2019-02-10 02:01:07-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v ThePaya] by ChanServ 2019-02-10 03:25:37-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v blueness_] by ChanServ 2019-02-10 05:41:33-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v kent\n] by ChanServ 2019-02-10 14:17:06-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+o slyfox_] by ChanServ 2019-02-10 16:41:06-!- mode/#gentoo-council [-b *!~none@unaffiliated/roentgen] by leio 2019-02-10 18:58:25<@K_F> !proj council 2019-02-10 18:58:26<+willikins> K_F: (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh 2019-02-10 18:58:33<@K_F> 1h (and change) meeting alert 2019-02-10 19:04:33<+NeddySeagoon> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tjHlFPTwVk if you want to know the time :) 2019-02-10 19:50:15<@K_F> today's agenda; https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/5c0c0f5552709aca0154b554b9b451fa 2019-02-10 19:56:00 * WilliamH is here 2019-02-10 20:00:02<@K_F> 1. Roll call 2019-02-10 20:00:07<@K_F> !proj council 2019-02-10 20:00:08<+willikins> K_F: (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, leio, slyfox, ulm, whissi, williamh 2019-02-10 20:00:08 * WilliamH here 2019-02-10 20:00:09 * K_F here 2019-02-10 20:00:14<@dilfridge> good morning! 2019-02-10 20:00:19 * ulm here 2019-02-10 20:00:20 * Whissi here 2019-02-10 20:00:22 * dilfridge here 2019-02-10 20:00:34 * slyfox here 2019-02-10 20:00:50<@K_F> leio: ? 2019-02-10 20:00:54 * leio here 2019-02-10 20:01:05<@K_F> goodies, everyone present 2019-02-10 20:01:24<@K_F> lets get started then... 2019-02-10 20:01:25<@K_F> 2. Appeals of Moderation Decisions 2019-02-10 20:01:26<@K_F> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/77eb7e1bd0caf46f48e4281ea0fe3307 2019-02-10 20:01:35<@K_F> so, this case seems to have mostly resolved itself 2019-02-10 20:01:44<@dilfridge> hmm? what happened? 2019-02-10 20:02:09<@K_F> but lets confirm the results, that appeals can be made to ComRel for longer term bans (>1w) , without going through proctors 2019-02-10 20:02:35<@K_F> but the underlying foundation is to try to solve the issue as low as level as possible 2019-02-10 20:03:03<@K_F> dilfridge: nothing except the discussion on the ML itself 2019-02-10 20:03:08<@dilfridge> ack 2019-02-10 20:04:12<@K_F> comrel definitely has a community-wide responsibility 2019-02-10 20:04:13<@Whissi> So what's the problem here? Someone can get banned >1w from forum staff. The person who got banned can ask ComRel to check if the ban is correct? 2019-02-10 20:04:17<@K_F> including forums and irc channels 2019-02-10 20:04:22<@dilfridge> sounds reasonable and good to me (but it is a change from previous policy) 2019-02-10 20:04:24<@K_F> but normally try to not interefere 2019-02-10 20:04:42<@K_F> dilfridge: is it really a change? 2019-02-10 20:04:53<@dilfridge> depends on who you ask 2019-02-10 20:04:58<@dilfridge> but yes, I think so 2019-02-10 20:05:24<@K_F> well, in that case it makes sense for us to have a vote on it 2019-02-10 20:05:47<@K_F> which aspects do you believe actually represents a change and we should make a motion on? 2019-02-10 20:06:04<@dilfridge> let's also make sure it applies to every ban by one of the "moderation teams", and not mention forums / forum-ops explicitly 2019-02-10 20:06:14<@K_F> indeed 2019-02-10 20:06:49<@dilfridge> well, comrel was in the past rather unwilling to touch anything related to gentoo-ops or forum-mods ("these teams are running themselves") 2019-02-10 20:07:28<@dilfridge> so clarifying that there is a general appeal path and that it leads to comrel (next) would be the statement 2019-02-10 20:07:34<@K_F> well, it still does... but it is ultimately part of community so I don't necessarily see it actually being change to have appeal possibility to comrel, in particular for longer term bans etc 2019-02-10 20:07:43<@dilfridge> yes 2019-02-10 20:08:02<@dilfridge> did anyone from gentoo-ops speak out btw? 2019-02-10 20:08:08<@dilfridge> like, jer, patrick, ...? 2019-02-10 20:08:25<@K_F> depending on how we want to phrase it , the one asking for appeal has the burden of providing evidence for misuse of power in the lower instance 2019-02-10 20:08:37<@K_F> I haven't seen anything from them 2019-02-10 20:09:28<@dilfridge> K_F: I guess since you're also comrel, you're the best person to provide a first text suggestion :D 2019-02-10 20:10:05<@K_F> dilfridge: I'm writing it up in our etherpad atm 2019-02-10 20:11:23<@K_F> so, first draft 2019-02-10 20:11:27<@K_F> "The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from moderation teams to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide burden of proof of misuse of power." 2019-02-10 20:12:30<@ulm> hm, that last part is redundant 2019-02-10 20:12:42<@K_F> ulm: not necessarily 2019-02-10 20:12:55<@K_F> without it a user can ask for a full review 2019-02-10 20:12:57<@dilfridge> "and other sanctions of similarly severe impact" ? 2019-02-10 20:13:19<@K_F> dilfridge: can you elaborate a bit on it? 2019-02-10 20:13:20<@ulm> "burden of proof is on the one appealing" or "is their responsibility to provide proof" 2019-02-10 20:13:36<@ulm> but not "provide burden of proof" 2019-02-10 20:13:46<@slyfox> What resources are in scope? For example is #gentoo-powerpc in scope? How one would find out? 2019-02-10 20:14:00<@K_F> ulm: I like the latter, feel free to update the draft in etherpad 2019-02-10 20:14:10<@K_F> slyfox: yes, all gentoo namespace is in scope of that 2019-02-10 20:14:26<@dilfridge> K_F: it's a get-out-clause, right now I cant imagine any other sanctions, but if someone comes up with one and it is heavyhanded, I dont want it to be excluded 2019-02-10 20:14:43<@slyfox> what is "gentoo namespace"? 2019-02-10 20:15:00<@K_F> dilfridge: well, arguably if ti happens we can make it a new decision then, otoh, I'm fine with a general scope of things, so wfm 2019-02-10 20:15:10<@K_F> slyfox: for IRC it'd be what we control through groupcontacts 2019-02-10 20:15:15<@K_F> but it also impacts forums etc 2019-02-10 20:15:25<@Whissi> But let's imagine a user will get banned because forum staff don't like that guy. No other real reason. How should that guy proof the misuse? So I would delete the last part and yes, allow anyone facing a longer ban, maybe raise to >2w, requesting a full review through ComRel. 2019-02-10 20:15:37<+jmbsvicetto> slyfox: actually the gentoo namespace falls to group contacts ;-) 2019-02-10 20:15:38<@K_F> slyfox: for freenode we control #gentoo-* 2019-02-10 20:15:40<+jmbsvicetto> slyfox: sorry 2019-02-10 20:15:43<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: ^^ 2019-02-10 20:16:09<@dilfridge> heh, slyfox has a point, people banned from an irc channel by channel ops will fall under this 2019-02-10 20:16:16<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: that is a technical matter, they will do what is directed by gentoo mostly 2019-02-10 20:16:36<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I believe in the past no one was too worried about providing appeals for individual team project's irc channels. I doubt ComRel is too keen on having to deal with those or that there is any benefit 2019-02-10 20:16:50<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: abuse of power complaints about moderation teams are a different subject 2019-02-10 20:17:06<@K_F> well, that is mostly what we're discussing here, isn't it? 2019-02-10 20:17:23<@dilfridge> that's why probably the explicit abuse of power clause is good 2019-02-10 20:18:07<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I feel some people are trying to "force" or "coerce" all teams to have to go through extra hoops 2019-02-10 20:18:35<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I also haven't seen compeling evidence of abuse of power by existing moderation teams to warrant the change 2019-02-10 20:18:47<@K_F> well, there are several avenues in this.. the initial motion proposed gives an appeal process in case of misuse of powerr 2019-02-10 20:18:50<@dilfridge> lol 2019-02-10 20:19:03<@K_F> but there is no doubt that all of gentoo is under the same direction that ultimately falls under council 2019-02-10 20:19:23<@K_F> and whether there is existence of abuse of power doesn't change the appeals path 2019-02-10 20:19:40<@K_F> that needs to be part of policy on general matter 2019-02-10 20:19:55<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: that has always been the case. Any developer, and to an extent every team, is subject to ComRel if they misbehave - there's no need to create "extra rules" 2019-02-10 20:20:00<@K_F> but yes, it should only be escalated in case of abuse of power, and in that case the burden of proof is on the one making the complaint 2019-02-10 20:20:23<@K_F> that is my point, this isn't a new rule, we're just affirming that it is the way it is 2019-02-10 20:20:45<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: but if you want to document that, that at least might avoid the same issues being raised time after time 2019-02-10 20:20:45<@K_F> "The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from all moderation teams to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide proof of misuse of power." 2019-02-10 20:21:02<@K_F> "affirms" implies no new rule 2019-02-10 20:21:31<@K_F> but since there is obviously some questions on it, we're stating it, and the conditions where it applies 2019-02-10 20:21:44<@K_F> at least in that special case 2019-02-10 20:22:23<@dilfridge> "Longer term bans (>1w) and similarly impactful sanctions by moderation teams can be appealed to comrel. For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide proof of misuse of power." 2019-02-10 20:22:42<@Whissi> Is would delete the last sentence... like said, how do you expect that someone proves misuse of power? 2019-02-10 20:22:43<@K_F> dilfridge: sgtm 2019-02-10 20:22:50<@Whissi> s/Is/I/ 2019-02-10 20:23:04<@K_F> Whissi: that is an important aspect of it, that I wouldn't delete actually 2019-02-10 20:23:08<@WilliamH> Yeah, I'm with Whissi 2019-02-10 20:23:10<@dilfridge> Whissi: you explain that nothing bad happened and moderation team overreacted badly 2019-02-10 20:23:44<@WilliamH> dilfridge: how do you do that if say, you get a sanction out of the blue with no warnings from the moderation team etc? 2019-02-10 20:23:56<@dilfridge> if you can make that point in a believable and reasonable way, it's time to hear the side of the moderation team for that 2019-02-10 20:24:10<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / dilfridge: If #gentoo ops or forums moderators decide to ban someone for an extended time for abusive behaviour / obvious trolling or spamming, I don't see why ComRel needs to get involved 2019-02-10 20:24:16<@dilfridge> you state precisely that 2019-02-10 20:24:23<@WilliamH> "Hey Moderation team, I'm appealing to comrel, can you give me logs of your conversations about your sanction against me?" 2019-02-10 20:24:31<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / dilfridge: or for that matter any project deciding to ban anyone from the project irc channel (for similar behaviour) 2019-02-10 20:24:36<@WilliamH> That probably wouldn't go over well. 2019-02-10 20:25:00<@Whissi> ACK. 2019-02-10 20:25:03<@dilfridge> jmbsvicetto: precisely... so in that case it's kinda hard to show "I didnt do anything" 2019-02-10 20:26:03<@WilliamH> I would rather see the last sentence removed I think. 2019-02-10 20:26:18<@K_F> ok, lets make it a two-component vote 2019-02-10 20:26:20<@dilfridge> so one of the ideas of the latter sentence is that the appeal needs to have merit, you can't just go to comrel 2019-02-10 20:26:37<@K_F> 1st is on the generla path, the 2nd is the burden of proof 2019-02-10 20:26:39<@ulm> "... provide evidence that the ban was unjustified"? 2019-02-10 20:26:48<@dilfridge> ulm++ 2019-02-10 20:26:54<@dilfridge> that's a nice alternative 2019-02-10 20:27:02<@dilfridge> and much more clear 2019-02-10 20:27:16<+NeddySeagoon> I would expect the normal appeal loop to be used before anything goes to comrel. So there will be the incident and the local appeal. That will take more than a week 2019-02-10 20:27:21<@ulm> s/ban/sanction/ 2019-02-10 20:27:23<@K_F> ulm: wfm, will yup update etherpad? 2019-02-10 20:27:48<@Whissi> I would delete the last sentence. Should ComRel experience the problem that everyone is now going to ComRel to appeal any decision from lower instance ComRel can ask us to find a solution for that new problem. But until there is one, I wouldn't try to find a solution. 2019-02-10 20:28:03<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: well, yes, normally the single ban would be appealed to the broader moderation team, before it goes to comrel 2019-02-10 20:28:25<@K_F> Whissi: there are often issues like that ... and it causes a lot of work on comrel 2019-02-10 20:28:27<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: As long as thats inferred somehow 2019-02-10 20:28:32<@K_F> in any case, lets split it in two votes 2019-02-10 20:28:36<@dilfridge> we could insert a sentence 2019-02-10 20:28:59<@dilfridge> "if the moderation team has an appeal procedure itself, that path has to be used first." 2019-02-10 20:29:15<@dilfridge> has a formal appeal procedure 2019-02-10 20:29:17<@K_F> dilfridge: that wfm, will you add? 2019-02-10 20:29:25<+NeddySeagoon> wfm 2019-02-10 20:30:03<@dilfridge> done 2019-02-10 20:30:44<@WilliamH> paste the draft here again? 2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> Vote 2.1: 2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> The council affirms that there exists an appeal path for longer term bans (>1w) from all moderation teams to comrel.. If the moderation team in question has a formal appeal procedure, that path has to be used before an appeal to comrel. 2019-02-10 20:31:11<@K_F> Vote:2.2 (as an addemdum to vote 2.1) 2019-02-10 20:31:13<@K_F> or an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide evidence that the sanction was unjustified 2019-02-10 20:31:30<@dilfridge> *For 2019-02-10 20:31:31<@K_F> s/or/for 2019-02-10 20:31:47<@dilfridge> I would still remove the "affirm" 2019-02-10 20:31:51<@dilfridge> wait a sec 2019-02-10 20:32:18<@Whissi> Do we really need 2.2? I mean, isn't it normal that the one complaining will tell us WHY? 2019-02-10 20:32:34<@K_F> Whissi: no, the "normal" is them asking or a full review 2019-02-10 20:32:50<@K_F> so there is a much larger burden of comrel if the burden of proof isn't on the one complaining 2019-02-10 20:32:51 * WilliamH is against 2.2 2019-02-10 20:33:02<@K_F> WilliamH: that is why we're making it a separate vote 2019-02-10 20:33:11<@dilfridge> we're a bit overformalizing this, but that seems to be needed 2019-02-10 20:33:59<@K_F> so , lets vote... 2.1 is 2019-02-10 20:34:05<@K_F> Vote 2.1: 2019-02-10 20:34:05<@K_F> Longer term bans (>1w) and similarly impactful sanctions by moderation teams can be appealed to comrel. If the moderation team in question has a formal appeal procedure, that path has to be used before an appeal to comrel. 2019-02-10 20:34:07<@WilliamH> imo once an appeal gets to comrel it should be a full review. 2019-02-10 20:34:13 * K_F yes 2019-02-10 20:34:25 * dilfridge yes 2019-02-10 20:34:30 * WilliamH yes 2019-02-10 20:34:32 * ulm yes 2019-02-10 20:34:36 * slyfox yes 2019-02-10 20:34:39<+NeddySeagoon> Hmm individual mods, to teams, to comrel to council ... 2019-02-10 20:34:49 * leio yes 2019-02-10 20:35:21 * Whissi yes 2019-02-10 20:35:29<@K_F> so that is unanumous 2019-02-10 20:35:41<@K_F> Vote 2.2 (as an addemdum to vote 2.1) 2019-02-10 20:35:43<@K_F> For an appeal to be made it is the responsibility of the one appealing to provide evidence that the sanction was unjustified 2019-02-10 20:35:49 * K_F yes 2019-02-10 20:35:52 * WilliamH no 2019-02-10 20:35:53 * Whissi no 2019-02-10 20:35:58 * ulm yes 2019-02-10 20:36:02 * dilfridge abstain 2019-02-10 20:36:26 * leio no 2019-02-10 20:36:52 * slyfox no 2019-02-10 20:37:09<@K_F> ok, so that does not carry.. i.e comrel needs to do a full review if requested 2019-02-10 20:37:38<+NeddySeagoon> To the naysayers ... you expect comrel to do the data gathering? 2019-02-10 20:37:46<@K_F> that is implied, yes 2019-02-10 20:37:50<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: for the record, comrel was already requiring the "burden of proof" 2019-02-10 20:37:55<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon: I think that's reasonable, yes. 2019-02-10 20:37:56<@Whissi> K_F: If ComRel wants 2.2 for some reason, maybe you need a better explanation but at the moment I don't understand why this is needed and fear that it will be used to block any review request 2019-02-10 20:38:22<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so I guess we (comrel) will have to see if we feel this vote is making a requirement for us or is just the opinion of council 2019-02-10 20:38:39<@K_F> it certainly makes a requirement for us 2019-02-10 20:39:01<+NeddySeagoon> How does comrel get access to forums PMs? 2019-02-10 20:39:19<@WilliamH> The problem with making the person who appeals do the data gathering is that the mods wouldn't want to give that person the data. 2019-02-10 20:39:29<@dilfridge> please take that debate to the private comrel channel :D 2019-02-10 20:39:32<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: we'll have to request it from the teams if necessary 2019-02-10 20:39:34<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: first, because we trust individual moderation teams. second, because we don't want to review complaints as "bad dev on #gentoo-x is a $$#$# doesn't like me and banned me". 2019-02-10 20:39:58<@K_F> but the vote is done, lets move on to next case 2019-02-10 20:40:10<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: For the second, you'll have to provide evidence that "bad dev" and the entire moderation team on "gentoo-x" really misbehaved 2019-02-10 20:40:19<@K_F> 3. Forums (specifically OTW) 2019-02-10 20:40:21<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Lets see how it works in real life 2019-02-10 20:40:53<@dilfridge> ok so 2019-02-10 20:41:01<@K_F> so, we have discussed this a bit in private , and come up with the current motion that is general instead of going into micro-decisions 2019-02-10 20:41:23<@K_F> Vote 3.1 2019-02-10 20:41:26<@K_F> All activity on Gentoo infrastructure and in the name of Gentoo shall predominantly be used to serve the Gentoo distribution. It is not Gentoo's responsibility to host and moderate content outside the scope of free software, in particular the Gentoo distribution. 2019-02-10 20:41:48 * K_F yes 2019-02-10 20:41:56<+NeddySeagoon> The Forums also discuss hardware. 2019-02-10 20:42:34<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: fair enough, do you have a proposal for amendment? 2019-02-10 20:42:56<@K_F> note that we say "predominatly", and hardware can certainly be covered in "serve the Gentoo distribution" 2019-02-10 20:43:27<@slyfox> For some reason i read "distribution" as "literally ship Gentoo" :) 2019-02-10 20:43:31<@Whissi> Sorry, if 3.1 will be used to get rid of OTW or kick everything which is not 100% Gentoo I cannot vote "yes" here. This would need more details... 2019-02-10 20:43:36<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so is the council really going to vote on how the forums should be conducted moderated and go over the forums administrators / moderators? 2019-02-10 20:43:39<+NeddySeagoon> Just that discussions related to hardware to support Gentoo needs to be permitted 2019-02-10 20:43:45<@WilliamH> Hmm, something like, "... in particular, the Gentoo distribution and hardware where it can be run." 2019-02-10 20:44:13<+jmbsvicetto> run and moderated* 2019-02-10 20:44:18<@K_F> WilliamH: that works for me, will you update the etherpad? 2019-02-10 20:44:20<+NeddySeagoon> can -> may 2019-02-10 20:44:31<@WilliamH> K_F: I'm not sure how to do that. 2019-02-10 20:44:41<@dilfridge> this is not really helpful 2019-02-10 20:44:41<@K_F> WilliamH: see link in the private channel 2019-02-10 20:44:44<@WilliamH> K_F: or if it is accessible. ;-) 2019-02-10 20:45:22<@dilfridge> good point 2019-02-10 20:45:32<+NeddySeagoon> If I want to talk about Gentoo on new_arch it belongs on the forum but its not yet running on new_arch 2019-02-10 20:45:32<@K_F> it was discussed there for a week already, but if there is uncertainty about hardware being in-scope lets fix it 2019-02-10 20:45:42<@WilliamH> pulling it up now 2019-02-10 20:46:11<@K_F> the point is mainly that things related to the distribution is in-scope, and that includes hardware discussions 2019-02-10 20:46:14<@K_F> it does not involve kittens 2019-02-10 20:46:43<@K_F> and since comrel has responsibility to moderate things as stated in vote 2.1, we reduce the burden on other projects by setting the scope 2019-02-10 20:46:51<+NeddySeagoon> My kitten has a tracking collar that runs Gentoo. 2019-02-10 20:46:51<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: so no #gentoo-kittens? 2019-02-10 20:46:53<@leio> kittens are a very important factor for the mental health of gentoo users and developers alike 2019-02-10 20:46:53<@K_F> so yes, we decide what is relevant for Gentoo and what is not 2019-02-10 20:47:12<@WilliamH> Hmm doesn't seem very usable. 2019-02-10 20:47:27<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: we = council? 2019-02-10 20:47:35<@slyfox> royal we 2019-02-10 20:47:35<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: yes 2019-02-10 20:47:41<@Whissi> I would agree on what your are saying but I have to feeling that you will use 3.1 to close OTW sub forum for example... 2019-02-10 20:47:46<@Whissi> -to 2019-02-10 20:48:13<@dilfridge> this makes no sense, because I think you're trying to come up with a rule that doesnt fit what you actually want to do 2019-02-10 20:48:45<@K_F> dilfridge: well, 3.1 is the statement that came out of last week's discussion in the private channel 2019-02-10 20:48:50<@WilliamH> I don't have access to the forums, but hasn't otw been the wild west where people talk about anything, linux or not? 2019-02-10 20:49:08<@K_F> WilliamH: you do have access, it isn't requiring a user to see 2019-02-10 20:49:27<@WilliamH> K_F: I mean accessibility wise, I don't go to the forums. 2019-02-10 20:49:50<@dilfridge> K_F: yes, I kind of realized that now, but last week has been a bit horrible time-wise for me 2019-02-10 20:49:51<@K_F> but it follows from 2.1 that comrel has a reponsibility to handle appeals from such forums, and discussions not gentoo-related can cause additional work on other projects if they are not limited 2019-02-10 20:50:13<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Does it already ? 2019-02-10 20:50:15<@K_F> and in particular given 2.2 that burden is increased 2019-02-10 20:50:18<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: yes 2019-02-10 20:50:44 * dilfridge goes register #gentoo-kittens 2019-02-10 20:50:58<+b-man> leio: unless K_F is involved... He hates kittens. 2019-02-10 20:51:12<@dilfridge> meow 2019-02-10 20:51:45<@leio> I do not understand the purpose here 2019-02-10 20:51:59<@Whissi> I really don't like the idea of 3.1... the topic is too complex to solve it with such a simple statement. 2019-02-10 20:52:16<@slyfox> we had an interesting case on #gentoo-powerpc where a person kept bringing up problems they have on hppa and x86 and refused to provide any ppc-specific logs :) 2019-02-10 20:52:17<@leio> at this rate I will have to go and make a new blog account somewhere, because if after 10 years I want to write a blog post, it might not exactly be all gentoo-relevant 2019-02-10 20:52:25<@K_F> leio: the primary question is whether we should provide gentoo infrastructure and resources (incluing appeals etc) for matters not related to Gentoo 2019-02-10 20:52:55<@dilfridge> no 2019-02-10 20:52:59<@Whissi> It is a community. Not everying is a 1 and 0. 2019-02-10 20:53:16<@dilfridge> the primary question is whether "Off The Wall" should be hosted in the gentoo forums 2019-02-10 20:53:28<@K_F> well, OTW is just a specific case 2019-02-10 20:53:29<@dilfridge> let's not talk around it 2019-02-10 20:53:35<@leio> there is no community if it's just strictly technical 2019-02-10 20:53:36<@Whissi> dilfridge++ 2019-02-10 20:53:38<@K_F> any decision would need to be generic 2019-02-10 20:53:50<@leio> in IRC we do stuff similar to OTW as well; talk politics and so on 2019-02-10 20:53:56<@ulm> as I said before, the council cannot micromanage how forum mods sort and classify forums postings 2019-02-10 20:53:59<@leio> but we don't own that infrastructure 2019-02-10 20:54:07<@leio> but other people don't like real time chat kind of things, and use the forums instead 2019-02-10 20:54:14<@dilfridge> in general, I think the forums are a useful and very helpful thing 2019-02-10 20:54:21<@K_F> dilfridge: indeed 2019-02-10 20:54:21<@ulm> so IMHO we cannot say that they should shut down a particular forum 2019-02-10 20:54:22<+NeddySeagoon> The hardware that hosts the forums was donated for that explicit purpose. Its not avaiable for anything else. 2019-02-10 20:54:37<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I hope the next step isn't a rule stating that you'll control what gentoo developers do or can think about - because the proposal for 3.1 seems we'll be "falling down the rabbit hole" 2019-02-10 20:54:41<@dilfridge> I'm not really averse to off-topic chatter as well 2019-02-10 20:55:04<+NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto: Mext up, the ML 2019-02-10 20:55:10<@dilfridge> my main problem is a different one, namely that OTW is "a dongle waiting to happen" 2019-02-10 20:55:12<@Whissi> This is like the idea some politicians have: Just forbid something and the problem is solved. No. That's not how it works. 2019-02-10 20:55:22<@K_F> ok, one alternative is deferring this to more discussion on ML 2019-02-10 20:55:35<@ulm> +1 2019-02-10 20:55:48<@K_F> and re-opening for next meeting 2019-02-10 20:55:52<+NeddySeagoon> dilfridge: The Striesland effect :) 2019-02-10 20:56:04<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: presumably Streisand :) 2019-02-10 20:56:15<@dilfridge> not really 2019-02-10 20:56:27<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Yes, sorry for my spelling 2019-02-10 20:56:40<@dilfridge> ok you could say, as long as we dont talk about otw, maybe noone notices it 2019-02-10 20:56:48<@K_F> ok, Vote 3.1: This topic is deferred to further discussion on the ML 2019-02-10 20:56:56<+NeddySeagoon> It can be logged in users only 2019-02-10 20:57:11<@dilfridge> NeddySeagoon: right now it's indexed by google 2019-02-10 20:57:22<@dilfridge> so that can't really be true 2019-02-10 20:57:28<@K_F> dilfridge: whether indexed by google or not isn't really material 2019-02-10 20:57:32<@Whissi> But this can be fixed. 2019-02-10 20:57:38<+NeddySeagoon> As desultory said on the ML, that can be changed. 2019-02-10 20:57:49<@dilfridge> yes, fine. just replying to the remark 2019-02-10 20:57:57<+NeddySeagoon> OK 2019-02-10 20:58:06<@K_F> it doesn't affect gentoo's exposure whether it is impacted by search engines or not 2019-02-10 20:58:13<@dilfridge> OK so I'm all for deferring to the lists 2019-02-10 20:58:15 * dilfridge yes 2019-02-10 20:58:16<@K_F> any journalist writing about it will go to the direct soruce 2019-02-10 20:58:18<@K_F> source* 2019-02-10 20:58:20 * K_F yes 2019-02-10 20:58:25 * slyfox yes for deferral 2019-02-10 20:58:28 * ulm yes 2019-02-10 20:58:29 * leio yes 2019-02-10 20:58:34 * Whissi yes for deferral 2019-02-10 20:58:35 * WilliamH yes for deferral 2019-02-10 20:59:08<@K_F> good, lets continue discussion on this 2019-02-10 20:59:15<@K_F> 4. Default ACCEPT_LICENSE 2019-02-10 20:59:30<@K_F> https://bugs.gentoo.org/676248 2019-02-10 20:59:35<+NeddySeagoon> Lets be consistent and include mailing lists too. 2019-02-10 20:59:40<@K_F> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/4dc7170def0d2180b6f1144942bec2d0 2019-02-10 20:59:59<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: lets take that discussion on ML, but indeed.. 2019-02-10 21:00:05<@WilliamH> I think we should leave the accept_license default the way it is and document how users can change it. 2019-02-10 21:00:12-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v kentnl] by ChanServ 2019-02-10 21:00:24<@Whissi> Has anyone tested if changing ACCEPT_LICENSE from "* -@EULA" to "@FREE" will affect stage3 generation? 2019-02-10 21:00:25<@dilfridge> NeddySeagoon: I dont think we have much conspiracy theory or alt-right discussions on the lists. 2019-02-10 21:00:57<@K_F> lets drop discussion on the previous point and move on... that is already deferred for forther discussion 2019-02-10 21:00:59<@ulm> Whissi: stage3 should only contain free software, at least that was so a couple of years ago 2019-02-10 21:01:47<@ulm> if not, it might even violate the social contract 2019-02-10 21:01:56<@Whissi> Well, if stage3 is not affected, I want that change. It doesn't really affect users... some users only have to do an additional change. But it will raise awareness. Not a hard blocker. 2019-02-10 21:01:58<@slyfox> Is there an exact list of licences removed in '"* -@EULA" -> "@FREE"' posted anywhere? 2019-02-10 21:02:37<@ulm> slyfox: there's no @non-free group 2019-02-10 21:02:44<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: hmm, what type of licenses wouldn't be accepted with the new default? 2019-02-10 21:02:44<@K_F> slyfox: the FREE license group is found in profiles/license_groups 2019-02-10 21:02:48<@ulm> i.e. non-free is all without @FREE 2019-02-10 21:03:05<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: any that isn't covered by OSI or FSF 2019-02-10 21:03:12<@dilfridge> so you'd need @non-free without @EULA 2019-02-10 21:03:16<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: FWIW, we already have USE="bindist" on official stages, so anything that doesn't allow binary distribution is already "out" of the stages 2019-02-10 21:03:37<@leio> that's not how USE=bindist works. 2019-02-10 21:03:43<@Whissi> jauhien: BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE group would be missing. So no Intel microcodes for example without accepting intel-ucode license. 2019-02-10 21:03:59<@Whissi> s/jauhien/jmbsvicetto 2019-02-10 21:04:05<@K_F> you wouldn't require those in the stage3 though 2019-02-10 21:04:13<+jmbsvicetto> leio: ok, true. 2019-02-10 21:04:22<@K_F> but yes, we should do handbook alterations to explain how to add various things 2019-02-10 21:04:43<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: ah, then that might cause issues for the install-cd / stage4 2019-02-10 21:04:53<@dilfridge> also, maybe ask for an expanded portage error message on "masked by license" (with a link to somewhere) 2019-02-10 21:05:07<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: let me do a quick grep for firmware packages, but I believe we do have some in the ISO targets 2019-02-10 21:05:14<@K_F> so, my own take on this is described in https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/aee31797d8c4ac5bb727a4cee09d1c2c 2019-02-10 21:05:22<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: The live DVD is not the problem. They will probably add that package. 2019-02-10 21:06:13<@Whissi> Well, from my POV and my talk with mattst88. 2019-02-10 21:06:24<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: I'm talking about the install-cd / stage4 2019-02-10 21:06:25<@Whissi> Not sure about ulm and the social contract. 2019-02-10 21:06:35<@ulm> live dvd and install cds could have "-* @FREE @BINARY-REDISTRIBUTABLE" 2019-02-10 21:06:46<@Whissi> OK, so no problem. 2019-02-10 21:06:50<+jmbsvicetto> Whissi: we do have for example the ipw{2100,2200}-firmware packages on the install-cd 2019-02-10 21:07:08<@ulm> which still won't cover all firmwares 2019-02-10 21:07:14<@K_F> from Gentoo SOC, chapter "Gentoo is and will remain free software" 2019-02-10 21:07:31<@K_F> but we're not actually living up to that for our users atm 2019-02-10 21:07:53<@K_F> so users can end up in various situations where they install proprietary software by default 2019-02-10 21:07:58<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: ipw*-firmware package doesn't make gentoo "non free software". All it does is all users with that hardware to run Gentoo 2019-02-10 21:08:05<@K_F> the only sane default for us is to offer free software 2019-02-10 21:08:16<@K_F> the alternative would be to not approve any license at all to begin with 2019-02-10 21:08:27<@K_F> but describe how to set it... but I don't believe that is a good alternative 2019-02-10 21:08:35<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: That forces thinking 2019-02-10 21:08:47<@WilliamH> jmbsvicetto++ 2019-02-10 21:08:48<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: I thought the old discussion about this issue was that Gentoo will not rely on non-free software, but that we are pragmatic and won't go "debian" 2019-02-10 21:08:48<@Whissi> For me, the motion is to raise awareness. We are not really adding a blocker for anyone. Maybe we need to adjust the DVD or things like that... but that's not a blocker. 2019-02-10 21:08:48<@K_F> we should default to free software to cover our social contract, and any exception from that should be up to users 2019-02-10 21:08:51<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: yeah, ipw-* is binary distributable 2019-02-10 21:09:02<+jmbsvicetto> s/all/allow/ 2019-02-10 21:09:05<@ulm> some of the blobs in sys-kernel/linux-firmware aren't, though 2019-02-10 21:09:23<@K_F> but definitely we should describe it in handbook how to set license exceptions, and linux-firmware and no-source-code are good examples of things that should be listed for certain packages 2019-02-10 21:09:25<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: is that package included with any install media? 2019-02-10 21:09:33<@WilliamH> I'm with jmbsvicetto here, let's not go so far as to break installation for users. 2019-02-10 21:10:05<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: yes, on the amd64 install-cd 2019-02-10 21:10:10<+jmbsvicetto> I just grepped the specs 2019-02-10 21:10:34<+NeddySeagoon> From a helpdesk workload PoV I prefer to stay with what we have and document how to go free. 2019-02-10 21:10:37<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: that may be problematic then 2019-02-10 21:10:49<@WilliamH> I think some kernel components are also non-free? 2019-02-10 21:11:05<@WilliamH> I've heard something about deblobbing the kernel if we go free only. 2019-02-10 21:11:20<@K_F> WilliamH: citation needed 2019-02-10 21:11:25<+jmbsvicetto> Are we going to say Gentoo can only be run on hardware without proprietary blobs? 2019-02-10 21:11:27<@ulm> WilliamH: non-free is mostly fine in context of firmware 2019-02-10 21:11:41<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: No. 2019-02-10 21:11:42<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: no, we're talking about the default ACCEPT_LICENSE 2019-02-10 21:11:43<@ulm> the problem are blobs that are not distributable 2019-02-10 21:11:53<@K_F> we're not talking about what is allowed in gentoo ebuild repository altogether 2019-02-10 21:11:58<+NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto: That kicks lots of arm hardware into touch 2019-02-10 21:12:09<@K_F> so it doesn't change status quo wrt adding things 2019-02-10 21:12:43<@Whissi> And to be honest, I epexect that user asking in #gentoo, mailing list or forum will get the answer 'just restore old "* -@EULA" value' but that's ok because the user changed this. Our defaults would be fine. That's the only thing I care about. Raising people's awareness... 2019-02-10 21:12:59<@WilliamH> I'm with NeddySeagoon here, let's document how to go free and let users do that if they want. 2019-02-10 21:13:03<@K_F> but yes, most users wants to add >=sys-firmware/intel-microcode-20170511 intel-ucode 2019-02-10 21:13:03<@K_F> >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.9.95 linux-firmware 2019-02-10 21:13:06<@K_F> and the likes 2019-02-10 21:13:30<@Whissi> WilliamH: No. Defaults must be sane. We cannot expect that anyone will fix it. 2019-02-10 21:13:36<@K_F> WilliamH: I don't belive that is sufficient, and I belive it is against our social contract 2019-02-10 21:13:54<+jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: iirc, no x86 / amd64 hardware could be run, as all intel processors are filled with closed source blobs - before I meant closed source blobs, not necessarily proprietary 2019-02-10 21:14:05<@K_F> we should default to free software and describe how users can have exceptions 2019-02-10 21:14:17<@K_F> and we definitely should describe normal exceptions for firmware blobs 2019-02-10 21:14:29<@Whissi> Wasn't there already an update for the handbook? 2019-02-10 21:14:31<+NeddySeagoon> Lots of users will set "*" to get over the nagging. 2019-02-10 21:14:47<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: that is their prerogative 2019-02-10 21:15:10<@ulm> that means that we cannot change the default to @FREE tomorrow, but will first need a tracker bug for updating of documentation, and maybe stage3 2019-02-10 21:15:12<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: yes, but is that contributing to the "awareness" goal? 2019-02-10 21:15:40<@ulm> portage shouldn't even accept "*" there :( 2019-02-10 21:15:56<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: at least it doesn't mean users gets installs against our social contract without making explicit action 2019-02-10 21:16:22<@Whissi> Exactly. 2019-02-10 21:16:34<@WilliamH> ulm: Portage shouldn't accept USE="-* foo bar bas" imo but it does. 2019-02-10 21:16:53<@Whissi> This is a handy feature 2019-02-10 21:16:53<@K_F> WilliamH: why shouldn't it? 2019-02-10 21:17:16<@slyfox> i use it all the time :) 2019-02-10 21:17:18<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: Has anyone even checked how many "non free" packages are pulled in by the stages / install-cd? 2019-02-10 21:17:48<@dilfridge> K_F: well at least it should warn loudly about it 2019-02-10 21:17:51<@ulm> WilliamH: for ACCEPT_LICENSE, * means to accept any license currently in the tree, and any that may be added at a later time 2019-02-10 21:17:52<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: I've been running on ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE -AGPL-3 -AGPL-3+ freedist " 2019-02-10 21:17:52<@slyfox> i think we'll ned an exact breakdown by licences in stae3 before doing any decision 2019-02-10 21:17:57<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: ... for a long time... 2019-02-10 21:17:57<@dilfridge> ok 2019-02-10 21:17:59<@dilfridge> so 2019-02-10 21:18:00<@dilfridge> defer? 2019-02-10 21:18:05<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: if the issue is the packages they can pull in when the users add packages to their system, then it stops being about Gentoo providing stages / isos that "violate the social contract" 2019-02-10 21:18:09<@K_F> no, I don't want to defer this 2019-02-10 21:18:48<@K_F> we should continue discussing it a bit more at least since we don't have further motions on the table today 2019-02-10 21:18:55<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: do you know how many packages are going to be affected? (stages and isos) 2019-02-10 21:19:01<@WilliamH> I also think we should defer We don't have any idea how the stages and install cds will be affected. 2019-02-10 21:19:06 * dilfridge looks at the palm trees outside... 2019-02-10 21:19:14<@Whissi> I also don't see a need to defer. 2019-02-10 21:19:25<@ulm> I fear that deferring to the ML won't provide any new information 2019-02-10 21:19:28<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: the gentoo social contract says we're about free software 2019-02-10 21:19:38<@K_F> today we're not persuing that goal 2019-02-10 21:19:41<@ulm> and we know that the cummunity is divided about the question 2019-02-10 21:19:43<@K_F> so that si wrong 2019-02-10 21:19:53<@Whissi> WilliamH: The thing is, install dvd will adjust. If install cd needs another package, they will just allow that license. They won't be affected by that change. 2019-02-10 21:19:54<@K_F> so we should at least have a vote on it 2019-02-10 21:20:11<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: my question above wasn't about the "political view", it was a simple technical question. 2019-02-10 21:20:20<@WilliamH> jmbsvicetto++ 2019-02-10 21:20:21<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I have no idea how mahy packages are going to be affected 2019-02-10 21:20:41<@WilliamH> We have to let releng take a look at what would be affected before we do this. 2019-02-10 21:20:43<+jmbsvicetto> apologies for the spelling 2019-02-10 21:21:06<@dilfridge> well the main reason for deferring was that I think we should figure out the impact 2019-02-10 21:21:10<@Whissi> WilliamH: Again, why? If they need something, they will accept that package for their need. 2019-02-10 21:21:14<@dilfridge> not really more discussion 2019-02-10 21:21:27 * ulm uses ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" since a long time, with few exceptions in package.license 2019-02-10 21:21:35<@dilfridge> ok 2019-02-10 21:21:42<@K_F> the live CDs aren't necessarily required to follow the ACCEPT_LICENSE of the distro 2019-02-10 21:21:47<+jmbsvicetto> K_F: I can argue the "political" question as well, but I was arguing as releng and wanting to have an idea of how we will be affected 2019-02-10 21:21:53<+NeddySeagoon> Whissi: So we make a non free install cd to install a free gentoo ... that seems wrong 2019-02-10 21:22:03<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon++ 2019-02-10 21:22:07<@Whissi> It is really just about the default value in profile. Any project is free to accept whatever license they need. 2019-02-10 21:22:09<@K_F> as long as there is legal backing for binary redistribution 2019-02-10 21:22:52<@K_F> but ultimately the installed gentoo should have a default we can agree on 2019-02-10 21:22:53<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: Well, we cannot force a project to do what we think is right... that's just pragmatism. 2019-02-10 21:23:17<@Whissi> If people running install project want X I will not fight with them. 2019-02-10 21:23:31<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / Whissi: let me turn the question around: you both agree that we should provide a way for users with hardware that requires blobs to be able to install Gentoo, correct? 2019-02-10 21:23:56<+NeddySeagoon> Whissi: So leave the status quo asd document how to set a free system for the few that actually want to. Thats pragmatism 2019-02-10 21:24:07<@WilliamH> NeddySeagoon++ 2019-02-10 21:24:08<+jmbsvicetto> K_F / Whissi: your argument is about the required licenses for that not to be in the default portage config. Am I correct? 2019-02-10 21:24:26<@ulm> it's all about the portage default 2019-02-10 21:24:34<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: Yes. And they are still able to do that. They maybe have to accept a new license which was accepted for them before. That's all. 2019-02-10 21:24:36<@K_F> jmbsvicetto: the primary issue there is linux-firmware for the blobs , we can make an exception for that for install media 2019-02-10 21:25:02<@K_F> as there is reasonable argument that we shouldn't force a user to use ubnuntu livecde to install gentoo 2019-02-10 21:25:06<+jmbsvicetto> ulm: ok, but if releng will need to modify that to build the stages / isos and that ends up in every new install, would that be ok? 2019-02-10 21:25:08<@WilliamH> K_F: why should we though if we are going to take a hard line about free software? 2019-02-10 21:25:16<@K_F> but that ultimately doesn't actually impact changing the default ACCEPT_LICENSE 2019-02-10 21:25:24<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: sure 2019-02-10 21:25:32<@K_F> for the installed software 2019-02-10 21:25:36<@Whissi> jmbsvicetto: For me it is really just the awareness. Someone installing Gentoo should know that he/she is requring package X which uses license FOO which isn't free. 2019-02-10 21:26:11<@Whissi> And emerge will prompt you to accept license... there's no silent breakage. 2019-02-10 21:26:14<@ulm> jmbsvicetto: AFAIR stage3 should require no change, but I'll double check later 2019-02-10 21:26:23<@K_F> so yes, I'm fine with installation medium allowing linux-firmware 2019-02-10 21:26:41<+NeddySeagoon> Would this be rolled out in a new profile or will users get nagged about ACCEPT_LICENCE next update? 2019-02-10 21:26:41<@K_F> but the installed distro requiring explicit acceptance of it on the installed software 2019-02-10 21:26:56<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: That's a good question. 2019-02-10 21:26:57<+jmbsvicetto> I'm just trying to make you guys understand that we can have a "clean" @system and make portage config "clean", but if releng needs to change that in order to be able to build stages / isos, users are likely to get the changed environment and not the "clean" environment for new installs 2019-02-10 21:27:03<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: I don't see a need for new profile for it 2019-02-10 21:27:08<@K_F> but that can be a way to go 2019-02-10 21:27:39-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v blueness] by ChanServ 2019-02-10 21:27:44<@K_F> stage3 shouldn't include it though 2019-02-10 21:28:04<@K_F> but for certain installation medium can have broader allowances for binary blobs 2019-02-10 21:28:16<@Whissi> I think I agree with K_F. If we would roll that change today, nothing would break. During next emerge run, you would get prompted to accept a lot of missing licenses. That's all. But nothing will get removed or will stop working due to that change. 2019-02-10 21:28:20<+jmbsvicetto> To be clear, this is the type of changes (on catalyst / releng side) that I like to make non-permanent. I just don't know if that will be possible for this and I already have some people complaining about the "emerge -eav @world" on a new stage causing rebuilds and "wow" moments 2019-02-10 21:28:26<@dilfridge> installcd and stage3 are different things though 2019-02-10 21:28:38<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: A new profile ensures that users are not taken by surprise. Its a part of the profile upgrade path. 2019-02-10 21:29:02<@ulm> ACCEPT_LICENSE isn't defined in profiles 2019-02-10 21:29:04<@WilliamH> wrt profiles, we are still quite behind, 17.1 is not the default yet. 2019-02-10 21:29:04<@slyfox> on the other hand it's not a subtly breaking change 2019-02-10 21:29:46<@WilliamH> But, yeah, accept_license isn't defined in profiles. 2019-02-10 21:29:47<+NeddySeagoon> slyfox: No ... but users are mostly lazy. The will set ="*" 2019-02-10 21:30:03<@slyfox> or just accept default autounmask suggestion 2019-02-10 21:30:14<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: nobody in his sane mind would set "*" 2019-02-10 21:30:17<+jmbsvicetto> by non permanent (for those of you not following releng discussions), I mean making the change for the build but reverting it in the compressed stage (so we would "pollute" the build environment, but keep the end result "clean" 2019-02-10 21:30:26<@ulm> that like eating everything you find on the street 2019-02-10 21:30:52<@ulm> *that's 2019-02-10 21:30:55<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: You need to read the forums more :) 2019-02-10 21:31:12<@K_F> ulm: some end-users are very likely to set that, but that is fine 2019-02-10 21:31:22<@WilliamH> ulm: don't count on it. ;-) 2019-02-10 21:31:35<@K_F> they don't care about license because they are using it for their personal use and have expectation of it not being an issue 2019-02-10 21:31:47<@K_F> but for others, where licenses does matter, this is a great deal of impact 2019-02-10 21:32:06<@K_F> I refer to my previous example (in my ML post) 2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> "Developers don’t always pay attention and given they have stated any 2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> updates to older versions moving forward are SSPL a developer just 2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> grabbing a security update suddenly means you’re not under AGPL anymore 2019-02-10 21:32:07<@K_F> but SSPL." 2019-02-10 21:32:21<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Agreed that licence aware uners will do it properly 2019-02-10 21:32:35<@K_F> what we're discussing here is what is a sane default 2019-02-10 21:32:53<@K_F> and the only sane default , given our social contract, is only allowing free software (as defined by FSF and OSI) 2019-02-10 21:33:04<@slyfox> same applies for silent BSD->GPL change for a proprietary software vendor based on gentoo. it's not a safe transition 2019-02-10 21:33:06<@K_F> and everything else is up to the user 2019-02-10 21:33:39<@K_F> slyfox: that is more difficult to do anything about, but it doesn't impact our social contract per se 2019-02-10 21:33:43<@K_F> as both are defined as free 2019-02-10 21:34:04<@K_F> but I agree it impacts users ... its just not our issue 2019-02-10 21:34:18<@slyfox> https://gentoo.org/get-started/philosophy/social-contract.html defines GPL only on work gentoo makes 2019-02-10 21:34:20<@K_F> I'd argue that our current default goes against our social contract 2019-02-10 21:35:22<+NeddySeagoon> Gentoo i ::gentoo and portage. Everything else is upstream. 2019-02-10 21:35:28<@K_F> slyfox: that only goes to what we contribute 2019-02-10 21:35:29<+NeddySeagoon> is* 2019-02-10 21:35:38<@K_F> slyfox: not what we accept in the distro 2019-02-10 21:35:53<@K_F> but yes, it says that gentoo projects needs to be of those licenses 2019-02-10 21:35:55<@Whissi> And now let's hope SSPL won't get OSI approval (http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-October/thread.html#3603) :D 2019-02-10 21:36:13<@K_F> Whissi: it won't... but if it does that fine enough 2019-02-10 21:36:26<@K_F> we should stick to FSF and OSI acceptance 2019-02-10 21:36:42<@K_F> (otherwise AGPL is gone ... and it is in my mind already...) 2019-02-10 21:37:32 * dilfridge was already wondering why noone thinks of AGPL as controversial anymore... 2019-02-10 21:38:04<@ulm> K_F: in fact, we also have our own list in @MISC-FREE using the free software definition (in addition to the FSF's and OSI's explicit lists) 2019-02-10 21:38:09-!- mode/#gentoo-council [+v grknight] by ChanServ 2019-02-10 21:39:48<@K_F> ulm: do you have an alternative proposal to ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE freedist" 2019-02-10 21:40:00<@K_F> (or just @FREE) 2019-02-10 21:40:07<@ulm> why freedist? that's not free 2019-02-10 21:40:18<@ulm> so only "@FREE" 2019-02-10 21:40:23<@K_F> fair enough, @FREE only.. 2019-02-10 21:41:29<@K_F> @MISC-FREE is already included in @FREE 2019-02-10 21:41:56<@K_F> via FREE-SOFTWARE @FSF-APPROVED @OSI-APPROVED @MISC-FREE 2019-02-10 21:42:07<@K_F> FREE @FREE-SOFTWARE @FREE-DOCUMENTS 2019-02-10 21:42:08<@ulm> yes 2019-02-10 21:42:30<@K_F> ok, lets vote... 2019-02-10 21:42:46<@ulm> we track @MISC-FREE there: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/License_groups/MISC-FREE 2019-02-10 21:42:51<@K_F> the default ACCEPT_LICENSE should be ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" 2019-02-10 21:42:59 * K_F yes 2019-02-10 21:43:36<@ulm> K_F: do we vote about a statement of intent, or about changing the default tomorrow? 2019-02-10 21:44:08<@K_F> I was thinking changing the default tomorrow, but we can always do a second vote on implementation 2019-02-10 21:44:17<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: It needs a news item so users are forewarned 2019-02-10 21:44:30<@K_F> news item is anyways required, so I'd expect a bit of delay 2019-02-10 21:44:44<@ulm> it also needs an update of documentation 2019-02-10 21:44:53<@K_F> yes, we need to update handbook 2019-02-10 21:45:37<@K_F> so I suggest 2 votes, one for the actual decision, and another for implementation 2019-02-10 21:45:49<@K_F> (given 1st carries) 2019-02-10 21:46:35<@Whissi> Not sure why we need an additional vote for implementation but sure. Let's move on an do at least the first vote for the change in general. 2019-02-10 21:46:51<@K_F> well, implementation doesn't matter if the principle doesn't carry 2019-02-10 21:47:04<@Whissi> yeah, that's for sure. :) 2019-02-10 21:47:20<@K_F> so yes, first vote is on principle only 2019-02-10 21:48:54<@K_F> Vote: 4.1 the default ACCEPT_LICENSE should be ACCEPT_LICENSE="@FREE" (subject to implementation details in further vote) 2019-02-10 21:49:04 * K_F yes 2019-02-10 21:49:08 * ulm yes 2019-02-10 21:49:09 * Whissi yes 2019-02-10 21:49:16 * dilfridge yes 2019-02-10 21:49:25 * WilliamH no 2019-02-10 21:49:56 * leio yes 2019-02-10 21:50:00 * slyfox yes 2019-02-10 21:50:13<@K_F> carries 2019-02-10 21:50:43<@K_F> so we need to update docs, we need a news item, any further items neeeded? 2019-02-10 21:51:12<@WilliamH> I just want to say on the record I voted no because I feel like we haven't really given releng time to research how they may be affected. 2019-02-10 21:51:12<@slyfox> should be ok 2019-02-10 21:52:11<@Whissi> Should be ok, let's add releng to that list but I don't expect that they are really affected 2019-02-10 21:52:17<@K_F> WilliamH: they have had a bit of time already on the ML, and aditionally the install medium doesn't necessarily require changing.. we're talking about the specific distro application 2019-02-10 21:52:27<@WilliamH> We should not be dictating things from on high without hearing from possibly affected teams. 2019-02-10 21:52:41<@K_F> they have had their chance in commenting on the ML theread 2019-02-10 21:53:20<@K_F> but to move on, lets do another vote on the specifics on it 2019-02-10 21:54:11<@K_F> draft 4.2 2019-02-10 21:54:14<@K_F> Vote 4.2 2019-02-10 21:54:16<@K_F> Installation medium is permitted to accept additional licenses necessary for binary blobs as long as these are binary redistributable 2019-02-10 21:54:28<@K_F> comments on the motion? 2019-02-10 21:54:43<@WilliamH> That also violates the social contract. 2019-02-10 21:54:53<@slyfox> should council decide that? 2019-02-10 21:54:55<@K_F> not necessarily 2019-02-10 21:55:13<@K_F> slyfox: well, we could make it more generic, but normally, yes 2019-02-10 21:55:30<@dilfridge> " The precise settings for installation media are at the discretion of releng. " 2019-02-10 21:55:30<@Whissi> I wouldn't dictate releng anything here. 2019-02-10 21:55:38<@Whissi> They are free to create whatever they like. 2019-02-10 21:55:49<@K_F> Whissi: not necessarily 2019-02-10 21:55:54<@ulm> I'd rather have a tracker bug and vote on issues when they arise (if any) 2019-02-10 21:56:00<@dilfridge> also, installation media != stages 2019-02-10 21:56:05<@WilliamH> Whissi: that's the problem with taking a hardline approach like this. 2019-02-10 21:56:07<@K_F> dilfridge: that is on purpose 2019-02-10 21:56:07<@Whissi> If you installl using that medium, you will end up with stage3 which will contain the new ACCEPT_LICENSE default. 2019-02-10 21:56:27<@dilfridge> yes I know 2019-02-10 21:56:29<@Whissi> But the medium itself is not forced to be limited to free software only 2019-02-10 21:56:29<@K_F> we wouldn't want to force our users to use debian to install gentoo 2019-02-10 21:56:43<@K_F> but the stage3 is installed on all systems, so it should conform to council decision 2019-02-10 21:56:52<@WilliamH> Whissi: it could be argued that it is since it is produced by Gentoo. 2019-02-10 21:57:02<@K_F> but if they need a firmware blob to use wifi... 2019-02-10 21:57:05<@dilfridge> and to be honest there's no point micromanaging releng regarding installation media 2019-02-10 21:57:16<@K_F> there is 2019-02-10 21:57:22<@Whissi> And yes, the medium shouldn't be limited to free software. For example I want them to add storcli and other non-free software required to access Dell or HP raid controller... 2019-02-10 21:57:31<@K_F> if what they provide isn't binary redistributable it is our responsibility 2019-02-10 21:57:36<@K_F> hence the phrasing above 2019-02-10 21:57:39<+NeddySeagoon> Lots of people use Sys Res CD 2019-02-10 21:57:45<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: that uses arch 2019-02-10 21:57:53<@Whissi> NeddySeagoon: You are not allowed to use that name anymore! :p 2019-02-10 21:58:01<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: The new one does :( 2019-02-10 21:58:13<@K_F> and anyways is outside of our scope 2019-02-10 21:58:29<@Whissi> Yeah, I hope we will get our own install dvd at the same level like previous sysrescd 2019-02-10 21:59:01<@dilfridge> lots of people are using "you know what" 2019-02-10 21:59:03<@K_F> but we should require what we provide to be binary redistributable even if it isn't FREE 2019-02-10 21:59:15<@K_F> that is council responsibility 2019-02-10 21:59:23<@WilliamH> K_F: that would require modifying the social contract? 2019-02-10 21:59:30<@K_F> WilliamH: not necessarily 2019-02-10 21:59:33<+NeddySeagoon> K_F: Isn't that a legal requirement anyway? 2019-02-10 21:59:45<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: it is 2019-02-10 21:59:48<@K_F> NeddySeagoon: it is 2019-02-10 22:00:06<+NeddySeagoon> So the council do not need to mandate it too. 2019-02-10 22:00:09<@K_F> but we still given them explicit allowance greater than the stage3 2019-02-10 22:00:41<@K_F> well, the vote would be in place to ensure they aren't bound strictly by 4.1 2019-02-10 22:00:50<@K_F> but if we agree it isn't needed, then all is fine 2019-02-10 22:01:16<@K_F> it is just a specification that the requirement for install medium is that it is binary redistributable and not FREE 2019-02-10 22:01:23<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng." 2019-02-10 22:01:39<@slyfox> sounds good 2019-02-10 22:01:59<@K_F> dilfridge: that wfm.. although I'd prefer a specification that it is permitted by law 2019-02-10 22:02:22<+NeddySeagoon> Thats a good point K_F 2019-02-10 22:02:34<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng, while not murdering anyone." 2019-02-10 22:02:39<+prometheanfire> in what region for that law? 2019-02-10 22:02:54<@K_F> prometheanfire: well, in this case the foundation is US 2019-02-10 22:03:13<+prometheanfire> that'd make the most sense, but if bringing law into it, it always complicates things 2019-02-10 22:03:22<@K_F> but the proposal doesn't specify it explicitly, only to the extent of the content being binary redistributable 2019-02-10 22:03:25<@dilfridge> do we have a mirror in the UAE? 2019-02-10 22:03:33<+prometheanfire> K_F: which I think wfm 2019-02-10 22:03:57<@K_F> mirrors are a separte issues, we can handle that 2019-02-10 22:04:21<@K_F> in any case I propose the following motion, if it is seconded lets vote for it 2019-02-10 22:04:22<@K_F> Vote 4.2 2019-02-10 22:04:22<@K_F> Installation medium is permitted to accept additional licenses necessary for binary blobs as long as these are binary redistributable 2019-02-10 22:04:39 * slyfox yes 2019-02-10 22:04:42<@Whissi> So no EC ciphers on install DVD because US doesn't allow...? :) 2019-02-10 22:04:43<@K_F> seconded? 2019-02-10 22:04:55<@K_F> Whissi: that'd be a natural consequence 2019-02-10 22:05:01 * ulm yes 2019-02-10 22:05:09 * K_F yes 2019-02-10 22:05:13 * dilfridge no 2019-02-10 22:05:19 * Whissi no 2019-02-10 22:05:24<@dilfridge> because of micromanaging 2019-02-10 22:05:49<@Whissi> Yeah, I agree. We don't need 4.2. 2019-02-10 22:06:08<@K_F> well, feel free to vote no then :) 2019-02-10 22:06:12 * leio no 2019-02-10 22:06:16 * WilliamH no 2019-02-10 22:06:58<@K_F> ok, so the motion does not carry, alternative proposal or no further votes on this action? 2019-02-10 22:07:23<@dilfridge> "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng." 2019-02-10 22:07:37<@K_F> dilfridge: even if that is against law? 2019-02-10 22:07:55<@dilfridge> I expect everyone to keep the law intrinsically. 2019-02-10 22:07:59<@ulm> dilfridge: that doesn't add anything 2019-02-10 22:08:05<@dilfridge> If not that's a different issue. 2019-02-10 22:08:13<@Whissi> You don't need to mention that you have to comply with law. 2019-02-10 22:08:34<@dilfridge> well, maybe this one gets more votes? :P 2019-02-10 22:08:45<@K_F> the intention of 4.2 is to provide a broader allowance for installation medum, as long as that is permitted by law 2019-02-10 22:09:19<@K_F> I'm not going to vote for a motion giving a project allowance that isn't in line with that 2019-02-10 22:09:20<@leio> I don't see anything restricting that allowance, to have to explicitly allow something again 2019-02-10 22:09:24<@ulm> @BINARY-DISTRIBUTABLE was created exactly for that purpose 2019-02-10 22:09:25<@WilliamH> K_F: why do we need to talk about the law? as dilfridge says, we expect people to follow it anyway. 2019-02-10 22:09:40<@K_F> and the lowest common denominator I can think is it being binary direstributable 2019-02-10 22:09:49<@K_F> but I'm open to alternatives 2019-02-10 22:09:55<@dilfridge> ok motion 4.2a: "The council affirms that the precise settings for the installation media are at the discretion of releng." 2019-02-10 22:09:56<@dilfridge> please vote 2019-02-10 22:10:07<@K_F> ok, lets vote for 4.2a 2019-02-10 22:10:09 * K_F no 2019-02-10 22:10:40 * slyfox yes 2019-02-10 22:10:56 * dilfridge yes 2019-02-10 22:11:20 * WilliamH yes 2019-02-10 22:11:46 * Whissi yes 2019-02-10 22:12:00 * ulm abstain 2019-02-10 22:12:12 * leio no 2019-02-10 22:12:22<@K_F> so that carries 2019-02-10 22:12:27<@leio> (as I don't understand why we need to affirm anything) 2019-02-10 22:13:09<@K_F> in any case, we have a decision on it 2019-02-10 22:13:18<@K_F> 5. Open bugs with council involvement 2019-02-10 22:13:24<@WilliamH> leio: Well, an affirmation just means that we won't get in the way of releng in this case. 2019-02-10 22:13:50<@K_F> bug 637328 2019-02-10 22:13:52<+willikins> K_F: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security 2019-02-10 22:14:06<@K_F> no updates (we haven't had time to work in it... yes, this is a repeating one....) 2019-02-10 22:14:24<@K_F> if it wasn't for all other matters, we might get around to it :) 2019-02-10 22:14:26<@Whissi> :p 2019-02-10 22:14:38<@slyfox> 1.5 years :) 2019-02-10 22:14:52<@K_F> well, things are happening 2019-02-10 22:14:59<@K_F> just not very quickly 2019-02-10 22:15:01<@K_F> in any case 2019-02-10 22:15:05<@K_F> 6. Open floor 2019-02-10 22:15:19<@K_F> this is the possibility for others in the community to raise questions 2019-02-10 22:15:22<@WilliamH> It looks like we need a new portage release for this accept_license change 2019-02-10 22:15:32<@K_F> so lets keep floor open for 5 minutes to allow for any questions 2019-02-10 22:15:38<@WilliamH> That's where accept_license is defined 2019-02-10 22:15:49<@WilliamH> in /usr/share/portage/make.globals 2019-02-10 22:16:09<@slyfox> sounds about right 2019-02-10 22:16:11<@WilliamH> sorry, /usr/share/portage/config/make.globals 2019-02-10 22:16:15<@K_F> WilliamH: indeed 2019-02-10 22:16:52<@ulm> yes, make.globals and make.conf.example 2019-02-10 22:16:57<+xiaomiao> did y'all just decide to make linux-firmware uninstallable by default? 2019-02-10 22:17:15<@slyfox> yep 2019-02-10 22:17:17<+xiaomiao> cool 2019-02-10 22:17:28<+xiaomiao> so that's a default that doesn't work outside of VMs 2019-02-10 22:17:37<@Whissi> It is not uninstallable by default. You will get a prompt. 2019-02-10 22:17:38<@slyfox> correct 2019-02-10 22:18:03<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: I was very against this. 2019-02-10 22:18:28<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: I think this is an unnecessary change. 2019-02-10 22:18:35<+xiaomiao> it's equivalent to package.mask in terms of message and complexity of config 2019-02-10 22:18:55<@K_F> the discussion isn't really for open floor though... 2019-02-10 22:19:02<@K_F> are there further issues wanting to be dsicusssed? 2019-02-10 22:19:06<+xiaomiao> just wanted to make sure people understand what just happen 2019-02-10 22:19:12<@leio> to be clear, I voted yes knowing that the implementation will be good and not rushed 2019-02-10 22:19:18<@ulm> from a license point of view, linux-firmware is one of the worst packages 2019-02-10 22:19:31<@slyfox> yup 2019-02-10 22:19:39<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: what we basically did is decide to go full debian with our licenses. 2019-02-10 22:19:40<@ulm> we shouldn't even distribute it via our mirrors 2019-02-10 22:20:21<+grknight> linux-firmware is essential to more and more installs 2019-02-10 22:20:37< veremitz> distributing linux-firmware is debatable, yes 2019-02-10 22:20:47< veremitz> but many devices are cheese without it, correct 2019-02-10 22:20:51<@ulm> grknight: unfortunately, that doesn't make it distributable 2019-02-10 22:21:03< veremitz> but that can be fetch-restricted easily enough 2019-02-10 22:21:07<@ulm> also upstream doesn't really care 2019-02-10 22:21:18<@Whissi> xiaomiao: Once council meeting is closed I would like to hear your opinion why this change is bad because I don't really see what's changing (yes, I expect that user are somehow actively managing /etc/portage/ so I don't see any breakage) 2019-02-10 22:22:02<+chithead> (linux-firmware maintainer here) fortunately, linux-firmware will see proper releases starting this year, using kernel.org mirrors 2019-02-10 22:22:14<@slyfox> \o/ 2019-02-10 22:22:28<@slyfox> what do we use today? gentoo space? 2019-02-10 22:22:28<@ulm> chithead: that's good news 2019-02-10 22:22:33<@K_F> the open floor is formally closed 2019-02-10 22:22:39<@Whissi> slyfox: Normal mirror system. 2019-02-10 22:22:40<@K_F> so meeting is closed 2019-02-10 22:22:44<@slyfox> woohoo \o/ 2019-02-10 22:22:49<@K_F> any further discussion is outside of meeting notes 2019-02-10 22:22:55<@slyfox> Whissi: without non-mirror SRC_URI? 2019-02-10 22:22:56<+xiaomiao> Whissi: it's a bad default for /all/ machines I have, that's all 2019-02-10 22:22:57<@Whissi> chithead: You want to set RESTRICT=mirrors? 2019-02-10 22:23:26<@slyfox> xiaomiao: are USE-defaults good for any of your machines? 2019-02-10 22:23:50<@Whissi> xiaomiao: Well, you are now forced to get your used licenses managed. That's all. But you can also distribute a cfg which will set ACCEPT_LICENSE to "*" if you still don't care ;) 2019-02-10 22:23:50<@WilliamH> xiaomiao: I was against this from the start, I thought we should have left accept_licenses alone and documented for users how to change it. 2019-02-10 22:24:21<@slyfox> /etc/portage/package.license can be a directory, right? 2019-02-10 22:24:29<@dilfridge> (me rolling eyes at WilliamH) 2019-02-10 22:24:42<@Whissi> slyfox: yes 2019-02-10 22:24:58<+chithead> Whissi: currently linux-firmware is all git snapshots hosted on gentoo mirrors 2019-02-10 22:25:00<@WilliamH> dilfridge: Just stating my opinion on the matter. 2019-02-10 22:25:04<+NeddySeagoon> What licence covers the blobs in the kernel ? 2019-02-10 22:25:32<@WilliamH> dilfridge: I get the feeling this decision was pushed without proper research. 2019-02-10 22:25:41<+grknight> Whissi: wonderful, more confused new users ;) 2019-02-10 22:26:05<@Whissi> chithead: Yeah, but we don't upload on our own... we are using normal mirror system. So what do you want to change? I can only think about RESTRICT=mirror... 2019-02-10 22:26:07<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: the once listed in WHENCE of the package 2019-02-10 22:26:21<@dilfridge> maybe time to improve portage error "messages"? 2019-02-10 22:26:29<+chithead> Whissi: once linux-firmware is hosted on kernel.org mirrors, we can stop distributing it via gentoo mirrors 2019-02-10 22:26:31<@ulm> which is too complicated and changes to often for including it in the tree 2019-02-10 22:26:35<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: So lots then. 2019-02-10 22:26:44<@ulm> so we have only this note: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/licenses/linux-firmware 2019-02-10 22:26:51<+chithead> Whissi: so that would mean RESTRICT=mirror (nomirror?) 2019-02-10 22:27:16<@K_F> sgtm 2019-02-10 22:27:51<@WilliamH> grknight: I would support a discussion and putting this back on the agenda next month. 2019-02-10 22:27:51<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: not the linux-firmware package. The blobs that are/were in the kernel sources that could be deblobed at one time 2019-02-10 22:28:38<@ulm> I haven't closely followed which ones are left there 2019-02-10 22:28:40<@Whissi> grknight: Well, yes... but Gentoo is about choices. Let's imagine you are running something like AWS on Gentoo. You don't want silent upgrades to SSPL for example because default is set to "* -@EULA". ;) 2019-02-10 22:29:03<@slyfox> how about AGPL? 2019-02-10 22:29:10<@WilliamH> Whissi: Well, if sspl ends up getting approval... 2019-02-10 22:29:23<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: so is gentoo-sources included in @FREE ? It sounds like its not. 2019-02-10 22:29:42<+grknight> NeddySeagoon: no, it is not 2019-02-10 22:29:46<@leio> NeddySeagoon: the stuff from firmware_install or such is gone since 4.14; I don't know about the portions that were deeper in the code that deblob did 2019-02-10 22:29:49<@Whissi> WilliamH: To be honest, in this case we maybe have to discuss topic again if @FREE must be changed... 2019-02-10 22:30:07<+NeddySeagoon> leio: Thanks 2019-02-10 22:30:17<+grknight> deblob breaks hardware support 2019-02-10 22:31:20<@WilliamH> I thought there was a problem with deblobbing 2019-02-10 22:31:22<+NeddySeagoon> So You can't actually install Gentoo with the new default ACCEPT_LICENCE because you can't have a kernel. 2019-02-10 22:31:35<@ulm> NeddySeagoon: indeed, kernel packages still have linux-firmware in LICENSE 2019-02-10 22:31:44<@WilliamH> I didn't know the exact reference, but I guess we broke gentoo-sources. 2019-02-10 22:31:50< veremitz> -facepalm- 2019-02-10 22:31:51<@ulm> that has to be checked too 2019-02-10 22:32:09<+NeddySeagoon> Heh testing my install >=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.20.7 linux-firmware 2019-02-10 22:32:14<@WilliamH> Again, a result of this decision being pushed through without research. 2019-02-10 22:32:30<@K_F> WilliamH: no, that is within the expected result 2019-02-10 22:32:44<+xiaomiao> NeddySeagoon: Gentoo/FreeBSD wins at last ;) 2019-02-10 22:32:44<+chithead> um, nobody suggest changing the default immediately? 2019-02-10 22:32:59<@WilliamH> chithead: Yeah, k_f wanted to change it tomorrow. 2019-02-10 22:33:02<@K_F> the gentoo-sources itself isn't linux-firmware, but it has dependencies that requires it 2019-02-10 22:33:10<+NeddySeagoon> chithead: It was suggested but it didn't happen 2019-02-10 22:33:12<@K_F> which is fine.. 2019-02-10 22:33:21<+grknight> K_F: incorrect 2019-02-10 22:34:04<+grknight> http://dpaste.com/3AA2GKV 2019-02-10 22:34:07<@dilfridge> ok I think we know now that this needs preparation 2019-02-10 22:34:26<@WilliamH> I think we need to do an emergency vote to recend the decision. 2019-02-10 22:34:31<@leio> the vote was about end goal, I don't think we want to rush this in tomorrow with everything falling over. 2019-02-10 22:35:03<@ulm> exactly 2019-02-10 22:35:05<+NeddySeagoon> WilliamH: There is no emergency. Implementation date is TBD 2019-02-10 22:35:06<@K_F> leio: exactly 2019-02-10 22:35:22<@WilliamH> dilfridge, K_F, ulm: we should have known that before you pushed this through. 2019-02-10 22:35:30<@K_F> WilliamH: we did 2019-02-10 22:35:45<+xiaomiao> K_F: ... what did you expect to happen? 2019-02-10 22:35:48<@K_F> hence the motions as they were 2019-02-10 22:35:56<@dilfridge> that's what agenda calls and discussions on the mailing list are good for, you can prepare yourself! 2019-02-10 22:36:07<@K_F> dilfridge++ 2019-02-10 22:37:16<@slyfox> Un related question: why agenda items are ported to -project but ont meeting outcomes? :) 2019-02-10 22:37:16<@K_F> the reason gentoo-sources has linux-firmware is because of a dependency, if not in today's implementation, that is the reason 2019-02-10 22:37:34<@K_F> slyfox: not following? 2019-02-10 22:37:45<@ulm> in any case we need an audit if the kernel-2.eclass setting is still correct 2019-02-10 22:38:25<@slyfox> K_F: meeting summaries are not posted to -project, are they? 2019-02-10 22:38:25<@WilliamH> And if it is, we need to re-visit this vote. 2019-02-10 22:38:40 * dilfridge looks at the palm trees and goes in search of a brunch 2019-02-10 22:38:47<@K_F> slyfox: that is a good point , we can always post summaries there as well 2019-02-10 22:39:02<@WilliamH> K_F: obviously you didn't know this would break the kernel. 2019-02-10 22:39:07<@WilliamH> K_F: or care. 2019-02-10 22:39:09<@slyfox> I think it would increase visibility of how council works 2019-02-10 22:39:12<@WilliamH> K_F: if you did know. 2019-02-10 22:39:25<@K_F> WilliamH: it doesn't break the kernel... 2019-02-10 22:39:47<@ulm> WilliamH: unless there's non-free code in the kernel git repo, there should be no problem 2019-02-10 22:39:52<@K_F> it changes how users needs to explicitly approve non-free licenses to install certain aspects 2019-02-10 22:40:00<@K_F> and gentoo-sources does it due to a dependency 2019-02-10 22:40:37<@K_F> so yes, that requires user action 2019-02-10 22:40:39<@K_F> but that is fine 2019-02-10 22:40:42 * kentnl observes dilfridge face palm ... trees 2019-02-10 22:40:53<@WilliamH> My point is we should have looked into that before we forced a vote. 2019-02-10 22:41:06<@K_F> that is all within expected action 2019-02-10 22:41:31<@ulm> K_F: actually, gentoo-sources has "linux-firmware" in LICENSE itself 2019-02-10 22:41:33<@K_F> you were voted down.. which is fine 2019-02-10 22:41:45<@ulm> but I suspect that's not accurate any more 2019-02-10 22:41:46<@K_F> ulm: yes, but that can easily be changed 2019-02-10 22:42:03<@K_F> exactly, it is just a lazy appropriation 2019-02-10 22:42:30<@K_F> there isn't anything in the kernel itself requiring it, but the dep it has 2019-02-10 22:42:52<@WilliamH> So we have to remove the dep. 2019-02-10 22:43:04<@K_F> no, you have to correctly specify the dep 2019-02-10 22:43:32<@K_F> or yes, remove the dep itself and make that a matter of documentation 2019-02-10 22:43:37<@WilliamH> We don't have license-based deps? 2019-02-10 22:43:58 * ulm doesn't see any dependency on linux-firmware in kernel packages 2019-02-10 22:45:15<@WilliamH> ulm: see kernel-2.eclass 2019-02-10 22:45:44<@Whissi> There was the deblob thing 2019-02-10 22:46:05<@WilliamH> kernel-2.eclass, line 628 2019-02-10 22:46:26<@ulm> yep, it used to have "!deblob? ( linux-firmware )" 2019-02-10 22:46:43<@ulm> and at some point it got unconditional 2019-02-10 22:47:08<@K_F> which is a good reason for council to react 2019-02-10 22:47:13< veremitz> iirc there was some issue with deblobbing .. something to do with python? 2019-02-10 22:47:28<@WilliamH> Actually that's what it has. 2019-02-10 22:47:32<@WilliamH> still. 2019-02-10 22:47:36< veremitz> although I believe there's only one kernel package that needs it .. 2019-02-10 22:47:52<@K_F> it doesn't change the outcome in any way 2019-02-10 22:47:59<@Whissi> Cause by bug 266157 2019-02-10 22:48:01<+willikins> Whissi: https://bugs.gentoo.org/266157 "sys-kernel/libre-sources ebuild request"; Gentoo Linux, New packages; RESO, FIXE; bugs_gentoo_org.Tim_OKelly:kernel 2019-02-10 22:48:17<@K_F> gentoo should be free software 2019-02-10 22:48:32< veremitz> K_F: which definition are you using for 'free' ;) 2019-02-10 22:48:37<@Whissi> But I see no deblobing happening in current gentoo-sources anymore 2019-02-10 22:48:40<@K_F> veremitz: OSI/FSF 2019-02-10 22:49:17<@K_F> and additional exception by the license team for MISC-FREE 2019-02-10 22:50:12<@K_F> i.e @FREE 2019-02-10 22:50:41 * veremitz just shrugs, and adds ACCEPT_LICENCE= to his standard make.conf template 2019-02-10 22:51:50<+NeddySeagoon> veremitz: ACCEPT_LICENCE="*" ? :) 2019-02-10 22:51:54< veremitz> I'm sure one of the council will be doing a test install from a new virgin installcd with virgin stage3 with all these new optoins applied 2019-02-10 22:52:15<@WilliamH> veremitz: Good luck finding someone from the council to do that ;-) 2019-02-10 22:52:34<@K_F> veremitz: all the installs I've been doing over the past several years have been more restrictive than the one proposed today 2019-02-10 22:52:42<+NeddySeagoon> On another topic ... Gentoo is 20 this year. We need a party! 2019-02-10 22:52:49< veremitz> NeddySeagoon: I think I can afford to extract the present (as of 1h previous) setting before the change happens 2019-02-10 22:53:02< veremitz> K_F: yes, and I hear you stumbled across a compiler bug recently ... 2019-02-10 22:53:04<@K_F> (I don't allow AGPL by default) 2019-02-10 22:53:28<@K_F> veremitz: sure, that happens 2019-02-10 22:53:45<@WilliamH> K_F: about me being voted down, you are right I was, but that doesn't mean I have to agree since I was voted down. :p 2019-02-10 22:54:03<@K_F> WilliamH: not following? 2019-02-10 22:54:12<+xiaomiao> who has hardware that even allows this idealism? 2019-02-10 22:54:14< veremitz> NeddySeagoon: 'reaper' that's the word I was looking for :D 2019-02-10 22:54:21< veremitz> xiaomiao: doesn't matter 2019-02-10 22:54:29<@WilliamH> K_F: I was voted down, but that doesn't mean I have to be quiet about it. ;-) 2019-02-10 22:54:30<+xiaomiao> ... I guess that's the Talos and X200 people, all 4 of them ;) 2019-02-10 22:54:30< veremitz> WilliamH: stop being a sore loser, j/s :) 2019-02-10 22:54:41<+NeddySeagoon> veremitz: The test is not required ACCEPT_LICENCE="-* @FREE" emerge -epv @world will tell what you need to know, if you spell LICENCE properly 2019-02-10 22:54:41<@WilliamH> ;-) 2019-02-10 22:54:45< veremitz> xiaomiao: users will simply have to adjust their settings. Again. 2019-02-10 22:54:58< veremitz> NeddySeagoon: the US way?! 2019-02-10 22:55:07<@Whissi> "if you spell LICENCE properly" :-D 2019-02-10 22:55:18<@WilliamH> I wouldn't have an issue with it, except that I think it was done quickly without researching the ramifications. 2019-02-10 22:55:27< veremitz> WilliamH: wait, this IS council, right? 2019-02-10 22:55:30<+NeddySeagoon> veremitz: yeah, Its a bug like --color 2019-02-10 22:55:31<+xiaomiao> veremitz: yes but wouldn't it be more reasonable to have working defaults? 2019-02-10 22:55:39< veremitz> xiaomiao: pfft. 2019-02-10 22:55:48<@K_F> WilliamH: if so, why didn't you voice your concern in the ML? 2019-02-10 22:55:51<@ulm> actually, PMS says "licence" in the text but "LICENSE" when referring to the variable :) 2019-02-10 22:56:00<+NeddySeagoon> heh 2019-02-10 22:56:03< veremitz> ulm: patch it! 2019-02-10 22:56:41<@ulm> it's BE throughout, by its original authors 2019-02-10 22:56:43< veremitz> Gentoo has to be agile, and change things, because $change. 2019-02-10 22:56:50<@WilliamH> K_F: Well, I thought others said something about this, and I didn't really have a whole lot of time for the ml this week. 2019-02-10 22:56:51< veremitz> ulm: Big-Endian?! 2019-02-10 22:57:03<@ulm> british english 2019-02-10 22:57:03<@K_F> WilliamH: this was discussed in the -project ML ahead of decision as the appropriate point of venue 2019-02-10 22:57:25<@K_F> WilliamH: and as a council member that is a preprequsite for discussion 2019-02-10 22:57:43<@K_F> in any case, the decision carries 2019-02-10 22:58:06< veremitz> if you find the voting process to be concerning, you can stand down :) 2019-02-10 22:58:20<@K_F> we made certain deferrals as to implementation, whish makes good sense 2019-02-10 22:58:20< veremitz> and/or resign, depending on your interpretation :) 2019-02-10 22:58:29<@WilliamH> K_F: as council members, it is up to all of us to listen to what the community has to say about things like this before we vote on them. I was just asking in the meeting for more research before we made a decision. 2019-02-10 22:58:42<@WilliamH> K_F: you specifically forced a vote. 2019-02-10 22:58:43< veremitz> WilliamH: meetings are for decisions. 2019-02-10 22:59:05<@WilliamH> K_F: I wasn't the only one who asked for deferring this. 2019-02-10 22:59:05<@K_F> WilliamH: and the majority chose against your request 2019-02-10 22:59:08< veremitz> meetings are monthly, decisions are monthly... 2019-02-10 22:59:49<@WilliamH> K_F: one sec. 2019-02-10 23:00:17<@K_F> WilliamH: chair's preprogative... 2019-02-10 23:00:26<@K_F> on how to proceed for a specific motion 2019-02-10 23:00:54<@K_F> but the motion itself carried with majority of council members 2019-02-10 23:01:35<@WilliamH> K_F: dilfridge also suggested deferring this. 2019-02-10 23:01:41<@K_F> that is why we have different chairs arranging the meetings 2019-02-10 23:01:55< veremitz> WilliamH: propose a revisit next meeting .. 2019-02-10 23:01:57<@ulm> WilliamH: I think it's not a real problem, but boils down to LICENSE of gentoo-sources being inaccurate 2019-02-10 23:02:06<@K_F> in rather standard procedures 2019-02-10 23:02:31<@WilliamH> ulm: if that's true, that's cool, but we should figure that out asap 2019-02-10 23:02:31<@K_F> ulm: sure, but that doesn't change anything 2019-02-10 23:02:49<@ulm> WilliamH: we will 2019-02-10 23:02:53<@K_F> and certainly not something that influences the decision 2019-02-10 23:03:07<@K_F> it certainly wasn't news to me 2019-02-10 23:03:50<@K_F> that is why we, the council, make decisions 2019-02-10 23:04:07<@K_F> if someone hasn't prepared ahead of meetings it is on them 2019-02-10 23:04:46<@K_F> in particular if not participating in ML discussions 2019-02-10 23:07:37<@WilliamH> heh vanilla-sources is an issue as well. 2019-02-10 23:08:10<@ulm> because it inherits the same kernel-2.eclass 2019-02-10 23:09:03< veremitz> WilliamH: git-sources? 2019-02-10 23:13:16<@WilliamH> veremitz: yes. 2019-02-10 23:13:34<@WilliamH> veremitz: same reason. it looks like all kernel sources ebuilds inherit the eclass. 2019-02-10 23:14:12 * veremitz nods 2019-02-10 23:15:04<@WilliamH> Also, about me not reading the ml, I was pretty comfortable with leaving thi default as it was; I see no reason to make this change other than a political one. 2019-02-10 23:15:17<@WilliamH> s/thi/this/ 2019-02-10 23:15:23<@WilliamH> K_F: ^^ 2019-02-10 23:15:40<@K_F> WilliamH: I don't see how that changes anything? 2019-02-10 23:15:46<@WilliamH> We have always been fine with the current default, so I didn't see a compelling reason to change it. 2019-02-10 23:16:08<@K_F> the council is asked to make decision on global issues, today we made one 2019-02-10 23:16:32<@K_F> yes, some people disagree.. but that is the way of things 2019-02-10 23:16:48<@K_F> there is a majority to the decision 2019-02-10 23:17:13<@K_F> if you want it changed, file a GLEP or another council decision 2019-02-10 23:17:30<@K_F> but I'm disappointed by your behavior in general 2019-02-10 23:18:12<@WilliamH> K_F: If I have attacked anyone or violated CoC, educate me, I am not attempting to do that. I just disagree with the decision. 2019-02-10 23:18:21<@K_F> (incidentally look at the various bsd variants where the board decisions are only presented as a whole without different opinions) 2019-02-10 23:18:49<@K_F> WilliamH: which is your prerogative... but I don't see it being very useful 2019-02-10 23:19:17<@WilliamH> K_F: So what about my behavior is disappointing? that I disagree? 2019-02-10 23:19:51<@K_F> WilliamH: you're certainly allowed to have a different opinion, but we coted on it, and you're in minority 2019-02-10 23:20:21<@K_F> voted* 2019-02-10 23:21:54<@K_F> that is why we have a majority rule in council and not requiring unanimous decisions for all actions 2019-02-10 23:22:40< veremitz> hell .. nothing would ever move :/ 2019-02-10 23:23:05< veremitz> trustees can barely agree a time/date to meet! 2019-02-10 23:23:47 * veremitz mutters, and goes back to hacking ARM .. 2019-02-10 23:24:05<@K_F> and I haven't seen any good argument for re-opening any vote, if anything it sounds like you're not prepared for the meeting 2019-02-10 23:27:06<@WilliamH> K_F: I knew what my position was, and knew about the deblobbing issue in the kernel eclass. 2019-02-10 23:27:33<@WilliamH> K_F: as of now, if you set ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" you can't emerge our kernels. 2019-02-10 23:28:44<@K_F> which is OK.. because we deferred the implementation and that is a technical aspect of things 2019-02-10 23:29:09<@WilliamH> K_F: Whether that is an argument for reopening a vote I'm not sure. 2019-02-10 23:29:10<@K_F> there isn't anything in the kernel itself that requeires those specifications, but it was a laziness factor to it, which we will fix 2019-02-10 23:29:29<@K_F> before the action itself is enforced 2019-02-10 23:29:56<@K_F> point remains, the council has voted that the default ACCEPT_LICENSE in gentoo should be @FREE software 2019-02-10 23:30:07<@K_F> and we'll fix that some way 2019-02-10 23:30:49<@K_F> whether a current kernel eclass has made shortcuts due to dependencies is beside the point... and well within the expected bahavior 2019-02-10 23:31:13<@K_F> yes, we need to update the handbook, and we need to update a few other things, but so be it 2019-02-10 23:31:49<@WilliamH> K_F: see my comment in the private channel. 2019-02-10 23:32:15<@K_F> WilliamH: I've seen it, but it belongs here as well 2019-02-10 23:35:04<@K_F> the most of what we do should be in public, after all 2019-02-10 23:35:30<@K_F> and yes, I'm dissapointed of members not accepting majority rule in such a body 2019-02-10 23:35:45< veremitz> K_F: the decision is rather moot unless there is a timeline set .. rather like the changes to /usr/portage, and friends 2019-02-10 23:35:59< veremitz> (still not implemented nor documented) 2019-02-10 23:36:28<@K_F> veremitz: I don't expect much of an issue wrt this decision, actually 2019-02-10 23:36:33<@WilliamH> Today I have made some strong comments against a council vote that happened earlier. These comments were not meant to disrespect the council as a body, they were my opinion alone. I will take more care in the future to not come off as disrespecting the council. 2019-02-10 23:37:17<@WilliamH> veremitz: and although this isn't a council decision, we still haven't moved on the 17.1 profiles. 2019-02-10 23:37:51< veremitz> WilliamH: I don't see that happening comprehensively in my lifetime .. :) 2019-02-10 23:38:16<@WilliamH> veremitz: heh we should because it cleans up the lib symlink. 2019-02-10 23:38:21<@WilliamH> we should * 2019-02-10 23:38:28< veremitz> And breaks multilib ?! 2019-02-10 23:38:41<@WilliamH> veremitz: no 2019-02-10 23:38:48 * veremitz just shrugs 2019-02-10 23:39:05<@WilliamH> veremitz: I'm not sure what you mean about breaking multilib. 2019-02-10 23:39:18<@WilliamH> veremitz: I've been running it on this box for some time with no issues. 2019-02-10 23:39:33< veremitz> 17.1 profiles with multilib and no-symlink? great! 2019-02-10 23:39:36<@WilliamH> veremitz: how does it break multilib? 2019-02-10 23:40:03< veremitz> perhaps I underestimate the toolchain/multilib eclasses 2019-02-10 23:41:32< veremitz> WilliamH: anyhow, in a poor analogy, in the same way the British government triggered article 50 in Europe, a decision was made here in council meeting tonight, so lets get on with implementing it .. ;) 2019-02-10 23:41:50 * veremitz smiles and slinks off 2019-02-10 23:41:51<+xiaomiao> veremitz: to quote Merkel: ... Alternativlos