
\summary{2013}{1}{8}

\agendaitem{Stable USE masks in the main Portage tree}
\index{use.stable.mask}\index{profiles}\index{EAPI!5}

Reference: \agoref{gentoo-dev}{a9492947c953dc48f74c825d8704ffc0}

Vote on the proposal "Stable USE masks in the main portage tree" by
Michał Górny.  There are three suggested approaches:
\begin{enumerate}
\item by adding new profiles requiring EAPI=5, requiring all users to
   change, and then deprecating the older profile trees [if chosen; a
   subsequent vote on the timeframes involved will follow]
\item by adding new profiles and using USE-flag masking to keep current
   profiles functional
\item defining use.stable.mask features such that they only apply to EAPI>5
   ebuilds
\end{enumerate}
Note: option 1) requires a decision on the deprecation timeframe.

The council agreed unanimously to vote between the three proposed solutions. 
Solution \#1 won with 7 votes.

A remark was made by grobian that BSD and Prefix profiles are unversioned as
noted by the initial email introducing the solutions, and that they need
some care and consideration, best dealt with directly with BSD and Prefix
teams.

The deprecation timeframe for pre-EAPI-5 profiles was voted 6 to 1 to be 1
year.

There was no agreement on whether this is a minimum or maximum of waiting time.
Some even argued that this was a matter of standard deprecation policies.
This period is bound to a possible deprecation of older EAPIs, and influenced
the duration of the timeframe, for some council members to be at least 1 year,
instead of maximum.


\agendaitem{Open bugs with council involvement}
\index{elections!results}

\bug{383467}: For this bug to be closed, the master ballots for 2011 and 2012 
will need to be uploaded and linked. jmbsvicetto uploaded some missing data, 
but the 2012 results and rank are still missing. The bug remains open.

\agendaitem{Open Floor}
\index{PMS}\index{micro-EAPIs}

User johu asked who would document the "one year end of support" decision and
where.  The council documents the decision in the summaries, which are
binding.

Zero\_Chaos wanted to know the opinion of Council on micro EAPIs, to work
around the relatively high amount of time necessary to complete a full new
EAPI.  The council replied that EAPI features simply should be in PMS, and that
the most work goes in there. Assistance is welcomed.
