From 1a7df75d8ca3a2227f932762337c14d0ac7a7879 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Don Armstrong Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:39:05 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] add 20140227 meeting --- .../debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.log.txt | 215 ++++++++++++++++++ .../20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.txt | 115 ++++++++++ 2 files changed, 330 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meetings/20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.log.txt create mode 100644 meetings/20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.txt diff --git a/meetings/20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.log.txt b/meetings/20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fbcfd93 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,215 @@ +17:58:43 #startmeeting +17:58:43 Meeting started Thu Feb 27 17:58:43 2014 UTC. The chair is dondelelcaro. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. +17:58:43 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. +17:58:49 #topic Who is here? +17:58:53 Don Armstrong +17:58:55 Bdale Garbee +17:59:21 Keith Packard +17:59:22 Diziet, vorlon, aba: ping +17:59:32 Russ Allbery here. +18:00:00 vorlon was around earlier, I don't know about Diziet or aba +18:00:24 yeah, not sure either +18:00:45 HI +18:00:51 hi, rather +18:00:55 Steve Langasek +18:01:00 Colin Watson +18:01:12 cool; just missing Diziet and aba; I'll get started; hopefully they'll be along +18:01:15 #topic Next Meeting? +18:01:17 #topic Next Meeting? +18:01:46 currently the next meeting is scheduled for date -d 'Thu Mar 27 17:00:00 UTC 2014' +18:02:17 (I've moved it back an hour in UTC to account for DST) +18:02:19 I think that's an LF event week +18:02:19 I appear to have a work conflict that day/time, fwiw +18:02:49 ok; would the preceeding week work better? +18:02:52 yes, that's LF Collab Summit +18:02:59 previous week is better for me, yes +18:03:06 yes, me too +18:03:15 /aol +18:03:31 OK. I'll tenatively move it one week before (March 20th), and double check on the mailing list +18:03:37 good +18:03:48 #agreed tenatively move next meeting to date -d 'Thu Mar 20 17:00:00 UTC 2014' +18:04:06 I'm fine with either, but that's cool +18:04:09 #action dondelelcaro to check on mailing list if that's OK +18:04:11 topic #717076 Decide between libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg8 et al. +18:04:13 #topic #717076 Decide between libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg8 et al. +18:04:24 last action on this was +18:04:25 * ACTION: Diziet to draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a +18:04:25 transition plan (dondelelcaro, 18:05:17) +18:04:38 I could possibly have a go at that if Diziet is burned out on resolutions +18:04:54 he may well be +18:05:01 yeah; probably useful to get that moving forward +18:05:16 keithp: did you want to chime in since this was mostly before you joined the ctte? +18:05:16 even if Diziet wants to stab at it, collaborating in git is probably good enough +18:06:12 yeah, if Diziet doesn't turn up this evening then I'll check with him on it out of band +18:06:14 bdale: I read the history and a bunch of external commentary yesterday instead of fixing cmake +18:06:21 #action cjwatson to draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a transition plan (possibly in collaboration with Diziet) +18:06:45 links to any useful external commentary welcome +18:07:07 (I have the bug log and the roughly corresponding Ubuntu history easily enough to hand) +18:07:07 from my studies, the resolution I'd love to see is to back out libjpeg8 and offer only libjpeg62 APIs, but that seems unlikely :-) +18:07:37 that would allow us to switch from the ijg jpeg library to libjpeg-turbo knowing that we would not impact applications +18:08:08 yeah; I think what we're looking for here is a transition plan which enables that to happen +18:08:29 cool +18:08:29 but it's not really the CTTE's place to do the design work for that (though we can collaborate) +18:08:35 ok; moving on +18:08:37 #topic #636783 super-majority conflict; +18:09:00 * ACTION: Diziet to move forward with constitutional resolutions +18:09:00 (Diziet, 18:06:33) +18:09:02 this is Diziet again, I believe; this was explicitely put on hold until after the systemd stuff +18:09:05 right +18:09:08 right +18:09:11 indeed so +18:09:22 I suspect the resolutions might change given our recent experiences, too +18:09:25 so I'll just put it on him again, and we can ping this once things die down slightly +18:09:28 right +18:09:34 yep, happy to leave this pending +18:09:48 Agreed. +18:09:50 #action Diziet to move forward with constitutional resolutions on super-majority conflict eventually +18:09:53 It looked like there were separate resolutions for each of the sub-issues identified; can we work to bring the obvious ones up for a vote and pend the non-obvious? +18:10:15 we possibly can, although I think Diziet was trying to optimise for not putting the project through umpteen GRs +18:10:21 IIRC, Diziet had wanted to keep them bundled, yeah. +18:10:23 understood +18:10:47 right, since any constitutional mods require a GR, doing one for a collected set of agreed-upon changes seems wise +18:10:56 there may be a middle ground, not sure +18:11:09 at some point we should give up and get the 'finished' ones voted though +18:11:12 There are also new changes that have come up since we last talked through these, like the 2:1 supermajority on the TC override. +18:11:33 and the fail later no harm discussion +18:12:10 right +18:12:12 Oh hello. +18:12:15 Sorry I'm late. +18:12:18 Diziet: hi! +18:12:18 Diziet: no worries +18:12:20 Diziet: welcome! +18:12:59 Why isn't Tox in the Debian repos yet? +18:13:11 fsck_you: that's not really on topic here. +18:13:28 motion to abandon the harmful GNU/systemd/Linux base and rebase Debian on Plan 9 :^) +18:13:46 rdr: Plan9 is harmful +18:13:50 Diziet: did you want to comment on either the current or previous agenda items before we move on? +18:13:57 folks; if you don't have something to say which is on topic, please don't comment. +18:14:07 Just read the scrool. +18:14:11 No, that all sounds good. +18:14:17 cjwatson: Thanks for picking up the libjpeg thing. +18:14:33 And yes, the constitutional things need some more work now in the light of events. +18:14:46 ok .. let's pend that then, and move on? +18:14:54 ok; sounds good +18:14:56 Yes. +18:15:04 #agreed constituational ammendments need more work in light of events +18:15:10 #topic #727708 Initsystem coupling +18:15:19 I think this just needs vorlon to vote, and possibly not even that +18:15:27 I see he just has. +18:15:29 I have voted just now +18:15:35 ah; awesome +18:15:41 I haven't tallied the votes. Anyone done so and calculated what the answer is ? +18:15:59 IIRC, I think we need a casting vote. +18:16:03 bdale: I've been meaning to ask you to please expand upon your vote; you've voted one of the ballot options below FD, but have not participated in the drafting discussion +18:16:05 Schwartz = {L,N} +18:16:15 Maulkin: Thank you. +18:16:24 So it's up to Bdale to choose between L and N +18:16:28 right; if vorlon voted L > A, it's L and N +18:16:28 (unofficial etc, but I'm fairly sure it's right) +18:16:42 (my mail queue hasn't caught up with that yet) +18:16:52 dondelelcaro: he voted L > A > N > FD, yes +18:16:54 bdale: I think any member of the TC voting an option below FD warrants an explanation (keithp also voted L below FD, but he also gave his own reasoning in the bug) +18:17:01 dondelelcaro: Correct, it was LANfd +18:17:10 vorlon: yes, thanks for remembering +18:17:26 vorlon: I thought I was adequately on record as saying that I thought the L option(s) were a bad idea, but I guess I can cough up some text about that if you wish +18:18:14 bdale: I went through your posts last week before you voted and spectacularly failed to predict your vote, FWIW +18:18:18 bdale: well, earlier iterations of the text were buggier, and the discussion was meant to suss out and fix those bugs +18:18:21 bdale: To me, particularly given the presence of N, FD means "we should discuss this some more and then we can vote on something better" +18:19:24 Diziet: right .. if it would make everyone happier, it sounds like I could re-vote putting L ahead of FD .. it won't change the outcome +18:19:28 and particularly considering that rra has said with his policy hat that he thinks this is a policy question he wants to punt to the TC, I think we're not doing our job to decide for "N" +18:19:37 03Don Armstrong 05master c517da4 06debian-ctte 10727708_initsystem/coupling_votes.txt add Steve's vote +18:19:54 if I'm forced to use a casting vote again, I won't vote for L +18:20:09 right, it seems it doesn't change the outcome since L has already passed quorum, but we want to know your reasoning so we can persuade you it's wrong ;) +18:20:38 I think I said that more about the original init system discussion, but possibly not. If I did say that, I think I'm wrong, at least partially -- I feel like we can take at least a good first cut at a Policy draft. +18:20:52 OpenRC is the best, and you should choose OpenRC. +18:20:53 (or, alternatively, be persuaded in turn) +18:20:54 We may have to send it back to the TC again if we can't reach consensus, but at least there's a fair bit of work that can be done before that happens. +18:21:10 heh +18:21:40 I guess we get to go round this in some other forum, then +18:21:45 (with different hats on) +18:21:53 rra: ok. In that case, I'm not particularly happy with an outcome where the TC has refused to give advice, but at least we know the way forward. +18:21:53 Note that the Policy discussion is different. +18:22:13 it is, though it will doubtless have a good chunk of common content +18:22:14 Among other things, Policy doesn't try to predict the future, which changes the shape of some parts of the conversation. +18:22:21 rra: OpenRC is slow, or if run in parallel, unstable. +18:23:18 The assumption generally followed in Policy drafting is that Policy says what you should do *right now*, and if what you should do changes, Policy will change then. +18:23:25 * vorlon nods +18:23:31 That's not 100%, but that's mostly the way Policy reads today. +18:23:52 So part of what we've been talking about in the TC context would naturally be punted by Policy normally. +18:24:24 well, the two policy changes I see that we could make right now are: +18:24:38 - generalize from sysvinit to "the default init system" +18:25:00 - cover the expectation of compatibility with non-default init systems (which seems like it would become a policy "should") +18:25:18 Can I suggest that this discussion should not be here and not now ? +18:25:21 but probably no need to discuss this in detail here and now; should we move on? +18:25:24 vorlon: by 'we', are you talking policy editors or tc? +18:25:24 Thanks. +18:25:37 Yeah, this is going to be easier to cover in email. +18:25:41 keithp: "we" being those involved in the policy process, not just editors +18:25:44 yeah; I think so +18:25:49 rra: that's very much along the lines of what I was getting at in e.g. <20140220143106.GM6397@riva.ucam.org> anyway +18:26:05 * cjwatson catches up with Diziet's admonition +18:26:13 I do need to warn that work is actively on fire, so while I'm going to put a high priority on making time for this, I'm going to struggle with responsiveness. +18:26:19 so we're agreed that we should figure out this issue in the normal policy process; right? +18:26:35 we're agreed that this is the way forward ;) +18:26:42 I think I have an action to communicate a casting vote with rationale in email +18:26:49 bdale: Yes. +18:26:59 I'm hoping that some of the other Policy editors will have time to help with that part of the process. +18:27:01 #action bdale to communicate casting vote with rationale in e-mail to 727708 +18:27:06 I'm very happy to see "the action" move to the policy process +18:27:08 Not that I've asked. :) +18:27:24 and I'm actually quite supportive of pro-multi-init-system-support ending up there +18:27:36 #agreed move coupling decision to normal policy process +18:27:52 ok; anything more here? +18:28:05 #topic Additional Business +18:28:39 dondelelcaro: did we skip #681419? Or was that part of the GR issues? +18:28:41 I don't personally have anything else +18:28:49 oh, I think we did, actually +18:28:56 #topic #681419 Depends: foo | foo-nonfree +18:28:59 going backwards +18:29:03 last action on 681419 was +18:29:04 * ACTION: vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | +18:29:04 foo-nonfree (Diziet, 18:07:40) +18:29:08 man +18:29:10 heh +18:29:11 ancient history +18:29:14 which I think vorlon said at the time was blocked on init system fires +18:29:22 Yes. +18:29:29 yes, I'll make time to get back to that ASAP now +18:29:40 #action vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | foo-nonfree +18:29:48 it looked like the TC had reasonable consensus on the correct wording for the change +18:29:55 (where "ASAP" is probably measured in a small number of weeks) +18:30:06 heh +18:30:10 vorlon: I'll come extract text from you with beer as needed +18:30:24 keithp: heh, I really just need to write the email +18:30:37 we were approaching agreement on ballot text I think, but I don't think we had consensus on our preferences +18:30:38 beer is unlikely to help this :) +18:30:51 but it's been a while +18:31:11 it has +18:31:17 however for some reason ballots without 100% consensus going in no longer seem quite so scary +18:31:32 cjwatson: ok, I may have not captured all of the history then, I'll go re-read the threads +18:31:54 ok; anything else here? +18:32:09 #topic Additional Business +18:32:10 right, the options are understood, it was a matter of others wanting me to explain why I disagreed with the option they had been persuaded to go with +18:32:15 cjwatson: let's just try to avoid even splits, ok? +18:32:16 cjwatson: It would perhaps have been helpful if we had tried out our non-consensus ballot process on something less important and emotionally charged. +18:32:22 yes quite +18:32:30 but it's the tc, we don't have a lot of that +18:32:33 bdale: we could've avoided an even split by keeping the ctte at 7 a bit onger ;-) +18:32:48 vorlon: and make me miss all of the fun? +18:32:48 Yeah, amen to that. We're too good at coming up with consensus and don't stress-test our edge cases much. :) +18:33:25 if I'd been able to predict the future, I might not have pushed to fill the open seat .. but I'm still glad we did it, since I think having the maximum degree of representation of the project on the ctte is important when we're deciding on things +18:33:25 I have just sent an email to #636783 about the remaining constitutional issues. +18:33:29 awesome +18:34:05 Perhaps we should also suggest changing the max size to 9. +18:34:27 Although even 8 felt like it was getting trickily large. +18:34:29 an odd number seems preferable to routine exercise of a casting vote +18:34:38 Anyway, anyone who feels it would help, take it to email. +18:34:48 On the FD majority thing, we should (and by we, I mean the project, not just the TC) probably take a look at the voting proposals on debian-vote; one of those tweaks may work better than changing > to >=. I'm not sure. +18:35:58 do we have anything else before I stop? +18:36:02 no here +18:36:05 I don't think so. +18:36:06 nothing here +18:36:08 * rra has nothing else. +18:36:15 not I +18:36:44 nope +18:36:48 #endmeeting \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/meetings/20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.txt b/meetings/20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1acc34c --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20140227/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.txt @@ -0,0 +1,115 @@ +==================== +#debian-ctte Meeting +==================== + + +Meeting started by dondelelcaro at 17:58:43 UTC. The full logs are +available at +http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2014/debian-ctte.2014-02-27-17.58.log.html +. + + + +Meeting summary +--------------- +* Who is here? (dondelelcaro, 17:58:49) + +* Next Meeting? (dondelelcaro, 18:01:15) + +* Next Meeting? (dondelelcaro, 18:01:17) + * AGREED: tenatively move next meeting to date -d 'Thu Mar 20 17:00:00 + UTC 2014' (dondelelcaro, 18:03:48) + * ACTION: dondelelcaro to check on mailing list if that's OK + (dondelelcaro, 18:04:09) + +* #717076 Decide between libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg8 et al. + (dondelelcaro, 18:04:13) + * ACTION: cjwatson to draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a + transition plan (possibly in collaboration with Diziet) + (dondelelcaro, 18:06:21) + +* #636783 super-majority conflict; (dondelelcaro, 18:08:37) + * ACTION: Diziet to move forward with constitutional resolutions on + super-majority conflict eventually (dondelelcaro, 18:09:50) + * AGREED: constituational ammendments need more work in light of + events (dondelelcaro, 18:15:04) + +* #727708 Initsystem coupling (dondelelcaro, 18:15:10) + * ACTION: bdale to communicate casting vote with rationale in e-mail + to 727708 (dondelelcaro, 18:27:01) + * AGREED: move coupling decision to normal policy process + (dondelelcaro, 18:27:36) + +* Additional Business (dondelelcaro, 18:28:05) + +* #681419 Depends: foo | foo-nonfree (dondelelcaro, 18:28:56) + * ACTION: vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | + foo-nonfree (dondelelcaro, 18:29:40) + +* Additional Business (dondelelcaro, 18:32:09) + +Meeting ended at 18:36:48 UTC. + + + + +Action Items +------------ +* dondelelcaro to check on mailing list if that's OK +* cjwatson to draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a transition + plan (possibly in collaboration with Diziet) +* Diziet to move forward with constitutional resolutions on + super-majority conflict eventually +* bdale to communicate casting vote with rationale in e-mail to 727708 +* vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | foo-nonfree + + + + +Action Items, by person +----------------------- +* bdale + * bdale to communicate casting vote with rationale in e-mail to 727708 +* cjwatson + * cjwatson to draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a + transition plan (possibly in collaboration with Diziet) +* Diziet + * cjwatson to draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a + transition plan (possibly in collaboration with Diziet) + * Diziet to move forward with constitutional resolutions on + super-majority conflict eventually + * vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | + foo-nonfree +* dondelelcaro + * dondelelcaro to check on mailing list if that's OK +* vorlon + * vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | + foo-nonfree +* **UNASSIGNED** + * (none) + + + + +People Present (lines said) +--------------------------- +* dondelelcaro (57) +* cjwatson (31) +* vorlon (30) +* bdale (27) +* Diziet (22) +* rra (19) +* keithp (18) +* fsck_you (3) +* Maulkin (3) +* MeetBot (2) +* KGB-3 (1) +* zzz (1) +* rdr (1) + + + + +Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 + +.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- 2.39.5