MacPorts PortMgr

There's a talk from 2016, see Meetings/MacPortsMeeting2016/Programme. Compared to two years ago, portmgr@ no longer deals with managing the infrastructure, since we now have the infrastructure team to do that and rely on GitHub.

Should there be a voting process to confirm portmgr@ and/or get new members elected?

• Is this really necessary? Since there is very little conflict within MacPorts anyway, elections might be more trouble then it's worth.
• Getting voting right is complicated.
• Should it be merged with the infrastructure team? No, administrative tasks on the systems should be kept separate from portmgr.
• A process to get new people onto portmgr is needed

portmgr@ response times

• portmgr@ is sometimes slow to respond to inquiries
• Should there be a "portmgr@ timeout" (one or two weeks) for somebody to object and a default to accept a proposal if the timeout occurs?
  • This was a problem when discussing funding requests for travel to the meeting.

Legal organizations & fund handling

• Handling money is an issue for us, since we cannot easily accept donations
• There are options, such as founding an association (which may require a certain number of people in a certain jurisdiction) or joining an existing organization such as Software Freedom Conservancy

sfconservancy

• TODO: Find out the terms of joining ​sfconservancy

To clarify:

• Can we leave the organization again?
• Would they own any trademarks?
• Would they own domain names?

Video call with Ryan

Documentation for infrastructure

• Should have some internal documentation on buildbot and braeburn
• Maybe a private GitHub repository (usually have to pay for that)
  • TODO: Ask GitHub support

Deploying updates to buildbot

• www/guide/portindex/man
  • TODO: Let's deploy it during this meeting

• Move mprsyncup on buildbot
  • TODO: Add this as a job to buildbot