diff options
authorDavid Abbott <>2018-01-20 19:09:03 -0500
committerDavid Abbott <>2018-01-20 19:09:03 -0500
commit05c3169cdf707eedaf5efbdfe990458f67cbf35e (patch)
parentupdate motion to 20180121 meeting (diff)
log for Jan 2018 meeting
1 files changed, 414 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2018/2018-01-20-22:37_Foundation-Meetings-2018-01.log.txt b/2018/2018-01-20-22:37_Foundation-Meetings-2018-01.log.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..62359fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2018/2018-01-20-22:37_Foundation-Meetings-2018-01.log.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,414 @@
+[22:37:42] Meeting started by prometheanfire
+[22:37:49] <kensington> You can ask sigyn to unkline
+[22:37:58] Meeting chairs are: klondike, dabbott, kensington, alicef, prometheanfire
+[22:38:03] <alicef> o/
+[22:38:09] Current subject: rollcall, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:38:11] <prometheanfire> o/
+[22:38:16] <alicef> o/
+[22:38:18] <kensington> Here
+[22:38:22] <dabbott> o/
+[22:38:56] <klondike> here?
+[22:39:06] <prometheanfire> sure
+[22:39:13] Current subject: who's logging?, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:39:17] <Spyro> can somoene /op trustee-meetbot if it needs it?
+[22:40:25] <dabbott> prometheanfire: Im logging
+[22:40:41] Current subject: confirmation of new trustee , (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:41:30] <prometheanfire> I nominate klondike as trustee in replacement of zlg for a term set til the next election (currently july 2018)
+[22:41:40] <dabbott> seconded
+[22:42:05] <klondike> I accept the nomination under the conditions stated by prometheanfire
+[22:42:34] <prometheanfire> ok, vote for klondike as a trustee now please
+[22:42:39] <alicef> seconded
+[22:42:39] <dabbott> klondike: thanks
+[22:42:41] <prometheanfire> yes
+[22:42:55] <kensington> Yes
+[22:43:00] <alicef> yes
+[22:43:04] <dabbott> yes
+[22:43:28] <klondike> can't vote here
+[22:43:31] <prometheanfire> ok, klondike is afirmed as trustee for a term set til the next election (currently july 2018)
+[22:44:04] Current subject: activity tracker, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:44:08] LINK: [Foundation:Activity Tracker - Gentoo Wiki]
+[22:44:24] <prometheanfire> nothing there, moving on
+[22:45:45] Current subject: irs update, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:45:49] <prometheanfire> robbat2: around?
+[22:46:19] <klondike> prometheanfire: he had to leave 46 minutes ago
+[22:46:42] <prometheanfire> well, I'll update it as I know
+[22:46:48] <prometheanfire> it's still a WIP
+[22:46:49] <prometheanfire> next
+[22:47:01] Current subject: foundation mailing address change, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:47:06] <prometheanfire> waiting on irs
+[22:47:07] <prometheanfire> next
+[22:47:18] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:47:38] <prometheanfire> alicef: how goes it with your items?
+[22:47:43] <prometheanfire> Add Foundation:Consultants reference to
+[22:47:43] <prometheanfire> (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page
+[22:47:47] <prometheanfire> Do we need date of birth in developer apps (how'd the email go)?
+[22:48:06] <alicef> i'm working on the donor page
+[22:49:12] <alicef> and i see we can get to the consulting page from the page
+[22:49:50] <prometheanfire> so still work in progress?
+[22:49:53] <alicef> so probably is not needed ? or is anyway better to add a menu in Getting help with Gentoo
+[22:50:00] <alicef> ?
+[22:50:29] <prometheanfire> alicef: I think bugging infra would be the best way to see site updates
+[22:51:17] <alicef> we alr-eady have a consulting button in the
+[22:51:20] <alicef> page
+[22:51:25] <kensington> maffblaster is working on www stuff too I think
+[22:51:50] <dabbott> yep alicef put it in a bug to www
+[22:52:01] <prometheanfire> alicef: I think a more direct link would be preferable
+[22:52:11] <prometheanfire> kensington: thanks, couldn't remember his nick
+[22:52:13] <alicef> prometheanfire: ok work on that
+[22:52:31] <prometheanfire> alicef: as for the birth date question, I
+[22:52:54] <prometheanfire> alicef: as for the birth date question, I'd contact ulm as he wanted to work with you on a more comprehensive copyright policy and it'd tie into it
+[22:53:14] <alicef> prometheanfire: ok good for me
+[22:53:25] <prometheanfire> alicef: any other items?
+[22:53:40] <alicef> no is everything
+[22:53:43] <prometheanfire> k
+[22:53:49] <dabbott> alicef: thanks
+[22:53:59] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:54:07] <prometheanfire> Contact zlg?
+[22:54:11] <prometheanfire> done and resolved
+[22:54:15] <prometheanfire> contact the foundation consultants.
+[22:54:27] <prometheanfire> all but one responded and he's a dev on devaway
+[22:54:35] <dabbott> ok
+[22:54:44] <prometheanfire> I'd like to not remove him as a consultant for another month
+[22:54:48] <prometheanfire> and just keep the page as is
+[22:55:02] <kensington> Fine
+[22:55:34] <prometheanfire> ok, I'll make a note to do that
+[22:56:20] <prometheanfire> next
+[22:56:45] <prometheanfire> the openssl ecc stuff is waiting for either 1.1 to go stable or for robbat2 (or someone else) to fully backport the 1.1 patch
+[22:57:15] <prometheanfire> next
+[22:57:18] <prometheanfire> bug 642824
+[22:57:20] <willikins> prometheanfire: "Insulting behavior from Ian Delaney on #gentoo-trustees"; Community Relations, User Relations; CONF; mgorny:trustees
+[22:57:26] LINK: [642824 – Insulting behavior from Ian Delaney on #gentoo-trustees]
+[22:57:54] <prometheanfire> as we are not governed by comrel we have to handle these types of actions ourselves
+[22:58:41] <kensington> In-channel behaviour is manages by the channel ops 99% of all times
+[22:59:32] <prometheanfire> having viewed the bug (and been here at least one of the times the harrassment occured I move that we ban idella for 24 hours (as per the proposed proctor rules)
+[22:59:42] <prometheanfire> kensington: yep
+[23:00:43] <prometheanfire> can I get a second or another proposal?
+[23:01:03] <kensington> Seconded
+[23:01:10] <prometheanfire> ok, please vote
+[23:01:11] <prometheanfire> yes
+[23:01:15] <dabbott> yes
+[23:01:19] <kensington> Yes
+[23:01:23] <alicef> yes
+[23:02:08] <prometheanfire> where'd klondike go?
+[23:02:24] <Spyro> barring an intervening policy by gentoo or the foundation, code of conduct and authority to manage #gentoo-trustees would default to chanops, a discretion granted thereto by freenode and through groupcontacts that officially represents gentoo foundation to freenode for matters in #gentoo-* channel namespace
+[23:02:41] <prometheanfire> ping timeout
+[23:02:49] <prometheanfire> vote passes in any case
+[23:02:50] <prometheanfire> Spyro: yep
+[23:03:02] <prometheanfire> I'll do the ban when we are done with the meeting
+[23:03:24] <alicef> prometheanfire: thanks
+[23:03:38] <prometheanfire> next
+[23:03:43] <prometheanfire> bug 643192
+[23:03:52] LINK: [Bug Access Denied]
+[23:04:01] <Spyro> Any authority by comrel would likewise need to be done through groupcontacts (even if implicitly) if exercised on freenode on behalf of gentoo foundation
+[23:04:22] <dabbott> You are not authorized to access bug #643192 ?
+[23:04:32] <kensington> Can we finally unrestrict this bug?
+[23:04:43] <prometheanfire> the consulting page has two instances of an individual appearing as a company as well
+[23:04:49] <kensington> dabbott: it's locked to comrel for some strange reason
+[23:05:14] <prometheanfire> because it was reported wrong
+[23:05:16] <prometheanfire> unlocked
+[23:06:22] <prometheanfire> my proposal is that the consultants page should have unique email addresses at the very least
+[23:06:40] <dabbott> prometheanfire: that sounds good
+[23:06:48] <jmbsvicetto> prometheanfire: that bug likely shouldn't be in the community relations product
+[23:07:33] <dabbott> jmbsvicetto: yep should be foundation
+[23:07:47] <prometheanfire> we also have the right to remove anyone at any time for any reason, but that should provide at least some basic protection from 'ballot stuffing'
+[23:08:00] <prometheanfire> vote? on my proposal?
+[23:08:18] <klondike> Can I make a different propossal?
+[23:08:22] <prometheanfire> ofc
+[23:09:08] <dabbott> I can see an individual being a consultant on there own plus have a company but agree the contact info should be different at least
+[23:09:24] <dabbott> klondike: go ahead
+[23:09:26] <alicef> prometheanfire: i agree on the different mail for consultant and company
+[23:09:28] <prometheanfire> dabbott: ya, zx2c4
+[23:09:38] <klondike> Since consulting is an economic activity consultants must have a legal company behind
+[23:09:57] <klondike> Even as an autonomous employee that is usually a requirement although the company is yourself
+[23:10:02] <Spyro> *raises a hand*
+[23:10:08] <klondike> Yes Spyro
+[23:10:26] <kensington> Definition of company varies wildly between countries
+[23:10:33] <klondike> Of course it does
+[23:10:33] <Spyro> Technically, if you are in business for yourself you can present yourself as a sole proprietorship. A company is only a separate legal entity from its owner in the case of it being a corporation
+[23:10:35] <Spyro> at least in the us
+[23:10:46] <prometheanfire> Spyro: exactly
+[23:10:48] <alicef> klondike: not always they can be freelance
+[23:10:51] <Spyro> but you don't have to have a company to ...yeah
+[23:10:55] <Spyro> what alice just saida bout freelancing
+[23:11:00] <antarus> is unclear what the problem we are trying to solve actually is
+[23:11:08] <Spyro> if you freelance you're in a one employee business as your own boss
+[23:11:11] <klondike> alicef: if you are freelance you still pay taxes
+[23:11:23] <alicef> pay tax is not owing a company
+[23:11:28] <antarus> drobbins is listed twice
+[23:11:38] <antarus> he already agreed to being listed as a company only
+[23:11:40] <Spyro> yes, but as a sole proprietorship you include the business activities in your personal income tax return on Schedule C
+[23:11:48] <antarus> I'm not sure any other action is warrented?
+[23:11:52] <prometheanfire> antarus: just don't wish for people to say they have 10 companies along with themselves
+[23:12:02] <klondike> antarus: a few other double instances appear too
+[23:12:16] <Spyro> Legally, unless a corporation is involved, the only entity involved is the person who owns the business
+[23:12:21] <prometheanfire> the only other double was zxc2c4 iirc
+[23:12:30] <Spyro> which is why a corporation's stockholder would NOT be lsited
+[23:12:58] <klondike> So I would reword it to: "Only one listing per physical person"
+[23:13:16] <prometheanfire> klondike: that's acceptable and simpler to enforce
+[23:13:37] <alicef> yes sounds good
+[23:13:41] <prometheanfire> we do also have the right to refuse if an eployer told all their employees to submit
+[23:13:53] <Spyro> klondike: any potential worries if a listing involves a corporation?
+[23:13:56] <kensington> What does that actually mean? No personal & company listing?
+[23:14:09] <prometheanfire> companies are people, at least in the us
+[23:14:30] <klondike> prometheanfire: physical person usually means humans
+[23:14:47] <prometheanfire> it can still be abused, but it's better than it is now
+[23:14:50] <klondike> kensington: more like, you as human can choose on or the other
+[23:15:07] <prometheanfire> klondike: care to formally word it so we can vote?
+[23:15:08] <Spyro> Yeah that's why I wanted to comment. In the US, the company's owner is legally liable and responsible for the business, and relatedly all of the business's income counts as personal income for the owner
+[23:15:14] <klondike> prometheanfire: sure
+[23:15:23] <prometheanfire> Spyro: llc
+[23:15:25] <Spyro> unless the company happens to be a corporation/LLC/LLP/etc
+[23:15:35] <Spyro> *nods*
+[23:15:38] <antarus> so we don't like the existing double listings...why..?
+[23:15:50] <prometheanfire> antarus: unfair advantage
+[23:15:59] <alicef> what's happen on llc llp etc?
+[23:16:02] <antarus> Why isn't it legit for someone to hire "edge security" in one instance, and zxc2c4 in another instance?
+[23:16:10] <antarus> (to pick an example)
+[23:16:11] <Spyro> the issue in question being whether or not the person is a legally separate entity from the company, and that in turn depends on how the company is legally defined (aka corporation vs proprietorship)
+[23:16:25] <Spyro> (ie rather instead of aka)
+[23:16:30] <klondike> .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company and remove those found to be done in bad faith".
+[23:17:12] <antarus> I guess I don't see the abuse, there are only 3 corporations listed in any case, its not as though a bunch of fictional companies are being submitted
+[23:17:16] <prometheanfire> klondike: foundation reserves the right to remove anyone
+[23:17:16] <antarus> they all look real enough to me ;)
+[23:17:21] <dabbott> this implies we think someone is doing it to get an advantage
+[23:17:32] <Spyro> My personal opinion is that removing/consolidating redundant entries would keep things tidy paperwork-wise anyway. If necessary a person's businesses can be listed as a group under the entry identifying the person.
+[23:17:34] <dabbott> I don't think that is the case
+[23:17:36] <antarus> I still feel like we are addressing a non-problem
+[23:17:43] <kensington> antarus++
+[23:18:26] <prometheanfire> klondike: can you amend it to include that?
+[23:18:31] <klondike> Sure
+[23:18:36] <NeddySeagoon> Its a service to readers Cavat Emptor still applies.
+[23:18:49] <alicef> antarus: ++
+[23:18:59] <klondike> .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation shall also remove any entry.".
+[23:19:22] <antarus> Uhh that last bit is worded confusingly
+[23:19:25] <alicef> keep the right to remove any entry
+[23:19:43] <prometheanfire> .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation reserves the right remove any entry.".
+[23:19:43] <antarus> "The foundation reserves teh right to remove any entries at its discretion."
+[23:19:54] <klondike> .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.".
+[23:19:57] <alicef> to rnemove
+[23:20:01] <alicef> to remove
+[23:20:11] <Spyro> it's .proposal, most likely. i think you typoed
+[23:20:19] <klondike> .proposal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.".
+[23:20:28] <klondike> shrugs
+[23:20:30] <prometheanfire> it's not a bot command, just useful to call it out
+[23:20:33] <Spyro> ah
+[23:20:56] <alicef> klondike: looks good
+[23:21:00] INFO: Motion: "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.".
+[23:21:01] <prometheanfire> .proposal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation also reserves the right to remove any entry."
+[23:21:13] <jmbsvicetto> So, you propose that any company that an individual works for or owns (even in part) isn't allowed to be listed as providing support for Gentoo, just because that individual already is listed?
+[23:21:47] <Spyro> Here's my proposal: corporations and people are listed separately, but any person DBA as a company has said company listed under the person in question as auxiliary data
+[23:22:02] <jmbsvicetto> What if the individual is a "part" of that company? What "percentage" does the individual need to represent for that requirement to be dropped?
+[23:22:08] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: that's not guaranteed to be enforced
+[23:22:21] <prometheanfire> just reserve the right
+[23:22:24] <antarus> still feels like this is simply over-legislating
+[23:22:31] <alicef> prometheanfire: ++
+[23:22:38] <Spyro> with the understanding that said company only counts if it provides support for gentoo. So basically, I propose companies get listed but only a) if they support gentoo, and b) as a sub-listing under the company's owner
+[23:22:40] <klondike> is starting to agree with antarus xD
+[23:22:48] <antarus> so you are reserving rights you don't even plan on enforcing? :p
+[23:22:55] <Spyro> what do you guys think of my idea?
+[23:22:55] <prometheanfire> this is getting too complicated
+[23:22:59] <prometheanfire> antarus: enforce selectivly
+[23:23:10] <kensington> Are we voting on the motion or not?
+[23:23:11] <prometheanfire> just as judges have leeway in punishment
+[23:23:14] <prometheanfire> I voted
+[23:23:19] <antarus> I mean its your listing, you might as well reserve all your rights (not merely to remove entries ;p)
+[23:23:20] <dabbott> no
+[23:23:23] <klondike> .agree
+[23:23:24] <alicef> Spyro: only company owner can submit in that case?
+[23:23:26] <kensington> I vote no
+[23:23:31] <jmbsvicetto> I have to agree with antarus on this one - this seems like something the Foundation doesn't even need to worry about (at least at this point)
+[23:24:02] <prometheanfire> ok, hold the vote then
+[23:24:04] <dabbott> 2 no 2 yes alicef ?
+[23:24:07] <alicef> antarus: ++
+[23:24:17] <Spyro> alicef: whoever submits a company would at the very minimum need the company owner's authorizaiton (either express or implied) at least to prevent issues of abuse of agency and/or fraud
+[23:24:26] <alicef> no
+[23:24:35] <prometheanfire> this wasn't meant to be this complicated
+[23:24:47] <klondike> sorry :(
+[23:24:50] <Spyro> beyond that I'm just a big fan of tidy paperwork
+[23:25:11] <Spyro> this is apart from if a particular person or company should be lsited to begin with.
+[23:25:16] <prometheanfire> no double listings under the same contact
+[23:25:19] <prometheanfire> that's it
+[23:25:29] <antarus> prometheanfire: I can get on board that logically ;)
+[23:25:39] <alicef> prometheanfire: i like that
+[23:25:48] <Spyro> definitely can agree with that. If companies, separate from their owners, deserve to be emntioned they can just be consolidated in the same entry as their owner
+[23:25:50] <antarus> e.g. for drobbins he should have 1 personal contact and one "breezeops" contact
+[23:25:51] <prometheanfire> second?
+[23:26:12] <kensington> Ok
+[23:26:13] <antarus> it also makes sense for people to understand whom they are contacting for services
+[23:26:16] <antarus> as opposed to mixing
+[23:26:18] <Spyro> antarus: in this case, I would suggest "Daniel Robbins" with a sublisting for DBA breezeops
+[23:26:42] <antarus> Spyro: I leave it to the trustees to debate implementation ;)
+[23:26:43] <dabbott> whats the motion
+[23:26:57] <alicef> what if i'm under a company but willing also to give private support /
+[23:27:05] <Spyro> That's a good question alicef
+[23:27:11] <prometheanfire> .vote the consultants page contants must be unique
+[23:27:21] <klondike> alicef: usually you have legal trouble with the company for doing competing bussiness
+[23:27:23] <dabbott> then you will have a different contact info
+[23:27:34] <alicef> klondike: not always
+[23:27:37] <Spyro> I would opine in general that if you keep things tidy information-wise, the decision making parts will be simpler
+[23:27:39] <prometheanfire> vote please
+[23:27:41] <alicef> the company can also don't mind
+[23:27:53] <klondike> .agree
+[23:27:59] <antarus> alicef: I think as long as you provide separate contact information; that should be allowed
+[23:28:08] <alicef> i think it too
+[23:28:17] <dabbott> sounds good
+[23:28:21] <prometheanfire> alicef: dabbott kensington vote please
+[23:28:30] <dabbott> whats the motion ?
+[23:28:33] <prometheanfire> 17:29 < prometheanfire@> .vote the consultants page contants must be unique
+[23:28:42] <prometheanfire> and mispell
+[23:28:49] <dabbott> seconded
+[23:28:53] <dabbott> yes
+[23:28:54] <alicef> what about my last question ?
+[23:28:55] <kensington> *contacts?
+[23:28:57] <prometheanfire> yes
+[23:29:05] <kensington> Yes
+[23:29:08] <alicef> is it enforced ?
+[23:29:29] <prometheanfire> alicef: enforced? yes, I'm going to email drobbins about it after the meeting
+[23:29:50] <alicef> what if i'm under a company but willing also to give private support?
+[23:29:54] <dabbott> alicef: yes the contact info must be unique
+[23:30:17] <dabbott> or different
+[23:30:25] <prometheanfire> exactly
+[23:30:26] <klondike> alicef: then you provide your company e-mail in one and your personal e-mail on the other
+[23:30:36] <alicef> yes
+[23:30:36] <dabbott> yep
+[23:30:39] <prometheanfire> thanks
+[23:30:41] <prometheanfire> motion carried
+[23:30:52] <prometheanfire> I'll contact drobbins after the meeting
+[23:30:56] <dabbott> alicef: 2 motions so far
+[23:31:03] <dabbott> I think
+[23:31:06] <prometheanfire> yep
+[23:31:07] <alicef> yes :)
+[23:31:12] <prometheanfire> first one was the ban
+[23:31:27] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire)
+[23:31:34] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto, robbat2 around:
+[23:31:36] <prometheanfire> ?
+[23:31:40] <jmbsvicetto> pong
+[23:31:48] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: infra update time
+[23:32:45] <jmbsvicetto> prometheanfire: at this point we have no funding requests. I need to make a proposal for some hardware for the server flameeyes donated that arrived at OSL this week
+[23:33:06] <prometheanfire> I thought that was antarus's server
+[23:33:19] <jmbsvicetto> antarus was holding flameeyes server
+[23:33:29] <prometheanfire> but ok, we can handle that later
+[23:33:31] <prometheanfire> ah
+[23:33:37] <prometheanfire> next
+[23:33:49] Current subject: Treasurer Update, (set by prometheanfire)
+[23:34:10] <prometheanfire> robbat2 is gone, but the earlier updates about tax are still true
+[23:34:23] Current subject: open trustee bugs, (set by prometheanfire)
+[23:34:36] LINK: [Bug List: TrusteesOpenBugs]
+[23:34:59] <kensington> Anything urgent?
+[23:35:18] <prometheanfire> bug 642422
+[23:35:29] LINK: [Bug Access Denied]
+[23:36:20] <kensington> I don't have bugzie login handy right now
+[23:36:25] <prometheanfire> I'm fine with the footer to be replaced, but iirc it was not even his footer
+[23:36:55] <prometheanfire> alicef: mind taking bug 369185
+[23:36:57] <willikins> prometheanfire: "Official "g" logo's licensing under CC-BY-SA-4.0 should be mentioned at Gentoo Name and Logo Usage Guidelines"; Websites, Graphics; IN_P; sping:trustees
+[23:37:01] <kensington> Oh that one
+[23:37:07] <kensington> Isn't infra handling now?
+[23:37:09] <alicef> prometheanfire: ok for me
+[23:37:19] <prometheanfire> kensington: mostly, I think they just need our ack
+[23:37:43] <dabbott> ok should we ack on the bug?
+[23:37:48] <prometheanfire> yes
+[23:37:51] <kensington> robbat2's plan sounded good iirc
+[23:38:02] <klondike> You are not authorized to access bug #642422.
+[23:38:24] <prometheanfire> I'll do so if you want (first request that robbat2 state the actions to be taken in the bug)
+[23:39:22] <prometheanfire> klondike: I'll fix after the meeting
+[23:39:39] <prometheanfire> ok, I just updated the bug requesting specific action plan
+[23:39:50] <prometheanfire> no other urgent bugs
+[23:40:31] Current subject: cleanup, (set by prometheanfire)
+[23:40:44] <prometheanfire> date of next meeting is 2200 UTC 17th of Feb
+[23:40:52] <prometheanfire> sound good?
+[23:40:58] <dabbott> ok here
+[23:41:05] <kensington> Yep
+[23:42:01] <klondike> works for me
+[23:42:55] <dabbott> alicef: is 22:00 ok or is later better?
+[23:43:19] <dabbott> I can do later but not earlier
+[23:43:32] <prometheanfire> she's afk atm
+[23:43:38] <prometheanfire> we'll assume it's ok for now
+[23:43:43] <dabbott> ok
+[23:43:56] <prometheanfire> Who will post the log? minutes?
+[23:44:10] <dabbott> got it
+[23:44:29] <prometheanfire> Who will update the motions page?
+[23:44:33] <prometheanfire> (should be alicef)
+[23:44:37] <dabbott> alicef: will
+[23:44:40] <prometheanfire> Who will send emails?
+[23:44:58] <dabbott> is there any?
+[23:45:15] <prometheanfire> dabbott: logs/minutes should be emailed to -nfp at least
+[23:45:36] <dabbott> ok
+[23:45:57] <prometheanfire> Who will update agenda?
+[23:45:59] <prometheanfire> I will
+[23:46:05] <dabbott> as an attachment or plain text?
+[23:46:06] <prometheanfire> Who will update channel topic?
+[23:46:07] <prometheanfire> I will
+[23:46:12] <prometheanfire> dabbott: attachment I think
+[23:46:17] <dabbott> ok
+[23:46:48] <alicef> ok for me
+[23:47:07] <alicef> yes just realized we are in 2018
+[23:47:12] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire)
+[23:47:32] <Spyro> raises hand
+[23:47:38] <Spyro> oh wait, open
+[23:47:51] <alicef> Spyro: go on
+[23:48:01] <Spyro> I'd like to concur with the comment made on my foundation membership audit, and have completion of a staff quiz become a prerequisite to the granting of foundation membership.
+[23:48:28] <Spyro> it was prom's idea
+[23:48:38] <klondike> wants to clean up the bug list
+[23:48:42] <alicef> i thought we already dicussed this
+[23:48:44] <prometheanfire> klondike: ya...
+[23:49:00] <Spyro> alicef: I don't know if it was ever brought to a formal vote or put on an official genda though
+[23:49:07] <kensington> klondike: ditto
+[23:49:40] <Spyro> Last time I checked the bylaws the staff quiz was never mentioned as a membership criteria
+[23:49:42] <prometheanfire> Spyro: it was discussed in the joint meeting (logs/minutes will be posted tonight) but the problem with that is that the trustees should have the final say in membership, not comrel/recruiting
+[23:49:50] <klondike> Can I just ping for an update on anything older than July 2017 and close it if we don't get any answer by next meeting?
+[23:50:05] <Spyro> prom: I'd like to respond to that comment as I think there's been a misunderstanding
+[23:50:05] <NeddySeagoon> klondike: kensington Leave bugs with fincancial stuff in the whiteboard. robbat2 is using them
+[23:50:12] <prometheanfire> klondike: atm, no, some of those are valid
+[23:50:16] <klondike> Ohh okay
+[23:50:24] <kensington> NeddySeagoon: I know
+[23:50:54] <Spyro> prometheanfire: my proposal is that foundation members pass the staff quiz, not that recruiters be the ones to evaluate it. What I'm proposing is a staff quiz that the trustees themselves would evaluate
+[23:51:07] <kensington> It can't hurt to review all to make sure they're the only outstanding owns though
+[23:51:15] <Spyro> comrel/recruiting would be completely uninvolved
+[23:51:17] <prometheanfire> that's possible, as long as we are the ones reviewing
+[23:51:26] <Spyro> prometheanfire: does that clarify my proposal?
+[23:51:28] <dabbott> klondike: nothing stopping you for asking for an update
+[23:51:29] <prometheanfire> yes
+[23:51:41] <NeddySeagoon> What project would these members join?
+[23:51:51] <klondike> I'll send a request for an update for any non financial bugs then
+[23:51:54] <dabbott> some of them may be being used as reminders
+[23:52:13] <prometheanfire> NeddySeagoon: it's the same as before, they'd still need to prove they've contrib'd to gentoo
+[23:52:13] <dabbott> klondike: sounds good
+[23:52:15] <alicef> i think the point was that we are already doing a review
+[23:52:30] <NeddySeagoon> prometheanfire: Sounds good
+[23:52:40] <Spyro> alicef, prometheanfire: my apologies if I assumed you knew I was only talking about the quiz itself and not necessarily that comrel/recruiters would be involved
+[23:52:42] <alicef> and we vote for each member
+[23:53:06] <prometheanfire> it's not a 'pass this quiz and you get membership', they do that AND have to prove contribution
+[23:53:20] <alicef> prometheanfire: ++
+[23:53:20] <Spyro> it was honestly just a clerical-error type misunderstanding :P
+[23:53:26] <Spyro> prometheanfire++
+[23:53:45] <prometheanfire> make that a proposal and email it to the trustees (get one of us assigned to it)
+[23:53:53] <prometheanfire> then it'd be brought up for a vote
+[23:53:58] <prometheanfire> I'm booked :P
+[23:54:45] <prometheanfire> anyone else for open floor?
+[23:55:02] <antarus> dances
+[23:55:08] <Spyro> prom: were you instructing *me* to be the one to email the trustees?
+[23:55:13] <Spyro> about the quiz proposal?
+[23:55:15] <alicef> ah my banner reimbourse
+[23:55:23] <prometheanfire> Spyro: yes
+[23:55:35] <Spyro> ...wait a minute what do you mean by "assign", are you talking about bugzilla?
+[23:55:36] <alicef> i added my paypal to bug
+[23:55:41] <alicef> to the bug
+[23:55:43] <prometheanfire> alicef: probably need to talk to robbat2
+[23:55:50] <alicef> prometheanfire: ok
+[23:56:09] <prometheanfire> Spyro: no, just email and get one of us to take it up (have it be one of their agenda items)
+[23:56:13] <Spyro> oh ok
+[23:56:16] <Spyro> will do
+[23:56:20] <Spyro> got a little confused
+[23:56:22] <dabbott> Spyro: submit the bug and it will get assigned to the trustees
+[23:56:33] <Spyro> do I submit a bug or send an email or both?
+[23:56:35] <prometheanfire> bug would help probably
+[23:56:39] <prometheanfire> just a bug
+[23:56:50] <dabbott> then one of us will look into it not prometheanfire he said he is too busy
+[23:57:36] <prometheanfire> anything else?
+[23:57:42] <Spyro> ok thanks I'll file a bug then
+[23:58:19] <klondike> Not from me, as said I'll send rfu on the non economy open bugs
+[23:58:34] <prometheanfire> k
+[23:58:36] <dabbott> Spyro: use the Product Foundation and Component Proposal
+[23:58:47] <prometheanfire> klondike: make a list of bugs first, without sending the rfu
+[23:58:51] <dabbott> all good here
+[23:58:56] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 4874 seconds