
\summary{2013}{10}{8}


\agendaitem{Code of Conduct discussion}
\index{Code of Conduct}

References:
\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/3061 (dead link)
 \item
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.project/2470 (dead link)
 \item 
 http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/~scarabeus/gentoo-coc.txt (dead link)
 \item
 http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20130611.txt
\end{itemize}


\vote{ 
 Should the current code of conduct undergo "minor" or "major" 
  revision, with minor revision being just updating the wording in 
  the old text to current organizational structures?}{
4 votes for minor, 3 for major revision}

In the subsequent discussion it was suggested to incorporate changes 
from Scarabeus' text proposal into the existing Code of Conduct. 
To ease discussion on this during next month's meeting, a comparison 
of the files should be circulated among the council members during 
the upcoming weeks.

Dilfridge volunteers to go through the old Code of Conduct text and 
fix the worst outdated passages.


\agendaitem{Open bugs with council involvement}

\begin{itemize}
 \item 
 \bug{477030}:
  No progress since last meeting.
 \item
 \bug{481202}:
  Consensus is that all is done here and that both the last bug 
  blocking it and the tracker itself can be resolved.
\end{itemize}


\agendaitem{Open floor}
\index{INSTALL_MASK}

WilliamH brings up the issue of using INSTALL_MASK for avoiding 
installation of small utility files. His question is how we could 
avoid requiring a re-build of the entire installed package set when 
the value of INSTALL_MASK is changed. As a possible solution, a 
feature for the package manager is proposed: it could record whether 
a package is affected by INSTALL_MASK during installation, and offer 
a switch to only rebuild all these packages. Implementation should 
not have high priority though.
