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