[gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs: 20090720-summary.txt 20090720.txt

[gentoo-commits] gentoo commit in xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs: 20090720-summary.txt 20090720.txt

[Denis Dupeyron (calchan)]

calchan     09/07/25 05:37:00

  Added:                20090720-summary.txt 20090720.txt
  Log:
  Added 20090720 log and summary. Updated meeting periodicity.

Revision  Changes    Path
1.1                  xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090720-summary.txt

file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090720-summary.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090720-summary.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain

Index: 20090720-summary.txt
===================================================================
1. Intro 

  1.2. Roll call.
> Missing: lu_zero.

  1.3. Any volunteers to chair this meeting?
> solar volunteered.

2. Meeting format

  2.1. Should the channel be moderated during council meetings?
  > Yes: solar, calchan, dertobi123, ulm, leio, betelgeuse.
  > No: none.

    2.1.1. If yes, moderate the channel now.
    > solar moderated the channel at 1816UTC.

    2.1.2. If yes, should council members watch another channel in order to
    paste ideas/propositions from the latter to the council channel?
    > No: solar, calchan, betelgeuse, dertobi123, ulm.
    > Yes: leio.

  2.2. Do we need a secretary?
  > Yes: calchan, betelgeuse, dertobi123, ulm, solar, leio.
  > No: none.
  > The secretary's role will be limited to providing logs and summaries of
  > the meetings.

    2.2.1. If yes, does the secretary need to be a council member?
    > No: ulm, solar, dertobi123, leio, betelgeuse, calchan.
    > Yes: none.

      2.2.1.2. If no, do we confirm gentoofan23?
      > Yes: solar, calchan, leio, dertobi123, ulm, betelgeuse (?).
      > No: none.

    2.2.2. Do we need a backup?
    > No: dertobi123, leio, calchan.
    > Yes: none.
    > Did not vote: betelgeuse, solar, ulm.

  > Betelgeuse requested a vote on whether drafts had to be reviewed on the
  > private alias instead of on the public mailing-list.
  > Public: betelgeuse, calchan, leio.
  > Private: solar, dertobi123, ulm.
  > The decision was made to wait for lu_zero's vote by email.

    2.2.3. gentoofan23 is away for this week, so if yes to 2.2.1.2 we need to
    look for a secretary for this meeting. Volunteers?
    > Question not asked.

      2.2.3.1. If no make it an action that we look for one (who, by when?).
      > Not done.

3. GLEP 39

  3.1. Can the council decide on the process of voting amendments to GLEP 39
  without an all-developers vote?
  > No: betelgeuse, dertobi123, solar, ulm.
  > Yes: calchan, leio.

  3.3. If no to 3.1 make it an action to see with the elections project that
  all developers vote on 3.2 (who, by when?).
  > Not done.

4. Meeting schedule

  4.1. Periodicity.
  > Monthly: solar, calchan, dertobi123, ulm, betelgeuse, leio.
  > Every two weeks: none.

  4.2. Depending on 4.1 and your availability what week would you like to meet?
  > Third monday of the month.

  4.3. Do we keep using a Doodle poll to decide when in the week we meet?
  > Only in case of personal schedule issues, assuming a warning long enough
  > in advance.



1.1                  xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090720.txt

file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090720.txt?rev=1.1&view=markup
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20090720.txt?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plain

Index: 20090720.txt
===================================================================
19:59 <@solar> I'm seeing most of the other council people are idle for long periods of time.
20:00 <@Betelgeuse> solar: of course we are!
20:00 <@Betelgeuse> I said in my manifesto that I am slacking but got voted in regardless \o/
20:01 <@solar> you just broke your 4h8m of idle time :p
20:01 <@Calchan> I'm ready
20:01  * dertobi123 waves
20:01 <@Betelgeuse> At some point I thought this was 20UTC like before but luckily it was temporary.
20:01  * jmbsvicetto takes a seat in the backrow
20:02 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: could you link the agenda to the topic
20:02  * ulm is here too
20:02 <@Calchan> anybody logging? I am, but would apprecaite a backup in case of splits
20:02 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: I always log everything
20:02 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, ok
20:02 -!- Topic for #gentoo-council: Next meeting Monday July 20th 1800UTC.
20:02 -!- Topic set by Calchan [i=calchan@gentoo/developer/calchan] [Thu Jul 16 23:16:52 2009]
20:02 <@solar> so only lu_zero is missing?
20:03  * fmccor|home also always logs everything if needed.
20:03 -!- Calchan changed the topic of #gentoo-council to: Next meeting Monday July 20th 1800UTC. Agenda: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-council/msg_14756d9207e877f124a36b54f6e43f65.xml
20:03 <@Calchan> solar, and leio who should be back any time
20:03 <@Calchan> we can wait a bit for those 2
20:04 <@leio> here now
20:04 -!- ssuominen [n=ssuomine@gentoo/developer/ssuominen] has joined #gentoo-council
20:04 <@Calchan> good, let's give lu_zero a last chance
20:05 <@Calchan> so, any volunteers to chair?
20:06 <@solar> sure let get this party started.
20:06 <@solar> 1. Intro (10 minutes inlcuding late arrivals)
20:06 <@Calchan> If you agree I would like us to focus on voting today, and keep the discussions and comments to what's required and stick to the agenda
20:07 <@solar> This is the first council meeting of the 5th council. It's clear we want to take a slighly different path that has been done in the past.
20:07 -!- tampakrap [n=tuxicity@gentoo/developer/tampakrap] has joined #gentoo-council
20:07 <@solar> 1.1) fmccor/Betelgeuse and others are logging.
20:07 <@Calchan> we have plenty of time to discuss on the list, I encourage everbody to do that, dev or not
20:08 <@solar> 1.2) Everybody is present minus lu_zero so far.
20:08 -!- spatz [n=spatz@unaffiliated/spatz] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
20:08 <@solar> 1.3) I'm happy to do it this time.
20:08 <@Calchan> thanks
20:09 <@solar> 2) Meeting format.
20:09 <@solar> 2.1. Should the channel be moderated during council meetings?
20:09 <@solar> I'll vote: yes
20:09 <@Calchan> I vote yes too
20:09 <@dertobi123> yes
20:09 <@ulm> yes
20:10 <@solar> that is a majority rule of 4 votes.
20:10 <@leio> yes
20:10 <@Calchan> we should still let Betelgeuse vote though
20:10 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: I wouldn't mind using it just when needed but find by moderating too.
20:10 <@Betelgeuse> s/find/fine/
20:11 <@Calchan> What we can also do is leave the channel open and the first one of us who's uncomfortable with how things go can moderate it without asking us
20:11 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: yeah that's what I was saying
20:11 -!- mrpouet [n=mrpouet@gentoo/developer/mrpouet] has joined #gentoo-council
20:11 <@solar> 2.1.2. If yes, should council members watch another channel in order to
20:11 <@solar>     paste ideas/propositions from the latter to the council channel?
20:11 <@leio> yes
20:12 <@solar> I would vote No on that. People wanting a voice often would request it via /msg council-guy please +v me so I can talk about item.
20:12 <@Calchan> I say no, devs and users have plenty of time to express ideas, request discussion topics etc.. on the list
20:12 <@Betelgeuse> yeah and can use priv / #gentoo-dev
20:12 <@dertobi123> no, too
20:13 <@leio> under my vote I have discussional agenda items in mind
20:13 <@ulm> i vote no, any discussion can take place on the -dev ml beforehand
20:13 <@Calchan> ulm, I'd prefer gentoo-council@
20:13 <@solar> note that -dev ml is no longer a requirement
20:13 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: I don't like gentoo-council existing at all.
20:13 <@ulm> Calchan: also fine, I don't mind if it's -dev or -council
20:13 <@Betelgeuse> gentoo-project and gentoo-dev cover what's there currently
20:14 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, true, let's make a note to put discuss that asap after this meeting
20:14 <@Calchan> /put/d
20:14 <@leio> and I don't like gentoo-project existing at all, but yeah, lets not go there now :)
20:15 <@Calchan> look slike we definitely need to discuss this :o)
20:15 <@dertobi123> looks like, yes ;)
20:15 <@solar> so +m is the vote with 2.1.2* not being a requirement?
20:16 <@dertobi123> yeah
20:16 <@ulm> yes
20:16 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+m] by solar
20:16 <@solar> 2.2) Do we need a secretary?
20:17 <@Calchan> yes
20:17 <@Betelgeuse> yes
20:17 <@dertobi123> we do, yeah
20:17 <@ulm> i think it worked well, so yes
20:17 <@solar> I'm in favor of it.
20:17 <@Calchan> lerio?
20:17 <@Calchan> leio?
20:18 <@leio> Define secretaries tasks/responsibilities?
20:18 <@Calchan> good point
20:18 <@leio> If the same as before, I'll go with yes
20:18 <@Calchan> we should still define it now
20:18 <@Calchan> can we say agendas, logs and summaries?
20:19 <@Betelgeuse> fine by me
20:19 <@ulm> sounds good
20:19 <@dertobi123> Calchan: as before, yeah
20:20 <@solar> agendas? I don't recall those being part of the role directly.
20:20 <@Calchan> solar, I seem to remember tanderson slacking on those, so he must have
20:20 <@Betelgeuse> they weren't I think
20:20 <@Calchan> oh ok
20:21 <@leio> I remember dev-zero doing agendas often
20:21 <@Betelgeuse> and dberkholz at the beginning
20:21 <@leio> Calchan seems to be good at it now as a replacement *grin*
20:21 <@Betelgeuse> small toilet break
20:21 <@Calchan> leio, thanks for volunteering me ;o)
20:22 <@leio> but that's a separate topic I guess. I agree with logs and summaries being secretary tasks
20:22 <@leio> and we can maybe sometimes convince the secretary to sometimes volunteer to do something more
20:22 <@Calchan> btw, we could add agendas to the mix in case we end up deciding the secretary needs to be a council memebr
20:23 <@solar> I would say yes on the logs and summary. But think mostly it should be council people defining the agenda items based on what we feel the devs/others are calling for.
20:23 <@solar> 2.2.1. If yes, does the secretary need to be a council member?
20:23 <@ulm> no
20:23 <@solar> My input would be 'no'
20:24 <@Calchan> let's give Betelgeuse a chance to not wet himself before we go forward :o)
20:24 <@leio> igli made a good comment on the topic of logs and summaries
20:24 <@dertobi123> dito, no
20:24 <@leio> "logs and summaries to appointed officer seems good to me; good precedence for trustees (ie officer doesn't decide policy.)"
20:24 <@leio> which I agree with from the neutrality view
20:26 -!- Zorry [n=zorry@fu/coder/zorry] has quit [Client Quit]
20:26 <@Betelgeuse> back
20:26 <@Betelgeuse> and the secretary doesn't need to be a council member
20:26 <@Calchan> leio, true, but on the other hand as summaries can't hardly be biased there is a responsibility issue
20:26 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, we weren't there yet ;o)
20:26 <@leio> I guess it's a bigger point in regards to agendas
20:27 <@Calchan> oh we were, sorry, I had lost my screen for a while
20:27 <@solar> in the past it was my understanding that the role would mail the council with drafts of the summary. it would then be approved/rejected by the council before being sent to any mailing lists
20:27 <@leio> anyhow, I think we can easily "outsource" logs and summaries, and we might as well call the person who's supposed to do that the secretary
20:28  * dertobi123 nods
20:28 <@ulm> solar: yes, the summary needs approval by the council
20:28 <@leio> and yes, we read first before it being official
20:28 <@Calchan> looks like everybody agrees then
20:28 <@leio> up to now it has been a preliminary summary to gentoo-council ml, we comment (often in IRC), and then it gets posted to -dev after fixes
20:29 <@solar> you did not vote that I saw Calchan
20:29 <@Calchan> count it as a no to "does the secretary need to be a council member"
20:29 <@solar> ok so that moves us to.
20:29 <@solar> 2.2.1.2. If no, do we confirm tanderson?
20:29 -!- NeddySeagoon [n=NeddySea@gentoo/developer/NeddySeagoon] has joined #gentoo-council
20:29 <@Calchan> only if he agrees to wear shorter skirts
20:30 <@solar> I think it's pretty much a given that he wants the role again.
20:30 <@Calchan> agreed, and I vote yes
20:30 <@leio> yes
20:30  * dertobi123 too, yes
20:30 <@ulm> yes
20:30 <@solar> igli is asking that the summary be posted to -project for open comments
20:31 <@Betelgeuse> fine by me (it has been posted to -council before though)
20:31 <@Betelgeuse> as long as we have -council it's best there
20:31 <@ulm> solar: before it's approved by the council?
20:31 <@solar> I would hope not.
20:31 <@Calchan> solar, he can comment on -council it's open, at least until we decide what we do with it
20:31 <@solar> he just /msg me saying after.
20:32 <@Calchan> solar, and I'd agree with you there
20:32 <@solar> personaly I would only happen to see -council as being a requirement to where it's sent.
20:32 <@leio> I find -dev more appropriate for that, as it has been before iirc
20:32 <@dertobi123> Calchan: indeed. -council for now. and of course, after our approval.
20:33 <@Calchan> was it usually cross posted on -dev-announce?
20:33 <@Calchan> can't remember
20:33 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: after being approved
20:33 <@Betelgeuse> and yes approved summaries to -dev-announce
20:33 <@leio> so we handle the summary through private alias first from now on?
20:33 <@solar> drafts should really hit aliases only.
20:33 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, thanks, ok then no need to post to dev, -council or -project is enough
20:33 <@Calchan> solar, agreed, alias only for drafts
20:34 <@solar> and -dev-announce seems logical.
20:34 <@solar> ok so moving on.
20:34 <@Calchan> solar, and cross-posted on 0council until we decide else
20:34 <@leio> well, where do we forward the discussion to (Reply-to)
20:34 <@solar> 2.2.2. Do we need a backup?
20:34 <@leio> -council until decided otherwise sounds good.
20:35 <@Calchan> leio, where it's cross posted
20:35 <@dertobi123> we don't need a backup, but it'll be nice to have one
20:35 <@leio> no, if necessary the council members should pick it up anyway
20:35 <@Calchan> dertobi123, we don;t *if* we can know soon enough when he isn't available
20:36 <@Calchan> and in his case I think we can
20:36 <@dertobi123> hrm
20:37 <@Calchan> for example he warned early enough that he wouldn'
20:37 <@Betelgeuse> I think we should vote on whether to use private or public for summary drafts
20:37 <@Calchan> t be available this week
20:37 <@Betelgeuse> I don't like putting the secretary to the private alias so then there would be some public communication unless something else private is created.
20:37 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, good point
20:38 <@leio> doesn't have to be on the private alias, we just use reply to all
20:38 <@ulm> leio: exactly
20:38 <@solar> likewise is what I would think.
20:38 <@leio> which we need to often do anyway when replying an outside e-mail
20:38 <@Betelgeuse> I don't like making stuff private unless absolutely necessary.
20:39 <@Calchan> solar, why don't we simply vote on this?
20:39 <@solar> but vs sending out what could be heated hot topics it's imo to get the tone set by what we all felt was the outcome of a given meeting.
20:39 <@ulm> Betelgeuse: we don't want any third party pick up our draft summaries
20:39 <@solar> vs what the sec alone thinks it might of been
20:41 <@leio> if meetings go smooth, making a summary out of a clear log doesn't really involve any interpretation. We just haven't had clear resolutions on some topics in the past, slipping to the next thing, etc
20:41 <@leio> (relates to meeting chairing)
20:42 <@solar> Do we need to vote on this? public vs private drafts?
20:42 <@Calchan> solar, I think we should
20:42 <@solar> I vote for private drafts then
20:42 <@Calchan> and honestly I'm torn between both
20:42 <@Betelgeuse> public
20:43 <@dertobi123> private
20:43 <@ulm> private
20:43 <@Calchan> I'll say public, it worked until now
20:43 <@Calchan> leio?
20:43 <@leio> public
20:44 <@Calchan> dammit
20:44 <@solar> 3 private / 3 public = tie for now.
20:44 <@Calchan> let's ask for lu_zero's vote by mail
20:44 <@Calchan> there's no emergency on that
20:44 <@dertobi123> agreed
20:45 <@solar> fair enough. Ready to move on?
20:45 <@Calchan> sure
20:45 <@leio> I have a compromise suggestion though - gets posted to private when ready from secretary, if no hard objections within ~12 hours it becomes a public draft, and then gets confirmed as final.
20:45 <@leio> Waiting for lu_zero vote sounds good.
20:45 <@Calchan> leio, 12 hours is tough due to timezones
20:46 <@leio> it's to ensure 1-2 council members get a chance to read it before it goes public, not to have everyone do it
20:46 <@leio> if those 1-2+ don't see anything bad, there probably isn't
20:46 <@leio> anyways, lets just wait for lu_zero
20:46 <@Calchan> leio, I'd disagree with that, but let's move on
20:47 <@solar> 3) GLEP 39
20:47 <@solar> 3.1. Can the council decide on the process of voting amendments to GLEP 39
20:47 <@solar>   without an all-developers vote?
20:47 <@Calchan> yes
20:47 <@Betelgeuse> I think we can just use votify and have an approved marker to vote on multiple changes at once.
20:48 <@Betelgeuse> those above pass and those below don't
20:48 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, that would be for a later question, but does this imply you vote yes to this one?
20:49 -!- comprookie2000 [n=david@gentoo/developer/comprookie2000] has quit [Client Quit]
20:49 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: What I said is the existing process imho so there's no need for council to say everything so no.
20:49 <@Calchan> specifically that would be for the implementation of 3.2, not even 3.2 itself
20:49 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, OK
20:49 <@dertobi123> i tend to say no
20:50 <@Calchan> others?
20:50 <@solar> Having lived in the USA. I've seen first hand what happens when a group/pres can give itself unlimited powers. They powers granted to the council were given to them by the devs. So imo it's the devs via votify who can change GLEP-039
20:51 <@dertobi123> solar: well, same goes for germans
20:51 <@dertobi123> that's why i tend to "no"
20:51 <@Betelgeuse> solar: I don't specifically understand what you refer in the first sentence but guessing it's not terrible important.
20:52 <@Betelgeuse> Absolute power corrupts absolute etc.
20:52 <@dertobi123> plus i'd like to see glep-39 being moved to something non-glep (formal counciil-constituion or something similiar, jmbsvicetto has made a proposal on that)
20:52 <@Betelgeuse> +ly
20:52 <@solar> Betelgeuse: in the US Bush gave himself powers that he was not really in power to give to himself. But being he was in a power posiion. Nobody questioned it (no matter how scary the choices)
20:52 <@solar> Betelgeuse: or that exactly. "Absolute power corrupts absolute etc."
20:53 <@Calchan> dertobi123, and others before but apparently nobody cared
20:53 <@dertobi123> well, at least jmbsvicetto and i do care
20:53 <@Betelgeuse> I don't see that being a priority.
20:53 <@dertobi123> that's something to start with
20:53 <@Betelgeuse> But feel free to drive the action.
20:53 <@dertobi123> Betelgeuse: indeed. that's something longer-term for the next year
20:53 <@solar> I also do somewhat think 3.2.2 has some merit.
20:54 <@Calchan> solar, if we vote no to 3.1, it's up to devs to vote on 3.2
20:54 <@Calchan> solar, so let's get 3.1 voted first
20:54 <@solar> but lets face it. over time the council will have less qualified people in it so it concerns me.
20:55 <@leio> I vote yes to 3.1
20:55  * dertobi123 still no
20:55 <@Calchan> yes too
20:55 <@Betelgeuse> no
20:55 <@solar> no
20:55 <@leio> ulm?
20:55 <@ulm> no
20:56 <@solar> 2 yes / 4 no.
20:56 <@solar>   3.3. If no to 3.1 make it an action to see with the elections project that
20:56 <@solar>   all developers vote on 3.2 (who, by when?).
20:57 <@Betelgeuse> no need
20:57 <@ulm> too special
20:57 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v jmbsvicetto] by dertobi123
20:57 <@ulm> we should prepare a son-of-glep39 and let devs vote on that
20:57 <@Betelgeuse> for example
20:58 <@Calchan> ulm, I don't see why it prevents us from filling the hole in glep39 that forgets to say how to amend it in the meantime
20:59 <@Calchan> an all dev vote would be very quick to organize, and at leat we'd know for sure what devs think
21:00 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I do think we might take the chance and rethink our "metastructure organization"
21:01 <@dertobi123> can we agree on to discuss this on-list until the next meeting?
21:01 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: Do we want to have a "Gentoo constitution", do we want to have the organization details discussed through and documented on a GLEP? If so, a regular GLEP or do we want to create a new type and set particular rules for it?
21:01 <@solar> I'm in full agreement with thinking it's time to rethink the structure.
21:01 <@Calchan> my point with a text whic tires to replace glep 39 is I've been working on one for almost a year, have called for help, abd very few cares, even fewer helped
21:02 <@Calchan> solar, thining is not enough, assuming we even do it
21:02 <@Calchan> thinking
21:02 <@Calchan> at some point we need to start doing something and doing it little by little on glep39 is one way to go
21:02 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I think we can split the "thinking" in 2 parts: 1. the process, how to change it and where to document it, 2. What type of structure we want
21:03 -!- Arfrever [n=Arfrever@gentoo/developer/arfrever] has joined #gentoo-council
21:03 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I think 1 is doable in a "short" timeframe. 2 might take a longer time
21:03 <@Calchan> jmbsvicetto, you'll soon see that you'll be alone, I've been experiencing that for a year now
21:04 <@Calchan> but this is getting off topic, do we do 3.3 or not?
21:04 <@leio> first part of part 1) was what we were voting about here
21:04 <+jmbsvicetto> Calchan: I understand that, but if can reach some agreement about 1, then people can put forth proposals about 2 and get it decided through a vote
21:04 <+jmbsvicetto> +we
21:05 <@solar> I would expect that proccess to take ~2-3 months
21:05 <@Calchan> let's decide abpout 3.3 first
21:05 <@Calchan> we're getting awfully late here
21:06 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: The evening is young :D
21:06 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, I'm at work if you don't mind, and feeding my kids takes priority
21:07 <@solar> ok. So what do you want to accomplish with 3.3 exactly Calchan?
21:07 <@Calchan> solar, I want to ask devs how they wantgentoo to modify glep39, and that implies replacing it
21:08 <@solar> ok so start a thread?
21:08 <@solar> And CC: -council and -dev ml
21:08 <@Betelgeuse> no
21:08 <@Betelgeuse> only one mailing list
21:08 <@solar> cross-posting kinda sucks.
21:08 <@Calchan> solar, there was a thread to which nobody replied
21:09 <@solar> but -dev reaches the max number of devs. -council to keep it official
21:09 <@Calchan> if you guys really cared you would have given your opionion on this already
21:09 <@Calchan> so don't pretend you do now
21:09 <@Betelgeuse> solar: You can start the thread via -dev-announce
21:09 <@Betelgeuse> solar: that's the way to reach all
21:11 -!- hparker [n=hparker@gentoo/developer/hparker] has joined #gentoo-council
21:11 <@solar> -dev-announce seems logical. But it's been mostly a post-only mailing list with very little interactive threads
21:11 <@dertobi123> -dev-announce and f'up to -council
21:11 <+jmbsvicetto> solar: set reply-to to the dev ml
21:11 <@Calchan> solar, we're not going to cross post anything on -council to -dev-announce
21:13 <@Calchan> solar, so how about we vote whether we want to do 3.3 and get done with it?
21:13 <@Calchan> again, we're late
21:13 -!- ed-209 [n=cc@pool-98-114-205-197.phlapa.fios.verizon.net] has joined #gentoo-council
21:13 <@leio> ok, so I understand we need an action for "No" having happened for 3.1 and 3.3 wasn't something that everyone agreed on afterall (while commenting agenda)?
21:13 <@solar> Calchan: I'm not sure what exactly you want to vote on.
21:13 <@solar> but sure. Let the devs decide if they want a restructure.
21:14 <@Calchan> can we move on?
21:14 <@solar> and elections handles the vote. it only seems like somebody needs to fire up a thread on the topic. If it gets no feedback then nobody cares
21:14 <@solar> Please yes.
21:14 <@solar> 4. Meeting schedule (10 minutes)
21:15 <@solar> I vote for 4.1.2 at this time every month.
21:15 <@Calchan> same here
21:16 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: will it be that you only have an hour?
21:16 <@Betelgeuse> Of course having it biweekly eats more hours too.
21:16  * dertobi123 agrees, once a month, same time as today
21:16 <@Betelgeuse> monday is good
21:16 <@ulm> once a month is fine
21:17 <@ulm> and monday is o.k. for me
21:17 <@Betelgeuse> Let's try to phrase the exact things to vote on in the agenda.
21:17 <@Calchan> ys please
21:17 <@solar> the same time UTC as this one?
21:17 <@Betelgeuse> Otherwise once a month is problematic to get things done.
21:17 <@Betelgeuse> works for me
21:17 <@dertobi123> wfm, too
21:17 <@Calchan> Betelgeuse, we don't have to wait fo rthe meeting to get anything done though
21:18 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: yes sure
21:18 <@leio> once a month is fine, given more mailing list activity. Same time is fine for me (at least while its summer time)
21:18 <@Betelgeuse> Calchan: but we need to change from past behavior
21:19 <@leio> or actually we can discuss more in this channel too outside meetings.
21:19 <@ulm> that would be the third monday every month, ri
21:19 <@ulm> ght?
21:19 <@Calchan> leio, email is best because backlogs disappear
21:19 <@solar> If something comes up that calls for a vote of something before the monthly meeting. I would have no objection for a quick get together. Or if we handle it via email it needs to be made very clear we are voting
21:20 <@leio> Calchan: realtime discussion to prep something for e-mail vs more official records, etc, yeah
21:20 <@Calchan> solar, have we reached a decision on 4.1?
21:21 <@solar> ok so it seems like we reached a consensus on 4.1.2
21:21 <@solar> that this time works good for everybody (cept maybe lu_zero?)
21:21 <@Calchan> solar, I didn't say it would work for me all the time
21:22 <@Calchan> hence 4.2
21:22 <@Calchan> sorry, 4.3
21:22 <@solar> 4.3) I would rather not. By default I think we should assume it's exactly 4 weeks from the last one.
21:23 <@solar> however. I will be on vacation then next month
21:24 <@Calchan> solar, I can't promise I'm available on mondays or any other days, so dertobi123's doodle poll made sense in my case
21:24 <@dertobi123> we should have a default meeting time.
21:24 <@leio> so you mean every 4 weeks but possibly changing day within the week..?
21:24 <@Calchan> k on a default though
21:24 <@dertobi123> if the default doesn't work -> announce it *early* and we can arrange to find a better date
21:25 <@Betelgeuse> indeed
21:25 <@solar> I'm in favor of 1100PST/1800UTC
21:25 <@Calchan> dertobi123, ok with that, what is early?
21:25 <@dertobi123> solar: me too
21:25 <@dertobi123> 18utc on mondays seems to work in general for everyone
21:25 <@dertobi123> so i'd prefer to switch just the weeks
21:25 <@dertobi123> and stick to mondays
21:26 <@dertobi123> if that doesn't work too - well, we should be able to arrange something different then
21:26 <@dertobi123> Calchan: and early is something like "at least 10 days before the default meeting date"
21:26 <@Calchan> dertobi123, will try
21:26 <@leio> (I think per GLEP39 we still have proxies and slacker marks)
21:27 <@leio> (but accommodating when possible and early enough sounds ok)
21:28 <@solar> 5. Wrap up, comments, open questions.
21:29 <@solar> now seems a good time to remove the +m ?
21:29 -!- mode/#gentoo-council [-m] by solar
21:29 <@leio> ok, so did we go with "We meet monthly on mondays 18.00 UTC and with at least 10 day notice a doodle poll can be arranged for a different time" or should we vote on that, and is monthly every 4 weeks or every n'th week of the month
21:30 <@dertobi123> leio: we go with that, yeah. every 4 weeks by default
21:30 < igli> I'd just like to say I'm impressed: I've never seen an executive group not vote more power to themselves. Also, please bear in mind that users find -council ML intimidating to post to. previous councils have been quite clear on keeping it to discussion around meetings and for external, not wider issues within community; there was -dev, now there's -project too. And it's much easier (less flames) to move it from -project to -dev than the other way round.
21:30 <+jmbsvicetto> About my mail, I've left out proxies and slacker marks as I'd like to see other opinions before making a proposal - I think we can even left that open for the vote
21:31 < fmccor|home> Thanks.  As some of you know, I have strong feelings about GLEP39 --- we (the developers) did choose it from a list of several alternatives.
21:31 <@solar> note that every for weeks as pointed out might not be ideal as saying every First/Last week of the month.
21:31 <@solar> four
21:31 <@Betelgeuse> Last week is fine by me.
21:31 <@dertobi123> solar: we should announce the default meeting time at the end of each meeting plus in the summary.
21:32 <@dertobi123> and then it doesn't matter which week it is
21:32 <+jmbsvicetto> The 4 weeks problem is summed up as 52/4 = 13 ;)
21:32 <@solar> Oh one last thing. Who wants to do the summary for the this meeting?
21:32 <@Calchan> sorry, I had lost my screen due to internet issues, consider me out now
21:33 <@Calchan> I'll post comments on the meeting to the alias later
21:33 <@leio> I can do the summary draft
21:33 <@solar> thank you
21:33 <@dertobi123> ok, next meeting on august 17th?
21:34 <@ulm> fine with me
21:34 <@leio> fine
21:34 <@Betelgeuse> fine
21:34 <@solar> no objections