headers
Markos Chandras | 1 Aug 2011 19:57
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09


On 07/29/2011 06:55 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
> I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
> still is to send it out a week in advance.
> 
> As from the summary from the 2011-07-15 meeting, the "required advance
> notice for council meetings" has to be discussed and probably voted
> upon, if different from the current 1 week rule.
> 
> Roy Bamford made a suggestion for getting a more continuous experience
> when the council is replaced after a year [2].  In short he proposed to
> have 2 slots overlapping in time, each slot taking 2 years.
> 
> Finally, I sent out myself a decision item right after the last meeting
> of the previous council [1].  I would like to put it on the agenda, and
> volunteer to prepare it even further, of course.
> 
> Please add items to the agenda, and/or start discussions on this list so
> we can prepare and see if it needs to be discussed (preferably just
> voted on!) in the council meeting.
> 
> 
> [1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2ff02d6910d797045af3659fb21c712f.xml
> [2] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_57311d9d940106bc9b4c039707e0c953.xml
> 
Thanks to Theo ( tampakrap ) for reminding me, I would like to add the
gentoo/user/cloaks issue[1] to the agenda. Based on this comment[2], it
seems like we need a council vote on the matter, so I would like to get
this sorted as soon as possible.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Fabian Groffen | 1 Aug 2011 20:26
Picon
Favicon

Council discuss: meeting agenda advance notice time

During last council meeting [1] announcement of meetings and agendas
with little less than 7 days was suggested.

In this thread I'd like to see the pros/cons of shortening the
announcement time raised and discussed, and if shortened, to what time.

A definite pro of 1 week is that it gives enough time for all council
members to have prepared the agenda points properly, such that meetings
can be efficient and with everybody voting.

Please discuss.  Discussion contributions by non-council members are
encouraged and welcomed very much.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110715.txt  <at>  19:45

--

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Fabian Groffen | 1 Aug 2011 20:47
Picon
Favicon

Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

After the new council was setup, a "introductionary" meeting was held to
get the new council members going a bit.  Since this meeting replaced an
ordinary meeting, it is considered a waste of time by some [1].

Roy Bamford suggested to change the scheme to
  "Two year terms and elections every year for half the seats."

This requires an update to GLEP39 [2] on all points that reference the
one year period of the council.  It requires addition of the two
overlapping terms, and dealing with the "less than 50% attendance"
point.

Voting for this point makes little to no sense for as long as the
implications to GLEP39 and possibly other organisational issues aren't
clear.  Hence, at this stage, brief discussion by the council in the
next meeting can only make it clear if the current council has the
intention to supports a change like this or not.

Please discuss how to implement a change like this.  Starting point
would be to see what changes would be necessary to GLEP39.  Also,
whether the term would have to become 2 year, or the votings be twice a
year.  All contributions, objections or alternative ideas welcome.

[1] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_57311d9d940106bc9b4c039707e0c953.xml
[2] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0039.html

--

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 74 comments |
headers
Fabian Groffen | 1 Aug 2011 20:54
Picon
Favicon

Re: Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

On 31-07-2011 20:03:23 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> I would like to add the following item to the agenda
> 
> * Optional runtime dependencies [1],[2]
> 
> [1]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_808590a7c34401a8761d793bbb68a280.xml
> 
> [2]
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2342bd1cad57e432a319c55e3ef7e6df.xml
> 
> I volunteer to prepare a summary with the key points as discussed on the
> listed threads and discuss the possibility to include a solution as a
> future EAPI feature

Please do, and make it clear what the council has to vote on.  If no
voting is necessary yet, make it clear what question(s) you like to have
answers from council members for.

--

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Fabian Groffen | 1 Aug 2011 20:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

On 01-08-2011 18:57:43 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> Thanks to Theo ( tampakrap ) for reminding me, I would like to add the
> gentoo/user/cloaks issue[1] to the agenda. Based on this comment[2], it
> seems like we need a council vote on the matter, so I would like to get
> this sorted as soon as possible.

Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and who
can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that Petteri
refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic without that GLEP
in place?

--

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Markos Chandras | 1 Aug 2011 21:16
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09


On 08/01/2011 07:59 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 01-08-2011 18:57:43 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> Thanks to Theo ( tampakrap ) for reminding me, I would like to add the
>> gentoo/user/cloaks issue[1] to the agenda. Based on this comment[2], it
>> seems like we need a council vote on the matter, so I would like to get
>> this sorted as soon as possible.
> 
> Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and who
> can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that Petteri
> refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic without that GLEP
> in place?
> 
> 
Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request. Petteri
suggested to have the council vote and transfer the responsibility to
devrel, which in accordance will include this in a new GLEP defining the
devrel policy just like then one for QA.

--

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
Fabian Groffen | 1 Aug 2011 21:32
Picon
Favicon

Re: Preparations Council meeting 2011-08-09

On 01-08-2011 20:16:34 +0100, Markos Chandras wrote:
> > Would you mind summarising/drafting up the policy for who can and who
> > can't get a cloak?  This is probably going to be the GLEP that Petteri
> > refers to.  Does it make sense to vote for this topic without that GLEP
> > in place?
> > 
> Anyone can (should) get a cloak upon developer's request. Petteri
> suggested to have the council vote and transfer the responsibility to
> devrel, which in accordance will include this in a new GLEP defining the
> devrel policy just like then one for QA.

Ok, thanks.
Am I correct by summarising this point as simply a vote for transferring
the cloak responsibility to devrel?

--

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Fabian Groffen | 1 Aug 2011 22:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: [gentoo-dev] ChangeLog generation - pros and cons (council discussion request)

I'm summarising this thread [0] for the upcoming council meeting.

Automatic ChangeLog generation

Some people have expressed disagreement with committing ChangeLog
updates for some changes.  Discussion on that lead to an updated policy
to document nearly all changes.  Some people still really disagree with
that and go as far to commit dummy placeholders just to make sure they
don't do what they deem is useless for everybody.

ChangeLog generation is often suggested as a solution to this by those
people who do not like to document their changes in the ChangeLog file.

Auto generation of ChangeLogs, implies changes, and also influences how
current ChangeLog information is to be handled.
What if auto-generation is done, what does it take?

- what messages to include (all?), what not to include (ignore some?)
-- ignore some messages, git: Commit Limiting ([trivial]) [1][3]
--- policy? what to ignore, what not? what does the current policy mean
    if commits can be made to be ignored?
-- only include messages for a time range, or relevant messages for
   current files (ebuilds) in the directory (package) [3]

= balance between hard policy effectuated by the generation and fuzzy
  control via keywords that is subject to the interpretation of the
  committer
= opening for new opportunities to safe space for and present more
  relevant information to our users
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Andreas K. Huettel | 1 Aug 2011 22:25
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Council discuss: overlapping council terms of two years

On Montag 01 August 2011 20:47:51 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> After the new council was setup, a "introductionary" meeting was held to
> get the new council members going a bit.  Since this meeting replaced an
> ordinary meeting, it is considered a waste of time by some [1].

How about just having the introductory meeting
* ~immediately after the election
* in addition to the usual schedule
?!

I'd say we could spare ourselves a lot of useless discussion and rewriting of 
rules that way...

Just my 2ct :)

--

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer 
dilfridge <at> gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Petteri Räty | 1 Aug 2011 22:43
Picon
Favicon

Re: reopening gentoo-council

On 31.07.2011 19:51, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> 
>> With a bit more than a week ahead of us for the next council meeting,
>> I'd like to start preparing the agenda, given that current practice
>> still is to send it out a week in advance.
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> Please add items to the agenda, and/or start discussions on this list so
>> we can prepare and see if it needs to be discussed (preferably just
>> voted on!) in the council meeting.
> 
> Please add the following item to the agenda:
> Should gentoo-council be used as a dedicated mailing list for council
> related topics (i.e. such topics that are in -project currently)?
> 
> Rationale see here:
> <http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_6cad9409772fa44415e84005ff922145.xml>
> 
> If accepted, this would revert the decision of the previous council in
> its 2010-08-09 meeting that -project and -council lists should be
> merged into one (which however has not been implemented; the -council
> list is still functional).
> 

Some background information for why the decision was initially made is
available at:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.council/787
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20100726.txt
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |

Gmane