Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

All,

Apologies for the short notice in advance.

In a little more than one week, the council will meet again.  This is
the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
agenda to vote on.

Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
suggested one (since the last meeting).

The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of
December 2011.

Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.

--

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level

adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

Dear all, 

I would like to suggest that we adopt the "sighted pages" system similar as 
used in the german wikipedia for our wiki, and am submitting that for mailing 
list and council discussion and / or decision. 

What does that mean?
* Anyone can still edit a page
* A limited amount of people can proofread a page and mark it as "correct" 
(here: Gentoo devs).
* If you are browsing anonymously, you get the newest "correct" page.
* If you are logged in to the wiki, you get the newest page. If this version 
has not been marked "correct" yet, that is displayed as warning message.

Why?
* If you browse an "official" wiki, you may expect some sort of "official" 
documentation, not something where $Random_Dude has just inserted "rm -rf /*"
* However, we still want to encourage users to contribute.
* Using the "sighted pages" system may enable us to combine both advantages.
* On the long run, this may make it easier to move official documentation into 
the wiki. (Having two incompatible doc formats will cause us pain.)

Opinions?

Cheers, 
Andreas

--

-- 

Andreas K. Huettel

Re: adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

On 12/04/2011 12:14 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to suggest that we adopt the "sighted pages" system similar as
> used in the german wikipedia for our wiki, and am submitting that for mailing
> list and council discussion and / or decision.
>
Andreas,
I don't think this has anything to do with the council. The council 
cannot interfere with individual projects. I believe your request should 
be addressed to the wiki <at>  people directly

--

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

On 12/4/11 1:14 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> I would like to suggest that we adopt the "sighted pages" system similar as 
> used in the german wikipedia for our wiki, and am submitting that for mailing 
> list and council discussion and / or decision. 
> [...]
> * If you browse an "official" wiki, you may expect some sort of "official" 
> documentation, not something where $Random_Dude has just inserted "rm -rf /*"
> * However, we still want to encourage users to contribute.

Sounds good to me.

Re: adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
> I don't think this has anything to do with the council. The council cannot
> interfere with individual projects.

Arguably the ONLY thing the council does is interfere with individual
projects - that is its sole reason for existence.  The DevRel project
already settles disputes, the PMS project already designs EAPIs, and
so on.

However, projects are self-governing and this creates the potential
issue of clashes with the needs of the distro as a whole, so we have a
Council as an appeal of last resort.  A project's decision does not
necessarily speak for the whole distro - the Council does.

If the Council were to completely refrain from interfering with
projects, it could accomplish nothing.

> I believe your request should be
> addressed to the wiki <at>  people directly

This is of course the correct initial step.  Work within the projects
until an issue actually arises. However, I could easily see the
Council getting involved here, as this would impact both the GLDP and
the Wiki projects.

That said, I think this is a good idea - why have our documentation
split in two?

Rich

Re: adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

On 12/04/2011 12:01 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 
> That said, I think this is a good idea - why have our
> documentation split in two?
> 
> Rich
> 
This is not the case and we have been discussing this over and over.
The wiki is not there to replace official docs.

--

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

s/udev/mdev, how to proceed?

Re: adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
> This is not the case and we have been discussing this over and over.
> The wiki is not there to replace official docs.

What are the main problems with this - especially if a "sighted pages"
approach is taken?  I would think the main issue with a wiki would be
officialness and the proposed approach could potentially address that.

Obviously an issue with moving to a wiki would be the mass of
documentation already out there, but the logical approach would be to
move it over time, and perhaps cite the existing docs in the wiki
where possible.  Then if documentation gets stale it could be
re-written and "approved."

Just because the wiki isn't CURRENTLY there to replace official docs
doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about whether it one day could.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13

Fabian Groffen schrieb:
> All,
> 
> Apologies for the short notice in advance.
> 
> In a little more than one week, the council will meet again.  This is
> the time to raise and prepare items that the council should put on the
> agenda to vote on.
> 
> Please respond to this email with agenda items.  Please do not hestitate
> to repeat your agenda item here with a pointer if you previously
> suggested one (since the last meeting).
> 
> The agenda for the next meeting will be sent out on Tuesday 6th of
> December 2011.
> 
> Please respond to gentoo-project list, if possible.
> 
> 

1. Should the change of quiet build default in recent portage versions
be reverted?

The timeframe between suggestion and implementation was less than 14
hours, so way too less time for a real discussion. Additionally, the
discussion following the change has shown, that there is no consensus
about this change neither for developers nor for users. So i would like
to see this reverted, at least until we get to a consensus at this topic
in which case the consensus result should be implemented.

2. Should the default output of portage be changed to quiet?

If yes, is a simple portage message for 2.1.* users enough to inform
users about this highly visible change? Especially in the context in
mind, that a good amount of packages have elog messages, so it is pretty
easy to miss this hint for a change in portage behaviour.

Re: adopt "sighted pages" system of german wikipedia for our wiki (was Call for agenda items -- Council meeting)

On 04-12-2011 12:02, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Markos Chandras 
> <hwoarang <at> gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This is not the case and we have been discussing this over and 
>> over. The wiki is not there to replace official docs.
> 
> What are the main problems with this - especially if a "sighted 
> pages" approach is taken?  I would think the main issue with a
> wiki would be officialness and the proposed approach could
> potentially address that.
> 
> Obviously an issue with moving to a wiki would be the mass of 
> documentation already out there, but the logical approach would be 
> to move it over time, and perhaps cite the existing docs in the 
> wiki where possible.  Then if documentation gets stale it could be
>  re-written and "approved."
> 
> Just because the wiki isn't CURRENTLY there to replace official 
> docs doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about whether it one day 
> could.
> 
> Rich

Richard,

the format of the official documents is something best left for the
GDP to discuss. Whenever the discussion about moving the official docs
to wiki format was raised in the past, the GDP was very clear about
not wanting to go down that route. With time, that position might
change, but in any case that's a discussion that should be held within
the GDP project.

--

-- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng