diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt | 28 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt.asc | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt | 46 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt.asc | 7 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20230312.txt | 66 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20230312.txt.asc | 7 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20230409.txt | 190 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc | 7 |
8 files changed, 362 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..dd1dee9 --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt @@ -0,0 +1,28 @@ +Summary of Gentoo council meeting 2023-02-12 + +Agenda +====== +1. Roll call +2. Open bugs with Council participation [1] +3. Open floor + + +Roll call +========= +Present: ajak, gyakovlev, jsmolic (proxy for dilfridge), mattst88, + mgorny, sam, ulm + +Open bugs with council participation +==================================== +- Bug 729062 "Services and Software which is critical for Gentoo + should be developed/run in the Gentoo namespace": + Reassigned to original reporter (jstein), because currently it is + not actionable. Can be assigned back to council once the community + generates a more concrete proposal. + +Open floor +========== +- Brief discussion of Open Collective status. + + +[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt.asc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f512969 --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt.asc @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iQEzBAABCAAdFiEEZlHkP3TnuTbxrN0HwwkGhRxhwnMFAmP89OgACgkQwwkGhRxh +wnPCeQf/f6Aa/kn86mDAhet+ImM9U2OZAD9W905GwJgk/v1eSGhaBMQcHAkfgLY3 +hnhg8YzXolXraatIemiUE702PRuZW6u8/79MGRCN7s4F1IGq2J3zFV+fRFcmTIsv +jhnmsws8t41NjuGXc27Gg0Xu7eW1oOgzb83tN34+QSgE9KKjQ59TH2PIbeEG8Ufn +4rWolIU8dEoKwl68X/Jq3DgjwFdCwSiAUjzrf9eN1R93fDdufkDo7Ixvp139uSW5 +SvfXS7H5gnMj6fGMys+Z2pjiGKWuUu8B2wdTTsQ4wY1vCONrJoPkupI4A2rqtUio ++Qsq7lWTC3eCCi2t8Mn4B5hteRSQhg== +=IJLu +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6118656 --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +Summary of Gentoo Council meeting 2023-03-12 + +Agenda +====== + +1. Roll call +2. Approve update of GLEP 68 +3. Open bugs with Council participation +4. Open floor + +Roll call +========= + +Present: ajak, arthurzam (proxy for ulm), dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam +Absent: gyakovlev + +Approve update of GLEP 68 +========================= + +ulm proposed an update to GLEP 68 to allow EAPI=5 dependency +specifiers in 'restrict' attributes. A minor concern was raised about +Portage support, and Arthur noted that a related pkgcheck check was +added last month. Motion for approval was carried unanimously, 6-0-0. + +Open bugs with council participation +==================================== + +- Bug 883715 + +Restricted, but added a dependency on bug 900857. + +- Bug 900857 "Vote on "glep-0076: Relax name policy to allow pseudonyms"" + +No discussion of substance in the meeting, served as a reminder for +everyone to vote. At the time of the meeting, there was already a +majority of yes votes (4). + +- Bug 895728 "GLEP 1, GLEP 2, GLEP 42: Specify that all dates are in the UTC+00:00 time zone" + +No dissent brought up in the meeting, ulm is free to proceed with it +after the meeting. + +Open floor +========== + +No topics. diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt.asc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..09f05a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt.asc @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCZDMIPAAKCRCgXq2+aa/J +tfc6AQD5VN2fw3fv0BO3gdqslyGaQGeCRO52X+a6KQZ0aSiFsAD9GIHjD22XKHyw +mdFgRSxAT4VrSThClJbGteHOI9PPiAQ= +=Fk46 +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230312.txt b/meeting-logs/20230312.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a00d0ad --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20230312.txt @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@ +2023-03-12 18:59:46 @mgorny ajak: you're chairing, right? +2023-03-12 18:59:51 @ajak yes +2023-03-12 19:00:28 @ajak so... meeting time! +2023-03-12 19:00:42 @ajak agenda: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/77c9ceb451349093369cc2e973719da2 +2023-03-12 19:00:49 @dilfridge yabba-dabba-dooo +2023-03-12 19:00:59 @sam_ woo +2023-03-12 19:01:14 @ajak 1. Roll call +2023-03-12 19:01:16 * ajak here +2023-03-12 19:01:17 * mattst88 here +2023-03-12 19:01:18 * arthurzam here (as proxy for ulm) +2023-03-12 19:01:25 * sam_ here +2023-03-12 19:01:33 * mgorny here +2023-03-12 19:01:54 * dilfridge here +2023-03-12 19:02:10 @mattst88 gyakovlev is not here (COVID) +2023-03-12 19:02:11 @ajak gyakovlev: +2023-03-12 19:02:14 @ajak oh ok +2023-03-12 19:02:23 @sam_ bless +2023-03-12 19:02:41 @ajak ok, then: 2. Approve update of GLEP 68 [1,2] +2023-03-12 19:03:20 @ajak https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/79647fad4c28a2f66489f0d8240b527d +2023-03-12 19:03:50 +arthurzam I think this is good idea, only need to update pkgcheck to use EAPI=5 instead of EAPI=0 when checking those restricts +2023-03-12 19:03:52 @sam_ did someone verify portage actually checks this +2023-03-12 19:03:58 @sam_ (and pkgcheck, yeah) +2023-03-12 19:04:12 +arthurzam I added a check for that in last month +2023-03-12 19:05:16 @ajak that would seem to be the only sticking point, not any dissent on the mailing list +2023-03-12 19:05:37 @sam_ it's fine with me anyway to move forward +2023-03-12 19:06:17 @ajak ok, so motion: approve ulm's update to glep 68 +2023-03-12 19:06:42 * mattst88 yes +2023-03-12 19:06:44 @sam_ (reason being that I feel like I/nobody else would get to it in portage if you're waiting on us, so best to just get on with it, as I suspect it works anyway) +2023-03-12 19:06:45 * arthurzam yes +2023-03-12 19:06:45 * sam_ yes +2023-03-12 19:06:45 * dilfridge yes +2023-03-12 19:06:46 * ajak yes +2023-03-12 19:06:59 * mgorny yes +2023-03-12 19:07:09 @dilfridge unanimous +2023-03-12 19:07:10 @ajak yay, unanimous +2023-03-12 19:07:36 @ajak moving on: 3. Open bugs with Council participation +2023-03-12 19:07:51 @ajak bug 883715 +2023-03-12 19:08:03 @ajak probably blocked on mgorny's update to that glep +2023-03-12 19:08:28 @ajak bug 900857 +2023-03-12 19:08:29 willikins ajak: https://bugs.gentoo.org/900857 "Vote on "glep-0076: Relax name policy to allow pseudonyms""; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council +2023-03-12 19:08:51 @sam_ yeah please vote on that +2023-03-12 19:09:00 @sam_ not here but go do it when you can, ideally now :p +2023-03-12 19:09:39 +arthurzam Just noting for logs that ulm has already voted on bug so as proxy I don't need to do anything +2023-03-12 19:09:49 @dilfridge and we already have a majority there (4 yes) +2023-03-12 19:09:52 @ajak yes +2023-03-12 19:10:01 @ajak i added that bug as a dep for the first one +2023-03-12 19:10:20 @ajak so, that brings us to bug 895728 +2023-03-12 19:10:21 willikins ajak: https://bugs.gentoo.org/895728 "GLEP 1, GLEP 2, GLEP 42: Specify that all dates are in the UTC+00:00 time zone"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; ulm:glep +2023-03-12 19:10:50 @ajak i suppose if there's no dissent, ulm will proceed with it soon, seems reasonable to me +2023-03-12 19:10:54 @ajak pretty straightforward change +2023-03-12 19:11:03 @dilfridge it makes sense +2023-03-12 19:11:09 @dilfridge at least more than UTC+7.5 +2023-03-12 19:11:11 @sam_ yeah +2023-03-12 19:11:45 @mattst88 yeah, makes sense +2023-03-12 19:11:49 +arthurzam Maybe only we need to check if other places are missing this clarification (for future fixes, not current one) +2023-03-12 19:12:07 @ajak right, we can follow up elsewhere as necessary +2023-03-12 19:13:02 @ajak ok, moving on +2023-03-12 19:13:09 @ajak 4. Open floor +2023-03-12 19:14:51 @ajak anything? +2023-03-12 19:15:30 @ajak ok, guess not :) +2023-03-12 19:15:38 * ajak bangs gavel +2023-03-12 19:15:46 @sam_ thank you! +2023-03-12 19:15:48 @ajak all done! thanks all +2023-03-12 19:15:50 @mgorny thanks +2023-03-12 19:15:50 +arthurzam Thank you for chairing +2023-03-12 19:16:02 @dilfridge thank you! diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230312.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230312.txt.asc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d6b1f4a --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20230312.txt.asc @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCZB5igwAKCRCgXq2+aa/J +tULfAP42uGmgUngd+1/36NNieG0iJU8bTjVN4pR7Nl3EGCG2gAEAi9HI+uGNxVSE +PDUqNj4/fjjZo0uM+I6YzCpIHhdk+AA= +=dOoy +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230409.txt b/meeting-logs/20230409.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..907c857 --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20230409.txt @@ -0,0 +1,190 @@ +2023-04-09 19:00:16 @ajak it is time! +2023-04-09 19:00:23 @ajak !proj council +2023-04-09 19:00:23 @dilfridge 'tis time. +2023-04-09 19:00:25 willikins (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, gyakovlev, mattst88, mgorny, sam, ulm +2023-04-09 19:00:47 * dilfridge here +2023-04-09 19:00:52 * sam_ here +2023-04-09 19:00:57 * mgorny here +2023-04-09 19:00:59 * soap here (for matt) +2023-04-09 19:01:00 * gyakovlev here +2023-04-09 19:01:03 * ulm here +2023-04-09 19:01:10 * ajak here +2023-04-09 19:01:21 @ajak yay, all here +2023-04-09 19:01:36 @ajak agenda (in lieu of archives.g.o not working): https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168049154311980&w=2 +2023-04-09 19:01:58 @ajak 2. Another retroactive fix for econf arguments [1], [1] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/message/3223c4f2b35feb2b27236299cf9e5cb8 +2023-04-09 19:02:46 @ajak any discussion to be had here? +2023-04-09 19:02:48 @dilfridge looks reasonable +2023-04-09 19:03:14 @ulm this will prevent false positive matches, mainly for --with-sysroot +2023-04-09 19:03:32 @gyakovlev certainly good change, I hit it couple of times. just curious - it it already in portage? +2023-04-09 19:03:49 @ulm I have a patch somewhere +2023-04-09 19:04:07 @ulm it's a trivial change +2023-04-09 19:04:22 @ajak make a pr please? :) +2023-04-09 19:04:29 @gyakovlev should we vote then? +2023-04-09 19:04:32 @ajak yes +2023-04-09 19:04:52 @ulm gyakovlev: https://bpa.st/XPUGU +2023-04-09 19:04:59 @ajak motion: approve ulm's change at https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/message/3223c4f2b35feb2b27236299cf9e5cb8 +2023-04-09 19:05:08 * ajak yes +2023-04-09 19:05:14 * sam_ yes +2023-04-09 19:05:17 * dilfridge yes +2023-04-09 19:05:25 * gyakovlev yes +2023-04-09 19:05:26 * soap yes +2023-04-09 19:05:38 * ulm yes +2023-04-09 19:05:55 * mgorny yes +2023-04-09 19:06:05 @ajak yay, motion carried unanimously +2023-04-09 19:06:19 @ajak on to: 3. GLEP39 updates (but will require all-devs vote) [2], [2] https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168006775821875&w=2 +2023-04-09 19:06:34 @ulm PR for portage: https://github.com/gentoo/portage/pull/1023 :) +2023-04-09 19:06:38 @ajak thank you +2023-04-09 19:07:16 @ulm GLEP 39 changes are also here: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep39 +2023-04-09 19:07:43 @ajak lots of changes here, but all seem sane to me, and i don't recall seeing any serious dissent anywhere +2023-04-09 19:08:22 @ulm there was a comment from rich0 that we should specify what kind of majority to have in the all-devs vote +2023-04-09 19:08:28 @dilfridge again, looks eminently reasonable to me +2023-04-09 19:08:34 @dilfridge this is "the safe subset" +2023-04-09 19:08:35 @sam_ agreed +2023-04-09 19:08:45 @dilfridge ulm: yes that's a good point +2023-04-09 19:09:06 @dilfridge basically, what majority and what quorum +2023-04-09 19:09:09 @ajak yeah, maybe we should vote to approve all but that particular patch? +2023-04-09 19:09:13 @mgorny are we expected to vote on it, or merely look at it and pass on to all-dev vote? +2023-04-09 19:09:30 @ajak i don't suppose it matters really +2023-04-09 19:09:33 @dilfridge "vote to pass it on" +2023-04-09 19:09:57 @ajak though, there's an interesting chicken and egg problem if we don't know the majority threshold this needs to pass the all devs vote +2023-04-09 19:09:59 @dilfridge also, does the majority/quorum then already apply to that vote? :D +2023-04-09 19:10:12 +soap dont think so +2023-04-09 19:10:34 @ulm it won't apply retroactively, I think +2023-04-09 19:10:49 @dilfridge I'd say we should fix these two details first, otherwise we end up with two all-dev votes +2023-04-09 19:11:12 @ulm I could replace "require a vote of all developers" by "require vote of all developer, with a simple majority of votes cast"? +2023-04-09 19:11:33 @dilfridge 2/3 yes, 1/3 quorum? +2023-04-09 19:11:42 +soap too strict +2023-04-09 19:11:44 @ulm *"require a vote of all developers, with a simple majority of votes cast" +2023-04-09 19:11:54 @ulm yeah, too strict +2023-04-09 19:11:56 +soap I would go with ulm's, no quorum +2023-04-09 19:12:04 @ajak i agree +2023-04-09 19:12:16 @dilfridge ok, 1/2 yes 1/4 quorum? +2023-04-09 19:12:33 @dilfridge I mean this is the one central document +2023-04-09 19:12:42 @ulm maybe some minimum quorum, like yes votes > 10% of developers +2023-04-09 19:12:58 @dilfridge we havent had to change it for over a decade, we want to avoid that it's changed too often +2023-04-09 19:13:02 +soap 10% is fine, even 25% is imo too high already (knowing devs) +2023-04-09 19:13:22 @dilfridge if less than 1/4 participate the change can't be important +2023-04-09 19:13:34 @ajak heh, i was going to see the turnout of the last council election, but it hasn't been added to the election page: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Elections/Council/202206 +2023-04-09 19:13:59 @dilfridge i think somewhere around 1/3 is typical +2023-04-09 19:14:21 @dilfridge 55.303% in 2021 +2023-04-09 19:14:23 @ajak i don't see what we'd gain by requiring some quorum +2023-04-09 19:14:24 @dilfridge so 1/2 !!! +2023-04-09 19:14:27 @ulm dilfridge: for total number of votes +2023-04-09 19:14:27 @sam_ 50% turnout for elections is considered very very good and we struggle to get that normally +2023-04-09 19:14:36 @sam_ it improved a lot over the last 2-3 years +2023-04-09 19:14:46 @sam_ s/elections/council elections/ +2023-04-09 19:15:12 @ulm IIRC turnout was around 40% +2023-04-09 19:15:31 @dilfridge ajak: if we dont set a quorum, we may want to set more procedure (like, announce x days beforehand etc bla bla) +2023-04-09 19:15:50 @dilfridge the main point of the quorum is to prohibit "let's vote tomorrow" +2023-04-09 19:16:02 @ajak sure, that makes sense +2023-04-09 19:16:37 @ajak ok, shall we move to stamp this while knowing that there's probably more discussion to be had around the "majority" language? +2023-04-09 19:17:20 * dilfridge suggests 1/2 yes and 1/3 quorum as compromise +2023-04-09 19:17:45 @sam_ is 1/3 a compromise given you said 1/4 after? ;) +2023-04-09 19:17:49 @dilfridge hrhr +2023-04-09 19:18:02 @sam_ i can live with 1/4 +2023-04-09 19:18:14 @ulm the quorum should be about yes votes, not total votes +2023-04-09 19:18:25 @dilfridge sure? +2023-04-09 19:18:27 @ulm otherwise no votes could make a proposal pass +2023-04-09 19:18:56 @dilfridge that ... +2023-04-09 19:19:20 @ulm but yeah, I could live with something between 10% and 25% for yes votes +2023-04-09 19:19:30 @ulm as quorum +2023-04-09 19:19:35 @ulm and 1/2 to pass +2023-04-09 19:19:44 @ulm > 1/2 actually +2023-04-09 19:19:50 @ajak 17.5! +2023-04-09 19:20:18 @dilfridge ok to write it out, >50% of cast votes in favour and >25% of all devs in favour +2023-04-09 19:20:19 @ajak but, this is probably something worth hashing out outside of the meeting +2023-04-09 19:20:24 @mgorny <@ulm> otherwise no votes could make a proposal pass +2023-04-09 19:20:27 @mgorny are you sure about that? +2023-04-09 19:20:37 @mgorny it's a bit late but something doesn't sound right about it to me +2023-04-09 19:20:49 @dilfridge probably not for these precise numbers but for other combinations of percentages +2023-04-09 19:20:53 +soap I dont see it, but this already becoming slightly annoying +2023-04-09 19:21:51 @ajak yes, this isn't necessarily the final iteration of the patch anyway +2023-04-09 19:21:59 @ulm mgorny: example with quorum of 25% of total votes: 30 devs vote yes, 19 devs vote no => doesn't pass +2023-04-09 19:22:12 @ulm (out of 200 devs) +2023-04-09 19:22:24 @ulm but when 21 devs vote no, it would pass +2023-04-09 19:22:30 @mgorny ah, in this direction +2023-04-09 19:22:39 @ulm because it then meets the quorum +2023-04-09 19:23:01 @sam_ yeah, this is where you get silly games with people not voting to defeat something rather than voting no +2023-04-09 19:23:09 @sam_ we had some things like that in uni with the union :) +2023-04-09 19:23:13 +soap it's called election boycotting +2023-04-09 19:23:16 @ulm anyway, let's discuss these details off-meeting? +2023-04-09 19:23:25 @sam_ yes, i think ajak's been advocating that ;) +2023-04-09 19:23:37 @mgorny i dare say that non-quorate means voting again but i guess it's fine to set quorum based on yes votes to make things easier +2023-04-09 19:24:14 @mgorny otoh, non-quorate-voting-again makes clear distinction between "we should vote again because people didn't bother" and "people voted it down" +2023-04-09 19:24:43 @ajak yes, we can easily discuss at length here without a conclusion, and this is especially without merit because we're not deciding anything on this here anyway +2023-04-09 19:25:03 @dilfridge ok so now we send this to the list, for further discussion? +2023-04-09 19:25:12 @dilfridge kinda "pre-approved"? +2023-04-09 19:25:19 @ulm my intention was only to get feedback on it +2023-04-09 19:25:27 @dilfridge k +2023-04-09 19:25:31 @ulm and I take from the discussion that it's o.k. to proceed? +2023-04-09 19:25:38 @dilfridge yes fromme +2023-04-09 19:25:53 @mgorny yep +2023-04-09 19:25:57 @ajak except you should add the majority language for re-review, i think +2023-04-09 19:26:03 @ulm ajak: sure +2023-04-09 19:26:14 @dilfridge all the changes make sense, just the vote mode needs more precision +2023-04-09 19:26:32 @ajak yes, and council isn't really capable of deciding on the precision +2023-04-09 19:26:35 @ajak ok, moving on +2023-04-09 19:26:47 @ajak 4. Dissolution of the proctors project [3], https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168028214420565&w=2 +2023-04-09 19:27:02 @dilfridge just for the log +2023-04-09 19:27:18 @dilfridge this was discussed in private with comrel and proctors via e-mail +2023-04-09 19:27:28 @dilfridge and noone of any group voiced objections to it +2023-04-09 19:28:02 @ajak council was included there too +2023-04-09 19:28:41 @ajak but i think this is reasonable, i think comrel has de-facto started to handle some of this stuff anyway +2023-04-09 19:28:56 @sam_ yep +2023-04-09 19:29:21 @ajak motion: approve dissolution of the proctors project +2023-04-09 19:29:24 * ajak yes +2023-04-09 19:29:25 * sam_ yes +2023-04-09 19:29:26 * mgorny yes +2023-04-09 19:29:30 * dilfridge yes +2023-04-09 19:29:47 * soap yes +2023-04-09 19:29:50 * ulm yes +2023-04-09 19:30:31 @ajak gyakovlev: +2023-04-09 19:30:42 @ulm is this the second time they're being dissolved? or third? +2023-04-09 19:30:53 @dilfridge second +2023-04-09 19:31:02 @sam_ need to use stronger acid this time +2023-04-09 19:31:07 @dilfridge hrhr +2023-04-09 19:31:24 @dilfridge it was worth a try +2023-04-09 19:31:45 @dilfridge at least this time there is no drama involved +2023-04-09 19:31:47 * gyakovlev yes +2023-04-09 19:31:50 @ajak aha +2023-04-09 19:31:53 @gyakovlev sorry cat distracted me +2023-04-09 19:32:00 @ajak ok, motion carried unanimously +2023-04-09 19:32:11 @dilfridge ok +2023-04-09 19:32:16 @ajak moving on to: 5. Open bugs with Council participation [4], [4] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation +2023-04-09 19:32:19 @dilfridge I'll take care of the resulting web page changes +2023-04-09 19:32:54 @ajak https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=883715 is still restricted, depends on bug 900857 +2023-04-09 19:32:55 willikins ajak: https://bugs.gentoo.org/900857 "Vote on "glep-0076: Relax name policy to allow pseudonyms""; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council +2023-04-09 19:33:32 @mgorny ah, sorry, it was concluded when the bugzilla was down +2023-04-09 19:33:33 @mgorny i'll update +2023-04-09 19:33:36 @ajak waiting on trustees i guess, but we have a majority anyway +2023-04-09 19:33:38 @ajak oh? +2023-04-09 19:34:08 @ulm the deadline fro voting was 2023-04-01 +2023-04-09 19:34:10 @ulm *for +2023-04-09 19:34:10 @sam_ yes, it's all done, a timeout was set for anarchy +2023-04-09 19:34:20 @ajak ah ok +2023-04-09 19:34:20 @ulm and it's already pushed to the glep repo +2023-04-09 19:34:20 @sam_ was announced on 1st april, too +2023-04-09 19:34:33 @sam_ (maybe we should've waited a day, tbh, as I've had to tell many people it wasn't a joke..) +2023-04-09 19:34:41 @ajak lol +2023-04-09 19:34:55 @dilfridge :) +2023-04-09 19:35:07 @ulm actually I wanted to make it 03-31 +2023-04-09 19:35:13 @ajak ok, that's now RESO:FIXED, thanks mgorny +2023-04-09 19:35:32 @ajak bug 903683 +2023-04-09 19:35:33 willikins ajak: https://bugs.gentoo.org/903683 "new ComRel lead: Andreas K. Huettel (dilfridge)"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Developer account issues; CONF; dilfridge:infra-bugs +2023-04-09 19:35:43 @dilfridge that was mostly for infra +2023-04-09 19:35:56 @dilfridge but I doubt anything needs to be done +2023-04-09 19:35:59 @sam_ just an fyi I think, not actually sure what we need to do on the infra site there either, other than maybe gitolite +2023-04-09 19:36:00 @ajak yeah, and i'm not aware of anything that needs to be done here, has anyone brought up anything? +2023-04-09 19:36:07 @dilfridge robbat2: just close it at your leisure +2023-04-09 19:36:09 @sam_ s/site/side/ +2023-04-09 19:36:24 @ajak works for me +2023-04-09 19:36:31 @ajak then: 6. Open floor +2023-04-09 19:38:10 * ajak bangs gavel +2023-04-09 19:38:34 pietinger ajak: 17.5! = 1.4986121e+15 ... maybe to high ? +2023-04-09 19:38:34 @sam_ thank you! +2023-04-09 19:38:36 @ajak thanks all +2023-04-09 19:38:40 @gyakovlev ty for chairing and thanks everyone too. +2023-04-09 19:38:48 @dilfridge thanks :) +2023-04-09 19:39:16 @mgorny thanks +2023-04-09 19:39:28 @ulm thank you +2023-04-09 19:39:40 @ajak oh fyi: i pushed the last summary shortly before today's meeting after receiving no feedback on the latest revision diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc new file mode 100644 index 0000000..82e4295 --- /dev/null +++ b/meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ +-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- + +iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCZDMVWQAKCRCgXq2+aa/J +tQRQAQDC7Ab7CUl+vjBQEDNB4zucmdy75TLuf5VRqxA2xAR5AQD9EUovTaB3cgRC +r7KkngYFqP2K6Y6OmMKFzNIEdFObqAg= +=65ih +-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |