
\summary{2008}{8}{14}

Agenda call: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{9b3f0e9ed1c97b033b563ea68b4d123e}

Agenda announcement: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{b6f6ca201c154cdc17f1d582497c9995}



\agendaitem{Unplanned topics}
\index{council!meeting!default proxies}

All the council members should nominate default proxies.


\agendaitem{Reactions to dev banned from freenode}
\index{freenode!ban}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}

\dev{rane}: ``I'd like to ask Council to discuss possible reactions to our 
developer\footnote{According to the meeting log this was \dev{ricmm}.} being 
banned from Freenode without providing us with a reason. [...] It would be good 
if Council officially protested against that ban and demanded a detailed 
explanation from Freenode staff.''

It seems this happened twice; a second developer was klined after the issue was 
initially brought up. \dev{musikc} spoke to the second one; he said he'd done 
what he was told to do and was still waiting for some resolution. Several 
people volunteered to talk to the developer in question to find out more 
details. According to freenode staff tomaw, the issue was already resolved on 
the day he (tomaw) was made aware of it.


\agendaitem{Moving meetings to a location we control}
\index{council!meeting!location}\index{freenode}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}

\dev{rane}: ``I want Council to consider moving their meetings somewhere where 
third parties can't control who in Gentoo can attend and who cannot. Like our 
own small and created just for this purpose IRC server.''

We already have public mailing lists where a lot of the discussion takes place. 
On one hand when freenode as a tool becomes impractical changes need to be 
made. On the other hand there was conclusion that running an irc server would 
be a serious headache and a waste of manpower. Thus no action was taken.

We currently have 2 freenode group contacts: \dev{fmccor} and \dev{rane}.


\agendaitem{Favor irc.gentoo.org alias in docs, etc}
\index{irc.gentoo.org}\index{irc!channel!\#gentoo-java}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{ba16c7cd079ca0edc5150c56b14e671b}

\dev{rane}: ``I want Council to consider creating and using irc.gentoo.org 
alias instead of irc.freenode.net in our docs, news items and so on. The alias 
would allow us to move out of the network more easily should we ever decide to 
do so.''

There was supprort for this idea. However, \dev{spb} brought up the point that 
people connecting to irc.gentoo.org may assume that generic-sounding channel 
names are all about gentoo. On the other hand it was argued that people 
connecting to gentoo channels also ask generic questions as well. 


\agendaitem{Banning fired developers}
\index{enforced retirement}\index{irc!ban}\index{irc!autodevoice}
\index{project!devrel}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{31d62c8526814c29a1d166a82ec889db}


\dev{yngwin}:
It really baffles me that some developers are forcefully retired for 
anti-social behavior, but are not consequently banned from the places 
where they display this behavior, such as our MLs and IRC channels. What 
good is it to retire developers, but allow them to continue to be 
disruptive? I would like the Council to decide for a change in our 
policy on this point.

It wasn't entirely clear if this question applied to a specific person. One
could consider applying a ban for the same channel where the misbehaviour took 
place, and allow other channels to be handled separately. \dev{spb} commented 
that the three fired devs were actually banned from \#gentoo-dev for quite some 
time.

Discussion went off the tangents that giving voice to ex-developers is a right, 
not a privilege, that Gentoo is in principle interested in the Freenode 
autodevoice feature, and that a standardized policy on how to handle 
voluntarily or forcibly retired developers might be useful. 


\agendaitem{PMS as a draft standard of EAPI 0}
\index{PMS}\index{EAPI!0}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{b8a13279805378353df627cbb10d72cc}

\dev{spb}: (PMS) should be treated as a draft standard, and any deviations from 
it found in the gentoo tree or package managers should have a bug filed against 
either the deviator or PMS to resolve the differences.

According to \dev{zmedico} at the moment the main conflicts of opinion are 
\bug{222721} and \bug{232990}. \dev{ciaranm} stated that Portage was in the 
wrong since it broke existing stuff in the tree, \dev{zmedico} disagreed. A 
discussion ensued.

How shall conflicts get resolved here? The idea of creating a PMS editor 
position for escalation/mediation was discussed. 

We ran past the 1-hour mark, so this is pushed back to the list. It will 
be on the next agenda in 2 weeks if it's not resolved by then.
