1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
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
|