|author||Robin H. Johnson <email@example.com>||2019-06-03 05:13:33 +0000|
|committer||Robin H. Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>||2019-06-04 01:13:33 +0000|
|parent||Updated 2019/06 motions (diff)|
Add 2019/06/03 meeting log
Signed-off-by: Robin H. Johnson <email@example.com>
1 files changed, 636 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2019/20190603.log.txt b/2019/20190603.log.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,636 @@
+[2019/06/03 02:53:49] <alicef> meeting is in 10 min?
+[2019/06/03 02:54:58] <robbat2> 5 min now yes
+[2019/06/03 02:55:07] <robbat2> nobody created an agenda yet, so I threw up https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2019/06
+[2019/06/03 02:55:28] <alicef> eh ?
+[2019/06/03 02:55:35] <alicef> thanks
+[2019/06/03 02:58:45] <veremitz> +1
+[2019/06/03 02:59:21] <veremitz> damnit.. its 3am UTC/4am BST :/
+[2019/06/03 02:59:21] * Shentino passes around teas and sodas for refreshments before the meeting starts
+[2019/06/03 02:59:56] <veremitz> ah and 30s respect to the passing of grumpy cats and all other internet cats
+[2019/06/03 03:00:07] <veremitz> s/cats/ca/
+[2019/06/03 03:00:11] <Shentino> including cheeseburger cat
+[2019/06/03 03:00:12] <veremitz> oh fuckit.
+[2019/06/03 03:00:21] <veremitz> y'all interpolate
+[2019/06/03 03:00:30] <alicef> antarus: ?
+[2019/06/03 03:00:31] * veremitz raises glass to Shentino and falls quiet.
+[2019/06/03 03:00:34] <Shentino> s/ah/oh/g ?
+[2019/06/03 03:00:39] * Shentino hushes now for official meeting
+[2019/06/03 03:01:10] <robbat2> hi
+[2019/06/03 03:01:21] <robbat2> i was trying up other aganda
+[2019/06/03 03:01:22] <antarus> hello
+[2019/06/03 03:01:38] <robbat2> alicef, antarus, prometheanfire, b-man, robbat2; this meeting is called to order!
+[2019/06/03 03:01:51] * b-man is here
+[2019/06/03 03:01:58] <robbat2> NeddySeagoon's asleep so we don't have a gavel ;-)
+[2019/06/03 03:02:19] <alicef> robbat2: antarus is here so let's wait for his announce
+[2019/06/03 03:02:32] <antarus> I'm happy with the delegation ;)
+[2019/06/03 03:02:38] <alicef> or we are just getting confusion
+[2019/06/03 03:03:01] <alicef> antarus: should be stated before the meeting
+[2019/06/03 03:03:06] <alicef> such delegation
+[2019/06/03 03:03:10] <alicef> not during the meeting
+[2019/06/03 03:03:32] * veremitz looks around for meetbot
+[2019/06/03 03:03:44] <robbat2> prometheanfire: reping, you're the only absent one
+[2019/06/03 03:03:53] * antarus rolls his eyes
+[2019/06/03 03:04:23] <veremitz> he was about in hardened earlier, fwiw.
+[2019/06/03 03:05:06] <veremitz> oh and here, derp.
+[2019/06/03 03:05:13] <robbat2> we have quorum meanwhile
+[2019/06/03 03:05:13] * veremitz sips drink and hushes
+[2019/06/03 03:06:00] <robbat2> i'll post the logs & minutes
+[2019/06/03 03:06:09] <prometheanfire> yo
+[2019/06/03 03:06:33] <robbat2> somebody else can do motions; antarus gets further emails by default
+[2019/06/03 03:06:51] <alicef> antarus: call for the roll call
+[2019/06/03 03:06:57] <alicef> I can do motions
+[2019/06/03 03:07:06] <antarus> roll call then
+[2019/06/03 03:07:09] <robbat2> present
+[2019/06/03 03:07:11] <alicef> o/
+[2019/06/03 03:07:11] <b-man> present
+[2019/06/03 03:07:30] <prometheanfire> present
+[2019/06/03 03:07:32] <antarus> present
+[2019/06/03 03:08:02] <antarus> alicef: ?
+[2019/06/03 03:08:11] <Shentino> alicef raised her hand via emote
+[2019/06/03 03:08:15] <Shentino> "o/"
+[2019/06/03 03:08:17] <robbat2> (that was hand raise action)
+[2019/06/03 03:08:17] <alicef> present
+[2019/06/03 03:08:19] <prometheanfire> I'd think o/ works, but that's just me :P
+[2019/06/03 03:08:45] <alicef> it always change the roll call :P
+[2019/06/03 03:08:50] <antarus> It seems its a day of pedantry ;)
+[2019/06/03 03:09:04] <alicef> i can show some cases of o/ roll call
+[2019/06/03 03:09:09] <robbat2> Shentino: I want to keep this short and efficent, can I ask that you not speak at least until open floor?
+[2019/06/03 03:09:15] <antarus> motions please
+[2019/06/03 03:09:22] <alicef> robbat2: agreed
+[2019/06/03 03:09:41] <alicef> robbat2: at least cut the off topic
+[2019/06/03 03:09:47] <robbat2> ok, we have two critical items to sort out
+[2019/06/03 03:09:51] <robbat2> related of course
+[2019/06/03 03:10:27] <robbat2> the date of the AGM, and the date of recording for voting, and implicit to those the dates for the election
+[2019/06/03 03:10:50] <robbat2> legally we're required to set both
+[2019/06/03 03:11:07] <robbat2> i am travelling a lot in August
+[2019/06/03 03:11:17] <alicef> ok
+[2019/06/03 03:11:33] <alicef> we can choose next agm date as we did this time
+[2019/06/03 03:11:39] <robbat2> August 9-20th I'm completely unavailable
+[2019/06/03 03:11:55] <robbat2> travelling to betelguese's wedding in Helsinki amongst other things
+[2019/06/03 03:12:05] <prometheanfire> there's a chance I will be as well for a week, but that's totally up in the air (it'd be inbetween semesters type of thing)
+[2019/06/03 03:12:07] <alicef> robbat2: We will send another mail for choosing the time
+[2019/06/03 03:12:25] <robbat2> alicef: no, we have to set it now, because it impacts the election dates
+[2019/06/03 03:12:32] <alicef> ok
+[2019/06/03 03:12:39] <alicef> i'm ok on this hour
+[2019/06/03 03:13:00] <robbat2> ok, 03:00 UTC, but what day?
+[2019/06/03 03:13:00] <alicef> and I have no preference of days
+[2019/06/03 03:13:05] <antarus> I will live on the west coast by then, so 0300 UTC is fine for me
+[2019/06/03 03:13:15] <b-man> fine by me at 0300 UTC
+[2019/06/03 03:13:20] <robbat2> b-man: do you have any restrictions on date?
+[2019/06/03 03:13:27] <b-man> no date restrictions
+[2019/06/03 03:13:33] <robbat2> prometheanfire: can you be specific what date range does not work for you?
+[2019/06/03 03:13:34] <alicef> but I will be busy with OSS japan presentation and plumbers
+[2019/06/03 03:13:54] <prometheanfire> robbat2: ignore it for now, I don't have any dates yet
+[2019/06/03 03:14:34] <alicef> oss japan is july 17-19
+[2019/06/03 03:14:36] <antarus> the agm is after the election, or it doesn't matter?
+[2019/06/03 03:14:41] <robbat2> strictly after
+[2019/06/03 03:14:57] <robbat2> traditionally the AGM has been the handover date
+[2019/06/03 03:14:59] <alicef> and plumbers is September 9-11
+[2019/06/03 03:15:02] <robbat2> after the election
+[2019/06/03 03:15:17] <antarus> so early or late august
+[2019/06/03 03:15:29] <antarus> aug 25, 0300 utc?
+[2019/06/03 03:15:38] <robbat2> ok, 2019/08/26 03:00 UTC; that's the evening of sunday 8pm on the Pacific coast
+[2019/06/03 03:15:55] <antarus> oh yes, that one, when its a sunday in America ;)
+[2019/06/03 03:16:09] <robbat2> it's in 12 weeks time
+[2019/06/03 03:16:19] <prometheanfire> sunday, sure
+[2019/06/03 03:16:23] <antarus> should be enough to set a date and hold an election
+[2019/06/03 03:17:13] <robbat2> ok, so then working backwards for other dates
+[2019/06/03 03:17:28] <alicef> aug 25 is ok for me
+[2019/06/03 03:17:37] <robbat2> b-man: if you could explicitly confirm 2019/08/26 03:00 UTC too please
+[2019/06/03 03:17:43] <b-man> good for me
+[2019/06/03 03:17:46] <alicef> 26 ok for me too
+[2019/06/03 03:17:53] <robbat2> ok, so AGM date is set
+[2019/06/03 03:18:04] <prometheanfire> 2019/08/26 03:00 UTC ack
+[2019/06/03 03:18:21] <robbat2> so we need a recording date & election timeline
+[2019/06/03 03:18:24] <robbat2> we need to allow:
+[2019/06/03 03:18:36] <robbat2> enough time between now & recording for any final applicants for membership
+[2019/06/03 03:18:50] <robbat2> enough time between close of primary & AGM for a second round election if it comes to that
+[2019/06/03 03:18:54] <prometheanfire> 1 week enough time?
+[2019/06/03 03:19:02] <prometheanfire> for applicants
+[2019/06/03 03:19:22] <robbat2> 2 weeks for the second round election is what we've permitted in the past
+[2019/06/03 03:19:30] <antarus> that would imply we would approve them without a meeting, or hold a meeting 1w from the record date
+[2019/06/03 03:19:49] <prometheanfire> yep, it'd be a quick meeting
+[2019/06/03 03:19:59] <alicef> I think one week is more than enough but it depend on the nominations number
+[2019/06/03 03:20:25] <antarus> I think 1w is probably not enough time, I'd probably advocate for 2
+[2019/06/03 03:20:36] <prometheanfire> I can see that, some vacations are week long
+[2019/06/03 03:20:47] <alicef> ok for me also two weeks
+[2019/06/03 03:20:56] <antarus> Its june 3, we can record essentially, june 20, thats over 2 weeks away.
+[2019/06/03 03:21:00] <robbat2> one sec
+[2019/06/03 03:21:20] <antarus> Then we start election 2 week nomination, 2 week voting; would basically conclude the election the last week in July
+[2019/06/03 03:21:30] <antarus> and if we need a second election it would conclude still before the AGM
+[2019/06/03 03:21:49] <alicef> antarus: sounds good
+[2019/06/03 03:21:54] <prometheanfire> wfm
+[2019/06/03 03:21:55] <antarus> robbat2: thoughts?
+[2019/06/03 03:22:07] <robbat2> (i'm just typing up something to paste)
+[2019/06/03 03:22:27] <alicef> is only one seat this time ?
+[2019/06/03 03:22:42] <robbat2> (at least one seat ;-)
+[2019/06/03 03:25:32] * antarus waits
+[2019/06/03 03:26:19] <robbat2> 2019/06/11: nominations open
+[2019/06/03 03:26:19] <robbat2> 2019/06/30: recording date
+[2019/06/03 03:26:19] <robbat2> 2019/07/10 00:00: nominations close
+[2019/06/03 03:26:19] <robbat2> (2 days for election setup)
+[2019/06/03 03:26:19] <robbat2> 2019/07/13 00:00: election open
+[2019/06/03 03:26:21] <robbat2> 2019/08/10 23:59: election close
+[2019/06/03 03:26:24] <robbat2> (1 day turnaround in case of second election)
+[2019/06/03 03:26:26] <robbat2> (2 weeks for second round)
+[2019/06/03 03:26:29] <robbat2> 2019/08/26 03:00: AGM
+[2019/06/03 03:27:00] <prometheanfire> 08/24 is the second election if needed
+[2019/06/03 03:27:05] <prometheanfire> 08/25 for results
+[2019/06/03 03:27:57] <antarus> It feels a little close
+[2019/06/03 03:28:01] <antarus> and the nomination period long
+[2019/06/03 03:28:12] <antarus> but I suppose some folks will be off the entire month of June
+[2019/06/03 03:28:19] <robbat2> nominations can be independent of recording
+[2019/06/03 03:28:21] <antarus> I'm happy with it if you are
+[2019/06/03 03:28:30] <robbat2> one sec, editing for a 2nd round
+[2019/06/03 03:28:37] <robbat2> meanwhile, to provoke debate
+[2019/06/03 03:28:40] <prometheanfire> robbat2: k
+[2019/06/03 03:28:50] <robbat2> i stood in because we had an out of cycle retirement
+[2019/06/03 03:29:01] <robbat2> and I feel that this year has been weird
+[2019/06/03 03:29:09] <alicef> what means ?
+[2019/06/03 03:29:14] <alicef> i stood in
+[2019/06/03 03:29:14] <robbat2> so I intend to step back and ask to be re-confirmed by the electorate
+[2019/06/03 03:29:30] <robbat2> and I'd like to ask more of the trustees to do the same
+[2019/06/03 03:29:32] <veremitz> alicef: s/stood/stepped/
+[2019/06/03 03:29:42] <robbat2> alicef: you're regularly up for election
+[2019/06/03 03:29:44] <alicef> robbat2: you will leave the seat ?
+[2019/06/03 03:30:03] <alicef> robbat2: dosen't need that you remember me
+[2019/06/03 03:30:16] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I think you are the only out of cycle trustee atm
+[2019/06/03 03:30:23] <alicef> robbat2: I'm asking about you
+[2019/06/03 03:30:44] <antarus> Not to provoke debate
+[2019/06/03 03:30:49] <antarus> but I also plan to resign
+[2019/06/03 03:30:55] <antarus> both from the board, the foundation, and from Gentoo
+[2019/06/03 03:31:08] <antarus> (can you use both for 3 things? who knows)
+[2019/06/03 03:31:11] <prometheanfire> antarus: that's a big change, this cycle?
+[2019/06/03 03:31:25] <robbat2> alicef: put myself delibately up for re-election, even if I would otherwise have a year
+[2019/06/03 03:31:25] <prometheanfire> aka next month or two?
+[2019/06/03 03:31:35] <antarus> I mean I need to resign from the board soon to make my spot available
+[2019/06/03 03:31:40] <alicef> robbat2: ok
+[2019/06/03 03:31:47] <antarus> I will probably resign from the rest during the AGM in august
+[2019/06/03 03:32:09] <robbat2> ok, so we have at least 3 seats open for election now
+[2019/06/03 03:32:15] <robbat2> alicef, robbat2, antarus
+[2019/06/03 03:32:26] <antarus> or whatever work I need to do to make that happen; I don't feel a strong need to resign such that we need to elect a new president for 2 months
+[2019/06/03 03:32:32] <antarus> that seems pretty wasteful
+[2019/06/03 03:32:47] <alicef> without antarus we also need a president election
+[2019/06/03 03:32:56] <prometheanfire> ok, that can be done at the agm
+[2019/06/03 03:32:57] <robbat2> yeah, specifically putting myself up for re-election, not resigning ahead of that
+[2019/06/03 03:33:08] <prometheanfire> selecting the next president
+[2019/06/03 03:33:20] <alicef> antarus: ok
+[2019/06/03 03:33:24] <antarus> the president is selected every year, so you would elect a new one even if I stayed on
+[2019/06/03 03:33:30] <prometheanfire> iirc we didn allow council to be trustees :P
+[2019/06/03 03:33:37] <prometheanfire> so maybe they can finally step up
+[2019/06/03 03:33:48] <robbat2> antarus: I accept that you want to do that, but ask that you DO accept a nomination to continue as a trustee
+[2019/06/03 03:34:06] <robbat2> i'll nominate you when the official period starts
+[2019/06/03 03:34:10] <antarus> lol
+[2019/06/03 03:34:19] <antarus> we can talk after class then
+[2019/06/03 03:34:22] <prometheanfire> ok
+[2019/06/03 03:34:26] <robbat2> because you've done more to TRY and find a CPA than previous boards
+[2019/06/03 03:34:40] <robbat2> sure you had crap luck with not one, but two leads
+[2019/06/03 03:34:41] <antarus> so we intend for 3 seats to be open
+[2019/06/03 03:34:46] <robbat2> at least 3 seats
+[2019/06/03 03:34:59] <robbat2> prometheanfire, b-man: do you want to go for resigning/re-election as well?
+[2019/06/03 03:35:29] <b-man> robbat2: I have no reason to do so and I don't really understand why you are.
+[2019/06/03 03:35:34] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I could go for reelection, make it a clean sweap
+[2019/06/03 03:35:43] <prometheanfire> I don't have much of a reason imo, but meh
+[2019/06/03 03:36:37] <antarus> I'm also curious what robin's goal is here
+[2019/06/03 03:36:38] <veremitz> I think robbat just wants a clean mandate to carry on
+[2019/06/03 03:36:39] <alicef> prometheanfire: I will nominate you, if you go for reelection.
+[2019/06/03 03:36:52] * prometheanfire shrugs
+[2019/06/03 03:37:05] <robbat2> confirmation that everybody thinks we're actually doing a good job
+[2019/06/03 03:37:09] <alicef> prometheanfire: I think you did a really good work as president
+[2019/06/03 03:37:20] <robbat2> instead of the rotten tomatos & crickets that we hear
+[2019/06/03 03:37:40] <prometheanfire> robbat2: give council a chance to step in it too :D
+[2019/06/03 03:37:41] <b-man> I think that is mostly around taxes
+[2019/06/03 03:37:52] <prometheanfire> I didn't do as good around taxes as I should have
+[2019/06/03 03:37:53] <antarus> I think the minimum board is 3
+[2019/06/03 03:37:54] <antarus> FWIW
+[2019/06/03 03:38:00] <antarus> according to NM state law
+[2019/06/03 03:38:03] <b-man> and I will prep the paperwork here soon
+[2019/06/03 03:38:12] <alicef> robbat2: not sure that the opinion can change by reelection
+[2019/06/03 03:38:14] <antarus> so you would have to keep at least 1 of the 3 nominated and voted in
+[2019/06/03 03:38:14] <b-man> My move is almost complete.
+[2019/06/03 03:38:34] <antarus> anyway, I want to keep the meeting to 1h
+[2019/06/03 03:38:40] <antarus> can we please approve the schedule?
+[2019/06/03 03:38:44] <robbat2> the ballot does include none-of-the-above
+[2019/06/03 03:38:51] <b-man> schedule works for me
+[2019/06/03 03:38:51] <robbat2> one sec, almost have the 2nd pass schedule ready
+[2019/06/03 03:38:59] <antarus> I'm happy to discuss strategy of resignations and whatnot, we don't need to resign in the meeting ;)
+[2019/06/03 03:39:42] <prometheanfire> we can self nominate, imo this is to allow fresh blood in if desired
+[2019/06/03 03:39:48] <robbat2> 2019/06/16 xx:xx: nominations open
+[2019/06/03 03:39:48] <robbat2> 2019/06/30 xx:xx: *July Meeting & recording date
+[2019/06/03 03:39:48] <robbat2> 2019/07/07 00:00: nominations close
+[2019/06/03 03:39:48] <robbat2> 2019/07/10 00:00: election open
+[2019/06/03 03:39:48] <robbat2> 2019/08/10 23:59: election close
+[2019/06/03 03:39:51] <robbat2> 2019/08/07 xx:xx election turnaround day
+[2019/06/03 03:39:53] <robbat2> 2019/08/09 00:00: second election open
+[2019/06/03 03:39:56] <robbat2> 2019/08/23 23:59: second election closes
+[2019/06/03 03:39:58] <robbat2> 2019/08/24 xx:xx: second election results
+[2019/06/03 03:40:01] <robbat2> 2019/08/26 03:00: AGM
+[2019/06/03 03:40:14] <prometheanfire> robbat2: ack
+[2019/06/03 03:40:18] <antarus> motion to approve election shedule
+[2019/06/03 03:40:23] <alicef> robbat2: ack
+[2019/06/03 03:40:24] * b-man yay
+[2019/06/03 03:40:35] <alicef> robbat2: we also need the manifest time ?
+[2019/06/03 03:40:55] <antarus> manifestos you mean?
+[2019/06/03 03:40:56] <robbat2> there's a chance I will NOT be present for a July meeting, but I will be able to vote by email within a day or so
+[2019/06/03 03:41:09] <alicef> like some time for write the manifestos and show it around
+[2019/06/03 03:41:17] <antarus> the nomination period is a month
+[2019/06/03 03:41:22] <prometheanfire> aye
+[2019/06/03 03:41:23] <antarus> I assume they coincide
+[2019/06/03 03:41:24] <robbat2> 3 weeks now
+[2019/06/03 03:41:26] <robbat2> not a month
+[2019/06/03 03:41:35] <antarus> ah, sure still plenty of time ;)
+[2019/06/03 03:41:57] <robbat2> and I'd like note for the record, that if a new dev wants to get recorded AND run for election, go right ahead
+[2019/06/03 03:41:59] <alicef> robbat2: just something that I remember we did previous years, I don't mind to skip it
+[2019/06/03 03:42:15] <alicef> and merge with nomitation
+[2019/06/03 03:42:22] <robbat2> the foundation has approved EVERY applicant for membership ever
+[2019/06/03 03:42:40] <robbat2> alicef: yes, no explicit candidicacy period
+[2019/06/03 03:42:51] <alicef> robbat2: ok
+[2019/06/03 03:42:59] <alicef> everyone ok on this ?
+[2019/06/03 03:43:01] <antarus> I vote aye on the new schedule
+[2019/06/03 03:43:09] * b-man aye
+[2019/06/03 03:43:10] <veremitz> it would be good to have published manifestos prior to election start
+[2019/06/03 03:43:10] <robbat2> aye
+[2019/06/03 03:43:28] <b-man> If the candidate is nominated they should publish their manifesto
+[2019/06/03 03:43:35] <robbat2> manifestos are NOT required
+[2019/06/03 03:43:48] <robbat2> nowhere in articles of incorporation, bylaws, or anything else
+[2019/06/03 03:43:58] <veremitz> ok well optionally
+[2019/06/03 03:43:59] <prometheanfire> I vote aye on the new schedule
+[2019/06/03 03:44:00] <b-man> I didn't mean to say it is required
+[2019/06/03 03:44:17] <antarus> alicef: yay or nay on the schedule?
+[2019/06/03 03:44:21] <b-man> Just that candidates have *plenty* of time to publish one if they want
+[2019/06/03 03:44:30] <alicef> antarus: already replayed yay
+[2019/06/03 03:44:45] <antarus> ack
+[2019/06/03 03:44:46] <antarus> the motion passes
+[2019/06/03 03:44:50] <robbat2> ok, that's the formal new business concluded
+[2019/06/03 03:44:55] <robbat2> we have open bugs
+[2019/06/03 03:44:55] <alicef> antarus: my qustion on the manifestos was only for understandig how it work out
+[2019/06/03 03:45:15] <robbat2> alicef: anybody accepting a nomination should hopefully respond with a blurb. FIN
+[2019/06/03 03:45:52] <robbat2> antarus: I have a request regarding the CPA search
+[2019/06/03 03:45:55] <alicef> robbat2: was not specified in the schedule
+[2019/06/03 03:46:06] <alicef> robbat2: maybe we can make it more clear
+[2019/06/03 03:46:21] <robbat2> since there is no privacy restrictions, I would like a page that publically tracks every CPA & referral we've gotten
+[2019/06/03 03:46:25] <robbat2> including dates
+[2019/06/03 03:46:43] <b-man> FWIW... I will generate the paperwork to request tax exemption and retroactive status.
+[2019/06/03 03:46:56] <b-man> Unless there are objections to that still...
+[2019/06/03 03:47:10] <alicef> yay for me
+[2019/06/03 03:47:29] <veremitz> b-man++
+[2019/06/03 03:47:30] <robbat2> alicef: ok, we can include that mention re manifestos in the text
+[2019/06/03 03:47:32] <antarus> robbat2: I'm not sure I have exact dates, but I have notes / emails for most of these
+[2019/06/03 03:48:13] <alicef> antarus: notes are ok, maybe you can blank out personal data
+[2019/06/03 03:48:24] <prometheanfire> robbat2: wfm
+[2019/06/03 03:48:35] <prometheanfire> antarus: even just the month would be useful
+[2019/06/03 03:48:40] <antarus> I mean I don't planon publishing their phone numbers
+[2019/06/03 03:48:44] <robbat2> b-man: one of your roles as secretary is to verify the membership list against the subscribers to the foundation-announce list, and send out an email ASAP about the recording & AGM dates
+[2019/06/03 03:48:46] <alicef> antarus: yes
+[2019/06/03 03:48:50] <antarus> but I think its reasonable to provide dates and names
+[2019/06/03 03:49:01] <b-man> robbat2: rgr
+[2019/06/03 03:49:24] <alicef> b-man: you can resend such work to me, if you are busy in other things
+[2019/06/03 03:49:45] <b-man> alicef: thx
+[2019/06/03 03:49:49] <robbat2> ok, open bugs
+[2019/06/03 03:50:16] <alicef> ok
+[2019/06/03 03:50:17] <robbat2> bug 668682: I added Patrick's legal chinese name. any objections or other concerns? he never responded to alice's request
+[2019/06/03 03:50:34] <alicef> I updated it recently
+[2019/06/03 03:50:41] <antarus> None.
+[2019/06/03 03:51:07] <alicef> I think if he dosen't have it on the passport should be added as CN
+[2019/06/03 03:51:09] <alicef> but if is in the passport need to be should be added as SN/givenName.
+[2019/06/03 03:51:11] <alicef> But not without the requiring party consent.
+[2019/06/03 03:51:17] <robbat2> bug 684170: I think re cannot require valid email addresses to continue forever for simple technical reasons
+[2019/06/03 03:51:19] <willikins> robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/684170 "Copyright policy: should we require working (delivering) e-mail addresses?"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; mgorny:council
+[2019/06/03 03:51:41] <alicef> we didn't even vote to the previous one...
+[2019/06/03 03:51:42] <prometheanfire> robbat2: agreed (cannot require valid email addresses to continue forever for simple technical reasons)
+[2019/06/03 03:51:51] <prometheanfire> we vote in the bugs
+[2019/06/03 03:52:07] <antarus> I think the email address is part of how we decide if a commit is legitimate
+[2019/06/03 03:52:14] <alicef> prometheanfire: not in the 668682
+[2019/06/03 03:52:20] <prometheanfire> alicef: at that point in time, yes
+[2019/06/03 03:52:21] <antarus> whether a particular address is or not, is debatable, similarly to the actual author's name
+[2019/06/03 03:52:29] <prometheanfire> antarus: at that point in time, yes
+[2019/06/03 03:52:41] <alicef> prometheanfire: what? where
+[2019/06/03 03:52:43] <alicef> ?
+[2019/06/03 03:52:47] <prometheanfire> alicef: mistab
+[2019/06/03 03:53:10] <antarus> I'm suggesting that we are allowed to use the email address when deciding whether to accept a commit or not
+[2019/06/03 03:53:28] <antarus> but I'm also not saying that the email address needs to work / be deliverable / etc.
+[2019/06/03 03:53:29] <alicef> no for the
+[2019/06/03 03:53:34] <b-man> The email and the name are identifying attributes of the commit.
+[2019/06/03 03:53:36] <alicef> 684170
+[2019/06/03 03:53:59] <prometheanfire> antarus: so I can use firstname.lastname@example.org?
+[2019/06/03 03:54:07] <b-man> prometheanfire: absolutely
+[2019/06/03 03:54:09] <veremitz> why not email and matching gpg sig?
+[2019/06/03 03:54:11] <alicef> prometheanfire: yes why not
+[2019/06/03 03:54:33] <prometheanfire> because example.com is more or less no ones domain
+[2019/06/03 03:54:33] <antarus> prometheanfire: I think its up to the committer as to whether to trust that or not, isn't it?
+[2019/06/03 03:54:35] <b-man> veremitz: We are already technically enforce the gpg sig
+[2019/06/03 03:54:50] <veremitz> b-man: sure, so why not matching email?
+[2019/06/03 03:54:51] <prometheanfire> antarus: sure
+[2019/06/03 03:54:55] <b-man> veremitz: It does...
+[2019/06/03 03:54:56] <alicef> prometheanfire: that is your problem
+[2019/06/03 03:55:02] <prometheanfire> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2606#section-3
+[2019/06/03 03:55:04] <b-man> veremitz: the key or a subkey must match teh email
+[2019/06/03 03:55:17] <robbat2> we only require signatures from the committer
+[2019/06/03 03:55:20] <veremitz> b-man: I don't think that's specified in glep67/8
+[2019/06/03 03:55:21] <prometheanfire> that was my point more than anything (the domain is reserved)
+[2019/06/03 03:55:25] <robbat2> not from the author of a commit
+[2019/06/03 03:55:39] <alicef> prometheanfire: i could use email@example.com and than throw it away
+[2019/06/03 03:55:42] <b-man> the committer is certifying the DCO though
+[2019/06/03 03:55:54] <alicef> prometheanfire: what is the different and how you can enforce it
+[2019/06/03 03:56:02] <alicef> difference
+[2019/06/03 03:56:38] <prometheanfire> alicef: the something special about example.com specifically, no one can use it as 'theirs' it's reserved by the ietf
+[2019/06/03 03:56:43] <veremitz> b-man: why wouldn't the committer insist on comparable standards? ie. delegate responsibility/etc
+[2019/06/03 03:56:49] <robbat2> i think it can be expanded to: does jsut the committer have to certify the DCO/GCO; or both the committer AND author
+[2019/06/03 03:56:54] <veremitz> sorry, this is OT for now .. </stfu>
+[2019/06/03 03:57:02] <alicef> prometheanfire: mgorny is not only talking about example.com
+[2019/06/03 03:57:13] <antarus> the example is a github noreply address
+[2019/06/03 03:57:16] <alicef> prometheanfire: he was talbing also about opinionable email
+[2019/06/03 03:57:21] <alicef> talking
+[2019/06/03 03:57:25] <antarus> where is pretty clear the email will be discarded by machines
+[2019/06/03 03:57:36] <b-man> robbat2: just the commiter as they certify para 4 based on the author's work.
+[2019/06/03 03:57:39] <antarus> I think you have two avenues here
+[2019/06/03 03:57:47] <b-man> Let's just block *@users.noreply.github.com
+[2019/06/03 03:57:54] <alicef> antarus: i can use my spam email, you have no way to find the differences
+[2019/06/03 03:57:57] <veremitz> 3min or defer ;)
+[2019/06/03 03:58:04] <antarus> I think (1) the email helps identify the committer, to me its no different than their name
+[2019/06/03 03:58:21] <robbat2> that's the 'easy' example because you know up front it's not valid; just forcing people to jump through hoops to use another email doesn't really provide any value
+[2019/06/03 03:58:22] <prometheanfire> we require the name, the email does not matter
+[2019/06/03 03:58:25] <antarus> (2) Its some method of contacting the committer, earlier comments remark on the technical infeasibility of (2)
+[2019/06/03 03:58:40] <b-man> robbat2: It stops the *known* dead mailbox
+[2019/06/03 03:58:44] <alicef> email dosen't matter
+[2019/06/03 03:58:53] <veremitz> the name is enough of an issue tbf :)
+[2019/06/03 03:58:55] <prometheanfire> if we want a way of contacting the committer that is not the trustees responsibility to enforce
+[2019/06/03 03:59:01] <veremitz> if someone is falsifying it
+[2019/06/03 03:59:11] <antarus> I tend to support (1): the email helps uniqify names, use it as an identifier
+[2019/06/03 03:59:17] <alicef> requiring name is already enough and we should implement nickname usages with a list
+[2019/06/03 03:59:19] <robbat2> veremitz: i asked Shentino to not speak until open floor, I ask the same of you
+[2019/06/03 03:59:26] <antarus> the foundation doens't care about delivery or anything like that
+[2019/06/03 03:59:32] <prometheanfire> antarus: we can use it but don't need to use it (the email)
+[2019/06/03 03:59:44] <antarus> so I vote no on this bug
+[2019/06/03 03:59:51] <alicef> would be better if the email can be at least approved in some way
+[2019/06/03 03:59:52] <veremitz> robbat2: noted
+[2019/06/03 03:59:54] <prometheanfire> I vote no as well
+[2019/06/03 04:00:04] <alicef> I vote no
+[2019/06/03 04:00:14] <robbat2> I also vote nay
+[2019/06/03 04:00:33] <robbat2> to clarify, what's the actual motion text ;--)
+[2019/06/03 04:00:58] <antarus> motion: Copyright policy: should we require working (delivering) e-mail addresses?
+[2019/06/03 04:01:01] <antarus> yay or nay
+[2019/06/03 04:01:02] * b-man abstains
+[2019/06/03 04:01:03] <prometheanfire> require working (delivering) e-mail addresses for commits
+[2019/06/03 04:01:23] <robbat2> yes, I still vote nay
+[2019/06/03 04:01:44] <alicef> ok im still on no, I think working email can be optional
+[2019/06/03 04:02:42] <antarus> prometheanfire: ?
+[2019/06/03 04:02:51] <robbat2> i don't see any other bugs that need voting/immediate discussion from the trustees
+[2019/06/03 04:02:59] <prometheanfire> I already voted nay
+[2019/06/03 04:03:03] <robbat2> anybody else got other specific bugs they want to raise?
+[2019/06/03 04:03:10] <alicef> robbat2: we still need the open discussion
+[2019/06/03 04:03:19] <robbat2> yes, open floor etc comes later
+[2019/06/03 04:03:32] <robbat2> i mean specific bugs other trustees want first
+[2019/06/03 04:04:11] <prometheanfire> I may start asking around for tax stuff (talking with some financial type people over the next week or two
+[2019/06/03 04:04:16] <antarus> b-man: you working on bug 676314 ?
+[2019/06/03 04:04:18] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/676314 "Bylaw reformat proposal https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/c58501db83a9a459c407a156a8c01850"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; antarus:trustees
+[2019/06/03 04:04:18] <prometheanfire> just a notice more than anything
+[2019/06/03 04:04:41] <antarus> I think that is the only pending bylaw change
+[2019/06/03 04:04:49] <alicef> https://bugs.gentoo.org/676322 we didn't close this yet
+[2019/06/03 04:05:02] <alicef> 676322 we didn't close this yet
+[2019/06/03 04:05:06] <robbat2> there's no vendor requests, no funding requests, one sponsor request, no advertising, no membership requests
+[2019/06/03 04:05:11] <alicef> bug 676322 we didn't close this yet
+[2019/06/03 04:05:13] <willikins> alicef: https://bugs.gentoo.org/676322 "Update the member quorum number to 1/10th of members; the default in NM statute: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/443c7d847564b0c4391b434db05d1f34"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; antarus:trustees
+[2019/06/03 04:05:15] <b-man> antarus: I have the rst files done, but there seems to be a lack of understanding
+[2019/06/03 04:05:41] <prometheanfire> alicef: we could close it as it's already failed
+[2019/06/03 04:05:42] <robbat2> yeah, both 676322 and 676314 need some discussion, related to the reformatting to new repos
+[2019/06/03 04:05:52] <antarus> alicef: close then
+[2019/06/03 04:05:55] <robbat2> let's take those outside the meeting
+[2019/06/03 04:05:57] <antarus> closed*
+[2019/06/03 04:06:09] <antarus> (as in I have closed it thusly)
+[2019/06/03 04:06:34] <robbat2> ok, that's bugs done
+[2019/06/03 04:06:49] <alicef> antarus: you win on the closing time
+[2019/06/03 04:06:50] <b-man> I am fine with taking them outside of the meeting, but I need folks to answer clearly on what they want.
+[2019/06/03 04:06:54] <alicef> :)
+[2019/06/03 04:06:57] <robbat2> routine new business stuff:
+[2019/06/03 04:07:01] <robbat2> 1 new sponsor request, bug 680910
+[2019/06/03 04:07:03] <willikins> robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/680910 "Request for IntegriCloud to be added to sponsors, in return for a Power9 dedicated box for ppc64 development"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; m.j.everitt:trustees
+[2019/06/03 04:07:30] <robbat2> the concern was a lack of manpower, not hardware
+[2019/06/03 04:07:53] <prometheanfire> I'm not sure the ppc64 team needs more hw, we could alway get more from osuosl imo
+[2019/06/03 04:08:02] <prometheanfire> more is nice, but only if used
+[2019/06/03 04:08:18] <robbat2> the only other query I have there: is the diversity of hardware useful?
+[2019/06/03 04:08:20] <b-man> Looks like alicef would like to use it for CI?
+[2019/06/03 04:08:35] <alicef> b-man: yes would be nice
+[2019/06/03 04:08:38] <antarus> useful..in a technical sense?
+[2019/06/03 04:08:42] <prometheanfire> robbat2: we can do LE and BE at osuosl, power9 as well iirc
+[2019/06/03 04:08:45] <antarus> or in a organization sense?
+[2019/06/03 04:09:02] <antarus> I wanted ppc64 team (or some other technical team) to drive this and I got nowhere on it
+[2019/06/03 04:09:04] <veremitz> prometheanfire: you only have access to Vms at osuosl
+[2019/06/03 04:09:10] <robbat2> diversity as in: is the IntegriCloud Power9 hardware different than the OSUOSL Power9 hardware?
+[2019/06/03 04:09:13] <veremitz> this is real bare-metal
+[2019/06/03 04:09:27] <b-man> free stuff for posting a logo...
+[2019/06/03 04:09:31] * b-man votes yay
+[2019/06/03 04:09:35] <veremitz> ^
+[2019/06/03 04:09:42] <alicef> we could start testing gentoo-sources on power9
+[2019/06/03 04:10:02] <prometheanfire> robbat2: it's probably diferent, osuosl is openpower
+[2019/06/03 04:10:07] <prometheanfire> iirc...
+[2019/06/03 04:10:20] <robbat2> ok, so alicef, you are willing to put in some manpower to setup/use it?
+[2019/06/03 04:10:23] <veremitz> should be identical
+[2019/06/03 04:10:35] <prometheanfire> and it is direct hw aparently, I suppose that means we'd have to manage it ourselves as a new hw box (more work than a VM)
+[2019/06/03 04:10:37] <alicef> robbat2: yes
+[2019/06/03 04:10:39] <antarus> I strongly prefer someone technical drives the request
+[2019/06/03 04:10:46] <alicef> but after september
+[2019/06/03 04:10:46] <antarus> if thats alicef, then great
+[2019/06/03 04:10:49] <prometheanfire> antarus: same
+[2019/06/03 04:10:54] <veremitz> ACK
+[2019/06/03 04:11:02] <antarus> I just got lukewarm response on the bug; so I didn't feel a strong need to push it forward
+[2019/06/03 04:11:11] <robbat2> ok, subject to alicef taking it after september, I vote aye
+[2019/06/03 04:11:11] <alicef> before septmber i'm stuck on presentation work
+[2019/06/03 04:11:36] <alicef> aye
+[2019/06/03 04:11:41] <prometheanfire> AYE if alicef wants it after september
+[2019/06/03 04:11:46] <antarus> the motion passes
+[2019/06/03 04:11:46] <alicef> abstain
+[2019/06/03 04:11:58] <alicef> wait i cannot vote for myseld :D
+[2019/06/03 04:12:04] <antarus> you can actually do that
+[2019/06/03 04:12:08] <prometheanfire> well, you can
+[2019/06/03 04:12:08] <antarus> but it passes regardless
+[2019/06/03 04:12:11] <prometheanfire> b-man: vote?
+[2019/06/03 04:12:13] <robbat2> in favour: b-man, robbat2, prometheanfire
+[2019/06/03 04:12:14] <b-man> I did
+[2019/06/03 04:12:14] <alicef> b-man: vote ?
+[2019/06/03 04:12:16] <prometheanfire> oh
+[2019/06/03 04:12:18] <antarus> I also abstain ;)
+[2019/06/03 04:12:19] <robbat2> abstain: alicef
+[2019/06/03 04:12:22] <robbat2> abstain: alicef, antarus
+[2019/06/03 04:12:23] <b-man> like 20 minutes ago
+[2019/06/03 04:12:24] <robbat2> still passes
+[2019/06/03 04:12:27] <prometheanfire> yep
+[2019/06/03 04:12:30] <alicef> ok :D
+[2019/06/03 04:12:43] <robbat2> ok, that's the routine new business
+[2019/06/03 04:13:11] <robbat2> Any Other Business (from trustees) now, which will be followed by open floor
+[2019/06/03 04:13:29] <prometheanfire> abstain (no)
+[2019/06/03 04:13:33] <antarus> none from me
+[2019/06/03 04:13:44] <b-man> I would like to discuss my work on the tax prep... it was not received well the first time I asked to do it...
+[2019/06/03 04:13:47] <robbat2> i have already made my pronouncement of standing for re-election
+[2019/06/03 04:13:53] <b-man> and I would like to discuss the Git repo bylaws
+[2019/06/03 04:14:05] <robbat2> regarding the repo for AoI & Bylaws
+[2019/06/03 04:14:20] <robbat2> 1. i'll help you convert the old stuff and include the changes that I know we made in the past
+[2019/06/03 04:14:26] <robbat2> including the not approved stuff
+[2019/06/03 04:14:32] <prometheanfire> b-man: iirc the tax prep concern is that it could interfere with getting us in good standing through a 'more proper' way
+[2019/06/03 04:14:45] <b-man> robbat2: I used the wiki text to generate the rst
+[2019/06/03 04:14:53] <antarus> regarding the git repo...I personally don't see a need to get a 5 person signoff on each git change
+[2019/06/03 04:15:04] <robbat2> 2. can you please wait a few weeks for me to get to the AoI/Bylaws ;-)
+[2019/06/03 04:15:08] <b-man> robbat2: I am also not very fond of the 5-6 changelog records in the CVS
+[2019/06/03 04:15:15] <prometheanfire> antarus: agreed
+[2019/06/03 04:15:35] <b-man> antarus: That is only for the initial commit... to ensure the document is accurate.
+[2019/06/03 04:15:39] <antarus> you are the secretary, you get to make the changes we agree upon; there is an audit log (because git)
+[2019/06/03 04:15:40] <b-man> I clearly noted this
+[2019/06/03 04:15:45] <robbat2> to be clear: I think if we 'show our work' as to the origin of the changes, it shouldn't matter for approval
+[2019/06/03 04:15:50] <prometheanfire> can we just use a cvs2git thing and archive the repo as historical?
+[2019/06/03 04:15:58] <prometheanfire> then start clean in our own repo based on that?
+[2019/06/03 04:16:14] <b-man> the CVS history is arbitrary honestly
+[2019/06/03 04:16:18] <prometheanfire> with a refrence to historical
+[2019/06/03 04:16:18] <robbat2> not all the changes are in CVS
+[2019/06/03 04:16:21] <prometheanfire> ah
+[2019/06/03 04:16:33] <robbat2> it's email+CVS+wiki
+[2019/06/03 04:16:37] <antarus> its cvs, random motions, wiki
+[2019/06/03 04:16:44] <prometheanfire> yep
+[2019/06/03 04:16:46] <antarus> exactly
+[2019/06/03 04:16:47] <robbat2> yeah, probably bugzilla too
+[2019/06/03 04:16:54] <alicef> sorry to ask again but patrick chinese name as been approved or not ?/
+[2019/06/03 04:17:00] <b-man> robbat2: So, how is that relevant to committing a document to Git so we can make further changes easier?
+[2019/06/03 04:17:04] <antarus> alicef: it is approved
+[2019/06/03 04:17:05] <prometheanfire> would a motion to make git the canonical source be good?
+[2019/06/03 04:17:05] <alicef> I'm compiling the motions
+[2019/06/03 04:17:18] <alicef> antarus: thanks
+[2019/06/03 04:17:23] <prometheanfire> once git is ready that is
+[2019/06/03 04:17:43] <robbat2> alicef: specifically, approved subject to patrick confirming by text that the name is on their chinese ID, which I believe it is
+[2019/06/03 04:17:49] <antarus> b-man: I think its an unfortunate consequence of the git data model
+[2019/06/03 04:18:01] <b-man> antarus: huh?
+[2019/06/03 04:18:05] <robbat2> yes, the Git data model isn't a good fit to ask for confirming an initial commit
+[2019/06/03 04:18:09] <robbat2> since we're backfilling history
+[2019/06/03 04:18:14] <antarus> b-man: because we would like to start with the originally filed AOI, + changes, to reach the present
+[2019/06/03 04:18:16] <prometheanfire> gerrit :D
+[2019/06/03 04:18:34] <robbat2> even Gerrit isn't really backfilling history
+[2019/06/03 04:18:36] <antarus> b-man: as opposed to your model, wher ewe put in the current..and then..I'm not even sure how the backfill would work exactly.
+[2019/06/03 04:18:45] <b-man> archive the history.... commit the current... send updates to NM
+[2019/06/03 04:18:47] <antarus> rewritign the git history with the historical commits? a branch?
+[2019/06/03 04:19:23] <b-man> I am not proposing to /dev/null the history, but I am not convinced it needs to be in the Git history...
+[2019/06/03 04:19:24] <antarus> I don't have a ton of time left to stick around
+[2019/06/03 04:19:32] <robbat2> yeah, I have to leave as well
+[2019/06/03 04:19:34] <antarus> needless to say I don't have strong opinons on this
+[2019/06/03 04:19:35] <alicef> sorry what is the problem with foundation git ?
+[2019/06/03 04:19:52] <robbat2> alicef: it's regarding having explicit repos that track the history of the bylaws & AoI
+[2019/06/03 04:20:01] <prometheanfire> we can discuss this out of band
+[2019/06/03 04:20:07] <robbat2> and provide a canonical form
+[2019/06/03 04:20:10] <antarus> alicef: currently these items are stored in the wiki and filed with the government
+[2019/06/03 04:20:15] <alicef> we are not already doing it ?
+[2019/06/03 04:20:20] <alicef> oh
+[2019/06/03 04:20:21] <b-man> alicef: no, we are not
+[2019/06/03 04:20:21] <antarus> alicef: not in git, no
+[2019/06/03 04:20:30] <alicef> ok let's move it to git
+[2019/06/03 04:20:38] <robbat2> anything else re this, so we can go back to b-man's tax prep question?
+[2019/06/03 04:20:52] <b-man> the government piece is irrelevant. We tell them what the by-laws and AoI are...
+[2019/06/03 04:21:08] <b-man> they ensure it contains the required items and file it away
+[2019/06/03 04:21:08] <robbat2> not strictly true
+[2019/06/03 04:21:31] <robbat2> formally speaking, we're bound by the bylaws & AoI that are on file at a given time
+[2019/06/03 04:21:50] <robbat2> and they don't actually take effect until we have sent a filing
+[2019/06/03 04:21:58] <b-man> Yes, but that is not relevant to us putting something in a repo and sending the new documents to them
+[2019/06/03 04:22:11] <antarus> I expect b-man and robin to build a sane solution
+[2019/06/03 04:22:15] <antarus> go hog wild
+[2019/06/03 04:22:16] <robbat2> that we might treat them as already filed before that point is a common law convience
+[2019/06/03 04:22:51] <b-man> porting emails+CVS to Git commit logs seems pointless. Let's just create an archive of those items somewhere.
+[2019/06/03 04:23:21] <robbat2> tax prep: i have no objections to b-man trying to prepare all the docs, but I personally want review rights on the docs, partially because it's my ass on the line as current treasurer
+[2019/06/03 04:23:23] <b-man> (and the CVS changelogs are meh)
+[2019/06/03 04:23:45] <robbat2> deliberate or accidental misrepresentations in the docs can impact me
+[2019/06/03 04:23:48] <b-man> robbat2: Agreed on taxes. I will heavily rely on you for the accounting records
+[2019/06/03 04:24:19] <robbat2> I'm pretty sure there are no deliberate mispresentations in my preperation of financial records
+[2019/06/03 04:24:26] <robbat2> but I cannot assert the same of prior treasurer
+[2019/06/03 04:24:44] <b-man> +1 for *all* trustees to have review rights on said documents
+[2019/06/03 04:24:46] <robbat2> the accidental side worries me to why I want professional review of the stuff
+[2019/06/03 04:24:53] <robbat2> beyond just trustees
+[2019/06/03 04:25:00] <robbat2> so we prepare, and CPA reviews/also-approves
+[2019/06/03 04:25:17] <b-man> robbat2: Keep in mind, we are basically asking the IRS to forget and forgive the failures of the past.
+[2019/06/03 04:25:34] <robbat2> yes, I want want the list of what they are hand-waving to be small
+[2019/06/03 04:25:44] <robbat2> and blessed by somebody that says we tried our best
+[2019/06/03 04:26:01] <b-man> Maybe we can get a cursory review from SFC
+[2019/06/03 04:26:09] <robbat2> if there's no other debates on it, we can table this for now
+[2019/06/03 04:26:17] <robbat2> and move on to open floor
+[2019/06/03 04:26:22] <prometheanfire> ack
+[2019/06/03 04:26:26] <alicef> ack
+[2019/06/03 04:26:27] <robbat2> antarus: ok to table?
+[2019/06/03 04:26:30] <antarus> aye
+[2019/06/03 04:26:34] <alicef> wait
+[2019/06/03 04:26:39] <alicef> I need a resume sorry
+[2019/06/03 04:26:41] <robbat2> last call for any other business?
+[2019/06/03 04:26:42] <antarus> I've no particular problem with the state as proposed
+[2019/06/03 04:26:46] <alicef> 676314 and 67322 not approved
+[2019/06/03 04:26:51] <alicef> is correct /
+[2019/06/03 04:26:53] <alicef> ?
+[2019/06/03 04:27:04] <robbat2> 676314 we approved in the bug
+[2019/06/03 04:27:10] <alicef> ok
+[2019/06/03 04:27:24] <alicef> bug 676322 not approved
+[2019/06/03 04:27:26] <willikins> alicef: https://bugs.gentoo.org/676322 "Update the member quorum number to 1/10th of members; the default in NM statute: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/443c7d847564b0c4391b434db05d1f34"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; RESO, WONT; antarus:trustees
+[2019/06/03 04:27:35] <robbat2> correct
+[2019/06/03 04:27:38] <alicef> ok
+[2019/06/03 04:27:43] <robbat2> last last call for Any other Business
+[2019/06/03 04:27:47] <robbat2> (30 seconds)
+[2019/06/03 04:27:52] <alicef> documents to git is approved
+[2019/06/03 04:28:06] <robbat2> veremitz, Shentino: if you have open floor items, now is the time
+[2019/06/03 04:28:12] <alicef> is it even a motion or we can keep it out ?
+[2019/06/03 04:28:27] <robbat2> alicef: it's not a motion; just in the minutes
+[2019/06/03 04:28:34] <alicef> ok
+[2019/06/03 04:28:36] <alicef> so i'm ok
+[2019/06/03 04:28:41] <alicef> open floor
+[2019/06/03 04:28:42] <Shentino> robbat2: I fumbled on the accounting work you gave me because I got sick irl and after some bad times sleeping and health issues I completely lost track of what I was supposed to be doing for you
+[2019/06/03 04:28:51] <alicef> robbat2: thanks
+[2019/06/03 04:29:02] <Shentino> I was studying ledger but I forget if you sent me anything. What do you ened me to do agian?
+[2019/06/03 04:29:02] <robbat2> Shentino: apology accepted, we all try out best
+[2019/06/03 04:29:09] <robbat2> *our
+[2019/06/03 04:29:16] <Shentino> *need me to
+[2019/06/03 04:29:25] <Shentino> I tried to reach out to you about this before but you've been hard to contact
+[2019/06/03 04:29:26] <robbat2> Shentino: that can be discussed outside the meeting
+[2019/06/03 04:29:29] <Shentino> np
+[2019/06/03 04:29:34] * Shentino tables his motion on this
+[2019/06/03 04:29:38] <robbat2> do you have any specific items for the trustees on it?
+[2019/06/03 04:29:43] <robbat2> *on anything
+[2019/06/03 04:29:48] <robbat2> addressed to the group
+[2019/06/03 04:29:56] <Shentino> not regarding the accounting work except possibly to ask who else is involved with it at this point in time?
+[2019/06/03 04:30:04] <Shentino> I know b-man and robbat2 are
+[2019/06/03 04:30:28] <robbat2> the unofficial position of assistant treasurer is entirely open
+[2019/06/03 04:30:48] <Shentino> I claim it if I may, but that resovles this point. I have another open floor item to bring up
+[2019/06/03 04:30:53] <robbat2> please do
+[2019/06/03 04:30:59] <robbat2> we want to finish this meeting
+[2019/06/03 04:31:28] <veremitz> robbat2: I'm good thanks
+[2019/06/03 04:31:46] <Shentino> As both a gentoo user in general as well as a foundation member I have a keen interest in minimizing the foundation's actual tax liability and not merely getting the paperwork stragihtened out. Should I address my points here or tack them on as replies to bug 597368 tobe addressed later?
+[2019/06/03 04:31:48] <willikins> Shentino: https://bugs.gentoo.org/597368 "Fix Foundation Tax situation"; Gentoo Foundation, Filings; IN_P; shentino:trustees
+[2019/06/03 04:32:24] <prometheanfire> first step is getting things 'stable' with the irs
+[2019/06/03 04:32:39] <veremitz> Shentino: perhaps you can work alongside b-man and robbat2 to catalyse their efforts
+[2019/06/03 04:32:40] <Shentino> yeah, thing is my point directly relates to that stability and might preempt current plans
+[2019/06/03 04:32:45] <Shentino> veremitz: good idea
+[2019/06/03 04:32:50] <robbat2> Shentino: that's explicitly why I asked for documentation of antarus's efforts to find a CPA
+[2019/06/03 04:33:05] <robbat2> so that we can show it to both the electorate AND the IRS
+[2019/06/03 04:33:09] <Shentino> I'll be brief: the issue I wish to raise may have a direct impact on our eventual filing status with the IRS itself
+[2019/06/03 04:33:12] <robbat2> that we made a good faith effort to find a CPA
+[2019/06/03 04:33:42] <veremitz> the efforts should remain ongoing, imo
+[2019/06/03 04:33:55] <prometheanfire> no one said they are stopping
+[2019/06/03 04:33:57] <veremitz> as far as possible
+[2019/06/03 04:34:09] <prometheanfire> in fact I said I was going to ask some people as well in the next couple of weeks
+[2019/06/03 04:34:18] <Shentino> I'll be putting full details on the bug just to be thorough but as a small note my theory is that by ensuring the foundation's status as a nonprofit (retroactively if possible) we will minimize the actual liability
+[2019/06/03 04:34:19] <veremitz> prometheanfire: you did indeed
+[2019/06/03 04:34:46] <robbat2> Shentino: then raise it with b-man's filing work outside the meeting; not tonight
+[2019/06/03 04:34:49] <Shentino> ok
+[2019/06/03 04:34:56] <Shentino> will do
+[2019/06/03 04:35:00] <Shentino> that is the last of my open floor items
+[2019/06/03 04:35:13] <robbat2> last call for open floor from anybody else
+[2019/06/03 04:35:35] <robbat2> we need to discuss more precisely the July Meeting
+[2019/06/03 04:35:52] <robbat2> 2019/07/01 03:00 UTC
+[2019/06/03 04:36:10] <alicef> what we need to discuss ?
+[2019/06/03 04:36:28] <antarus> that day is fine with me
+[2019/06/03 04:36:30] <prometheanfire> wfm
+[2019/06/03 04:36:33] <robbat2> any concerns about it? I might have to vote via email, for family personal/medical
+[2019/06/03 04:36:50] <antarus> America has a holiday, but its later in the week
+[2019/06/03 04:36:50] <antarus> so it shouldn't cause trouble
+[2019/06/03 04:36:50] <alicef> also for me ok
+[2019/06/03 04:36:59] <robbat2> yes, that puts it again 2019/06/30 20:00 US/Pacific
+[2019/06/03 04:37:02] <robbat2> *Sunday
+[2019/06/03 04:37:11] <alicef> I will a bit busy because of the OSS presentation work
+[2019/06/03 04:37:19] <robbat2> ok, settled
+[2019/06/03 04:37:24] <robbat2> no other open floor items
+[2019/06/03 04:37:32] <robbat2> so whoever is improvising the gavel, please declare this closed
+[2019/06/03 04:37:41] * antarus gavels the meeting closed
+[2019/06/03 04:37:43] <robbat2> i apologize to the chair for running this without permssion
+[2019/06/03 04:37:51] <alicef> antarus: thanks
+[2019/06/03 04:37:54] <antarus> you are forgiven
+[2019/06/03 04:37:55] <veremitz> well-chaired by proxy, robbat2 :)
+[2019/06/03 04:38:33] <Shentino> I concur