19:01:18 <rtyler> #startmeeting
19:01:18 <robobutler> Let the Jenkins meeting commence!
19:01:32 <rtyler> #info agenda https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Governance+Meeting+Agenda#GovernanceMeetingAgenda-Dec9meeting
19:01:39 <danielbeck> kohsuke around?
19:01:47 <rtyler> #topic last meeting's actions
19:01:57 <kohsuke> Oops
19:02:01 <kohsuke> I'm around now
19:02:06 <rtyler> #chairs kohsuke danielbeck hare_brain
19:02:12 <danielbeck> The only action was KK to publish RC and that happened
19:02:34 <kohsuke> yes, let's move on
19:02:34 <rtyler> anything else there to discuss?
19:03:09 <rtyler> #topic LTS status check
19:03:21 <rtyler> assuming this is ogondza's
19:03:22 <rtyler> ?
19:03:25 <kohsuke> So the release just went out and I think it's ready
19:03:27 <ogondza> All looks fine ,as reported
19:03:38 <ogondza> yeah, i just noticed that
19:03:46 <kohsuke> #info 1.625.3 is done
19:03:47 <ogondza> kohsuke: do you need to hear from me sooner?
19:04:13 <ogondza> (than at the meeting time)
19:04:21 <danielbeck> ogondza We need to include you in the security update process, let's discuss this separately.
19:04:50 <kohsuke> Yes that's true, I just assumed no news is a good news but you are right, technically I jumped the gun
19:05:22 <kohsuke> in any case, shall we move on?
19:05:25 <ogondza> sure
19:05:30 <danielbeck> FWIW I'll email jenkinsci-advisories later today to announce it
19:05:39 <rtyler> #topic Next LTS baseline selection
19:05:39 <danielbeck> everything else is done and just waits for caches to clear
19:05:55 <danielbeck> unfortunately it looks like jglick couldn't make it
19:06:09 <kohsuke> he's travelling
19:06:16 <danielbeck> http://jenkins-ci.org/changelog is mixed
19:06:26 <ogondza> mixed?
19:06:32 <danielbeck> no clear good release
19:06:36 <danielbeck> based on feedback
19:06:43 <danielbeck> 1.637 introduced two regressions
19:06:54 <danielbeck> JENKINS-31458
19:06:58 <danielbeck> JENKINS-31518
19:07:15 <ogondza> 1.638 contains security fixes, that would simplify a lot of things I presume
19:07:18 <danielbeck> both are supposed to be fixed by now, but one has several comments indicating it's not
19:07:30 <abayer> Yeah, JENKIN-31458 fix introduced a nasty regression itself.
19:07:40 <abayer> https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-31954
19:08:02 <abayer> May not be a hard fix, but it's definitely happening in the new code from JENKINS-31458.
19:08:15 <kohsuke> 1.634?
19:08:24 <danielbeck> so basically everything since 1.636 is somewhat broken.
19:09:48 <danielbeck> kohsuke Are you proposing that version?
19:09:57 <kohsuke> Yes
19:10:39 <danielbeck> it's not better than 635 because we have a fix for the one ugly bug with the JDK named null
19:10:55 <kohsuke> 1.635 change doesn't seem like the kinds that create many regressions so I don't know why 1.635 rating is significantly worse than 1.634 but trusting the knowledge of the crowd
19:11:19 <danielbeck> and 636 has very little new https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/compare/jenkins-1.635...jenkins-1.636 over that.
19:11:58 <danielbeck> kohsuke 6 votes for the bug in JDK selection that was since fixed
19:12:00 <kohsuke> If 1.636 is your proposal I'm fine with that too
19:12:07 <danielbeck> so IMO 635 is good, as is 636.
19:12:35 <ogondza> 636 looks good to me
19:12:41 <kohsuke> You are obviously far more knowledgeable about the fixes & bugs that went into those.
19:12:58 <kohsuke> OK, so 1.636 it is?
19:13:30 <danielbeck> looks like a good choice to me
19:13:30 <kohsuke> And I guess we can merge security-stable-1.625 to get it patched up?
19:13:50 <kohsuke> Any objections before settling on 1.636?
19:14:11 <kohsuke> #agreed next LTS is 1.636 based
19:14:26 <rtyler> onto next?
19:14:36 <danielbeck> yes
19:14:37 <kohsuke> ogondza: would you create stable-1.636 branch?
19:14:37 <rtyler> #topic Final review/adoption of Board Election Process Proposal
19:14:47 <rtyler> #info proposal here https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Board+Election+Process+Proposal
19:14:55 <kohsuke> (or do you want me to?)
19:14:56 <ogondza> #action ogondza will create the stable branch
19:15:03 <rtyler> ahem
19:15:09 <kohsuke> rtyler: now I'm ready to move on
19:15:24 <kohsuke> as in ready for the next topic
19:15:58 <rtyler> in the proposal what's different from last time can be seen: https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=63930772&selectedPageVersions=10&selectedPageVersions=8
19:16:19 <rtyler> basically fleshed out some more details from last meeting around resignation/interims and rules around corporate involvement
19:16:50 <rtyler> I know that orrc, teilo, fred02 and oleg-nenashev had some feedback
19:17:21 <rtyler> please everybody take a moment and look it over once again
19:17:40 * rtyler waits for kohsuke and hare_brain in particular
19:17:48 * kohsuke reads
19:18:46 <kohsuke> Looks good to me. I'm ready to cast +1
19:19:03 <danielbeck> rtyler Since there are 5 seats, KK is permanent, and max of 2 candidates per company, will this result in CloudBees possibly getting 3/5 (KK + 2 candidates)?
19:19:17 <KostyaSha> could somebody describe why permanent?
19:19:23 * batmat reads
19:19:24 <abayer> I'd assume kohsuke counts as one of the CloudBees seats.
19:19:30 <batmat> same question as danielbeck
19:19:36 <kohsuke> abayer: my understanding as well
19:19:39 <rtyler> that was my presumption as well, but should probably be clarified
19:19:43 <danielbeck> abayer Then make that clear. Right now it's not.
19:20:04 <danielbeck> as I wouldn't consider the one fixed member a "candidate" in the voting process.
19:20:09 <abayer> Good point.
19:20:09 <rtyler> KostyaSha: for the same reason Guido van Rossum or Matz occupies such a position in the Python and Ruby communities
19:20:16 <rtyler> abayer: will you update plz
19:20:17 <batmat> +1, let's not keep it ambiguous
19:20:24 <abayer> rtyler: Yeah, action item at me?
19:20:31 <rtyler> update it right now you weenie
19:20:32 <abayer> I need to think about how to word it.
19:20:35 <rtyler> I want to get this stamped
19:20:39 <abayer> sigh.
19:20:40 <abayer> Ok.
19:20:41 <KostyaSha> rtyler, in many projects creators left, in many projects creators locked development and projects was forked.
19:20:43 <kohsuke> we can edit it right here if that's the only concern
19:20:45 <abayer> Move on and circle back, then. =)
19:21:12 <rtyler> KostyaSha: the phrasing is deliberate in that regard, "until such time he decides to resign"
19:21:20 <orrc> "regualrly" isn't a word, but I read the diff earlier and it seems good
19:21:25 <orrc> :)
19:21:27 <rtyler> heh
19:21:54 <rtyler> orrc: tidying this up may have been the first thing I did this morning
19:21:59 <KostyaSha> kohsuke, do you insist in your permanent place?
19:22:45 <kohsuke> I'd like to think that doing so ensures some degree of consistency, which is in the interest of the community.
19:22:47 <rtyler> KostyaSha: this was already discussed in the previous meeting, I think it is important that kohsuke's place as the founder/leader of the project is codified in this proposal
19:22:58 <abayer> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=63930772&originalId=85590498
19:23:35 <KostyaSha> rtyler, that shouldn't be a problem if he will have enough votes. Worst indicator will be if he didn't get enough votes.
19:23:53 <abayer> I made it generic so that it's not broken if we for some reason add another permanent seat in the future.
19:24:05 <batmat> +1 for well, not, I won't write the triple K this time, but +1 again for kohsuke as it's stated
19:24:21 <rtyler> abayer: the edit looks fine to me
19:24:27 <abayer> rtyler: cool cool
19:24:39 <danielbeck> KostyaSha Except if too many people don't vote for KK because nobody thinks he could possibly be gone
19:25:11 <KostyaSha> danielbeck, rules of voting should be clear for all voters, right?
19:25:18 <rtyler> IMO it's not the Jenkins project without kohsuke the same way it's not Linux without Linus
19:25:24 <abayer> Let's be blunt - the only real impact this will have is to simplify voting and vote calculations, since we won't always have Kohsuke votes to count.
19:25:31 <abayer> The end result will be identical.
19:25:56 * rtyler pokes hare_brain
19:26:14 * hare_brain has been trying to get a sentence in edgewise.
19:26:18 <abayer> heh
19:26:40 <rtyler> just making sure I didn't need to make a wake-up call to your cell phone xD
19:26:42 <batmat> abayer: +1. And if you wish KostyaSha get elected to the board and make that the subject of the board next year or so.
19:26:55 <KostyaSha> ok, can i then name this position as king?
19:27:04 <KostyaSha> (for my personal usage)
19:27:13 <rtyler> you can call it whatever you want KostyaSha
19:27:17 <KostyaSha> thanks!
19:27:25 <hare_brain> I agree with the proposal. I think Kohsuke's permanent position should not be up for discussion. We have to allow for his creatorship and leadership.
19:27:30 <abayer> …just don't use KKK as the initials. =)
19:27:31 <hare_brain> If he gets tired of it, he can resign.
19:27:40 <danielbeck> "Have election every year, electing 2 people and 3 people in each alternating year" < with one permanent position, it's 2 and 2 (or 1 and 3)
19:27:41 * rtyler contemplates kicking abayer
19:27:55 <batmat> abayer: noooes, I tried myself to not use that again ;-)
19:27:59 <rtyler> whoops, didn't math update
19:28:21 <abayer> Also worth noting - if three other people on the board decide that they want to remote the permanent seat, they can do so. Kohsuke doesn't get veto power, he just gets a permanent seat.
19:28:23 <rtyler> whoops, updated underneath batmat
19:28:47 <rtyler> batmat: I may have screwed up your edit, sorry
19:28:56 <orrc> I'm ambivalent about the King position; +1 overall from me
19:29:11 <kohsuke> "electing 2 people and 2 people in each alternating year" looks awkward
19:29:16 <KostyaSha> as foss dev i just want to see positive results of such elections, not just cosmetic rules and actions
19:29:18 <kohsuke> just "electing 2 people each year" should do
19:29:24 <KostyaSha> that's why i'm asking
19:29:46 <rtyler> KostyaSha: if you view this as a cosmetic set of changes then I don't know how to better convince you otherwise
19:30:04 <rtyler> this would mean that next election we would append two people to the board
19:30:04 <KostyaSha> rtyler, no, result will be clear later of course
19:30:21 <rtyler> then the year after that hare_brain and I, assuming neither of us resign, will be up
19:30:31 <hare_brain> I have to wait that long?
19:30:31 <KostyaSha> last 2 years i can treat as disaster of jenkins organisation (IMHO)
19:30:58 * KostyaSha hopes for better future
19:31:00 <batmat> KostyaSha: http://i2.wp.com/philosiblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/kindnessElephantsCrop.jpg
19:31:16 <rtyler> hare_brain: resignations are described thtere :P
19:31:29 <abayer> I was smart enough to resign before we had a policy!
19:31:39 <rtyler> but if you're planning, please be courteous and do it before our election early next year :P
19:31:44 <KostyaSha> abayer, :(
19:31:56 <kohsuke> I made the edit along my suggestion: https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=63930772&originalId=85590500
19:32:13 <rtyler> that looks good to me kohsuke
19:32:32 <hare_brain> Yes, that reads better.
19:32:38 <rtyler> it appears to me that this is solid and we can have some elections next year, no?
19:32:51 <abayer> Let's have a formal board vote. =)
19:32:56 * batmat checks something to be sure
19:32:58 <kohsuke> I think we are ready to vote
19:33:10 <rtyler> #agreed to the v13 of the proposal
19:33:11 <danielbeck> current doc version?
19:33:14 <KostyaSha> Will candidates provide their jenkins future program before elections?
19:33:25 <abayer> KostyaSha: If they want to.
19:33:33 <abayer> don't think there'll be an obligation.
19:33:54 <kohsuke> All right, so my +1
19:34:10 <KostyaSha> What benefits community will have after elections and having new board members?
19:34:45 <batmat> sorry, but yet another question:
19:34:59 <rtyler> batmat: fire away
19:35:24 <kohsuke> KostyaSha: to lend legitimacy to the authority of the board
19:35:34 <batmat> maybe it's already written down, but: are the 2 people being out allowed to be-reelected?
19:35:49 <danielbeck> good question, term limits
19:35:52 <abayer> Since it's not stated that they aren't, yes, they are allowed to be reelected.
19:35:58 <batmat> I mean, could it be 10 years with the same team each time?
19:36:04 <rtyler> IMHO sure
19:36:11 <batmat> (not saying this'd be a bad/good thing)
19:36:12 <abayer> If they keep winning elections.
19:36:13 <rtyler> I don't see any benefit to enforcing a term limit
19:36:15 <KostyaSha> if person good and active, why not?
19:36:18 <abayer> And don't all get hired by the same company. =)
19:36:22 <rtyler> heh
19:36:37 <batmat> absolutely, just again trying to  make it the least ambiguous possible
19:36:41 <KostyaSha> abayer, /same/one/ :)
19:37:35 <kohsuke> If no further questions, I think we should proceed to vote
19:37:37 <danielbeck> is anything happening when a board member changes jobs and a company becomes dominant? Or will this be fixed in the next election, or the one after?
19:37:56 <rtyler> "If a board member gets employed by a company and the limitation gets violated, a new election is being scheduled"
19:38:02 <danielbeck> rtyler thanks
19:38:06 <rtyler> forgive some silly grammar nits, but that's covered
19:38:40 <rtyler> batmat just added a couple words https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=63930772&selectedPageVersions=14&selectedPageVersions=13
19:38:46 <batmat> editing the page about that, is that better? https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/diffpages.action?pageId=63930772&originalId=85590502
19:38:50 <rtyler> heh
19:39:06 <rtyler> still the same in my eyes, what do you think hare_brain
19:39:06 <kohsuke> shouldn't it be handled like a resignation?
19:39:24 <abayer> kohsuke: Who should have to step down?
19:39:34 <rtyler> fight to the death!
19:39:41 <kohsuke> Up to the board to decide
19:39:53 <rtyler> hrm
19:40:24 <rtyler> I think I'm with kohsuke on this one, interim procedures so long as the company quota isn't violated
19:40:30 <abayer> Works for me for now.
19:40:42 <kohsuke> I don't want to micro-edit this to the death, but I thought that was the intent from earlier discussions
19:41:38 <batmat> +1 from me
19:42:09 <rtyler> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/diffpagesbyversion.action?pageId=63930772&selectedPageVersions=15&selectedPageVersions=14
19:42:12 <hare_brain> I think it's good enough to kick off with.
19:42:33 <rtyler> getting hired and tipping the scales results in somebody needing to recuse themselves and interim procedures being followed
19:42:45 <kohsuke> hare_brain: agreed
19:42:57 <rtyler> this is v15
19:43:02 <abayer> (back in a few minutes - gotta move rooms)
19:43:27 <orrc> v15 is go
19:43:28 <kohsuke> any more questions?
19:43:46 <kohsuke> rtyler: Can we vote now?
19:43:47 <rtyler> #action rtyler to move the board election process into the governance document
19:43:53 <rtyler> sure
19:43:59 <rtyler> #agreed on v15
19:44:15 <batmat> https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=63930772 version yup
19:44:23 <kohsuke> Recording my +1 in the minutes
19:44:42 <hare_brain> +1
19:44:52 <danielbeck> +1
19:44:56 <ogondza> +1
19:45:09 <batmat> +1
19:45:10 <rtyler> time for another fun topic
19:45:21 <rtyler> #topic Review/adopt a Code of Conduct
19:45:24 <rtyler> #info https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Code+of+Conduct
19:45:32 <rtyler> I hope everybody has had time to read this
19:45:46 <rtyler> orrc: I believe I've incorporated all of your feedback in one form or another
19:45:50 <orrc> hopefully there's a way of querying when people signed up to the account app, so we can find out who's eligible to vote :)
19:45:52 <hare_brain> Luckily, Swift used the same template.
19:46:23 <KostyaSha> i have questions about CoC
19:46:29 <orrc> rtyler: yeah, I saw your changes. I don't agree that the project has power over FOSDEM and JAMs
19:46:43 <rtyler> #info the code of conduct is largely sourced from http://contributor-covenant.org/
19:46:50 <orrc> I like the suggestion that independent events like that are *encouraged* to apply the same Code
19:46:50 <KostyaSha> and it question that orrc  asked
19:47:16 <rtyler> orrc: my perspective on it is that if one is representing Jenkins at FOSDEM (i.e. manning the booth) then I would expect this to apply
19:47:27 <KostyaSha> Let's simulate, you banned me but i'm creating jenkins meetup, how they may work?
19:47:41 <orrc> the term "project maintainers" is still used a bunch, and is unclear
19:47:45 <orrc> (to me)
19:48:03 <KostyaSha> orrc, because this CoC copied from single project CoC and not organisation level
19:49:18 <KostyaSha> I want request add one point from https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Code+of+Conduct
19:49:18 <KostyaSha> If you screw up, take responsibility for your actions.
19:49:22 <batmat> rtyler: might be true for FOSDEM, but difficulty indeed for any JAM in the world to enforce. Ppl involved might decide to do what they want
19:49:26 <KostyaSha> (sorry wrong link)
19:49:33 <KostyaSha> From https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
19:49:39 <kohsuke> orrc: I think we can replace them by "project contributors"
19:50:28 <kohsuke> And there's one use of "project maintainer" that needs to be replaced by "board"
19:50:40 <rtyler> batmat: JAMs are indeed more difficult to do anything about, but if the Jenkins project is spending money on stickers/t-shirts for said meetup, I think we should expect the CoC to be followed
19:50:47 <orrc> ok, more generally: "project" is unclear :)
19:50:56 <rtyler> kohsuke: I updated some references already
19:51:19 <KostyaSha> rtyler, stickers are 20$, rooms usually provided by sponsors
19:51:45 <batmat> rtyler: absolutelyu, just saying not sure that CoC can be said to apply. Or yes, agreed if you mean that would make the Jenkins community to take actions against the said JAM
19:51:49 <rtyler> batmat: if someboyd organizes a Jenkins meetup completely independently there's not much we can do except pursue a trademark issue
19:52:02 <batmat> somehow excluding it, then indeed, I agree
19:52:39 <rtyler> I think there should be a followup action here perhaps, to say ask JAM organizers to agree to help follow the CoC prior to receiving materials/support from alyssat, etc
19:52:51 <batmat> rtyler: that's my point. But yeah, having a meetup that clearly doesn't follow that would make it 'officially excluded' somehow
19:52:58 <KostyaSha> rtyler, please read my example
19:53:39 <hare_brain> You guys seem to be making this really complicated. If you go somewhere public as a representative of the Jenkins community, you should be well mannered. It doesn't matter what the forum is or who sponsors it.
19:53:41 <kohsuke> I think the intent here is that everything we do as project should be subject to CoC, and just that some of that is easier to enforce than others
19:53:43 <rtyler> realistically other than withdrawing any support from the community, I don't believe there's much that can be done in such an example
19:54:15 <rtyler> orrc: I was hoping that by defining community spaces "project" would be more clear
19:54:23 <rtyler> I agree it still feels a little more fuzzy
19:54:31 <hare_brain> What the CoC is saying is, "As a member of the Jenkins community, I pledge to behave a certain way in public."
19:54:42 <hare_brain> We're not trying to impose the CoC on the public space.
19:55:10 <rtyler> right
19:55:11 <danielbeck> hare_brain "when appearing as a member of the Jenkins community / when representing the Jenkins community"?
19:55:32 <hare_brain> I'm fine with "appearing as".
19:55:37 <hare_brain> I like that better.
19:55:52 <KostyaSha> like it was written in CloudBees vacancy, "be elite jenkins dev"
19:56:03 <hare_brain> No, that's different.
19:56:13 <hare_brain> This has nothing to do with being an elite dev.
19:56:18 <hare_brain> This is about being polite.
19:56:27 <KostyaSha> hare_brain, i mean term, it sounds cool
19:56:34 <KostyaSha> Elite person should be polite! :)
19:56:44 <hare_brain> Doesn't always seem to be the case.
19:57:03 <hare_brain> Linus is elite but not polite.
19:57:09 <batmat> KostyaSha: as written in the CoC, you don't have to be a developer on the project to be respected
19:57:11 <abayer> Stallman too.
19:57:15 <abayer> But anyway.
19:57:37 <rtyler> danielbeck: where would you put that statement in the document? I think it's good to add
19:57:48 <orrc> I think the removal sentence should be split in two: "The board can temporarily/permanently ban people ...", and "Repository maintainers have the right to delete code, commits, comments etc"
19:57:55 <batmat> anyone, even if he never pushed any line of code, granted he spends time and energy is welcome and respected
19:58:14 <danielbeck> rtyler This code of conduct applies both within project spaces and in public spaces when an individual is representing the project or its community. << It already is in there
19:58:57 <KostyaSha> danielbeck, i have a situation question. I can be organiser, i want present my plugin and want blame jenkins core. Can i do?
19:59:03 <rtyler> aha
19:59:37 <danielbeck> KostyaSha Technical criticism is always valid. "Daniel is incompetent and Kohsuke doesn't give a shit" is not.
20:00:47 <danielbeck> KostyaSha So if you're saying "This feature is weird/the plugin cannot do X because it's not supported in Jenkins core/it's a long standing bug" nothing wrong with that.
20:01:04 <rtyler> orrc: I don't see what you're referring to
20:01:34 <orrc> rtyler: sorry. the sentence starting "The Jenkins board has the right and responsibility to..."
20:01:38 <rtyler> ah
20:01:47 <orrc> then it lists a ton of things that plugin/repo maintainers should be able to do
20:01:56 <orrc> and then finally serious things that only the board should be able to do
20:02:34 <KostyaSha> so i can't say that "jenkins has problems because of 10y backward compatibility, because of jenkins organisation is bazaar model and SPOFs"?
20:02:56 <KostyaSha> orrc, +1
20:03:09 <rtyler> orrc: how about this:
20:03:10 <rtyler> "The Jenkins board has the right and responsibility to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. Plugin and other maintainers also have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct."
20:03:14 <orrc> well, looking at the Go Code of Conduct "Avoid destructive behaviour: Unconstructive criticism: don't merely decry the current state of affairs; offer—or at least solicit—suggestions as to how things may be improved"
20:03:22 <orrc> rtyler: +1
20:03:53 <KostyaSha> as my proposal was ignored, trying repeat. Let's add "If you screw up, take responsibility for your actions." source: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
20:04:06 <kohsuke> rtyler: good edit
20:04:15 <rtyler> KostyaSha: I don't understand what the goal of that line is in their policies
20:04:27 <orrc> KostyaSha: what does that mean? if somebody receives a ban, they should actually take responsibility and carry it out?
20:04:28 <batmat> KostyaSha: this sentence does not mean anything clear to me. Obvious and empty
20:04:49 <KostyaSha> rtyler, example, kohsuke committed to master and other people resolving issues after him. That what mostly raised my bad comments and lead to current CoC discussion
20:05:15 <KostyaSha> orrc, no, that mean that if you can't commit your personal thing and left
20:05:20 <KostyaSha> s/if/
20:05:23 <batmat> KostyaSha: that sentence is as clear as "be an adult"
20:05:27 <hare_brain> That is process, not behavior.
20:05:42 <batmat> useless as this leaves a whole room for interpretation
20:05:43 <hare_brain> CoC is about behavior.
20:06:07 <rtyler> orrc: I'm trying to find a place to incorporate that line from the Go CoC, i think it's a good one and captures what danielbeck was saying earlier
20:06:15 <KostyaSha> hare_brain, please look on title https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct#Behaviour_and_consequences
20:06:27 <rtyler> also, just as a time check, we're a little over the time scheduled for the meeting
20:07:01 <hare_brain> My point is that committing directly to master is a failure of development process, not a failure in conduct.
20:07:18 <KostyaSha> hare_brain, example jglick - he is always resolving things that he screwed. Excellent example.
20:07:23 <hare_brain> CoC is how we treat each other as people.
20:07:33 <KostyaSha> hare_brain, bad example probably
20:07:51 <hare_brain> All I am saying is your examples are outside the scope of what CoC covers.
20:07:52 <abayer> KostyaSha: What does any of that have to do with treating others with respect?
20:07:55 <abayer> I'm lost.
20:08:49 <KostyaSha> abayer, how i can respect person that breaking all plugins and running away instead of resolving his badness?
20:09:03 <rtyler> #action rtyler to incorporate some more of orrc's feedback (see above)
20:09:05 <abayer> You don't have to respect him personally, you just have to treat him with respect.
20:09:15 <batmat> KostyaSha: so you think those plugin break things on purpose? srsly?
20:09:24 <rtyler> we're getting off topic
20:09:28 <batmat> *people
20:09:31 <orrc> action item taken, move on :D
20:09:34 <abayer> There are *plenty* of people I have to interact with in my life who I think are idiots, but it's rude and disrespectful to treat them poorly because of my opinion. *shrug*
20:09:37 <rtyler> I think we should table this discussion and follow up next time with some more recent feedback from this meeting included
20:09:47 <orrc> +1
20:10:05 <batmat> +1, let it mature still a bit
20:10:05 <rtyler> kohsuke hare_brain: does that work for y'all?
20:10:06 <hare_brain> I got pulled off the comment I was going to make
20:10:08 <KostyaSha> abayer, in this project you see what person DO and SAYS, you don't care about he personal life style
20:10:17 <hare_brain> about that edit you made in response to orrc.
20:10:46 <kohsuke> Yes, this will continue to the next meeting
20:11:03 <hare_brain> The original implied that board members had rights to take action in individual repositories on behalf of, or despite maintainers.
20:11:10 <KostyaSha> Btw, why not make meeting longer? All meetings didn't fit in 1hour
20:11:24 <hare_brain> The modified version does not have that implication.
20:11:38 <hare_brain> Not saying one is preferred over the other, just pointing out that difference.
20:11:46 <rtyler> hare_brain: noted
20:12:09 <kohsuke> Can we quickly cover batmat's topic and then wrap up?
20:12:20 <rtyler> yeah, I think we should
20:12:30 <rtyler> #topic NOT tweet anymore plugins w/o a wiki page
20:12:37 <batmat> #info see https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/jenkinsci-dev/qR8WqJZmNZs/1a9Zd3F0DAAJ
20:12:38 <rtyler> #info for reference https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/jenkinsci-dev/qR8WqJZmNZs/1a9Zd3F0DAAJ
20:12:41 <orrc> this problem will resolve itself in ~3 weeks
20:12:41 <rtyler> heh
20:12:53 <batmat> cool
20:13:05 <kohsuke> Yeah once it stops being a part of the UC metadata, where the twitter bot is fed from
20:13:13 <batmat> I was wondering how plugin publishing to the UC was related to the tweeting process
20:13:20 <batmat> So done I guess ;-)
20:13:36 <orrc> batmat: yeah, I can give you details in #jenkins if you want :)
20:13:37 <batmat> out of curiosity, where's the related code of the tweeting bot if available?
20:13:59 <orrc> but there is still somehow two versions of the bot running, which causes duplicates
20:14:02 <batmat> orrc: yup, with pleasure. Or #jenkins-infra maybe
20:14:08 <orrc> batmat: sure
20:14:20 <kohsuke> #topic next meeting
20:14:32 <rtyler> 23rd? :/
20:14:46 <rtyler> do people have more or less time close to xmas :P
20:15:05 <kohsuke> I expect the attendance to be light
20:15:09 <danielbeck> LTS testing fron 23rd to ~6th Jan? wow.
20:15:15 <rtyler> hah
20:15:17 <rtyler> yeah right ::P
20:15:18 <danielbeck> 636 will be complete crap.
20:15:27 <rtyler> what about Dec 30th instead?
20:15:53 <kohsuke> Trying to stick to the same cadence
20:16:05 <danielbeck> I suggest we skip Dec 23, next meeting Jan 6, with LTS RC then and release Jan 20.
20:16:18 <kohsuke> danielbeck: +1
20:16:20 <batmat> +1, simpler I guess.
20:16:21 <rtyler> I think that's fine
20:16:45 <rtyler> we might have a lot on the agenda, to KostyaSha's point earlier, so think we could fit 90 minutes in ?
20:16:51 <rtyler> since we're skipping one
20:17:05 <batmat> so action: remove the next time from the agenda :)
20:17:14 <kohsuke> #agreed we'll skip Dec 23rd and next meeting is Jan 6th
20:17:29 <kohsuke> #agreed LTS will delay by 2 weeks
20:17:41 <danielbeck> rtyler could we determine this closer to the meeting after more mailing list discussion?
20:17:50 <danielbeck> or do we need to know now?
20:17:59 <rtyler> we /could/ I know that I'm not the only one that needs to schedule these things in advance
20:18:03 <batmat> rtyler: +1 with danielbeck : it heavily depends on what will be put on the agenda
20:18:12 <rtyler> if we schedule it now, then there's no harm in finishing a meeting early
20:18:23 <danielbeck> good point
20:18:24 <rtyler> we're allowed to finish early :P
20:18:26 <kohsuke> #info come prepared for a longer meeting for Jan 6 if you can
20:18:31 <rtyler> heh
20:18:45 <rtyler> #action rtyler to extend the meeting invite for the 6th just to be safe
20:18:57 <rtyler> I /think/ that wraps today, yeah?
20:19:08 <kohsuke> Happy Christmas and New Year everyone!
20:19:10 <kohsuke> #endmeeting
20:19:30 <rtyler> file back into #jenkins for your usual program of questions and jiras everybody :)
20:19:37 <danielbeck> #endmeeting
20:19:48 <danielbeck> robobutler?
20:19:55 <rtyler> #endmeeting