Add Sep & Oct meetings, as tentative

[debian-ctte.git] / meetings / 20150429 / debian-ctte.2015-04-29-17.06.log.txt

17:06:06 <hartmans> #startmeeting
17:06:06 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed Apr 29 17:06:06 2015 UTC.  The chair is hartmans. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
17:06:06 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
17:06:09 <Mithrandir> right
17:06:20 <OdyX> #Yay
17:06:33 <Mithrandir> I'm here, Tollef Fog Heen
17:06:44 <OdyX> #topic Who is here?
17:06:51 <hartmans> Sam hartman
17:06:52 <OdyX> I'm here, Didier Raboud
17:06:55 <bdale> Bdale Garbee
17:07:00 <keithp> Keith Packard
17:07:29 <Mithrandir> I suspect hartmans has to do #topic and such for it to register
17:07:43 <hartmans> Really? ugh then that was a poor choice
17:07:51 <hartmans> for me to start
17:07:52 <bdale> don't worry about it
17:07:57 <bdale> you wanted to start with the menu topic, right?
17:08:04 <bdale> let's just get on with that
17:08:13 <Mithrandir> next meeting first?  Or should we punt that to email?
17:08:20 <Mithrandir> (I'm fine with either)
17:08:33 <bdale> punt to email
17:08:36 <hartmans> ok.
17:08:47 <hartmans> #topic #741573 menu systems and mime-support
17:08:49 <ansgar> hartmans: (I think you can #chair someone-else)
17:09:14 <hartmans> #chair Mithrandir
17:09:14 <MeetBot> Current chairs: Mithrandir hartmans
17:09:21 <bdale> cool
17:09:29 <bdale> keithp: you have update on the menu thingy?
17:09:38 <OdyX> #action Defer next meeting discussion to email
17:09:49 <keithp> I've done nothing useful on this at all, I'm afraid
17:10:03 <hartmans> After our last discussion I emailed Charles
17:10:17 <hartmans> He's not happy with the approach we've been taking with Keith's proposal.
17:10:34 <hartmans> Basically he argues that we should evaluate the question he asked.
17:10:47 <hartmans> I tend to support that, and so I looked into what the formal policy process is.
17:11:06 <keithp> It's certainly a smaller step, which generally seems like a good idea
17:11:10 <hartmans> The process document in current debian-policy is dated after the bug was referred to us.
17:11:21 <hartmans> However, I think it would be reasonable to use their current process to evaluate this issue.
17:11:43 <hartmans> It's actually fairly well written; it is a rough consensus process and defines a standard for a presumption of consensus.
17:11:57 <hartmans> I wrote up a proposed way forward.
17:12:16 <hartmans> We basically check and see if they followed their process, but also if there are any outstanding substantive technical objections.
17:12:35 <hartmans> Giving vorlon and Keith if they like an opportunity to raise technical issues.
17:13:09 <hartmans> I am strongly in favor of somehow respecting their process and the work of those who tried to follow it.
17:13:22 <keithp> Right, I agree that following their process is a reasonable way forward, with the TC only stepping in if they aren't actually playing by their own rules?
17:13:32 <hartmans> The big objections I thought we had (1) that it was not a rough consensus process and (2) there was no efficient way to tell whether they followed it seem not to apply.
17:13:36 <hartmans> thoughts?
17:14:16 <bdale> too much time has passed, so without going back and reviewing chat logs and emails I can't easily confirm whether that's what I think the problems were or not.  at some point, my own focus shifted to trying to understand what the right thing was for the project for the future
17:14:34 <dondelelcaro> Don Armstrong
17:14:37 <dondelelcaro> sorry; lagging
17:15:01 <hartmans> #chair dondelelcaro
17:15:01 <MeetBot> Current chairs: Mithrandir dondelelcaro hartmans
17:15:02 <OdyX> The problem I have with arguing that too much time has passed is that we're at fault here…
17:15:17 <keithp> bdale: the original issue was that a small step was proposed, what looked like rough consensus achieved, but that step wasn't taken
17:15:38 <bdale> ok
17:15:50 <OdyX> And that gives power to those "referring to the TC" as a way to "play for time"
17:15:57 <hartmans> My understanding is that Bill claimed technical objections but declined to enumerate them nor to participate in resolving them at the time.
17:16:05 <bdale> OdyX: not trying to shirk responsibility, just trying to suggest that for me, at least, spending too much time trying to replay history instead of working on forward-oriented solution isn't very useful
17:16:08 <Mithrandir> hartmans: that is my understanding too.
17:16:15 <OdyX> bdale: I agree with this
17:16:20 <hartmans> He had enough time to raise a problem but admitted that he didn't have cycles to resolve the problem he had raised.
17:16:45 <OdyX> fwiw, I think the end-result is a skipped release…
17:16:48 <hartmans> bdale: I'd appreciate it if you would look at the specific proposal I sent to the bug.
17:16:55 <bdale> looking
17:17:06 <hartmans> I totally hear you about not replaying history.  However, the way they've written the process I think all we need to do is
17:17:14 <hartmans> 1) ask the seconds if they believed there was rough consensus
17:17:17 <ansgar> hartmans: The ctte bug or the policy bug?
17:17:22 <hartmans> 2) make a call for objections.
17:17:29 <hartmans> In particular, I don't think we need to even read the entire discussion.
17:17:41 <hartmans> ctte bug
17:17:58 <OdyX> aka #741573
17:18:14 <Mithrandir> hartmans: I think the procedure you're outlining in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=741573 sounds good.
17:18:45 <bdale> can 707851 be summarized as "drop menu support from must to desired"?
17:18:48 <dondelelcaro> so what would the CTTE decision look like? are we going to implement the original decision? or?
17:18:51 <bdale> it's a long thread to read right now
17:19:16 <hartmans> Don: well, that would depend on whether for example vorlon raises an objection.
17:19:31 <hartmans> I'd assume he will because he thinks the proposal is broken.  I have not heard his reasoning for why it's broken.
17:20:12 <bdale> so a way forward is to draft a TC resolution stating what at least one of us thinks is the right way forward, and invite alternative choices to be drafted
17:20:26 <dondelelcaro> that seems reasonable to me
17:20:38 <hartmans> I'd be happy to go confirm seconds, and send mail to seconds and call for technical objections as I described in my proposal if people think those good steps.
17:20:49 <dondelelcaro> our original direction was to try to do this entire step using the policy process
17:20:53 <bdale> hartmans: your approach outlined in 741573 would be fine with me, fwiw, but to state more than that I'd have to re-read all of 707851 to make sure I understand what it ended up saying
17:20:58 <dondelelcaro> without actually having the TC decide policy
17:21:11 <OdyX> I think we should answer the question that was asked to us, which was raised by Charles about the process, and not by Bill about the menu issue…
17:21:40 <dondelelcaro> OdyX: I'm not sure it's the TC's job to figure out the policy editors process, though
17:22:00 <ansgar> hartmans: I am a bit confused. On one hand you suggest to just decide "was plicy process followed", but then take into account non-process bits as well?
17:22:04 <hartmans> dondelelcaro: fortunately they've done that for us.
17:22:08 <bdale> The relevant line in Charles' original request is "I am
17:22:09 <bdale> asking you to overrule Bill and let me or the Policy Editors upload an updated
17:22:09 <bdale> version of the Policy containing our changes."
17:22:13 <hartmans> Their process document is fairly clear
17:22:42 <bdale> given history up to now, if we want to address the original question, I'd be inclined to say "yes, go for it"
17:22:55 <OdyX> bdale: me too.
17:23:04 <OdyX> Bill hasn't commented on the tech-ctte bug at all.
17:23:05 <dondelelcaro> so I think that then the question is do we want to set the policy as recommended by the policy editors, or some other policy
17:23:15 <ansgar> hartmans: That is, if you just want to make sure the process was followed (which I think is fine), shouldn't any objections just be raised by TC members as part of that process (w/o acting as the TC)?
17:23:18 <hartmans> ansgar: No, part of the process is whether there is rough consensus.  Part of knowing that is whether there are technical objections.  We could limit it to wehther there were technical objections active at the time, but my experience is you always regret doing that in situations like this.
17:23:30 <dondelelcaro> and we can set a deadline for the other policy options to be brought up, and do a vote, I guess?
17:23:34 <bdale> dondelelcaro: that's the question that vorlon and Diziet both got very involved in discussing
17:23:37 <keithp> yeah, we've essentially already agreed that the TC should not be deciding policy in this case
17:23:44 <hartmans> O, yes objections should be raised not as TC members but during the call for objections
17:23:48 <hartmans> made to debian-policy.
17:23:57 <hartmans> but tc members should be able to raise objections like anyone else.
17:24:12 <ansgar> hartmans: Okay. Thanks for explaining.
17:24:23 <bdale> anyone who says "I object" then won't elaborate is merely exerting stop energy and must be ignored after some reasonable waiting period
17:24:26 <dondelelcaro> or the alternative (which is what we've been doing until now) was to work for a consensus process which resolved Bill's, vorlon's and Diziet's objections
17:24:55 <hartmans> dondelelcaro I will vote anything phrased as do we want to accept policy x or y below further discussion.
17:24:56 <keithp> dondelelcaro: I'm pretty sure we can't get complete consensus on this as there are essential conflicts in their goals
17:24:59 <bdale> dondelelcaro: which got bogged down because none of us really want to be policy authors, right?
17:25:09 <dondelelcaro> bdale: right
17:25:54 <hartmans> Unfortunately I must run and catch a flight:-(
17:25:57 <dondelelcaro> hartmans: I don't understand how we can resolve this without setting policy, either through the normal policy process, or by setting it using the TC
17:25:58 <bdale> ok, so we've gone around in circles about this again for 15+ minutes
17:26:02 <dondelelcaro> yeah
17:26:06 <keithp> hartmans: thanks for your participation today!
17:26:25 <dondelelcaro> we need to set a deadline for this so things can move forward
17:26:25 <Mithrandir> hartmans: see you around.
17:26:30 <OdyX> hartmans: thanks!
17:26:35 <bdale> I think hartmans suggestion of honoring the policy process is spot on.  I think Charles request that we focus on the question originally asked is completely reasonable.
17:26:36 <keithp> dondelelcaro: what we can do is pick amongst the proposals already made?
17:26:41 <hartmans> don: would be happy to chat with you next week.
17:26:47 <ansgar> dondelelcaro: As I understand, hartmans wants to set policy via the regular process.
17:26:50 <dondelelcaro> hartmans: sure; have a safe flight!
17:27:07 <OdyX> hartmans: enjoy!
17:27:22 <dondelelcaro> keithp: yes; I think that would be a default option, and then other proposals could be made at that time
17:27:23 <ansgar> dondelelcaro: So the TC just has to decide if the way to change policy was followed, not what actual policy is.
17:27:33 <bdale> so, the two plausible actions I can see for the TC today are either to move towards agreeing with Charles on the original request, or refusing to take action tossing the ball back to policy.  any others?
17:27:34 <dondelelcaro> ansgar: we can't decide the former
17:28:18 <Mithrandir> bdale: is your first suggestion there basically what Sam's suggesting too?
17:28:21 <Mithrandir> or do you mean something else?
17:28:24 <ansgar> dondelelcaro: Not? "Make a decision when asked to"?
17:28:46 <bdale> I *think* so, but I'd have to read the rest of 707851 to confirm
17:28:52 <dondelelcaro> ansgar: all of the policy delegates would have to ask us to, I'd think
17:28:53 <keithp> Mithrandir: from my reading, what we would do is review the original bug and see what the 'correct' outcome of the stated process would have been
17:29:35 <bdale> dondelelcaro: I don't really agree with that .. requiring unanimous consent is overly empowering anyone trying to exert stop energy
17:30:09 <ansgar> dondelelcaro: Well, Bill hasn't objected to referring the question to the TC. So if any policy delegate is fine with it...
17:30:18 <dondelelcaro> bdale: right; I'm maybe just arguing semantics here... we should just decide the policy issue.
17:30:35 <dondelelcaro> and deal with the stop energy
17:31:16 <dondelelcaro> anyway, lets hash this out on the mailing list. We can after all have a ballot with all of these options if we'd like
17:31:38 <OdyX> I think we should decide on Charles' objection (probably towards agreeing with the policy change) and tackle the policy decision itself, if it becomes referred to us, after another policy round in between if needed.
17:32:23 <dondelelcaro> I disagree, but that's OK; that's why we can vote...
17:32:36 <OdyX> indeed. :)
17:32:51 <Mithrandir> ok, so, move on to next topic?
17:32:56 <dondelelcaro> does anyone object to a ballot with these options being drafted with an opportunity for additional options to be added?
17:33:13 <dondelelcaro> #action dondelelcaro to draft ballot with proposed options for menu system question resolution
17:33:28 <dondelelcaro> #topic #636783 constitution: super-majority bug
17:33:54 <OdyX> Didn't have time for any of these at all.
17:34:01 <dondelelcaro> last time, aba was going to champion these going forward; so I think we can move on unless someone has something to say about them now
17:34:14 <dondelelcaro> #topic #771070 Coordinate plan and requirements for cross toolchain packages in Debian
17:34:32 <dondelelcaro> this one I haven't done anything about; I need to re-ping everyone to see if they've published the plan yet
17:34:48 <dondelelcaro> #action dondelelcaro to ping everyone regarding plan being published
17:34:55 <dondelelcaro> #topic #750135 Maintainer of aptitude package
17:35:05 <helmut> dondelelcaro: if they did, the usual channels weren't used
17:35:12 <dondelelcaro> helmut: yeah
17:35:47 <dondelelcaro> I think we currently stand with following Christian's suggestion
17:35:55 <dondelelcaro> does anyone think we should do something else?
17:36:05 <OdyX> I've talked to bubulle about this one in private, and his message was basically that he needed an "agreement" that his plan was correct.
17:36:30 <dondelelcaro> right
17:36:41 <dondelelcaro> I think either hartmans or tfheen was going to draft a ballot for this
17:36:44 <OdyX> I stand to thinking that a full-blown resolution is overkill now that we've assessed that Daniel's MIA.
17:36:45 <Mithrandir> yeah, I don't think I'm going to follow through with my suggestion.  Better to just push for Sam's proposal.
17:37:06 <Mithrandir> I'm a bit sad this was essentially solved by somebody going MIA, though.
17:37:23 <Mithrandir> #action tfheen to coordinate with hartmans on ballot
17:37:24 <dondelelcaro> yeah; it's unfortunate
17:37:41 <Mithrandir> so we'll just roll that up and get it to a vote
17:37:41 <dondelelcaro> #topic Additional Business
17:37:46 <OdyX> so we're going with a ballot. Fair enough, but phrase it as neutral as possible then.
17:37:57 <dondelelcaro> #topic Additional Business
17:38:18 <Mithrandir> OdyX: we need to resolve the bug somehow, even if just by saying we're happy how the maintainers solved it.
17:38:39 <Mithrandir> I followed up about the release goals things.  That was me having misunderstood something, so no fire lurking.
17:38:50 <dondelelcaro> Mithrandir: cool
17:39:17 <dondelelcaro> the last thing was for hartmans re busybox-static, but I think since he's away, we can hold off on that
17:39:18 <OdyX> Mithrandir: yeah, that's a good point. But I think (given the MIA status) that there's consensus, so no need to use our hammer.
17:39:59 <dondelelcaro> OdyX: it's just that Christian has asked us to legitimize his decision, which is totally reasonable
17:40:02 <dondelelcaro> we can be the bad guys
17:40:42 <OdyX> yeah, I don't disagree that it's a reasonable outcome. :)
17:40:59 <dondelelcaro> hartmans has already sent the e-mail, but no response, so I think that's OK for the time being
17:41:04 <dondelelcaro> anything else from anyone?
17:41:13 <dondelelcaro> is anyone unhappy with this time slot for next month?
17:41:22 <keithp> works great for me at least
17:41:44 <Mithrandir> so May 27th?
17:41:47 <Mithrandir> would work for me
17:41:50 <OdyX> good for me
17:42:26 <dondelelcaro> Mithrandir: yeah
17:42:34 <dondelelcaro> I've updated the ics file with the next few meetings
17:42:41 <Mithrandir> coolie
17:42:52 <Mithrandir> anything else we need to cover for today?
17:43:13 <dondelelcaro> nothing on the agenda; does anyone else have anything?
17:43:50 <bdale> not me
17:44:06 <bdale> and thanks for keeping the ics file up to date, helps me a lot
17:44:18 * OdyX nods.
17:44:26 <bdale> ok, I'm gone
17:44:35 <dondelelcaro> #endmeeting