ok, it is time [22:00] !proj council (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, mgorny, slyfox, tamiko, ulm, williamh !proj trustees mgorny: (trustees@gentoo.org) alicef, dabbott, jmbsvicetto, kensington, klondike, maffblaster, prometheanfire, robbat2 roll call! * ulm here * mgorny here here [22:01] * dilfridge here * K_F here Here robbat2: stated he had other business to attend to, but I'll give his (short) update welcome to the president's hour! [22:02] anyone else we should expect/wait for? I think we can move on [22:03] hmm, wait a sec i'll try to ping people who are not on the channel not sure if alicef is awake yet (given the notice was sent out a couple of hours ago) k prometheanfire: could you /invite slyfox and tamiko? [22:04] this channel shouldn't be private are their nicks not registered? (also, invited) [22:05] prometheanfire: was asking in case they have auto-invite-join [22:06] anyway, let's proceed 1. Copyright policy ulm, alicef [22:07] some progress there i think the main items in TODO are updating for the FLA, then sending it for wider review [22:08] DCO has been updated, as well as some of the policies yes, we should create a FLA based on the FSFE's new version *** tamiko (~tamiko@gentoo/developer/tamiko) has joined channel #gentoo-trustees *** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #gentoo-trustees to +v tamiko is that the only remaining item before sending for wider review? * prometheanfire would like a positive ack [22:09] what I wanted to ask is if formatting this as a GLEP is fine with trustees? rather than a passive one :D I suppose it'd still need our signoff, but the formatting itself shouldn't matter (need our signoff because copyright/legal) [22:10] sure, GLEP format doesn't necessarily imply GLEP workflow for approval in this case * tamiko reporting in (sorry for the delay) so I'll go ahead with what is in https://github.com/ulm/copyrightpolicy and obtain a GLEP number for it [22:11] i'd really like to see it applying ASAP i feel bad about every pull request without proper copyright policy in place anyone have any questions, suggestions, requests or should we move on? [22:12] ulm: sgtm still not entirely clear what we should put in ebuild headers, that may need another iteration but we've already narrowed it down ya, it's getting more straigforward as we go [22:13] mgorny: nothing else from my side ok, let's move on [22:14] - Financial status of the foundation prometheanfire: you wanted to say sth sure just repeating what robbat2 said earlier [22:15] there hasn't been progress made on that front (tax wise) the tax guy he'd been seeing in person moved across the country, they can still work together, but not in person we (the trustees) have also been looking into someone to manage the books (and that alone) [22:16] that's it, any questions? thanks for update, nothing specific from my side i've seen some discussion about using proprietary software for that but i think that's out of the question given the SC [22:18] ya, rich0 suggested it iirc, but robbat2 pointed him to the SC "Gentoo will never depend upon ..." is rather clear [22:19] is Gentoo actually depending on it? or just Using it? Just using it. * dilfridge heard some rumors about debian and gitlab which makes me wonder why infra is using Amazon AWS but well.. [22:20] we're straying from topic dilfridge: they use the open source gitlab iirc There are OS alternatives ... but it looks like CPAs don't use them mgorny: or any cloud provider, or cdn, etc :P unless anyone has any comments regarding financials, let's move on ack - Purpose of the Foundation Council split [22:21] is there anything to add here or can we scratch it from future agendas? can likely scratch it [22:22] scratch +1 - Legal protection for the foundation anything more here or scratch as well? from my side any question got cleared up last time [22:23] scratch [22:24] ok, next - Criteria for accepting members to the foundation did anything happen here? not sure, I don't think so there was never a clear outcome there lemme quote the last summary [22:25] *result* Foundation was willing to tighten this, something like the staffer quiz to be given to non-devs (and judged by the trustees and/or officers), it'd take a bylaw change and someone to 'champion' it. so, does anyone want to do it? It does not need a bylaw change. Just a trustees vote. over the next month I do not (openstack packaging and travel) Hi, sorry for the delay [22:26] NeddySeagoon: woudln't it modify https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.3._Admission_of_Members prometheanfire: no, it already requires a trustee vote to become a member so it'd just be a policy change on requirements for such an approval, which wouldn't require bylaw change per se [22:27] anyone volunteering or wanting to add something, or should we move on? since the list of acceptance criteria is non-exhausive to begin with K_F: k, makes sense (sorry, got a big of lag here) bit* prometheanfire: The trustees would use the quiz to fulfil "cite verifiable evidence of contributing to Gentoo" K_F: want to oversee this on Council end? [22:28] I'd be open to giving feedback to any proposal, but don't have time to do it myself NeddySeagoon: ack mgorny: I can do that, but someone from trustees should be main contributor of it Put it on the March Trustees agenda for a vote as quoted by mgorny above [22:29] ok, let's let Trustees decide later and move on - Funding for travel and meetups o/ sorry for being late [22:30] anything to add here? mgorny: don't think so, nothing changed since the last time * Shentino is present for whom? [22:31] the two trustee items can likely be changed into reporting and proctors yeah, let's take both at the same time [22:32] - CoC enforcement + Comrel well dilfridge, prometheanfire * Shentino is present for himself as a foundation member observing the meeting, but did want to cite bug 645192 in relation to the foundation membership criteria just mentioned Shentino: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees as far as the e-mails got exchanged, I think prometheanfire basically agrees with my plan for the proctors dilfridge: ya, generally, the main thing is that I want it to be independant [22:33] there may be some small details, but I offhand dont remember any big issues with the proposed policies ya, the policies themselves seemed fine independent of whom? of gentoo completely? I dont care how the project structure looks like as long as the escalation path is fine of comrel the question was "subproject of comrel or not" [22:34] It would be good to launch proctors with a CoC review and endorsemeth by both council and trustees. NeddySeagoon: I imagine that's fine i should point out that 'subproject or not' problem is generally a bit silly, given that gnetoo project structure is a bit silly and hysterical by design mgorny: exactly as for escalation, is it proctors -> comrel -> council? [22:35] * prometheanfire generally doesn't have a problem with the CoC as it exists yes prometheanfire: Review <> change as for the other thing, reporting, well what prometheanfire requested (notifying trustees when a comrel action is taken) should be no problem either we just need to get that process codified is all [22:36] as i've mentioned before, i don't think providing details to trustees would be a problem as long as confidentiality of appropriate private information is preserved [22:37] that's ok, I think, but I can ask during our meeting, but I don't think that's a problem one question would be whether we're proactively passing all information or only when there is a need to what I would like to avoid is that it messes up the escalation path again dilfridge: if we only give it for informational purposes only, i don't think so [22:38] yes, exactly I'd like it to be proactive, so we know of potential problems ahead of time Trustees are informed. There is no escalation path i.e. escalation still works the same, trustees don't need to intervene unless something really illegal happens mgorny: yep, that's basically it its not an escalation, just an audit [22:39] (trail) prometheanfire: lemme rephrase. do you need just information that an action was taken, or access to all evidence proactively? sounds ok to me. I need to pass it by the team. (or maybe notification is a better term) what i'm aiming for is spreading the private details as little as possible mgorny: I think after action is taken would be sufficient [22:40] ok, we have an agreement here, i presume prometheanfire and dilfridge will work on it further anyone else have comments on this topic? sure as I said I need to run this past the team [22:41] prometheanfire: on related topic, any news on moderation? (I think there is an intersting argument on what actions the trustees might take when notice is given, but I'll follow up with prometheanfire ;) *** jstein (~jstein@gentoo/developer/jstein) has joined channel #gentoo-trustees [22:42] * dilfridge brb, spaghetti transfer re: moderation, we can use mailman, and if we are all happy with it, it can be moved to a more permament install [22:43] Moderation-- prometheanfire: did you establish if it's generally 'better' than mlmmj? [22:44] back I think so easier to manage [22:45] any ETA on bringing it to production? * prometheanfire prefers to just manage it in a venv lets say next month, next combined meeting time at the earliest (given other constraints) ok [22:46] anything else to say or should we switch to open floor? it is simple to set up though, for anyone with python knowlege open floor is fine with me so, let the floor be open [22:47] anyone has anything to discuss? [22:48] I would like opinions on accepting drobbins as a foundation member dabbott: He needs to do his quiz his contributions are generally far in the past, but he's doing his quiz (last I heard) does gentoo get good reciprocity from funtoo? [22:49] didn't he have some recent contributions to Portage though? [22:50] (i don't recall if those were actual patches) mgorny: he send some patches that Zac merged I'd appreciate it if he had a sponsor who could make a statement [22:51] there are a lot of ideas (and thoughts on leadership) https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/log/?qt=author&q=drobbins well, *if* he is really doing quizzes and intending to return as a developer, i don't think there is a need to separately consider foundation membership (are his portage patches) [22:52] because that would be rather implicit then yep ok mgorny: I cited bug 645192 in relation to your issue regarding foundation membership criteria Shentino: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees yeah I'm trying to ascertain dabbott's feeling here ;) antarus: that gets an ack from me then K_F: might want to look at https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 if you are leading the council side of that [22:53] 5 min til trustee meeting yay I'm...not sure if I brought it up at the correct time during the meeting but I do think it's a worthy issue I just asked him if he wanted to get more involved and he said yes, was just checking on what everyone thoughts were dabbott: I wasn't around for the politics of the last attempt by drobbins prometheanfire: I don't see anything there relevant for today's meeting, but sure, the foundation quiz can be a superset of staff quiz but IMHO there is no need to avoid admittance provided we think he returns in good faith and I've been fairly happy with his contributions thus far [22:54] no worse than others we have admitted ;) well, if there is no other topic to be included, then we might finish and give trustees a 5 [22:55] they might want to visit their happy place before the meeting ;-) antarus: people change over time and based on the context mgorny: thank you for chairing :D yep, good meeting ++ thanks to everyone present next meeting March, same day, same hour? [22:56] ya, febuary being 28 days makes scheduling even easier :D sounds good [22:57] * mgorny bangs the gavel