summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'meeting-logs')
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt28
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230212-summary.txt.asc11
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt46
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230312-summary.txt.asc7
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230312.txt66
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230312.txt.asc7
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230409-summary.txt70
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230409-summary.txt.asc27
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230409.txt190
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230409.txt.asc7
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230514-summary.txt68
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230514-summary.txt.asc11
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230514.txt97
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230514.txt.asc11
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230611-summary.txt41
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230611-summary.txt.asc11
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230611.txt135
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230611.txt.asc11
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230723-summary.txt82
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230723-summary.txt.asc11
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230723.txt187
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230723.txt.asc11
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230813-summary.txt53
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230813-summary.txt.asc20
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230813.txt141
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230813.txt.asc20
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230910-summary.txt46
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230910-summary.txt.asc7
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230910.txt122
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20230910.txt.asc7
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20231008-summary.txt50
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20231008-summary.txt.asc7
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20231008.txt64
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20231008.txt.asc7
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20231112.txt110
-rw-r--r--meeting-logs/20231112.txt.asc19
36 files changed, 1808 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-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20230409-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9f6be8b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230409-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+Summary of Gentoo Council meeting 2023-04-09
+
+Agenda
+======
+
+1. Roll call
+2. Another retroactive fix for econf arguments
+3. GLEP39 updates (but will require all-devs vote)
+4. Dissolution of the proctors project
+5. Open bugs with Council participation
+6. Open floor
+
+Roll call
+=========
+
+Present: ajak, dilfridge, gyakovlev, mgorny, sam, soap (proxy for mattst88), ulm
+Absent: -
+
+Another retroactive fix for econf arguments
+===========================================
+
+References:
+- https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-pms/message/3223c4f2b35feb2b27236299cf9e5cb8
+
+The Council votes unanimously to approve the PMS patch, 7-0-0. ulm
+quickly files a pull request against Portage implementing the PMS
+change:
+
+https://github.com/gentoo/portage/pull/1023
+
+GLEP39 updates (but will require all-devs vote)
+===============================================
+
+References:
+- https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168006775821875&w=2
+- https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep39
+
+The changes are generally accepted, where the exception that there is
+agreement to further discuss on the mailing lists the particulars of
+the language around what a "majority" is for the purposes of an
+all-devs vote. The council isn't capable of approving the changes on
+its own.
+
+Dissolution of the proctors project
+===================================
+
+References:
+- https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168028214420565&w=2
+
+Council votes unanimously to disband the Proctors project, 7-0-0.
+
+Open bugs with Council participation
+====================================
+
+Bug 883715
+----------
+
+It is noted that this bug depends on bug 900857, which was marked as
+resolved during the meeting.
+
+Bug 903683 - new ComRel lead: Andreas K. Huettel (dilfridge)
+----------
+
+Bug was filed assigned to infra, with council CC'd as an "FYI". No
+action, infra to close at their leisure.
+
+Open floor
+==========
+
+No topics.
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230409-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230409-summary.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3237778
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230409-summary.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
+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+=gfix
+-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
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-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230514-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20230514-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..28f820e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230514-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+Summary of Gentoo Council meeting 2023-05-14
+
+Agenda
+======
+
+1. Roll call
+2. Mark GLEP 78 as final
+3. Undeprecate EGO_SUM
+4. Open bugs with Council participation
+5. Open floor
+
+Roll call
+=========
+
+Present: ajak, arthurzam (proxy for mattst88), dilfridge, gyakovlev,
+ mgorny, sam, ulm
+Absent: -
+
+Mark GLEP 78 as final
+=====================
+
+References:
+- https://bugs.gentoo.org/672672
+- https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/commit/?id=b7e6873ab3b8f51cdb1f31e991d2e3c2999fe179
+
+It has been pointed out that GLEP 78 has been implemented in Portage
+by the effort of Sheng Yu. The Council has voted in favor of marking
+the GLEP final unanimously, 7-0-0.
+
+Undeprecate EGO_SUM
+===================
+
+References:
+- https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168396622312449&w=2
+- https://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg97310.html
+
+A request has been made for the Council to vote for undeprecating
+EGO_SUM following the mailing list discussion. However, the Council
+members have agreed that the discussion has not reached a consensus
+so far, and the idea's champion has not addressed multiple concerns
+posted in replies to it. As such, the topic has been tabled for further
+discussion on the mailing list.
+
+Open bugs with council participation
+====================================
+
+Bug 520156 - Give the council authority to change GLEP 39 like any other GLEP
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
+The most recent update to GLEP 39 has defined the process for updating
+the GLEP via an all-developer vote. For this reason, the bug has been
+closed as WONTFIX.
+
+Bug 672672 - GLEP 78: Gentoo binpkg container format
+----------------------------------------------------
+The GLEP has been discussed as an agenda item, and the bug has been
+updated afterwards.
+
+Bug 883715 - (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous
+--------------------------------------------------------
+The Council has indicated that since the copyright policy has been
+updated, the issue is primarily a matter of Recruiter policy. As such,
+a comment was left to indicate that the Recruiters should discuss
+the issue first.
+
+Open floor
+==========
+
+No topics.
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230514-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230514-summary.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b726e07
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230514-summary.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iQFGBAABCAAwFiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAmSHbX0SHG1nb3JueUBn
+ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEGOa2uIyniQOZgkH/2B9xqCBuhcY4YqQ7hiKd44a3iZW5TBu
+qAQdJia3DxO+9lxgthiVjZUBe0DKi4Ru/U03zm7OxXGLHpHtbuF90n2nJ+TYPZQh
+D4M1/gmu+mvjD4AX/6qNiWOvX9QbsJkfRJtmSKDBTtbw3I82LBG6giCOTWBshFJn
+Yaq0tkk6ozIqIoTDg1Yz8xuMxQwUKS4T8zT4I/bMwUSqC+WxXg5ZhYAknJqPL4RB
+1YNYxHAFm5yP2uc3PFUoDqDcHX7u9voeliUNprCK9gkKvCQBLux9FfUrhz5TihZ6
+l86+EsJFSsM9HdQMP1rVZrd4UgU5SQUkt8JTmPF40Y/fQEu/LEZBuHU=
+=DZl0
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230514.txt b/meeting-logs/20230514.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..78c6261
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230514.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+[21:00:30] <@mgorny> DING DING DING!
+[21:00:32] <@mgorny> !proj council
+[21:00:34] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, gyakovlev, mattst88, mgorny, sam, ulm
+[21:00:46] <@sam_> feels rough to be the only person without their dev name as a nick..
+[21:00:49] <@mgorny> it's time for our 237th meeting (according to /topic, didn't verify)
+[21:01:10] <@mgorny> agenda: https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168403323301173&w=2
+[21:01:16] <@mgorny> 1. Roll call
+[21:01:18] -*- ajak here
+[21:01:20] -*- arthurzam here (as proxy for mattst88)
+[21:01:23] -*- mgorny here
+[21:01:25] -*- gyakovlev here
+[21:01:26] -*- ulm here
+[21:01:39] -*- dilfridge here
+[21:01:41] -*- sam_ here
+[21:01:48] <@mgorny> thanks
+[21:01:59] <@mgorny> 2. Mark GLEP 78 as final [1,2]
+[21:02:05] <@mgorny> [2] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep78
+[21:02:05] <@mgorny> [3] https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168396622312449&w=2
+[21:02:30] <@mgorny> long story short, we have the spec implemented thanks to Sheng Yu
+[21:02:40] <@ajak> mispaste i think
+[21:02:54] <@mgorny> oops
+[21:03:06] <@mgorny> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/672672
+[21:03:06] <@mgorny> [2] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/log/?h=glep78
+[21:03:07] <@mgorny> these two
+[21:03:32] <@mgorny> does anyone have any questions?
+[21:05:21] <@mgorny> ok, i guess not
+[21:05:34] <@mgorny> motion: Mark GLEP 78 as final
+[21:05:38] -*- ajak yes
+[21:05:41] -*- sam_ yes
+[21:05:43] -*- mgorny yes
+[21:05:43] -*- arthurzam yes
+[21:05:47] -*- ulm yes
+[21:05:49] -*- dilfridge yes
+[21:06:38] -*- gyakovlev yes
+[21:06:48] <@mgorny> thansk, passed unanimously
+[21:06:59] <@mgorny> 3. Undeprecated EGO_SUM [3,4]
+[21:07:03] <@mgorny> [3] https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168396622312449&w=2
+[21:07:03] <@mgorny> [4] https://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg97310.html
+[21:07:32] <@sam_> I still don't feel it's appropriate for us to even be discussing this
+[21:07:41] <@sam_> there's no consensus and various concerns have not been addressed on the ML
+[21:07:47] -*- ajak nods
+[21:08:15] <+arthurzam> mattst88 have said the same
+[21:08:35] <@ulm> I'd also say it's not ready for a vote
+[21:08:58] <@gyakovlev> well, there has been lengthy discussion.
+[21:08:58] <@gyakovlev> I'm in favor of returning it, but with some limits set for per-manifest or per package directory or both.
+[21:08:58] <@gyakovlev> I even suggested specific numbers before, need to find them.
+[21:08:58] <@gyakovlev> but yeah it needs to be presented as actionable item.
+[21:09:09] <@ajak> by discussing it we'll be giving justification to the idea that anybody can bring up anything and have the council discuss it, great way to waste time by bureaucracy
+[21:09:57] <+arthurzam> I also want to note that various people have given quite good "middle" ground in multiple places (IRC, ML), but I'm not sure where have it been stuck?
+[21:10:03] <@sam_> right
+[21:10:05] <@mgorny> well, i think at least some of us have made good points on the ml and they haven't been addressed in any way
+[21:10:24] <@sam_> ulm probably put it best
+[21:10:26] <@sam_> and gyakovlev
+[21:10:31] <@sam_> it's not actionable as-is/not ready as a proposal
+[21:10:38] <@ajak> yes, let's move to kick it back to MLs?
+[21:10:44] <@sam_> that doesn't mean the topic isn't worth talking about in the dev community, but it needs to be kicked back i agree
+[21:11:09] <+arthurzam> I also want to note that I think the thing should be split into multiple parts, for example split ::gentoo from overlays and such...
+[21:11:09] <+arthurzam> Not one huge "action"
+[21:11:21] <+soap> (it doesnt apply to overlays anyways)
+[21:11:40] <@mgorny> also the maintainer should really take part in this
+[21:11:52] <@sam_> it doesn't appear flow is here right now either
+[21:11:55] <@sam_> mgorny: ok if we dismiss and move on?
+[21:11:59] <@gyakovlev> yeah per repo qa settings is a thing. ok enough discussion =) it has to be finalized on ML
+[21:12:06] <@mgorny> i don't think it's a good idea for Council to arbitrarily override how eclasses work without having anyone to maintain the resulting eclass
+[21:12:30] <@mgorny> ok then, back to the ml
+[21:12:32] <@mgorny> 4. Open bugs with Council participation [5]
+[21:13:00] <@mgorny> https://bugs.gentoo.org/520156
+[21:13:06] <@mgorny> Bug 520156 - Give the council authority to change GLEP 39 like any other GLEP
+[21:13:07] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/520156 "Give the council authority to change GLEP 39 like any other GLEP"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; wking:council
+[21:13:21] <@ulm> this should be closed
+[21:13:30] <@mgorny> close WONTFIX per comment?
+[21:13:35] <@ajak> yes
+[21:13:38] <@ulm> I wanted to have it in the meeting log
+[21:13:57] <@mgorny> now you do ;-)
+[21:14:22] <@ulm> closed
+[21:14:24] <@mgorny> Bug 672672 - GLEP 78: Gentoo binpkg container format
+[21:14:25] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/672672 "GLEP 78: Gentoo binpkg container format"; Documentation, New GLEP submissions; IN_P; mgorny:glep
+[21:14:31] <@mgorny> we've just discussed this one
+[21:14:48] <@mgorny> ulm: will you push the GLEP update and close the bug afterwards?
+[21:14:54] <@ulm> just pushed it
+[21:15:03] <@ulm> refresh the bug :)
+[21:15:10] <@mgorny> Bug 883715 - (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous
+[21:15:10] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:council
+[21:15:39] <@sam_> i don't know if i love this but i don't have a solid logical argument against it, in theory this is a recruitment policy thing, not a GLEP copyright policy thing in isolation
+[21:15:48] <@sam_> unfortunately the recruiters lead is AWOL and due to be retired soon enough
+[21:16:17] <@ajak> yeah, not sure what we'd do here
+[21:16:19] <@sam_> I don't think it's really for us yet, recruiters should get in order first
+[21:16:38] <@sam_> (with discussion on the ML, as well, given this affects everybody)
+[21:17:09] <@mgorny> does anyone want to write a comment to the bug or should i?
+[21:17:18] <@sam_> would you mind?
+[21:17:28] <@mgorny> i'll do it after closing the meeting
+[21:17:38] <@mgorny> 5. Open floor time
+[21:20:04] <@mgorny> anyone?
+[21:23:06] <+arthurzam> seems like no?
+[21:23:20] -*- ajak looks both ways
+[21:23:42] <@mgorny> ok, meeting adjourned!
+[21:23:45] <@mgorny> thanks, everyone
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230514.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230514.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..56e2df5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230514.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iQFGBAABCAAwFiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAmSG5voSHG1nb3JueUBn
+ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEGOa2uIyniQOPCsH/2eBNalvSeYetuSj1F3Ssh4CVA/ySlpX
+bNOxpGeu/+xOXzVDBc6XjhBV27stnNYfKLEgn8Yd3UlWLpjxSSoErKZwhlntXHgN
+m/TLME3dYVU5CYk64tlgCRLYsiZxNpJCH+UddygpiUV6LYlU1QVsffi7hYxZZ06t
+peYxpOnrgVUIAi8dt+FO9UO2G7HHlM2l/7l9bTD59gFF+PVlrqP+x78s0mi//LKx
+ES7T0uFvy9/6wfUoz7Yzn75rSQCsz+9xGTIYBX0A2QnT/WCeWmK16Vx/X2/vGbnM
+h03gKvz8CQq8Hh0ADxAqicozqnMuSlFSSFqdLDlvES0PfhnhM936oqQ=
+=nLt/
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230611-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20230611-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8b28058
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230611-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+Summary of Gentoo Council meeting 2023-06-11
+
+Agenda
+======
+
+1. Roll call
+2. Open bugs with Council participation
+3. Open floor
+
+Roll call
+=========
+
+Present: ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, ulm
+Absent: gyakovlev
+
+Open bugs with council participation
+====================================
+
+Bug 883715 - (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous
+--------------------------------------------------------
+The Council has discussed that their previous response may have been
+misinterpreted. Subsequent responses have been left asking to clarify
+the reply from Recruiters and to qualify that the matter should be
+discussed on the mailing lists.
+
+Open floor
+==========
+
+Arch status review
+------------------
+arthurzam has provided the update on arch status. It was noted that
+the arch teams were recently destabilizing packages on 32-bit arches,
+in order to determine the total number of packages in the stabilization
+queue. It was also pointed out that developers should no longer be
+adding the ~x86 keyword to new packages "by default".
+
+Election timeline
+-----------------
+NeddySeagoon proposed a timeline for the next Council elections.
+The proposal was pre-approved by the Council, and will be submitted
+to the mailing lists.
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230611-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230611-summary.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ed034d4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230611-summary.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iQFGBAABCAAwFiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAmSHbYISHG1nb3JueUBn
+ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEGOa2uIyniQOV+IIAIuyGFyu7yfBb1BkTWyg7TpDRbVgEUAV
+ntuuV4aPq40tiWkUH0zKFS1gTtgdpDg7FetUub0ovE8qKfnGofy0qQkEZX+1Ot3x
+0Uk9xdGSY7DoA9qvXWFfBGOoBD54Kp0sHp1y+p1y94IpVwQdRxRvNQp8n9uwD/oM
+XW2NvdVUYEy4Aob7137BjN6t/Cf2yY7FDlgVlMA5StCHOjq81kDeCPqF1IlPjR9X
+o4X9n5Qf5CPy95RhX/Jx8npE8kZHQ+4FcazRVn8gcngZ8K8ikuzv5Oo2cQj6ljkR
+wbBqwaQF1m756wDBEzu83xqYQJf4IeJoj5c1JxfFUlqseAlliISTeKE=
+=u5Eq
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230611.txt b/meeting-logs/20230611.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2190457
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230611.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+[21:02:15] <@mgorny> !proj council
+[21:02:16] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, gyakovlev, mattst88, mgorny, sam, ulm
+[21:02:28] <@mattst88> o/
+[21:02:38] <@dilfridge|mobile> allo
+[21:02:49] <@mgorny> lemme just find the agenda link
+[21:02:53] -*- mgorny mumbles about archives.g.o
+[21:03:19] <@ulm> roll call, bugs, open floor
+[21:03:25] <@sam_> https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168650241618329&w=2
+[21:03:34] <@mgorny> thanks
+[21:03:42] <@mgorny> i just wanted to have a link in the log ;-)
+[21:03:48] <@mgorny> 1. Roll call
+[21:03:50] -*- mgorny is here
+[21:03:52] -*- ajak here
+[21:03:52] -*- sam_ here
+[21:03:53] -*- mattst88 here
+[21:03:55] -*- ulm here
+[21:03:59] -*- dilfridge|mobile here
+[21:04:12] <@mattst88> gyakovlev is likely not here
+[21:04:34] <@mgorny> yeah, i don't think i've seen him around today
+[21:07:08] <@mgorny> ok, let's move on
+[21:07:12] <@mgorny> 2. Open bugs
+[21:07:26] <@mgorny> bug 883715
+[21:07:27] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:recruiters
+[21:07:41] <@mgorny> we reassigned it to Recruiters last
+[21:07:43] <@sam_> don't think I agree with the conclusion there
+[21:08:00] <@sam_> if it was worth asking trustees+council about it, as we said (+ you said in the comment), it's worth discussing on -project
+[21:08:10] <@sam_> us simply having no decision in a *meeting* doesn't mean it's not worth discussing
+[21:08:14] <@sam_> (at large)
+[21:08:21] <@sam_> so recruiters should really bring it up on -project
+[21:08:29] <@ulm> sorry, what was the conclusion there?
+[21:08:36] <@ajak> the last comment?
+[21:08:39] <@sam_> i'm referring to juippis' conclusion, sorry, yes
+[21:08:40] <@sam_> not ours
+[21:08:50] <@ulm> ajak: yes, what does it say?
+[21:09:03] <@sam_> "If trustees / council has no comments to the issues raised in #c0, then recruiters can continue as normal. In other words, no change needed for recruitment process."
+[21:09:11] <@ulm> yes, I can read :)
+[21:09:16] <@sam_> you asked what it said..
+[21:09:19] -*- ajak scratches head
+[21:09:20] <@ulm> but what does "normal" mean?
+[21:09:41] <@sam_> i think you could've just asked that if you wanted to know that, but it's also not something any of us know the answer to (we're not recruiters)
+[21:10:22] <@sam_> but my point was I disagree with the premise of the response there - council isn't special here, and it should be brought up and discussed with the developer community at large
+[21:11:58] <@mgorny> sam_: perhaps ask for clarification on the bug
+[21:12:05] -*- ulm just did
+[21:12:14] <@sam_> i felt your comment was clear enough, but i will do
+[21:12:27] <@mgorny> should we move on?
+[21:12:53] <@ulm> +1
+[21:12:55] <@sam_> i think so, i've commented as to my concern & ulm has as well
+[21:13:06] <@mgorny> ok
+[21:13:07] <@mgorny> 3. Open floor
+[21:13:16] <+arthurzam> I have https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Arch-status_Reviews
+[21:13:24] <+arthurzam> (June meeting)
+[21:13:36] -*- mgorny gives the floor to arthurzam
+[21:14:14] <+arthurzam> So we are doing active work on destabalising a lot of packages that we thing are less important on 32 bit arches, for example sci-*/*
+[21:14:32] <@mattst88> ++
+[21:14:49] <+arthurzam> I don't think we want full x86 -> ~x86 (yet), but we want to decrease the total amount of packages
+[21:15:02] <+arthurzam> 32 bit is just too limiting and giving too much noise at this point
+[21:15:34] <@sam_> yeah, the general principle for me at least is that while i'm happy to look at bugs affecting real people, there's a lot of stuff which gained x86 for no reason and we end up wasting time on those
+[21:15:44] <@sam_> really need developers to stop adding it by default too
+[21:15:53] <@mattst88> sounds great to me
+[21:16:30] <+arthurzam> I don't think I have something more "action itemy" for Council, but we are cleaning up a lot for now
+[21:16:32] <@mgorny> honestly, i have mixed feelings about this
+[21:16:40] <@mgorny> i normally do not add ~x86 by default these days
+[21:16:50] <@mgorny> but this generally means i end up having to rekeyword stuff ~x86 ;-)
+[21:16:55] <@mgorny> (you know, python)
+[21:17:04] -*- ulm still does when the package is allarches
+[21:17:18] <@ulm> (add ~x86, that is
+[21:17:20] <@ulm> )
+[21:17:34] <@ajak> i think this is fine and not opposed to the idea of removing x86 where it matters less, lik ein sci
+[21:17:37] <+arthurzam> mgorny: you can continue with that, we don't last-rite x86 (yet)
+[21:17:41] <+ionen> adding by "default" still means needing to test it at least in a x86 chroot though, rekeyword requests do that for you fwiw
+[21:17:48] <@ajak> yes
+[21:18:16] <+arthurzam> mgorny: just try to consider (if time permits of course), maybe the rev-dep tree is small enough to just drop x86 there
+[21:18:19] <@ajak> i have seen at least one security bug blocked forever because of an x86 problem, until i dekeyworded it
+[21:18:23] <+ionen> have little doubt it got added a lot without any testing
+[21:18:27] <@ajak> (also was a sci package, iirc)
+[21:19:08] <+arthurzam> My main request for all devs, if you see a blocked bug because of 32 bit arches, and the rev-dep tree isn't too big, contact us so we all consider together the destable idea
+[21:19:43] <@ajak> i'm happy with this
+[21:19:55] <@ulm> does anyone run real x86 these days? or even a 32 bit kernel on amd64?
+[21:20:04] <@ulm> or is it just 32 bit userland?
+[21:20:13] <+ionen> I do have a vm with a 32bit kernel but that's about it
+[21:20:15] <+arthurzam> I know infra uses
+[21:20:22] <+ionen> heh :)
+[21:20:24] <@sam_> there's people who run it on older hw, although some (not all) of them have 64-bit capable CPUs
+[21:21:04] <+floppym> I saw a youtube video of someone installing Gentoo on a 486 around a year ago.
+[21:21:25] <@sam_> ultimately x86 isn't going to go away, it's just going to become more like ppc is
+[21:22:05] <+arthurzam> Yes, you get potential stable x86, with various packages from ~x86
+[21:23:20] <@sam_> all done?
+[21:23:34] <@mgorny> anything else for the open floor?
+[21:23:36] <+arthurzam> Me, yes, sorry for taking long
+[21:23:43] <+NeddySeagoon> Election timeline
+[21:23:47] <@sam_> you did nothing wrong, just wondering if there's anything more for us to discuss
+[21:24:03] <+NeddySeagoon> Election timeline ?
+[21:24:13] <@sam_> i'm fine with what you'd suggested earlier
+[21:24:16] <@sam_> restate it for the log purposes?
+[21:24:20] <+NeddySeagoon> OK
+[21:25:03] <+NeddySeagoon> nominations next weekend for two week, have a day or so off then voting a day or so later. Both for two weeks
+[21:25:12] <+NeddySeagoon> Results 16-Jul-23
+[21:25:46] <@ulm> hm, next meeting still by the old council then? would be on 2023-07-09
+[21:26:01] <@ajak> it would be, but our term expires with this meeting, right?
+[21:26:15] <+NeddySeagoon> ulm: It would be after the resuts are out
+[21:26:27] <@ulm> term expires when the new council constitutes itself, I think?
+[21:26:34] <@mgorny> NeddySeagoon: any reason not to start nominations tomorrow?
+[21:26:35] <@ulm> but maybe unwise to have such a meeting
+[21:26:53] <@ajak> right
+[21:27:08] <@ajak> i don't see why the new council's first meeting can't be the following sunday after results or so
+[21:27:21] <+NeddySeagoon> mgorny: We always have a period on notic but it need not be most of a week
+[21:27:23] <@ulm> that would be 2023-07-30
+[21:27:53] <@ajak> sure? it's still a july meeting, though a bit later than usual
+[21:28:04] <+NeddySeagoon> 23-JUl ?
+[21:28:17] <@ajak> yeah that sounds more right
+[21:28:29] <@ulm> or 23rd, yes
+[21:28:34] <@mgorny> well, the proposed dates wfm
+[21:28:45] <+NeddySeagoon> Results 16-Jul ... Meeting folloming Sunday
+[21:29:12] <@ajak> is this something worth properly voting on given it's a bit weird
+[21:29:34] <+NeddySeagoon> ulm: You have one of those calendars with 23 and 30 Jul in the same square :)
+[21:29:54] <@ulm> NeddySeagoon: something like that. I got confused there :)
+[21:30:14] <@ulm> ajak: the date of the meeting? I think we should leave it for the new council to decide
+[21:30:20] <+NeddySeagoon> ajak: Its caused by the election.
+[21:30:54] <@ajak> i know that
+[21:31:08] <@sam_> can discuss on ML if we're not sure of what to do here
+[21:31:12] <@ajak> yes that too
+[21:31:25] <@sam_> i think i'd find it easier to digest in an email format because lots of dates being thrown around
+[21:31:50] <+NeddySeagoon> sam_: I'll get the annouce out tonight
+[21:31:59] <@sam_> thank you!
+[21:32:16] <@ajak> yeah thank you for being on top of it
+[21:32:34] <+NeddySeagoon> I've not got anything else.
+[21:32:49] <@ulm> so we're sort of organised :p
+[21:32:59] <+NeddySeagoon> heh
+[21:33:08] <@ulm> NeddySeagoon: thanks for doing the work
+[21:34:43] <@mgorny> anything else for the open floor?
+[21:34:47] <@sam_> (yes, thank you)
+[21:36:40] <@mgorny> i guess not
+[21:36:43] <@mgorny> thanks, everyone!
+[21:36:46] <@ulm> mgorny: thank you for chairing
+[21:36:47] -*- mgorny bangs the gavel
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230611.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230611.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7bdea0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230611.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iQFGBAABCAAwFiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAmSG5v8SHG1nb3JueUBn
+ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEGOa2uIyniQOUt4H/39se0qCQsrfhdF/T/yQaTF4PUsq7gM5
+QC6p46Hv4617nss7eFBTBZK7j2kFGnTcKpA+qkLgNVbVZAcY7oPm9xQTdx2Qd5ke
+8zKQfep1Hxst1wqoZvTU0mAtUxh+u/xLnbP3zw9EOp3XsbDCIe9/6RU+IgGfIAtk
+TVxLd7Q3xYNXrxYN7RC6Xerd7OsIS0gFqzhjE6Cam8fIW2zmXmO95GYZZRLTfNUX
+u1AvfcEea+7LkpsxpqpMrxURkAyYC9oM910Lox5ZeC83vDVMdUr2hIeUjhS6pClP
+bdhpoXdqvAzJMOfqR9qf+baiWnAabkC0lcEXjqS+mq9UfztGWH+Mg40=
+=wKIU
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230723-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20230723-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..511929a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230723-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+Summary of Gentoo Council meeting 2023-07-23
+
+Agenda
+======
+
+1. Roll call
+2. Constitute the new council
+ - Decide on time of meetings. The previous council had its meetings
+ on the 2nd Sunday of every month at 19:00 UTC
+ - Vote for continuing last council's workflow considering sending
+ a call for agenda items (two weeks in advance), sending the
+ agenda (one week in advance) and have the meeting focussed, i.e.
+ have major discussions on the gentoo-project mailing list prior
+ to the meeting
+ - Appoint chairmen for this term's meetings
+3. Missing steps/info/work for umbrella entering (arthurzam)
+4. Open bugs with council involvement
+5. Open floor
+
+
+Roll call
+=========
+
+Present: ajak, arthurzam (proxy for mattst88), dilfridge, mgorny, sam, soap,
+ ulm
+Absent: -
+
+
+Constitute the new council
+==========================
+
+The Council member unanimously agreed on continuing the previous
+Council's workflow. The meeting chairs were assigned and posted
+on the Wiki.
+
+
+Missing steps/info/work for umbrella entering (arthurzam)
+=========================================================
+
+The Council agreed to continue the application process to Open
+Collective Foundation started by Trustees the last year. ulm agreed
+to handle all communications on behalf of the Council, and to restart
+the mail exchange. mgorny suggested that all future communications
+include council@ and trustees@ on CC. antarus indicated that he will
+share the previous thread with council@. arthurzam suggested adding
+a repeating agenda item to every meeting for status updates.
+
+
+Open bugs with council involvement
+==================================
+
+Bug 883715 - (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous
+--------------------------------------------------------
+The bug is currently assigned to Recruiters and waiting for their
+action. ulm has indicated that he will attempt to ping them on IRC.
+
+
+Bug 909432 - Motion: Ban EAPI 6
+-------------------------------
+The motion has been approved via voting on the bug unanimously. The bug
+was closed.
+
+
+Bug 909768 - QA lead election 2023
+----------------------------------
+The Council has approved soap as the continuing QA lead via voting
+on the bug. There were 6 yes votes and 1 abstention.
+
+
+Open floor
+==========
+
+During the open floor, dilfridge indicated that he is postponing
+the work on 23.0 profiles until Northern Hemisphere fall 2023. This was
+followed by lighthearted discussion about profile versions. sam pointed
+out that the current versioning scheme is confusing to the users, making
+them believe that Gentoo is outdated. NeddySeagoon suggested using EAPI
+versions as they often go hand in hand with profiles.
+
+sultan briefly intervened prior to open floor, requesting that
+"consequences be added if the workflow is not followed", but did not
+expound when requested during the open floor.
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230723-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230723-summary.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5c2c6ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230723-summary.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iQFGBAABCAAwFiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAmTDiHUSHG1nb3JueUBn
+ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEGOa2uIyniQOLHAIAMaxxAaLedsNDhtu6iIq1gf1/b3KIHGl
+5+OjbZq0waj0lAMLx6HWQUiIMkWsUIZxi1Knp0EvZQhGJB80R6MjXeS0u0Ms90By
+ojPReK8ktvfFIxoLkGWhQAzej1bFiyGYLIiXsW1sOGwht40skC+9n/6GKnEmZgZc
+/Y1NiuuXbS+7/i5Ae8uY5wYEyKKtKkyOzkkl+ODbUdC28V3Pc7w4igZOjN+WerwT
+qC2MCohsPVkFIkPgsAP4HkT9X6QFDBQjEAdJKM3WckPe2VPUHWOVzku3BXZ4W14V
+GgqtvFIOkibrf3aC6dj2Orip66okovFHlQdoR+h25PSSSy8bOza0Hms=
+=owX3
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230723.txt b/meeting-logs/20230723.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ef1b71c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230723.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+[21:00:05] <@mgorny> !proj council
+[21:00:06] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
+[21:00:20] -*- arthurzam proxies mattst88
+[21:00:29] <@ulm> mgorny: you want to chair? :)
+[21:00:54] <@mgorny> *shrug* why not
+[21:00:57] <@mgorny> lemme just find the agenda
+[21:01:04] <@ulm> https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=168982936627687&w=2
+[21:01:25] <@mgorny> thanks
+[21:01:29] <@mgorny> so.....
+[21:01:30] <@mgorny> 1. Roll call!
+[21:01:35] -*- dilfridge here
+[21:01:38] -*- mgorny here
+[21:01:38] -*- ajak here
+[21:01:38] -*- arthurzam here (proxy for mattst88)
+[21:01:42] -*- sam_ here
+[21:01:43] -*- ulm here
+[21:02:13] <@mgorny> soap: ?
+[21:02:19] -*- soap here
+[21:02:20] <@soap> soz
+[21:02:31] <@mgorny> ok, everyone's here, let's start
+[21:02:39] <@mgorny> 2. Constitute the new council
+[21:02:59] <@mgorny> - Decide on time of meetings. The previous council had its meetings
+[21:02:59] <@mgorny> on the 2nd Sunday of every month at 19:00 UTC
+[21:02:59] -*- dilfridge has a Bavarian constitution
+[21:03:13] <@mgorny> - Vote for continuing last council's workflow considering sending
+[21:03:13] <@mgorny> a call for agenda items (two weeks in advance), sending the
+[21:03:13] <@mgorny> agenda (one week in advance) and have the meeting focussed, i.e.
+[21:03:13] <@mgorny> have major discussions on the gentoo-project mailing list prior
+[21:03:13] <@mgorny> to the meeting
+[21:03:21] <@mgorny> does that work for everyone?
+[21:03:23] -*- ajak sees no reason to change this time
+[21:03:29] <@ulm> wfm
+[21:03:32] <@dilfridge> no reason to change anything
+[21:03:33] <@soap> wfm
+[21:03:40] <@sam_> sure
+[21:03:43] <+arthurzam> yes, wf mattst88
+[21:03:50] <@mgorny> ok, so everyone agrees
+[21:04:07] <@mgorny> - Appoint chairmen for this term's meetings
+[21:04:12] <@ulm> I can take january and february
+[21:04:26] <@mgorny> (i implicitly took July ;-))
+[21:04:29] <+sultan> Can the council add consequences if the workflow is not followed?
+[21:04:36] <+arthurzam> I didn't sync with mattst88 month he can chair with, so can't stand for him - sorry
+[21:04:40] <@sam_> sultan: it's not open floor yet
+[21:05:16] <@mgorny> ulm: i'll edit the wiki
+[21:05:27] <@ajak> arthurzam: it's fine to do some of it asynchronously i think, we did last time
+[21:05:48] <@mgorny> oh, i see ulm chose the same months xD
+[21:05:50] <@sam_> I'll do march/april then
+[21:06:13] <+arthurzam> ajak: ok
+[21:06:17] <@dilfridge> will do december
+[21:06:19] <@ajak> hrm, i'll claim sept/oct i guess
+[21:06:44] <@mgorny> i suppose we can tentatively leave nov/dec to mattst88 like last year
+[21:06:51] <@dilfridge> works too
+[21:07:13] <@mgorny> dilfridge: may/june?
+[21:07:17] <@dilfridge> wfm
+[21:07:29] <@mgorny> soap: aug?
+[21:07:33] <@soap> sure
+[21:07:57] <@mgorny> ok, updated wiki, we can switch with matt if need be
+[21:08:06] <@sam_> yeah, np
+[21:08:09] <@mgorny> 3. Missing steps/info/work for umbrella entering (arthurzam)
+[21:08:44] <+arthurzam> Yeah, so I wanted to request council on what should be done, plan, or something, so we don't miss it again or as such
+[21:08:49] <@ajak> is antarus here to give us the current state maybe?
+[21:09:11] <@mgorny> i think we should choose one person to oversee this
+[21:09:20] <+arthurzam> Maybe appoint the chairman responsibility for that month to have "active checks and time follows" - (just idea)
+[21:09:20] <@ulm> we should establish better communication with trustees, so that everyone will be on the same page
+[21:09:23] <@mgorny> ulm: would you be interested? i'm sorry for dumping this on you but i think you're the best person for this
+[21:10:03] <@ulm> mgorny: let's wait until the trustees election is complete, then I'm in a better position to answer
+[21:10:11] <@ulm> or in no position :/
+[21:10:33] <+arthurzam> ulm: it won't be clash of interest if you are in both of them, right?
+[21:10:37] <@ajak> what difference does that make?
+[21:10:48] <@mgorny> i think we should resume comms immediately independently of trustee election results
+[21:11:12] <@ulm> ajak: if voters would put me below _reopen then I'd be the wrong person
+[21:11:26] <@mgorny> or maybe something more specific
+[21:11:33] <@dilfridge> yeah and hell freezes over next month
+[21:11:34] <@ulm> mgorny: then take it as a yes from me
+[21:11:40] <@mgorny> do we all agree to continue the process started by trustees in the previous term?
+[21:11:47] <@mgorny> i.e. the same umbrella?
+[21:11:54] <@dilfridge> which one was that again?
+[21:11:59] <@soap> opencollective?
+[21:12:00] <@ulm> open collective
+[21:12:08] <@mgorny> Open Collective Foundation, i think
+[21:12:10] <@mgorny> lemme double check
+[21:12:15] <+antarus> I think the email thread was pretty clear on the state
+[21:12:23] <+antarus> but i only emailed the thread to mattst88 and he isn't here today
+[21:12:37] <@mgorny> yes, OCF
+[21:12:39] <+antarus> (the thread being our thread with OCF)
+[21:13:07] <@ajak> okay.. so can you share that so we can attempt to establish what needs to be done moving forward?
+[21:13:40] <@mgorny> i think the key point would be to apologize and reply to their previous inquiry, hopefully they'll let us resume from there
+[21:14:07] <+antarus> More or less, that, yes.
+[21:14:28] <@ajak> yep, agreed
+[21:14:38] <@dilfridge> sounds good to me
+[21:15:01] <@mgorny> ulm: could you do that? we can help prepare/proofread but i think we should really focus on one person sending it
+[21:15:24] [tomaw] [Global Notice] Around 1800UTC on Monday we'll be performing maintenance on the box that runs ChanServ, NickServ and their relatives. During this time those services will be unavailable for a (hopefully!) short period. If you're a channel operator that doesn't usually keep your operator status you may want to in case you need it. I'll send a reminder nearer the time.
+[21:15:24] [tomaw] [Global Notice] Around 1800UTC on Monday we'll be performing maintenance on the box that runs ChanServ, NickServ and their relatives. During this time those services will be unavailable for a (hopefully!) short period. If you're a channel operator that doesn't usually keep your operator status you may want to in case you need it. I'll send a reminder nearer the time.
+[21:15:27] <@dilfridge> s/sending it/centrally handling all communication/
+[21:15:29] <@ulm> mgorny: sure, but I don't yet have the full info
+[21:15:44] <@mgorny> dilfridge: that, thanks
+[21:15:50] <@mgorny> ulm: thanks
+[21:15:52] <@ajak> antarus: can you share the thread with council@?
+[21:15:53] <@ulm> i.e. all previous communication with them
+[21:16:14] <@mgorny> and let's keep council@ and trustees@ in CC for future comms perhaps
+[21:16:23] <+antarus> sure
+[21:16:36] <@dilfridge> \o/
+[21:16:44] <+arthurzam> Can we add an item to each council meeting as an update on the progress?
+[21:16:49] <@dilfridge> ++
+[21:17:10] <@ajak> yes, let's make this a repeat agenda item
+[21:17:19] <@ulm> maybe we could even have joint council/trustees meetings
+[21:17:26] <@ulm> not necessarily every month
+[21:18:00] <@mgorny> ok, so i'd propose we put the goal right now on reestabilishing the status, resuming comms and discussing this next month as an agenda item
+[21:18:06] <@mgorny> anything else?
+[21:18:11] <@ulm> sounds good
+[21:18:41] <@sam_> +1
+[21:18:54] <+arthurzam> sounds good
+[21:19:07] <@mgorny> ok, thanks, let's move on then
+[21:19:10] <@mgorny> 4. Open bugs with council involvement
+[21:19:29] <@mgorny> bug 883715
+[21:19:30] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:recruiters
+[21:19:49] <@ulm> no progress there it seems
+[21:19:56] <@sam_> yeah that's not blocked on us
+[21:20:05] <@ulm> it's up to recruiters to answer our questions
+[21:20:13] <@mgorny> bug 909432
+[21:20:14] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/909432 "Motion: Ban EAPI 6"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council
+[21:20:32] <@ulm> done, and now it's in the log :)
+[21:20:35] <@mgorny> that one's been voted by mail, 7/0/0 y/n/a
+[21:20:44] <@mgorny> accepted unanimously
+[21:20:44] <@dilfridge> excellent
+[21:20:57] <@mgorny> bug 909768
+[21:20:58] <willikins> mgorny: https://bugs.gentoo.org/909768 "QA lead election 2023"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; ulm:council
+[21:21:03] <@ulm> EAPI 6 removal is glacial though
+[21:21:13] <@sam_> I think we're done there
+[21:21:16] <@sam_> yeah, it is :(
+[21:21:21] <@mgorny> 6/0/1 y/n/a, i.e. soap approved unanimously, modulo his abstention
+[21:21:27] <+arthurzam> Congratulations soap on winning QA elections :)
+[21:21:28] <@ulm> congratulations to soap
+[21:21:34] <@soap> :>
+[21:21:35] <@dilfridge> heh, congrats
+[21:21:37] <@sam_> yes, congrats
+[21:21:47] <+antarus> do recruiters know https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 is waiting on them?
+[21:21:48] <@mgorny> and these were all the bugs
+[21:21:48] <@ajak> yay soap
+[21:21:49] <+antarus> status seems unclear
+[21:23:18] <@mgorny> ulm: ^ you seem to know that bug best
+[21:23:39] <@ulm> antarus: it's assigned to them
+[21:24:33] <@ulm> maybe I should ping juippis in irc
+[21:24:51] <@mgorny> ok, let's move on to…
+[21:24:52] <@ulm> might be more effective than communicating via the bug
+[21:24:55] <@mgorny> 5. Open floor
+[21:24:58] <@dilfridge> ok
+[21:25:00] <@dilfridge> briefly
+[21:25:08] <@dilfridge> before we talk about other stuff
+[21:25:25] <@dilfridge> the 23.0 profiles are right now blocked on my time mostly
+[21:25:48] <@dilfridge> I dont see them as very urgent, so unless someone protests I'll just defer that stuff until fall
+[21:26:26] <@dilfridge> that's it
+[21:26:32] <+arthurzam> Sounds fine, thank you for working on it (and to all others)
+[21:27:26] <@dilfridge> anything / anyone else?
+[21:27:28] <+arthurzam> I think sultan had something for open floor?
+[21:28:05] <+NeddySeagoon> Call them 24 then :)
+[21:28:24] <@dilfridge> too much extra work
+[21:28:32] <+NeddySeagoon> heh
+[21:30:27] <@ulm> 10.0 were released in 2009, but with 13.0 we switched to years
+[21:30:38] <@sam_> I wish we didn't use years at all
+[21:30:55] <@sam_> I have to explain to people that 17.1 is not "old"
+[21:31:13] <@mgorny> we can switch to something else now
+[21:31:23] <@mgorny> Gentoo Z
+[21:31:24] <@dilfridge> give it a name, like the linux kernel releases
+[21:31:26] -*- mgorny hides
+[21:31:30] <+NeddySeagoon> Switch to EAPI numbers. They often go hand in hand
+[21:32:44] <@ulm> nah, don't change the naming scheme
+[21:33:05] <@ulm> 23.0 is already better than the 2004.1 we have in ancient times
+[21:33:07] <+ionen> fwiw a name would make it hard to differentiate from profile subdirs/features
+[21:33:34] <+Arsen> clearly, we need to adopt google versioning and just go with 117.33.114.28 for the next profile round
+[21:33:46] <@sam_> gentoo 1337
+[21:34:04] <+ionen> take the version what whatever distro has at the highest number, and increment it so we're higher
+[21:34:07] <+Arsen> actually, we need to be more original, and use ipv6 addresses as versions rather than ipv4
+[21:34:37] <@mgorny> how about irrational versions?
+[21:34:53] <@ulm> quaternions
+[21:34:56] <@mgorny> Gentoo pi³
+[21:35:18] <+arthurzam> Hmm, like TeX version number
+[21:36:26] <@mgorny> anything else for the open floor?
+[21:36:43] <+Arsen> arthurzam: sure, but we ought to use 'e' instead
+[21:36:47] <@sam_> nothing from me
+[21:36:51] <+sultan> mgorny: see my comment above, but no time now
+[21:37:02] <@sam_> I don't understand what the comment meant
+[21:37:25] <@ajak> so.. no more topics for open floor then :)
+[21:38:40] <@mgorny> let's wait till :40
+[21:40:12] <@mgorny> ok
+[21:40:15] -*- mgorny bangs the gavel
+[21:40:17] <@mgorny> meeting adjourned!
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230723.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230723.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..730fbaa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230723.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iQFGBAABCAAwFiEEx2qEUJQJjSjMiybFY5ra4jKeJA4FAmS9gsASHG1nb3JueUBn
+ZW50b28ub3JnAAoJEGOa2uIyniQOQDEH/RGEqcZR+HaU0DRrhYcTrnPcRA+kFn5m
+UHBG9YWaPITeFDyChNsFEP/MHISEM7S4Y2P1u77WXSdKBcgKz4nWCY5nbLqUEm3S
+MA4BxCD/SmJRA4X2r00urO4uiwkxEXyn2+LZImQGs6ZymEE3Y125V0Y94Wdgfk50
+uEzzEcIe2NEI8F0XLVBhxti0W/n/sXKEHWMD5MeBlowT5VHnMCOGsIXjGbLa5F+z
+9+lqYKf/iePEpJDjnO3rVEVFCMuebbk/gWHYlJMwHQ2jbpjLaZ09gBDGRQ+u+Hxf
+koUwFqjlh5v1GN30cw7Sjwlni/KD+QHJdeTwQa9ELD7gpUBiThtIf3g=
+=cQWQ
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230813-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20230813-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7cf91a0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230813-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+Summary of Gentoo Council meeting 2023-08-13
+
+Agenda
+======
+
+1. Roll call
+2. Status of dissolving the foundation/moving under an umbrella org
+3. Open bugs with Council participation
+4. Open floor
+
+
+Roll call
+=========
+
+Present: ajak, mattst88, dilfridge, mgorny, soap, ulm
+Absent: sam
+
+
+Status of dissolving the foundation/moving under an umbrella org
+================================================================
+
+ulm told the council that he has no new information from trustees on
+restarting the process with Open Collective. There was no unanimous
+agreement on whether the council should proceed on its own, and as a
+compromise, the council agreed on the motion
+
+ The council solicits more information from the trustees on how to
+ restart the process with Open Collective until the next council
+ meeting. Either way, after the next council meeting, the council will
+ take action in moving forward, whether with support from the trustees
+ or not.
+
+with 5 yes, mattst88 abstaining and 1 absence.
+
+
+Open bugs with council involvement
+==================================
+
+Bug 883715 - (new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous
+--------------------------------------------------------
+Since no discussion took place on the ML, the council voted with 6 yes
+and 1 absence on the following motion:
+
+ The council does not see the need for admitting anonymous or
+ pseudonymous developers at this stage (bug 883715), but is willing to
+ reconsider the topic should a demonstrable need arise or new arguments
+ be brought forward.
+
+
+Open floor
+==========
+
+Nothing was brought to the council's attention.
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230813-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230813-summary.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0a00f9b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230813-summary.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: GnuPG v2
+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+=Sf9q
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230813.txt b/meeting-logs/20230813.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..47a0078
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230813.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+[21:02:01] <@ajak> !proj council
+[21:02:02] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
+[21:02:03] <@ulm> has the meeting started? :)
+[21:02:12] <@dilfridge> wat
+[21:02:16] -*- dilfridge here
+[21:02:22] <@soap> ok, 1. Roll call
+[21:02:28] -*- dilfridge here
+[21:02:29] -*- ajak here
+[21:02:31] -*- ulm here
+[21:02:32] -*- mgorny here
+[21:02:52] -*- soap here
+[21:03:05] -*- mattst88 here
+[21:03:33] <@soap> sam MIA?
+[21:04:16] <@soap> ok, let's continue, sam will likely still join
+[21:04:37] <@soap> 2. Status of dissolving the foundation/moving under an umbrella org
+[21:05:01] <@ulm> no news unfortunately
+[21:05:10] <@soap> ulm: didnt you want to share some insights you gained talking to trustees?
+[21:06:02] <@soap> AGM is soon, and IIRC the newly elected trustees only take office after the AGM?
+[21:06:41] <@ulm> no answer yet, but I'll ping robbat2 again in the trustees channel
+[21:07:17] <@soap> ok, anyone else have any insights or more to say?
+[21:07:18] <@ulm> I think the main question is how to get the process with open collective back on track?
+[21:07:18] <@mattst88> are we, the council, blocked on anything in terms of reaching back out to the umbrella organization?
+[21:08:09] <@ulm> soap: IIUC trustees take office as soon as they're elected
+[21:08:15] <@mattst88> (IMO we should take charge of this)
+[21:08:28] <@soap> ulm: oh ok
+[21:08:42] <@mattst88> we'll need the trustees to do some specific things, but clearly relying on them to make this happen has not worked
+[21:09:05] -*- ajak nods
+[21:09:21] <@soap> ok, what do we suggest? we need to reach out to OCF again is my understanding?
+[21:09:36] <@mattst88> yes
+[21:09:47] -*- ulm still believes that getting everybody on the same page would be best
+[21:10:03] <@ulm> of course, if that fails, council should go ahead
+[21:10:10] <@soap> ulm: that requires knowing on which page the trustees are
+[21:10:14] <@mattst88> ulm: what percentage of your questions has robbat2 actually responded to, would you estimate?
+[21:10:56] <@ajak> given the amount of scrollback in -trustees and how much progress there is to support.. dealing with trustees seems slow-going at best
+[21:10:58] <@ulm> less than 100%
+[21:11:39] <@ajak> this is a council agenda item because trustees were slow in working on this in the past, so no need to keep that dependency now
+[21:11:48] <@soap> agreed
+[21:11:49] <@mattst88> what would you like to know before reapproaching open collective?
+[21:12:27] <@mattst88> (that's a question for ulm)
+[21:12:45] <@ulm> I'd like to see that previous draft of a letter first
+[21:12:52] <@ulm> by antarus, I think
+[21:13:06] <@mattst88> I forwarded this to council@, didn't I?
+[21:13:14] -*- ajak thought so
+[21:13:25] <@soap> yes
+[21:13:45] <@mattst88> yes, I did. Jul 28.
+[21:13:45] <@mattst88> Message-ID: <CAEdQ38E-7-MhWuLzoa7sRSW+Cvi1==0+WY=ey8Sp9YDHt3N5aA@mail.gmail.com>
+[21:14:26] <@mattst88> you even said in #-private
+[21:14:27] <@mattst88> 14:34 <@ ulm> | mgorny: I haven't received anything except the e-mail from mattst88
+[21:14:27] <@ulm> that was the actual draft?
+[21:14:51] <@mattst88> yes, that's what antarus said
+[21:15:00] <@ulm> doesn't really look like anything that should be sent in an official capacity :/
+[21:15:15] <@ajak> well it was a draft.. so can be revised?
+[21:15:15] <@mattst88> great news! it wasn't :P
+[21:16:02] <@mattst88> okay, so what would you like to know from the trustees before we reapproach open collective?
+[21:16:22] <@soap> if it's getting them to draft a letter... not so sure
+[21:16:25] <@mattst88> I'd like to actually get some concrete actions; not just "wait until everyone is on the same page"
+[21:16:46] <@ulm> I'm just saying that this clearly needs more work, if it was the actual "draft"
+[21:16:53] <@mattst88> yes, it needs work
+[21:16:59] <@mattst88> I'm not saying we send that
+[21:17:22] <@mattst88> I'm asking, for the 3rd time, what would you like to know from the trustees before the Council reapproaches open collective?
+[21:17:27] <@mattst88> Is this question unclear?
+[21:17:51] <@soap> I think the only way forward is for the council to draft this letter
+[21:18:37] <@ulm> mattst88: sorry, but that I'm here with two hats doesn't mean that I take all the blame
+[21:18:48] <@mattst88> I'm not blaming you
+[21:19:04] <@ulm> I'm member of the board since less than two weeks, so don't expect any wonders
+[21:19:06] <@mattst88> I'm asking you what you want to know, since you seemed hesitant to contact open collective at this point
+[21:19:30] <@ajak> we're not expecting wonders, just trying to get on the same page within council ;)
+[21:19:52] <@mattst88> > 15:09 * | ulm still believes that getting everybody on the same page would be best
+[21:20:04] <@mattst88> what does this mean, concretely? That's what I'm asking you
+[21:20:35] <@mattst88> and you're being weirdly defensive -- I don't expect that you have solved all the Foundation's problems
+[21:20:56] <@mattst88> I'm just asking you what you want to know before Council takes the lead and reengages with open collective
+[21:20:58] <@ulm> as I said, I'll ask in the trustees channel again, and see if there's any suggestion how to restart the process with OC
+[21:21:10] <@ulm> hopefully I'll get an answer before the AGM
+[21:21:40] <@mattst88> why do you think it's important to get a suggestion from the trustees channel (i.e. robbat2)?
+[21:21:57] <@ulm> also, the AGM's date hasn't been fixed yet :(
+[21:21:58] <@mattst88> the trustees weren't even aware that the draft hadn't been sent for 6 months
+[21:21:59] <@soap> ok, so we decide to solicit more information from the trustees until the next meeting, and if we don't have more information, we proceed on our own?
+[21:23:22] <@ulm> we can decide then if the proceed on our own, yes
+[21:23:49] <@mattst88> great, we'll delay for another month because of completely nebulous concerns
+[21:26:47] <@ulm> ok, I think I must ask if I have the trust of the council
+[21:27:07] <@ulm> soap: can we make this a motion please?
+[21:28:19] <@soap> ok so motion: "The council solicits more information from the trustees on how to restart the process with Open Collective until the next council meeting. Either way, after the next council meeting, the council will take action in moving forward, whether with support from the trustees or not."
+[21:28:40] -*- dilfridge yes
+[21:28:45] -*- ajak yes
+[21:28:53] -*- mgorny yes
+[21:28:55] -*- ulm yes
+[21:29:09] -*- soap yes
+[21:29:23] <@mattst88> I support moving forward regardless of soliciting information from the trustees
+[21:29:34] <@mattst88> and I think delaying based on that is a waste of time and effort
+[21:29:47] <@ajak> yes, i'd agree that seems unecessary but whatever will move things forward..
+[21:30:02] <@soap> mattst88: this is a compromise
+[21:30:14] <@soap> even though I agree it seems unnecessary
+[21:30:17] -*- mattst88 abstains
+[21:30:20] <@dilfridge> compromise
+[21:30:38] <@dilfridge> just imagine, we could move faster if the trustees cooperate :)
+[21:31:36] <@soap> great and I just got a fire call :/
+[21:31:40] <@soap> will have to wait
+[21:31:47] <@soap> 3. Open bugs with Council participation [1]
+[21:32:04] <@soap> no real movement on bug 883715
+[21:32:05] <willikins> soap: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:council
+[21:33:01] <@ulm> e-mail discussion was mostly against AFAICS?
+[21:33:09] <@mgorny> are you aware if there any recruits pending in that sit?
+[21:33:30] <@ulm> no idea
+[21:33:33] <@ulm> juippis: ^^
+[21:34:54] -*- ajak not sure that's really material here
+[21:35:16] <@soap> not, but it's an important point for prioritising discussion on it
+[21:35:20] <@ajak> at least not for discussion NOW in the meeting
+[21:35:22] <@ajak> yes
+[21:35:40] <@ulm> it's pretty acacdemic if there's nobody interested in it
+[21:35:51] <@soap> it does feel pretty academic at this point
+[21:36:18] <@soap> what about a preliminary motion, that closes the topic for now but can be retabled at a later stage?
+[21:36:49] <@mattst88> sounds good to me
+[21:37:08] -*- dilfridge yes
+[21:37:17] <@ulm> like, council suggests to recruiters not to admit pseudonymous developers at this point?
+[21:37:48] <@ulm> probably "suggests" is too weak
+[21:38:47] <@soap> motion: "The council does not see the need for admitting anonymous or pseudonymous developers at this stage (bug 883715), but is willing to reconsider the topic should a demonstrable need arise or new arguments are brought forward."
+[21:38:47] <willikins> soap: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:council
+[21:39:37] -*- ajak yes
+[21:39:53] -*- ulm yes
+[21:39:57] <@mgorny> that's not how i'd word it but it roughly matches the purpose
+[21:39:59] -*- mgorny yes
+[21:40:07] <@mgorny> s/purpose/point/
+[21:40:11] -*- soap yes
+[21:40:22] -*- mattst88 yes
+[21:40:26] <@ulm> mgorny: better wording?
+[21:41:55] <@mgorny> "Given no consensus on the topic, the Council tables the motion for the time being but is willing to reconsider […]"
+[21:42:14] <@ulm> nah, soap's was better :)
+[21:42:20] <@soap> I dont think there's no consensus
+[21:42:37] <@mgorny> hmm, yeah, perhaps "consensus" is not the word i'm looking for
+[21:42:38] <@soap> there is somewhat of a consensus that there's no need and this is a solution looking for a problem
+[21:42:46] <+Arsen> decision?
+[21:43:06] <@mgorny> nevermind
+[21:43:11] <@soap> ok so dilfridge?
+[21:43:23] -*- dilfridge yes
+[21:43:25] <@mgorny> basically i meant that the discussion didn't lead to general approval
+[21:43:28] <@soap> 6y/1a
+[21:44:11] <@soap> ok
+[21:44:16] <@soap> 4. Open floor
+[21:45:41] <+arthurzam> You didn't link the meeting agenda mail, so here it is https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=169159821426651
+[21:46:41] <@soap> ok nothing
+[21:46:54] -*- soap closes the meeting
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230813.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230813.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..4bdcd0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230813.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: GnuPG v2
+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+=sp1s
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230910-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20230910-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..22b27a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230910-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+Summary of Gentoo Council meeting 2023-09-10
+
+Agenda
+======
+
+1. Roll call
+2. Status of dissolving the Foundation/moving under an umbrella org
+3. Open bugs with Council participation
+4. Open floor
+
+
+Roll call
+=========
+
+Present: ajak, dilfridge, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
+Absent: mattst88
+
+
+Status of dissolving the Foundation/moving under an umbrella org
+================================================================
+
+dilfridge notes that thanks to ulm's work, the Gentoo Foundation
+trustee set is now fully selected and disambiguated, that being:
+
+dilfridge, prometheanfire, robbat2, soap, ulm
+
+ulm will sift through trustees@ mail archives for history of contact
+with umbrellas. It was informally decided to work towards deciding on
+a suitable umbrella and reaching out to them by the next meeting. ulm
+expressed a preference for this happening only after the next trustees
+meeting, but a date for that meeting is yet to be fixed.
+
+dilfridge notes that the principal factor in finding an umbrella is
+the status of 501c3 vs 501c6.
+
+Open bugs with Council involvement
+==================================
+
+No bugs!
+
+Open floor
+==========
+
+turret expresses a preference for a 501c3 umbrella, and pietinger
+questions the process of merging a 501c3 corporation into a 501c6
+corporation, but it is noted that the Foundation is neither status.
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230910-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230910-summary.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9066d8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230910-summary.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCZP4t+QAKCRCgXq2+aa/J
+tZjIAP9GAKDn2Lo8eOXJqsz0rTkfc+IJzU+9D2qc2d1DWpGdGgD/WIkzZ8KJOzpd
+16UckvYCS5vx5jpYW5dCbEyg2UjCdQU=
+=XML2
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230910.txt b/meeting-logs/20230910.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d4a2a1d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230910.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+19:00 <@ajak> meeting time!
+19:00 <@ajak> 1. Roll call
+19:00 <@ajak> !proj council
+19:00 <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
+19:00 * ajak here
+19:00 * dilfridge here
+19:00 * ulm here
+19:00 * soap here
+19:00 * mgorny here
+19:00 * sam_ here
+19:01 <@sam_> you better not take long, wales are playing
+19:01 <@soap> sam watches rugby?
+19:01 <@ajak> the ball is in matt's.. court
+19:01 <@dilfridge> having a wale of a time
+19:01 <@soap> SAD
+19:01 <@sam_> national sport innit
+19:01 <@soap> so is cricket and it blows?
+19:02 <@sam_> please don't compare this to cricket
+19:02 <@ajak> lol
+19:02 <@ajak> any sign of matt?
+19:03 <@sam_> I last saw him about 2 hours ago
+19:04 <@ajak> ok, with a relatively light agenda i think it's not the end of the world if we continue, maybe he shows up later
+19:04 <@ajak> 2. Foundation dissolution status update
+19:04 <@ajak> ulm: any update here? what's happened since the last meeting?
+19:04 <@dilfridge> I guess the big news is that we now have a full (and fully known) set of trustees :)
+19:05 <@soap> half of them council members :D
+19:05 <@sam_> no more quantum trustees
+19:05 <@ulm> right, we've appointed 3 trustees, so the board is now complete again
+19:05 <@ajak> dilfridge: indeed, congratulations on your board membership
+19:05 <@dilfridge> thanks
+19:06 <@ajak> what's next on that front?
+19:06 <@ulm> for the record, board members are dilfridge, prometheanfire, robbat2, soap, ulm
+19:07 <@ulm> I've received an archive of mail to trustees@ of the last 3 years, but haven't found the time yet to sift through all of it
+19:07 <@ajak> need to sift through it to find the history of contact with umbrellas?
+19:07 <@ulm> yes
+19:07 <@sam_> and avoid any other nasty surprises
+19:08 <@ajak> so we're still set on the OCF umbrella? or what?
+19:08 <@ulm> my impression so far is that we must restart the process in any case, with whatever umbrella
+19:09 <@ulm> OCF, OSF, SPI or LF
+19:09 <@dilfridge> ftr I already suggested privately that the foundation should maybe fund / support a private get-together of previous and current north-american trustees, with the specific purpose of *updating bank account signees*
+19:09 <@sam_> my understanding was sort of that we were left with little choice wrt OCF (not that they're necessarily something we wouldn't choose) because of previous actions
+19:09 <@sam_> so a restart might mean we re-evaluate all of that
+19:09 <@ajak> so we're re-evaluating them all
+19:09 <@dilfridge> I'd say yes
+19:10 <@soap> I thought SPI was the most natural choice
+19:10 <@dilfridge> me too
+19:10 <@sam_> dilfridge: yes, that feels like an easy win and a natural thing to do, given the current signatory situation
+19:10 <@sam_> possibly sorting out the electronic vs fax thing too for the invoices/etc
+19:10 <@ajak> ok, wfm, and i guess it'd be a little early to have a serious conversation as council about which to go with
+19:10 <@ulm> it's also not completely clear to me what the implications of 501c3 (charity) vs 501c6 (trade association) are, wrt to restrictions imposed on us
+19:10 <@ulm> SPI and OCF would be 3, OSF would be 6
+19:10 <@sam_> yeah, it's kind of tragic how we have to try learn US law in order to stop worrying so much about US law (by having someone else handle a lot of it)
+19:11 <@dilfridge> 3 has the advantage that donations are federal tax-deductible, which means it may be easier to get muchos dolares
+19:11 <@ulm> not sure about LF, probably 501c6?
+19:11 <@ajak> yes
+19:12 <@ajak> ok, so maybe by next meeting we'll try reaching out to whichever we find most suitable?
+19:13 <@ulm> preferably we should have a trustees meeting before that
+19:14 <@ulm> but it's not an absolute prerequisite
+19:14 <@ajak> when's the next trustees meeting?
+19:14 <@ulm> very good question :/
+19:14 <@ulm> no date for it yet
+19:14 <@soap> robbat2: ideas?
+19:14 <@dilfridge> we still need to project it onto a date
+19:15 <@sam_> that's the only thing worrying me a bit
+19:15 <@ajak> i'm hesitant to assent to another dependency on trustees for moving forward with this
+19:16 <@ulm> that's why I said "preferably"
+19:17 <@ajak> ok, so let's try deciding on who we want to reach out to again and reaching out for the next council meeting
+19:17 <@ajak> and if trustees meeting happens at an opportune ordering with the next meeting, great
+19:18 <@dilfridge> I guess the main item to be sorted out first is c3 vs c5
+19:18 <@ulm> s/5/6/?
+19:18 <@dilfridge> Once we know we're good with one or both of them, that gives us... yes
+19:18 <@ajak> yes (but doesn't need to happen synchronously)
+19:20 <@ajak> ok, next topic?
+19:21 <@ajak> 3. Open bugs with council participation [1]
+19:21 <@ajak> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation
+19:21 * ajak blinks
+19:21 <@ajak> no bugs?
+19:21 <@dilfridge> bug-free gentoo!
+19:21 <@sam_> let's close up shop lads
+19:22 <@ajak> \o/
+19:22 <@ajak> ok then that brings us to:
+19:22 <@ajak> 4. Open floor
+19:22 * mgorny likes boring meetings
+19:22 * ajak will timeout in 2m if nothing comes up
+19:22 <turret> hi
+19:23 <@dilfridge> lo!
+19:23 <@sam_> nothing from me and I've no appetite for anything much else at the moment until the Foundation stuff is sorted, given it's so important
+19:23 <@sam_> so i'm not really in ideas mode
+19:23 <@dilfridge> turret: what's up
+19:23 <turret> i would suggest going for a 501c3 (gentoo could definitely class as charitable and educational) plus as dilfridge noted its tax deductable
+19:24 <turret> def. some more legal requirements but ideally an umbrella would handle those
+19:25 <@ajak> requirements of the umbrella are surely going to be a superset of the legal requirements of a 501c3
+19:25 <@ajak> like, the legal ramifications don't go away with the umbrella
+19:25 <@ulm> yes
+19:25 <turret> yeah i'd think so aswell
+19:26 <pietinger> do we know if there is a back tax payment under US law when a 501c3 corporation is merged into a 501c6 corporation ?
+19:26 <@ajak> ok, anything else for open floor?
+19:26 <@ajak> ah
+19:27 <@ajak> i'm not sure that's relevant for us being neither status?
+19:27 <@dilfridge> pietinger: I guess the plan would be not to merge, but to transfer assets and dissolve... (also you got it backwards)
+19:27 <@dilfridge> gentoo foundation is 501c6
+19:27 <@ulm> dilfridge: nope, it isn't
+19:28 <@ajak> "The Gentoo Foundation is incorporated as a domestic non-for-profit corporation in the state of New Mexico. It has no special IRS designation and files paperwork as a normal corporation." according to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Main_Page
+19:28 <@ulm> it's a normal corporation that pays taxes
+19:28 <@sam_> ajak: the "not-for-profit" bit there is very misleading btw
+19:28 <@dilfridge> ergh.
+19:28 <@sam_> we discussed that in the past with antarus
+19:28 <@sam_> he added that last sentence to try clarify it, but I think it doesn't help the confusion
+19:28 <@dilfridge> ok one more reason to get rid of it
+19:28 <@ajak> lol
+19:28 <@sam_> we have no non-profit legal status right now at all
+19:28 <@ulm> IIUC it has NFP status in New Mexico but not for the IRS
+19:28 <@sam_> (afaik)
+19:28 <@sam_> ah
+19:29 <turret> NFP status in new mexico probably lowers franchise taxes to stay incorperated
+19:29 <@ajak> right, it's a state thing rather than federal? but maybe new mexican tax statuses are particularly funny here
+19:29 <@dilfridge> we don't really have much business in NM though
+19:29 * ulm has no idea about US law
+19:29 <@ulm> or NM law
+19:29 <@ajak> anyway i'm not sure we should burden everyone's time with US/NM tax law bikeshed :)
+19:30 * dilfridge wonders if there is anything in NM except Los Alamos and aliens
+19:30 * ajak bangs gavel
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20230910.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20230910.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0021fe1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20230910.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCZP4dAwAKCRCgXq2+aa/J
+tQ5TAP9P3jQQafc5PZ0tvLNZy4OzMHhf8Ztp/2/uGeTpcSxqXAEA3oN+XJTP4mjB
+6P0pgVInieioKZRh7MhLOutvV4xq0g8=
+=qY4c
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20231008-summary.txt b/meeting-logs/20231008-summary.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..041c04e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20231008-summary.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Summary of Gentoo Council meeting 2023-10-08
+
+Agenda
+======
+
+1. Roll call
+2. Status of dissolving the foundation/moving under an umbrella org
+3. Acknowledgement of Code of Conduct changes after Proctors project dissolution
+4. Open bugs with Council participation
+5. Open floor
+
+
+Roll call
+=========
+
+Present: ajak, mgorny, soap, ulm
+Absent: dilfridge, mattst88 (slacker), sam
+
+
+Status of dissolving the Foundation/moving under an umbrella org
+================================================================
+
+After the trustees meeting on 20231002 (log [1]), ulm states that our
+intention is to approach SPI once again after they did not respond to
+our last inquiries. ulm notes that SPI is preferable for us due to its
+being a 501c3 organization, while OSC is not.
+
+[1] https://projects.gentoo.org/foundation/2023/20231002.log.txt
+
+Acknowledgement of Code of Conduct changes after Proctors project dissolution
+=============================================================================
+
+The Council voted on a motion to "acknowledge ulm's change to the code
+of conduct in the wake of proctors@ dissolution", with 4 yes and 3
+absences.
+
+Open bugs with Council involvement
+==================================
+
+Bug 784713 - Remove old distfile mirror layout
+----------------------------------------------
+
+Work is finished and took place in bug 914092 [2]. Bug is now closed.
+
+[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/914092
+
+Open floor
+==========
+
+No topics.
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20231008-summary.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20231008-summary.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5a05f50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20231008-summary.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCZSM9bwAKCRCgXq2+aa/J
+tWR9AQDT5qUqG9wjd9HGWKSc3v/GTKSaju3w15N+l17W9HK94gD+PPwH38MGvpP0
+pe8HIE5VaMyTUnyhxB9avoEb8qGtpg8=
+=wSZ9
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20231008.txt b/meeting-logs/20231008.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..462f76f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20231008.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+19:01 <@ajak> !proj council
+19:01 <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
+19:01 <@ajak> meeting time!
+19:01 * soap here
+19:01 * mgorny here
+19:01 <@ajak> 1. Roll call
+19:01 * ajak here
+19:02 * ulm here
+19:03 <@ulm> we have a quorum
+19:04 <@ajak> let's wait to :05 just to see
+19:05 <@ajak> well, ok, i suppose we'll proceed
+19:05 <@ajak> 2. Status of dissolving the foundation/moving under an umbrella org
+19:05 <@ajak> i believe ulm was in the process of sorting out the state of things with the umbrellas?
+19:06 <@ulm> first of all, trustees had a meeting last Monday
+19:06 <@ulm> log is here: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/sites/projects/foundation.git/plain/2023/20231002.log.txt
+19:07 <@ulm> in a nutshell, we first intend to followup with SPI again
+19:07 <@ulm> next option after that would be one of the Open Collective umbrellas
+19:07 <@ulm> i.e. OCF or OSC
+19:08 <@ajak> why do we prefer SPI over the others?
+19:08 <@ulm> but we would much prefer a 501(c)(3) umbrella, with OSC is not
+19:08 <@ajak> ah
+19:09 <@ulm> SPI is also the oldest of them, and they have experience with large distros
+19:09 <@ulm> like Debian
+19:09 <@ajak> and we need to ping them again after they didn't get
+19:09 <@ajak> .. get back to us last time?
+19:10 <@ulm> yeah, we'll do that soon
+19:10 <@ajak> excellent!
+19:11 <@ulm> soap: anything to add from your side?
+19:11 <@soap> nope
+19:12 <@ajak> ok, moving on then
+19:12 <@ajak> 3. Acknowledgement of Code of Conduct changes after Proctors project dissolution [1]
+19:13 <@ajak> [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Project%3ACouncil%2FCode_of_conduct&type=revision&diff=1262578&oldid=1173471
+19:13 <@ulm> this just restored the wording from the time before the proctors
+19:14 <@ajak> yes
+19:14 <@ajak> so lgtm i guess
+19:14 <@ulm> it's only a partial revert, because the original change was conflated with other changes
+19:14 <@ulm> like removing the "work in progress" warning
+19:14 <@mgorny> should we vote?
+19:15 <@ajak> vote on acknowledging the change?
+19:15 <@ulm> I'm happy if we have consensus, but a vote won't harm :)
+19:16 <@ajak> bit silly imho but: motion: acknowledge ulm's change to the code of conduct in the wake of proctors@ dissolution
+19:16 * ajak yes
+19:16 * mgorny yes
+19:16 * soap yes
+19:16 * ulm yes
+19:16 <@ajak> unanimous!-ish (4 y, 0 n, 3 absent)
+19:17 <@ulm> thanks :)
+19:17 <@ajak> 4. Open bugs with Council participation [2]
+19:17 <@ajak> [2] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation
+19:18 <@ajak> just bug 784713
+19:18 <willikins> ajak: https://bugs.gentoo.org/784713 "Remove old distfile mirror layout"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; IN_P; mgorny:council
+19:18 <@ulm> no action, it's only open so it's in the log
+19:19 <@ulm> i.e. we can close it
+19:19 <@mgorny> ack
+19:19 <@ajak> i don't see recent infra input on that bug, but it was finished off i think, right?
+19:19 <@ulm> infra action was split off to bug 914092
+19:19 <willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/914092 "Mirrors: remove old distfile mirror layout"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Other; RESO, FIXE; sam:infra-bugs
+19:20 <@ajak> oh i see that now, duh
+19:20 <@ajak> ok, excellent
+19:20 <@ajak> no other bugs
+19:20 <@ajak> 5. Open floor
+19:21 <@ajak> anything?
+19:23 * ajak bangs gavel
+19:23 <@ajak> adjourned, thanks all!
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20231008.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20231008.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6d9522e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20231008.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iHUEABYKAB0WIQQyG9yfCrmO0LPSdG2gXq2+aa/JtQUCZSMGbQAKCRCgXq2+aa/J
+tdubAP9M2iFSDMlOTYwWMLG3N5AVk3aeopSRoOUCAoL2JLntuAEAwAjNUGByKW5k
+A5uYxBkcW7bGOoD7gynCZ2DHCOXP/go=
+=o2TU
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20231112.txt b/meeting-logs/20231112.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..628780b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20231112.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+[20:00:03] <mattst88> meeting time
+[20:00:08] <mattst88> !proj council
+[20:00:09] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
+[20:00:13] <sam_> \o
+[20:00:16] <mattst88> roll call
+[20:00:18] -*- mattst88 here
+[20:00:19] -*- dilfridge here
+[20:00:22] -*- sam_ here
+[20:00:33] -*- mgorny here
+[20:01:11] -*- ulm here
+[20:02:20] <mattst88> we'll wait until 19:05 for ajak and soap
+[20:02:28] <sam_> ajak_:
+[20:02:33] <sam_> i know soap is travelling atm
+[20:03:17] <sam_> I wonder if anyone will be caught out by DST too..
+[20:03:17] -*- soap here
+[20:03:18] -*- ajak_ here
+[20:03:25] <sam_> yay
+[20:03:25] <Arsen> the plot thickens!
+[20:03:27] <mattst88> cool, everyone is here
+[20:03:51] -*- ajak_ was, calendar somehow didn't fix the time for me...
+[20:03:54] <mattst88> > Foundation dissolution status update
+[20:04:00] <-> ajak_ heißt jetzt ajak
+[20:04:09] <mattst88> dilfridge, ulm: would either of y'all like to give an update?
+[20:04:16] <dilfridge> ulm: did you see the latest mail already?
+[20:04:22] <dilfridge> like, 5min ago
+[20:04:23] <ulm> yes, I did
+[20:04:26] <dilfridge> \o/
+[20:04:34] <dilfridge> you or me?
+[20:04:45] <ulm> dilfridge: go ahead :)
+[20:04:47] <dilfridge> k
+[20:05:00] <dilfridge> so, we contacted SPI
+[20:05:17] <dilfridge> at first basically just asking, are you interested (response: yes)
+[20:05:33] <dilfridge> and then asking specific questions that were still unclear from our last round
+[20:05:54] <dilfridge> As far as I can see, we got swift responses that were quite positive
+[20:06:02] <mattst88> agreed
+[20:06:19] <dilfridge> the next SPI board meeting is in a month
+[20:06:44] <dilfridge> in principle, we could request onboarding as an associated project then
+[20:07:11] <sam_> we had some concern from another org which had experience with SPI about responsiveness but so far that hasn't been borne out and things seem positive indeed
+[20:07:25] <dilfridge> this is basically "opening our account", needed for the next steps of transferring stuff
+[20:07:43] <mattst88> yeah -- that was the X.Org Foundation. I've emailed their board@ to try to hear about their experience
+[20:08:11] <mattst88> but I haven't heard anything yet, and I suspect I'll have to ping people directly or attend their IRC meeting to get more info
+[20:08:31] <mattst88> thank you, ulm and dilfridge for reaching out to SPI!
+[20:08:33] <dilfridge> the proposed structure so far would be that the council votes on a liaison and a deputy, who represent it towards spi
+[20:08:34] <sam_> yes, big thanks
+[20:08:44] <ulm> maybe we could contact debian or archlinux and ask about their experience with SPI
+[20:08:46] <ajak> indeed, thanks guys!
+[20:08:48] <dilfridge> a bit like a treasurer
+[20:08:48] <sam_> dilfridge: they are OK with the liaison/deputy possibly changing yearly?
+[20:08:55] <ulm> but personally I don't know anyone there
+[20:08:55] <sam_> i assume so but just worth raising
+[20:09:11] <mattst88> ulm: yeah, I agree that would be good. let's do some searching and see if we can figure out who to contact
+[20:09:34] <dilfridge> we asked about turnaround time for the liaison, and got a response "it depends, at most a month"
+[20:09:47] <dilfridge> "normally faster than you actually need it"
+[20:10:10] <ulm> so far all their responses have been very quick
+[20:10:25] <ulm> like one hour
+[20:10:51] <mattst88> yeah, pretty happy about that :)
+[20:11:18] <dilfridge> I mean, we need to compare that turnaround time with the time we'd need to update bank signees and business register :P
+[20:11:28] <sam_> yes I was thinking that :p
+[20:11:34] <mattst88> so I think tl;dr is: SPI has responded positively and we're going to ask other organizations that are under SPI about their experiences
+[20:11:40] <sam_> sgtm
+[20:11:51] <mattst88> cool, anything else on the Foundations topic?
+[20:12:03] <dilfridge> do we want to target the 11/Dec meeting? then we need to hand in our request by 4/Dec
+[20:12:11] <dilfridge> or a month later?
+[20:12:46] <mgorny> i think it would be nice to do that
+[20:12:52] <mgorny> i.e. Dec
+[20:12:58] <mgorny> while things are still hot
+[20:13:02] <mattst88> I think if we get positive feedback from Debian/Arch and learn something about X.Org's apparently-negative experience, that seems possible to me
+[20:13:27] <dilfridge> we may want to confirm this with a bug vote then sometime shorter before the deadline
+[20:13:45] <mattst88> yeah, sounds good
+[20:13:46] <sam_> i'm ok with that as a target conditional on what mattst88 said, yeah
+[20:13:56] <ulm> sounds good
+[20:13:59] <ajak> i definitely think it's worth getting other (similar) org's experiences before pursuing to completion (but that doesn't stop preparing)
+[20:14:30] <mattst88> great, next topic
+[20:14:52] <mattst88> > Open bugs with council participation
+[20:14:58] <mattst88> as far as I can tell, there are none
+[20:15:29] <mattst88> anything I've missed, or anything we should discuss?
+[20:16:22] <mattst88> I think the answer is no -- so next topic
+[20:16:28] <mattst88> > Open Floor
+[20:16:40] <mattst88> Anyone have anything for open floor?
+[20:17:10] <arthurzam> It looks like there were no comments on latest revision of GLEP 84 (package.masks)
+[20:17:10] <arthurzam> Could I request final confirmation from dev here over it before I go ahead with impl?
+[20:17:24] <arthurzam> (Note: not final GLEP acceptance by council)
+[20:17:44] <ulm> arthurzam: I've read the last version and had no comments
+[20:17:46] <mgorny> arthurzam: could you link the current version?
+[20:18:00] <arthurzam> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/tree/glep-0084.rst?h=glep-0084
+[20:18:38] <ulm> only point I've thought about was whether the regexps should be case insensitive
+[20:18:58] <ulm> but that's very minor and I guess it doesn't really matter
+[20:19:09] <mattst88> I have not reviewed it myself yet, but given the v3 status and the previous feedback has been handled, it seems ready for implementation to me
+[20:19:34] <dilfridge> same here
+[20:20:02] <mgorny> arthurzam: lgtm
+[20:20:05] <arthurzam> OK, thank you, so I'll work on impls here, and bring it for review to Council next month :)
+[20:20:14] <mgorny> is the file complaint right now?
+[20:20:15] <mattst88> thank you, arthurzam!
+[20:20:33] <arthurzam> mgorny: not yet, mainly minor stuff, I'll solve them
+[20:20:56] <ulm> last time I checked, some entries had duplicate dates
+[20:21:09] <ulm> but that was maybe one or two
+[20:21:09] <dilfridge> double dates
+[20:21:23] <mgorny> hmm, right
+[20:21:24] <arthurzam> mainly on the last removal line (after, on, after 30 days)...
+[20:21:26] <ulm> yeah, double, not duplicate :)
+[20:21:34] <mattst88> any other topics for open floor? we'll wait another 3 minutes for more topics
+[20:21:43] <mgorny> i think we used to sometimes do more than one dev on p.mask
+[20:22:03] <mgorny> e.g. when someone appends stuff, or when we want to list proxied maintainer
+[20:22:05] <dilfridge> yes, specifically for team stuff like toolchain... but we can also put the team there
+[20:22:59] <ulm> then the second line would count as regular comment I guess?
+[20:23:11] <ulm> which shouldn't be a problem
+[20:23:47] <ulm> i.e. part of "explanation"
+[20:25:56] <mattst88> okay, I don't think we have any more topics
+[20:26:00] <mattst88> meeting closed!
+[20:26:02] <mattst88> thanks all!
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20231112.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20231112.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c184e45
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20231112.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+Version: GnuPG v2
+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+=YxYm
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----