[2009/06/25 01:19:23] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 01:19:23] @ Quit: mpagano: "cya" [2009/06/25 01:25:53] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 01:19:23 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 02:34:32] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 02:34:32] Betelgeuse / dertobi123: yes, the election page isn't locked [2009/06/25 02:46:54] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 02:34:32 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 03:09:29] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 03:09:29] @ Polynomial-C joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 03:19:18] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 03:09:29 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 03:24:29] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 03:24:29] @ Quit: Poly-C: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) [2009/06/25 03:40:25] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 03:24:29 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 03:52:54] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 03:52:54] @ reavertm_ joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 03:58:28] dertobi123: I see you've added it yourself. [2009/06/25 04:09:36] @ Quit: reavertm: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) [2009/06/25 04:24:07] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 04:09:36 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 06:55:56] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 06:55:56] @ Quit: alexxy: Remote closed the connection [2009/06/25 06:59:22] @ alexxy joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 06:59:30] @ Quit: alexxy: Remote closed the connection [2009/06/25 07:01:34] @ alexxy joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 07:04:35] @ Quit: togge|laptop: "No Ping reply in 90 seconds." [2009/06/25 07:04:43] @ togge joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 07:17:37] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 07:04:43 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 07:43:30] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 07:43:30] @ hkBst joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 07:50:23] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 07:43:30 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 08:36:30] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 08:36:30] @ touparx joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 08:38:18] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 08:36:30 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 09:27:35] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 09:27:35] @ reavertm_ is now known as reavertm [2009/06/25 09:36:51] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 09:27:35 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 09:45:07] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 09:45:07] Is there some page where I can read the manifestos of the council nominees? [2009/06/25 09:45:41] Poly-C_atwork mine is the same as the last year so you can get from the gwn article ^^ [2009/06/25 09:46:51] let me dig [2009/06/25 09:47:18] Poly-C_atwork http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20070820-newsletter.xml?style=printable [2009/06/25 09:48:07] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/elections/council-200906-nominees.xml [2009/06/25 09:51:30] thanks :) [2009/06/25 10:04:01] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 09:51:30 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 10:32:52] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 10:32:52] @ mpagano joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 10:35:23] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 10:32:52 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 13:01:00] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 13:01:00] @ Quit: mescalinum: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) [2009/06/25 13:03:48] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 13:01:00 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 13:16:32] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 13:16:32] @ ulm joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 13:16:32] @ Mode +o ulm by ChanServ [2009/06/25 13:20:04] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 13:16:32 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 13:38:28] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 13:38:28] @ Quit: alexxy: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) [2009/06/25 13:40:07] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 13:38:28 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 13:40:07] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 13:40:07] @ FuzzyRay joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 13:42:23] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 13:40:07 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 14:22:27] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 14:22:27] @ Quit: ulm: "ERC Version 5.2 (IRC client for Emacs)" [2009/06/25 14:27:00] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 14:22:27 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 15:15:30] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 15:15:30] @ Quit: touparx: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) [2009/06/25 15:17:45] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 15:15:30 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 15:19:18] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 15:19:18] @ Cardoe joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 15:19:18] @ Mode +o Cardoe by ChanServ [2009/06/25 15:20:24] @ Thargor joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 15:21:37] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 15:20:24 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 15:23:23] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 15:23:23] Folks, would you all tell me how you would react to a last-minute agenda addition? We may need to clarify glep 39 as it pertains to what "all active develeopers" means regarding elections (active devs before nominations, before voting etc.) [2009/06/25 15:23:36] people who have joined during an election have voted in previous years [2009/06/25 15:23:59] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 15:23:36 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 15:25:07] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 15:25:07] Me sort of [2009/06/25 15:25:26] But elections project isn't really making a decision on this [2009/06/25 15:28:04] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 15:25:26 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 15:29:27] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 15:29:27] @ billie joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 15:31:43] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 15:29:27 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 15:57:01] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 15:57:01] @ Quit: reavertm: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) [2009/06/25 15:59:33] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 15:57:01 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 16:06:32] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 16:06:32] @ alexxy joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 16:10:03] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 16:06:32 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 16:16:50] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 16:16:50] @ ulm joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 16:16:50] @ Mode +o ulm by ChanServ [2009/06/25 16:20:58] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 16:16:50 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 16:37:06] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 16:37:06] @ Quit: ssuominen: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) [2009/06/25 16:41:35] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 16:37:06 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 16:46:25] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 16:46:25] @ leio-dl joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 16:46:25] @ Mode +o leio-dl by ChanServ [2009/06/25 16:50:15] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 16:46:25 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 17:02:45] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 17:02:45] @ billie80 joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 17:04:50] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 17:02:45 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 17:15:12] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 17:15:12] @ leio_ joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 17:15:12] @ Mode +o leio_ by ChanServ [2009/06/25 17:15:53] @ Quit: leio-dl: Nick collision from services. [2009/06/25 17:15:59] @ leio_ is now known as leio-dl [2009/06/25 17:18:04] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 17:15:59 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 17:18:04] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 17:18:04] @ Quit: billie: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) [2009/06/25 17:20:37] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 17:18:04 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 17:50:56] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 17:50:56] IIRC I had to wait a year before I could vote for council [2009/06/25 17:54:11] wasn't that trustees maybe? [2009/06/25 17:55:05] trustees is different because non-devs can even vote if they're members [2009/06/25 17:55:33] I remember trustees having been about that year as dev thing [2009/06/25 17:55:57] oh, yeah that was a while back [2009/06/25 17:56:05] due to having to be a foundation member for voting [2009/06/25 17:56:13] and foundation membership being possible after a year as a dev, or something along those lines [2009/06/25 17:56:19] before it was reformed to allow non-devs [2009/06/25 17:57:15] @ Quit: ulm: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) [2009/06/25 17:57:15] * billie80 has just run votify --submit without errors [2009/06/25 17:57:22] i t was defintely council [2009/06/25 17:57:23] @ ulm joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 17:57:23] @ Mode +o ulm by ChanServ [2009/06/25 17:57:45] and i am a dev for a few weeks now :) [2009/06/25 17:58:14] maybe I'm losing it [2009/06/25 18:03:37] http://marc.info/?l=gentoo-dev&m=122792517932131&w=2 [2009/06/25 18:03:47] statement about 'elgible voter' [2009/06/25 18:03:51] eligibile [2009/06/25 18:04:00] but no clarification of that [2009/06/25 18:05:28] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg29855.html "All active Gentoo developers are eligible to vote." [2009/06/25 18:10:58] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 18:05:28 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 18:15:28] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 18:15:28] @ Quit: ulm: Remote closed the connection [2009/06/25 18:15:41] @ ulm joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 18:15:41] @ Mode +o ulm by ChanServ [2009/06/25 18:20:15] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 18:15:41 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 18:24:07] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 18:24:07] @ Quit: leio-dl: "Leaving" [2009/06/25 18:27:06] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 18:24:07 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 19:03:52] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 19:03:52] @ spatz joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 19:10:56] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 19:03:52 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 19:14:02] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 19:14:02] @ darkside_ joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 19:22:26] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 19:14:02 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 19:31:28] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 19:31:28] @ mkelly32 joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 19:40:53] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 19:31:28 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 19:45:34] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 19:45:34] @ leio-dl joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 19:45:34] @ Mode +o leio-dl by ChanServ [2009/06/25 19:47:30] @ comprookie2000 joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 19:52:44] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 19:47:30 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 19:54:01] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 19:54:01] @ Caster joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 19:57:15] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 19:54:01 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 20:01:09] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 20:01:09] so [2009/06/25 20:01:09] heya [2009/06/25 20:01:37] hi folks, I'm present [2009/06/25 20:01:43] evenin' [2009/06/25 20:01:58] <-- dev-zero's proxy, unless he finds internet [2009/06/25 20:02:20] sorry, but no [2009/06/25 20:03:04] so, first of all: roll-call - who's here? [2009/06/25 20:03:14] here [2009/06/25 20:03:24] here [2009/06/25 20:03:30] dertobi123: are you chairing the meeting? [2009/06/25 20:03:38] can you please change the topic? [2009/06/25 20:03:43] tanderson: if you'd like to, go ahead [2009/06/25 20:03:57] @ dertobi123 set topic "Next Meeting: now." [2009/06/25 20:04:21] now as in right now! [2009/06/25 20:04:32] @ lavajoe joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:04:34] @ dertobi123 set topic "Next Meeting: now. Agenda: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_3de4654630dd6805259714833442c4f2.xml" [2009/06/25 20:04:35] ok, we have enough [2009/06/25 20:04:45] @ mescalinum joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:04:52] @ ABCD joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:04:55] first topic, EAPI development/deployment cycles [2009/06/25 20:05:00] stop [2009/06/25 20:05:05] @ drantin joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:05:15] dertobi123: hammer time? [2009/06/25 20:05:24] Cardoe: just for the record ... [2009/06/25 20:06:00] for the record: dev-zero appointed ciaranm as his proxy. 4 out of 7 council members agreed that proxies must be gentoo developer, just like regular council members. therefore ciaranm isn't accepted as dev-zero's proxy for today. [2009/06/25 20:06:11] could you point to where that rule is documented please? [2009/06/25 20:06:24] glep 39 imposes only one restriction on proxies, which is that you can't have one person with multiple votes [2009/06/25 20:06:47] council members must be gentoo developers. proxies therefore need to be, too. [2009/06/25 20:06:50] dertobi123: ok [2009/06/25 20:06:54] dertobi123: where is that documented? [2009/06/25 20:06:57] @ Pesa joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:07:02] that's what 4 out 7 council members did agree on and this is not going to be discussed now. [2009/06/25 20:07:06] dertobi123: glep 39 does not impose requirements upon council members [2009/06/25 20:07:06] ciaranm: custom and practice [2009/06/25 20:07:19] and common sense [2009/06/25 20:07:33] Anyway, 4 out of 7 voted and it takes a majority vote to make something a reality [2009/06/25 20:07:39] so that's all the justification necessary [2009/06/25 20:07:41] exactly. [2009/06/25 20:07:49] on to EAPI development/deployment cycles [2009/06/25 20:07:51] end of discussion, first topic pklease [2009/06/25 20:07:55] Cardoe: *5* [2009/06/25 20:08:04] the council's ignoring glep 39 then? [2009/06/25 20:08:33] you're going against the direct request of an elected council member here [2009/06/25 20:09:17] So who had items to discuss wrt to the EAPI development cycles? [2009/06/25 20:09:18] @ zhick joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:09:24] cause if no one has anything to discuss... [2009/06/25 20:09:30] \o/ [2009/06/25 20:09:50] this topic is split up into development and deployment [2009/06/25 20:09:57] Cardoe: well, my agenda points to a process that quite a few people acknowledged was a step in the right direction [2009/06/25 20:10:19] as for the deployment part ciaranm described a possible way which i'd like to try for eapi-4 development [2009/06/25 20:10:24] Cardoe: we were sidetracked last meeting unfortunately.. [2009/06/25 20:10:44] for development, we just NeedCode(TM) [2009/06/25 20:11:15] tanderson: for implementation, not for eapi-development [2009/06/25 20:11:17] tanderson: yep. which points to agenda item 2... talking to zmedico [2009/06/25 20:11:23] dertobi123: right [2009/06/25 20:11:45] Cardoe: I can pretty much guarantee that there's been no progress [2009/06/25 20:12:08] well, we got KV taken care of :) [2009/06/25 20:12:10] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273620 [2009/06/25 20:12:20] For the record I don't think proxies need to be Gentoo developers. But in the end it shouldn't matter today as I don't plan on us having a vote on anything major. [2009/06/25 20:12:52] zmedico: oops, my apologies ;-) [2009/06/25 20:13:01] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_d3a4758c455fded00608e891f525d3cc.xml <- anyone having something to discuss on the development part described there? [2009/06/25 20:13:03] zmedico: nothing on the substantial things though, right? [2009/06/25 20:13:10] tanderson: can we please discuss #1? [2009/06/25 20:13:16] +first [2009/06/25 20:13:17] i just consulted with the person who wrote the proxy rules. he says that there's deliberately no restriction other than the one vote per person thing. [2009/06/25 20:13:20] dertobi123: yeah... [2009/06/25 20:14:16] tanderson: no, not really. I've been pretty active working on portage the last week though (unlike the previous month), and I plan to stay pretty active and I should get eapi 3 done after not too long. [2009/06/25 20:14:52] dertobi123: other than that I in general agree, no [2009/06/25 20:15:09] other opinions? [2009/06/25 20:15:19] afaik the only disagreement on the eapi stuff was over the codenames [2009/06/25 20:15:36] dertobi123: generally agree too, except that we should use reasonable and descriptive names for features [2009/06/25 20:15:42] codenames isn't really crucial. It can go away if need be. [2009/06/25 20:15:49] ulm++ [2009/06/25 20:15:53] ulm++, yeah [2009/06/25 20:16:03] *aren't [2009/06/25 20:16:14] the problem with not using codenames is that certain people didn't bother to read pms and just started commenting based upon what they thought something was, not what it was [2009/06/25 20:16:57] this is such a nit picky argument that isn't meaningful or technical. it's just personal attacks. [2009/06/25 20:17:07] agreed [2009/06/25 20:17:20] the codenames should describe what it's about and that's it [2009/06/25 20:17:20] it's the best solution i've found to a problem we encountered for EAPI 3 [2009/06/25 20:17:32] I believe he might have something in mind I might have talked about in the council channel while working through the features outside a meeting [2009/06/25 20:17:34] if you've got a better way of ensuring that people read the material they're discussing, please present it [2009/06/25 20:17:51] @ darkside_ left channel #gentoo-council () [2009/06/25 20:17:52] again, completely non-technical in nature [2009/06/25 20:18:08] we're discussing process here. half of it's non-technical. [2009/06/25 20:18:24] whether or not we use a wiki or google docs is non-technical. [2009/06/25 20:18:35] if something was not clear at meeting time, then due to rushing this to the very next meeting, when the material to work through is immense [2009/06/25 20:19:23] besides this being a personal thing between leio-dl and ciaranm I don't see any argument why should've nonsense codenames [2009/06/25 20:19:31] +we [2009/06/25 20:19:43] dertobi123: please present a better solution for ensuring that material has been read before being discussed [2009/06/25 20:19:58] the take-away point here is that maybe the meeting 1-2 weeks after EAPI-3 draft shouldn't have it in the agenda yet, but give some time to actually work through things [2009/06/25 20:20:01] ok this is just a circular and pointless argument [2009/06/25 20:20:05] ciaranm: there is none and we don't need one. [2009/06/25 20:20:15] Cardoe: indeed [2009/06/25 20:20:15] err, after an EAPI draft is ready [2009/06/25 20:20:20] dertobi123: it was a considerable problem during the EAPI 3 process [2009/06/25 20:20:43] leio-dl: i don't want to waste time writing draft-quality material for features that definitely won't be accepted [2009/06/25 20:21:27] then what kind of a material should be worked through [2009/06/25 20:21:42] i want features written in a couple of paragraphs of semi-spec-quality material, then a rough vote on whether to proceed to draft quality material for those [2009/06/25 20:21:51] and then a final vote on the draft quality material [2009/06/25 20:22:25] @ psychoschlumpf joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:22:26] but the voting needs to be on those couple of paragraphs and then the real draft material, not just the name [2009/06/25 20:22:48] sure [2009/06/25 20:23:11] ciaranm: so there will be a bug # for every feature? [2009/06/25 20:23:11] but in the end it's everyone's (council member) responsability to be informed and to know what to vote on [2009/06/25 20:23:33] so, if someone screws up by voting just on some random names ... [2009/06/25 20:23:43] ulm: roughly, yeah, although we might end up with a shared bug if features are closely related but independently votable (doexample, doinclude for example) [2009/06/25 20:24:01] ciaranm: so use the bug number as your codename if you want, but don't introduce any additional nonsense names [2009/06/25 20:24:24] could do that. although then people might just read the bug summary... [2009/06/25 20:24:56] ciaranm: you can't control what people will read anyway [2009/06/25 20:25:17] ulm: no, but we can modify the process based upon past experience to reduce the likelihood of problems cropping up [2009/06/25 20:25:39] serious, this is not kindergarten. you can't control who will read what and vote based on what he had red before. [2009/06/25 20:26:04] you can modify the process to decrease the possibility of abuse [2009/06/25 20:26:13] anyone has new arguments on this point? if not, i suggest that we proceed [2009/06/25 20:26:19] ulm: yeah ... [2009/06/25 20:26:21] So, simply to make sure everything is worked through (not just mindlessly read through), make sure there is enough time between material to be worked through presented and a vote [2009/06/25 20:27:26] leio-dl: there was plenty of time last time around. and people didn't even say "i haven't read it yet", they said "i have objections and questions" [2009/06/25 20:27:28] The only past experience perceived bad comes from there. I wasn't just reading through. I was thinking every single point through and might not have gotten to one fourth of them by the time voting had to happen. [2009/06/25 20:27:30] leio-dl: we introduced that requirment lately with requiring an agenda sent out a week before the meeting (though it ended being just a couple of days, but we're making progress on that!) [2009/06/25 20:28:06] didn't help when it situated at a time I had no time for gentoo for one week. Anyways, I don't remember all the timeline and I don't care to [2009/06/25 20:28:21] lets move on [2009/06/25 20:28:33] leio-dl: in that case you should've appointed a proxy *cough* [2009/06/25 20:28:37] @ NeddySeagoon joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:28:59] i think we reached a consensus on that and can move on [2009/06/25 20:29:00] right? [2009/06/25 20:29:03] because I was unable to work on gentoo stuff during the time in the middle of two meetings? [2009/06/25 20:29:11] dertobi123: yes [2009/06/25 20:29:17] leio-dl: you aren't just a council member for one hour every two weeks [2009/06/25 20:29:31] This is pretty unproductive [2009/06/25 20:29:44] somewhat, but we're making kind of progress [2009/06/25 20:29:48] *cough* [2009/06/25 20:29:56] ciaranm: people may have jobs and other things that take up time ... [2009/06/25 20:30:05] bonsaikitten: and they are more than welcome to appoint a proxy [2009/06/25 20:30:12] how does that help? [2009/06/25 20:30:13] so, next part of the development/deployment discussion is the deployment part [2009/06/25 20:30:37] guess that's a topic for the next council and we can move on again. [2009/06/25 20:30:45] other input on that? [2009/06/25 20:30:47] yes, and I was responsible enough to actually work deeply through all of the points I managed by the time that meeting came on by the time some voting had to happen. It takes time. Hours and hours. [2009/06/25 20:31:23] In general getting EAPIs specified is a minor concern compared to getting the code into Portage. [2009/06/25 20:31:25] leio-dl: no, you were irresponsible enough to raise queries and say "i object to this" rather than "i haven't read this yet" [2009/06/25 20:31:28] nope, we just need more portage developers [2009/06/25 20:32:27] guys, can we please just follow our agendaÃ? [2009/06/25 20:32:29] ciaranm: I'm done with this. Apparently I need to waste my time on re-reading thousands of lines of council channel log to deal with these claims. [2009/06/25 20:32:35] silence please ;) [2009/06/25 20:32:36] there's space left for some metadiscussions on #3 [2009/06/25 20:33:45] so any other comments on the deployment part? [2009/06/25 20:35:17] can we at least get a quick overview if the council thinks that describing a deployment process for new eapis is important? [2009/06/25 20:35:26] i for one do think we do need such a process. [2009/06/25 20:36:09] i think we need one, but the one we've been using seems to work [2009/06/25 20:36:28] i'd really rather not see portage to stable without having had main-tree testing of new EAPIs [2009/06/25 20:37:28] but we have no writeup of the current process, right? [2009/06/25 20:37:50] isn't ciaran's mail a pretty good summary of the current process? [2009/06/25 20:37:52] nothing documented in stone that i'm aware of [2009/06/25 20:38:35] i don't think the process used for now is perfect. we have the problems i described in my mail and other problems as well. the process i described some weeks ago isn't perfect as well, that's for sure. but in the end i think this is an important topic, but sadly noone seems to be really interested in that. [2009/06/25 20:38:53] i don't think we're going to get a perfect process [2009/06/25 20:39:12] not if we're not going to improve what we do [2009/06/25 20:39:26] i think we'd do best by paying more attention to where things go wrong with EAPI 3 and then addressing those next time [2009/06/25 20:39:46] @ musikc_mobile joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 20:40:07] well, i described problems i've seen going wrong with eapi-2 i'd like to see improved for eapi-3 deployment [2009/06/25 20:40:46] with EAPI 2 the big one i saw was portage releasing something that didn't conform to the spec we'd agreed upon and that clearly hadn't undergone any kind of testing [2009/06/25 20:42:04] and what i've seen is that people immediately started using eapi-2 features (which isn't bad at all), but in the end packages needed to be backported to older eapis for security bugs [2009/06/25 20:42:26] anyway, 20 minutes left. we have to move on. [2009/06/25 20:42:34] the unfortunate reality is that for security, occasionally extra work has to be done [2009/06/25 20:43:45] ciaranm: security's one example, but that whole topic needs to be discussed on the dev-ml first of all [2009/06/25 20:44:04] so, eapi-3 progress [2009/06/25 20:44:09] zmedico: please :) [2009/06/25 20:44:29] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=273620 <-- portage's eapi 3 progress [2009/06/25 20:45:16] dertobi123: I estimate it will be done within about a month [2009/06/25 20:45:17] ciaranm: Maybe you could help with some of that, btw? [2009/06/25 20:46:01] leio-dl: afaik the only code that's realistically shareable between portage and paludis is on the amazingly easy shell stuff that's not worth copying [2009/06/25 20:46:24] I didn't have code sharing in mind, I had portage contributing in mind :) [2009/06/25 20:46:37] zmedico: ok [2009/06/25 20:46:46] leio-dl: there's a reason i gave up on fixing portage a long time ago... [2009/06/25 20:46:58] ok, lets leave it at that. [2009/06/25 20:47:55] zmedico: seen that arfrever is helping out, you mentioned a recruit 2 weeks ago (iirc?) - how's that process going? [2009/06/25 20:48:37] zmedico: any features where you see particular difficulties? [2009/06/25 20:49:13] dertobi123: I've been getting lots of help from the fellow who filed bug 273620 . that's going very well [2009/06/25 20:49:15] zmedico: https://bugs.gentoo.org/273620 "[TRACKER] sys-apps/portage EAPI 3 implementation"; Portage Development, Core; NEW; s.mingramm@gmx.de:dev-portage@g.o [2009/06/25 20:49:38] zmedico: cool! [2009/06/25 20:50:21] ulm: not really, seems like it should go pretty smoothly [2009/06/25 20:50:57] i was hoping we'd eliminated the "this'll be a pain for portage to implement" stuff early on in the process [2009/06/25 20:51:43] if anything comes up I'll let you know :) [2009/06/25 20:52:09] Who can be bride to get the features done? [2009/06/25 20:52:25] Betelgeuse: stop trying to marry developers ;) [2009/06/25 20:53:02] Cardoe: Ah yes. Oh well I stopped my night out drinking for this. [2009/06/25 20:54:08] ok, thanks for the update zac :) [2009/06/25 20:54:49] so we have a couple of minutes left to discuss the past year [2009/06/25 20:55:22] bonus points for trying to streamline and optimize the meeting process [2009/06/25 20:55:59] * NeddySeagoon realises that this is the last meeting of this council and thanks the members for serving [2009/06/25 20:56:34] seconded. I want to thank you guys for allowing me to work with you [2009/06/25 20:56:40] It's been great. [2009/06/25 20:56:44] tanderson: Slimebag! ;-) [2009/06/25 20:57:01] bonsaikitten: well, we made a start with that. having a secretary makes life much easier. making it a requirement to post (and ack!) an agenda some days (preferrably a week) in advance is another improvement, too [2009/06/25 20:57:03] hope to see y'all next year ;) [2009/06/25 20:57:05] I hope to be able to work with you next year as a member or as a continuing secretary(if so requested) [2009/06/25 20:58:15] tanderson: thanks for being our wonderful secretary :) everyone thanks for being on the council as well (and we had lots of members this year *cough*) [2009/06/25 20:58:25] You guys will all miss me [2009/06/25 20:58:26] I know [2009/06/25 20:58:39] one thing i like the next council to improve is to announce a host for the meeting in advance [2009/06/25 20:59:00] chairing the meetings quite effective is thing all of us did fail for mostly the whole year. [2009/06/25 20:59:05] +a [2009/06/25 20:59:14] If I find the time I will take a shot at writing a web app for handling agenda etc. [2009/06/25 20:59:16] good point [2009/06/25 20:59:16] Cardoe: oh yeah, we will do so :) [2009/06/25 20:59:22] But likely I will slack. [2009/06/25 20:59:49] Betelgeuse: keep it simple. just do it. if a webapp then can make things easier, ok ... [2009/06/25 20:59:53] dertobi123: np,it's been a great ride [2009/06/25 21:00:06] why a webapp for what can be done in vim? [2009/06/25 21:00:08] dertobi123: It should help tacking acks and prioritizin. [2009/06/25 21:00:15] s/tack/track/ [2009/06/25 21:00:34] tanderson: A single person can handle it but when you need to get input from man. [2009/06/25 21:00:37] tanderson: y [2009/06/25 21:00:48] tanderson: Reminders etc would be helpful and can be automated. [2009/06/25 21:01:00] ok [2009/06/25 21:01:15] Betelgeuse: there are some steps between. first get the basics done, then make it bright and shiny [2009/06/25 21:02:07] Or you can follow the Windows development model [2009/06/25 21:02:16] make it bright and shiny... then when you get some time... make it work [2009/06/25 21:02:47] Cardoe: i personally do prefer the other way 'round ;) [2009/06/25 21:03:15] so, if there's nothing left we would like to write down for our next council we're done. [2009/06/25 21:03:49] dev-zero would like you to write down the rules you're following, since they're clearly not glep 39 [2009/06/25 21:03:49] thanks again for that somewhat interesting experience during the past year, hopefully we see us again in 14 days. [2009/06/25 21:03:52] thanks guys! [2009/06/25 21:04:13] dertobi123: lol "we see us again" [2009/06/25 21:04:41] sorry, i'm not a native speaker [2009/06/25 21:04:45] *cough* [2009/06/25 21:04:56] dertobi123: we'll forgive you [2009/06/25 21:05:02] ciaranm: I guess this point comes down to having a good vote of no confidence system in place. [2009/06/25 21:05:10] dertobi123, "we'll meet again" [2009/06/25 21:05:12] dertobi123: no, it's fine. It's just a funny way of saying it that made me chuckle [2009/06/25 21:05:31] NeddySeagoon: thanks, will say that next year :P [2009/06/25 21:05:43] tanderson: hehe [2009/06/25 21:05:49] dertobi123, np [2009/06/25 21:05:54] Betelgeuse: it's more whether the council can rewrite its rules on the spot after something's already happened in such a way that it goes directly against the terms under which the council was elected [2009/06/25 21:06:25] ciaranm: Well it's like with a dictator writing rules, no-one really opposes. [2009/06/25 21:06:44] Betelgeuse: can the council vote 4-3 to expel those 3? [2009/06/25 21:07:53] We should get a GLEP in place to get a good vote of no confidence system in place to have some control and then if council members get out of control there's a process. [2009/06/25 21:08:38] by discounting a council member's vote you're effectively overriding the electorate [2009/06/25 21:09:11] the meeting's over, please change the channel topic :) [2009/06/25 21:10:21] @ dertobi123 set topic "We're done. Next meeting will be announced when the new elected council did agree on meeting times." [2009/06/25 21:10:24] @ billie80 is now known as billie [2009/06/25 21:10:33] byebye [2009/06/25 21:10:37] @ Betelgeuse set topic "We're done. Next meeting will be announced when the new elected council agrees on meeting times." [2009/06/25 21:10:38] bye tanderson [2009/06/25 21:10:48] @ Betelgeuse set topic "We're done. Next meeting will be announced when the new elected council agree on meeting times." [2009/06/25 21:10:54] blah [2009/06/25 21:11:00] someone with good English crasp please fix [2009/06/25 21:11:05] heh [2009/06/25 21:11:11] *agrees [2009/06/25 21:11:18] That's the only fix needed [2009/06/25 21:11:20] @ Betelgeuse set topic "We're done. Next meeting will be announced when the new elected council members agree on meeting times." [2009/06/25 21:11:22] agrees is american [2009/06/25 21:11:24] @ Quit: zhick: Remote closed the connection [2009/06/25 21:11:27] "newly"? [2009/06/25 21:11:27] Also, "crasp" [2009/06/25 21:12:08] new -> newly [2009/06/25 21:12:12] Philantrop: that too [2009/06/25 21:12:20] they're not newly elected yet [2009/06/25 21:12:27] with members in there you don't need a 's' I guess [2009/06/25 21:12:49] ciaranm: "agreed" :-) [2009/06/25 21:12:56] in english english a corporation or organisation is plural. in american english it's singular. [2009/06/25 21:13:23] Obviously you mean "a corporation or organisation are plural" [2009/06/25 21:13:28] ah, didn't know english english was like that [2009/06/25 21:13:32] ciaranm: There's no such thing as American English. [2009/06/25 21:13:39] kinda funny to see ya discussing english grammar ... as all pÃeopl doe think only german is a difficult language :P [2009/06/25 21:13:39] ciaranm, Its hard for a republic to have the royal We [2009/06/25 21:13:45] people do* [2009/06/25 21:13:46] ciaranm: There's only a degenerated language... ;-> [2009/06/25 21:13:48] Philantrop: yes there is. webster invented it because he hated the british. [2009/06/25 21:13:51] and the language here is American English in case of dispute, I'd think :) [2009/06/25 21:14:14] now, GLEP39 doesn't say it can be anyone, neither does it directly say it has to be a developer [2009/06/25 21:14:21] English is a great language to learn poorly. [2009/06/25 21:14:24] it doesn't matter what the person writing GLEP39 had in mind [2009/06/25 21:14:28] glep 39 deliberately imposes only a single restriction [2009/06/25 21:14:32] there is no other rule [2009/06/25 21:15:04] !away betelgeuse [2009/06/25 21:15:04] Betelgeuse: betelgeuse: At a summer cottage until 2009-06-29. Contact herds or touch my packages. @ 2009/06/25 20:51Z [2009/06/25 21:15:10] See you \o/ [2009/06/25 21:15:25] unfortunately glep 39 doesn't have a mechanism for impeaching council members who go against the council's constitution [2009/06/25 21:15:59] ciaranm, I suppose someone (anyone?) can propose a vote of no confidence [2009/06/25 21:16:01] ciaranm: that's how you do read glep 39 [2009/06/25 21:16:09] I read glep 39 different. [2009/06/25 21:16:14] It says council members must be developers [2009/06/25 21:16:19] leio-dl: where does it say that? [2009/06/25 21:16:29] in the lack of specifying if a proxy must be or not, the logical conclusion is that he/she must be. [2009/06/25 21:16:42] @ Pesa left channel #gentoo-council () [2009/06/25 21:17:00] meh, even that is left out for free interpretation? [2009/06/25 21:17:02] it says that the council is elected by developers. it does not say that the council is made up of developers. the council is made up of whoever developers elect. [2009/06/25 21:17:10] leio-dl: it is [2009/06/25 21:17:31] there's nothing in 39 preventing developers from deciding to elect anyone they want [2009/06/25 21:17:44] "Only Gentoo developers may be nominated [2009/06/25 21:17:44] " [2009/06/25 21:17:48] http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2bf98b810c9132d99ecc106ec0083c76.xml [2009/06/25 21:18:02] dertobi123: that's not in 39 [2009/06/25 21:18:10] dertobi123: that's something the election officals made up [2009/06/25 21:18:11] leio-dl: Council members have to be elected, but that doesn't mean proxies have to be, even though the GLEP doesn't specify either way. Clearly it's more complex than "rule X applies to Council members, therefore rule X applies to proxies unless otherwise stated" [2009/06/25 21:18:20] it's not stated in glep39, but what's been done for ages. period. people call it common sense. [2009/06/25 21:18:29] status quo [2009/06/25 21:18:35] so who's the ruling body on deciding which way deliberate non-specifications go? [2009/06/25 21:18:37] it's not what's been done for ages. the issue merely hasn't come up previously. [2009/06/25 21:18:44] no [2009/06/25 21:18:55] leio-dl: the rules are as written. no rule, so it's not forbidden [2009/06/25 21:19:04] for all council votes i can remember the rule always has been "only developers can be nominated" [2009/06/25 21:19:04] If something isn't specified, the logical assumption is that there is no restriction [2009/06/25 21:19:26] dertobi123: no-one has ever tried to do anything else. there's nothing in 39 about it. [2009/06/25 21:19:31] that's a loophole, so common sense applies [2009/06/25 21:19:38] spatz: yeah ... [2009/06/25 21:19:42] but as usual ... [2009/06/25 21:19:44] anyways [2009/06/25 21:19:46] good night [2009/06/25 21:19:47] it's not a loophole. it's a deliberate lack of restriction. [2009/06/25 21:19:57] the electorate should be able to vote in whoever they want [2009/06/25 21:20:14] that's your opinion [2009/06/25 21:20:23] in cases where there are restrictions, glep 39 explicitly states them. it says that only developers can vote in the council, and it says that council members can't hold multiple votes by proxy. [2009/06/25 21:20:36] if there were other restrictions grant and i would have included them too [2009/06/25 21:20:48] there aren't because the will of the electorate is sufficient [2009/06/25 21:21:07] then the glep should state that explicitly [2009/06/25 21:21:37] because it's against common sense [2009/06/25 21:21:49] common sense says the electorate can do whatever it wants [2009/06/25 21:21:53] no [2009/06/25 21:21:56] ulm: that's a useless discussion [2009/06/25 21:22:05] dertobi123: right ;) [2009/06/25 21:22:07] constitutions that impose restrictions upon who can be elected explicitly say so [2009/06/25 21:22:07] ulm: Yup, we're Germans. We need to be told how to bend a banana by law. ;-> [2009/06/25 21:22:14] german Gruendlichkeit makes rules so difficult ;) [2009/06/25 21:22:14] common sense says that gentoos leadership should be gentoo developers, not exherbo developers. [2009/06/25 21:22:32] common sense says that if the electorate wants to vote kloeri as supreme overlord, it can do so [2009/06/25 21:22:37] s/exherbo/every other project/ [2009/06/25 21:23:01] dertobi123: count lu_zero out, he's a ffmpeg dev [2009/06/25 21:23:08] count tanderson out, he's an exherbo dev [2009/06/25 21:23:20] *sigh* [2009/06/25 21:23:21] uh, That's untrue [2009/06/25 21:23:27] I'm not an exherbo dev [2009/06/25 21:23:30] count me out, I'm a gentoo dev [2009/06/25 21:23:34] wait, what? :) [2009/06/25 21:23:48] tanderson: by exherbo's standards you are [2009/06/25 21:23:55] lol [2009/06/25 21:24:09] bonsaikitten for President ... no, wait ... thats my job [2009/06/25 21:24:09] ciaranm: clearly they need modification [2009/06/25 21:24:35] NeddySeagoon: can I be Chancelor instead? [2009/06/25 21:24:46] :) [2009/06/25 21:24:57] only if you get another nick, palpatine [2009/06/25 21:25:21] @ bonsaikitten is now known as AmazingPudding [2009/06/25 21:25:29] mh, pudding :) [2009/06/25 21:25:30] Can haz kanzler ? [2009/06/25 21:25:38] honestly, you lot sound like the people who are saying "it should be illegal to vote for the bnp / hezbollah / the republican party" [2009/06/25 21:25:55] @ AmazingPudding is now known as bonsaikitten [2009/06/25 21:26:06] @ ABCD left channel #gentoo-council ("http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.") [2009/06/25 21:26:08] ciaranm, not illegal, just bad taste [2009/06/25 21:26:09] to go by those analogies [2009/06/25 21:26:41] you are saying that citizens of France must be able to elect the government of UK [2009/06/25 21:26:46] or rather [2009/06/25 21:27:03] A French citizen should be able to run for an UK office [2009/06/25 21:27:09] i'm saying that if the citizens of france want to vote gordon brown as prime minister, they should be allowed to do so, unless their constitution explictly states otherwise [2009/06/25 21:27:13] french citizens do run for UK office [2009/06/25 21:27:14] several democratic states do have banned parties [2009/06/25 21:27:17] leio-dl, They do just that, via some silly EU laws [2009/06/25 21:27:25] oh, bad example ;p [2009/06/25 21:27:38] the us constition has explicit laws about who can run for office. most countries don't. [2009/06/25 21:27:45] ciaranm, No citizens vote for a UK PM [2009/06/25 21:27:46] Should have went with my initial USA and Canada thought. [2009/06/25 21:27:47] No, good example because that should be perfectly fine. Silly are *nations*. [2009/06/25 21:27:56] we're not a country [2009/06/25 21:27:57] leio-dl: I don't think anyone's saying we can vote non gentoo-devs onto the council. [2009/06/25 21:28:01] the uk just has some ancient stuff about being "of sound mind and body", and the latter part's been ignored for centuries [2009/06/25 21:28:09] tanderson: ciaranm is [2009/06/25 21:28:15] ciaranm: well, that's wrong then [2009/06/25 21:28:34] tanderson: please point to where in glep 39 it says that the electorate can't elect non-developers if it wants to [2009/06/25 21:28:37] tanderson: Why? If a majority wants it? [2009/06/25 21:29:09] tanderson: Quite a few devs wanted drobbins to take Gentoo back as its supreme leader... [2009/06/25 21:29:42] Philantrop: and he became a dev again [2009/06/25 21:29:59] bonsaikitten: No, the short dev epsiode was before his "offer". [2009/06/25 21:30:06] quite a few of those devs weren't around when drobbins was supreme leader... [2009/06/25 21:30:12] stop agreeing so violently :) [2009/06/25 21:30:59] it is common for loopholes to exist unnoticed for a long time until they are exploited and then explicitly banned, that's how law usually works [2009/06/25 21:31:20] it's not a loophole. it's a deliberate choice. [2009/06/25 21:31:22] quite similar to code :) [2009/06/25 21:31:31] heresay [2009/06/25 21:31:43] leio-dl: no, sorry, i asked the person that wrote those rules. [2009/06/25 21:31:44] if the status quo is that only devs can be elected and that's not in glep39 then that's a loophole [2009/06/25 21:31:58] spatz: the status quo doesn't say that. it's just never come up before. [2009/06/25 21:32:13] spatz: by your argument, the status quo says that females can't be elected. [2009/06/25 21:32:35] ciaranm: Uhm... That's common sense! [2009/06/25 21:32:42] sanity is overrated! [2009/06/25 21:32:48] Ok, the glep doesn't say anything about it (even if the spirit of the document indicates that to me). I still don't see how this whole thing is related to anything however [2009/06/25 21:32:52] well, per GLEP process concensus decides GLEP approval. If this wasn't documented in the GLEP, it is "heresay" [2009/06/25 21:33:11] what is heresay? [2009/06/25 21:33:18] hearsay or heresy? [2009/06/25 21:33:19] leio-dl: the glep says nothing about electing or appointing either females or non-developers [2009/06/25 21:33:21] that it is a deliberate choice of leaving out a restriction [2009/06/25 21:33:26] hearsay [2009/06/25 21:33:33] whatever is the spelling, yeah. [2009/06/25 21:33:35] leio-dl: so you're saying that females can't run for council? [2009/06/25 21:33:36] ok, makes sense [2009/06/25 21:33:54] council election announcements always said only devs can be elected but never said anything about females [2009/06/25 21:34:07] spatz: council election announcements aren't the rules [2009/06/25 21:34:12] spatz: I can send out any mail I want, doesn't make it right [2009/06/25 21:34:13] they're the status quot [2009/06/25 21:34:15] quo [2009/06/25 21:34:22] it was never disputed [2009/06/25 21:34:29] it's never been an issue [2009/06/25 21:34:36] I'm saying that the common sense is that an elected body being voted by a certain group of people is formed from members of that group [2009/06/25 21:34:36] all elections went by with those rules [2009/06/25 21:34:40] I don't see why it should be disputed, and I don't see how this thing is relevant at all? [2009/06/25 21:34:56] leio-dl, that follows [2009/06/25 21:35:05] leio-dl: uh. i'll remind you that most democracies allow non-voters to be elected. [2009/06/25 21:35:18] leio-dl: those that don't have explicit rules to the contrary in their constitution. [2009/06/25 21:35:53] this became relevant with assertions that as council members must be developers, their proxies therefore must too [2009/06/25 21:36:14] leio-dl: that's a pretty big jump [2009/06/25 21:36:20] "A project is a group of developers" says GLEP 39 [2009/06/25 21:36:25] and the council is a project [2009/06/25 21:36:34] have fun figuring out what to write in summaries rollcall section [2009/06/25 21:36:36] ulm: nice, that cleans that up I guess [2009/06/25 21:36:56] does glep 39 say the council's a project? [2009/06/25 21:37:00] leio-dl: yeah really. I'll have to find a way to write it balanced and not get trolled by steve [2009/06/25 21:37:04] "A project exists if it has a web page at www.g.o/proj/en/whatever that is maintained." [2009/06/25 21:37:15] there's /proj/en/council [2009/06/25 21:37:27] and it's maintained i hope ;) [2009/06/25 21:37:29] that doesn't mean the council project is the same as the council [2009/06/25 21:37:40] it can mean that the council has a project [2009/06/25 21:37:47] now that's nitpicking ;) [2009/06/25 21:38:00] for that matter, developers != devs [2009/06/25 21:38:10] the council's voted in by devs, not developers, according to glep 39 [2009/06/25 21:38:15] tanderson, A summary of a meeting it just that. If the meeting discusses something that is factually incorrect, you report the discussion without comment as it its accuracy or otherwise [2009/06/25 21:38:28] so your attempt at stretching glep 39 to say something it doesn't falls apart [2009/06/25 21:38:44] apparently glep 39 also need sa glossary on what a devs is [2009/06/25 21:38:59] NeddySeagoon: that's what I did last time and look what happened... [2009/06/25 21:39:08] leio-dl: only if people keep on trying to find rules in 39 that don't exist [2009/06/25 21:39:15] tanderson, yeah :( [2009/06/25 21:39:37] devs isn't a word [2009/06/25 21:40:43] Maybe its American ? [2009/06/25 21:41:11] maybe you mean singular? dev ? [2009/06/25 21:41:28] seems to me that glep 39 uses "developers" and "devs" as synonyms [2009/06/25 21:41:54] a Dev is synonym to "a god" [2009/06/25 21:41:59] apparently. [2009/06/25 21:42:27] do we really need to hire lawyers to interpret our own rules? [2009/06/25 21:42:46] no, you need to stop trying to find clever ways of reading glep 39 to invent new rules that it doesn't list. [2009/06/25 21:43:10] bonsaikitten, We have one of our own [2009/06/25 21:43:18] we need to stop exploting loopholes in our own rules [2009/06/25 21:43:34] spatz: more trust, more common sense [2009/06/25 21:44:37] @ Quit: leio-dl: "Leaving" [2009/06/25 21:44:45] note that the foundation's rules *do* explicitly restrict who can be a trustee [2009/06/25 21:45:09] whereas the council's don't, because there's no such restriction intended [2009/06/25 21:46:20] ciaranm, the foundation also has officers and there are no restrictions there. The foundation is quite different to the council, it being a legal entitity [2009/06/25 21:46:50] bonsaikitten: only problem is that common sense doesnt seem to be as common as it should be ;) [2009/06/25 21:47:04] NeddySeagoon: the point remains: where restrictions are intended upon who can be elected, they are explicitly and clearly documented [2009/06/25 21:47:28] yngwin: yeah ... imagine the average idiot ... now realize that half the idiots are even more stupid :) [2009/06/25 21:47:29] ciaranm, that is normally the case [2009/06/25 21:47:37] lol [2009/06/25 21:47:41] hehe [2009/06/25 21:48:20] this restriction should be added as it seems to be a concensus [2009/06/25 21:48:23] NeddySeagoon: thus, given that 39 does not say anything about who the electorate can elect, nor does it say anything about who can be appointed a proxy beyond that no-one can hold more than one vote in a meeting, no such restriction exists [2009/06/25 21:48:27] ciaranm, you probably need to propose an update to glep39 to clarify it [2009/06/25 21:49:04] NeddySeagoon: why? the council are quite happy ignoring their own rules if they feel like it [2009/06/25 21:50:07] ciaranm, the gelp talks anoyo the council be representitive of the electorate. Its hard to see (in the extreme case) a council being composed of all non-devs as representative [2009/06/25 21:50:43] NeddySeagoon: if the electorate decides to elect that, they're representative [2009/06/25 21:50:57] ciaranm, that does not follow [2009/06/25 21:51:49] They may represent, without being representative [2009/06/25 21:52:04] i don't see 'representative' in 39 anywhere [2009/06/25 21:52:20] 4. Since everybody gets to vote for the council members, at least in principle the council members represent all developers, not just a particular subset. [2009/06/25 21:52:24] is all i see [2009/06/25 21:52:49] which is there because of how things used to be, where most developers didn't have a manager representing them [2009/06/25 21:53:40] and because under the fosdem proposal, you'd end up with people with no or several elected representatives [2009/06/25 21:55:38] ciaranm, I agree I cannot find "representative" in the document. [2009/06/25 21:59:09] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 21:55:38 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 21:59:09] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 21:59:09] @ Quit: Philantrop: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) [2009/06/25 22:00:26] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 21:59:09 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 22:00:26] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 22:00:26] @ Quit: hkBst: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) [2009/06/25 22:00:26] glep39 created the council which replaced, the TLP meeting leads. The TLP meeting leads were all dev(elopers) so by precedent, so are council members. That says nothing about council member proxies. Its my opinion that proxies are a bad idea as they can never be as well prepared as the council member should be [2009/06/25 22:01:24] there's no precedent there at all [2009/06/25 22:02:00] ciaranm, One group replaced the other [2009/06/25 22:02:14] NeddySeagoon: with a whole new and entirely different set of rules [2009/06/25 22:03:45] the precedent is the election announcement mails which everybody read and nobody disputed, including you [2009/06/25 22:03:51] and by which all elections took place [2009/06/25 22:04:01] they are the de facto rules for council elections [2009/06/25 22:04:24] and they run against the de jure rules, which take priority [2009/06/25 22:04:45] glep 39 is informational only [2009/06/25 22:05:14] glep 39's informational because the glep process wasn't used to decide the council's rules [2009/06/25 22:05:23] so all elections so far were "illegal"? [2009/06/25 22:05:26] glep 39's just a copy of the council's rules turned into glep format [2009/06/25 22:05:32] spatz: no, merely the restrictions were [2009/06/25 22:06:14] spatz: you can think of them as similar to the voter literacy tests applied by the southern states if you like [2009/06/25 22:07:34] status quo, tradition and common sense take precedence in this case against the dry rules nobody seemed to follow so far [2009/06/25 22:08:03] the council has very much been following glep 39, and refers to it regularly. it's just that every now and again, they get things wrong. [2009/06/25 22:08:28] it's like saying "the us constitution was meaningless because in the 1950s the southern states routinely ignored it" [2009/06/25 22:08:56] point of order [2009/06/25 22:09:23] seperate but equal was constitutionally valid until Plessy. [2009/06/25 22:09:26] that's a bad example. they violated the constitution, this restriction is simply implicit in the glep [2009/06/25 22:09:31] the south was not in fact ignoring the Constitution [2009/06/25 22:10:13] the south was coming up with creative ways of inventing new restrictions that were not in the constitution, if you prefer [2009/06/25 22:10:15] spatz: indeed they did not until "Seperate but equal" was ruled unconstitutional. Plessy overturned almost 100 years of caselaw which said that it was in fact Constitutional. [2009/06/25 22:10:48] so when gentoo has a court it can rule in this case [2009/06/25 22:10:59] until then common sense applies [2009/06/25 22:11:30] common sense says that had i wanted to impose restrictions upon who could run or be a proxy, i would have done so. and, in fact, i did impose such restrictions. [2009/06/25 22:11:49] sucks to be you then. [2009/06/25 22:12:10] spatz: could we please? Lets empanel the Supreme Court of the Internet. Thus we can rule on all injustice. We can buy them capes. [2009/06/25 22:12:27] (my point here being that empaneling a Gentoo court is asinine) [2009/06/25 22:12:53] we already have devrel [2009/06/25 22:13:41] yngwin: indeed. Though I hope that their goals are mediation and not ajudication. [2009/06/25 22:13:59] trelane: devrel has no desire for domination [2009/06/25 22:14:23] if we come to the point that we need something like a court then we should better shut down the whole distro [2009/06/25 22:14:24] these days devrel answers to the council [2009/06/25 22:14:31] ulm++ [2009/06/25 22:14:38] musikc_mobile: then I shall look for others to buy my jackboots of oppression. (I really do have some, they're cumfy) [2009/06/25 22:14:39] ulm: here here! [2009/06/25 22:15:17] according to last council, council grants certain powers/rights to devrel lead who decides how such powers/rights are delegated [2009/06/25 22:15:20] ulm: if it comes to the point that the council goes to great lengths to try to come up with justifications to stop an elected member from appointing a proxy, you'd better shut down the whole distro [2009/06/25 22:15:36] good, so we all agree that's absurd. so is comparing glep39 to a constitution. just wanted to raise that point. [2009/06/25 22:15:36] ulm, and i agree whole heartedly [2009/06/25 22:15:41] ciaranm: if the council fails then its members can be kicked out in the next election [2009/06/25 22:15:41] ciaranm: so long as you're not the proxy I'll agree. [2009/06/25 22:16:07] trelane: ah, so you agree it's about me, not about being a non-dev [2009/06/25 22:16:40] ciaranm: no, and nor did I say that. I believe what I said is there's no way in hell I'd want you voting on anything. [2009/06/25 22:16:45] please don't put words in my mouth. [2009/06/25 22:17:49] trelane: fortunately, you don't get to decide, since you haven't been appointed anyone's proxy or elected to the council [2009/06/25 22:18:05] the Politburo, in an effort to encourage the great Soviet Worker decreed that the earth's revolution should slow thus giving the workers an additional hour of sunlight. Your ideas are roughly as practical. [2009/06/25 22:18:17] but luckily the council represented him faithfully [2009/06/25 22:18:26] the council doesn't represent trelane [2009/06/25 22:18:29] there's always the matter of whether to differentiate people on not being a dev and those who were devs and forcibly removed [2009/06/25 22:18:53] musikc_mobile: i see no such differentiation in glep 39 [2009/06/25 22:19:03] i would think it to be common sense that anyone booted from gentoo doesnt get to vote [2009/06/25 22:19:25] ciaranm, and as you pointed out, there are some finer points lacking so perhaps modification is necessary [2009/06/25 22:19:26] that's not in the glep! [2009/06/25 22:19:26] ciaranm: I should point out that 1. I've not offered to run, nor been nominated, nor asked anyone to so nominate, and have not requested to be someone's proxy, or thrown a hissy-fit when I was told I wasn't eligable. [2009/06/25 22:19:32] (the view from the mirror is always harshest) [2009/06/25 22:19:39] i would think it to be not just common sense but also rules as written that if a council member appoints a proxy as per glep 39, that person gets o vote [2009/06/25 22:19:43] the glep says nothing about common sense, so we conclude it doesn't exist. [2009/06/25 22:20:01] trelane: i haven't requested to be someone's proxy. i was asked to be someone's proxy, in accordance with the rules. [2009/06/25 22:20:05] spatz: seriously, I love you after that. [2009/06/25 22:20:26] @ agaffney joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 22:20:42] trelane, ditto on spatz ++ [2009/06/25 22:20:47] ciaranm: and yet here we are, and it is not according to the rules it seems. [2009/06/25 22:20:55] trelane: and yet no-one's found the rule in question [2009/06/25 22:21:19] trelane: it should be very easy for someone to point out the part of glep 39 that says who can and cannot be appointed a proxy [2009/06/25 22:21:38] trelane: and in fact it is. glep 39 says "A proxy must not be an existing council member, and any single person may not be a proxy for more than one council member at any given meeting.", and nothing else [2009/06/25 22:21:41] or said things should be updated to reflect the desired direction [2009/06/25 22:21:45] troll, troll, troll the boat, gently down upstream ... [2009/06/25 22:21:56] lol [2009/06/25 22:22:14] I've just been reading through my -core archives. The following was stated by Grant Goodyear and no objections were raised that I can find: "We also need to elect council members. All devs would have a vote, and although the proposal isn't specific, I'd like to think that all devs would be eligible for nomination." [2009/06/25 22:22:15] musikc_mobile: a council member desired me to be appointed his proxy, so yes, you can update the glep for that if you like [2009/06/25 22:22:24] ciaranm: I have finally figured out who you are. You're the reason why there's labels on pesticides warning you not to drink them. "You should be able to point to where it says you shouldn't drink poison" [2009/06/25 22:22:47] when one eliminates folly from the world, one creates at the same time a world of fools. [2009/06/25 22:22:51] Beyond that, I can find nothing stating one way or the other about being a developer or not. [2009/06/25 22:23:10] ciaranm, my comments are in general and not specific to you. sorry for the disappointment. [2009/06/25 22:23:15] trelane: clearly if it were a folly, an elected council member would not have done it [2009/06/25 22:23:35] ciaranm: your parser broke, try agian. [2009/06/25 22:23:40] being elected is not guarantee against folly [2009/06/25 22:24:15] trelane: i shall remind you that appointing me as proxy was dev-zero's idea and dev-zero's decision, and no-one else's [2009/06/25 22:24:24] trelane: i merely agreed to his request [2009/06/25 22:24:40] i do agree with ciaranm, dev-zero appointed him proxy. if someone doesnt like it, well it was dev-zero's action. [2009/06/25 22:24:52] * musikc_mobile makes a note on her calendar that she agreed with ciaranm ;) [2009/06/25 22:25:03] yes [2009/06/25 22:25:08] musikc_mobile: even a broken clock [2009/06/25 22:25:40] musikc_mobile: the fourth horseman, eh? [2009/06/25 22:26:02] musikc_mobile: the question is was dev-zero within his authority as a council person, and that seems to be up to considerable debate [2009/06/25 22:26:17] agaffney, stranger things have happened... oh wait [2009/06/25 22:26:29] agaffney: and behold I looked and saw a white horse, and he upon him was named Death, and Hell was with him. [2009/06/25 22:26:35] if he were not within his authority, there would be a clear rule saying so, as there is a clear rule saying that he can't appoint an existing council member as a proxy [2009/06/25 22:27:17] well let's be fair, perhaps there should be more documentation to support what can sand cant happen. like when dev-zero banned someone from #council wihtout a vote from council members [2009/06/25 22:27:26] ciaranm, elected council members are not immune from folly [2009/06/25 22:27:37] clearly, not all council members act within the same understood guidelines [2009/06/25 22:27:54] @ leio-dl joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 22:27:54] @ Mode +o leio-dl by ChanServ [2009/06/25 22:28:17] NeddySeagoon: were it folly, you'd have six votes against it, not four [2009/06/25 22:28:34] so perhaps removing 'understood' and such 'implications' is best served via actual documents and said documents could be updated to reflect the growth and shift of the life that is Gentoo [2009/06/25 22:28:42] ciaranm, I missed the start of the meeting sorry [2009/06/25 22:29:15] ciaranm council members is plural [2009/06/25 22:30:28] real life work calls [2009/06/25 22:30:32] * trelane notes that thankfully there is at least a plurality of council members who thought it stupid [2009/06/25 22:30:37] later [2009/06/25 22:30:37] NeddySeagoon: if you're saying that the slimmest majority possible are all that's standing between gentoo and folly, gentoo's screwed [2009/06/25 22:30:42] ciaranm: I'm assuming you abstained from the vote? [2009/06/25 22:30:46] ciaranm: correct. [2009/06/25 22:30:58] hopefully this decision will have a concensus among the new council [2009/06/25 22:31:07] we dont know if the other two voted at all and what their reasoning was, if any [2009/06/25 22:31:39] 21:12 <@Betelgeuse> For the record I don't think proxies need to be Gentoo developers. [2009/06/25 22:32:04] *think* [2009/06/25 22:32:27] thinking != bylaw [2009/06/25 22:32:31] well, thinking's better than yelling "a witch! a witch!" [2009/06/25 22:32:37] Naib: point to the bylaw that forbids it please [2009/06/25 22:32:50] why should i [2009/06/25 22:33:03] lol [2009/06/25 22:33:14] @ Quit: FuzzyRay: Remote closed the connection [2009/06/25 22:33:14] because if you can, i'll agree that dev-zero was wrong and apologise for missing it every previous time i've looked for it [2009/06/25 22:33:23] there's a distinction between 'not gentoo developer' and 'forcefully removed ex-developer' [2009/06/25 22:33:45] yngwin: please point to that distinction in glep 39 [2009/06/25 22:34:01] ciaranm: quote me where I said it was wrong or where i said it was allowed [2009/06/25 22:34:01] i'm not talking about the glep [2009/06/25 22:34:04] ciaranm: how's about the majority (and I'm counting 5 here, not 4) of the board voted no. [2009/06/25 22:34:11] i'll remind you also that my vote was counted in the most recent foundation election [2009/06/25 22:34:11] pointing isn't allowed in glep39 [2009/06/25 22:34:19] so yngwin can't comply with that request [2009/06/25 22:34:30] @ Quit: musikc_mobile: Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer) [2009/06/25 22:34:40] @ Quit: billie: Read error: 60 (Operation timed out) [2009/06/25 22:34:40] ciaranm: and dead pets vote in Chicago, what's your point? [2009/06/25 22:34:54] lol [2009/06/25 22:35:13] ciaranm: foundation is different than council [2009/06/25 22:35:21] agaffney: i know that [2009/06/25 22:35:22] ciaranm: the foundation election has a pretty non-exclusive quorum, I think my cat voted. [2009/06/25 22:35:22] ciaranm, that depends on the new council, not the outgoing one and how much influence it has over the direction Gentoo moves in. So far, its a mostly reactive body [2009/06/25 22:35:30] iirc, non-devs can apply to be a member of the foundation [2009/06/25 22:35:39] yes, they can [2009/06/25 22:35:45] and there's a few of those already [2009/06/25 22:35:59] they become members by decision of the board [2009/06/25 22:36:12] my point is that were i the great satan as a few of you seem to believe, the foundation would not have asked me to vote in the most recent election [2009/06/25 22:36:18] ciaranm: so the fact that your foundation vote was counted means nothing for the current conversation [2009/06/25 22:36:52] i voted to allow wikipedia to relicense it's content, does that count? [2009/06/25 22:36:53] ciaranm, maybe you just aren't important enough to change foundation rules just to exclude your vote [2009/06/25 22:37:06] heh [2009/06/25 22:37:11] rane: yet i am important enough to change the council rules to do so? [2009/06/25 22:37:14] ciaranm: I think you're more like Israel, but take your pick. Would you ride my white horse? (it's symbolic of course) [2009/06/25 22:37:15] ciaranm: i don't think that today's vote had anything to do with your person [2009/06/25 22:38:01] you brought the issue to attention, but it wasn't targetting you [2009/06/25 22:38:05] my point is: it's not always about you [2009/06/25 22:38:15] despite what your ego may think [2009/06/25 22:38:29] 23:33 < yngwin> there's a distinction between 'not gentoo developer' and 'forcefully removed ex-developer' [2009/06/25 22:38:32] *cough* [2009/06/25 22:38:51] * spatz hands ciaranm a tissue [2009/06/25 22:38:54] 23:18 < musikc_mobile> there's always the matter of whether to differentiate people on not being a dev and those who were devs and forcibly removed [2009/06/25 22:39:17] I this musikc has a point [2009/06/25 22:39:39] you were removed from the project due to disciplinary problems which can only be described as myriad, manifest, and ongoing. [2009/06/25 22:39:57] trelane: is there currently a devrel bug open against ciaran? [2009/06/25 22:40:33] trelane: learn your history [2009/06/25 22:40:35] tanderson: not that I'm aware of. I've been asked to file one because of his treatment towards me (I have not yet), and have spoken to several develrel people about it. [2009/06/25 22:41:05] ciaranm: I've quoted conlaw, the bible, and ozzy osbourne. Do you think for a moment I don't know my history? (factual, religious, otherwise?) [2009/06/25 22:41:13] ciaranm, Nobody has been expelled from the foundation yet [2009/06/25 22:41:32] trelane: then the problem is not ongoing. I've had complaints against me and I'd hardly say that I had disciplinary problems because of that [2009/06/25 22:41:34] trelane: i was actually removed for saying that the prefix project had several large unanswered holes in its design [2009/06/25 22:41:55] actually the problems are ongoing. [2009/06/25 22:42:09] the bug about you is longer than the us constitution [2009/06/25 22:42:14] solar: well, I mean the problem is not ongoing based on that reason [2009/06/25 22:42:21] ciaranm: if you can't figure out that you're an ongoing problem, I can't help you. [2009/06/25 22:42:22] false accusations etc. But I don't feel like getting into it today. [2009/06/25 22:42:33] good day all. [2009/06/25 22:42:42] solar: greetings :) [2009/06/25 22:43:17] solar: may the fsm be with you [2009/06/25 22:43:45] trelane: if you want an example of an on-going problem, look at, say, pappy [2009/06/25 22:44:00] ciaranm: you also seem to think that it's unfair in a situation where this is because you are being singled out. You've repeatedly spoken about how GLEP's 54/5 were brought up by, to quote you, "The wrong people". It seems like you don't understand how that status quo came to be. [2009/06/25 22:44:59] I'm neither for nor against you. After talking with peper I was 100% turned on GLEP-54. I'm trying to stop the fight. Right now it seems like the best way to do that is taking you out to a sandbox and beating you with a 2x4. I've got the stomach to do it, so that's no big deal. [2009/06/25 22:45:50] trelane: peper is fully aware of why i didn't think him pushing 54 and 55 would get anywhere [2009/06/25 22:45:57] trelane: and history has shown that i was right on that [2009/06/25 22:46:51] * ciaranm wonders when trelane will work out that peper is one of those paludis people whom he thinks are always wrong no matter what they say [2009/06/25 22:47:00] I don't think the problem is peper. In my discussion with him he is both rational, and is capable of making valid arguments for the need for GLEP-54. He can also do it in such a manner as that I don't want to take him out to the sandbox with a 2x4. [2009/06/25 22:47:31] ciaranm: I don't have a problem with everyone at paludis [2009/06/25 22:48:14] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg33502.html *cough* [2009/06/25 22:48:23] that pretty much sums up all we need to know [2009/06/25 22:48:57] you seem to have a coughing problem, you should see a doctor [2009/06/25 22:49:17] ciaranm: and yet here I am, with no problem dealing with peper. Perhaps it is louder, and dare I say more visibly obnoxious paludis devs. [2009/06/25 22:49:26] @ tsunam_ joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 22:49:58] (obviously I'm more than happy to answer any _factual_ concerns with that e-mail, as always) [2009/06/25 22:50:03] trelane: or perhaps your fundamentalism is standing in the way of you realising that i am not the great satan and paludis is not the source of all evil [2009/06/25 22:50:17] ditto the more extensive followup [2009/06/25 22:50:27] The natural follow-up to that particular mailing list reference would be http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg33504.html [2009/06/25 22:50:42] ciaranm: I already said you're not the great satan. Much more like the little satan. You may still however ride my white horse (which is still symbolic of course) [2009/06/25 22:50:47] (remind me to learn the rest of that guitar solo) [2009/06/25 22:51:23] leio-dl: indeed. [2009/06/25 22:51:44] leio-dl: yes, it reads like something rush limbaugh would come up with. i especially like the part where paludis is blamed for the tree's diminishing quality. [2009/06/25 22:52:32] That one might need some further followup to make you happy [2009/06/25 22:52:59] I however don't particularly care about those posts there, but as you brought some out of context stuff up, I linked the explanation. [2009/06/25 22:53:00] ciaranm: I'd like to thank you for the compliment. [2009/06/25 22:53:00] i'm quite happy to hear specific suggestions of "paludis does this. it would be better doing this instead because blah." [2009/06/25 22:53:18] leio-dl: I'm beating up paludis devs with half my brain tied behind my back (just to make it fair) [2009/06/25 22:53:21] that's helpful and gets things changed. "everything paludis does is evil and i want paludis to fail" is rush limbaugh [2009/06/25 22:53:25] * trelane with talent on loan from God. [2009/06/25 22:53:37] ciaranm: you don't want to turn this into my imitation of a Rush Limbaugh show, you'll lose. [2009/06/25 22:54:04] ciaranm: I want Paludis to fail. It's unhealthy (or at least the loudest and most visible of it's devs are) for Gentoo. [2009/06/25 22:54:26] lets be VERY clear on that point. So long as Paludis, and the culture it creates are unhealthy for Gentoo I want it to fail. [2009/06/25 22:55:18] and that is the difference between us: i want things to be improved. you want things to fail. [2009/06/25 22:55:42] the difference is I see that what you're doing does not improve things. [2009/06/25 22:55:59] good night [2009/06/25 22:56:09] NeddySeagoon: sleep well :) [2009/06/25 22:56:11] trelane: you think EAPIs 2 and 3 aren't an improvement? [2009/06/25 22:56:26] trelane, thanks [2009/06/25 22:56:37] @ Quit: NeddySeagoon: Client Quit [2009/06/25 22:56:37] NeddySeagoon: gn :) [2009/06/25 22:56:38] ah, crap [2009/06/25 22:56:56] ciaranm: EAPI's 2 and 3 aren't relevent to your behavior. [2009/06/25 22:57:11] the road to hell is paved with good intentions [2009/06/25 22:57:28] Neitzche tells us destruction is inherently creative, there will be some positive outcomes, that does not however negate the destruction. [2009/06/25 22:57:35] spatz: correct. [2009/06/25 23:02:02] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 22:57:35 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 23:05:58] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 23:05:58] * trelane wonders if people that bash Rush Limbaugh have ever listened to what he has to say, or just assume they know what he's saying because the media tells us Rush Limbaugh is EVIL. [2009/06/25 23:07:43] who's Rush Limbaugh and why haven't I heard about him from Colbert? ;p [2009/06/25 23:08:18] leio-dl: Rush is a conservative talk radio show host. noon-3 EST [2009/06/25 23:08:37] @ Log closed by Willikins (idle since Thu Jun 25 23:08:18 +0000 2009) [2009/06/25 23:09:58] @ Log started by Willikins [2009/06/25 23:09:58] ok. Other continent or something that got known within the last 6 months, thanks for clarifying [2009/06/25 23:11:33] rush limbaugh is the sort of person who, if obama said that kittens were adorable, would drown a hundred kittens just because to do otherwise would be agreeing with obama and thus supporting liberalism [2009/06/25 23:12:19] replace paludis with liberalism in http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg33502.html and you pretty much have it [2009/06/25 23:13:04] ciaranm: good writers borrow, great writers steal outright :) [2009/06/25 23:13:07] from the outside I have no clue how those two american parties differ from eachother at all, they seem all the same. [2009/06/25 23:13:20] but this is really off-topic ;p [2009/06/25 23:13:27] not that much of the above was very on-topic [2009/06/25 23:13:39] leio: Rush isn't a member of either party, but believes in a concept called Conservatism as envisioned by Reagan, and defined by the Economist Hayek. [2009/06/25 23:14:27] we in Europe like to have left and right wing parties, socialist parties, green parties, lots of party all around [2009/06/25 23:15:33] @ Quit: peper: Read error: 60 (Operation timed out) [2009/06/25 23:16:06] @ Quit: ulm: "ERC Version 5.3 (IRC client for Emacs)" [2009/06/25 23:16:20] @ Quit: trelane: [2009/06/25 23:16:29] leio-dl: aye, US is still a crazy 2 party system where, really they are not so different from each other, just like to claim they are [2009/06/25 23:16:34] @ trelane joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 23:16:50] we are party people! [2009/06/25 23:17:15] @ peper joined channel #gentoo-council [2009/06/25 23:17:55] leio-dl: yeah the two party issue here isn't ideal [2009/06/25 23:19:37] gn folks :) [2009/06/25 23:20:15] @ Quit: spatz: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer) [2009/06/25 23:21:10] @ tsunam_ left channel #gentoo-council () [2009/06/25 23:30:03] by the way, since it was requested that I clarify my remarks on tree quality and paludis. I was specifically referring to spb's stint as head of QA. [2009/06/25 23:30:20] and the degredation that occurred under his leadership [2009/06/25 23:32:54] yes, that's so obviously very clear from all those remarks you made. you were very explicit that it was all about spb. [2009/06/25 23:33:32] no, the portion about tree quality was about sbp [2009/06/25 23:33:47] again, do NOT put words in my mouth. [2009/06/25 23:34:30] i'm also curious how you equate spb as head of qa, whatever tree quality decline you noticed and paludis [2009/06/25 23:35:44] my memory is around 2006 it became harder and harder to even run x86 stable, I left gentoo and switched to ubuntu. I came back when Daniel requested I join him on Funtoo [2009/06/25 23:36:48] i still see no connection between that, spb as head of qa and paludis [2009/06/25 23:36:51] well the last isn't quite true. I set up one box a few months before that to run as a headless workstation via VNC [2009/06/25 23:36:55] especially given the whole "x86 arch team" thing [2009/06/25 23:37:16] ciaranm: might I suggest a visit to an optomitrist then? With your NHS system (That goes broke every few years) the trip's free. [2009/06/25 23:38:03] trelane: you appear to be under the mistaken impression that a) qa had the power to influence x86 stable (quite the contrary -- qa's efforts there were obstructed), and b) that that is in any way related to paludis [2009/06/25 23:38:57] exherbo dev run QA, quality assurance suck, exherbo dev leave, QA stops with the suck. Now I know I may be guilty of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking [2009/06/25 23:39:10] but I think there's both causation and correlation [2009/06/25 23:40:23] and I'm not about to waste a reasonable portion of my life debating the technical merits of every proposal you or any other paludis or exherbo dev ever made. [2009/06/25 23:40:31] there was no exherbo then, the quality decline you speak of didn't happen correlating to that time, a large part of the problem was that x86 wasn't under qa's control and that qa had very little power, and it's a bit of a long shot to consider spb to be a major contributor to paludis or exherbo [2009/06/25 23:41:01] ciaranm: your project problems aren't mine. Perhaps you could get him to do more work? Gentoo certainly didn't [2009/06/25 23:41:09] and my argument and yours both seem to be that 'spb is asleep at the switch' [2009/06/25 23:41:14] but he's your dev [2009/06/25 23:41:25] and not my problem anymore [2009/06/25 23:42:07] uh what. no. i'm saying that spb, like many others, is a contributor to paludis and exherbo, but that he isn't amongst the most prolific. and, for that matter, as head of qa he put in considerably more work than others have done in that role. [2009/06/25 23:42:41] but again, i know you like to blame the great satan and all his little minions for everything, and somehow see the devil's hand everywhere [2009/06/25 23:42:47] unfortunately I saw none, but I have a optometrist visit long overdue [2009/06/25 23:42:57] but don't see this important either way [2009/06/25 23:43:27] ciaranm: do you enjoy constructing strawman arguments, or are you just losing control of your temper? [2009/06/25 23:44:42] trelane: there's no straw man, and i am in perfect control of my temper [2009/06/25 23:44:58] but again, i know you like to blame the great satan and all his little minions for everything, and somehow see the devil's hand everywhere [2009/06/25 23:45:03] that's a straw man argument [2009/06/25 23:45:36] not at all. you suddenly start blaming exherbo for x86 stable's problems several years before exherbo even existed [2009/06/25 23:45:37] I've never taken that position, you've at the same time created that position, refuted it and therefore claimed that my position which has nothing to do with any sort of satan (though you may still ride my white horse, it's symbolic of course) [2009/06/25 23:45:52] ciaranm: I believe I blaimed 'spb' [2009/06/25 23:46:00] I don't think I blamed exherbo [2009/06/25 23:46:04] < trelane> exherbo dev run QA, quality assurance suck, exherbo dev leave, QA stops with the suck. [2009/06/25 23:46:06] and I am fully aware of when exherbo was started [2009/06/25 23:46:12] @ Quit: Cardoe: "Leaving" [2009/06/25 23:46:12] there has never been an exherbo dev running gentoo qa [2009/06/25 23:46:16] why don't you try dealing with my argument instead of a veriation thereon [2009/06/25 23:46:50] variation [2009/06/25 23:47:04] you're coming up with these amazing string of non-existent correlations to try to go from x86 sucking to it being the fault of paludis, exherbo, spb or me [2009/06/25 23:48:03] ciaranm: but you aren't arguing those, you're arguing something about you being the great satan [2009/06/25 23:48:10] and when exherbo was founded [2009/06/25 23:48:28] none of which I give a flying.... about [2009/06/25 23:49:25] I also have it in /msg from an infra guy that spb did at least attempt to take over QA, whether it was de facto or de jure it did occur [2009/06/25 23:49:25] trelane: my point is that you're in the same kind of self-reinforcing delusion that leads religious fundamentalists to see the hand of the devil everywhere, or conservative fundamentalists to see absolutely everything as a vast liberal conspiracy [2009/06/25 23:49:34] spb was for a time qa lead, yes [2009/06/25 23:49:42] and he's now an exherbo dev QED [2009/06/25 23:49:48] and now I'm a fundamentalist [2009/06/25 23:50:08] what is the connection between the two events? [2009/06/25 23:50:32] spb's time as gentoo qa lead or lack thereof had nothing to do with his exherbo developerhoodship [2009/06/25 23:50:32] no, lets discuss my being a fundamentalist, that's going to be WAY more fun. [2009/06/25 23:50:45] because I want to make sure I understand your argument [2009/06/25 23:50:59] you see everything as part of a vast plot controlled by exherbo / paludis / spb / me [2009/06/25 23:51:04] btw the conspiracy in the US is vast, it's also right wing. (I'm a member of the conspiracy) [2009/06/25 23:51:37] ciaranm: no I see you complaining _constantly_ and because of that you created a situation where you, and other paludis devs are "the wrong people" regardless of whether they are or not. [2009/06/25 23:51:52] You, because of your poor social skills have made it nearly impossible to work with paludis [2009/06/25 23:52:13] instead of supporting funtoo's profile hierarchy system as portage has you filed a bug out of spite to try to remove and curtail the functionality [2009/06/25 23:52:41] trelane: you see that because that's what you want to see. you should instead look and notice that paludis has a large active developer team, that pms is coming along nicely and that we're getting new EAPI work done [2009/06/25 23:52:44] we aren't part of gentoo, there's no reason we should comply with it's PMS, which I should point out you and spb wrote (Which I'm sure will make Coast to Coast AM any second now) [2009/06/25 23:53:30] funtoo is more than welcome to come up with its own specification for package managers, and if it does portage and paludis will both likely give it consideration [2009/06/25 23:53:46] portage already did, we asked Zac and he supported it [2009/06/25 23:53:54] amazingly we didn't have to kill a tree writing specifications to make that happen [2009/06/25 23:54:06] and i asked zac to ensure, *on gentoo*, that portage would enforce pms [2009/06/25 23:54:23] so that people couldn't accidentally use funtoo features on gentoo-specified trees [2009/06/25 23:55:07] and repoman already prevents that as I understand it. [2009/06/25 23:55:34] @ Quit: Thargor: Read error: 110 (Connection timed out) [2009/06/25 23:55:43] if it doesn't tree quality is handled largely in repoman [2009/06/25 23:55:49] repoman on profiles? not so much... [2009/06/25 23:56:08] no, portage does issue qa warnings for things where it can do so [2009/06/25 23:56:43] my question here is what I asked Zac, if I wanted a warning over every trivial problem, I'd install paludis [2009/06/25 23:57:01] I have before [2009/06/25 23:57:52] what you're missing is that those warnings improve qa. you know, the thing that put you off gentoo... [2009/06/25 23:58:37] yeah, we need a qa check for making sure no-one completely deletes profiles/package.mask [2009/06/25 23:58:57] leio-dl: we should also make sure it's not a device node. [2009/06/25 23:59:28] you shouldn't check that it's not a device node. you should check that it is what it's supposed to be. [2009/06/26 00:01:31] @ Log closed by Willikins (log rotation)