| *** Pali has quit IRC | 00:05 | |
| *** xes has quit IRC | 01:28 | |
| *** M4rtinK has quit IRC | 01:31 | |
| *** kolp has quit IRC | 03:00 | |
| *** DocScrutinizer05 has quit IRC | 06:03 | |
| *** DocScrutinizer05 has joined #maemo-meeting | 06:03 | |
| *** Pali has joined #maemo-meeting | 08:44 | |
| *** Pali has quit IRC | 09:16 | |
| *** M4rtinK has joined #maemo-meeting | 11:30 | |
| *** qwazix has quit IRC | 13:23 | |
| *** qwazix has joined #maemo-meeting | 13:23 | |
| *** Pali has joined #maemo-meeting | 18:22 | |
| *** Pali has quit IRC | 18:35 | |
| *** misterc__ has joined #maemo-meeting | 19:34 | |
| *** sixwheeledbeast has joined #maemo-meeting | 19:43 | |
| DocScrutinizer51 | I'll be 10min late | 19:50 |
|---|---|---|
| misterc__ | meaning? | 19:51 |
| misterc__ | 20:10 UTC? | 19:51 |
| *** MentalistTraceur has joined #maemo-meeting | 19:51 | |
| misterc__ | oups, my mistake, 18:10 UTC (?) | 19:52 |
| *** qwazix has quit IRC | 19:54 | |
| *** qwazix has joined #maemo-meeting | 19:55 | |
| *** qwazix_ has joined #maemo-meeting | 19:57 | |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: Wait what about 18:10 UTC? | 19:58 |
| misterc__ | that Joerg_rw / DocScrutinizer51 joins (starts?) council meeting (?) | 20:00 |
| sixwheeledbeast | MentalistTraceur: <<(17:50:46) DocScrutinizer51: I'll be 10min late>> | 20:00 |
| MentalistTraceur | Ah. | 20:01 |
| misterc__ | was mistaken on UTC time (thought it was already nearly 20:00 there...) | 20:01 |
| *** setter has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:01 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | soon | 20:03 |
| misterc__ | no problemo (@ least 4 me) | 20:03 |
| qwazix_ | hi | 20:06 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | here I am, JR. the ghost in the machine | 20:06 |
| MentalistTraceur | Alright, so everyone is here. | 20:06 |
| misterc__ | who is everyone? | 20:06 |
| misterc__ | all members of the council? | 20:06 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: Yes. Were we waiting for someone else specifically today? | 20:07 |
| * Woody14619 is here, but at work, so may come and go... | 20:07 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | hmm, not specifically | 20:08 |
| MentalistTraceur | Actually I don't recall if Niels Neilson ever formally resigned from Council, but he's basically told us in the past that he's too busy to be involved and we should proceed with everything without him. | 20:08 |
| misterc__ | (due to my mistake about UTC i was actually about to leave just b4 Joerg made his 1st post, so...) | 20:08 |
| qwazix_ | MentalistTraceur, I recall he did | 20:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Niels formally resigned | 20:08 |
| setter | setter is here, qwazix invited me but I can't stay for long and I think I will only listen | 20:09 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix_ & DocScrutinizer05: Okay, thanks. Anyway, for the agenda today I have: #Come up with a formal election criteria for HiFo, as woody recommended we do as soon as possible. | 20:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Tim here? | 20:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: yes | 20:10 |
| qwazix_ | setter, welcome! | 20:10 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: not only for HiFo but also for our own entity | 20:11 |
| MentalistTraceur | #decide if we still need to send a formal council recommendation to Board that they start their own reelection - or if, as Qwazix said by email, now that Woody and Jimjag are both supporting Board re-election | 20:11 |
| MentalistTraceur | , there is any point to us also doing a formal council-to-board recommendation. | 20:11 |
| * Woody14619 nods: It's expected that there will be one document, with very likely shared rules for both. Though a call out for requirements on one vs the other would not be out of line. | 20:12 | |
| misterc__ | i just read up on TMO that both Woody & Jim being in favor of a re-election fulfils criteria | 20:12 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: By 'for HiFo' I mean for both HiFo council and HiFo board. | 20:12 |
| misterc__ | (majority of BoD) | 20:12 |
| qwazix | yay! networing problem solved, back with normal nick | 20:12 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we're not going to discuss re-election today | 20:12 |
| *** qwazix_ has quit IRC | 20:12 | |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we still have internal discussions about that | 20:13 |
| qwazix | bylaws amendment in agenda? | 20:14 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | at least that's my take on it | 20:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | We'll discuss it if most people want to discuss it. I also don't see why we need to do any of it internally, when we can do it here anyway. But that's fine if both you and qwazix want to skip that one for now. | 20:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | ..I'm not going to push for it if both of you want to do more internal discussion first. | 20:15 |
| qwazix | I don't mind it either way, it looks like we just need to decide if we need to write letter to board or not. | 20:15 |
| misterc__ | Woody posted that there was no need to amend ByLaws (BoD can take any & all decision it deems appropriate) | 20:15 |
| misterc__ | including re-election | 20:16 |
| qwazix | misterc__, we feel there's need to amend bylaws not for the reasons SD69 mentioned on tmo | 20:16 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we don't need to discuss this publicly | 20:16 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yet | 20:16 |
| misterc__ | o, sorry | 20:16 |
| qwazix | but to make it a bit harder to get into this situation again | 20:16 |
| qwazix | for example clause that triggers election if >50% of BoD resigns | 20:17 |
| qwazix | immediately | 20:17 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we'll need to consider own election first and foremost | 20:17 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, +1 | 20:17 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it's pending | 20:17 |
| misterc__ | my understanding from the discussion on Jim's presentation thread on TMO is that the argument was about the dates things "happened", not the fact that a re-election was needed after 7 days | 20:18 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | misterc__: that's not on agenda today | 20:18 |
| misterc__ | so we would already have needed an election weeks (months?) ago? | 20:18 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | possibly | 20:19 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | does it help to know for sure today? | 20:19 |
| misterc__ | are you asking.... ME? | 20:19 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | own election criteria: so far karma based. What are we doing when karma can't get fixed until election starts? | 20:20 |
| Woody14619 | Knowing for sure is somewhat dubious. May as well argue about which religion is right. Interpretations will vary. | 20:20 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we won't have an electorate, and possibly nobody allowed to run | 20:20 |
| misterc__ | can we agree to use the last known values? | 20:21 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | there are no such values | 20:21 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | emphasis on "known" | 20:21 |
| Woody14619 | the values CAN be computed by hand. It's not easy, but it's doable. | 20:21 |
| misterc__ | not sure it if was sixwheeledbeast who put up a page for the election last fall | 20:21 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: how long will you need to fix karma? | 20:21 |
| Woody14619 | Actually, it's not that hard to compute by hand really. All the data is easily accessable. | 20:22 |
| sixwheeledbeast | eh... you rang? | 20:22 |
| misterc__ | o, sorry, didn't notice you | 20:22 |
| Woody14619 | I may have found a link something to fix it directly. Hoping to have time this weekend to spend proding and poking midguard if not. | 20:22 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Oh .. I think I compiled the list yep | 20:23 |
| misterc__ | ^thanks | 20:23 |
| sixwheeledbeast | was by hand IIRC | 20:23 |
| Woody14619 | Voting is fixed though, so that should work at a minimum. | 20:25 |
| *** brkn has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:25 | |
| MentalistTraceur | Karma is just TMO (posts?) thanks, QA votes/comments, and what? What projects you maintain in the repos? | 20:25 |
| MentalistTraceur | Anything of that I'm wrong about / missing? | 20:25 |
| Woody14619 | bugs, wiki edits.... It's detailed on a wiki page... | 20:26 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | w.m.o/karma or sth | 20:26 |
| MentalistTraceur | Also, when we're done with the election criteria discussion, I believe sixwheeledbeast had a topic for us to discuss, about speedpatch/batterypatch? | 20:26 |
| Woody14619 | The current process: http://wiki.maemo.org/Community_Council/Election_process | 20:26 |
| Woody14619 | Karma computation: http://wiki.maemo.org/Karma | 20:26 |
| sixwheeledbeast | MentalistTraceur: yes ta wait till i get asked ;) | 20:27 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | close | 20:27 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | upper case K, meh | 20:27 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | ok, we'll see if Woody14619 can fix da shite karmasystem, and if not we draft up alternatives til next Friday, eh? | 20:28 |
| Woody14619 | Right now it looks like wiki and tmo are missing. | 20:28 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | which nuked down my karma from 600 to 80 | 20:28 |
| Woody14619 | Which are easy to add, since those are searchable and/or TMO offers these stats in XML if you know the right place to look. | 20:28 |
| Woody14619 | Even if we get 30 candidates... Verifying those that are below but may have more (like Joerg) will be rather easy to do. | 20:29 |
| *** ZogG_laptop has quit IRC | 20:30 | |
| Woody14619 | bugs may also be not working. | 20:30 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | maybe don't add it, I'm quite happy with my 80 | 20:30 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | ;-P | 20:30 |
| * qwazix has 72 | 20:31 | |
| MentalistTraceur | I agree with Joerg on "wait and see if woody can fix the karma system before next friday, else start on new criteria then if not", although fixed karma system or not, I agree with the proposal Woody14619 emailed out saying that a unanimous vote by council should allow someone to vote without meeting the criteria otherwise, to allow for exceptions for genuinely useful/involved community ... | 20:31 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I think for council i'd need 100 at least | 20:31 |
| MentalistTraceur | ... members who for some reason haven't qualified for the criteria. | 20:31 |
| * MentalistTraceur has no idea how much karma I have. | 20:31 | |
| MentalistTraceur | s/I have/he has/ | 20:31 |
| *** ZogG_laptop has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:31 | |
| *** ZogG_laptop has joined #maemo-meeting | 20:31 | |
| qwazix | 168!! | 20:32 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we can't apply such exceptions at whim. We need to have good rationale why something is broken and thus we need to override it. Council can't pick own successors | 20:32 |
| misterc__ | candidate would still have to be elected, no? | 20:33 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: It's for eligibility - and I was thinking ability-to-vote eligibility mainly, not run-for-office eligibility. | 20:33 |
| Woody14619 | yes. IT would not be Council picking its replacements. Council can't ban valid candiates. :P | 20:34 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | fair enough | 20:34 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | but then, when we render karma fubar, there will be *nobody* except those we pick | 20:35 |
| * Woody14619 was thinking the opposite actually... It would apply for allowing others to run. (eg someone like Jim J., who could not run right now, but would be a valid cadidate and could be an asset to the community.) | 20:35 | |
| misterc__ | +1 | 20:36 |
| Woody14619 | Not true... Again, Karma is rather easy to compute on ones own, since you can get all the stats. And it's all verifiable. | 20:36 |
| MentalistTraceur | Woody14619: Well, exceptions can work both ways, and I'm fine with them doing both. | 20:36 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: I have idea to fix that concern: | 20:36 |
| Woody14619 | Just because it's not all collected and put into a pretty table on a web page for you doesn't mean you can't use a calculator and figure it out. | 20:36 |
| MentalistTraceur | A clause that at no point can half of the candidates be "exceptions". | 20:37 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: we're talking about MCC inventing new election rules | 20:37 |
| MentalistTraceur | s/half/half-or-more/ | 20:37 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if we actually do that, we need to be damn careful with *what* we do | 20:37 |
| misterc__ | if we have access to the (MySQL?) database, it's easy to generate the list | 20:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: sounds ok | 20:38 |
| qwazix | I'm against this exception thing | 20:38 |
| qwazix | Needed karma is already so low even a bot can run | 20:38 |
| Woody14619 | I agree. That's why I noted a unanimous vote requirement. | 20:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: indeed, and I don't see any newcomer being useful for MCC | 20:38 |
| qwazix | so if one wants to run for office let him edit the wiki until he gets 100 | 20:38 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: this isn't just for Karma, this is in general, for whatever eligibility scheme we ultimately decide on. | 20:39 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | NB we're talking MCC election rules | 20:39 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | not HiFo * rules | 20:39 |
| Woody14619 | no... you ARE making rutes for both bodies. | 20:39 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, whatever eligibility will be low enough anybody not a troll/bot would be able to run | 20:39 |
| Woody14619 | According to the ByLaws, Council gets to do that for both bodies. | 20:39 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: why do they need to be the same? | 20:39 |
| qwazix | community decides if she's worth | 20:40 |
| Woody14619 | They don't. But they both have to be in the same document. | 20:40 |
| Woody14619 | You can write two completely separate rules, for Council and for Board, if you like. | 20:40 |
| Woody14619 | But they both have to be in that document. | 20:40 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | tbh I never even looked into HiFo election rules | 20:40 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | so I can't comment on those today | 20:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I'll stick with MCC rules | 20:41 |
| qwazix | Yes I was talking about MCC too | 20:41 |
| Woody14619 | That was one of the compromises put in to prevent a run-away Board. | 20:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | for forthcomming MCC election | 20:41 |
| Woody14619 | Agreed.. But understand this: There are currently NO rules for a Board election beyond time-frames for the election parts. | 20:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes | 20:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | but we're not even discussing board election | 20:42 |
| qwazix | I can draft a proposal for that and send it by mail before next meeting | 20:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: good man | 20:42 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05/qwazix: The whole point of adding a council to HiFo bylaws was that it would be the thing that the MCC would transition into being. MCC should be phased into HiFo council anyway - there's no reason to make two councils. And I think having a similar template of rules (perhaps with different numbers here or there) for both Board and Council is better. Now if by MCC you ... | 20:42 |
| qwazix | (but don't expect legal-style writing, someone else will have to translate it to legalese) | 20:42 |
| MentalistTraceur | ... mean HiFo-bylaws-mentioned council, cool. | 20:42 |
| Woody14619 | All the membership status stuff, who can vote, who can run, etc, for Board, was to be written by the Foundation Council. (Which at least Ivan and I felt was MCC this cycle) | 20:43 |
| MentalistTraceur | At any rate though, when I wrote that agenda point, I was talking about election criteria for both bodies. | 20:43 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, yeah, there were never two councils for me | 20:43 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | MentalistTraceur: we're not even accepted as HiFo council | 20:43 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: I can do any translation needed for legalize. :P | 20:43 |
| MentalistTraceur | We need election rules for both, and I'd argue we need the election rules for Board with even more (albeit not much) urgency. | 20:43 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, thanks | 20:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we however need to have an election, according to Maemo Community Council rules | 20:44 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: If we accept Rob's interpretation. | 20:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | soon!! | 20:44 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: That may change soon. And frankly, I believe this was already handled at the initial meeting. | 20:44 |
| MentalistTraceur | Either way, Woody14619 is pushing for this council to be accepted as that council from within Board. | 20:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and no matter what we do about that HiFo thing, we need to stick to MCC rules anyway | 20:44 |
| qwazix | In any way why have different set of rules or two councils or whatever? | 20:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | who the heck talks about HiFo here???? | 20:45 |
| qwazix | We decide a set of rules and if first HCC wants to keep them, cool | 20:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | this is Maemo Community Council meeting | 20:45 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, why are you complicating things? | 20:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I AM??? | 20:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | [2013-03-15 19:44:07] <DocScrutinizer05> we however need to have an election, according to Maemo Community Council rules | 20:46 |
| qwazix | Yeah, we're probably be hifo council in a week anyway | 20:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | no way to avoid this | 20:46 |
| qwazix | why seperate MCC rules with HCC rules and make a mess of it | 20:46 |
| qwazix | ? | 20:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | qwazix: this doesn't change us being MCC as well | 20:47 |
| qwazix | No, so we make a new MCC set of rules, and if HiFo decides we are HCC we approve them again and all is well | 20:47 |
| misterc__ | could we maybe also define the FUNCTIONS of each body? | 20:47 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: You're insisting on making this only about Maemo Community Council, when we can just as easily be viewing this discussion as about election rules about /all/ bodies, MCC, HiFo CC, and HiFo Board, since the same rule template can apply to all bodies. | 20:47 |
| Woody14619 | Doc, I don't see why you don't get this. This is not MCC vs FC, MCC == FC. | 20:47 |
| misterc__ | (BoD, MCC, HCC) | 20:47 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | WE *can* *not* make a new set of MCC rules | 20:47 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | any change of MCC rules needs referendum | 20:48 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: Okay, then it's even simpler, this discussion is about a new set of HiFo election rules, without MCC rules to speak of. | 20:48 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | then i'm out for 10 min chilling | 20:49 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: MCC's stated mission is to represent the community and offer a channel for discussion WITH NOKIA. Do you see yourself, or any MCC member discussing things with Nokia once the name and DNS stuff all moves to HiFo? | 20:49 |
| * Woody14619 is perfectly fine with useing the *existing rules* for elections for MCC, despite them being very busted, as the last election clearly showed. | 20:50 | |
| Woody14619 | But there is no reason that the old rule set AND the new rule set can't be applied to the same election. | 20:51 |
| misterc__ | ? | 20:51 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, what was the problem with last election in your opinion? | 20:51 |
| misterc__ | & which rule is going to be... ruling? | 20:51 |
| Woody14619 | And I'll note... During your FIRST meeting as Council, I noted that a key item on your agenda should be a referendum to move MCC rules into compliance with those in the ByLaws. | 20:52 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, true but that was almost impossible until now | 20:52 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: In particular the lack of clarity on people withdrawing candidacy, and when elections needed to be extended for lack of candidates. | 20:53 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, :nod: | 20:53 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: Look, if we are accepted formally as HiFo council, we HAVE to create the HiFo election rules. If we're not, then there currently there is no HiFo council and we might as well be the body to propose hifo election rules since no one else is. | 20:53 |
| Woody14619 | As it stands, right now the MCC rules still state that if there's a lack of candidates, after an extension, the Nokia Rep decides what to do. Who's the Nokia Rep in a month, after the sign off? How do we follow that rule? | 20:53 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes, but *I* was not discussing this | 20:54 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: Not really... The voting system was available for the first month or two... Granted there were other things to do. I get that. | 20:54 |
| misterc__ | you sound a little like SD69... | 20:54 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you suggested overriding rules on whim, and that won't fly with *MCC* rules | 20:54 |
| misterc__ | (DocScru.) | 20:54 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | ok, another 10min out | 20:55 |
| MentalistTraceur | Okay, but that was the whole rationalle for me entering this into the agenda for this meeting. So that (HiFo election rules) was what I discussing the entire time. | 20:55 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: Nobody is saying to re-write the MCC rules.... | 20:55 |
| qwazix | >> Granted there were other things to do.<< and that we needed some time to adapt, and then migration hit us like a storm | 20:55 |
| * Woody14619 nods... | 20:55 | |
| Woody14619 | Again, I'm not saying "bad Council for not doing this earlier". You folks have been busy. I'm just noting it was on the table early. This shouldn't be catching anyone by suprise. | 20:56 |
| qwazix | Indeed. Now what do we do? Seems referendum is not an option before election | 20:57 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: Whats being discussed is writing the HiFo and Foundation Council rules. | 20:57 |
| qwazix | So the way I see it, we either do as DocScrutinizer05 says and elect a new MCC to do that, | 20:57 |
| qwazix | or we bend the rules and do referendum+election together | 20:57 |
| qwazix | (I vote for rule-bending) | 20:57 |
| Woody14619 | I personally would suggest you do what I did: Make the rules as close as you possibly can, for MCC / FC, throw in any deltas for HiFo, and try to run the MCC election under both MCC and FC rules, hoping there's not a conflict on one of the stupid bugs in MCC's rules. | 20:58 |
| qwazix | or HiFo approves us as HiFoCC and as that we make rules for HiFo BoD and HiFoCC | 20:59 |
| qwazix | and MCC is no more | 20:59 |
| Woody14619 | Which requires getting (NOT 5) and (NOT 3) candidates. | 20:59 |
| MentalistTraceur | Woody14619: Not disagreeing. | 21:00 |
| *** MentalistTraceur has quit IRC | 21:00 | |
| *** MentalistTraceur has joined #maemo-meeting | 21:00 | |
| *** MentalistTraceur has joined #maemo-meeting | 21:00 | |
| MentalistTraceur | Shit, I got disconnected from the wifi. | 21:00 |
| Woody14619 | nothing missed. | 21:00 |
| MentalistTraceur | Anyway, qwazix, you said you'd write up a draft, so I guess that's all we need from this topic. | 21:01 |
| Woody14619 | Last time we bent the HiFo rules (since they hadn't been in place legally anyway) to fit MCC's rules. | 21:01 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, I said I'll draft the HiFo rules. Our rules must be discussed now IMO. | 21:01 |
| misterc__ | but change to the MCC rules have to approved via referendum, no? | 21:03 |
| Woody14619 | Realisically, if the name Maemo Community Council means that much to you, present a Bylaw update to say (FC)=>(MCC), and MCC rule change, and propose both to both bodies and/or as as a referendum. Solved. | 21:03 |
| *** brkn has left #maemo-meeting | 21:03 | |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: Okay. Then my question is, does the MCC even need to continue exist beyond this cycle? I would say no. | 21:04 |
| MentalistTraceur | Since the whole point of HiFo bylaws including a council is for it to replace the MCC. | 21:04 |
| qwazix | I would say that once HiFo approves us as HiFo council we can officially dissolve MCC | 21:05 |
| Woody14619 | Absorb, not replace. | 21:05 |
| Woody14619 | Replace has a negative connotation to some. | 21:05 |
| misterc__ | the result is the same,really | 21:05 |
| misterc__ | that being similar to nominating (new) members to BoD | 21:06 |
| qwazix | yes, and by dissolving the old body we have no obligation to follow its rules | 21:06 |
| misterc__ | no election => no good | 21:06 |
| Woody14619 | And again, if people want the name, we can fix that. Hell, we could also ammend the Bylaws to make the name officially "Maemo Community Foundation" once we have the legal rights in place to do so, and setup a DBA for the corporation. | 21:06 |
| qwazix | misterc__, nobody wants *no election* | 21:07 |
| misterc__ | isn't Maemo NOKIA's IP? | 21:07 |
| Woody14619 | All this fuss over a f-cking name.... | 21:07 |
| qwazix | in any way council election *will* happen as scheduled | 21:07 |
| qwazix | And if somebody suggests otherwise he will be shot :P | 21:08 |
| Woody14619 | misterrc__: I can not disclose the content or nature of potential contracts HiFo may sign with Nokia. | 21:08 |
| misterc__ | Qwazix, agreed, was just pointing out the obvious | 21:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you can't dissolve or whatever MCC afaik | 21:08 |
| misterc__ | you effectively did, didn't you? | 21:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | there's no passus for suicide of MCC in MCC rules | 21:08 |
| Woody14619 | misterrc__: I speculated that it would be feasable.... :) | 21:08 |
| misterc__ | speculation leads to arbitration ;)) | 21:09 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, passus for suicide -> Nokia rep will decide what to do | 21:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yeah | 21:09 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: actually there is... Not having enough members to run can trigger "Nokia Rep and current Council" to decide what to do. | 21:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | yes | 21:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | other than that: none | 21:10 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | particularly none that allows us to break the rules before or during such election | 21:10 |
| Woody14619 | http://wiki.maemo.org/Community_Council/Election_process Section 11, subsection 2: "but all options are open." | 21:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | *shrug* | 21:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | irrelevant | 21:11 |
| misterc__ | +1 | 21:11 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | we can't bend the rules for next election | 21:11 |
| MentalistTraceur | So if everyone stops running for Maemo Council and runs for HiFo council, we have 0 (thus not enough) people running for the MCC entity, and the MCC entity can be wound down properly at that time, no? | 21:11 |
| Woody14619 | Fine... Then we'll announce *3* election cycles concurrently. One for MCC, one for FC, one for HiFo. | 21:11 |
| qwazix | Come on every body when it's function is no longer needed must be able to dissolve itself, whether in the rules or not | 21:12 |
| misterc__ | +1 | 21:12 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: do you blackmail me to give in and break the rules of MCC elections or what? | 21:12 |
| Woody14619 | With the acknowledgement that MCC will be representing the community to Nokia... Whatever that means. FC represents to HiFo. | 21:12 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | bend rules of FC all you like | 21:12 |
| Woody14619 | No. | 21:12 |
| Woody14619 | Did you even read what I wrote? | 21:12 |
| Woody14619 | We did JUST THAT last cycle. | 21:13 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, I like this idea. | 21:13 |
| Woody14619 | With you hopping in and out like a damn jack rabbit... And toggling on 5 members.. we followed MCC. | 21:13 |
| qwazix | But what if there are enough candidates? | 21:13 |
| Woody14619 | And I'm NOT saying otherwise now... | 21:13 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I declare incapability of joining today's meeting, mental overload | 21:13 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | cya | 21:13 |
| Woody14619 | I'm saying write them so they're JUST LIKE MCC's rules. | 21:14 |
| Woody14619 | Sigh... Why must you run from conversation every time you don't get your way. | 21:15 |
| misterc__ | except for the fact that i'm (hardly / not) saying anything, today's meeting IS confusing | 21:15 |
| Woody14619 | Especially when you **are* getting your way, but are too pigheaded to figure out that everyone is basically AGREEING with you, but proposing another way to accomplish both concerns... | 21:15 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05 (and anyone else confused): No one's asking any rules for MCC to change. The whole point is we need to A: write HiFo election rules. B. Take whatever course of action we need to take to let Maemo Council be replaced/absorbed by the HiFo Council. | 21:16 |
| MentalistTraceur | In this case, it /seems/ like we can have the Maemo Council expire just by having everyone run for HiFo Council and not Maemo Council. | 21:16 |
| misterc__ | Joerg had a point (i think) by stating that MCC is for COMMUNITY, FC for... what? | 21:17 |
| Woody14619 | FC is also for the community. | 21:17 |
| misterc__ | is it just changing the label? | 21:17 |
| misterc__ | then... | 21:17 |
| Woody14619 | Yes. | 21:17 |
| MentalistTraceur | Exactly. Just changing the label, essentially. | 21:17 |
| misterc__ | so what is all the discussion about? | 21:17 |
| Woody14619 | It has the same function as MCC, just removing Nokia. | 21:17 |
| qwazix | +1 | 21:18 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: Formalities. | 21:18 |
| misterc__ | same function, same body, thus same rules | 21:18 |
| Woody14619 | Some are just stuck on the name (which is why I proposed even changing the name in the bylaws.... easy enough to do...) | 21:18 |
| qwazix | misterc__, there are some stupidities in MCC rules which we'd like to change | 21:18 |
| misterc__ | and i was blaming myself for having missed on the Council meetings for so long... | 21:18 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: except the rules for MCC are slightly broken, and were fixed in the bylaws... | 21:18 |
| qwazix | <Woody14619> Which requires getting (NOT 5) and (NOT 3) candidates. | 21:18 |
| misterc__ | if they are bent anyway, what does it matter? | 21:19 |
| Woody14619 | How to handle special cases, not clearly thought out in MCC formation. Like exactly 5 or 3 candidates, and/or people withdrawing candidacy. | 21:19 |
| Woody14619 | And for the most part, prescident when that's happened in the case of MCC has been codified into what to do for FC rules. | 21:20 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: There's two differences - one, remember how this time around we had an essentially un-elected council? Because there were 5 candidates, so we got a 5 member council - without an election. The HiFo council's rules prevent that situation. | 21:20 |
| Woody14619 | Otherwise, they ARE identical. (Which was the whole point in the first place.) | 21:20 |
| MentalistTraceur | The second difference is that the HiFo council can change election rules more readily if it's necessary. | 21:21 |
| misterc__ | MentalistTraceur: ? | 21:21 |
| misterc__ | then you will need a contigency plan for every possible or imaginable situation... | 21:21 |
| misterc__ | last fall, the candidates seemed like honorable members of the Community | 21:22 |
| Woody14619 | how so? | 21:22 |
| misterc__ | or even more... | 21:22 |
| MentalistTraceur | (Whereas right now every single tweak to them requires a referendum, the HiFo bylaws allow for changes to be made by the Council. Doesn't mean council can't do referendums every time, but it allows for minor changes to be done without that overhead) | 21:22 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: That's perfect solution fallacy. | 21:22 |
| misterc__ | who defines "Minor"? | 21:23 |
| Woody14619 | well, not directly. Council gets to make this list and tweek it for 3 months. Then it takes the same fix as bylaws to change: That being Council/Board voting on it, with the option of Council calling for a referendum to get the communities input on it. | 21:23 |
| misterc__ | don't get me wrong; i'm not saying we did a perfect thing last fall, but considering the urge to approve / accept whatever ByLaws & all that, taking honorable members seemed like the right thing to do | 21:24 |
| MentalistTraceur | Just because we can't have good solutions for every possible contingency doesn't mean we shouldn't implement very good solutions for some of the most common contingencies. | 21:24 |
| Woody14619 | Well said | 21:24 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, +1 | 21:25 |
| misterc__ | reasonably | 21:25 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | one last note: only clean way is to have a referendum in which MCC declares they will be called and following rules of FC now. Let this acknowledge by community and OK | 21:25 |
| misterc__ | just watch out that you don't rule yourselfs in a situation where you end without Council (& possibly Board)... | 21:26 |
| MentalistTraceur | As for who defines minor: if the HiFo council made a change to the election rules that the community says there should be a referendum for, those same council members can say goodbye to chance for reelection next time. | 21:26 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, there's a catch here | 21:26 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: Basically agreed - we need a referendum from the MCC side that cleanly moves the MCC into being the FC. | 21:27 |
| qwazix | if the Councilors make a change that guarantees their re-election? | 21:27 |
| misterc__ | +11 | 21:27 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: Then do that. And start the referendum now. We can start the normal elections in a week later and the offset will give people time to decide both matters, and have the referendum accepted this cycle. | 21:27 |
| qwazix | (seen that in real world elections, gov changed election rules so that runner up gets bonus instead of first) | 21:27 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, if we have time, it seems like a nice solution | 21:28 |
| misterc__ | Qwazix, don't we forget here that there is little "power" to be gained from being member of Council or Board | 21:28 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: Otherwise, you're delaying everything for a month to do a referendum. Last I knew, you were calling someone else names for asking the same thing when it came to their position... | 21:29 |
| qwazix | misterc__, we do, but we can define minor a bit better anyway | 21:29 |
| misterc__ | in elections, it can be about millions or even billions (contracts and what not) | 21:29 |
| qwazix | (for example duration of term can't be changed etc) | 21:29 |
| misterc__ | here? | 21:29 |
| misterc__ | agreed on that | 21:30 |
| misterc__ | candidate can't run more then X times in a row (?) | 21:30 |
| misterc__ | well, not run, hold a post | 21:30 |
| qwazix | ehm, no I wouldn't go there | 21:30 |
| qwazix | for the same reason you mentioned above, there is no corruption of power here | 21:31 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | Woody14619: I AM DELAYING THINGS?? by stating what is the "only clean way" *in my book*? | 21:31 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | honestly, today it's too much for me here | 21:31 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | out again | 21:31 |
| Woody14619 | DocScrutinizer05: I believe Rob said his way was the only way to see things as well... did he not? | 21:32 |
| qwazix | DocScrutinizer05, stop that, please. Either be here or not. | 21:32 |
| misterc__ | hey, copycap! (Woody) | 21:32 |
| misterc__ | copycaT | 21:32 |
| misterc__ | but still, i think Joerg is just trying to "stick to the rules" to avoid, well, the blame of "bending the rules" | 21:33 |
| misterc__ | again, how far can one bend the rules, before it becomes... unacceptable | 21:34 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: Personally, regarding the "what if council tweaks rules to ensure their reelection" concern - I agree with you, in an ideal sense - that's why I personally strongly support unconditional community-triggered recall of elected people. | 21:34 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | then not, one more comparision between me and Rob or accusal of me being the culprit for anything and I simply step down. I'm fed up | 21:34 |
| Woody14619 | Reguardless.. I think the topic has hit it's resolve. Qwazix will write up a quick thing codifying the rules for FC/HiFo for presentation. Deciding on if MCC=FC and if there will be 1 or 2 or 3 elections, or a referendum happens, etc, can happen later. | 21:35 |
| MentalistTraceur | But in practice, I think the work to reward ratio of being a councilor is too high for people to want to 'secure their reelection'. | 21:35 |
| qwazix | misterc__, I think that it depends on the rules and the bending angle. Declaring a body not longer needed and dismissing it when really it is no longer needed is perfectly logical as I see it. | 21:35 |
| Woody14619 | Though I think if you want to do a referendum, you should do it NOW/ASAP so it can impact the election before vote casting starts. (<---DocScrutinizer05) | 21:35 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, +10 | 21:36 |
| misterc__ | but we agreed that all this was only about rename MCC => FC, didn't we | 21:36 |
| misterc__ | so there is no disolution to speak of | 21:36 |
| Woody14619 | Execpt not all see it that way misterc__ | 21:36 |
| qwazix | misterc__, that's another way to see it, I just felt that dissolution is a nice formal way out | 21:36 |
| Woody14619 | And ironically, both of the 2 people currently fuming over it are doing so for opposite reasons. | 21:37 |
| misterc__ | Woody14619: maybe there is also a lot of... noise which prevents to see... JUST that? | 21:37 |
| * Woody14619 nods | 21:37 | |
| Woody14619 | And nostalgia... for a name. | 21:37 |
| Woody14619 | Which when the bylaws were written could *not* be used for legal reasons. | 21:38 |
| misterc__ | Sticking to the rules (?) | 21:38 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, 2 people? | 21:38 |
| misterc__ | (he is modest, maybe?) | 21:38 |
| Woody14619 | Two people that are saying FC != MCC | 21:38 |
| qwazix | ah | 21:38 |
| Woody14619 | Everyone I've talked to has indicated it's pretty obvious they are, and were ment to be, one in the same. | 21:40 |
| qwazix | :nod: | 21:40 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: The only issue with viewing it as just a namechange is the aforementioned minor differences in how elections for the bodies are done - we can virtually guarantee someone will point to that if we call it just a namechange and cry foul, power-usurpation, etc. However, aside from that, I agree that in essense they are the same body, that's what they were meant to be, etc. | 21:40 |
| MentalistTraceur | *Shrug* Anyway, we all seem to be in essense in agreement here? | 21:41 |
| misterc__ | if it's only a name, why not keeping the old name? | 21:41 |
| qwazix | Does HiFo CC currently have election rules stated in the bylaws? | 21:41 |
| qwazix | (sorry for the stupid question) :dizzy: | 21:41 |
| Woody14619 | Yes and no. | 21:41 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: Because at the time HiFo bylaws were written (and until contract signover) we can't use the name. | 21:42 |
| Woody14619 | It has timeframes for parts of the elections. | 21:42 |
| Woody14619 | But nothing that covers what a member is, who can vote, who can run, etc. | 21:42 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, do they conflict with MCC rules? | 21:42 |
| misterc__ | Qwazix, WHAT are your talking about? HCC? | 21:42 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: The basic framework (candidate/member numbers, when the elections are to be held), is in bylaws. | 21:42 |
| MentalistTraceur | and what woody said for the other stuff. | 21:42 |
| Woody14619 | No. In fact, they are slightly stricter than MCC rules. MCC rules say you must announce within a certain time frame, and it must be 30 days before the election. | 21:43 |
| qwazix | I'm thinking if the rules in the bylaws for HCC are not in conflict with current MCC rules, then call an election for MCC/HCC in unison | 21:43 |
| qwazix | (same body) | 21:43 |
| Woody14619 | FC rules lay out that 14 days are for candidate nomination, 7 are for discussion of candidates, and 7 are for election, and that there must be an annoucement 30 days before. | 21:44 |
| qwazix | and new HCC keeps on, while MCC makes referendum and is absorbed by new HCC | 21:44 |
| Woody14619 | Indeed. I wrote them specifically to NOT conflict with MCC rules. | 21:44 |
| misterc__ | so you are just throwing in another name, to make the whole discussion even more heated.... are you adding oil t othe fire ?!? | 21:44 |
| misterc__ | ;) | 21:44 |
| qwazix | So we just have to live with the !3&&!5 bug one last time | 21:45 |
| Woody14619 | And followed both until we had the execption case hit for MCC/FC (the case for 5 members). | 21:45 |
| Woody14619 | Or was it 3? I think it was 3 actually? | 21:45 |
| Woody14619 | Because we had 4, but then Doc left. | 21:45 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: exactly. And it's easy to fix. Just get 6 people to run... :) | 21:46 |
| MentalistTraceur | Isn't the fact that HiFo Council can determine election criteria changes viewable as a "conflict" with the fact that MCC requires referendum for ANY changes whatsoever to election, eligibility criteria, etc? | 21:46 |
| Woody14619 | No.. Because it writes those rules once. And once in place requires a bylaws style vote to patch. | 21:47 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, there will be referendum, it just will be after the election | 21:47 |
| Woody14619 | And the Council can call for a referendum to determine the communities input on the matter, and vote accordingly. | 21:47 |
| misterc__ | just taking a step back, wondering in how far that kind of technicalities is not overtaxing the interest of the community members? | 21:48 |
| Woody14619 | You can do it before, after, or maybe even during.... Though I'd say it's kind of off to do it during really. | 21:48 |
| misterc__ | don't we just want to have the repos up & running as long as we need them? | 21:48 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: It is... have you read TMO'? | 21:48 |
| qwazix | misterc__, yes but... | 21:48 |
| * qwazix is out for 5 to order food | 21:49 | |
| Woody14619 | It's taxing ME frankly... And in no small part probably had to do with at least the reason several people have left positions here. | 21:49 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: I agree. Look, if it were up to me, this Counil would already be HiFo council, no one would even both mentioning MCC ever again except purely in a history-discussion sense, and we'd all move on to having HiFo council happily ever after. | 21:49 |
| misterc__ | too much administration, too little action | 21:49 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: Are you offereing to fund and manage them? | 21:49 |
| Woody14619 | And to take on the liablity for keeping them running? | 21:50 |
| Woody14619 | That's what HiFo is there for. | 21:50 |
| misterc__ | indeed | 21:50 |
| misterc__ | and when are we talking about THAT | 21:50 |
| Woody14619 | The problem is, that in order to do that, it must exist within a legal construct. | 21:50 |
| Woody14619 | To be a legal entity. | 21:51 |
| misterc__ | typically, Joerg coached a tremendous effort in THAT direction, i believe | 21:51 |
| misterc__ | that would be HiFo, right? | 21:51 |
| Woody14619 | Yes, he did. And I commend him (and the whole staff) for doing that. | 21:51 |
| misterc__ | glad to hear it | 21:51 |
| Woody14619 | But where it not for HiFo being ready to sign a contract with Nokia, the repos and TMO and the works would be off already. | 21:52 |
| misterc__ | indeed | 21:52 |
| misterc__ | blunt question | 21:52 |
| Woody14619 | There would be no server at IPHH. There would be no system to maintain. There would be no domain to point anywhere. | 21:52 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, +2,147,483,647 | 21:52 |
| misterc__ | do we need a Council (representing community separately) to run HiFo / the repos? | 21:53 |
| qwazix | misterc__, I don't know if there is ever a possibility that it'll work as we expected | 21:54 |
| qwazix | but the idea of having one entity doing finance+legalese | 21:54 |
| qwazix | and another doing tech+communication seems very good to me | 21:54 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: Tell me, would you prefer to have a system with checks and balances? | 21:54 |
| misterc__ | come again? | 21:55 |
| Woody14619 | Had we followed the advice to do away with Council. Rob would have been sole person as last HiFo board member. | 21:55 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: A literal answer to that question is no. Does that mean there aren't needs for a council in general though? Depends on who you ask. | 21:55 |
| misterc__ | HE invited you & Jim | 21:55 |
| Woody14619 | The whole concept of Council / HiFo is to split the work. One group to handle the legal stuff, one to handle community side, and both to check on each other and colaborate. | 21:56 |
| MentalistTraceur | "checks and balances" - the idea that separate parts of a "government" can keep each others' abuses/misbehaviors in check. | 21:56 |
| misterc__ | would he have done that if he wanted to have all power & blabla? | 21:56 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: Yes, because bylaws call for an immediate election if there are under 3 memebers. | 21:57 |
| misterc__ | again, what is there to abuse | 21:57 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, while this is true (Rob last man) it doesn't really validate the decision to have both bodies. | 21:57 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: Would you like a list? There is one. | 21:57 |
| qwazix | I mean, while it helped prevent a bad situation now, it doesn't mean it will always be productive | 21:57 |
| misterc__ | list of what? | 21:58 |
| Woody14619 | HiFo could in fact order the servers shut off and shipped to just about anywhere. | 21:58 |
| qwazix | especially with diminishing number of members/candidates | 21:58 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: Well, on the /Board/ side, community donation money can be misused. | 21:58 |
| MentalistTraceur | ..among a couple other things. | 21:58 |
| Woody14619 | HiFo has a bank account with funds donated by the community. | 21:58 |
| MentalistTraceur | It's council which largely has no powers to abuse, except what people who listen to it give them indirectly. | 21:58 |
| Woody14619 | HiFo, after it signs the documents with Nokia, has the rights to several other things the community cares about. | 21:58 |
| MentalistTraceur | Am I saying /Rob/ abused it? No. | 21:59 |
| Woody14619 | Exactly:^^ | 21:59 |
| MentalistTraceur | I'm just clarifying that that is what Woody14619 is getting at. | 21:59 |
| Woody14619 | But there is potential there for abuse. | 21:59 |
| misterc__ | letś just keep that in mind, could we? | 21:59 |
| Woody14619 | ??? | 21:59 |
| misterc__ | (HE didn't) | 22:00 |
| Woody14619 | I think you don't know how close one of those came to happening.... | 22:00 |
| misterc__ | one of what? | 22:00 |
| qwazix | ?? | 22:00 |
| misterc__ | +11 | 22:01 |
| misterc__ | don't give us the "confidentiality" BS | 22:01 |
| Woody14619 | Let's just say we still are awaiting a contract with IPHH.... | 22:02 |
| MentalistTraceur | Look, if you want to get rid of the Council, this is not the body to argue that point to. | 22:02 |
| Woody14619 | And that that wasn't sitting well with one of the Directors. | 22:02 |
| MentalistTraceur | ..unless we have the authority to call for a referendum to change the bylaws to remove the council completely? | 22:02 |
| MentalistTraceur | But even then, long before that referendum is done, we have an obligation to be ready for the next election cycle. | 22:03 |
| Woody14619 | To the point there was discussion about not setting up the servers. | 22:03 |
| misterc__ | but they were set up, finally, weeks ago | 22:04 |
| Woody14619 | Advice that if followed would mean we'd still be running in Nemiens boxen right now, which last I checked were slated to go down.... (looks at watch) today. | 22:04 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: Yes, because someone didn't listen to him. | 22:04 |
| Woody14619 | Someone that was pigheaded enough to know what he was doing was right for the community. | 22:05 |
| Woody14619 | Who's pigheadedness is now causing other issues and arguments here. | 22:05 |
| misterc__ | okay, case won | 22:05 |
| Woody14619 | MentalistTraceur: I would suggest that if such a referendum is needed, we should announce it and start it NOW/ASAP. | 22:06 |
| misterc__ | again, i think Joerg had primarely the respect of the (letter?) of the rules in mind | 22:06 |
| Woody14619 | His comments on another channel would state otherwise. | 22:07 |
| MentalistTraceur | Okay, I think we're as far along this topic as we're going to get. Do we agree that we should A. call for a referendum to formally accept, by the community, the MCC 'becoming' the HiFo Council. | 22:08 |
| MentalistTraceur | B. Draft HiFo election rules either way, because that needs to be done. | 22:08 |
| misterc__ | HiFo Council or Board (or both)? | 22:08 |
| Woody14619 | Both. | 22:09 |
| misterc__ | same rules +/- ? | 22:09 |
| MentalistTraceur | C. Since the referendum won't be completed by the time of next council election, announce elections for /BOTH/ councils essentially simultaneously, and make them as much of a single election as possible. | 22:09 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: essentially. In fact, "rules" is misleading here. It's more paramaters for who is elegable to vote and run. | 22:10 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: same rules/eligibility for the time being, in as much as possible. | 22:10 |
| misterc__ | nice (MT) | 22:10 |
| misterc__ | rules are rules, no matter what they amount to (Woody) | 22:11 |
| Woody14619 | The rules for elegability (which is what's being proposed) could in fact be lifted 100% from the current system, without change. | 22:11 |
| MentalistTraceur | Okay, great. Next topic, finally? | 22:11 |
| misterc__ | 200 karma to become a candidate? | 22:11 |
| Woody14619 | As there are no "broken bits" right now, outside of the system that conveniently calculates them directly, which is semi-busted an the moment. | 22:11 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: If it's 200 karma right now to do so, then yes. | 22:12 |
| misterc__ | iirc it is 100 | 22:13 |
| Woody14619 | http://wiki.maemo.org/Community_Council/Election_process | 22:13 |
| MentalistTraceur | Then that. | 22:13 |
| Woody14619 | 100. | 22:13 |
| MentalistTraceur | Whatever number it is. | 22:13 |
| misterc__ | <Woody14619> The rules for elegability (which is what's being proposed) could in fact be lifted 100% from the current system, without change. | 22:13 |
| Woody14619 | That plus this = document we're talking about. http://wiki.maemo.org/Karma | 22:13 |
| MentalistTraceur | Hence why I said "the same as they are now in as much as possible" (and as I understand it it's entirely possible" | 22:13 |
| MentalistTraceur | s/entirely possible"/entirely possible)/ | 22:14 |
| sixwheeledbeast | is was 100 last electon | 22:14 |
| misterc__ | MentalistTraceur completely agree with you, just pusseled by Woody's remark about (increasing?) by 100% | 22:15 |
| Woody14619 | The rules in question are http://wiki.maemo.org/Karma + the numbers from the election page: 100 to run for council, 10 to vote. (And you can makeup whatever damn number you want for HiFo Directors, I proposed 500... but that was just me...) | 22:15 |
| misterc__ | and Jim? | 22:15 |
| MentalistTraceur | Oh, no, he's not saying /increase by 100%/, he's saying /copy 100% exactly/. | 22:15 |
| misterc__ | sorry, my mistake | 22:16 |
| MentalistTraceur | Understandable. | 22:16 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: The reason I noted a consideration should be made that HiFo and/or Council could unanimously vote to allow someone to run (or vote) if the don't meet requirements. | 22:16 |
| MentalistTraceur | These last 2 hours have been mentally exhausting for us all. | 22:16 |
| MentalistTraceur | (woody's statement just above mine is in response to the "and Jim?" question, for clarity) | 22:17 |
| misterc__ | Jim offered himself to only be an advisor | 22:17 |
| misterc__ | MentalistTraceur: copy that | 22:17 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: Where are you reading that? | 22:17 |
| Woody14619 | You're the second person to say as much, but I've not seen any indication that he said it | 22:18 |
| Woody14619 | To my understanding, Jim has accepted his position on the Board as a Director. | 22:18 |
| MentalistTraceur | Okay, folks, I just want to pause this so we can get to the other agenda point? | 22:18 |
| Woody14619 | He has offered I think to stand down if the community wishes it. And/or to serve in another capacity. | 22:19 |
| misterc__ | http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1328959&postcount=28 | 22:19 |
| Woody14619 | Sure. | 22:19 |
| MentalistTraceur | We can resume discussing the details of eligibility (and exceptions thereto) after this next topic. | 22:19 |
| MentalistTraceur | s/topic/topic(s)/ | 22:19 |
| MentalistTraceur | So, sixwheeledbeast, you still there? | 22:19 |
| misterc__ | that's gona be a long night ¦-))))) | 22:19 |
| sixwheeledbeast | MentalistTraceur: yep I can hang on if you wanna continue | 22:20 |
| MentalistTraceur | sixwheeledbeast: you wanted to bring up batterypatch / speedpatch I believe? You have the floor. :) | 22:20 |
| misterc__ | :-X | 22:20 |
| sixwheeledbeast | I am sure you have all (CC) read my email? | 22:21 |
| MentalistTraceur | (In as much as anyone can 'have the floor' in this environment) | 22:21 |
| qwazix | yes | 22:21 |
| MentalistTraceur | I have, I think the other councilors have as well. | 22:21 |
| MentalistTraceur | Idk about others attending. | 22:21 |
| MentalistTraceur | Might as well in brief review, for the record, if you feel up to it. | 22:22 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Well I think the report "linked" speaks for itself. The packages can cause major issues to devices | 22:22 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Also I would like to note that the package in extras speedpatch was unfairly promoted | 22:23 |
| qwazix | what are our options? | 22:23 |
| sixwheeledbeast | http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1328060&postcount=3325 | 22:24 |
| sixwheeledbeast | for those not it loop | 22:24 |
| sixwheeledbeast | s/it/in/ | 22:24 |
| MentalistTraceur | Well, now that we have control over the extras repo, we can ask our tech staff to remove it from Extras? | 22:25 |
| sixwheeledbeast | also is seems the maintainer is unable to repair the package. | 22:25 |
| misterc__ | that's the argument you had for a long time already with author, no? | 22:26 |
| Woody14619 | I dislike the idea of removing a package submitted by a community member. As much as I've advocated against it in the past. | 22:26 |
| Woody14619 | But it would still remain available in Extra-Testing / Extra-Devel, yes? | 22:26 |
| sixwheeledbeast | I agree it's a difficult situ but the package is a huge problem waiting to happen | 22:27 |
| MentalistTraceur | Woody14619: yes, it would remain in testing and devel. | 22:27 |
| qwazix | that means it's gonna be promoted again after 6 votes | 22:27 |
| sixwheeledbeast | MentalistTraceur: So even thought the package doesn't conform to Debian Policy it can stay? | 22:27 |
| MentalistTraceur | sixwheeledbeast: No idea. | 22:28 |
| MentalistTraceur | I honestly haven't contemplated that in-depth. | 22:28 |
| Woody14619 | I agree it's been problematic... and several people have had to reflash their devices. The concept behind Extras is that it's stable for all devices and community tested/approved. | 22:29 |
| MentalistTraceur | I think removing /just/ from extras /just/ because of a clearly mis-promoted package is acceptable. I similarly think removing from repos in general because of egregious problems (blatant copyright violation, etc) is acceptable. | 22:29 |
| qwazix | sixwheeledbeast, I doubt Debian Policy can be used here as I'm sure many legit packages don't conform | 22:30 |
| sixwheeledbeast | The major bits are not conforming to Debian Policy therefore Maemo, and modifying /syspart which could damage future system updates | 22:30 |
| MentalistTraceur | The problem with removing for non-conformity alone is what qwazix said. | 22:30 |
| sixwheeledbeast | If the outcome of this is it's pushed back to Extras great, but IMO it should be purged completely | 22:31 |
| MentalistTraceur | How feasible is it to change the voting / promotion code to prevent auto-promotion to extras if there is the presense of some community verified blocker? | 22:31 |
| qwazix | I think we should demote and prevent promotion until specific requirements are met | 22:31 |
| qwazix | which should be put there by somebody more knowledgeable re. maemo workings | 22:32 |
| Woody14619 | I believe that the new package promotion with 6 votes also requires no down votes, and takes a few days to promote, yes? | 22:32 |
| sixwheeledbeast | no | 22:32 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: that's why I just asked the above, regarding blockers. | 22:32 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, it's only two packages we can do it by hand | 22:33 |
| qwazix | reset vote count to zero if it reaches 5 | 22:33 |
| sixwheeledbeast | 10 votes positive no matter how many negative is the current situ | 22:33 |
| Woody14619 | Hm... I thought a single down took more to override. | 22:34 |
| Woody14619 | Especially into Extras. | 22:34 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Woody14619: look at the package page for speedpatch | 22:34 |
| sixwheeledbeast | it' a joke | 22:35 |
| Woody14619 | I thought it was a 5:1 ratio for Devel -> Testing. | 22:35 |
| qwazix | Devel -> Testing requires no votes | 22:35 |
| Woody14619 | I'm no fan of either patches... and had my heyday in that thread, as most have. (Even tried to help at one point by making it clean un-install) | 22:35 |
| Woody14619 | Really? | 22:35 |
| Woody14619 | When did that happen? | 22:36 |
| qwazix | No you just click promote and it goes to testing (which is correct IMO) | 22:36 |
| Woody14619 | hmmm.. maybe I just misunderstood all this time. | 22:36 |
| qwazix | I don't remember it otherwise | 22:36 |
| misterc__ | how about reporting / adding a BUG? | 22:36 |
| sixwheeledbeast | months back it was already promoted before I QA'ed. | 22:36 |
| Woody14619 | I wish Ivan were here.... This was his specialty. | 22:37 |
| qwazix | Devel = playground (some people don't even have sdk), Testing is where you ask for QA -> extras = production | 22:37 |
| sixwheeledbeast | qwazix: exactly | 22:37 |
| MentalistTraceur | qw | 22:37 |
| qwazix | (I have testing always enabled for example so I get everything the devel feels is ready for QA, and vote once in a while) | 22:37 |
| MentalistTraceur | F'ing enter key. | 22:38 |
| Woody14619 | There used to be a hold on things from testing -> extras though right? But it got backlogged for lack of testers? | 22:38 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: the problem with doing it by hand is that requires dedication and time for whatever person is doing it. | 22:38 |
| misterc__ | wouldn't a BUG block it @ least to TESTING? | 22:38 |
| Woody14619 | Or the threshold was higher? | 22:39 |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: No, bugs don't have any affect on it. | 22:39 |
| misterc__ | :( | 22:39 |
| MentalistTraceur | testing -> extras is purely based on votes. | 22:39 |
| misterc__ | copy that | 22:39 |
| MentalistTraceur | (Afaik, although I maintain packages and I've read up on it...) | 22:39 |
| MentalistTraceur | (..so I don't think I would've forgotten the possibility that bug reports could block if it was documented anywhere) | 22:40 |
| Woody14619 | Personally, since there was a technical issue about it being in Extras to start with, I'd say remove it from there. If the author fixes it and pushes it back in a legit way... then... | 22:40 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Point is it's badly broken with no maintainer | 22:41 |
| MentalistTraceur | Is the maintainer just /gone/? | 22:41 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Can I put a rm script in extras and it be promoted? | 22:42 |
| Woody14619 | Last I knew the author was in Syria. He logged in to TMO 5 days ago... but may not have time to maintain the package. | 22:42 |
| MentalistTraceur | If so, then we can kick it out of extras - even when votes unlock promotions, the maintainer(s) have to click the 'promote' button. | 22:42 |
| sixwheeledbeast | karam has no device any more and wishes for it to be "fixed" | 22:43 |
| Woody14619 | That's my thought. Remove from Extras, leave in testing/devel and it odds are it won't be promoted. | 22:43 |
| Woody14619 | But I'm not on Council, so have no say. :) | 22:43 |
| qwazix | sixwheeledbeast, there are two votes from the same person, how is *that* possible? | 22:44 |
| MentalistTraceur | If we do decide to do something: We can kick it out of extras, clearly communicate to the maintainer why it was kicked out, and warn that IF it's promoted again /without/ that being fixed, we'd get rid of it. | 22:44 |
| misterc__ | sixwheeledbeast you argued that it has no practical effect, no? | 22:44 |
| sixwheeledbeast | at least devel, because it's not for promotion | 22:44 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: Probably for different versions of the package? Idk. | 22:44 |
| sixwheeledbeast | yes my point exactly unfairly voted up by fanboys | 22:44 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, IIRC votes get reset when version changes | 22:44 |
| sixwheeledbeast | all the up voters have no karma "3" | 22:45 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: I'm inclined to agree. But that's not the argument here. The argument is that it's breaking devices, and that the upgrade was illigitimate because of double voting, etc. | 22:45 |
| sixwheeledbeast | misterc__: no this was fmg, I had to reflash after package testing, | 22:45 |
| qwazix | <MentalistTraceur> If we do decide to do something: We can kick it out of extras, clearly communicate to the maintainer why it was kicked out, and warn that IF it's promoted again /without/ that being fixed, we'd get rid of it. << That | 22:45 |
| sixwheeledbeast | slow lagging device | 22:46 |
| MentalistTraceur | On a more philosophical note, maybe I as a user have the right to have access to broken packages in extras if the QA process let them through..? | 22:46 |
| Woody14619 | MT: Thus my saying leave it in testing. If someone really wants it, they can go looking for it there. | 22:46 |
| misterc__ | there are 40000 devices out there doing updates every day, right? | 22:47 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, the QA has purposedly low barriers because of low number of testers and braindamaged QA web interface | 22:47 |
| Woody14619 | But extras is installed and enabled by default on all N900s... | 22:47 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Devel I can agree with but not Testing. | 22:47 |
| misterc__ | Woody14619 exactly | 22:47 |
| Woody14619 | ??? Why not testing? Devel to testing is a button push.... | 22:47 |
| qwazix | So while I agree with you philosophically it doesn't apply here. | 22:48 |
| qwazix | (IMO) | 22:48 |
| sixwheeledbeast | I hope to get the package testing going again when the infra had settled. | 22:48 |
| MentalistTraceur | Alright, I tentatively agree with the thing I said above: kick out of extras, inform/warn maintainer(s), redo if they promote again without fixing. | 22:48 |
| qwazix | sixwheeledbeast, are you ok with MT's suggestion? | 22:49 |
| misterc__ | isn't it a reasonable assumption that the waste majority of thoe 40'000 users have no clue of how to flash their N900? | 22:49 |
| sixwheeledbeast | because testing packages should be ready for extras (for promotion) this is not to be promoted without major repair and new package version | 22:49 |
| kerio | misterc__: you know, at this point, i'm not so sure | 22:49 |
| misterc__ | thus providing them packages (in extras) that are known to break devices should be removed, no matter what? | 22:49 |
| qwazix | sixwheeledbeast, I agree it should go to devel. There is no point in putting it in extras. | 22:49 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: All the more reason to not make available a package that often requires a reflash to fix in Extras... No? | 22:49 |
| qwazix | The equivalent of putting in extras is just telling e.g. Ovi QA to recheck as is. | 22:50 |
| misterc__ | my point exactly | 22:50 |
| MentalistTraceur | Anyone still using the N900 either A. runs to Nokia or a repair shop when shit breaks, or B. fixes it themseves. However, I'd like to also make a thread on TMO asking for Community input on this. | 22:50 |
| sixwheeledbeast | qwazix: thank you, yes. | 22:51 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, tmo is full of people saying that speedpatch is doing awesome things on the N900 where people who know maemo inside out say it does nothing | 22:51 |
| qwazix | so community input would probably be biased due to placebo effect | 22:51 |
| Woody14619 | not placebo... one of the patches actually installs power kernel (via requirement) and kicks it into overclock, without telling the user. | 22:52 |
| MentalistTraceur | Also: I would not kick it all the way back to devel - testing-to-devel is too easy (one click by maintainer) of a gap, watching it would be unrealistic. | 22:52 |
| *** qwazix has left #maemo-meeting | 22:52 | |
| sixwheeledbeast | Woody14619: yes this package is in extras-devel | 22:52 |
| Woody14619 | So their devices ARE faster... But it's not *patch causing it directly... (And often *patch monkies with other things, which can cause other issues) | 22:53 |
| Woody14619 | Can we kick it to devel and rename it "dangerious-speedpatch"? ;) | 22:54 |
| sixwheeledbeast | But if the package is promoted to testing without repair it should be purged. no? | 22:54 |
| Woody14619 | I thought the author didn't want it promoted again until fixed... | 22:54 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix (dang it he left): placebo-ness is irrelevant. The problem in question is the package creates what is essentially a serious damage risk. It could be the best performance increaser ever, if the damage is easily fixable, it has no place being in the extras repo. | 22:54 |
| Woody14619 | If it's in devel, and he won't promote it... what's the concern? | 22:54 |
| misterc__ | automatic promotion after 6 votes? | 22:55 |
| MentalistTraceur | sixwheeledbeast: That's my disagreement: you're saying leave it in devel, don't let it get to testing, I'm saying leave it in testing don't let it get to extras. | 22:55 |
| *** xes has joined #maemo-meeting | 22:55 | |
| MentalistTraceur | misterc__: not automatic. | 22:55 |
| MentalistTraceur | The promotion is unlocked but maintainer still has to press the button. | 22:56 |
| misterc__ | o, required | 22:56 |
| misterc__ | copy that | 22:56 |
| *** qwazix has joined #maemo-meeting | 22:56 | |
| Woody14619 | I just dislike the idea of total removal... Devel vs testing, from the sounds of it, is a moot point. | 22:56 |
| sixwheeledbeast | MentalistTraceur: but testing is for packages for promotion to extras, see my point from a user POV. | 22:56 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, >>placebo-ness is irrelevant.<< It is if you ask people on tmo about it. | 22:59 |
| MentalistTraceur | sixwheeledbeast: Either way it's not practically worth locking it to devel. Futhermore, my point from a user POV is I should be allowed to have a broken package. | 22:59 |
| Woody14619 | I do... but 1 button push (promote to Extras) vs two (Devel -> Testing, then Testing->Extras)... Either way. | 23:00 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Ok either way, agreed on speedpatch removal from extras? It's up to CC to do xyz in the end. | 23:00 |
| MentalistTraceur | qwazix: It isn't because people who say "it makes device faster OMG leave it !1" will have obviously miss the point. | 23:00 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, as I wrote above, testing is just a place for packages waiting QA. A broken package can't wait QA. Don't see it as 3 levels of quality | 23:00 |
| Woody14619 | MentalistTraceur: But they can... They just need to go to another repo to get it, which explains better it's devel software. | 23:00 |
| MentalistTraceur | ..and their comments will be irrelevant. | 23:00 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, :nod: | 23:00 |
| sixwheeledbeast | I feel it's not fair on good devs to have a package that is so broken available for download | 23:01 |
| Woody14619 | So, remove to Extras is agreed? Remove from Testing is still in the air. | 23:01 |
| misterc__ | Woody14619 +1 | 23:01 |
| MentalistTraceur | Woody14619: I as a user should be able to get the one broken package with relative safety and relative convenience. Going to devel reduces those slightly more than going to testing. | 23:02 |
| sixwheeledbeast | especially if it will break CSSU in future potentially all IMO | 23:02 |
| Woody14619 | Meh... Both add in the same way. One could add devel without testing... | 23:03 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, no, it's unfair to testers. A tester is installing random stuff from testing and does QA | 23:03 |
| Woody14619 | Point being Extras is on EVERYONE's device, community or not. | 23:03 |
| MentalistTraceur | Look, in the long run, I agree with you to some extent - but the long-term solution is a reform of QA. | 23:03 |
| sixwheeledbeast | qwazix: that too | 23:03 |
| qwazix | he doesn't deserve to have a broken device | 23:03 |
| qwazix | especially since he's providing a valuable service | 23:03 |
| Woody14619 | qwazix: To be fair, I think most testers know *patch is poisoned. | 23:03 |
| Woody14619 | Why not kick it down to devel, and let the author decide if he wants to promote it again to Testing? | 23:04 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, true. Still in any way a package that we already know it won't go to Extras has no place in testing | 23:04 |
| Woody14619 | I susspect this is all a moot point... | 23:04 |
| sixwheeledbeast | bear in mind I was testing a lot of packages and *patches stopped me doing so for a while due to issues == reflash | 23:05 |
| MentalistTraceur | Okay in principle I agree with you all. Kick it back to devel, fine. | 23:05 |
| Woody14619 | If he pushes it unchanged to Testing... cross that bridge when it happens. | 23:05 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Woody14619: I agree with that | 23:06 |
| qwazix | Woody14619, agreed | 23:06 |
| Woody14619 | Wow... First time we agreed all night. :P :) | 23:06 |
| Woody14619 | (and yes, it's night here now... :P ) | 23:06 |
| sixwheeledbeast | and i am not even CC or BoD :whistle: | 23:06 |
| misterc__ | oho, did i miss something? | 23:07 |
| * Woody14619 has no sway in this honestly... this is a Council matter. :) | 23:07 | |
| sixwheeledbeast | yer ... right ;) | 23:07 |
| misterc__ | SEP ¦-)) | 23:08 |
| qwazix | so sixwheeledbeast, do you need something else for us to proceed or the green light is enough? | 23:08 |
| qwazix | s/for/from/ | 23:08 |
| sixwheeledbeast | proceed with? | 23:08 |
| Woody14619 | Having heard DocScrutinizer05's opinion on *patch before, I doubt he'd be in disagreement... But I'm not speaking for him... | 23:08 |
| qwazix | kicking *patch to devel | 23:08 |
| sixwheeledbeast | yes thank you the maemo community will be greatful :) | 23:09 |
| misterc__ | thank you! | 23:09 |
| Woody14619 | .oO(I think he'd be pushing for total removal though, honestly. Based on comments in the thread. ;) | 23:09 |
| qwazix | Total removal is unfair | 23:09 |
| Woody14619 | Is there another Council topic? | 23:09 |
| Woody14619 | I agree, and I susspect he would as well honestly... | 23:10 |
| qwazix | everybody can upload anything on devel even for fun | 23:10 |
| sixwheeledbeast | Woody14619: I'd agree with him | 23:10 |
| *** setter has left #maemo-meeting | 23:10 | |
| Woody14619 | Feels far too totalitarian to eradicate it entierly, no matter how bad it is. | 23:10 |
| qwazix | It | 23:10 |
| qwazix | oops | 23:10 |
| qwazix | It | 23:10 |
| Woody14619 | For all we know this is the only copy left in existance... | 23:10 |
| qwazix | damn! | 23:10 |
| qwazix | It's not that it's intentionally formatting peoples devices... | 23:11 |
| Woody14619 | .oO(Esp if Karam doen't have a device anymore....) | 23:11 |
| MentalistTraceur | Yeah, no complete removal. #!/bin/sh echo "rm -rf /"|sudo gainroot should be allowed in -devel. Because freedom. | 23:11 |
| misterc__ | i must have a copy of it | 23:11 |
| MentalistTraceur | :P | 23:11 |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, except if it was called flash10, then it would have to be removed | 23:12 |
| Woody14619 | .oO('murika!) | 23:12 |
| Woody14619 | That would be Board's domain. ;) | 23:12 |
| MentalistTraceur | Sure, but that's a different problem of dishonesty/misleading. | 23:13 |
| misterc__ | o, then i definitey is Board's domain | 23:13 |
| misterc__ | ~:o} | 23:13 |
| misterc__ | s/i/it | 23:13 |
| MentalistTraceur | Unrelated: | 23:14 |
| Woody14619 | misterc__: Yes, because we would be the ones Abode would drag into court to sue if it showed up.... Just saying... | 23:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | http://hildonfoundation.org/bylaws/ | 23:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | returns page-not-found. | 23:14 |
| MentalistTraceur | Even though there's links to there from the main page. | 23:14 |
| Woody14619 | http://hildonfoundation.org/docs/ | 23:15 |
| Woody14619 | Busted page links. I'll ask GA to look into fixing it. | 23:15 |
| sixwheeledbeast | MentalistTraceur: I believe I package should not be in any repo if it doesn't conform to Debian policy but that's another topic ;) | 23:16 |
| MentalistTraceur | *Nod* I know how to find it, my point was just that the website linked to that url. | 23:16 |
| Woody14619 | Besides, there are copies in TMO anyway... :) Attached to my posts and others. | 23:16 |
| MentalistTraceur | I miss the days of meetings that were 2 hours long at most. | 23:17 |
| MentalistTraceur | So we're basically done, I think? | 23:18 |
| qwazix | I really hope so, my brain is fried. | 23:18 |
| Woody14619 | :) | 23:20 |
| Woody14619 | When the public meetings were 2 hours... | 23:20 |
| * sixwheeledbeast looks around the room for survivors | 23:20 | |
| MentalistTraceur | Confirm/deny: Action items: qwazix draws up draft for hifo election rules, based on current MCC election rules; we coordinate the starting of a referendum to merge MCC into FC; post a thread soliciting community feedback on gutting bad (damaging) packages from Extras and Extras-Testing (and if there's no clear intelligent argument against it we proceed with asking tech staff to do so ... | 23:20 |
| Woody14619 | Then add hours of e-mail after... :P | 23:20 |
| MentalistTraceur | ... to *patch). | 23:21 |
| qwazix | I'd skip the tmo thread about *patch but I'm not against it so *Confirm* | 23:22 |
| MentalistTraceur | I just want the thread in case there's a clear argument against what we agreed on, that we didn't think of that someone in the community does think of. | 23:23 |
| MentalistTraceur | So for the very foundational reason of why public participation is good in general. | 23:24 |
| MentalistTraceur | Anyway, okay, so that's that. | 23:24 |
| Woody14619 | Iz wil mk u N9000 very faster! | 23:24 |
| Woody14619 | And less powers! | 23:24 |
| MentalistTraceur | Woody14619: (lol) Ah, but what about the damaging-ness? | 23:25 |
| MentalistTraceur | Anyway, with that I guess meeting is adjourned. | 23:25 |
| Woody14619 | LESS POWERZ! | 23:25 |
| *** freemangordon has joined #maemo-meeting | 23:25 | |
| sixwheeledbeast | thank you | 23:25 |
| Woody14619 | That was painfully easy to slip into... :P I should avoid doing that. :P | 23:26 |
| Woody14619 | .oO(And replying to trolls, and running for any office, and arguing in violent agreement with Doc, and ....) | 23:26 |
| qwazix | lol | 23:27 |
| misterc__ | well, then i guess i'll troll away... | 23:27 |
| *** misterc__ has quit IRC | 23:28 | |
| sixwheeledbeast | Woody14619: well you know how to clear a room... | 23:29 |
| Woody14619 | Anyway, off to kick midguard in the face and see if I can't fix karma | 23:29 |
| sixwheeledbeast | good luck | 23:30 |
| *** sixwheeledbeast has quit IRC | 23:31 | |
| MentalistTraceur | Good luck with that Woody14619. Hopefully Karma works come election time. Hand-counting it would suck. | 23:32 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | [2013-03-15 22:02:11] <MentalistTraceur> Woody14619: I as a user should be able to get the one broken package with relative safety and relative convenience. Going to devel >>reduces those slightly more than going to testing.<< sorry, thats paradox. Devel is dangerous *because* it has broken packages, and *patch are two of the most broken ones. There's no logic in saying "user has a right to get that particular broken package | 23:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | without bothering about the other less broken pkgs in devel" | 23:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | stuff in testing is supposed to have passed first "QA" by devel who thinks it's ok for extras. If devel is aware it's not, then that pkg has no place in testing and devel SHALL NOT promote it devel->testing | 23:43 |
| MentalistTraceur | I kinda agree with you, if you wait to read the entire thing before commenting. Actually that's more of a paradox for testing than devel (because it makes sense for devel to have broken packages occasionally, but in order for testing to remain /more/ safe, those broken packages should stay in devel. Which is why I ultimately ended up /agreeing/ to try to remove those packages from both ... | 23:45 |
| MentalistTraceur | ... extras and extras-testing. | 23:45 |
| MentalistTraceur | Terminology/semantics aside, I've changed my mind since I made that statement, is my point. | 23:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | please stop speculating on what's my notion on anything when you got no proper indications in form of explicit statements from me! (([2013-03-15 22:09:24] <Woody14619> .oO(I think he'd be pushing for total removal though, honestly. Based on comments in the thread. ;))) | 23:45 |
| MentalistTraceur | So by now, I think we agree, it shouldn't be in testing. | 23:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | there's no basis for removing any pkg from devel, unless it's extremely dangerous, maybe even on purpose | 23:46 |
| MentalistTraceur | DocScrutinizer05: Awesome, so we have unanimous council agreement on that point. | 23:47 |
| MentalistTraceur | Okay, I really have to go. I might be able to get back on sometime again within the next 5-6 hours, idk. | 23:49 |
| *** MentalistTraceur has left #maemo-meeting | 23:50 | |
| qwazix | MentalistTraceur, will you please post the relevant thread at TMO? | 23:50 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.15.1 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!