diff options
Diffstat (limited to '2018/2018-02-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt')
1 files changed, 355 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2018/2018-02-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt b/2018/2018-02-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..81ce379
--- /dev/null
+++ b/2018/2018-02-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,355 @@
+[21:58:52] Meeting started by prometheanfire
+[21:59:11] Meeting chairs are: alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, prometheanfire,
+[21:59:23] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire)
+[21:59:26] <prometheanfire> here
+[21:59:27] <kensington> Here
+[21:59:30] <robbat2> hi
+[21:59:34] <dabbott> here
+[21:59:40] <robbat2> you started early!
+[21:59:56] <prometheanfire> oh, so I did, server time is 2 min ahead
+[21:59:56] <dabbott> alicef: said she was up late with kernel bugs
+[22:00:07] <prometheanfire> dabbott: ya, she was pinging me about them
+[22:00:19] <klondike> prometheanfire: can you add klondike2 as chair?
+[22:00:31] Meeting chairs are: alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, klondike2, prometheanfire,
+[22:00:36] <klondike> Thanks
+[22:00:48] <prometheanfire> ok, moving on
+[22:00:57] <klondike2> Yay
+[22:01:01] ACTION: dabbott is logging the meeting
+[22:01:07] <dabbott> yes
+[22:01:14] <prometheanfire> there is nothing in the activity tracker
+[22:01:22] <alicef> o/
+[22:01:29] <dabbott> excellent :)
+[22:01:32] <prometheanfire> no change in the mailing addr, unless someone has something there
+[22:01:34] <prometheanfire> antarus: :D
+[22:01:43] <prometheanfire> oh, should probably
+[22:01:47] LINK: [Foundation:Meetings/2018/02 - Gentoo Wiki]
+[22:01:59] <prometheanfire> alicef: good timing, you're up
+[22:02:01] <robbat2> there's one comment re mailing address
+[22:02:16] <robbat2> capitalone sent one of our tax forms to Wayne Chew
+[22:02:26] <robbat2> despite us having changed the address that the bank had
+[22:03:10] <dabbott> is that from the account we want to close
+[22:03:20] <prometheanfire> hmm, that's a good point
+[22:03:22] <robbat2> it wasn't clear on a quick glance
+[22:03:36] <robbat2> but that one was changing address as well
+[22:03:45] <robbat2> at least tsunam sent in the change of address form for that account
+[22:03:49] <dabbott> the sparks has the correct address afaik
+[22:03:58] <robbat2> if they processed it correct... ?
+[22:05:03] <prometheanfire> ya, guess that's something we need to verify and correct
+[22:05:08] <dabbott> can we pull all the money out of that account and let it close or do we have to notify them
+[22:05:26] <prometheanfire> robbat2: can you verify which account it was for, then we can proceed from there
+[22:05:32] <dabbott> we have the new checking account
+[22:05:35] <prometheanfire> dabbott: notify them
+[22:05:45] <robbat2> i will when I next spend time on finances yes
+[22:05:50] <prometheanfire> k
+[22:05:50] <robbat2> (which is probably not today at all)
+[22:05:52] <dabbott> in order to close the account
+[22:05:59] <robbat2> make a bug so we don't forget
+[22:06:06] <dabbott> ok
+[22:06:08] <prometheanfire> robbat2: thanks
+[22:06:14] <prometheanfire> who's making the bug?
+[22:06:20] <dabbott> i will
+[22:06:46] ACTION: dabbott is making a bug for the banking tax info being sent to the wrong address
+[22:06:57] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:07:05] <prometheanfire> alicef: have at it :D
+[22:07:44] <alicef> no news on my side
+[22:08:07] <prometheanfire> alicef: how about the copyright work with ulm?
+[22:08:28] <alicef> looks good for me
+[22:08:34] <prometheanfire> ok
+[22:08:47] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:08:53] <prometheanfire> prometheanfire: you're up
+[22:08:55] <prometheanfire> ok me
+[22:09:01] <prometheanfire> contact wizardedit (consultant)
+[22:09:10] <prometheanfire> done, he asked to be removed and I've done so
+[22:09:36] LINK: [531540 – dev-libs/openssl: revise inclusion of elliptic curves with bindist USE flag]
+[22:10:12] <prometheanfire> for the openssl thing, I haven't done anything there
+[22:10:20] <prometheanfire> robbat2: have you had time to continue your work there?
+[22:10:32] <robbat2> maybe, but I had a question as well
+[22:10:37] <prometheanfire> sure
+[22:10:43] <robbat2> what progress was the openssl1.1 unmasking making?
+[22:11:02] <robbat2> most of the other distros look mostly set in for 1.1 already
+[22:11:15] <robbat2> so could we just offer bindist-safe-ecc on 1.1 only
+[22:11:58] <robbat2> if jmbsvicetto is here, maybe he knows
+[22:12:11] <robbat2> !seen jmbsvicetto
+[22:12:11] <willikins> robbat2: jmbsvicetto was last seen 5 hours, 24 minutes and 16 seconds ago, saying "I meant irc activity" in #gentoo-groupcontacts
+[22:12:30] <robbat2> i guess not
+[22:12:36] <robbat2> let's just continue the meeting
+[22:12:58] <prometheanfire> ok
+[22:13:21] <prometheanfire> I guess that's something that'll need to be discussed in the ossl-1.1 tracker (general stablization)
+[22:13:34] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:13:41] <jmbsvicetto> robbat2: pong
+[22:13:50] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: you're up
+[22:14:12] <jmbsvicetto> sorry, what was the question? The openssl-1.1 stabilization?
+[22:14:24] <jmbsvicetto> If so, I'm sorry but I haven't followed that
+[22:14:41] <robbat2> thanks, that covers that, also any infra items you had for the trustee meeting
+[22:14:47] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: and the second one was infra updates
+[22:14:58] <jmbsvicetto> I didn't fill the funding request yet. I'm going to do that in a bit
+[22:15:32] <jmbsvicetto> Otherwise, I don't think there's any infra issue pending on trustees
+[22:15:57] <prometheanfire> ok
+[22:16:06] Current subject: treasure update, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:16:09] <prometheanfire> robbat2: you're up
+[22:16:44] <robbat2> funding request clarification for other trustees: ~$1100 for SSD+parts for the server donated by flameeyes
+[22:16:56] <robbat2> i guess we'll just move that one to a bug for voting then
+[22:17:16] <robbat2> i have no actual progress update on treasurer/financials, just some comments
+[22:17:44] <prometheanfire> go ahead
+[22:17:49] <robbat2> 1. my CPA contact has moved to the other side of canada for family reasons
+[22:17:59] <robbat2> we're still in contact, but they aren't local to me anymore
+[22:18:28] <robbat2> 2. to that end, per the discussions yesterday, i think we should look for more bookkeeping AND CPA resources
+[22:18:56] <robbat2> update & re-post our advert, and solicit other options for that
+[22:19:22] <robbat2> splitting it to book-keeping service vs CPA service
+[22:19:29] <prometheanfire> ack, sounds good to me, I can ask about my friends father in law about that, but I doubt he has experience with using open source accounting
+[22:20:01] <prometheanfire> I wonder if the fsf could point us to someone
+[22:20:36] <robbat2> it wouldn't hurt to ask once we post the advert
+[22:20:45] <prometheanfire> yep
+[22:20:50] <robbat2> fsf, sfc, eff, apache
+[22:20:56] <robbat2> are who i'd start by asking
+[22:21:27] <prometheanfire> agreed, fsf is just who came to mind first
+[22:21:42] <prometheanfire> I might be able to ask the openstack people too at the PTG
+[22:21:55] <robbat2> probably ask on the ledger mailing lists as well :-)
+[22:22:09] <prometheanfire> and foundations list
+[22:23:11] <prometheanfire> moving on?
+[22:23:25] <dabbott> sounds good
+[22:23:46] Current subject: bugs, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:23:56] LINK: [Bug List: TrusteesOpenBugs]
+[22:24:10] <prometheanfire> I don't actually see anything new there
+[22:24:41] <veremitz> does that actually include lastchanged<30d ?! :P
+[22:24:52] <prometheanfire> veremitz: heh, ya
+[22:25:05] <prometheanfire> I know klondike mentioned going through the backlog
+[22:25:17] <veremitz> if the list is 'zaro boogs' all is good :D
+[22:25:33] <veremitz> ^use the force^
+[22:25:58] <robbat2> to that end, would anybody object to making a component to split out the finance ones?
+[22:26:16] <robbat2> and having reimbursements move to finance when they are waiting on being closed out in book-keeping?
+[22:26:39] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I was going to suggest something like that
+[22:26:52] <prometheanfire> it'll make it easier to go over
+[22:26:52] <robbat2> were we going to discuss bug 645192?
+[22:26:54] <willikins> robbat2: "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees
+[22:27:15] <veremitz> issues Pom-poms to Shentino
+[22:27:30] <Shentino> gives credit for said pom poms to prometheanfire, it was his idea
+[22:27:35] <klondike2> prometheanfire: haven't had time to backlog
+[22:27:43] <prometheanfire> klondike2: np, just mentioning the intention
+[22:27:56] <prometheanfire> robbat2: ya, guess we should :P
+[22:27:57] <klondike2> We have somethings like the t-shirt mail we received 2 weeks ago
+[22:28:04] <klondike2> Which should be linked to a bug
+[22:28:16] <klondike2> I'll try to go over those to
+[22:28:18] <klondike2> *too
+[22:28:51] <prometheanfire> reguarding bug 645192, I think we should leave it for now, I suspect (hope) K_F is going to use it in his proposed membership application quiz
+[22:28:51] <willikins> prometheanfire: "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees
+[22:29:23] <klondike2> Maybe this is the time to get K_F here?
+[22:29:53] <dabbott> prometheanfire: when did he say he might have it completed?
+[22:30:03] <prometheanfire> next meeting is the target
+[22:30:08] <dabbott> ok
+[22:30:22] <robbat2> ah, i haven't had time to read the log of the combined meeting
+[22:30:30] <prometheanfire> lets move on to the tshirt email klondike2 mentioned
+[22:30:50] <dabbott> Then all we need to do is vote on it as a requrment for membership?
+[22:31:12] <prometheanfire> I think we should reply yes, and specify donation to the paypal account
+[22:31:21] <prometheanfire> dabbott: more or less
+[22:31:27] <dabbott> ok
+[22:31:41] <prometheanfire> the basics of the quiz is that we'd vote based on the results of the quiz, but are not held to it
+[22:31:46] <klondike2> prometheanfire: I think we should check our agreement with Gentoo eV
+[22:31:47] <prometheanfire> as there is not a bylaw change
+[22:32:01] <prometheanfire> klondike2: what does that have to do with it?
+[22:32:10] <prometheanfire> ah, eu based
+[22:32:20] <klondike2> jup
+[22:32:49] <prometheanfire> possibly, id doesn't preclude donations to us though
+[22:33:10] <robbat2> i have one comment re visual of the shirt, the logo seems too blue
+[22:33:39] <veremitz> are there pantone colours for the logo somewhere?
+[22:33:43] <prometheanfire> ya, does look a bit odd
+[22:34:13] <veremitz> I may have seen some once .. not sure ..
+[22:34:17] <robbat2> i don't know if we have tracked pantone for the shirt, that would be a good project for somebody to do
+[22:34:40] <prometheanfire> I move that we give feedback in reguards to the color, mention gentoo eV and paypal
+[22:35:09] <dabbott> veremitz: ttps://
+[22:35:19] <veremitz> dabbott: ty :D
+[22:35:27] <prometheanfire> klondike2: you want to take the lead on the shirt thing, being eu based?
+[22:35:41] <klondike2> I can do that, yes
+[22:35:48] <veremitz> is there an EU trademark on it?
+[22:35:54] <veremitz> should be .. >,<
+[22:36:09] ACTION: klondike2 to draft a reply the tshirt email (hellotux)
+[22:36:21] <robbat2> to the best of my knowledge the foundation does not hold any EU trademarks
+[22:36:33] <prometheanfire> same, I don't know of any
+[22:36:37] <robbat2> just the word & logo trademarks with the US PTO
+[22:36:42] <prometheanfire> next
+[22:36:46] Current subject: bug 638962, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:36:48] <willikins> prometheanfire: "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees
+[22:36:48] <willikins> trustee-meetbot: "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees
+[22:36:50] <veremitz> hmm worth thinking about .. but go on :D
+[22:37:12] <dabbott> they use our logo
+[22:37:12] <prometheanfire> until we get a proposal we can't vote on it
+[22:38:29] <robbat2> the uncouple needs a slight clarification
+[22:38:46] <prometheanfire> robbat2: mind updating the bug?
+[22:39:03] <robbat2> the name usage agreement we offer says that if you want to call an EVENT 'something gentoo something', you have to obide by CoC
+[22:39:27] <robbat2> but the CoC starts with 'Gentoo's Code of Conduct for public communication fora'
+[22:40:28] <robbat2> as a personal opinion, i don't think the CoC as it stands covers real-world situations enough
+[22:41:17] <robbat2> so it's maybe that the 'event' language of the usage agreement needs to be clearer as to why
+[22:41:57] <robbat2> but yes, it would go in a new bug
+[22:42:02] <robbat2> that existing one should close
+[22:42:38] <prometheanfire> mind updating it?
+[22:43:01] <robbat2> will do
+[22:43:05] <robbat2> action item it to me ;-)
+[22:43:43] ACTION: robbat2 to update bug 638962
+[22:43:45] <willikins> prometheanfire: "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees
+[22:43:45] <willikins> trustee-meetbot: "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees
+[22:43:54] Current subject: new members, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:44:03] <prometheanfire> gentoo dev: William Hubbs (williamh)
+[22:44:11] <dabbott> yes
+[22:44:13] <prometheanfire> yes
+[22:44:17] <kensington> Yes
+[22:44:46] <prometheanfire> alicef: klondike2 klondike ?
+[22:44:57] <klondike2> yes
+[22:45:13] <alicef> yes
+[22:45:42] <dabbott> I will send the email
+[22:45:50] <prometheanfire> thanks
+[22:45:50] ACTION: passed
+[22:45:57] <klondike2> Welcome WilliamH
+[22:46:01] <prometheanfire> Non gentoo dev: Daniel Robbins (drobbins)
+[22:46:17] <prometheanfire> he's been contributing to portage itself
+[22:46:20] <veremitz> is there .vote!?
+[22:46:24] <dabbott> defer till next month
+[22:46:26] <prometheanfire>
+[22:46:39] <prometheanfire> dabbott: mind if I ask why?
+[22:46:58] <dabbott> did you want to start the test
+[22:47:10] <robbat2> (i don't have a vote, but I would approve him and when the new quiz is ready, apply it to foundation members who aren't active devs)
+[22:47:26] <dabbott> sounds good :)
+[22:47:48] <klondike2> I like what robbat2 said
+[22:48:06] <veremitz> sounds reasonable
+[22:48:06] <prometheanfire> ok, next month then
+[22:48:18] <robbat2> unless anybody sees procedural issues with asking existing members to be tested
+[22:48:28] Current subject: cleanup, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:48:30] <prometheanfire> robbat2: nah
+[22:48:36] <prometheanfire> Who will post the log? Minutes? (dabbott
+[22:48:41] <prometheanfire> Who will update the motions page? (aliceinwire
+[22:48:43] <veremitz> yeah thats a tricky one .. technically they've been Accepted already.
+[22:48:44] <prometheanfire> Who will send emails? (dabbott
+[22:48:49] <prometheanfire> Who will update agenda? (prometheanfire
+[22:48:49] <dabbott> yep
+[22:48:50] <robbat2> rich0 & NeddySeagoon might have thoughts on procedural validity
+[22:48:53] <prometheanfire> Who will update channel topic? (prometheanfire
+[22:49:08] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire)
+[22:49:12] <prometheanfire> I have an item
+[22:49:46] <prometheanfire> during the combined meeting, when discussing the reporting of comrel actions taken to the trustees, some clarifications were asked for
+[22:50:04] <prometheanfire> let me see if I can copy/paste the scrollback
+[22:50:56] <prometheanfire> 15:39 < mgorny+> as i've mentioned before, i don't think providing details to trustees would be a problem as long as confidentiality of appropriate private information is preserved
+[22:51:00] <prometheanfire> 15:40 < mgorny+> i.e. escalation still works the same, trustees don't need to intervene unless something really illegal happens
+[22:51:08] <prometheanfire> 15:41 < mgorny+> prometheanfire: lemme rephrase. do you need just information that an action was taken, or access to all evidence proactively?
+[22:51:17] <prometheanfire> that's the basics
+[22:51:45] <prometheanfire> first/second question get's an ack from me
+[22:52:16] <prometheanfire> third, I would be satisfied to be notified after action is taken
+[22:52:19] <dabbott> we only need to be notified after the fact so we are informed of the action taken, not before
+[22:52:22] <prometheanfire> any comments?
+[22:52:59] <antarus> I think mgorny was inquiring as what the content of hte notification was
+[22:53:27] <klondike2> I wonder if we even need a notification :P
+[22:53:51] <klondike2> If we don't get a notification, will the legal responsability shift to the council?
+[22:53:55] <prometheanfire> klondike2: we need to be kept informed of actions that can cause legal trouble
+[22:53:55] <robbat2> i'd say copies of the threads of the compliant, communication with the person(s) who requested and were the subject of the action
+[22:53:59] <prometheanfire> klondike2: willful blindness
+[22:54:05] <veremitz> it could be very outline at the start of an issue, and then outcome could become more detailed perhaps .. eg. case admitted 10.11.07 ... case #34752 bug 0000 result: xXXX
+[22:54:07] <robbat2> not copies of council internal discussions
+[22:54:22] <klondike2> prometheanfire: for there to be willful blindness, shouldn't we be able to act on it?
+[22:54:44] <prometheanfire> klondike2: we can (see mgorny's second comment)
+[22:54:55] <veremitz> you could then react if case 99999 was taking 18 months to resolve ...
+[22:54:57] <prometheanfire> robbat2: ack, that sounds like what I'm looking for
+[22:55:02] <klondike2> Okay makes sense
+[22:55:25] <robbat2> communication that covers the relevant parties, and trying NOT to know council internals about why
+[22:55:45] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I'll add that to my reply to them
+[22:55:50] <robbat2> I single out that communication because that's what legal action would be based on
+[22:56:19] <prometheanfire> anyone else want to add to that?
+[22:56:34] <mgorny> robbat2: actually, my point was the other way around
+[22:56:49] <mgorny> i.e. protecting the possible intimate/private details from being spread to more people than absolutely necessary at the moment
+[22:57:30] <veremitz> I think he means retrospectively .. not concurrently ..
+[22:57:41] <robbat2> mgorny: i was looking at it from the other direction: what's the LEAST that the trustees need to know
+[22:57:53] <robbat2> it would be the mails with the parties
+[22:58:02] <robbat2> the second question, is when does that need to be known
+[22:58:39] <robbat2> can somebody remind me of how fast the council is supposed to move on comrel actions?
+[22:59:43] <robbat2> mgorny: ^^
+[23:00:36] <mgorny> robbat2: could you rephrase the question? Council normally actions only when the party appeals
+[23:01:05] <robbat2> when an appeal is made to council, how fast is the council required to reach a decision?
+[23:01:22] <mgorny> lemme look into glep39
+[23:01:54] <robbat2> seperately, when a request is made of comrel, is there anything that says how fast they have to respond? (for actions not initiated solely by comrel)
+[23:02:07] <mgorny> hm, doesn't seem to be specified but i think normally Council handles it before the next meeting
+[23:02:34] <mgorny> or at the next meeting
+[23:03:03] <mgorny> so it'd say <5-6 weeks (in case it came just before a meeting)
+[23:03:53] <robbat2> so a compromise: comrel actions shall be reported to trustees as they are completed, AND if the request is taking longer than X days to handle
+[23:04:05] <robbat2> to avoid requests being in uncompleted limbo
+[23:05:11] <prometheanfire> robbat2: sounds satisfactory to me, what method will we be notified?
+[23:05:18] <robbat2> as for the value of X, we'd want to see how long comrel actions take start-to-finish historically
+[23:05:33] <dabbott> s/AND if/or
+[23:05:45] <robbat2> and pick a value that gets most outliers
+[23:05:50] <veremitz> 90d ?!
+[23:05:53] <mgorny> robbat2: 2 years? ;-P
+[23:06:09] <mgorny> (if by finish you mean new comrel lead closing all old bugs)
+[23:06:11] <robbat2> if it's dragging more than a month I'd want to know
+[23:06:22] <robbat2> but i'm not sure how much faster than that is a benefit
+[23:06:34] <robbat2> depends on the issue really
+[23:06:50] <prometheanfire> I'd say a month is a good standard
+[23:07:06] <prometheanfire> more complicated issues could be more hairy legally too
+[23:07:20] <mgorny> well, the problem to some part is that many comrel issues do not need real action, and 'ignoring' them causes less problems than rejecting
+[23:07:32] <mgorny> (i.e. waiting for people to cool down)
+[23:07:46] <veremitz> comrel "timeout" lol
+[23:08:08] <prometheanfire> I'm not sure that's a good policy
+[23:08:59] <mgorny> well, a good policy would be to finally have comrel that encourages mediation and talking to people
+[23:09:07] <prometheanfire> but that's another thing entirely
+[23:09:19] <robbat2> both meditation & mediation
+[23:09:25] <mgorny> but i don't want to diverge the meeting
+[23:09:34] <robbat2> we're in open-floor already
+[23:09:38] <robbat2> but I have to go in 20 mins
+[23:10:04] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I'll write up your suggestions and desires as our response to comrel
+[23:10:11] <prometheanfire> and send that out tomorrow
+[23:10:25] ACTION: prometheanfire send email to comrel about reporting reqs
+[23:10:34] <prometheanfire> does anyone have anything else?
+[23:10:47] <robbat2> mgorny: i agree that getting people to calm down a bit by delaying response has value
+[23:10:58] <robbat2> but reporting that to trustees is good too
+[23:11:04] <prometheanfire> true
+[23:11:11] <robbat2> thinking of 'traditional' HR processes
+[23:11:14] <prometheanfire> and not letting it lag on too long
+[23:11:21] <robbat2> HR tries to ack something you send right away
+[23:11:23] <mgorny> i'm a bit afraid that this will result in trustees starting to interfere
+[23:11:24] <veremitz> a templated standard response is ok
+[23:11:33] <robbat2> but they don't action it for a bit longer
+[23:12:03] <prometheanfire> mgorny: atm we don't have a desire to interfere, make suggestions I think, but not order people around
+[23:12:07] <antarus> Is there better guidance for when trustees with actually act?
+[23:12:14] <antarus> will*
+[23:12:18] <klondike2> mgorny: A much simpler alternative is that the council takes all legal responsability and indemnifies the trustees for the council's actions then we mere trustees don't need to worry at all :P
+[23:12:20] <robbat2> mgorny: to avoid the interfere part, completed actions to be reported on some time interval rather than immediately?
+[23:12:36] <prometheanfire> antarus: when we think we should to legally protect the foundation (would be my guidance)
+[23:12:51] <antarus> I mean I understand that, I still think its pretty vague
+[23:12:52] <antarus> ;)
+[23:13:01] <jmbsvicetto> @trustees: bug 647966
+[23:13:01] <willikins> "Funding request for"; Gentoo Foundation, Infra Support; CONF; jmbsvicetto:trustees
+[23:13:25] <prometheanfire> antarus: any more specific would be setting ourselfs up for failure imo
+[23:14:09] <antarus> Well I mean this is the primary concern around the allocation of responsbilities
+[23:14:12] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: will review for next meeting
+[23:14:32] <robbat2> mgorny: do you have suggestions on how the trustees can still be informed in a timely fashion and not interfere?
+[23:15:07] <jmbsvicetto> prometheanfire: ok, thanks
+[23:15:08] <mgorny> prometheanfire: 'suggestions' from trustees can be taken as binding
+[23:15:29] <mgorny> robbat2: i don't think the time really matters, it's rather what trustees do with the information
+[23:15:31] <prometheanfire> then how can we talk at all?
+[23:15:49] <prometheanfire> do we have to say 'this is non-binding' before everything?
+[23:16:10] <robbat2> mgorny: your concern is information leakage, trustee concern is legal-ass-covering
+[23:16:10] <prometheanfire> mgorny: I suspect 99% of the time we will do nothing
+[23:16:24] <mgorny> i agree
+[23:16:49] <mgorny> well, maybe it's fine
+[23:17:40] <mgorny> as long as trustees don't end up being used by one of the parties to push the result
+[23:17:59] <mgorny> that said, we should probably improve comrel policies on response time
+[23:18:04] <robbat2> that's why I suggested batch reporting after time
+[23:18:37] <robbat2> that also related to previous questions about transparency in reporting number of comrel actions open/completed to council
+[23:19:00] <dilfridge> that will end up like a national security letter canary, mostly
+[23:19:09] <dilfridge> "no actions have been taken"
+[23:19:10] <dilfridge> "no actions have been taken"
+[23:19:12] <dilfridge> "no actions have been taken"
+[23:19:18] <prometheanfire> ?
+[23:19:31] <dilfridge> regular batch reporting I mean
+[23:19:41] <veremitz> still better than nothing imho.
+[23:19:42] <prometheanfire> ah
+[23:20:08] <dilfridge> yeah but reporting when something happens is probably easier
+[23:20:40] <prometheanfire> we can discuss it via email if that satisfies people
+[23:20:52] <prometheanfire> atm we are 22m over (and dinner is almost done)
+[23:20:55] <veremitz> I figure some completely simple, anonymous stats would be an easy start
+[23:20:57] <robbat2> you can already creatively count bugs assigned/closed to comrel
+[23:21:13] <veremitz> ^ like that
+[23:21:19] <robbat2> so publishing it clearly isn't a big change
+[23:22:38] <prometheanfire> can I close the meeting in the mean time?
+[23:22:52] <robbat2> delaying the detailed information geting to trustees slightly does reduce the concern of tampering in process
+[23:22:54] <veremitz> how about suggesting to try something simple for a few months and do a review?
+[23:23:12] <robbat2> so if comrel/council have related ideas there, let's put that to email discussion?
+[23:23:12] INFO: next meeting date is Mar 17 2018
+[23:23:22] <prometheanfire> robbat2: ack
+[23:23:37] <prometheanfire> my email will cc comrel and council and trustees
+[23:23:40] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 5088 seconds