Hi all,

Here is the summary from today's council meeting. The complete log will
show up at http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/ shortly.

Thanks,
Donnie
Quick summary
=============

Active-developer document: We reviewed it and made some suggestions for 
improving both the document and the online developer list (adding 
dates).

ChangeLog entries: Always required. If you aren't making them now, fix 
your script to call echangelog.

Ignored arch-team bugs: What's the workflow for undermanned arch teams? 
Can we improve it?

8-digit versions: Ask package maintainers with extremely long PVs 
whether they were needed and test the impact of extending 
versionator.eclass. Make decision once this data is available.

Enforced retirement: After 2.5 hours on the previous topics, people had 
to go to sleep and jokey's computer broke. Instead of waiting till the 
next regular meeting, because of its urgency, we scheduled a special 
session next week at the same time. The appeals will *not* be decided 
then -- it's about figuring out the validity and the process.

New meeting process: 105 minutes were closed and 57 were open. It might 
save some time if we always moderated, but it won't cut it in half. 
Should we keep doing this, or modify it a little to have a moderated 
#-council and open backchannel?


Roll call
=========

(here, proxy [by whom] or slacker?)

amne        slacker [30 minutes late]
betelgeuse  here
dberkholz   here
flameeyes   here
lu_zero     here
vapier      proxy [solar]
jokey       here

We gave amne 15 minutes to show up before getting a slacker mark.


New process
===========

The last few meetings have dragged out for hours unnecessarily. This 
time, we tried moderating the channel during discussion of each topic, 
then temporarily opening the floor for that topic before a vote so 
anyone could contribute. Here's the time breakdown:

        2000-2030: closed, 30 min
        2030-2046: open, 16 min
        2046-2056: closed, 10 min
        2056-2114: open, 18 min
        2114-2146: closed, 32 min
        2146-2209: open, 23 min
        2209-2242: closed, 33 min
        2242-    : open floor

Total before open floor: 105 minutes closed, 57 minutes open.

Optimistically, we could have saved an hour if the channel was moderated 
throughout the meeting. That's unlikely to be the case in reality, 
because we'd be redirecting people's comments from queries into the 
channel.

Should we keep it moderated until the final open floor? Should we have 
an open "backchannel"?


Updates to last month's topics
==============================

        http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20080410-summary.txt

        Document of being an active developer
        -------------------------------------
        Last month:
                No updates
        Updates:
                araujo made http://dev.gentoo.org/~araujo/gcert1.pdf in 
Scribus. 
                He'd like to ask for approval of this design and discuss the 
                script, in particular its infrastructure requirements.

                Suggestions on certificate content:
                        -Add title to the top: "Developer Certification"
                        -Add devrel contact info (general devrel email address)
                        -Add link to devrel userinfo page
                        -Add start and end dates to devrel retired developers 
page
                        -Add a sentence saying e.g. "This certifies that XXX 
was a 
                         Gentoo developer from START_DATE to TODAY_DATE." The 
point 
                         is to avoid implying that the developer is certified 
                         forever, or will be a developer in the future.

                The information should be gotten from LDAP, for example using 
                python-ldap. Could base this script on devrel's slacker script.

                It's unsure how signatures are going to happen, but one option 
                is to keep a GPG-encrypted image of a signature and decrypt it 
                on-demand for certificate creation. This should be discussed 
                with the person doing the signing.


        Slacker arches
        --------------
        4 months ago:
                vapier will work on rich0's suggestion and repost it for 
                discussion on -dev ML
        2 months ago:
                vapier said he was going to work on it that weekend.
        Last month:
                No updates
        Updates:


New topics
==========

        When are ChangeLog entries required?
        ------------------------------------
        This question mainly relates to arch stabilizations.

        The consensus was that ChangeLog entries even for arch 
        stabilizations provide valuable information that is unique without 
        network access and more accessible than CVS logs even with network 
        access.

        Some people were curious what proportion of space ChangeLogs take in 
        the tree, but most people didn't think that was relevant.

        welp suggested making a changelog message part of repoman commit.

        It would be helpful for the QA team to help with checking for and 
        enforcing ChangeLog messages. If that doesn't help matters, the 
        council may have to take action.


        Can the council help fewer bugs get ignored by arm/sh/s390 teams?
        -----------------------------------------------------------------
        The work happens, but Mart says it's not communicated to anyone and 
        has no relationship to whether bugs are open.

        We need to understand the workflow of undermanned arch teams and see 
        whether there's anything we can help improve.

        Possibly improving recuitment -- add a good, motivating 
        staffing-needs entry.


        PMS: Are versions allowed to have more than 8 digits?
        -----------------------------------------------------
        
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_db2f5c09c2c0c8b042ca3d0dcec7cdaf.xml
        https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=188449

        What do various PMs/tools support? Portage, Pkgcore, Paludis all 
        handle >8. portage-utils does not but could be fixed to use longs 
        instead of ints, with some loss of performance (magnitude unclear).

        versionator.eclass also needs fixing for >8 digits.

        Apparently [ ]-style tests break with large numbers, but [[ ]] 
        works. Have to be careful which tests are getting used anywhere 
        large versions are compared.

        The council generally favored allowing versions to have <=18 digits. 
        This allows them to fit into 64 bits (18 signed digits or 19 
        unsigned) and gives them an upper bound, which some implementations 
        of version parsing could find useful.

        We voted to do more research and testing, specifically to ask the 
        package maintainers with extremely long PVs whether they were needed 
        and to test the impact of extending versionator.eclass. The involved 
        packages:

                sys-process/fuser-bsd
                sys-apps/net-tools
                sys-apps/gradm
                net-im/ntame
                media-video/captury
                media-libs/libcaptury
                media-libs/capseo
                sys-block/btrace
                www-apache/mod_depends
                net-wireless/rt2500
                sys-fs/unionfs


        Enforced retirement
        -------------------

        The meeting had already gone 2.5 hours and we were short multiple 
        council members because of the late hour in their timezone, or 
        broken hardware in the case of jokey. Because of the urgency of 
        getting this resolved, we decided it couldn't wait for next month's 
        meeting and scheduled a special session for next week at the same 
        time.


        Open floor
        ----------

        Some people thought that we were going to make a final decision on 
        the above appeals today, because the agenda was insufficiently clear 
        on that. That was not the case. What we intended to do was explain 
        why we can take the appeal and then figure out the process for it
        because we haven't done any appeals before.

Reply via email to