subject:"Re\: \[gentoo\-dev\] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April"

On 01 Apr 2008 05:30:01
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
 vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
 Gentoo dev list to see.

I'd like initial comments from the Council on PMS please. We're
reaching the point where we'll be ready to push a draft for general
review, and I'd like to know whether there are any major changes that
the Council considers necessary or whether it's just a case of
fine-tuning the details.

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:

Petteri Räty wrote:

I agree with the above point.
Also, as I recall, both Pettery (betelgeuse) and Denis (calchan) have 
stated before that we no longer have any queue of people waiting on 
recruiters to join Gentoo. I'm not seeing an avalanche of new blood 
entering the distro, so I'm wondering where we want to go.
If we keep going the route of the last months, I wonder how long it will 
take until we get under 150 devs. I don't think this will benefit 
anyone. Furthermore, the trend in the last months was in large part the 
result of finally retiring people that had been slacking for a long 
time. This proposal could (would?) lead to sending away people that 
still do work, albeit at a slower pace or on bursts.




We do have somewhat of a backlog at this point because Calchan was away 
for a while and you can always query bugzilla for the current situation.




As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're 
forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that 
we have many different roles.



And you are assuming that undertakers wouldn't check their role before 
acting.


Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the 
existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA 
members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their 
privileges?


AT folks aren't devs and see above.

Finally, I thought the whole point of removing access to infra boxes 
(which is the end result of retiring a dev), was a concern with security 
and not a way to get rid of people - with the exception of 
administrative action by devrel.


Security and gives us a better picture on what is really maintained and 
what is not.




I understand and agree that ebuild devs should keep a minimum level of 
work to justify their access to the gentoo-x86 tree. I would also like 
to have a few devs that can do major commits (although commit sprees can 
have their own problems), but I think there's still a place in this 
distro for people that want to maintain a few packages, that want to do 
AT work, that care with the QA of the tree or that work on releases. 
These people shouldn't be sent away, just because they can't keep with 
weekly commits (not enough work or time?) or because they work in bursts.




To quote myself:
How does having the average time between commits be at most a week 
sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?


I didn't suggest they have to commit every week. This means 4 commits a 
month instead of the currently monthly or bimonthly commit check in the 
script.




As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate 
about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. Afterall, 
if gentoo-x86 was a git tree and or we had acls in the tree, I don't 
think we would be having or would need to have this argument.




If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.

Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:

On 02-04-2008 21:21:25 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain 
packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the 
maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs?  Devs who keep claiming 
packages only to allow them to bitrot can be booted.


On other projects I sometimes see a remark such as:
Maintainer time-out, committing the fix as in bug #bla

Maybe that is a bit less intrusive as dropping the maintainer entirely.



The process of coming back should be quick and easy as the quizzes don't 
really change that much.


Regards,
Petteri




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto


Petteri Räty wrote:

Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:

Petteri Räty wrote:


As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're 
forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that 
we have many different roles.

 

And you are assuming that undertakers wouldn't check their role before 
acting.




I read it as a rule to drop developers. If we're only talking about it 
raising a warning to undertakers so they can check the dev status, then 
I don't have a problem with the proposal.


Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the 
existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA 
members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their 
privileges?


AT folks aren't devs and see above.



To be clear, I didn't meant arch testers but people that do keywords for 
arch teams.


Finally, I thought the whole point of removing access to infra boxes 
(which is the end result of retiring a dev), was a concern with 
security and not a way to get rid of people - with the exception of 
administrative action by devrel.


Security and gives us a better picture on what is really maintained and 
what is not.




But in that case I don't think that the level of commits is the best 
indicator if someone is maintaining properly a package or not. The 
number of open bugs and the mean time that it takes for the developer to 
react to a bug might give us a better picture.




As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate 
about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. 
Afterall, if gentoo-x86 was a git tree and or we had acls in the tree, 
I don't think we would be having or would need to have this argument.




If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.


True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where 
people worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't 
pose so many security risks. With the current practice of doing work in 
overlays it would also be simpler to merge the work back into the 
Portage tree.




Regards,
Petteri



--
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:35:20 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where 
 people worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't 
 pose so many security risks. With the current practice of doing work
 in overlays it would also be simpler to merge the work back into the 
 Portage tree.

How does only being able to commit to only part of a tree make commit
access any less of a security risk?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

2008-04-03 13:35 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisał(a):
 Petteri Räty wrote:
  Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
   As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate
 about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. Afterall, if
 gentoo-x86 was a git tree and or we had acls in the tree, I don't think we
 would be having or would need to have this argument.
  
  
 
  If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.
 

  True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where people
 worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't pose so many
 security risks. With the current practice of doing work in overlays it would
 also be simpler to merge the work back into the Portage tree.

Also Subversion would be sufficient.
���^�X�����(��j)b�b�

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Ciaran McCreesh kirjoitti:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:35:20 +
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where 
people worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't 
pose so many security risks. With the current practice of doing work
in overlays it would also be simpler to merge the work back into the 
Portage tree.


How does only being able to commit to only part of a tree make commit
access any less of a security risk?



Yeah, you only need access to one ebuild to do whatever you want to 
user's systems.


Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Mike Auty


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Petteri Räty wrote:
| Yeah, you only need access to one ebuild to do whatever you want to
| user's systems.

Perhaps then we should direct more of our efforts towards the GPG
package signing system, so that when a dev becomes a libability, their
keys can be revoked?

Mike  5:)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkf0xgsACgkQu7rWomwgFXrStgCglCcTvdRaEGMyOdU0qfhcG7w8
TuwAnj1Vmho+LPCqreZNKlNhSRBHUjQU
=LjIi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:56:59 +0100
Mike Auty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Petteri Räty wrote:
 | Yeah, you only need access to one ebuild to do whatever you want to
 | user's systems.
 
 Perhaps then we should direct more of our efforts towards the GPG
 package signing system, so that when a dev becomes a libability, their
 keys can be revoked?

Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Mike Auty


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
|

I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys.  Every package
would also be signed, and would only be installed when signed.  As soon
as a dev becomes a liability their key is removed from the list/revoked.
~ On next sync any packages or package upgrades signed after the time of
revocation would not be installed.  There would be a window of
vulnerability, but no bigger than with revoking a dev's access to the
tree.  Do you think this would offer suitable protection for users from
a malicious dev or not?

I understand there are difficulties with eclasses, etc, which is why the
current implementation is still not widely used or mandated, but I'm
more interested in the feasibility of the idea.

Mike  5:)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkf0yu8ACgkQu7rWomwgFXrxOwCeKOdkiFhpknf/q/6jq1sPf70t
3xMAoJxlLYhweQspnIJe626TYdmeA3BQ
=hKID
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Mike Auty


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
| It's about quality not quantity maybe?

It's about both, and getting the balance right is effectively what this
boils down to (as do many discussions on -dev).  There's those devs who
want high levels of QA and those devs that want the
latest/obscure/testing/rare packages.  Generally the two sides play
oppose each other.

Personally I think having both super-devs (who do lots of commits, care
deeply about QA and know their stuff intimately) and
official-contributor type devs (those who maintain a few specialist
packages when they can) is a good idea.  Giving the undertakers more
work by giving them more reports of potentially lax devs and requiring
them to investigate seems a little wasteful to me.  I'd far rather the
undertakers spent the extra time on positive contributions to the actual
distribution (rather than it's administration).

So the still unanswered question appears to be, would we like Gentoo to
have fewer packages and less choice but greater QA, stability and a feel
of professionalism, or would we like to have more packages and choice
but a worse QA record, make some mistakes, and have a more
community-based feel?  If you're going to try to answer this question
please be delicate with your repsonses, in the past I can recall
developers leaving over exactly this divide...

Mike  5:)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkf0y6wACgkQu7rWomwgFXoCRACdHKACZY9yjfetGKJ5JtRP6y6U
YBkAniFzWanDJvUkXUe8XglBBBP9sXsk
=mp9f
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:51 +0100
Mike Auty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 | Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
 
 I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
 kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys.  Every package
 would also be signed, and would only be installed when signed.  As
 soon as a dev becomes a liability their key is removed from the
 list/revoked. ~ On next sync any packages or package upgrades signed
 after the time of revocation would not be installed.  There would be
 a window of vulnerability, but no bigger than with revoking a dev's
 access to the tree.  Do you think this would offer suitable
 protection for users from a malicious dev or not?

Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in code
that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets invalidated.

And if you are worrying about malicious developers, you need to worry
about malicious infra people too. An infra member throwing his toys out
of the pram can do much more lasting damage than someone who can get
some global scope nastiness into an ebuild for an hour or two...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:17:51 +0100
Mike Auty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.

I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys.  Every package
would also be signed, and would only be installed when signed.  As
soon as a dev becomes a liability their key is removed from the
list/revoked. ~ On next sync any packages or package upgrades signed
after the time of revocation would not be installed.  There would be
a window of vulnerability, but no bigger than with revoking a dev's
access to the tree.  Do you think this would offer suitable
protection for users from a malicious dev or not?



Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in code
that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets invalidated.
  

By this reasoning you shouldn't use passwords ...

The idea is to limit the attack vectors and make simple attacks much 
harder. A sophisticated hacker could just rent a busload of angry 
serbians, kidnap 12 developers and force them to do some subtle changes 
in many places. But is that likely to happen?

And if you are worrying about malicious developers, you need to worry
about malicious infra people too. An infra member throwing his toys out
of the pram can do much more lasting damage than someone who can get
some global scope nastiness into an ebuild for an hour or two...
  
That has nothing to do with the discussion ... and I don't see how infra 
could manipulate the signatures in a useful way apart from adding keys 
or removing some from the official keyring ...
This they could do at the moment by manipulating the cvs to rsync copy 
process, but I'm not aware of something like that happening. So you 
might want to have a marginal trust in people and not accuse them of 
things they might do in the future ...



--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Mike Auty wrote:

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
|
| Signing offers no protection against a malicious developer.
|

I had envisaged a system whereby when the tree was synced, as was some
kind of master signed list of all acceptable dev-keys.  Every package
would also be signed, and would only be installed when signed.  As soon
as a dev becomes a liability their key is removed from the list/revoked.
~ On next sync any packages or package upgrades signed after the time of
revocation would not be installed.  There would be a window of
vulnerability, but no bigger than with revoking a dev's access to the
tree.  Do you think this would offer suitable protection for users from
a malicious dev or not?
There has been some previous work which has never been finalized, for 
all interested parties:

http://viewcvs.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/users/robbat2/tree-signing-gleps/

Getting this cleaned up and ready for discussion would be quite valuable.


I understand there are difficulties with eclasses, etc, which is why the
current implementation is still not widely used or mandated, but I'm
more interested in the feasibility of the idea.
It can be done if people can agree to a policy and allow the 
programmatic and infrastructural changes to happen.


Have fun,

Patrick
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:29:10 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in
  code that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets
  invalidated. 
 By this reasoning you shouldn't use passwords ...
 
 The idea is to limit the attack vectors and make simple attacks much 
 harder. A sophisticated hacker could just rent a busload of angry 
 serbians, kidnap 12 developers and force them to do some subtle
 changes in many places. But is that likely to happen?

No no. The point is, there's no effective technological way of
preventing malicious developers from using the tree to screw over end
users. Signing isn't designed to and can't prevent that class of
attack (and nor can it protect against compromised end user systems).
What it *can* do is reduce the amount of damage done by a compromised
rsync server.

  And if you are worrying about malicious developers, you need to
  worry about malicious infra people too. An infra member throwing
  his toys out of the pram can do much more lasting damage than
  someone who can get some global scope nastiness into an ebuild for
  an hour or two... 

 That has nothing to do with the discussion ... and I don't see how
 infra could manipulate the signatures in a useful way apart from
 adding keys or removing some from the official keyring ...
 This they could do at the moment by manipulating the cvs to rsync
 copy process, but I'm not aware of something like that happening. So
 you might want to have a marginal trust in people and not accuse them
 of things they might do in the future ...

That's exactly the thing under discussion -- the design of the system
necessitates trust in both the main repository and the end user system,
and signing does absolutely nothing to help there. No-one is suggesting
that anyone from infra is going to do anything to utterly screw over
Gentoo for petty personal reasons.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:29:10 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Nope. In fact, using such a system, there are ways of getting in
code that doesn't get triggered until someone's key gets
invalidated. 
  

By this reasoning you shouldn't use passwords ...

The idea is to limit the attack vectors and make simple attacks much 
harder. A sophisticated hacker could just rent a busload of angry 
serbians, kidnap 12 developers and force them to do some subtle

changes in many places. But is that likely to happen?



No no. The point is, there's no effective technological way of
preventing malicious developers from using the tree to screw over end
users. Signing isn't designed to and can't prevent that class of
attack (and nor can it protect against compromised end user systems).
What it *can* do is reduce the amount of damage done by a compromised
rsync server.
  

So then we should at first focus the discussion on a few things:
- what classes of attackers are there
- what defense mechanisms we can use
- what the costs (complexity, time, extra code) of each defense is

and then, from that design space, select the option(s) that have the 
best behaviour. If you get bored you can read the not-yet-GLEPs robbat2 
has written with the help of a few others, which would cut out a large 
part of the discussion:

http://viewcvs.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/users/robbat2/tree-signing-gleps/

That's exactly the thing under discussion -- the design of the system

necessitates trust in both the main repository and the end user system,
and signing does absolutely nothing to help there. No-one is suggesting
that anyone from infra is going to do anything to utterly screw over
Gentoo for petty personal reasons.
  
But if you don't trust anyone there is no reason why you would even try 
to interact with Gentoo. So at some point you will have to decide to 
arbitrarily trust a few entities, be it devs or servers or cryptographic 
keys ...




--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:44:45 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 and then, from that design space, select the option(s) that have the 
 best behaviour. If you get bored you can read the not-yet-GLEPs
 robbat2 has written with the help of a few others, which would cut
 out a large part of the discussion:
 http://viewcvs.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/users/robbat2/tree-signing-gleps/

Uh... Which signing system did you think we were discussing when we
started talking about signing the tree?

 But if you don't trust anyone there is no reason why you would even
 try to interact with Gentoo. So at some point you will have to decide
 to arbitrarily trust a few entities, be it devs or servers or
 cryptographic keys ...

Uh huh, which is what my original reply to Mike was all about.

We're way ahead of you here...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Ciaran McCreesh wrote:

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:44:45 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
and then, from that design space, select the option(s) that have the 
best behaviour. If you get bored you can read the not-yet-GLEPs

robbat2 has written with the help of a few others, which would cut
out a large part of the discussion:
http://viewcvs.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/users/robbat2/tree-signing-gleps/



Uh... Which signing system did you think we were discussing when we
started talking about signing the tree?
  
Well, now we agree that we talk about the same thing after only 4 email 
pingpongs. That is quite fast!

But if you don't trust anyone there is no reason why you would even
try to interact with Gentoo. So at some point you will have to decide
to arbitrarily trust a few entities, be it devs or servers or
cryptographic keys ...



Uh huh, which is what my original reply to Mike was all about.

We're way ahead of you here...
  

Or so you think.

So now that you've tried to label me as a dimwit we're past that stage 
and can now return to actually discussing the set of issues and how to 
handle them, ja?



--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:55:43 +0200
Patrick Lauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Uh huh, which is what my original reply to Mike was all about.
 
  We're way ahead of you here...

 Or so you think.
 
 So now that you've tried to label me as a dimwit we're past that
 stage and can now return to actually discussing the set of issues and
 how to handle them, ja?

We established a long time ago that handling the issues isn't a
technological problem.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Richard Freeman


Mike Auty wrote:

So the still unanswered question appears to be, would we like Gentoo to
have fewer packages and less choice but greater QA, stability and a feel
of professionalism, or would we like to have more packages and choice
but a worse QA record, make some mistakes, and have a more
community-based feel?  If you're going to try to answer this question
please be delicate with your repsonses, in the past I can recall
developers leaving over exactly this divide...



Well, Gentoo is about choice, so why not be both?  We already have 
~arch/arch and overlays, and if the need really arose we could have more 
levels of QA.  Then everybody can have the level of bleeding-edge that 
they desire.


Maybe all we need is to make it easier to contribute to overlays and use 
overlays, and then have a moderately-higher general level of QA in the 
main tree, and then the highest level of QA for stable (particularly for 
system packages).  You could even have the opposite - maybe a 
super-stable overlay for stuff like server apps with backported patches 
that users could elect to take priority even over the portage tree.  The 
only real gap is a general facility for assigning priority for 
repositories (possibly on a per-package basis), and maybe a GUI for 
managing everything.


Regardless, as long as devs actually follow policy I don't see any need 
to boot them.  Maybe very long periods of inactivity should result in 
having accounts locked as a security measure (so that we don't end up 
with hundreds of ssh keys with commit access floating around who knows 
where).  Booting out lots of devs just takes a limited set of resources 
and limits them further.  If anything we want to find a way to let more 
people contribute in a significant way - not less...

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Thomas Anderson

On 11:35 Thu 03 Apr , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
 Petteri R??ty wrote:
 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto kirjoitti:
 Petteri R??ty wrote:


 As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're 
 forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that we 
 have many different roles.
  
 And you are assuming that undertakers wouldn't check their role before 
 acting.

 I read it as a rule to drop developers. If we're only talking about it 
 raising a warning to undertakers so they can check the dev status, then I 
 don't have a problem with the proposal.

 Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the 
 existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA 
 members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their 
 privileges?
 AT folks aren't devs and see above.

 To be clear, I didn't meant arch testers but people that do keywords for 
 arch teams.

Actually, 'AT' can refer to either arch teams or Arch Testers, but given
the fact that he was referring to those people with commit access, it
should be obvious he meant 'Arch Teams'.

Thomas

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Wulf C. Krueger


If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.


Many things would be easier then. I'm all for switching to git.

--
Best regards, Wulf


pgpextitGtwiV.pgp
Description: PGP Digital Signature

RE: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Chrissy Fullam

 Petteri Räty wrote:
  Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
  This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically the
  2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
  (#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !
 
  If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
  on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo
  dev list to see.
 
 Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to
 raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. Just committing
 monthly is not enough imho to require a developer status. How does having
 the average time between commits be at most a week sound and if it goes
 under that, undertakers will get a notification? Devaway would be there of
 course as usual

Why four commits a month? Currently we are at one commit a month, any reason to 
quadruple it instead of requesting a slight raise, such as two commits a month? 

My concern is that not all developers who do contribute something each month 
can give Gentoo the commitment you request for every month. Should we lose 
their contributions as they are a smaller quantity because some people think 
that if you cant do more all the time then it's just not good enough? 

It seems that the goal should be to find positive ways to encourage more 
developers to become active, not start retiring those that cant give Gentoo as 
much time that others can.


Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 




--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

Chrissy Fullam kirjoitti:

Petteri Räty wrote:

Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:
This is your monthly friendly reminder ! Same bat time (typically the
2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even vote
on, let us know ! Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole Gentoo
dev list to see.

Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to
raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. Just committing
monthly is not enough imho to require a developer status. How does having
the average time between commits be at most a week sound and if it goes
under that, undertakers will get a notification? Devaway would be there of
course as usual

Why four commits a month? Currently we are at one commit a month, any reason to quadruple it instead of requesting a slight raise, such as two commits a month?

My concern is that not all developers who do contribute something each month can give Gentoo the commitment you request for every month. Should we lose their contributions as they are a smaller quantity because some people think that if you cant do more all the time then it's just not good enough?

It seems that the goal should be to find positive ways to encourage more
developers to become active, not start retiring those that cant give Gentoo as
much time that others can.

I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at least
one commit in last 60 days. We could of course just change the slacker
script to list the activity for everyone during the last 60 days and
leave the interpretation to undertakers.

Regards,
Petteri

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Chrissy Fullam

 Petteri Räty wrote:
 
 I checked the current slacker script and it checks for having at least one
 commit in last 60 days. We could of course just change the slacker script
 to list the activity for everyone during the last 60 days and leave the
 interpretation to undertakers.

Interesting information, thank you for looking into the detail; I had been led 
to believe it was for 30 days. I do see value to modifying the script to list 
all activity, aiding undertakers in their task as well as useful information 
for those who may inquire.
I do not rightly recall who wrote the script. Who can modify that script for us 
so we may test it out?


Kind regards,
Christina Fullam
Gentoo Developer Relations Lead | Gentoo Public Relations 




--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Donnie Berkholz

On 09:53 Thu 03 Apr , Thomas Anderson wrote:
 On 11:35 Thu 03 Apr , Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
  Petteri R??ty wrote:
  Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the 
  existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA 
  members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their 
  privileges?
  AT folks aren't devs and see above.
 
  To be clear, I didn't meant arch testers but people that do keywords for 
  arch teams.
 
 Actually, 'AT' can refer to either arch teams or Arch Testers, but given
 the fact that he was referring to those people with commit access, it
 should be obvious he meant 'Arch Teams'.

It wasn't obvious at all to me, because he was talking about people who 
would have trouble keeping commit access. My understanding is that arch 
team members are constantly testing and keywording.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Chris Gianelloni

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 13:49 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
   If we used git, proxy maintaining would be easier.
  
 
   True, but with some acls we could also have a different model where people
  worked on parts of the tree and where commit privileges didn't pose so many
  security risks. With the current practice of doing work in overlays it would
  also be simpler to merge the work back into the Portage tree.
 
 Also Subversion would be sufficient.

Release Engineering has been using subversion for the 2008.0 snapshot
tree.  The repository is running in tmpfs on a dual Opteron box.  IT's
still quite painfully slow.  Of course, we're doing commits at the
top-level since we have a single top-level ChangeLog for the repository,
but we don't even have history.  We literally just pulled ebuilds from
the tree.

Once the release is done, we can play around with the repository all
that we want to get some real numbers, but unless there's some magic
bullet that I'm missing, subversion might simply be too damned slow for
our needs.  As an anecdotal example, I've had a single commit of several
profiles take up to 6 minutes to complete, and that's not with repoman
or anything.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-03 Thread Chris Gianelloni

On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 09:21 -0400, Richard Freeman wrote:
 Regardless, as long as devs actually follow policy I don't see any need 
 to boot them.  Maybe very long periods of inactivity should result in 
 having accounts locked as a security measure (so that we don't end up 
 with hundreds of ssh keys with commit access floating around who knows 
 where).  Booting out lots of devs just takes a limited set of resources 
 and limits them further.  If anything we want to find a way to let more 
 people contribute in a significant way - not less...

I think many people seem to forget that it isn't the number of
developers or the number of commits.  It is all about the amount of
actual work that gets done.  We need more work being done.  Period.  It
doesn't matter how that gets accomplished, but it is what we need.
Removing less active developers would be perfectly fine once we had a
good proxy maintainer program in place that would allow people to
contribute easily without having to have commit access.  A developer who
only commits rarely isn't any more valuable to Gentoo than a regular
user who contributes at the same pace.  The only difference is the
commit access and the Gentoo resources used by the individual.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Games Developer
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread Wulf C. Krueger

On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
 How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
 sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?

It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.

-- 
Best regards, Wulf


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Mike Frysinger kirjoitti:

This is your monthly friendly reminder !  Same bat time (typically
the 2nd Thursday at 2000 UTC / 1600 EST), same bat channel
(#gentoo-council @ irc.freenode.net) !

If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
Gentoo dev list to see.

Keep in mind that every GLEP *re*submission to the council for review
must first be sent to the gentoo-dev mailing list 7 days (minimum)
before being submitted as an agenda item which itself occurs 7 days
before the meeting.  Simply put, the gentoo-dev mailing list must be
notified at least 14 days before the meeting itself.

For more info on the Gentoo Council, feel free to browse our homepage:
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/


Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to 
raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs. Just committing 
monthly is not enough imho to require a developer status. How does 
having the average time between commits be at most a week sound and if 
it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification? Devaway would 
be there of course as usual.


Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread joshua jackson


Wulf C. Krueger wrote:

 On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:
 How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
 sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?

 It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.


 -

 !DSPAM:47f3f2be39031804284693!

Yep its me!

Seriously...we don't need to be paranoid people.

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread Mike Auty


Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to 
raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.


Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one 
problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action 
against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the 
number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse.


What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion?  I can think og 
keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to maintain 
the devs.  Are there others I've missed?  If they're worth the 
cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests and 
getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise probably 
not...


Mike  5:)

[1] http://dberkholz.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/redux-gentoos-top-3-issues/
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Mike Auty kirjoitti:

Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us 
to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.


Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one 
problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action 
against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the 
number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse.


What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion?  I can think og 
keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to maintain 
the devs.  Are there others I've missed?  If they're worth the 
cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests and 
getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise probably 
not...


Mike  5:)

[1] http://dberkholz.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/redux-gentoos-top-3-issues/


If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues 
either. This means that you should have devaway on.


Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread Jan Kundrát


Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues 
either. This means that you should have devaway on.


That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and 
the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise to expect that 
he can't be relied upon with security fixes. However, there is no need 
to do periodic commits now, so the above theorem doesn't hold. :)


Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub  more beer  /dev/mouth



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread Mike Auty


Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues 
either.


I can see your point, I was more thinking about developers who have 
maybe one or two small packages that don't have many version bumps or 
bugs.  They may be entirely able to respond to security issues, but may 
not have reason to make the weekly commit quota.  I don't know the 
habits of developers well enough to know if this is a reasonable scenario?


I was under the impression that if a dev couldn't respond quickly enough 
to a security issue, the security team could take steps (mask the 
package, try to fix it) to ensure the package doesn't pose a problem (as 
is presumably the case now with devs who forget to mark themselves as 
away).  Depending on the actions you envisaged (sending a warning email, 
marking as away or retiring) this could create a lot of extra work for 
little benefit.  If it was simply a warning email it might not be very 
pointful, but marking them as away then it sounds like it could be 
useful and automated...  5:)


Mike  5:)
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Wulf C. Krueger kirjoitti:

On Wednesday, 02. April 2008 22:46:16 Petteri Räty wrote:

How does having the average time between commits be at most a week
sound and if it goes under that, undertakers will get a notification?


It sounds like you're trying to get rid of someone.



I don't have numbers yet, but I presume this is going to mark quite a 
few developers.


Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread Richard Brown

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Petteri Räty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues
 either. This means that you should have devaway on.

So if you don't maintain enough packages to commit on average once a
week, you're not worth having?

Also, you said average, did you mean mode, median or mean? Over what
time period?


-- 
Richard Brown
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April


Mike Auty kirjoitti:

Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security 
issues either.


I can see your point, I was more thinking about developers who have 
maybe one or two small packages that don't have many version bumps or 
bugs.  They may be entirely able to respond to security issues, but may 
not have reason to make the weekly commit quota.  I don't know the 
habits of developers well enough to know if this is a reasonable scenario?


I was under the impression that if a dev couldn't respond quickly enough 
to a security issue, the security team could take steps (mask the 
package, try to fix it) to ensure the package doesn't pose a problem (as 
is presumably the case now with devs who forget to mark themselves as 
away).  Depending on the actions you envisaged (sending a warning email, 
marking as away or retiring) this could create a lot of extra work for 
little benefit.  If it was simply a warning email it might not be very 
pointful, but marking them as away then it sounds like it could be 
useful and automated...  5:)


Mike  5:)


Undertakers would still be processing the retirements. What I am talking 
about is changing how the list of potentially inactive people is created.


Regards,
Petteri



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.


On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 22:19 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
 Petteri Räty wrote:
  Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us to 
  raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.
 
 Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one 
 problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action 
 against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the 
 number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse.

It's about quality not quantity maybe?

 What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion?  I can think og 
 keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to maintain 
 the devs.  Are there others I've missed?  If they're worth the 
 cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests and 
 getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise probably 
 not...

Well I think in part is keeping up with changes within Gentoo. Since I
joined we have change the syntax and semantics of Gentoo Java ebuilds
allot. Lots of things wrt to ebuilds constantly change. So could be more
of your game. If your not keeping u[, you run the greater chance of
falling behind, etc.

The other side of that, and maybe it's part of the above suggestion, is
re-taking the quizzes. I have long thought, just like driving tests.
That maybe every so often existing devs should re-take the quizzes. The
quizzes do change at times. Much less if your skills are sharp, should
only take a few minutes if that.

( Mostly thinking of myself when I think about re-taking quizzes ;) )

I take it as an all around approach to increased QA. Possible motivator
for developer activity with some very reasonable minimum requirements.
Surely could have side effects, but not a horrible idea

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread Richard Freeman


Jan Kundrát wrote:

Petteri Räty wrote:
If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security 
issues either. This means that you should have devaway on.


That assumption is false. If there was a need to do weekly commits and 
the dev in question couldn't manage it, it would be wise to expect that 
he can't be relied upon with security fixes. However, there is no need 
to do periodic commits now, so the above theorem doesn't hold. :)




Would it make more sense to just make a policy that failure to maintain 
packages that you're maintainer on will result in getting removed as the 
maintainer, with said packages going up for grabs?  Devs who keep 
claiming packages only to allow them to bitrot can be booted.


However, unless a dev is actually a liability, does it make sense to get 
rid of them?  Even a small positive contribution is still a positive 
contribution.  If the concern is devs who become liabilities then why 
not make the policy to look for the liabilities themselves?

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2008-04-02 Thread Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto


Petteri Räty wrote:

Mike Auty kirjoitti:

Petteri Räty wrote:
Defining required amount of activity for ebuild devs. I would like us 
to raise the required amount of activity for ebuild devs.


Given that the low number of developers is ranked as our number one 
problem in Donnie's informal survey[1], taking any kind of action 
against infrequently-committing developers is likely to reduce the 
number of devs we have, and potentially make the problem worse.




I agree with the above point.
Also, as I recall, both Pettery (betelgeuse) and Denis (calchan) have 
stated before that we no longer have any queue of people waiting on 
recruiters to join Gentoo. I'm not seeing an avalanche of new blood 
entering the distro, so I'm wondering where we want to go.
If we keep going the route of the last months, I wonder how long it will 
take until we get under 150 devs. I don't think this will benefit 
anyone. Furthermore, the trend in the last months was in large part the 
result of finally retiring people that had been slacking for a long 
time. This proposal could (would?) lead to sending away people that 
still do work, albeit at a slower pace or on bursts.


What benefits are you aiming to get from the suggestion?  I can think 
og keeping the books tidy and reducing management time required to 
maintain the devs.  Are there others I've missed?  If they're worth 
the cost/effort involved with putting someone through the dev tests 
and getting them trained, then it seems a good idea, but otherwise 
probably not...


Mike  5:)

[1] http://dberkholz.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/redux-gentoos-top-3-issues/


If you can't manage weekly commits, you can't respond to security issues 
either. This means that you should have devaway on.




As others have commented, I don't agree with this point. Also, you're 
forgetting we have quite a few people working on this project and that 
we have many different roles.
Although you're talking about ebuild devs only - so doc devs, infra and 
forums staff are exempt from this rule - you're assuming (asking?) that 
all people with access to gentoo-x86 are package maintainers and do a 
few, regular commits to the tree. As others have said, that assumes 
people keep more than a few ebuilds and that those packages require 
constant attention.
Recalling previous discussions about work on gentoo and some of the 
existing roles, what will you do to AT folks, release members or QA 
members? Are they also obliged to do a weekly commit to keep their 
privileges?
Finally, I thought the whole point of removing access to infra boxes 
(which is the end result of retiring a dev), was a concern with security 
and not a way to get rid of people - with the exception of 
administrative action by devrel.


We've been having a few discussions about the future of Gentoo for some 
time and people have shown different goals and views on its future and 
on how to get there. One of the views seems to be that we need (only 
need?) an elite of super-devs that do daily (hourly?) commits. I have 
nothing against people that can give so much to this project, but I 
don't think it's reasonable, desirable or healthy to expect everyone to 
be able to that level of commitment. Also, wasn't this distro at one 
point all about community? I don't think raising the commitement level 
helps to involve people and as William (wltjr) pointed out shouldn't we 
be more concerned with quality than with quantity?
I understand and agree that ebuild devs should keep a minimum level of 
work to justify their access to the gentoo-x86 tree. I would also like 
to have a few devs that can do major commits (although commit sprees can 
have their own problems), but I think there's still a place in this 
distro for people that want to maintain a few packages, that want to do 
AT work, that care with the QA of the tree or that work on releases. 
These people shouldn't be sent away, just because they can't keep with 
weekly commits (not enough work or time?) or because they work in bursts.


As a final thought, I think this point is a tangent to the old debate 
about tree-wide commit privileges and or the scm of the tree. Afterall, 
if gentoo-x86 was a git tree and or we had acls in the tree, I don't 
think we would be having or would need to have this argument.



Regards,
Petteri



--
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / SPARC / KDE
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-10 Thread Paul de Vrieze


Seemant Kulleen wrote:

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:

Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
This is very little red tape IMHO.


I believe that the trustees do not necessarily have any jurisdiction
over the council.  They are concerned with legal type matters that
affect the foundation, not with technical and political things within
Gentoo itself.  I could be wrong about this, but that's how I read it.


Actually much of the hardware that supports gentoo is owned by or lend 
to the foundation. The trustees have legal control over that (while 
infrastructure has technical control), so if it comes to a pissing 
context, the foundation would probably win. It is not a situation anyone 
would want to get into. There is no other formal relationship between 
the foundation and the council.


Paul
(Gentoo dev/trustee)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 01:51:56 -0400
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  - PMS:
   - status update from spb
   - moving it to Gentoo svn
   - schedule for getting remaining issues settled

Same question as last time this came up:

Can you name any other projects where the Council has become involved
in scheduling issues?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Denis Dupeyron


On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
rule at all concerning limitations to the council is tying our hands in
our back. If the council never messes up, then this rule won't ever be
used, and if they do, we'll be happy to have this handy rather than
having to argue for ages and being told you elected us, so shut up
and if you don't agree, don't vote for us next time (which is an
answer I actually got several times).


Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
This is very little red tape IMHO.

If it's only stupid and not harmful it will be solved naturally with
the current structure by waiting for the next elections (either at the
end of the term or because enough council members resigned due to the
situation).

Denis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 15:17:18 -0500
Grant Goodyear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Alexandre Buisse wrote: [Wed Apr 04 2007, 02:36:43PM CDT]
  I won't take this to the council myself, but I think this should be
  discussed at the very least: we need a way to limit the council
  power, since it seems there is nothing to this effect in the
  metastructure glep. 
 
 For what it's worth, I deliberately wrote the GLEP that way.  The
 truth of the matter is that the Council has only whatever power the
 devs permit, so adding additional restrictions seems like a really bad
 idea to me.

Right.

Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
Council meeting logs be made public would be useful, with a waiver
that the Council can have a secret meeting if it officially announces
that it is doing so?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Wernfried Haas

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
 having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
 those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
 Council meeting logs be made public would be useful, with a waiver
 that the Council can have a secret meeting if it officially announces
 that it is doing so?

If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
on the next election.

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgp04r7RTHldf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Wernfried Haas

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 12:27:09PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 sorry, due to the thread (things for Council to talk about), i thought the 
 work you were talking about was stuff for the Council to discuss ... that 
 seems to not be the case

Ah, sorry about that. As you said, right now there is nothing on my
mind that needs to be actually discussed by the council.

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgpCCFkeImvi3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Seemant Kulleen

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
 Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
 not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
 permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
 This is very little red tape IMHO.

I believe that the trustees do not necessarily have any jurisdiction
over the council.  They are concerned with legal type matters that
affect the foundation, not with technical and political things within
Gentoo itself.  I could be wrong about this, but that's how I read it.

Thanks,

Seemant




signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Christopher Sawtell

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 00:09:12 Wernfried Haas wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
  having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
  those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
  Council meeting logs be made public would be useful, with a waiver
  that the Council can have a secret meeting if it officially announces
  that it is doing so?

 If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
 them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
 on the next election.

If Gentoo goes all political and ties itself up in  hundreds of rules, 
regulations, and miles of the proverbial red tape it will cease to be 
effective, and become a fork target to be effectively taken over by 
somebody or other with superiour people and technical skills.

Don't the names Debian, Shuttleworth, and Ubuntu ring bells?

-- 
CS
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
 On 4/5/07, Alexandre Buisse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Well, the thing is, vote happens only once a year, and quite a lot of
  things can be done during that time. I just think that not having any
  rule at all concerning limitations to the council is tying our hands in
  our back. If the council never messes up, then this rule won't ever be
  used, and if they do, we'll be happy to have this handy rather than
  having to argue for ages and being told you elected us, so shut up
  and if you don't agree, don't vote for us next time (which is an
  answer I actually got several times).
 
 Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
 not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
 permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.

Actually, while it isn't spelled out, this is likely the case, since the
trustees (and the Foundation members, by extension) are the holders of
the Gentoo name.  The Foundation is what grants the Council its power by
allowing Gentoo (Linux) to govern itself.

Trust me, if the Council were doing something nasty and underhanded that
would endanger Gentoo, the trustees would try to do *something* to
prevent it.  That being said, I don't think that anybody is out to try
to harm Gentoo.  We (the Council) understand that we cannot appease
everybody all the time and don't make any apologies for not being able
to do so.

 This is very little red tape IMHO.

That being said, the Trustees really don't have jurisdiction over the
Council's technical decisions or their decisions on how to actually run
Gentoo.  This is a power the trustees could have, but it isn't one they
necessarily *do* have.  I have no idea if they would even want it and my
opinion doesn't matter a whole lot, since I would be in conflict of
interest in pretty much any decision.

 If it's only stupid and not harmful it will be solved naturally with
 the current structure by waiting for the next elections (either at the
 end of the term or because enough council members resigned due to the
 situation).

There's a huge difference between the Council doing something against
Gentoo and the Council doing something certain people don't agree with.
The former is completely intolerable while the latter is very likely to
happen with any decision the Council makes.  Some people will always
spout off conspiracy theories and their opinions on how they think
things should be, which is all fine and dandy except that it isn't how
things *are* currently.  If someone wants something changed, they can
very well work to get it changed.  Trying to force the Council to do
something via underhanded tactics or baseless accusations doesn't do
much.  Getting the community together does.

If the community decided that the Council is only allowed to hold
meetings on Thursday when the moon is full, we'd abide by it.

I just find this whole situation hysterical since you have so many
people saying the Council needs to grow a pair and actually try to
enact some good, and when we do, you hear a few vocal individuals
running around screaming like we killed their kitten.  So which is it?
Would you rather have a strong Council that is capable of making
decisions without having to worry about whether that decision is popular
or not, or would you rather have a weak Council that cannot do anything
without prior developer approval, completely castrating their abilities
to enact change for fear of being removed from office?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 08:19 -0400, Seemant Kulleen wrote:
 On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:29 +0200, Denis Dupeyron wrote:
  Why not simply allow trustees to veto a council decision ? This does
  not give trustees enough power to be a second council, but would
  permit them to stop something that they believe will damage Gentoo.
  This is very little red tape IMHO.
 
 I believe that the trustees do not necessarily have any jurisdiction
 over the council.  They are concerned with legal type matters that
 affect the foundation, not with technical and political things within
 Gentoo itself.  I could be wrong about this, but that's how I read it.

Correct.  Currently, the Council (or anyone, really) would have to do
something to endanger our copyrights, trademarks, or our legal standing
for the trustees to do anything.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 14:09:12 +0200
Wernfried Haas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 09:26:41AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
  having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content
  of those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
  Council meeting logs be made public would be useful, with a waiver
  that the Council can have a secret meeting if it officially
  announces that it is doing so?
 
 If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
 them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
 on the next election.

Which is all very well, but it's kind of hard to evaluate the
effectiveness of Council members and the Council as a whole if they're
doing things behind everyone's backs and making horrible threats to try
to prevent people from publishing logs of their goings on...

I mean, what're people supposed to think from the likes of these?

Kugelfang there have been, at that time, 6 council members plus one
non council members in that channel
...
Kugelfang ciaranm: and that's all i'll say regarding that, until the
rest allows me to speak about the contents of that meeting
...
Kugelfang i really wish i could publish this thing

and:

wolf31o2|mobile we're entrusted by certain outside parties to not
disclose things that are spoken to us in confidence

tove wolf31o2|mobile: how are outside parties involved in our coc? i
don't understand this. can you please elaborate on it?

wolf31o2|mobile tove: no, I cannot elaborate, nor do I care to... just
realize that Gentoo has responsibilities to outside parties that
provide services and goods to Gentoo... we have relationships that
we would like to maintain... and that's about all I can say (or
have time to say... I am at work)

I mean, when it's reached the point where certain Council members are
threatening to pull each others' access if anyone goes public with
whatever it was that was discussed, *something* has to be done... The
details can remain private if necessary, but publishing a brief summary
along the lines of we discussed x and y and decided z *has* to be
less harmful than the current mess where people are deleting their work
and considering resignation because of whatever it is the Council are
up to...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Matti Bickel

Ciaran McCreesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
  them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
  on the next election.
 
 Which is all very well, but it's kind of hard to evaluate the
 effectiveness of Council members and the Council as a whole if they're
 doing things behind everyone's backs and making horrible threats to try
 to prevent people from publishing logs of their goings on...

Please evaluate the council's effectivness based on their achievements.
And no, secret meetings don't count towards that.

Seriously, i understand that the council should be as transparent as
possible, but there are issues that need some confidential handling.

 threatening to pull each others' access if anyone goes public with
 whatever it was that was discussed, *something* has to be done...

Um, that's hard to say without the thing in the open. I just trust the
involved parties to have enough insight to bring anything that would
harm gentoo to public scrunity (and following outcry).

 The details can remain private if necessary, but publishing a brief
 summary along the lines of we discussed x and y and decided z *has*

Um, wait. Council *decisions*, as long as they're affecting gentoo's
ways, must be out in the open. We won't end up with National Security
Letters to infra or something (and i trust there'll be an uproar, if it
ever reaches that point). Say, if the council decides to ice a project,
how can that be kept secret?
-- 
Regards, Matti Bickel
Homepage: http://www.rateu.de
Encrypted/Signed Email preferred


pgpSbg74jRcs0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 14:51 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 details can remain private if necessary, but publishing a brief summary
 along the lines of we discussed x and y and decided z *has* to be
 less harmful than the current mess where people are deleting their work
 and considering resignation because of whatever it is the Council are
 up to...

Except we *did* do that when we first published what we'd done with the
CoC.  Just because ti didn't have a shiny Meeting Summary in the topic
doesn't mean it wasn't the outcome of the meeting.  You know the topic
of discussion.  You know the outcome.  The details are private.  Even
you admit that is fine.

I mean, all this the Council is hiding something conspiracy theory is
bullshit.  How about when I hang out with Mike Doty and we discuss
Gentoo stuff?  Is that some super-secret meeting where we're trying to
circumvent some supposed requirement for transparency?  Of course not...
If the individual members of the Council feel like getting together and
discussing something, we're perfectly free to do that.  We don't have to
tell you what we discussed.  We're allowed to bounce ideas off each
other, especially when discussing things said to us in confidence.  I
understand that some people disagree with this, but this is a simple
fact of life.  There are going to be cases where people will say
something to someone in confidence and not include everyone in on it.
There's nothing we can do about that and there is plenty of precedence
for it.  When someone asks me not to betray their trust, I won't.
That's just how I am.  If others feel that their knowing stuff that is
honestly insignificant in detail since the end result turned out to be
the same and done publicly, well, they're more than welcome to run for
Council, themselves, but if they were to divulge such information after
being privy to it, disciplinary action would *need* to be taken to
retain the trustworthiness of Gentoo as a whole.

Now, that being said, we *did* have a *public* meeting about our
discussion, and all *decisions* we made were 100% public.  I'm sorry if
anyone feels like they were slighted by not being included in the
discussions prior to the public meeting, but there's nothing anywhere
that says that we have to have all of our discussions in public or even
made publicly available.  We *do* have to have all of our decisions made
public, obviously.

Personally, I'd just assume make the thing public just to shut people
up, but I've really grown to have a stance where I'm less likely to give
in to this sort of pressure, since it will do nothing more but prove
that being a whiny bitch and trying to pressure people into doing
something will get people what they want.  I surely don't want to set
*that* precedent.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:47:37 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I mean, all this the Council is hiding something conspiracy theory
 is bullshit.

Then why are certain Council members, you included, threatening to
remove other Council members' and Gentoo developers' access if logs of
whatever it was that occurred are published? What could possibly have
been discussed related to the CoC that this level of threat is
necessary or appropriate? Why are certain Council members claiming that
if anyone disagrees with them they will soon not have a Gentoo email
address?

Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
log a secret...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
 because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
 log a secret...

The log contains information that was given to us in confidence.  How
much plainer do I have to make it?  We can not, and WILL NOT break that
trust.  It really is that simple.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Josh Saddler

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
 On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
 because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
 log a secret...
 
 The log contains information that was given to us in confidence.  How
 much plainer do I have to make it?  We can not, and WILL NOT break that
 trust.  It really is that simple.

Here's how it appears to someone reading all this, though:

Ciaran *already knows* what's going on, which means that some person(s)
who *were* privy to those meetings have talked, plain and simple. If
that's true, then the information is out one way or another, and now the
Council can decide if they want to talk about it first or let someone
who wasn't actually at those meetings to divulge all the details.

I guess it comes down to the trust you expect the Gentoo developers who
voted for you in the first place to have in you against the trust the
council members have in each other. This isn't a matter of throwing
someone to the wolves, but consider the rest of the trust. :)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 09:04 -0700, Josh Saddler wrote:
 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
  On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 16:00 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
  Honestly, the only reason there is any suggestion of a conspiracy is
  because of the threats being made by certain people to keep a certain
  log a secret...
  
  The log contains information that was given to us in confidence.  How
  much plainer do I have to make it?  We can not, and WILL NOT break that
  trust.  It really is that simple.
 
 Here's how it appears to someone reading all this, though:
 
 Ciaran *already knows* what's going on, which means that some person(s)
 who *were* privy to those meetings have talked, plain and simple. If
 that's true, then the information is out one way or another, and now the
 Council can decide if they want to talk about it first or let someone
 who wasn't actually at those meetings to divulge all the details.

Well, from what I can gather, he only *thinks* he knows what was going
on and he's filled in the blanks himself with whatever ideas he's come
up with on his own.  If he really does have the logs, he wouldn't be
spouting off at the mouth since he would know that there's nothing
damning in there, at all.

 I guess it comes down to the trust you expect the Gentoo developers who
 voted for you in the first place to have in you against the trust the
 council members have in each other. This isn't a matter of throwing
 someone to the wolves, but consider the rest of the trust. :)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.  Are you saying that
Gentoo developers would lose trust in us because we are keeping our word
to people who spoke to us in confidence?  Are you referring to a
potential leak?

As I said, I will not betray the trust put in me.  If someone says
something in confidence to me, it'll stay that way.  I cannot speak for
all of the other Council members, but I put the same level of trust in
them to do the same.  If one of them really has taken private
conversations and made them public, then we really do have a problem and
we need to address it, because that can severely damage Gentoo as a
whole very easily.  If nobody trusts us anymore, why will they support
us?  Simple.  They won't.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Mike Doty

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
 Mike Doty wrote:
 apparent decline of QA in our packages.
 
 Anyone got numbers for that? Talking opinions, as in the SCM discussion,
 isn't real meaningful.
 
 Thanks,
 Donnie
What metric would you use?  the number of stages tried against a live
tree before one can install?  the number of companies leaving gentoo for
another distro? bugs? mailing list posts? number of users?

I don't know of a good metric for what you ask.  Here's what I do know:
1) a QA team was formed in 06
2) QA has not visibly improved since then.  To the outsider, it looks
like it's gotten worse.

- --
===
Mike Doty  kingtaco -at- gentoo.org
Gentoo Council
Gentoo Infrastructure
Gentoo/AMD64 Strategic Lead
GPG: E1A5 1C9C 93FE F430 C1D6  F2AF 806B A2E4 19F4 AE05
===
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.2 (GNU/Linux)

iQCVAwUBRhUk0oBrouQZ9K4FAQLY0QP/fa1wU/4yJsc7eY5m/GVCrsJPNYreQf70
JxnWDBfu1bCn6byGjYnRb5rHc0MIJ6BfwxEm1cD6KKF89fRIG4RxZyzGDZd3ISnv
m5tkhjHnl4EQHJyGHI/Jh5SQomFNDZJBtoRLP0YHuejCfrd6YjXoLd/PGMKogBg1
LSlthDzxrmw=
=qj95
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:04:09 -0700
Josh Saddler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Here's how it appears to someone reading all this, though:
 
 Ciaran *already knows* what's going on, which means that some
 person(s) who *were* privy to those meetings have talked, plain and
 simple. If that's true, then the information is out one way or
 another, and now the Council can decide if they want to talk about it
 first or let someone who wasn't actually at those meetings to divulge
 all the details.

No, I don't know what's going on exactly -- I only have access to what
people have said in public, and even then I'm not watching most of the
IRC channels in which such things are usually said. What I do know:

I know that there's a log involving a conversation between four or five
Council members and one or two non-Council members that certain Council
members are trying extremely hard to keep secret.

I know that topics discussed in this log include the Code of Conduct
and Gentoo sponsors, including OSL, and that it goes far beyond a
private conversation.

I know that at least one Council member would rather that this log were
published.

I know that at kingtaco and wolf31o2 have made threats along the lines
of if you screw us over we will remove your access, including to a
fellow Council member.

I know that at least one Gentoo developer is seriously considering
resigning because of what the Council have been doing on this, and that
several more have expressed extreme dissatisfaction at the way the
Council is handling things.

I know that the person responsible for the CoC is no longer involved
with it because of the Council's actions.

I know that at least one Council member has made claims to the effect
of if we don't get our way with this, Gentoo will be dead within a
week, and that you can disagree all you want, but you won't have an
@gentoo.org address if you do.

What I *don't* know is what the heck the Council has done to get Gentoo
into such a mess, if those claims are true. Or, if they're not, I don't
know how Council members can get away with making the kind of threats
they are making.

Now, to resolve this... Why don't the people involved get together and
publish a several paragraph summary of what was discussed? They can
agree to leave out anything that really is sensitive, but since the
majority of the log presumably isn't, it would be good to see a public
summary.

 I guess it comes down to the trust you expect the Gentoo developers
 who voted for you in the first place to have in you against the trust
 the council members have in each other. This isn't a matter of
 throwing someone to the wolves, but consider the rest of the trust. :)

It kind of stops becoming a matter of trust when Council members that
also have infra powers make threats about removing other Council
members' access...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:24:06 -0400
Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Well, from what I can gather, he only *thinks* he knows what was going
 on and he's filled in the blanks himself with whatever ideas he's come
 up with on his own.  If he really does have the logs, he wouldn't be
 spouting off at the mouth since he would know that there's nothing
 damning in there, at all.

I know that you and kingtaco threatened to remove a fellow Council
member's access if he didn't go along with you on whatever it was you
were discussing. If there's nothing damning in there, why would you do
such a thing?

 I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.  Are you saying that
 Gentoo developers would lose trust in us because we are keeping our
 word to people who spoke to us in confidence?  Are you referring to a
 potential leak?

There is nothing stopping you from posting a several paragraph summary
of whatever it was that was being discussed. Leave gaps for
confidential things as appropriate, but don't use it as an excuse for
burying the whole thing as you're trying to do here.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
 vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
 Gentoo dev list to see.

another one i had mentioned earlier:
 - a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public archives ... two years ?
-mike


pgpWtl3EG7L68.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Danny van Dyk

Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:09 schrieb Wernfried Haas:
 If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
 them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
 on the next election.
Especially as there are council members who don't rely like any privacy 
in that at all. vapier comes to my mind there :-D

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thursday 05 April 2007, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
 Unfortunately, what the GLEP doesn't do is prevent the Council from
 having secret meetings and refusing to discuss not only the content of
 those meetings but even the topic. Perhaps a requirement that any
 Council meeting logs be made public would be useful, with a waiver
 that the Council can have a secret meeting if it officially announces
 that it is doing so?

what exactly does this solve ?  nothing ?  we go from having meetings nobody 
knows about where discussions happen that no one sees to having meetings 
everyone knows about where discussions happen that no one sees ... the only 
thing that comes from this is now people have more things to refer to vaguely 
to support lame hypothetical sitautions

ive got a better idea Ciaran, stop spreading FUD ... i do believe we have 
something now that says purposefully spreading FUD is a no no
-mike


pgpTlO1F2WVYB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread William L. Thomson Jr.

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
  vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
  Gentoo dev list to see.
 
 another one i had mentioned earlier:
  - a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public archives ... two years ?

That's seems like a reasonable time frame. Any information would be
outdated at that time, and not have any effect over current issues.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Danny van Dyk

Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 21:20 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
 On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
  vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
  Gentoo dev list to see.

 another one i had mentioned earlier:
  - a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public archives ... two
 years ? -mike
What happened to 1 year?

Danny
-- 
Danny van Dyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo/AMD64 Project, Gentoo Scientific Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 22:15 +0200, Danny van Dyk wrote:
 Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 14:09 schrieb Wernfried Haas:
  If they want to have sekrit meetings with sekrit handshakes, let
  them. If enough people think this is not acceptable, they'll be gone
  on the next election.
 Especially as there are council members who don't rely like any privacy 
 in that at all. vapier comes to my mind there :-D

I don't like it, either.  I understand that there are sometimes
requirements on keeping things private, but I'm all for doing everything
as publicly as possible.  It keeps complete wastes of time like this
current thread from cropping up as easily, for one.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

On Thursday 05 April 2007, Danny van Dyk wrote:
 Am Donnerstag, 5. April 2007 21:20 schrieb Mike Frysinger:
  On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
   If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
   vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
   Gentoo dev list to see.
 
  another one i had mentioned earlier:
   - a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public archives ... two
  years ?

 What happened to 1 year?

i'm fine with 1 week, but if people want to argue lower ...
-mike


pgp4YAlgmVwkl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Ned Ludd

On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
  If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
  vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
  Gentoo dev list to see.
 


 another one i had mentioned earlier:
  - a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public archives ... two years ?

I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core 
that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they 
were ever going to be published publicly I would of never sent them.

-- 
Ned Ludd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Denis Dupeyron


On 4/5/07, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I just find this whole situation hysterical since you have so many
people saying the Council needs to grow a pair and actually try to
enact some good, and when we do, you hear a few vocal individuals
running around screaming like we killed their kitten.  So which is it?


Why would the council need to grow a pair when it already has
SpanKY's ;o) I only proposed the veto thing because I felt that it
could be a good compromise to reassure those devs who fall for the
conspiracy theories, so that they feel safe and get back to work. I
never believed the council would realistically do something that would
harm Gentoo. I'm sorry for the confusion if any.


Would you rather have a strong Council that is capable of making
decisions without having to worry about whether that decision is popular
or not, or would you rather have a weak Council that cannot do anything
without prior developer approval, completely castrating their abilities
to enact change for fear of being removed from office?


Agreed, here. There was one vote last summer when we collectively
decided that the current council members were the best for the job.
And that's all we need until next summer. I have been reading
carefully a lot of emails and irclogs for some time, especially during
the recent events, and I must say that I'm very pleased with the way
things went, and how people (of the council and devrel mainly)
interacted. While I'm not 100% satisfied with the outcome, which may
be a sure sign the right decisions were made, I certainly won't
complain.

Denis.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Petteri Räty

Ned Ludd kirjoitti:
 On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 15:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 On Sunday 01 April 2007, Mike Frysinger wrote:
 If you have something you'd wish for us to chat about, maybe even
 vote on, let us know !  Simply reply to this e-mail for the whole
 Gentoo dev list to see.
 
 
 another one i had mentioned earlier:
  - a time frame on moving gentoo-core to public archives ... two years ?
 
 I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core 
 that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they 
 were ever going to be published publicly I would of never sent them.
 

We don't have to decide to open up all the old archives but instead we
can decide that posts from now on will be made public after X amount of
time has passed.

Regards,
Petteri

--
Gentoo/Recruiters lead
Gentoo/Java lead



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April

2007-04-05 Thread Wernfried Haas

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:18:40PM -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
 I object and hope this is never done. There are things said on core 
 that I do not wish to be public. I've sent mails myself that if they 
 were ever going to be published publicly I would of never sent them.

As far i remember the idea was only to make mails public from whenever
this applies, not the ones sent before. So you can still stop sending
your weekly goat pics once that happens. :-]

cheers,
Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org


pgpRjeCV5NaCu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-dev] Monthly Gentoo Council Reminder for April