path: root/meeting-logs/20100419.txt

21:00:33 <ulm>	somebody logging?
21:00:46 <leio>	I am as usual
21:00:51 <solar>	I'm not logging
21:00:51 <leio>	committing after meeting
21:00:57 <solar>	thanks leio
21:01:04 *	dertobi123 yawns
21:01:13 <Calchan>	hi guys, I just want to warn you that I'm feeling terrible today health wise
21:01:33 <Calchan>	and I haven't slept in 30 hours so if I stop responding you'll know I'm sleeping
21:01:33 <solar>	don't cough on us then. But noted you are here.
21:01:50 <Calchan>	solar, it's not that, don't worry
21:01:57 <ulm>	Betelgeuse?
21:02:00 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: yes
21:02:13 <ulm>	ok, everyone is there
21:02:13 <scarabeus>	so everyone here we can say :]
21:02:28 <solar>	ok. well that means Calchan probably wont chair today due to his health problems.
21:02:38 <solar>	ulm: would you be willing to chair this meeting?
21:02:49 <Calchan>	solar, good point, thanks
21:03:04 <ulm>	solar: can do, unless someone else wants to
21:03:37 <solar>	any objections? if not lets get started please
21:04:09 <ulm>	ok, I'll take the chair then
21:04:17 <ulm>	we're at 1.4 already :)
21:04:35 <ulm>	any remarks on the agenda?
21:04:47 <Calchan>	no
21:04:53 <Betelgeuse>	no
21:05:03 <scarabeus>	nope
21:05:44 <ulm>	none it seems
21:05:54 <ulm>	so 2. Follow-ups from previous meeting
21:06:21 <Calchan>	do I start?
21:06:25 <ulm>	Calchan: you want to say something about GLEP 39?
21:06:32 <ulm>	yes
21:06:52 <Calchan>	I have posted the discussion topics as planned in order to gether inpu tfrom the community
21:07:09 <Calchan>	I forgot one and maybe more will come
21:07:52 <Calchan>	the target is to have everything dpone before the nominations for next term
21:08:16 <Calchan>	I will work backward from there to make a planning
21:08:39 <ulm>	ok
21:08:44 <Calchan>	I'm a bit disappointed by the small number of reactions so far but not surprised
21:09:14 <Calchan>	any comments from you guys about what has been done so far?
21:09:14 <ulm>	so not much to discuss until we have more responses on the ML
21:09:18 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: easier to push for your own ideas :)
21:09:18 <scarabeus>	maybe we really could inspire ourselves by debian approach, how was suggested there
21:09:28 <scarabeus>	:]
21:09:30 <scarabeus>	or that
21:09:35 <solar>	I've not had a chance to read that yet.
21:09:52 <Calchan>	scarabeus, good point, I didn't have the strength to answer that comment but yes
21:10:04 <leio>	I'll need to work through it later this week or so too, been busy with GSoC with the time I have
21:10:12 <scarabeus>	well their document is well written and easy to understand
21:10:15 <Calchan>	just add any idea even from debian to the thread
21:10:16 <scarabeus>	so we can at least base off it
21:10:22 <dertobi123>	same as solar for me ...
21:10:22 <Calchan>	the point of this is to brainstorm
21:11:04 <Calchan>	that's ok, it's a long term effort anyway
21:11:23 <scarabeus>	we should just make sure to cook it before next elections :]
21:11:33 <Calchan>	ulm, I'm done if there are no more questions
21:11:40 <Calchan>	scarabeus, I'll make sure of that
21:11:51 <antarus>	can you link to the thread somewhere (summary or agenda?)
21:12:23 <Calchan>	antarus, http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/msg_642482b9a9bc12e7d87fde8e6878f13c.xml
21:12:34 <Calchan>	and all the depending threads
21:12:36 <ulm>	antarus: no open floor yet ;)
21:13:12 <ulm>	any other comments on this topic?
21:13:16 -->	reavertm (~quassel@gentoo/developer/reavertm) has joined #gentoo-council
21:13:36 <solar>	other then just to say thanks to Calchan for following up.
21:13:49 <ulm>	next is "policy for changes in metadata.xml"
21:13:52 -->	darkside_ (~darkside@gentoo/developer/darkside) has joined #gentoo-council
21:13:56 <ulm>	scarabeus?
21:14:13 <scarabeus>	ok, i sent fancy mail to the wrong lists as Denis properly pointed out
21:14:24 <scarabeus>	but the reaction was slightly more than zero
21:14:25 <Calchan>	scarabeus, sorry I was a bit harsh that day
21:14:34 <ulm>	scarabeus: where did you send it?
21:14:40 <scarabeus>	core and council
21:14:43 <scarabeus>	i should've use dev
21:14:59 <Calchan>	scarabeus, I think it should have been appraoched differently, we can discuss that after the meeting if you want
21:15:49 <ulm>	scarabeus: can you summarise the replies, or post a pointer to them?
21:16:20 <ulm>	or should we reiterate and postpone to next meeting?
21:16:33 <scarabeus>	my mail addressed 2 points
21:16:33 <scarabeus>	devrel is not reacting on qa reported issues -> that one we can say is solved
21:16:33 <scarabeus>	users are touching ebuild they dont maintain -> here i want to say something :]
21:16:33 <Calchan>	ulm, I'd say postpone, let's reboot that
21:16:58 <scarabeus>	or we can postprone it, and we can discuss the policy with rest qa guys, and Calchan or any other of you guys can chip in
21:17:09 <scarabeus>	actualy i think the policy text i wrote is quite nice
21:17:09 <scarabeus>	http://dpaste.com/185381/
21:17:19 <dertobi123>	do we still have some qa guys around?
21:17:21 <scarabeus>	yet it needs some sane override mechanism, where some poeple dont mind touching
21:17:23 <ulm>	scarabeus: and maybe resend the message to -dev ml
21:17:56 <Calchan>	scarabeus, it looks good to me, but it's only nice if it's what devs want
21:18:23 <scarabeus>	dertobi123: we do qa ;] even tho people mostly see the removals ;D
21:18:32 <Betelgeuse>	scarabeus: a typo in exceptions? ws and breaking installs in same category?
21:18:32 <ulm>	at least it's a good starting point for discussion
21:18:41 <scarabeus>	ok i will sent one more mailie to the -dev
21:18:54 <scarabeus>	and we see what responses we will collect till next meeting then
21:18:55 <Betelgeuse>	ah know I got it
21:20:01 <ulm>	can we move to the next topic?
21:20:10 <dertobi123>	mh yeah
21:20:12 <Calchan>	yes please
21:20:19 <scarabeus>	move move :]
21:20:34 <ulm>	3. "doman -i18n" option
21:20:55 <ulm>	I hope everybody had a look at bug 303919
21:20:57 <willikins>	ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/303919 "Prefer -i18n option of doman to filename language suffix"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; NEW; billie@g.o:pms-bugs@g.o
21:21:14 <solar>	it seems like it's been worked out, and only needs approval
21:21:20 <ulm>	in a nutshell:
21:21:24 <leio>	I don't get the tying to EAPI
21:21:28 <leio>	go on
21:21:36 <ulm>	- PMS doesn't document -i18n
21:21:51 <ulm>	- we wnat to fix the behaviour for the next EAPI
21:21:54 <ulm>	*want
21:22:07 <ulm>	leio: it's a slight change of behaviour
21:22:36 <leio>	I'm concerned about the gradual switchover. Isn't it about where the files get installed on the system, what directory, or I misunderstood completely?
21:22:37 <ulm>	i.e. the option should be preferred to the filename language tag
21:23:08 <ulm>	leio: right
21:23:19 <ulm>	it's about man pages like foo.pl.1
21:23:44 <ulm>	which are most likely about a perl script, not a page in Polish
21:23:56 <leio>	Why with a fresh install I should get some localized man pages under one name, and others in another
21:23:59 <ulm>	in EAPI 3 there's no way to handle that
21:25:35 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: we could try a vote as people should be prepared, if for some reason someone doesn't understand they can abstain / vote no.
21:25:47 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: right
21:25:49 <Calchan>	wfm
21:26:07 <scarabeus>	lets vote
21:26:37 <Calchan>	I vote yes for this in eapi4
21:26:41 <Betelgeuse>	yes
21:26:50 <scarabeus>	i vote yes
21:26:50 <solar>	as an english only speaker and knowing very little about i18n behaviors. I have no objections as long as those ebuilds don't die on uclibc. so yes
21:27:03 <dertobi123>	yes
21:27:04 <ulm>	please vote on "doman -i18n as outlined in bug 303919 should be included in EAPI 4"
21:27:07 <willikins>	ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/303919 "Prefer -i18n option of doman to filename language suffix"; Gentoo Hosted Projects, PMS/EAPI; NEW; billie@g.o:pms-bugs@g.o
21:27:12 <ulm>	I vote yes, obviously
21:27:16 <dertobi123>	heh
21:27:22 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: slow :)
21:27:25 <scarabeus>	:]
21:27:49 <ulm>	leio?
21:27:52 <leio>	I have no objections against an extra argument possibility, so if I understand what we are voting on right, then yes
21:28:09 <ulm>	ok, unanimous then
21:28:25 <Betelgeuse>	ok my stuff then
21:28:27 <Betelgeuse>	Any questions?
21:28:28 <ulm>	next topic 4. bugzilla policy
21:28:55 <Betelgeuse>	or clarifications rather
21:29:00 <leio>	Does the bugzilla votes consider bugs where initially there are multiple arches involved?
21:29:42 -->	ferringb (~ferringb@gentoo/developer/ferringb) has joined #gentoo-council
21:29:48 <Betelgeuse>	Initially with multiple arches you CC them all.
21:29:56 <Betelgeuse>	like currently - no change
21:30:16 -->	billie (~billie@gentoo/developer/billie) has joined #gentoo-council
21:30:29 <dertobi123>	guess leio's talking about when there's only a single left on a bug
21:30:33 <leio>	yes
21:30:39 <dertobi123>	eh, single arch*
21:30:46 <Betelgeuse>	I didn't remember to put that on the list but we can vote on that too if everyone is ready.
21:30:48 <leio>	I don't like things getting reassigned to that one remaining last arch then
21:31:17 <ulm>	leio: maybe we should vote on this point separately
21:31:20 <Betelgeuse>	let's handle this first
21:31:32 <solar>	on 4.1 (b) seems ideal to me as it allows to most flexibility.
21:31:35 <Betelgeuse>	if there's time at the end we can revisit
21:32:00 <scarabeus>	i would go with b too
21:32:08 <Betelgeuse>	Read the instructions.
21:32:19 <dertobi123>	having worked on both ppc and hppa arch teams ... i'm for 4.1 (b) ... both ways work for me
21:32:26 <Betelgeuse>	Let's start voting on a:
21:32:28 <Betelgeuse>	I vote yes.
21:32:29 <leio>	(but I think this [when one arch is left] can be a maintainer decision if to reassign or not, if we don't disallow assigning to arches for keyword/stable bugs with 4c)
21:32:37 <solar>	err.
21:32:45 <solar>	a) no b) yes c) no
21:32:49 <solar>	same thing Betelgeuse
21:32:54 <leio>	what is a?
21:33:01 <ulm>	leio: see agenda
21:33:06 <scarabeus>	a) no b) yes c) no
21:33:14 <leio>	I see it as a three-way choice, not three yes/no's?
21:33:14 <dertobi123>	b) yes, a) and c) no
21:33:15 <ulm>	leio: The single arch in question is the assignee
21:33:26 <Betelgeuse>	solar: that way is not the same thing
21:33:40 <ulm>	right, it's a three-way choice :]
21:33:42 <Betelgeuse>	solar: I only vote yes to b) if a doesn't get majority
21:33:47 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, we're only talking about stabilizations here right? not about adding a new ~arch keyword
21:33:48 <ulm>	so vote on 4.1 a, b, or c as outlined in the agenda
21:33:56 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: keywording bugs
21:34:06 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: the descriptions needs to be more clear
21:34:21 <ulm>	solar, scarabeus, dertobi123: I take this as "b" from you
21:34:25 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: +For example to the start.
21:34:29 <scarabeus>	ulm: yes
21:34:31 <dertobi123>	ulm: yeah ;)
21:34:38 <leio>	so only about new ~arch keywords?
21:34:39 <ulm>	I vote "b" too
21:34:53 <Betelgeuse>	IF you guys had problems the voting method, why didn't you comment on the agenda?
21:34:58 <Betelgeuse>	+with
21:35:28 <leio>	the agenda says it's a choice between a, b and c as far as my english deciphers
21:35:32 <leio>	I vote "b"
21:35:43 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: it's a choice between 3 possibilities
21:35:45 <solar>	he is asking for the entire lot sorta.
21:35:51 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: you can only have one of them
21:36:00 <Betelgeuse>	whatever I vote a
21:36:11 <dertobi123>	guys, kiss - keep it simple and stupid ...
21:36:16 <ulm>	Calchan: your vote?
21:36:23 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: voting a,b,c could scatter
21:36:35 -->	djc (~djc@gentoo/developer/djc) has joined #gentoo-council
21:36:42 <Calchan>	ulm, b with the mention that I would like the maintainer to at least be CCed
21:36:47 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: that's why I included a run-off vote ;)
21:37:04 <leio>	err, ok, we are voting on STABLEREQ, right? Sorry for the confusion
21:37:12 <Betelgeuse>	We waste more time arguing on the change than just going with the agenda says.
21:37:20 <ulm>	Calchan: doesn't always make sense
21:37:25 <solar>	leio: we are still on 4.1
21:37:27 <ulm>	e.g. if the maintainer is the reporter
21:37:31 <--	djc (~djc@gentoo/developer/djc) has left #gentoo-council
21:37:35 <Betelgeuse>	leio: We should have same policy for all keywording bugs.
21:37:49 <Calchan>	ulm, I think the maintainer deserves to know at least, he can then remove himsel fif he wants
21:37:52 <ulm>	ok, I count 1 a, 6 b, 0 c
21:37:58 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: That was already covered in the threads.
21:38:08 -->	NeddySeagoon (~NeddySeag@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon) has joined #gentoo-council
21:38:17 <Betelgeuse>	I should have done a better job for the agenda text.
21:38:19 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, I just wanted to mention it in the meeting :o)
21:38:28 <Betelgeuse>	But stuff is clear if you read the thread.
21:38:31 <leio>	b, but if maintainer isn't the assignee, it should get CCed at first
21:38:33 <--	Ford_Prefect has quit (Quit: Ex-Chat)
21:38:56 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: the outcome of the vote would've been the same regardless of voting procedure
21:39:03 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: in this case yes
21:39:30 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: I put it there because I considered my way fastests to reach a decision.
21:39:31 <ulm>	next is "bugzilla resolutions"
21:39:39 <solar>	I personaly tend to think the order they are listed in the metadata.xml is how they want it assigned.
21:39:53 <Betelgeuse>	solar: there's nothing to say it works that way
21:40:46 -->	Zorry_N900 (~user@gentoo/developer/zorry) has joined #gentoo-council
21:40:50 <ulm>	questions/discussion about LATER and REMIND resolutions?
21:40:53 -->	PSYCHO___ (~scarab@gentoo/developer/scarabeus) has joined #gentoo-council
21:40:53 ---	ChanServ gives channel operator status to PSYCHO___
21:41:04 *	PSYCHO___ slightly disconnected
21:41:12 <PSYCHO___>	something relevant on that vote already happened?
21:41:21 <Betelgeuse>	Just a note that infra could take a while to implement it.
21:41:30 <Betelgeuse>	We can still make it a policy already to not use them.
21:41:32 <ulm>	PSYCHO___: no
21:41:40 <PSYCHO___>	oka
21:42:00 <solar>	4.2 Infra said it could do it around to the removal of the existing bug resolutions in the bugs-3 migration. Can add later and bosolete
21:42:01 <dertobi123>	Betelgeuse: urm, policy won't work quite well for that
21:42:14 <solar>	So my vote is yes
21:42:34 <Betelgeuse>	Also note that Remove means remove for new markings.
21:42:42 <Betelgeuse>	Not Remove from already resolved.
21:43:21 <Betelgeuse>	I vote yes.
21:43:25 <dertobi123>	from what robbat said in infra an hour ago, that won't be possible? (i might be wrong on that?)
21:43:55 <solar>	<robbat2> i'll add the new RESO+keyword for now, but disabling the others is going to get RESO AFTER_BUGZILLA3
21:44:11 <dertobi123>	ah, ok
21:44:27 <dertobi123>	whatever, yes on all 3 proposed changes then
21:44:57 <Calchan>	we could send an email to -dev-announce to not use them and remove them from the docs to start
21:45:18 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: I can also try to remember to run a periodic search and yell at people.
21:45:21 <Calchan>	ulm, and yes on all 3 questions
21:45:22 <PSYCHO___>	yes from me but we could wait to the bugzie 3 migration with actualy turning it on :]
21:45:37 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, in case you need help with the yelling you know who to ask ;o)
21:45:37 <solar>	he might not be able to purge them w/o mass bug spam. So it may just be a hidden resolution for while
21:46:00 <ulm>	I vote yes too
21:46:02 <ulm>	leio?
21:46:13 <solar>	PSYCHO___: $nick -> scarab.. please
21:46:33 <PSYCHO___>	i cant :(
21:46:38 <PSYCHO___>	it is still here
21:46:39 <leio>	can the chair please spell out what we are actually voting here to avoid confusion again?
21:46:40 <PSYCHO___>	wait a sec
21:46:56 <leio>	are we voting on the first point of removing LATER and REMIND, or all of them right now, or what
21:46:58 <ulm>	leio: vote on "Remove LATER and REMIND from resolutions."
21:47:21 <ulm>	one point after the other ;)
21:47:29 <leio>	yes, but conditionally on "Add LATER as a keyword" getting decided as a "yes" too.
21:47:53 <ulm>	next vote: "Add LATER as a KEYWORD"
21:47:57 <leio>	yes
21:47:59 <Calchan>	yes
21:48:01 <ulm>	I vote yes
21:48:22 <Betelgeuse>	yes
21:48:31 <dertobi123>	still yes
21:49:16 <ulm>	5 yes, so we've a majority
21:49:20 <ulm>	scarabeus, solar?
21:49:29 <solar>	we already voted
21:49:32 <solar>	both said yes
21:49:34 <PSYCHO___>	well i can say yes on this acc
21:49:41 <Betelgeuse>	For OBSOLETE there's some overlap with CANTFIX
21:50:28 <scarabeus>	i vote yes for all 3
21:50:31 <Betelgeuse>	but I still like for more accurate describing
21:50:36 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, but OBSOLETE can be considered a special case of CANTFIX
21:50:43 <Calchan>	so that still works imo
21:50:46 <solar>	yes, but that can't be avoided.
21:50:46 <scarabeus>	now lets hope now the connection to quassel core holds :]
21:50:55 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: basically what I was saying
21:51:07 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, sorry, slow brain today
21:52:40 <Calchan>	ulm, are we voting on OBSOLETE?
21:52:40 <ulm>	I suggest we just vote on "Add resolution OBSOLETE". if you think it's redundant you can vote no
21:52:49 <ulm>	Calchan: we do
21:52:53 <Betelgeuse>	yes
21:52:58 <leio>	I vote yes
21:52:58 <Calchan>	ok, it's a yes from me then
21:52:58 <dertobi123>	yes
21:53:03 <scarabeus>	yup
21:53:09 <ulm>	yes
21:53:41 <solar>	yes
21:53:57 <ulm>	all three votes unanimous then
21:54:14 <ulm>	and we are in time :)
21:54:24 <ulm>	5 conclusion
21:54:35 <ulm>	5.1 action list
21:54:35 <solar>	nearly an unanimous entire agenda
21:55:21 <ulm>	scarabeus: you follow up on 2.2?
21:55:42 <PSYCHO___>	yes
21:55:47 <PSYCHO___>	i sent the text via quasell
21:55:49 <PSYCHO___>	it will arrive
21:55:52 <PSYCHO___>	give it some time ;D
21:56:06 <ulm>	k
21:56:18 <ulm>	anything else for 5.1?
21:56:31 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: documentation needs updating
21:56:41 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: I'll see if I can find a volunteer
21:57:01 <scarabeus>	ok i will do my postproned item and sent the mail to the -dev as soon as i gather opinion of other qa members, and i hope there will be some constructive updates :]
21:57:01 <scarabeus>	ok i will do my postproned item and sent the mail to the -dev as soon as i gather opinion of other qa members, and i hope there will be some constructive updates :]
21:57:09 <scarabeus>	see it works :]
21:57:19 <ulm>	I'll take care of "doman" for pms
21:57:42 <Calchan>	scarabeus, make sure you gather input from all devs, not just QA
21:58:08 <solar>	Please. I dislike putting that into policy myself.
21:58:28 <Calchan>	scarabeus, a policy that devs don't want has no chance of being respected
21:58:37 <solar>	cuz something bonsaikitten did. sucks to punish all devs
21:58:57 <scarabeus>	well thats why i want simple override method
21:59:03 <ulm>	5.2 who takes care of log and summary?
21:59:17 <scarabeus>	and dont worry, just qa first then -dev-ml
21:59:26 <leio>	I take care of log
21:59:38 <Calchan>	ulm, I can take care of the summary tomorrow
21:59:43 <scarabeus>	i guess each of us is there rite? :]
21:59:54 <ulm>	Calchan, leio: thanks
22:00:11 <ulm>	5.3 next meeting date
22:00:20 <solar>	May 17th
22:00:49 <dertobi123>	works for me
22:00:59 <solar>	or 12th. If we don't have more then 3 items. then 17th would be better imo
22:01:02 <Calchan>	I'm open all mondays next month
22:01:22 <solar>	sorry 10th
22:01:33 <Calchan>	solar, let's do 17th, we may have a rich agenda next time due to glep 39
22:01:36 <ulm>	both 10th and 17th work for me
22:01:55 <Betelgeuse>	17th is better
22:01:59 <ulm>	any objections on May 17th?
22:02:00 <leio>	both work for me
22:02:10 <ulm>	18 UTC as usual
22:02:14 <Calchan>	yes
22:02:41 <PSYCHO___>	17 ok for me
22:02:53 <PSYCHO___>	time ok too :]
22:02:59 <ulm>	ok, 2010-05-17 18 UTC then
22:03:07 <ulm>	5.4 who will follow-up discussions and prepare the agenda?
22:03:14 <Calchan>	I can take care of the agenda, makes sense if there's alot about glep 39, unless somebody want sot do it
22:03:41 <solar>	sounds good
22:04:05 <ulm>	Calchan: thank you again
22:04:10 <Calchan>	sure
22:04:26 <ulm>	open floor then
22:04:45 <solar>	6.1) is not for the council. Kick it over to the foundation
22:04:47 <Calchan>	ulm, thanks for chairing, you did a good job, it's not an easy task
22:05:03 <solar>	or PR
22:05:19 <Calchan>	solar, good point
22:05:20 <NeddySeagoon>	Can the council publish a meetings calendar for the remainder of their term ?
22:05:29 <spatz>	scarabeus: please don't forget to add an exception for when the maintainer is away
22:05:31 <ulm>	solar: formally infra is responsible for the website
22:05:36 <Calchan>	NeddySeagoon, what do you mean? decide on the dates now?
22:05:36 <ferringb>	so... anyone mind clarifying why REQUIRED_USE original discussion from the ml (consensus among other things, and more than enough time), why it got dropped, and when it'll actually be addressed? :)
22:05:43 <NeddySeagoon>	Calchan, yes
22:06:00 *	ferringb has poked a few folk about this, but considering no response and the proper forms were followed...
22:06:04 <NeddySeagoon>	and try to stick with them
22:06:07 <solar>	ulm: we did this years ago. there were www contests etc.
22:06:09 <ulm>	ferringb: I thought we had discussed this already
22:06:27 <solar>	when new code is ready that meets the requirements infra set some years ago. It can be done
22:06:33 <Calchan>	NeddySeagoon, difficult for me, these meetings happen during office hours and the best I can do is lock a date one month in advance
22:06:47 <solar>	but that is outside the scope of the council imo
22:07:29 <Calchan>	ferringb, you need to get your glep accepted, discussed and then approved before the council can vote on it
22:07:36 <ferringb>	Calchan: it's not a glep
22:07:51 <ferringb>	Calchan: I may've used the glep format to write the sucker up, but that was purely so the council would have the data in one place
22:07:52 <Calchan>	ferringb, oh I thought you were talking about a glep
22:08:00 <Calchan>	sorry then
22:08:23 <ferringb>	ulm: partially.  I'm still not particularly happy w/ the reasoning, and I'm intent on making enough noise stuff like this doesn't get dropped on the floor without at least telling people why
22:08:40 <ferringb>	it's not like it was a backroom request.  the call for requests went out, pretty clear it was asked for
22:08:53 <ulm>	ferringb: I had also thought it was a GLEP, due to http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/gleps/required-use.html
22:09:00 *	ferringb sighs
22:09:10 <ferringb>	fine, if that's your thought
22:09:18 <ferringb>	why didn't you publically state "can't vote on it due to xyz" ?
22:09:25 <solar>	well you gave it a number, called it a "This GLEP proposes"
22:09:29 <ferringb>	instead it sits, and I have to run y'alls asses down to find out why it got ignored
22:09:32 <solar>	so it looks like a draft glep to us
22:09:39 <ferringb>	solar: number is actually required to generate html
22:09:45 <Calchan>	ferringb, you are talking to council members here, so make sure you're unambiguous and explicit as much as possible as we're kinda thinck ;o)
22:09:45 <ferringb>	an annoying restriction actually
22:10:09 <ferringb>	Calchan: ok, explicit: do not go dropping requests without explaining why
22:10:13 <ferringb>	even a "don't have time" is fine
22:10:19 <ulm>	ferringb: we've discussed that before I finalised the agenda :(
22:10:37 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: I think what ferringb would have wanted as a faster reaction
22:10:43 <ferringb>	ulm: aware of the justifications; the point I'm after here is the lack of response ;)
22:11:26 <ferringb>	think of it this way; y'all think it's a glep.  thus far no pms change has been glepped, but whatever, ok.  if someone had even *commented* on it stating "sorry, can't touch it", could've done something about it.  instead it's 5-6 weeks of wait, instead of 1-2.
22:11:29 <Betelgeuse>	To note for the people doing agenda in the future: Answer all requests int he thread.
22:11:35 <ferringb>	Betelgeuse: exactly
22:11:58 <ferringb>	preferably not 5 minutes before you've assembled a proto agenda also
22:12:06 <Calchan>	ferringb, we suck more often than not, sorry
22:12:16 <ferringb>	Calchan: people suck more often than not, welcome to the human race
22:12:26 <ulm>	Betelgeuse: I've contacted everyone on irc, should be as good
22:12:35 <ferringb>	the people who don't suck are the ones who correct mistakes so they don't repeat 'em ;)
22:12:41 <Calchan>	ferringb, don't look at me, I don't look human today ;o)
22:13:03 <solar>	I'd like to see ^^ in it's own section. It's easy to overlook the introduction of new operators that we know will probably become a desired feature elsewhere that !? ( :[] ) syntax is used
22:13:15 <ferringb>	solar: well, we've got a month to discuss that, don't we? ;)
22:13:18 <ferringb>	and yes, that was cheap
22:13:34 <ferringb>	solar: I'll work on splitting that up for potential license reuse
22:13:36 <Betelgeuse>	ulm: yeah but hard for others to know you have talked on IRC
22:14:00 <ferringb>	ulm: also, I poked you... and that was after the schedule was set (I find out on my own) ;)
22:14:52 <ferringb>	basically, if you put out a "request for council discussion points" on dev, stuff that shows up there either include, or respond explaining why not.  simple enough request, and preferably done during the week/two, rather than last minute
22:14:58 <ferringb>	last minute being fine if the schedule doesn't fit mind you
22:15:03 <ferringb>	either way, </lecture>
22:15:23 <solar>	ok. well you have all our ears now for input/feedback.
22:16:00 <ferringb>	alternatively, approve everything I hand your way... preferably w/ a resolution stating that my word is law so I don't have to burn a month or two for everything I'm after :P
22:16:09 <solar>	I think the idea is neat. I don't see you saying the PM has to do anything. It's just a key that can be used if it exists right?
22:16:19 <--	PSYCHO___ has quit (Quit: WeeChat 0.3.1.1)
22:16:35 <ferringb>	solar: rephrase your question... also, can it wait a bit?  need to run down someone work wise for a second
22:17:10 <--	Zorry_N900 has quit (Quit: Leaving)
22:17:15 <Philantrop>	ferringb: You actually said yourself it's a GLEP: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/66105
22:17:52 <Calchan>	ferringb, /win 11
22:17:56 <Calchan>	dammit
22:18:31 <solar>	ulm: did we cover OpenFloor 6.2 ?
22:18:53 <ferringb>	Philantrop: "wrote it up as a glep" doesn't mean drop it on the floor with zero explanation
22:19:24 <ulm>	solar: not yet
22:19:28 <ulm>	6.2 "centralise developer documentation"
22:19:29 <Calchan>	solar, it's open floor so anybody who wants to discuss it is welcome, it doesn't necessarily have to be council members though
22:19:53 <Betelgeuse>	yeah it's not open floor if it's rigidly controlled :)
22:19:59 <Philantrop>	ferringb: No, I just wanted to make clear why the council may have seen it as a GLEP.
22:19:59 <ulm>	I'd thought yngwin would comment on 6.1 and 6.2
22:20:01 <ferringb>	Philantrop: further, preceeding proposal still had zero commentary from the council, my intent in writing that doc was purely so they had all the details/info in a single spot, not to get nailed by fricking red tape
22:20:09 <ulm>	butt looks like he isn't here
22:20:12 <ulm>	*but
22:20:25 <ferringb>	Philantrop: I grok the view.  annoyance there is the wasted month ahead due to no communication ;)
22:20:29 <Philantrop>	ferringb: Don't shoot the messenger. :-)
22:20:34 <solar>	I just want to make sure it does not get lost.
22:20:36 *	ferringb is in a shooty mood
22:20:54 <ferringb>	solar: around in a few hours re: discussing ^^ btw
22:21:17 <solar>	on 6.1. Sounds good if yngwin is going to voluenteer to take lead on it. Or so is my suggestion to him
22:21:40 <Betelgeuse>	I have been giving tasks related to 6.2 for people contacting me for small tasks.
22:21:45 <solar>	ferringb: I need to get out after this meeting is over. Around this evening
22:21:52 <ulm>	solar: he already volunteered on that one
22:21:59 <Betelgeuse>	but so far most have failed to deliver anything
22:22:15 *	yngwin is not volunteering for anything until my devrel issue is resolved
22:22:35 <Calchan>	I think 6.2 is a damned good idea though, one we realy need, but it needs to be done in a way that we don't step over the doc team's toes
22:22:52 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: developer documentation is not controlled by doc team in any way
22:22:55 <ulm>	yngwin: right, I remember so said something like that
22:22:56 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: I control it all pretty much
22:25:02 <Calchan>	Betelgeuse, I thought devmanual was under QA's umbrella, and what I meant is we could consider going further, but that was just an idea
22:25:16 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: It is under QA but I can push.
22:26:03 <Betelgeuse>	Calchan: I would hope QA being more active in maintaining it.
22:27:06 <solar>	I don't see that happening on it's own.
22:34:31 <Betelgeuse>	Seems discussions has quieted down.
22:34:46 <Betelgeuse>	Time for me to move on then. Thanks for everyone.
22:36:20 <ferringb>	solar: 'k, can discuss then
22:40:04 <ulm>	can we close the meeting?
22:40:37 <leio>	yes, so this would be my raw log cut-off point :)