[21:00:05] <@mgorny> !proj council
[21:00:06] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
[21:00:20] -*- arthurzam proxies mattst88
[21:00:29] <@ulm> mgorny: you want to chair? :)
[21:00:54] <@mgorny> *shrug* why not
[21:00:57] <@mgorny> lemme just find the agenda
[21:01:04] <@ulm> https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168982936627687&w=2
[21:01:25] <@mgorny> thanks
[21:01:29] <@mgorny> so.....
[21:01:30] <@mgorny> 1. Roll call!
[21:01:35] -*- dilfridge here
[21:01:38] -*- mgorny here
[21:01:38] -*- ajak here
[21:01:38] -*- arthurzam here (proxy for mattst88)
[21:01:42] -*- sam_ here
[21:01:43] -*- ulm here
[21:02:13] <@mgorny> soap: ?
[21:02:19] -*- soap here
[21:02:20] <@soap> soz
[21:02:31] <@mgorny> ok, everyone's here, let's start
[21:02:39] <@mgorny> 2. Constitute the new council
[21:02:59] <@mgorny>    - Decide on time of meetings. The previous council had its meetings
[21:02:59] <@mgorny>      on the 2nd Sunday of every month at 19:00 UTC
[21:02:59] -*- dilfridge has a Bavarian constitution
[21:03:13] <@mgorny>    - Vote for continuing last council's workflow considering sending
[21:03:13] <@mgorny>      a call for agenda items (two weeks in advance), sending the
[21:03:13] <@mgorny>      agenda (one week in advance) and have the meeting focussed, i.e.
[21:03:13] <@mgorny>      have major discussions on the gentoo-project mailing list prior
[21:03:13] <@mgorny>      to the meeting
[21:03:21] <@mgorny> does that work for everyone?
[21:03:23] -*- ajak sees no reason to change this time
[21:03:29] <@ulm> wfm
[21:03:32] <@dilfridge> no reason to change anything
[21:03:33] <@soap> wfm
[21:03:40] <@sam_> sure
[21:03:43] <+arthurzam> yes, wf mattst88
[21:03:50] <@mgorny> ok, so everyone agrees
[21:04:07] <@mgorny>    - Appoint chairmen for this term's meetings
[21:04:12] <@ulm> I can take january and february
[21:04:26] <@mgorny> (i implicitly took July ;-))
[21:04:29] <+sultan> Can the council add consequences if the workflow is not followed?
[21:04:36] <+arthurzam> I didn't sync with mattst88 month he can chair with, so can't stand for him - sorry
[21:04:40] <@sam_> sultan: it's not open floor yet
[21:05:16] <@mgorny> ulm: i'll edit the wiki
[21:05:27] <@ajak> arthurzam: it's fine to do some of it asynchronously i think, we did last time
[21:05:48] <@mgorny> oh, i see ulm chose the same months xD
[21:05:50] <@sam_> I'll do march/april then
[21:06:13] <+arthurzam> ajak: ok
[21:06:17] <@dilfridge> will do december
[21:06:19] <@ajak> hrm, i'll claim sept/oct i guess
[21:06:44] <@mgorny> i suppose we can tentatively leave nov/dec to mattst88 like last year
[21:06:51] <@dilfridge> works too
[21:07:13] <@mgorny> dilfridge: may/june?
[21:07:17] <@dilfridge> wfm
[21:07:29] <@mgorny> soap: aug?
[21:07:33] <@soap> sure
[21:07:57] <@mgorny> ok, updated wiki, we can switch with matt if need be
[21:08:06] <@sam_> yeah, np
[21:08:09] <@mgorny> 3. Missing steps/info/work for umbrella entering (arthurzam)
[21:08:44] <+arthurzam> Yeah, so I wanted to request council on what should be done, plan, or something, so we don't miss it again or as such
[21:08:49] <@ajak> is antarus here to give us the current state maybe?
[21:09:11] <@mgorny> i think we should choose one person to oversee this
[21:09:20] <+arthurzam> Maybe appoint the chairman responsibility for that month to have "active checks and time follows" - (just idea)
[21:09:20] <@ulm> we should establish better communication with trustees, so that everyone will be on the same page
[21:09:23] <@mgorny> ulm: would you be interested? i'm sorry for dumping this on you but i think you're the best person for this
[21:10:03] <@ulm> mgorny: let's wait until the trustees election is complete, then I'm in a better position to answer
[21:10:11] <@ulm> or in no position :/
[21:10:33] <+arthurzam> ulm: it won't be clash of interest if you are in both of them, right?
[21:10:37] <@ajak> what difference does that make?
[21:10:48] <@mgorny> i think we should resume comms immediately independently of trustee election results
[21:11:12] <@ulm> ajak: if voters would put me below _reopen then I'd be the wrong person
[21:11:26] <@mgorny> or maybe something more specific
[21:11:33] <@dilfridge> yeah and hell freezes over next month
[21:11:34] <@ulm> mgorny: then take it as a yes from me
[21:11:40] <@mgorny> do we all agree to continue the process started by trustees in the previous term?
[21:11:47] <@mgorny> i.e. the same umbrella?
[21:11:54] <@dilfridge> which one was that again?
[21:11:59] <@soap> opencollective?
[21:12:00] <@ulm> open collective
[21:12:08] <@mgorny> Open Collective Foundation, i think
[21:12:10] <@mgorny> lemme double check
[21:12:15] <+antarus> I think the email thread was pretty clear on the state
[21:12:23] <+antarus> but i only emailed the thread to mattst88 and he isn't here today
[21:12:37] <@mgorny> yes, OCF
[21:12:39] <+antarus> (the thread being our thread with OCF)
[21:13:07] <@ajak> okay.. so can you share that so we can attempt to establish what needs to be done moving forward?
[21:13:40] <@mgorny> i think the key point would be to apologize and reply to their previous inquiry, hopefully they'll let us resume from there
[21:14:07] <+antarus> More or less, that, yes.
[21:14:28] <@ajak> yep, agreed
[21:14:38] <@dilfridge> sounds good to me
[21:15:01] <@mgorny> ulm: could you do that? we can help prepare/proofread but i think we should really focus on one person sending it
[21:15:24] [tomaw] [Global Notice] Around 1800UTC on Monday we'll be performing maintenance on the box that runs ChanServ, NickServ and their relatives. During this time those services will be unavailable for a (hopefully!) short period. If you're a channel operator that doesn't usually keep your operator status you may want to in case you need it. I'll send a reminder nearer the time.
[21:15:24] [tomaw] [Global Notice] Around 1800UTC on Monday we'll be performing maintenance on the box that runs ChanServ, NickServ and their relatives. During this time those services will be unavailable for a (hopefully!) short period. If you're a channel operator that doesn't usually keep your operator status you may want to in case you need it. I'll send a reminder nearer the time.
[21:15:27] <@dilfridge> s/sending it/centrally handling all communication/
[21:15:29] <@ulm> mgorny: sure, but I don't yet have the full info
[21:15:44] <@mgorny> dilfridge: that, thanks
[21:15:50] <@mgorny> ulm: thanks
[21:15:52] <@ajak> antarus: can you share the thread with council@?
[21:15:53] <@ulm> i.e. all previous communication with them
[21:16:14] <@mgorny> and let's keep council@ and trustees@ in CC for future comms perhaps
[21:16:23] <+antarus> sure
[21:16:36] <@dilfridge> \o/
[21:16:44] <+arthurzam> Can we add an item to each council meeting as an update on the progress?
[21:16:49] <@dilfridge> ++
[21:17:10] <@ajak> yes, let's make this a repeat agenda item
[21:17:19] <@ulm> maybe we could even have joint council/trustees meetings
[21:17:26] <@ulm> not necessarily every month
[21:18:00] <@mgorny> ok, so i'd propose we put the goal right now on reestabilishing the status, resuming comms and discussing this next month as an agenda item
[21:18:06] <@mgorny> anything else?
[21:18:11] <@ulm> sounds good
[21:18:41] <@sam_> +1
[21:18:54] <+arthurzam> sounds good
[21:19:07] <@mgorny> ok, thanks, let's move on then
[21:19:10] <@mgorny> 4. Open bugs with council involvement
[21:19:29] <@mgorny> bug 883715
[21:19:30] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:recruiters
[21:19:49] <@ulm> no progress there it seems
[21:19:56] <@sam_> yeah that's not blocked on us
[21:20:05] <@ulm> it's up to recruiters to answer our questions
[21:20:13] <@mgorny> bug 909432
[21:20:14] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/909432 "Motion: Ban EAPI 6"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council
[21:20:32] <@ulm> done, and now it's in the log :)
[21:20:35] <@mgorny> that one's been voted by mail, 7/0/0 y/n/a
[21:20:44] <@mgorny> accepted unanimously
[21:20:44] <@dilfridge> excellent
[21:20:57] <@mgorny> bug 909768
[21:20:58] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/909768 "QA lead election 2023"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council
[21:21:03] <@ulm> EAPI 6 removal is glacial though
[21:21:13] <@sam_> I think we're done there 
[21:21:16] <@sam_> yeah, it is :(
[21:21:21] <@mgorny> 6/0/1 y/n/a, i.e. soap approved unanimously, modulo his abstention
[21:21:27] <+arthurzam> Congratulations soap on winning QA elections :) 
[21:21:28] <@ulm> congratulations to soap
[21:21:34] <@soap> :>
[21:21:35] <@dilfridge> heh, congrats
[21:21:37] <@sam_> yes, congrats
[21:21:47] <+antarus> do recruiters know https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 is waiting on them?
[21:21:48] <@mgorny> and these were all the bugs
[21:21:48] <@ajak> yay soap
[21:21:49] <+antarus> status seems unclear
[21:23:18] <@mgorny> ulm: ^ you seem to know that bug best
[21:23:39] <@ulm> antarus: it's assigned to them
[21:24:33] <@ulm> maybe I should ping juippis in irc
[21:24:51] <@mgorny> ok, let's move on to…
[21:24:52] <@ulm> might be more effective than communicating via the bug
[21:24:55] <@mgorny> 5. Open floor
[21:24:58] <@dilfridge> ok
[21:25:00] <@dilfridge> briefly
[21:25:08] <@dilfridge> before we talk about other stuff
[21:25:25] <@dilfridge> the 23.0 profiles are right now blocked on my time mostly
[21:25:48] <@dilfridge> I dont see them as very urgent, so unless someone protests I'll just defer that stuff until fall
[21:26:26] <@dilfridge> that's it
[21:26:32] <+arthurzam> Sounds fine, thank you for working on it (and to all others)
[21:27:26] <@dilfridge> anything / anyone else?
[21:27:28] <+arthurzam> I think sultan had something for open floor?
[21:28:05] <+NeddySeagoon> Call them 24 then :)
[21:28:24] <@dilfridge> too much extra work
[21:28:32] <+NeddySeagoon> heh
[21:30:27] <@ulm> 10.0 were released in 2009, but with 13.0 we switched to years
[21:30:38] <@sam_> I wish we didn't use years at all
[21:30:55] <@sam_> I have to explain to people that 17.1 is not "old"
[21:31:13] <@mgorny> we can switch to something else now
[21:31:23] <@mgorny> Gentoo Z
[21:31:24] <@dilfridge> give it a name, like the linux kernel releases
[21:31:26] -*- mgorny hides
[21:31:30] <+NeddySeagoon> Switch to EAPI numbers. They often go hand in hand
[21:32:44] <@ulm> nah, don't change the naming scheme
[21:33:05] <@ulm> 23.0 is already better than the 2004.1 we have in ancient times
[21:33:07] <+ionen> fwiw a name would make it hard to differentiate from profile subdirs/features
[21:33:34] <+Arsen> clearly, we need to adopt google versioning and just go with 117.33.114.28 for the next profile round
[21:33:46] <@sam_> gentoo 1337
[21:34:04] <+ionen> take the version what whatever distro has at the highest number, and increment it so we're higher
[21:34:07] <+Arsen> actually, we need to be more original, and use ipv6 addresses as versions rather than ipv4
[21:34:37] <@mgorny> how about irrational versions?
[21:34:53] <@ulm> quaternions
[21:34:56] <@mgorny> Gentoo pi³
[21:35:18] <+arthurzam> Hmm, like TeX version number
[21:36:26] <@mgorny> anything else for the open floor?
[21:36:43] <+Arsen> arthurzam: sure, but we ought to use 'e' instead
[21:36:47] <@sam_> nothing from me
[21:36:51] <+sultan> mgorny: see my comment above, but no time now
[21:37:02] <@sam_> I don't understand what the comment meant
[21:37:25] <@ajak> so.. no more topics for open floor then :)
[21:38:40] <@mgorny> let's wait till :40
[21:40:12] <@mgorny> ok
[21:40:15] -*- mgorny bangs the gavel
[21:40:17] <@mgorny> meeting adjourned!