diff options
authorUlrich Müller <>2023-10-08 20:48:00 +0200
committerUlrich Müller <>2023-10-08 20:49:05 +0200
commit58eb02abe439182c9620b6c341d97fa9643652a0 (patch)
parentAdd log for 2023 AGM (diff)
Add log for 2023-10-02 meetingHEADmaster
Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <>
1 files changed, 320 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2023/20231002.log.txt b/2023/20231002.log.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..13133ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2023/20231002.log.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,320 @@
+<@robbat2> ok, roll call! [21:02]
+* ulm here
+<@robbat2> ulm, robbat2, soap, prometheanfire, dilfridge
+<@robbat2> ulm, robbat2, soap, prometheanfire, dilfridge : reping #1 [21:05]
+* soap here
+<@robbat2> ok, we have a quorum, but i'll really like more people
+<@ulm> I've texted dilfridge [21:06]
+<@robbat2> ok, without everybody present, I don't want to discuss the
+ date/time of meetings [21:11]
+<@robbat2> we said every 2 months during the AGM
+<@robbat2> leave it at that for now [21:12]
+<@ulm> robbat2: maybe you could state the time slots that are possible for
+ you?
+<@ulm> for the council, Sunday always worked fine [21:13]
+<@robbat2> the ideal timeslot for me would be Sundays 17:00-20:00 UTC
+<@robbat2> (finished by 20:00 UTC)
+<@robbat2> today only happened to work because it's a public holiday in Canada
+ [21:14]
+<@ulm> let's follow up to this after the meeting?
+<@robbat2> yes
+<@robbat2> 3. Pros and cons of a 501(c)(3) vs a 501(c)(6) organisation
+<@robbat2> this was previously discussed in
+<@ulm> under "Possible umbrellas"? [21:15]
+<@robbat2> and previous boards preferred the 501c3 [21:16]
+<@robbat2> but I realize since previous boards were US-centric, the non-USians
+ including myself didn't have a complete grasp of the differences
+<@ulm> yes, 501c3 looks like the natural choice [21:17]
+<@soap> agreeed
+<@ulm> but I'd like to have an idea of the restrictions this would impose on
+ us
+<@robbat2> record keeping: 501c3 have reporting requirements on funding
+ sources: both to the IRS, and to the public [21:18]
+<@ulm> for all donations, or only above a certain threshold? [21:19]
+<@robbat2> IRS: everybody; public: threshold [21:20]
+<@ulm> k
+<@robbat2> other restrictions: [21:21]
+<@robbat2> political involvement: 501c3 cannot support specific parties,
+ canadidates, campaigns [21:22]
+<@ulm> this doesn't apply to us?
+<@robbat2> it does sort of
+<@robbat2> using the EU Cyber Resilience Act as an example: we have to be
+ careful about how we handle it [21:23]
+<@robbat2> we can say the act itself is a problem, and lobby for changes
+<@robbat2> but we cannot support a specific parties or politician's
+ actions/words about it
+<@ulm> k, that's similar to what a non-profit in Germany would be allowed to
+ do [21:24]
+<@robbat2> can't say: "Gentoo, the Pirate Party and Rick Falkvinge say the CRA
+ is flawed"
+<@robbat2> can say: "Gentoo agreed with the Pirate Party & Rick Falkvinge's
+ saying the CRA is flawed" [21:25]
+<@robbat2> *agree with
+<@ulm> very subtle :) [21:26]
+<@ulm> but doesn't look like a fundamental obstacle
+<@robbat2> on the funding side, there's also a nuance, that won't matter if
+ we're in an umbrella, but i'll cover it anyway
+<@robbat2> the IRS has the "public support test", for public 501c3; that
+ requires funding come from a broad set of donors
+<@robbat2> on a rolling 6 year basis, 33% of total revenues must come from
+ donors who EACH contribute strictly less than 2% [21:28]
+<@ulm> do you have a number on how we do there at present? [21:29]
+<@robbat2> back in 2004: FreeBSD nearly failed that requirement:
+<@robbat2> Gentoo would have passed in *most* years [21:30]
+<@robbat2> there are I think 3-4 years, non-consquetive where we had a large
+ donor that risked this
+<+ajak> does that apply to members of a 501c3 umbrella individually or the
+ umbrella in the aggregate? [21:31]
+<@robbat2> i have a commented out piece of code somewhere in the financial
+ statements that would show if we passed it
+<@robbat2> for an umbrella, it's the whole umbrella in aggregate
+<@robbat2> which makes it much easier overall
+<@robbat2> other limitations: in both the 501c cases, there are some
+ restrictions on how people are paid - this has never been a problem
+ for Gentoo, because we had our own non-renumeration clauses with
+ those in mind, since the inception [21:35]
+<@robbat2> those are pretty much tl;dr: don't improperly take money from a
+ non-profit [21:36]
+<@robbat2> ulm, soap: does that answer most of your questions about 501c 3 /
+ 6? [21:38]
+<@soap> yes
+<@ulm> yes, no more questions for now
+<@robbat2> overall status wise: [21:39]
+<@robbat2> SFC: gave us a soft no, they don't take linux distros really
+<@robbat2> SPI: never responded to mgorny's questions after a few prods
+<@soap> ok, but we could've just tried pining SPI again?
+<@robbat2> they didn't respond last time, but it's been a year [21:40]
+<@robbat2> and they had some internal changes of board [21:41]
+<@ulm> from the previous e-mail exchange with them I gathered that they don't
+ have any paid staff doing accounting? or at least they didn't in 2017
+<@robbat2> OSC: antarus dropped the ball on sending our questions to them, we
+ could re-open it likely
+<@ulm> OSC is 501c6 though [21:42]
+<@robbat2> the collective stuff has both 501c3 and 501c6 choices
+<@ulm> yeah, and I find it somewhat confusing
+<@ulm> OC is the platform, and there are OCF (501c3), OSC (501c6) plus several
+ other fiscal hosts below? [21:43]
+<@robbat2> something like that
+<@ulm> and we could also start our own directly under OC? [21:44]
+ seems to indicate that
+<@robbat2> SPI: i think they have paid somebody to help w/ the bookkeeping;
+ but they *do* have an independent auditor for their financial
+ statements
+<@ulm> my preference would be to try reiterating with SPI first [21:45]
+<@ulm> then maybe check out options with OC [21:46]
+<@soap> second that
+<@ulm> SFC seems to be out of the question
+<@dilfridge> here
+<@ulm> welcome :)
+<@dilfridge> reading backlog
+<@robbat2> SPI ran at a significant loss last year:
+ [21:47]
+<@robbat2> expenses of 563k to income of 108k
+<@soap> wow
+<@robbat2> they have a 5M warchest, so that's probably okay, but not great
+ overall
+<@robbat2> sorry, 3M, their formatting is a bit different than mine [21:48]
+<@dilfridge> ehm, now how did they manage that? :| [21:49]
+<@robbat2> i haven't dug into the details, but covid hurt a lot of orgs due to
+ upfront costs of conferences
+<@ulm> Equity:Net-Assets seems to be the biggest loss
+<@dilfridge> is that depreciation? [21:50]
+<@robbat2> i know the Ceph Foundation (under Linux Foundation) nearly went
+ functionaly bankrupt
+<@dilfridge> yeah, I mean, I kinda see that the covid years cannot be counted
+ normal
+<@ulm> have we contacted linux foundation, BTW? [21:51]
+<@ulm> or are they not a good fit for us?
+<@dilfridge> they are exclusivley c6 [21:52]
+<@ulm> yes
+<@robbat2> yes, we did
+<@dilfridge> also, I dont really feel well with some org that claims "we're
+ actually the biggest linux employer worldwide"
+<@robbat2> i'll try dig out those mails as well, but they linked us to the
+ agreement docs, and nobody liked it
+<@robbat2> hmm, I see that link is dead
+<@robbat2> i'll try find it
+ is a 404
+ [21:53]
+<@robbat2> (i have to go in 5 mins, at 20:00 UTC) [21:54]
+<@robbat2> (briefly at least)
+<@ulm> ok, that pdf is too much to read during the meeting [21:55]
+<@dilfridge> I'll read through the spi mails and talk them over with mgorny
+<@robbat2> in terms of time commitment, I feel starting our own 501c is
+ nothing ANY of us want to take on
+<@robbat2> that leaves us with SPI || OpenCollective [21:56]
+<@dilfridge> agreed
+<@ulm> yes
+<@robbat2> OC is the shiny new choice, but I don't know about track record
+<@robbat2> SPI is *old*
+<@robbat2> which is good
+<@dilfridge> beard like debian :D
+* ulm just wanted to say that :)
+<@robbat2> fastforwarding since I have to go in a moment: [21:57]
+<@robbat2> i'm going to resend the notification emails of people being
+ removed, i was surprised to get zero responses
+<@robbat2> no further response in 2 weeks, -> boot
+<@ulm> agreed
+<@robbat2> I think prometheanfire did file the annual report, but I want
+ explicit confirmation again
+<@robbat2> the taxes are done
+<@robbat2> i need to make sure I put the tax pdfs into the repo [21:58]
+<@dilfridge> excellent
+<@dilfridge> I think I may still need access somewhere there? or maybe I have
+ and dont know it yet :)
+<@robbat2> ssh |grep foundation
+<@ulm> robbat2: should we end the meeting then, or can we continue with bugs
+ and membership applications without you?
+<@robbat2> you have quorum without me [21:59]
+<@robbat2> so continue
+<@dilfridge> RW everywhere \o/
+<@robbat2> if you need my input on bugs, you can ping
+<@robbat2> i'll be back in 15-20
+<@ulm> k
+<@ulm> who wants to take over the chair?
+<@dilfridge> (you are seriously asking? :o) [22:00]
+<@ulm> ok, I do :)
+<@ulm> 5. New membership applications
+<@ulm> we have one application from arsen (which we missed in the AGM) [22:01]
+<@ulm> mail from 2023-01-22 with subject "Developer Foundation membership",
+ message-id <>
+<+Arsen> :-)
+<@dilfridge> ++
+<@ulm> motion: accept Arsen's application
+* dilfridge yes
+*** [Arfrever] (~Arfrever@apache/committer/Arfrever) has joined channel
+ #gentoo-trustees
+* ulm yes
+<@ulm> soap: ^^ [22:02]
+* soap yes
+<@dilfridge> swiss trains run on time!
+* soap ducks
+<@ulm> accepted with 3 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions, 2 absent
+<@ulm> I'm not aware of any other application [22:03]
+<@ulm> 6. Open bugs with trustees involvement
+<@ulm> 55 open bugs, so we cannot go though all of them today [22:04]
+<@dilfridge> maybe until next time we can tag some of them as "action item" or
+ similar
+<@ulm> I had sent a list with 7 bugs [22:05]
+<@dilfridge> then we can have an agenda thing "open action items on bz"
+<@ulm> yeah, good idea
+<@ulm> bug 369185
+<willikins> ulm: "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
+<@dilfridge> I like the FAQ solution [22:06]
+<@ulm> maybe not ready for vote just now, but can you read my last entry and
+ comment on the bug please?
+<@ulm> then we can vote there
+<@dilfridge> done [22:07]
+<@ulm> the next two are similar
+<@ulm> bug 371541
+<willikins> ulm: "Offer vector graphic of
+ "gentoo linux TM" text"; Websites, Graphics; IN_P; sping:trustees
+<@ulm> bug 371543
+<willikins> ulm: "Offer vector graphic of
+ newage/modern "gentoo" text"; Websites, Graphics; CONF;
+ sping:trustees
+<@ulm> I'd suggest to reassign to the artwork project [22:08]
+<@dilfridge> yes
+<@ulm> not sure what trustees should do there
+* dilfridge doesnt dare to ask where it'll end up then
+<@ulm> soap: ok with this?
+<@soap> yes
+<@dilfridge> ...
+<@ulm> bug 613950 [22:09]
+<willikins> ulm: "Change of Mailing Address:
+ tracker bug"; Gentoo Foundation, Filings; CONF; robbat2:trustees
+<@ulm> I fear we need robbat2 for this one
+<@dilfridge> well it's a tracker, so nothing directly to be done [22:10]
+<@ulm> yeah, moving on
+<@ulm> bug 634406
+<willikins> ulm: "
+ potentially(?) profiting off of Gentoo mascot's name."; Gentoo
+ Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; R030t1:trustees
+<@prometheanfire> sorry, work was calling :|
+<@ulm> I think this one can be closed, looks like domain parking now [22:11]
+<@ulm> this is the page from 2017:
+ [22:12]
+<@ulm> obviously they've dropped our logo
+<@dilfridge> the text is still the same, the graphics different
+<@ulm> yeah, let's close the bug [22:13]
+<@ulm> bug 693288
+<willikins> "sys-kernel/*-sources:
+ non-redistributable files"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF;
+ ulm:trustees
+<@dilfridge> that feels a bit like an OPP [22:14]
+<@ulm> this was filed by me, but I think it's not really actionable
+<@ulm> reassign to kernel, or to licenses?
+<@dilfridge> licenses
+<@ulm> basically it's an upstream issue and there's nothing we can do [22:15]
+<@ulm> certainly we won't stop mirroring kernel sources
+<@ulm> any objections against reassigning to licenses@ [22:16]
+<@soap> nope
+<@ulm> last one, bug 796947
+<willikins> "[Motion] Update IRC information in
+ Privacy Policy"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; ulm:trustees
+<@ulm> two suggestions in comment #3 [22:17]
+<@dilfridge> I hate it but b is better [22:18]
+<@ulm> I'd prefer a)
+<@soap> yup, b is better
+<@ulm> ok, let's take a vote then
+<@ulm> option a) or b) from [22:19]
+* dilfridge votes b)
+* ulm votes a)
+* soap votes b)
+<@dilfridge> ... and robin says in the bug he prefers b
+<@ulm> yes he did [22:20]
+<@ulm> prometheanfire: ^^
+<+NeddySeagoon> The 'b's have it
+<@prometheanfire> b, for what it's worth [22:21]
+<@ulm> ok, that's 1 for a), 3 for b)
+<@ulm> 1 absent [22:22]
+<@ulm> I'm going to update the page then
+<@ulm> anything else from the list at
+ ? [22:23]
+<@dilfridge> that looks too much like work :/
+<@ulm> 7. Foundation activity tracker [22:24]
+<@dilfridge> Secretary/Treasurer Annual Report - New Mexico [22:25]
+<@dilfridge> due 15-Nov-2023
+<@ulm> yes, this one is for robbat2
+<@dilfridge> everything else looks far in the future
+<@ulm> Secretary/President Prune non-voting members
+<@ulm> we have discussed this already [22:26]
+<@ulm> Secretary/President Send email to people listed Consultants are
+ still valid (one month response time) 18-Dec-2016 17-Dec-2017
+ (estimated)
+<@ulm> not sure about this one, but looks like it's optional [22:27]
+<@ulm> 8. AOB / open floor
+<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: They get an ad on our webpage somewhere.
+<+NeddySeagoon> Action on Sec to update the members list. [22:28]
+<@ulm> I think
+<+NeddySeagoon> Add Arsen, so he can vote :)
+<@ulm> I have one item for AOB
+<@ulm> can we move to
+ the main wiki name space? [22:29]
+<@dilfridge> yes please
+<@ulm> so non-trustees (including NeddySeagoon) can edit it
+<+NeddySeagoon> Heh :) [22:30]
+<@ulm> prometheanfire: soap: any objections?
+<@soap> no
+<@ulm> anything else? [22:31]
+<@soap> not from my side
+<@dilfridge> not here
+<@ulm> let's wait until 20:33
+<@ulm> meeting closed [22:33]
+<@ulm> thanks everyone!
+<@dilfridge> thank you and sorry for being late
+<@soap> thanks