#linuxcnc-meet Log v0.1


Recorded agenda
2013-06-29 17:00:07

!start 201606 the meeting has started
2013-06-29 17:11:14
VOTE: 1: agenda items should be proposals [cradek]
2013-06-29 17:12:47
DISCUSS: 2: limit formal discussion to at most 15 minutes, moving to a vote as soon as there is suitable agreement
2013-06-29 17:16:32
VOTE: 2: limit formal discussion to at most 15 minutes, moving to a vote as soon as there is suitable agreement
2013-06-29 17:17:29
DISCUSS: 3: Suitable agreement is ideally unanimous, but unanimous is not required
2013-06-29 17:24:32
DISCUSS: 4: Use of topic during meeting
2013-06-29 17:27:13
VOTE: 4: Use of topic during meeting
2013-06-29 17:27:55
DISCUSS: 5: moderator tasks
2013-06-29 17:29:46
DISCUSS: 5/6: moderator and scribe tasks
2013-06-29 17:31:45
VOTE: 5/6: moderator and scribe tasks: summary of results is added to the wiki page, with a link to the full log
2013-06-29 17:32:11
DISCUSS: 5/6: moderator and scribe tasks: summary of results is added to the wiki page, with a link to the full log
2013-06-29 17:33:58
VOTE: 5/6: moderator and scribe tasks: summary of results is added to the wiki page, with a link to the full log
2013-06-29 17:34:30
DISCUSS: 7: time and day for future meetings
2013-06-29 17:37:50
VOTE: 7: next meeting 4th Saturday of July, 1600 UTC, later schedules to be discussed
2013-06-29 17:38:57
DISCUSS: 8: Seb should be the release manager for the 2.6 family of releases
2013-06-29 17:47:03
VOTE: 8: Seb should be the release manager for the 2.6 family of releases
2013-06-29 17:49:27
DISCUSS: 8: Seb should be the release manager for the 2.6 family of releases
2013-06-29 17:54:00
VOTE: 8: Seb should be the release manager for the 2.6 family of releases
2013-06-29 17:54:43
DISCUSS: 9: dissolve the board of directors
2013-06-29 18:01:11
DISCUSS: 10: chairperson for each meeting who herds the cats appropriately
2013-06-29 18:02:10
DISCUSS: 9: dissolve the board of directors
2013-06-29 18:06:02
DISCUSS: 10: meetings should have a moderator who leads the discussion
2013-06-29 18:14:51
DISCUSS: 11: Set expectations for integration of RTOS + other bits currently living in mhaberler's git repo [zultron]
2013-06-29 18:24:54
VOTE: 11: support xenomai userspace and rt-preempt userspace in master branch before 2.6 is branched
2013-06-29 18:25:46
DISCUSS: 12: move git.linuxcnc.org to github & switch to pull request model for contributions
2013-06-29 18:29:28
DISCUSS: 12.0: move git.linuxcnc.org to github
2013-06-29 18:38:52
DISCUSS: 13: split LinuxCNC proper and to-be MachineKit into separate repos
2013-06-29 18:45:55

!end 201306
2013-06-29 18:46:01
Next meeting: Sat 2013-07-27 16:00 UTC
2013-06-29 18:47:48
Next meeting: Sat 2013-07-27 16:00 UTC; Agenda: http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Meeting201307

log row count=1323
2013-06-29 17:00:07 archivist !start 201606 the meeting has started
2013-06-29 17:00:18 Kenneth_Lerman I've got the carrots.
2013-06-29 17:00:23 cradek ok, since my name's on that, I'll introduce it.
2013-06-29 17:00:25 mhaberler Andy?
2013-06-29 17:00:58 PetefromTn I want a damn doughnut...
2013-06-29 17:01:00 tjtr33 joined chan
2013-06-29 17:01:01 cradek I think having proposals, not questions, for agenda items will lead to concrete results
2013-06-29 17:01:21 cradek like I spelled out, I think they should be of the form "I think we should do this"
2013-06-29 17:01:24 seb_kuzminsky or at least *more likely* to lead to concrete results
2013-06-29 17:01:35 cradek very true
2013-06-29 17:01:42 seb_kuzminsky i think that's a good goal for these meeting discussions, so i approve of this proposal
2013-06-29 17:01:49 Kenneth_Lerman Agreed. Robert's rules of order... there must be a motion on the floor to have a discussion. A proposal is pretty much the same as a motion.
2013-06-29 17:01:57 mhaberler add a "questions" section to agenda, that clarifies status
2013-06-29 17:01:58 mshaver1 I agree, make decisions only here.
2013-06-29 17:02:21 PetefromTn where is this agenda?
2013-06-29 17:02:27 jepler joined chan
2013-06-29 17:02:29 mhaberler http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Meeting201306
2013-06-29 17:02:32 seb_kuzminsky PetefromTn: http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Meeting201306
2013-06-29 17:02:33 cradek mhaberler: I think questions are best discussed in the times/places outside the meeting, and then a proposal can be written
2013-06-29 17:02:37 Kenneth_Lerman Chris: please call the question. -- Ask for a vote.
2013-06-29 17:02:38 PetefromTn thanks seb
2013-06-29 17:02:41 mhaberler fine
2013-06-29 17:02:54 alex_joni howdy y'all
2013-06-29 17:02:59 seb_kuzminsky hi alex!
2013-06-29 17:02:59 cradek Kenneth_Lerman: I think we're still discussing
2013-06-29 17:03:08 cradek hi everyone
2013-06-29 17:03:14 tjtr33 hi all
2013-06-29 17:03:20 cradek for new arrivals: http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Meeting201306
2013-06-29 17:03:28 PetefromTn helllo everyone.
2013-06-29 17:03:29 cradek we're on "agenda items should be proposals", see the topic
2013-06-29 17:03:30 Kenneth_Lerman No one has disagreed.
2013-06-29 17:03:34 andypugh Are we quorate? :-)
2013-06-29 17:03:38 seb_kuzminsky maybe the link should be in the topic? along with the current agenda item
2013-06-29 17:03:44 zultron And more generally: http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?MeetingsOnIRC
2013-06-29 17:04:01 Tom_itx zultron, zlog logs
2013-06-29 17:04:02 mshaver1 The only problem with questions is that it would make the meetings too long. Maybe afterword?
2013-06-29 17:04:08 ArcEye joined chan
2013-06-29 17:04:17 cradek mshaver1: yes, ideally in the other channels
2013-06-29 17:04:24 seb_kuzminsky i'd like to keep the meetings short
2013-06-29 17:04:29 cradek exactly
2013-06-29 17:04:30 mshaver1 or maybe afterward...
2013-06-29 17:04:37 cradek we don't need a third generic chat channel
2013-06-29 17:04:55 micges I agree also with "I think we should do this" approach
2013-06-29 17:05:05 cradek if something is added to the agenda that is not a proposal, should we just skip it and let the author rewrite it for next time?
2013-06-29 17:05:14 tjtr33 for an example ( ignore the specifics ) does my suggestion fit the definition of a proposal?
2013-06-29 17:05:17 zultron cradek, no questions!
2013-06-29 17:05:21 cradek haha
2013-06-29 17:05:23 mhaberler yes, postpone
2013-06-29 17:05:40 seb_kuzminsky ok, so the proposal is: "questions & general discussions at any time on #linuxcnc-devel or emc-developers mailing list, #linuxcnc-meet is for making decisions"
2013-06-29 17:05:52 cdsteinkuehler +1 on making decisions!
2013-06-29 17:05:59 mhaberler tjtr33: I think it does
2013-06-29 17:06:07 cradek is there any disagreement?
2013-06-29 17:06:21 zultron #linuxcnc too; users should be included!
2013-06-29 17:06:31 seb_kuzminsky zultron: good point
2013-06-29 17:06:35 mhaberler no, except making a decision will likely imply a bit of discussion
2013-06-29 17:06:43 seb_kuzminsky such as this!
2013-06-29 17:06:47 PetefromTn does anyone who uses LinuxCNC have a say here?
2013-06-29 17:07:04 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:07:13 mhaberler I would think everybody tuned in is part of the quorum
2013-06-29 17:07:16 alex_joni I'd say if something is on the list which isn't a proposal, at least discuss if it should get turned into a proposal
2013-06-29 17:07:18 Kenneth_Lerman We have no membership rules. Sign in, you get to vote.
2013-06-29 17:07:21 cradek PetefromTn: very low bar -- if you bother to show up you have a voice
2013-06-29 17:07:27 seb_kuzminsky PetefromTn: i think so, but i'm worried about users making decisions about what developers should do without also signing up for doing the work
2013-06-29 17:07:41 zultron Yes, users are valuable members of the community. (Hope I interpreted the question correctly)
2013-06-29 17:07:53 tjtr33 cradek, i dont exactly agre, i think discussion should include #linuxcnc ( not just linuxcnc-devel)
2013-06-29 17:07:59 mhaberler the option is always to slack off in implementing the user decision ;)
2013-06-29 17:08:15 seb_kuzminsky true! but then what does a decision mean?
2013-06-29 17:08:19 cradek tjtr33: I think discussion should be everywhere we currently interact
2013-06-29 17:08:28 tjtr33 agreed thx
2013-06-29 17:08:34 alex_joni agreed too
2013-06-29 17:08:35 Kenneth_Lerman The meeting determines the priorities. The implementers determine what actually gets done.
2013-06-29 17:08:42 mhaberler its a statement of direction as far as I'm concerned, so it should be taken as a guideline
2013-06-29 17:08:50 cradek it's not going to work that we use the meeting as a way to assign work to whoever doesn't show up to vote against his assignment
2013-06-29 17:08:54 andypugh seb_kuzminsky: Let's worry about that if it happens.
2013-06-29 17:09:04 seb_kuzminsky Kenneth_Lerman: that sounds right
2013-06-29 17:09:08 seb_kuzminsky andypugh: i agree
2013-06-29 17:09:21 cradek I expect everyone to come in good faith and with understanding of the situation
2013-06-29 17:09:38 seb_kuzminsky ok, sounds like we're about done with agenda item 1
2013-06-29 17:09:44 mhaberler the others confess now please
2013-06-29 17:10:24 mshaver1 mhaberler: Are you asking if there is any disagreement?
2013-06-29 17:10:43 mhaberler no, if clueless or folks in bad faith are out here..
2013-06-29 17:10:44 PetefromTn I am no programmer but I use the system and am very impressed and want to see it only improve, the fact that I don't know jack about programming should not change that I would hope.
2013-06-29 17:10:52 zultron Yes, I propose users be included. By including users, they will feel they have a greater stake in the project, and will therefore be more likely to contribute.
2013-06-29 17:11:03 archivist it is dangerous for project devs to overtly ignore users, an easy way to upset the apple cart
2013-06-29 17:11:05 cradek ok, let's vote on #1, summarized as: agenda items should be concrete proposals; those that aren't can be skipped and rewritten for the next meeting; discussion is best kept in the other channels, lists, forum
2013-06-29 17:11:07 Kenneth_Lerman 3 .... 2 ... 1... cradek, please bang your gavel on the table.
2013-06-29 17:11:17 cradek I vote yes
2013-06-29 17:11:20 seb_kuzminsky yes
2013-06-29 17:11:20 ssi yes
2013-06-29 17:11:20 archivist yes
2013-06-29 17:11:22 tjtr33 mhaberler, i get it, i have good faith but maybe not understanding :/
2013-06-29 17:11:22 steve_stallings yes
2013-06-29 17:11:23 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:11:24 jepler yes
2013-06-29 17:11:24 Kenneth_Lerman yes
2013-06-29 17:11:26 alex_joni yes
2013-06-29 17:11:26 micges yes
2013-06-29 17:11:29 cmorley I vote yes
2013-06-29 17:11:29 tjtr33 yes
2013-06-29 17:11:30 mhaberler yes
2013-06-29 17:11:32 DaveCVI yes
2013-06-29 17:11:36 cdsteinkuehler yes
2013-06-29 17:11:40 viesturs yes
2013-06-29 17:11:48 PetefromTn yes
2013-06-29 17:11:57 CaptHindsight joined chan
2013-06-29 17:12:12 ArcEye yes
2013-06-29 17:12:13 steve_stallings ....hindsight.... priceless timing
2013-06-29 17:12:40 seb_kuzminsky sweet
2013-06-29 17:12:42 cradek I think that's everyone?
2013-06-29 17:12:54 seb_kuzminsky maybe there should be a 1 minute voting window?
2013-06-29 17:12:56 zultron Aye
2013-06-29 17:12:56 zultron (actually meta-agenda item #1, to clear up my own confusion)
2013-06-29 17:13:14 ssi seb_kuzminsky: are you adding that to the meta agenda?
2013-06-29 17:13:15 PetefromTn one minute is pretty tight
2013-06-29 17:13:36 seb_kuzminsky ssi: sorry! i'll add it to the agenda for next meeting! :-)
2013-06-29 17:13:38 cradek with irc we can all type our votes at the same time
2013-06-29 17:13:43 cradek this is working well so far
2013-06-29 17:13:46 tjtr33 try it, use 1 minute, keeps us agile
2013-06-29 17:14:05 Kenneth_Lerman we took 13 minutes to get thru the first agenda item that was uncontested. 15 minutes is too little for discussion. I suggest that the timing is at the discretion of the moderator.
2013-06-29 17:14:18 ssi agreed
2013-06-29 17:14:20 cradek ok the second item: I think a time limit is good - I think if we don't have suitable agreement the discussion should happen outside the meeting.
2013-06-29 17:14:21 zultron No questions, only proposals!
2013-06-29 17:14:33 mshaver1 I'm thinking that most decisions will be near unanimous, so when responses die out, that's it.
2013-06-29 17:14:35 cradek none of us want to spend out entire saturdays here
2013-06-29 17:14:35 jepler If an item is taking too long, maybe it needs more community discussion.
2013-06-29 17:14:45 cradek jepler: I agree
2013-06-29 17:14:47 jepler i.e., to be postponed until the next meeting
2013-06-29 17:14:49 PetefromTn just keep it concise without undue chatter..
2013-06-29 17:14:58 seb_kuzminsky i'd rather keep #linuxcnc-meet discussions short - if it needs to be talked about for much more than 15 minutes let's take it out of the meeting and try to propose it again the next time
2013-06-29 17:14:58 cdsteinkuehler IIRC the general idea was to make this a decision forum and not where the discussion happens
2013-06-29 17:15:05 archivist the bot could help/hinder with time limits :)
2013-06-29 17:15:15 cmorley up to moderator I think - with the idea to keep it reasonable
2013-06-29 17:15:44 seb_kuzminsky i think 15 or 20 minutes seems like a reasonable limit to try for starters
2013-06-29 17:15:44 cradek the full proposal was this: I propose that we limit formal discussion of each topic to at most 15 minutes, and if at the end of that time we don't have suitable agreement, the topic be revisited at the next meeting with the expectation that a month's informal discussion will help. As soon as there does seem to be suitable agreement, we should proceed to a vote.
2013-06-29 17:15:56 ssi oh of each topic... that's reasonable
2013-06-29 17:16:00 seb_kuzminsky i approve of this proposal
2013-06-29 17:16:02 mshaver1 I agree with this
2013-06-29 17:16:06 micges me too
2013-06-29 17:16:10 steve_stallings yes
2013-06-29 17:16:11 cradek anyone disagree?
2013-06-29 17:16:19 tjtr33 seb_kuzminsky, yes, is ther some magic parlimentary word for 'lets take it back outside for discussion and move on' ?
2013-06-29 17:16:23 mhaberler agree
2013-06-29 17:16:29 ssi "tabled"?
2013-06-29 17:16:30 cdsteinkuehler Agree
2013-06-29 17:16:34 PetefromTn agree with 15 minutes each proposal if that is how I read it correctly.
2013-06-29 17:16:35 cradek ok, let's vote
2013-06-29 17:16:35 ssi yes
2013-06-29 17:16:36 cradek I vote yes
2013-06-29 17:16:37 seb_kuzminsky yes
2013-06-29 17:16:38 cdsteinkuehler Yes
2013-06-29 17:16:39 andypugh yes
2013-06-29 17:16:39 micges yes
2013-06-29 17:16:40 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:16:40 mhaberler "directed to working group"
2013-06-29 17:16:40 DaveCVI abstain
2013-06-29 17:16:40 viesturs yes
2013-06-29 17:16:40 archivist yes
2013-06-29 17:16:42 ArcEye yes
2013-06-29 17:16:43 tjtr33 agreed
2013-06-29 17:16:43 zultron I like it.
2013-06-29 17:16:43 cmorley yes
2013-06-29 17:16:43 zultron yes
2013-06-29 17:16:48 Kenneth_Lerman yes
2013-06-29 17:16:53 jepler yes
2013-06-29 17:16:55 alex_joni yes
2013-06-29 17:17:03 seb_kuzminsky yay, 3 minutes! :-)
2013-06-29 17:17:08 andypugh Darn! I meant "aye" :-)
2013-06-29 17:17:08 PetefromTn yes
2013-06-29 17:17:27 alex_joni andypugh: heh
2013-06-29 17:17:44 Kenneth_Lerman Agree.
2013-06-29 17:17:47 PetefromTn makes sense to me..
2013-06-29 17:17:54 ssi yes, but we ought to define what IS required
2013-06-29 17:17:56 mhaberler fine
2013-06-29 17:17:56 zultron Yes!
2013-06-29 17:17:57 cradek this is touchy though. How do we decide suitable?
2013-06-29 17:17:59 ssi cause I'm not sure plurality is enough
2013-06-29 17:18:12 seb_kuzminsky should there be some threshold of how un-unanimous an issue needs to be before re say we can't decide?
2013-06-29 17:18:15 PetefromTn more than 3/4?
2013-06-29 17:18:16 Connor joined chan
2013-06-29 17:18:17 mshaver1 First it depends if the decision is "yes" or "no" vs multichoices.
2013-06-29 17:18:18 cradek I'm positive 51% is not enough, especially since we're vulnerable to vote stuffing
2013-06-29 17:18:25 jepler this sounds similar to "policy governance": a single "no" vote is enough to stop a motion, but you vote "no" (vs abstain) only in the case of really strong feelings.
2013-06-29 17:18:31 archivist no means implement it yerself
2013-06-29 17:18:33 ArcEye needs agreement from those expected to implement i should think
2013-06-29 17:18:41 cradek mshaver1: following #1, a proposal should always be yes/no I think
2013-06-29 17:18:54 Kenneth_Lerman Just post the results. Nothing is cast in stone.
2013-06-29 17:18:54 steve_stallings greater than 50% but less than 75% = tabled to next meeting, >75% passed?
2013-06-29 17:19:01 Connor what I miss ?
2013-06-29 17:19:15 seb_kuzminsky ArcEye: good point, and that ties in with decisions being priorities vs implementation schedules
2013-06-29 17:19:19 PetefromTn that sounds reasonable.
2013-06-29 17:19:21 mshaver1 In the case of yes/no issues 51% is a majority, but you may want to make a different ratio.
2013-06-29 17:19:49 Tom_itx zlog
2013-06-29 17:19:49 zlog Tom_itx: Log stored at http://tom-itx.dyndns.org:81/~tom-itx/irc/logs/%23linuxcnc-meet/2013-06-29.html
2013-06-29 17:19:53 cdsteinkuehler Interpretation left up to whoever proposed the topic? There are some things I would forge ahead with given 50% agreement, while others I would totally drop.
2013-06-29 17:19:57 PetefromTn Connor: cradek has changed topic for #linuxcnc-meet to: "DISCUSS: 3: Suitable agreement is ideally unanimous, but unanimous is not required"
2013-06-29 17:20:09 mshaver1 Kenneth_Lerman: You have a point - the results simply are.
2013-06-29 17:20:10 Kenneth_Lerman Did Alan leave because he thought the wench was a real person?
2013-06-29 17:20:15 DaveCVI Typical % are 50%, 66% and 75% - I've used 75 in many formal standards- it tends to be subject to minority blocking (Only 25% required to block action)
2013-06-29 17:20:25 zultron Connor: http://meetlog.archivist.info/
2013-06-29 17:20:27 tjtr33 steve_stallings, i like that, relates to clearly wanted, to not so sure its wanted so we discuss it more
2013-06-29 17:20:41 cradek unfortunately with irc voting, the only proportion we can be sure about is 100%
2013-06-29 17:20:58 cradek "nobody is voting no" is the only thing we can measure with certainty
2013-06-29 17:21:12 DaveCVI I assume % is of votes cast, not # of people watching
2013-06-29 17:21:15 ssi I think it depends on the proposal
2013-06-29 17:21:19 Alan__ joined chan
2013-06-29 17:21:31 ssi if it's a vote on a direction that we take the project as a whole, then we need a "proceed" decision
2013-06-29 17:21:34 alex_joni DaveCVI: that easily gets out of hands
2013-06-29 17:21:35 cradek that makes me want to require unanimity, but that leaves us vulnerable to a single troublemaker
2013-06-29 17:21:37 ssi in that case there should be a formal threshold
2013-06-29 17:21:37 mhaberler still I'd be concerned about blocking - 100% isnt realistic
2013-06-29 17:21:38 PetefromTn why does it have to be unanimous?
2013-06-29 17:21:41 mshaver1 mshaver1 is thinking about what cradek said
2013-06-29 17:21:45 zultron Our community is small enough (so far) that we know who is who, though. We should address ballet box stuffing when it's percieved to be a real issue.
2013-06-29 17:21:52 tjtr33 tik tik tik, this may need to be 'tabled'
2013-06-29 17:21:53 ssi but I'm not sure all votes will require a formal threshold
2013-06-29 17:21:53 mhaberler no, I suggest 75% max
2013-06-29 17:22:04 alex_joni I also tend towards 75%
2013-06-29 17:22:09 Tom_itx http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-08.htm
2013-06-29 17:22:16 Tom_itx why not adopt robert's rules of order?
2013-06-29 17:22:19 seb_kuzminsky the proposal is vague, i think we should table it and discuss offline what to do if we don't reach a unanimous call
2013-06-29 17:22:25 mhaberler we can use 75% for now and revisit the question in say 3 months
2013-06-29 17:22:25 Connor 2/3rds is normal isn't it ?
2013-06-29 17:22:32 Tom_itx it's all spelled out that way
2013-06-29 17:22:33 jepler Tom_itx: personally I have no familiarty with what's in rror
2013-06-29 17:22:36 DaveCVI I looking at votes mostly as "level of support" - no implementation effort, vote is rather moot
2013-06-29 17:22:42 mshaver1 75% seems at least the minimum I guess, if I had to put a number on it
2013-06-29 17:22:42 Liberty4Ever joined chan
2013-06-29 17:22:48 zultron Table it.
2013-06-29 17:22:48 ssi DaveCVI: yes, for implementation proposals
2013-06-29 17:22:52 Tom_itx jepler i posted a link to it
2013-06-29 17:22:53 PetefromTn I like 75%
2013-06-29 17:22:58 jepler Tom_itx: i can't read it in the next 7 minutes
2013-06-29 17:22:59 andypugh 2/3 isn't representable in binary.
2013-06-29 17:23:02 ssi but for instance, for these meta-items, we need a proceed vote
2013-06-29 17:23:03 tjtr33 table it
2013-06-29 17:23:11 viesturs agree with mhaberler - take 75% treshold and revisit at particular time
2013-06-29 17:23:16 Tom_itx you won't decide on a majority vote in the next 7 min either
2013-06-29 17:23:17 cradek ok, I'm not ready to vote on #3, and I see others aren't
2013-06-29 17:23:19 cradek let's move on
2013-06-29 17:23:19 tjtr33 AND discuss it before next meeting
2013-06-29 17:23:25 cdsteinkuehler I like open interpretation. If someone is voting no, it depends on who and why. What matters is the general consensus in the view of the developers doing the work.
2013-06-29 17:23:29 jepler 75% or unanimous would both get my yes vote
2013-06-29 17:23:34 ssi I agree with charles
2013-06-29 17:23:43 tjtr33 i move to table it
2013-06-29 17:23:54 Kenneth_Lerman Record all votes WITH who voted how.
2013-06-29 17:23:54 archivist hmm means the bot should be counting users in here at the time of the vote
2013-06-29 17:23:58 jepler ingrid's experience with policy governance is that it works well once people get used to it (you abstain / stand aside when it's clear you're in the minority)
2013-06-29 17:23:58 DaveCVI A common thing is to insist aht "no votes" include why not - that at least gathers info about differnet opinions
2013-06-29 17:24:05 cradek cdsteinkuehler: I think I am also ok with it being fuzzy
2013-06-29 17:24:08 alex_joni I agree on discussing it further (on the mailing list)
2013-06-29 17:24:12 archivist Kenneth_Lerman, done as it is logged
2013-06-29 17:24:13 cmorley I agree with the motion - details need to be discussed
2013-06-29 17:24:13 cradek DaveCVI: also a good idea
2013-06-29 17:24:14 ssi archivist: I think the only thing that should count are counted votes... not abstention
2013-06-29 17:24:30 ssi four yeas and a nay is an 80% pass regardless of who's in the room
2013-06-29 17:24:43 cradek this is a silly one
2013-06-29 17:24:45 jepler DaveCVI: a no vote generally means status quo, and I don't think that needs defense
2013-06-29 17:24:49 mshaver1 At least we can make decisions on items where there is no dissent...
2013-06-29 17:24:52 cradek I note it's working
2013-06-29 17:24:53 jepler oh wait we're on to the next topic
2013-06-29 17:24:55 marzetti joined chan
2013-06-29 17:24:59 jepler cradek: I like what you've been doing with the topic
2013-06-29 17:25:02 ssi cradek: I think what you're doing is working
2013-06-29 17:25:07 seb_kuzminsky i like it too, let's keep doing it
2013-06-29 17:25:15 cradek ok do we need a vote or should we just move on?
2013-06-29 17:25:21 cmorley move on
2013-06-29 17:25:24 DaveCVI Jepler: true - but depends on how proposal is worded - I was being general
2013-06-29 17:25:25 seb_kuzminsky vote
2013-06-29 17:25:26 ssi you want to vote on whether to vote?
2013-06-29 17:25:26 Kenneth_Lerman Is there any dissent?
2013-06-29 17:25:31 PetefromTn Don;t understand this one...
2013-06-29 17:25:33 alex_joni well
2013-06-29 17:25:41 alex_joni not quite
2013-06-29 17:25:43 ssi PetefromTn: using the topic to mark what "phase" the meeting is in
2013-06-29 17:25:54 seb_kuzminsky PetefromTn: cradek's been updating the irc channel topic to describe what we're supposed to be doing
2013-06-29 17:25:55 jepler > I propose that during the meeting, we use the channel topic to describe the state of the meeting, something like "PROPOSAL: [summary] [proposer]" and "VOTE: [summary]" [cradek]
2013-06-29 17:25:58 mshaver1 The previous topic: Vote, skip, ?
2013-06-29 17:25:59 cradek PetefromTn: you can probably see it in your titlebar or somewhere like that
2013-06-29 17:26:00 PetefromTn you mean the colored topics chris is posting.
2013-06-29 17:26:02 alex_joni we need to discuss who has OP in #linuxcnc-meet
2013-06-29 17:26:03 ssi yep
2013-06-29 17:26:13 alex_joni if cradek is not around
2013-06-29 17:26:20 Tom_itx the idea is to use the 'TOPIC' to stay on topic. i like the idea
2013-06-29 17:26:24 ssi the facilitator should have op and be in charge of the topics
2013-06-29 17:26:31 alex_joni or is the /topic open in here?
2013-06-29 17:26:38 Tom_itx appears cradek has taken the job
2013-06-29 17:26:49 archivist some person put topic protection on
2013-06-29 17:26:54 PetefromTn I like it , so far it has kept things on track and I am new to this..
2013-06-29 17:26:55 Tom_itx no objection here
2013-06-29 17:27:11 seb_kuzminsky let's vote on this and move on?
2013-06-29 17:27:14 cradek yes
2013-06-29 17:27:14 alex_joni I agree with the use of topic
2013-06-29 17:27:15 jepler yes
2013-06-29 17:27:17 cdsteinkuehler Yes
2013-06-29 17:27:18 Connor yes
2013-06-29 17:27:19 Kenneth_Lerman yes
2013-06-29 17:27:19 ssi yes
2013-06-29 17:27:19 seb_kuzminsky i vote yes
2013-06-29 17:27:19 zultron Aye
2013-06-29 17:27:19 Tom_itx seb_kuzminsky i vote yes
2013-06-29 17:27:20 PetefromTn ys
2013-06-29 17:27:22 cmorley yes
2013-06-29 17:27:22 archivist yes
2013-06-29 17:27:23 PetefromTn yes
2013-06-29 17:27:23 alex_joni yes
2013-06-29 17:27:24 micges yes
2013-06-29 17:27:25 Tom_itx si
2013-06-29 17:27:25 mhaberler yes
2013-06-29 17:27:27 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:27:29 Tom_itx ja
2013-06-29 17:27:29 viesturs yes
2013-06-29 17:27:30 ArcEye yes
2013-06-29 17:27:48 Tom_itx next topic?
2013-06-29 17:27:59 tjtr33 damn i cant see the topic being voted on in xchat, i refrain whatever the magic word si
2013-06-29 17:28:00 cradek mhaberler: please introduce
2013-06-29 17:28:13 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: does cradek
2013-06-29 17:28:19 Tom_itx cradek that is fairly well spelled out in the freenode website
2013-06-29 17:28:20 seb_kuzminsky 's topic updates satisfy your proposal?
2013-06-29 17:28:31 PetefromTn also don't understand this one sorry..
2013-06-29 17:28:33 mhaberler well I thought it would be useful to do a summary what was decided, and postponed at the end
2013-06-29 17:28:36 mhaberler thats it
2013-06-29 17:28:50 Connor In Channel ? Or on Forum ?
2013-06-29 17:28:53 alex_joni and post it to some other channels
2013-06-29 17:28:54 cradek mhaberler: should we put it at the bottom of the Meeting201306 page?
2013-06-29 17:28:54 mhaberler just to keep thinks on track
2013-06-29 17:29:01 seb_kuzminsky do you mean the moderator should announce PASS/FAIL/TABLED at the end of the vote
2013-06-29 17:29:01 mhaberler I think so
2013-06-29 17:29:08 zultron All channels should have a link to the wiki page.
2013-06-29 17:29:11 archivist mhaberler, can trawl the logs too for history
2013-06-29 17:29:13 mhaberler but if the scribe does it, fine too
2013-06-29 17:29:34 mshaver1 I like the bottom of the Meetingyyydd page idea.
2013-06-29 17:29:38 cradek I see 5/6 are related
2013-06-29 17:29:39 DaveCVI A post mtg sumary would be nice - much easier to read than the raw irc log for folks not in the meeting
2013-06-29 17:29:40 zultron Yes.
2013-06-29 17:29:42 mhaberler yes
2013-06-29 17:29:48 archivist is the topic is in a nice format the history will be nice too
2013-06-29 17:29:54 alex_joni noting on the wiki page shounds good
2013-06-29 17:30:01 mhaberler The whole point of #6 is to prevent things from getting forgotten
2013-06-29 17:30:08 cradek I like the wiki page idea
2013-06-29 17:30:12 seb_kuzminsky so the proposal is: "the moderator or a secretary should update the meeting wiki page with the decisions we made"?
2013-06-29 17:30:15 cradek we could put a summary, with a link to the full log?
2013-06-29 17:30:15 jepler tjtr33: in this screenshot of xchat, the topic is the text near the top center, "fedoraproject.org etc etc"
2013-06-29 17:30:23 ssi having a summary would be very useful... having to go to the logs to figure out what the decisions were would be inconvenient
2013-06-29 17:30:25 jepler I don't know if your xchat is the same or not
2013-06-29 17:30:27 Connor scribe = secretary.
2013-06-29 17:30:28 mhaberler yes, that be great
2013-06-29 17:30:36 PetefromTn so we are saying that the moderator tasks is to button up the notes and results of the votes and store them somewhere safe and easily accesible.
2013-06-29 17:30:38 seb_kuzminsky i approve of this proposal
2013-06-29 17:30:40 cradek ok I'd also like that
2013-06-29 17:30:43 mhaberler right, the summary is scribe's responsibility
2013-06-29 17:30:50 mhaberler (who's that today?)
2013-06-29 17:30:53 jepler should the wiki page for the monthly meeting be updated by the secretary with the results?
2013-06-29 17:30:54 ssi is it going to be one nominated person, or change?
2013-06-29 17:30:59 alex_joni could we have empty spots for scribe and moderator on the wiki page, and have people volunteer on them before the meet
2013-06-29 17:31:04 seb_kuzminsky i volunteer to be secratary today, i've been taking good notes
2013-06-29 17:31:04 jepler rather than a separate page or an e-mail or a forum post
2013-06-29 17:31:12 alex_joni so that it's fixed who will be performing the tasks
2013-06-29 17:31:21 mhaberler scribe and moderator shall be determined at beginning of meeting
2013-06-29 17:31:30 alex_joni mhaberler: I would like before
2013-06-29 17:31:33 alex_joni in discussions
2013-06-29 17:31:34 ssi volunteering on the wiki is a good idea
2013-06-29 17:31:37 alex_joni just like proposals
2013-06-29 17:31:46 seb_kuzminsky i'll send out an email to both mailing lists with the agenda items and the decisions we made (if we agree i'm the person to do it)
2013-06-29 17:31:46 PetefromTn ssi: agreed
2013-06-29 17:31:49 ssi if noone has volunteered at meeting start, then they should be determined at the meeting
2013-06-29 17:31:49 mhaberler 'no later than' is more realistiv
2013-06-29 17:32:04 cradek oops was that premature?
2013-06-29 17:32:07 ssi a bit :)
2013-06-29 17:32:13 jepler cradek: yes we are still discussing
2013-06-29 17:32:20 seb_kuzminsky i'm ready to vote yes :-)
2013-06-29 17:32:24 cradek new at this
2013-06-29 17:32:25 Kenneth_Lerman if multiple volunteers, we vote on it.
2013-06-29 17:32:32 zultron Add, "wiki page link will be announced on irc channels, mailing lists and forums".
2013-06-29 17:32:36 seb_kuzminsky or let the volunteers enter the thunderdome
2013-06-29 17:32:44 mhaberler having been in student politics helps ;)
2013-06-29 17:33:02 mshaver1 So today, Seb and cradek are scribe & moderator today right?
2013-06-29 17:33:05 PetefromTn I'm no politician..LOL
2013-06-29 17:33:08 mhaberler right
2013-06-29 17:33:09 alex_joni mshaver1: right
2013-06-29 17:33:15 seb_kuzminsky cradek's moderator, i'm secretary
2013-06-29 17:33:25 PetefromTn I like it
2013-06-29 17:33:30 andypugh Student politics mainly taught me procedural dirty tricks
2013-06-29 17:33:39 mshaver1 And we'll try to have them lined up in advance next time?
2013-06-29 17:33:40 cmorley ok lets vote
2013-06-29 17:33:42 mhaberler what else is new ;-?
2013-06-29 17:33:48 cradek let's let the secretary do the summary and see whether we like it, and yell at him if not
2013-06-29 17:33:53 seb_kuzminsky yes
2013-06-29 17:33:54 Connor I make a motion to move to vote. :)
2013-06-29 17:33:57 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:34:01 cradek yes
2013-06-29 17:34:02 zultron I'd like to add this: Add, "wiki page link will be announced on irc channels, mailing lists and forums".
2013-06-29 17:34:02 seb_kuzminsky i vote yes
2013-06-29 17:34:02 tjtr33 synced up now, i'd vote yes
2013-06-29 17:34:03 Kenneth_Lerman yes
2013-06-29 17:34:05 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:34:06 mhaberler yes
2013-06-29 17:34:06 ssi yes
2013-06-29 17:34:07 Connor yes
2013-06-29 17:34:08 jepler yes
2013-06-29 17:34:08 micges yes
2013-06-29 17:34:08 cdsteinkuehler Yes
2013-06-29 17:34:09 PetefromTn yes
2013-06-29 17:34:10 DaveCVI yes
2013-06-29 17:34:12 cmorley yes
2013-06-29 17:34:12 viesturs yes
2013-06-29 17:34:13 zultron Ok next meeting. :)
2013-06-29 17:34:14 zultron yes
2013-06-29 17:34:15 alex_joni yes
2013-06-29 17:34:29 PetefromTn this is fun..LOL
2013-06-29 17:34:48 alex_joni same time/date sounds ok
2013-06-29 17:34:49 jepler this works for me
2013-06-29 17:34:50 seb_kuzminsky this time works well for me, let's formalize repeating it until we change it
2013-06-29 17:34:57 Kenneth_Lerman This time works for me. Last Sat of month.
2013-06-29 17:34:58 Connor Not at 9am on a Saturday...
2013-06-29 17:35:00 ssi same bat-time, same bat-channel?
2013-06-29 17:35:02 cradek the only thing I note with this one is some of my other engagements are scheduled as "Nth [week]day of the month" so perhaps "4th" would be better than "last"
2013-06-29 17:35:06 mshaver1 I'm OK with this time.
2013-06-29 17:35:10 mhaberler fine
2013-06-29 17:35:14 archivist last saturday in a month suits me as first weekend is steaming for me
2013-06-29 17:35:35 alex_joni either last sat or 4th sat is fine by me
2013-06-29 17:35:38 cradek does anyone care whether it's "4th" or "last"
2013-06-29 17:35:42 jepler I prefer 4th
2013-06-29 17:35:45 PetefromTn last saturday is fine with me too but the time is difficult for some I am sure we are apparently global.
2013-06-29 17:35:46 Connor how often? Every month? every 3 months ?
2013-06-29 17:35:47 jepler I think it's easier to say that to scheduling software
2013-06-29 17:35:48 zultron This is a bad question to decide here. Folks that can't make it won't get to vote. :(
2013-06-29 17:35:48 archivist no, flip a coin
2013-06-29 17:35:57 cradek zultron: hmmm
2013-06-29 17:36:15 seb_kuzminsky Connor: i like monthly
2013-06-29 17:36:18 alex_joni Connor: every month
2013-06-29 17:36:18 cradek then maybe we should skip it for now?
2013-06-29 17:36:24 Kenneth_Lerman Monthly.
2013-06-29 17:36:26 zultron I'd like to vote on a tentative time, but leave room open for discussion later on MLs, etc.
2013-06-29 17:36:26 Connor Move to take this to the mailing list.
2013-06-29 17:36:27 cradek (I think monthly is right)
2013-06-29 17:36:29 alex_joni if we see too little proposals, we can rediscuss
2013-06-29 17:36:31 jepler shall we agree the time of the *next* meeting today?
2013-06-29 17:36:46 DaveCVI I prefer 4th, hlps people find mtg easier if it is a regular schedule
2013-06-29 17:36:47 seb_kuzminsky jepler: good idea
2013-06-29 17:36:49 archivist postal votes to /dev/null
2013-06-29 17:36:50 Kenneth_Lerman Yes, same time, same place.
2013-06-29 17:36:50 jepler table this, agree to next meeting time as the 4th saturday blah blah instead?
2013-06-29 17:37:00 cradek that's fine with me
2013-06-29 17:37:01 mhaberler well fine, but maybe we could provide a schedule say for a year ahead to avoid confusions
2013-06-29 17:37:02 mshaver1 jepler: agreed
2013-06-29 17:37:27 Connor I think posting it on the mailing list/forum a few days in advance would be needed
2013-06-29 17:37:33 tjtr33 i go for a one time agreement on 'next' being in 1 month
2013-06-29 17:37:33 alex_joni mhaberler: we will have 2013xx wiki pages for the rest of the year
2013-06-29 17:37:39 alex_joni each wiill have the date/time stated
2013-06-29 17:37:53 cradek yes
2013-06-29 17:37:55 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:37:55 zultron Aye
2013-06-29 17:37:58 DaveCVI yes
2013-06-29 17:37:58 ssi so we can go ahead and propose a topic for november's meeting about who will take the christmas card picture?!
2013-06-29 17:37:58 andypugh aye
2013-06-29 17:37:59 tjtr33 yes
2013-06-29 17:38:00 seb_kuzminsky i vote yes
2013-06-29 17:38:00 cdsteinkuehler Yes
2013-06-29 17:38:00 Kenneth_Lerman yes
2013-06-29 17:38:01 PetefromTn monthly with the next meeting posting in several spots
2013-06-29 17:38:02 ssi yes
2013-06-29 17:38:02 micges yes
2013-06-29 17:38:04 alex_joni aye
2013-06-29 17:38:04 cmorley yes
2013-06-29 17:38:06 mhaberler a schedule is about finding the next date, urI's dont give you that
2013-06-29 17:38:07 viesturs what is UTC?
2013-06-29 17:38:11 Connor yes
2013-06-29 17:38:11 ssi GMT
2013-06-29 17:38:12 mhaberler greenwhich
2013-06-29 17:38:14 alex_joni viesturs: GMT
2013-06-29 17:38:15 PetefromTn yes
2013-06-29 17:38:19 viesturs then I vote "yes"
2013-06-29 17:38:30 andypugh It's GMT with a French name...
2013-06-29 17:38:41 zultron That's the 27th.
2013-06-29 17:38:45 ssi the french couldn't let the english own time
2013-06-29 17:38:55 PetefromTn yeah never heard of UTC...
2013-06-29 17:39:00 alex_joni BST != GMT
2013-06-29 17:39:02 Kenneth_Lerman They never met Dr. Who.
2013-06-29 17:39:09 mhaberler the Internet operates on UTC
2013-06-29 17:39:13 seb_kuzminsky i vote yes ;-)
2013-06-29 17:39:16 alex_joni I'd say we go to vote on #8
2013-06-29 17:39:19 ssi dr who isn't english :)
2013-06-29 17:39:22 alex_joni alex_joni votes yes
2013-06-29 17:39:26 cradek I think seb will be a great replacement for me
2013-06-29 17:39:29 ssi I say if seb wants it, seb can have it :)
2013-06-29 17:39:30 archivist yes
2013-06-29 17:39:31 jepler cradek: not in all ways
2013-06-29 17:39:32 viesturs yes
2013-06-29 17:39:40 Connor cradek: Where you going? :)
2013-06-29 17:39:48 cradek jepler: of course I'm better looking, but that's not important
2013-06-29 17:39:53 Connor or do you just need a break ?
2013-06-29 17:39:59 steve_stallings yes, but there will never be a replacement for cradek 8-)
2013-06-29 17:40:03 PetefromTn yeah ya leaving?
2013-06-29 17:40:04 seb_kuzminsky i hope cradek and jepler will act as mentors for me when i get lost & confused
2013-06-29 17:40:05 mshaver1 ssi: My feelings exactly
2013-06-29 17:40:08 cradek Connor: it's been our custom to have different people do different major releases
2013-06-29 17:40:16 mhaberler can we spell out the release managers role a bit here ?
2013-06-29 17:40:16 Kenneth_Lerman the_wench thinks it'simportant
2013-06-29 17:40:30 jepler mhaberler: decides what goes in the release branch, when releases are made, makes them.
2013-06-29 17:40:44 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: i tried to outline what i thought RM responsibilities were and how i would do them on the mailing list
2013-06-29 17:40:49 mhaberler item #1 is subject to discussion
2013-06-29 17:40:54 cmorley Seb spelled out in maillist how he saw it to be done
2013-06-29 17:40:54 PetefromTn I guess, sure if seb wants the responsibility, its his.
2013-06-29 17:40:56 Kenneth_Lerman And gets nagged by people who want particular things.
2013-06-29 17:40:58 cradek I agree with jepler's summary
2013-06-29 17:41:07 cradek mhaberler: I don't understand
2013-06-29 17:41:18 cradek mhaberler: can you elaborate
2013-06-29 17:41:19 jepler I think community's voice in what goes in the stable branch is weaker, and the RM's voice is stronger
2013-06-29 17:41:22 tjtr33 are we done voting and onto a new topic ( release mgr ) ? the delineation was awful
2013-06-29 17:41:34 jepler approximately: RM says what goes in the release branch, community says what goes in master branch
2013-06-29 17:41:35 mhaberler 'decides what goes in the release branch'
2013-06-29 17:41:41 seb_kuzminsky tjtr33: cradek changed the topic, that's the delineation
2013-06-29 17:41:53 mhaberler that was what I suggest to be not a single person's discretion
2013-06-29 17:41:54 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: that's the principal job of the rm
2013-06-29 17:42:03 jepler that's absolutely the job of the rm
2013-06-29 17:42:03 tjtr33 argh caught again
2013-06-29 17:42:07 PetefromTn sorry I don't understand the release branch and the master branch..
2013-06-29 17:42:16 cradek mhaberler: I disagree, it's absolutely the RM's job
2013-06-29 17:42:29 mhaberler sorry, we need to be a bit more concrete here
2013-06-29 17:42:30 cradek of course the RM oughta listen to what's going on around him
2013-06-29 17:42:40 Connor PetefromTn: Code talk. For the different versions of the LinuxCNC code.
2013-06-29 17:42:46 mhaberler as a general direction of a release this needs to be a community decision
2013-06-29 17:42:48 seb_kuzminsky of course i would take input from the devs that want to put stuff in the release branch, but i would reject things i thought would destabilize it or break interfaces or configs etc
2013-06-29 17:42:56 cmorley but if you feel strongly about something you could discuss it here to hopefully sway the RM
2013-06-29 17:43:01 zultron The RM needs to be accountable to the wider community, though.
2013-06-29 17:43:10 mhaberler as for concrete parts going in/left out that is fine being RM's call
2013-06-29 17:43:18 micges I think bugfix releases should be once per month or two
2013-06-29 17:43:19 Connor PetefromTn: Master Branch is were all the work goes on.. Release branch is a "snapshot" of Master branch once the say it's stable enough for public
2013-06-29 17:43:22 cradek I would like to note that this has NEVER been a problem
2013-06-29 17:43:38 Kenneth_Lerman The wider community includes those affected by broken stuff and those who need new features.
2013-06-29 17:43:45 PetefromTn Connor: Thanks dude..
2013-06-29 17:43:48 jepler if RM is doing a bad job, the community can boot him out
2013-06-29 17:43:48 mhaberler well that is a consequence of the group size you had so far
2013-06-29 17:43:58 mhaberler that doesnt automatically extend
2013-06-29 17:44:11 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: how do you think it should be done?
2013-06-29 17:44:25 alex_joni I say community can decide what goes in a release, before the branch and RM
2013-06-29 17:44:26 ssi it might be worth opening a discussion for a future vote about how we do branching and code management in general
2013-06-29 17:44:36 alex_joni afterwards the RM has the ultimate saying about stability
2013-06-29 17:44:52 mshaver1 I guess the RM is really in charge of labelling things "satble", "testing", "unstable(sid)", etc right?
2013-06-29 17:44:53 mhaberler example: I dont know what the next release should be - master frozen and packaged, or unified build or whatnot
2013-06-29 17:45:01 Kenneth_Lerman Well, we could vote on what gets included. And, of course, anyone can make his own branch to compete with the formal release.
2013-06-29 17:45:03 mhaberler that I want to be a community decision
2013-06-29 17:45:08 cradek the community has ABSOLUTELY no idea what will destabilize a release. they will not say no to a new feature they want, even when it would be a terrible idea
2013-06-29 17:45:09 mhaberler I am not talking commit level
2013-06-29 17:45:25 steve_stallings can someone summerize the principal branches? I thought we had an "experimental" and likely to get broken, a "compiles but not fully tested" and a "release" golden branch
2013-06-29 17:45:38 jepler steve_stallings: we have "master" and "v2.x_branch" and a bunch of others
2013-06-29 17:45:42 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: i tried to describe that level of thing in my email, do you think my proposal there would satisfy what you want?
2013-06-29 17:45:45 jepler steve_stallings: "v2.x_branch" is what we're concerned with at the moment
2013-06-29 17:45:47 cradek oh you mean where and when the branch itself will be made?
2013-06-29 17:45:50 mhaberler let me see
2013-06-29 17:45:57 jepler i.e., does RM have a commit-by-commit and absolute say in what goes in v2.x_branch
2013-06-29 17:46:03 jepler so far the answer has been "yes"
2013-06-29 17:46:05 tjtr33 alex_joni, sounds good, allows community to discuss content
2013-06-29 17:46:18 zultron Erm, I'm a bit behind on the list, need to go dredge that one up....
2013-06-29 17:46:22 jepler it's a very technical and boring and sucky job, because it means saying "no"
2013-06-29 17:46:25 alex_joni I think we should allow discussions/votes before the release gets branched
2013-06-29 17:46:33 mhaberler seb, cradek: disregard, sebs paragraph 1 covers my concerns
2013-06-29 17:46:33 alex_joni what we should include, etc
2013-06-29 17:46:35 mhaberler go ahead
2013-06-29 17:46:37 alex_joni and vote on that
2013-06-29 17:46:51 cradek ok great
2013-06-29 17:46:53 alex_joni but once it's branched, the RM gets to say what goes in and what not
2013-06-29 17:46:57 seb_kuzminsky yay!
2013-06-29 17:47:02 seb_kuzminsky http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.distributions.emc.devel/10230
2013-06-29 17:47:04 cradek yes
2013-06-29 17:47:06 jepler yes
2013-06-29 17:47:07 mhaberler that is fine
2013-06-29 17:47:08 alex_joni yes
2013-06-29 17:47:08 tjtr33 yes
2013-06-29 17:47:10 archivist yes
2013-06-29 17:47:10 micges yes
2013-06-29 17:47:11 Kenneth_Lerman yes
2013-06-29 17:47:11 Connor yes
2013-06-29 17:47:13 ssi yes
2013-06-29 17:47:13 cdsteinkuehler Yes
2013-06-29 17:47:13 cmorley yes
2013-06-29 17:47:16 steve_stallings yes
2013-06-29 17:47:19 PetefromTn yes
2013-06-29 17:47:20 CaptHindsight yes
2013-06-29 17:47:22 DaveCVI There appear to be two topics being discussed: 1) Seb a RM? and 2) what goes into a release. RM clearly has say about 2, and the job evolves as time passes
2013-06-29 17:47:29 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:47:29 DaveCVI yes
2013-06-29 17:47:30 capricorn_one yes
2013-06-29 17:47:32 seb_kuzminsky i vote yes
2013-06-29 17:47:33 andypugh Aye
2013-06-29 17:47:34 mhaberler man, thats a decision machine like the supreme soviet
2013-06-29 17:47:36 ArcEye yes
2013-06-29 17:47:40 zultron Sorry fellas, abstain here, not sure what I'm voting for.
2013-06-29 17:47:41 viesturs yes
2013-06-29 17:47:54 alex_joni zultron: specifically the 2.6 release
2013-06-29 17:48:11 zultron It's ok, let's move on.
2013-06-29 17:48:19 mhaberler I had the impression it was 'Seb for RM' by acclamation
2013-06-29 17:48:25 cradek zultron: IMO the vote is about what's in the topic - the questions about what the RM's job will be were withdrawn
2013-06-29 17:48:36 ssi that's a much wider topic
2013-06-29 17:48:39 zultron Then I change my vote to 'aye'.
2013-06-29 17:48:43 seb_kuzminsky heh
2013-06-29 17:48:44 zultron Thanks!
2013-06-29 17:48:45 steve_stallings reset and restate vote question please
2013-06-29 17:48:57 ssi we should narrow that down to some specific proposals, discuss them offline, and vote in the future
2013-06-29 17:48:59 cmorley I think the switch to vote was a little quick this time
2013-06-29 17:49:09 mhaberler amen
2013-06-29 17:49:09 mshaver1 yea, redo that one
2013-06-29 17:49:10 cradek should we back up?
2013-06-29 17:49:16 mshaver1 back up
2013-06-29 17:49:17 PetefromTn agreed.... its muddy in here
2013-06-29 17:49:22 mhaberler summarize the question once more
2013-06-29 17:49:45 seb_kuzminsky here's my understanding of what an RM should do: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.distributions.emc.devel/10230
2013-06-29 17:49:45 archivist done that ...yes
2013-06-29 17:49:49 ssi as I understand it, this vote is merely to decide whether it should be seb or not
2013-06-29 17:49:53 cmorley is there any other discussion and is everyone clear what we are voting for?
2013-06-29 17:49:55 ssi not what the tasks should be
2013-06-29 17:49:58 DaveCVI I'd like to see release periods different for features vs bug fixes - I"ll write up some thoughts and offer via email for discusison (post this mtg)
2013-06-29 17:50:04 mshaver1 anyone else want this job?
2013-06-29 17:50:08 cradek let's vote on whether seb takes on the release manager job, with the intent that he acts according to the things he's spelled out on the list
2013-06-29 17:50:15 alex_joni DaveCVI: not up for talk right now
2013-06-29 17:50:15 PetefromTn ssi: thats what I thought too..
2013-06-29 17:50:25 mhaberler that is a role vote, not a release content vote
2013-06-29 17:50:29 cradek mshaver1: surely no :-)
2013-06-29 17:50:34 cmorley yes the vot eis Seb for release manager
2013-06-29 17:50:44 mshaver1 that's what I thought...
2013-06-29 17:50:45 zultron If the release is not going to happen before next meeting, my worries disappear.
2013-06-29 17:50:47 seb_kuzminsky i guess it's hard to tell whether to vote for who should be RM, if we don't know what the RM should do
2013-06-29 17:50:50 DaveCVI Alex: sorry, that's why I said I'd do later - my typing is causing a conversation latency ;-(
2013-06-29 17:51:02 alex_joni DaveCVI: np
2013-06-29 17:51:03 mcason joined chan
2013-06-29 17:51:09 alex_joni use abbreviations .. it helps :D
2013-06-29 17:51:09 seb_kuzminsky vote me for RM (and the rm's job is to sit in a hot tub and drink gin & tonic)
2013-06-29 17:51:23 mhaberler I'll take it
2013-06-29 17:51:25 Kenneth_Lerman I'll provide the carrots.
2013-06-29 17:51:27 seb_kuzminsky seb_kuzminsky jokes ^^^^
2013-06-29 17:51:29 alex_joni we'll change the RM's job at #11
2013-06-29 17:51:29 PetefromTn Ooh I want that job'
2013-06-29 17:51:29 ssi so the only real unclear thing about your proposal is how features get selected for the release
2013-06-29 17:51:38 ssi but that's not really in scope for today
2013-06-29 17:51:48 cmorley I guess I shoulda put a link to the maillist of your proposed job
2013-06-29 17:51:52 cradek ssi: I suggest you read his email on the list, which is very specific about his intent
2013-06-29 17:51:54 seb_kuzminsky ssi: right, that's unclear, and i dont feel competent to write down an exact algorithm for it
2013-06-29 17:52:01 ssi cradek: that's what I'm commenting on
2013-06-29 17:52:03 seb_kuzminsky it's largely a judgement call
2013-06-29 17:52:29 mshaver1 seb wants the job & has made his ideas clear
2013-06-29 17:52:30 cradek nobody's ready to make the v2.6_branch today because some things we want in it are not ready
2013-06-29 17:52:41 seb_kuzminsky i'll try to merge as many bugfixes as i can, as long as they don't violate stability of the code (and exposed interfaces, including configs)
2013-06-29 17:52:42 cradek seb will have to work with a lot of folks to pull it off, and I trust him to do it right
2013-06-29 17:53:03 cmorley I think Seb is the man for the job -but we may like to discuss at another time specifics
2013-06-29 17:53:05 seb_kuzminsky i see the rm's job as mainly one of tracking bugs and merging work from other devs
2013-06-29 17:53:10 Connor AFK
2013-06-29 17:53:12 Kenneth_Lerman It really is about trust. A lot easier after our face-to-face in Wichita.
2013-06-29 17:53:19 cmorley I have read his proposal and it sounds good
2013-06-29 17:53:25 PetefromTn Damn I wish I had made it to wichita..
2013-06-29 17:53:32 ssi PetefromTn: you and me both
2013-06-29 17:53:43 PetefromTn LOL
2013-06-29 17:53:46 Kenneth_Lerman 30 people giving their time freely. Something to behold.
2013-06-29 17:53:48 cradek shall we move on and vote him in for the job?
2013-06-29 17:53:53 archivist yes
2013-06-29 17:53:53 ssi yes
2013-06-29 17:53:55 zultron yes
2013-06-29 17:53:55 Kenneth_Lerman yes
2013-06-29 17:53:56 tjtr33 i vote for seb for RM (met him, trust him, seen some of his work )
2013-06-29 17:53:56 PetefromTn sure
2013-06-29 17:53:58 cmorley I think so
2013-06-29 17:53:58 mhaberler yes
2013-06-29 17:54:00 mshaver1 If you had made it, you wouldn't say that :)
2013-06-29 17:54:01 cdsteinkuehler Yes
2013-06-29 17:54:01 capricorn_one yes - Seb for RM
2013-06-29 17:54:03 ssi yes
2013-06-29 17:54:03 cradek yes
2013-06-29 17:54:04 steve_stallings 2.6 looks to be a major release and seb has taken seriously the job of balanced consideration of structural changes versus stability, I give him my vote for managing the release
2013-06-29 17:54:05 cmorley yes
2013-06-29 17:54:06 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 17:54:08 archivist yes
2013-06-29 17:54:09 micges yes
2013-06-29 17:54:10 Kenneth_Lerman yes
2013-06-29 17:54:11 alex_joni yes
2013-06-29 17:54:11 PetefromTn yes
2013-06-29 17:54:12 DaveCVI yes
2013-06-29 17:54:12 viesturs yes
2013-06-29 17:54:20 andypugh Aye
2013-06-29 17:54:27 seb_kuzminsky yes, and thanks guys! i'll try to do a good job :-)
2013-06-29 17:54:47 cmorley I have no doubts
2013-06-29 17:54:48 PetefromTn You sound like you will seb good luck.
2013-06-29 17:54:53 mshaver1 do it
2013-06-29 17:54:54 cradek cmorley: want to summarize your thoughts and maybe rephrase it into a proposal?
2013-06-29 17:55:21 zultron Where's JMK? I heard this idea from him first.
2013-06-29 17:55:30 cmorley I propose we desolve the board as it seems to not serve the purpose it was intended.
2013-06-29 17:55:33 alex_joni bah, and lose the seat of power? :(
2013-06-29 17:55:37 seb_kuzminsky jmk doesnt come around much any more
2013-06-29 17:55:46 alex_joni <- kidding
2013-06-29 17:55:47 seb_kuzminsky i approve of this proposal
2013-06-29 17:55:50 mhaberler formally IMO it doesnt exist anymore; from a sanitary point of view the current board should resolve to stand down; which is a different decision from 'will we have another one'
2013-06-29 17:55:50 cdsteinkuehler What will we disolve them in?
2013-06-29 17:55:50 tjtr33 what does the board do now? (what do we loose ? no joking/snide stuff meant )
2013-06-29 17:55:52 Kenneth_Lerman Dissolving the board will make it difficult for anyone to find someone to sue. Who would the next EMC send a letter to.
2013-06-29 17:55:52 cradek I note jmk and swp are both absent
2013-06-29 17:56:00 cradek and jepler now
2013-06-29 17:56:10 cradek Kenneth_Lerman: that is one benefit, yes
2013-06-29 17:56:27 alex_joni the actual disolving would be done by the board itself
2013-06-29 17:56:28 CaptHindsight cdsteinkuehler: I think seb said gin and tonic
2013-06-29 17:56:31 alex_joni with a board vote
2013-06-29 17:56:41 alex_joni but we can have the community here vote about it
2013-06-29 17:56:42 archivist Kenneth_Lerman, that thought came to me too :)
2013-06-29 17:56:44 steve_stallings without a formal organization it is not possible to hold a board responsible, forget the board and continue on this new path of IRC discussion, it seems good so far
2013-06-29 17:56:45 viesturs the board is the entity for contact by any third party. who is to fill this place, if board is dissolved?
2013-06-29 17:56:47 cmorley Alex_joni - yes thats fine
2013-06-29 17:56:50 PetefromTn thats a soak not a dissolve...
2013-06-29 17:56:55 seb_kuzminsky the board is cruft from before, no longer needed or wanted, the irc meetings is the new way of doing much of what the old board was tasked with doing
2013-06-29 17:56:59 ssi am I correct in assuming that this democratic process replaces the original function of the board?
2013-06-29 17:57:05 mshaver1 so, how about a vote that the community suggests that they dissolve?
2013-06-29 17:57:10 cradek ssi: yes IMO that is the intent
2013-06-29 17:57:11 mhaberler seb: I do not concur _at all_ with your view
2013-06-29 17:57:12 Kenneth_Lerman Anarchy is good. Let anyone who wants to contact us do it on one of the lists.
2013-06-29 17:57:16 mshaver1 ssi: yes, I think so
2013-06-29 17:57:30 PetefromTn I like the meeting setup where anyone who really cares to input can do so.
2013-06-29 17:57:33 seb_kuzminsky Kenneth_Lerman: i agree
2013-06-29 17:57:40 Kenneth_Lerman The board was the result of the democratic process.
2013-06-29 17:57:47 pcw_home joined chan
2013-06-29 17:57:54 cmorley we should find - a point of contact person to replace it maybe
2013-06-29 17:58:10 alex_joni yes, but our democracy changes (people who are part of the project, etc), and board votes were scarce
2013-06-29 17:58:13 cradek I think we should wait a month on this. I'd like it if all current board folks were here for the community vote.
2013-06-29 17:58:17 mhaberler I think it is too early to call, for the following reason:
2013-06-29 17:58:18 mshaver1 Kenneth_Lerman: It was a smaller country back then...
2013-06-29 17:58:24 Kenneth_Lerman Why would anyone want to be the point of contact (AKA the target.)
2013-06-29 17:58:28 tjtr33 but of no use and has become a liabilty for its memenrs, i vote to dissolve it ( and forget it and deny it ever existed )
2013-06-29 17:58:43 mshaver1 cradek has a point
2013-06-29 17:58:52 acondit joined chan
2013-06-29 17:58:54 cmorley people outside the comunnity like a person to contact
2013-06-29 17:58:56 seb_kuzminsky i'm happy to table this and discuss it more before deciding
2013-06-29 17:58:59 mshaver1 we need to talk to those folks
2013-06-29 17:59:02 mhaberler you guys might think the IRC meeting - which is procedural- fixes a structural problem
2013-06-29 17:59:05 cmorley yes we should table it
2013-06-29 17:59:14 Kenneth_Lerman OK. Table it.
2013-06-29 17:59:16 mhaberler I dont think it will, but it should be revisitied in 3-6 months
2013-06-29 17:59:16 alex_joni one thing that comes to mind is a contact point for companies
2013-06-29 17:59:20 cradek as a board member I feel like I only serve as a lightning rod for trouble and complaints. I don't think the formality/secrecy serves any purpose.
2013-06-29 17:59:22 PetefromTn there are plenty of places and people to contact on the lists and email setups no?
2013-06-29 17:59:27 alex_joni contact point for cooperation
2013-06-29 17:59:35 zultron It's early to say what the new organizational structure should be. But that doesn't necessarily mean the current board can't be dissolved.
2013-06-29 17:59:37 alex_joni not only for legal threats :)
2013-06-29 17:59:45 mshaver1 mhaberler: what is the structural problem?
2013-06-29 17:59:51 alex_joni but lets table it and discuss it further before voting
2013-06-29 17:59:59 Kenneth_Lerman Cooperate with whom? We are a herd of cats.
2013-06-29 17:59:59 mhaberler the lack of shepherding
2013-06-29 18:00:00 seb_kuzminsky this is not the forum to discuss structural problems
2013-06-29 18:00:04 mhaberler (and lots more)
2013-06-29 18:00:13 archivist if the group ever needs to pay its own server etc
2013-06-29 18:00:15 seb_kuzminsky this is a huge can of worms, let's open it elsewhere
2013-06-29 18:00:19 Kenneth_Lerman True. No discussions... proposals only.
2013-06-29 18:00:25 seb_kuzminsky i move we table this and discuss offline and move on
2013-06-29 18:00:32 tjtr33 yes
2013-06-29 18:00:35 viesturs agreed to Seb
2013-06-29 18:00:36 cdsteinkuehler +1 table
2013-06-29 18:00:39 zultron table
2013-06-29 18:00:39 Kenneth_Lerman Yup. (agree with seb -- table it)
2013-06-29 18:00:43 mhaberler I move to put the question "board or no board" on the agenda in 3 months from now
2013-06-29 18:00:56 Connor agree to table it.. but not to move it offline.. as that might exclude people who want to have input.
2013-06-29 18:01:00 PetefromTn table with further discussion onIRC
2013-06-29 18:01:08 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: that's fine, but let's discuss it more before then
2013-06-29 18:01:12 PetefromTn and email lists
2013-06-29 18:01:16 steve_stallings please let the moderator call for a vote before voting
2013-06-29 18:01:20 zultron No, let's put it on the agenda each month until it's resolved.
2013-06-29 18:01:23 mshaver1 I'll agree with mhaberler that we shouldn't let this go > 3 months
2013-06-29 18:01:27 seb_kuzminsky Connor: by "offline" i meant "not in #linuxcnc-meet, but in the mailing lists and the normal irc channels"
2013-06-29 18:01:52 Connor seb_kuzminsky: that's not offline. :) That's not in the linuxcnc-meet channel. :)
2013-06-29 18:01:56 mshaver1 but I also agree with zultron that we should work on it now
2013-06-29 18:02:01 Kenneth_Lerman Yes to chairperson -- how is he/she selected.
2013-06-29 18:02:16 cradek sorry, I was premature again
2013-06-29 18:02:23 ssi it's like watching tennis
2013-06-29 18:02:25 PetefromTn woah what happened there LOL
2013-06-29 18:02:36 PetefromTn or angry cats...
2013-06-29 18:02:49 Connor seb_kuzminsky: I'm good with mailing list and normal IRC room. :)
2013-06-29 18:02:51 cradek I don't think we should vote today. Obviously needs more discussion.
2013-06-29 18:02:52 micges this is major problem, we should arrange meet here to discuss only this
2013-06-29 18:03:13 PetefromTn not here this is for mettings and voting.
2013-06-29 18:03:14 Kenneth_Lerman Let's get a discussion going on the email lists.
2013-06-29 18:03:15 jepler joined chan
2013-06-29 18:03:15 cmorley Cradek - you are the moderator -I think the consensus was - table it.
2013-06-29 18:03:16 cradek I'd like to see someone propose exactly what the board should do
2013-06-29 18:03:17 seb_kuzminsky Connor: cool, that's what i meant ("offline" is day-job-speak for "not in this meeting")
2013-06-29 18:03:22 tjtr33 yes if we talk about anything a LOT it is a discussion, not a decision
2013-06-29 18:03:27 andypugh I don't see that we can prevent any particular board member from resigning. Though that leaves a vacant board, not no board.
2013-06-29 18:03:34 cradek but not here/now
2013-06-29 18:03:38 zultron Agreed. So let's table it and come back next month. Doesn't have to be resolved then either, but it should not be dropped and forgotten.
2013-06-29 18:03:46 acondit check
2013-06-29 18:03:48 cradek ok let's move on
2013-06-29 18:03:52 mshaver1 zultron: agree
2013-06-29 18:03:57 jepler sorry I pinged out. what was the result of 8?
2013-06-29 18:04:04 PetefromTn so how do we pick the chairperson?
2013-06-29 18:04:08 seb_kuzminsky jepler: passed unanimously
2013-06-29 18:04:09 tjtr33 i agree to table it 'dissolve board of dirs'
2013-06-29 18:04:11 zultron result of 8 is table it.
2013-06-29 18:04:20 seb_kuzminsky wait, 8 was "seb for rm", right?
2013-06-29 18:04:21 zultron Do we need to vote?
2013-06-29 18:04:29 zultron Sorry, my mistake.
2013-06-29 18:04:31 jepler I am asking about "DISCUSS: 8: Seb should be the release manager"
2013-06-29 18:04:37 seb_kuzminsky it's confusing that the wiki doesnt have numbers on the items
2013-06-29 18:04:38 ssi passed unanimously
2013-06-29 18:04:39 cradek jepler: we decided yes
2013-06-29 18:04:41 zultron Result was 'aye'.
2013-06-29 18:04:46 jepler ok thanks, sorry for derail.
2013-06-29 18:04:48 cradek seb_kuzminsky: let's add numbers for next time
2013-06-29 18:04:52 seb_kuzminsky yes
2013-06-29 18:05:00 cradek on #9, dissolve board, we're revisiting it next time
2013-06-29 18:05:05 cradek moving on
2013-06-29 18:05:07 micges cradek: we should arrange meet for this, it was rised many times on list and died there with no decissions
2013-06-29 18:05:12 cmorley do we have to vote to table?
2013-06-29 18:05:15 cradek no
2013-06-29 18:05:16 zultron Do we need to vote on #9 to table?
2013-06-29 18:05:25 seb_kuzminsky i think we dont
2013-06-29 18:05:28 cmorley ok
2013-06-29 18:05:30 cradek we just came to no decision
2013-06-29 18:05:39 mhaberler I think this will reappear automatically
2013-06-29 18:05:42 cmorley sounds good
2013-06-29 18:05:47 seb_kuzminsky lets move on
2013-06-29 18:05:49 zultron Me neither. We've spent the 15 minutes and it's automatically tabled.
2013-06-29 18:05:52 tjtr33 no vote needed ,later discussion needed, move on
2013-06-29 18:05:57 seb_kuzminsky zultron: i like that method
2013-06-29 18:05:59 PetefromTn I'm cornfused are we on ten now?
2013-06-29 18:06:07 tjtr33 now we are
2013-06-29 18:06:09 zultron Now we are. :)
2013-06-29 18:06:11 PetefromTn LOL
2013-06-29 18:06:14 Kenneth_Lerman how do we select the moderator?
2013-06-29 18:06:16 cradek Kenneth_Lerman: want to start?
2013-06-29 18:06:27 ssi same way we select the secretary, I imagine
2013-06-29 18:06:30 cradek Kenneth_Lerman: what do you propose?
2013-06-29 18:06:33 tjtr33 i agree already :) ( obvios need)
2013-06-29 18:06:35 jepler is this different from 6/7 which I thought were about the running of the meetings? if by moderator you mean a moderated irc channel, strongly disagree.
2013-06-29 18:06:36 PetefromTn yeah how do we find this distinghuished individual?
2013-06-29 18:06:50 Kenneth_Lerman I propose cradek for permanent moderator.
2013-06-29 18:06:56 ssi what if he's unavailable?
2013-06-29 18:06:57 seb_kuzminsky i suggest the moderator volunteer, subject to community veto
2013-06-29 18:07:01 mhaberler No I dont
2013-06-29 18:07:03 tjtr33 the guy who made you progreess theu 1-0 :)
2013-06-29 18:07:04 mhaberler I think it should rotate
2013-06-29 18:07:08 archivist press gang someone
2013-06-29 18:07:14 zultron I don't think everyone has the right skills.
2013-06-29 18:07:31 ssi zultron: agreed
2013-06-29 18:07:35 andypugh joined chan
2013-06-29 18:07:38 ssi but neither do I think it should be one person
2013-06-29 18:07:38 zultron I sure don't. But then, I wouldn't volunteer either
2013-06-29 18:07:40 Kenneth_Lerman I wouldn't know how to change to topic (but I could learn._
2013-06-29 18:07:42 seb_kuzminsky ssi: i agree with "same way we select secretary"
2013-06-29 18:07:43 mshaver1 I'd be happy with permanent cradek, but that's not fair to him
2013-06-29 18:07:46 tjtr33 lloking back, it was the group whi pushed the forward buttons
2013-06-29 18:08:00 acondit You need someone who has the skills and the willingness.
2013-06-29 18:08:08 PetefromTn agreed cradek is good but not fair to him either
2013-06-29 18:08:12 seb_kuzminsky acondit: yes
2013-06-29 18:08:15 mhaberler I am both against permanent moderators and scribes
2013-06-29 18:08:15 Kenneth_Lerman Thanks, Matt. You just volunteered for the next meeting. :-)
2013-06-29 18:08:16 ssi yep. Volunteers sign up on the wiki, if multiple, vote at start of meeting
2013-06-29 18:08:17 tjtr33 keep what works, why one person, the groups doing well
2013-06-29 18:08:36 ssi although WHO IS GOING TO CALL FOR THE VOTE FOR MODERATOR?!
2013-06-29 18:08:39 awallin joined chan
2013-06-29 18:08:41 seb_kuzminsky i think cradek has done a good job keeping the meeting on track (with only a few glitches in /topic etc)
2013-06-29 18:08:42 Kenneth_Lerman I guess I agree with Michael and ssi.
2013-06-29 18:08:44 mshaver1 So, I guess we agree that their should be a moderator, and that we need more thatn just cradek?
2013-06-29 18:08:47 cradek this is bordering on silly
2013-06-29 18:08:48 zultron mhaberler, agreed. We should rotate, even if I'm forced to volunteer.
2013-06-29 18:08:50 mhaberler at the beginning of each meeting, period
2013-06-29 18:09:00 seb_kuzminsky yes, no permanent positions
2013-06-29 18:09:16 PetefromTn I say put it on the wiki those who want it and then the first vote is who gets it..
2013-06-29 18:09:18 tjtr33 agreed
2013-06-29 18:09:19 mhaberler no, it isnt silly at all IMV
2013-06-29 18:09:21 cmorley sign up on the meeting wiki page
2013-06-29 18:09:37 mshaver1 Moderator: Yes - Rotates? Yes
2013-06-29 18:09:39 zultron Why silly?
2013-06-29 18:09:42 seb_kuzminsky both positions should be volunteer, and it'll quickly become obvious who can do a good job and not
2013-06-29 18:09:47 mhaberler sure
2013-06-29 18:09:50 alex_joni volunteer on the wiki page
2013-06-29 18:09:53 alex_joni before the meeting
2013-06-29 18:10:00 alex_joni when the meeting starts this should be fixed
2013-06-29 18:10:01 cradek I agree someone needs to take charge of the topic changing thing. I think someone will step up and do it. I don't know how to make a system to choose the person and I don't think it's that important to formalize it
2013-06-29 18:10:03 mhaberler Ken gets the IRC crashcourse ;)
2013-06-29 18:10:10 acondit alex_joni - sounds good to me
2013-06-29 18:10:21 viesturs any chance for some "readme" for potential volunteers? I feel like I might try, but I definitely do not have technical know-how to change topics in chat etc.
2013-06-29 18:10:41 seb_kuzminsky we could add some howto info to the meetings-on-irc page easily enough
2013-06-29 18:10:44 cradek viesturs: any irc tutorial, or the help for your irc program, will say how to do that
2013-06-29 18:10:50 alex_joni viesturs: sit in on a ocuple meetings, then volunteer if you think you're up for the vote
2013-06-29 18:10:51 zultron Yes, a wiki page could be created for that, viesturs .
2013-06-29 18:10:53 cmorley Seb -yes good idea
2013-06-29 18:10:54 alex_joni err.. task
2013-06-29 18:10:56 archivist changing topic is trivial if not protected
2013-06-29 18:11:07 mhaberler maybe we should extract the role expectation to the moderator on the mailing list, based on the experience here
2013-06-29 18:11:14 Connor yea /topic topic info
2013-06-29 18:11:18 archivist seb_kuzminsky, can you remove the topic protection
2013-06-29 18:11:34 tjtr33 the group has asked for the topic to be changed, and retracted, that works ok
2013-06-29 18:11:42 seb_kuzminsky heh, maybe, but i dont know how!
2013-06-29 18:11:53 seb_kuzminsky seb_kuzminsky sucks at irc
2013-06-29 18:11:54 cradek we'll figure out the technical bits
2013-06-29 18:11:57 CaptHindsight remove the T flag
2013-06-29 18:11:58 archivist the moderator has to be an op
2013-06-29 18:12:01 PetefromTn so does PetefromTn
2013-06-29 18:12:09 seb_kuzminsky archivist: yes
2013-06-29 18:12:12 Kenneth_Lerman Thanks, folks. I've got to leave.
2013-06-29 18:12:18 seb_kuzminsky thanks Kenneth_Lerman !
2013-06-29 18:12:19 zultron So what's the proposal, folks?
2013-06-29 18:12:19 cradek Kenneth_Lerman: thanks for coming
2013-06-29 18:12:22 PetefromTn cya keith
2013-06-29 18:12:24 tjtr33 thx ken, bye
2013-06-29 18:12:30 micges see you
2013-06-29 18:12:38 mhaberler cu!
2013-06-29 18:12:43 cradek I think this will be emergent and we don't need to decide now
2013-06-29 18:12:47 Connor is the meeting agenda posted anywhere ?
2013-06-29 18:12:51 mshaver1 So, is there something that can be voted on?
2013-06-29 18:12:56 tjtr33 did we eat up the hour? seems like we're discussing, not deciding
2013-06-29 18:13:00 cradek not that I see
2013-06-29 18:13:14 cradek let's move on?
2013-06-29 18:13:21 seb_kuzminsky proposal: "a volunteer moderator will keep the meeting moving forward and update the topic to represent the phase of the meeting"
2013-06-29 18:13:27 archivist I saw no time limits for whole meeting either
2013-06-29 18:13:29 zultron Sure, let's table it. I'm sure we'll work out the next moderator without a procedure. :)
2013-06-29 18:13:31 cmorley Seb -yes
2013-06-29 18:13:35 seb_kuzminsky technical details to be hammered out
2013-06-29 18:13:39 cradek I'm with zultron
2013-06-29 18:13:41 mhaberler agreed
2013-06-29 18:13:41 alex_joni archivist: number of topics x 15 min
2013-06-29 18:13:48 tjtr33 seb - yes
2013-06-29 18:13:49 micges zultron: agreed
2013-06-29 18:13:55 alex_joni table
2013-06-29 18:14:00 seb_kuzminsky i'm ready to vote but i'm ok with tabling too
2013-06-29 18:14:02 mshaver1 table
2013-06-29 18:14:03 PetefromTn agreed needs more discussion altho it seems simple enough
2013-06-29 18:14:14 mhaberler next agenda: items should be numbered, not bulleted
2013-06-29 18:14:20 ssi alex_joni: there's 13 topics on wiki, so that's 3 hr 15m :P
2013-06-29 18:14:24 cradek haha yeah we'll figure that out for next time
2013-06-29 18:14:31 alex_joni ssi: that's max
2013-06-29 18:14:32 zultron mhaberler, add it yourself: http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Meeting201307
2013-06-29 18:14:35 mshaver1 Next?
2013-06-29 18:14:39 cradek let's go on.
2013-06-29 18:14:41 alex_joni it's been 1h 15 min, and we are at #10
2013-06-29 18:14:46 seb_kuzminsky yes lets move on
2013-06-29 18:14:48 ssi yeah we're doing good, but lets move
2013-06-29 18:14:58 archivist I could put the agenda in the bot ahead of time
2013-06-29 18:14:59 tjtr33 #10 i vote table it
2013-06-29 18:15:01 zultron Woo hoo!
2013-06-29 18:15:10 cradek I think this should be discussed outside the meeting and brought to a concrete proposal
2013-06-29 18:15:15 cdsteinkuehler IMHO this is a discussion, not a proposal...or am I missing something?
2013-06-29 18:15:20 mshaver1 Is this a yes or no questions?
2013-06-29 18:15:31 ssi cradek: agreed, it's not concrete enough
2013-06-29 18:15:34 cradek cdsteinkuehler: we didn't really have that rule yet when it was written
2013-06-29 18:15:37 alex_joni mshaver1: all that gets voted in here are yes/no questions
2013-06-29 18:15:37 zultron Quick discussion, please. I didn't know about the 'proposal' business when I wrote that.
2013-06-29 18:15:45 cradek zultron: go ahead and start us
2013-06-29 18:15:53 tjtr33 plz
2013-06-29 18:15:53 alex_joni anoything not yes/no gets discussed previously
2013-06-29 18:15:55 Connor cradek: How many total topics are for today ?
2013-06-29 18:15:58 ssi 13
2013-06-29 18:16:00 cdsteinkuehler I think it relates to what goes into 2.6, and how git repositories get moved around.
2013-06-29 18:16:04 DaveCVI I had impression from Wichita that there might be some plan afoot re this topic - maybe those directly involved could bring us up to date?
2013-06-29 18:16:09 seb_kuzminsky this is a discussion, but briefly: i reviewed the rtos-master-v0 branch at the hackfest and like parts of it and dislike parts of it
2013-06-29 18:16:15 zultron As we all know, Michael's git repo contains a large number of contributions not integrated into mainline.
2013-06-29 18:16:21 seb_kuzminsky i like the new rtos work and i mostly like the new pru stuff
2013-06-29 18:16:34 seb_kuzminsky i dislike the emcweb thing, partially because of naming
2013-06-29 18:16:44 zultron There's a lot of excitement about it, and also disagreement for how it'll eventually be included.
2013-06-29 18:16:46 jepler I recall we saw that some files did not have a clear license notice
2013-06-29 18:16:51 Connor rtos? Real Time Operating System ??
2013-06-29 18:16:55 seb_kuzminsky i havent seen the universal build yet but i like the idea
2013-06-29 18:16:57 seb_kuzminsky Connor: yes
2013-06-29 18:16:57 PetefromTn no idea what we are talking about here...
2013-06-29 18:17:01 mhaberler are we in a 'liking' discussion yet?
2013-06-29 18:17:12 ssi PetefromTn: welcome to the developer part of the meeting boys ;)
2013-06-29 18:17:14 tjtr33 linuxcncweb thing is ok?
2013-06-29 18:17:39 PetefromTn ssi: LOL....DEEP WATER
2013-06-29 18:17:51 CaptHindsight I like the option of a web thing or local UI
2013-06-29 18:17:53 zultron I'd at least like to know that the community supports the work and wishes it to be integrated in a reasonable timeframe.
2013-06-29 18:17:59 mhaberler not sure we should discuss this at the file naming level
2013-06-29 18:18:06 ssi what are we discussing exactly
2013-06-29 18:18:10 andypugh PetefromTn/Connor: Running Linuxcnc on normal (or more-normal) kernels
2013-06-29 18:18:11 zultron (I think I know the answer, but would like to hear it again.)
2013-06-29 18:18:12 seb_kuzminsky zultron: very much yes, from your newly elected RM at least :-)
2013-06-29 18:18:12 ssi I saw like three things get mentioned
2013-06-29 18:18:24 PetefromTn is this some kind of internet addon for linuxCNC?
2013-06-29 18:18:25 CaptHindsight yes, we need RTOS to move ahead to newer kernels to get the driver support for newer hardware
2013-06-29 18:18:26 cmorley I support it all.
2013-06-29 18:18:32 mshaver1 zultron: I like it and want it integrated ASAP.
2013-06-29 18:18:33 cradek zultron: I do and I do
2013-06-29 18:18:55 zultron Let me formulate that into a proposal:
2013-06-29 18:18:58 seb_kuzminsky i want to merge it, but i want to review it for technical and legal problems first
2013-06-29 18:19:04 jepler OK, more proposal-ish: we would like to support xenomai userspace and rt-preempt userspace into master branch before 2.6 is branched?
2013-06-29 18:19:05 DaveCVI I like the work, perer things to get merged. to do so seems to require a plan - if there is one, I'd vote on it here, if not I'd ask that those qualified to do so create one for decision next mtg.
2013-06-29 18:19:11 PetefromTn what do you mean more modern computer stuff here?
2013-06-29 18:19:28 andypugh Need to leave, please use as appropriate "aye, aye, aye, aye, aye" :-)
2013-06-29 18:19:30 jepler s/support/merge support for/
2013-06-29 18:19:31 zultron The LinuxCNC community supports the RTOS (and other? mhaberler?) and wishes it to be integrated in a reasonable timeframe.
2013-06-29 18:19:33 seb_kuzminsky jepler: that's a proposal i approve of
2013-06-29 18:19:42 zultron jepler, that's good too.
2013-06-29 18:19:46 seb_kuzminsky zultron: very much yes
2013-06-29 18:19:50 mhaberler me too ;)
2013-06-29 18:19:54 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 18:19:56 seb_kuzminsky the new rtos support is the most important feature to get into 2.6 imo
2013-06-29 18:20:03 cncbasher yes
2013-06-29 18:20:04 cradek I agree with seb and jepler
2013-06-29 18:20:08 zultron cmorley, you have a big piece in there.
2013-06-29 18:20:09 ssi this is replacing RTAI?
2013-06-29 18:20:13 ssi or just in addition to?
2013-06-29 18:20:14 cradek heck I probably agree with everyone
2013-06-29 18:20:15 Connor OKay guys, slow down for a second.. and explain what we are talking about. Not all of us are developers.. we need a quick over view of what we're talking about..
2013-06-29 18:20:17 seb_kuzminsky ssi: no, adding to it
2013-06-29 18:20:18 zultron in addition to, ssi
2013-06-29 18:20:19 cradek ssi: addition to
2013-06-29 18:20:21 ssi ok
2013-06-29 18:20:23 mshaver1 ssi: addition
2013-06-29 18:20:24 mhaberler supplement RTAI by more options
2013-06-29 18:20:27 jepler Connor: linuxcnc relies on realtime kernel extensions.
2013-06-29 18:20:35 jepler Connor: for many years we have used RTAI kernel extensions
2013-06-29 18:20:43 seb_kuzminsky zultron: does this provide the 'set expectations' thing you asked for?
2013-06-29 18:21:06 jepler Connor: there are at least two others, xenomai and rt-preempt; both have different strengths and weaknesses, but we think that they are both more likely to work on current and future versions of linux than rtai
2013-06-29 18:21:10 mhaberler Connor: you will be able to run a single Linuxcnc binary package on any of RTAI, RT-Preempt, Xenomai or vanilla kernels without rebuild/reinstall
2013-06-29 18:21:15 zultron Yes. Also hoped cmorley would pipe up, since he has contributions in there. cmorley ?
2013-06-29 18:21:26 ssi mhaberler: without rebuild? neat
2013-06-29 18:21:27 PetefromTn so this is just to implement future real time systems into the progaam then?
2013-06-29 18:21:28 cmorley I did?
2013-06-29 18:21:38 seb_kuzminsky PetefromTn: yes
2013-06-29 18:21:42 zultron gscreen
2013-06-29 18:21:50 mhaberler more platforms, yes, includes postwar ;)
2013-06-29 18:21:50 seb_kuzminsky gscreen's in master already
2013-06-29 18:21:53 cmorley Gscreen is in master already
2013-06-29 18:21:55 Connor instead of just the RTAI we've been runnign on ?
2013-06-29 18:21:56 tjtr33 Conner, i was about to suggest that we (the vast unwashed) have to know when its over our heads and not vote at all, not even abstain- explanations to us would overrun the hour meeting by days )
2013-06-29 18:21:56 zultron Ah, then never mind. :)
2013-06-29 18:22:06 PetefromTn sounds good to me what little I know of it.\
2013-06-29 18:22:08 mshaver1 PetefromTn: yes, and adding two rt systems that work today
2013-06-29 18:22:09 tjtr33 Connor ( sorry -10 sp )
2013-06-29 18:22:30 ssi so I think the "should we attempt to get new RTOS support into 2.6" is a pretty clear proposal
2013-06-29 18:22:33 mhaberler Connor: yes
2013-06-29 18:22:38 alex_joni tjtr33: that should be a topic for discussions before the meetings
2013-06-29 18:22:41 ssi the "+ other bits in mhabeler's repo" part probably bears more discussion
2013-06-29 18:22:43 Skullworks joined chan
2013-06-29 18:22:43 zultron Let's vote.
2013-06-29 18:22:50 cradek zultron: I don't think a vote is needed here - we all want to work with you to get this merged
2013-06-29 18:22:51 Connor okay. Cool. Got it.
2013-06-29 18:23:02 seb_kuzminsky zultron: what are we voting on? jepler's proposal?
2013-06-29 18:23:03 cradek also I'm not quite sure what we'd be voting on
2013-06-29 18:23:08 tjtr33 alex_joni, yep ( and we are into discussion mode now )
2013-06-29 18:23:10 PetefromTn When i asked about topics for discussion earlier on the other forum I heard crickets..
2013-06-29 18:23:10 zultron I'm fine with that. Thanks fellas!
2013-06-29 18:23:19 mhaberler ssi: my repo is a bit too large to be discussed as a whole I'd think
2013-06-29 18:23:22 ssi agreed
2013-06-29 18:23:27 cradek any objections to moving on?
2013-06-29 18:23:28 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: agreed
2013-06-29 18:23:29 alex_joni tjtr33: I know, was just talking about future
2013-06-29 18:23:36 seb_kuzminsky i'm ready to move on
2013-06-29 18:23:38 zultron Move on
2013-06-29 18:23:39 alex_joni cradek: lets formalize it with a vote
2013-06-29 18:23:39 mhaberler fine
2013-06-29 18:23:49 cmorley move on
2013-06-29 18:23:52 PetefromTn sure
2013-06-29 18:23:52 zultron Move on, or vote now.
2013-06-29 18:23:57 Connor agreed
2013-06-29 18:24:00 jepler I would prefer to see my proposal voted than leave this in limbo a month
2013-06-29 18:24:15 mshaver1 vote
2013-06-29 18:24:16 DaveCVI UH, but I'd still like to have some idea when the multi rtos would get merged - any one willing to guess?
2013-06-29 18:24:16 cradek jepler: restate it please
2013-06-29 18:24:17 ssi let's vote with the knowledge that we're voting on RTOS specifically
2013-06-29 18:24:18 mhaberler jepler: which one again?
2013-06-29 18:24:21 jepler because it is a way to say as a community that we want these contributions from zultron mhaberler cdsteinkuehler and others
2013-06-29 18:24:23 micges lets chage this to yes/no question
2013-06-29 18:24:24 cmorley Zultron - your work is wanted and not wasted
2013-06-29 18:24:31 seb_kuzminsky 11:19 < jepler> OK, more proposal-ish: we would like to support xenomai userspace and rt-preempt userspace into master branch before 2.6 is branched?
2013-06-29 18:24:38 mhaberler ok
2013-06-29 18:24:51 acondit Yes
2013-06-29 18:24:52 tjtr33 jepler i agree it is wanted
2013-06-29 18:24:58 ssi yes
2013-06-29 18:24:58 seb_kuzminsky i vote yes
2013-06-29 18:24:59 cradek yes
2013-06-29 18:25:02 jepler yes
2013-06-29 18:25:02 alex_joni yes
2013-06-29 18:25:02 archivist yes
2013-06-29 18:25:03 micges yes
2013-06-29 18:25:04 CaptHindsight yes
2013-06-29 18:25:05 mshaver1 yes
2013-06-29 18:25:05 DaveCVI yes
2013-06-29 18:25:05 tjtr33 yes
2013-06-29 18:25:06 cmorley yes
2013-06-29 18:25:07 acondit Yes
2013-06-29 18:25:08 viesturs yes
2013-06-29 18:25:09 Connor yes
2013-06-29 18:25:11 steve_stallings finally a clearly stated vote, I vote yes
2013-06-29 18:25:11 mhaberler I want to make sure it is understood that will be based on the unfied build branch, not any earlier
2013-06-29 18:25:13 mhaberler yes
2013-06-29 18:25:13 PetefromTn aye
2013-06-29 18:25:39 zultron Me too, fellas.
2013-06-29 18:25:41 ssi out of curiosity, will this make any significant breaks in backward compatibility?
2013-06-29 18:25:45 seb_kuzminsky great!
2013-06-29 18:25:46 mhaberler no
2013-06-29 18:25:50 seb_kuzminsky ssi: i hope not
2013-06-29 18:25:52 cradek mhaberler: please start us
2013-06-29 18:25:54 jepler ssi: some hardware drivers will require source-level changes
2013-06-29 18:25:55 ssi cause one of the things i want to propose for next week is we formalize semantic versioning as described at semver.org
2013-06-29 18:25:55 mhaberler ok
2013-06-29 18:25:58 DaveCVI mhabler: you and Seb can work out timing between unified brqanch and 2.6
2013-06-29 18:26:08 zultron ssi, No more RTLinux, probably insignificant to most.
2013-06-29 18:26:10 alex_joni ssi: this should be transparent to user experiences
2013-06-29 18:26:14 ssi ok excellent
2013-06-29 18:26:15 mhaberler We discussed the downsides of the current development model at Wichita
2013-06-29 18:26:33 jepler I am at best ambivalent about switching hosting to github.
2013-06-29 18:26:36 ssi yea I missed it, and I wish I hadn't :(
2013-06-29 18:26:39 seb_kuzminsky i like the pull request model as an addition to the direct commit model
2013-06-29 18:26:39 mhaberler small group of devs with push access, many contributions falling by the wayside
2013-06-29 18:26:40 jepler I do not like the pull request model
2013-06-29 18:26:52 ssi I like the pull request model a lot
2013-06-29 18:26:55 seb_kuzminsky it's a good way for casual contributors to interfact
2013-06-29 18:27:03 ssi I'm partial to bitbucket over github, but github is quite alright with me
2013-06-29 18:27:09 mshaver1 jepler: explain?
2013-06-29 18:27:10 jros joined chan
2013-06-29 18:27:18 ssi and I think it provides tools that are VERY benificial to a development model with this many contributors
2013-06-29 18:27:21 jepler I really don't want to force contributors to use a proprietary web app to contribute
2013-06-29 18:27:26 mhaberler what we need is to have a more inclusive form of cooperating to avoid losing valuable work, and that might mean a bit of adapting
2013-06-29 18:27:31 cradek I don't want to move our primary git from our own domain into any "free" service.
2013-06-29 18:27:48 ssi cradek: what are your concerns with it?
2013-06-29 18:27:50 Connor jepler: You have a counter proposal ?
2013-06-29 18:27:51 mhaberler why ?
2013-06-29 18:27:58 cradek cooperation is great and pull requests, emailing patches, etc are all fine as the individuals prefer
2013-06-29 18:27:59 jepler Connor: status quo for git hosting
2013-06-29 18:28:12 jepler this echoes some of my thoughts on pull requests: http://laurent.bachelier.name/2012/05/github-kinda-sucks/
2013-06-29 18:28:15 cradek I don't see any reason to officially prefer one kind of contribution
2013-06-29 18:28:19 mhaberler the servers we currently have leave to be desired, and the cooperating model is know to discourage folks
2013-06-29 18:28:28 mhaberler that needs fixing IMO
2013-06-29 18:28:33 acondit One thing the pull model allows is to ensure appropriate license language from contributor
2013-06-29 18:28:36 mshaver1 Be careful, there are now three issues: 1. The pull request model. 2: Web interface vs command line, and 3: which servers.
2013-06-29 18:28:45 mhaberler yes
2013-06-29 18:28:52 mhaberler I am focused on the operating model
2013-06-29 18:28:59 cradek what proposal we discussing? unfortunately there are two in #12
2013-06-29 18:29:01 mhaberler and that has proven to be deficient IMO
2013-06-29 18:29:06 cdsteinkuehler I have never used anything but command line with github
2013-06-29 18:29:08 ssi PR model and the hosted service web gui allows for VERY CONVENIENT code review
2013-06-29 18:29:13 Connor pul:l yes, github: no
2013-06-29 18:29:26 mhaberler explain how you would do that?
2013-06-29 18:29:30 jepler pull model probably good. github pull request would get a no from me.
2013-06-29 18:29:34 cradek let's do just one at a time
2013-06-29 18:29:59 cradek I don't want to move our primary git from our own domain into any "free" service.
2013-06-29 18:30:01 Connor I say no. leave it under our domain
2013-06-29 18:30:16 alex_joni alex_joni agrees with keeping git.linuxcnc.org
2013-06-29 18:30:16 mhaberler I do not care if we use the github pull request model. I do care very much about the fact that it is trivial to fork and add a change
2013-06-29 18:30:20 seb_kuzminsky git.linuxcnc.org is a better place for our repo
2013-06-29 18:30:24 cdsteinkuehler IIRC, the whole gihub thing is to make it easier and more visible for casual contributors (like me) to share code with others w/o needing push access to linuxcnc git or MAH git.
2013-06-29 18:30:25 cmorley is it not mirrored to git hub now?
2013-06-29 18:30:32 ssi the counterproposal then would be to use purchased software on our private servers that give us the same features
2013-06-29 18:30:33 mshaver1 I'm also skeptical of anything "free".
2013-06-29 18:30:36 seb_kuzminsky cmorley: yes it is
2013-06-29 18:30:38 mhaberler I vote against, this has been proven to be defective at the community level
2013-06-29 18:30:52 mhaberler well then pay for it
2013-06-29 18:30:54 zultron Agree with cdsteinkuehler
2013-06-29 18:30:56 cradek mhaberler: as discussed at wichita we already have a mirror on github that is kept up to date to make the forking on github easy
2013-06-29 18:31:04 Connor some times the "cloud" isn't always the right way.
2013-06-29 18:31:08 mhaberler that was not my understanding
2013-06-29 18:31:09 cradek ideally we would make this more evident
2013-06-29 18:31:11 acondit mshaver1 - how about linuxcnc
2013-06-29 18:31:14 cmorley if it's mirrored don't we get the best of both worlds?
2013-06-29 18:31:14 ssi ok I'm very confused as to who thinks what and why
2013-06-29 18:31:16 DaveCVI mshaver1: realy> you said that? LCNC is free... ;-)
2013-06-29 18:31:20 ssi clearly this needs more discussion
2013-06-29 18:31:21 cradek cmorley: yes I think so
2013-06-29 18:31:22 cdsteinkuehler I do not particularly care if "official" linuxcnc git repo is on github or wherever, but it needs to be easy for new users to modify and share their changes
2013-06-29 18:31:39 seb_kuzminsky people are of course welcome to publish their own branches on github
2013-06-29 18:31:44 mshaver1 mhaberler: what is defective?
2013-06-29 18:31:46 cmorley we just need to promote it more then?
2013-06-29 18:31:49 mhaberler I think thats a half-baked idea, I have no idea what's so great about the dreamhost servers and whats so bad about github
2013-06-29 18:31:52 cradek https://github.com/jepler/linuxcnc-mirror
2013-06-29 18:32:03 seb_kuzminsky mhaberler: our git is not on dreamhost
2013-06-29 18:32:14 mshaver1 DaveCVI: You are confusing free with libre :)
2013-06-29 18:32:17 mhaberler fine, still it leaves room for improvement
2013-06-29 18:32:20 seb_kuzminsky i move we table this and move on
2013-06-29 18:32:24 cradek I don't care about where the server is. I positively care about it being under our domain and full control
2013-06-29 18:32:27 zultron Problem with jepler's github repo is there aren't enough folks with access that could review & accept pull requests.
2013-06-29 18:32:47 seb_kuzminsky zultron: that may be, but that's different than the proposal on the agenda
2013-06-29 18:32:51 DaveCVI The main topic seems to be "few with direct access" vs "many with more access" - what service and hdw the repo is hosted on seems a 2nd level topic
2013-06-29 18:32:52 cradek zultron: frankly I think we need to add a lot of people and we oughta work on that
2013-06-29 18:32:52 mpictor joined chan
2013-06-29 18:32:53 ssi cradek: what's the actual concern?
2013-06-29 18:32:59 ssi github is going to steal our open source code?
2013-06-29 18:33:04 jepler_ joined chan
2013-06-29 18:33:10 mhaberler no
2013-06-29 18:33:13 zultron And problem with current linuxcnc.org repo is there also aren't enough people reviewing submissions.
2013-06-29 18:33:26 seb_kuzminsky ssi: it's more like "github may start showing us ads"
2013-06-29 18:33:33 ssi really?
2013-06-29 18:33:35 mhaberler exactly where?
2013-06-29 18:33:50 mshaver1 zultron: would moving to githib help gain more reviewers?
2013-06-29 18:33:52 seb_kuzminsky the topic is "should we move our git repo to github", but that's not what we're currently discussing
2013-06-29 18:33:58 zultron I don't have enough information to vote on this topic, and think it needs to be changed to reflect what I see as the real problem.
2013-06-29 18:33:58 cdsteinkuehler An aside to this discussion is if I succeed in getting LinuxCNC used by the 3D printer world, there will suddenly be a *LOT* of tweaks that need tracking.
2013-06-29 18:34:02 seb_kuzminsky let's either vote on the move or table it
2013-06-29 18:34:08 steve_stallings how hard is it to merge contributions from the github mirror back into our existing repository?
2013-06-29 18:34:14 zultron mshaver1, I don't think it will; something else needs to be changed.
2013-06-29 18:34:15 cradek steve_stallings: trivial
2013-06-29 18:34:16 seb_kuzminsky steve_stallings: it's trivial
2013-06-29 18:34:23 mhaberler it would help not loosing contributions, and that is a majore issue as far as I'm concerned
2013-06-29 18:34:26 Connor I say vote. and I say NO. leave it at git.linuxcnc.org
2013-06-29 18:34:26 ssi trivial for who?
2013-06-29 18:34:45 seb_kuzminsky ssi: for anyone with push access to our repo, which seems to be the main topic of interest
2013-06-29 18:34:46 cdsteinkuehler Trivial for anyone who uses git
2013-06-29 18:34:52 mhaberler Connor: care about giving a better reason except 'no'?
2013-06-29 18:35:20 mhaberler no, push access is _not_ the issue, it is about loosing people
2013-06-29 18:35:24 seb_kuzminsky my reason for not wanting to move is that the gir repo on linuxcnc.org is working well - there's no need to change, nothing to be gained by moving
2013-06-29 18:35:34 archivist large corp like github can be dangerous keep in house
2013-06-29 18:35:37 zultron mhaberler, losing contributions is indeed the issue I see. I don't think that a move to github by itself will fix that, though.
2013-06-29 18:35:40 acondit What is the reason "for" moving it to github?
2013-06-29 18:35:44 mhaberler technically: maybe - scoially: a failure
2013-06-29 18:35:55 cmorley Zultron +1
2013-06-29 18:36:03 cradek I agree with zultron
2013-06-29 18:36:04 ssi acondit: in my mind, much better tools
2013-06-29 18:36:05 mpictor well I just joined this channel, but I am really happy with github. easy to find and track interesting things, easy to contribute
2013-06-29 18:36:06 seb_kuzminsky yes i agree with zultron
2013-06-29 18:36:10 ssi easier to manage a bigger community of developers
2013-06-29 18:36:19 Connor mhaberler: Keeping it 100% under our control, under our domain, with no reisk of 'ads' or being forced to pay for hosting.. or risk that their servers crash and burn, or get raided by FBI because someone else is hosting something bad on their servers..
2013-06-29 18:36:26 mshaver1 mhaberler: is there some feature or aspect of github that will allow us to change organizationally that we can't get from our current hosting?
2013-06-29 18:36:36 CaptHindsight agree with Connor ^^
2013-06-29 18:36:40 mhaberler where is the feart of loss of control coming from? I dont see any of this
2013-06-29 18:36:43 seb_kuzminsky people are free to use github - i do. but i dont think our project should live there, i prefer to have it in our own house
2013-06-29 18:36:45 mpictor Connor: github has refused to honor dmca takedown notices
2013-06-29 18:36:46 cradek it's either a manpower problem or a push-access-list problem, neither is helped by moving the primary to github
2013-06-29 18:37:07 ssi I don't either... I work for TBS, we run CNN.com, and we keep ALL our proprietary code on bitbucket (competitor to github)
2013-06-29 18:37:12 CaptHindsight mpictor: for now
2013-06-29 18:37:12 cdsteinkuehler I personally like git.linuxcnc.org, and don't think that has to change. It needs to be easier for new users to officially share code changes either via github mirror or some equevilant.
2013-06-29 18:37:13 zultron I suggest we think about & discuss it on the devel list over the next month and put something targeted at the real problem on the agenda for next meet.
2013-06-29 18:37:15 Connor mpictor: Doesn't preclude them from a FBI raid. :)
2013-06-29 18:37:17 ssi I like bitbucket better, but it's a wash
2013-06-29 18:37:18 steve_stallings would it be possible to have the existing repository default to accepting a pull request automatically if not rejected withing some time window?
2013-06-29 18:37:27 mhaberler you guys focus on some techie bits and loose the project perspective
2013-06-29 18:37:29 cradek mhaberler: I think in this situation you have to make the argument FOR moving
2013-06-29 18:37:36 seb_kuzminsky zultron: i agree - this is a discussion not a decision we're having now
2013-06-29 18:37:50 tjtr33 this is a discussion, table it, its a swamp right now
2013-06-29 18:37:51 cdsteinkuehler +1 discussion. Table
2013-06-29 18:37:57 jepler_ table.
2013-06-29 18:37:57 cradek ok, let's table it
2013-06-29 18:38:04 mshaver1 table
2013-06-29 18:38:07 tjtr33 i vote table it
2013-06-29 18:38:10 cmorley table
2013-06-29 18:38:12 ssi do we have a way to schedule a formal discusion?
2013-06-29 18:38:16 ssi or will it just be a behind closed doors thing
2013-06-29 18:38:28 jepler ssi: mailing lists, irc, forum are all public (just different publics)
2013-06-29 18:38:32 seb_kuzminsky what doors? it'll be on #linuxcnc-devel or the mailing list
2013-06-29 18:38:32 alex_joni anything tabled will be up for discussions ntil the next meeting
2013-06-29 18:38:32 Connor table it I guess.
2013-06-29 18:38:33 mshaver1 ssi: no, but we should
2013-06-29 18:38:33 tjtr33 no , open discussion on the lists and irc channels
2013-06-29 18:38:33 cmorley discuss in maillist if you like
2013-06-29 18:38:45 ssi maillist would be the most inclusive
2013-06-29 18:38:55 cradek mhaberler: please start us
2013-06-29 18:39:00 Connor but, I think the argument needs to be made FOR moving it.. not why not move it.
2013-06-29 18:39:01 CaptHindsight who is going to manage all the new commits from especially the glue gun printer crowd?
2013-06-29 18:39:04 mhaberler ok
2013-06-29 18:39:06 zultron ssi, this process needs to be open. We should discuss on any and all public forums, put proposals on the agenda, and vote here next time.
2013-06-29 18:39:27 mhaberler the primary reason to spin out Machinekit is to entice wider usage of HAL standalone, and to get in more talent
2013-06-29 18:39:29 tjtr33 rule 2 ... cats must listen to sheperd
2013-06-29 18:39:57 mhaberler that suggests it be a focused package, more than it is now
2013-06-29 18:40:08 mhaberler which is why I suggest this to be a separate tree
2013-06-29 18:40:18 Connor okay, What is MachineKit? That the beaglebone stuff ?
2013-06-29 18:40:21 cmorley what is included with machinekit
2013-06-29 18:40:26 mshaver1 I'm in favor of modularity. MachineKit is HAL plus all the realtime support?
2013-06-29 18:40:32 seb_kuzminsky i agree with the goal of splitting HAL out to its own package, but i think it's a tricky thing to do right
2013-06-29 18:40:42 PetefromTn Whats machinekit?
2013-06-29 18:40:46 mhaberler Machinekit would be HAL+RTAPI+NML replacement (zeromq+protobuf)
2013-06-29 18:40:51 tjtr33 mhaberler, i like this idea , do we need JohnK present to really decide?
2013-06-29 18:40:53 ssi I love it
2013-06-29 18:41:01 mhaberler he is in favor
2013-06-29 18:41:06 mshaver1 This makes sense.
2013-06-29 18:41:11 seb_kuzminsky i agree jmk is in favor
2013-06-29 18:41:12 DaveCVI The idea of promoting HAL more is Ok to me, the details of what htis means is murky to me. I'd like to see a written descrtiption of what gets changed how before voting on this action. I also think that will help "sell" the idea (or not) to the community
2013-06-29 18:41:15 jepler I think that this is a post-2.6-branch item and would prefer to table.
2013-06-29 18:41:16 cmorley I support this
2013-06-29 18:41:17 tjtr33 woot! cool
2013-06-29 18:41:17 zultron JMK actually attempted this once with 'BLOCS'.
2013-06-29 18:41:18 mhaberler it would also enforce more API discipline
2013-06-29 18:41:21 acondit Isn't HAL potentially usable without realtime support?
2013-06-29 18:41:24 cradek I'm open to this idea but I don't know the details well enough to vote confidently on future work
2013-06-29 18:41:27 mhaberler which has been an issue
2013-06-29 18:41:32 seb_kuzminsky jepler: i agree it's post-2.6
2013-06-29 18:41:36 jepler I am also somewhat upset that you are grouping more development goals (nml replacement) into an organization request
2013-06-29 18:41:49 cdsteinkuehler Does "seperate repos" actually just mean "different projects" or is this related to previous github topic?
2013-06-29 18:42:10 mshaver1 So, what we can vote on is to ask for a more specific plan?
2013-06-29 18:42:12 mhaberler no, different repos, same project, same build process, separate packages
2013-06-29 18:42:19 seb_kuzminsky cdsteinkuehler: i think it means "different projects"
2013-06-29 18:42:26 Connor Yea, table. This is developer stuff that might need more explanation to non developers as in the impacts it might have etc.
2013-06-29 18:42:31 alex_joni what's the reasoning behind the NML replacement beeing moved out of linuxcnc, and into machineblocks ?
2013-06-29 18:42:43 seb_kuzminsky lol @machineblocks
2013-06-29 18:42:45 cradek it looks like we need this proposal to be more concrete
2013-06-29 18:42:49 archivist there are probably significant number of nml users that should not be ignored
2013-06-29 18:42:51 carper64_lb joined chan
2013-06-29 18:43:08 tjtr33 alex_joni, good q. and says this must be tabled and discussed
2013-06-29 18:43:08 mshaver1 table, but definitely look into this
2013-06-29 18:43:13 PetefromTn jeez I am out of my depth here....
2013-06-29 18:43:16 mhaberler it is too early anyway, the time will be past the NML migration; I'm raising it so folks can think about it
2013-06-29 18:43:17 ssi this might qualify as a non-backward compatible major release feature
2013-06-29 18:43:19 cradek again it seems like a combination of several things that we need to hash out separately
2013-06-29 18:43:21 jepler also we probably have to have the community weigh in on the name
2013-06-29 18:43:35 ssi ie a 3.0.0 thing
2013-06-29 18:43:42 seb_kuzminsky maybe we van vote on a proposal that "we like modularity and want to work towards more of it", and table the details?
2013-06-29 18:43:48 mhaberler sure
2013-06-29 18:44:01 cradek I think that's kind of silly
2013-06-29 18:44:02 tjtr33 i agree to that
2013-06-29 18:44:04 seb_kuzminsky heh
2013-06-29 18:44:11 frist joined chan
2013-06-29 18:44:13 Connor We almost done? I need to go pack up stuff. :)
2013-06-29 18:44:19 ssi sounds like house resolutions
2013-06-29 18:44:22 mhaberler but it is an endorsement in principle
2013-06-29 18:44:24 seb_kuzminsky this is the last agenda item
2013-06-29 18:44:24 tjtr33 i agree to 'we like modularity and...'
2013-06-29 18:44:25 cdsteinkuehler My time window is closing too...
2013-06-29 18:44:27 cmorley we want to separate out HAL from cnc control
2013-06-29 18:44:30 ssi HR13 moves to state that we like good software
2013-06-29 18:44:30 archivist it is sort of modular already
2013-06-29 18:44:34 zultron Meta-observation: Even though it appears we won't vote on this one, I'm very happy that awareness has been raised.
2013-06-29 18:44:35 cradek it's bordering on content-free
2013-06-29 18:44:41 mshaver1 vote or end?
2013-06-29 18:44:44 seb_kuzminsky zultron: +1
2013-06-29 18:44:50 cdsteinkuehler Vote to end :)
2013-06-29 18:44:50 jepler table
2013-06-29 18:44:53 seb_kuzminsky table
2013-06-29 18:44:56 tjtr33 table
2013-06-29 18:44:58 zultron mesa
2013-06-29 18:44:59 Connor table
2013-06-29 18:45:06 archivist settee
2013-06-29 18:45:08 cradek ok, that's good enough for me
2013-06-29 18:45:09 DaveCVI a motion to adjourn is always in order....
2013-06-29 18:45:13 mshaver1 spreadsheet
2013-06-29 18:45:13 acondit table
2013-06-29 18:45:16 cradek WE ADJOURN and thank you everybody
2013-06-29 18:45:22 jepler we're getting silly, it's obviously time to stop
2013-06-29 18:45:22 seb_kuzminsky yay!
2013-06-29 18:45:34 acondit guby
2013-06-29 18:45:38 seb_kuzminsky good progress! the new meeting format is generally working well
2013-06-29 18:45:40 tjtr33 :) thx very much guys, this is good
2013-06-29 18:45:46 zultron Thanks everyone! This was very productive, even though I feel dizzy now.
2013-06-29 18:45:47 PetefromTn this was great guys thanks for letting me be a part of it. Cheers.
2013-06-29 18:45:55 archivist !end 201306