diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | 2019/20190603.log.txt | 636 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2019/20190827.log.txt | 603 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2019/20190924.log.txt | 444 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2019/20191216.log.txt | 158 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2020/20200822.log.txt | 340 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2023/20230817.log.txt | 666 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 2023/20231002.log.txt | 320 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | motions/2019_motions.txt | 13 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | motions/2020_motions.txt | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | motions/2021_motions.txt | 19 |
10 files changed, 3200 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/2019/20190603.log.txt b/2019/20190603.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bf31019 --- /dev/null +++ b/2019/20190603.log.txt @@ -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 bob@example.com? +[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 alice@foo.me 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 diff --git a/2019/20190827.log.txt b/2019/20190827.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1399411 --- /dev/null +++ b/2019/20190827.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,603 @@ +[01:45:43] <robbat2> 10 minute warning +[01:46:14] <robbat2> antarus, alicef, prometheanfire, b-man: early highlight +[01:47:04] <b-man> Here here. +[01:52:11] * antarus is here +[01:52:37] <robbat2> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2019 is now live +[01:52:43] <robbat2> with my draft financials for FY2019 +[01:53:44] <robbat2> I think i'm off by $30 in how Paypal does cashback reimbursements +[01:54:32] <antarus> was I supposed to write a presidents letter? +[01:54:35] <antarus> because I uhhh did not ;) +[01:56:36] <b-man> antarus: did you do the proposal for dissolution? +[01:58:01] <antarus> I wrote nothing other than my previous plan +[01:58:06] <b-man> ok +[01:58:14] <antarus> I don't expect to vote on anything dissolution related in any case +[01:58:33] <robbat2> ok, meeting time +[01:58:46] <robbat2> antarus: please do the honours, since this is the official AGM +[02:00:03] <prometheanfire> robbat2: hi +[02:00:04] <antarus> The 2019 AGM is now in session +[02:00:16] <antarus> roll-call; please aye to announce roll +[02:00:29] * b-man aye +[02:00:34] <robbat2> aye +[02:00:43] <prometheanfire> aye +[02:00:48] <antarus> aye +[02:01:19] <antarus> who is logging the meeting? +[02:01:48] <robbat2> not me this time +[02:01:56] <robbat2> i'm writing the agenda because nobody else did it +[02:02:00] <prometheanfire> I guees I can +[02:02:04] <antarus> thanks prometheanfire +[02:02:14] <antarus> robbat2: thanks for that too ;) +[02:02:54] <robbat2> alicef: are you here? +[02:02:56] * antarus is mostly using the 2018 agm to drive at the moment +[02:03:04] <alicef> aye +[02:03:16] <alicef> robbat thanks for the ping +[02:03:50] <robbat2> antarus: TL;DR: announce that the results are the same board, thank other candidates for running +[02:04:06] <robbat2> TL;DR: approve financial statements (draft), approve presidents letter (awol) +[02:05:00] <robbat2> those are the critical items +[02:05:04] <robbat2> anything past that is more regular business +[02:05:17] <antarus> The 2019 election results have elected antarus, robbat2, and alicef +[02:05:18] <robbat2> i do have remarks regarding the CPA +[02:06:31] <alicef> ok +[02:07:13] <antarus> Thanks for all the candidates for running, and to our members for a strong voting turnout this year +[02:08:47] <antarus> Please approve the draft financial statements with an aye, or if nay, please provide concrete objections +[02:09:16] <robbat2> the draft financial statements are available at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2019 +[02:09:28] <robbat2> note the WIP marker +[02:09:28] <antarus> ah sorry if that was unclear; you had provided the link earlier +[02:09:45] <antarus> the summary seems to be after expenses we accrued 7k in net positive assets this year? +[02:09:46] <robbat2> the official log started after that +[02:09:59] <robbat2> yes +[02:10:28] <antarus> I don't see any GSoC payments in this fiscal, did we not do that this year? +[02:10:36] <antarus> or do we expect them in 2020? +[02:10:44] <prometheanfire> financial position shows oddly (bank accounts show as income?) +[02:10:48] <alicef> antarus: we did +[02:10:56] <alicef> just not yet finished +[02:11:03] <robbat2> we did not participate GSOC during the FY2019 +[02:11:07] <robbat2> we did do it for FY2020 +[02:11:15] <alicef> ok +[02:11:25] <robbat2> we have a drop of $13k in income this year +[02:11:30] <alicef> we just got latest submission from students +[02:11:45] <alicef> and there was some interest on going to gsoc mentor summit +[02:11:52] <antarus> alicef: yeah the fiscal year ended in June, so I wouldn't expect 2019 payments to show up in the 2019 fiscal +[02:12:05] <alicef> ok +[02:12:06] <robbat2> our largest donor did not contribute as much this year to the foundation, and instead directly contracted one of the Gentoo GNOME team members +[02:12:12] <b-man> robbat2: Can that drop of 13k be associated to GSoC payments? +[02:12:36] <b-man> GSoC + largest donor? +[02:12:55] <robbat2> no, GSOC historically only acounts for ~$5k gross +[02:13:01] <antarus> prometheanfire: oh you mean on the righthand box? +[02:13:25] <prometheanfire> ya +[02:13:26] <alicef> 5k * student +[02:13:43] <b-man> Yes, that right hand box is quite odd +[02:13:59] <robbat2> the right hand box is net assets +[02:14:04] <robbat2> if you compare it year-to-year +[02:14:15] <robbat2> you can see quickly how much overall income/expenses changed +[02:14:24] <b-man> robbat2: It just reads oddly. +[02:14:38] <prometheanfire> ok +[02:14:43] <prometheanfire> it looks good though +[02:14:44] <b-man> robbat2: ~157k - 79k nets 157k +[02:14:52] <robbat2> hmm, there's something wrong there +[02:15:02] <robbat2> the totals on the bottom line of the left&right side should have been the same +[02:15:07] <robbat2> good catch +[02:15:14] <b-man> prometheanfire++ +[02:15:22] <robbat2> compare https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2018#Statement_of_financial_position +[02:15:41] <robbat2> ah, for some reason it didn't include my closing transactions +[02:15:50] <robbat2> anyway, as I say, it's draft +[02:16:00] <robbat2> the left-hand-side is 99% good +[02:16:05] <b-man> yea... it is not showing where the income is to offset the expenses to arrive at the final holdings +[02:16:09] * antarus is happy with the left hand side +[02:16:09] <robbat2> as I said before the meeting, i'm off by about $30 +[02:16:24] <antarus> I don't believe 30$ is material to company operations +[02:16:41] <antarus> minus the right hand side of the box, I approve the draft financial statements +[02:16:44] <prometheanfire> can we vote by mail on it, looks fine as a draft +[02:17:06] <b-man> USD 157,233.45 NetAssets:RetainedEarnings +[02:17:06] <b-man> USD -79,158.67 Expenses +[02:17:06] <b-man> USD 236,392.12 Income +[02:17:06] <b-man> -------------------- +[02:17:06] <b-man> USD 157,233.45 +[02:17:06] <robbat2> there will be a vote on the final version anyway +[02:17:14] <robbat2> b-man: yes, that part is what's wrong +[02:17:23] <prometheanfire> ok +[02:17:24] <robbat2> it didn't take the year-end closing transactions +[02:17:25] <b-man> robbat2: Ok, just needed an ack on it being odd :) +[02:17:35] <alicef> FY2019 we had GSOC:Mentor-Travel-Reimbursement but no gsoc ?? +[02:17:59] <robbat2> the reimbursement cycle happens after the summit +[02:18:02] <b-man> Did they claim the reimbursement in a new FY? +[02:18:04] <robbat2> which is into the next fiscal +[02:18:11] <b-man> rgr +[02:18:27] <antarus> presumably we would see a 2018 GSOC payment in FY 2019 +[02:18:35] <antarus> if we did a 2018 GSOC program? +[02:18:40] <robbat2> yes, which we did not +[02:19:03] <robbat2> there was also catching up some reimbursements that devs didn't submit stuff for promptly +[02:19:10] <alicef> we didn't get accepted +[02:19:21] <alicef> afair +[02:19:27] <robbat2> i am not the corporate payroll/accounting that cuts off expenses after 90 days ;-) +[02:19:48] <antarus> ok cool +[02:20:00] <antarus> any other objections, otherwise we can move on? +[02:20:03] <robbat2> so, vote on the draft financials, with the wip & errors noted +[02:20:07] * b-man aye +[02:20:11] <antarus> I vote aye for the financials +[02:20:17] <robbat2> (abstain as I wrote the financials) +[02:20:51] <antarus> prometheanfire: and alicef ? +[02:21:08] <prometheanfire> aye +[02:21:11] <alicef> antarus: checking gsoc +[02:21:20] <alicef> we had gsoc in 2018 +[02:21:44] * b-man thinks robbat2's comments were off on the FY vs AY statement +[02:22:04] <antarus> when we do GSOC in a particular year, it should show up in the next years fiscal +[02:22:22] <antarus> because all of the payments happen in Q4 / Q1 of the calendar, but our fiscal ends in June +[02:22:26] <b-man> also, it is dependent on when the GSoC participant claims it +[02:22:53] <alicef> GSoC partecipation years 2019 2018 2017 2016 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 +[02:22:58] <antarus> I would never expect them to be in teh same year; the program spans our fiscal end month ;) +[02:23:09] <antarus> alicef: I don't expect to solve the GSOC disrepency in this meeting +[02:23:16] <b-man> antarus: agreed, but the additional "odd ball" is if they claim it super late :) +[02:23:17] <antarus> we should found out if / when the 2018 payment happened +[02:23:28] <alicef> yes +[02:23:33] <antarus> can we approve the statements and agree to chase that later? +[02:23:39] <alicef> yes we sure had 2018 payment +[02:23:55] <alicef> robbat2: can you confirm ? +[02:24:19] <robbat2> let's dig in the data after this; they also changed the payment system +[02:24:22] <robbat2> to payoneer +[02:24:27] <robbat2> maybe i got that imported wrong +[02:24:30] <alicef> the only year that GSoC got rejected is 2015 +[02:24:50] <alicef> the only year that gentoo got rejected from GSoC is 2015 +[02:25:07] <antarus> I filed bug 692990 for this +[02:25:09] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/692990 "In the 2019 AGM we could not find the 2018 GSoC payments."; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; antarus:trustees +[02:25:13] <alicef> anyway aye +[02:25:13] <antarus> we can follow up +[02:25:15] <antarus> thanks +[02:25:20] <prometheanfire> :D +[02:25:30] <alicef> thanks for opening the bug +[02:25:56] <antarus> I didn't write a Presidents letter; I can write one if we think its needed, but I also have my manifesto on what I believe the direction of the foundation should be +[02:26:06] <antarus> and its mostly dissolution and takeover of operations by another nonprofit +[02:26:23] <robbat2> i have some other Treasurer remarks to that end regarding the CPA +[02:26:27] <antarus> (is the TL;DR of what the letter would say) +[02:26:42] <antarus> robbat2: can we hit the activity tracker and then do individual items (happy to file that under yours?) +[02:26:59] <robbat2> i think there's nothing to do in the tracker, but sure +[02:27:19] <antarus> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Activity_Tracker is the tracker +[02:27:23] <b-man> A manifesto != a proper proposal to the electorate for dissolution. Additionally, there are many other items that need to be done in order to pursue such a "manifesto" based opinion. +[02:27:47] <antarus> er, the president letter is also not a proposal to the electorate, FWIW +[02:27:57] <antarus> the letter is supposed to describe what we did this year, did we meet our goals, etc... +[02:28:18] <b-man> You said we should dissolve.. what have we done to do so? +[02:28:29] <robbat2> that's where my CPA comments come in +[02:28:49] <antarus> the tracker describes the AGM (currently ongoing), the financial statements (aye'd), the presidents letter (absent as discussed) +[02:29:03] <antarus> there is a comment there about domain renewals robin +[02:29:44] <robbat2> the domains were renewed out to 2021 last time we did them +[02:30:01] <robbat2> the secretary has to file the annual report after this meeting +[02:30:17] <antarus> ack, I updated that line per what I did last year on the filings +[02:30:26] <prometheanfire> nice +[02:30:37] <robbat2> did that page not get updated for last year's annual report filing with NM? +[02:30:51] <antarus> unlikely +[02:30:54] <antarus> I just updated it +[02:31:12] <antarus> I also updated the domain stuff to check again next year, presuming we want to renew the domains in 2020 before they expire +[02:31:13] <robbat2> afk kid +[02:32:13] <antarus> besides robin, does anyone else have any personal items to raise? +[02:33:02] <b-man> personal items to raise? +[02:34:31] <b-man> antarus: I asked a question, but didn't receive a valid answer. +[02:34:37] <antarus> ahh sorry unclear +[02:34:50] <antarus> items that are attached to individual trustees, as opposed to their roles or other agenda items +[02:35:09] <b-man> antarus: If you proposed to dissolve, but failed to write a letter saying "what we have done" this year to meet such goals... +[02:35:22] <b-man> it stands to reason you aren't doing anything to meet your goal of dissolution. +[02:35:59] <b-man> hence why the "president's letter" exists, no? +[02:36:50] <robbat2> NM page shows the only outstanding is the 2019 filing, so the 2018 filing must have been done +[02:37:16] <antarus> robbat2: yes, I did the NM 2018 filing ;) +[02:37:38] <robbat2> b-man: i don't agree with your logic that not writing a letter implies not doing anything towards those goals +[02:38:01] <antarus> I think if we had stronger membership, donors, or other stakeholders +[02:38:05] <antarus> writing a letter would be worthwhile +[02:38:18] <robbat2> i would like the letter to be written to convey to the electorate what actions were taken overall in the FY period +[02:38:26] <antarus> because its supposed to encourage membership, and donors, and say "the foundation is doing all of this cool stuff to further the mission" +[02:38:35] <robbat2> esp all the CPA discussion stuff +[02:38:57] <b-man> robbat2: one cannot reference their manifesto and then state that it remains the same, in lieu of a presidents letter, with no action being applied. +[02:39:35] <b-man> The presidents letter is meant to be a "state of the organization" based on the proposed manifesto +[02:39:44] <antarus> b-man: the manifesto basically describes a set of goals where we want the financials fixed first +[02:39:54] <antarus> so nominally I get to take credit for the progres on that, regardless of who actually did it +[02:39:55] <robbat2> i disagree with what the presidents letter should contain +[02:40:03] <antarus> the benefit of being the human in charge ;p +[02:40:13] <robbat2> it should contain what was ACTUALLY done in the year +[02:40:25] <robbat2> regardless of that being linked to a manifesto or not +[02:40:36] <robbat2> esp for actions that come prior to the manifesto +[02:40:44] <b-man> antarus linked it to that. +[02:41:09] <b-man> Also, if we are being honest, dissolution can happen with the financials being fixed. I have said this multiple times in various forums. +[02:41:20] <b-man> s/with/without +[02:41:20] <antarus> I will take an action to write the letter as robin requested +[02:41:43] <alicef> robbat2: I can agree +[02:41:47] * alicef doorbell +[02:41:52] <prometheanfire> thanks +[02:42:00] <robbat2> no, we cannot dissolve without the financials being completed, because the org needs to exist to file them ;-) +[02:42:22] <b-man> robbat2: No, you are missing the point here. Just as the CPA said, we can begin transferring assets/monies/trademarks now. +[02:42:35] <robbat2> that's creation of a NEW org +[02:42:36] * alicef back +[02:42:40] <antarus> the letter is bug 692992 +[02:42:41] <robbat2> not the filing of the financials +[02:42:44] <b-man> He (the CPA) also stated it would be *best* to do so now +[02:42:49] <robbat2> of the old org +[02:42:59] <b-man> robbat2: No, it is not a new org. It is any organization willing to accept such. +[02:43:11] <robbat2> (start new org) (transfer [most] assets) (file IRS financials) (dissolve old org) +[02:43:17] <b-man> No. +[02:43:17] <robbat2> is the order of operations +[02:43:29] <b-man> That is not what Josh stated. +[02:44:06] <b-man> any 501c3 or c6 can accept our transfer or assets/monies/trademarks. +[02:44:12] <b-man> So, an umbrella fits that scenario. +[02:44:17] <robbat2> start/pick +[02:44:28] <robbat2> but we have to know where it's going before it can be transfered +[02:44:35] <prometheanfire> should this be the focus of the agm meeting? +[02:44:40] <b-man> robbat2: Yes, which brings me to a larger point +[02:44:40] <robbat2> no, it shouldn't +[02:44:56] <b-man> Yes, it should. Unless we want to keep the status quo. +[02:44:58] <antarus> as a time bound, we still have to elect officers and handle outstanding bugs +[02:45:08] <antarus> (although we can likely defer the latter to email) +[02:45:21] <antarus> I would prefer we have officers by the end of the agm +[02:45:50] <antarus> b-man: as I said I will take an action to write the presidents letter +[02:46:00] <robbat2> officers to elect: president, secretary, treasurer, [optional: chairman of board] +[02:46:20] <b-man> antarus: This isn't about the letter. I simply tied it to your inability to meet such goals based on your comments. +[02:47:41] <antarus> I mean I'm happy to have folks voice their opinions; but I dont' want to have a long drawn out conversation about the future of the NPO during the AGM; we can discuss after other items. +[02:47:43] <b-man> I have asked, on multiple occasions, for the work to be done to find an umbrella to begin transferring assets too. None of that has been done. The CPA's advice has been ignored and we keep the status quo. +[02:48:10] <b-man> antarus: How can we ignore the repeated calls for dissolution/fixing/etc? +[02:48:20] <alicef> b-man: which work do you need ? +[02:48:46] <robbat2> b-man: i've got remarks there, but let's please just do the officers & bugs quickly +[02:48:54] <robbat2> because it directly ties into CPA stuff as well +[02:49:00] <b-man> robbat2: fair enough... +[02:49:16] <antarus> does anyone stand for President, Gentoo Foundation? +[02:49:39] <b-man> I do +[02:49:53] <prometheanfire> do you have a manefesto? +[02:49:58] <alicef> we need anyway to be accepted by the umbrella party, for switching +[02:50:05] <b-man> prometheanfire: I do not +[02:50:37] <antarus> I will also stand again. +[02:51:43] <b-man> prometheanfire: Short and sweet. I intend to keep the Foundation "as is" by fixing the financials, retaining a CPA on staff, and ensuring we continue to support the distribution financially. This is supporting the infrastructure, developers, and resources needed by our developers. +[02:51:44] <antarus> my goals are, humorously, similar to last year: https://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/StepstoDissolution.pdf +[02:52:34] <robbat2> b-man: to be clear, this nullifies your prior proposal to start a new 501cX and transfer everything? +[02:53:06] <b-man> robbat2: No, I think this may be a wise choice to do dependent on the back tax filing requirements to attain federal tax exempt status. +[02:53:32] <robbat2> anybody else want to stand for president, else let's vote on them? +[02:53:49] <robbat2> i do not stand for the office of president (I will stand for treasurer again) +[02:54:20] <prometheanfire> I do not stand for president either +[02:54:48] <alicef> I stand for secretary or president +[02:54:59] <b-man> Additionally, I believe the by-laws need to address several of our core "beliefs" as a distro. This will assist in our developers having a connection with the NPO +[02:56:19] <Shentino> I would like if some of the de-facto mechanisms of the distro were formally codified into the bylaws +[02:56:32] <robbat2> Shentino: sorry, you don't get to vote here +[02:56:33] <Shentino> *social mechanism +[02:56:41] <Shentino> my mistake robbat I thought this was open floor +[02:57:05] <robbat2> ok, open ballot or a very fast secret ballot? +[02:57:18] * Shentino smacks his hexchat scrollbar for getting stuck +[02:57:20] <antarus> yeah I was looking at how we did this last year but everyone ran uncontested +[02:57:47] <b-man> open ballot seems fine by me. At least we know where everyone stands. +[02:57:51] <antarus> we voted openly, but it was less contentious ;) +[02:57:51] <prometheanfire> b-man: antarus much of what you both wish to do relies upon 'cleaning up', reformation into an new 501c(3|6) for either better absorbtion into an umbrella org or for better ongoing management, In the one year term (as president is voted for every year) how much do you expect to get done? +[02:57:57] * antarus is happy to vote openly +[02:58:05] <robbat2> i'll make one with Cornell CIVS if anybody wants a private ballot +[02:58:10] <robbat2> https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/ for reference +[02:58:31] <alicef> my president manifest https://gist.github.com/aliceinwire/380cc480399daebef485380d0d7f1413 +[02:58:45] <antarus> prometheanfire: my goal is for the FY2020 to be the last year we need to file +[02:58:49] <b-man> prometheanfire: Based on the current recommendation of the CPA, I would begin a new 501c3 and begin transferring assets/monies/trademarks into it. +[02:59:11] <antarus> prometheanfire: so that means accounting fixed, umbrella found and agree'd to, and assets transferred, and Foundation dissolved before June 2020 +[02:59:18] <b-man> while retaining the same board as to ensure the electorate's wishes are considered. +[02:59:36] <antarus> if we fail to find an umbrella; there is a high probability I will resign +[03:00:00] <alicef> SPI was looking interested afair +[03:00:03] <antarus> because I'm not intersted in the other option; as we previously discussed, I don't want to be involved in running the Foundation on a long term basis +[03:00:24] <alicef> but I would be happy to look around more before choosing +[03:00:55] <prometheanfire> it's been a couple years, would be good to ask +[03:01:07] <prometheanfire> civs is nice, we use it for openstack +[03:01:13] <robbat2> (context: I spoke to SFC regarding this, for discussion later) +[03:01:30] <alicef> we also could polish our status of meta-distribution and look into linux foundation +[03:01:30] <b-man> prometheanfire: also, the same recommendation from the CPA is what I gave on my initial appointment to the foundation. +[03:01:31] <antarus> does anyone object to open ballot voting? +[03:02:14] <robbat2> i created a CIVS election for it +[03:02:22] <robbat2> everybody should have an email to @gentoo.org shortly for it +[03:02:25] <antarus> ok great +[03:02:30] <alicef> robbat2: cool +[03:02:36] <prometheanfire> thanks +[03:02:42] <prometheanfire> got it +[03:03:06] <b-man> I believe it would be wise to just do it openly. At least we all know where we stand and can support the general way forward (given the opposition of future state) and support the individual elected. +[03:03:24] <prometheanfire> I think we all agree on the immediate steps forward at least +[03:04:11] <antarus> (open has its own problems because of the forum) +[03:04:33] <robbat2> we're likely to deadlock on chosing between 3 people with open voting-choose-one +[03:04:40] <b-man> Aren't we an "open source" distro with no secrets? :-P +[03:04:42] <robbat2> (of 5 voters) +[03:04:51] <antarus> e.g. we all don't vote at once, we can't rank easily, early votes might influence later rankings +[03:04:53] <alicef> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Alicef/foundation_transfer +[03:05:10] <prometheanfire> I agree with the civs voting being most useful here +[03:05:22] <robbat2> 3 votes are cast so far, I don't know who hasn't cast +[03:05:29] <b-man> I haven't +[03:05:30] <alicef> not sure if we already have a list of umbrella +[03:05:50] <prometheanfire> at least for me both antarus and b-man have good points and could turn out well, but I personally don't expect anything 'final' to be done within a year and not without other votes anyway +[03:06:13] <b-man> voted +[03:06:21] <robbat2> i voted as well +[03:06:26] <robbat2> who's the last person outstanding? +[03:06:43] <prometheanfire> I voted +[03:06:45] <antarus> prometheanfire: set audacious goals, try to get as far as possible ;) +[03:06:53] <prometheanfire> antarus: more or less +[03:06:57] <b-man> prometheanfire: My intent is to transfer the assets immediately to a new non-profit. Again, this is inline with the CPA recommendations. +[03:07:02] <antarus> its the google way! +[03:07:05] <robbat2> antarus, alicef: it's one of you, please vote +[03:07:14] <b-man> Of course, I need the support of the board members and electorate :) +[03:07:17] <alicef> voted +[03:07:27] <robbat2> antarus: is your vote in? +[03:07:32] <robbat2> if so, i'll close the election +[03:07:43] <b-man> (in lieu of an umbrella willing to accept) +[03:07:45] <prometheanfire> b-man: if we are able to do it all at once without a big hit (as I thought transfers over a certian percentage of yearly income would make it less of a non-profit) +[03:08:03] <antarus> robbat2: yes +[03:08:28] <robbat2> https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_093ed11c853e3b63 results +[03:08:28] <b-man> prometheanfire: No, the new non-profit would be filed for and the contributions to it would be systematic and acceptable. There is mail traffic from the CPA assuring that it is legal. +[03:08:38] <alicef> antarus: congrats +[03:08:47] <robbat2> antarus wins, followed by a tie alicef/bman +[03:08:57] <antarus> horray incumbency! +[03:08:59] <prometheanfire> b-man: yep, I read it :P +[03:09:09] <robbat2> ok, next position is secretary +[03:09:14] <robbat2> alicef said she wanted to run already +[03:09:20] <robbat2> bman do you stand for secretary again +[03:09:30] <robbat2> i'm sticking to treasurer +[03:09:32] <prometheanfire> ok, I could run as well, have another three way vote :D +[03:09:54] <robbat2> ok, and antarus is excluded due to bylaw requirement president != secretary +[03:10:05] <b-man> no thank you +[03:10:22] <antarus> alicef: thanks +[03:10:28] <alicef> antarus: you can anyway vote +[03:10:34] <alicef> :) +[03:10:38] <robbat2> b-man: is that a 'no' to being secretary? +[03:10:46] <robbat2> so I edit the ballot quickly +[03:11:04] <b-man> robbat2: correct. +[03:11:29] <robbat2> ok, one poll coming up +[03:11:39] <prometheanfire> two way vote is easier, but could still techically have ties +[03:11:57] <alicef> yep yep +[03:12:25] <robbat2> emails sent +[03:12:56] <antarus> voted +[03:13:04] <robbat2> 3/5 votes in +[03:13:05] <robbat2> i voted +[03:13:16] <b-man> done +[03:13:18] <prometheanfire> don't have the second one +[03:14:24] <robbat2> prometheanfire: it should have resent +[03:14:30] <robbat2> afk doorbell +[03:14:33] <prometheanfire> k +[03:14:40] <prometheanfire> greylisting maybe +[03:15:05] <prometheanfire> both came at the same time, could be +[03:16:47] <alicef> is a tie ? +[03:17:18] <prometheanfire> not ended yet +[03:17:20] <alicef> doorbell tie +[03:17:26] <antarus> :) +[03:17:26] <prometheanfire> :D +[03:17:27] <robbat2> results https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_c7dffcd11e0a7dfe +[03:17:38] <robbat2> prometheanfire wins +[03:17:41] <prometheanfire> ok +[03:17:48] <robbat2> ok, treasurer +[03:17:51] <robbat2> i'm running for it +[03:17:51] <alicef> congratulations +[03:17:53] <alicef> :) +[03:17:57] <robbat2> anybody else want to run for treasurer? +[03:18:03] <alicef> vice secretary +[03:18:11] <alicef> can i still keep it ? +[03:18:19] <alicef> or getting voted for it :) +[03:18:34] <antarus> I do not stand for treasurer +[03:19:00] <b-man> I do not stand for treasurer +[03:19:39] <antarus> alicef: and prometheanfire ? +[03:19:52] <alicef> I would like to keep vice secretary +[03:20:03] <prometheanfire> I abstain +[03:20:22] <robbat2> alicef: vice secretary is not mutually exclusive with treasurer +[03:20:29] <robbat2> do you want to run for treasurer or not? +[03:20:33] <alicef> abstain from treasurer +[03:20:55] <robbat2> ok, so a confirmation vote then for formality only +[03:21:03] <robbat2> robbat2 for treasurer, aye or nay +[03:21:13] <antarus> robbat2, for treasurer, aye +[03:21:19] <alicef> aye +[03:21:20] * b-man thinks those who voted for the dissolution platform should step into the roles to make it happen (and file the paperwork) +[03:21:24] <prometheanfire> aye +[03:21:36] <b-man> Abstain +[03:21:38] <robbat2> (abstain voting for myself) +[03:21:50] <prometheanfire> you can't be both treasurer and president per bylaws +[03:21:55] <antarus> congrats robin, you are elected treasurer +[03:22:32] <robbat2> prometheanfire: no, it's president & secretary that are mutually exclusive +[03:22:40] <robbat2> not treasurer || anything +[03:22:48] <antarus> we have then the three officer positions +[03:22:52] <alicef> anyone running for vice secretary ? +[03:23:07] <robbat2> the 3 required positions, which leaves the optional ones +[03:23:13] <robbat2> chairman, vice * +[03:23:27] <alicef> what's chairman ? +[03:23:51] <robbat2> the president/secretary/treasurer are the ones that required voting +[03:24:00] <robbat2> the remaining positions are open to vote or appointment +[03:24:02] <robbat2> per bylaw 6.1 +[03:24:25] <prometheanfire> chairman runs the meetings iirc +[03:24:26] <alicef> robbat2: correct word is chairperson +[03:24:39] <robbat2> amend the bylaws to be gender neutral ;-) +[03:24:41] <antarus> the chairperson is the 'head of the board' and they run the meetings +[03:24:51] <alicef> chairperson runs the meeting +[03:25:18] <alicef> antarus: yes just read in wikipedia, totally forgot about it +[03:25:43] <antarus> I don't find the optional ones particularly valuable given the size of the foundation +[03:25:44] <alicef> antarus: and that's why i found the gender neutral verions ;) +[03:26:03] * alicef propose to amend the bylaws to gender neutral +[03:26:10] <robbat2> any body wants to claim it? otherwise those responsibilities fall to the president by default +[03:26:11] * alicef ask for votes +[03:26:27] <robbat2> alicef: move that to later, but count me as aye ;-) +[03:26:41] <b-man> Sure, I will run for chairmen +[03:26:43] <alicef> opening bug +[03:26:58] <alicef> chairb-man :) +[03:27:08] <robbat2> last call on chairperson? otherwise move on to alicef asking for vice-secretary +[03:27:13] <antarus> haha that is great +[03:27:15] <b-man> Chairman* +[03:27:51] <robbat2> b-man: is that a aye, you want to be chairperson and keep these meetings on track again? +[03:28:11] <b-man> robbat2: yes, I will run for chairman. +[03:28:12] <prometheanfire> that'd be useful, given that the meetings haven't been the most consistant +[03:28:34] <robbat2> run the meetings, keep the agenda up to date, email the agenda +[03:28:42] <robbat2> places where we HAVE fallen behind +[03:28:58] <b-man> robbat2: I said, yes. +[03:29:05] <alicef> https://bugs.gentoo.org/692994 +[03:29:12] <robbat2> ok, anybody else? otherwise quick confirmation vote +[03:29:15] <alicef> bug 692994 +[03:29:17] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/692994 "amend bylaw to gender neutral version"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; alicef:trustees +[03:29:24] <antarus> no objections here +[03:29:28] <alicef> aye +[03:29:39] <robbat2> vote: b-man for chairperson +[03:29:40] <robbat2> aye +[03:29:42] <antarus> aye +[03:29:45] <alicef> aye +[03:30:15] <robbat2> prometheanfire, b-man: vote? +[03:30:23] * b-man abstain +[03:30:36] <prometheanfire> aye +[03:30:39] <alicef> I think b-man win if we cannot double vote +[03:31:13] <robbat2> b-man: congrats, you're the chairb-man ;-) +[03:31:34] <robbat2> vice-* positions +[03:31:39] <alicef> yay +[03:31:42] <b-man> robbat2: until the gender neutral thing gets me! +[03:31:53] <antarus> we will have to hcange your irc handle ;p +[03:31:55] <robbat2> vice-secretary: if prometheanfire feels that he would like help +[03:32:08] <robbat2> i'll take any candidates for vice-treasurer as well +[03:32:12] <robbat2> that are sufficently engaged +[03:32:15] <prometheanfire> it'd be good, first time I'd be doing it +[03:32:23] <b-man> antarus: person-b? :( +[03:32:28] <robbat2> vice-* roles also are not required to be trustees at all +[03:32:38] <alicef> happy to help with motions and irc logs and mails +[03:32:46] <b-man> We're b-person. +[03:32:50] <robbat2> the vice-treasurer has been a non-trustee before +[03:33:13] <robbat2> (specifically: it was me at one point when I wasn't a trustee) +[03:33:19] *** b-man is now known as b-person +[03:34:06] <b-person> Anyone? +[03:34:19] <alicef> i apply vice-secretary +[03:34:33] <robbat2> no objections here +[03:34:42] <robbat2> we can just appoint at this point if there are no objections +[03:34:45] <antarus> no objections +[03:34:48] <prometheanfire> yep +[03:34:59] * b-person proposes no longer calling them secretary's. They are admin specialists. +[03:35:39] <robbat2> difference between the formal legal of Secretary vs the admin specialist role +[03:36:02] <robbat2> anybody who wants to take vice-treasurer, please contact me by email +[03:36:09] <robbat2> so we can discuss it, because it can be a LOT of work +[03:36:31] <robbat2> any more vice-* to discuss, or can we please move on? +[03:36:40] <antarus> I think we are good to move on +[03:36:48] <robbat2> i really do need to cover my CPA & financials bit and I have to put kids to bed shortly +[03:36:51] <alicef> https://bin.alicef.me/?fb3201411705225c#QIE7tde+OrTQskmtKA6tC2Eae3XWcrulnYpwB2iVd/Q= +[03:37:08] <antarus> cover the CPA and financials +[03:37:11] <prometheanfire> ya, this is running long I feel +[03:37:13] <antarus> I'll table bugs to email +[03:37:20] <robbat2> ok, so CPA part +[03:37:25] <antarus> there are a few outstanding ones we need to discuss, but none are urgent +[03:37:43] <robbat2> for the record, in the previous financial year period, we retained a CPA, Corporate Capital Inc +[03:37:51] <robbat2> they have power of attoney for us with the IRS +[03:38:05] <robbat2> and with that, in the previous fiscal period, contacted the IRS to confirm what was needed +[03:38:17] <robbat2> that's the TL;DR recap for the previous period +[03:38:37] <robbat2> the other discussion is that retained them, starting in THIS fiscal, to do the tax filing preperation +[03:38:44] <robbat2> based on the financial statements I prepared +[03:39:11] <robbat2> at the cost of $1500 per fiscal year, and we have requested 4 years based on the IRS requirements +[03:39:40] <robbat2> i sent them the statements this week, after some delay in figuring out legal requirements of the PII in the paypal data +[03:39:58] <robbat2> the CPA believes they are covered by their professional association regarding the privacy of that data +[03:40:21] <robbat2> i don't entirely agree it sufficently covers GDPR requirement as-is, but i don't want to hold up the process longer +[03:40:44] <robbat2> if somebody else wants to shepard that PII, then please prepare an NDA or something for the CPA to sign +[03:40:54] <b-person> I decline the nomination so long as "chair-person" is the title. +[03:41:29] <robbat2> the CPA's statement of ordering of what can be done vs when it can be done +[03:41:52] <robbat2> is that we need to start a new org or pick one, to transfer (some) assets to; we need to leave enough behind to satisfy some constraints +[03:42:02] <robbat2> the constraints are not entirely of our chosing +[03:42:11] <robbat2> and this is where the umbrellas come into play +[03:42:22] <robbat2> 1. we need to leave enough behind for remaining liabilities +[03:42:47] <robbat2> 1.1. both outstanding taxes, penalties, fines as well as regular ongoing expenses +[03:43:14] <robbat2> 2. depending on the nature of the recipient org +[03:43:22] <robbat2> we might not be able to donate it all at once +[03:43:40] <robbat2> e.g. the public support test of 501c3 +[03:43:55] <robbat2> which mostly comes into play if the 501c3 is small/new +[03:44:10] <robbat2> 3. the umbrella can place their own conditions on the donation +[03:44:57] <alicef> i already gived my opinino in the email +[03:45:07] <robbat2> this weekend, I had a chance to have brief phone discussions with some other umbrellas, on and off the record of names +[03:45:17] <alicef> hoping my mail was not garbled +[03:45:25] <b-person> Any interested robbat2 ? +[03:45:28] <robbat2> several of them stated that they would not accept a donation UNTIL we had settled our IRS liabilties +[03:45:28] <antarus> I was curious for (2) if we could just donate everything to a DAF and then dissolve the Foundation; but I assume it would be unclear who would run /own the fund +[03:46:02] <prometheanfire> robbat2: are you able to disclose in detail? +[03:46:11] <alicef> I would like to try to settle the current org by paying backward +[03:46:41] <robbat2> prometheanfire: i won't cover the names in the public meeting, at their request. but it mirrors comments from the SFLC in the past +[03:46:51] <antarus> but basically in (2) we would be trustees of a trust, not an operating foundation, it might simplify sustaining the assets +[03:46:54] * antarus shrugs +[03:47:01] <prometheanfire> kk +[03:47:19] <robbat2> their concern is not wanting to expose their own umbrellas to any liabilties from the IRS +[03:47:34] <robbat2> e.g. can't just donate everything and then try to take money back out to pay the IRS +[03:47:56] <prometheanfire> so we could finish the irs thing, then donate assets, no new org under our management needed? +[03:48:14] <robbat2> that's the TL;DR if we go that route yes +[03:48:36] <robbat2> they'd take the money, just once they were sure there were no liabilities attached +[03:48:42] <prometheanfire> right +[03:49:19] <robbat2> i know that b-person opposes waiting this long +[03:49:21] <alicef> robbat2: but is safe doing so ? +[03:49:39] <robbat2> if we wrap up the existing liabilities this fiscal, then yes +[03:50:00] <alicef> ok what we need ? +[03:50:10] <antarus> part of dissolution is paperwork from NM and the IRS that states we have no liabilities and our papers are in order +[03:50:10] <robbat2> i'd hope the CPA has them done from what I sent not later than the end of september +[03:50:31] <prometheanfire> ya, I hope that it doesn't take as long now that we are moving +[03:50:32] <alicef> we can ping them for check the status ? +[03:50:35] <robbat2> *has the preperations done +[03:50:39] <antarus> I presume (having not spoken to the umbrellas) that this paperwork would be sufficient for umbrellas +[03:50:45] <robbat2> alicef: i sent them statements yesterday, i'll ask next week +[03:50:59] <alicef> antarus: it depends from umbrellas +[03:51:14] <alicef> antarus: all umbrellas are much differents +[03:51:16] <antarus> I have to go in 6 minutes +[03:52:05] <prometheanfire> robbat2: thanks for your work +[03:52:19] <robbat2> this covers the CPA / IRS / Umbrella parts that I've worked on +[03:52:24] <antarus> robbat2: this stuff generally coincides with my expectations for order of operations +[03:52:26] <robbat2> I know I promised b-man to do more into the wiki +[03:52:33] <robbat2> but I haven't made it to that +[03:52:36] <antarus> I'm not particularly concerned about the PII parts +[03:52:42] <antarus> I accept the risk +[03:52:53] <alicef> I will try to write some umbrella differences documentation +[03:53:11] <alicef> if we don't have yet +[03:53:12] <antarus> robbat2: thanks for the writeup and summary +[03:53:45] <antarus> alicef: I think on the umbrella side, besides the legal bits, we also need to work on how the umbrella interacts with the community +[03:53:50] <antarus> as the board and foundation will be dissolved +[03:54:11] <antarus> so we will need buy-in from the new council to take up the mantle, or appoint another liason +[03:54:17] <alicef> yes so we need a list indicating differences from each umbrella +[03:54:34] <alicef> for having a informed decision in case we want to follow such way +[03:55:07] <b-person> The umbrellas will likely require membership to steer such orgs. +[03:55:19] <alicef> or we will never get it done +[03:55:21] <b-person> E.g. SFC. +[03:55:21] <alicef> sure +[03:55:25] <alicef> prometheanfire: sure +[03:55:28] <prometheanfire> :D +[03:55:36] <alicef> most are membership by vote +[03:56:05] <alicef> plus some minimal requirements +[03:56:19] <b-person> So, we throw ourselves into a larger pool, appoint a liasion, and wind up where we started :) +[03:56:38] <alicef> just winding up is not a informed decision +[03:57:12] <antarus> any other items in the meeting? +[03:57:22] <antarus> the bugs, as noted, I will defer to gentoo-nfp mailing list +[03:57:28] <b-person> SFC, SPI, etc force their will on us and we accept :) +[03:57:42] <alicef> if we can vote for Bug 692994 +[03:57:44] <willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/692994 "amend bylaw to gender neutral version"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; alicef:trustees +[03:57:48] <robbat2> i'd welcome the management of the SFC: they have real accountant now +[03:58:06] <robbat2> accountant&bookkeeper +[03:58:17] <b-person> robbat2: or we just retain one :-X +[03:58:18] <prometheanfire> robbat2: :D +[03:58:26] <antarus> alicef: attach a patch and we can vote via email +[03:58:40] * antarus isn't going to vote on such a vague proposal +[03:59:10] <b-person> alicef: no one will amend bylaws given the appetite for dissolution. Take it up with SFC, SPI, etc. +[03:59:12] <alicef> i'd welcome the management of whichever org is best for Gentoo +[03:59:31] <antarus> prometheanfire: can you post the logs and minutes? +[03:59:44] <alicef> I have the motions +[03:59:44] <antarus> next meeting date is... +[03:59:53] <prometheanfire> ya, I have logs +[04:00:21] <prometheanfire> minutes will come tomrrow +[04:00:29] <robbat2> my calendar is a mess for september, I have to move house +[04:00:45] <robbat2> i'll try and make whatever it is, but i'm not promising anything +[04:00:47] <antarus> Tuesday Sept 29? +[04:00:54] <antarus> same time as previous? +[04:01:01] <b-person> I'll try and make it. +[04:01:08] <robbat2> Sept 29th isn't a tuesday +[04:01:17] <antarus> sorry the 24th +[04:01:19] <prometheanfire> sunday sept 29? +[04:01:19] <antarus> was looking at October ;) +[04:01:22] <prometheanfire> ok +[04:01:32] <alicef> https://bin.alicef.me/?41b7961561f9b26a#spe8hOSY97RLIECClqjO8+FV8JuPOvtrH8zD1rnfKtg= +[04:01:36] <alicef> motions +[04:02:00] <antarus> check them into git please +[04:02:04] <alicef> I thik there is not so much this time around +[04:02:06] <prometheanfire> alicef: thanks +[04:02:13] <b-person> alicef: I declined that election following. +[04:02:25] <prometheanfire> alicef: I'll commit the logs you commit the motions? +[04:02:26] *** b-person is now known as b-man +[04:02:37] <alicef> prometheanfire: sure +[04:02:45] <robbat2> ok, formally, open-floor in the meantime? +[04:02:56] *** antarus changes topic to 'Gentoo Foundation: 2019/09/24 02:00 UTC' +[04:02:56] <alicef> b-person: +[04:02:58] <robbat2> veremitz: speak quick, we have places to be / people to see +[04:02:58] <b-man> I will not be chair-person. +[04:02:59] <alicef> which election? +[04:03:14] <alicef> ahahah +[04:03:22] <alicef> sorry :) +[04:03:25] <robbat2> b-man: you'll be chairman but not chair-person? +[04:03:30] <alicef> chairb-person +[04:03:36] <b-man> robbat2: yup +[04:03:40] <robbat2> ;-) +[04:04:17] * antarus grabs the gavel +[04:04:26] <b-man> Silliness. Don't need to rename things to respect others. +[04:04:28] <antarus> once +[04:04:34] <prometheanfire> I'll wait til official meeting end before pulling logs +[04:04:45] <robbat2> i have to go and get kids to bed +[04:04:49] <robbat2> way past their bedtime now +[04:04:51] <antarus> twice +[04:05:00] * veremitz officially AFK +[04:05:00] <antarus> thrice +[04:05:00] <prometheanfire> robbat2: nn +[04:05:03] <antarus> meeting adjourned diff --git a/2019/20190924.log.txt b/2019/20190924.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..ea93f3b --- /dev/null +++ b/2019/20190924.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,444 @@ +[02:03:10] <robbat2> meeting time is now +[02:03:33] <robbat2> antarus, alicef, prometheanfire, b-man: ping +[02:03:42] <robbat2> roll call +[02:04:03] <prometheanfire> o/ +[02:06:41] * robbat2 listens the frogs and insects outside +[02:07:49] <robbat2> sigh, so no quorum for the meeting again +[02:10:06] <prometheanfire> :( +[02:11:27] <robbat2> this meeting is hereby abandonded +[02:11:49] * robbat2 throws the copy of robert's rules back on the bookshelf +[02:13:30] <robbat2> (i jest; but I do actual own a 1943 printing & edition of it) +[02:13:57] * antarus waves his hands about +[02:14:03] <antarus> sorry a bit late +[02:14:12] <antarus> you and your print books +[02:14:48] <robbat2> prometheanfire: are you still here +[02:14:50] <prometheanfire> yep +[02:15:03] <robbat2> really, all my books right now are packed in boxes still +[02:15:10] <robbat2> i have barren bookshelves +[02:15:25] * prometheanfire found where lightning stuck his tree +[02:15:39] * antarus is finally starting to acrrue possessions again +[02:15:40] <robbat2> b-man, alicef: if you're here, good. if not, we're doing this without you +[02:15:57] <robbat2> antarus: can you please update me on the CPA NDA front? +[02:16:07] <antarus> I definitely forgot this meeting was now, but by happy accident I checked in +[02:16:29] <antarus> I sent them an NDA to sign this morning after they ignored the RocketLawyer version +[02:16:34] <antarus> so I expect to have a signed NDA by end of week +[02:16:52] <robbat2> and it covers just the PII, correct? +[02:17:14] <antarus> Its a pretty generic NDA covering materials shared that are necessary for the services we purchased +[02:17:47] <robbat2> does it call out PII specifically? +[02:19:54] <antarus> sorry was skimming it +[02:19:56] <antarus> it does not +[02:20:50] <robbat2> that was my request, but i'll take it, good enough if they sign it +[02:21:43] <robbat2> we're covered under business need for any PII in material sent to accountant anyway +[02:21:51] <antarus> "y, Confidential Information shall include any information +[02:21:51] <antarus> provided by the Owner concerning the business, technology and information of the Owner and any +[02:21:52] <robbat2> i think one of the prior GDPR removal requestors had donated to us +[02:21:54] <antarus> third party with which the Owner deals, including, without limitation, business records and plans, +[02:21:57] <antarus> trade secrets, technical data, product ideas, contracts, financial information, pricing structure, +[02:22:00] <antarus> discounts, computer programs and listings, source code and/or object code, copyrights and +[02:22:03] <antarus> intellectual property, inventions, sales leads, strategic alliances, partners, and customer and client +[02:22:06] <antarus> lists. The nature of the information and the manner of disclosure are such that a reasonable person +[02:22:09] <antarus> would understand it to be confidential." +[02:22:21] <robbat2> yeah, that's kitchen sink enough +[02:22:28] <antarus> its pretty broad yeah +[02:23:05] <robbat2> ok, so hopefully they sign it, without any issues +[02:23:13] <robbat2> we pass on the paypal and bank statements +[02:23:25] <robbat2> that gets us the present filings, plus the answer to b-man's question +[02:23:28] <prometheanfire> it'd be good to get this rolling +[02:23:34] <robbat2> about how much for them to do later bookkeeping services for us +[02:24:36] <antarus> ack, I'd like to have the finances done by Oct 31 +[02:24:45] <antarus> assuming we can swing the necessarily information to enable that +[02:25:17] <robbat2> that seems reasonable to me +[02:26:02] <robbat2> on the finances front, I updated the FY2019 statement to cover the remaining bank statements that weren't importing correctly before +[02:26:05] <robbat2> that covers the GSOC income +[02:26:30] <b-man> Well, damn. I am late +[02:26:47] <antarus> great, glad we found that missing income +[02:26:52] <robbat2> the diff is easy to see: https://wiki.gentoo.org/index.php?title=Foundation%3AGentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2019&type=revision&diff=826786&oldid=824500 +[02:27:01] <robbat2> the one-cent offsets are bugging me +[02:27:06] <robbat2> I think they came from the boost upgrade +[02:27:09] <b-man> robbat2: office spacing it? +[02:27:41] <antarus> recompile with -OC[3~[4~-ffast-math? :) +[02:27:44] <antarus> bah +[02:27:46] <antarus> thanks terminal +[02:28:11] <robbat2> it doesn't help that I upgraded my desktop since then +[02:28:47] <robbat2> but $0.01 is closer than many businesses I've seen ;-) +[02:28:50] <antarus> one cent isn't material +[02:28:52] <antarus> move on ;) +[02:29:10] <robbat2> ok, so we need to vote to approve those financials +[02:29:16] <robbat2> that was deferred from the last meeting +[02:29:36] <antarus> (in a cash business I worked on we were happy to be within 0.5% inventory sold) +[02:29:48] <b-man> antarus: $0.01 is everything if you office space it :) +[02:30:29] <robbat2> make it $0.001 and be like richard pryor ;-) +[02:30:34] <b-man> boom +[02:30:42] <b-man> anyway, on to the business +[02:30:52] <robbat2> motion: approve FY2019 financials +[02:30:54] <antarus> please vote to approve: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2019 aye or nay +[02:30:58] <robbat2> aye +[02:31:01] <b-man> I am sure Shentino or veremitz are watching and ready to pounce on us for not being professional +[02:31:24] <prometheanfire> aye +[02:32:33] <antarus> b-man: ? +[02:32:35] <b-man> robbat2: still not a fan of the presentation +[02:32:42] <b-man> the whole right block is just weird +[02:33:03] <robbat2> the retained earnings part? +[02:33:20] <robbat2> that's actual accounting layouts +[02:33:25] <robbat2> i don't _like_ it either +[02:33:26] <b-man> Yea +[02:34:08] <b-man> otehr than presentation +[02:34:11] * b-man votes aye +[02:34:14] <antarus> aye +[02:34:42] <antarus> the financials are accepted +[02:34:48] <antarus> I also wrote a presidents letter that I sent to -nfp +[02:34:55] <robbat2> we dealt with the president's letter by email voting +[02:35:09] <b-man> late but OK +[02:35:17] <b-man> like I am late to this meeting +[02:35:29] <robbat2> the only remaining AGM-related item is filing with New Mexico, which is the responsibility of the secretary +[02:36:06] <antarus> I don't actually remember email voting on it +[02:36:11] <antarus> but I also don't particularly care +[02:36:19] <b-man> ^ that +[02:36:21] <prometheanfire> ah, guess I should do that then +[02:36:38] <antarus> prometheanfire: I did it last year, let me know if you need help or pointers +[02:36:41] <b-man> Do we need to vote on his letter? +[02:36:48] <antarus> its pretty trivial though, iirc +[02:36:49] <b-man> seems like something a President would just issue and not need a vote on +[02:37:00] <b-man> Of course, he would pass it across teh board for validation (which he did) +[02:37:15] <robbat2> the voting is more to show that we as the trustees approve it +[02:37:20] <prometheanfire> adding it to todo for tomorrow +[02:37:41] <robbat2> it can be a symbolic dissent about the presidents statement in that wy +[02:37:43] <robbat2> *way +[02:37:53] <b-man> robbat2: Not sure we have any by-laws to support a vote is needed. Alec did pass it to us before distributing to public. Should be his write as President to write the electorate +[02:38:12] <b-man> dissent == us individually or collectively dissenting publicy. +[02:38:18] <antarus> thats why the letter is filled with indisputable facts! +[02:38:21] <b-man> s/write/right +[02:38:22] * Shentino saw his name get pinged +[02:38:46] <b-man> Anyway, Alec issued the President's letter. +[02:38:53] <Shentino> relax b-man I'm not going to pounce on anyone. +[02:38:55] <b-man> nothing stopping such and no vote needed +[02:39:21] <robbat2> it's more conceptual, for larger boards that are more opposed to each other +[02:39:25] <robbat2> not our board in specific +[02:39:38] <b-man> robbat2: we can debate that later +[02:39:45] <robbat2> this is now the 3rd board i'm on +[02:39:51] <Shentino> I mean you guys are doing the best you can. With that in mind, and in light of what's been messed up in the past I think you lot are doing a pretty good job, circumstances considered. +[02:39:53] <antarus> this board is also pretty small +[02:40:09] <robbat2> moving on for further tracker items +[02:40:10] <antarus> most are bigger (10+ humans) and so its common to have factions and whatnot +[02:40:33] <b-man> damned humancs +[02:40:35] <robbat2> 990 reports hopefully from the CPA, for the first time ever! +[02:40:35] <b-man> damned humans +[02:41:03] <Shentino> I'd still offer to help but if you guys can retain an actual professional I'd gladly step aside. +[02:41:21] <antarus> 990 reports? +[02:41:25] <robbat2> the only other tracker item is for somebody to email everybody on the consultants list +[02:41:28] <robbat2> 990s = IRS filings +[02:41:29] <b-man> antarus: form 990 for IRS +[02:41:47] <robbat2> everybody else was late, i'm running this meeting ;-0 +[02:42:05] <robbat2> priority = desirable, not required +[02:42:09] <robbat2> so time for bugs +[02:42:25] <robbat2> easy ones first, bug 693950 +[02:42:27] <willikins> robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/693950 "Purchase disk sleds/caddies for catbus (oracle t5-2)"; Gentoo Foundation, Infra Support; CONF; bkohler:trustees +[02:42:48] <robbat2> i need to poke iamben to be more specific, but I think the funding request is unlikely to exceed $200 +[02:43:05] <b-man> Yea, we knew this was a possibility. +[02:43:16] <antarus> probably just move to approve, its immaterial +[02:43:28] <b-man> I figured the initial request from robbat2 to raise the minimum purchase amount would suffice. If not, let's do it. +[02:43:37] * b-man votes aye to approve purchase of new sleds/caddies +[02:43:48] <robbat2> aye as treasurer for $200USD cap +[02:43:57] <antarus> aye +[02:44:00] * prometheanfire votes aye for 200 +[02:44:05] <robbat2> passed +[02:44:25] <b-man> long live catbus! +[02:44:30] <robbat2> bug 694010 +[02:44:32] <willikins> robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/694010 "some Discord server should be mentioned in the Handbook"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; UNCO; theevilskely:trustees +[02:44:36] <b-man> no +[02:44:38] <b-man> please god no +[02:44:48] <robbat2> this proposal worries me +[02:44:51] <prometheanfire> I think I commented on that already +[02:45:26] <b-man> This is forums, discord, and whatever other crap all over again +[02:45:27] <robbat2> this is not the first query we've gotten about Discord's status +[02:45:42] <antarus> to be ..fairer... +[02:45:47] <prometheanfire> I've more or less voted already within that bug +[02:45:50] <antarus> its not that dissimilar frmo #gentoo +[02:45:54] <robbat2> and I think we need to ask PR to stem the tide in a better way +[02:46:00] <antarus> except #gentoo-ops contains devs and users +[02:46:12] <b-man> antarus: we (as a distro) control those channels +[02:46:22] <robbat2> specifically, have SOMETHING (wiki page probably), that states there are other non-official Gentoo communications media +[02:46:27] <b-man> and have individual devs who have been (somewhat) vetted managing such +[02:46:33] <robbat2> possibly without specifically listing them +[02:46:41] <antarus> I'm not really up on how discord works technically +[02:47:05] <b-man> antarus: it doesn't.... it is "discord" +[02:47:12] <antarus> I agree that we have group contacts at freenode that are Gentoo affilitated and can take control of #gentoo +[02:47:33] <robbat2> #gentoo is official media, but unmanaged +[02:47:46] <robbat2> Discord is non-official, and probably not specifically called out on that page +[02:47:56] <b-man> It is "discord" (by definition) +[02:48:08] <b-man> Does anyone manage it? :-P +[02:48:21] <robbat2> re "how does it work technically", it was explained as "anarchist slack + voice chat" +[02:48:24] <robbat2> to me +[02:48:36] <b-man> robbat2: and... discord +[02:48:47] <robbat2> yes, it is as labelled ;-) +[02:48:56] <b-man> Not really an area I think we, as a distro, want to venture +[02:48:59] <robbat2> on the specific bug, I vote nay as well +[02:49:18] <robbat2> do we need a motion specifically to ask PR to put in a blanket statement, or can we just do it? +[02:49:20] * b-man nay +[02:49:25] <antarus> I vote nay on the bug +[02:49:37] <antarus> I think its reasonable to consider what controls need to be in place for us to consider it official +[02:49:48] <antarus> but outside of the scope of the bug +[02:49:54] <prometheanfire> I vote nay, though I do think we should specify how we see it +[02:50:01] <robbat2> do you volunteer to write such a list for future usage/ +[02:50:04] <b-man> robbat2: I don't think we need PR's approval, but it would be wise to explain why. +[02:50:16] <robbat2> antarus: ^^ that question was for you +[02:50:20] <antarus> robbat2: I figured ;) +[02:50:31] <robbat2> it's a good statement +[02:50:34] <antarus> I mean it depends on the rest of the board +[02:50:43] <antarus> once you write down requirements, and then discord meets them +[02:50:44] <robbat2> it fits into the rest of the listing of what official comms channels are +[02:50:50] <antarus> the logical conclusion is that we should include it +[02:51:04] <antarus> so if we really don't want ot include it, its better not to produce a list +[02:51:15] <robbat2> then you're being arbitrary +[02:51:21] <antarus> sure +[02:51:25] <prometheanfire> it's more on if we manage it or not I think +[02:51:32] <antarus> I'm trying to decide if we are being arbitrary here ;) +[02:51:38] <b-man> Management is important as I see it +[02:51:47] <prometheanfire> that's always been a req in my mind +[02:51:56] <robbat2> codify what you mean by 'manage' into the list if that matters to you +[02:52:00] <b-man> Infra (as a project) manages IRC channels (unless I missed something) +[02:52:07] <robbat2> Infra does not +[02:52:08] <antarus> infra doesn't manage irc +[02:52:11] <antarus> comrel does +[02:52:18] <antarus> (essentially) +[02:52:21] <prometheanfire> manged by comrel is what I'm taking about +[02:52:30] <b-man> we can gain access though no? but ultimately, a project of Gentoo manages it +[02:52:46] <antarus> Freenode has specific contacts that represent "Gentoo" +[02:52:56] <b-man> These disparate social media initiatives are worrisome +[02:52:58] <antarus> and they basically have full authority on all #gentoo- prefixed channels +[02:53:15] <robbat2> ok, so action-item: antarus & b-man to write a requirements to be "official" gentoo communications channels +[02:53:35] <antarus> https://freenode.net/groupreg talks about the freenode policy +[02:54:00] <b-man> antarus: sure, but does a Gentoo project represent those contacts? +[02:54:04] <robbat2> remember that the gentoo 'project' policy is that any dev could start a project +[02:54:20] <robbat2> how does 'official' intersect with 'project' +[02:54:32] <antarus> b-man: the only contact i know of currently is jmbsvicetto +[02:54:33] <b-man> well a project should be governed by council +[02:54:34] <antarus> there might b eothers +[02:54:43] <robbat2> there are other group contact +[02:54:49] <robbat2> *contacts, for IRC +[02:54:52] <b-man> and the trademarks should be governing by trustees +[02:54:52] * antarus doesn't have a list handy +[02:55:00] <b-man> governed* +[02:55:09] <robbat2> we're heading off in the weeds here +[02:55:12] <antarus> indeed ;) +[02:55:15] <antarus> other bugs? +[02:55:16] <robbat2> is that action item clear enough? +[02:55:19] <b-man> haha +[02:55:36] <antarus> yeah +[02:55:37] <b-man> Are we going to ignore the decentralized aspect of the distro? +[02:55:42] <robbat2> ok, next one +[02:55:45] <robbat2> locked bug 695360 +[02:56:10] <b-man> council owns all the things! +[02:56:13] <b-man> no the trustees do! +[02:56:16] <b-man> no, no ones does! +[02:56:19] <robbat2> there's a concern that metadata.xml in forked distros, who copy the file 1:1 mis-represent who maintains a given package +[02:56:39] <robbat2> i'm not outing the distros or author at their request +[02:56:54] <antarus> I talked to mgorny about this, I think I mostly agree with neddy +[02:57:22] <robbat2> can you summarize that for the logs? +[02:57:24] <antarus> I noted that Ubuntu is downstream of debian and rewrites metadata for their packages +[02:57:35] <antarus> (to be ubuntu-devel instead of debian maintainers) +[02:57:58] <antarus> It was unclear what kind of legal case we had (trade dress...somehow?) +[02:58:01] <robbat2> is that true of all debian derivitives? +[02:58:01] <prometheanfire> and we are talking about the metadata, not file headers (which include copyright) +[02:58:10] <robbat2> specifically metadata +[02:58:20] <b-man> Is Funtoo including metadata from the Gentoo contributions though? +[02:58:31] <b-man> e.g. "ingesting" teh contributions and producing metadata from another project? +[02:58:47] <robbat2> i haven't verified that statement, but I trust the author so far +[02:58:59] <antarus> well I want to separate the problem statements I think +[02:59:02] <b-man> robbat2: which author? +[02:59:43] <antarus> the problem statement raised on the bug is a technical statement +[02:59:44] <b-man> the author of the bug clearly shows that the metadata has diverged between the distros +[02:59:51] <antarus> it breaks repology +[03:00:00] <b-man> hence the tooling is not working and alludes to the "technical problem" +[03:00:17] <b-man> but this has other implications +[03:00:34] <prometheanfire> though there was a workaround to search for stuff in repology iirc +[03:00:57] <b-man> prometheanfire: work arounds should be taken lightly... "users" see this stuff +[03:01:06] <robbat2> ok, so there's a claim & proof that the metadata has diverged +[03:01:10] <antarus> prometheanfire: I think there was a problem with the forked distro being far behind +[03:01:14] <robbat2> has it actually produced an impact? +[03:01:22] <robbat2> e.g. bugs filed to the wrong place +[03:01:25] <prometheanfire> b-man: true +[03:01:42] <b-man> robbat2: the impact is seen by the bug reporter, but has not been substantiated +[03:01:45] <antarus> robbat2: so is your question that bugs in funtoo packages should be filed at funtoo? +[03:02:01] <antarus> robbat2: or is your question that bugs in funtoo packages should be filed at gentoo, but the metadata is old +[03:02:04] <b-man> robbat2: I think funtoo users would file the bugs against Gentoo... +[03:02:04] <antarus> so people misfile bugs? +[03:02:09] <b-man> as the packages are ingested +[03:02:15] <b-man> errr +[03:02:19] <b-man> antarus: ^ +[03:03:26] <robbat2> ok, I see two cases: +[03:03:40] <antarus> they want bugs reported to them according to their website +[03:03:45] <robbat2> 1. the package is modified in funtoo; file the bug to funtoo. not gentoo's problem unless you can reproduce the bug there +[03:03:46] <antarus> and they say they will file bugs to us +[03:04:11] <robbat2> 2. the package is unmodified; assuming it's trivially reproducible in Gentoo, we should probably get the bug +[03:04:18] <antarus> this is covered in https://www.funtoo.org/Reporting_Bugs +[03:04:22] <b-man> Right, but if the metadata is wrong then they come directly to us +[03:04:24] <robbat2> should Funtoo be responsible for triaging the bug in case #2? +[03:04:32] <[Arfrever]> Most reporters of bugs do not have editbugs permission, and bug wranglers assign bugs, by reading up-to-date metadata.xml. +[03:04:46] <prometheanfire> is there a reason we can't just ask them to change the metadata? +[03:04:56] <prometheanfire> have we tried talking to them first? +[03:05:02] <antarus> prometheanfire: mostly its a bunch of work +[03:05:09] <b-man> prometheanfire: I think that is ultimately the technic solution yne ug reporter is asking for :) +[03:05:10] <antarus> and if there is not a real impact to us, its busywork +[03:05:16] <robbat2> ok, given that page, why are Funtoo users reporting to Gentoo first at all? +[03:05:20] <prometheanfire> b-man: wat +[03:05:45] <b-man> prometheanfire: That is ultimately what the bug reporter is asking for. +[03:06:04] <robbat2> ok, so a request for all offshot distros, that consume our metadata.xml +[03:06:06] <b-man> Funtoo to quit ingesting our metadata +[03:06:15] <robbat2> to update it to point to their local maintainers first +[03:06:21] <prometheanfire> ok, is this a technical issue or a legal/monetary one? +[03:06:29] <prometheanfire> it sounds like a technical issue mostly +[03:06:38] <antarus> I don't believe there is a legal / monetary issue +[03:06:40] <robbat2> I agree it's technical +[03:06:48] <prometheanfire> so give it to council? +[03:06:53] <robbat2> in so much as metadata.xml is technical +[03:06:59] <prometheanfire> right +[03:07:09] <robbat2> the legal part comes into how we as the distro interact with other distros +[03:07:22] <robbat2> put up a polite request for child distros to update metadata.xml if possible +[03:07:35] <robbat2> specifically that the maintainers should point to their own people +[03:07:40] <b-man> It is a legal issue. +[03:07:50] <robbat2> or a dedicated 'upstream' project in the child distro's bug tracker +[03:07:51] <prometheanfire> there's nothing wrong with saying 'do you mind changing who you represent as the contact points for the metadata in the repo? It's confusing users' +[03:07:54] <b-man> And it is a distro issue with a technical solution +[03:08:16] <antarus> i'm not going to speculate on the legal stuff because we are not lawyers +[03:08:29] <prometheanfire> :D +[03:08:29] <antarus> robbat2: I like this idea of just better tagging in the downstream metadata +[03:08:31] <b-man> Never said we were lawyers. +[03:08:48] <antarus> b-man: sure, its more like i want to speculate wildly on the case merits but won't do so ;) +[03:08:50] <robbat2> and really, the most we can do is a polite request +[03:09:02] <robbat2> there's nothing we can do to force another distro to change it +[03:09:11] <robbat2> not without violating open source licenses +[03:09:38] <prometheanfire> ack +[03:09:42] <b-man> We wouldn't violate open source licenses +[03:09:43] <b-man> Anyway +[03:09:51] <b-man> Send a letter to them b +[03:10:07] <b-man> Email or letter. Whichever century. +[03:10:20] <robbat2> i'll take the action item to help improve guidelines for downstream distros +[03:10:37] <[Arfrever]> metadata.xml could be automatically re-written to drop <maintainer> tags. +[03:11:00] <prometheanfire> robbat2: that sounds right +[03:11:04] <b-man> [Arfrever]: don't worry too much about the technical means. +[03:11:04] <antarus> [Arfrever]: yeah i think the trick is need to rewrite all teh gentoo maintainers as 'upstream' and hten rewrite the real maintainer tags to be the downstream people +[03:11:40] <robbat2> moving on here +[03:11:46] <robbat2> so we can keep this to 90 mins at least +[03:11:48] <b-man> This is a matter of us asking "non-legally" to stop using our shit as downstream contacts. +[03:11:54] <robbat2> there were some bylaw change requests +[03:12:00] <robbat2> like gender-neutral language +[03:12:09] <robbat2> that's waiting for a draft submission on the change +[03:12:13] <prometheanfire> we requested a diff iirc? +[03:12:28] <antarus> still waiting for that I believe +[03:12:29] <robbat2> reformatting per bug 676314, I think was waiting on me +[03:12:31] <willikins> robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/676314 "Bylaw reformat proposal https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/c58501db83a9a459c407a156a8c01850"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; antarus:trustees +[03:12:40] <robbat2> the rest of those seem blocked +[03:12:46] <robbat2> non-bylaw related +[03:12:51] <robbat2> was the change of address stuff from last year +[03:13:05] <robbat2> antarus, as president, you should probably followup on the remaining bank ones +[03:13:06] <b-man> Are we going to even bother updating by-laws at this point? +[03:13:30] <antarus> bank change of address you mean? +[03:13:36] <antarus> I'll put that on my plans for Oct +[03:13:36] <robbat2> yes +[03:13:38] <prometheanfire> there was a new user request +[03:13:56] <b-man> We will adopt umbrella by-laws shortly. +[03:14:07] <robbat2> prometheanfire: which bug? +[03:14:14] <b-man> Then the gender neutral community can go petition them :) +[03:14:20] <prometheanfire> no bug, came into trustees@ +[03:14:39] <prometheanfire> I don't think the name info is private +[03:14:45] <robbat2> can you summarize for the logs? +[03:14:52] <robbat2> the GDPR removal request, or another? +[03:15:06] <prometheanfire> no, this is a new foundation member +[03:15:16] <antarus> oh right +[03:15:25] <antarus> steils@gentoo.org requested membership +[03:15:31] <robbat2> found it +[03:15:38] <robbat2> motion: approve steils@gentoo.org membership +[03:15:39] <robbat2> aye +[03:15:43] <antarus> aye +[03:15:44] <prometheanfire> aye +[03:15:51] <b-man> nay +[03:15:55] <b-man> It is not important. +[03:15:56] <robbat2> passed anyway ;-P +[03:16:14] <robbat2> that reminds me, there's a related item now that the election finished +[03:16:23] <robbat2> the electoral roll needs pruning +[03:16:27] <b-man> Foundation membership has no significance. +[03:17:03] <antarus> prometheanfire: can you handle the pruning? +[03:17:21] <robbat2> I think this covers the bugs that I see as important for the meeting +[03:17:26] <robbat2> anybody have other topics or bugs? +[03:17:42] <robbat2> as new trustee business or other +[03:17:49] <prometheanfire> antarus: uh, it might be best to have whoever last touched it look at it +[03:17:51] <robbat2> if not, we can move on to open floor +[03:17:59] <robbat2> you mean me ;-) +[03:18:25] <b-man> It's not the best solution to pruning. +[03:18:27] <antarus> I mean prometheanfire but if you want to do it ;) +[03:18:37] <antarus> did we want to discuss https://bugs.gentoo.org/690198 ? +[03:18:43] <prometheanfire> whoever, I am not familiar with the scripts is all +[03:18:55] <antarus> or we can defer, either one is fine w/me +[03:19:27] <robbat2> re bug 690198: is developer well-defined anywhere? +[03:19:29] <willikins> robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/690198 "Formally recognize the council in the foundation bylaws, plus other de-facto terms"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees +[03:19:33] <robbat2> council is defined by GLEP at least +[03:19:41] <robbat2> i have a hard kid IRQ +[03:19:42] <robbat2> bbiab +[03:19:49] <b-man> Recognizing the council, while great, is meaningless given the endstate desired by the current council +[03:20:01] <robbat2> antarus: you have the chair/mace/septer/wand-of-control-whatever +[03:20:05] <b-man> Along with by-laws updates. +[03:20:43] <antarus> excellent +[03:20:51] <antarus> we will defer +[03:20:55] <antarus> any open floor business? +[03:21:18] <prometheanfire> ok, update voter roles, update nm filing +[03:21:18] <b-man> Impeach the current council to preserve the Gentoo foundation! +[03:21:31] <b-man> And the trustees! +[03:22:59] <antarus> ... +[03:23:15] <prometheanfire> are we done? +[03:23:18] <Shentino> yeah about that +[03:23:20] <antarus> meeting adjourned then +[03:23:24] <prometheanfire> I just want to make sure I have my action items down +[03:23:24] <Shentino> hold on +[03:23:32] <b-man> Will call for an electorate vote of majority tomorrow! +[03:23:34] <antarus> prometheanfire: just those two I think +[03:23:36] <antarus> Shentino: yes? +[03:24:04] <Shentino> I brought up the council in that bug (and it's my bug) because it seemed some standing policy in the bylaws depended on things like "developers' and "council" which are, from the bylaws, undefined legally +[03:24:18] <Shentino> though I have to agree with b-man +[03:24:33] <Shentino> and speaking of gleps, "GLEP" itself is also not defined in the bylaws or charter +[03:24:43] <Shentino> are we opening ourselves up to legal vagueness? +[03:25:17] <b-man> Shentino: that is very much what we are. Vague. +[03:25:25] <Shentino> I mean it's great if the council is defined by glep, but what gives the glep legal force with respect to the foundation and possibly of mor epractical importance the foundation owned assets that support the distro +[03:25:28] <Shentino> owned/managed +[03:25:54] <b-man> Infra-less core says antarus ! +[03:26:10] <antarus> GLEPS don't need legal force... +[03:26:21] <b-man> Sure they do. +[03:26:29] <Shentino> it appears to me to be the legal version of an unresolved dependency +[03:26:30] <b-man> You are governing people. +[03:26:46] <b-man> People need law and order. +[03:26:46] <Shentino> bylaws depending on terms that aren't defined therein +[03:26:53] <robbat2> people are unresolvable dependencies +[03:27:04] * antarus can't tell if he is being trolled or what here +[03:27:10] <Shentino> I'm not trolling you antarus +[03:27:13] <b-man> We even govern open source by governance. +[03:27:32] <Shentino> I may lack some degree of common sense but my concerns, however misguided they may be, are genuine +[03:27:47] <antarus> Shentino: I'm not particularly worried about it +[03:28:00] <b-man> You want to negate that copy right with a copy left? +[03:28:05] <robbat2> I agree with the concerns, but assert they are nowhere near unique to Gentoo +[03:28:21] <Shentino> true robby but that doesn't necessarily make said concerns any less valid +[03:28:26] <Shentino> or applicable to us AS gentoo +[03:28:29] <b-man> robbat2: which is why many have decided to govern by a non-profit +[03:28:45] <robbat2> i've read so much real law that has unresolved dependencies in the same way +[03:28:58] <b-man> robbat2: it is enforceable though +[03:29:21] <b-man> Let's call the meeting end and then continue debate? +[03:29:24] <Shentino> defacto we recognize that developership is defined and awarded by recruiters, revoked by undertakers/council +[03:29:28] * Shentino nods at b-amn +[03:29:48] <robbat2> Shentino: i'm going to give you some action items then +[03:29:56] <robbat2> please update YOUR bug +[03:29:59] <robbat2> with the following +[03:30:01] <Shentino> ok, what updates do you want? +[03:30:19] <robbat2> 1. existing GLEP references, if any, on council definition, developer definition +[03:30:28] <robbat2> 2. existing OTHER references, on definitions of same +[03:30:37] <robbat2> Gentoo-specifically ideally +[03:30:38] <b-man> GLEPs dont matter +[03:31:07] <Shentino> I only said it was "MY" bug because I wrote it, not because it belongs to me in a property sense. I don't know why you emphasised "YOUR" the way you did +[03:31:10] <b-man> It is an adhoc group of people with an adhoc base of infra doing whatever they want. +[03:31:22] <Shentino> and that "whatever they want" is what almost got np-hardass nailed +[03:31:23] <robbat2> they may not matter as gleps, but they do serve as existing definition text +[03:31:29] <b-man> No o +[03:31:46] <antarus> Shentino: other busines besides that bug? +[03:32:01] <Shentino> not that I can think of. +[03:32:04] <Shentino> thanks +[03:32:04] <antarus> ok +[03:32:11] <robbat2> Shentino: re 'YOUR'; I don't want it discussed as noise in the channel after this +[03:32:12] * antarus gavels the meeting closed then diff --git a/2019/20191216.log.txt b/2019/20191216.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..834b843 --- /dev/null +++ b/2019/20191216.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,158 @@ +[03:01:02] <antarus> antarus, b-man robbat2 prometheanfire alicef ping +[03:01:10] * b-man here +[03:01:12] <antarus> Please roll-call with aye +[03:01:16] <prometheanfire> o/ +[03:01:17] <b-man> Aye +[03:01:20] <prometheanfire> aye +[03:01:24] <antarus> aye +[03:01:31] <alicef> o/ +[03:01:38] <alicef> aye +[03:02:34] <antarus> we have quorum +[03:02:40] <antarus> agenda is here: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2019/12 +[03:02:49] <antarus> who is logging? +[03:03:02] <prometheanfire> I'll log +[03:03:06] <antarus> thanks +[03:03:46] <antarus> old business +[03:04:26] <antarus> Taxex update: I don't see robin here +[03:04:59] <antarus> we have filed for 4 years and we have the bill for those, but are still working out how to pay online vs check +[03:05:02] <antarus> taxes* +[03:05:55] <antarus> We last heard from teh accountant on 12/9, with updated instructions +[03:06:17] <antarus> any questions about taxes? +[03:07:39] <antarus> ok moving on +[03:08:02] <antarus> The accountant had also discussed with us making a new org, vs keeping the existing org +[03:08:37] <antarus> I believe this was with the goal of creation a tax-exempt non-profit, as there was some thought that making the existing organization tax-exempt could be difficult given its age +[03:08:44] <antarus> creating* +[03:08:51] <b-man> Yes, that is correct. +[03:09:22] <antarus> if we made a new org, do we have any idea who would be on the board? +[03:09:38] <prometheanfire> or where it'd be formed? +[03:09:44] <antarus> (there is some straightforwar feedback that it is unlikely the entire existing board would join the new organization) +[03:09:50] <b-man> I believe we would keep any board members currently still in office +[03:10:16] <b-man> but I believe that ensuring a CPA is retained is crucial before considering a new org or keeping the existing +[03:10:38] <antarus> are you unhappy with the CPA we have currently? +[03:10:46] <prometheanfire> not necessarilly, they'd remain as board members for the old foundation +[03:11:01] <b-man> antarus: This is not what I mean. +[03:11:31] <b-man> antarus: I believe it is crucial to retain a CPA (this one is fine) to do books. Otherwise, we give it a few years and we are back to where we started regarding finances. +[03:12:07] <b-man> prometheanfire: antarus: I specifically asked this question to the CPA before. Current board members can reside over both as one is dissolved and the other is stood up. +[03:12:12] <antarus> right +[03:12:16] <prometheanfire> b-man: yep +[03:12:19] <antarus> I'm stating that i would not join the new board +[03:12:29] <prometheanfire> ack +[03:12:41] <antarus> part of my concern is that there are not enough humans to keep a board solvent +[03:12:44] <b-man> We just need to ensure the electorate has their representation should we keep a non-profit +[03:13:04] <antarus> I'm looking for some guidance on how we can improve that situation +[03:13:08] <alicef> antarus: some strightforward feedback from who? +[03:13:29] <b-man> antarus: We can lower the board member requirement dependent on state. +[03:13:37] <antarus> alicef: I believe that myself, prometheanfire and robbat2 are not willing to be board members for long term +[03:13:38] <prometheanfire> what is the min required? iirc we are larger than needed +[03:13:46] <antarus> the min in NM is 3 +[03:13:57] <antarus> I'm not sure about other jurisdictions +[03:14:05] <b-man> I also believe that most shy away due to the finance piece. Some are too worried about being held responsible. +[03:14:05] <prometheanfire> ya, I can help out depending on how involved it is, it just, depends +[03:14:22] <prometheanfire> ya, limited liability +[03:14:35] <alicef> antarus: I would like to listen from them their own decision +[03:14:47] <antarus> well robbat2 isn't here, so its hard to say ;) +[03:15:03] <prometheanfire> I'd say I could remain secretary for the time being +[03:15:14] <antarus> from my POV I'm unlikely to vote on a transfer of assets to some new entity without some idea that there will be people to run it +[03:15:21] <antarus> a 2 person board doesn't please me much +[03:15:38] <antarus> (I may also continue to look into the umbrella thing but my level of care is only so much.) +[03:15:39] <b-man> antarus: agreed with transferring. +[03:15:46] <alicef> I'm ok on take up on secretary duties, in case is needed +[03:15:47] <prometheanfire> has anyone reached out to umbrellas now that taxes are being sorted? +[03:15:57] <antarus> I was hoping we would have had them paid by now +[03:16:00] <b-man> My largest concern of a board is by-laws impacting how Gentoo proceeds in the future +[03:16:01] <antarus> and we will still owe penalties +[03:16:10] <prometheanfire> antarus: ya, no one wants our money +[03:16:13] <antarus> I was going to reach out in Jan anyway +[03:16:16] <antarus> haha +[03:16:28] <b-man> s/board/umbrella +[03:17:04] <b-man> Allowing a broader umbrella electorate to determine policies or legalities within Gentoo concerns me. +[03:17:30] <b-man> If anything, we keep the current by-laws and AoI's and let the council run the distro as (I think) we all agree. +[03:17:40] <antarus> haha, I bet its as concerned as the existing Foundation intrudes on gentoo policy ;) +[03:17:53] <alicef> b-man: I agree with b-man suggestion +[03:18:12] <b-man> antarus: Sure, some people could try to be elected and intrude on things such as council territory, but I don't think this is likely. +[03:18:14] <prometheanfire> b-man: they don't want it :P +[03:18:38] <b-man> prometheanfire: Who doesn't want what? +[03:18:43] <alicef> who don't want it ? +[03:18:51] <prometheanfire> council doesn't want to run the foundation +[03:18:59] <b-man> prometheanfire: This is not what I mean. +[03:19:12] <b-man> To me, there is a clear delineation of responsibilities. +[03:19:19] <b-man> We pay bills and ensure any legal pieces are taken care of. +[03:19:21] <b-man> Council runs the distro +[03:19:27] <prometheanfire> right +[03:19:28] <antarus> I think b-man +[03:19:43] <b-man> no need to go tell council how to do their job. +[03:19:44] <antarus> b-man's concern is that we go to an umbrella and the umbrella change sgentoo policy +[03:19:47] <antarus> like making us use github ;p +[03:19:56] <antarus> or changing our logo +[03:20:00] <b-man> antarus: Sure, or accepting a certain license we don't agree with +[03:20:11] <antarus> well the license thing is odd right +[03:20:18] <b-man> but that is my concern... +[03:20:18] <antarus> nominally that is within the current board's remit +[03:20:26] <prometheanfire> we'd have to work out those details before doing it +[03:20:36] <b-man> antarus: yes, and we can work with the electorate and council to ensure we find a good solution +[03:20:47] <antarus> and you think the umbrella will not? +[03:21:02] <b-man> antarus: yes, they would, but we will be competing with other projects. +[03:21:06] <b-man> e.g. Apache etc +[03:21:14] <antarus> I see +[03:21:18] <antarus> Its a risk certainly +[03:21:27] <b-man> So the e.g. SPI board is responsible to many others than just Gentoo +[03:21:37] <b-man> I believe this is why Linux Foundation has concerns with umbrellas +[03:22:05] <b-man> As stated though, we must ensure the finance piece is contracted out +[03:22:06] <alicef> antarus: is a real risk +[03:22:13] <antarus> I *am* a real risk ;) +[03:22:36] <antarus> ok I don't want to spend the entire meeting on this +[03:22:39] <prometheanfire> right now we are just wondering about things that may not exist, I say we move on +[03:22:46] <b-man> yes please +[03:22:47] <antarus> in terms of next steps we need to pay the taxes +[03:22:54] <b-man> Trying to finish Ant Man with the boy :) +[03:23:08] <antarus> we can table future discussions until Jan? +[03:23:14] <antarus> unless we are in a rush to decide? +[03:23:28] <b-man> antarus: There is more to deciding that. So, yes table. +[03:23:37] <b-man> Maybe start a good discussion on -nfp +[03:23:40] <antarus> tabling +[03:24:03] <b-man> and we need to pay the man still +[03:24:12] <b-man> So, we got a few weeks for the holidays to pass +[03:24:27] <antarus> b-man: did you get a response from the USWG chair about our UEFI registration? +[03:24:34] <b-man> antarus: crickers... +[03:24:38] <b-man> crickets* +[03:24:45] <antarus> everyone at intel must be on vacation +[03:24:55] <antarus> doesn't mattst88 work there? :) +[03:25:06] <antarus> maybe we can get him to bump them +[03:25:07] <b-man> I think he still does graphics there +[03:25:35] <b-man> antarus: pinged matt in PM +[03:25:38] <antarus> ok +[03:25:54] <alicef> ok +[03:25:58] <antarus> due to the upcoming .org sale to ethos capital we renewed our domains for the next 10 years +[03:26:08] <alicef> any motion to vote today? +[03:26:13] <antarus> none that i know of +[03:26:27] <antarus> the agenda is mostly empty, I was going to do a brief pass of bugs and then open floor +[03:26:32] <alicef> is only bikeshedding meeting ? +[03:26:37] <alicef> ok +[03:26:39] <antarus> lol +[03:26:57] <b-man> domain is good +[03:26:58] <b-man> push... +[03:27:00] <antarus> (I think most of our meetings are bikesheeding ;p) +[03:27:20] <b-man> Ant-man is learning his skillz +[03:27:34] <alicef> antarus: nice for renewing domains +[03:27:45] <antarus> We have some upcoming expenses in calendar 2020 (switch, caddies, etc.) +[03:27:55] <alicef> gentoo calendar? +[03:28:02] <alicef> we are selling it ? +[03:28:08] <alicef> :) +[03:28:15] <antarus> anything for https://bugs.gentoo.org/695360 ? +[03:28:19] <b-man> alicef: Yes, a Gentoo calendar, you will be Ms. April +[03:28:37] * antarus can be Dr. May +[03:29:14] <antarus> I think for that bug I need to check with mgorny +[03:29:25] <antarus> I was hoping to resolve it with a brief discussion +[03:29:28] <antarus> anything for open floor? +[03:29:37] <prometheanfire> non +[03:29:55] <b-man> I am not sure we could force them to change the metadata +[03:30:07] <b-man> So, likely, need to play nice +[03:30:20] <b-man> as Roy kind of alluded too +[03:30:52] <b-man> nothing for open floor +[03:31:01] <b-man> antarus: bang that gavel! +[03:31:09] <antarus> i mostly want avoid the cost of an actual patent attouney ;) +[03:31:11] <antarus> attourney8 +[03:31:12] <antarus> bah +[03:31:14] <antarus> anyway +[03:31:17] * antarus gavels +[03:31:19] <antarus> meeting adjourned diff --git a/2020/20200822.log.txt b/2020/20200822.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cb01d53 --- /dev/null +++ b/2020/20200822.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,340 @@ +[03:01:08] <robbat2> ok, meeting time! +[03:01:43] <antarus> welcome to the 2020 AGM +[03:02:03] <antarus> roll call: antarus prometheanfire robbat2 ...whats FreedomBear alicef +[03:02:10] <prometheanfire> o/ +[03:02:11] <antarus> sorry I forgot bman's new nick +[03:02:15] * FreedomBear here +[03:02:16] <antarus> its freedombear right? :) +[03:02:18] <antarus> cool +[03:02:23] <robbat2> aye +[03:02:30] <robbat2> quick agenda https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2020/08 +[03:03:13] <antarus> ahh I was throwing one together, you clicked save first, haha +[03:03:25] <robbat2> lol +[03:03:27] <robbat2> alicef: ping +[03:03:32] <antarus> (also aye for me, I'm here) +[03:04:41] <FreedomBear> robbat2: alicef mentioned the other day she couldn't make it tonight due to RL appt. +[03:04:43] <prometheanfire> robbat2: added as bulleted list to sec report +[03:04:48] <prometheanfire> ^ +[03:05:01] <antarus> ok, will gavel with 4 current members +[03:05:42] * antarus gavels +[03:06:07] <antarus> who is logging? +[03:06:18] <prometheanfire> o/ +[03:06:30] <antarus> I dunno what that means +[03:06:34] <antarus> can you use words? :) +[03:06:36] <prometheanfire> that's me raising my hand +[03:06:40] <prometheanfire> do I have to? +[03:06:44] <antarus> oh yes +[03:06:45] <prometheanfire> I'm logging :P +[03:06:48] <antarus> perfect +[03:06:48] <robbat2> yes, you have to use your words +[03:07:09] <antarus> draft financials, you want to share them robin? +[03:07:27] <robbat2> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2020 +[03:07:42] <robbat2> remaining actions on them: +[03:08:00] <robbat2> - finish forex transactions (represent as only USD, not mixed currency) +[03:08:16] <robbat2> - break out recurring donations vs one-time +[03:09:08] <robbat2> - confirm w/ CPA about Nitrokey being expense vs depreciable asset +[03:09:44] <robbat2> executive summary for here +[03:09:57] <robbat2> gross income: $16k +[03:10:08] <robbat2> gross expenses: $36k (need to confirm after forex is updated) +[03:10:26] <robbat2> If the tax-related expenditures are removed, and no other initiatives +[03:10:26] <robbat2> occured, the Foundation would have added $5k USD to reserves for the +[03:10:26] <robbat2> fiscal year. +[03:10:26] <robbat2> FY2021 should hold some more capital purchases to replace hardware that +[03:10:26] <robbat2> has failed recently or is at risk of failure; $2300 USD of hardware will +[03:10:29] <robbat2> have reached the end of it's 5-year depreciation cycle by the end of +[03:10:32] <robbat2> FY2021, with a further $10k of hardware in FY2022. +[03:11:13] <robbat2> Gross Income rough breakdown: +[03:11:13] <robbat2> - 30% is recurring contributions via Paypal +[03:11:13] <robbat2> - 30% is special contributions (GSOC payment, refunds) +[03:11:13] <robbat2> - Remaining 40% are one-time contributions via paypal or check +[03:11:38] <robbat2> no other remarks re financial statements +[03:12:14] <antarus> any other questions from the board on the 2020 financials? +[03:14:02] <antarus> seemingly not +[03:14:36] <antarus> reading this statement, we basically have 120k in cash equiv (bank) and 20k of capital assets? +[03:14:43] <antarus> am I reading that right? +[03:15:14] <antarus> (I'm heavily rounding here, obvs.) +[03:15:19] <robbat2> capital assets with residual value of $7k ($20k less $13k depreciation) +[03:15:37] <antarus> ack +[03:15:41] <robbat2> $130k in traditional banking, $14k in paypal +[03:15:58] <antarus> perfect +[03:16:24] <antarus> please vote aye to accept the 2020 financials, or vote nay if you have further questions or comments +[03:16:30] <prometheanfire> aye +[03:16:33] <robbat2> aye +[03:16:37] <FreedomBear> Aye +[03:16:40] <antarus> aye +[03:16:45] <antarus> Financials accepted, thanks. +[03:17:14] <antarus> prometheanfire: secretary report? +[03:17:15] <prometheanfire> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:2020_Secretary_Report +[03:17:41] <prometheanfire> main items are some of the expenses we've had +[03:18:15] <dwfreed> [5] says 2017 +[03:18:53] <robbat2> refresh ;-) +[03:18:54] <antarus> congrats to prometheanfire and FreedomBear for winning this years election and staying on the board +[03:19:23] <FreedomBear> Happy to serve. +[03:19:28] <prometheanfire> the foundation retained tax services and paid some (back) taxes, along with the nitrokey inititive are the main 'out of cycle' items +[03:20:08] <robbat2> the sparc64 team after much poking actually clarified what they wanted so the Foundation purchased it +[03:20:25] <antarus> my understanding is that the nitrokey program is technically ongoing, although the main cost of the program is the initial set of orders +[03:20:26] <prometheanfire> out of cycle meaning non-ordinary (sparc server, cloud costs and replacement parts for infra are on the side of 'to be expected') +[03:20:51] <prometheanfire> antarus: iirc the ongoing cost was projected to be 1-2k per year +[03:21:00] <antarus> I'm slightly confused by the cloud costs; do we mean our leased boxes at hetzner? +[03:21:21] <antarus> (who are we paying for arm?) +[03:21:23] <prometheanfire> or aws object storage +[03:21:57] <prometheanfire> but that's what it looks like ( looking at the finance report ) +[03:22:02] <antarus> ok +[03:22:09] <robbat2> Hetzner, Rackspace (free after they credited their billing issues), AWS (which is now mostly free) +[03:22:20] <robbat2> Packet (free) +[03:22:28] <robbat2> OSL (free, but we should donate back to them) +[03:22:53] <antarus> hetnzer is like 1200 of that 2k I suspect; I was just curious about the other stuff because I know much of it is donated +[03:23:06] <antarus> it would be interesting to have more recurring money to the OSL, yeah +[03:23:11] <robbat2> hetzner is ~1840/yr rightn ow +[03:23:13] <prometheanfire> ~1850 +[03:23:20] <antarus> perhaps we should discuss this with lance +[03:23:34] <robbat2> OSL would be happy for further donations, it's been a few years since we last donated +[03:23:53] <antarus> k +[03:24:00] <antarus> any other qusetions or comments on the secretary report? +[03:24:29] <robbat2> i'd like to extend a thank you to klondike for running the election +[03:24:52] <robbat2> showing there is some interest in the community rather than just the status quo of trustees +[03:25:03] <prometheanfire> klondike was not running it? +[03:25:08] <antarus> ran in it +[03:25:12] <antarus> as a potential board member +[03:25:14] <robbat2> sorry, *running in it +[03:25:30] <robbat2> the Elections team gets thanks for literally running it +[03:25:54] <prometheanfire> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Elections/Trustees/202006 +[03:25:59] <FreedomBear> Yes, thank you to them. +[03:26:17] <prometheanfire> quite a few election officials listed there :P +[03:26:33] <robbat2> thanks to Dabbott, Rich0, NeddySeagoon, Whissi +[03:26:37] <robbat2> and Zlogene +[03:26:41] <robbat2> so they are all in the formal logs ;-) +[03:26:44] <antarus> prometheanfire: it takes a village +[03:26:44] <prometheanfire> indeed :D +[03:26:46] <antarus> :) +[03:27:17] <antarus> please vote aye to accept the secretary's report, or nay if you have further questions or comments on it. +[03:27:20] <robbat2> aye +[03:27:25] <FreedomBear> aye +[03:28:06] <antarus> aye +[03:28:07] <prometheanfire> aye +[03:28:39] <antarus> and it is accepted. +[03:29:12] <antarus> As I said, I did not really write a presidents report. I can probably share a few words and i'll draft and send something more concrete out later next week +[03:29:29] <prometheanfire> antarus: ad lib should be fun +[03:29:58] <antarus> I want to say thanks to Robin in particular, who slaves tirelessly over our books and prometheanfire for locating a competant yet affordable CPA firm. +[03:30:36] <antarus> The financials were a problem for a long time and I think as we enter a new fiscal we are in a much position to actually do the work of the foundation that we were 1-2 years ago +[03:30:42] <antarus> and that is something to be celebrated +[03:31:37] <antarus> I think there remain a number of challanges related to teh foundations mission in terms of how we actually deploy our resources in a way that the community find acceptable and we continue to struggle to do this every year. +[03:32:12] <prometheanfire> antarus: welcome to being president :P +[03:32:14] <antarus> I'm eager for feedback from the board and the community on how to deploy the Foundation's funds, particularly now that financials are in a clearer position and we are not holding significant assets for tax purposes +[03:32:34] <FreedomBear> What does that mean? Are people not happy with how we deploy our resources? +[03:32:40] <antarus> (where tax purposes is paying back taxes and penalties, etc.) +[03:33:08] <prometheanfire> I'd suggest figuring out if we are going to re-incororate and/or go under an umbrella org first +[03:33:19] <prometheanfire> once we know that we can plan more for how to spend the funds +[03:33:33] <antarus> sure I'm just stating problems I've heard +[03:33:45] <prometheanfire> also, keeping cash in the bank is useful when funding dries up for a bit +[03:34:50] <antarus> I'm basically suggesting that in previous years, we waited for members to request funds (and we provide funds for the majority of requests) +[03:34:59] <antarus> but this is not sufficient to really drive the programs of the foundation +[03:35:05] <prometheanfire> I'd say it may be good to have a number be our goal to have as minimum in the bank, with the extra being available for 'deployment' +[03:35:07] <antarus> but its been somewhat of a struggle to build new programs +[03:35:23] <antarus> nitrokey being the most successful new program in recent times, IMHO +[03:35:37] <antarus> (this mostly includes infra, which is plausibly our longest running program) +[03:35:43] <antarus> *excludes* sorry +[03:35:55] <antarus> anyway, that will end my speech ;) +[03:36:24] <antarus> FreedomBear: to answer your question more explicitly, there have definitely been objections to foundaiton overhead (25% of funds go to paying taxes and the CPA) +[03:36:37] <antarus> FreedomBear: in addition, there have been some questions about why we don't spend more of the foundation's money +[03:37:17] <antarus> I find the former mostly unfixable (these are fixed costs) and the latter to be perhaps more challenging because of politics around resource allocation +[03:37:31] <FreedomBear> antarus: I haven't seen anyone complain about the overhead? Regardless, we all know that overhead is because of past failures. +[03:37:42] <prometheanfire> I am hesitant to mention it, but whatever the funding via residuals is called may be something to aim for +[03:38:17] <dwfreed> having 144k in cash equivalents is a lot +[03:38:21] <prometheanfire> overhead is also a fact of life, sadly we live in an entropic univerise +[03:38:33] <antarus> prometheanfire: not sure what you mean by residuals +[03:38:38] <antarus> dwfreed: I can't disagree ;) +[03:38:44] <prometheanfire> passive income +[03:38:45] <robbat2> residuals: living off the interest basically +[03:38:53] <robbat2> we aren't large enough to do that +[03:39:00] <robbat2> by some orders of magnitude +[03:39:02] <antarus> a few more decades +[03:39:03] <antarus> ;) +[03:39:11] <prometheanfire> ya, I do wonder what that number is (personally) +[03:39:37] <antarus> in educational endowments I've seen 4% bandied about +[03:39:56] <prometheanfire> so 3x what we have, ish +[03:40:07] <prometheanfire> ISH +[03:40:08] <antarus> 4% of 500k would be 20k right +[03:40:15] <antarus> napkin math +[03:40:19] <dwfreed> yes +[03:41:13] <antarus> I want to wrap up the pres report or speech as it is +[03:41:23] <antarus> I'm not going to make anyone accept my random speech +[03:41:32] <antarus> any other questions about the stuff I said? :) +[03:41:39] <prometheanfire> I can vote that it exists +[03:41:44] <antarus> lol +[03:42:17] <robbat2> vote that antarus owes a written version by 2020/09/01 ;-) +[03:42:22] <antarus> thats fine +[03:42:24] <antarus> I can commit to that +[03:42:31] <prometheanfire> robbat2: aye +[03:42:46] <FreedomBear> nay +[03:43:00] * antarus chuckles +[03:43:04] <antarus> well I vote aye +[03:43:09] <robbat2> aye ;-) +[03:43:14] <robbat2> why nay from you FreedomBear ? +[03:43:21] <antarus> done; I will provide a letter by 9/1 +[03:44:12] <FreedomBear> robbat2: I would prefer about a month or so more to do it. Let the umbrella stuff settle. +[03:44:24] <robbat2> this is a report about FY2020 +[03:44:28] <robbat2> not new stuff +[03:44:31] <FreedomBear> Ok +[03:44:32] * antarus nods +[03:44:36] <FreedomBear> aye then +[03:44:40] <antarus> thanks +[03:45:04] <antarus> we should now elect officers for the next year +[03:45:04] <prometheanfire> !next +[03:45:27] <antarus> President, Secretary, Treasurer ? +[03:45:50] <prometheanfire> I can stick with secretary if no one minds +[03:46:08] <FreedomBear> Can we just vote for as-is? +[03:46:19] <antarus> We can vote for status quo if that is faster +[03:46:31] <antarus> it feels somewhat dictatorial +[03:46:32] <FreedomBear> Yip +[03:46:32] <antarus> ;p +[03:46:42] <antarus> any objections to status quo officer assignments? +[03:46:45] <antarus> if so we can break them out +[03:46:49] <robbat2> no objections +[03:46:54] <FreedomBear> no objection +[03:47:03] <antarus> President: antarus Treasurer: robbat2 secretary: prometheanfire +[03:47:08] <FreedomBear> aye +[03:47:20] <prometheanfire> aye +[03:47:28] <robbat2> aye +[03:47:30] <antarus> aye +[03:47:46] <antarus> status quo accepted; I shall rule with an iron fist +[03:47:48] * antarus chuckles +[03:48:05] <prometheanfire> an iron fist is sometimes useful +[03:48:09] <antarus> https://bugs.gentoo.org/730200 +[03:48:14] <antarus> AUTHORS inclusion +[03:48:24] <antarus> we have been slacking on this one a bit +[03:49:12] <prometheanfire> I vote aye to it, with a hopeful format change followon +[03:49:21] <FreedomBear> aye +[03:49:22] <antarus> robbat2: point of clarification, the bug has 2 lists; are you asking for both? +[03:49:32] <robbat2> no, only the first list +[03:49:40] <antarus> because the latter list is copyright you +[03:49:48] <antarus> is my understanding correct? +[03:49:49] <robbat2> as I note in the 2nd paragraph, my consulting contract with those parties assigned copyright to me +[03:49:52] <antarus> great +[03:50:02] <antarus> I was confused as to why you included it +[03:50:11] <antarus> aye +[03:50:17] <robbat2> because if there was a dispute, those parties would be ones to contest it +[03:50:45] <antarus> I assume you abstain for the record +[03:50:48] <robbat2> at least 3 of them no longer exist for now +[03:50:49] <antarus> but the vote passes regardless ;p +[03:50:52] <robbat2> yes, abstain +[03:50:54] <antarus> thanks +[03:51:23] <antarus> prometheanfire: you had a formatting objection? +[03:51:40] <FreedomBear> The KVP suggestion. +[03:51:44] <robbat2> prometheanfire want it to become a key -> multi-value map +[03:52:02] <FreedomBear> shouldn't block the vote to include though. +[03:52:09] <robbat2> so we know which gentoo developers are associated with a given copyright holder +[03:52:13] <antarus> I see +[03:52:25] <antarus> I'm not sure I see any particular legal barrier +[03:52:34] <antarus> feel free to discuss with community / council on the format ? +[03:52:53] * antarus hands you some knives and 3 monkeys +[03:52:56] <robbat2> bikeshed there: "Company -> Developer(s)" vs "Developer -> Company(ies)" +[03:53:24] <robbat2> or normal form +[03:53:33] <robbat2> anyway, thanks for the approval, +[03:53:34] <robbat2> next item +[03:54:32] <antarus> I've no other bugs that I am aware of +[03:54:38] <antarus> other than https://bugs.gentoo.org/736760 +[03:54:45] <antarus> but afaik we are still waiting for them to discuss our application +[03:54:49] <antarus> so there is no news +[03:55:24] <FreedomBear> Yes, as SFC's website states, they consider applications once a month. +[03:55:53] <antarus> any new business? +[03:56:14] <FreedomBear> None here. +[03:56:33] <antarus> In fiscal 2020 we did not hold very many meetings and conducted many activities via email and voting on bugs +[03:56:43] <antarus> is there any objection to this practice? +[03:56:46] <robbat2> broad question: should Infra plan for large hardware renewal before or after the SFC potential changes +[03:57:15] <robbat2> not an objection, but I'd like to ensure that as many of the votes & bugs are raised via the NFP list even if they are in a bug +[03:57:35] <FreedomBear> antarus: no objection +[03:57:39] <antarus> so my strategy has been to basically file the bug and ask the list to vote publically +[03:57:43] <antarus> but the votes are on the bug +[03:57:49] <antarus> is that sufficient, or you want the votes on the list? +[03:57:54] <robbat2> votes on the bug yes +[03:58:05] <robbat2> no spoofed email ;-) +[03:58:09] <antarus> hehe +[03:58:16] <FreedomBear> robbat2: hardware being buying new physical hardware? +[03:58:36] <antarus> Yeah infra needs to replace a bunch of hardware in fiscal 2021 +[03:58:54] <FreedomBear> I don't believe the timing matters... I can't think of a reason why it would. +[03:58:57] <robbat2> yes, replacing a lot of old stuff at OSL, like the switch died earlier in the year and we haven't replaced yet +[03:59:10] <antarus> robbat2: generally speaking I would prioritize operations of Gentoo over our org structure +[03:59:11] <FreedomBear> Unless robbat2 doesn't want to do the paperwork :) +[03:59:20] <antarus> haha +[03:59:32] <robbat2> hey, it's less paperwork to do the purchases before we join SFC +[03:59:52] <antarus> I want to try to keep it to an hour; I have one remaining question +[03:59:53] <robbat2> (i've seen their reimbursement/purchasing chain before) +[04:00:01] <antarus> our AWS credits expire in 60 days +[04:00:21] <robbat2> AWS in unofficial email said they would renew them, but I haven't seen a hard commit on that +[04:00:23] <antarus> I'd preferably like to renew; I've sent one mail to that effect IIRC (I need to check my logs) +[04:00:41] <antarus> the previous program manager left +[04:00:45] <antarus> I need to follow up +[04:00:59] <robbat2> i have further contacts there if we don't get responses +[04:01:03] <antarus> ok +[04:01:04] * FreedomBear waits on question. +[04:01:32] <antarus> our AWS spend ignoring cloudfront is probably in the 2-3k / year range right now +[04:01:45] <antarus> and while we can turn it all off to save money i owuld prefer to renew our program with them +[04:01:48] <antarus> thats it +[04:01:51] <antarus> FreedomBear: you are up +[04:02:15] <FreedomBear> antarus: why should we renew for that 2-3k? +[04:02:21] <FreedomBear> What does AWS do for us? +[04:02:37] <antarus> They give us 25,000$ in free cloud stuff +[04:02:39] <antarus> mostly ;) +[04:02:58] <robbat2> of which we only spent $2-3k this year, excluding the cloudfront CDN experiement to measure distfiles.gentoo.org +[04:03:00] <FreedomBear> What does that do for Gentoo? +[04:03:15] <robbat2> the main gain is very fast arm64 VMs +[04:03:15] <antarus> we archive data there, and we have amd64 and arm boxes there; afaik +[04:03:30] <robbat2> we were already paying for S3 & glacier storage before the program +[04:03:52] <FreedomBear> robbat2: antarus: thanks. Just wanted the reason stated publically FTR. +[04:03:54] <antarus> I believe there is also another effort to source other arm gear by the arm team +[04:03:57] <antarus> FreedomBear: no worries +[04:04:05] * FreedomBear aye +[04:04:23] <robbat2> prior to the AWS open source program, we spent ~$100/year on S3+Glacier +[04:04:31] <FreedomBear> (for continuing the program) +[04:05:18] <antarus> any other business? +[04:05:39] <FreedomBear> None from me. +[04:05:44] <robbat2> i updated the activity tracker page +[04:05:46] <prometheanfire> non +[04:05:53] <robbat2> nil from me +[04:05:56] <antarus> oh right we have to file with the state again +[04:05:57] <antarus> ;) +[04:06:08] <antarus> prometheanfire: I've moved again +[04:06:13] <antarus> if they need my new details lmk +[04:06:18] <robbat2> yeah, I moved house as well +[04:06:37] <robbat2> for the records, can all trustees please email their current address to trustees@ +[04:06:42] <robbat2> address, phone number +[04:06:46] <antarus> can do +[04:07:03] <FreedomBear> Wilco +[04:07:04] <robbat2> alicef: ^^ when you review scrollback +[04:07:33] <antarus> robbat2: thanks for updating the tracker +[04:07:41] * antarus grabs the gavel +[04:07:47] <antarus> final call for business +[04:08:00] <robbat2> open floor ;-) +[04:08:17] <antarus> this is not in the agenda! ;p +[04:08:25] <antarus> any comments from the floor? +[04:08:31] <robbat2> it is in the agenda! +[04:08:35] <prometheanfire> kk +[04:08:37] <robbat2> right after cleanup ;-) +[04:08:47] <antarus> pft +[04:09:26] <antarus> I will drop a "has anyone spoken to the e.V lately" +[04:09:39] <antarus> but i dunno how them and us and something like the SFC merge might all go down +[04:09:50] <antarus> but I'll gavel the meeting closed before the commentary starts! ;p +[04:10:10] * antarus gavels thusly +[04:10:17] <antarus> ladies and gents thanks for a great fiscal 2020 +[04:10:24] <FreedomBear> Not really sure what the e.V does for us today? +[04:10:33] <antarus> for the foundaiton, nothing +[04:10:39] <FreedomBear> For Gentoo bruh. +[04:10:54] <antarus> unsure, it was, afaik, having some problems for some years +[04:10:57] <antarus> i thought Whissi runs it now +[04:11:30] <antarus> last time I checked (2013 ish) the e.V. helped people show up at confs and sold gentoo stuff (stickers, etc) +[04:11:38] <FreedomBear> Not really sure a merger matters either. +[04:11:55] <FreedomBear> All the copyright, IP, etc is in the foundation, yea? +[04:12:03] <antarus> yes +[04:12:37] <antarus> it was also a thought that like, if the e.V. was doing a bunch of food +[04:12:39] <antarus> er good* +[04:12:45] <antarus> we could also just support them +[04:12:54] <antarus> we are still fairly america centric in terms of board members +[04:12:56] <FreedomBear> Yea, definitely for supporting them. +[04:13:05] <antarus> but it was just an idea ;) +[04:13:12] * antarus has to go now +[04:13:13] * antarus waves +[04:13:18] <FreedomBear> Everyone is free to run for the board. +[04:13:26] * FreedomBear is off too +[04:14:30] <robbat2> cya +[04:16:54] <prometheanfire> cya diff --git a/2023/20230817.log.txt b/2023/20230817.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d17b943 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/20230817.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,666 @@ +<@robbat2> ulm, antarus, prometheanfire, soap, antarus, dabbott, robbat2: + meeting time [21:01] +* ulm here +* soap here +<antarus> here +<@robbat2> antarus: I forecast FY2024 depreciation as ~$10k, assuming no + capital purchases +<antarus> (they were done for the fiscal, and we paid no taxes this fiscal) + [21:02] +<@robbat2> somewhere I saw how to calculate efficiecny taking into account + depreciation +<@robbat2> but i'll have to dig it out +<antarus> I wrote the letter, but not an agenda [21:03] +<@robbat2> did we have a general template for the old meetings somewhere? +<antarus> Let me see if I have the one from last year +<@robbat2> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2022/09 +*** alexxy (~alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy) has quit: Quit: No Ping reply in + 180 seconds. [21:04] +<@robbat2> rollcall: present ulm, soap, antarus, robbat2 +<@robbat2> absent: prometheanfire, dabbott, anarchy +<@ulm> do we have a quorum of members? +*** alexxy (~alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees [21:05] +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +v alexxy +<antarus> do we need one? [21:06] +<@robbat2> formally, the AGM is a meeting of members, not of trustees, and it + supposed to have a qourum of members, unless waived +<+dilfridge> Section 3.9. Member Quorum [21:07] +<+dilfridge> Except as otherwise required by law, by the Certificate of + Incorporation or by these Bylaws, one-third (1/3) of the members + entitled to vote, represented in person, shall constitute a + quorum at a meeting of members. +<@robbat2> however, we have *never* had a sufficent qourum present for an AGM, + in the history of the foundation +<@robbat2> there are 78 members currently on the books, so we'd need 26 + present [21:08] +<+sam_> when was the last time membership was pruned? [21:09] +<@robbat2> that's something I want to discuss here +<@robbat2> after the old business parts +<+sam_> ack +<antarus> we pruned it in June [21:10] +<antarus> but our pruning criteria isn't super effective +<@robbat2> that was pre-election +<@robbat2> anyway, by rough count, I think we have 22 members present +<@robbat2> very fast hacky code +<@ulm> "present" = in the channel? +<@robbat2> yes, as in the channel +<@robbat2> which kind of sucks in other ways +<@robbat2> which is why... [21:11] +<@ulm> that doesn't really mean they're actually present +<antarus> I mean I doubt it would count, even if we had the numbers +<antarus> so I'm not sure why we care +<@ulm> anyway, no quorum +<@robbat2> motion: agm to proceed without member quorum, to pass by qourum of + old & new trustees +<antarus> aye +<@robbat2> aye +<@soap> aye +<@ulm> yes [21:12] +<@ulm> actually, who are old and new trustees? +<@ulm> also, when and how have they been appointed? +<@robbat2> (absents: anarchy, prometheanfire) +<@robbat2> old: antarus, anarchy, prometheanfire, robbat2, soap [21:13] +<@ulm> sorry to ask this, but the information is sort of hard to come by +<@robbat2> (the formatting is terrible) +<@robbat2> new: ulm, robbat2, prometheanfire, soap, (vacant) +<@robbat2> [anarchy should have been up for re-election per terms, but we + didn't get a candidate] [21:14] +<@ulm> ok, so robbat2 and ulm have been elected this year +<@ulm> prometheanfire and soap in 2022 then? +<@ulm> or appointed w/o election? +<@robbat2> for the motion purposes: unique set: antarus, antarus, + prometheanfire, robbat2, soap, ulm (6); 4 ayes, 2 absent => + majority pass +<antarus> I believe in 2022 (assuming you mean gregorian calendar) they were + appointed [21:15] +<@ulm> antarus and anarchy in 2021, so their term ends now? [21:16] +<antarus> correct +<@ulm> thanks +<@robbat2> double-checking all the above is good, and should probably happen + out of band [21:17] +<@robbat2> paperwork steps for the meeting: +<@robbat2> 1. who's doing the formal logging? +<@ulm> robbat2: there's twice antarus in your list above +<@robbat2> good catch, one was supposed to be anarchy +<@robbat2> since he's not in the channel my autocomplete failed [21:18] +<@robbat2> paperwork 2: who's recording the minutes/motions +<@robbat2> i'll take the minutes task, and nominate ulm, so we can make sure + his access to commit them works ;-) +<@robbat2> *nominate ulm for the logging +<@ulm> logging like in irc log? [21:19] +<@robbat2> yes, uploaded to the right place +<@ulm> sure +<antarus> good cause I haven't tried commiting since I retire and my gpg key + won't sign stuff cause it expired ;p +<@robbat2> the previously posted agenda items from the email, as old business: +<@robbat2> president's report +<@robbat2> treasurer report +<@robbat2> appointment of officers [21:20] +<@robbat2> after that will be recurring task review & new business +<@robbat2> anybody need amendments to that agenda, or shall we turn it over to + antarus for the presidents report? [21:21] +<antarus> no [21:22] +<@robbat2> (i'm making a meeting page in the meantime) [21:23] +<@robbat2> antarus: the president's report please? +<antarus> + https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTmOGiQMHOSzfU-jALMAFyARnv252R2SdXUekHUPdZ21njwzVJm58K5mnYM_vhiphZM6rx_dvVV_m1n/pub +<antarus> I tried to keep it brief, finances are in good shape, we continue to + accrue cash. No particular problems in terms of operations from the + money-side. [21:24] +<antarus> Nitrokey contacted us in May regarding a new contact for the + nitrokey 3 [21:25] +<antarus> we have not yet responded +<antarus> (but it seems they are open to some kind of renewal in that + relationship.) +* dilfridge suggests that given the company's history no contract is signed + until the nitrokeys are actually deliverable +<+arthurzam> I also read that they aren't using the final firmware on those + keys currently being delivered, so various promised capabilities + weren't brought, and future upgrade would require somehow writing + the new firmware [21:27] +<antarus> I do not plan on being on the board anymore and I retired from + Gentoo in August of this year; I wish you teh best of luck in + finding a fiscal sponsor. +<antarus> Any questions about the report (brief as it is) +<+sam_> that doesn't agree iirc with what robbat2 said a week or two ago + [21:28] +<antarus> what doesn't? +<@robbat2> paperwork question: please submit a PDF/HTML version we can include + in the archives, because I don't trust docs.google.com to exist + forever +<antarus> I don't really intend to discuss the nitrokey contact at this exact + moment +<antarus> I will email it to nfp later as pdf +<antarus> I think? +<antarus> I 'm not sub' anymore +<antarus> I'll email it to trustees@ +<@robbat2> sam_: can you please clarify which part doesn't agree? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:40:29+0100] <@robbat2> and I propose to appoint antarus + back to the board as one of the existing bank signatories, because + we'll need all of them in the process of closing down accounts + [21:29] +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:42:10+0100] <+ulm> robbat2: that would require him not + to retire? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:42:24+0100] <+ulm> according to section 5.2 of the + bylaws? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:59:06+0100] <+ulm> robbat2: I have asked this before, + is there a date and time for the AGM already? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:59:23+0100] <+ulm> and if not, should we fix them? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T22:47:52+0100] <@robbat2> we have not set an AGM datetime + yet +<+sam_> is that abandoned now? +<antarus> I'm happy to table the nitrokey discussion until later +<antarus> the intent isnt' to have at this point in the meeting. +<@ulm> +1 I suggest that we figure out nitrokey later, not during this meeting +<@robbat2> sam_: that's going to be covered in apointment of officers [21:30] +<+sam_> right, okay, antarus brought it up now which is why I say +<+sam_> happy to talk about it later though +<antarus> +1 [21:31] +<@robbat2> i have no questions about the substance of the president's report; + i have some remarks relevant to it that i'll cover as my treasurer + report shortly +<antarus> I agree it doesn't match, it doesn' +<antarus> doesn't need to, we can work on the disagreement at the appointment + time. +<@robbat2> ulm, soap: if you have no questions, we can motion to accept the + report [21:32] +<@ulm> no questions to the president's report +<@soap> no questions +<@robbat2> motion: accept the president's report as written +<@robbat2> aye +<@soap> yes +<antarus> aye [21:33] +<@ulm> yes +<@robbat2> motion passes: 4 aye, 2 absent +<@robbat2> treasurer's report: + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2023 + [21:34] +<@robbat2> i have some additional remarks that didn't fit there [21:35] +<@ulm> what's the meaning of the various programs in section 1.5? +<@ulm> i.e. Foundation / Infra / NONE? +<@robbat2> "Program" in this context refers to a specific section of the + business in the IRS classification stuff [21:36] +<@robbat2> it can be a organization division, and/or a project/initiative + division +<@robbat2> e.g. in a much larger non-profit, a major fundraising program to + buy real estate could be a project [21:37] +<@robbat2> there should be at least programs in any non-profit: the operating + tasks of the non-profit itself (Foundation in this case), and the + "business" of the non-profit +<@robbat2> in Gentoo's case, the "business" of the non-profit is things to + support our open source mission, so mostly Infra costs to run the + distro [21:39] +<@robbat2> ulm: that answer it well enough? I should give you a tour of the + finances repo that will help cover some more of that [21:40] +<+dilfridge> ok so for us non-cpa's, may I try to summarize the tables and you + tell me/us whether I see it correct? +<@ulm> thanks, that answers it +<@robbat2> *at least 2 progams in any non-profit +<@robbat2> dilfridge: yes please +<+dilfridge> "Statement of Financial Position" paragraph +<@ulm> it's actually not much different from the system for a e.v. in Germany +<@robbat2> (i'm not a CPA at all, the last accounting *course* I took was in + high school) [21:41] +<+dilfridge> left table (the large one), "Assets" is the sum over everything + we "have" (either bought hardware or cash) +<+dilfridge> minus the depreciation +<@robbat2> left table: assets & contra-assets [Accumulated-Depreciation] + [21:42] +<+dilfridge> this is a "current state", the depreciation is accumulated over + the past years, so purchase price - depreciation = rest value +<+dilfridge> right table: apparently sums up expenses and income over several + years, and then ends up with the current state described left +<@robbat2> right table is liabilities & equity [21:43] +<@robbat2> we have no liabilities (which is fantastic) +<+dilfridge> (unclear is, which time range) +<+dilfridge> the next part is "Statement of Activities" paragraph [21:44] +<+dilfridge> this is fairly easy (to me) and describes income and expenses in + the current financial year +<@robbat2> retained earnings in a corporation would be the value that has NOT + been taken out of the business (dividends to shareholders, + repayments to investors etc) +<@robbat2> correct on statement of activities [21:45] +<antarus> I thought we signed a contact with BCL libraries co-op, did we never + execute it? (in terms of "we have no liabilities") +<@robbat2> antarus: i'll cover that later +<antarus> k +<@robbat2> dilfridge: continue [21:46] +<+dilfridge> then, "statement of functional expenses" +<+dilfridge> this is splitting up the expenses of the previous paragraph into + subfields +<@robbat2> breakdown of all expenses, by the IRS perscribed program system +<antarus> I wish the mail expenses separated email and check-cashing services; + but I probably don't care enough to fix it ;p [21:47] +<antarus> er s/email/mail/ +<+dilfridge> (foundation running costs, infra running costs, asset + depreciation) +<@robbat2> Statement of Cash Flows would be a similar breakdown of Income, + it's not implemented in my financial statement report generator +<+dilfridge> last is "Capital Assets", which is essentially an inventory +<@robbat2> we have no investing or financing activities at this time (or ever + to my knowledge), so it would be identical to the income above + [21:48] +<+dilfridge> not very readable but that doesnt really matter as long as + someone knows what the numbers mean :o) +<@robbat2> yes, inventory of what we own; needs some detailed auditing, esp of + the stuff purchased for developers +<@ulm> after what time are computers fully depreciated to a book value of 0$? + [21:49] +<+dilfridge> that's it from me +<@robbat2> if you look at a previous year, the change-of-position section for + capital assets gives you a detailed description: + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2022#Change_of_Position +<+dilfridge> Assets:Capital:Computers:* 00.12 5 +<@robbat2> ulm: 5 years for computers, per IRS MACRS rules +<+dilfridge> I guess that ^ means 5 years? [21:50] +<@robbat2> correct +<@robbat2> ulm, soap, antarus: any further questions about the treasurer's + reports? [21:52] +<@soap> nope +<@ulm> no +<antarus> no +<@robbat2> prior to the motion; i'd like to note this report is pending + approval by the tax accountant, per the comments at the top. + [21:53] +<@robbat2> that does not constitute CPA review, just approval for correctness + for tax filing purposes +<@robbat2> motion: approve the FY2023 treasurer report [21:54] +<@robbat2> abstain (because I wrote the treasurer report) [21:55] +<@ulm> yes +<antarus> yes +<@soap> yes +<@robbat2> outcome: passes, 3 aye, 1 abstain, 2 absent +<@robbat2> additional remarks for FY2024: [21:56] +<@robbat2> I know that we would *like* to wind up the foundation into a fiscal + umbrella +<@robbat2> to make that easier, we need to ensure that we don't have tax owing + for FY2024 [21:57] +<@robbat2> for that, our expenses must balance or exceed the income +<@robbat2> fortunately that includes the contra-asset expense of depreciation + [21:58] +<@robbat2> based on present assets, my forecast is that FY2024 depreciation + will be approximately $10k +<+dilfridge> so, the depreciation will be lower +<+dilfridge> yes +<@robbat2> and our income is likely to be $16k again +<@robbat2> so we have to make additional capital purchases of at least $6k +<antarus> we could also just remove the donation button ;) [21:59] +<+dilfridge> cough +<+dilfridge> let's replace some athlons ;) +<antarus> We had discussed in the past giving money to someone else (like the + OSUOSL) +<antarus> although I'm not sure they have as easy of a donation method for our + donors to use [22:00] +<+dilfridge> that's something we could do at last resort [22:01] +<@robbat2> yes, donating to another 501c3 non-profit is an option, but need to + balance it carefully due to the tax credits +<antarus> anyway, just a remark +<antarus> don't need to sort it here. +<@ulm> could we spend some money for bug bounties? [22:02] +<@ulm> e.g. fix the e-mail archives? :) [22:03] +<+dilfridge> YES PLEASE +<@robbat2> yes, subject to working out the details for it +<@robbat2> (buying stuff is easier than paying people) [22:04] +<@robbat2> anything else, or we'll move on the discussion of the officers and + open seat +<antarus> nope [22:05] +<@robbat2> ok, officers: [22:07] +<@robbat2> + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.2._Qualification +<@robbat2> At the minimum, we *MUST* have President, Secretary, Treasurer; The + President & Secretary MUST NOT be the same person +<@ulm> these need not be board members, correct? [22:08] +<@robbat2> In addition to those roles we MAY have: Chair, Vice-Chair, + Vice-President, Assistant Secretary, Assistant Treasure + [22:09] +<@robbat2> Only the Chair & Vice-Chair MUST be board members +<@robbat2> e.g. Antarus can continue to be the president, even without being a + trustee or foundation member [22:10] +<+dilfridge> (assuming he isn't retired as developer) +<+sam_> are you proposing that or giving it as an example? +<@robbat2> that's as an example. The bylaws also don't require officers even + be a developer [22:11] +<@ulm> dilfridge: IIUC officers need not be devs +<@robbat2> ulm: as a civil servant, can you summarize restrictions that + prevent you from holding any officer roles? +<@ulm> I'd have to apply for that role again with my employer [22:12] +<@ulm> but I'd decline anyway, for lack of time, and also possible conflict of + interest, because I'm president of Gentoo e.V. [22:13] +<@robbat2> thanks [22:14] +<@robbat2> also of relevance: we have the two distinct sets of bank accounts, + with different signatories +<@robbat2> set 1 has prometheanfire & antarus as signatory +<@robbat2> set 2 has only dabbott left (further back tsunam & fmccor were also + on it) [22:15] +<@ulm> president and treasurer could be the same person? +<@robbat2> in practice, the bank accounts basically require US citizens as + signatories +<@robbat2> yes, president and treasurer could be the same person +<antarus> I'm not entirely sure set 1 even has me on it +<antarus> (but it could) [22:16] +<@robbat2> we need at least one of Secretary & President to be US citizens, + for some paperwork signing purposes +<@robbat2> to make the officer allocation easier: we need to fill the open + trustee seat [22:17] +<@robbat2> antarus: would you accept any appointment of the trustee seat, or + an officer role, or do you intend to exit as much as possible? + [22:19] +<antarus> I would decline even if appointed +<antarus> (sorry) +<+dilfridge> I have the same limitation as ulm (for any official role I have + to ask permission from my employer / the state of Bavaria) + [22:20] +<antarus> appoint mattst88 ;) +<+dilfridge> definitely not interested in becoming treasurer (robbat2 is doing + that just great) [22:21] +<@robbat2> yes, I intend to continue as treasurer unless anybody wants to oust + me ;-) [22:22] +<antarus> (I need to get lunch soon, so I may need a 20m break to fetch it) +<@robbat2> antarus: i have one specific request for you, since you're going to + decline the appointments [22:23] +<@robbat2> can you verify if you are still a signatory, and if you are, remain + until such time we have have 2 other US citizens as signatories, or + the accounts are closed? +<antarus> I will do the first part at least [22:26] +<@robbat2> thank you [22:28] +<antarus> the answer appears to be no; I think last time I did this we got + paper statements in teh mail I used to construct the financials + (interest payments, etc.) +<@robbat2> soap: are you subject to any restrictions about holding an officer + role? [22:29] +<@soap> no +<@soap> or I dont think so +<antarus> => lunch, back in 20 +<@soap> that said, I'm not keen on it either [22:30] +<@robbat2> prometheanfire isn't here, so I can't badger him into taking a role +<+dilfridge> (that's the point :o) +<@robbat2> since we need a US citizen to sign paperwork, he's the only + remaining choice other than the open seat +<+dilfridge> we could ask maffblaster for secretary [22:31] +<@soap> robbat2: oh, but I couldnt do it anyhow +<@soap> I'm not a US citizen? +<@robbat2> we need at least 1 of president/secretary to be US +<@robbat2> doesn't need to be both +<@ulm> robbat2: could you take on both president and treasurer roles? plus a + US citizen as secretary? +<@robbat2> yes, I could do that [22:32] +<@ulm> so how does this work? are we to nominate and vote for each position + separately? [22:34] +<@ulm> or find all officers first, then vote on all at once? [22:35] +<@robbat2> anything that fills the roles +<@robbat2> historical logs show both processes have been done +* ulm fears that we won't be able to fill all roles today +<@robbat2> yes, it's functionally impossible to fill them during this meeting + [22:36] +<@ulm> I nominate robbat2 as president +<@robbat2> i accept the nomination +<@ulm> I guess someone other than robbat2 should move :) [22:37] +* robbat2 pokes soap [22:38] +<@ulm> motion: vote for Robin Johnson as President of the foundation +<@soap> yes +<@ulm> yes +<@robbat2> yes [if I abstained it wouldn't pass] +<@ulm> *sigh* [22:39] +<@prometheanfire> o/ +<@robbat2> oi! +<@ulm> result: 3 aye, 3 absent +<@ulm> ah! +<@ulm> prometheanfire: please vote +<@prometheanfire> I need to read back stuff +<@ulm> motion is: vote for Robin Johnson as President of the Foundation + [22:40] +<@prometheanfire> yes +<@ulm> 4 aye, 2 absent +<@robbat2> motion passes +<@ulm> ok, I also nominate robbat2 as treasurer [22:41] +<@robbat2> prometheanfire: to catch you up here, we're sorting out the + officers for the Foundation; I'd like to nominate you as Secretary, + because we need a US citizen in that role +<@robbat2> i also accept the nomination for treasurer +<@prometheanfire> I can accept that [22:42] +<@ulm> motion: vote for Robin Johnson as Treasurer of the Foundation +<@soap> yes +<@prometheanfire> yes +<@ulm> yes +<@robbat2> abstain [we have enough to carry it] +<@ulm> 3 aye, 1 abstention, 2 absent [22:43] +<@robbat2> motion passes +<@ulm> motion passes +<@ulm> congratulations :) +<@robbat2> thanks +<@ulm> so now you can continue chairing :) +<@prometheanfire> robbat2: commiserations :P +<@robbat2> I nominate prometheanfire (Matthew Thode) as Secretary +<@prometheanfire> I accept the nomination for secretary +<@robbat2> motion: vote for prometheanfire (Matthew Thode) as Secretary + [22:44] +<@robbat2> aye +<@soap> yes +<@ulm> yes +<@prometheanfire> abstain +<@robbat2> motion passes; 3 aye, 1 abstain, 2 absent +<@robbat2> ulm's remark brings me to the optional officers [22:45] +<@robbat2> we haven't had a formal Chair since NeddySeagoon resigned +<@robbat2> do we need one, or are we happy to just run with ad-hoc chair? + [22:46] +<@prometheanfire> iirc the role for the chair was to lead meetings and set a + direction? Or was that president? +<@ulm> "The Chairman of the Board, if one is elected, shall preside at all + meetings of the Board of Trustees and members and shall have such other + duties and authority as may be conferred by the Board of Trustees." + [22:47] +<@robbat2> and under President: "If a Chairman of the Board is not elected, + the President shall preside at all meetings of the Board of + Trustees and members." +<@prometheanfire> ok, mainly meetings, I'm ok either way (ad-hoc or not) +<@robbat2> i'll skip it unless we want to propose somebody else as Chair; i + just want efficent meetings [22:48] +<@ulm> I'm also o.k. either way +<dwfreed> robbat2: is the quorum for these votes 6, even with the absent + people? +<+dabbott> I am here now if needed [22:49] +<@ulm> I think for that role I wouldn't have to ask my employer again, board + of trustees should cover it +<@robbat2> dwfreed: I think it needs a close reading of the New Mexico + corporate laws, if the quorum is new trustees/old trustees/both +* dilfridge always wanted to know how an ad-hoc chair looks like ... + https://labs.openai.com/sc/niyTuzmI1acmKrxyybATQBDz [22:50] +<@robbat2> but I think for the motions, we would have passed here under all 3 + variants +<dwfreed> robbat2: if quorum is 6, majority is 4 [22:51] +<dwfreed> not 3 +<@ulm> 4 out of 6 were present, for both votes +<@ulm> that's a quorum +<@prometheanfire> we can vote yes instead of abstain +<@ulm> but yeah, probably have to look up the law +<@robbat2> does anybody feel we need the other optional officers per the + bylaws? [22:52] +<@robbat2> vice-chair, vice-president,assistent-treasurer, +<@robbat2> assistant secretary +<@prometheanfire> only thing would be someone for contacting outside umbrellas +<@prometheanfire> not really needed though [22:53] +<@robbat2> as president, I'd appreciate help with that, but you don't actually + need to be an officer to take that on +<@prometheanfire> we can take that on ad-hoc as a group +<@robbat2> for the purpose of record keeping, and helping getting ulm up to + speed [22:54] +*** arisut_ (~none@gentoo/developer/alicef) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees [22:55] +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +v arisut_ +<@robbat2> we have one additional officer, not perscribed by the bylaws. + jmbsvicetto is the infra liason officer, as a check/balance on me + also leading infra +<@robbat2> i think he's on vacation presently [22:56] +*** steils- (~steils@steils.org) has joined channel #gentoo-trustees +<@robbat2> this brings us to the close of old business +<@robbat2> + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2023/08#Old_Business +*** mattst88_ (~mattst88@gentoo/developer/mattst88) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees [22:57] +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +v mattst88_ +<@robbat2> for the open seat; if dilfridge will consider applying to his + government, I'd like to offer the open trustee seat to him +<@prometheanfire> I'm for that as well +<@ulm> +1 [22:58] +<+dilfridge> I'll submit the form tomorrow, if all goes well we should know in + a week or two +<@robbat2> that also sets the stage for the Council to have a majority on the + among the new trustees, which will align well to the future + umbrella replacing the foundation [22:59] +<@robbat2> with: ulm, soap, dilfridge all being council +<@ulm> dilfridge: if Bavaria is as quick as Rhineland-Palatinate :) +<+dilfridge> hrhr +*** sam__ (~sam@gentoo/developer/sam) has joined channel #gentoo-trustees +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +v sam__ +<@robbat2> thank you dilfridge +<+dilfridge> :] +<@robbat2> one new business item to discuss: pruning the membership, + post-election [23:00] +<@robbat2> august 1st I had emailed trustees@ with a list of potential members + to prune +<@robbat2> who had not voted in the last 2 elections +<@robbat2> it's 23 members on that list [23:01] +<@robbat2> out of the 78 members in the foundation today +*** sam__ (~sam@gentoo/developer/sam) is now known as sam_ [23:02] +<@robbat2> does anybody see benefits to keeping them as member outright (e.g. + organization size); or should we consider the pruning actions + (outright, or only if they don't object in N days) +<@ulm> last two elections were in 2021 and 2023, right? +<@robbat2> yes [23:03] +<@prometheanfire> I don't see benifets, if we need to disolve I think we + active members to vote (I think...) +<+sam_> just do it outright if they haven't voted in the last 2 [23:05] +<+sam_> what prometheanfire said really +<@ulm> I see no benefits of keeping them as members either +<@ulm> these are all retired devs AFAICS +<+sam_> in general (there's a few exceptions I can think of) tend not to + remain engaged [23:07] +<+sam_> +retired devs +<@robbat2> motion: pruning of membership - 23 members to be removed for not + voting in the last 2 elections; please vote with: aye-outright, + aye-unless-objected, nay +<@robbat2> aye-unless-objected (i'd give them 30 days in the email removing + them) [23:08] +<@ulm> aye-unless-objected +<@ulm> (just to be friendly, shouldn't make much of a difference) [23:09] +<@robbat2> prometheanfire, soap: your votes please +*** maffblaster (~maffblast@gentoo/developer/maffblaster) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +o maffblaster +<@soap> aye-unless-objected +<@robbat2> (prometheanfire: i'm giving you until :11:49, then i'll mark you + absent again) [23:10] +<@prometheanfire> aye +<@prometheanfire> sorry, baby woke [23:11] +<@robbat2> motion passes: 1 aye, 3 aye-unless-objected, 2 absent +<@robbat2> any other new business before paperwork/boring stuff? +<@ulm> no new membership applications? [23:12] +<@robbat2> none [23:13] +<antarus> sorry, ran long +<@robbat2> i'll ask again for new business after the paperwork stuff +<@robbat2> - logging: ulm +<@robbat2> - motions/minutes: robbat2 +<@robbat2> activity tracker: + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Activity_Tracker#Recurring_Activities +<@robbat2> next up is tax filing, which i'll start w/ the tax accountant + tommorow [23:14] +<@robbat2> prometheanfire: as new Secretary, and *specifically* US citizen, + you need do to the New Mexico Annual Report filing +<@prometheanfire> yep [23:15] +<@robbat2> your deadline is Nov 15th +<@robbat2> that's all for required activities +<@ulm> I cannot edit the foundation wiki pages BTW [23:16] +<@robbat2> i'm NOT going to cover bugs at this meeting +<@robbat2> maffblaster: as Foundation wiki editor, can you please note what we + need to give ulm access +<@robbat2> last item: meeting schedule +<@robbat2> which I know ulm has opinions(TM) on +<@ulm> yes, let's please have regular meetings again +<@ulm> need not be monthly, but at least every two months would be good + [23:17] +<@ulm> can also be short if there's no/little business +<+ajak> and remember: if all goes well, no more foundation meetings ever + again! [23:18] +<@ulm> I'd suggest on Sunday, after the Council meeting +<@robbat2> ulm: i'll make you a deal: you track agenda items and i'll come to + short meetings :-) +<@ulm> I can do that +<@robbat2> i'll have to maybe to that time slot, I don't know my schedule + availability for that slot yet (it might have a recurring conflict) + [23:19] +<@ulm> k [23:20] +<@ulm> suggest another time then? +<@robbat2> after I know my conflict yes +<@robbat2> (i have to wait for the school year to start and figure out the + kids commitments for sept-dec) +<@robbat2> ulm: do you want/need a motion to say we'll have regular meetings + again? [23:21] +<@ulm> yes, let's do that +<@robbat2> motion: the Foundation Trustees shall have regularly scheduled + synchronous meetings again (e.g. IRC), at least semi-monthly [2 + months] [23:22] +<+dilfridge> bimonthly +<@robbat2> sorry [23:23] +<@robbat2> motion: the Foundation Trustees shall have regularly scheduled + synchronous meetings again (e.g. IRC), at least every 2 months +<@robbat2> bimonthly may be twice a month because English sucks +<antarus> aye [23:24] +<@prometheanfire> aye +<@ulm> https://xkcd.com/1602/ +<@robbat2> aye +<@ulm> yes +<+dilfridge> indeed, this is crazy +<+dilfridge> OED: "twice a month or every two months" :O +<@robbat2> soap: your vote please +<@soap> yes +<@robbat2> motion passes: 5 aye, 1 absent +<@robbat2> ok, last call for new business that you want in the formal + logs/minutes [23:25] +<@robbat2> 2 minute timer starting now +<@ulm> could I get the archives of trustees@ mail for the last 3 years? +<antarus> update on libraries contract and carbon60 hw? [23:26] +<@robbat2> ulm: yes, but it will take some collating, I'll have to verify if + there is a single place with it +<@prometheanfire> I may have it all (local maildir) +<@robbat2> antarus: the Carbon60 hardware is presently in my possesion, I've + got it racked, and was hoping to reinstall it this coming week + (i've got vacation) [23:27] +<@prometheanfire> would need to be sure there's nothing specific to me, but + all to, cc, bcc should be fine for a search +<@ulm> robbat2: I just want to have it on record here, in case somebody would + object to it +<@robbat2> the Contract being referred to was a short-term plan I had put + together: if we had to move the hardware on zero notice, without + being able to move the services, I had a "nearby" home for the + servers from their previous data center home [23:28] +<@robbat2> so that I could feel safe in moving them with data intact, + re-racking, and just updating IPs +<@robbat2> since we got the breathing room, I took the safer route: erasing + them before they left the Carbon60 building, and then taking them + [23:29] +<@robbat2> data therein was all of forums & bugs, which definetly included + sensitive materials +<@robbat2> it was only a short-term contract w/ the BC Libraries Cooperative, + who are a former full-time employer of mine, I still do some + consulting for them, and because of that consulting I knew they had + some rackspace free temporarily [23:31] +<@robbat2> it would have been at their cost basically +<@soap> robbat2: are we done here? it +<@soap> it's 30 min to midnight in CEST +<@robbat2> i have no objections to ulm's email request +<@robbat2> if anybody else objects to that, now is the time [23:32] +<antarus> no objections +<@robbat2> antarus: does my answers regarding the hardware/hosting answer your + question sufficently? +<antarus> yes [23:33] +<@robbat2> thanks, then i'll declare this meeting over +<@robbat2> may future meetings run shorter again +<@robbat2> 2h33m [23:34] +<@robbat2> not our longest meeting ever, getting there +<@ulm> thank you for chairing [23:36] diff --git a/2023/20231002.log.txt b/2023/20231002.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..13133ce --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/20231002.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,320 @@ +<@robbat2> ok, roll call! [21:02] +* ulm here +<@robbat2> ulm, robbat2, soap, prometheanfire, dilfridge +<@robbat2> ulm, robbat2, soap, prometheanfire, dilfridge : reping #1 [21:05] +* soap here +<@robbat2> ok, we have a quorum, but i'll really like more people +<@ulm> I've texted dilfridge [21:06] +<@robbat2> ok, without everybody present, I don't want to discuss the + date/time of meetings [21:11] +<@robbat2> we said every 2 months during the AGM +<@robbat2> leave it at that for now [21:12] +<@ulm> robbat2: maybe you could state the time slots that are possible for + you? +<@ulm> for the council, Sunday always worked fine [21:13] +<@robbat2> the ideal timeslot for me would be Sundays 17:00-20:00 UTC +<@robbat2> (finished by 20:00 UTC) +<@robbat2> today only happened to work because it's a public holiday in Canada + [21:14] +<@ulm> let's follow up to this after the meeting? +<@robbat2> yes +<@robbat2> 3. Pros and cons of a 501(c)(3) vs a 501(c)(6) organisation +<@robbat2> this was previously discussed in + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:FoundationFutureState +<@ulm> under "Possible umbrellas"? [21:15] +<@robbat2> and previous boards preferred the 501c3 [21:16] +<@robbat2> but I realize since previous boards were US-centric, the non-USians + including myself didn't have a complete grasp of the differences +<@ulm> yes, 501c3 looks like the natural choice [21:17] +<@soap> agreeed +<@ulm> but I'd like to have an idea of the restrictions this would impose on + us +<@robbat2> record keeping: 501c3 have reporting requirements on funding + sources: both to the IRS, and to the public [21:18] +<@ulm> for all donations, or only above a certain threshold? [21:19] +<@robbat2> IRS: everybody; public: threshold [21:20] +<@ulm> k +<@robbat2> other restrictions: [21:21] +<@robbat2> political involvement: 501c3 cannot support specific parties, + canadidates, campaigns [21:22] +<@ulm> this doesn't apply to us? +<@robbat2> it does sort of +<@robbat2> using the EU Cyber Resilience Act as an example: we have to be + careful about how we handle it [21:23] +<@robbat2> we can say the act itself is a problem, and lobby for changes +<@robbat2> but we cannot support a specific parties or politician's + actions/words about it +<@ulm> k, that's similar to what a non-profit in Germany would be allowed to + do [21:24] +<@robbat2> can't say: "Gentoo, the Pirate Party and Rick Falkvinge say the CRA + is flawed" +<@robbat2> can say: "Gentoo agreed with the Pirate Party & Rick Falkvinge's + saying the CRA is flawed" [21:25] +<@robbat2> *agree with +<@ulm> very subtle :) [21:26] +<@ulm> but doesn't look like a fundamental obstacle +<@robbat2> on the funding side, there's also a nuance, that won't matter if + we're in an umbrella, but i'll cover it anyway +<@robbat2> the IRS has the "public support test", for public 501c3; that + requires funding come from a broad set of donors +<@robbat2> on a rolling 6 year basis, 33% of total revenues must come from + donors who EACH contribute strictly less than 2% [21:28] +<@ulm> do you have a number on how we do there at present? [21:29] +<@robbat2> back in 2004: FreeBSD nearly failed that requirement: + https://news.slashdot.org/story/04/12/28/0044211/freebsd-foundation-passes-04-small-donation-needs?sdsrc=prevbtmprev +<@robbat2> Gentoo would have passed in *most* years [21:30] +<@robbat2> there are I think 3-4 years, non-consquetive where we had a large + donor that risked this +<+ajak> does that apply to members of a 501c3 umbrella individually or the + umbrella in the aggregate? [21:31] +<@robbat2> i have a commented out piece of code somewhere in the financial + statements that would show if we passed it +<@robbat2> for an umbrella, it's the whole umbrella in aggregate +<@robbat2> which makes it much easier overall +<@robbat2> other limitations: in both the 501c cases, there are some + restrictions on how people are paid - this has never been a problem + for Gentoo, because we had our own non-renumeration clauses with + those in mind, since the inception [21:35] +<@robbat2> those are pretty much tl;dr: don't improperly take money from a + non-profit [21:36] +<@robbat2> ulm, soap: does that answer most of your questions about 501c 3 / + 6? [21:38] +<@soap> yes +<@ulm> yes, no more questions for now +<@robbat2> overall status wise: [21:39] +<@robbat2> SFC: gave us a soft no, they don't take linux distros really +<@robbat2> SPI: never responded to mgorny's questions after a few prods +<@soap> ok, but we could've just tried pining SPI again? +<@robbat2> they didn't respond last time, but it's been a year [21:40] +<@robbat2> and they had some internal changes of board [21:41] +<@ulm> from the previous e-mail exchange with them I gathered that they don't + have any paid staff doing accounting? or at least they didn't in 2017 +<@robbat2> OSC: antarus dropped the ball on sending our questions to them, we + could re-open it likely +<@ulm> OSC is 501c6 though [21:42] +<@robbat2> the collective stuff has both 501c3 and 501c6 choices +<@ulm> yeah, and I find it somewhat confusing +<@ulm> OC is the platform, and there are OCF (501c3), OSC (501c6) plus several + other fiscal hosts below? [21:43] +<@robbat2> something like that +<@ulm> and we could also start our own directly under OC? [21:44] +<@ulm> + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:FoundationFutureState#Starting_a_new_collective + seems to indicate that +<@robbat2> SPI: i think they have paid somebody to help w/ the bookkeeping; + but they *do* have an independent auditor for their financial + statements +<@ulm> my preference would be to try reiterating with SPI first [21:45] +<@ulm> then maybe check out options with OC [21:46] +<@soap> second that +<@ulm> SFC seems to be out of the question +<@dilfridge> here +<@ulm> welcome :) +<@dilfridge> reading backlog +<@robbat2> SPI ran at a significant loss last year: + https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/reports/202212/#index2h3 + [21:47] +<@robbat2> expenses of 563k to income of 108k +<@soap> wow +<@robbat2> they have a 5M warchest, so that's probably okay, but not great + overall +<@robbat2> sorry, 3M, their formatting is a bit different than mine [21:48] +<@dilfridge> ehm, now how did they manage that? :| [21:49] +<@robbat2> i haven't dug into the details, but covid hurt a lot of orgs due to + upfront costs of conferences +<@ulm> Equity:Net-Assets seems to be the biggest loss +<@dilfridge> is that depreciation? [21:50] +<@robbat2> i know the Ceph Foundation (under Linux Foundation) nearly went + functionaly bankrupt +<@dilfridge> yeah, I mean, I kinda see that the covid years cannot be counted + normal +<@ulm> have we contacted linux foundation, BTW? [21:51] +<@ulm> or are they not a good fit for us? +<@dilfridge> they are exclusivley c6 [21:52] +<@ulm> yes +<@robbat2> yes, we did +<@dilfridge> also, I dont really feel well with some org that claims "we're + actually the biggest linux employer worldwide" +<@robbat2> i'll try dig out those mails as well, but they linked us to the + agreement docs, and nobody liked it +<@robbat2> hmm, I see that link is dead +<@robbat2> i'll try find it +<@ulm> + https://www.lfnetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2020/06/LF-Networking-Participation-Agreement-rev.-2020-06-01.pdf + is a 404 +<@robbat2> + https://web.archive.org/web/20210809181218/https://www.lfnetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2020/06/LF-Networking-Participation-Agreement-rev.-2020-06-01.pdf + [21:53] +<@robbat2> (i have to go in 5 mins, at 20:00 UTC) [21:54] +<@robbat2> (briefly at least) +<@ulm> ok, that pdf is too much to read during the meeting [21:55] +<@dilfridge> I'll read through the spi mails and talk them over with mgorny +<@robbat2> in terms of time commitment, I feel starting our own 501c is + nothing ANY of us want to take on +<@robbat2> that leaves us with SPI || OpenCollective [21:56] +<@dilfridge> agreed +<@ulm> yes +<@robbat2> OC is the shiny new choice, but I don't know about track record +<@robbat2> SPI is *old* +<@robbat2> which is good +<@dilfridge> beard like debian :D +* ulm just wanted to say that :) +<@robbat2> fastforwarding since I have to go in a moment: [21:57] +<@robbat2> i'm going to resend the notification emails of people being + removed, i was surprised to get zero responses +<@robbat2> no further response in 2 weeks, -> boot +<@ulm> agreed +<@robbat2> I think prometheanfire did file the annual report, but I want + explicit confirmation again +<@robbat2> the taxes are done +<@robbat2> i need to make sure I put the tax pdfs into the repo [21:58] +<@dilfridge> excellent +<@dilfridge> I think I may still need access somewhere there? or maybe I have + and dont know it yet :) +<@robbat2> ssh git@git.gentoo.org |grep foundation +<@ulm> robbat2: should we end the meeting then, or can we continue with bugs + and membership applications without you? +<@robbat2> you have quorum without me [21:59] +<@robbat2> so continue +<@dilfridge> RW everywhere \o/ +<@robbat2> if you need my input on bugs, you can ping +<@robbat2> i'll be back in 15-20 +<@ulm> k +<@ulm> who wants to take over the chair? +<@dilfridge> (you are seriously asking? :o) [22:00] +<@ulm> ok, I do :) +<@ulm> 5. New membership applications +<@ulm> we have one application from arsen (which we missed in the AGM) [22:01] +<@ulm> mail from 2023-01-22 with subject "Developer Foundation membership", + message-id <86mt6ajkcp.fsf@gentoo.org> +<+Arsen> :-) +<@dilfridge> ++ +<@ulm> motion: accept Arsen's application +* dilfridge yes +*** [Arfrever] (~Arfrever@apache/committer/Arfrever) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees +* ulm yes +<@ulm> soap: ^^ [22:02] +* soap yes +<@dilfridge> swiss trains run on time! +* soap ducks +<@ulm> accepted with 3 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions, 2 absent +<@ulm> I'm not aware of any other application [22:03] +<@ulm> 6. Open bugs with trustees involvement +<@ulm> 55 open bugs, so we cannot go though all of them today [22:04] +<@dilfridge> maybe until next time we can tag some of them as "action item" or + similar +<@ulm> I had sent a list with 7 bugs [22:05] +<@dilfridge> then we can have an agenda thing "open action items on bz" +<@ulm> yeah, good idea +<@ulm> bug 369185 +<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/369185 "Official "g" logo's licensing + under CC-BY-SA-4.0 should be mentioned at Gentoo Name and Logo + Usage Guidelines"; Websites, Graphics; IN_P; sping:trustees +<@dilfridge> I like the FAQ solution [22:06] +<@ulm> maybe not ready for vote just now, but can you read my last entry and + comment on the bug please? +<@ulm> then we can vote there +<@dilfridge> done [22:07] +<@ulm> the next two are similar +<@ulm> bug 371541 +<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/371541 "Offer vector graphic of + "gentoo linux TM" text"; Websites, Graphics; IN_P; sping:trustees +<@ulm> bug 371543 +<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/371543 "Offer vector graphic of + newage/modern "gentoo" text"; Websites, Graphics; CONF; + sping:trustees +<@ulm> I'd suggest to reassign to the artwork project [22:08] +<@dilfridge> yes +<@ulm> not sure what trustees should do there +* dilfridge doesnt dare to ask where it'll end up then +<@ulm> soap: ok with this? +<@soap> yes +<@dilfridge> ... +<@ulm> bug 613950 [22:09] +<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/613950 "Change of Mailing Address: + tracker bug"; Gentoo Foundation, Filings; CONF; robbat2:trustees +<@ulm> I fear we need robbat2 for this one +<@dilfridge> well it's a tracker, so nothing directly to be done [22:10] +<@ulm> yeah, moving on +<@ulm> bug 634406 +<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/634406 "larrythecow.org + potentially(?) profiting off of Gentoo mascot's name."; Gentoo + Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; R030t1:trustees +<@prometheanfire> sorry, work was calling :| +<@ulm> I think this one can be closed, looks like domain parking now [22:11] +<@ulm> this is the page from 2017: + https://web.archive.org/web/20171014171418/http://larrythecow.org/ + [22:12] +<@ulm> obviously they've dropped our logo +<@dilfridge> the text is still the same, the graphics different +<@ulm> yeah, let's close the bug [22:13] +<@ulm> bug 693288 +<willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/693288 "sys-kernel/*-sources: + non-redistributable files"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF; + ulm:trustees +<@dilfridge> that feels a bit like an OPP [22:14] +<@ulm> this was filed by me, but I think it's not really actionable +<@ulm> reassign to kernel, or to licenses? +<@dilfridge> licenses +<@ulm> basically it's an upstream issue and there's nothing we can do [22:15] +<@ulm> certainly we won't stop mirroring kernel sources +<@ulm> any objections against reassigning to licenses@ [22:16] +<@soap> nope +<@ulm> last one, bug 796947 +<willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/796947 "[Motion] Update IRC information in + Privacy Policy"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; ulm:trustees +<@ulm> two suggestions in comment #3 [22:17] +<@dilfridge> I hate it but b is better [22:18] +<@ulm> I'd prefer a) +<@soap> yup, b is better +<@ulm> ok, let's take a vote then +<@ulm> option a) or b) from https://bugs.gentoo.org/796947#c3 [22:19] +* dilfridge votes b) +* ulm votes a) +* soap votes b) +<@dilfridge> ... and robin says in the bug he prefers b +<@ulm> yes he did [22:20] +<@ulm> prometheanfire: ^^ +<+NeddySeagoon> The 'b's have it +<@prometheanfire> b, for what it's worth [22:21] +<@ulm> ok, that's 1 for a), 3 for b) +<@ulm> 1 absent [22:22] +<@ulm> I'm going to update the page then +<@ulm> anything else from the list at + 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=6961782&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- + ? [22:23] +<@dilfridge> that looks too much like work :/ +<@ulm> 7. Foundation activity tracker [22:24] +<@ulm> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Activity_Tracker +<@dilfridge> Secretary/Treasurer Annual Report - New Mexico [22:25] +<@dilfridge> due 15-Nov-2023 +<@ulm> yes, this one is for robbat2 +<@dilfridge> everything else looks far in the future +<@ulm> Secretary/President Prune non-voting members +<@ulm> we have discussed this already [22:26] +<@ulm> Secretary/President Send email to people listed Consultants are + still valid (one month response time) 18-Dec-2016 17-Dec-2017 + (estimated) +<@ulm> not sure about this one, but looks like it's optional [22:27] +<@ulm> 8. AOB / open floor +<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: They get an ad on our webpage somewhere. +<+NeddySeagoon> Action on Sec to update the members list. [22:28] +<@ulm> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Consultants I think +<+NeddySeagoon> Add Arsen, so he can vote :) +<@ulm> I have one item for AOB +<@ulm> can we move https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_History to + the main wiki name space? [22:29] +<@dilfridge> yes please +<@ulm> so non-trustees (including NeddySeagoon) can edit it +<+NeddySeagoon> Heh :) [22:30] +<@ulm> prometheanfire: soap: any objections? +<@soap> no +<@ulm> anything else? [22:31] +<@soap> not from my side +<@dilfridge> not here +<@ulm> let's wait until 20:33 +<@ulm> meeting closed [22:33] +<@ulm> thanks everyone! +<@dilfridge> thank you and sorry for being late +<@soap> thanks diff --git a/motions/2019_motions.txt b/motions/2019_motions.txt index efe83f0..7923c03 100644 --- a/motions/2019_motions.txt +++ b/motions/2019_motions.txt @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ -https://bugs.gentoo.org/673696 - Approved to add mgorny to AUTHORS file: PASSED -https://bugs.gentoo.org/676320 - Allow Council members to serve as Trustees: PASSED -https://bugs.gentoo.org/676322 - Allow a quorum of members to be 1/10th of members: FAILED +| bug | motion | status | +|:------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------:|:------:| +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/673696 | Approved to add mgorny to AUTHORS file | PASSED | +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/676320 | Allow Council members to serve as Trustees | PASSED | +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/676322 | Allow a quorum of members to be 1/10th of members | FAILED | +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/676314 | Bylaw reformat, grammatical | PASSED | +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/668682 | GLEP76 compliance name change/ alias add | PASSED | +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/684170 | Valid email address needed | FAILED | +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/680910 | Request for IntegriCloud to be added to sponsors | PASSED | +| - | Gentoo Foundation Finances FY2019 report | PASSED | diff --git a/motions/2020_motions.txt b/motions/2020_motions.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a72b779 --- /dev/null +++ b/motions/2020_motions.txt @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +| bug | motion | status | +|:------------------------------:|:-------------------------------------------------:|:------:| +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/730200 | metadata/AUTHORS: inclusion robbat2 & employeers | PASSED | +| email | membership: sam | PASSED | diff --git a/motions/2021_motions.txt b/motions/2021_motions.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bd329eb --- /dev/null +++ b/motions/2021_motions.txt @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| bug | motion | status | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/791010 | AndrewAmmerlaan membership | PASSED | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/789672 | Founding request for releng stage builds | PASSED | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/796623 | Gentoo should be removed from the Freenode Acknowledgements section | PASSED | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/796605 | Update Bylaws Section 3.1. Place of Meetings | PASSED | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| https://bugs.gentoo.org/794652 | Application of John Helmert III (ajak) | PASSED | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| AGM 2021/8/23 01:00 UTC | Approve president's letter | PASSED | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| AGM 2021/8/23 01:00 UTC | Continue to use reopen_nominations | PASSED | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ +| AGM 2021/8/23 01:00 UTC | Alicef as tie-breaker until a new trustee is seated | PASSED | ++--------------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------+--------+ |