--- /dev/null
+16:59:15 <dondelelcaro> #startmeeting
+16:59:15 <MeetBot> Meeting started Thu Aug 22 16:59:15 2013 UTC. The chair is dondelelcaro. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
+16:59:15 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
+16:59:44 <dondelelcaro> #topic Who is here?
+16:59:55 <dondelelcaro> Don Armstrong
+17:00:09 <vorlon> Steve Langasek
+17:00:20 <dondelelcaro> bdale, aba, Diziet: ping
+17:00:58 * weasel is lurking
+17:01:01 <dondelelcaro> I didn't do a very good job advertising, and I suspect people are still traveling for debconf
+17:01:25 <Diziet> Hi.
+17:01:27 <Diziet> Ian Jackson
+17:01:47 <bdale> pong
+17:01:53 <bdale> Bdale Garbe
+17:01:55 <bdale> e
+17:01:56 <bdale> meh
+17:01:59 <bdale> Bdale Garbee
+17:02:10 <dondelelcaro> awesome; I guess we have enough people to get started then
+17:02:15 <dondelelcaro> #topic Next Meeting?
+17:02:45 <dondelelcaro> The next meeting is currently scheduled for the same time on Thursday the 29th of September
+17:02:55 <dondelelcaro> does that cause a problem for anyone?
+17:03:02 <dondelelcaro> err, 26th of september
+17:03:08 <Diziet> I'm away then but it's not likely to be any different any other time.
+17:03:13 <dondelelcaro> ok
+17:03:22 <bdale> 26th is fine with me
+17:03:24 <vorlon> seems to be ok for me
+17:03:26 <dondelelcaro> ok
+17:03:39 <dondelelcaro> #agreed next meeting 26th of september, same time
+17:03:46 <dondelelcaro> #topic #717076 Decide between libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg8 et al.
+17:04:30 <dondelelcaro> I believe last time we decided that someone should draft an opinion giving libjpeg-turbo the go-ahead to generate a transition plan, etc.
+17:04:51 <dondelelcaro> and I think Diziet was going to do that
+17:05:12 <Diziet> Was I ? Oh, sorry, I had completely forgotten.
+17:05:16 <dondelelcaro> no worries
+17:05:25 <vorlon> I'm curious to know if there has been any more input from the libjpeg8 maintainer
+17:05:28 <Diziet> #action Diziet To draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a transition plan
+17:05:53 <dondelelcaro> vorlon: I haven't heard more about it
+17:06:06 <dondelelcaro> vorlon: at least, nothing privately that wasn't already on the mailing list
+17:06:07 <vorlon> he seemed quite convinced that libjpeg-turbo was the wrong answer, but AFAIK hasn't offered any explanations that might convince the rest of us - which is unfortunate
+17:06:24 <dondelelcaro> right
+17:06:27 <bdale> right, my sense is that turbo is the right answer unless we get more credible input
+17:06:34 <Diziet> What bdale said.
+17:06:45 <vorlon> so in the absence of that input, no objection to the stated action
+17:07:04 <dondelelcaro> yeah, that's kind of where I'm at too
+17:07:30 <dondelelcaro> #agreed proceeding with drafting resolution in the absence of input as to why turbo should not be chosen
+17:07:53 <dondelelcaro> #topic #685795 New ctte member
+17:08:09 <dondelelcaro> did all of the pinging for this happen?
+17:08:19 <dondelelcaro> (this being the new CTTE member)
+17:08:34 <bdale> right, let me type for a min on this
+17:08:56 <bdale> those of us who were present at Debconf talked about the pool of candidates in various groupings
+17:09:03 <bdale> I also had a conversation with Lucas
+17:09:29 <bdale> of the original pool, I think we are down to picking one of 3
+17:10:05 <bdale> there were a couple additional names thrown out at Debconf for different reasons, after further discussion and reflection it's not clear that either would/should be chosen over anyone in the original pool
+17:10:28 <dondelelcaro> okay
+17:10:29 <vorlon> apparently I arrived too late at DebConf to be part of those discussions ;)
+17:10:46 <bdale> so, I think the next step is probably for me to forward the candidate list with a variation on these comments with some supporting text to the rest of you in a non-public way, and we can proceed to pick someone
+17:11:02 <vorlon> agreed
+17:11:03 <bdale> vorlon: sorry, I thought you'd been in the loop for one of the chats, but perhaps not
+17:11:39 <vorlon> bdale: nah, apparently you thought I'd already laid my opinions out in enough detail that there was no need for further consultation :D
+17:12:17 <bdale> there's no particular reason to "rush" on this, but on the other hand, I and others I spoke with agree that having a full TC slate before we might be asked to decide on something like an init system choice would be a good idea
+17:12:36 <dondelelcaro> right
+17:12:56 <bdale> I'm pretty whacked until the start of Sept, but I'll try to make time to at least send the aforementioned email today or tomorrow my time
+17:13:03 <dondelelcaro> #action bdale to forward the candidate list with a variation on these comments with some supporting text to the rest of you in a non-public way
+17:13:17 <dondelelcaro> awesome
+17:13:32 <dondelelcaro> #topic #636783 super-majority conflict;
+17:13:54 <dondelelcaro> I think these just need discussion on the mailing list or an ack from everyone that they are ok; is that correct?
+17:14:09 <vorlon> fwiw I'm happy with all the drafts
+17:14:19 <Diziet> Bdale had some comment on the advisory overruling one.
+17:14:21 <vorlon> I don't recall Diziet saying he was looking for an explicit ack, so I didn't
+17:14:34 <Diziet> We spoke at DC and he said he was going to put it in writing.
+17:14:37 <dondelelcaro> ah, ok
+17:15:02 <bdale> thanks for reminding me, I forgot
+17:15:33 * bdale adds notes to his to-do list
+17:15:34 <dondelelcaro> #action bdale to comment on advisory overruling constitutional amendment
+17:16:03 <dondelelcaro> so for the others, is everyone ok with them? what's the next step?
+17:16:08 <bdale> for the rest of you...
+17:16:27 <bdale> the basic concern I had was that perhaps that should be raised as a GR by Ian personally, not from the TC
+17:16:52 <bdale> my reasoning is that the current wording implies an agreement among TC members about why we have been reluctant to do something that I don't agree with
+17:17:03 <Diziet> bdale: You also said that you weren't convinced it would have changed your mind for eg the recent business with network-manager.
+17:17:23 <Diziet> And yes if that isn't an accurate statement of the TC's views it needs to be fixed.
+17:17:33 <bdale> yes, and we had a long conversation over a meal that I'm going to try to re-think as I write out comments in email
+17:18:03 <bdale> the other GR texts all looked fine to me
+17:18:25 <vorlon> ah, right; if there's something in the text of the GR that all members of the TC almost, but don't quite, agree with, it's probably easier to just push the GR the more traditional route
+17:18:27 <Diziet> I think if we can do that overruling one as a TC thing, and with the others, it would be best.
+17:19:17 <Diziet> I'm happy to take wording amendments. But this is only worth doing if, should it passing, it would have made TC members more willing to overrule in the recent cases where we haven't had enough consensus for that.
+17:19:23 <Diziet> s/it passing/it pass/
+17:19:27 <Diziet> IYSWIM
+17:19:36 <bdale> ok, in that case I'll promise to think harder about what I actually think the GR should ask developers so that we get a result that's meaningful without tripping over the consensus bit that tripped me up
+17:19:49 <Diziet> Thanks.
+17:20:23 <dondelelcaro> cool; for the others, should we ack them and then proceed to voting?
+17:21:04 <dondelelcaro> or just ask for objections if there are any, and then vote?
+17:21:10 <Diziet> I would prefer to run all of them concurrently so if we can fix the overruling advice one, I'd like to wait.
+17:21:30 <dondelelcaro> ok
+17:21:31 <Diziet> But if you all think we should put that one aside, then I see nothing that needs doing to the others.
+17:21:44 <dondelelcaro> I'm ok with either way, since I don't see a need to rush
+17:22:08 <Diziet> OK, thanks.
+17:23:05 <dondelelcaro> #agreed wait on amendments to fix overruling advice, then proceed
+17:23:15 <dondelelcaro> #topic #681419 Depends: foo | foo-nonfree
+17:23:26 <vorlon> possibly still blocked on me
+17:23:27 <vorlon> sorry
+17:23:28 <dondelelcaro> I think this one was just waiting on vorlon to write up a response
+17:23:31 <dondelelcaro> cool
+17:23:36 <vorlon> will get that done this month
+17:24:00 <dondelelcaro> #action vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | foo-nonfree
+17:24:07 <dondelelcaro> #topic Additional Business
+17:24:17 <dondelelcaro> anything else?
+17:24:20 <Diziet> Not from me.
+17:24:37 <bdale> one note for those not at Debconf
+17:25:03 <bdale> it's abundantly clear to me that the TC will be asked, soon, to make decisions on the choice of default next-generation init system
+17:25:22 <dondelelcaro> yeah; I'm almost surprised that that hasn't happened yet
+17:25:51 <bdale> a chat with Lucas made it clear that he'd prefer we were able to bring this to conclusion in something like 6 months max so that all relevant changes for jessie can happen without time stress
+17:25:59 <vorlon> still straightening the bows on the package before I drop it in your lap
+17:26:16 <Diziet> The presentations at DC were helpful but mostly in the sense that they provided a concrete grounding for things I had osmosed.
+17:26:27 <bdale> obviously, until a question is posed, there's no action for us to take as a TC... but I'd strongly like to suggest that everyone pay as much or more attention than usual to the systemd and upstart discussions since I think a TC question is inevitable
+17:26:59 <dondelelcaro> yeah; this is partly why I started wading in with https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem
+17:27:17 <vorlon> well, I don't know that I would advise paying attention to discussions on the mailing list, which tend to be quite repetitive ;)
+17:27:30 <bdale> thanks for the pointer .. I'm not doing a good job following my own advice right now due to time constraints ...
+17:27:54 <dondelelcaro> yeah
+17:28:38 <vorlon> dondelelcaro: right, someone dove straight into https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem and started filling the "upstart" page with their own list of "cons"; I don't think that's a useful way to structure the discussion (I think the different camps should be allowed to elaborate their own positions, not have opponents editing the page out from under them), so I haven't bothered using that structure
+17:28:57 <dondelelcaro> vorlon: right, I agree.
+17:29:10 <Diziet> vorlon: I think that's not how it was supposed to be used.
+17:29:30 <Diziet> dondelelcaro: Can you please slap that down ?
+17:29:50 <vorlon> so, I could scrub that and start drafting an upstart position on that page; but I'll only do that if the TC thinks that's useful generally
+17:30:06 <vorlon> otherwise I'd just go straight to presenting on the list as a usual TC question
+17:30:35 <dondelelcaro> either way works for me; I'd probably distill things out of the discussion and shove them into the main page
+17:30:40 <Diziet> I don't have much of an opinion. Perhaps we should try the Debate thing on something where, err, people are less likely to transgress.
+17:31:14 <bdale> pushing the existing con list down to a "comments from others" section or something could work in the short term?
+17:31:22 <dondelelcaro> yeah; I can just do that
+17:32:16 <Diziet> I think that the people pushing the upstart pov should be entitled to just delete adverse comments.
+17:32:32 <Diziet> If this is supposed to be a debate, each side must be allowed to put their own pov.
+17:32:47 <bdale> hrm, I don't actually see the comments in question.
+17:33:13 <bdale> vorlon: looks like you edited already?
+17:33:25 <Diziet> There's a Pro/Contra thing there.
+17:33:32 <dondelelcaro> yeah; I just edited that
+17:33:41 <vorlon> bdale: https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/upstart, "Comments from Others" said "Disadvantages" until someone edited it just now
+17:33:54 <dondelelcaro> yeah; it said Contra. I edited it. ;-)
+17:34:17 <Diziet> I don't have time now but you can't really have Pro/Contra on these pages. That just encourages the wrong kind of behaviour.
+17:34:26 <Diziet> Perhaps doing this on a wiki is too different from usual wiki use.
+17:34:29 <dondelelcaro> yeah
+17:34:39 <bdale> ok .. the presence of one line of text with two links doesn't wind me up, particularly
+17:35:00 <Diziet> bdale: Yeah, but it means that opposing partisans have a nice heading to fill up with their ideas.
+17:35:03 <vorlon> so it seems there's a general sense that the TC would like this kind of presentation; so I'll flesh it out
+17:35:04 <bdale> given there's zero systemd content so far, it's not exactly a balanced view yet
+17:35:21 <Diziet> bdale: Oh yes.
+17:35:24 <Diziet> I hadn't spotted that.
+17:35:53 <bdale> I'm not sure I care what format it's in, but if we're to decide something, somehow we need to have a clear presentation of the pros and cons of each system that we can warp into something we can actually compare and contrast
+17:36:15 <dondelelcaro> yeah; since I don't personally have an opinion, I haven't wandered into the sub-options
+17:36:16 <Diziet> Yes. I would be happy to have that as a presentation from each camp.
+17:36:29 <dondelelcaro> I just put a bunch of questions into the main page, and set up the framework
+17:36:32 <bdale> whether each party populates the 'con' part of the other page or lists a "why not other choices" section on their own page seems purely a structural distinction to me
+17:36:49 <Diziet> But we're going to have to ask questions and refine it so either they need to maintain a "position statement" which they update and repost, or we have to do this kind of wiki thing.
+17:37:00 <bdale> right
+17:37:00 <Diziet> Otherwise we'll have just a big thread and no structure.
+17:37:13 <bdale> wiki hosting of the position statements seems useful
+17:38:38 <dondelelcaro> cool; I think we can at least try out the wiki with position statements, and see where that gets us
+17:38:43 <dondelelcaro> anything else?
+17:38:53 <bdale> not here
+17:39:04 <Diziet> bdale: However we do it, we should have clear rules which are stated and enforced.
+17:39:35 <dondelelcaro> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate <-- this actually has the rules for the debate
+17:39:37 <Diziet> I think a rubric at the top of each page, perhaps.
+17:39:53 <bdale> dondelelcaro: maybe link back to that from each page?
+17:39:58 <dondelelcaro> so I think actually that whoever took the upstart side could just delete everything else
+17:40:06 <dondelelcaro> yeah, I should do that
+17:40:40 <Diziet> When you say "Please don't edit the main text of other people's position documents" it's not clear whether you mean the main body text, or the whole actual page rather than the wiki comment page.
+17:40:50 <Diziet> I think you should mean the latter.
+17:41:35 <bdale> makes sense to me
+17:42:05 <bdale> however, rather than just deleting other contributions, if we're going to clarify the rules, I'd like to see the contributions moved to whatever is the right place instead of just deleted
+17:42:28 <dondelelcaro> got it
+17:42:33 <bdale> my reasoning is that just deleting contributions made before we solidify the rules seems prone to irritating someone and discourages contribution
+17:43:21 <dondelelcaro> yeah
+17:43:32 <bdale> if, in the end, the rules say the proponent can just delete such feedback if they don't agree, that's fine as the ultimate outcome
+17:43:59 <bdale> I would certainly rather see the various proponents spend more time telling us "why" their system than trying to tell us "why not" other choices
+17:44:25 <Diziet> Indeed. But if they really want to criticise the other choices they can do that in a section on their own page.
+17:44:25 <dondelelcaro> yeah
+17:44:31 <bdale> suitably clever wording in the form of "why" arguments will make the rest clear enough anyway
+17:44:38 <bdale> sure
+17:44:43 <Diziet> Right.
+17:44:46 <Diziet> I think we all agree.
+17:44:51 <bdale> as I mentioned earlier, a "why we're better than them" section is fine with me
+17:45:00 <bdale> yep, agreement
+17:45:30 <bdale> so, should we explicitly poke the systemd and openrc proponents, or just let it lie?
+17:45:57 <vorlon> I have the impression that openrc may have withdrawn
+17:46:27 <vorlon> at least, after the last discussion on -devel, zigo seemed to get why openrc doesn't actually offer comparable features to systemd/upstart
+17:46:32 <bdale> ok
+17:46:45 <vorlon> but perhaps someone wants to check with him anyway rather than taking my word for it ;)
+17:47:22 <bdale> part of me is happy to wait for the question to be put to the TC
+17:47:47 <Diziet> It's worth prodding them.
+17:48:55 <dondelelcaro> ok
+17:49:08 <dondelelcaro> any last minute bits?
+17:49:27 <bdale> nope. thanks again for hosting these, dondelelcaro
+17:49:32 <dondelelcaro> bdale: no problem
+17:49:33 <dondelelcaro> #endmeeting
\ No newline at end of file
--- /dev/null
+====================
+#debian-ctte Meeting
+====================
+
+
+Meeting started by dondelelcaro at 16:59:15 UTC. The full logs are
+available at
+http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2013/debian-ctte.2013-08-22-16.59.log.html
+.
+
+
+
+Meeting summary
+---------------
+* Who is here? (dondelelcaro, 16:59:44)
+
+* Next Meeting? (dondelelcaro, 17:02:15)
+ * AGREED: next meeting 26th of september, same time (dondelelcaro,
+ 17:03:39)
+
+* #717076 Decide between libjpeg-turbo and libjpeg8 et al.
+ (dondelelcaro, 17:03:46)
+ * ACTION: Diziet To draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a
+ transition plan (Diziet, 17:05:28)
+ * AGREED: proceeding with drafting resolution in the absence of input
+ as to why turbo should not be chosen (dondelelcaro, 17:07:30)
+
+* #685795 New ctte member (dondelelcaro, 17:07:53)
+ * ACTION: bdale to forward the candidate list with a variation on
+ these comments with some supporting text to the rest of you in a
+ non-public way (dondelelcaro, 17:13:03)
+
+* #636783 super-majority conflict; (dondelelcaro, 17:13:32)
+ * ACTION: bdale to comment on advisory overruling constitutional
+ amendment (dondelelcaro, 17:15:34)
+ * AGREED: wait on amendments to fix overruling advice, then proceed
+ (dondelelcaro, 17:23:05)
+
+* #681419 Depends: foo | foo-nonfree (dondelelcaro, 17:23:15)
+ * ACTION: vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo |
+ foo-nonfree (dondelelcaro, 17:24:00)
+
+* Additional Business (dondelelcaro, 17:24:07)
+ * LINK: https://wiki.debian.org/Debate <-- this actually has the rules
+ for the debate (dondelelcaro, 17:39:35)
+
+Meeting ended at 17:49:33 UTC.
+
+
+
+
+Action Items
+------------
+* Diziet To draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a transition
+ plan
+* bdale to forward the candidate list with a variation on these comments
+ with some supporting text to the rest of you in a non-public way
+* bdale to comment on advisory overruling constitutional amendment
+* vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo | foo-nonfree
+
+
+
+
+Action Items, by person
+-----------------------
+* bdale
+ * bdale to forward the candidate list with a variation on these
+ comments with some supporting text to the rest of you in a
+ non-public way
+ * bdale to comment on advisory overruling constitutional amendment
+* Diziet
+ * Diziet To draft resolution asking libjpeg-turbo to make a transition
+ plan
+ * vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo |
+ foo-nonfree
+* vorlon
+ * vorlon to write up response to Diziet about Depends: foo |
+ foo-nonfree
+* **UNASSIGNED**
+ * (none)
+
+
+
+
+People Present (lines said)
+---------------------------
+* dondelelcaro (68)
+* bdale (53)
+* Diziet (42)
+* vorlon (24)
+* MeetBot (2)
+* weasel (1)
+
+
+
+
+Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
+
+.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
projects / debian-ctte.git / commitdiff