summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJohn Helmert III <ajak@gentoo.org>2023-04-09 12:43:29 -0700
committerJohn Helmert III <ajak@gentoo.org>2023-04-09 12:43:29 -0700
commit0add04a0c07cefb9e59ad0fe3e4bfae3778325e9 (patch)
tree1c1857f5b5744cd2c9351dadac402880675153d4
parentadd 20230312 summary (diff)
downloadcouncil-0add04a0c07cefb9e59ad0fe3e4bfae3778325e9.tar.gz
council-0add04a0c07cefb9e59ad0fe3e4bfae3778325e9.tar.bz2
council-0add04a0c07cefb9e59ad0fe3e4bfae3778325e9.zip
add summary for 20230409 meeting
Signed-off-by: John Helmert III <ajak@gentoo.org>
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230409.txt190
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc7
2 files changed, 197 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230409.txt b/meeting-logs/20230409.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..907c857
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230409.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+2023-04-09 19:00:16 @ajak it is time!
+2023-04-09 19:00:23 @ajak !proj council
+2023-04-09 19:00:23 @dilfridge 'tis time.
+2023-04-09 19:00:25 willikins (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, gyakovlev, mattst88, mgorny, sam, ulm
+2023-04-09 19:00:47 * dilfridge here
+2023-04-09 19:00:52 * sam_ here
+2023-04-09 19:00:57 * mgorny here
+2023-04-09 19:00:59 * soap here (for matt)
+2023-04-09 19:01:00 * gyakovlev here
+2023-04-09 19:01:03 * ulm here
+2023-04-09 19:01:10 * ajak here
+2023-04-09 19:01:21 @ajak yay, all here
+2023-04-09 19:01:36 @ajak agenda (in lieu of archives.g.o not working): https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168049154311980&w=2
+2023-04-09 19:01:58 @ajak 2. Another retroactive fix for econf arguments [1], [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/message/3223c4f2b35feb2b27236299cf9e5cb8
+2023-04-09 19:02:46 @ajak any discussion to be had here?
+2023-04-09 19:02:48 @dilfridge looks reasonable
+2023-04-09 19:03:14 @ulm this will prevent false positive matches, mainly for --with-sysroot
+2023-04-09 19:03:32 @gyakovlev certainly good change, I hit it couple of times. just curious - it it already in portage?
+2023-04-09 19:03:49 @ulm I have a patch somewhere
+2023-04-09 19:04:07 @ulm it's a trivial change
+2023-04-09 19:04:22 @ajak make a pr please? :)
+2023-04-09 19:04:29 @gyakovlev should we vote then?
+2023-04-09 19:04:32 @ajak yes
+2023-04-09 19:04:52 @ulm gyakovlev: https://bpa.st/XPUGU
+2023-04-09 19:04:59 @ajak motion: approve ulm's change at https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/message/3223c4f2b35feb2b27236299cf9e5cb8
+2023-04-09 19:05:08 * ajak yes
+2023-04-09 19:05:14 * sam_ yes
+2023-04-09 19:05:17 * dilfridge yes
+2023-04-09 19:05:25 * gyakovlev yes
+2023-04-09 19:05:26 * soap yes
+2023-04-09 19:05:38 * ulm yes
+2023-04-09 19:05:55 * mgorny yes
+2023-04-09 19:06:05 @ajak yay, motion carried unanimously
+2023-04-09 19:06:19 @ajak on to: 3. GLEP39 updates (but will require all-devs vote) [2], [2] https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168006775821875&w=2
+2023-04-09 19:06:34 @ulm PR for portage: https://github.com/gentoo/portage/pull/1023 :)
+2023-04-09 19:06:38 @ajak thank you
+2023-04-09 19:07:16 @ulm GLEP 39 changes are also here: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep39
+2023-04-09 19:07:43 @ajak lots of changes here, but all seem sane to me, and i don't recall seeing any serious dissent anywhere
+2023-04-09 19:08:22 @ulm there was a comment from rich0 that we should specify what kind of majority to have in the all-devs vote
+2023-04-09 19:08:28 @dilfridge again, looks eminently reasonable to me
+2023-04-09 19:08:34 @dilfridge this is "the safe subset"
+2023-04-09 19:08:35 @sam_ agreed
+2023-04-09 19:08:45 @dilfridge ulm: yes that's a good point
+2023-04-09 19:09:06 @dilfridge basically, what majority and what quorum
+2023-04-09 19:09:09 @ajak yeah, maybe we should vote to approve all but that particular patch?
+2023-04-09 19:09:13 @mgorny are we expected to vote on it, or merely look at it and pass on to all-dev vote?
+2023-04-09 19:09:30 @ajak i don't suppose it matters really
+2023-04-09 19:09:33 @dilfridge "vote to pass it on"
+2023-04-09 19:09:57 @ajak though, there's an interesting chicken and egg problem if we don't know the majority threshold this needs to pass the all devs vote
+2023-04-09 19:09:59 @dilfridge also, does the majority/quorum then already apply to that vote? :D
+2023-04-09 19:10:12 +soap dont think so
+2023-04-09 19:10:34 @ulm it won't apply retroactively, I think
+2023-04-09 19:10:49 @dilfridge I'd say we should fix these two details first, otherwise we end up with two all-dev votes
+2023-04-09 19:11:12 @ulm I could replace "require a vote of all developers" by "require vote of all developer, with a simple majority of votes cast"?
+2023-04-09 19:11:33 @dilfridge 2/3 yes, 1/3 quorum?
+2023-04-09 19:11:42 +soap too strict
+2023-04-09 19:11:44 @ulm *"require a vote of all developers, with a simple majority of votes cast"
+2023-04-09 19:11:54 @ulm yeah, too strict
+2023-04-09 19:11:56 +soap I would go with ulm's, no quorum
+2023-04-09 19:12:04 @ajak i agree
+2023-04-09 19:12:16 @dilfridge ok, 1/2 yes 1/4 quorum?
+2023-04-09 19:12:33 @dilfridge I mean this is the one central document
+2023-04-09 19:12:42 @ulm maybe some minimum quorum, like yes votes > 10% of developers
+2023-04-09 19:12:58 @dilfridge we havent had to change it for over a decade, we want to avoid that it's changed too often
+2023-04-09 19:13:02 +soap 10% is fine, even 25% is imo too high already (knowing devs)
+2023-04-09 19:13:22 @dilfridge if less than 1/4 participate the change can't be important
+2023-04-09 19:13:34 @ajak heh, i was going to see the turnout of the last council election, but it hasn't been added to the election page: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Elections/Council/202206
+2023-04-09 19:13:59 @dilfridge i think somewhere around 1/3 is typical
+2023-04-09 19:14:21 @dilfridge 55.303% in 2021
+2023-04-09 19:14:23 @ajak i don't see what we'd gain by requiring some quorum
+2023-04-09 19:14:24 @dilfridge so 1/2 !!!
+2023-04-09 19:14:27 @ulm dilfridge: for total number of votes
+2023-04-09 19:14:27 @sam_ 50% turnout for elections is considered very very good and we struggle to get that normally
+2023-04-09 19:14:36 @sam_ it improved a lot over the last 2-3 years
+2023-04-09 19:14:46 @sam_ s/elections/council elections/
+2023-04-09 19:15:12 @ulm IIRC turnout was around 40%
+2023-04-09 19:15:31 @dilfridge ajak: if we dont set a quorum, we may want to set more procedure (like, announce x days beforehand etc bla bla)
+2023-04-09 19:15:50 @dilfridge the main point of the quorum is to prohibit "let's vote tomorrow"
+2023-04-09 19:16:02 @ajak sure, that makes sense
+2023-04-09 19:16:37 @ajak ok, shall we move to stamp this while knowing that there's probably more discussion to be had around the "majority" language?
+2023-04-09 19:17:20 * dilfridge suggests 1/2 yes and 1/3 quorum as compromise
+2023-04-09 19:17:45 @sam_ is 1/3 a compromise given you said 1/4 after? ;)
+2023-04-09 19:17:49 @dilfridge hrhr
+2023-04-09 19:18:02 @sam_ i can live with 1/4
+2023-04-09 19:18:14 @ulm the quorum should be about yes votes, not total votes
+2023-04-09 19:18:25 @dilfridge sure?
+2023-04-09 19:18:27 @ulm otherwise no votes could make a proposal pass
+2023-04-09 19:18:56 @dilfridge that ...
+2023-04-09 19:19:20 @ulm but yeah, I could live with something between 10% and 25% for yes votes
+2023-04-09 19:19:30 @ulm as quorum
+2023-04-09 19:19:35 @ulm and 1/2 to pass
+2023-04-09 19:19:44 @ulm > 1/2 actually
+2023-04-09 19:19:50 @ajak 17.5!
+2023-04-09 19:20:18 @dilfridge ok to write it out, >50% of cast votes in favour and >25% of all devs in favour
+2023-04-09 19:20:19 @ajak but, this is probably something worth hashing out outside of the meeting
+2023-04-09 19:20:24 @mgorny <@ulm> otherwise no votes could make a proposal pass
+2023-04-09 19:20:27 @mgorny are you sure about that?
+2023-04-09 19:20:37 @mgorny it's a bit late but something doesn't sound right about it to me
+2023-04-09 19:20:49 @dilfridge probably not for these precise numbers but for other combinations of percentages
+2023-04-09 19:20:53 +soap I dont see it, but this already becoming slightly annoying
+2023-04-09 19:21:51 @ajak yes, this isn't necessarily the final iteration of the patch anyway
+2023-04-09 19:21:59 @ulm mgorny: example with quorum of 25% of total votes: 30 devs vote yes, 19 devs vote no => doesn't pass
+2023-04-09 19:22:12 @ulm (out of 200 devs)
+2023-04-09 19:22:24 @ulm but when 21 devs vote no, it would pass
+2023-04-09 19:22:30 @mgorny ah, in this direction
+2023-04-09 19:22:39 @ulm because it then meets the quorum
+2023-04-09 19:23:01 @sam_ yeah, this is where you get silly games with people not voting to defeat something rather than voting no
+2023-04-09 19:23:09 @sam_ we had some things like that in uni with the union :)
+2023-04-09 19:23:13 +soap it's called election boycotting
+2023-04-09 19:23:16 @ulm anyway, let's discuss these details off-meeting?
+2023-04-09 19:23:25 @sam_ yes, i think ajak's been advocating that ;)
+2023-04-09 19:23:37 @mgorny i dare say that non-quorate means voting again but i guess it's fine to set quorum based on yes votes to make things easier
+2023-04-09 19:24:14 @mgorny otoh, non-quorate-voting-again makes clear distinction between "we should vote again because people didn't bother" and "people voted it down"
+2023-04-09 19:24:43 @ajak yes, we can easily discuss at length here without a conclusion, and this is especially without merit because we're not deciding anything on this here anyway
+2023-04-09 19:25:03 @dilfridge ok so now we send this to the list, for further discussion?
+2023-04-09 19:25:12 @dilfridge kinda "pre-approved"?
+2023-04-09 19:25:19 @ulm my intention was only to get feedback on it
+2023-04-09 19:25:27 @dilfridge k
+2023-04-09 19:25:31 @ulm and I take from the discussion that it's o.k. to proceed?
+2023-04-09 19:25:38 @dilfridge yes fromme
+2023-04-09 19:25:53 @mgorny yep
+2023-04-09 19:25:57 @ajak except you should add the majority language for re-review, i think
+2023-04-09 19:26:03 @ulm ajak: sure
+2023-04-09 19:26:14 @dilfridge all the changes make sense, just the vote mode needs more precision
+2023-04-09 19:26:32 @ajak yes, and council isn't really capable of deciding on the precision
+2023-04-09 19:26:35 @ajak ok, moving on
+2023-04-09 19:26:47 @ajak 4. Dissolution of the proctors project [3], https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168028214420565&w=2
+2023-04-09 19:27:02 @dilfridge just for the log
+2023-04-09 19:27:18 @dilfridge this was discussed in private with comrel and proctors via e-mail
+2023-04-09 19:27:28 @dilfridge and noone of any group voiced objections to it
+2023-04-09 19:28:02 @ajak council was included there too
+2023-04-09 19:28:41 @ajak but i think this is reasonable, i think comrel has de-facto started to handle some of this stuff anyway
+2023-04-09 19:28:56 @sam_ yep
+2023-04-09 19:29:21 @ajak motion: approve dissolution of the proctors project
+2023-04-09 19:29:24 * ajak yes
+2023-04-09 19:29:25 * sam_ yes
+2023-04-09 19:29:26 * mgorny yes
+2023-04-09 19:29:30 * dilfridge yes
+2023-04-09 19:29:47 * soap yes
+2023-04-09 19:29:50 * ulm yes
+2023-04-09 19:30:31 @ajak gyakovlev:
+2023-04-09 19:30:42 @ulm is this the second time they're being dissolved? or third?
+2023-04-09 19:30:53 @dilfridge second
+2023-04-09 19:31:02 @sam_ need to use stronger acid this time
+2023-04-09 19:31:07 @dilfridge hrhr
+2023-04-09 19:31:24 @dilfridge it was worth a try
+2023-04-09 19:31:45 @dilfridge at least this time there is no drama involved
+2023-04-09 19:31:47 * gyakovlev yes
+2023-04-09 19:31:50 @ajak aha
+2023-04-09 19:31:53 @gyakovlev sorry cat distracted me
+2023-04-09 19:32:00 @ajak ok, motion carried unanimously
+2023-04-09 19:32:11 @dilfridge ok
+2023-04-09 19:32:16 @ajak moving on to: 5. Open bugs with Council participation [4], [4] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation
+2023-04-09 19:32:19 @dilfridge I'll take care of the resulting web page changes
+2023-04-09 19:32:54 @ajak https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=883715 is still restricted, depends on bug 900857
+2023-04-09 19:32:55 willikins ajak: https://bugs.gentoo.org/900857 "Vote on "glep-0076: Relax name policy to allow pseudonyms""; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council
+2023-04-09 19:33:32 @mgorny ah, sorry, it was concluded when the bugzilla was down
+2023-04-09 19:33:33 @mgorny i'll update
+2023-04-09 19:33:36 @ajak waiting on trustees i guess, but we have a majority anyway
+2023-04-09 19:33:38 @ajak oh?
+2023-04-09 19:34:08 @ulm the deadline fro voting was 2023-04-01
+2023-04-09 19:34:10 @ulm *for
+2023-04-09 19:34:10 @sam_ yes, it's all done, a timeout was set for anarchy
+2023-04-09 19:34:20 @ajak ah ok
+2023-04-09 19:34:20 @ulm and it's already pushed to the glep repo
+2023-04-09 19:34:20 @sam_ was announced on 1st april, too
+2023-04-09 19:34:33 @sam_ (maybe we should've waited a day, tbh, as I've had to tell many people it wasn't a joke..)
+2023-04-09 19:34:41 @ajak lol
+2023-04-09 19:34:55 @dilfridge :)
+2023-04-09 19:35:07 @ulm actually I wanted to make it 03-31
+2023-04-09 19:35:13 @ajak ok, that's now RESO:FIXED, thanks mgorny
+2023-04-09 19:35:32 @ajak bug 903683
+2023-04-09 19:35:33 willikins ajak: https://bugs.gentoo.org/903683 "new ComRel lead: Andreas K. Huettel (dilfridge)"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Developer account issues; CONF; dilfridge:infra-bugs
+2023-04-09 19:35:43 @dilfridge that was mostly for infra
+2023-04-09 19:35:56 @dilfridge but I doubt anything needs to be done
+2023-04-09 19:35:59 @sam_ just an fyi I think, not actually sure what we need to do on the infra site there either, other than maybe gitolite
+2023-04-09 19:36:00 @ajak yeah, and i'm not aware of anything that needs to be done here, has anyone brought up anything?
+2023-04-09 19:36:07 @dilfridge robbat2: just close it at your leisure
+2023-04-09 19:36:09 @sam_ s/site/side/
+2023-04-09 19:36:24 @ajak works for me
+2023-04-09 19:36:31 @ajak then: 6. Open floor
+2023-04-09 19:38:10 * ajak bangs gavel
+2023-04-09 19:38:34 pietinger ajak: 17.5! = 1.4986121e+15 ... maybe to high ?
+2023-04-09 19:38:34 @sam_ thank you!
+2023-04-09 19:38:36 @ajak thanks all
+2023-04-09 19:38:40 @gyakovlev ty for chairing and thanks everyone too.
+2023-04-09 19:38:48 @dilfridge thanks :)
+2023-04-09 19:39:16 @mgorny thanks
+2023-04-09 19:39:28 @ulm thank you
+2023-04-09 19:39:40 @ajak oh fyi: i pushed the last summary shortly before today's meeting after receiving no feedback on the latest revision
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..82e4295
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCZDMVWQAKCRCgXq2+aa/J
+tQRQAQDC7Ab7CUl+vjBQEDNB4zucmdy75TLuf5VRqxA2xAR5AQD9EUovTaB3cgRC
+r7KkngYFqP2K6Y6OmMKFzNIEdFObqAg=
+=65ih
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----