From: Don Armstrong Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:45:59 +0000 (-0700) Subject: add 20150923 meeting X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=debian-ctte.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=f753dada318246372191a93f15aa86cb69e13311 add 20150923 meeting --- diff --git a/meetings/20150923/debian-ctte.2015-09-23-18.59.log.txt b/meetings/20150923/debian-ctte.2015-09-23-18.59.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..24596ca --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20150923/debian-ctte.2015-09-23-18.59.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,253 @@ +18:59:24 #startmeeting +18:59:24 Meeting started Wed Sep 23 18:59:24 2015 UTC. The chair is dondelelcaro. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. +18:59:24 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. +18:59:31 #topic Who is here? +18:59:34 Don Armstrong +18:59:43 MeetBot: pingall debian CTTE meeting now +18:59:43 debian CTTE meeting now +18:59:43 aba abrotman adsb ansgar babilen bdale berni buxy carnil cjwatson clopez Diziet doko dondelelcaro frozencemetery gnugr gregoa hartmans helmut jcristau keithp KGB-3 kini lucas Maulkin MeetBot Mithrandir OdyX prh` rootbeer ScottK Texou themill tjader vorlon weasel +18:59:43 +18:59:43 debian CTTE meeting now +19:00:10 Didier Raboud +19:00:27 Sam hartman +19:00:28 * aba +19:01:04 vorlon sent his regrets +19:01:15 keithp, bdale: ping +19:01:30 #topic Next Meeting? +19:02:20 currently there are three winning options; I'm going to default to the same time unless that changes soon +19:02:36 any objections to 2015/10/28 19:00 UTC ? +19:02:37 Earlier is better for me, but that works. +19:02:44 Is next meeting before or after DST in the US changes +19:02:50 oh, good point. +19:02:59 it's before DST changes +19:03:10 but I think after europe changes +19:03:28 after european I think too +19:03:37 ah then good +19:03:57 switch is here on Oct 25th +19:04:35 ok; unless someone messages the mailing list indicating a conflict, that's when the meeting will be +19:04:41 I'm going to also update the poll for november +19:04:50 #action dondelelcaro to update the meeting poll for november +19:04:58 #topic #771070 Coordinate plan and requirements for cross toolchain packages in Debian +19:05:11 I think we're waiting for the plan for this to actually be written up still +19:05:30 I wasn't in the debconf meeting, so I know no real details, and was hoping to hear about them in the plan +19:05:31 Who has the pen and who wants us to act? +19:05:54 This is dragging out enough that if someone different than who is blocking wants us to act we should seriously consider getting our hands dirty. +19:06:18 I believe it's wookey who is writing them up currently, though he wanted to round trip through doko +19:06:21 we're waiting on vorlon's feedback from DebConf's meeting afaik. +19:06:23 * aba checks with older minutes +19:06:29 ah, ok +19:06:40 We are, but I'm also uncomfortable blocking for ever on vorlon. +19:07:07 sure, we need to move there, but it's a complicated subject. +19:07:26 is vorlon actually writing something up, though? +19:07:34 we had last time +19:07:35 19:29:57 #action vorlon to report on his presence during the DebConf BoF +19:07:40 or is he weighing in on what someone else will write up? oh, ok +19:07:59 aba: yeah, but he wasn't at the meeting. +19:08:03 well, we 'assigned' him that, but didn't make it explicit to him. +19:08:06 Did we ever tell him he accumulated an action? +19:08:10 (although I expect members to read the minutes) +19:08:24 I personally did not +19:08:49 I'm puzzled. +19:08:52 (explicitely tell him; I did check the minutes) +19:08:57 ah :) +19:09:25 sorry, my internet just starts to be ... painful +19:09:26 Let's make sure he's aware and willing over IRC after the meeting. +19:09:29 ok; lets make sure that vorlon knows that's an action item. It's possible that he has nothing to report +19:09:30 (i.e. I missed 3 mintues) +19:09:44 dondelelcaro: ok. +19:09:50 OdyX: can you take care of that? +19:09:57 Well yeah +19:10:14 #action odyx to followup with vorlon re notes from debconf meeting +19:10:57 anything else here? +19:11:06 I'd think not +19:11:54 #topic Constitutional change proposals +19:12:13 aba: Are you aware of Kirt's mail to you? +19:12:14 sorry I've been slacking here a bit. +19:12:15 I think we can discard this from the agenda, and just do the individual ones +19:12:19 #topic #636783 Constitution: super-majority bug +19:12:35 aba: it's been 3 weeks, man /o\ +19:12:51 I'm frankly annoyed that it takes so much time. +19:12:55 03Don Armstrong 05master 9d2fd35 06debian-ctte 10meetings/agenda.txt remove general constitutional item from the proposal list +19:13:08 (while the diff is mostly available for you to massage and answer Kurt) +19:13:46 sorry, internet is really broken here at the moment +19:14:08 it's really deadlocked on you (as GR proposer), but if you need any more assistance, please ask! +19:14:09 I'm annoyed too, but well. Anyways I plan to work on that on Saturday etc +19:14:19 things should be way better in two days +19:14:24 ok +19:14:24 great. +19:14:37 #action aba to have the diff for Kurt on Saturday re supermajority +19:14:48 #topic #795854 Constitutional Amendment: Fix duplicate section numbering (A1) +19:14:52 My observation from this is that I'm less convinced an individual leading a proposal is better than having the TC do it with rapid internal votes +19:14:52 this got merged ,right? +19:15:07 it did +19:15:10 yes +19:15:21 excellent +19:15:38 hartmans: yeah. As a body we need to ensure whoever takes the lead has the necessary bandwidth. +19:15:44 yeah +19:15:44 #topic #795855 Formal cloture vote +19:16:13 Bdale offered to give me some input after our conversation on this. +19:16:19 I've been trying to talk to him; will ping again. +19:16:22 ok +19:16:37 #action hartmans to follow up with bdale about cloture vote +19:16:56 #topic #795857 TC chair appointment +19:17:04 well, same as with the discussion about the general TC process, I'm not enthusiastic to add administrative procedures. +19:17:33 yeah, I'm not, but it's worth discussing a specific amendment, I htink +19:17:40 (Sometimes it feels we spend more time discussing how to solve problems, than actually tackling the problems…) +19:17:48 yep +19:17:49 #topic #795857 TC chair appointment +19:17:55 err, sorry. +19:18:12 regarding this, did anyone feel differently about having a vote every time the TC changes membership? +19:18:25 well, if we're not in favour of the cloture vote principle, I don't see the point in putting work towards getting to a formal amendment +19:18:30 I think it's reasonable to vote every time the composition changes +19:18:34 bt well +19:18:38 (sorry for interleaved topics) +19:18:39 (I guess, every time a new member is appointed makes sense) +19:18:44 OdyX: no problem +19:18:52 It does make sense for me. +19:19:03 dondelelcaro: or that. +19:19:09 I think that's a good time to elect chairs. +19:19:14 I'm not sure it does make sense to decide this through GR, iff the current (and future) chairs agree on this as a principle +19:19:25 If I were proposing text I'd also make it relatively easy to remove a chair, but I wouldn't require that to vote above fd +19:19:30 I think we could also just decide that we want this, and be done with it +19:19:37 I'm concerned if we do it any time the TC changes, just because it means we would vote twice in short succession, but maybe that's OK +19:19:43 yeah, I'm personally OK with just doing this +19:19:55 and if any future TC chair doesn't, we can force through a GR at that point +19:20:06 In absence of a GR, the only way to change chair is to take the TC member off the TC, right ? +19:20:12 we could phrase things giving ourselves enough margin to only do it once +19:20:26 Assuming the two appointments are around the same time +19:20:37 sure +19:20:44 would a general principle being after someone new is appointed, or within say 3 months of someone resigning? +19:20:52 nod +19:21:01 dondelelcaro: sounds good +19:21:08 ok +19:21:20 yeah, works. +19:21:29 I'll do that in January or thereabouts when we have new members +19:21:30 I even think we could vote on this as an statement of the day +19:21:40 do we want to announce this "opinion of the day" as a vote + d-d-a ? +19:21:48 oh, sure, I guess +19:21:49 * aba thinks so +19:22:01 let me write it up, and then we can make sure what I've written makes sense, and vote on it +19:22:03 I'd rather announce as a consensus of the tc not formally voted on if we are reasonably sure that's true. +19:22:07 dondelelcaro: thanks +19:22:08 Why be more formal than we need. +19:22:18 * bdale just arrived +19:22:30 sorry, my phone did a reset to factory defaults a couple days ago and I'm still trying to recover +19:22:31 well, "TC talking to d-d-a" kinda implies a formal vote for me. +19:22:52 hartmans: well, the nice thing is that if we vote, it'll be announced to the project, and it'll be easy to refer to it again +19:23:24 odyx: Could we discuss that outside of a TC meeting sometime? I think I'd like to explore some different ways of looking at that. +19:23:35 I have no objection to voting on this issue so that conversation should not block. +19:23:57 hartmans: sure, anytime. +19:24:10 #action dondelelcaro to write up TC chair election process with after new member and/or within 3 months of resignation +19:24:16 #topic #795859 Permit TC to hold private conversations +19:24:20 I think we definitely should have it in a directory of internal procedures in our git repo regardless of anything else, making it easy to refer to +19:24:29 hartmans: sounds good +19:24:54 as long as this directory doesn't explode over time. I'd rather focus on fixing issues than coming up with procedures. +19:24:58 yeah, I'd totally be for a README.md or similar in the root of our git repo which has stuff in it +19:25:29 and it can just be things that we already are doing +19:25:40 dondelelcaro: yep +19:25:53 sure, as long as it's "generic rules" and not a set of binding procedures. +19:25:55 right +19:26:19 OdyX: we shouldn't put too much time in it, but if we have some texts we should put it there +19:26:23 (the constitution is already complicated enough :-) ) +19:26:39 so what about the private conversations thing? +19:27:05 I will be honest and say the private conversations thing has always confused me +19:27:20 me too. +19:27:31 And someone pointed out last time that it did more than was obvious. +19:27:59 yes. The current proposal is actually a "should limit private to" , which restricts more than allows. +19:28:22 yeah; I think it was trying to document current practice, rather than be descriptive +19:28:33 Is there anyone on the TC who wants to move forward with this? +19:28:37 not me +19:28:40 frankly, about the only time we do things privately is for new members and for mediation attempts +19:28:42 I'm personally fine with dropping that proposal, and continue with our private list as we're doing. +19:28:48 * aba not eithe +19:29:03 I propose we drop this until a TC member champions it. +19:29:04 (does any non-TC member have access to that, such as the DPL ?) +19:29:12 OdyX: yes +19:29:20 OdyX: but it's very limited +19:29:38 yeah, I'm just looking for project-backed auditing possibility. +19:30:01 OdyX: right; the project could potentially decide to look at everything that takes place in that list +19:30:19 (so that these people could waive a red flag if they feel we're abusing our constitutional juridiction) +19:30:22 so I think that's probably good enough +19:30:22 I'm OK with that as a technical possibility and trust the project +19:30:32 And prefer that in extreme circumstances they have the ability to audit us. +19:30:37 right +19:30:38 Totally. +19:30:58 ok; I'll just close that bug with a message that any TC member who objects can reopen and continue it +19:31:14 any DD can also push this to a GR :) +19:31:28 #action dondelelcaro to close #795859 but allow any TC member or DD to champion it themselves +19:31:36 #topic #797533 New CTTE members +19:31:50 I think this got derailed in a discussion of time availability +19:31:57 At odyx's request I made a specific proposal for some text to add about required time. +19:32:01 yeah. I'm quite annoyed by that. +19:32:02 Should I paste that here? +19:32:18 But I'm very happy with the result in the form of hartmans' summary. +19:32:36 ok +19:32:55 hartmans: can you just make the change to the text in git and commit it? +19:33:09 if for some reason it's controversial, we can re-raise it, but I don't think it's going to be +19:33:21 OK, will do +19:33:23 Let's be clear: I'm fine with the discussion itself (although disagree with both Ian and Josh), just not as a discussion hijack on the bug for discussing new TC members +19:33:31 right +19:33:54 ok; I'm going to send this announcement out within the week +19:33:58 Do we have a rough agenda for this? +19:34:16 #action dondelelcaro to send out announcement for new members within the week +19:34:22 good .. soon is good +19:34:26 OK, so I'll commit the proposed addition, people will review and Don will send out +19:34:35 Selection start around first-december +19:34:53 Yeah. Allowing two months (full october and november) to chase candidacies is good. +19:34:56 I think we should have a month for new members to be nominated, then a few weeks to confirm their nomination, then discussions in december, then recommend to DPL +19:35:25 a month for nominations seems about right +19:36:02 although it's December-everyone-is-offline-between 18 Dec until 5 Jan. +19:36:07 I encourage everyone here to actively solicit nominations, too +19:36:07 #agreed month for nominations +19:36:46 yeah; I figure if we have a list of nominations in hand by 15 november, we'll be OK with recommendations before 1 Jan. +19:37:21 as long as nothing extraordinary happens in the middle of the process +19:37:22 Do we want to do anything with the Josh/Ian part of the discussion? +19:37:30 anything else on this topic? +19:38:01 The proposed procedures look just overhead for me, but I'm happy to discuss them. +19:38:11 #topic Additional Business +19:38:24 What I've taken away from that is that it's entirely reasonable to propose a quick vote to take preliminary action with possibly one-two days between a ballot and a cfv +19:38:27 franky, someone who felt this strongly could propose an early vote for something like this +19:38:27 I certainly won't push for more bureaucracy. +19:38:44 well, it's always been. +19:38:47 and we could easily do FD above everything if it wasn't ok +19:38:48 And it might be valuable for us to have a template in git for early votes. +19:38:57 hartmans: feel free to create one +19:39:06 It would be nice to know that in princple the TC was compfortable with people pushing for early votes. +19:39:09 the TC voted maintainer overrided under 5-days, IIRC +19:39:15 For myself, I'm against anything more than that as too much formality. +19:39:47 I personally haven't had a case where I was ready to override the maintainer that quickly +19:39:48 hartmans: I'm happy with as long as the person pushing assumes that everyone on the tc is ready +19:39:50 odyx: always been possible is different than socially reasonable +19:40:01 after the systemd discussion I'd be a bit nervous about short timing for votes. +19:40:11 nah, don't be +19:40:12 But this discussion helps me understand the social convention, which I value. +19:40:25 the idea of voting early on something that either seems simple or urgent is fine +19:40:26 hartmans: if there's a big enough problem, people can vote FD +19:40:39 hartmans: that was the only vote I remember what someone pushed for a vote where not everyone was happy with. In all other cases it was "its obvious, let's just vote" +19:40:49 sometimes we just don't comprehend the alternatives well enough for a quick vote, but sometimes it's really clear +19:40:59 and well, that was special in so many ways I don't want to make that the starting point for normal rules +19:41:07 right +19:41:10 yep +19:41:25 OK, sounds like none of us want to propose formal procedure here. +19:41:28 I think we may be too slow to vote in the majority of cases; having someone draft something early and consider voting on it would be awesome +19:41:28 * hartmans is very happy 'bout that +19:41:50 hartmans: thanks for pushing us all to think about this +19:41:51 cool; anything else? +19:41:55 (consider a case where a maintainer wants to make a total leaf packages as essential, I'm sure we'll overruling him within 2 days) +19:42:17 aba: but, but, but... every Debian system *needs* openrocket! +19:42:36 bdale: perhaps. but does every need pulseaudio? *RUN* +19:42:37 #699808 was voted upon in 4 days… +19:42:42 auto-rm-rf-on-install is now essential: yes +19:42:49 aba: you win... +19:43:15 OdyX: that was a bit of a special case. +19:43:23 .oO(I just fear that we are only laughing now ...) +19:43:31 Just saying there was ballot + votes under 4 days. +19:43:51 wasn't it Heisenberg who said some things are so serious you can only laugh about them? +19:43:57 anyway, we're deriving :-) +19:44:06 cool; anything else for the meeting? +19:44:08 Want me to play topic-bad-cop again ? :-> +19:44:09 * dondelelcaro needs to get back on the road +19:44:29 * aba thinks we're done (for the meeting) +19:44:43 I think we are +19:44:44 hearing nothing *gavel* +19:44:45 #endmeeting \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/meetings/20150923/debian-ctte.2015-09-23-18.59.txt b/meetings/20150923/debian-ctte.2015-09-23-18.59.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..75094d3 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20150923/debian-ctte.2015-09-23-18.59.txt @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +==================== +#debian-ctte Meeting +==================== + + +Meeting started by dondelelcaro at 18:59:24 UTC. The full logs are +available at +http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2015/debian-ctte.2015-09-23-18.59.log.html +. + + + +Meeting summary +--------------- +* Who is here? (dondelelcaro, 18:59:31) + +* Next Meeting? (dondelelcaro, 19:01:30) + * ACTION: dondelelcaro to update the meeting poll for november + (dondelelcaro, 19:04:50) + +* #771070 Coordinate plan and requirements for cross toolchain packages + in Debian (dondelelcaro, 19:04:58) + * ACTION: odyx to followup with vorlon re notes from debconf meeting + (dondelelcaro, 19:10:14) + +* Constitutional change proposals (dondelelcaro, 19:11:54) + +* #636783 Constitution: super-majority bug (dondelelcaro, 19:12:19) + * ACTION: aba to have the diff for Kurt on Saturday re supermajority + (dondelelcaro, 19:14:37) + +* #795854 Constitutional Amendment: Fix duplicate section numbering (A1) + (dondelelcaro, 19:14:48) + +* #795855 Formal cloture vote (dondelelcaro, 19:15:44) + * ACTION: hartmans to follow up with bdale about cloture vote + (dondelelcaro, 19:16:37) + +* #795857 TC chair appointment (dondelelcaro, 19:16:56) + +* #795857 TC chair appointment (dondelelcaro, 19:17:49) + * ACTION: dondelelcaro to write up TC chair election process with + after new member and/or within 3 months of resignation + (dondelelcaro, 19:24:10) + +* #795859 Permit TC to hold private conversations (dondelelcaro, + 19:24:16) + * ACTION: dondelelcaro to close #795859 but allow any TC member or DD + to champion it themselves (dondelelcaro, 19:31:28) + +* #797533 New CTTE members (dondelelcaro, 19:31:36) + * ACTION: dondelelcaro to send out announcement for new members within + the week (dondelelcaro, 19:34:16) + * AGREED: month for nominations (dondelelcaro, 19:36:07) + +* Additional Business (dondelelcaro, 19:38:11) + +Meeting ended at 19:44:45 UTC. + + + + +Action Items +------------ +* dondelelcaro to update the meeting poll for november +* odyx to followup with vorlon re notes from debconf meeting +* aba to have the diff for Kurt on Saturday re supermajority +* hartmans to follow up with bdale about cloture vote +* dondelelcaro to write up TC chair election process with after new + member and/or within 3 months of resignation +* dondelelcaro to close #795859 but allow any TC member or DD to + champion it themselves +* dondelelcaro to send out announcement for new members within the week + + + + +Action Items, by person +----------------------- +* aba + * aba to have the diff for Kurt on Saturday re supermajority +* bdale + * hartmans to follow up with bdale about cloture vote +* dondelelcaro + * dondelelcaro to update the meeting poll for november + * dondelelcaro to write up TC chair election process with after new + member and/or within 3 months of resignation + * dondelelcaro to close #795859 but allow any TC member or DD to + champion it themselves + * dondelelcaro to send out announcement for new members within the + week +* hartmans + * hartmans to follow up with bdale about cloture vote +* **UNASSIGNED** + * odyx to followup with vorlon re notes from debconf meeting + + + + +People Present (lines said) +--------------------------- +* dondelelcaro (97) +* OdyX (54) +* hartmans (43) +* aba (35) +* bdale (16) +* MeetBot (6) +* KGB-3 (1) +* jcristau (1) + + + + +Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 + +.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot