path: root/meeting-logs/20230409.txt

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