--- /dev/null
+17:58:43 <dondelelcaro> #startmeeting
+17:58:43 <MeetBot> 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 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
+17:58:49 <dondelelcaro> #topic Who is here?
+17:58:53 <dondelelcaro> Don Armstrong
+17:58:55 <bdale> Bdale Garbee
+17:59:21 <keithp> Keith Packard
+17:59:22 <dondelelcaro> Diziet, vorlon, aba: ping
+17:59:32 <rra> Russ Allbery here.
+18:00:00 <bdale> vorlon was around earlier, I don't know about Diziet or aba
+18:00:24 <dondelelcaro> yeah, not sure either
+18:00:45 <vorlon> HI
+18:00:51 <vorlon> hi, rather
+18:00:55 <vorlon> Steve Langasek
+18:01:00 <cjwatson> Colin Watson
+18:01:12 <dondelelcaro> cool; just missing Diziet and aba; I'll get started; hopefully they'll be along
+18:01:15 <dondelelcaro> #topic Next Meeting?
+18:01:17 <dondelelcaro> #topic Next Meeting?
+18:01:46 <dondelelcaro> currently the next meeting is scheduled for date -d 'Thu Mar 27 17:00:00 UTC 2014'
+18:02:17 <dondelelcaro> (I've moved it back an hour in UTC to account for DST)
+18:02:19 <bdale> I think that's an LF event week
+18:02:19 <vorlon> I appear to have a work conflict that day/time, fwiw
+18:02:49 <dondelelcaro> ok; would the preceeding week work better?
+18:02:52 <bdale> yes, that's LF Collab Summit
+18:02:59 <vorlon> previous week is better for me, yes
+18:03:06 <bdale> yes, me too
+18:03:15 <keithp> /aol
+18:03:31 <dondelelcaro> OK. I'll tenatively move it one week before (March 20th), and double check on the mailing list
+18:03:37 <bdale> good
+18:03:48 <dondelelcaro> #agreed tenatively move next meeting to date -d 'Thu Mar 20 17:00:00 UTC 2014'
+18:04:06 <cjwatson> I'm fine with either, but that's cool
+18:04:09 <dondelelcaro> #action dondelelcaro to check on mailing list if that's OK
+18:04:11 <dondelelcaro> topic #717076 Decide between libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg8 et al.
+18:04:13 <dondelelcaro> #topic #717076 Decide between libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg8 et al.
+18:04:24 <cjwatson> last action on this was
+18:04:25 <cjwatson> * ACTION: Diziet to draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a
+18:04:25 <cjwatson> transition plan (dondelelcaro, 18:05:17)
+18:04:38 <cjwatson> I could possibly have a go at that if Diziet is burned out on resolutions
+18:04:54 <bdale> he may well be
+18:05:01 <dondelelcaro> yeah; probably useful to get that moving forward
+18:05:16 <bdale> keithp: did you want to chime in since this was mostly before you joined the ctte?
+18:05:16 <dondelelcaro> even if Diziet wants to stab at it, collaborating in git is probably good enough
+18:06:12 <cjwatson> yeah, if Diziet doesn't turn up this evening then I'll check with him on it out of band
+18:06:14 <keithp> bdale: I read the history and a bunch of external commentary yesterday instead of fixing cmake
+18:06:21 <dondelelcaro> #action cjwatson to draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a transition plan (possibly in collaboration with Diziet)
+18:06:45 <cjwatson> links to any useful external commentary welcome
+18:07:07 <cjwatson> (I have the bug log and the roughly corresponding Ubuntu history easily enough to hand)
+18:07:07 <keithp> 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 <keithp> that would allow us to switch from the ijg jpeg library to libjpeg-turbo knowing that we would not impact applications
+18:08:08 <dondelelcaro> yeah; I think what we're looking for here is a transition plan which enables that to happen
+18:08:29 <keithp> cool
+18:08:29 <dondelelcaro> but it's not really the CTTE's place to do the design work for that (though we can collaborate)
+18:08:35 <dondelelcaro> ok; moving on
+18:08:37 <dondelelcaro> #topic #636783 super-majority conflict;
+18:09:00 <cjwatson> * ACTION: Diziet to move forward with constitutional resolutions
+18:09:00 <cjwatson> (Diziet, 18:06:33)
+18:09:02 <dondelelcaro> this is Diziet again, I believe; this was explicitely put on hold until after the systemd stuff
+18:09:05 <dondelelcaro> right
+18:09:08 <bdale> right
+18:09:11 <cjwatson> indeed so
+18:09:22 <bdale> I suspect the resolutions might change given our recent experiences, too
+18:09:25 <dondelelcaro> so I'll just put it on him again, and we can ping this once things die down slightly
+18:09:28 <dondelelcaro> right
+18:09:34 <bdale> yep, happy to leave this pending
+18:09:48 <rra> Agreed.
+18:09:50 <dondelelcaro> #action Diziet to move forward with constitutional resolutions on super-majority conflict eventually
+18:09:53 <keithp> 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 <cjwatson> we possibly can, although I think Diziet was trying to optimise for not putting the project through umpteen GRs
+18:10:21 <rra> IIRC, Diziet had wanted to keep them bundled, yeah.
+18:10:23 <keithp> understood
+18:10:47 <bdale> right, since any constitutional mods require a GR, doing one for a collected set of agreed-upon changes seems wise
+18:10:56 <cjwatson> there may be a middle ground, not sure
+18:11:09 <keithp> at some point we should give up and get the 'finished' ones voted though
+18:11:12 <rra> 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 <bdale> and the fail later no harm discussion
+18:12:10 <dondelelcaro> right
+18:12:12 <Diziet> Oh hello.
+18:12:15 <Diziet> Sorry I'm late.
+18:12:18 <bdale> Diziet: hi!
+18:12:18 <dondelelcaro> Diziet: no worries
+18:12:20 <keithp> Diziet: welcome!
+18:12:59 <fsck_you> Why isn't Tox in the Debian repos yet?
+18:13:11 <dondelelcaro> fsck_you: that's not really on topic here.
+18:13:28 <rdr> motion to abandon the harmful GNU/systemd/Linux base and rebase Debian on Plan 9 :^)
+18:13:46 <fsck_you> rdr: Plan9 is harmful
+18:13:50 <bdale> Diziet: did you want to comment on either the current or previous agenda items before we move on?
+18:13:57 <dondelelcaro> folks; if you don't have something to say which is on topic, please don't comment.
+18:14:07 <Diziet> Just read the scrool.
+18:14:11 <Diziet> No, that all sounds good.
+18:14:17 <Diziet> cjwatson: Thanks for picking up the libjpeg thing.
+18:14:33 <Diziet> And yes, the constitutional things need some more work now in the light of events.
+18:14:46 <bdale> ok .. let's pend that then, and move on?
+18:14:54 <dondelelcaro> ok; sounds good
+18:14:56 <Diziet> Yes.
+18:15:04 <dondelelcaro> #agreed constituational ammendments need more work in light of events
+18:15:10 <dondelelcaro> #topic #727708 Initsystem coupling
+18:15:19 <dondelelcaro> I think this just needs vorlon to vote, and possibly not even that
+18:15:27 <Diziet> I see he just has.
+18:15:29 <vorlon> I have voted just now
+18:15:35 <dondelelcaro> ah; awesome
+18:15:41 <Diziet> I haven't tallied the votes. Anyone done so and calculated what the answer is ?
+18:15:59 <rra> IIRC, I think we need a casting vote.
+18:16:03 <vorlon> 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 <Maulkin> Schwartz = {L,N}
+18:16:15 <Diziet> Maulkin: Thank you.
+18:16:24 <Diziet> So it's up to Bdale to choose between L and N
+18:16:28 <dondelelcaro> right; if vorlon voted L > A, it's L and N
+18:16:28 <Maulkin> (unofficial etc, but I'm fairly sure it's right)
+18:16:42 <dondelelcaro> (my mail queue hasn't caught up with that yet)
+18:16:52 <cjwatson> dondelelcaro: he voted L > A > N > FD, yes
+18:16:54 <vorlon> 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 <Maulkin> dondelelcaro: Correct, it was LANfd
+18:17:10 <keithp> vorlon: yes, thanks for remembering
+18:17:26 <bdale> 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 <cjwatson> bdale: I went through your posts last week before you voted and spectacularly failed to predict your vote, FWIW
+18:18:18 <vorlon> bdale: well, earlier iterations of the text were buggier, and the discussion was meant to suss out and fix those bugs
+18:18:21 <Diziet> 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 <bdale> 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 <vorlon> 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 <KGB-3> \ f\ 303Don Armstrong\ f \ 305master\ f c517da4 \ 306debian-ctte\ f \ 310727708_initsystem/coupling_votes.txt\ f add Steve's vote
+18:19:54 <bdale> if I'm forced to use a casting vote again, I won't vote for L
+18:20:09 <vorlon> 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 <rra> 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 <zzz> OpenRC is the best, and you should choose OpenRC.
+18:20:53 <vorlon> (or, alternatively, be persuaded in turn)
+18:20:54 <rra> 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 <vorlon> heh
+18:21:40 <cjwatson> I guess we get to go round this in some other forum, then
+18:21:45 <cjwatson> (with different hats on)
+18:21:53 <vorlon> 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 <rra> Note that the Policy discussion is different.
+18:22:13 <cjwatson> it is, though it will doubtless have a good chunk of common content
+18:22:14 <rra> Among other things, Policy doesn't try to predict the future, which changes the shape of some parts of the conversation.
+18:22:21 <fsck_you> rra: OpenRC is slow, or if run in parallel, unstable.
+18:23:18 <rra> 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 <rra> That's not 100%, but that's mostly the way Policy reads today.
+18:23:52 <rra> So part of what we've been talking about in the TC context would naturally be punted by Policy normally.
+18:24:24 <vorlon> well, the two policy changes I see that we could make right now are:
+18:24:38 <vorlon> - generalize from sysvinit to "the default init system"
+18:25:00 <vorlon> - cover the expectation of compatibility with non-default init systems (which seems like it would become a policy "should")
+18:25:18 <Diziet> Can I suggest that this discussion should not be here and not now ?
+18:25:21 <vorlon> but probably no need to discuss this in detail here and now; should we move on?
+18:25:24 <keithp> vorlon: by 'we', are you talking policy editors or tc?
+18:25:24 <Diziet> Thanks.
+18:25:37 <rra> Yeah, this is going to be easier to cover in email.
+18:25:41 <vorlon> keithp: "we" being those involved in the policy process, not just editors
+18:25:44 <dondelelcaro> yeah; I think so
+18:25:49 <cjwatson> 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 <rra> 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 <dondelelcaro> so we're agreed that we should figure out this issue in the normal policy process; right?
+18:26:35 <vorlon> we're agreed that this is the way forward ;)
+18:26:42 <bdale> I think I have an action to communicate a casting vote with rationale in email
+18:26:49 <Diziet> bdale: Yes.
+18:26:59 <rra> I'm hoping that some of the other Policy editors will have time to help with that part of the process.
+18:27:01 <dondelelcaro> #action bdale to communicate casting vote with rationale in e-mail to 727708
+18:27:06 <bdale> I'm very happy to see "the action" move to the policy process
+18:27:08 <rra> Not that I've asked. :)
+18:27:24 <bdale> and I'm actually quite supportive of pro-multi-init-system-support ending up there
+18:27:36 <dondelelcaro> #agreed move coupling decision to normal policy process
+18:27:52 <dondelelcaro> ok; anything more here?
+18:28:05 <dondelelcaro> #topic Additional Business
+18:28:39 <keithp> dondelelcaro: did we skip #681419? Or was that part of the GR issues?
+18:28:41 <dondelelcaro> I don't personally have anything else
+18:28:49 <dondelelcaro> oh, I think we did, actually
+18:28:56 <dondelelcaro> #topic #681419 Depends: foo | foo-nonfree
+18:28:59 <dondelelcaro> going backwards
+18:29:03 <cjwatson> last action on 681419 was
+18:29:04 <cjwatson> * ACTION: vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo |
+18:29:04 <cjwatson> foo-nonfree (Diziet, 18:07:40)
+18:29:08 <vorlon> man
+18:29:10 <dondelelcaro> heh
+18:29:11 <vorlon> ancient history
+18:29:14 <cjwatson> which I think vorlon said at the time was blocked on init system fires
+18:29:22 <Diziet> Yes.
+18:29:29 <vorlon> yes, I'll make time to get back to that ASAP now
+18:29:40 <dondelelcaro> #action vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | foo-nonfree
+18:29:48 <keithp> it looked like the TC had reasonable consensus on the correct wording for the change
+18:29:55 <vorlon> (where "ASAP" is probably measured in a small number of weeks)
+18:30:06 <dondelelcaro> heh
+18:30:10 <keithp> vorlon: I'll come extract text from you with beer as needed
+18:30:24 <vorlon> keithp: heh, I really just need to write the email
+18:30:37 <cjwatson> we were approaching agreement on ballot text I think, but I don't think we had consensus on our preferences
+18:30:38 <vorlon> beer is unlikely to help this :)
+18:30:51 <cjwatson> but it's been a while
+18:31:11 <bdale> it has
+18:31:17 <cjwatson> however for some reason ballots without 100% consensus going in no longer seem quite so scary
+18:31:32 <keithp> cjwatson: ok, I may have not captured all of the history then, I'll go re-read the threads
+18:31:54 <dondelelcaro> ok; anything else here?
+18:32:09 <dondelelcaro> #topic Additional Business
+18:32:10 <vorlon> 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 <bdale> cjwatson: let's just try to avoid even splits, ok?
+18:32:16 <Diziet> 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 <cjwatson> yes quite
+18:32:30 <cjwatson> but it's the tc, we don't have a lot of that
+18:32:33 <vorlon> bdale: we could've avoided an even split by keeping the ctte at 7 a bit onger ;-)
+18:32:48 <keithp> vorlon: and make me miss all of the fun?
+18:32:48 <rra> 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 <bdale> 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 <Diziet> I have just sent an email to #636783 about the remaining constitutional issues.
+18:33:29 <dondelelcaro> awesome
+18:34:05 <Diziet> Perhaps we should also suggest changing the max size to 9.
+18:34:27 <Diziet> Although even 8 felt like it was getting trickily large.
+18:34:29 <bdale> an odd number seems preferable to routine exercise of a casting vote
+18:34:38 <Diziet> Anyway, anyone who feels it would help, take it to email.
+18:34:48 <rra> 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 <dondelelcaro> do we have anything else before I stop?
+18:36:02 <bdale> no here
+18:36:05 <Diziet> I don't think so.
+18:36:06 <keithp> nothing here
+18:36:08 * rra has nothing else.
+18:36:15 <cjwatson> not I
+18:36:44 <vorlon> nope
+18:36:48 <dondelelcaro> #endmeeting
\ No newline at end of file
--- /dev/null
+====================
+#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
projects / debian-ctte.git / commitdiff