheanfire> WilliamH: ++
[20:20:35] <mgorny> the only difference between restricted and non-restricted list is that on the latter random people get to put things to everyone without limits
[20:20:39] <dilfridge> ^ vote?
[20:20:39] <mrueg> yes on topic split
[20:20:45] <NeddySeagoon> K_F: That won't help people that are -w
[20:20:51] -*- dilfridge yes on topic split
[20:21:00] -*- WilliamH yes  on topic split, we already have it.
[20:21:03] -*- mgorny yes
[20:21:09] <prometheanfire> restricted and unrestricted, moderated and unmoderated, there are 4 options
[20:21:12] <prometheanfire> not 2
[20:21:18] -*- slyfox abstains
[20:21:21] -*- K_F yes on topic split (although "technical" shouldn't be a topic)
[20:21:22] <ulm> dilfridge: sorry, what would be the topics?
[20:21:37] <dilfridge> technical versus organizational, similar as now dev/project
[20:21:47] <prometheanfire> K_F: if -proj is administrative, would -dev just be 'non-admin'?
[20:21:52] <WilliamH> Folks, that's what we already have.
[20:21:52] -*- ulm abstains
[20:22:04] <-* mgorny hat prometheanfire aus dem Chat #gentoo-council geworfen ("please don't introduce unnecessary comments")
[20:22:12] <WilliamH> A vote on topic split really doesn't mean anything.
[20:22:13] --> prometheanfire (~promethea@gentoo/developer/prometheanfire) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[20:22:13] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v prometheanfire by ChanServ
[20:22:13] <dilfridge> ok that's 5 yes, 2 abstain
[20:22:16] <K_F> whats with all the kicking today?
[20:22:25] <K_F> (it really just demonstrates the issue with moderation)
[20:22:29] <-* ulm hat ulm aus dem Chat #gentoo-council geworfen (dunno Kicked by ulm)
[20:22:31] <jlec> ulm: mgorny if you have a list of fetch-restricted distfiles you are missing, let me know. I may have some of them.
[20:22:35] --> ulm (~ulm@gentoo/developer/ulm) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[20:22:35] *** Modus #gentoo-council +o ulm by ChanServ
[20:22:38] <prometheanfire> ya...
[20:22:46] <K_F> jlec: not topic for this meeting
[20:22:48] <WilliamH> knock off the kicking today folks.
[20:23:29] <dilfridge> ok then the next question is, "shall official business (eg. council-relevant things) take place on non-restricted lists"
[20:23:41] -*- ulm no
[20:23:41] -*- K_F yes
[20:23:49] -*- mrueg no
[20:23:52] -*- mgorny no (not necessarily)
[20:24:13] -*- dilfridge no
[20:24:21] -*- slyfox abstains
[20:24:51] <dilfridge> WilliamH: ?
[20:24:53] <jlec> K_F: Part of what you just voted on?!?
[20:25:12] -*- WilliamH  yes
[20:25:29] <dilfridge> ok that's 2 yes, 4 no, 1 abstain
[20:25:43] <K_F> jlec: please keep matters not relevant for the meeting, until after the meeting has concluded
[20:25:44] <dilfridge> so official stuff can be onl restricted lists only
[20:25:57] <WilliamH> So what we voted is that council discussions go on restricted lists.
[20:26:16] <mrueg> dilfridge: i don't read that from the vote
[20:26:16] <K_F> WilliamH: that was the final vote, yes
[20:26:20] <mgorny> do we need unrestricted -dev/-project variant then?
[20:26:30] <mrueg> dilfridge: it can be on both
[20:26:44] <WilliamH> mrueg: not so based on the vote.
[20:26:59] <dilfridge> mrueg: please explain
[20:27:08] <mrueg> WilliamH: the vote was about if official business must be handled on non-restricted lists
[20:27:34] <mrueg> we didn't vote about "official business should be handled on restricted lists"
[20:27:37] <WilliamH> mrueg: and the vote was no.
[20:27:42] <dilfridge> ok let's ask the inverse question
[20:27:42] <ulm> the motion says "official business" not "all official business"
[20:27:53] <WilliamH> mrueg: which means it must be handled on restricted lists.
[20:27:55] <K_F> 20:27 <drobbins> K_F please pass on to #gentoo-council that I appreciate being included in
[20:27:58] <K_F>                  the meeting and look forward to working with everyone in the future. I need
[20:28:01] <K_F>                  to head out right now...
[20:28:21] <dilfridge> "shall all official business take place on restricted lists?"
[20:28:23] -*- slyfox hugs drobbins
[20:28:28] <dilfridge> cute
[20:28:36] <prometheanfire> just so we are clear, by restricting -dev we are changing the social contract.   It currently asks users to make comments to gentoo-dev.
[20:28:36] <WilliamH> drobbins: Thanks for being here.
[20:29:17] <mgorny> prometheanfire: social contract should be not be tied to specific mailing lists; plus it's been wrong all along because -project would be technically more appropriately
[20:29:39] <prometheanfire> mgorny: not saying I don't agree, just pointing it out
[20:29:42] <-- blueness (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Quit: ZNC 1.6.5 - http://znc.in)
[20:29:55] -*- mrueg votes for yes 
[20:30:07] <dilfridge> "shall all official business take place on restricted lists?"
[20:30:08] <dilfridge> ^ vote
[20:30:15] -*- mrueg yes
[20:30:15] -*- K_F no
[20:30:26] -*- slyfox no
[20:30:31] --> blueness (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[20:30:33] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v blueness by ChanServ
[20:30:50] -*- dilfridge yes
[20:31:24] -*- mgorny yes
[20:31:51] <mgorny> (provided others are welcome to proxy their comments)
[20:32:01] -*- ulm abstains
[20:32:56] <ulm> actually, let me change this
[20:32:59] -*- ulm no
[20:33:32] <-- blueness (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Client Quit)
[20:33:33] <ulm> (as there may be selected topics appropriate for an open list)
[20:33:49] --> blueness (~blueness@gentoo/developer/blueness) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[20:33:49] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v blueness by ChanServ
[20:33:55] <mgorny> (i guess we'll need another vote for council agendas)
[20:34:00] <mgorny> WilliamH:
[20:34:22] <K_F> mgorny: council agenda is already official business, so cought by the current vote
[20:34:39] <K_F> but it'd just involve response to chair that needs to proxy
[20:34:57] <dilfridge> true, that should be done
[20:34:57] <K_F> both for the agenda item itself and further discussions
[20:35:07] <WilliamH> I'm very against restricted lists.
[20:35:15] <ulm> so, it's 3:3?
[20:35:21] <ulm> who's missing?
[20:35:26] <mgorny> WilliamH
[20:35:27] <dilfridge> WilliamH is missing
[20:35:34] <K_F> WilliamH: does that mean "no" for the vote?
[20:35:47] <dilfridge> likely
[20:36:01] <WilliamH> Ok, it scrolled away, what are we voting?
[20:36:06] <prometheanfire> 13:31 <          dilfridge@> "shall all official business take place on restricted lists?"
[20:36:07] <dilfridge> "shall all official business take place on restricted lists?"
[20:36:23] -*- WilliamH votes no
[20:36:24] <slyfox> 3:3 you are deciding the fate
[20:36:31] <dilfridge> ok not passed
[20:36:36] <dilfridge> 4 no, 3 yes
[20:36:55] <mgorny> so we've voted that some but not all official business goes to restricted ;-)
[20:37:00] <dilfridge> here is a suggestion that fits the previous votes
[20:37:08] <dilfridge> "dev: restricted, technical"
[20:37:16] <dilfridge> "project: open, organizational"
[20:37:23] <dilfridge> "council: open, official business"
[20:37:37] -*- WilliamH is against a third list
[20:37:37] <K_F> dilfridge: we haven't voted to introduce a council list
[20:37:50] <mgorny> i don't think that works for anyone
[20:37:53] <dilfridge> no, but we could still do that
[20:37:59] <K_F> I'm against it
[20:38:06] <mgorny> dilfridge: how would it work?
[20:38:20] <mgorny> say, one could submit a technical agenda item to -council but couldn't discuss it on -dev...
[20:38:28] <dilfridge> right
[20:38:32] <dilfridge> better idea?
[20:38:52] <ulm> this is my baby, sort of, but at this point I am not convinced any more that we need -council
[20:38:53] <K_F> council matters should be discussed on -project, always
[20:39:08] <K_F> ^^ my better idea
[20:39:10] <mgorny> K_F: what about technical council matters?
[20:39:11] <ulm> council matters should be discussed on -dev, always :)
[20:39:21] -*- mrueg agrees with ulm
[20:39:30] <K_F> mgorny: council is itself not strictly technical, so all council matters should be discussed there
[20:39:30] <WilliamH> ulm: that means we unrestrict -dev which I would support.
[20:39:37] <mgorny> dilfridge: maybe "Council agenda should be sent and discussed on restricted list?"
[20:39:46] <mgorny> i.e. more clarified part of official business
[20:39:52] <mgorny> s/should/must/
[20:40:02] <mgorny> let's not introduce unclear wordings
[20:40:05] <dilfridge> that doesnt make too much sense given above discussion
[20:40:06] <ulm> the default follow-up should go to -dev
[20:40:22] <ulm> selected non-technical topics can be discussed on -project still
[20:40:25] <K_F> dilfridge: it actually does.. it is a matter of defining where council matters belongs
[20:40:31] <WilliamH> LETS NOT HAVE A RESTRICTED LIST ;-)
[20:40:38] <dilfridge> (my ears)
[20:40:41] <K_F> dilfridge: and given official business doesn't have to be restricted, or doesn't have to be unrestricted, it is a clarification on the previous votes
[20:40:43] <ulm> don't shout please :)
[20:40:44] <mrueg> suggestion: Split councile agenda in two announcement mails and collect technical on -dev and non-technical on -project?
[20:40:45] -*- slyfox is looking forward to gentoo mailing lists howto as already getting lost
[20:40:54] <dilfridge> nooooo
[20:40:58] <K_F> mrueg: then it just gets confusing
[20:41:03] <WilliamH> sorry folks.
[20:41:10] <mgorny> i'm lost on this
[20:41:21] <mgorny> i still don't believe we should combine topics with people
[20:41:27] <dilfridge> maybe we should discuss it on the lists?
[20:41:29] <dilfridge> :)
[20:41:34] <mrueg> hrhr
[20:41:37] <mgorny> there is no reason why third parties should be restricted from technical topics and allowed on org, or the other way around
[20:41:43] <WilliamH> Yeah this is definitely not going anywhere.
[20:41:53] <NeddySeagoon> I saw that coming 30 min ago :)
[20:41:58] <WilliamH> Let's undo our vote on a restricted list.
[20:42:07] <WilliamH> I think we shouldn't officially act yet.
[20:42:23] <dilfridge> well so far we have only answered fundamental questions, without anything really actionable
[20:42:24] <K_F> WilliamH: I don't see much reason to undo previous votes
[20:42:30] <K_F> we just need to clarify which topic belongs where
[20:42:38] <mgorny> dilfridge: do you believe that comrel could be more persistent in fighting trolls and offtopics?
[20:42:45] <dilfridge> so, we can still discuss this and decide next time...
[20:42:47] <mgorny> in particular enforcing the split by topics
[20:42:58] <WilliamH> dilfridge: I think this is really a comrel issue.
[20:43:04] <dilfridge> mgorny: could, yes. will... well...
[20:43:11] <K_F> mgorny: not so long as it doesn't affect CoC
[20:43:15] <NeddySeagoon> Let the vole stand and give prometheanfire the month ...
[20:43:16] <WilliamH> dilfridge: comrel, or the proctors, should enforce the topic split we already have.
[20:43:25] <K_F> mgorny: topic split really isn't a comrel matter
[20:43:27] <mrueg> how does that avoid ban evasion?
[20:43:30] <dilfridge> it's not really a comrel issue, but it needs to be adressed by *someone*
[20:43:35] <-- johu (~johu@gentoo/developer/johu) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
[20:43:56] <dilfridge> mrueg: ban evasion is actually only a limited problem
[20:44:07] <mgorny> K_F: either someone needs to enforce that, or we need to restrict or moderate the lists
[20:44:31] <mgorny> because as i said, CoC violations are only part of the problem
[20:44:35] <ulm> dilfridge: can you summarise the passed motions again? I'm a little lost at this point
[20:44:37] <dilfridge> mrueg: also, the usual response to ban evasion is to turn a temporary ban automatically into a permanent one
[20:44:51] <dilfridge> it makes things even easier
[20:44:54] <WilliamH> dilfridge: that's reasonable.
[20:44:55] <mgorny> the other part is some very verbal users who create very long posts with little value
[20:45:06] <K_F> mgorny: to that extent it is every participant's obligation to ensure discussion is happening on appropriate list, and if it isn't direct it there
[20:45:10] <dilfridge> ulm: yeah, give me a moment, the scrolling takes time
[20:45:21] <mrueg> dilfridge: if it's a limited problem, then just give everyone the possibility to put someone on the naughty step by calling  the person out. if there's no gentoo dev that vouches for the person =  temporary ban.
[20:45:21] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: Thats an educational thing
[20:45:29] <mgorny> K_F: how does that help with people who purposefully spam the lists to prevent discussion from happening?
[20:45:52] <K_F> mgorny: we don't agree what constitutes spam to begin with
[20:45:53] <Soap__> ye, self-regulation, nice solution
[20:46:16] <mgorny> mrueg: i can imagine K_F vouching for everyone just to keep his point
[20:46:23] <mgorny> i.e. it doesn't solve the problem at all
[20:46:38] <WilliamH> mgorny: number of posts alone isn't spam.
[20:46:44] --> johu (~johu@gentoo/developer/johu) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[20:46:44] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v johu by ChanServ
[20:46:44] --> asturm (~andreas@gentoo/developer/asturm) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[20:46:44] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v asturm by ChanServ
[20:46:52] <mgorny> WilliamH: i don't care how you name it
[20:46:53] <prometheanfire> mgorny: about those verbose posts, are they of value?  over-verbosity shouldn't be something that's banned, but warned against
[20:46:56] <mrueg> mgorny: easy to solve, you can only vouch for one action. if another one calls you out, you need a second dev to vouch for
[20:47:04] <mgorny> prometheanfire: some are, some are not
[20:47:11] <ulm> mgorny: maybe we should require two devs
[20:47:13] <prometheanfire> WilliamH: if they add value to the discussion, I agree
[20:47:20] <prometheanfire> mgorny: who decides :P
[20:47:27] <mgorny> mrueg: sounds like we're going to turn mailing list into big forum for duels
[20:47:50] <mgorny> i think we need to redefine the problem first because this is getting messy
[20:47:54] <mrueg> mgorny: could turn into the hunger games, yes.
[20:48:17] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: So do nothing meanwhile?
[20:48:19] <WilliamH> mgorny: to me, the problem is a small number of users who have been very noisy lately.
[20:48:28] <mgorny> say, i send a RFC to the mailing list
[20:48:30] <mrueg> but it's more a social control feature. and it's easier to cut a discussion with "Here's my vouch bug for you, you have 72h to find a dev to vouch for you"
[20:48:43] <mgorny> i get 100 replies from different mail addresses telling me story of some ex-dev unhappy about gentoo
[20:48:50] <mgorny> is that a problem or not?
[20:48:58] <mgorny> s/100/10/
[20:49:11] <K_F> its not really an issue (in particular 10)
[20:49:26] <mgorny> so i don't get any reply on topic
[20:49:33] <dilfridge> here are the previous motions: 
[20:49:35] <dilfridge> 'do we want a public mailing list with posting restricted to devs (+ voiced contributors)', 5 yes, 2 no
[20:49:35] <dilfridge> "do we want a topic split", 5 yes, 2 abstain
[20:49:35] <dilfridge> "shall official business (eg. council-relevant things) take place on non-restricted lists", 2 yes, 4 no, 1 abstain
[20:49:35] <dilfridge> "shall all official business take place on restricted lists?", 4 no, 3 yes
[20:49:35] <prometheanfire> I'd say that if it doesn't add to the discussion it could be moderated out
[20:49:57] <dilfridge> prometheanfire: I think we agree that we can't rely on moderation yet
[20:49:57] <ulm> so, how about this: we decide today that we restrict -dev and keep -project open, but we postpone the decision where council business will take place, or if there will be a third list for it
[20:50:17] <mgorny> ulm: does that imply that for next meeting, the agenda goes to both lists?
[20:50:19] <K_F> ulm: I think we should come to a conclusion today
[20:50:21] <mrueg> dilfridge: ask the people who voted for "no", which parts of the official business they want to run on non-restricted lists
[20:50:22] <NeddySeagoon> prometheanfire: yep  no 'me toos'
[20:50:26] <K_F> ulm: it should be an atomic operation
[20:50:37] <prometheanfire> dilfridge: understandable, my hope now is that we'll (infra) have time over the holidays to work on that
[20:50:47] <ulm> mgorny: post to -project for next meeting
[20:50:57] <ulm> it's only for one month
[20:51:04] <dilfridge> precisely
[20:51:23] <prometheanfire> ulm: adgenda goes to both, items get added to one? (-proj)?
[20:51:25] <mgorny> well, maybe let's try something else first
[20:51:35] <K_F> prometheanfire: agenda already goes to -dev-announce
[20:51:40] <prometheanfire> K_F: true
[20:51:40] <ulm> prometheanfire: agenda to -dev-announce and -project
[20:51:40] <mgorny> if infra implements moderation, do we want -dev & -project to switch from whatever we choose today to moderated?
[20:51:42] <dilfridge> "we restrict -dev and keep -project open, council discussions go to -project for now"
[20:52:01] <dilfridge> mgorny: we can decide that once it's done
[20:52:02] -*- K_F yes
[20:52:10] -*- mgorny yes
[20:52:11] <prometheanfire> mgorny: I don't think that should be talked about until we know what that actually means
[20:52:16] -*- ulm yes
[20:52:17] -*- dilfridge yes
[20:52:20] -*- mrueg yes
[20:52:28] -*- slyfox yes
[20:52:36] <mgorny> (i'll finish my thought after the vote)
[20:52:42] <WilliamH> What are we voting?
[20:52:42] <dilfridge> WilliamH: 
[20:52:50] <dilfridge> "we restrict -dev and keep -project open, council discussions go to -project for now"
[20:53:14] -*- WilliamH no on principal (I'm against restricting a list)
[20:53:26] <dilfridge> ok that's 6 yes, 1 no, motion passed
[20:53:29] <ulm> mgorny: IMHO moderation is superior to restriction, if there's manpower for it
[20:53:35] <mgorny> ok, so here's the problem i see
[20:53:42] <K_F> ulm: there isn't..
[20:53:50] <mgorny> we've decided for restricted today, so we're pretty much kicking 3rd parties
[20:53:59] <mgorny> and requesting them to get +v
[20:54:04] -*- dilfridge gets emergency chocolate
[20:54:18] <mgorny> it would be kinda silly if 1 month from now we told them they didn't need to apply after all
[20:54:22] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: existing subscpibers should be grandfathered in
[20:54:33] <WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: ++
[20:54:34] <mgorny> hmm... unless we just convert that to moderation default-pass
[20:54:48] <mrueg> mgorny: well there's no deadline for executing the decision
[20:55:02] -*- mgorny logs into lists.gentoo.org ;-P
[20:55:06] <Soap__> NeddySeagoon: modulo r0b0t and such
[20:55:22] <mgorny> and quickly disables everyone before someone decides to vote on something else
[20:55:36] <dilfridge> ok so
[20:55:39] <NeddySeagoon> Soap__: Everyone.  Then we drop people later after they are aware of the rule change
[20:55:39] <mgorny> hmm, actually @gentoo.org only will be trivial to implement
[20:55:54] <dilfridge> do we still have to decide anything here or is the topic actually done?
[20:56:02] <WilliamH> mgorny: and what about grandfathering current subscribers?
[20:56:14] <mgorny> i'm against allowing all current subscribers
[20:56:31] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: They need notice of the changes
[20:56:36] <mgorny> i can think of at least two that haven't had a single positive post
[20:56:44] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: They need notice of the changes
[20:56:53] <K_F> grandfathering proposal; announce it at T, implement at T+10 days
[20:56:54] <mgorny> NeddySeagoon: what's the problem with sending a notice?
[20:56:55] <WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: ++
[20:57:03] <mgorny> T+7
[20:57:17] <mgorny> weeks are cleaner ;-P
[20:57:18] <K_F> I don't really care if +7 or +10.. point remains
[20:57:28] <mgorny> well, we need a clear plan anyway
[20:57:29] <prometheanfire> given the holiday I'd suggest 14, but a minor point
[20:57:39] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: None at all.  They get notice.  If they don't conform to the new rules, they get dropped
[20:57:43] <ulm> prometheanfire: ++
[20:57:45] <mgorny> we announce it today, tell people how to request +v
[20:58:05] <mgorny> i still don't get your problem
[20:58:12] <mgorny> we aren't removing their subscriptions
[20:58:25] <mgorny> just preventing them from posting until they request access
[20:58:33] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: Thats OK.  Thats not how I read it at first
[20:58:56] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: That will drive people away.
[20:59:01] <WilliamH> mgorny: Will all devs be able to grant access some how?
[20:59:10] <mgorny> NeddySeagoon: any variant will do that
[20:59:11] <mrueg> WilliamH: *@gentoo.org will be whitelisted
[20:59:14] <K_F> WilliamH: similar to editbugs and watching
[20:59:20] <NeddySeagoon> se grandfather in current subscribers
[20:59:28] <mgorny> WilliamH: open a bug requesting infra to add +v
[20:59:57] <prometheanfire> bug goes to who?
[21:00:01] <mgorny> infra
[21:00:08] <K_F> mgorny: on a technical point, that might want an own component in bugzie?
[21:00:08] -*- prometheanfire doesn't like that all this wasn't on the agenda at first
[21:00:12] <mgorny> we don't do +1/-1 approvals
[21:00:24] <mgorny> just dev vouches for someone, we add it to the list
[21:00:27] <K_F> prometheanfire: it is
[21:00:29] <-- johu (~johu@gentoo/developer/johu) hat das Netzwerk verlassen (Ping timeout: 255 seconds)
[21:00:32] <WilliamH> prometheanfire: I'm not a fan either.
[21:00:39] <mgorny> unless comrel asks us to remove him, then it's noted on the bug
[21:00:41] <prometheanfire> K_F: the general, but not the specifics I think :P
[21:01:03] <K_F> prometheanfire: questions could have been asked during time before meeting
[21:01:03] <mgorny> prometheanfire: i'm pretty sure this was in my first mailing list post on the topic
[21:01:08] <dilfridge> ok I think we're now getting into the implementation details
[21:01:18] <dilfridge> so it's time to cut this discussion short
[21:01:35] <mgorny> dilfridge: just make a clear guideline for infra to implement the decision
[21:01:41] <dilfridge> anything else on this topic that we need to vote on?
[21:01:46] <K_F> dilfridge: as long as the details are ironed out before it is enforced /time starts elapsing
[21:02:02] <ulm> comrel will be able to supersede vouching in any case, I suppose
[21:02:21] <K_F> yeah, this doesn't affect comrel, a ban is a ban is a ban
[21:02:24] <mgorny> ok, so do we restrict non-devs today, or in N days from today?
[21:02:27] <ulm> K_F: k
[21:02:36] <dilfridge> 14 days from today, with announcement today
[21:02:44] --> johu (~johu@gentoo/developer/johu) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[21:02:44] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v johu by ChanServ
[21:02:44] <mrueg> ack ^
[21:02:50] <tamiko> 14 days more trolling :-D
[21:03:01] <slyfox> you are back \o/
[21:03:04] -*- mgorny already imagines those 14 days of hate spilled on -dev
[21:03:05] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: You need an announce of what you plan to do and time for everyone to read it
[21:03:13] <ulm> or make it 2018-01-01 even
[21:03:21] <K_F> ulm: not a bad idea
[21:03:25] <mgorny> nah
[21:03:28] <mgorny> let's keep -24
[21:03:35] <mgorny> give developers an xmas gift
[21:03:44] <dilfridge> well if these 14 days get bad, it's even more confirmation that it was the right decision
[21:03:49] <NeddySeagoon> mgorny: I celebrate Yule
[21:03:58] <ulm> mgorny: that's not culturally neutral :p
[21:04:00] <prometheanfire> 21st then?
[21:04:11] <NeddySeagoon> Yule :)
[21:04:22] <mgorny> err, -24 is 2 weeks from now
[21:04:30] <mgorny> so that's T+14
[21:04:39] <ulm> but yeah, 14 days are fine
[21:04:49] <mgorny> what if infra implements moderation first?
[21:04:55] <mgorny> do we proceed with the plan or abandon it?
[21:05:02] <K_F> I don't beleive moderation is the way to go anyways
[21:05:04] <tamiko> I suggest we abandon that.
[21:05:12] <prometheanfire> it has a timetable, don't rush it :P
[21:05:12] <WilliamH> moderation is the preferred way imo
[21:05:19] <NeddySeagoon> If there are no riots, hold off
[21:05:27] <tamiko> moderation creates the unique problem that the moderators are the first in line for personal attacks.
[21:05:29] <K_F> WilliamH: it really isn't
[21:05:31] -*- mrueg is out, tamiko takes over.
[21:05:37] <dilfridge> I'm fine with waiting. Just, to make clear, you need people who do the moderation.
[21:05:42] --> babyflakes (uid171740@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-hsfoodyuhkjjsbaj) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[21:05:49] <mgorny> yes, that is a problem
[21:05:58] --> TitanOfOld|work (titan@gentoo/developer/TitanOfOld) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[21:05:59] *** Modus #gentoo-council +v TitanOfOld|work by ChanServ
[21:06:02] <prometheanfire> who has the 'right' to moderate would need to be decided
[21:06:07] <mgorny> so i guess going with the restriction for now is better
[21:06:11] <mgorny> it's at least 'fair'
[21:06:32] <mgorny> K_F: are you going to approve are vouching requests?
[21:06:36] <WilliamH> I'm ok with 14 days then.
[21:06:37] <mgorny> all*
[21:06:58] <dilfridge> ok
[21:06:59] <tamiko> Let's not make it more complicated than it already is. We voted on closing down gentoo-dev. I think the 2 weeks notice is a good idea. And we can get a system for whitelisting non-developers going.
[21:07:02] <K_F> mgorny: all, no
[21:07:06] <mgorny> ok
[21:07:09] <NeddySeagoon> Well, it runs the risk oy driviing people away if they have to apply for the +v they already hawe
[21:07:14] <ulm> tamiko: +1
[21:07:28] <dilfridge> Then, we have a plan, and I'm hereby closing this topic.
[21:07:29] <K_F> mgorny: but I do note that we have a difference of opinion as to what constitute spam
[21:07:32] <mgorny> do we need to vote on 14? if we do, then please do so
[21:07:41] <dilfridge> no, implementation detail
[21:07:48] --> aewyn (~ae@unaffiliated/aewyn) hat #gentoo-council betreten
[21:07:49] <mgorny> otherwise, i need to go to a very special place since 60 minutes or so ;-P
[21:08:07] <dilfridge> next topic
[21:08:07] <dilfridge> 5. Open bugs with council participation
[21:08:21] <ulm> mgorny: everyone can state his preferred number and we then take the median :)
[21:08:43] <dilfridge> bug 637274
[21:08:46] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637274 "Missing summaries for 20170514 and 20170611 council meetings"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; ulm:blueness
[21:08:55] <dilfridge> That's work in progress as you know.
[21:09:09] <dilfridge> I'll finish it over the next days sometime.
[21:09:18] <K_F> I really do fail to see why council chairs can't get their act together in a reasonable time
[21:09:25] <slyfox> why assignee is blueness ?
[21:09:43] <ulm> slyfox: he chaired these meetings
[21:09:46] <dilfridge> at least once he was chair
[21:09:50] <dilfridge> bug 637328
[21:09:52] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; CONF; mgorny:security
[21:09:52] <ulm> both IIRC
[21:10:01] <dilfridge> any news here?
[21:10:09] <blueness> honestly guys, i forgot which ones i chaired and didn't
[21:10:11] <mgorny> Nope
[21:10:20] <blueness> towards the end i lost track :(
[21:10:23] <dilfridge> anything to add?
[21:10:32] <dilfridge> blueness: I'm on it, dont bother
[21:10:32] <slyfox> what is glep14? :)
[21:10:39] <blueness> dilfridge: thanks
[21:10:40] <prometheanfire> I have logs if people need them
[21:10:44] <K_F> dilfridge: nothing to add on that, it really should be blueknight doing any update on it
[21:10:46] <slyfox> https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0014.html
[21:11:05] <K_F> dilfridge: let me follow up on it with security team
[21:11:10] <dilfridge> ok thanks
[21:11:19] <dilfridge> bug 635344
[21:11:22] <willikins> dilfridge: https://bugs.gentoo.org/635344 "[TRACKER] manifest-hashes replacement"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; mgorny:council
[21:11:26] <slyfox> worth noting in the bug about TODO followup?
[21:11:52] <K_F> slyfox: I'm adding it in my own todo list, so not necessary :)
[21:11:53] <dilfridge> yeah K_F can drop a message there
[21:12:06] <slyfox> K_F: thanks!
[21:12:08] <dilfridge> ulm: mgorny: ^ I guess this is well underway
[21:12:24] <mgorny> I think we can close it or reassign
[21:12:36] <K_F> think the figure was mentioned earlier today
[21:12:42] <mgorny> I don't think we need any more action from council on it
[21:12:48] <dilfridge> ++ from me
[21:13:02] <dilfridge> ok then we get to the last agenda item
[21:13:05] *** Modus #gentoo-council -m by dilfridge
[21:13:15] <dilfridge> 6. Open floor
[21:13:19] <dilfridge> Anyone??
[21:13:48] <sultan> the discussion today showed me to leave gentoo with my organization, bb
[21:13:49] <tamiko> I suggest, the council agrees that kicking and moderation should be restricted to the meeting chair for the duration of a council meeting :-)
[21:13:50] <slyfox> i guess everyone left. too long meeting
[21:14:10] <WilliamH> tamiko: +1
[21:14:12] <K_F> tamiko: +1
[21:14:25] <dilfridge> works for me
[21:14:28] <dwfreed> I have to scroll up to see if there's anything I'd like to add
[21:14:32] <dwfreed> give me a minute
[21:14:45] <slyfox> sultan: can you elaborate a bit?
[21:15:32] <sultan> slyfox: on the one hand you ask for more contributors and user input, on the other hand you restrict mailing lists
[21:15:33] <tamiko> sultan: We are all ears. Please elaborate. :-)
[21:15:52] <K_F> slyfox: well, one mailing list is restricted
[21:15:57] <ulm> tamiko: sorry, but I reserve the right to kick anyone who insults me
[21:15:57] <sultan> feels like censorship
[21:16:07] <K_F> ehrm, sultan ^^
[21:16:24] <K_F> the primary way of contributing is b.g.o and through proxied maintainerrs
[21:16:34] <K_F> which is still open
[21:16:44] <sultan> K_F: that doesnt work
[21:16:55] <tamiko> sultan: Let me explain one minor detail. Restricting a gentoo developer commnication channel is not censorship. You can express your opinion on a bazillion of other gentoo channels and unrelated channels.
[21:16:56] <sultan> i have already so many issues with gentoo toolchain
[21:17:32] <tamiko> sultan: I doubt that - I don't know you from #gentoo-toolchain at all.
[21:17:32] <K_F> sultan: and when you say issues, you mean open bug reports at b.g.o?
[21:17:35] <WilliamH> sultan: are you able to get on the #gentoo-toolchain irc channel?
[21:17:54] <sultan> i was already there
[21:17:58] <dwfreed> dilfridge: I find I don't have anything to add, you can ignore my request for time :)
[21:18:05] <sultan> talked with slyfox
[21:18:09] <dwfreed> not from scrollback reading, anyway
[21:18:14] <prometheanfire> btw, freenode infra contacted me about swtiching the group contact to me
[21:18:16] <asturm> calling that censorship is doing disservice to any people actually living under censorship
[21:18:24] <dilfridge> dwfreed: sorry, which request?
[21:18:46] <dwfreed> dilfridge: > I have to scroll up to see if there's anything I'd like to add; give me a minute
[21:18:50] <dwfreed> from about 4 minutes ago
[21:19:16] <dilfridge> ok
[21:19:24] <tamiko> All, seems like we do not need the council for any further decision :-)
[21:19:34] <-- sultan (~sultan@unaffiliated/sultan) hat #gentoo-council verlassen
[21:19:45] <K_F> hope to see as many as possible of you at our stand during FOSDEM
[21:19:50] <dilfridge> right, let's close the meeting then
[21:19:56] <K_F> please sign up for stand time!
[21:19:56] <tamiko> :-)
[21:19:59] -*- dilfridge bangs the gavel