20:00 <@vapier> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52081
20:00 <@dberkholz> alright, it's about that time.
20:00 <@vapier> you can cherry pick out stuff from that thread, it's the only thing i know of
20:01 <@vapier> someone will have to volunteer to chair this month (i cant)
20:01 <@dberkholz> would be good for a previous council member to, if possible
20:02 -!- robbat2|na [n=robbat2@gentoo/developer/robbat2] has joined #gentoo-council
20:02 <@FlameBook> that would be Uber
20:04 <@vapier> sorry, what ?
20:04 <@vapier> everything the last council decided on should be fully logged and summarized in the council project space ...
20:06 <@dberkholz> alright. i'm seeing 3 items mentioned
20:06 -!- think4urs11 [n=think4ur@gentoo/developer/think4urs11] has joined #gentoo-council
20:06 <@dberkholz> 1) code of conduct. is it in effect? should it be? if so, how do we enforce it?
20:06 <@Uber> I'm not a good chair, dberkholz is a good candidate for that
20:06 < KingTaco> dberkholz, FYI, fmccor was very mistaken, the last council never rescended the CoC
20:06 < KingTaco> just the proctors bit
20:07 < KingTaco> he's got a hardon for the proctors idea though
20:07 <@dberkholz> 2) packages.g.o. bug #187971. jokey's working on a rewrite, mentioned in comment #85 and #90. a comment from marduk regarding a rewrite on comment #86.
20:07 < jeeves> dberkholz: https://bugs.gentoo.org/187971 cri, P2, All, bannedit0@gmail.com->taviso@gentoo.org, NEW, pending, Gentoo Website Command Injection Issue
20:07 <@dberkholz> 3) glep 39 never got the 'project rfc' bit added to it. this should be mostly a no-brainer
20:08 <@FlameBook> dberkholz, unless as Doug said we need to get a new glep drafted and voted upon rather than edit it
20:08 <@FlameBook> that would take a bit more
20:09 <@dberkholz> let's try to get through these topics one at a time, instead of mixing
20:09 < NeddySeagoon> KingTaco The CoC page needs a rewrite as it still refers to the proctors as the enforcement body
20:09 <@amne> i'd like to add 4) as mentioned before with the procedural stuff. i think vapier's message in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52081/focus=52143 sums it up though
20:09 < KingTaco> NeddySeagoon, that's probably true
20:09 <@FlameBook> dberkholz, yeah sorry, got the first one I had at hand :/
20:10 <@amne> any other stuff for the agenda? otherwise i'd agree with dberkholz that we focus on the issues one by one
20:10 < NeddySeagoon> KingTaco bug 185572 which is assigned to devrel just now
20:10 < jeeves> NeddySeagoon: https://bugs.gentoo.org/185572 nor, P2, All, neddyseagoon@gentoo.org->devrel@gentoo.org, NEW, pending, As the proctors no longer exist the code of conduct needs an upate
20:11 <@dberkholz> i just added council@ to CC on that
20:11 < NeddySeagoon> dberkholz probably a good idea
20:12 <@dberkholz> i like the CoC, because it's principles-based instead of trying to go into mind-numbing detail
20:12 <@vapier> so first off, gotta do roll call ...
20:13 -!- Irssi: #gentoo-council: Total of 52 nicks [8 ops, 0 halfops, 2 voices, 42 normal]
20:13 -!- musikc|work [n=musikc@gentoo/developer/musikc] has joined #gentoo-council
20:13 <@dberkholz> amne, Betelgeuse, dberkholz, FlameBook, Uber, vapier have all spoken. anyone seen luca?
20:13 <@vapier> vapier/dberkholz/uberlord/flameeyes/lu_zero(josejx) i see ... how about Betelgeuse / amne
20:13 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: Have I?
20:13 <@FlameBook> dberkholz, josejx is proxying
20:13 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: you have now =P
20:13 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: indeed
20:13  * amne points at himself and is here
20:14 <@dberkholz> all accounted for, with one proxy
20:15 < josejx> Yep, I'm lu_zero for today :)
20:16 <@dberkholz> vapier, Uber: anything else we should do before getting into the CoC discussion?
20:17 < KingTaco> dberkholz, nothing we did after rollcall
20:17 -!- Netsplit over, joins: Ingmar
20:17 < KingTaco> rollcall -> topics list -> topics discussion/voting -> open floor
20:18 < NeddySeagoon>  KingTaco Actions from the last meeting ?
20:18 < KingTaco> NeddySeagoon, only if any carry over
20:18 < KingTaco> the only thing we would possibly have is the pms/eapi stuff
20:18 <@Uber> dberkholz: nope, lets get this show on the road
20:19 <@dberkholz> alright. before we get into the CoC discussion, we need to decide what the goal of it is
20:20 <@amne> dberkholz: imo what fmccor wrote in the council thread on -dev@: 1) is CoC in effect, and 2) how it's supposed to be executed
20:20 <@dberkholz> here's what i think the goal is: the CoC is still in effect, but enforcement is in question.
20:21 <@amne> i agree
20:22 <@FlameBook> right
20:22  * Uber nods
20:22 <@dberkholz> ok, that's 4 of 7.
20:23 <@dberkholz> how do we want to enforce the CoC, now that the proctors are dissolved?
20:24 <@Betelgeuse> Well does the original problem exist that much any more any way?
20:24 <@Uber> Betelgeuse: we don't want to be reactionary to that again
20:24 < KingTaco> Betelgeuse, it's always been spiky
20:24 <@Uber> some feel that CoC and proctors were rushed
20:24 <@amne> Uber++ (twice)
20:25 <@Betelgeuse> KingTaco: Indeed but now it can be dumped to -project. Emphasis on dump.
20:25 <@FlameBook> Uber is right
20:25 < KingTaco> Betelgeuse, my personal assessment is that the addition of all the lists recently has probably taken the critical mass off -dev
20:25 <@Uber> it was a problem we didn't see until too late in the day - we still need a CoC
20:26 < josejx> I'd say that the increase in actualy "development" happening on -dev has helped quite a bit too, things seem to be much better lately
20:27 <@amne> the commits threads scared away the flames :-) but still i think all interested folks should work on a new policy that's approved and documented
20:28 <@Uber> right, and that should happen on -project or some other list
20:28 <@amne> personally i think that it'll be best solved by collaboration of dev-/userrel in cooperation of the other people already working in the moderations department (read forums mods and #gentoo ops)
20:28 <@amne> Uber: yes
20:30 <@dberkholz> so should we push this enforcement discussion to the -project list, then return to it next month?
20:30 <@amne> i think it's a good idea to do so (unless someone has a better one)
20:31 <@dberkholz> what we need to figure out is 1) who enforces it, 2) whether it's active or passive enforcement, and 3) what actions are appropriate
20:31 < musikc|work> amne: speaking for devrel, i have no problems with us continuing to serve that function if and when appropriate
20:32 <@dberkholz> alright.
20:32 < musikc|work> you'd have to ask christel or tsunam about userrel but id expect a similar reaction from them
20:33 <@dberkholz> here's the plan: discussion on -project, then come to the next council meeting with a new draft of the enforcement section to vote on.
20:33 <@amne> musikc|work: that's good (and also current more or less documented ;-) status afaik)
20:33 -!- tsunam [n=tsunam@gentoo/developer/tsunam] has joined #gentoo-council
20:34 < tsunam> *poofs*
20:34 <@dberkholz> if that draft doesn't happen by consensus, someone will need to write it. does anyone else want to do it, or shall i?
20:34 <@FlameBook> dberkholz, why discard a volunteer? you're perfectly fit to ;)
20:34 <@amne> dberkholz: +1 on your plan, and i'm also willing to contribute (no problem if you do the main work though, more slack for me)
20:35 <@Uber> sounds good to me
20:36 <@Uber> plus, dberkholz writes good docs :)
20:36 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse, josejx, vapier: any input before we move on to the next agenda item?
20:37 < josejx> No, I don't think I have anything else to add
20:38 < tsunam> musikc is correct about the userrel reaction/feeling at least from me
20:38 < tsunam> Only thing I'd like to see is more faith in projects overall
20:38 <@Betelgeuse> dberkholz: nope
20:38 <@Uber> tsunam: only that can come from the participants, not from us
20:39 < tsunam> Uber: no it has to come from the council as well
20:39 <@amne> tsunam: musikc|work: i hope you both are on -project and will take part there, too
20:39 < josejx> tsunam: What do you mean exactly by more faith in projects?  What could be done?
20:39 < tsunam> as the council can kill a project if its in the "tech" sphere
20:39 < musikc|work> amne, indeed i am and will keep an eye out for that discussion
20:39 < tsunam> Uber: need I remind everyone about one that failed and was killed by the council?
20:40 <@dberkholz> we're getting a bit offtopic here. let's return to this after we get through the scheduled agenda items?
20:40 < tsunam> josejx: not jumping to inaccurate thoughts
20:40 <@FlameBook> dberkholz, agreed
20:40 <@amne> musikc|work: good
20:40 < tsunam> amne: I'm not on project
20:40 <@dberkholz> the next agenda item concerns packages.gentoo.org.
20:42 <@dberkholz> the goal is apparently to clarify what's going to happen for a web package database in the future.
20:42 <@FlameBook> can someone give me a summary of what happened about that? I ended up in hospital just a few days after receiving the down mail and I haven't followed it closely... I gather it needs a complete rewrite, and jokey is taking care, is that right?
20:42 <@dberkholz> bug #187971 has close to 100 comments about this
20:42 < jeeves> dberkholz: https://bugs.gentoo.org/187971 cri, P2, All, bannedit0@gmail.com->taviso@gentoo.org, NEW, pending, Gentoo Website Command Injection Issue
20:43 < KingTaco> FlameBook, went down because of a sec hole, found more while it was down, assigned to security for an audit, jokey started his rewrite which infra is liking so far
20:43 <@FlameBook> dberkholz, that's why I asked, a bit too many to read at a glance :P
20:43 <@dberkholz> good, i wanted to hear from infra about whether they would support jokey's rewrite.
20:43 <@dberkholz> since it seems that will be ready before a full audit of the current p.g.o code
20:43 <@Uber> so we now have 3 code bases for the same thing?
20:44 <@Uber> anyone else seen http://spaceparanoids.org/gentoo/gpnl/ ?
20:44 < KingTaco> there are some reservations about the deps, but it's looking good otherwise
20:44 < KingTaco> robbat2|na is the main infra contact there
20:44 <@dberkholz> KingTaco: are you speaking for yourself on this, or on behalf of the infra team?
20:44 < KingTaco> dberkholz, myself and robbat2 are the op leads
20:45 < KingTaco> I'm speaking for infra
20:46 <@dberkholz> are there any security people here who can say something about the likelihood of that audit getting finished anytime soon?
20:46 < KingTaco> dberkholz, infra does not expect to put the marduk codebase back online
20:46 <@dberkholz> ok
20:47 < KingTaco> jokeys example is at http://packages.gentooext.net
20:48 < KingTaco> you can see that the basic functionality is there, but there's still more work
20:49 <+jokey> robbat2 already added some more functionality though they need adaption to mysql
20:49 <@dberkholz> KingTaco: have you looked at beandog's package database too?
20:49 <@dberkholz> the one Uber mentioned above
20:49 < KingTaco> dberkholz, nope
20:49 < KingTaco> lemme see
20:50 <@dberkholz> mainly shows keywording now, but i could envision some design changes and minor enhancements to add the rest
20:50 < josejx> jokey's looks nice so far
20:50 < KingTaco> dberkholz, it's neato
20:51 <@Uber> i use it - i actually prefer it to p.g.o as it just looks cleaner
20:51 <@Uber> ok, no gentoo colours, but still
20:52 <@Uber> just my tuppence worth
20:52 < KingTaco> beandog hasn't said anything about his p.g.o to infra afaik
20:52 < KingTaco> I don't know if he even wants to share
20:53 <@dberkholz> from the council perspective, i'd just like to confirm that this is infra's decision.
20:53 <@Uber> KingTaco: well, why don't you ask him?
20:53 < KingTaco> what exactly am I confirming?
20:53 < KingTaco> Uber, I just saw it 5 minutes ago!
20:53 <@dberkholz> KingTaco: nothing, the council is
20:54 < KingTaco> dberkholz, ohhhh, gotcha
20:55 -!- agaffney [n=agaffney@gentoo/developer/pdpc.active.agaffney] has left #gentoo-council []
20:55 <@Uber> dberkholz: yes, that decision should be with infra - they run the infra side of things. We shouldn't influence their choice of software, except for religious pokes like vim vs emacs
20:55 <@dberkholz> council, vote please: the infrastructure team will decide the future of packages.gentoo.org.
20:55 <@Uber> aye
20:55 <@dberkholz> yes for me
20:55 <@amne> ++
20:55 <@FlameBook> good for me
20:56 <@Betelgeuse> \o/
20:57 <@dberkholz> Betelgeuse: is that a yes, or a smiley face i don't understand? =)
20:57 <@Betelgeuse> btw http://gentoo-portage.com/
20:57 <@FlameBook> dberkholz, a little man with the arms high in the air :P
20:58 <@amne> as we seem to agree on the future of p.g.o, i'd just like to make a suggestion to infra (that is KingTaco being here), imho it would be a nice idea to have some links to the current alternatives on p.g.o until it's back.
20:58 < josejx> Sure
20:59 <@amne> assuming the people providing other, similar services are fine with it of course. and infra wants that, too
20:59 <@dberkholz> that would be useful
20:59 < KingTaco> amne, there's some policy against linking to gentoo-portage or gentoo-wiki and it wouldn't be fair to link to the others IMO
20:59 <@amne> hm
20:59 < jmbsvicetto> KingTaco: What about a link to the forums thread that talks about alternatives?
21:00 <@dberkholz> i think that only really applies when we have a duplicate of the same type of service
21:00 < KingTaco> jmbsvicetto, that we could do
21:00 < KingTaco> gimme a url
21:00 <@amne> sounds like a good plan (jmbsvicetto)
21:00 <@Betelgeuse> KingTaco: http://gentoo-portage.com/
21:00 <@Betelgeuse> KingTaco: That's one at least.
21:01 <@FlameBook> Betelgeuse, he meant to the forum thread, I think
21:01 < KingTaco> Betelgeuse, no, of the forum thread
21:01 <@Betelgeuse> KingTaco: ah
21:01 < KingTaco> there was a bug we closed that requested linking to all the different sites
21:02 < jmbsvicetto> KingTaco: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-574544.html shoud work unless amne has a better one
21:02 < jmbsvicetto> should*
21:03 <@amne> jmbsvicetto: i would have suggested the same, perhaps some useful info from the thread can be summarized in the first post by a volunteer... like you :-P
21:03 <@amne> KingTaco: that would be useful, too if you could find it
21:03 -!- desultory [n=dean@gentoo/developer/desultory] has joined #gentoo-council
21:05 <@dberkholz> alright, let's move on to the next agenda item.
21:05 <@dberkholz> the previous council voted to require RFC's to -dev for new projects, but it was never added to glep 39.
21:05 <@dberkholz> goal: to decide whether to modify the glep or to add a new one
21:06 <@dberkholz> we have already modified glep 39 once: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.txt?view=log
21:07 <@dberkholz> a note was added to the Status noting that it was amended
21:07 < KingTaco> fyi, p.g.o updated with that forums link
21:08 <@amne> KingTaco: cheers
21:09 <@amne> if updating is OK with our policies (which i'm not perfectly sure), i think it would the process easier
21:09 <@FlameBook> I would also consider just amending it
21:10 <@Betelgeuse> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0001.html#reporting-glep-bugs-or-submitting-glep-updates
21:10 <@Betelgeuse> GLEP says GLEPs can be updated.
21:10 <@Betelgeuse> +1
21:11 <@vapier> it should really be a community thing ... if you're an asshat, people should let you know ... if you continue to be an asshat, you get ejected ... unfortunately, i dont think our community is tight enough to do that
21:12 < jmbsvicetto> vapier: Are you talking about having new projects approved on -dev or about having council removing people/leads/projects?
21:12 <@dberkholz> vapier: is that back to the CoC discussion?
21:12 <@amne> Betelgeuse: ah, that's fine then -> +1 amending
21:12 <@dberkholz> i'm for amendments also
21:13 <@dberkholz> that's amne, Betelgeuse, FlameBook and i, so we'll just amend it.
21:14 <@dberkholz> that was the last agenda item
21:15 <@Uber> cool
21:15 <@amne> uhm
21:15 <@Uber> anyone want to add anything before we open to the floor?
21:15 <@amne> 22:08 <@amne> i'd like to add 4) as mentioned before with the procedural stuff. i think vapier's message in  http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52081/focus=52143 sums it up though
21:15 <@vapier> i think my ping is off the charts ... but that sounds good for the CoC
21:17 <@Uber> vapier: so bad you should be dropping packets :P
21:17 <@dberkholz> amne: agreed. i think the original glep also can be interpreted most reasonably that way.
21:18 <@Uber> yeah, mike did a good summary there
21:18 <@amne> so that leaves us with 11 meetings though which is in conflict with what chris wrote in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/52081/focus=52179
21:18 <@FlameBook> agreed mike++
21:19 <@amne> basically the 11 meetings part. i don't have a problem with it though
21:20 <@dberkholz> the original glep says "Council members will be chosen by a general election of all devs once per year." which i read as saying the election happens at the same time each year.
21:21 < KingTaco> I suggest that the existing council take the initative to start the election process at the right time
21:21 < KingTaco> we should have last year
21:21 < KingTaco> er, this year
21:22 <@amne> KingTaco: i'm not 100% following - right time being the same time as every year?
21:22 <@Uber> ok, so we done for tonight?
21:22 < KingTaco> amne, whenever it's the right time.  there seems to be some disagreement
21:22 < jmbsvicetto> KingTaco: In that spirit, it wouldn't hurt to have the council explicitly approving the calendar for the election ;)
21:22 <@amne> heh
21:23 <@dberkholz> since we don't seem to be sure, let's have a vote.
21:23 -!- astinus [n=alex@gentoo/developer/astinus] has joined #gentoo-council
21:23  * Uber votes we maintain the dates as is, and kick infra butt next election
21:23 < KingTaco> Uber, it's not infra, it's election officials
21:23 <@FlameBook> I vote for mike's summary, keeping the dates in the same period
21:23 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: It seems there wasn't a disgreement about the process, only about the dates / this council term duration
21:23 <@dberkholz> vote: should elections be the same month every year, regardless of whether that shortens the council term (except as contradicted by glep 39's reelection rule)?
21:23 < KingTaco> used to be grant did it
21:23 <@Uber> KingTaco: whatever, kicking off someones butts
21:23 < josejx> I'd vote to keep the dates the same.  I don't see a good reason to change it
21:24 <@Uber> of*
21:24 < KingTaco> Uber, yes
21:24  * amne votes ++ on what dberkholz/vapier's email said
21:24 <@Uber> well, that's an easy majority
21:24 <@dberkholz> alright.
21:25 <@dberkholz> any other issues for the open floor?
21:25 <@Uber> yeah, who kept an irc log of this?
21:25 < jmbsvicetto> So can you please add to the council page that the nominations for the council take place in July and the voting on August?
21:25 <@amne> i have one
21:25 <@dberkholz> i should have a log.
21:25 <@dberkholz> i've also got a summary written
21:25 <@dberkholz> anyone else got a summary yet?
21:26 < jmbsvicetto> And please add that the election officials need to be selected before the nominations start
21:26 <@Uber> wooooo, volunteers for summary writing!
21:26 <@amne> dberkholz: no summary here, but i can write one or look over yours
21:27 <@dberkholz> http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/20071011-summary.txt
21:28 < tove> 5) topic of every meeting: status of pms? where is the repo today?
21:28 <@amne> dberkholz: looks good, i'd just change "Until we get a replacement, packages.gentoo.org will link to
21:28 < KingTaco> robbat2 has imported their repo
21:28 < KingTaco> tove ^^
21:28 < jmbsvicetto> tove: I thought that was solved on last council's meeting
21:28 <@amne> alternatives." to "will indirectly link..." perhaps
21:29 < tove> jmbsvicetto: the summary of last meeting doesn't really help.
21:29 < tove> KingTaco: how to access the repo?
21:29 <@dberkholz> i don't feel the need to specify that implementation detail... do you?
21:29 < KingTaco> tove, I think it's git.  you need to ping him
21:29 -!- dertobi123 [n=tobias@gentoo/developer/dertobi123] has joined #gentoo-council
21:29 <@amne> dberkholz: probably best to ask KingTaco because of infra's link policy if it's important to mention it
21:30 <@amne> KingTaco: ^^^
21:30 < KingTaco> amne, I'm not sure who's policy it is tbh
21:30 <@amne> ah ok let's just ignore my "improvement" then ;-)
21:30 < KingTaco> amne, but it's one we respect
21:30 <@amne> or whatever is fine for everyone
21:31 <@dberkholz> i added a little bit.
21:31 <@dberkholz> alright. vote to adjourn?
21:33 <@amne> just a quick note from side on the way the meeting went (but we can talk about that once the meeting is officially closed as well): i think the meeting went well besides the channel wasn't moderated
21:33 <@amne> as long it works out civil, it may be something i'd like to consider for the next meetings, too
21:33 <@amne> other then that adjourn++
21:33 <@dberkholz> i agree, i discussed that with jokey in query.
21:34 <@FlameBook> totally agreed with amne
21:35 <@dberkholz> amne and i are ready to adjourn until next month. how about the rest of you?
21:35 <@FlameBook> I was agreeing with that too :P
21:36  * Uber is done here
21:37 -!- Ingmar^ [n=ingmar@83.101.12.135] has joined #gentoo-council
21:37 -!- Ingmar [n=ingmar@83.101.12.167] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
21:37 <@dberkholz> that's a majority. the meeting's over; i will send summary and log
21:37 <@dberkholz> which lists should they go to?
21:37 -!- doc|work [n=doc@gentoo/contributor/doc-007] has left #gentoo-council ["."]
21:38 <@amne> dberkholz: since the meeting is also announced on -dev@, it would be a good place to see it there. other than that, council list?
21:38 <@dberkholz> i was thinking -dev, -dev-announce, -council
21:38 < jmbsvicetto> dberkholz: dev-announce and council?
21:38 <@amne> -dev-announce, good idea
21:39 <@amne> and reply to -dev@?
21:40 -!- Ingmar^ is now known as Ingmar
21:40 < tove> dberkholz: please don't send the log itself -- just add a link to proj/en/council/meeting-logs/..