% Created 2015-08-06 Thu 19:26
\documentclass[smallheadings,fontsize=10pt,a4paper]{scrartcl}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{unicode-math}
\usepackage{fontspec}
\usepackage{ml-lucida}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{rotating}
\usepackage[american, english]{babel}
\usepackage[babel]{csquotes}
\usepackage[svgnames]{xcolor}
\usepackage{soul}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true, urlcolor=FireBrick, plainpages=false, pdfpagelabels, bookmarksnumbered]{hyperref}
\usepackage{minted}
\author{Manfred Lotz, <manfred@dante.de>}
\date{\today}
\title{Meeting minutes: CTAN team at TUG 2015}
\hypersetup{
  pdfkeywords={},
  pdfsubject={},
  pdfcreator={Emacs 24.5.1 (Org mode 8.2.10)}}
\begin{document}

\maketitle
\tableofcontents

\newpage

Meeting on Monday, July 21st 2015: Petra, Gerd and Manfred

Meeting on Tuesday, Juy 22nd 2015: Petra, Gerd, Joachim and Manfred

\section{Legal}
\label{sec-1}
We agreed that we need professional support in order to avoid legal vulerability for \verb~ctan.org~.

\begin{itemize}
\item \verb~ctan.org~ is registered for the \TeX{} User Group. See: \verb~whois ctan.org~
\item Gerd points to an article in c't from March/April 2015.
The only one I found is in c't 9/2015, p. 162: \emph{FAQ Datenschutz auf Websites}.
\end{itemize}

Actions: 
\begin{itemize}
\item $\boxtimes$ Manfred to ask Jürgen Fenn for advice, perhaps he knows a lawyer who could help us

2015.08.04: Manfred sent mail to Jürgen Fenn; Gerd on CC
\item $\square$ If we need money for a lawyer we will ask DANTE or TUG for sponsoring
\end{itemize}
\section{Communication Platform CTAN}
\label{sec-2}
We agreed to add fields
\begin{itemize}
\item Public email address of the author
\item Community mailing list
\item Community URL
\item URL of ticket system
\end{itemize}

These fields are to be seen as an addition to the already existing \verb~<home .../>~ field in XML.

However, as long as the upload web form isn't reworked such fields create additional work for the upload managers 
as many authors surely will mess up the content of those fields (Manfred). 

This led us to a discussion of the login feature and the upload form.

Gerd wants to simplify the upload form heavily. There are also ideas of providing an API. Gerd mentioned 
Martin Scharrer who provided something in the past but it doesn't any longer.
Perhaps this could be updated to make it work again. However, till now Gerd 
hasn't been successful in getting in touch with Martin.
\section{Topics}
\label{sec-3}
\subsection{Recommendations}
\label{sec-3-1}
\begin{itemize}
\item Petra doesn't like the name as it implies some bias; she suggest something like \emph{related topics}
\item Gerd mentioned that below the title \emph{Recommendations} there is a line /"Maybe you are interested in the following packages as well"/ which makes it clear that it is no evaluation.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Structured Topics}
\label{sec-3-2}
Agreed 
\begin{itemize}
\item we will have a topic tree
\item which is not based on taxonmoy
\item but should be ontological, i.e. the topics should denote attributes and characteristics.
\item Gerd will manage a tree in the portal
\item A new scheme of topics have to be agreed upon, and this also requires a session where the upload team
has a change to get familiar with this.
\item a topic tree shouldn't have more than three levels, otherwise it gets unmanageable for ordinary humans.
\item then plain topics could be retrieved daily from the portal into the \verb~topics~ file.
\item of course this implies a validation of the catalogue before committing such a file into subversion/
\item a topic tree could be retrieved daily and put into a file \verb~topics.tree~ or a similar name.
\item then the \verb~also~ field could be removed from XML
\end{itemize}

Actions
\begin{itemize}
\item this has to be discussed during a weekend CTAN team meeting
\end{itemize}
\section{Licenses}
\label{sec-4}
We agreed that we need to exand the current possibility of specifying exactly one license.

We should support
\begin{itemize}
\item Dual licenses
The user of the package has a choice of at least 2 licenses when using the package.
\item Scoped licenses where there are at least two different licenses covering different
areas of the package.

Example: lppl1.3 for the \LaTeX{} part of a package and OFL for the font
part of a package

 Gerd suggested if this is too complicated then a simpler scheme could be to list all applicable licenses for a package. Joachim said that determining the exact license situation of a complex package is very complicated, and he is sure that a developer is not able to do this properly if the license situation is complicated. He further pointed out that the most important thing to know is if a package is free (could be distributed) or not. This is also what is important for Karl Berry and Christian Schenk. :
Action: No concrete actions planned. Needs further discussion.
\end{itemize}
\section{Packages}
\label{sec-5}
\subsection{Remove container packages}
\label{sec-5-1}
Packages which contain other packages in its directory. Examples: \verb~oberdiek~, \verb~obsolete~. Not discussed much, no decisions made yet.
\subsection{Eliminate File Packages}
\label{sec-5-2}
Agreed upon that 
\begin{itemize}
\item we want to have a directory for each package
\item we know that it isn't easy to achieve for existing \emph{file packages}
\begin{itemize}
\item One example are Heiko Oberdiek's 94 packages which are all in 

\verb~macros/latex/contrib/oberdiek/~.
\item talked to Heiko who agreed to slowly moving his packages to 

\verb~macros/latex/contrib/~.
\item however this might take time, and his old stuff must be kept because of dependency things
till the whole action is completed.
\end{itemize}
\item for new packages upload manages won't accept a package without its own directory.
\item $\square$ Manfred will start to migrate \emph{ctan paths} in the XML files for those packages which on the one
hand have \textasciitilde{}file="true"\textasciitilde{} in the XML file but have already their own directory.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{No version number in package directories}
\label{sec-5-3}
\begin{itemize}
\item upload manager won't allow that for new packages anyway
\item $\square$ for those packages Manfred will try to change \emph{ctan path} in XML where this is possible.
Action is started and ongoing. As of July 1st we had 594 packages with \verb,file='true'~ in        the ~ctan path, element. As of August 6th we have still 547 packages.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Readme Files}
\label{sec-5-4}
Main reason for \verb~README~ was that Apache web server displays \verb~README~ directly. Discussion about enhancing 
the \verb~README~ requirement resulted in allowing 
\begin{itemize}
\item \verb~README~
\item \verb~README.txt~
\item \verb~README.md~
\end{itemize}

Gerd's portal can render all those formats. We do not want to allow \verb~README.html~ as this isn's nicely readable 
using a command like \verb~less~ (Joachim's argument).

Actions
\begin{itemize}
\item $\boxtimes$ Manfred to ask at the \TeX{} Live mailing list if there are any objections.
Feedback from Karl Berry, Norbert Preining and Lars Madsen positive.
\item $\boxtimes$ Starting to allow above mentioned formats for uploaded packages
\item $\square$ Website has to be updated to reflect changed policy.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Proper Title of Documentation}
\label{sec-5-5}
\begin{itemize}
\item Gerd's suggestion to take the title of the PDF document as 
\begin{minted}[linenos=false,frame=single,fontsize=\footnotesize]{xml}
<documentation details='English documentation' language='en'
 href='ctan:/macros/latex/contrib/koma-script/doc/scrguien.pdf'/>
\end{minted}
Here \emph{details} would be substituted by the title of the PDF document.
\item Manfred and Petra don't agree as this is a large amount of error prone extra work for them.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Modification Date for Packages}
\label{sec-5-6}
\begin{itemize}
\item we agreed that this would be fine
\item but no solution yet
\item perhaps this could be incorporated in a new \verb~version~ element as suggested in the \hyperref[sec-9-2]{Fields} section.
\end{itemize}
\section{\TeX{} Archive under Version Control}
\label{sec-6}
We agreed this is a good idea. It requires
\begin{itemize}
\item changing the \verb~ctan_install~ script
\item changing the mirroring scripts which injects files into CTAN
\item if we manage to have the \verb~.git~ directory at the same level as the \verb~tex~ 
  directory then outgoing mirroring won't be affected
\item do we want to include \verb~./systems~ in version control?
\item do we want to allow pull requests from others?
\item do we want to delete \verb~obsolete~ tree because it is under version control, or do we keep it visible?
\end{itemize}

Actions: needs further discussion
\section{Portal}
\label{sec-7}
\subsection{Images for Packages and Topics}
\label{sec-7-1}
\subsection{Personalized Portal Features}
\label{sec-7-2}
Advantage of user registration is that those users (authors and non-authors) have additional benefits.
Non authors could vote for a package so that (with a certain number of participants) popular resp. /'good'/ 
packages could be easier detected.

Joachim strongly advised against a mandatory login as from past exerience it could be expected that this 
will not easily be accepted by the authors which could even mean authors will dismiss CTAN as a package repository. 

Nevertheless, a login should be advertised as a possiblity for authors by 
mentioning that a registered user has benefits from that. BTW, a registration is possible for 
everyone currently. 
\subsection{Admin Interface}
\label{sec-7-3}
\section{Catalogue in \TeX{} Archive}
\label{sec-8}
Gerd wants to check the structure of the XML to see if there is anything of no use which thus could be deleted. 
One example of a candidate for deletion is the \verb~also~ field discussed before.
\section{Upload}
\label{sec-9}
\subsection{CGI Upload}
\label{sec-9-1}
\subsection{Fields}
\label{sec-9-2}
Currently, we have two attributes for field \verb~version~. This is \verb~number~ and \verb~date~. Usually \verb~number~
is something like \verb~1.0~, \verb~4.1.3a~ but could be something really strange like for instance \verb~2015 V2 Level 2~.
Date isn't used as much. If used then it could be (not forced, though) something like the date 
which comes with a version in the package \verb~dtx~ file.

The upload form contains just one field for both. Authors often mess up the contents in some way. Joachim
proposed to have just one field for \verb~version~ in the catalog as the version is something the author
should decide upon. This means the upload managers usually wouldn't complain about the content of the 
version field as long as the version field shows some \verb~ascending modification~ when the author provides
an update. Example: \verb~1.4.1a~ is reasonable if the previous version was \verb~1.4.~.

Version as it is today:
\begin{minted}[linenos=false,frame=single,fontsize=\footnotesize]{xml}
<version number='XXXX' date='XXXX'/>
\end{minted}
New version element:
\begin{minted}[linenos=false,frame=single,fontsize=\footnotesize]{xml}
<version>...</version>
\end{minted}
The only disadvantage is that in case the author provides a date we have no chance to validate the date
from an XML point of view. 

Or even if the upload date should be recorded:
\begin{minted}[linenos=false,frame=single,fontsize=\footnotesize]{xml}
<version upload_date='yyyy-mm-dd'>...</version>
\end{minted}
Actions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\square$ Some more discussion is required here.
\end{itemize}
\section{Hall of Fame}
\label{sec-10}
Nothing decided.
% Emacs 24.5.1 (Org mode 8.2.10)
\end{document}