path: root/meeting-logs/20231210.txt

14:00 <@   mattst88> | meeting time!
14:00 <@   mattst88> | !proj council
14:01 <   willikins> | (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
14:01              * | dilfridge here
14:01 <@       sam_> | \o
14:01 <@   mattst88> | Roll call!
14:01              * | ulm here
14:01              * | mattst88 here
14:01              * | ajak here
14:01              * | sam_ here
14:01              * | dilfridge here
14:02 <@   mattst88> | soap, mgorny: ping. we'll wait a few minutes
14:05 <@   mattst88> | alright, let's get started
14:05 <@   mattst88> |  2. Foundation dissolution status update
14:05 <@   mattst88> | ulm, dilfridge: want to comment?
14:05 <@  dilfridge> | not much new from me
14:05 <@   mattst88> | okay
14:05 <@        ulm> | no news from our side
14:06 <@  dilfridge> | I talked to tomaw a bit but spi doesnt handle much for oftc
14:06 <@       sam_> | I think mattst88 pinged X11 again, and dilfridge spo-
14:06 <@        ulm> | has anyone talked to other distros?
14:06 <@   mattst88> | I pinged the X.Org board by email and on #xf-bod on OFTC and never heard anything back :(
14:06 <@  dilfridge> | also, I wanted to read the logs of the spi board meeting but didnt get to it
14:06 <@  dilfridge> | => holidays
14:07 <@   mattst88> | okay, thanks
14:07 <@        ulm> | we'll go ahead with SPI only if we get the council's mandate for it
14:07 <@   mattst88> | okay, next topic
14:07 <@       ajak> | i think i'd want some kind of "yeah they're fine" from a third party before fully committing
14:07 <@   mattst88> | from ulm:
14:08 <@  dilfridge> | ajak++
14:08 <@        ulm> | wfm
14:08 <@   mattst88> | I'd like the council to clarify the allarches stabilisation policy.
14:08 <@   mattst88> | In particular, can we allow self-stabilisation by maintainers for
14:08 <@   mattst88> | allarches packages, if the requirements for testing the package are
14:08 <@   mattst88> | fulfilled on at least one arch (e.g. stable system or stable chroot).
14:08 <@   mattst88> | ---
14:08 <@   mattst88> | this seems fine to me, IMO
14:08 <@  dilfridge> | works for me
14:08 <@       sam_> | sure
14:08 <@        ulm> | just asking for a nod from the council if it's ok like this
14:09 <@       sam_> | no reason not to and I think it's been applied like this at least by some in the past too
14:09 <@       ajak> | yes, allarches shouldn't change the calculus of maintainer-stabilization
14:09 <@   mattst88> | yep, any need for a vote?
14:09 <@       soap> | sorry, was in the train
14:09 <+  arthurzam> | only keywording/rekeywording should go through the full arch testing
14:09 <+  arthurzam> | no issue with stabling
14:09 <@        ulm> | I don't need one unless someone would disagree
14:09              * | soap here now
14:09 <@   mattst88> | hello soap :)
14:09 <@  dilfridge> | seems like we're all on the same pahe
14:09 <@   mattst88> | ulm: okay, thank you
14:09 <@  dilfridge> | page
14:10 <@   mattst88> | next topic
14:10 <@   mattst88> | arthurzam requests Council approval of a few changes to GLEP 84
14:10 <+  arthurzam> | (this is a new GLEP)
14:10 <@   mattst88> | the link in the email seems to not work (https://gitweb.gentoo.org/data/glep.git/tree/glep-0084.rst?h=glep-0084)
14:10 <@  dilfridge> | that's the package.mask format?
14:11 <@        ulm> | it's acceptance of the GLEP, right?
14:11 <+  arthurzam> | https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0084.html
14:11 <+  arthurzam> | Yes
14:11 <@   mattst88> | I'm fine with this. does anyone have any concerns?
14:12 <@       sam_> | no, very happy indeed, thank you for doing it
14:12 <@       soap> | thanks arthurzam!
14:13 <@   mattst88> | awesome, time for a vote I think?
14:13 <@   mattst88> | Motion: Accept GLEP 84 (https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0084.html)
14:13              * | ajak yes
14:13              * | mattst88 yes
14:13              * | sam_ yes
14:13              * | ulm yes
14:14              * | soap yes
14:14              * | dilfridge yes
14:14 <@   mattst88> | yay, 6-0
14:14 <@   mattst88> | thanks arthurzam!
14:14 <+  arthurzam> | Thank you
14:14 <+  arthurzam> | > a small editor request, of not needed council approval just for inserting links implementation commits of the tools.
14:14 <+  arthurzam> | This is fine, right?
14:14 <@        ulm> | obviously :)
14:14 <@  dilfridge> | of course, yes
14:14 <@       soap> | I would hope so
14:15 <+  arthurzam> | ok, just making sure
14:15 <@   mattst88> | next topic
14:15 <@   mattst88> | Open bugs with council participation
14:15 <@   mattst88> | I don't see any. anything I'm unaware of?
14:15 <+  arthurzam> | You forgot https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Arch-status_Reviews
14:15 <@   mattst88> | oh, I'm sorry
14:15 <@   mattst88> | thanks for bringing that up
14:16 <@   mattst88> | I think we're generally fine?
14:16 <+  arthurzam> | I think ia64 is coming to a sad story end
14:16 <@  dilfridge> | https://www.akhuettel.de/gentoo-bugs/arches.php
14:16 <+  arthurzam> | Alpha is advancing to become exp -> dev
14:16 <@   mattst88> | arthurzam has added some recent output to soko for finding and dekeywording leaf packages
14:17 <@       sam_> | yeah, I think we'll need to talk about how to wind ia64 down sooner or later
14:17 <@  dilfridge> | the graphs look ok, only x86 slightly worrying
14:17 <@       sam_> | from my perspective, the only real issue is better figuring out how to explain what to keyword/not, but arthur is handling that well with the leaf packages strategy
14:17 <+  arthurzam> | Just for paper trail for mattst88: https://packages.gentoo.org/arches/amd64/leaf-packages
14:17 <@  dilfridge> | I think dropping ia64 from glibc was postponed
14:18 <+  arthurzam> | I've also started to dekeyword clearly mistaken packages on small arches (like www-apps/moodle on alpha & ia64)
14:18 <@  dilfridge> | so we can still go on there for a while... whether putting much effort in makes sense is another question
14:19 <@  dilfridge> | also if ever guppy dies we're dead in the water anyway
14:19 <@       sam_> | heh
14:19 <+  arthurzam> | It already sometimes dies, until sam kicks it remotly
14:19 <@       sam_> | but i think we're okay overall, no real need for council intervention at this point, other than maybe shepherding ia64 death when we get a little bit closer to that...
14:19 <@   mattst88> | okay, sounds like things are in good shape and/or we have a handle on things
14:19 <@   mattst88> | yep
14:19 <@   mattst88> | next topic
14:19 <@   mattst88> | Open Floor
14:19 <@  dilfridge> | I tried and failed bootstrapping riscv32 once more
14:20 <@  dilfridge> | ok
14:20 <@  dilfridge> | so about FOSDEM
14:20 <@  dilfridge> | we requested a stand again same as in previous years (and in time for all deadlines)
14:21 <@  dilfridge> | unfortunately we're not on the in-the-meantime published list
14:21 <@  dilfridge> | when we noticed, we sent a (friendly and polite :) mail to the organizers 
14:21 <@        ulm> | did you get any reply?
14:22 <@  dilfridge> | (content roughly, we've had a stand many times, it's a centerpoint of our dev community, etc etc)
14:22 <@  dilfridge> | no response so far
14:22 <@  dilfridge> | the mail was on 5/Dec
14:22 <@       ajak> | can you give a rough timeline? when the application was sent, the deadline, when the question about it was asked
14:24 <@  dilfridge> | * The confirmation of the stand application is from 22 October 
14:24 <@  dilfridge> | * The initial Call for Proposals says "Deadline closes the 8th of December; accepted stands will be announced the 20th of December."
14:25 <@  dilfridge> | * That was amended on 1 November as follows: "Submission deadline 10th November instead of 20th of November. Publication date on 20th November instead of 4th December."
14:26 <@  dilfridge> | (on a separate post)
14:26 <@        ulm> | the old dates there aren't consistent with the first announcement
14:26 <@  dilfridge> | * The list of accepted stands was posted on 20 November
14:26 <@  dilfridge> | * Our query was sent on 5 December
14:27 <@  dilfridge> | ulm: yes I know
14:27 <@  dilfridge> | but that's not my pile of ...
14:27 <@   mattst88> | I guess let's ping them after a week without a reply?
14:27 <@  dilfridge> | yes, sounds good
14:28 <@        ulm> | on the bright side, we'll have a stand at 37C3 in Hamburg: https://events.ccc.de/congress/2023/hub/en/assembly/Gentoo/
14:28 <@       ajak> | does anyone perhaps know any of the organizers?
14:28 <@       sam_> | oh nice
14:28 <@  dilfridge> | nice
14:28 <@  dilfridge> | not me, unfortunately
14:28 <@   mattst88> | any other topics for open floor?
14:28 <  arthurzam> | mattst88: friendly reminder missing summary https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Meeting_logs
14:28 <@   mattst88> | arthurzam: yep, ack
14:29 <@  dilfridge> | two related things, 
14:29 <@  dilfridge> | next systemd release (upstream already released) is 255, which drops support for split-usr
14:29 <@  dilfridge> | the masks are already in place, so split-usr installs just won't update for the moment
14:30 <@  dilfridge> | doesnt change that they should better migrate to merged-usr soon
14:30 <@  dilfridge> | and
14:30 <@  dilfridge> | firing up stages builds for 23.0 profiles (which default to merged-usr) is ongoing
14:30 <@       soap> | can’t wait for the bikeshed
14:31 <@     mgorny> | ah, sorry
14:31 <@  dilfridge> | if anyone wants to follow it, https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Toolchain/23.0_profile_timeline
14:31 <@        ulm> | will it be ready this year still?
14:31 <@     mgorny> | got so deep into ebuilding that i've lost track of everything
14:31 <@       ajak> | well, fortunately a news was posted a year ago, so i'm not sure there's much discussion to be had around split-usr
14:31 <@  dilfridge> | ulm: not sure, depends on my time and on everything working
14:31 <@       sam_> | i don't expect us to finish it this year, there's some other stuff taking priority atm
14:31 <@  dilfridge> | yes
14:31 <@  dilfridge> | indeed
14:32 <@        ulm> | renamimg to 24.0 is trivial I guess :)
14:32 <@  dilfridge> | no 
14:32 <@        ulm> | no?
14:32 <+    floppym> | Thanks for all the hard work this year.
14:32 <@       sam_> | gosh, it's time to start thinking about the year in gentoo already as well..
14:32 <@       sam_> | you too :)
14:32 <@  dilfridge> | if you mean me, others did much more
14:32 <+    floppym> | Just making a general statement.
14:33 <@   mattst88> | alright, if there's nothing else for open floor
14:33 <@  dilfridge> | sam_: indeed, I'll start collecting stuff soon
14:33              * | mattst88 bangs the gavel