--- /dev/null
+16:59:20 <dondelelcaro> #startmeeting
+16:59:20 <MeetBot> Meeting started Wed May 27 16:59:20 2015 UTC. The chair is dondelelcaro. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
+16:59:20 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
+16:59:25 <dondelelcaro> #topic Who is here?
+16:59:28 <dondelelcaro> Don Armstrong
+16:59:40 <dondelelcaro> MeetBot: pingall ctte meeting starting now
+16:59:40 <MeetBot> ctte meeting starting now
+16:59:40 <MeetBot> aba abrotman adsb ansgar babilen bdale berni buxy carnil cjwatson clopez dam Diziet doko dondelelcaro frozencemetery gnugr gregoa hartmans helmut jcristau keithp KGB-3 kini lucas Maulkin MeetBot Mithrandir OdyX rootbeer ScottK themill tjader vorlon weasel
+16:59:40 <MeetBot> ctte meeting starting now
+17:00:07 <keithp> howdy
+17:00:11 <bdale> Bdale Garbee
+17:00:23 <hartmans> Sam Hartman
+17:00:59 <dondelelcaro> OdyX, aba, Mithrandir: ping
+17:01:04 <dondelelcaro> vorlon sent his regrets
+17:01:11 <dondelelcaro> #topic Next Meeting?
+17:01:21 <dondelelcaro> currently it's scheduled for 2015/06/24 17:00 UTC
+17:01:43 <dondelelcaro> I was remiss in not trying to ping everyone about the meeting, so hopefully this time was OK
+17:02:05 <dondelelcaro> the one after that is 2015/07/29 17:00 UTC
+17:02:16 <dondelelcaro> if someone has a problem, raise it on the mailing list, I guess.
+17:02:41 <dondelelcaro> #topic #741573 menu systems and mime-support
+17:02:49 <hartmans> how is the June meeting so early. Is that the last week?
+17:02:57 <dondelelcaro> hartmans: yeah
+17:03:04 <OdyX> Im' here.
+17:03:20 <dondelelcaro> hartmans: the next wednesday is the 1st of july
+17:03:28 <bdale> both dates are ok on my calendar
+17:04:29 <dondelelcaro> currently, keithp is suposed to send out patches, hartmans was to ping charles about them, and I was supposed to draft a ballot
+17:04:44 <dondelelcaro> I haven't drafted a ballot, but I will work on that this week, and take care of that
+17:04:47 <hartmans> I did ping Charles
+17:04:55 <hartmans> He was quite unhappy with our approach.
+17:05:06 <hartmans> Which lead to my mail to the bug which we discussed last meeting.
+17:05:38 <hartmans> I recently sent mail expressing frustration about the communication within the TC and hope that we can work to hear each other better.
+17:06:39 <OdyX> Which mail was that?
+17:07:05 <hartmans> Sent about 4 min before the meeting.
+17:07:16 <hartmans> I haven't gotten my copy, although I recently cleared my greylist database
+17:07:29 <bdale> oh, ok, I was just getting confused looking through my email history...
+17:07:34 <OdyX> ah okay, good then :)
+17:07:46 * bdale re-syncs with his server
+17:07:51 <dondelelcaro> I haven't received it either
+17:08:03 <hartmans> OK. Well, I could paste it, or we could take this to email.
+17:08:19 <bdale> not here yet
+17:08:24 <dondelelcaro> yeah; it hasn't hit ldo yet
+17:08:31 <dondelelcaro> I guess we can just do e-mail about it
+17:08:40 <hartmans> One clarifying question.
+17:08:41 <OdyX> And-or at a later point in the meeting :)
+17:08:42 <dondelelcaro> #agreed discuss hartmans e-mail over email re communication within CTTE
+17:08:50 <dondelelcaro> yep
+17:09:03 <hartmans> Are we deciding how to decide, or do you believe we're in a position to have a draft ballot with actual final decisions on it?
+17:09:22 <bdale> I'd prefer the latter
+17:09:28 <dondelelcaro> I'd also prefer the latter
+17:09:35 <OdyX> ditto
+17:09:42 <hartmans> OK.
+17:09:49 <bdale> largely because we've already had this in our to-do list for eons
+17:09:51 <hartmans> I would vote FD first on any such ballot at this point.
+17:10:26 <hartmans> But let's take to email.
+17:10:33 <bdale> so going through another round of "what are we supposed to be doing here" really doesn't seem like a good answer, even though I'm happy generally to continue to talk about how we should think about such questions and form solutions in the future
+17:10:39 <dondelelcaro> OK. I think once the ballot actually exists, I'll try to convince you otherwise, but I look forward to that discussion
+17:11:02 <dondelelcaro> and frankly, if there's an option that you'd prefer to see, it can go on the same ballot
+17:11:07 <dondelelcaro> and we can actually decide
+17:11:20 <hartmans> Nod. my preferred option is to go do what I outlined in the bug.
+17:11:23 <dondelelcaro> yeah
+17:12:00 <dondelelcaro> #action dondelelcaro to actually draft the ballot this time for the menu system question
+17:12:08 <dondelelcaro> #topic #636783 constitution: super-majority bug
+17:12:22 <dondelelcaro> I think these are still waiting around; they're certainly not critical at this juncture
+17:12:31 <dondelelcaro> does anyone have anything to report on this?
+17:12:36 <OdyX> Yeah, they need someone to sit and untangle.
+17:13:08 <dondelelcaro> OdyX: OK to just leave them for the next meeting?
+17:13:30 <OdyX> Sure
+17:13:53 <OdyX> As long as noone did the untangling, I can't really grasp the issues enough to form an opinion…
+17:14:05 <dondelelcaro> got it
+17:14:49 <dondelelcaro> #topic #771070 Coordinate plan and requirements for cross toolchain packages in Debian
+17:15:03 * hartmans sighs
+17:15:36 <dondelelcaro> this issue is still happening; still trying to get the parties to actually agree on a common set of plans
+17:15:59 <dondelelcaro> unfortunately, what might eventually occur is the CTTE getting involved to decide on a specific course of action once the plans are written
+17:16:00 <hartmans> Is the latest that doco is upset because the meeting minutes were published?
+17:16:04 <dondelelcaro> yes
+17:16:39 <dondelelcaro> currently, doko is working on an alternative set of plans which reflects his understanding of the agreement
+17:16:56 <hartmans> So, in that mail, he asked a question that might be worth pondering especially when we get involved.
+17:17:28 <hartmans> What level of involvement do we expect from maintainers in responding to concerns raised by other parties.
+17:17:49 <hartmans> He objected to the idea that he'd need to start his own formulation of the situation but also objected to using wookie's formulation.
+17:18:06 <hartmans> o, cool.
+17:18:16 <hartmans> It sounded like that was exactly what he didn't want to do
+17:18:29 <dondelelcaro> he didn't want to start from scratch, but I think that's really the only way forward
+17:18:35 <hartmans> nod.
+17:18:48 <dondelelcaro> otherwise, wookey and other people will continue to work around doko
+17:18:51 <hartmans> That was basically what I was going to say. Is that he needs to do something,
+17:19:18 <hartmans> And I certainly know that if one party has reasonable technical points and another party is silent, I'm likely to be more influenced by the party that is talking.
+17:19:19 <bdale> I fight against stop energy when I see it
+17:19:30 <bdale> saying "no" without offering an alternative is just obstructive
+17:19:31 <OdyX> Would that be solvable by (yet another) face-to-face meeting between concerned people, eventually with a third-party mediator (such as at DebConf) ?
+17:19:45 <dondelelcaro> OdyX: I don't know; they had a third party mediator last time.
+17:19:54 <dondelelcaro> OdyX: but it probably wouldn't hurt
+17:20:01 <dondelelcaro> maybe actually recording the entire meeting instead of just taking notes
+17:20:02 <hartmans> Thanks for the update.
+17:20:11 <OdyX> The minutes should have been published by that third-party mediator then…
+17:20:20 <dondelelcaro> yeah
+17:20:34 <dondelelcaro> maybe just having a third party mediator who published specific notes
+17:20:37 <dondelelcaro> and a plan
+17:20:48 <dondelelcaro> esp. if things haven't been resolved by that point in time
+17:22:14 <OdyX> Should we try to make this happen at the next DebConf ?
+17:22:33 <OdyX> It feels like the situation is deadlocked currently, and we've been asked to help.
+17:22:38 <hartmans> I propose we also give the parties the option of referring plans to us and delegating the decision
+17:22:50 <dondelelcaro> OdyX: I think that would be awesome; I don't know if wookey and doko will both be there
+17:22:56 <dondelelcaro> hartmans: that also sounds reasonable
+17:23:07 <bdale> seems likely they'll both be there
+17:23:50 <dondelelcaro> cool; I won't, so someone besides me will have to organize
+17:23:57 <dondelelcaro> does someone want to start on that?
+17:24:12 <dondelelcaro> I'm totally OK with calling in at pretty much any time or trying to be useful if that helps
+17:25:59 <bdale> several of us plan to be there, I guess the question is who, if anyone here, wants to try and organize a meeting?
+17:26:02 <dondelelcaro> yeah
+17:26:59 <OdyX> I'm not overly comfortable with the perspective of mediating such a meeting, but I think it needs to be done. So in absence of other vict^W volunteers, I'll do it.
+17:27:03 <hartmans> I can help at debconf. I don't want to volunteer much time for this before, and would be delighted if my help were not needed
+17:27:30 <hartmans> odyx: Make sure they want that first though.
+17:27:30 <bdale> OdyX: if you're willing to organize the meeting, I think enough of us can/will be there that you won't necessarily have to play mediator
+17:28:29 <OdyX> hartmans, bdale: good. I'll send a mail to all parties asking them to consider the idea and we'll see where we can go from there.
+17:28:41 <bdale> sounds like a plan
+17:28:51 <dondelelcaro> #action OdyX to organize possible meeting re #771070 at Debconf; others to potentially mediate
+17:29:00 <dondelelcaro> #topic #750135 Maintainer of aptitude package
+17:29:30 <hartmans> I think I'm looking for feedback from the rest of the TC on a proposal I sent out
+17:29:59 <dondelelcaro> I think Mithrandir gave some feedback, IIRC, but the rest of us need to weigh in
+17:30:01 <hartmans> There are a couple of issues where only I and one other have spoken and we disagree, so additional input would be very helpful
+17:30:10 <hartmans> I think we can probably do this with one ballot option.
+17:30:15 <bdale> was the proposal in email?
+17:30:22 <hartmans> On the bug
+17:30:23 <keithp> bdale: yes, may 17
+17:30:42 <bdale> thanks, found it, reading again
+17:31:44 <OdyX> Well. I don't disagree enough to vote this ballot below FD. I'd prefer something with a small "formal decision part" with only what we're saying as a body, and general considerations after and before that.
+17:32:13 <hartmans> What does that mean?
+17:32:27 <hartmans> I.E. are we voting on the formal decision part or not?
+17:32:47 <bdale> I don't understand your question
+17:32:52 <hartmans> Because to me, this resolution has no formal decision at all; there is nothing formal about it at all.
+17:32:59 <dondelelcaro> OdyX: so you mean to have just the part where we're taking action as a CTTE delineated, and the rest separated?
+17:33:02 <aba> well, it is a recommendation
+17:33:06 <aba> which we also could do
+17:33:50 <aba> (re btw)
+17:34:15 <OdyX> dondelelcaro: yes, such as "with the powers of §6.1.5, we say _blah_", here comes context and general advice.
+17:34:17 <bdale> yeah, ok. whether there's a "decision" or not, anything we vote on gets taken by the project as deeply authoritative. so the idea of keeping the part we officially vote on vs the commentary putting it in context separate is maybe what Odyx is asking for?
+17:34:32 <OdyX> yes. Sorry for the loosy phrasing.
+17:35:02 <hartmans> for myself, I care about what we vote on, and care less about the wording and how formal things appear in the wording.
+17:35:07 <aba> I think separating "what are the circumstances", "what advice do we offer", "misc" might make sense
+17:35:10 <bdale> np, as a group we're still working out how to work well together after the significant change in TC membership in recent months, *and* struggling generally with how to deal with some questions ..
+17:35:17 <OdyX> Limiting what is authoritative to only what's strictly needed IMHO helps avoiding the close word-by-word scrutiny and second-guessing of the rest of the decision.
+17:35:41 <aba> so this means we agree on the content, and "just" need to seperate it?
+17:35:50 <hartmans> aba: perhaps
+17:36:12 <hartmans> If the idea is that we're only voting on the part that is currently in the advice section, then I'd vote FD about that
+17:36:15 <bdale> fwiw, I'm fine with what hartmans wrote as being a good thing for the project to do
+17:36:20 <OdyX> I do agree with the content. I wouldn't go as far as hartmans' proposal goes in the general "for a healthy team" considerations, but I'd vote this above FD.
+17:36:49 <hartmans> If we're going to vote on something I'd prefer to have context. I'd be fine not voting at all (no resolution) though.
+17:36:56 <aba> hartmans: I think we should vote on the full text, however with "Background ..., therefore we offer advice ..., ..."
+17:37:01 <hartmans> But I think the context is far more important here than the actual recommendation
+17:37:22 <dondelelcaro> hartmans: previously, we've included context in the ballot, but only the specific parts where we use CTTE powers have any force
+17:37:26 <aba> (so yes, the background is part of our reasoning and should be voted on)
+17:37:34 <bdale> dondelelcaro: right
+17:37:42 <bdale> I think we're kind of all talking around/past each other here
+17:37:48 <bdale> it's fine for the ballot email to provide lots of context
+17:37:53 <bdale> we assume people will read and digest that
+17:38:09 <hartmans> I'm happy with wording that makes it sound more informal
+17:38:11 <bdale> but it's advantageous to have the part we actually vote on be constrained in size and scope
+17:38:30 <bdale> I'm also totally ok with the idea that there are things that can be resolved without taking a vote
+17:38:52 <bdale> the only issue then is how we know when to close the bug and walk away .. we've been horrible at actually bringing non-voted things to closure in the past
+17:39:05 <dondelelcaro> right; that's really the only reason why I'm more vote happy
+17:39:17 <bdale> and having the same list of things to talk about each month on IRC gets really, really, old both for us and for the project at large
+17:39:46 <dondelelcaro> anyway, I think I have an idea of some ways that this can be reworked to address OdyX's concerns (and my own), and I'll try to respond to this ballot
+17:39:47 <hartmans> Basically, I'm likely to support proposals that do not significantly change how much text is voted on here.
+17:39:56 <aba> dondelelcaro: alternative text "as things seem to have cleared up to a point where we don't need to use our constitutional powers, we consider it resolved" and vote on that?
+17:40:08 <dondelelcaro> aba: yeah, basically
+17:40:22 <bdale> that could work
+17:40:31 <dondelelcaro> we should try to have this voted on before next meeting
+17:40:50 <dondelelcaro> #action dondelelcaro to rework the ballot slightly to see if OdyX's (and dondelelcaro's) concerns can be addressed
+17:40:57 <keithp> Seems like we're also recommending a specific course of action here though, but not requiring
+17:40:57 <OdyX> well, I was proposing that at the latest meeting (accept MIA as a fact, move on), we didn't want that…
+17:41:13 <dondelelcaro> #topic Additional Business
+17:41:14 <bdale> keithp: sure, nothing wrong with that kind of advice
+17:41:43 <aba> e.g. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717076#235 has a resolution with reasoning in extra
+17:41:48 <keithp> so the ballot would be to transmit that recommendation publicly
+17:43:07 <dondelelcaro> anything else?
+17:44:30 <bdale> nothing here
+17:44:43 <hartmans> hmm
+17:44:44 <OdyX> .
+17:44:51 <hartmans> So, at the last meeting you mentioned busybox-static.
+17:44:58 <hartmans> As far as I'm concerned that's off our plate
+17:45:01 <dondelelcaro> right
+17:45:14 <hartmans> ok
+17:45:18 <dondelelcaro> I just haven't pulled it off of the additional business section
+17:45:31 <hartmans> np
+17:45:44 <hartmans> all for me
+17:45:45 <KGB-3> \ f\ 303Don Armstrong\ f \ 305master\ f d61ffa3 \ 306debian-ctte\ f \ 310meetings/agenda.txt\ f busybox resolved
+17:45:51 <dondelelcaro> #endmeeting
\ No newline at end of file
projects / debian-ctte.git / commitdiff