| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |
| Who | What | When |
|---|---|---|
| *** | ChanServ sets mode: +v mchehab | [02:04] |
| .............................................................................................. (idle for 7h49mn) | ||
| ChanServ sets mode: +v mchehab | [09:53] | |
| .......................... (idle for 2h7mn) | ||
| mchehab | hi all | [12:00] |
| pinchartl | hello | [12:00] |
| hverkuil | hi
just a head's up: I'm expecting repairmen 'some time this afternoon', so if I disappear, then that's why :-) | [12:00] |
| mchehab | ok | [12:01] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: do you expect repairmen to abduct you? | [12:01] |
| syoung | hi all | [12:02] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: now, that's a scary thought...
syoung: did you find any useful dvb hardware in the list I mailed you? | [12:02] |
| mchehab | from my side, I applied all pending pull requests, except for the stateless decoder vicodec (with suffered some changes yesterday). I'll likely apply it today | [12:04] |
| hverkuil | nice! I'm working on the stateful encoder compliance tests (using vicodec as test driver). It's coming along nicely. | [12:05] |
| sailus | Heippa! | [12:05] |
| syoung | hverkuil: yes, thank you very much. I don't have a saa7461 (and I have been reading the source for that driver). I do have already have a cx88. Thank you for the offer
saa7146 | [12:06] |
| hverkuil | I'll get back to you this weekend with what I have in Norway. | [12:08] |
| syoung | thank you very much. | [12:09] |
| hverkuil | I'll mail it all from the Netherlands, which will be post-March 29th :-) | [12:09] |
| syoung | I might have to be move somewhere else by then :/ | [12:09] |
| mchehab | before I forget, I'll be in vacations between April, 1st-20th | [12:10] |
| syoung | mchehab: there are two patches which need your attention, I think: https://patchwork.linuxtv.org/project/linux-media/list/?submitter=31 | [12:10] |
| mchehab | will likely be handing patches, but won't likely be available for chats | [12:10] |
| hverkuil | mchehab: please post that to media-submaintainers.
I13-22 I'll be on vacation April 13-22. | [12:11] |
| mchehab | syoung: what do you want me to do with them? | [12:13] |
| syoung | Dmitry is asking you questions | [12:13] |
| mchehab | ok, will answer | [12:16] |
| sailus | I've been working on a few patchsets regarding firmware interfaces. The first one is on the list, the second one is not (yet).
I also did a bit of research on the matters of language regarding associations in Finland. | [12:16] |
| mchehab | what about those warning fixes for IPU driver? had any progress? | [12:18] |
| sailus | It seems that the rules of the association are, by law, only either in Finnish or Swedish (or both). That doesn't mean we couldn't have translated rules, possibly translated by a certified translator. | [12:19] |
| pinchartl | sailus: doesn't sound very practical
(and I'm not surprised) | [12:19] |
| sailus | mchehab: I've asked Raj to test them. I'll ping him to check the status.
pinchartl: I do not expect the rules to be changed very often. | [12:19] |
| pinchartl | speaking of the IPU3 driver | [12:20] |
| sailus | Apart from that, all else seems fine to me. | [12:20] |
| mchehab | syoung: ah, I saw his question on the second one :-) | [12:20] |
| pinchartl | what's the plan going forward if Intel doesn't invest in it ? | [12:20] |
| sailus | pinchartl: I got the hardware some days ago, after writing the patches and asking Raj to test them. | [12:21] |
| pinchartl | what is Raj using to test code ? | [12:22] |
| sailus | pinchartl: I believe he's testing with the Chrome OS. | [12:23] |
| pinchartl | sailus: that would surprise me, given that the chromeos and upstream code bases have diverged | [12:23] |
| sailus | Uh... what do you mean? That the current does not (or at least did not for a while) did not compile with Clang? | [12:24] |
| pinchartl | I mean that the driver in staging and the driver in the chromeos kernel are different
I wouldn't expect the chromeos camera hal to work with the mainline driver | [12:25] |
| sailus | There could be differences. But that isn't relevant here if you're testing the one in upstream. | [12:25] |
| pinchartl | expect when your userspace depends on code not present in the upstream driver :-) | [12:26] |
| sailus | pinchartl: Such as? | [12:27] |
| pinchartl | s/expect/except/
I don't know. my understanding is that's the case, but I may be wrong | [12:27] |
| sailus | Raj told me he tested with the mainline kernel, as long as it compiled with Clang.
I'd expect that to be addressed in not too distant future. | [12:28] |
| pinchartl | well, let's see how it goes :-) | [12:28] |
| sailus | Naturally the user space will need modifications if the driver interface changes.
And, it will, but not with these patches. | [12:28] |
| mchehab | anything else? | [12:30] |
| hverkuil | not from me. | [12:30] |
| sailus | That's all from me. | [12:30] |
| pinchartl | no need to wait 1/2h to discuss the topic of domain name and hosting btw, I'm here already :-) | [12:31] |
| mchehab | ok, let's switch to the other channel then | [12:31] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: no need for that
the discussion can be public and it actually should be public does anyone have concerned with this discussion being logged? | [12:31] |
| hverkuil | depends. Not as long as it is about what we want. When it gets into specifics (i.e. should we be using hosting company X or Y), then I prefer a less public forum. | [12:33] |
| pinchartl | I don't think we should discuss root passwords in public :-) | [12:34] |
| hverkuil | we can start here, I'm fine with that. As soon as someone feels uncomfortable about this, we can move over. | [12:34] |
| mchehab | works for me | [12:34] |
| pinchartl | and there's value in not publishing every detail about the technical infrastructure to lower the attack vector
but by default I think discussions about how we organize development in the linux media community should be public and on how we organize the community in general | [12:34] |
| mchehab | lets start with the funding discussions as this is more advanced | [12:36] |
| pinchartl | i'd like to start with the fundamental question | [12:36] |
| mchehab | as you all know, LF CommunityBridge was already announced... | [12:36] |
| pinchartl | which we have delayed answering for a long time
how do we want to organize ourselves ? | [12:36] |
| mchehab | I don't want to be part of a formal org
I don't see any value on that | [12:37] |
| hverkuil | I'm happy the way things are. I agree with Mauro on that. | [12:38] |
| mchehab | and that would cause a lot of pain | [12:38] |
| pinchartl | I don't want any individual owning the domain name or hosting contract
as there's no reason to give such power to any single of us | [12:38] |
| mchehab | this has been working since 2005. No reason why changing it | [12:38] |
| sailus | mchehab: A lot of things have changed since 2005. | [12:39] |
| pinchartl | either we're a community, and we work as a community, or we're a dictatorship, and we give power to a dictator | [12:39] |
| sailus | This is quite a bit more professional than it used to be. | [12:39] |
| pinchartl | look at the majority of big open-source projects | [12:39] |
| mchehab | yes, but we didn't have any single issue due to domain name/hosting ownership | [12:39] |
| hverkuil | I have no problem with that, as long as there is some planning in case of sickness, or if someone comes under the proverbial bus. | [12:39] |
| pinchartl | from Debian to smaller ones | [12:39] |
| sailus | And we should take that into account in how we arrange the development. Not in just the code that is written. | [12:40] |
| pinchartl | they're organized, with clearly defined rules
this isn't just about hosting a website it's about fostering a successful commmunity creating a place where people feel welcome want to join, want to contribute, want to stay | [12:40] |
| hverkuil | That has nothing to do with having some organzation own the domainname. That is how you behave on mailinglists and events. | [12:41] |
| mchehab | none of those has anything to do with who is the formal contact for hosting/dns services | [12:41] |
| pinchartl | it does | [12:41] |
| mchehab | and none of those require a formal org | [12:41] |
| pinchartl | it's about how we structure ourselves, what rules we put in place, how transparent we are
what message we send to the outside and clearly we're not doing a good job there | [12:41] |
| mchehab | what we structure ourselves/rules/transparency is a completely separate matter than website hosting | [12:42] |
| hverkuil | what's wrong with what we do today? Apparently you believe we do something wrong, but it's not clear to me what that is and why creating some org would help? | [12:42] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: look at how many core developers we have compared to other subsystems that have put effort into becoming open and fostering a good community
such as drm for instance we've failed there | [12:43] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: very few people need video capture. Everyone needs video output. Sorry, it's as simple as that. | [12:44] |
| syoung | that's still unrelated to hosting and domain names | [12:44] |
| sailus | Just from a practical point of view, the contracts with the hosting provider or the domain registrar need no changes when people come and go, if they're in the name of an association. | [12:44] |
| mchehab | I agree with hverkuil | [12:44] |
| pinchartl | continuing as we've done, with no consideration for a community, going for ad-hoc solutions with a single person in charge of our community infrastructure isn't a good message to send to the world
hverkuil: that's not true. there are cameras in most devices today | [12:44] |
| hverkuil | Almost all uvc. | [12:45] |
| sailus | We're adding more infrastructure (automated builds etc.) so there will be more hosting services needed than in the past (plus the virtual machine in some German university won't be available much longer). | [12:45] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: have you been aware of something called ARM, SoC or embedded devices ? ;-)
mchehab: let's put it in a clear way then mchehab: would you let me have the hosting contract and domain name under my name ? :-) I would expect a negative answer | [12:45] |
| sailus | hverkuil: More and more CSI-2 connected cameras are appearing. | [12:46] |
| pinchartl | (and rightfully so) | [12:46] |
| syoung | In the nearly all the oss communities I've participated, some one person owns the domainnames/deals with hosting. I've never seen this become an issue. | [12:46] |
| hverkuil | Not found in the vast majority of sonsumer laptops/PCs, and most hardware that does use it is made by SoC vendors who often keep it closed. I feel we are doing pretty good actually. | [12:46] |
| sailus | On regular laptops, that is. | [12:46] |
| mchehab | pinchartl: right now, the hosting "contract" and domain name is not under my name | [12:46] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: I know | [12:46] |
| mchehab | I've been happy with that since 2005 | [12:46] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: under whose name should it be then ? | [12:47] |
| hverkuil | I'm fine having you host the server and owning the domainname. As long as the server is backed up with someone else (not you :-) ) so that others can continue if something happened to you. | [12:47] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: what would happen to the domain name in that case ? | [12:47] |
| hverkuil | If you would do a runner with the domainname, then the remaining devs pick another. Annoying, but hardly the end of the world. | [12:48] |
| mchehab | from practical PoV, IMHO, the domain should either be owned by someone that has currently maintaining it
I'm ok on having others with root access to it | [12:48] |
| pinchartl | are them involved in this community ? | [12:49] |
| mchehab | (right now, mkrufky have) | [12:49] |
| syoung | mchehab: sounds good :) | [12:49] |
| mchehab | they founded it | [12:49] |
| pinchartl | and ? | [12:50] |
| mchehab | and they are maintaining it | [12:50] |
| pinchartl | starting a project doesn't grant dictator-for-life permissions :-) | [12:50] |
| mchehab | I have *nothing* to complain about what they did so far. Do you have anything to complain? | [12:50] |
| pinchartl | again this isn't about any specific individual. it's about our community of developers | [12:51] |
| hverkuil | But I'm happy with the community! | [12:51] |
| mchehab | me too | [12:51] |
| pinchartl | that's the problem...
look at how small it is and at how difficult it is for us to attract new people | [12:52] |
| hverkuil | I'd wish for more core devs, but that's got nothing to do with hosting etc. That's just because very few SoC vendors can be convinced to actively contribute. | [12:52] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: that's not the main reason in my opinion | [12:52] |
| hverkuil | And yes, I've tried to convince a few through Cisco. | [12:52] |
| pinchartl | we've had contributors | [12:52] |
| hverkuil | I believe it is. | [12:52] |
| pinchartl | quite a lot of them
and almost all of them didn't stay why do people stay around in DRM and not in V4L2 ? | [12:52] |
| syoung | pinchartl: how would changing the domain name ownership help here? | [12:53] |
| pinchartl | why do I get told in private by people who contribute that they don't want to stay ?
syoung: it's a symptom, it's part of the message we send to the outside | [12:53] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: why don't they talk to me about that? Am I the problem perhaps? I never hear about that. | [12:53] |
| syoung | I don't see that. I do see we could do better at attracting people. | [12:54] |
| pinchartl | it's up to us to say that we're open and people are welcome, or to say we'll continue doing what we've always done and not be a welcoming community | [12:54] |
| mchehab | that has nothing to do with domain ownership | [12:54] |
| hverkuil | What is not welcoming? Please give a concrete example! | [12:54] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: that I can't tell. I don't know who else they talk to, and I don't think they all talk to me :-) | [12:54] |
| mchehab | that's something that hardly affects anyone at the community | [12:54] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: one concrete example is the amount of fight and drama many of the core changes generate | [12:55] |
| mchehab | anyway, if we want to discuss how to attract people, improve process, etc, that's another subject. let's schedule an specific meeting for that | [12:55] |
| hverkuil | Then it is all smoke and mirrors. If I get a specific complaint, then I would very much like to address that. I WANT more devs. | [12:55] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: I know you do
hverkuil: if you want a recommendation | [12:55] |
| mchehab | same applied to me | [12:55] |
| pinchartl | talk to danvet the next time you have a chance
and ask him how we could improve | [12:56] |
| mchehab | I want more devs and I'm trying to improve things as we get concrete issues | [12:56] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: what do you think of what DRM has done then ? | [12:56] |
| hverkuil | No, I want to know from devs who left. Not from Daniel. | [12:56] |
| mchehab | danvet is not a media contributor. what he does works for DRM, but may not work for other subsystems | [12:57] |
| hverkuil | He'll say that we should use the drm model, but that works because there are big companies (intel, amd) actively contributing. We don't have that in v4l (with some exceptions such as renesas). | [12:57] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: why are you so convinced it wouldn't work that you don't want to give it a chance ? :-)
hverkuil: that's not true the drm model has nothing to do with intel or amd | [12:57] |
| mchehab | pinchartl: no, I'm convinced that this is not the subject of this meeting
we could try some ideas from DRM subsystem, but this is OOT our focus here is hosting/dns/infra | [12:58] |
| hverkuil | I agree, I wouldn't mind discussing this another time, but this has nothing to do with hosting. | [12:58] |
| syoung | I'm keen on some the ideas from DRM. I would like to see co-maintainers. Someting for another day | [12:59] |
| pinchartl | I think it's very much in topic, but we don't seem to agree on that :-) I think hosting/dns/infra is our window to the outside, how we appear as a community, and if we send a bad message there, it reflects on the rst | [12:59] |
| mchehab | no, hosting/dns/infra discussion is about how we can improve our support infra | [13:00] |
| hverkuil | ??? When I do a git clone I never check who hosts it. Or who hosts a website. | [13:00] |
| mchehab | once we have more resources, we can improve it and try to experiment things from other development models | [13:01] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: we won't get more resources if we don't change our model | [13:01] |
| mchehab | s/resources/infra resources/ | [13:01] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: I honestly don't understand what you want. | [13:02] |
| sailus | mchehab, hverkuil: Assuming that we did not e.g. found an association to manage the domain and / or hosting services, what would be the alternatives, and what would be the benefits? | [13:02] |
| mchehab | pinchartl: I can't see why our hosting model has an issue that would prevent us from getting resources | [13:02] |
| sailus | Just get the hosting contract under the name of one of us, for instance? | [13:03] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: I want to get our community out of its hole, and get it to grow, and improve | [13:03] |
| mchehab | sailus: that would work. We could play with admin/technical/finance contacts to have backups in case of one of us suddenly dies | [13:03] |
| hverkuil | sailus: I'm happy with Mauro owning the domainname and arranging the hosting. Funding either via the LF or we pay it (and perhaps get it expensed). Two main criteria: | [13:03] |
| mchehab | and, of course, we should have multiple people with root access to it | [13:04] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: would you be fine, for instance, having the domain name owned by Hans ? | [13:04] |
| hverkuil | 1) it should be backed up to somewhere else (and of course there should be 2-3 admins with root rights) | [13:04] |
| mchehab | pinchartl: from your comments, it sounds that you have an issue with me | [13:04] |
| sailus | hverkuil: That could be done properly through an association. Finding one is a very light-weight process. | [13:05] |
| hverkuil | 2) there needs to be some planning for transfer of domainname/hosting in case someone gets ill/leaves/whatever. | [13:05] |
| sailus | s/Finding/Founding/ | [13:05] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: I have an issue with an individual person owning the assets | [13:05] |
| mchehab | sailus: no, it is not a very light-weight process | [13:05] |
| sailus | mchehab: How so? | [13:05] |
| pinchartl | (and for the record, I don't want to own the domain name or hosting, but I would be more than willing to sponsor the hosting if it was owned by an organization) | [13:06] |
| mchehab | based on our previous discussions of such kinds, we'll take months to have an agreement at the constitution act, for example | [13:06] |
| sailus | It doesn't have to be complicated. Why would it be? | [13:06] |
| mchehab | then, we'll have periodic meetings to elect who will be heading it
with will also be painful | [13:06] |
| sailus | mchehab: Yearly, on IRC. | [13:06] |
| mchehab | and all the hassles with regards to where the ORG will be
physically located (Finland? Brazil? US? UK? a neutral place like Australia?) too much effort for too little | [13:07] |
| hverkuil | I agree. | [13:08] |
| pinchartl | it's the "too little" part that I disagree with
we have lots to gain from this, from a community point of view it's not just a matter of hosting a single server | [13:08] |
| mchehab | pinchartl: frankly, I can't see a single benefit of it | [13:09] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: and I don't see that. When working with others I never cared about whether there is some organization behind it or not, or where it is hosted. | [13:09] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: can you see a benefit from a community structure where power isn't centralized but distributed ? | [13:09] |
| hverkuil | what power? | [13:10] |
| mchehab | power to host a website???? | [13:10] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: you're a bit paranoid IMHO. | [13:10] |
| pinchartl | maintainer's power | [13:10] |
| mchehab | that has nothing to do with domain/hosting
changing who owns the infra won't change that either | [13:11] |
| pinchartl | it wouldn't automatically change that, no | [13:12] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: it feels that what you really want is multiple maintainers for our git repo. | [13:12] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: that's certainly what I dream of, yes :-) but not as an end in itself, but as a tool to make our community more attractive
and solve the shortage of core devs | [13:13] |
| hverkuil | But that's a different topic, nothing to do with how we organize ourselves legally. | [13:14] |
| mchehab | at the time we had every developer with access to the repository, we were still limited to ~10 active devels
with is what we currently have | [13:14] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: Linux was much smaller back then, with way less people | [13:14] |
| mchehab | the number of active developers didn't change much over time | [13:14] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: not necessarily: there were many more hobbyists, you rarely see those anymore.
instead it's more consultants and some companies. | [13:14] |
| mchehab | and the changes were not due to having multiple access to the repo or not
the time we had more devels, for example, were when Nokia started working with N9/N900 on that time, we were already at a single developer with access to the tree hverkuil is right: the number of hobbyists reduced along the time, not only on media | [13:15] |
| pinchartl | look at contributions we got over time from pengutronix, from samsung back in the samsung poland days, from bootlin, from collabora, ... all those people are skilled developers. most didn't stay in V4L2 once their job was done, most didn't become core contributors. some got DRM commit rights though, and are very active there... | [13:16] |
| mchehab | that's because of the demands
of their work | [13:17] |
| pinchartl | no it's not | [13:17] |
| hverkuil | BTW, for what it is worth, I think there would be benefits of having at least two maintainers. But I doubt it will attract more devs. I don't think the git maintainer model has much if anything to do with that. | [13:17] |
| sailus | hverkuil: That's not the property of git, it's how we use it. | [13:18] |
| mchehab | anyway, let's get back to the subject of this meeting please
we can have other meetings to discuss suggestions from DRM devel model, but let's first solve our infra issues Our agenda for this meeting is: 1. Ownership of assets (domain name and hosting contract) 2. Funding for hosting 3. Admin access rights 4. Technical infrastructure (this can likely be postponed) I guess we discussed already (1). We don't have a consensus on creating an ORG | [13:18] |
| pinchartl | ok, let's answer the first question then | [13:19] |
| mchehab | this is something that we need all to agree if we want to do that
from my side, I don't agree on creating an org due to domain/hosting | [13:19] |
| pinchartl | well, the assets need to be owned | [13:20] |
| sailus | mchehab: Is there a concrete alternative to what has been proposed on (1)? This is intrinsically related to (2). | [13:20] |
| pinchartl | so the question of who owns the assets needs to be answered. either an organization we create, a third-party organization, or an individual (in the last two cases, who ?) | [13:20] |
| sailus | Changes to what we currently do will be needed anyway. | [13:20] |
| mchehab | sailus: my suggestion here is to have different people for admin, technical and financial contacts at the hosting/dns services | [13:21] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: that won't help much
the owner will still be the one who can change those contacts | [13:21] |
| mchehab | the only reason I see for a replace a contact is if someone decides to do something else and leave the subsystem | [13:23] |
| sailus | Just FYI: I'll need to leave in around 20 minutes. | [13:23] |
| pinchartl | so let's try to answer the first question
I proposed an org, and Mauro put a veto on that does someone have another proposition ? | [13:23] |
| hverkuil | pinchartl: me too. | [13:23] |
| pinchartl | so any counterproposal ? :-) | [13:25] |
| mchehab | I placed a counterproposal | [13:25] |
| hverkuil | I don't care who is the main contact/admin for the hosting. The ownership of the domainname is more important and should reside either with the maintainer (Mauro) or with whoever is the main admin of the hosting (basically how is today). | [13:25] |
| mchehab | have different people for admin, technical and financial contacts at the hosting/dns services | [13:25] |
| hverkuil | As long as there is contingency planning in place. | [13:25] |
| pinchartl | mchehab: can you put names on that to make it a concrete proposal ? | [13:26] |
| mchehab | yeah, we should for sure have a contingency planning
I would place hverkuil as tecnical contact and sailus as financial contact | [13:26] |
| hverkuil | what does a 'technical contact' do? | [13:27] |
| mchehab | if ok for them, of course
it can change the DNS pointers, for example | [13:27] |
| hverkuil | I would suggest mkrufky for that. I literally know nothing about such things. | [13:28] |
| mchehab | works for me
we need to talk with him to see if he accepts | [13:28] |
| pinchartl | from a very practical point of view, the technical contact should be the same as the main admin for the server(s)
as that will be the person who will need to create/modify DNS records | [13:28] |
| mchehab | yes | [13:29] |
| pinchartl | I don't think any other arrangement makes sense
whoever is, at a given time, the main sysadmin should be the technical contact and the credentials to modify DNS records should be shared among the whole sysadmin team | [13:29] |
| mchehab | I guess the only thing the technical contact can't do is to change the admin or financial contact
In practice, DNS records is something that we only change if we change the hosting provider or during system upgrades | [13:29] |
| pinchartl | no | [13:31] |
| mchehab | where we might start a separate machine with the upgraded system and use DNS addresses for testing | [13:31] |
| pinchartl | you change them when you add services too
or when performing upgrades or when reachitering the infra in geenral | [13:31] |
| mchehab | reachitering? what that means (I don't know this word) | [13:32] |
| pinchartl | sorry, new laptop, new keyboard, lots of typos :-/
rearchitecturing | [13:32] |
| mchehab | yes, | [13:32] |
| pinchartl | but anyone, that's a detail | [13:33] |
| mchehab | we change very very often DNS addresses on linuxtv
and yes, changes there should be discussed with the machine's admin people (we do that already with the current active sysadmins) | [13:33] |
| pinchartl | the billing contact is the person who is authorized by the registrant to receive invoices for the domain name
I don't see how it would make sense for Sakari to handle that as for the technical contact, I think the billing contact will be chosen as a result of answering the funding question | [13:35] |
| mchehab | pinchartl: it could be anyone - I don't mind keeping it pointing to me, but if the idea is to have backups, I don't mind if this would be pointed to somebody else | [13:36] |
| pinchartl | whoever has the responsibility for paying bills should be the person who will receive the invoices
it wouldn't create any backup to point that to a random person | [13:36] |
| mchehab | I actually have a proposal for the e-mails:
we should have them pointed to root@linuxtv.org | [13:36] |
| sailus | pinchartl: I agree. By this time it should be known who's going to pay the bills. An association could meaningfully handle that through its own accounts. I could do that for a domain, but I'd prefer not to do that for an arbitrary collection of other contracts. | [13:37] |
| mchehab | this way, everyone there will receive a copy of all notifications | [13:37] |
| pinchartl | I'm not particularly interested in receiving a copy of the bills
(unless I had to act as a treasurer and pay the bills :-)) | [13:38] |
| mchehab | well, we could have a billing@linuxtv.org (or something like that) | [13:38] |
| pinchartl | but that still doesn't answer the main question
no, not billing@linuxtv.org | [13:38] |
| mchehab | the point of using a group address is just to have a backup in case of a bus hit | [13:38] |
| pinchartl | you don't point e-mails for a domain name to the same domain name
if there's any problem with the domain name you wouldn't receive e-mails anymore including e-mails sent by the registrar to address the problems but something could be done the main question is who would be the registrant ? | [13:39] |
| mchehab | as hverkuil proposed, it could either be me or the ones that already have the ownership of the domain
I have already a linuxdvb.org domain with points to linuxtv.org... this domain was owned by another person from the community and always pointed to linuxtv.org last year, he decided to get rid of that... so I took it having linuxtv.org at the same registrar would make easier to make payments for both domains | [13:40] |
| pinchartl | from a balance of powers point of view, and in line with my view of a need to spread powers, I don't think you should own the domain name | [13:42] |
| hverkuil | repairman arrived, back later | [13:42] |
| mchehab | ok. let's keep it the current owner then | [13:42] |
| sailus | I'll need to leave now.
I read the log later. | [13:42] |
| pinchartl | Hans and Sakari have left
time to adjourn the meeting ? | [13:49] |
| mchehab | I guess so | [13:50] |
| .... (idle for 18mn) | ||
| hverkuil | I have to be honest: I don't really care all that much about this. All I want is that the domain/hosting is done by someone I know. Neither is infrastructure my area of expertise or even interest. I guess that's why I am a lowly wage slave instead of a rich businessman :-)
In other words, I can't contribute much, although I could probably help with funding through work, depending on the final arrangements. The only thing I feel fairly strongly about is that setting up an org just for this is overkill and IMHO causes more complications than it fixes. I might change my mind in the future if we get a much larger core dev group, but I am skeptical about that. I don't think that will change unless SoC vendors really get involved (i.e. start funding development). | [14:08] |
| pinchartl | hverkuil: I don't think that's the issue
look at DRM for instance on SoCs look at who the contributors are they're not SoC vendors | [14:20] |
| hverkuil | Unrelated to this: I wouldn't mind having another discussion about giving more responsibility for frequeny maintainers (i.e. the venus maintainer). I really think they should get patchwork access. | [14:21] |
| pinchartl | they're mostly contractors
and then they stick around they become co-maintainers, and they stick around they review patches they contribute we don't have that in V4L2 and it's time to answer the annoying question of why the status quo is not viable anymore pretending everything is fine is not viable anymore | [14:21] |
| hverkuil | Why not make a questionnaire and send it out to various contractors? I really, really want to get more core devs. But then we first need to know why they leave. | [14:23] |
| pinchartl | it would have to be anonymous
people won't talk on record | [14:24] |
| hverkuil | what evil things do we do that they don't want to talk on record? | [14:24] |
| pinchartl | and the result would have to be anonymized by a trusted third-party
I think it's doable though I can't answer that on record :-) | [14:24] |
| .................. (idle for 1h25mn) | ||
| *** | ChanServ sets mode: +v mchehab` | [15:50] |
| ↑back Search ←Prev date Next date→ Show only urls | (Click on time to select a line by its url) |