Diffstat (limited to '2017/20170618.log.txt')
1 files changed, 359 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2017/20170618.log.txt b/2017/20170618.log.txt
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
+[19:00:48] Meeting started by prometheanfire
+[19:01:13] Meeting chairs are: robbat2, antarus, prometheanfire, swift, dabbott,
+[19:01:29] Current subject: rollcall, (set by prometheanfire)
+[19:01:32] <prometheanfire> o/
+[19:01:41] <dabbott> here
+[19:01:43] <alsoSwifT> \o/
+[19:02:40] <robbat2> present
+[19:02:44] <prometheanfire> antarus: ?
+[19:02:45] <robbat2> (fending off kid)
+[19:03:06] <prometheanfire> dabbott: you logging this?
+[19:03:24] <dabbott> yes
+[19:04:06] <prometheanfire> ok, moving on, since we have quorum
+[19:04:18] Current subject: IRS Status Report, (set by prometheanfire)
+[19:04:26] <prometheanfire> still waiting on bank?
+[19:05:04] <robbat2> yeah, did they get back to us about processing the change on the other account?
+[19:05:27] <dabbott> which one the legacy account
+[19:06:17] <dabbott> for the savings "Spark" antarus and prometheanfire will have to contact them
+[19:06:47] <prometheanfire> contact and say hi?
+[19:07:26] <dabbott> call them and get approved as a signer
+[19:07:36] <prometheanfire> dabbott: can you write up an email stating what we need to do?
+[19:07:59] <prometheanfire> call xxx.xxx.xxxx and ask to get added as a signer to x account
+[19:08:27] <dabbott> you called before
+[19:08:40] <prometheanfire> same number?
+[19:09:39] <dabbott> I will send an email
+[19:09:50] <prometheanfire> thankyou
+[19:10:01] <prometheanfire> should be a prompt for antarus as well :D
+[19:10:02] <robbat2> dabbott: do you have access to both yet? if so, can I please get the missing statements?
+[19:10:23] <robbat2> would be very nice to finish my accounting before the end of my term as trustee
+[19:10:29] <dabbott> only Spark not the checking
+[19:10:46] <robbat2> the checking is the one I really need for the accounting
+[19:11:09] <prometheanfire> what's the status on the checking account then?
+[19:11:50] <dabbott> robbat2: you said Joshua Jackson still had access to that account, they will not talk to me
+[19:12:50] <robbat2> i'll ping him again, they would talk to him on the phone, but not reset the pass
+[19:14:09] <prometheanfire> that sucks
+[19:15:02] <dabbott> It may be eaiser to pull the money out of it and open up a new checking account with a better bank
+[19:15:27] <dabbott> both accounts are linked afaik, have not tried it
+[19:15:34] <robbat2> I agree in general, but I need the old records for our IRS paperwork
+[19:15:45] <dabbott> major pita
+[19:16:17] <prometheanfire> ya
+[19:16:22] <prometheanfire> ok, moving on
+[19:16:33] Current subject: status of address changes, (set by prometheanfire)
+[19:16:35] <prometheanfire> bug 613950
+[19:16:37] <willikins> prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/613950 "Change of Mailing Address: tracker bug"; Gentoo Foundation, Filings; CONF; robbat2:trustees
+[19:16:57] <prometheanfire> robbat2: iirc it's all held up by the tax/bank stuff right?
+[19:17:34] <robbat2> many of them held up by bank yes
+[19:18:07] <robbat2> i'll update the ones that are, so we can see the dependency tree
+[19:18:44] <prometheanfire> thanks
+[19:19:03] <prometheanfire> next
+[19:19:09] Current subject: activity tracker, (set by prometheanfire)
+[19:19:20] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Activity_Tracker [Foundation:Activity Tracker - Gentoo Wiki]
+[19:19:57] <prometheanfire> next items are the election and AGM meeting
+[19:20:17] <prometheanfire> who is remaining on as trustee?
+[19:20:23] <prometheanfire> my term isn't up yet
+[19:20:52] <dabbott> I think 3 terms are up, is that correct ? antarus robbat2 SwifT ?
+[19:20:53] <alsoSwifT> my seat is up for election
+[19:21:05] <robbat2> yes: up for election: robbat2, antarus, swift
+[19:21:06] <prometheanfire> that's my understanding
+[19:21:22] <dabbott> OK thanks, just want to make sure
+[19:21:26] <prometheanfire> dabbott: we need to know who's running at this meeting right?
+[19:22:06] <robbat2> i am NOT standing for re-election, but should insufficent candidates come forward, I will accept appointment (we will should have reopen_nominations listed anyway)
+[19:22:27] <robbat2> it's the start of the nomination period now
+[19:22:37] <dabbott> sure, I send out an email for nominations, then we will see how many are interested
+[19:22:40] <prometheanfire> robbat2: appointment as an officer or trustee?
+[19:22:44] <prometheanfire> dabbott: thanks
+[19:23:08] <robbat2> prometheanfire: I think you can only appoint me as an officer, but we should double-check bylaws
+[19:23:14] <dabbott> jmbsvicetto: and I came up with these dates recording date: June 18 | nominations: June 19 -> 16th July | voting: July 18 - Aug 14 | AGM: Aug 20
+[19:23:23] <prometheanfire> nearly certian that's the case
+[19:23:32] <prometheanfire> dabbott: sgtm
+[19:23:39] <dabbott> after this meeting I will send out the email
+[19:24:00] <robbat2> there's a related question: it was suggested that the foundation trustees must be developers
+[19:24:11] <robbat2> as an amendment to bylaw 5.2
+[19:24:26] <dabbott> I would support that
+[19:24:42] <dabbott> Its easy to become a staff developer
+[19:24:53] <prometheanfire> same, I'd support that
+[19:25:01] <dabbott> If I can do it anybody can :)
+[19:25:41] <dabbott> It shows a commitment
+[19:25:54] <robbat2> to amend the bylaws, we have to have a majority vote, and notify all members, notice must be at least 15 days prior to effective date
+[19:26:05] <robbat2> majority vote of trustees
+[19:26:24] <robbat2> the members can ALSO propose bylaw changes and have a majority vote to change them
+[19:26:24] <prometheanfire> well, the three of us are a majority vote
+[19:26:37] <prometheanfire> alsoSwifT: opinion?
+[19:26:47] <robbat2> so, as we're going to announce the election to all members, we can include the notice in that email
+[19:26:52] <alsoSwifT> i'm also in favor of such an addendum
+[19:27:18] <robbat2> ok, so let's do this formally
+[19:27:22] <prometheanfire> yep
+[19:27:27] <dabbott> alsoSwifT: can you put together the wording for me?
+[19:27:37] <robbat2> I propose the following as a bylaw change:
+[19:28:00] <robbat2> amend trustee qualifications, Section 5.2, to include:
+[19:28:55] <robbat2> "trustees must be active gentoo developers for the duration of their elected term."
+[19:29:19] <robbat2> "active gentoo developers" is already used per 4.3 admission of members
+[19:29:50] <robbat2> do I have a second?
+[19:29:52] <prometheanfire> I think 'at the start of their elected term' is better
+[19:30:17] INFO: amend trustee qualifications, Section 5.2 of the bylaws
+[19:30:19] <robbat2> if they retire as a developer, they should probably retire as a dev
+[19:30:24] <robbat2> *as a trustee
+[19:30:29] <prometheanfire> mainly so as to not have another outside body able to remove us
+[19:30:38] <robbat2> ah, ok
+[19:30:57] <prometheanfire> I agree in principal though, but not in execution :D
+[19:31:07] <prometheanfire> I propose the following as a bylaw change:
+[19:31:10] <prometheanfire> amend trustee qualifications, Section 5.2, to include:
+[19:31:11] <robbat2> that makes sense; maybe a compromise: as of the recording date
+[19:31:32] <prometheanfire> "trustees must be active gentoo developers at the start of the recording date"
+[19:31:39] <prometheanfire> sgtm
+[19:31:53] <robbat2> are we going to run afoul of the 15 day notification requirement for that wording?
+[19:32:04] <K_F> recording date is a specific date, so "at the start of" doesn't necessarily make sense
+[19:32:21] <alsoSwifT> is "recording date" properly defined earlier on?
+[19:32:50] <robbat2> yes, per article III, section 3.7, record date
+[19:33:05] <prometheanfire> "trustees must be active gentoo developers at the recording date"
+[19:33:14] <prometheanfire> ya, that's better
+[19:33:25] <prometheanfire> not sure if it runs afoul of the 15 day notification
+[19:34:34] <robbat2> nitpick for an error that I made: bylaw calls it 'record date', not 'recording date'
+[19:34:51] <prometheanfire> we could also correct that
+[19:35:06] <robbat2> record date seems to be the correct official term
+[19:35:09] <robbat2> per NM laws
+[19:35:39] <prometheanfire> oh
+[19:35:47] <prometheanfire> "trustees must be active gentoo developers at the record date"
+[19:36:16] <dabbott> we can move the record date to July 3 that would be the 15 days
+[19:37:06] <prometheanfire> sgtm
+[19:37:09] <robbat2> so: "Amend Article V (Trustees), Section 5.2 (Qualification), to add: "Trustees standing for election must be active Gentoo Developers as of the record date."
+[19:37:25] <prometheanfire> seconded
+[19:37:27] <robbat2> Trustee candidates?
+[19:37:47] ACTION: Amend Article V (Trustees), Section 5.2 (Qualification), to add: "Trustees standing for election must be active Gentoo Developers as of the record date
+[19:37:57] <robbat2> as they aren't a trustee until they are elected and take office at the AGM
+[19:38:19] <alsoSwifT> or just "candidates"
+[19:38:29] <prometheanfire> ya, just candidates
+[19:39:47] ACTION: Amend Article V (Trustees), Section 5.2 (Qualification), to add: "Candidates standing for election must be active Gentoo Developers as of the record date
+[19:40:09] <robbat2> ok, so if we do that change today, and notify members, it moves the record date to july 3rd at the earliest
+[19:40:18] <alsoSwifT> i vote in favor
+[19:40:29] <robbat2> nominations 3 weeks, voting 3 weeks?
+[19:40:33] <robbat2> to keep the AGM on time
+[19:40:40] <dabbott> thats fine
+[19:40:59] <prometheanfire> with the new wording?
+[19:41:03] <prometheanfire> ya
+[19:41:05] <prometheanfire> aye
+[19:41:10] <robbat2> i vote aye
+[19:41:15] <dabbott> yes
+[19:41:18] <alsoSwifT> aye
+[19:41:37] <robbat2> the motion passes :-)
+[19:41:41] INFO: motion passed
+[19:42:37] <prometheanfire> cool, secretary makes the edit or does it mater?
+[19:42:52] <robbat2> doesn't matter, but it's critical to record this in our motions
+[19:43:02] <dabbott> will do
+[19:43:19] <prometheanfire> ok, now with that out of the way
+[19:43:20] <K_F> does bylaws require AGM to change?
+[19:43:26] <robbat2> i'll mailout to members ASAP today, which as a bonus will let us know about mailbounces :-)
+[19:43:33] <K_F> i.e trustees proposes change of bylaws to AGM and AGM adopts it?
+[19:43:33] <robbat2> K_F: no, per article X
+[19:43:39] <K_F> okk
+[19:43:53] <robbat2> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Article_X_Amendment
+[19:43:57] Current subject: D&O quotes, (set by prometheanfire)
+[19:44:34] <prometheanfire> we've had two quotes come in at about the same pricing
+[19:44:35] <dabbott> prometheanfire: sorry new dates recording date: July 03 | nominations: July 3 -> July 24 | voting: July 26 - Aug 14 | AGM: Aug 20
+[19:45:16] <robbat2> dabbott: might be july 4th, just because there's only a few more hours in UTC todayt
+[19:45:39] <prometheanfire> for safety might as well make it july 4
+[19:45:48] <dabbott> ok
+[19:46:09] <prometheanfire> so, do we want to move forward on either of the quotes?
+[19:46:28] <prometheanfire> they both seem overpriced to me so I'm hesitant
+[19:46:38] <robbat2> for public reference, the D&O quotes are all in the range of $5500USD/year
+[19:47:29] <prometheanfire> we can afford it, but it's expensive, more so then I was led to believe (1-2k per year)
+[19:47:34] <dilfridge|mobile> OO
+[19:47:36] <alsoSwifT> i think that's too much given the (imo) low risk we are facing
+[19:47:53] <prometheanfire> alsoSwifT: yep
+[19:47:54] <robbat2> additionaly, we'd have to pay retention on any claim
+[19:47:56] <dabbott> I agree ^^^
+[19:48:04] <robbat2> at a further $2500-$10k
+[19:48:46] <prometheanfire> so, want to call for a vote on both?
+[19:48:47] <robbat2> as this exceeds our annual income, I CANNOT as treasurer accept it at this time
+[19:49:15] <robbat2> should our annual income significently increase, we should revisit accepting it
+[19:49:39] <prometheanfire> agreed
+[19:49:56] <robbat2> we can have a vote anyway, just for the record
+[19:49:59] INFO: vote on D&O insurance (overall)
+[19:50:04] <prometheanfire> nay
+[19:50:06] <alsoSwifT> nay
+[19:50:07] <dabbott> no
+[19:50:12] <robbat2> Nay, as costs exceed income
+[19:50:22] <prometheanfire> k, I'll let them know
+[19:50:32] <prometheanfire> do we want/care about the E&O
+[19:50:40] <prometheanfire> iirc it was 2-3k per year
+[19:50:44] <dabbott> prometheanfire: thanks for doing all the work on getting quotes etc
+[19:50:56] <prometheanfire> yarp
+[19:50:56] <robbat2> prometheanfire: when you do, if those quotes aren't private, can we please publish them, so other non-profits know?
+[19:51:03] <prometheanfire> it was mostly a waiting game
+[19:51:16] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I'll check and know by next meeting
+[19:51:20] <robbat2> E&O is pointless without D&O
+[19:51:34] <prometheanfire> robbat2: that was my thinking
+[19:51:41] ACTION: D&O insurance did not pass
+[19:51:48] <robbat2> as we'd close one set of liabilities, but leave the rest open
+[19:51:51] <prometheanfire> ok, next
+[19:52:03] Current subject: prometheanfire: prune the email aliases (trustees, paypal, cafepress, etc) of old members/trustees., (set by prometheanfire)
+[19:52:07] <prometheanfire> next
+[19:52:09] <prometheanfire> done
+[19:52:19] Current subject: Combining Trustees and Council into 'The Board' (prometheanfire), (set by prometheanfire)
+[19:52:23] <prometheanfire> pass
+[19:52:24] <prometheanfire> next
+[19:52:33] Current subject: prometheanfire Do we need date of birth in developer apps (how'd the email go)?, (set by prometheanfire)
+[19:52:39] <prometheanfire> not sure where we left off here
+[19:53:19] <robbat2> i don't know if we settled on alternate wording
+[19:53:44] <robbat2> but it was them giving a signed message that they were of contractual majority
+[19:53:53] <prometheanfire> yep
+[19:54:14] <prometheanfire> if they lie then we are still shown as have at least tried...
+[19:54:26] <robbat2> the concern was still that if they lied about their majority status, they could like about identity too
+[19:54:28] <prometheanfire> we can't stop liers so easilly
+[19:54:31] <robbat2> *lie
+[19:54:46] <prometheanfire> yep
+[19:54:53] <prometheanfire> but it's a good first step at least
+[19:55:17] <prometheanfire> should that be proposed to council or told to council?
+[19:55:39] <prometheanfire> I'd like to think they'd act on a reccomendation, but it's our job to protect gentoo legally
+[19:55:44] <prometheanfire> K_F: :D
+[19:56:23] <robbat2> is council the relevant body?
+[19:56:32] <robbat2> i think we'd need to instruct (officially) infra & recruiters
+[19:56:41] <prometheanfire> recruiters through them
+[19:56:48] <dabbott> robbat2: yes
+[19:56:50] <robbat2> to not record or require birthdate anymore
+[19:56:55] <K_F> prometheanfire: I'm simultanuously in conf-call on another board meeting , so not into details.. but DoB seems like a good thing to have. but I'm not sure it is something for council, I'd say it falls under foundation, in particular identification of copyright
+[19:57:27] <K_F> prometheanfire: at least in europe we often use that as name disambiguity, i.e Kristian Fiskerstrand, born 02.08.85 ...
+[19:57:31] <prometheanfire> K_F: this would mean we wouldn't need the birth date, which means less PII for us
+[19:58:38] <robbat2> less PII, and some devs have refused it in the past
+[19:58:55] <K_F> to accept a developer we might want some PII, similar to an employer
+[19:59:01] <prometheanfire> alsoSwifT: if this went under the copyright stuff, where specifically would we put it?
+[19:59:23] <K_F> in particular in towards copyright etc, but again, the discussion is mostly foundation matter
+[19:59:45] <alsoSwifT> prometheanfire: i don't think it makes sense in our current copyright (name/logo) doc
+[20:00:01] <robbat2> (reminder, meeting is now at 1 hour long)
+[20:00:43] <prometheanfire> don't think there's much after this
+[20:00:57] <alsoSwifT> also, in eu, the gdpr is an interestingncoming legislation about such data
+[20:00:58] <robbat2> let's defer to further discussion then on the birthday, followup w/ K_F is done his other call
+[20:01:19] <robbat2> (alicef: pre-ping)
+[20:01:48] <prometheanfire> k
+[20:02:08] <prometheanfire> next then
+[20:02:14] <prometheanfire> which is alicef :D
+[20:02:33] <dabbott> robbat2: are you going to edit the by laws and send out the email?
+[20:02:38] <robbat2> yes
+[20:02:44] <dabbott> ok thanks
+[20:04:14] <prometheanfire> ok, skipping alicef for now
+[20:04:56] Current subject: open trustee bugs, (set by prometheanfire)
+[20:05:03] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3290194&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- [Bug List: TrusteesOpenBugs]
+[20:05:59] <prometheanfire> only item I see is bug 620010
+[20:06:07] <prometheanfire> or only new item
+[20:06:24] <robbat2> bug #602040: we will be getting a Payoneer account as part of how GSOC is issuing payments this year
+[20:06:26] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/602040 "Investigate Payoneer to get non-USD bank transfer donations"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; robbat2:trustees
+[20:06:58] <dabbott> robbat2: sounds good
+[20:07:03] <prometheanfire> robbat2: ah, that sounds good
+[20:07:08] <prometheanfire> paypal is ...
+[20:07:11] <prometheanfire> paypal
+[20:07:34] <robbat2> prometheanfire: as the close of fiscal is coming up, can you please reply on the state of bug #581690
+[20:07:37] <willikins> robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/581690 "Reimbursement for additional parts for a aarch64 developer box"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; prometheanfire:trustees
+[20:07:45] <robbat2> alicef: as the close of fiscal is coming up, can you please reply on the state of bug #598010
+[20:07:47] <willikins> robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/598010 "Reimbursement for Gentoo banner and Gentoo booth table cover."; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; alicef:trustees
+[20:08:07] <prometheanfire> willikins: nothing's been done and I don't think anything will be done, steev is somewhat absent
+[20:08:11] <prometheanfire> we can close the bug
+[20:08:15] <prometheanfire> lol
+[20:08:21] <prometheanfire> robbat2: nothing's been done and I don't think anything will be done, steev is somewhat absent
+[20:08:34] <alicef> robbat2: I will buy for the next event that is november
+[20:08:38] <dabbott> robbat2: would the payoneer account need to be linked to the savings account?
+[20:08:59] <alicef> robbat2: just time to finish getting crazy to search work
+[20:09:29] <robbat2> alicef: please watch out, if the new price is higher than the amount we approved, you should get re-approval, since it's been so long
+[20:09:53] <prometheanfire> alicef: your turn :D
+[20:10:04] Current subject: alicef: Is SPI worth another look? Status?, (set by prometheanfire)
+[20:10:43] <robbat2> (dabbott: linking to a bank account will be helpful, but not mandatory, the alternate is a payment card)
+[20:10:57] <prometheanfire> alicef: ?
+[20:11:16] <alicef> prometheanfire: we still need to decide what we need for SPI
+[20:11:27] <alicef> for/from
+[20:11:42] <alicef> which service we need ?
+[20:12:08] <alicef> we need to write some request and see if it can work
+[20:12:47] <prometheanfire> well, we don't know what services are available or applicable
+[20:13:08] <robbat2> alicef: the question I think to you was would the Foundation benefit from being in the SPI? (using the SPI's services)
+[20:14:17] <alicef> it would if foundation have no enough resource to work alone. As now we still don't know if SPI would accept such working load
+[20:15:35] <alicef> they said the problem is not accepting or not, is if they can manage our working load.
+[20:16:08] <alicef> and they don't know until we have some concrete request.
+[20:17:38] <alicef> about the foundation will benefit from being in the SPI is not my decision but the decision of the Gentoo community i suppose
+[20:18:07] <prometheanfire> we don't need concrete options from them, just knowing what's generally available should help us in making a request
+[20:18:52] <robbat2> (dabbott: I'll answer your CPA email question here in a moment after alicef)
+[20:19:12] <robbat2> ok, so to tie this time because it seems the sides aren't communicating:
+[20:19:23] <robbat2> 1. alicef: what services of the SPI would the foundation be asking for?
+[20:19:44] <alicef> http://spi-inc.org/projects/services/
+[20:19:47] <robbat2> 2. prometheanfire: as the president, I think you'd be placed to write that letter
+[20:20:00] <alicef> services
+[20:20:04] <alicef> services: http://spi-inc.org/projects/services/
+[20:20:43] <robbat2> would we be asking them to hold our funds officially?
+[20:20:47] <robbat2> funds/assets
+[20:21:27] <robbat2> will they accept doing our accounting if they don't hold our funds?
+[20:21:27] <alicef> the schedule as now is checking what services would be needed to move to SPI (trademark, remburse, ecc), than sending a mail to the SPI board with the nedded services, and amount that SPI will have to process.
+[20:22:20] <robbat2> (once they hold our funds/assets, the next reciipent can ONLY be another 501(c)3
+[20:22:33] <dabbott> If we moved the assets to another org we would need the members approval i would think
+[20:22:36] <prometheanfire> at this point I don't think it's worth it, we already do those things, my main question to them is if they'd be doing our taxes
+[20:23:14] <alicef> prometheanfire: only taxes ?
+[20:23:29] <dabbott> I would rather see us control the assets and hire out additional help CPA etc
+[20:23:29] <robbat2> alicef: ok, return question: can they SELL us accounting & tax services? eg, we pay them for it
+[20:23:51] <alicef> robbat2: I will ask
+[20:24:10] <robbat2> can we move on from alicef, since dabbott's question is now relevant
+[20:25:01] <prometheanfire> ya
+[20:25:03] <robbat2> per email: subject: "Foundation CPA / Accountant", body: "What is the status on us retaining services?"
+[20:25:30] <robbat2> starting in March 2016, we've publically anounced that we were looking for a CPA
+[20:25:42] <robbat2> we got zero responses to the announcement
+[20:26:11] <robbat2> as treasurer, I have directly or indirectly asked a dozen CPAs or accountants about taking us on
+[20:26:29] <robbat2> the responses are mostly:
+[20:26:42] <robbat2> 1. fix your own mess up first, you MUST have complete records before they will even consider it
+[20:26:58] <robbat2> 2. too busy to consider new customers
+[20:27:01] <prometheanfire> yep, that was the response I got as well from my cpa
+[20:27:43] <robbat2> 3. due to the complexities of the IRS non-profit side, not one of the non-US folks I approached will touch it (they do US personal income taxes only)
+[20:28:10] <robbat2> so we need to fix our Capitalone banking access first
+[20:28:24] <robbat2> then re-ask if they are accepting new customers
+[20:28:47] <prometheanfire> yep
+[20:28:49] <dabbott> ok thanks
+[20:28:51] <robbat2> in terms of cost, we're probaly looking at $5k up-front to get everything in order, followed by $1k/year
+[20:29:22] <robbat2> this is just maintaining the 501(c)6, no transition at all
+[20:30:42] <prometheanfire> I think that'd be worth while, once we get there
+[20:31:23] <dabbott> yep for sure
+[20:31:31] <prometheanfire> ok, next?
+[20:31:36] <prometheanfire> this is running on 2 hours now
+[20:31:44] <robbat2> i think no other bugs need handling rightn ow
+[20:31:55] <robbat2> so new business
+[20:32:01] <robbat2> one membership application
+[20:32:05] <robbat2> - Ben Kohler (iamben)
+[20:32:13] <prometheanfire> aye
+[20:32:17] <alsoSwifT> aye
+[20:32:30] <robbat2> aye
+[20:32:35] <dabbott> yes
+[20:32:39] <prometheanfire> pass
+[20:32:53] Current subject: date of next meeting, (set by prometheanfire)
+[20:32:56] <prometheanfire> Sun July 16 2017 19:00 UTC
+[20:33:00] <prometheanfire> sound good?
+[20:33:01] <dabbott> I will send the email and add him to the list
+[20:33:07] <alsoSwifT> ok
+[20:33:11] <dabbott> ok
+[20:33:35] <robbat2> dabbott: can you please shoot me your official copy of the list in the next 30 mins, and i'll use it for the bylaw change announcement later
+[20:33:49] <robbat2> trying to get it out before 23:59 UTC
+[20:33:59] <prometheanfire> robbat2: jul 16 good for you?
+[20:33:59] <robbat2> which gives me just under 3.5 hours
+[20:34:05] <robbat2> checking
+[20:34:23] <robbat2> yes, july 16th is good, the next weekend would not be
+[20:34:39] <prometheanfire> k
+[20:34:43] <prometheanfire> that's the date then
+[20:34:49] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire)
+[20:34:49] <dabbott> current list is kept on the wiki https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Member_List just need to add iaben
+[20:34:58] <robbat2> aug 20th might be problematic, but I could use my phone ahead of time
+[20:35:04] <dabbott> robbat2: ^^^
+[20:35:07] <robbat2> dabbott: i mean the email address part
+[20:35:12] <robbat2> that's not public
+[20:35:19] <dabbott> ok
+[20:35:29] <robbat2> (or we just change the listing to say which people aren't developers)
+[20:35:34] <robbat2> and use developer emails for the rest
+[20:35:44] <dabbott> yes
+[20:35:46] <robbat2> crap, exdevs also a pain
+[20:35:59] <robbat2> nm, just send me teh entire list w/ your email addresses
+[20:36:07] <robbat2> gone for the moment, have to feed baby
+[20:36:16] <dabbott> ok I keep it on a spreadsheet
+[20:36:32] <prometheanfire> aug 19 is the sunday
+[20:36:54] <robbat2> check your calender more closely
+[20:37:16] <prometheanfire> oh, lol
+[20:37:16] <robbat2> $ date -d 'aug 20 2017' -u
+[20:37:17] <robbat2> Sun Aug 20 00:00:00 UTC 2017
+[20:37:17] <prometheanfire> ya
+[20:37:29] <prometheanfire> I just use cal
+[20:37:31] <prometheanfire> cal 2017
+[20:37:39] <robbat2> gone now, thanks all
+[20:37:43] <prometheanfire> k
+[20:37:44] <prometheanfire> ending
+[20:37:46] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 5818 seconds