path: root/meeting-logs/20190210.txt

2019-02-10 19:50:15<@K_F> today's agenda; https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/5c0c0f5552709aca0154b554b9b451fa
2019-02-10 19:56:00 * WilliamH is here
2019-02-10 20:00:02<@K_F> 1. Roll call
2019-02-10 20:00:07<@K_F> !proj council
2019-02-10 20:00:08<+willikins> K_F: (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh
2019-02-10 20:00:08 * WilliamH here
2019-02-10 20:00:09 * K_F here
2019-02-10 20:00:14<@dilfridge> good morning!
2019-02-10 20:00:19 * ulm here
2019-02-10 20:00:20 * Whissi here
2019-02-10 20:00:22 * dilfridge here
2019-02-10 20:00:34 * slyfox here
2019-02-10 20:00:50<@K_F> leio: ?
2019-02-10 20:00:54 * leio here
2019-02-10 20:01:05<@K_F> goodies, everyone present
2019-02-10 20:01:24<@K_F> lets get started then...
2019-02-10 20:01:25<@K_F> 2. Appeals of Moderation Decisions
2019-02-10 20:01:26<@K_F> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/77eb7e1bd0caf46f48e4281ea0fe3307
2019-02-10 20:01:35<@K_F> so, this case seems to have mostly resolved itself
2019-02-10 20:01:44<@dilfridge> hmm? what happened?
2019-02-10 20:02:09<@K_F> but lets confirm the results, that appeals can be made to ComRel for longer term bans (>1w) , without going through proctors
2019-02-10 20:02:35<@K_F> but the underlying foundation is to try to solve the issue as low as level as possible
2019-02-10 20:03:03<@K_F> dilfridge: nothing except the discussion on the ML itself
2019-02-10 20:03:08<@dilfridge> ack
2019-02-10 20:04:12<@K_F> comrel definitely has a community-wide responsibility
2019-02-10 20:04:13<@Whissi> So what's the problem here? Someone can get banned >1w from forum staff. The person who got banned can ask ComRel to check if the ban is correct?
2019-02-10 20:04:17<@K_F> including forums and irc channels
2019-02-10 20:04:22<@dilfridge> sounds reasonable and good to me (but it is a change from previous policy)
2019-02-10 20:04:24<@K_F> but normally try to not interefere
2019-02-10 20:04:42<@K_F> dilfridge: is it really a change?
2019-02-10 20:04:53<@dilfridge> depends on who you ask
2019-02-10 20:04:58<@dilfridge> but yes, I think so
2019-02-10 20:05:24<@K_F> well, in that case it makes sense for us to have a vote on it 
2019-02-10 20:05:47<@K_F> which aspects do you believe actually represents a change and we should make a motion on?
2019-02-10 20:06:04<@dilfridge> let's also make sure it applies to every ban by one of the "moderation teams", and not mention forums / forum-ops explicitly
2019-02-10 20:06:14<@K_F> indeed
2019-02-10 20:06:49<@dilfridge> well, comrel was in the past rather unwilling to touch anything related to gentoo-ops or forum-mods ("these teams are running themselves")
2019-02-10 20:07:28<@dilfridge> so clarifying that there is a general appeal path and that it leads to comrel (next) would be the statement
2019-02-10 20:07:34<@K_F> well, it still does... but it is ultimately part of community so I don't necessarily see it actually being change to have appeal possibility to comrel, in particular for longer term bans etc
2019-02-10 20:07:43<@dilfridge> yes
2019-02-10 20:08:02<@dilfridge> did anyone from gentoo-ops speak out btw?
2019-02-10 20:08:08<@dilfridge> like, jer, patrick, ...?
2019-02-10 20:08:25<@K_F> depending on how we want to phrase it , the one asking for appeal has the burden of providing evidence for misuse of power in the lower instance
2019-02-10 20:08:37<@K_F> I haven't seen anything from them
2019-02-10 20:09:28<@dilfridge> K_F: I guess since you're also comrel, you're the best person to provide a first text suggestion :D
2019-02-10 20:10:05<@K_F> dilfridge: I'm writing it up in our etherpad atm
2019-02-10 20:11:23<@K_F> so, first draft
2019-02-10 20:11:27<@K_F> "The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from moderation teams to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide burden of proof of misuse of power."
2019-02-10 20:12:30<@ulm> hm, that last part is redundant
2019-02-10 20:12:42<@K_F> ulm: not necessarily
2019-02-10 20:12:55<@K_F> without it a user can ask for a full review
2019-02-10 20:12:57<@dilfridge> "and other sanctions of similarly severe impact" ?
2019-02-10 20:13:19<@K_F> dilfridge: can you elaborate a bit on it?
2019-02-10 20:13:20<@ulm> "burden of proof is on the one appealing" or "is their responsibility to provide proof"
2019-02-10 20:13:36<@ulm> but not "provide burden of proof"
2019-02-10 20:13:46<@slyfox> What resources are in scope? For example is #gentoo-powerpc in scope? How one would find out?
2019-02-10 20:14:00<@K_F> ulm: I like the latter, feel free to update the draft in etherpad
2019-02-10 20:14:10<@K_F> slyfox: yes, all gentoo namespace is in scope of that
2019-02-10 20:14:26<@dilfridge> K_F: it's a get-out-clause, right now I cant imagine any other sanctions, but if someone comes up with one and it is heavyhanded, I dont want it to be excluded
2019-02-10 20:14:43<@slyfox> what is "gentoo namespace"?
2019-02-10 20:15:00<@K_F> dilfridge: well, arguably if ti happens we can make it a new decision then, otoh, I'm fine with a general scope of things, so wfm
2019-02-10 20:15:10<@K_F> slyfox: for IRC it'd be what we control through groupcontacts
2019-02-10 20:15:15<@K_F> but it also impacts forums etc
2019-02-10 20:15:25<@Whissi> But let's imagine a user will get banned because forum staff don't like that guy. No other real reason. How should that guy proof the misuse? So I would delete the last part and yes, allow anyone facing a longer ban, maybe raise to >2w, requesting a full review through ComRel.
2019-02-10 20:15:37<+jmbsvicetto> slyfox: actually the gentoo namespace falls to group contacts ;-)
2019-02-10 20:15:38<@K_F> slyfox: for freenode we control #gentoo-*
2019-02-10 20:15:40<+jmbsvicetto> slyfox: sorry
2019-02-10 20:15:43<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: ^^
2019-02-10 20:16:09<@dilfridge> heh, slyfox has a point, people banned from an irc channel by channel ops will fall under this
2019-02-10 20:16:16<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: that is a technical matter, they will do what is directed by gentoo mostly
2019-02-10 20:16:36<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I believe in the past no one was too worried about providing appeals for individual team project's irc channels. I doubt ComRel is too keen on having to deal with those or that there is any benefit
2019-02-10 20:16:50<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: abuse of power complaints about moderation teams are a different subject
2019-02-10 20:17:06<@K_F> well, that is mostly what we're discussing here, isn't it?
2019-02-10 20:17:23<@dilfridge> that's why probably the explicit abuse of power clause is good
2019-02-10 20:18:07<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I feel some people are trying to "force" or "coerce" all teams to have to go through extra hoops
2019-02-10 20:18:35<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I also haven't seen compeling evidence of abuse of power by existing moderation teams to warrant the change
2019-02-10 20:18:47<@K_F> well, there are several avenues in this.. the initial motion proposed gives an appeal process in case of misuse of powerr
2019-02-10 20:18:50<@dilfridge> lol
2019-02-10 20:19:03<@K_F> but there is no doubt that all of gentoo is under the same direction that ultimately falls under council
2019-02-10 20:19:23<@K_F> and whether there is existence of abuse of power doesn't change the appeals path
2019-02-10 20:19:40<@K_F> that needs to be part of policy on general matter
2019-02-10 20:19:55<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: that has always been the case. Any developer, and to an extent every team, is subject to ComRel if they misbehave - there's no need to create "extra rules"
2019-02-10 20:20:00<@K_F> but yes, it should only be escalated in case of abuse of power, and in that case the burden of proof is on the one making the complaint
2019-02-10 20:20:23<@K_F> that is my point, this isn't a new rule, we're just affirming that it is the way it is
2019-02-10 20:20:45<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: but if you want to document that, that at least might avoid the same issues being raised time after time
2019-02-10 20:20:45<@K_F> "The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from all moderation teams to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide proof of misuse of power."
2019-02-10 20:21:02<@K_F> "affirms" implies no new rule
2019-02-10 20:21:31<@K_F> but since there is obviously some questions on it, we're stating it, and the conditions where it applies
2019-02-10 20:21:44<@K_F> at least in that special case
2019-02-10 20:22:23<@dilfridge> "Longer term bans (>1w) and similarly impactful sanctions by moderation teams can be appealed to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide proof of misuse of power."
2019-02-10 20:22:42<@Whissi> Is would delete the last sentence... like said, how do you expect that someone proves misuse of power?
2019-02-10 20:22:43<@K_F> dilfridge: sgtm
2019-02-10 20:22:50<@Whissi> s/Is/I/
2019-02-10 20:23:04<@K_F> Whissi: that is an important aspect of it, that I wouldn't delete actually
2019-02-10 20:23:08<@WilliamH> Yeah, I'm with Whissi
2019-02-10 20:23:10<@dilfridge> Whissi: you explain that nothing bad happened and moderation team overreacted badly
2019-02-10 20:23:44<@WilliamH> dilfridge: how do you do that if say, you get a sanction out of the blue with no warnings from the moderation team etc?
2019-02-10 20:23:56<@dilfridge> if you can make that point in a believable and reasonable way, it's time to hear the side of the moderation team for that
2019-02-10 20:24:10<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / dilfridge: If #gentoo ops or forums moderators decide to ban someone for an extended time for abusive behaviour / obvious trolling or spamming, I don't see why ComRel needs to get involved
2019-02-10 20:24:16<@dilfridge> you state precisely that
2019-02-10 20:24:23<@WilliamH> "Hey Moderation team, I'm appealing to comrel, can you give me logs of your conversations about your sanction against me?"
2019-02-10 20:24:31<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / dilfridge: or for that matter any project deciding to ban anyone from the project irc channel (for similar behaviour)
2019-02-10 20:24:36<@WilliamH> That probably wouldn't go over well.
2019-02-10 20:25:00<@Whissi> ACK.
2019-02-10 20:25:03<@dilfridge> jmbsvicetto: precisely... so in that case it's kinda hard to show "I didnt do anything"
2019-02-10 20:26:03<@WilliamH> I would rather see the last sentence removed I think.
2019-02-10 20:26:18<@K_F> ok, lets make it a two-component vote 
2019-02-10 20:26:20<@dilfridge> so one of the ideas of the latter sentence is that the appeal needs to have merit, you can't just go to comrel
2019-02-10 20:26:37<@K_F> 1st is on the generla path, the 2nd is the burden of proof
2019-02-10 20:26:39<@ulm> "... provide evidence that the ban was unjustified"?
2019-02-10 20:26:48<@dilfridge> ulm++
2019-02-10 20:26:54<@dilfridge> that's a nice alternative
2019-02-10 20:27:02<@dilfridge> and much more clear
2019-02-10 20:27:16<+NeddySeagoon> I would expect the normal appeal loop to be used before anything goes to comrel.  So there will be the incident and the local appeal.  That will take more than a week
2019-02-10 20:27:21<@ulm> s/ban/sanction/
2019-02-10 20:27:23<@K_F> ulm: wfm, will yup update etherpad?
2019-02-10 20:27:48<@Whissi> I would delete the last sentence. Should ComRel experience the problem that everyone is now going to ComRel to appeal any decision from lower instance ComRel can ask us to find a solution for that new problem. But until there is one, I wouldn't try to find a solution.
2019-02-10 20:28:03<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: well, yes, normally the single ban would be appealed to the broader moderation team, before it goes to comrel
2019-02-10 20:28:25<@K_F> Whissi: there are often issues like that ... and it causes a lot of work on comrel
2019-02-10 20:28:27<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: As long as thats inferred somehow
2019-02-10 20:28:32<@K_F> in any case, lets split it in two votes
2019-02-10 20:28:36<@dilfridge> we could insert a sentence
2019-02-10 20:28:59<@dilfridge> "if the moderation team has an appeal procedure itself, that path has to be used first."
2019-02-10 20:29:15<@dilfridge> has a formal appeal procedure
2019-02-10 20:29:17<@K_F> dilfridge: that wfm, will you add?
2019-02-10 20:29:25<+NeddySeagoon> wfm
2019-02-10 20:30:03<@dilfridge> done
2019-02-10 20:30:44<@WilliamH> paste the draft here again?
2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> Vote 2.1:
2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from all moderation teams to comrel.. If the moderation team in question has a formal appeal procedure, that path has to be used before an appeal to comrel.
2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> Vote:2.2 (as an addemdum to vote 2.1)
2019-02-10 20:31:13<@K_F>  or an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide evidence that the sanction was unjustified
2019-02-10 20:31:30<@dilfridge> *For
2019-02-10 20:31:31<@K_F> s/or/for
2019-02-10 20:31:47<@dilfridge> I would still remove the "affirm"
2019-02-10 20:31:51<@dilfridge> wait a sec
2019-02-10 20:32:18<@Whissi> Do we really need 2.2? I mean, isn't it normal that the one complaining will tell us WHY?
2019-02-10 20:32:34<@K_F> Whissi: no, the "normal" is them asking or a full review
2019-02-10 20:32:50<@K_F> so there is a much larger burden of comrel if the burden of proof isn't on the one complaining
2019-02-10 20:32:51 * WilliamH is against 2.2
2019-02-10 20:33:02<@K_F> WilliamH: that is why we're making it a separate vote
2019-02-10 20:33:11<@dilfridge> we're a bit overformalizing this, but that seems to be needed
2019-02-10 20:33:59<@K_F> so , lets vote... 2.1 is
2019-02-10 20:34:05<@K_F> Vote 2.1:
2019-02-10 20:34:05<@K_F> Longer term bans (>1w) and similarly impactful sanctions by moderation teams can be appealed to comrel. If the moderation team in question has a formal appeal procedure, that path has to be used before an appeal to comrel.
2019-02-10 20:34:07<@WilliamH> imo once an appeal gets to comrel it should be a full review.
2019-02-10 20:34:13 * K_F yes
2019-02-10 20:34:25 * dilfridge yes
2019-02-10 20:34:30 * WilliamH yes
2019-02-10 20:34:32 * ulm yes
2019-02-10 20:34:36 * slyfox yes
2019-02-10 20:34:39<+NeddySeagoon> Hmm individual mods, to teams, to comrel to council ...
2019-02-10 20:34:49 * leio yes
2019-02-10 20:35:21 * Whissi yes
2019-02-10 20:35:29<@K_F> so that is unanumous
2019-02-10 20:35:41<@K_F> Vote 2.2 (as an addemdum to vote 2.1)
2019-02-10 20:35:43<@K_F> For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide evidence that the sanction was unjustified
2019-02-10 20:35:49 * K_F yes
2019-02-10 20:35:52 * WilliamH no
2019-02-10 20:35:53 * Whissi no
2019-02-10 20:35:58 * ulm yes
2019-02-10 20:36:02 * dilfridge abstain
2019-02-10 20:36:26 * leio no
2019-02-10 20:36:52 * slyfox no
2019-02-10 20:37:09<@K_F> ok, so that does not carry.. i.e comrel needs to do a full review if requested
2019-02-10 20:37:38<+NeddySeagoon> To the naysayers ... you expect comrel to do the data gathering?
2019-02-10 20:37:46<@K_F> that is implied, yes
2019-02-10 20:37:50<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: for the record, comrel was already requiring the "burden of proof"
2019-02-10 20:37:55<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: I think that's reasonable, yes.
2019-02-10 20:37:56<@Whissi> K_F: If ComRel wants 2.2 for some reason, maybe you need a better explanation but at the moment I don't understand why this is needed and fear that it will be used to block any review request
2019-02-10 20:38:22<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so I guess we (comrel) will have to see if we feel this vote is making a requirement for us or is just the opinion of council
2019-02-10 20:38:39<@K_F> it certainly makes a requirement for us
2019-02-10 20:39:01<+NeddySeagoon> How does comrel get access to forums PMs?
2019-02-10 20:39:19<@WilliamH> The problem with making the person who appeals do the data gathering is that the mods wouldn't want to give that person the data.
2019-02-10 20:39:29<@dilfridge> please take that debate to the private comrel channel :D
2019-02-10 20:39:32<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: we'll have to request it from the teams if necessary
2019-02-10 20:39:34<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: first, because we trust individual moderation teams. second, because we don't want to review complaints as "bad dev on #gentoo-x is a $$#$# doesn't like me and banned me".
2019-02-10 20:39:58<@K_F> but the vote is done, lets move on to next case
2019-02-10 20:40:10<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: For the second, you'll have to provide evidence that "bad dev" and the entire moderation team on "gentoo-x" really misbehaved
2019-02-10 20:40:19<@K_F> 3. Forums (specifically OTW)
2019-02-10 20:40:21<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Lets see how it works in real life
2019-02-10 20:40:53<@dilfridge> ok so
2019-02-10 20:41:01<@K_F> so, we have discussed this a bit in private , and come up with the current motion that is general instead of going into micro-decisions
2019-02-10 20:41:23<@K_F> Vote 3.1
2019-02-10 20:41:26<@K_F> All activity on Gentoo infrastructure and in the name of Gentoo shall predominantly be used to serve the Gentoo distribution. It is not Gentoo's responsibility to host and moderate content outside the scope of free software, in particular the Gentoo distribution.
2019-02-10 20:41:48 * K_F yes
2019-02-10 20:41:56<+NeddySeagoon> The Forums also discuss hardware.
2019-02-10 20:42:34<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: fair enough, do you have a proposal for amendment?
2019-02-10 20:42:56<@K_F> note that we say "predominatly", and hardware can certainly be covered in "serve the Gentoo distribution"
2019-02-10 20:43:27<@slyfox> For some reason i read "distribution" as "literally ship Gentoo" :)
2019-02-10 20:43:31<@Whissi> Sorry, if 3.1 will be used to get rid of OTW or kick everything which is not 100% Gentoo I cannot vote "yes" here. This would need more details...
2019-02-10 20:43:36<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so is the council really going to vote on how the forums should be conducted moderated and go over the forums administrators / moderators?
2019-02-10 20:43:39<+NeddySeagoon> Just that discussions related to hardware to support Gentoo needs to be permitted
2019-02-10 20:43:45<@WilliamH> Hmm, something like, "... in particular, the Gentoo distribution and hardware where it can be run."
2019-02-10 20:44:13<+jmbsvicetto> run and moderated*
2019-02-10 20:44:18<@K_F> WilliamH: that works for me, will you update the etherpad?
2019-02-10 20:44:20<+NeddySeagoon> can -> may
2019-02-10 20:44:31<@WilliamH> K_F: I'm not sure how to do that.
2019-02-10 20:44:41<@dilfridge> this is not really helpful
2019-02-10 20:44:41<@K_F> WilliamH: see link in the private channel
2019-02-10 20:44:44<@WilliamH> K_F: or if it is accessible. ;-)
2019-02-10 20:45:22<@dilfridge> good point
2019-02-10 20:45:32<+NeddySeagoon> If I want to talk about Gentoo on new_arch it belongs on the forum but its not yet running on new_arch
2019-02-10 20:45:32<@K_F> it was discussed there for a week already, but if there is uncertainty about hardware being in-scope lets fix it
2019-02-10 20:45:42<@WilliamH> pulling it up now
2019-02-10 20:46:11<@K_F> the point is mainly that things related to the distribution is in-scope, and that includes hardware discussions
2019-02-10 20:46:14<@K_F> it does not involve kittens
2019-02-10 20:46:43<@K_F> and since comrel has responsibility to moderate things as stated in vote 2.1, we reduce the burden on other projects by setting the scope
2019-02-10 20:46:51<+NeddySeagoon> My kitten has a tracking collar that runs Gentoo.
2019-02-10 20:46:51<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so no #gentoo-kittens?
2019-02-10 20:46:53<@leio> kittens are a very important factor for the mental health of gentoo users and developers alike
2019-02-10 20:46:53<@K_F> so yes, we decide what is relevant for Gentoo and what is not
2019-02-10 20:47:12<@WilliamH> Hmm doesn't seem very usable.
2019-02-10 20:47:27<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: we = council?
2019-02-10 20:47:35<@slyfox> royal we
2019-02-10 20:47:35<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: yes
2019-02-10 20:47:41<@Whissi> I would agree on what your are saying but I have to feeling that you will use 3.1 to close OTW sub forum for example...
2019-02-10 20:47:46<@Whissi> -to
2019-02-10 20:48:13<@dilfridge> this makes no sense, because I think you're trying to come up with a rule that doesnt fit what you actually want to do
2019-02-10 20:48:45<@K_F> dilfridge: well, 3.1 is the statement that came out of last week's discussion in the private channel
2019-02-10 20:48:50<@WilliamH> I don't have access to the forums, but hasn't otw been the wild west where people talk about anything, linux or not?
2019-02-10 20:49:08<@K_F> WilliamH: you do have access, it isn't requiring a user to see
2019-02-10 20:49:27<@WilliamH> K_F: I mean accessibility wise, I don't go to the forums.
2019-02-10 20:49:50<@dilfridge> K_F: yes, I kind of realized that now, but last week has been a bit horrible time-wise for me
2019-02-10 20:49:51<@K_F> but it follows from 2.1 that comrel has a reponsibility to handle appeals from such forums, and discussions not gentoo-related can cause additional work on other projects if they are not limited
2019-02-10 20:50:13<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Does it already ?
2019-02-10 20:50:15<@K_F> and in particular given 2.2 that burden is increased
2019-02-10 20:50:18<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: yes
2019-02-10 20:50:44 * dilfridge goes register #gentoo-kittens
2019-02-10 20:50:58<+b-man> leio: unless K_F is involved... He hates kittens.
2019-02-10 20:51:12<@dilfridge> meow
2019-02-10 20:51:45<@leio> I do not understand the purpose here
2019-02-10 20:51:59<@Whissi> I really don't like the idea of 3.1... the topic is too complex to solve it with such a simple statement.
2019-02-10 20:52:16<@slyfox> we had an interesting case on #gentoo-powerpc where a person kept bringing up problems they have on hppa and x86 and refused to provide any ppc-specific logs :)
2019-02-10 20:52:17<@leio> at this rate I will have to go and make a new blog account somewhere, because if after 10 years I want to write a blog post, it might not exactly be all gentoo-relevant
2019-02-10 20:52:25<@K_F> leio: the primary question is whether we should provide gentoo infrastructure and resources (incluing appeals etc) for matters not related to Gentoo
2019-02-10 20:52:55<@dilfridge> no
2019-02-10 20:52:59<@Whissi> It is a community. Not everying is a 1 and 0.
2019-02-10 20:53:16<@dilfridge> the primary question is whether "Off The Wall" should be hosted in the gentoo forums
2019-02-10 20:53:28<@K_F> well, OTW is just a specific case
2019-02-10 20:53:29<@dilfridge> let's not talk around it
2019-02-10 20:53:35<@leio> there is no community if it's just strictly technical
2019-02-10 20:53:36<@Whissi> dilfridge++
2019-02-10 20:53:38<@K_F> any decision would need to be generic
2019-02-10 20:53:50<@leio> in IRC we do stuff similar to OTW as well; talk politics and so on
2019-02-10 20:53:56<@ulm> as I said before, the council cannot micromanage how forum mods sort and classify forums postings
2019-02-10 20:53:59<@leio> but we don't own that infrastructure
2019-02-10 20:54:07<@leio> but other people don't like real time chat kind of things, and use the forums instead
2019-02-10 20:54:14<@dilfridge> in general, I think the forums are a useful and very helpful thing
2019-02-10 20:54:21<@K_F> dilfridge: indeed
2019-02-10 20:54:21<@ulm> so IMHO we cannot say that they should shut down a particular forum
2019-02-10 20:54:22<+NeddySeagoon> The hardware that hosts the forums was donated for that explicit purpose. Its not avaiable for anything else.
2019-02-10 20:54:37<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I hope the next step isn't a rule stating that you'll control what gentoo developers do or can think about - because the proposal for 3.1 seems we'll be "falling down the rabbit hole"
2019-02-10 20:54:41<@dilfridge> I'm not really averse to off-topic chatter as well
2019-02-10 20:55:04<+NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto: Mext up, the ML
2019-02-10 20:55:10<@dilfridge> my main problem is a different one, namely that OTW is "a dongle waiting to happen"
2019-02-10 20:55:12<@Whissi> This is like the idea some politicians have: Just forbid something and the problem is solved. No. That's not how it works.
2019-02-10 20:55:22<@K_F> ok, one alternative is deferring this to more discussion on ML
2019-02-10 20:55:35<@ulm> +1
2019-02-10 20:55:48<@K_F> and re-opening for next meeting
2019-02-10 20:55:52<+NeddySeagoon> dilfridge: The Striesland effect  :)
2019-02-10 20:56:04<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: presumably Streisand :)
2019-02-10 20:56:15<@dilfridge> not really
2019-02-10 20:56:27<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Yes, sorry for my spelling
2019-02-10 20:56:40<@dilfridge> ok you could say, as long as we dont talk about otw, maybe noone notices it
2019-02-10 20:56:48<@K_F> ok, Vote 3.1: This topic is deferred to further discussion on the ML
2019-02-10 20:56:56<+NeddySeagoon> It can be logged in users only
2019-02-10 20:57:11<@dilfridge> NeddySeagoon: right now it's indexed by google
2019-02-10 20:57:22<@dilfridge> so that can't really be true
2019-02-10 20:57:28<@K_F> dilfridge: whether indexed by google or not isn't really material
2019-02-10 20:57:32<@Whissi> But this can be fixed.
2019-02-10 20:57:38<+NeddySeagoon> As desultory said on the ML, that can be changed.
2019-02-10 20:57:49<@dilfridge> yes, fine. just replying to the remark
2019-02-10 20:57:57<+NeddySeagoon> OK
2019-02-10 20:58:06<@K_F> it doesn't affect gentoo's exposure whether it is impacted by search engines or not
2019-02-10 20:58:13<@dilfridge> OK so I'm all for deferring to the lists
2019-02-10 20:58:15 * dilfridge yes
2019-02-10 20:58:16<@K_F> any journalist writing about it will go to the direct soruce
2019-02-10 20:58:18<@K_F> source*
2019-02-10 20:58:20 * K_F yes
2019-02-10 20:58:25 * slyfox yes for deferral
2019-02-10 20:58:28 * ulm yes
2019-02-10 20:58:29 * leio yes
2019-02-10 20:58:34 * Whissi yes for deferral
2019-02-10 20:58:35 * WilliamH yes for deferral
2019-02-10 20:59:08<@K_F> good, lets continue discussion on this
2019-02-10 20:59:15<@K_F> 4. Default ACCEPT_LICENSE
2019-02-10 20:59:30<@K_F> https://bugs.gentoo.org/676248
2019-02-10 20:59:35<+NeddySeagoon> Lets be consistent and include mailing lists too.
2019-02-10 20:59:40<@K_F> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/4dc7170def0d2180b6f1144942bec2d0
2019-02-10 20:59:59<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: lets take that discussion on ML, but indeed..
2019-02-10 21:00:05<@WilliamH> I think we should leave the accept_license default the way it is and document how users can change it.
2019-02-10 21:00:12-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v kentnl] by ChanServ
2019-02-10 21:00:24<@Whissi> Has anyone tested if changing ACCEPT_LICENSE from "* -@EULA" to "@FREE" will affect stage3 generation?
2019-02-10 21:00:25<@dilfridge> NeddySeagoon: I dont think we have much conspiracy theory or alt-right discussions on the lists.
2019-02-10 21:00:57<@K_F> lets drop discussion on the previous point and move on... that is already deferred for forther discussion
2019-02-10 21:00:59<@ulm> Whissi: stage3 should only contain free software, at least that was so a couple of years ago
2019-02-10 21:01:47<@ulm> if not, it might even violate the social contract
2019-02-10 21:01:56<@Whissi> Well, if stage3 is not affected, I want that change. It doesn't really affect users... some users only have to do an additional change. But it will raise awareness. Not a hard blocker.
2019-02-10 21:01:58<@slyfox> Is there an exact list of licences removed in '"* -@EULA" -> "@FREE"' posted anywhere?
2019-02-10 21:02:37<@ulm> slyfox: there's no @non-free group
2019-02-10 21:02:44<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: hmm, what type of licenses wouldn't be accepted with the new default?
2019-02-10 21:02:44<@K_F> slyfox: the FREE license group is found in profiles/license_groups
2019-02-10 21:02:48<@ulm> i.e. non-free is all without @FREE
2019-02-10 21:03:05<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: any that isn't covered by OSI or FSF
2019-02-10 21:03:12<@dilfridge> so you'd need @non-free without @EULA
2019-02-10 21:03:16<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: FWIW, we already have USE="bindist" on official stages, so anything that doesn't allow binary distribution is already "out" of the stages
2019-02-10 21:03:37<@leio> that's not how USE=bindist works.
2019-02-10 21:03:43<@Whissi> jauhien: BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE group would be missing. So no Intel microcodes for example without accepting intel-ucode license.
2019-02-10 21:03:59<@Whissi> s/jauhien/jmbsvicetto
2019-02-10 21:04:05<@K_F> you wouldn't require those in the stage3 though
2019-02-10 21:04:13<+jmbsvicetto> leio: ok, true.
2019-02-10 21:04:22<@K_F> but yes, we should do handbook alterations to explain how to add various things
2019-02-10 21:04:43<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: ah, then that might cause issues for the install-cd / stage4
2019-02-10 21:04:53<@dilfridge> also, maybe ask for an expanded portage error message on "masked by license" (with a link to somewhere)
2019-02-10 21:05:07<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: let me do a quick grep for firmware packages, but I believe we do have some in the ISO targets
2019-02-10 21:05:14<@K_F> so, my own take on this is described in https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/aee31797d8c4ac5bb727a4cee09d1c2c
2019-02-10 21:05:22<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: The live DVD is not the problem. They will probably add that package.
2019-02-10 21:06:13<@Whissi> Well, from my POV and my talk with mattst88.
2019-02-10 21:06:24<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: I'm talking about the install-cd / stage4
2019-02-10 21:06:25<@Whissi> Not sure about ulm and the social contract.
2019-02-10 21:06:35<@ulm> live dvd and install cds could have "-* @FREE @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE"
2019-02-10 21:06:46<@Whissi> OK, so no problem.
2019-02-10 21:06:50<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: we do have for example the ipw{2100,2200}-firmware packages on the install-cd
2019-02-10 21:07:08<@ulm> which still won't cover all firmwares
2019-02-10 21:07:14<@K_F> from Gentoo SOC, chapter "Gentoo is and will remain free software"
2019-02-10 21:07:31<@K_F> but we're not actually living up to that for our users atm
2019-02-10 21:07:53<@K_F> so users can end up in various situations where they install proprietary software by default
2019-02-10 21:07:58<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: ipw*-firmware package doesn't make gentoo "non free software". All it does is all users with that hardware to run Gentoo
2019-02-10 21:08:05<@K_F> the only sane default for us is to offer free software
2019-02-10 21:08:16<@K_F> the alternative would be to not approve any license at all to begin with
2019-02-10 21:08:27<@K_F> but describe how to set it... but I don't believe that is a good alternative
2019-02-10 21:08:35<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: That forces thinking
2019-02-10 21:08:47<@WilliamH> jmbsvicetto++
2019-02-10 21:08:48<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: I thought the old discussion about this issue was that Gentoo will not rely on non-free software, but that we are pragmatic and won't go "debian"
2019-02-10 21:08:48<@Whissi> For me, the motion is to raise awareness. We are not really adding a blocker for anyone. Maybe we need to adjust the DVD or things like that... but that's not a blocker.
2019-02-10 21:08:48<@K_F> we should default to free software to cover our social contract, and any exception from that should be up to users
2019-02-10 21:08:51<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: yeah, ipw-* is binary distributable
2019-02-10 21:09:02<+jmbsvicetto> s/all/allow/
2019-02-10 21:09:05<@ulm> some of the blobs in sys-kernel/linux-firmware aren't, though
2019-02-10 21:09:23<@K_F> but definitely we should describe it in handbook how to set license exceptions, and linux-firmware and no-source-code are good examples of things that should be listed for certain packages
2019-02-10 21:09:25<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: is that package included with any install media?
2019-02-10 21:09:33<@WilliamH> I'm with jmbsvicetto  here, let's not go so far as to break installation for users.
2019-02-10 21:10:05<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: yes, on the amd64 install-cd
2019-02-10 21:10:10<+jmbsvicetto> I just grepped the specs
2019-02-10 21:10:34<+NeddySeagoon> From a helpdesk workload PoV I prefer to stay with what we have and document how to go free.
2019-02-10 21:10:37<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: that may be problematic then
2019-02-10 21:10:49<@WilliamH> I think some kernel components are also non-free?
2019-02-10 21:11:05<@WilliamH> I've heard something about deblobbing the kernel if we go free only.
2019-02-10 21:11:20<@K_F> WilliamH: citation needed
2019-02-10 21:11:25<+jmbsvicetto> Are we going to say Gentoo can only be run on hardware without proprietary blobs?
2019-02-10 21:11:27<@ulm> WilliamH: non-free is mostly fine in context of firmware
2019-02-10 21:11:41<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: No.
2019-02-10 21:11:42<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: no, we're talking about the default ACCEPT_LICENSE
2019-02-10 21:11:43<@ulm> the problem are blobs that are not distributable
2019-02-10 21:11:53<@K_F> we're not talking about what is allowed in gentoo ebuild repository altogether
2019-02-10 21:11:58<+NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto: That kicks lots of arm hardware into touch
2019-02-10 21:12:09<@K_F> so it doesn't change status quo wrt adding things
2019-02-10 21:12:43<@Whissi> And to be honest, I epexect that user asking in #gentoo, mailing list or forum will get the answer 'just restore old "* -@EULA" value' but that's ok because the user changed this. Our defaults would be fine. That's the only thing I care about. Raising people's awareness...
2019-02-10 21:12:59<@WilliamH> I'm with NeddySeagoon  here, let's document how to go free and let users do that if they want.
2019-02-10 21:13:03<@K_F> but yes, most users wants to add >=sys-firmware/intel-microcode-20170511 intel-ucode
2019-02-10 21:13:03<@K_F> >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.9.95 linux-firmware
2019-02-10 21:13:06<@K_F> and the likes
2019-02-10 21:13:30<@Whissi> WilliamH: No. Defaults must be sane. We cannot expect that anyone will fix it.
2019-02-10 21:13:36<@K_F> WilliamH: I don't belive that is sufficient, and I belive it is against our social contract
2019-02-10 21:13:54<+jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: iirc, no x86 / amd64 hardware could be run, as all intel processors are filled with closed source blobs - before I meant closed source blobs, not necessarily proprietary
2019-02-10 21:14:05<@K_F> we should default to free software and describe how users can have exceptions
2019-02-10 21:14:17<@K_F> and we definitely should describe normal exceptions for firmware blobs
2019-02-10 21:14:29<@Whissi> Wasn't there already an update for the handbook?
2019-02-10 21:14:31<+NeddySeagoon> Lots of users will set "*" to get over the nagging.
2019-02-10 21:14:47<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: that is their prerogative
2019-02-10 21:15:10<@ulm> that means that we cannot change the default to @FREE tomorrow, but will first need a tracker bug for updating of documentation, and maybe stage3
2019-02-10 21:15:12<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: yes, but is that contributing to the "awareness" goal?
2019-02-10 21:15:40<@ulm> portage shouldn't even accept "*" there :(
2019-02-10 21:15:56<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: at least it doesn't mean users gets installs against our social contract without making explicit action
2019-02-10 21:16:22<@Whissi> Exactly.
2019-02-10 21:16:34<@WilliamH> ulm: Portage shouldn't accept USE="-* foo bar bas"  imo but it does.
2019-02-10 21:16:53<@Whissi> This is a handy feature
2019-02-10 21:16:53<@K_F> WilliamH: why shouldn't it?
2019-02-10 21:17:16<@slyfox> i use it all the time :)
2019-02-10 21:17:18<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: Has anyone even checked how many "non free" packages are pulled in by the stages / install-cd?
2019-02-10 21:17:48<@dilfridge> K_F: well at least it should warn loudly about it
2019-02-10 21:17:51<@ulm> WilliamH: for ACCEPT_LICENSE, * means to accept any license currently in the tree, and any that may be added at a later time
2019-02-10 21:17:52<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: I've been running on ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE -AGPL-3 -AGPL-3+ freedist "
2019-02-10 21:17:52<@slyfox> i think we'll ned an exact breakdown by licences in stae3 before doing any decision
2019-02-10 21:17:57<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: ... for a long time...
2019-02-10 21:17:57<@dilfridge> ok
2019-02-10 21:17:59<@dilfridge> so
2019-02-10 21:18:00<@dilfridge> defer?
2019-02-10 21:18:05<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: if the issue is the packages they can pull in when the users add packages to their system, then it stops being about Gentoo providing stages / isos that "violate the social contract"
2019-02-10 21:18:09<@K_F> no, I don't want to defer this
2019-02-10 21:18:48<@K_F> we should continue discussing it a bit more at least since we don't have further motions on the table today
2019-02-10 21:18:55<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: do you know how many packages are going to be affected? (stages and isos)
2019-02-10 21:19:01<@WilliamH> I also think we should defer We don't have any idea how the stages and install cds will be affected.
2019-02-10 21:19:06 * dilfridge looks at the palm trees outside...
2019-02-10 21:19:14<@Whissi> I also don't see a need to defer.
2019-02-10 21:19:25<@ulm> I fear that deferring to the ML won't provide any new information
2019-02-10 21:19:28<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: the gentoo social contract says we're about free software
2019-02-10 21:19:38<@K_F> today we're not persuing that goal
2019-02-10 21:19:41<@ulm> and we know that the cummunity is divided about the question
2019-02-10 21:19:43<@K_F> so that si wrong
2019-02-10 21:19:53<@Whissi> WilliamH: The thing is, install dvd will adjust. If install cd needs another package, they will just allow that license. They won't be affected by that change.
2019-02-10 21:19:54<@K_F> so we should at least have a vote on it
2019-02-10 21:20:11<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: my question above wasn't about the "political view", it was a simple technical question.
2019-02-10 21:20:20<@WilliamH> jmbsvicetto++
2019-02-10 21:20:21<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I have no idea how mahy packages are going to be affected
2019-02-10 21:20:41<@WilliamH> We have to let releng take a look at what would be affected before we do this.
2019-02-10 21:20:43<+jmbsvicetto> apologies for the spelling
2019-02-10 21:21:06<@dilfridge> well the main reason for deferring was that I think we should figure out the impact
2019-02-10 21:21:10<@Whissi> WilliamH: Again, why? If they need something, they will accept that package for their need.
2019-02-10 21:21:14<@dilfridge> not really more discussion
2019-02-10 21:21:27 * ulm uses ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" since a long time, with few exceptions in package.license
2019-02-10 21:21:35<@dilfridge> ok
2019-02-10 21:21:42<@K_F> the live CDs aren't necessarily required to follow the ACCEPT_LICENSE of the distro
2019-02-10 21:21:47<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I can argue the "political" question as well, but I was arguing as releng and wanting to have an idea of how we will be affected
2019-02-10 21:21:53<+NeddySeagoon> Whissi: So we make a non free install cd to install a free gentoo ... that seems wrong
2019-02-10 21:22:03<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon++
2019-02-10 21:22:07<@Whissi> It is really just about the default value in profile. Any project is free to accept whatever license they need.
2019-02-10 21:22:09<@K_F> as long as there is legal backing for binary redistribution
2019-02-10 21:22:52<@K_F> but ultimately the installed gentoo should have a default we can agree on
2019-02-10 21:22:53<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: Well, we cannot force a project to do what we think is right... that's just pragmatism.
2019-02-10 21:23:17<@Whissi> If people running install project want X I will not fight with them.
2019-02-10 21:23:31<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / Whissi: let me turn the question around: you both agree that we should provide a way for users with hardware that requires blobs to be able to install Gentoo, correct?
2019-02-10 21:23:56<+NeddySeagoon> Whissi: So leave the status quo asd document how to set a free system for the few that actually want to.  Thats pragmatism
2019-02-10 21:24:07<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon++
2019-02-10 21:24:08<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / Whissi: your argument is about the required licenses for that not to be in the default portage config. Am I correct?
2019-02-10 21:24:26<@ulm> it's all about the portage default
2019-02-10 21:24:34<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: Yes. And they are still able to do that. They maybe have to accept a new license which was accepted for them before. That's all.
2019-02-10 21:24:36<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: the primary issue there is linux-firmware for the blobs , we can make an exception for that for install media
2019-02-10 21:25:02<@K_F> as there is reasonable argument that we shouldn't force a user to use ubnuntu livecde to install gentoo
2019-02-10 21:25:06<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: ok, but if releng will need to modify that to build the stages / isos and that ends up in every new install, would that be ok?
2019-02-10 21:25:08<@WilliamH> K_F: why should we though if we are going to take a hard line about free software?
2019-02-10 21:25:16<@K_F> but that ultimately doesn't actually impact changing the default ACCEPT_LICENSE
2019-02-10 21:25:24<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: sure
2019-02-10 21:25:32<@K_F> for the installed software
2019-02-10 21:25:36<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: For me it is really just the awareness. Someone installing Gentoo should know that he/she is requring package X which uses license FOO which isn't free.
2019-02-10 21:26:11<@Whissi> And emerge will prompt you to accept license... there's no silent breakage.
2019-02-10 21:26:14<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: AFAIR stage3 should require no change, but I'll double check later
2019-02-10 21:26:23<@K_F> so yes, I'm fine with installation medium allowing linux-firmware
2019-02-10 21:26:41<+NeddySeagoon> Would this be rolled out in a new profile or will users get nagged about ACCEPT_LICENCE next update?
2019-02-10 21:26:41<@K_F> but the installed distro requiring explicit acceptance of it on the installed software
2019-02-10 21:26:56<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: That's a good question.
2019-02-10 21:26:57<+jmbsvicetto> I'm just trying to make you guys understand that we can have a "clean" @system and make portage config "clean", but if releng needs to change that in order to be able to build stages / isos, users are likely to get the changed environment and not the "clean" environment for new installs
2019-02-10 21:27:03<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: I don't see a need for new profile for it
2019-02-10 21:27:08<@K_F> but that can be a way to go
2019-02-10 21:27:39-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v blueness] by ChanServ
2019-02-10 21:27:44<@K_F> stage3 shouldn't include it though
2019-02-10 21:28:04<@K_F> but for certain installation medium can have broader allowances for binary blobs
2019-02-10 21:28:16<@Whissi> I think I agree with K_F. If we would roll that change today, nothing would break. During next emerge run, you would get prompted to accept a lot of missing licenses. That's all. But nothing will get removed or will stop working due to that change.
2019-02-10 21:28:20<+jmbsvicetto> To be clear, this is the type of changes (on catalyst / releng side) that I like to make non-permanent. I just don't know if that will be possible for this and I already have some people complaining about the "emerge -eav @world" on a new stage causing rebuilds and "wow" moments
2019-02-10 21:28:26<@dilfridge> installcd and stage3 are different things though
2019-02-10 21:28:38<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: A new profile ensures that users are not taken by surprise.  Its a part of the profile upgrade path.
2019-02-10 21:29:02<@ulm> ACCEPT_LICENSE isn't defined in profiles
2019-02-10 21:29:04<@WilliamH> wrt profiles, we are still quite behind, 17.1 is not the default yet.
2019-02-10 21:29:04<@slyfox> on the other hand it's not a subtly breaking change
2019-02-10 21:29:46<@WilliamH> But, yeah, accept_license isn't defined in profiles.
2019-02-10 21:29:47<+NeddySeagoon> slyfox: No ... but users are mostly lazy.  The will set ="*"
2019-02-10 21:30:03<@slyfox> or just accept default autounmask suggestion
2019-02-10 21:30:14<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: nobody in his sane mind would set "*"
2019-02-10 21:30:17<+jmbsvicetto> by non permanent (for those of you not following releng discussions), I mean making the change for the build but reverting it in the compressed stage (so we would "pollute" the build environment, but keep the end result "clean"
2019-02-10 21:30:26<@ulm> that like eating everything you find on the street
2019-02-10 21:30:52<@ulm> *that's
2019-02-10 21:30:55<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: You need to read the forums more :)
2019-02-10 21:31:12<@K_F> ulm: some end-users are very likely to set that, but that is fine
2019-02-10 21:31:22<@WilliamH> ulm: don't count on it. ;-)
2019-02-10 21:31:35<@K_F> they don't care about license because they are using it for their personal use and have expectation of it not being an issue
2019-02-10 21:31:47<@K_F> but for others, where licenses does matter, this is a great deal of impact
2019-02-10 21:32:06<@K_F> I refer to my previous example (in my ML post)
2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> "Developers don’t always pay attention and given they have stated any
2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> updates to older versions moving forward are SSPL a developer just
2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> grabbing a security update suddenly means you’re not under AGPL anymore
2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> but SSPL."
2019-02-10 21:32:21<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Agreed that licence aware uners will do it properly
2019-02-10 21:32:35<@K_F> what we're discussing here is what is a sane default
2019-02-10 21:32:53<@K_F> and the only sane default , given our social contract, is only allowing free software (as defined by FSF and OSI) 
2019-02-10 21:33:04<@slyfox> same applies for silent BSD->GPL change for a proprietary software vendor based on gentoo. it's not a safe transition
2019-02-10 21:33:06<@K_F> and everything else is up to the user
2019-02-10 21:33:39<@K_F> slyfox: that is more difficult to do anything about, but it doesn't impact our social contract per se
2019-02-10 21:33:43<@K_F> as both are defined as free
2019-02-10 21:34:04<@K_F> but I agree it impacts users ... its just not our issue
2019-02-10 21:34:18<@slyfox> https://gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html defines GPL only on work gentoo makes
2019-02-10 21:34:20<@K_F> I'd argue that our current default goes against our social contract
2019-02-10 21:35:22<+NeddySeagoon> Gentoo i ::gentoo and portage.  Everything else is upstream.
2019-02-10 21:35:28<@K_F> slyfox: that only goes to what we contribute
2019-02-10 21:35:29<+NeddySeagoon> is*
2019-02-10 21:35:38<@K_F> slyfox: not what we accept in the distro
2019-02-10 21:35:53<@K_F> but yes, it says that gentoo projects needs to be of those licenses
2019-02-10 21:35:55<@Whissi> And now let's hope SSPL won't get OSI approval (http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/thread.html#3603) :D
2019-02-10 21:36:13<@K_F> Whissi: it won't... but if it does that fine enough
2019-02-10 21:36:26<@K_F> we should stick to FSF and OSI acceptance
2019-02-10 21:36:42<@K_F> (otherwise AGPL is gone ... and it is in my mind already...)
2019-02-10 21:37:32 * dilfridge was already wondering why noone thinks of AGPL as controversial anymore...
2019-02-10 21:38:04<@ulm> K_F: in fact, we also have our own list in @MISC-FREE using the free software definition (in addition to the FSF's and OSI's explicit lists)
2019-02-10 21:38:09-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v grknight] by ChanServ
2019-02-10 21:39:48<@K_F> ulm: do you have an alternative proposal to ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE freedist"
2019-02-10 21:40:00<@K_F> (or just @FREE)
2019-02-10 21:40:07<@ulm> why freedist? that's not free
2019-02-10 21:40:18<@ulm> so only "@FREE"
2019-02-10 21:40:23<@K_F> fair enough, @FREE only..
2019-02-10 21:41:29<@K_F> @MISC-FREE is already included in @FREE
2019-02-10 21:41:56<@K_F> via FREE-SOFTWARE @FSF-APPROVED @OSI-APPROVED @MISC-FREE
2019-02-10 21:42:07<@K_F> FREE @FREE-SOFTWARE @FREE-DOCUMENTS
2019-02-10 21:42:08<@ulm> yes
2019-02-10 21:42:30<@K_F> ok, lets vote...
2019-02-10 21:42:46<@ulm> we track @MISC-FREE there: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_groups/MISC-FREE
2019-02-10 21:42:51<@K_F> the default ACCEPT_LICENSE should be ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE"
2019-02-10 21:42:59 * K_F yes
2019-02-10 21:43:36<@ulm> K_F: do we vote about a statement of intent, or about changing the default tomorrow?
2019-02-10 21:44:08<@K_F> I was thinking changing the default tomorrow, but we can always do a second vote on implementation
2019-02-10 21:44:17<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: It needs a news item so users are forewarned
2019-02-10 21:44:30<@K_F> news item is anyways required, so I'd expect a bit of delay
2019-02-10 21:44:44<@ulm> it also needs an update of documentation
2019-02-10 21:44:53<@K_F> yes, we need to update handbook
2019-02-10 21:45:37<@K_F> so I suggest 2 votes, one for the actual decision, and another for implementation
2019-02-10 21:45:49<@K_F> (given 1st carries)
2019-02-10 21:46:35<@Whissi> Not sure why we need an additional vote for implementation but sure. Let's move on an do at least the first vote for the change in general.
2019-02-10 21:46:51<@K_F> well, implementation doesn't matter if the principle doesn't carry
2019-02-10 21:47:04<@Whissi> yeah, that's for sure. :)
2019-02-10 21:47:20<@K_F> so yes, first vote is on principle only
2019-02-10 21:48:54<@K_F> Vote: 4.1  the default ACCEPT_LICENSE should be ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" (subject to implementation details in further vote)
2019-02-10 21:49:04 * K_F yes
2019-02-10 21:49:08 * ulm yes
2019-02-10 21:49:09 * Whissi yes
2019-02-10 21:49:16 * dilfridge yes
2019-02-10 21:49:25 * WilliamH no
2019-02-10 21:49:56 * leio yes
2019-02-10 21:50:00 * slyfox yes
2019-02-10 21:50:13<@K_F> carries
2019-02-10 21:50:43<@K_F> so we need to update docs, we need a news item, any further items neeeded?
2019-02-10 21:51:12<@WilliamH> I just want to say on the record I voted no because I feel like we haven't really given releng time to research how they may be affected.
2019-02-10 21:51:12<@slyfox> should be ok
2019-02-10 21:52:11<@Whissi> Should be ok, let's add releng to that list but I don't expect that they are really affected
2019-02-10 21:52:17<@K_F> WilliamH: they have had a bit of time already on the ML, and aditionally the install medium doesn't necessarily require changing.. we're talking about the specific distro application
2019-02-10 21:52:27<@WilliamH> We should not be dictating things from on high without  hearing from possibly affected teams.
2019-02-10 21:52:41<@K_F> they have had their chance in commenting on the ML theread
2019-02-10 21:53:20<@K_F> but to move on, lets do another vote on the specifics on it
2019-02-10 21:54:11<@K_F> draft 4.2
2019-02-10 21:54:14<@K_F> Vote 4.2
2019-02-10 21:54:16<@K_F> Installation medium is permitted to accept additional licenses necessary for binary blobs as long as these are binary redistributable
2019-02-10 21:54:28<@K_F> comments on the motion?
2019-02-10 21:54:43<@WilliamH> That also violates the social contract.
2019-02-10 21:54:53<@slyfox> should council decide that?
2019-02-10 21:54:55<@K_F> not necessarily
2019-02-10 21:55:13<@K_F> slyfox: well, we could make it more generic, but normally, yes
2019-02-10 21:55:30<@dilfridge> " The precise settings for installation media are at the discretion of releng. "
2019-02-10 21:55:30<@Whissi> I wouldn't dictate releng anything here.
2019-02-10 21:55:38<@Whissi> They are free to create whatever they like.
2019-02-10 21:55:49<@K_F> Whissi: not necessarily
2019-02-10 21:55:54<@ulm> I'd rather have a tracker bug and vote on issues when they arise (if any)
2019-02-10 21:56:00<@dilfridge> also, installation media != stages
2019-02-10 21:56:05<@WilliamH> Whissi: that's the problem with taking a hardline approach like this.
2019-02-10 21:56:07<@K_F> dilfridge: that is on purpose
2019-02-10 21:56:07<@Whissi> If you installl using that medium, you will end up with stage3 which will contain the new ACCEPT_LICENSE default.
2019-02-10 21:56:27<@dilfridge> yes I know
2019-02-10 21:56:29<@Whissi> But the medium itself is not forced to be limited to free software only
2019-02-10 21:56:29<@K_F> we wouldn't want to force our users to use debian to install gentoo
2019-02-10 21:56:43<@K_F> but the stage3 is installed on all systems, so it should conform to council decision
2019-02-10 21:56:52<@WilliamH> Whissi: it could be argued that it is since it is produced by Gentoo.
2019-02-10 21:57:02<@K_F> but if they need a firmware blob to use wifi...
2019-02-10 21:57:05<@dilfridge> and to be honest there's no point micromanaging releng regarding installation media
2019-02-10 21:57:16<@K_F> there is
2019-02-10 21:57:22<@Whissi> And yes, the medium shouldn't be limited to free software. For example I want them to add storcli and other non-free software required to access Dell or HP raid controller...
2019-02-10 21:57:31<@K_F> if what they provide isn't binary redistributable it is our responsibility
2019-02-10 21:57:36<@K_F> hence the phrasing above
2019-02-10 21:57:39<+NeddySeagoon> Lots of people use Sys Res CD
2019-02-10 21:57:45<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: that uses arch 
2019-02-10 21:57:53<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: You are not allowed to use that name anymore! :p
2019-02-10 21:58:01<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: The new one does :(
2019-02-10 21:58:13<@K_F> and anyways is outside of our scope
2019-02-10 21:58:29<@Whissi> Yeah, I hope we will get our own install dvd at the same level like previous sysrescd
2019-02-10 21:59:01<@dilfridge> lots of people are using "you know what"
2019-02-10 21:59:03<@K_F> but we should require what we provide to be binary redistributable even if it isn't FREE
2019-02-10 21:59:15<@K_F> that is council responsibility
2019-02-10 21:59:23<@WilliamH> K_F: that would require modifying the social contract?
2019-02-10 21:59:30<@K_F> WilliamH: not necessarily
2019-02-10 21:59:33<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Isn't that a legal requirement anyway?
2019-02-10 21:59:45<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: it is
2019-02-10 21:59:48<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: it is
2019-02-10 22:00:06<+NeddySeagoon> So the council do not need to mandate it too.
2019-02-10 22:00:09<@K_F> but we still given them explicit allowance greater than the stage3 
2019-02-10 22:00:41<@K_F> well, the vote would be in place to ensure they aren't bound strictly by 4.1
2019-02-10 22:00:50<@K_F> but if we agree it isn't needed, then all is fine
2019-02-10 22:01:16<@K_F> it is just a specification that the requirement for install medium is that it is binary redistributable and not FREE
2019-02-10 22:01:23<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng."
2019-02-10 22:01:39<@slyfox> sounds good
2019-02-10 22:01:59<@K_F> dilfridge: that wfm.. although I'd prefer a specification that it is permitted by law
2019-02-10 22:02:22<+NeddySeagoon> Thats a good point K_F
2019-02-10 22:02:34<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng, while not murdering anyone."
2019-02-10 22:02:39<+prometheanfire> in what region for that law?
2019-02-10 22:02:54<@K_F> prometheanfire: well, in this case the foundation is US
2019-02-10 22:03:13<+prometheanfire> that'd make the most sense, but if bringing law into it, it always complicates things
2019-02-10 22:03:22<@K_F> but the proposal doesn't specify it explicitly, only to the extent of the content being binary redistributable
2019-02-10 22:03:25<@dilfridge> do we have a mirror in the UAE?
2019-02-10 22:03:33<+prometheanfire> K_F: which I think wfm
2019-02-10 22:03:57<@K_F> mirrors are a separte issues, we can handle that
2019-02-10 22:04:21<@K_F> in any case I propose the following motion, if it is seconded lets vote for it
2019-02-10 22:04:22<@K_F> Vote 4.2
2019-02-10 22:04:22<@K_F> Installation medium is permitted to accept additional licenses necessary for binary blobs as long as these are binary redistributable
2019-02-10 22:04:39 * slyfox yes
2019-02-10 22:04:42<@Whissi> So no EC ciphers on install DVD because US doesn't allow...? :)
2019-02-10 22:04:43<@K_F> seconded?
2019-02-10 22:04:55<@K_F> Whissi: that'd be a natural consequence
2019-02-10 22:05:01 * ulm yes
2019-02-10 22:05:09 * K_F yes
2019-02-10 22:05:13 * dilfridge no
2019-02-10 22:05:19 * Whissi no
2019-02-10 22:05:24<@dilfridge> because of micromanaging
2019-02-10 22:05:49<@Whissi> Yeah, I agree. We don't need 4.2.
2019-02-10 22:06:08<@K_F> well, feel free to vote no then :)
2019-02-10 22:06:12 * leio no
2019-02-10 22:06:16 * WilliamH no
2019-02-10 22:06:58<@K_F> ok, so the motion does not carry, alternative proposal or no further votes on this action?
2019-02-10 22:07:23<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng."
2019-02-10 22:07:37<@K_F> dilfridge: even if that is against law?
2019-02-10 22:07:55<@dilfridge> I expect everyone to keep the law intrinsically.
2019-02-10 22:07:59<@ulm> dilfridge: that doesn't add anything
2019-02-10 22:08:05<@dilfridge> If not that's a different issue.
2019-02-10 22:08:13<@Whissi> You don't need to mention that you have to comply with law.
2019-02-10 22:08:34<@dilfridge> well, maybe this one gets more votes? :P
2019-02-10 22:08:45<@K_F> the intention of 4.2 is to provide a broader allowance for installation medum, as long as that is permitted by law
2019-02-10 22:09:19<@K_F> I'm not going to vote for a motion giving a project allowance that isn't in line with that
2019-02-10 22:09:20<@leio> I don't see anything restricting that allowance, to have to explicitly allow something again
2019-02-10 22:09:24<@ulm> @BINARY-DISTRIBUTABLE was created exactly for that purpose
2019-02-10 22:09:25<@WilliamH> K_F: why do we need to talk about the law? as dilfridge says, we expect people to follow it anyway.
2019-02-10 22:09:40<@K_F> and the lowest common denominator I can think is it being binary direstributable
2019-02-10 22:09:49<@K_F> but I'm open to alternatives 
2019-02-10 22:09:55<@dilfridge> ok motion 4.2a: "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng."
2019-02-10 22:09:56<@dilfridge> please vote
2019-02-10 22:10:07<@K_F> ok, lets vote for 4.2a
2019-02-10 22:10:09 * K_F no
2019-02-10 22:10:40 * slyfox yes
2019-02-10 22:10:56 * dilfridge yes
2019-02-10 22:11:20 * WilliamH yes
2019-02-10 22:11:46 * Whissi yes
2019-02-10 22:12:00 * ulm abstain
2019-02-10 22:12:12 * leio no
2019-02-10 22:12:22<@K_F> so that carries
2019-02-10 22:12:27<@leio> (as I don't understand why we need to affirm anything)
2019-02-10 22:13:09<@K_F> in any case, we have a decision on it
2019-02-10 22:13:18<@K_F> 5. Open bugs with council involvement
2019-02-10 22:13:24<@WilliamH> leio: Well, an affirmation just means that we won't get in the way of releng in this case.
2019-02-10 22:13:50<@K_F> bug 637328
2019-02-10 22:13:52<+willikins> K_F: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
2019-02-10 22:14:06<@K_F> no updates (we haven't had time to work in it... yes, this is a repeating one....)
2019-02-10 22:14:24<@K_F> if it wasn't for all other matters, we might get around to it :)
2019-02-10 22:14:26<@Whissi> :p
2019-02-10 22:14:38<@slyfox> 1.5 years :)
2019-02-10 22:14:52<@K_F> well, things are happening
2019-02-10 22:14:59<@K_F> just not very quickly
2019-02-10 22:15:01<@K_F> in any case
2019-02-10 22:15:05<@K_F> 6. Open floor
2019-02-10 22:15:19<@K_F> this is the possibility for others in the community to raise questions
2019-02-10 22:15:22<@WilliamH> It looks like we need a new portage release for this accept_license change
2019-02-10 22:15:32<@K_F> so lets keep floor open for 5 minutes to allow for any questions
2019-02-10 22:15:38<@WilliamH> That's where accept_license is defined
2019-02-10 22:15:49<@WilliamH>  in /usr/share/portage/make.globals
2019-02-10 22:16:09<@slyfox> sounds about right
2019-02-10 22:16:11<@WilliamH> sorry, /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals
2019-02-10 22:16:15<@K_F> WilliamH: indeed
2019-02-10 22:16:52<@ulm> yes, make.globals and make.conf.example
2019-02-10 22:16:57<+xiaomiao> did y'all just decide to make linux-firmware uninstallable by default?
2019-02-10 22:17:15<@slyfox> yep
2019-02-10 22:17:17<+xiaomiao> cool
2019-02-10 22:17:28<+xiaomiao> so that's a default that doesn't work outside of VMs
2019-02-10 22:17:37<@Whissi> It is not uninstallable by default. You will get a prompt.
2019-02-10 22:17:38<@slyfox> correct
2019-02-10 22:18:03<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: I was very against this.
2019-02-10 22:18:28<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: I think this is an unnecessary change.
2019-02-10 22:18:35<+xiaomiao> it's equivalent to package.mask in terms of message and complexity of config
2019-02-10 22:18:55<@K_F> the discussion isn't really for open floor though...
2019-02-10 22:19:02<@K_F> are there further issues wanting to be dsicusssed?
2019-02-10 22:19:06<+xiaomiao> just wanted to make sure people understand what just happen
2019-02-10 22:19:12<@leio> to be clear, I voted yes knowing that the implementation will be good and not rushed
2019-02-10 22:19:18<@ulm> from a license point of view, linux-firmware is one of the worst packages
2019-02-10 22:19:31<@slyfox> yup
2019-02-10 22:19:39<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: what we basically did is decide to go full debian with our licenses.
2019-02-10 22:19:40<@ulm> we shouldn't even distribute it via our mirrors
2019-02-10 22:20:21<+grknight> linux-firmware is essential to more and more installs
2019-02-10 22:20:37< veremitz> distributing linux-firmware is debatable, yes
2019-02-10 22:20:47< veremitz> but many devices are cheese without it, correct
2019-02-10 22:20:51<@ulm> grknight: unfortunately, that doesn't make it distributable
2019-02-10 22:21:03< veremitz> but that can be fetch-restricted easily enough
2019-02-10 22:21:07<@ulm> also upstream doesn't really care
2019-02-10 22:21:18<@Whissi> xiaomiao: Once council meeting is closed I would like to hear your opinion why this change is bad because I don't really see what's changing (yes, I expect that user are somehow actively managing /etc/portage/ so I don't see any breakage)
2019-02-10 22:22:02<+chithead> (linux-firmware maintainer here) fortunately, linux-firmware will see proper releases starting this year, using kernel.org mirrors
2019-02-10 22:22:14<@slyfox> \o/
2019-02-10 22:22:28<@slyfox> what do we use today? gentoo space?
2019-02-10 22:22:28<@ulm> chithead: that's good news
2019-02-10 22:22:33<@K_F> the open floor is formally closed
2019-02-10 22:22:39<@Whissi> slyfox: Normal mirror system.
2019-02-10 22:22:40<@K_F> so meeting is closed
2019-02-10 22:22:44<@slyfox> woohoo \o/
2019-02-10 22:22:49<@K_F> any further discussion is outside of meeting notes