From: Don Armstrong Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:36:01 +0000 (-0700) Subject: add 20160830 meeting X-Git-Url: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=debian-ctte.git;a=commitdiff_plain;h=ff766546bc3642ef5e3c9539c907919855812ed6 add 20160830 meeting --- diff --git a/meetings/20160830/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.log.txt b/meetings/20160830/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..eb95a6e --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20160830/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,142 @@ +18:02:08 #startmeeting +18:02:08 Meeting started Tue Aug 30 18:02:08 2016 UTC. The chair is OdyX. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. +18:02:08 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. +18:02:10 #save +18:02:16 Chair ? +18:02:40 http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2016/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.html <- it records indeed. +18:03:07 hartmans, dondelelcaro, keithp, marga, fil, Mithrandir, aba: We have started meeting. Are you there ? +18:03:20 Sam hartman +18:03:26 Keith Packard +18:03:37 Didier Raboud +18:03:48 Tollef Fog Heen +18:03:50 (I need someone to volunteer to chair, pretty please) +18:04:08 Don Armstrong +18:04:14 Philip Hands +18:04:34 #topic Next Meetings ? +18:04:50 I can chair if you don't have a volunteer. +18:04:51 I've decided for September: Confirmed: date -d 'Thu Sep 29 18:00:00 UTC 2016' +18:04:56 #chair OdyX,hartmans +18:04:56 Current chairs: OdyX hartmans +18:05:10 and October is tentative date -d 'Thu Oct 27 18:00:00 UTC 2016' +18:05:43 I'll continue deciding one meeting in advance, so please keep your preferences up-to-date :) +18:05:56 Cool. +18:06:03 Anything else or shall we move on to the fun? +18:06:08 Let's move on. +18:06:48 #topic #835507 Please clarify that sysvinit support decision is not going to ex\ +18:06:48 pire +18:07:10 #topic #835507 Please clarify that sysvinit support decision is not going to expire +18:07:22 There's been a lot of discussion. +18:07:43 I've stated my opinion on the bug, and I was tempted to push for a "A: no statement; FD" ballot. I can be convinced a "A: no statement; B: Ian's statement; FD" ballot. +18:08:06 I think that no statement is really needed; policy just needs to be updated +18:08:16 I think there may be two open issues here: 1) what/how do we respond to this issue and 2) is there anything we can do to help the policy process actually come up with a modern init system policy. +18:08:27 I don't think we need a statement either, but policy should be updated. +18:08:44 Do we want to _set_ policy ourselves ? +18:08:49 * fil thought that OdyX's response to Ian was 100% correct FWIW +18:09:08 OdyX: I don't think so; the hard work here is writing up the policy, and that would require detailed design work +18:09:13 on the other hand, are people confused about the lifetime of ctte rulings? I don't actually think so. +18:09:18 well, potentially would require +18:09:20 OdyX: In my ideal world 3 or 4 of us go start hashing this out on debian-policy and bring it back to the TC if that stalls. +18:09:41 I'm short on bandwidth, but I'm tempted to get my hands dirty in the policy process. +18:09:53 hartmans: yeah, that's what I suggest too. +18:10:04 I don't want to engage alone, and especially not iff I can't sustain some rythm. +18:10:28 I'd kind of like to sit this one out but could have arms twisted if necessary. +18:10:49 So. We're in agreement that a) no new statement is needed; b) debian-policy process is currently broken, and needs to be fixed. +18:11:05 as for b), I think it's as much of a TC problem than a project problem. +18:11:11 Where has aba been? :) +18:11:37 I don't think policy being stalled is a TC problem, it's a project-wide problem +18:11:46 we might help fix it, though. Not sure. +18:11:52 to avoid confusion: it is a concern of TC members, and it should really be a project-wide concern, as well. +18:11:55 Mithrandir: Except for 6.1.1. I think we have more responsibility than average for policy. +18:12:00 there basically aren't any active policy editors +18:12:39 On the lack of a statement. Do we want to presume Ian will insist on a vote? Or just close the bug? +18:13:09 I was about to ask a similar question. I think we might want to vote on it, but open to doing either. +18:13:18 We tried avoiding a vote, and decided we wanted to say "we agree without a vote, please ask if you want a formal vote" +18:13:46 I mean: in general. +18:13:49 I'm fine with that. any objections? +18:14:02 If not should I #agreed We will close the bug unless Ian requests a formal vote? +18:14:08 That might be a good test-case, to also test the waters together with the rest of a project. +18:14:16 I'd #agreed with a volunteer. +18:14:31 and "unless someone requests a formal vote" +18:14:48 ah, right. +18:14:55 Who wants to close the bug? +18:15:00 I can write up something to that effect. +18:15:05 unless somebody else wants to +18:15:22 Mithrandir: I'm good with you doing it +18:15:26 #agreed Mithrandir will close the bug unless someone requests a formal vote. +18:15:27 Mithrandir: please do. I have some more bandwidth these days, I can review. +18:15:45 review would be good, so I'll float it around when I have a text. +18:15:48 Okay, now do we have volunteers to get involved in the policy porcess on this issue? +18:15:56 I think we can separate this from the policy editor problem. +18:16:13 Actually is "will close the bug leaving the door open for someone to request a formal vote" (the unless is not postponing the bug closure) +18:16:24 It's actually a fleet of issues. +18:16:25 In that if we get a proposal seconded and have worked through comments and the only thing blocking is lack of editor, we can bring that to the TC and the TC can review under 6.1.1 +18:16:38 and a quite big amendment to policy. +18:16:54 Mithrandir: works for me - I ought to have time to help, if needed +18:16:55 hartmans: hep +18:17:01 s/hep/yep/ +18:17:04 #save +18:18:46 I'll gladly be involved. But the bootstrap part needs someone policy-fluent. +18:18:53 Was fil offering to help with the bug closure or the policy discussion? +18:19:06 bug closure +18:20:34 So no one wants to help OdyX with policy? +18:20:43 It feels our problems are connected; new TC members, expiring TC members (could-be policy editors ?), menu in policy, systemd in policy ? +18:21:08 are we on to the menu policy thing, or is this policy re. TC votes, or some such? +18:21:09 and if it boils down to any of us 8 _only_ to be involved in all this, we have a larger problem. +18:21:22 We believe that the init system policy is broken +18:21:37 and some of us think it would be good to get that fixed--good enough that TC effort should be spent. +18:21:40 I was just wide-rambling, sorry :) +18:22:11 it's the old problem; people who know how to fix the issues don't have free time to dedicate to the thankless task of documenting how it all should work +18:22:17 yep. +18:22:22 Well, yeah, but if among the eight of us we cannot find volunteers to fix what we believe is a critical problem in policy, I'd wonder whether we're an ongoing concern. +18:22:49 If I could only start one of the two (systemd/menu) in policy, which one should that be ? +18:22:54 I guess we move on for this meeting,? +18:23:05 systemd +18:23:23 (agree re systemd as more pressing than menu) +18:23:26 I would like to help with the menu stuff in policy, but agree that systemd is more pressing +18:23:32 #topic New members process; need a champion +18:23:45 September 1 is coming out, we want to have our big push very soon. +18:23:57 So, we need a volunteer to get us new members. +18:24:34 #action OdyX to start something on systemd in policy, counting on TC members' constructive support. +18:24:55 all of the stuff to do the push is in git; someone just needs to edit it and send the e-mails +18:25:06 * dondelelcaro shouldn't do it for obvious reasons +18:25:31 dondelelcaro should do it for obvious reasons +18:25:53 :-) +18:25:56 if the last time was any indication, I'll no longer be a CTTE member before the process is finished +18:26:18 so while I can send the initial e-mails, I cannot champion it +18:26:20 To clarify I think we're asking for a volunteer to run drumming up nominations. +18:26:23 okay. I'll do it (first) if noone else volunteers to send a few mails. +18:26:32 I think we can ask for a volunteer to make sure we review candidates and stuff later. +18:26:59 if it's just sending the e-mails, I'm OK with taking care of that +18:27:08 excellent. +18:27:17 but someone else needs to drive the whole process +18:27:24 #action dondelelcaro To send emails starting our membership process. +18:27:43 dondelelcaro: Do they? Or can we have a different driver at each stage to make the job smaller? +18:28:43 I'll be as pushy as last time, don't worry. +18:29:16 But I expect more nominations from TC members and Debian members, for the process to be somewhat meaningful. +18:30:14 Shall we move on? +18:30:19 #topic #741573 Menu System Policy +18:30:23 :) +18:30:33 I'll postpone this post-systemd-policy integration. +18:30:48 So, what I think we're waiting for here is OdyX and aba to coordinate +18:30:51 and understand state. +18:30:52 if aba can take it and make progress on that front, that's great. +18:30:54 anything to report? +18:30:57 nope. +18:31:06 Okay, let's defer until next time then. +18:31:31 #topic Additional Business +18:31:31 * fil wonders if this is the moment to again mention my mad scheme for for sending random mails out saying "Here is your TC nomination form, please use it" (or perhaps, "please pass it on to the wisest DD you know to nominate someone" if you want well connected folk to do the nominations) +18:31:31 Like for all TC subjects, this is the kind of topic that needs a 2-3h burst of free mind-time to get a clear state in-mind. +18:31:54 fil: I like the less-well-connected version in terms of diversity implications. +18:32:03 empower yourself:-) +18:32:12 fil: any fresh idea for getting new TC members is welcome, for what I'm concerned. +18:32:26 So, any additional business? +18:32:31 and when I write "new" I mean "from new corners of our ecosystem" +18:32:37 hartmans: we could try both and see if either produces useful results +18:32:43 sure +18:32:59 going once? +18:33:10 they're not conflicting. +18:33:33 Do we need meeting time to discuss this idea? +18:33:59 it fits in the "TC member mandate" to find innovative ways to find their replacements, IMHO :) +18:34:10 agreed. +18:34:28 If not, thank you all. +18:34:33 #endmeeting \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/meetings/20160830/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.txt b/meetings/20160830/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..4087dca --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/20160830/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.txt @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +==================== +#debian-ctte Meeting +==================== + + +Meeting started by OdyX at 18:02:08 UTC. The full logs are available at +http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2016/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.log.html +. + + + +Meeting summary +--------------- +* LINK: + http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2016/debian-ctte.2016-08-30-18.02.html + <- it records indeed. (OdyX, 18:02:40) +* Next Meetings ? (OdyX, 18:04:34) + +* #835507 Please clarify that sysvinit support decision is not going to + ex\ (hartmans, 18:06:48) + +* #835507 Please clarify that sysvinit support decision is not going to + expire (hartmans, 18:07:10) + * AGREED: Mithrandir will close the bug unless someone requests a + formal vote. (hartmans, 18:15:26) + +* New members process; need a champion (hartmans, 18:23:32) + * ACTION: OdyX to start something on systemd in policy, counting on TC + members' constructive support. (OdyX, 18:24:34) + * ACTION: dondelelcaro To send emails starting our membership process. + (hartmans, 18:27:24) + +* #741573 Menu System Policy (OdyX, 18:30:19) + +* Additional Business (hartmans, 18:31:31) + +Meeting ended at 18:34:33 UTC. + + + + +Action Items +------------ +* OdyX to start something on systemd in policy, counting on TC members' + constructive support. +* dondelelcaro To send emails starting our membership process. + + + + +Action Items, by person +----------------------- +* dondelelcaro + * dondelelcaro To send emails starting our membership process. +* OdyX + * OdyX to start something on systemd in policy, counting on TC + members' constructive support. +* **UNASSIGNED** + * (none) + + + + +People Present (lines said) +--------------------------- +* OdyX (52) +* hartmans (51) +* dondelelcaro (15) +* Mithrandir (10) +* fil (8) +* MeetBot (3) +* keithp (3) + + + + +Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 + +.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot