diff options
authorMatthew Thode <>2019-09-25 10:09:47 -0500
committerMatthew Thode <>2019-09-25 10:10:23 -0500
commit1924c10cf26d32e62024e9b98b723a1ed4be864d (patch)
parentUpdated motions to 9/2019 (diff)
add meeting log for 2019-09
Signed-off-by: Matthew Thode <>
1 files changed, 444 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2019/20190924.log.txt b/2019/20190924.log.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ea93f3b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2019/20190924.log.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,444 @@
+[02:03:10] <robbat2> meeting time is now
+[02:03:33] <robbat2> antarus, alicef, prometheanfire, b-man: ping
+[02:03:42] <robbat2> roll call
+[02:04:03] <prometheanfire> o/
+[02:06:41] * robbat2 listens the frogs and insects outside
+[02:07:49] <robbat2> sigh, so no quorum for the meeting again
+[02:10:06] <prometheanfire> :(
+[02:11:27] <robbat2> this meeting is hereby abandonded
+[02:11:49] * robbat2 throws the copy of robert's rules back on the bookshelf
+[02:13:30] <robbat2> (i jest; but I do actual own a 1943 printing & edition of it)
+[02:13:57] * antarus waves his hands about
+[02:14:03] <antarus> sorry a bit late
+[02:14:12] <antarus> you and your print books
+[02:14:48] <robbat2> prometheanfire: are you still here
+[02:14:50] <prometheanfire> yep
+[02:15:03] <robbat2> really, all my books right now are packed in boxes still
+[02:15:10] <robbat2> i have barren bookshelves
+[02:15:25] * prometheanfire found where lightning stuck his tree
+[02:15:39] * antarus is finally starting to acrrue possessions again
+[02:15:40] <robbat2> b-man, alicef: if you're here, good. if not, we're doing this without you
+[02:15:57] <robbat2> antarus: can you please update me on the CPA NDA front?
+[02:16:07] <antarus> I definitely forgot this meeting was now, but by happy accident I checked in
+[02:16:29] <antarus> I sent them an NDA to sign this morning after they ignored the RocketLawyer version
+[02:16:34] <antarus> so I expect to have a signed NDA by end of week
+[02:16:52] <robbat2> and it covers just the PII, correct?
+[02:17:14] <antarus> Its a pretty generic NDA covering materials shared that are necessary for the services we purchased
+[02:17:47] <robbat2> does it call out PII specifically?
+[02:19:54] <antarus> sorry was skimming it
+[02:19:56] <antarus> it does not
+[02:20:50] <robbat2> that was my request, but i'll take it, good enough if they sign it
+[02:21:43] <robbat2> we're covered under business need for any PII in material sent to accountant anyway
+[02:21:51] <antarus> "y, Confidential Information shall include any information
+[02:21:51] <antarus> provided by the Owner concerning the business, technology and information of the Owner and any
+[02:21:52] <robbat2> i think one of the prior GDPR removal requestors had donated to us
+[02:21:54] <antarus> third party with which the Owner deals, including, without limitation, business records and plans,
+[02:21:57] <antarus> trade secrets, technical data, product ideas, contracts, financial information, pricing structure,
+[02:22:00] <antarus> discounts, computer programs and listings, source code and/or object code, copyrights and
+[02:22:03] <antarus> intellectual property, inventions, sales leads, strategic alliances, partners, and customer and client
+[02:22:06] <antarus> lists. The nature of the information and the manner of disclosure are such that a reasonable person
+[02:22:09] <antarus> would understand it to be confidential."
+[02:22:21] <robbat2> yeah, that's kitchen sink enough
+[02:22:28] <antarus> its pretty broad yeah
+[02:23:05] <robbat2> ok, so hopefully they sign it, without any issues
+[02:23:13] <robbat2> we pass on the paypal and bank statements
+[02:23:25] <robbat2> that gets us the present filings, plus the answer to b-man's question
+[02:23:28] <prometheanfire> it'd be good to get this rolling
+[02:23:34] <robbat2> about how much for them to do later bookkeeping services for us
+[02:24:36] <antarus> ack, I'd like to have the finances done by Oct 31
+[02:24:45] <antarus> assuming we can swing the necessarily information to enable that
+[02:25:17] <robbat2> that seems reasonable to me
+[02:26:02] <robbat2> on the finances front, I updated the FY2019 statement to cover the remaining bank statements that weren't importing correctly before
+[02:26:05] <robbat2> that covers the GSOC income
+[02:26:30] <b-man> Well, damn. I am late
+[02:26:47] <antarus> great, glad we found that missing income
+[02:26:52] <robbat2> the diff is easy to see:
+[02:27:01] <robbat2> the one-cent offsets are bugging me
+[02:27:06] <robbat2> I think they came from the boost upgrade
+[02:27:09] <b-man> robbat2: office spacing it?
+[02:27:41] <antarus> recompile with -OC[3~[4~-ffast-math? :)
+[02:27:44] <antarus> bah
+[02:27:46] <antarus> thanks terminal
+[02:28:11] <robbat2> it doesn't help that I upgraded my desktop since then
+[02:28:47] <robbat2> but $0.01 is closer than many businesses I've seen ;-)
+[02:28:50] <antarus> one cent isn't material
+[02:28:52] <antarus> move on ;)
+[02:29:10] <robbat2> ok, so we need to vote to approve those financials
+[02:29:16] <robbat2> that was deferred from the last meeting
+[02:29:36] <antarus> (in a cash business I worked on we were happy to be within 0.5% inventory sold)
+[02:29:48] <b-man> antarus: $0.01 is everything if you office space it :)
+[02:30:29] <robbat2> make it $0.001 and be like richard pryor ;-)
+[02:30:34] <b-man> boom
+[02:30:42] <b-man> anyway, on to the business
+[02:30:52] <robbat2> motion: approve FY2019 financials
+[02:30:54] <antarus> please vote to approve: aye or nay
+[02:30:58] <robbat2> aye
+[02:31:01] <b-man> I am sure Shentino or veremitz are watching and ready to pounce on us for not being professional
+[02:31:24] <prometheanfire> aye
+[02:32:33] <antarus> b-man: ?
+[02:32:35] <b-man> robbat2: still not a fan of the presentation
+[02:32:42] <b-man> the whole right block is just weird
+[02:33:03] <robbat2> the retained earnings part?
+[02:33:20] <robbat2> that's actual accounting layouts
+[02:33:25] <robbat2> i don't _like_ it either
+[02:33:26] <b-man> Yea
+[02:34:08] <b-man> otehr than presentation
+[02:34:11] * b-man votes aye
+[02:34:14] <antarus> aye
+[02:34:42] <antarus> the financials are accepted
+[02:34:48] <antarus> I also wrote a presidents letter that I sent to -nfp
+[02:34:55] <robbat2> we dealt with the president's letter by email voting
+[02:35:09] <b-man> late but OK
+[02:35:17] <b-man> like I am late to this meeting
+[02:35:29] <robbat2> the only remaining AGM-related item is filing with New Mexico, which is the responsibility of the secretary
+[02:36:06] <antarus> I don't actually remember email voting on it
+[02:36:11] <antarus> but I also don't particularly care
+[02:36:19] <b-man> ^ that
+[02:36:21] <prometheanfire> ah, guess I should do that then
+[02:36:38] <antarus> prometheanfire: I did it last year, let me know if you need help or pointers
+[02:36:41] <b-man> Do we need to vote on his letter?
+[02:36:48] <antarus> its pretty trivial though, iirc
+[02:36:49] <b-man> seems like something a President would just issue and not need a vote on
+[02:37:00] <b-man> Of course, he would pass it across teh board for validation (which he did)
+[02:37:15] <robbat2> the voting is more to show that we as the trustees approve it
+[02:37:20] <prometheanfire> adding it to todo for tomorrow
+[02:37:41] <robbat2> it can be a symbolic dissent about the presidents statement in that wy
+[02:37:43] <robbat2> *way
+[02:37:53] <b-man> robbat2: Not sure we have any by-laws to support a vote is needed. Alec did pass it to us before distributing to public. Should be his write as President to write the electorate
+[02:38:12] <b-man> dissent == us individually or collectively dissenting publicy.
+[02:38:18] <antarus> thats why the letter is filled with indisputable facts!
+[02:38:21] <b-man> s/write/right
+[02:38:22] * Shentino saw his name get pinged
+[02:38:46] <b-man> Anyway, Alec issued the President's letter.
+[02:38:53] <Shentino> relax b-man I'm not going to pounce on anyone.
+[02:38:55] <b-man> nothing stopping such and no vote needed
+[02:39:21] <robbat2> it's more conceptual, for larger boards that are more opposed to each other
+[02:39:25] <robbat2> not our board in specific
+[02:39:38] <b-man> robbat2: we can debate that later
+[02:39:45] <robbat2> this is now the 3rd board i'm on
+[02:39:51] <Shentino> I mean you guys are doing the best you can. With that in mind, and in light of what's been messed up in the past I think you lot are doing a pretty good job, circumstances considered.
+[02:39:53] <antarus> this board is also pretty small
+[02:40:09] <robbat2> moving on for further tracker items
+[02:40:10] <antarus> most are bigger (10+ humans) and so its common to have factions and whatnot
+[02:40:33] <b-man> damned humancs
+[02:40:35] <robbat2> 990 reports hopefully from the CPA, for the first time ever!
+[02:40:35] <b-man> damned humans
+[02:41:03] <Shentino> I'd still offer to help but if you guys can retain an actual professional I'd gladly step aside.
+[02:41:21] <antarus> 990 reports?
+[02:41:25] <robbat2> the only other tracker item is for somebody to email everybody on the consultants list
+[02:41:28] <robbat2> 990s = IRS filings
+[02:41:29] <b-man> antarus: form 990 for IRS
+[02:41:47] <robbat2> everybody else was late, i'm running this meeting ;-0
+[02:42:05] <robbat2> priority = desirable, not required
+[02:42:09] <robbat2> so time for bugs
+[02:42:25] <robbat2> easy ones first, bug 693950
+[02:42:27] <willikins> robbat2: "Purchase disk sleds/caddies for catbus (oracle t5-2)"; Gentoo Foundation, Infra Support; CONF; bkohler:trustees
+[02:42:48] <robbat2> i need to poke iamben to be more specific, but I think the funding request is unlikely to exceed $200
+[02:43:05] <b-man> Yea, we knew this was a possibility.
+[02:43:16] <antarus> probably just move to approve, its immaterial
+[02:43:28] <b-man> I figured the initial request from robbat2 to raise the minimum purchase amount would suffice. If not, let's do it.
+[02:43:37] * b-man votes aye to approve purchase of new sleds/caddies
+[02:43:48] <robbat2> aye as treasurer for $200USD cap
+[02:43:57] <antarus> aye
+[02:44:00] * prometheanfire votes aye for 200
+[02:44:05] <robbat2> passed
+[02:44:25] <b-man> long live catbus!
+[02:44:30] <robbat2> bug 694010
+[02:44:32] <willikins> robbat2: "some Discord server should be mentioned in the Handbook"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; UNCO; theevilskely:trustees
+[02:44:36] <b-man> no
+[02:44:38] <b-man> please god no
+[02:44:48] <robbat2> this proposal worries me
+[02:44:51] <prometheanfire> I think I commented on that already
+[02:45:26] <b-man> This is forums, discord, and whatever other crap all over again
+[02:45:27] <robbat2> this is not the first query we've gotten about Discord's status
+[02:45:42] <antarus> to be ..fairer...
+[02:45:47] <prometheanfire> I've more or less voted already within that bug
+[02:45:50] <antarus> its not that dissimilar frmo #gentoo
+[02:45:54] <robbat2> and I think we need to ask PR to stem the tide in a better way
+[02:46:00] <antarus> except #gentoo-ops contains devs and users
+[02:46:12] <b-man> antarus: we (as a distro) control those channels
+[02:46:22] <robbat2> specifically, have SOMETHING (wiki page probably), that states there are other non-official Gentoo communications media
+[02:46:27] <b-man> and have individual devs who have been (somewhat) vetted managing such
+[02:46:33] <robbat2> possibly without specifically listing them
+[02:46:41] <antarus> I'm not really up on how discord works technically
+[02:47:05] <b-man> antarus: it doesn't.... it is "discord"
+[02:47:12] <antarus> I agree that we have group contacts at freenode that are Gentoo affilitated and can take control of #gentoo
+[02:47:33] <robbat2> #gentoo is official media, but unmanaged
+[02:47:46] <robbat2> Discord is non-official, and probably not specifically called out on that page
+[02:47:56] <b-man> It is "discord" (by definition)
+[02:48:08] <b-man> Does anyone manage it? :-P
+[02:48:21] <robbat2> re "how does it work technically", it was explained as "anarchist slack + voice chat"
+[02:48:24] <robbat2> to me
+[02:48:36] <b-man> robbat2: and... discord
+[02:48:47] <robbat2> yes, it is as labelled ;-)
+[02:48:56] <b-man> Not really an area I think we, as a distro, want to venture
+[02:48:59] <robbat2> on the specific bug, I vote nay as well
+[02:49:18] <robbat2> do we need a motion specifically to ask PR to put in a blanket statement, or can we just do it?
+[02:49:20] * b-man nay
+[02:49:25] <antarus> I vote nay on the bug
+[02:49:37] <antarus> I think its reasonable to consider what controls need to be in place for us to consider it official
+[02:49:48] <antarus> but outside of the scope of the bug
+[02:49:54] <prometheanfire> I vote nay, though I do think we should specify how we see it
+[02:50:01] <robbat2> do you volunteer to write such a list for future usage/
+[02:50:04] <b-man> robbat2: I don't think we need PR's approval, but it would be wise to explain why.
+[02:50:16] <robbat2> antarus: ^^ that question was for you
+[02:50:20] <antarus> robbat2: I figured ;)
+[02:50:31] <robbat2> it's a good statement
+[02:50:34] <antarus> I mean it depends on the rest of the board
+[02:50:43] <antarus> once you write down requirements, and then discord meets them
+[02:50:44] <robbat2> it fits into the rest of the listing of what official comms channels are
+[02:50:50] <antarus> the logical conclusion is that we should include it
+[02:51:04] <antarus> so if we really don't want ot include it, its better not to produce a list
+[02:51:15] <robbat2> then you're being arbitrary
+[02:51:21] <antarus> sure
+[02:51:25] <prometheanfire> it's more on if we manage it or not I think
+[02:51:32] <antarus> I'm trying to decide if we are being arbitrary here ;)
+[02:51:38] <b-man> Management is important as I see it
+[02:51:47] <prometheanfire> that's always been a req in my mind
+[02:51:56] <robbat2> codify what you mean by 'manage' into the list if that matters to you
+[02:52:00] <b-man> Infra (as a project) manages IRC channels (unless I missed something)
+[02:52:07] <robbat2> Infra does not
+[02:52:08] <antarus> infra doesn't manage irc
+[02:52:11] <antarus> comrel does
+[02:52:18] <antarus> (essentially)
+[02:52:21] <prometheanfire> manged by comrel is what I'm taking about
+[02:52:30] <b-man> we can gain access though no? but ultimately, a project of Gentoo manages it
+[02:52:46] <antarus> Freenode has specific contacts that represent "Gentoo"
+[02:52:56] <b-man> These disparate social media initiatives are worrisome
+[02:52:58] <antarus> and they basically have full authority on all #gentoo- prefixed channels
+[02:53:15] <robbat2> ok, so action-item: antarus & b-man to write a requirements to be "official" gentoo communications channels
+[02:53:35] <antarus> talks about the freenode policy
+[02:54:00] <b-man> antarus: sure, but does a Gentoo project represent those contacts?
+[02:54:04] <robbat2> remember that the gentoo 'project' policy is that any dev could start a project
+[02:54:20] <robbat2> how does 'official' intersect with 'project'
+[02:54:32] <antarus> b-man: the only contact i know of currently is jmbsvicetto
+[02:54:33] <b-man> well a project should be governed by council
+[02:54:34] <antarus> there might b eothers
+[02:54:43] <robbat2> there are other group contact
+[02:54:49] <robbat2> *contacts, for IRC
+[02:54:52] <b-man> and the trademarks should be governing by trustees
+[02:54:52] * antarus doesn't have a list handy
+[02:55:00] <b-man> governed*
+[02:55:09] <robbat2> we're heading off in the weeds here
+[02:55:12] <antarus> indeed ;)
+[02:55:15] <antarus> other bugs?
+[02:55:16] <robbat2> is that action item clear enough?
+[02:55:19] <b-man> haha
+[02:55:36] <antarus> yeah
+[02:55:37] <b-man> Are we going to ignore the decentralized aspect of the distro?
+[02:55:42] <robbat2> ok, next one
+[02:55:45] <robbat2> locked bug 695360
+[02:56:10] <b-man> council owns all the things!
+[02:56:13] <b-man> no the trustees do!
+[02:56:16] <b-man> no, no ones does!
+[02:56:19] <robbat2> there's a concern that metadata.xml in forked distros, who copy the file 1:1 mis-represent who maintains a given package
+[02:56:39] <robbat2> i'm not outing the distros or author at their request
+[02:56:54] <antarus> I talked to mgorny about this, I think I mostly agree with neddy
+[02:57:22] <robbat2> can you summarize that for the logs?
+[02:57:24] <antarus> I noted that Ubuntu is downstream of debian and rewrites metadata for their packages
+[02:57:35] <antarus> (to be ubuntu-devel instead of debian maintainers)
+[02:57:58] <antarus> It was unclear what kind of legal case we had (trade dress...somehow?)
+[02:58:01] <robbat2> is that true of all debian derivitives?
+[02:58:01] <prometheanfire> and we are talking about the metadata, not file headers (which include copyright)
+[02:58:10] <robbat2> specifically metadata
+[02:58:20] <b-man> Is Funtoo including metadata from the Gentoo contributions though?
+[02:58:31] <b-man> e.g. "ingesting" teh contributions and producing metadata from another project?
+[02:58:47] <robbat2> i haven't verified that statement, but I trust the author so far
+[02:58:59] <antarus> well I want to separate the problem statements I think
+[02:59:02] <b-man> robbat2: which author?
+[02:59:43] <antarus> the problem statement raised on the bug is a technical statement
+[02:59:44] <b-man> the author of the bug clearly shows that the metadata has diverged between the distros
+[02:59:51] <antarus> it breaks repology
+[03:00:00] <b-man> hence the tooling is not working and alludes to the "technical problem"
+[03:00:17] <b-man> but this has other implications
+[03:00:34] <prometheanfire> though there was a workaround to search for stuff in repology iirc
+[03:00:57] <b-man> prometheanfire: work arounds should be taken lightly... "users" see this stuff
+[03:01:06] <robbat2> ok, so there's a claim & proof that the metadata has diverged
+[03:01:10] <antarus> prometheanfire: I think there was a problem with the forked distro being far behind
+[03:01:14] <robbat2> has it actually produced an impact?
+[03:01:22] <robbat2> e.g. bugs filed to the wrong place
+[03:01:25] <prometheanfire> b-man: true
+[03:01:42] <b-man> robbat2: the impact is seen by the bug reporter, but has not been substantiated
+[03:01:45] <antarus> robbat2: so is your question that bugs in funtoo packages should be filed at funtoo?
+[03:02:01] <antarus> robbat2: or is your question that bugs in funtoo packages should be filed at gentoo, but the metadata is old
+[03:02:04] <b-man> robbat2: I think funtoo users would file the bugs against Gentoo...
+[03:02:04] <antarus> so people misfile bugs?
+[03:02:09] <b-man> as the packages are ingested
+[03:02:15] <b-man> errr
+[03:02:19] <b-man> antarus: ^
+[03:03:26] <robbat2> ok, I see two cases:
+[03:03:40] <antarus> they want bugs reported to them according to their website
+[03:03:45] <robbat2> 1. the package is modified in funtoo; file the bug to funtoo. not gentoo's problem unless you can reproduce the bug there
+[03:03:46] <antarus> and they say they will file bugs to us
+[03:04:11] <robbat2> 2. the package is unmodified; assuming it's trivially reproducible in Gentoo, we should probably get the bug
+[03:04:18] <antarus> this is covered in
+[03:04:22] <b-man> Right, but if the metadata is wrong then they come directly to us
+[03:04:24] <robbat2> should Funtoo be responsible for triaging the bug in case #2?
+[03:04:32] <[Arfrever]> Most reporters of bugs do not have editbugs permission, and bug wranglers assign bugs, by reading up-to-date metadata.xml.
+[03:04:46] <prometheanfire> is there a reason we can't just ask them to change the metadata?
+[03:04:56] <prometheanfire> have we tried talking to them first?
+[03:05:02] <antarus> prometheanfire: mostly its a bunch of work
+[03:05:09] <b-man> prometheanfire: I think that is ultimately the technic solution yne ug reporter is asking for :)
+[03:05:10] <antarus> and if there is not a real impact to us, its busywork
+[03:05:16] <robbat2> ok, given that page, why are Funtoo users reporting to Gentoo first at all?
+[03:05:20] <prometheanfire> b-man: wat
+[03:05:45] <b-man> prometheanfire: That is ultimately what the bug reporter is asking for.
+[03:06:04] <robbat2> ok, so a request for all offshot distros, that consume our metadata.xml
+[03:06:06] <b-man> Funtoo to quit ingesting our metadata
+[03:06:15] <robbat2> to update it to point to their local maintainers first
+[03:06:21] <prometheanfire> ok, is this a technical issue or a legal/monetary one?
+[03:06:29] <prometheanfire> it sounds like a technical issue mostly
+[03:06:38] <antarus> I don't believe there is a legal / monetary issue
+[03:06:40] <robbat2> I agree it's technical
+[03:06:48] <prometheanfire> so give it to council?
+[03:06:53] <robbat2> in so much as metadata.xml is technical
+[03:06:59] <prometheanfire> right
+[03:07:09] <robbat2> the legal part comes into how we as the distro interact with other distros
+[03:07:22] <robbat2> put up a polite request for child distros to update metadata.xml if possible
+[03:07:35] <robbat2> specifically that the maintainers should point to their own people
+[03:07:40] <b-man> It is a legal issue.
+[03:07:50] <robbat2> or a dedicated 'upstream' project in the child distro's bug tracker
+[03:07:51] <prometheanfire> there's nothing wrong with saying 'do you mind changing who you represent as the contact points for the metadata in the repo? It's confusing users'
+[03:07:54] <b-man> And it is a distro issue with a technical solution
+[03:08:16] <antarus> i'm not going to speculate on the legal stuff because we are not lawyers
+[03:08:29] <prometheanfire> :D
+[03:08:29] <antarus> robbat2: I like this idea of just better tagging in the downstream metadata
+[03:08:31] <b-man> Never said we were lawyers.
+[03:08:48] <antarus> b-man: sure, its more like i want to speculate wildly on the case merits but won't do so ;)
+[03:08:50] <robbat2> and really, the most we can do is a polite request
+[03:09:02] <robbat2> there's nothing we can do to force another distro to change it
+[03:09:11] <robbat2> not without violating open source licenses
+[03:09:38] <prometheanfire> ack
+[03:09:42] <b-man> We wouldn't violate open source licenses
+[03:09:43] <b-man> Anyway
+[03:09:51] <b-man> Send a letter to them b
+[03:10:07] <b-man> Email or letter. Whichever century.
+[03:10:20] <robbat2> i'll take the action item to help improve guidelines for downstream distros
+[03:10:37] <[Arfrever]> metadata.xml could be automatically re-written to drop <maintainer> tags.
+[03:11:00] <prometheanfire> robbat2: that sounds right
+[03:11:04] <b-man> [Arfrever]: don't worry too much about the technical means.
+[03:11:04] <antarus> [Arfrever]: yeah i think the trick is need to rewrite all teh gentoo maintainers as 'upstream' and hten rewrite the real maintainer tags to be the downstream people
+[03:11:40] <robbat2> moving on here
+[03:11:46] <robbat2> so we can keep this to 90 mins at least
+[03:11:48] <b-man> This is a matter of us asking "non-legally" to stop using our shit as downstream contacts.
+[03:11:54] <robbat2> there were some bylaw change requests
+[03:12:00] <robbat2> like gender-neutral language
+[03:12:09] <robbat2> that's waiting for a draft submission on the change
+[03:12:13] <prometheanfire> we requested a diff iirc?
+[03:12:28] <antarus> still waiting for that I believe
+[03:12:29] <robbat2> reformatting per bug 676314, I think was waiting on me
+[03:12:31] <willikins> robbat2: "Bylaw reformat proposal"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; antarus:trustees
+[03:12:40] <robbat2> the rest of those seem blocked
+[03:12:46] <robbat2> non-bylaw related
+[03:12:51] <robbat2> was the change of address stuff from last year
+[03:13:05] <robbat2> antarus, as president, you should probably followup on the remaining bank ones
+[03:13:06] <b-man> Are we going to even bother updating by-laws at this point?
+[03:13:30] <antarus> bank change of address you mean?
+[03:13:36] <antarus> I'll put that on my plans for Oct
+[03:13:36] <robbat2> yes
+[03:13:38] <prometheanfire> there was a new user request
+[03:13:56] <b-man> We will adopt umbrella by-laws shortly.
+[03:14:07] <robbat2> prometheanfire: which bug?
+[03:14:14] <b-man> Then the gender neutral community can go petition them :)
+[03:14:20] <prometheanfire> no bug, came into trustees@
+[03:14:39] <prometheanfire> I don't think the name info is private
+[03:14:45] <robbat2> can you summarize for the logs?
+[03:14:52] <robbat2> the GDPR removal request, or another?
+[03:15:06] <prometheanfire> no, this is a new foundation member
+[03:15:16] <antarus> oh right
+[03:15:25] <antarus> requested membership
+[03:15:31] <robbat2> found it
+[03:15:38] <robbat2> motion: approve membership
+[03:15:39] <robbat2> aye
+[03:15:43] <antarus> aye
+[03:15:44] <prometheanfire> aye
+[03:15:51] <b-man> nay
+[03:15:55] <b-man> It is not important.
+[03:15:56] <robbat2> passed anyway ;-P
+[03:16:14] <robbat2> that reminds me, there's a related item now that the election finished
+[03:16:23] <robbat2> the electoral roll needs pruning
+[03:16:27] <b-man> Foundation membership has no significance.
+[03:17:03] <antarus> prometheanfire: can you handle the pruning?
+[03:17:21] <robbat2> I think this covers the bugs that I see as important for the meeting
+[03:17:26] <robbat2> anybody have other topics or bugs?
+[03:17:42] <robbat2> as new trustee business or other
+[03:17:49] <prometheanfire> antarus: uh, it might be best to have whoever last touched it look at it
+[03:17:51] <robbat2> if not, we can move on to open floor
+[03:17:59] <robbat2> you mean me ;-)
+[03:18:25] <b-man> It's not the best solution to pruning.
+[03:18:27] <antarus> I mean prometheanfire but if you want to do it ;)
+[03:18:37] <antarus> did we want to discuss ?
+[03:18:43] <prometheanfire> whoever, I am not familiar with the scripts is all
+[03:18:55] <antarus> or we can defer, either one is fine w/me
+[03:19:27] <robbat2> re bug 690198: is developer well-defined anywhere?
+[03:19:29] <willikins> robbat2: "Formally recognize the council in the foundation bylaws, plus other de-facto terms"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees
+[03:19:33] <robbat2> council is defined by GLEP at least
+[03:19:41] <robbat2> i have a hard kid IRQ
+[03:19:42] <robbat2> bbiab
+[03:19:49] <b-man> Recognizing the council, while great, is meaningless given the endstate desired by the current council
+[03:20:01] <robbat2> antarus: you have the chair/mace/septer/wand-of-control-whatever
+[03:20:05] <b-man> Along with by-laws updates.
+[03:20:43] <antarus> excellent
+[03:20:51] <antarus> we will defer
+[03:20:55] <antarus> any open floor business?
+[03:21:18] <prometheanfire> ok, update voter roles, update nm filing
+[03:21:18] <b-man> Impeach the current council to preserve the Gentoo foundation!
+[03:21:31] <b-man> And the trustees!
+[03:22:59] <antarus> ...
+[03:23:15] <prometheanfire> are we done?
+[03:23:18] <Shentino> yeah about that
+[03:23:20] <antarus> meeting adjourned then
+[03:23:24] <prometheanfire> I just want to make sure I have my action items down
+[03:23:24] <Shentino> hold on
+[03:23:32] <b-man> Will call for an electorate vote of majority tomorrow!
+[03:23:34] <antarus> prometheanfire: just those two I think
+[03:23:36] <antarus> Shentino: yes?
+[03:24:04] <Shentino> I brought up the council in that bug (and it's my bug) because it seemed some standing policy in the bylaws depended on things like "developers' and "council" which are, from the bylaws, undefined legally
+[03:24:18] <Shentino> though I have to agree with b-man
+[03:24:33] <Shentino> and speaking of gleps, "GLEP" itself is also not defined in the bylaws or charter
+[03:24:43] <Shentino> are we opening ourselves up to legal vagueness?
+[03:25:17] <b-man> Shentino: that is very much what we are. Vague.
+[03:25:25] <Shentino> I mean it's great if the council is defined by glep, but what gives the glep legal force with respect to the foundation and possibly of mor epractical importance the foundation owned assets that support the distro
+[03:25:28] <Shentino> owned/managed
+[03:25:54] <b-man> Infra-less core says antarus !
+[03:26:10] <antarus> GLEPS don't need legal force...
+[03:26:21] <b-man> Sure they do.
+[03:26:29] <Shentino> it appears to me to be the legal version of an unresolved dependency
+[03:26:30] <b-man> You are governing people.
+[03:26:46] <b-man> People need law and order.
+[03:26:46] <Shentino> bylaws depending on terms that aren't defined therein
+[03:26:53] <robbat2> people are unresolvable dependencies
+[03:27:04] * antarus can't tell if he is being trolled or what here
+[03:27:10] <Shentino> I'm not trolling you antarus
+[03:27:13] <b-man> We even govern open source by governance.
+[03:27:32] <Shentino> I may lack some degree of common sense but my concerns, however misguided they may be, are genuine
+[03:27:47] <antarus> Shentino: I'm not particularly worried about it
+[03:28:00] <b-man> You want to negate that copy right with a copy left?
+[03:28:05] <robbat2> I agree with the concerns, but assert they are nowhere near unique to Gentoo
+[03:28:21] <Shentino> true robby but that doesn't necessarily make said concerns any less valid
+[03:28:26] <Shentino> or applicable to us AS gentoo
+[03:28:29] <b-man> robbat2: which is why many have decided to govern by a non-profit
+[03:28:45] <robbat2> i've read so much real law that has unresolved dependencies in the same way
+[03:28:58] <b-man> robbat2: it is enforceable though
+[03:29:21] <b-man> Let's call the meeting end and then continue debate?
+[03:29:24] <Shentino> defacto we recognize that developership is defined and awarded by recruiters, revoked by undertakers/council
+[03:29:28] * Shentino nods at b-amn
+[03:29:48] <robbat2> Shentino: i'm going to give you some action items then
+[03:29:56] <robbat2> please update YOUR bug
+[03:29:59] <robbat2> with the following
+[03:30:01] <Shentino> ok, what updates do you want?
+[03:30:19] <robbat2> 1. existing GLEP references, if any, on council definition, developer definition
+[03:30:28] <robbat2> 2. existing OTHER references, on definitions of same
+[03:30:37] <robbat2> Gentoo-specifically ideally
+[03:30:38] <b-man> GLEPs dont matter
+[03:31:07] <Shentino> I only said it was "MY" bug because I wrote it, not because it belongs to me in a property sense. I don't know why you emphasised "YOUR" the way you did
+[03:31:10] <b-man> It is an adhoc group of people with an adhoc base of infra doing whatever they want.
+[03:31:22] <Shentino> and that "whatever they want" is what almost got np-hardass nailed
+[03:31:23] <robbat2> they may not matter as gleps, but they do serve as existing definition text
+[03:31:29] <b-man> No o
+[03:31:46] <antarus> Shentino: other busines besides that bug?
+[03:32:01] <Shentino> not that I can think of.
+[03:32:04] <Shentino> thanks
+[03:32:04] <antarus> ok
+[03:32:11] <robbat2> Shentino: re 'YOUR'; I don't want it discussed as noise in the channel after this
+[03:32:12] * antarus gavels the meeting closed then