From 1e6c27f074aa8439d5f152c5e645f5df5d28c6ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Abbott Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 19:18:14 -0400 Subject: added log for May meeting plus renamed old logs for 2018 --- ...01-20-22:37_Foundation-Meetings-2018-01.log.txt | 414 ------------ ...2-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt | 355 ----------- ...03-18-22:00_Foundation-Meetings-2018-03.log.txt | 179 ------ ...-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt | 704 --------------------- 2018/20180120.log.txt | 414 ++++++++++++ 2018/20180217.log.txt | 355 +++++++++++ 2018/20180318.log.txt | 179 ++++++ 2018/20180421.log.txt | 704 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2018/20180519.log.txt | 254 ++++++++ 9 files changed, 1906 insertions(+), 1652 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 2018/2018-01-20-22:37_Foundation-Meetings-2018-01.log.txt delete mode 100644 2018/2018-02-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt delete mode 100644 2018/2018-03-18-22:00_Foundation-Meetings-2018-03.log.txt delete mode 100644 2018/2018-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt create mode 100644 2018/20180120.log.txt create mode 100644 2018/20180217.log.txt create mode 100644 2018/20180318.log.txt create mode 100644 2018/20180421.log.txt create mode 100644 2018/20180519.log.txt diff --git a/2018/2018-01-20-22:37_Foundation-Meetings-2018-01.log.txt b/2018/2018-01-20-22:37_Foundation-Meetings-2018-01.log.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 62359fb..0000000 --- a/2018/2018-01-20-22:37_Foundation-Meetings-2018-01.log.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,414 +0,0 @@ -[22:37:42] Meeting started by prometheanfire -[22:37:49] You can ask sigyn to unkline -[22:37:58] Meeting chairs are: klondike, dabbott, kensington, alicef, prometheanfire -[22:38:03] o/ -[22:38:09] Current subject: rollcall, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:38:11] o/ -[22:38:16] o/ -[22:38:18] Here -[22:38:22] o/ -[22:38:56] here? -[22:39:06] sure -[22:39:13] Current subject: who's logging?, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:39:17] can somoene /op trustee-meetbot if it needs it? -[22:40:25] prometheanfire: Im logging -[22:40:41] Current subject: confirmation of new trustee , (set by prometheanfire) -[22:41:30] I nominate klondike as trustee in replacement of zlg for a term set til the next election (currently july 2018) -[22:41:40] seconded -[22:42:05] I accept the nomination under the conditions stated by prometheanfire -[22:42:34] ok, vote for klondike as a trustee now please -[22:42:39] seconded -[22:42:39] klondike: thanks -[22:42:41] yes -[22:42:55] Yes -[22:43:00] yes -[22:43:04] yes -[22:43:28] can't vote here -[22:43:31] ok, klondike is afirmed as trustee for a term set til the next election (currently july 2018) -[22:44:04] Current subject: activity tracker, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:44:08] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Activity_Tracker [Foundation:Activity Tracker - Gentoo Wiki] -[22:44:24] nothing there, moving on -[22:45:45] Current subject: irs update, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:45:49] robbat2: around? -[22:46:19] prometheanfire: he had to leave 46 minutes ago -[22:46:42] well, I'll update it as I know -[22:46:48] it's still a WIP -[22:46:49] next -[22:47:01] Current subject: foundation mailing address change, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:47:06] waiting on irs -[22:47:07] next -[22:47:18] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:47:38] alicef: how goes it with your items? -[22:47:43] Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support -[22:47:43] (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page -[22:47:47] Do we need date of birth in developer apps (how'd the email go)? -[22:48:06] i'm working on the donor page -[22:49:12] and i see we can get to the consulting page from the https://www.gentoo.org/support/ page -[22:49:50] so still work in progress? -[22:49:53] so probably is not needed ? or is anyway better to add a menu in Getting help with Gentoo -[22:50:00] ? -[22:50:29] alicef: I think bugging infra would be the best way to see site updates -[22:51:17] we alr-eady have a consulting button in the https://www.gentoo.org/support/ -[22:51:20] page -[22:51:25] maffblaster is working on www stuff too I think -[22:51:50] yep alicef put it in a bug to www -[22:52:01] alicef: I think a more direct link would be preferable -[22:52:11] kensington: thanks, couldn't remember his nick -[22:52:13] prometheanfire: ok work on that -[22:52:31] alicef: as for the birth date question, I -[22:52:54] alicef: as for the birth date question, I'd contact ulm as he wanted to work with you on a more comprehensive copyright policy and it'd tie into it -[22:53:14] prometheanfire: ok good for me -[22:53:25] alicef: any other items? -[22:53:40] no is everything -[22:53:43] k -[22:53:49] alicef: thanks -[22:53:59] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:54:07] Contact zlg? -[22:54:11] done and resolved -[22:54:15] contact the foundation consultants. -[22:54:27] all but one responded and he's a dev on devaway -[22:54:35] ok -[22:54:44] I'd like to not remove him as a consultant for another month -[22:54:48] and just keep the page as is -[22:55:02] Fine -[22:55:34] ok, I'll make a note to do that -[22:56:20] next -[22:56:45] the openssl ecc stuff is waiting for either 1.1 to go stable or for robbat2 (or someone else) to fully backport the 1.1 patch -[22:57:15] next -[22:57:18] bug 642824 -[22:57:20] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642824 "Insulting behavior from Ian Delaney on #gentoo-trustees"; Community Relations, User Relations; CONF; mgorny:trustees -[22:57:26] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642824 [642824 – Insulting behavior from Ian Delaney on #gentoo-trustees] -[22:57:54] as we are not governed by comrel we have to handle these types of actions ourselves -[22:58:41] In-channel behaviour is manages by the channel ops 99% of all times -[22:59:32] having viewed the bug (and been here at least one of the times the harrassment occured I move that we ban idella for 24 hours (as per the proposed proctor rules) -[22:59:42] kensington: yep -[23:00:43] can I get a second or another proposal? -[23:01:03] Seconded -[23:01:10] ok, please vote -[23:01:11] yes -[23:01:15] yes -[23:01:19] Yes -[23:01:23] yes -[23:02:08] where'd klondike go? -[23:02:24] barring an intervening policy by gentoo or the foundation, code of conduct and authority to manage #gentoo-trustees would default to chanops, a discretion granted thereto by freenode and through groupcontacts that officially represents gentoo foundation to freenode for matters in #gentoo-* channel namespace -[23:02:41] ping timeout -[23:02:49] vote passes in any case -[23:02:50] Spyro: yep -[23:03:02] I'll do the ban when we are done with the meeting -[23:03:24] prometheanfire: thanks -[23:03:38] next -[23:03:43] bug 643192 -[23:03:52] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/643192 [Bug Access Denied] -[23:04:01] Any authority by comrel would likewise need to be done through groupcontacts (even if implicitly) if exercised on freenode on behalf of gentoo foundation -[23:04:22] You are not authorized to access bug #643192 ? -[23:04:32] Can we finally unrestrict this bug? -[23:04:43] the consulting page has two instances of an individual appearing as a company as well -[23:04:49] dabbott: it's locked to comrel for some strange reason -[23:05:14] because it was reported wrong -[23:05:16] unlocked -[23:06:22] my proposal is that the consultants page should have unique email addresses at the very least -[23:06:40] prometheanfire: that sounds good -[23:06:48] prometheanfire: that bug likely shouldn't be in the community relations product -[23:07:33] jmbsvicetto: yep should be foundation -[23:07:47] we also have the right to remove anyone at any time for any reason, but that should provide at least some basic protection from 'ballot stuffing' -[23:08:00] vote? on my proposal? -[23:08:18] Can I make a different propossal? -[23:08:22] ofc -[23:09:08] I can see an individual being a consultant on there own plus have a company but agree the contact info should be different at least -[23:09:24] klondike: go ahead -[23:09:26] prometheanfire: i agree on the different mail for consultant and company -[23:09:28] dabbott: ya, zx2c4 -[23:09:38] Since consulting is an economic activity consultants must have a legal company behind -[23:09:57] Even as an autonomous employee that is usually a requirement although the company is yourself -[23:10:02] *raises a hand* -[23:10:08] Yes Spyro -[23:10:26] Definition of company varies wildly between countries -[23:10:33] Of course it does -[23:10:33] Technically, if you are in business for yourself you can present yourself as a sole proprietorship. A company is only a separate legal entity from its owner in the case of it being a corporation -[23:10:35] at least in the us -[23:10:46] Spyro: exactly -[23:10:48] klondike: not always they can be freelance -[23:10:51] but you don't have to have a company to ...yeah -[23:10:55] what alice just saida bout freelancing -[23:11:00] is unclear what the problem we are trying to solve actually is -[23:11:08] if you freelance you're in a one employee business as your own boss -[23:11:11] alicef: if you are freelance you still pay taxes -[23:11:23] pay tax is not owing a company -[23:11:28] drobbins is listed twice -[23:11:38] he already agreed to being listed as a company only -[23:11:40] yes, but as a sole proprietorship you include the business activities in your personal income tax return on Schedule C -[23:11:48] I'm not sure any other action is warrented? -[23:11:52] antarus: just don't wish for people to say they have 10 companies along with themselves -[23:12:02] antarus: a few other double instances appear too -[23:12:16] Legally, unless a corporation is involved, the only entity involved is the person who owns the business -[23:12:21] the only other double was zxc2c4 iirc -[23:12:30] which is why a corporation's stockholder would NOT be lsited -[23:12:58] So I would reword it to: "Only one listing per physical person" -[23:13:16] klondike: that's acceptable and simpler to enforce -[23:13:37] yes sounds good -[23:13:41] we do also have the right to refuse if an eployer told all their employees to submit -[23:13:53] klondike: any potential worries if a listing involves a corporation? -[23:13:56] What does that actually mean? No personal & company listing? -[23:14:09] companies are people, at least in the us -[23:14:30] prometheanfire: physical person usually means humans -[23:14:47] it can still be abused, but it's better than it is now -[23:14:50] kensington: more like, you as human can choose on or the other -[23:15:07] klondike: care to formally word it so we can vote? -[23:15:08] Yeah that's why I wanted to comment. In the US, the company's owner is legally liable and responsible for the business, and relatedly all of the business's income counts as personal income for the owner -[23:15:14] prometheanfire: sure -[23:15:23] Spyro: llc -[23:15:25] unless the company happens to be a corporation/LLC/LLP/etc -[23:15:35] *nods* -[23:15:38] so we don't like the existing double listings...why..? -[23:15:50] antarus: unfair advantage -[23:15:59] what's happen on llc llp etc? -[23:16:02] Why isn't it legit for someone to hire "edge security" in one instance, and zxc2c4 in another instance? -[23:16:10] (to pick an example) -[23:16:11] the issue in question being whether or not the person is a legally separate entity from the company, and that in turn depends on how the company is legally defined (aka corporation vs proprietorship) -[23:16:25] (ie rather instead of aka) -[23:16:30] .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company and remove those found to be done in bad faith". -[23:17:12] I guess I don't see the abuse, there are only 3 corporations listed in any case, its not as though a bunch of fictional companies are being submitted -[23:17:16] klondike: foundation reserves the right to remove anyone -[23:17:16] they all look real enough to me ;) -[23:17:21] this implies we think someone is doing it to get an advantage -[23:17:32] My personal opinion is that removing/consolidating redundant entries would keep things tidy paperwork-wise anyway. If necessary a person's businesses can be listed as a group under the entry identifying the person. -[23:17:34] I don't think that is the case -[23:17:36] I still feel like we are addressing a non-problem -[23:17:43] antarus++ -[23:18:26] klondike: can you amend it to include that? -[23:18:31] Sure -[23:18:36] Its a service to readers Cavat Emptor still applies. -[23:18:49] antarus: ++ -[23:18:59] .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation shall also remove any entry.". -[23:19:22] Uhh that last bit is worded confusingly -[23:19:25] keep the right to remove any entry -[23:19:43] .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation reserves the right remove any entry.". -[23:19:43] "The foundation reserves teh right to remove any entries at its discretion." -[23:19:54] .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.". -[23:19:57] to rnemove -[23:20:01] to remove -[23:20:11] it's .proposal, most likely. i think you typoed -[23:20:19] .proposal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.". -[23:20:28] shrugs -[23:20:30] it's not a bot command, just useful to call it out -[23:20:33] ah -[23:20:56] klondike: looks good -[23:21:00] INFO: Motion: "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.". -[23:21:01] .proposal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation also reserves the right to remove any entry." -[23:21:13] So, you propose that any company that an individual works for or owns (even in part) isn't allowed to be listed as providing support for Gentoo, just because that individual already is listed? -[23:21:47] Here's my proposal: corporations and people are listed separately, but any person DBA as a company has said company listed under the person in question as auxiliary data -[23:22:02] What if the individual is a "part" of that company? What "percentage" does the individual need to represent for that requirement to be dropped? -[23:22:08] jmbsvicetto: that's not guaranteed to be enforced -[23:22:21] just reserve the right -[23:22:24] still feels like this is simply over-legislating -[23:22:31] prometheanfire: ++ -[23:22:38] with the understanding that said company only counts if it provides support for gentoo. So basically, I propose companies get listed but only a) if they support gentoo, and b) as a sub-listing under the company's owner -[23:22:40] is starting to agree with antarus xD -[23:22:48] so you are reserving rights you don't even plan on enforcing? :p -[23:22:55] what do you guys think of my idea? -[23:22:55] this is getting too complicated -[23:22:59] antarus: enforce selectivly -[23:23:10] Are we voting on the motion or not? -[23:23:11] just as judges have leeway in punishment -[23:23:14] I voted -[23:23:19] I mean its your listing, you might as well reserve all your rights (not merely to remove entries ;p) -[23:23:20] no -[23:23:23] .agree -[23:23:24] Spyro: only company owner can submit in that case? -[23:23:26] I vote no -[23:23:31] I have to agree with antarus on this one - this seems like something the Foundation doesn't even need to worry about (at least at this point) -[23:24:02] ok, hold the vote then -[23:24:04] 2 no 2 yes alicef ? -[23:24:07] antarus: ++ -[23:24:17] alicef: whoever submits a company would at the very minimum need the company owner's authorizaiton (either express or implied) at least to prevent issues of abuse of agency and/or fraud -[23:24:26] no -[23:24:35] this wasn't meant to be this complicated -[23:24:47] sorry :( -[23:24:50] beyond that I'm just a big fan of tidy paperwork -[23:25:11] this is apart from if a particular person or company should be lsited to begin with. -[23:25:16] no double listings under the same contact -[23:25:19] that's it -[23:25:29] prometheanfire: I can get on board that logically ;) -[23:25:39] prometheanfire: i like that -[23:25:48] definitely can agree with that. If companies, separate from their owners, deserve to be emntioned they can just be consolidated in the same entry as their owner -[23:25:50] e.g. for drobbins he should have 1 personal contact and one "breezeops" contact -[23:25:51] second? -[23:26:12] Ok -[23:26:13] it also makes sense for people to understand whom they are contacting for services -[23:26:16] as opposed to mixing -[23:26:18] antarus: in this case, I would suggest "Daniel Robbins" with a sublisting for DBA breezeops -[23:26:42] Spyro: I leave it to the trustees to debate implementation ;) -[23:26:43] whats the motion -[23:26:57] what if i'm under a company but willing also to give private support / -[23:27:05] That's a good question alicef -[23:27:11] .vote the consultants page contants must be unique -[23:27:21] alicef: usually you have legal trouble with the company for doing competing bussiness -[23:27:23] then you will have a different contact info -[23:27:34] klondike: not always -[23:27:37] I would opine in general that if you keep things tidy information-wise, the decision making parts will be simpler -[23:27:39] vote please -[23:27:41] the company can also don't mind -[23:27:53] .agree -[23:27:59] alicef: I think as long as you provide separate contact information; that should be allowed -[23:28:08] i think it too -[23:28:17] sounds good -[23:28:21] alicef: dabbott kensington vote please -[23:28:30] whats the motion ? -[23:28:33] 17:29 < prometheanfire@> .vote the consultants page contants must be unique -[23:28:42] and mispell -[23:28:49] seconded -[23:28:53] yes -[23:28:54] what about my last question ? -[23:28:55] *contacts? -[23:28:57] yes -[23:29:05] Yes -[23:29:08] is it enforced ? -[23:29:29] alicef: enforced? yes, I'm going to email drobbins about it after the meeting -[23:29:50] what if i'm under a company but willing also to give private support? -[23:29:54] alicef: yes the contact info must be unique -[23:30:17] or different -[23:30:25] exactly -[23:30:26] alicef: then you provide your company e-mail in one and your personal e-mail on the other -[23:30:36] yes -[23:30:36] yep -[23:30:39] thanks -[23:30:41] motion carried -[23:30:52] I'll contact drobbins after the meeting -[23:30:56] alicef: 2 motions so far -[23:31:03] I think -[23:31:06] yep -[23:31:07] yes :) -[23:31:12] first one was the ban -[23:31:27] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire) -[23:31:34] jmbsvicetto, robbat2 around: -[23:31:36] ? -[23:31:40] pong -[23:31:48] jmbsvicetto: infra update time -[23:32:45] prometheanfire: at this point we have no funding requests. I need to make a proposal for some hardware for the server flameeyes donated that arrived at OSL this week -[23:33:06] I thought that was antarus's server -[23:33:19] antarus was holding flameeyes server -[23:33:29] but ok, we can handle that later -[23:33:31] ah -[23:33:37] next -[23:33:49] Current subject: Treasurer Update, (set by prometheanfire) -[23:34:10] robbat2 is gone, but the earlier updates about tax are still true -[23:34:23] Current subject: open trustee bugs, (set by prometheanfire) -[23:34:36] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3817164&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- [Bug List: TrusteesOpenBugs] -[23:34:59] Anything urgent? -[23:35:18] bug 642422 -[23:35:29] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642422 [Bug Access Denied] -[23:36:20] I don't have bugzie login handy right now -[23:36:25] I'm fine with the footer to be replaced, but iirc it was not even his footer -[23:36:55] alicef: mind taking bug 369185 -[23:36:57] prometheanfire: 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 -[23:37:01] Oh that one -[23:37:07] Isn't infra handling now? -[23:37:09] prometheanfire: ok for me -[23:37:19] kensington: mostly, I think they just need our ack -[23:37:43] ok should we ack on the bug? -[23:37:48] yes -[23:37:51] robbat2's plan sounded good iirc -[23:38:02] You are not authorized to access bug #642422. -[23:38:24] I'll do so if you want (first request that robbat2 state the actions to be taken in the bug) -[23:39:22] klondike: I'll fix after the meeting -[23:39:39] ok, I just updated the bug requesting specific action plan -[23:39:50] no other urgent bugs -[23:40:31] Current subject: cleanup, (set by prometheanfire) -[23:40:44] date of next meeting is 2200 UTC 17th of Feb -[23:40:52] sound good? -[23:40:58] ok here -[23:41:05] Yep -[23:42:01] works for me -[23:42:55] alicef: is 22:00 ok or is later better? -[23:43:19] I can do later but not earlier -[23:43:32] she's afk atm -[23:43:38] we'll assume it's ok for now -[23:43:43] ok -[23:43:56] Who will post the log? minutes? -[23:44:10] got it -[23:44:29] Who will update the motions page? -[23:44:33] (should be alicef) -[23:44:37] alicef: will -[23:44:40] Who will send emails? -[23:44:58] is there any? -[23:45:15] dabbott: logs/minutes should be emailed to -nfp at least -[23:45:36] ok -[23:45:57] Who will update agenda? -[23:45:59] I will -[23:46:05] as an attachment or plain text? -[23:46:06] Who will update channel topic? -[23:46:07] I will -[23:46:12] dabbott: attachment I think -[23:46:17] ok -[23:46:48] ok for me -[23:47:07] yes just realized we are in 2018 -[23:47:12] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire) -[23:47:32] raises hand -[23:47:38] oh wait, open -[23:47:51] Spyro: go on -[23:48:01] I'd like to concur with the comment made on my foundation membership audit, and have completion of a staff quiz become a prerequisite to the granting of foundation membership. -[23:48:28] it was prom's idea -[23:48:38] wants to clean up the bug list -[23:48:42] i thought we already dicussed this -[23:48:44] klondike: ya... -[23:49:00] alicef: I don't know if it was ever brought to a formal vote or put on an official genda though -[23:49:07] klondike: ditto -[23:49:40] Last time I checked the bylaws the staff quiz was never mentioned as a membership criteria -[23:49:42] Spyro: it was discussed in the joint meeting (logs/minutes will be posted tonight) but the problem with that is that the trustees should have the final say in membership, not comrel/recruiting -[23:49:50] Can I just ping for an update on anything older than July 2017 and close it if we don't get any answer by next meeting? -[23:50:05] prom: I'd like to respond to that comment as I think there's been a misunderstanding -[23:50:05] klondike: kensington Leave bugs with fincancial stuff in the whiteboard. robbat2 is using them -[23:50:12] klondike: atm, no, some of those are valid -[23:50:16] Ohh okay -[23:50:24] NeddySeagoon: I know -[23:50:54] prometheanfire: my proposal is that foundation members pass the staff quiz, not that recruiters be the ones to evaluate it. What I'm proposing is a staff quiz that the trustees themselves would evaluate -[23:51:07] It can't hurt to review all to make sure they're the only outstanding owns though -[23:51:15] comrel/recruiting would be completely uninvolved -[23:51:17] that's possible, as long as we are the ones reviewing -[23:51:26] prometheanfire: does that clarify my proposal? -[23:51:28] klondike: nothing stopping you for asking for an update -[23:51:29] yes -[23:51:41] What project would these members join? -[23:51:51] I'll send a request for an update for any non financial bugs then -[23:51:54] some of them may be being used as reminders -[23:52:13] NeddySeagoon: it's the same as before, they'd still need to prove they've contrib'd to gentoo -[23:52:13] klondike: sounds good -[23:52:15] i think the point was that we are already doing a review -[23:52:30] prometheanfire: Sounds good -[23:52:40] alicef, prometheanfire: my apologies if I assumed you knew I was only talking about the quiz itself and not necessarily that comrel/recruiters would be involved -[23:52:42] and we vote for each member -[23:53:06] it's not a 'pass this quiz and you get membership', they do that AND have to prove contribution -[23:53:20] prometheanfire: ++ -[23:53:20] it was honestly just a clerical-error type misunderstanding :P -[23:53:26] prometheanfire++ -[23:53:45] make that a proposal and email it to the trustees (get one of us assigned to it) -[23:53:53] then it'd be brought up for a vote -[23:53:58] I'm booked :P -[23:54:45] anyone else for open floor? -[23:55:02] dances -[23:55:08] prom: were you instructing *me* to be the one to email the trustees? -[23:55:13] about the quiz proposal? -[23:55:15] ah my banner reimbourse -[23:55:23] Spyro: yes -[23:55:35] ...wait a minute what do you mean by "assign", are you talking about bugzilla? -[23:55:36] i added my paypal to bug -[23:55:41] to the bug -[23:55:43] alicef: probably need to talk to robbat2 -[23:55:50] prometheanfire: ok -[23:56:09] Spyro: no, just email and get one of us to take it up (have it be one of their agenda items) -[23:56:13] oh ok -[23:56:16] will do -[23:56:20] got a little confused -[23:56:22] Spyro: submit the bug and it will get assigned to the trustees -[23:56:33] ...so do I submit a bug or send an email or both? -[23:56:35] bug would help probably -[23:56:39] just a bug -[23:56:50] then one of us will look into it not prometheanfire he said he is too busy -[23:57:36] anything else? -[23:57:42] ok thanks I'll file a bug then -[23:58:19] Not from me, as said I'll send rfu on the non economy open bugs -[23:58:34] k -[23:58:36] Spyro: use the Product Foundation and Component Proposal -[23:58:47] klondike: make a list of bugs first, without sending the rfu -[23:58:51] all good here -[23:58:56] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 4874 seconds diff --git a/2018/2018-02-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt b/2018/2018-02-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 81ce379..0000000 --- a/2018/2018-02-17-21:58_Foundation-Meetings-2018-02-.log.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,355 +0,0 @@ -[21:58:52] Meeting started by prometheanfire -[21:59:11] Meeting chairs are: alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, prometheanfire, -[21:59:23] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire) -[21:59:26] here -[21:59:27] Here -[21:59:30] hi -[21:59:34] here -[21:59:40] you started early! -[21:59:56] oh, so I did, server time is 2 min ahead -[21:59:56] alicef: said she was up late with kernel bugs -[22:00:07] dabbott: ya, she was pinging me about them -[22:00:19] prometheanfire: can you add klondike2 as chair? -[22:00:31] Meeting chairs are: alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, klondike2, prometheanfire, -[22:00:36] Thanks -[22:00:48] ok, moving on -[22:00:57] Yay -[22:01:01] ACTION: dabbott is logging the meeting -[22:01:07] yes -[22:01:14] there is nothing in the activity tracker -[22:01:22] o/ -[22:01:29] excellent :) -[22:01:32] no change in the mailing addr, unless someone has something there -[22:01:34] antarus: :D -[22:01:43] oh, should probably -[22:01:47] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/02 [Foundation:Meetings/2018/02 - Gentoo Wiki] -[22:01:59] alicef: good timing, you're up -[22:02:01] there's one comment re mailing address -[22:02:16] capitalone sent one of our tax forms to Wayne Chew -[22:02:26] despite us having changed the address that the bank had -[22:03:10] is that from the account we want to close -[22:03:20] hmm, that's a good point -[22:03:22] it wasn't clear on a quick glance -[22:03:36] but that one was changing address as well -[22:03:45] at least tsunam sent in the change of address form for that account -[22:03:49] the sparks has the correct address afaik -[22:03:58] if they processed it correct... ? -[22:05:03] ya, guess that's something we need to verify and correct -[22:05:08] can we pull all the money out of that account and let it close or do we have to notify them -[22:05:26] robbat2: can you verify which account it was for, then we can proceed from there -[22:05:32] we have the new checking account -[22:05:35] dabbott: notify them -[22:05:45] i will when I next spend time on finances yes -[22:05:50] k -[22:05:50] (which is probably not today at all) -[22:05:52] in order to close the account -[22:05:59] make a bug so we don't forget -[22:06:06] ok -[22:06:08] robbat2: thanks -[22:06:14] who's making the bug? -[22:06:20] i will -[22:06:46] ACTION: dabbott is making a bug for the banking tax info being sent to the wrong address -[22:06:57] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:07:05] alicef: have at it :D -[22:07:44] no news on my side -[22:08:07] alicef: how about the copyright work with ulm? -[22:08:28] looks good for me -[22:08:34] ok -[22:08:47] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:08:53] prometheanfire: you're up -[22:08:55] ok me -[22:09:01] contact wizardedit (consultant) -[22:09:10] done, he asked to be removed and I've done so -[22:09:36] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/531540 [531540 – dev-libs/openssl: revise inclusion of elliptic curves with bindist USE flag] -[22:10:12] for the openssl thing, I haven't done anything there -[22:10:20] robbat2: have you had time to continue your work there? -[22:10:32] maybe, but I had a question as well -[22:10:37] sure -[22:10:43] what progress was the openssl1.1 unmasking making? -[22:11:02] most of the other distros look mostly set in for 1.1 already -[22:11:15] so could we just offer bindist-safe-ecc on 1.1 only -[22:11:58] if jmbsvicetto is here, maybe he knows -[22:12:11] !seen jmbsvicetto -[22:12:11] robbat2: jmbsvicetto was last seen 5 hours, 24 minutes and 16 seconds ago, saying "I meant irc activity" in #gentoo-groupcontacts -[22:12:30] i guess not -[22:12:36] let's just continue the meeting -[22:12:58] ok -[22:13:21] I guess that's something that'll need to be discussed in the ossl-1.1 tracker (general stablization) -[22:13:34] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:13:41] robbat2: pong -[22:13:50] jmbsvicetto: you're up -[22:14:12] sorry, what was the question? The openssl-1.1 stabilization? -[22:14:24] If so, I'm sorry but I haven't followed that -[22:14:41] thanks, that covers that, also any infra items you had for the trustee meeting -[22:14:47] jmbsvicetto: and the second one was infra updates -[22:14:58] I didn't fill the funding request yet. I'm going to do that in a bit -[22:15:32] Otherwise, I don't think there's any infra issue pending on trustees -[22:15:57] ok -[22:16:06] Current subject: treasure update, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:16:09] robbat2: you're up -[22:16:44] funding request clarification for other trustees: ~$1100 for SSD+parts for the server donated by flameeyes -[22:16:56] i guess we'll just move that one to a bug for voting then -[22:17:16] i have no actual progress update on treasurer/financials, just some comments -[22:17:44] go ahead -[22:17:49] 1. my CPA contact has moved to the other side of canada for family reasons -[22:17:59] we're still in contact, but they aren't local to me anymore -[22:18:28] 2. to that end, per the discussions yesterday, i think we should look for more bookkeeping AND CPA resources -[22:18:56] update & re-post our advert, and solicit other options for that -[22:19:22] splitting it to book-keeping service vs CPA service -[22:19:29] ack, sounds good to me, I can ask about my friends father in law about that, but I doubt he has experience with using open source accounting -[22:20:01] I wonder if the fsf could point us to someone -[22:20:36] it wouldn't hurt to ask once we post the advert -[22:20:45] yep -[22:20:50] fsf, sfc, eff, apache -[22:20:56] are who i'd start by asking -[22:21:27] agreed, fsf is just who came to mind first -[22:21:42] I might be able to ask the openstack people too at the PTG -[22:21:55] probably ask on the ledger mailing lists as well :-) -[22:22:09] and foundations list -[22:23:11] moving on? -[22:23:25] sounds good -[22:23:46] Current subject: bugs, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:23:56] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3290194&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- [Bug List: TrusteesOpenBugs] -[22:24:10] I don't actually see anything new there -[22:24:41] does that actually include lastchanged<30d ?! :P -[22:24:52] veremitz: heh, ya -[22:25:05] I know klondike mentioned going through the backlog -[22:25:17] if the list is 'zaro boogs' all is good :D -[22:25:33] ^use the force^ -[22:25:58] to that end, would anybody object to making a component to split out the finance ones? -[22:26:16] and having reimbursements move to finance when they are waiting on being closed out in book-keeping? -[22:26:39] robbat2: I was going to suggest something like that -[22:26:52] it'll make it easier to go over -[22:26:52] were we going to discuss bug 645192? -[22:26:54] robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees -[22:27:15] issues Pom-poms to Shentino -[22:27:30] gives credit for said pom poms to prometheanfire, it was his idea -[22:27:35] prometheanfire: haven't had time to backlog -[22:27:43] klondike2: np, just mentioning the intention -[22:27:56] robbat2: ya, guess we should :P -[22:27:57] We have somethings like the t-shirt mail we received 2 weeks ago -[22:28:04] Which should be linked to a bug -[22:28:16] I'll try to go over those to -[22:28:18] *too -[22:28:51] reguarding bug 645192, I think we should leave it for now, I suspect (hope) K_F is going to use it in his proposed membership application quiz -[22:28:51] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees -[22:29:23] Maybe this is the time to get K_F here? -[22:29:53] prometheanfire: when did he say he might have it completed? -[22:30:03] next meeting is the target -[22:30:08] ok -[22:30:22] ah, i haven't had time to read the log of the combined meeting -[22:30:30] lets move on to the tshirt email klondike2 mentioned -[22:30:50] Then all we need to do is vote on it as a requrment for membership? -[22:31:12] I think we should reply yes, and specify donation to the paypal account -[22:31:21] dabbott: more or less -[22:31:27] ok -[22:31:41] the basics of the quiz is that we'd vote based on the results of the quiz, but are not held to it -[22:31:46] prometheanfire: I think we should check our agreement with Gentoo eV -[22:31:47] as there is not a bylaw change -[22:32:01] klondike2: what does that have to do with it? -[22:32:10] ah, eu based -[22:32:20] jup -[22:32:49] possibly, id doesn't preclude donations to us though -[22:33:10] i have one comment re visual of the shirt, the logo seems too blue -[22:33:39] are there pantone colours for the logo somewhere? -[22:33:43] ya, does look a bit odd -[22:34:13] I may have seen some once .. not sure .. -[22:34:17] i don't know if we have tracked pantone for the shirt, that would be a good project for somebody to do -[22:34:40] I move that we give feedback in reguards to the color, mention gentoo eV and paypal -[22:35:09] veremitz: ttps://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Artwork/Colors -[22:35:19] dabbott: ty :D -[22:35:27] klondike2: you want to take the lead on the shirt thing, being eu based? -[22:35:41] I can do that, yes -[22:35:48] is there an EU trademark on it? -[22:35:54] should be .. >,< -[22:36:09] ACTION: klondike2 to draft a reply the tshirt email (hellotux) -[22:36:21] to the best of my knowledge the foundation does not hold any EU trademarks -[22:36:33] same, I don't know of any -[22:36:37] just the word & logo trademarks with the US PTO -[22:36:42] next -[22:36:46] Current subject: bug 638962, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:36:48] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees -[22:36:48] trustee-meetbot: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees -[22:36:50] hmm worth thinking about .. but go on :D -[22:37:12] they use our logo https://gentoo-ev.org/wiki/Ressourcen -[22:37:12] until we get a proposal we can't vote on it -[22:38:29] the uncouple needs a slight clarification -[22:38:46] robbat2: mind updating the bug? -[22:39:03] the name usage agreement we offer says that if you want to call an EVENT 'something gentoo something', you have to obide by CoC -[22:39:27] but the CoC starts with 'Gentoo's Code of Conduct for public communication fora' -[22:40:28] as a personal opinion, i don't think the CoC as it stands covers real-world situations enough -[22:41:17] so it's maybe that the 'event' language of the usage agreement needs to be clearer as to why -[22:41:57] but yes, it would go in a new bug -[22:42:02] that existing one should close -[22:42:38] mind updating it? -[22:43:01] will do -[22:43:05] action item it to me ;-) -[22:43:43] ACTION: robbat2 to update bug 638962 -[22:43:45] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees -[22:43:45] trustee-meetbot: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees -[22:43:54] Current subject: new members, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:44:03] gentoo dev: William Hubbs (williamh) -[22:44:11] yes -[22:44:13] yes -[22:44:17] Yes -[22:44:46] alicef: klondike2 klondike ? -[22:44:57] yes -[22:45:13] yes -[22:45:42] I will send the email -[22:45:50] thanks -[22:45:50] ACTION: passed -[22:45:57] Welcome WilliamH -[22:46:01] Non gentoo dev: Daniel Robbins (drobbins) -[22:46:17] he's been contributing to portage itself -[22:46:20] is there .vote!? -[22:46:24] defer till next month -[22:46:26] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/log/?qt=author&q=drobbins -[22:46:39] dabbott: mind if I ask why? -[22:46:58] did you want to start the test -[22:47:10] (i don't have a vote, but I would approve him and when the new quiz is ready, apply it to foundation members who aren't active devs) -[22:47:26] sounds good :) -[22:47:48] I like what robbat2 said -[22:48:06] sounds reasonable -[22:48:06] ok, next month then -[22:48:18] unless anybody sees procedural issues with asking existing members to be tested -[22:48:28] Current subject: cleanup, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:48:30] robbat2: nah -[22:48:36] Who will post the log? Minutes? (dabbott -[22:48:41] Who will update the motions page? (aliceinwire -[22:48:43] yeah thats a tricky one .. technically they've been Accepted already. -[22:48:44] Who will send emails? (dabbott -[22:48:49] Who will update agenda? (prometheanfire -[22:48:49] yep -[22:48:50] rich0 & NeddySeagoon might have thoughts on procedural validity -[22:48:53] Who will update channel topic? (prometheanfire -[22:49:08] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:49:12] I have an item -[22:49:46] during the combined meeting, when discussing the reporting of comrel actions taken to the trustees, some clarifications were asked for -[22:50:04] let me see if I can copy/paste the scrollback -[22:50:56] 15:39 < mgorny+> as i've mentioned before, i don't think providing details to trustees would be a problem as long as confidentiality of appropriate private information is preserved -[22:51:00] 15:40 < mgorny+> i.e. escalation still works the same, trustees don't need to intervene unless something really illegal happens -[22:51:08] 15:41 < mgorny+> prometheanfire: lemme rephrase. do you need just information that an action was taken, or access to all evidence proactively? -[22:51:17] that's the basics -[22:51:45] first/second question get's an ack from me -[22:52:16] third, I would be satisfied to be notified after action is taken -[22:52:19] we only need to be notified after the fact so we are informed of the action taken, not before -[22:52:22] any comments? -[22:52:59] I think mgorny was inquiring as what the content of hte notification was -[22:53:27] I wonder if we even need a notification :P -[22:53:51] If we don't get a notification, will the legal responsability shift to the council? -[22:53:55] klondike2: we need to be kept informed of actions that can cause legal trouble -[22:53:55] i'd say copies of the threads of the compliant, communication with the person(s) who requested and were the subject of the action -[22:53:59] klondike2: willful blindness -[22:54:05] it could be very outline at the start of an issue, and then outcome could become more detailed perhaps .. eg. case admitted 10.11.07 ... case #34752 bug 0000 result: xXXX -[22:54:07] not copies of council internal discussions -[22:54:22] prometheanfire: for there to be willful blindness, shouldn't we be able to act on it? -[22:54:44] klondike2: we can (see mgorny's second comment) -[22:54:55] you could then react if case 99999 was taking 18 months to resolve ... -[22:54:57] robbat2: ack, that sounds like what I'm looking for -[22:55:02] Okay makes sense -[22:55:25] communication that covers the relevant parties, and trying NOT to know council internals about why -[22:55:45] robbat2: I'll add that to my reply to them -[22:55:50] I single out that communication because that's what legal action would be based on -[22:56:19] anyone else want to add to that? -[22:56:34] robbat2: actually, my point was the other way around -[22:56:49] i.e. protecting the possible intimate/private details from being spread to more people than absolutely necessary at the moment -[22:57:30] I think he means retrospectively .. not concurrently .. -[22:57:41] mgorny: i was looking at it from the other direction: what's the LEAST that the trustees need to know -[22:57:53] it would be the mails with the parties -[22:58:02] the second question, is when does that need to be known -[22:58:39] can somebody remind me of how fast the council is supposed to move on comrel actions? -[22:59:43] mgorny: ^^ -[23:00:36] robbat2: could you rephrase the question? Council normally actions only when the party appeals -[23:01:05] when an appeal is made to council, how fast is the council required to reach a decision? -[23:01:22] lemme look into glep39 -[23:01:54] seperately, when a request is made of comrel, is there anything that says how fast they have to respond? (for actions not initiated solely by comrel) -[23:02:07] hm, doesn't seem to be specified but i think normally Council handles it before the next meeting -[23:02:34] or at the next meeting -[23:03:03] so it'd say <5-6 weeks (in case it came just before a meeting) -[23:03:53] so a compromise: comrel actions shall be reported to trustees as they are completed, AND if the request is taking longer than X days to handle -[23:04:05] to avoid requests being in uncompleted limbo -[23:05:11] robbat2: sounds satisfactory to me, what method will we be notified? -[23:05:18] as for the value of X, we'd want to see how long comrel actions take start-to-finish historically -[23:05:33] s/AND if/or -[23:05:45] and pick a value that gets most outliers -[23:05:50] 90d ?! -[23:05:53] robbat2: 2 years? ;-P -[23:06:09] (if by finish you mean new comrel lead closing all old bugs) -[23:06:11] if it's dragging more than a month I'd want to know -[23:06:22] but i'm not sure how much faster than that is a benefit -[23:06:34] depends on the issue really -[23:06:50] I'd say a month is a good standard -[23:07:06] more complicated issues could be more hairy legally too -[23:07:20] well, the problem to some part is that many comrel issues do not need real action, and 'ignoring' them causes less problems than rejecting -[23:07:32] (i.e. waiting for people to cool down) -[23:07:46] comrel "timeout" lol -[23:08:08] I'm not sure that's a good policy -[23:08:59] well, a good policy would be to finally have comrel that encourages mediation and talking to people -[23:09:07] but that's another thing entirely -[23:09:19] both meditation & mediation -[23:09:25] but i don't want to diverge the meeting -[23:09:34] we're in open-floor already -[23:09:38] but I have to go in 20 mins -[23:10:04] robbat2: I'll write up your suggestions and desires as our response to comrel -[23:10:11] and send that out tomorrow -[23:10:25] ACTION: prometheanfire send email to comrel about reporting reqs -[23:10:34] does anyone have anything else? -[23:10:47] mgorny: i agree that getting people to calm down a bit by delaying response has value -[23:10:58] but reporting that to trustees is good too -[23:11:04] true -[23:11:11] thinking of 'traditional' HR processes -[23:11:14] and not letting it lag on too long -[23:11:21] HR tries to ack something you send right away -[23:11:23] i'm a bit afraid that this will result in trustees starting to interfere -[23:11:24] a templated standard response is ok -[23:11:33] but they don't action it for a bit longer -[23:12:03] mgorny: atm we don't have a desire to interfere, make suggestions I think, but not order people around -[23:12:07] Is there better guidance for when trustees with actually act? -[23:12:14] will* -[23:12:18] mgorny: A much simpler alternative is that the council takes all legal responsability and indemnifies the trustees for the council's actions then we mere trustees don't need to worry at all :P -[23:12:20] mgorny: to avoid the interfere part, completed actions to be reported on some time interval rather than immediately? -[23:12:36] antarus: when we think we should to legally protect the foundation (would be my guidance) -[23:12:51] I mean I understand that, I still think its pretty vague -[23:12:52] ;) -[23:13:01] @trustees: bug 647966 -[23:13:01] https://bugs.gentoo.org/647966 "Funding request for jacamar.gentoo.org"; Gentoo Foundation, Infra Support; CONF; jmbsvicetto:trustees -[23:13:25] antarus: any more specific would be setting ourselfs up for failure imo -[23:14:09] Well I mean this is the primary concern around the allocation of responsbilities -[23:14:12] jmbsvicetto: will review for next meeting -[23:14:32] mgorny: do you have suggestions on how the trustees can still be informed in a timely fashion and not interfere? -[23:15:07] prometheanfire: ok, thanks -[23:15:08] prometheanfire: 'suggestions' from trustees can be taken as binding -[23:15:29] robbat2: i don't think the time really matters, it's rather what trustees do with the information -[23:15:31] then how can we talk at all? -[23:15:49] do we have to say 'this is non-binding' before everything? -[23:16:10] mgorny: your concern is information leakage, trustee concern is legal-ass-covering -[23:16:10] mgorny: I suspect 99% of the time we will do nothing -[23:16:24] i agree -[23:16:49] well, maybe it's fine -[23:17:40] as long as trustees don't end up being used by one of the parties to push the result -[23:17:59] that said, we should probably improve comrel policies on response time -[23:18:04] that's why I suggested batch reporting after time -[23:18:37] that also related to previous questions about transparency in reporting number of comrel actions open/completed to council -[23:19:00] that will end up like a national security letter canary, mostly -[23:19:09] "no actions have been taken" -[23:19:10] "no actions have been taken" -[23:19:12] "no actions have been taken" -[23:19:18] ? -[23:19:31] regular batch reporting I mean -[23:19:41] still better than nothing imho. -[23:19:42] ah -[23:20:08] yeah but reporting when something happens is probably easier -[23:20:40] we can discuss it via email if that satisfies people -[23:20:52] atm we are 22m over (and dinner is almost done) -[23:20:55] I figure some completely simple, anonymous stats would be an easy start -[23:20:57] you can already creatively count bugs assigned/closed to comrel -[23:21:13] ^ like that -[23:21:19] so publishing it clearly isn't a big change -[23:22:38] can I close the meeting in the mean time? -[23:22:52] delaying the detailed information geting to trustees slightly does reduce the concern of tampering in process -[23:22:54] how about suggesting to try something simple for a few months and do a review? -[23:23:12] so if comrel/council have related ideas there, let's put that to email discussion? -[23:23:12] INFO: next meeting date is Mar 17 2018 -[23:23:22] robbat2: ack -[23:23:37] my email will cc comrel and council and trustees -[23:23:40] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 5088 seconds diff --git a/2018/2018-03-18-22:00_Foundation-Meetings-2018-03.log.txt b/2018/2018-03-18-22:00_Foundation-Meetings-2018-03.log.txt deleted file mode 100644 index da65b94..0000000 --- a/2018/2018-03-18-22:00_Foundation-Meetings-2018-03.log.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,179 +0,0 @@ -[07:00:08] Meeting started! use .action, .agreed, .info, .chairs, .subject and .comments to control the meeting. to end the meeting, type .endmeeting -[07:00:11] Users without speaking permission can use .comment #gentoo-trustees followed by their comment in a PM with me to vocalize themselves. -[07:01:09] .chairs prometheanfire klondike alicef kensington -[07:01:10] Meeting chairs are: prometheanfire, klondike, alicef, kensington, -[07:01:19] .subject rollcall -[07:01:19] Current subject: rollcall -[07:01:20] o/ -[07:01:21] o/ -[07:01:25] hi -[07:01:41] robbat2 and dabbott are afk (but let us know) -[07:01:47] yes -[07:01:47] so I'm logging -[07:01:52] i'm also -[07:02:26] nothing for the activity tracker -[07:02:35] or address change or irs -[07:02:35] o/ -[07:03:03] I will say that we should send out a request for a bookkeeper and/or tax guy -[07:03:14] finding one that works with open source stuff will be a pain -[07:03:23] .subject alicef's items -[07:03:24] yes and we need it soon i suppose :/ -[07:03:24] Current subject: alicef's items -[07:03:27] yes -[07:03:36] I'm very concerned that we're back to not making any progress again -[07:03:46] same here -[07:03:49] kensington: me too, we were doing well for a while -[07:04:39] but looks like robbat put the basis for a good way of bookkeeping -[07:04:48] do we have detail on exactly what needs doing, or do we need robbat2 for that? -[07:05:15] I think we need him -[07:05:15] so at least we have all in in git -[07:05:30] but we should have it written down and sent via email so we know what specifically is needed -[07:05:48] would be nice to have some documentation of the procedure -[07:06:08] that would be good, at the very least it would allow others to try and chip away at it, even if it's only a little bit here and there -[07:06:30] ok, so we'll ask for that when he gets back -[07:06:32] maybe having a trustee internal wiki would be nice -[07:06:56] could almost just use the infrawiki since a couple of us are on it already -[07:07:06] -*- antarus shudders -[07:07:17] but the new bookkeper could not be a infra -[07:07:23] antarus: you don't like the joke? -[07:07:32] which joke ? -[07:07:38] there was a joke :O -[07:07:55] fwiw, my propsal would be to write up proper RFP for someone to take on -[07:08:15] K_F: yes, that's basically what I'd want -[07:08:17] K_F: that would be nice too -[07:08:22] I'm also not convinced that robbat2 actually knows what is left -[07:08:38] like we know the outcomes we want, but not the work required to do it -[07:09:11] -*- antarus too would like an RFP -[07:09:11] without having this documented somewhere it's not going to be possible to get there -[07:09:22] FRP o/ -[07:09:23] we sent a request earlier, it wasn't very detailed -[07:09:26] RFP -[07:09:37] it might be good to have clear words about what was missing / what you want -[07:09:37] moving on then? -[07:09:43] ok -[07:09:46] -*- antarus nods, onward -[07:09:57] alicef: your items from the wiki -[07:10:02] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/03 -[07:10:40] Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support -[07:10:59] not yet -[07:11:12] (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page -[07:11:36] same for the donor page, working on it -[07:11:50] ok, as long as progress is being made -[07:12:06] still not sure what is the best for get paypal data -[07:12:22] ? -[07:12:23] (sent a mail to trustees about earlier detailed accounting of what was required from sept) -[07:12:44] thanks antarus -[07:12:57] yep, thanks -[07:13:21] prometheanfire: we need to get the name of people that donate, actually icould be possible to do it automatically -[07:13:30] how about FLA/CLA/licence stuff? -[07:13:32] alicef: ah -[07:14:15] that is stopped for now, i think we are waiting approval of the first glsa draft -[07:15:32] and is in discussion on the council meeting, but is difficult for me to get presence there -[07:15:35] glsa? -[07:16:10] i'm usually sleeping from 3am to 4am -[07:16:43] ok, moving on then I guess -[07:16:53] a glep sorry -[07:17:00] glsa/glep -[07:17:23] ah, k, thanks -[07:17:42] sure -[07:17:57] .subject prometheanfire's items -[07:17:57] Current subject: prometheanfire's items -[07:18:04] just the openssl ecc stuff -[07:18:22] which I think gentoo is finally moving to stablized 1.1, which is the prefered solution -[07:18:46] \o/ -[07:18:55] .subject infra update -[07:18:56] Current subject: infra update -[07:18:58] jmbsvicetto: ping -[07:21:01] prometheanfire: pong -[07:21:13] jmbsvicetto: infra update? -[07:21:46] prometheanfire: All the parts bought for jacamar have now arrived to OSUOSL. We're waiting for OSL to add them soon -[07:21:59] I don't think there are any other updates for now -[07:22:10] ok -[07:22:16] s/arrived to/arrived at/ -[07:22:17] jmbsvicetto meant to say: prometheanfire: All the parts bought for jacamar have now arrived at OSUOSL. We're waiting for OSL to add them soon -[07:22:28] .subject open bugs -[07:22:28] Current subject: open bugs -[07:22:47] .link https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3877212&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- -[07:22:51] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3877212&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- -[07:23:34] .link https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 -[07:23:37] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 -[07:23:39] .link https://bugs.gentoo.org/650552 -[07:23:42] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/650552 -[07:23:51] both of those are the FLA / copyright -[07:24:37] would be good to go over, we don't have to do so now -[07:24:57] klondike: you were going to go over old bugs? or separate the funding stuff into it's own queue? -[07:26:22] prometheanfire: Içm still on it -[07:26:40] k -[07:26:41] And remotely as I am getting the list would be hard -[07:26:53] Too much work and stuff happening on my life the last motnhs :( -[07:27:06] next item np -[07:27:31] applications -[07:27:33] Daniel Robbins (drobbins) -[07:28:22] he's contributed to gentoo (the portage codebase) and is on his way to devship last I checked, works well on the mailing list (if a little verbose) -[07:28:26] that's my impression -[07:29:10] anyone else have anything to say before we vote (or wish to delay it)? -[07:29:14] he did the test ? -[07:29:28] alicef: which test? -[07:30:09] probably just my missunderstanding -[07:30:40] but there was not some talk about implementing some kind of test for the membership -[07:31:10] there is, but there's been no movement on that yet -[07:31:45] I thougt we delayed the vote last week for implementing the test -[07:31:57] last meeting -[07:32:20] we did, but I don't think anyone was assigned to that -[07:32:33] iirc we asked that a test be submitted to us to vote on to impliment -[07:33:37] someone interested on working on it or we can go on ? -[07:34:00] not at the moment (enotime) -[07:34:26] nods, let's vote -[07:35:01] I vote to approve -[07:35:14] approve -[07:35:20] yes -[07:35:23] Approve -[07:35:34] yes -[07:35:40] ok, he's approved -[07:36:01] I think dabbott useually handled that, so I'll let dabbott know to do so -[07:36:17] next -[07:36:22] i will add to the motions -[07:36:28] thanks -[07:36:41] Who will post the log? Minutes? -[07:37:11] I can, I suppose -[07:37:34] still dabbott I think, because it's his server I think -[07:37:46] i will post to dabbot -[07:37:50] k -[07:37:54] Who will update the motions page? -[07:37:57] alicef: that one you? -[07:38:01] yes my job -[07:38:05] Who will send emails? -[07:38:14] which email ? -[07:38:19] dabbot again (mainly for drobbins) -[07:38:26] ah dabbot -[07:38:27] welcome email -[07:38:35] Who will update agenda? -[07:38:36] I will -[07:38:40] thanks -[07:38:45] Who will update channel topics? -[07:38:46] I will -[07:39:21] .subject open floor -[07:39:21] Current subject: open floor -[07:39:31] 5 min til end -[07:40:19] maybe we can also make the bot deal with the time -[07:40:34] like setting a timer for open floor -[07:40:35] time? -[07:40:37] I'd really want to see someone taking responsibility for writing up a RFP for the IRS/accounting in general for gent Gentoo Foundation -[07:40:40] ah -[07:41:01] antarus: can you if robbat2 can't? -[07:41:23] by all means, I'd be available to contribute to helping writing it up, but a trustee should be responsible for it per se -[07:41:31] K_F: i agree -[07:41:46] as it is the only way I can see it going forwards to getting a proper closure -[07:42:21] K_F: Ill be moving on April -[07:42:27] You want to come visit? -[07:43:02] I.e. Ill take the responsability iif you come here and we set a day to write it together. -[07:43:33] klondike: I can put of a weekend to come to goethenburg, to help writing it up, for sure -[07:43:43] Then I can take it :) -[07:43:52] klondike: K_F thanks -[07:44:29] Sorry for being so awayish, Im managin a big lan party network as we speak :P -[07:44:38] np -[07:45:11] anyone else have anything? -[07:45:37] updated motion list -[07:45:56] -*- alicef go back to sleep -[07:45:58] .endmeeting -[07:45:59] Meeting ended! total meeting length 2750 seconds diff --git a/2018/2018-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt b/2018/2018-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 02da26e..0000000 --- a/2018/2018-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,704 +0,0 @@ -[21:59:34] Meeting started by prometheanfire -[21:59:41] klondike: ^cheers -[21:59:41] Anyways we have just started :) -[21:59:57] Meeting chairs are: klondike2, prometheanfire, dabbott, alicef, kensington, klondike, -[22:00:11] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:00:13] o/ -[22:00:19] here -[22:00:22] Remove klondike I don't have access to that computer now -[22:00:24] here -[22:00:29] Klondike2: it's just in case -[22:00:30] Here -[22:00:53] The computer is two hours away from here -[22:01:12] (And I'm on my phone) -[22:01:13] get walking -[22:01:42] Klondike2: I've told you to use irssi and not that GUI crap :p -[22:01:46] Two hours by public transport I estimate a few more of I walk :P -[22:01:51] ok, alicef is afk for now -[22:02:05] Current subject: old items, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:02:30] nothing on the activity tracker, next month we may want to start the nomination period for elections though -[22:03:03] we'll skip over alicef's items as she's not here for now -[22:03:10] Klondike2: accounting report -[22:03:21] K_F: you and robbat2 too I suppose -[22:03:23] Okay -[22:03:35] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~k_f/irs-rfp-wip2.pdf [None] -[22:04:09] Kristian did an amazing work on the rfp -[22:04:39] Promethean. Can you paste the lines of my mail? -[22:04:48] K_F: thank-you for creating this document -[22:05:11] It's basically what we have to take -[22:05:37] K_F: yep thanks -[22:05:40] henr -[22:05:49] here -[22:06:03] hi alicef -[22:06:07] o/ -[22:06:11] alicef: ok, you'll be next -[22:06:41] o;k -[22:06:44] Klondike2: it'd be best of you just forward that to the list (or maybe robbat2 do so as he responded) -[22:07:10] basically this is just a base document to work on, but at least it should provide the basics for something that can be used towards third parties in a somewhat structured form -[22:07:18] Okay I haven't had mail access since then -[22:07:35] Klondike2: sure -[22:07:54] whats the next step? -[22:08:00] the short if it is that the rfp is nearly done, just some minor details need sorting -[22:08:14] dabbott: trustees finishing it up and sending it out -[22:08:36] next step after the rfp is complete is to create a list of places to send it and send it out -[22:08:58] that'll be done by next month (at the very least making that list) -[22:09:04] is the document source available then? -[22:09:22] I need a decision from us. -[22:09:41] kensington: ask k_f for access to the repo -[22:09:48] Klondike2: yes? -[22:09:49] Are you okay with the tooling requirement? -[22:10:01] Klondike2: I am -[22:10:03] kensington: git://git.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/trustee-financial-rfp.git is the source, robbat2, prometheanfire and klondike has write access -[22:10:04] Please vote yes or no -[22:10:12] K_F: thanks -[22:10:13] can I suggest something? -[22:10:17] or comment? -[22:10:20] let me copy and paste it -[22:10:53] well, it's a bit long -[22:11:03] is everyone able to read section 3.3 of the linked pdf? -[22:11:03] Daniel yes kf published last draft. -[22:11:17] I think the tooling requirement is unrealistic -[22:11:26] prometheanfire: tooling -[22:11:47] and a bit of free software activism, which by itself isn't wrong, but reality is that the task is more important than the freeness of the software the accountant happens to use -[22:11:48] What do you propose Daniel? -[22:11:50] just my 2c -[22:11:53] that's my comment. -[22:12:23] onliy OSS and/or sharable tools can be used -[22:12:28] ? -[22:12:31] I think we should require the ability to export into a standard oss readable format -[22:12:36] dabbott: the tooling is only set to not require trustees etc to have proprietary software, it opens up for web interface for using it -[22:12:37] that's all I care about -[22:12:47] fact is that most accounting tools are not free software so it severely limits your choice of accountants -[22:13:03] web interface is fine -[22:13:15] done with my comments, move on :) -[22:13:17] perhaps we can reword it to highlight the import/export/web ability so as not to "scare off" potential accountants -[22:13:27] it doesn't require accountants to use free software, only that we dont' have to use non-proprietary interface -[22:13:29] kensington: +1 -[22:13:32] even if it's exporting to csv or excel doc (via the good format whatever that is) is fine -[22:14:00] Okay I can reword that. I wanted to make sure it is pay from our social contract perspective -[22:14:19] xls[x]* for excel -[22:14:47] *okay -[22:15:11] Klondike2: appreciated but as long as we steer clear of that proprietary stuff on our end I think that's the best we can do -[22:15:20] Klondike2: yep, if you could clarify the way we import/export separate from general interaction (web interface) I think that'd help -[22:15:44] So everybody is okay alicef? -[22:16:04] I explicitly avoided adding that it needs to be exported in a way that is to be read by a current open source tool -[22:16:23] K_F: why's that? -[22:16:25] as we can always write a tool for that -[22:16:32] if we have the data -[22:16:46] and a third party likely don't know what exists -[22:16:56] as now from what i remember we are using ledger for accounting -[22:17:15] alicef: correct -[22:17:50] This is stated also on the rfp -[22:17:53] K_F: I see your point, but I think the current phrasing will cause this RFP to end up in /dev/null of most accountants -[22:18:12] kensington: if so that was not the intention -[22:18:12] well, we can discuss this outside of meeting (the particular wording) -[22:18:17] good to move on? -[22:18:22] K_F: I know -[22:18:25] Yes -[22:18:43] I'll hunt the responsible for the relevant gaps -[22:18:48] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:18:48] kensington: my experience is that most accountant want organizations to move to web based interface -[22:18:49] is already open source, but if we want to add a policy for that it dosen't have to come from the organ working on it? -[22:18:50] Klondike2: thanks -[22:19:03] K_F thanks a lot! Really! -[22:19:49] alicef: but if we hire an outside accounting firm they may use someting like quickbooks only -[22:19:49] kensington: so all 3.3 says is that trustees doesn't need to have non-proprietary software to interface with the accountant's interface -[22:20:03] dabbott: yes that a good point -[22:20:10] K_F: +1 -[22:20:21] Current subject: Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:20:26] alicef: progress there? -[22:20:37] but i thought using open source tool is already a rule in gentoo -[22:20:39] K_F: yep, it gives us some flexibility -[22:21:15] prometheanfire: working on it -[22:21:47] Current subject: (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:21:55] K_F: I'm not trying to nitpick, this is an excellent document and is very much appreciated, I just wanted to discuss the wording that may be confusing for someone not familiar with our domain -[22:22:21] also working on it -[22:22:33] kensington: by all means, if it can be clarified somehow, it should be done :) -[22:22:59] Current subject: Do we need date of birth in developer apps (how'd the email go)? , (set by prometheanfire) -[22:23:10] that's part of the licencing work -[22:23:13] so we can skip that for now -[22:23:20] we decided that arleady I thought -[22:23:31] yes skip for now -[22:23:32] or I thought we had when I last touched base with ulm / rich0 ;) -[22:23:40] didn't it devolve into several unrelated topics? -[22:23:47] antarus: someone should update the agenda then :P -[22:23:56] prometheanfire: I'll follow up with them -[22:23:59] move on -[22:23:59] signature possibility is required for s-o-b lines for DCO -[22:24:10] antarus: nothing about date of birth in the copyright glep so far -[22:24:26] Current subject: my items, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:24:45] the tracker is in https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 -[22:24:50] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 [592438 – (openssl-1.1) [TRACKER] packages failing with >=dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0] -[22:25:02] no updates really, just a bunch of stuff failing to build with ossl-1.1 -[22:25:19] that's all I had -[22:25:24] alicef had one more item -[22:25:26] alicef: go ahead -[22:25:33] we have a mail to replay on the trustee about "Gentoo on WSL Follow-Up" -[22:26:27] alicef: the last email I saw seemed to just point us toward their docs more or less -[22:26:47] yes, we are actually interested on working on it ? -[22:27:25] that's something for a project to pick up imo -[22:27:38] whats WSL? -[22:27:44] windows services for linux -[22:27:51] iirc -[22:28:08] seems ripe to email to -project looking for interest? -[22:28:12] basically run linux userland in windows, officially -[22:28:20] antarus++ -[22:28:25] I'd say that's the next step -[22:28:27] Maybe we should start a project for creating a prefix? -[22:28:33] basically it's reverse wine -[22:28:36] ok for me -[22:28:52] alicef: can you own sending the email to -project ? -[22:29:08] that doesn't really sound like trustee domain -[22:29:29] It isn't it's pure dev stuff -[22:29:34] yep -[22:29:35] K_F: I think either we foward the mail ourselves (to -project) or ask them to email there? -[22:29:43] sure, the point was that they talked about some burocratic things that they didn't explain by mail AFAIR -[22:29:55] antarus: thats a good place to start -[22:30:24] It can be discussed to infinity -[22:30:25] .help -[22:30:34] lol -[22:30:39] O_o -[22:30:41] move on then? -[22:30:44] ok -[22:31:04] it crashed ? -[22:31:10] I'd like to do treasurer and infra updates before community -[22:31:15] Current subject: infra updates, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:31:21] jmbsvicetto: you're up (if around) -[22:32:00] I have a new set of guidelines, but I'll cover in community -[22:32:15] infra has a new server (jacamar) and its close to being operational; was diego's old server -[22:32:24] no other updates really atm unless jmbsvicetto has more -[22:32:29] I don't think there are updates for infra (not that I've seen) -[22:32:40] antarus: ya, that's already been handled on our side though -[22:32:44] nods -[22:33:06] Current subject: treasurer update, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:33:08] robbat2: around? -[22:33:42] I know he's put some links in this channel to some preliminary reports -[22:33:53] think he can't make it -[22:33:57] ya -[22:34:04] 2018-04-21 22:40:05<+robbat2> i'm not going to make the meeting, but idea for my cross-currency closing -[22:34:14] ^^ -[22:34:25] K_F: you mind then? -[22:34:58] he has done a good job at providing the FY reports (which is another point) -[22:35:50] https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 (back to 2005) -[22:36:26] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 [None] -[22:36:31] there are some discussion points on the final presentation, but .. -[22:36:32] ok, moving on then -[22:37:02] K_F: thanks for the update -[22:37:45] Current subject: community items, (set by prometheanfire) -[22:37:55] Current subject: Recognize the separation of responsibilites for Gentoo (src: tamiko) , (set by prometheanfire) -[22:37:58] tamiko: around? -[22:38:08] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[22:39:18] This is relevant for the responsibility concerns you have prometheanfire -[22:40:01] ya, this interacts with the 3rd community item -[22:40:07] If you want to not be liable for, say, Council actions you want to have a clearly stated separation of responsibilities. -[22:40:46] Klondike2: sure -[22:40:54] Current subject: GDPR (src: mrueg) , (set by prometheanfire) -[22:40:54] may I comment -[22:41:02] mrueg: around? -[22:41:31] infra has been passing around a couple of 'guides' for coming into compliance -[22:41:44] drobbins: please do -[22:41:46] according to NM law, it's actually the other way around. -[22:41:47] the trustees will need to work with infra on it -[22:41:55] https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 -[22:42:09] I'll work with infra on gdpr -[22:42:13] so there is already a statute that protects the trustees -[22:42:22] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/2093daf1806149531b3da15c17a6b50c [[gentoo-nfp] Re: GDPR and Gentoo - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[22:42:35] should I do the link thing too? -[22:42:43] ok -[22:42:59] LINK: https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [» New Mexico Statutes 53-8-98. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powersLawServer] -[22:43:01] drobbins: we'll circle back to it next -[22:43:10] next, back to item 1 -[22:43:30] Current subject: Recognize the separation of responsibilites for Gentoo (src: tamiko) , (set by prometheanfire) -[22:43:33] again -[22:43:34] now -[22:43:37] LINK: https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [» New Mexico Statutes 53-8-98. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powersLawServer] -[22:43:43] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[22:43:55] drobbins: that only goes as to asserting powers for the foundation -[22:44:16] K_F: was just going to say that -[22:45:41] related to item 1 is item 3 -[22:45:48] so I'll link that now too -[22:46:01] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/944b824fc1d1ca89bcae2d1c3f0520b7 [[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[22:46:06] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/58dbc3cbbb11dc3be2c0ceb3ad8a2059 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[22:47:00] in the future it might be nice to title these, just fyi ;) -[22:47:03] Okay Matt, what do you want us to do? Vote on it? -[22:47:26] I suppose the short of my view of item1/3 is that we are working with council to better define responsilities -[22:47:32] a <.subject> would be good ;P -[22:47:49] oh nvm... -[22:47:52] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo's org structure (src: prometheanfire) , (set by prometheanfire) -[22:47:56] that was item 3 -[22:47:57] thanks -[22:48:09] -[22:48:19] We have some devs who can't be officials despite they help -[22:48:28] I'd like to continue with our talks with council -[22:48:36] Klondike2: yep, I wish that didn't complicate things -[22:48:49] prometheanfire: that would bwe ideal -[22:48:53] s/officials/officers/ ? -[22:49:01] antarus: I assume -[22:49:14] or 'official' devs? -[22:49:21] Antarus, yes language barriers here -[22:49:26] the old 'contributor' tag? -[22:50:00] so no motions on items 1 and 3? -[22:50:05] I'd say no -[22:50:15] unless another trustee wishes to make one -[22:50:31] (sorry, just trying to get as much covered as we can in the 1h ;p) -[22:50:35] (motion): continue dialog?! :D -[22:50:41] I imagine this is going to go to 2 hours -[22:50:48] veremitz: doesn't need a motion -[22:50:53] :) -[22:50:57] ok, moving on -[22:51:00] I would prefer a working agreement with council and trustees -[22:51:09] Battery at 48% -[22:51:12] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) -[22:51:17] dabbott: that's in progress I'd say -[22:51:27] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd [[gentoo-nfp] infra agenda item - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[22:51:29] prometheanfire: thanks -[22:51:59] Drobbins, take the voice -[22:52:04] we have a close relationship wit infra, no need imo -[22:52:30] antarus: you want to respond? -[22:52:37] Robin and I drafted what eventually became: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Infrastructure/Infrastructure_Guidelines -[22:52:49] I think you mostly did so in https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/f54b51799916ba483cf14251893d7b05 and https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/78bce34ba1259774c9c2c9501e3adc02 -[22:52:59] a written down version of informal guidelines regarding how infra administers hardware under its control -[22:53:01] antarus: that new? -[22:53:17] we wrote about a week ago on infra wiki and published ot main wiki today -[22:53:25] happy to incorporate feedback -[22:54:10] antarus: I think what drobbins was asking about was the actual hardware ownership -[22:54:21] antarus: maybe add a section about that (iirc it varries...) -[22:54:42] I meant ownership as well as control -[22:54:50] prometheanfire: apologies, I was under the impression the meeting was tomorrow -[22:55:11] jmbsvicetto: we switched it to today so that it's sunday in asia instead of monday -[22:55:17] did so a couple months ago :P -[22:55:23] is here also, just got here a few minutes ago. -[22:55:37] Jorge technically speaking it is in parts of the world -[22:55:40] drobbins: I don't think 'control' is well defined enough to say anything -[22:55:41] prometheanfire: I'll see what I can dig up in ledger -[22:55:47] thought the meeting was at 23:00 -[22:56:07] (in terms of ownership, we depreciate the stuff we own.) -[22:56:13] the in-kind donations are probably more of a mess -[22:56:15] WilliamH: that's the combined meeting (which is defunct now) -[22:56:38] as a point of order, was this posted to -nfp list for discussion to begin with= -[22:56:41] I think that trustees formalizing foundation control over assets would give the clarity for them to intervene legally if necessary if the property is trespassed -[22:56:51] K_F: yes, I linked it -[22:56:51] like, if escalation beyond bans is required -[22:56:57] K_F: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd -[22:57:16] K_F: also linked antarus's responses above -[22:57:18] prometheanfire: wfm, thanks -[22:58:11] formally, we own the hardware since we are the body that 'owns' things for gentoo -[22:58:35] prometheanfire: if you want to ask the question "how much of the current infrastructure is owned vs donated vs unaccounted" -[22:58:44] that seems like a reasonble question to pose and answer -[22:58:47] I don't have that answer today -[22:59:00] antarus: ya, I think we should figure that out -[22:59:06] but it seems more answerable than the previous; in terms of clarity -[22:59:24] anyway, antarus presented the status for infra. One thing left, something you're also going to talk in this meeting, is that we're starting to look at the GDPR -[22:59:25] antarus: wouldn't it still be owned by the foundation if it were donated to the foundation? -[22:59:37] as opposed to say leasing or renting it to the foundation -[22:59:53] ok, we can move forward on that -[23:00:08] jmbsvicetto: yep, I mentioned that -[23:00:15] jmbsvicetto: I'll be the contact for the trustees on it -[23:01:08] ok, guess we have our next steps there, next item -[23:01:29] Current subject: Trustees enforce CoC for Council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) -[23:01:41] +1 -[23:01:54] the email was never sent to -nfp so I'd like to move this to next month -[23:02:12] +1 -[23:02:18] prometheanfire: sounds good -[23:02:25] I thought I did -[23:02:39] it really needs to be discussed publicly first imo -[23:02:46] drobbins: I never found it -[23:02:57] drobbins: or the next item either -[23:03:04] The idea is nice and follows the principles of separation of powers set up by Machiavello -[23:03:16] Can I ask a question about CoC enforcement? -[23:03:22] WilliamH: sure -[23:03:26] I for one am in favor of council being accountable to someone, and trustees seems like a reasonable choice -[23:03:33] Doesn't comrel enforce that for everyone? -[23:03:42] they are supposed to afaik -[23:03:47] WiliamH: council is the body of appeal for comrel actions IIRC -[23:03:49] WilliamH: yes, they are suppoesd to -[23:03:57] IMVHO this is a potential conflict of interest -[23:04:42] so far council has recused themselves if needed -[23:04:57] I'm Spain the judicial power is responsible for controlling the executive power but the executive chooses the judges iirc -[23:04:59] anyway next item, as this should be discussed on the list before being brought here -[23:05:11] You can see how well it works ;) -[23:05:12] I would rather see council members not allowed to be in comrel or qa, but people don't see that as an issue. -[23:05:13] WilliamH: whoever does CoC enforcement does it to everyone - currently that's comrel -[23:05:41] a 'fairness rule' is needed -[23:05:56] so that comrel isn't used to pick sides in a conflict -[23:05:56] Klondike2: heh that's another story. -[23:06:22] ok, next item -[23:06:28] Current subject: Trustees place user representitive on the council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) -[23:06:34] this also wasn't sent to the list -[23:06:35] WilliamH: just like comrel deals with disciplinary actions for all developers, even if they're council members -[23:06:42] I'm generally against the idea though -[23:06:52] For the heck of it, how does comrel handle comrel? -[23:07:07] please send the proposal to the list and we can discuss it there -[23:07:23] it's require an amended glep39 at least, which needs a full dev vote -[23:07:30] prometheanfire: I did send both these to the list -[23:07:38] Shentino: they ignore it, like they ignore everything else -[23:07:40] Apr 8 -[23:07:42] drobbins: I didn't see them :| -[23:07:52] drobbins: link to archives.g.o ? -[23:07:52] wrt a user rep on the council, it would have to be an elected spot and I think we would need to keep the council having an odd number of members. -[23:07:58] veremitz: one moment -[23:08:11] I don't see them https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/threads/2018-04/2 -[23:08:14] That would also have to be a full dev vote since it affects glep 39? -[23:08:16] Drobbins if not in archive most likely we didn't get them -[23:08:33] WilliamH: yep -[23:08:37] drobbins: you sure you weren't banned then?! :P -[23:08:55] veremitz: I suspect that's the case -[23:09:04] prometheanfire: me2 -[23:09:12] Current subject: Add reopen nominations option to ballot (src: k_f, mgorny) , (set by prometheanfire) -[23:09:16] I also forwarded it to trustees@ -[23:09:21] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/c7412600866cd650c9d9b147f3a83966 [[gentoo-nfp] reopen nominations - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[23:09:26] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233 [[gentoo-nfp] New Trustee voting proposal (including _reopen_nominations) - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[23:09:31] dabbott replied to my trustees@ email -[23:09:33] drobbins: needs to hit the list .. public -[23:09:42] then we can build a fresh bike shed! :D -[23:09:46] winks to kensington :D -[23:09:48] veremitz: I believe it was blocked -[23:09:55] thus I forwarded to trustees -[23:09:58] Wait. Was Daniel banned on nfp? -[23:10:04] I was banned from -project but this was extended to -nfp -[23:10:12] (by mistake) -[23:10:14] it probably got dropped -[23:10:23] Kinda hard to officially raise an issue for discussion by posting to -nfp if you're banned from it -[23:10:33] yep, esp. when I'm not supposed to be -[23:10:33] mumbles in Spanish... -[23:10:37] and this is why trustees should handle -nfp as a special case -[23:10:45] Klondike2: yo quiero taco bell -[23:10:46] Shentino: but NO! -[23:11:15] Honestly I've been on a soy and garbanzo bean diet that I crave something cheesy and greasy and meaty -[23:11:22] drobbins: I'm not sure i follow? -[23:11:24] ^ OT -[23:11:31] when were you banned from -nfp? -[23:11:32] Daniel we are sorry for the inconvenience. Can you please resend the items so we can openly discuss them? -[23:11:33] all: https://imgur.com/GCTtBNi -[23:11:33] antarus: was drobbins banned from the nfp list? -[23:11:37] V: agreed, sorry -[23:11:42] I haven't seen that as a thing -[23:11:50] antarus: it appears when I was banned from -project, whoever implemented the ban also blocked my emails to -nfp -[23:11:53] infra's checking on that -[23:11:58] can we discuss the current item -[23:12:00] see the imgur link above for the post I made -[23:12:21] dolpins? again? -[23:12:26] I think "none of the above" is a good option. At least until we can have more people actually running for trustee -[23:12:41] please stop talking -[23:12:49] :| -[23:12:51] :P -[23:12:54] wish that'd print current chairs -[23:13:00] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233 -[23:13:03] Okay -[23:13:09] trustees, we should discuss this proposal -[23:13:22] prom: sorry, my comment about "none of the above" was in relation to the reopen nominations thing we're discussing -[23:13:22] Matt the idea is good, the impact not so much -[23:14:50] Klondike2: I can re-send but I also forwarded to trustess on Apr 8 so all the trustees received the email via the trustees alias, and dabbott replied, so I am sure the trustees received it and it should have been on the agenda for this meeting. -[23:15:25] drobbins: reading the ML logs I think you were not a member of -nfp with drobbins@funtoo.org until Mon Apr 9 -[23:15:27] Klondike2: impact not so much? -[23:15:33] so your april 8 emails were rejected -[23:15:50] I don't see any bans for you, nor mails rejected like I'd expect if a ban was present -[23:16:02] antarus: Does that mean only foundation members are allowed to post to -nfp? -[23:16:16] antarus: that appears to be correct -[23:16:28] pretty much for any gentoo list, you have to be a member of the list to post to the list; iirc -[23:16:29] it looks like I found out I was unsub'd from the list -[23:16:31] drobbins: just send them again to -nfp and we will get to it next month -[23:16:32] (because: spam) -[23:16:44] dabbott: ++ -[23:16:59] prometheanfire: that just makes the election more confusing -[23:17:01] I think the one thing the proposal needs is to describe the periods to use -[23:17:04] Matt impact may be less volunteers and trustees meeting delegitimated -[23:17:09] dabbott: it does complicate things -[23:17:20] more people need to get involved if they want to -[23:17:32] s/if they want to// -[23:17:33] Klondike2: so less people stepping forward is the outcome you'd see? -[23:17:34] nominate themselves if needed -[23:17:53] not make the election a 3 month process -[23:17:57] One of the outcomes yes -[23:18:04] why do you think that? -[23:18:18] dabbott: self nomination is allowed -[23:18:18] drobbins: ACK mail 1 to -nfp -[23:18:28] You like having your self worth crushed? -[23:18:28] I wanna see more people nominated honestly. A contested election would give the members choices to make. -[23:18:56] Has anyone confirmed that a ballot for the Trustees can even have a "fictional candidate"? -[23:19:01] There's less of a point in voting if nobody can win -[23:19:12] jmbsvicetto: I nominate Chuck Norris. -[23:19:30] Shentino: not a dev -[23:19:39] Shentino: can you please stop with the off-topic? It makes really hard to follow this discussion -[23:19:40] s/dev/foundation member/ -[23:19:41] jmbsvicetto: it's merely a marker, not a candidate -[23:19:44] Shentino: please stay on topic -[23:19:47] jmbsvicetto: they need to be a dev -[23:20:11] in that case j, what do you mean exactly by "fictional candidate"? -[23:20:18] my comment was in relation to that -[23:20:29] ulm: The old concern was that any candidate to a legal entity needed to "exist". I haven't seen anyone addressing that concern -[23:20:53] ulm: I don't know if that's a valid legal argument or not, but I don't think we should ignore it -[23:20:57] jmbsvicetto: iirc it was confirmed that it'd be allowed, NM gives us huge leeway for how tovote -[23:20:59] Shentino: reopen_nominations -[23:21:07] jmbsvicetto: I think we are unlikely to find that out here -[23:21:15] jmbsvicetto: I would err that they can be nominated, but perhaps not appointed? -[23:21:23] it was looked into and deemed possible -[23:21:27] dabbott: oh, you mean kinda like "make .PHONY"? -[23:21:28] antarus: I agree -[23:21:41] I think we need another revision to the proposal before voting (and possibly making it a bylaw change/addition) -[23:21:51] Shentino: read the email -[23:21:54] does that sound good to the other trustees? -[23:22:09] then make an informed comment if needed -[23:22:15] the proposal is simple enough -[23:23:11] K_F: we need to reconfirm it's legally possible, if it is then we need to decide on a schedule, once both of those are done we can vote/change policy -[23:23:12] So we work on a bylaw amendment for next month, will work on wording offline? -[23:23:21] K_F: it's simple enough, but I'm sure that the proposal would be illegal on PT jurisdiction. I have no knowledge if it'd be ok in NM or not -[23:23:23] antarus: that's my prefrence -[23:23:38] do we aim to have the bylaw amended prior to the next election? -[23:23:42] jmbsvicetto: I think it's fine, but we need to confirm -[23:23:45] if so there is some timeline involved -[23:23:58] prometheanfire: that's all I'm asking. Thanks -[23:24:00] antarus: next meeting would be the latest time we could do so -[23:24:05] the selection of trustees is wide enough that a reopen variant it irrelevant -[23:24:06] ok -[23:24:11] prometheanfire: ok for me -[23:24:41] dabbott: Klondike2 kensington ? -[23:25:12] ok -[23:25:25] We have been having the AGM in Augest so the election needs to be completed by then -[23:25:47] dabbott: yep, which is why next month is the latest we can make changes -[23:26:03] dabbott: iirc, the bylaws state the AGM takes place in August -[23:26:09] ok, it will never happen that fast this year -[23:26:18] dabbott: so any change would require a bylaw change -[23:26:45] ok, we have 3 to move on (out of 5, two not voting) so moving on -[23:26:51] Current subject: present financial reports for 2013-2017 , (set by prometheanfire) -[23:26:54] ok -[23:27:05] not at all.. it would only potentially require multiple rounds -[23:27:15] K_F: it could fit, yes -[23:27:20] Unless I see at least 100% more candidates than open slots in two elections I'll vote against. -[23:27:23] K_F: can you relink the reports? -[23:27:44] https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 -[23:27:51] with FY2005 - 2017 -[23:27:59] (just change the year in the URL) -[23:28:07] thanks -[23:28:12] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 [None] -[23:28:16] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2016 [None] -[23:28:19] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2015 [None] -[23:28:24] etc... -[23:28:37] Battery at 33 -[23:28:39] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2014 [None] -[23:28:42] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2013 [None] -[23:28:48] ok, the ones asked for are linked -[23:28:57] Current subject: contact SFLC/Eben Moglen for finance and legal advice, (set by prometheanfire) -[23:29:07] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/6e2c1974935494b7791e3958ef7e7562 [[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Contacting Eben Moglen - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[23:30:10] Do we have any takers here? -[23:30:21] sorry, takers == people to volunteer to contact Eben? -[23:30:39] I'm in favor of reaching out and retaining legal counsel -[23:30:45] Yes I'll have it hard for example -[23:31:04] it doesn't have to be the sflc though -[23:31:25] I think we need to define what we wish, which ties into the financial rfp -[23:31:47] imo this will be an extension of the financial work -[23:32:53] Okay so we wait until the rfp is done? -[23:32:56] I think so -[23:33:04] I think we can jump on directly -[23:33:19] the we can make a mini-rfp and send out to diferent people -[23:33:24] sfc sflc etc -[23:33:33] sorry, what concrete item are we waiting on? -[23:33:45] like we will write the rfp and send it out and retain financial services -[23:33:51] Drobbins this is your item what's your take? -[23:33:55] and this enables the board to do..what? -[23:34:25] I'm personlly frustrated as a foundation member where the foundation members (board included) speculate rampantly on various topics without seemingly consulting lawyers for anything -[23:34:27] there's no harm in making an approach, and following up with the RFP, surely? -[23:34:42] Provide a clear description to sflc and eben of our needs and status -[23:34:42] so I would prefer the board found some ongoing legal counsel; even if just for consulting (advisory) purposes -[23:34:53] antarus++ -[23:35:05] (which isn't to say, consult them for everything, which I would also oppose as costly ;p) -[23:35:48] antarus: a set of what we are looking for mainly -[23:35:53] Antarus so you volunteering as candidate for next election to change that? -[23:36:01] antarus: yes, it would be nice to talk to an actual lawyer about things -[23:36:08] that's one of the main draws of this -[23:36:11] Klondike2: I have a different plan in mind ;p -[23:36:24] 18:35 < antarus+> so I would prefer the board found some ongoing legal counsel; even if just for consulting (advisory) purposes -[23:36:27] yes -[23:36:41] sorry, so backing up -[23:37:01] besides what I'll term as 'vaguely random legal advice' what else does the board need counsel for? -[23:37:12] (or why do we think counsel is needed for financial work?) -[23:37:33] Because we suck at it! -[23:37:37] like if we are going to be a tax-exempt nonprofit, afaik there is legal work required for that; but its unclear that is a goal at this time; do we expect that to change after the rfp? -[23:37:53] or we think we will need counsel for the IRS? -[23:37:56] antarus: it's about tax exempt paperwork help -[23:38:15] that's the only tie, and a minor one really -[23:38:16] prometheanfire: so becoming tax-exempt is an explicit goal? -[23:38:39] antarus: not at this time, but it'd be nice to only have to have one lawyer/contact -[23:38:40] (like its bandied about often, but I was unclear it was something the board was seriously persuing) -[23:38:40] I suggest perhaps once you build a relationship, avenues will become more apparent once a dialogue is in place -[23:38:43] Making it's happy is an explicit goal -[23:39:04] Becoming tax exempt is a nice to have goal -[23:39:17] prometheanfire: what i'm trying to get at is that there is no need to wait for the rfp to seek legal services? -[23:39:19] Its should be irs -[23:39:21] that should be a core goal -[23:39:23] (we could just do it now) -[23:39:31] ^ this too -[23:39:41] first we need to reain an account / CPA firm, that should be #1 priority -[23:39:50] dabbott++ -[23:40:06] I think antarus suggests we do both in parallel ? -[23:40:09] if the rfp helps great if not hire someone -[23:40:22] soon -[23:40:24] antarus: we can do them in parallel, yes -[23:40:45] the legal help may steer the accounting help .. -[23:40:55] if we don't because we can't find people etow ork on it, thats a different issue (one is prioritization, the other is a strict dependency problem) -[23:41:40] I think we should start building legal reqs in any case, and i'll commit to doing that -[23:41:51] and we can move on? -[23:41:56] antarus: thanks -[23:42:02] ok, next step here is to building legal reqs, once those are built we can seek a contract -[23:42:06] antarus: yes -[23:42:13] Current subject: moderation of the nfp list , (set by prometheanfire) -[23:42:20] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/41c38f14752a491fe29f2c050ff5c3a2 [[gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] -[23:42:45] if we can decide on item 2.1 I think we can vote on this now -[23:42:55] I think delegation makes sense -[23:43:16] Okay Matt set your vote! -[23:43:20] Klondike2: what do you think of item 2.1? -[23:43:25] 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this) -[23:43:46] I'll just paste it -[23:43:48] 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even -[23:43:48] to Foundation members. -[23:43:48] 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the -[23:43:48] CoC. Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given. -[23:43:51] 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this) -[23:43:53] 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the -[23:43:56] trustees. -[23:44:10] In mother Spain we make ban causes public -[23:44:38] dabbott: kensington alicef ? -[23:44:48] prometheanfire: is there a motion? -[23:45:03] So personally I vote for yes including the ban cause being public -[23:45:20] kensington: I'm more asking about 2.2 before formally proposing this for a vote -[23:45:23] no for the public -[23:45:44] dabbott: reason? -[23:46:10] .vote motion one should ban causes be public? Yes our no -[23:46:11] they can ask us to appeal the decision -[23:46:19] reason given must be known by all trustees? -[23:46:28] we may be changing comrel policy -[23:46:47] veremitz: yes -[23:47:00] veremitz: that's an ok compromise -[23:47:01] s/known/shared with/ -[23:47:09] d'oh nearly -[23:47:10] prometheanfire: who are "those having actions enacted against them" ? -[23:47:22] alicef: whoever is banned/warned -[23:47:53] 22% -[23:48:00] If someone is banned from the -nfp list we should know who and the reason -[23:48:06] what if they are banned from the trustee mailing list ? -[23:48:21] then they can come to us for relief -[23:48:21] lends his battery bank to Klondike2 -[23:48:32] maybe make it "reason must be made available to trustees on their request"? -[23:48:32] That is out of scope of the policy -[23:48:37] I suggested amending 2.1 as follows 'The reason given needs to be given to to those acted against (banned or warned) and the trustees' -[23:49:13] ulm: I would tend to think they should be informed before there may be an appeal -[23:49:21] current members of the trustee ? -[23:49:38] alicef: that's what that means -[23:49:44] ok -[23:49:45] what actually triggered this proposal? -[23:50:00] kensington: just that the nfp list had no moderation as is -[23:50:02] is still in for fully public because it brings in things like accountability transparency and community pressure. -[23:50:10] prometheanfire: suits me fine -[23:50:15] prometheanfire: we might as well make the trustees moderate it then? -[23:50:39] antarus: do you want to moderate the list? I think deligation makes more sense -[23:51:10] prometheanfire: the board can do it as a whole -[23:52:00] possible, but I'd rather deligate it -[23:52:27] the problem is no one wants to sign up to moderate, so instead we end up with this burdensome process ;) -[23:52:34] signed up to moderate gentoo-dev already -[23:52:38] why do we need to moedate it at all? -[23:52:39] I'm probably not up for another -[23:53:34] ok, please vote on the following -[23:53:42] 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even to Foundation members. -[23:53:45] 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the CoC. Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given. -[23:53:48] 2.1. The reason given needs to be given to the trustees and those having the moderation enacte against them. -[23:53:51] 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the trustees. -[23:54:05] no -[23:54:05] yes -[23:54:15] nfp and trustee is not moderated by the secretary (at least was what i thought)? -[23:54:29] alicef: it is not at this point -[23:54:40] Moderators: calchan, dabbott, fox2mike, neddyseagoon, quantumsummers, rich0, robbat2 -[23:54:51] https://www.gentoo.org/get-involved/mailing-lists/all-lists.html -[23:54:58] O,o -[23:55:19] alicef: that's gentoo foundation announce -[23:55:37] Phone almost died, sorry -[23:55:45] is under gentoo-nfp The Gentoo NFP/Trustees Mailing list -[23:55:49] Klondike2: can you vote real quick on my proposal? -[23:56:55] No unless reason is public -[23:57:18] alicef: its a quirk of the ML software -[23:57:23] alicef: I'm not sure that moderation list has bearing on this -[23:57:25] antarus: right -[23:57:44] alicef: those are the moderators for the list, but the rules of the list software say that nearly no posts are moderated -[23:58:03] (in fact there are 0 rules on gentoo-nfp that funnel mail in to the moderation queue) -[23:58:10] i don't even now how to moderate it -[23:58:13] know -[23:58:40] alicef: are you able to vote? -[23:58:41] its not difficult, but we could cover it later unless you think its a blocker to voting? -[23:59:57] 2 hours already... -[00:00:04] yep -[00:00:16] alicef: anything preventing you from voting? -[00:01:39] the reason need to be given to trustee from comrel ? -[00:01:45] yep -[00:01:53] 2.1. The reason given needs to be given to the trustees and those having the moderation enacte against them -[00:02:59] did anything come of the mailman3 ML project? -[00:03:03] yes -[00:03:12] alicef: that your vote? -[00:03:15] veremitz: later -[00:03:15] yes -[00:03:18] ok -[00:03:22] my vote is yes -[00:03:27] motion carries -[00:03:36] prometheanfire: np -[00:04:00] next -[00:04:02] bug cleanup -[00:04:08] Klondike2: we can work tomorrow on that if you want -[00:04:24] next, new members -[00:04:41] Current subject: fearedbliss Jonathan Vasquez, (set by prometheanfire) -[00:04:48] yes -[00:04:51] yes -[00:04:51] yes -[00:04:52] yes -[00:05:06] I sent the list anybody against ping and close for them reply before -[00:05:08] I will send the email -[00:05:20] Tuesday cest -[00:05:25] Yes -[00:05:34] Klondike2: ok -[00:05:37] dabbott: thanks -[00:05:43] And I want to welcome him in Spanish -[00:05:43] next -[00:05:49] i will update the motions -[00:05:49] Current subject: Date of Next Meeting - Saturday, May 19 2018 22:00 UTC, (set by prometheanfire) -[00:05:59] that work? -[00:06:03] Dabbot let me send it please -[00:06:10] klondike: ok -[00:06:16] afaik I'm not here, but don't let that stop you -[00:06:21] So far yes -[00:06:25] I'll try to have updates on the legal item -[00:06:28] ok -[00:06:29] ok -[00:06:36] antarus: thanks -[00:06:42] finally -[00:06:43] Who will post the log? Minutes? (dabbott ) -[00:06:43] Who will update the motions page? (aliceinwire ) -[00:06:43] Who will send emails? (dabbott ) -[00:06:43] Who will update agenda? (prometheanfire ) -[00:06:45] Who will update channel topic? (prometheanfire ) -[00:06:49] that all sound good? -[00:07:00] alicef: I will post the motion this month -[00:07:08] Yes -[00:07:08] ? -[00:07:25] dabbott: ? -[00:07:30] I have it saved -[00:07:37] unless you want to -[00:07:46] sure, you are welcome :) -[00:07:56] ok, last item before close -[00:07:59] Current subject: Open Floor, (set by prometheanfire) -[00:08:08] I'd like this to be quick -[00:08:17] Klondike2: I think you can probably drop off here -[00:08:23] Dabbot I'll ping Jonathan when I get home later today -[00:08:25] I missed basically the whole meeting, but hi -[00:08:48] (I don't have anything useful to add, I don't think) -[00:08:56] Drobbins sorry for the missed items -[00:09:15] Bug 653640 -[00:09:18] dabbott: https://bugs.gentoo.org/653640 "Add HelloTux (Embroidered Shirts) to page "Stores offering Gentoo products" new section "Worldwide""; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; R030t1:trustees -[00:09:26] post to it when you can -[00:09:42] I vote either yes or vote asap -[00:09:45] dabbott: I'm in favor, but we can vote in the bug -[00:09:55] sounds good -[00:10:07] Klondike2: vote in the bug -[00:10:26] Bug vote tomorrow then -[00:10:39] k -[00:10:45] ending meeting -[00:10:48] Anything en jar -[00:10:56] Else? -[00:11:12] Klondike2: np -[00:11:17] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 7902 seconds diff --git a/2018/20180120.log.txt b/2018/20180120.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..62359fb --- /dev/null +++ b/2018/20180120.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,414 @@ +[22:37:42] Meeting started by prometheanfire +[22:37:49] You can ask sigyn to unkline +[22:37:58] Meeting chairs are: klondike, dabbott, kensington, alicef, prometheanfire +[22:38:03] o/ +[22:38:09] Current subject: rollcall, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:38:11] o/ +[22:38:16] o/ +[22:38:18] Here +[22:38:22] o/ +[22:38:56] here? +[22:39:06] sure +[22:39:13] Current subject: who's logging?, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:39:17] can somoene /op trustee-meetbot if it needs it? +[22:40:25] prometheanfire: Im logging +[22:40:41] Current subject: confirmation of new trustee , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:41:30] I nominate klondike as trustee in replacement of zlg for a term set til the next election (currently july 2018) +[22:41:40] seconded +[22:42:05] I accept the nomination under the conditions stated by prometheanfire +[22:42:34] ok, vote for klondike as a trustee now please +[22:42:39] seconded +[22:42:39] klondike: thanks +[22:42:41] yes +[22:42:55] Yes +[22:43:00] yes +[22:43:04] yes +[22:43:28] can't vote here +[22:43:31] ok, klondike is afirmed as trustee for a term set til the next election (currently july 2018) +[22:44:04] Current subject: activity tracker, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:44:08] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Activity_Tracker [Foundation:Activity Tracker - Gentoo Wiki] +[22:44:24] nothing there, moving on +[22:45:45] Current subject: irs update, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:45:49] robbat2: around? +[22:46:19] prometheanfire: he had to leave 46 minutes ago +[22:46:42] well, I'll update it as I know +[22:46:48] it's still a WIP +[22:46:49] next +[22:47:01] Current subject: foundation mailing address change, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:47:06] waiting on irs +[22:47:07] next +[22:47:18] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:47:38] alicef: how goes it with your items? +[22:47:43] Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support +[22:47:43] (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page +[22:47:47] Do we need date of birth in developer apps (how'd the email go)? +[22:48:06] i'm working on the donor page +[22:49:12] and i see we can get to the consulting page from the https://www.gentoo.org/support/ page +[22:49:50] so still work in progress? +[22:49:53] so probably is not needed ? or is anyway better to add a menu in Getting help with Gentoo +[22:50:00] ? +[22:50:29] alicef: I think bugging infra would be the best way to see site updates +[22:51:17] we alr-eady have a consulting button in the https://www.gentoo.org/support/ +[22:51:20] page +[22:51:25] maffblaster is working on www stuff too I think +[22:51:50] yep alicef put it in a bug to www +[22:52:01] alicef: I think a more direct link would be preferable +[22:52:11] kensington: thanks, couldn't remember his nick +[22:52:13] prometheanfire: ok work on that +[22:52:31] alicef: as for the birth date question, I +[22:52:54] alicef: as for the birth date question, I'd contact ulm as he wanted to work with you on a more comprehensive copyright policy and it'd tie into it +[22:53:14] prometheanfire: ok good for me +[22:53:25] alicef: any other items? +[22:53:40] no is everything +[22:53:43] k +[22:53:49] alicef: thanks +[22:53:59] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:54:07] Contact zlg? +[22:54:11] done and resolved +[22:54:15] contact the foundation consultants. +[22:54:27] all but one responded and he's a dev on devaway +[22:54:35] ok +[22:54:44] I'd like to not remove him as a consultant for another month +[22:54:48] and just keep the page as is +[22:55:02] Fine +[22:55:34] ok, I'll make a note to do that +[22:56:20] next +[22:56:45] the openssl ecc stuff is waiting for either 1.1 to go stable or for robbat2 (or someone else) to fully backport the 1.1 patch +[22:57:15] next +[22:57:18] bug 642824 +[22:57:20] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642824 "Insulting behavior from Ian Delaney on #gentoo-trustees"; Community Relations, User Relations; CONF; mgorny:trustees +[22:57:26] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642824 [642824 – Insulting behavior from Ian Delaney on #gentoo-trustees] +[22:57:54] as we are not governed by comrel we have to handle these types of actions ourselves +[22:58:41] In-channel behaviour is manages by the channel ops 99% of all times +[22:59:32] having viewed the bug (and been here at least one of the times the harrassment occured I move that we ban idella for 24 hours (as per the proposed proctor rules) +[22:59:42] kensington: yep +[23:00:43] can I get a second or another proposal? +[23:01:03] Seconded +[23:01:10] ok, please vote +[23:01:11] yes +[23:01:15] yes +[23:01:19] Yes +[23:01:23] yes +[23:02:08] where'd klondike go? +[23:02:24] barring an intervening policy by gentoo or the foundation, code of conduct and authority to manage #gentoo-trustees would default to chanops, a discretion granted thereto by freenode and through groupcontacts that officially represents gentoo foundation to freenode for matters in #gentoo-* channel namespace +[23:02:41] ping timeout +[23:02:49] vote passes in any case +[23:02:50] Spyro: yep +[23:03:02] I'll do the ban when we are done with the meeting +[23:03:24] prometheanfire: thanks +[23:03:38] next +[23:03:43] bug 643192 +[23:03:52] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/643192 [Bug Access Denied] +[23:04:01] Any authority by comrel would likewise need to be done through groupcontacts (even if implicitly) if exercised on freenode on behalf of gentoo foundation +[23:04:22] You are not authorized to access bug #643192 ? +[23:04:32] Can we finally unrestrict this bug? +[23:04:43] the consulting page has two instances of an individual appearing as a company as well +[23:04:49] dabbott: it's locked to comrel for some strange reason +[23:05:14] because it was reported wrong +[23:05:16] unlocked +[23:06:22] my proposal is that the consultants page should have unique email addresses at the very least +[23:06:40] prometheanfire: that sounds good +[23:06:48] prometheanfire: that bug likely shouldn't be in the community relations product +[23:07:33] jmbsvicetto: yep should be foundation +[23:07:47] we also have the right to remove anyone at any time for any reason, but that should provide at least some basic protection from 'ballot stuffing' +[23:08:00] vote? on my proposal? +[23:08:18] Can I make a different propossal? +[23:08:22] ofc +[23:09:08] I can see an individual being a consultant on there own plus have a company but agree the contact info should be different at least +[23:09:24] klondike: go ahead +[23:09:26] prometheanfire: i agree on the different mail for consultant and company +[23:09:28] dabbott: ya, zx2c4 +[23:09:38] Since consulting is an economic activity consultants must have a legal company behind +[23:09:57] Even as an autonomous employee that is usually a requirement although the company is yourself +[23:10:02] *raises a hand* +[23:10:08] Yes Spyro +[23:10:26] Definition of company varies wildly between countries +[23:10:33] Of course it does +[23:10:33] Technically, if you are in business for yourself you can present yourself as a sole proprietorship. A company is only a separate legal entity from its owner in the case of it being a corporation +[23:10:35] at least in the us +[23:10:46] Spyro: exactly +[23:10:48] klondike: not always they can be freelance +[23:10:51] but you don't have to have a company to ...yeah +[23:10:55] what alice just saida bout freelancing +[23:11:00] is unclear what the problem we are trying to solve actually is +[23:11:08] if you freelance you're in a one employee business as your own boss +[23:11:11] alicef: if you are freelance you still pay taxes +[23:11:23] pay tax is not owing a company +[23:11:28] drobbins is listed twice +[23:11:38] he already agreed to being listed as a company only +[23:11:40] yes, but as a sole proprietorship you include the business activities in your personal income tax return on Schedule C +[23:11:48] I'm not sure any other action is warrented? +[23:11:52] antarus: just don't wish for people to say they have 10 companies along with themselves +[23:12:02] antarus: a few other double instances appear too +[23:12:16] Legally, unless a corporation is involved, the only entity involved is the person who owns the business +[23:12:21] the only other double was zxc2c4 iirc +[23:12:30] which is why a corporation's stockholder would NOT be lsited +[23:12:58] So I would reword it to: "Only one listing per physical person" +[23:13:16] klondike: that's acceptable and simpler to enforce +[23:13:37] yes sounds good +[23:13:41] we do also have the right to refuse if an eployer told all their employees to submit +[23:13:53] klondike: any potential worries if a listing involves a corporation? +[23:13:56] What does that actually mean? No personal & company listing? +[23:14:09] companies are people, at least in the us +[23:14:30] prometheanfire: physical person usually means humans +[23:14:47] it can still be abused, but it's better than it is now +[23:14:50] kensington: more like, you as human can choose on or the other +[23:15:07] klondike: care to formally word it so we can vote? +[23:15:08] Yeah that's why I wanted to comment. In the US, the company's owner is legally liable and responsible for the business, and relatedly all of the business's income counts as personal income for the owner +[23:15:14] prometheanfire: sure +[23:15:23] Spyro: llc +[23:15:25] unless the company happens to be a corporation/LLC/LLP/etc +[23:15:35] *nods* +[23:15:38] so we don't like the existing double listings...why..? +[23:15:50] antarus: unfair advantage +[23:15:59] what's happen on llc llp etc? +[23:16:02] Why isn't it legit for someone to hire "edge security" in one instance, and zxc2c4 in another instance? +[23:16:10] (to pick an example) +[23:16:11] the issue in question being whether or not the person is a legally separate entity from the company, and that in turn depends on how the company is legally defined (aka corporation vs proprietorship) +[23:16:25] (ie rather instead of aka) +[23:16:30] .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company and remove those found to be done in bad faith". +[23:17:12] I guess I don't see the abuse, there are only 3 corporations listed in any case, its not as though a bunch of fictional companies are being submitted +[23:17:16] klondike: foundation reserves the right to remove anyone +[23:17:16] they all look real enough to me ;) +[23:17:21] this implies we think someone is doing it to get an advantage +[23:17:32] My personal opinion is that removing/consolidating redundant entries would keep things tidy paperwork-wise anyway. If necessary a person's businesses can be listed as a group under the entry identifying the person. +[23:17:34] I don't think that is the case +[23:17:36] I still feel like we are addressing a non-problem +[23:17:43] antarus++ +[23:18:26] klondike: can you amend it to include that? +[23:18:31] Sure +[23:18:36] Its a service to readers Cavat Emptor still applies. +[23:18:49] antarus: ++ +[23:18:59] .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation shall also remove any entry.". +[23:19:22] Uhh that last bit is worded confusingly +[23:19:25] keep the right to remove any entry +[23:19:43] .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation reserves the right remove any entry.". +[23:19:43] "The foundation reserves teh right to remove any entries at its discretion." +[23:19:54] .propossal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.". +[23:19:57] to rnemove +[23:20:01] to remove +[23:20:11] it's .proposal, most likely. i think you typoed +[23:20:19] .proposal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.". +[23:20:28] shrugs +[23:20:30] it's not a bot command, just useful to call it out +[23:20:33] ah +[23:20:56] klondike: looks good +[23:21:00] INFO: Motion: "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation keeps also the right to, at their own discretion, remove any entry.". +[23:21:01] .proposal "Only one entry in the consultant page should be allowed per physical person, that is human being. The Foundation reserves the right to regroup individual entries if they are found to work under the same company. The foundation also reserves the right to remove any entry." +[23:21:13] So, you propose that any company that an individual works for or owns (even in part) isn't allowed to be listed as providing support for Gentoo, just because that individual already is listed? +[23:21:47] Here's my proposal: corporations and people are listed separately, but any person DBA as a company has said company listed under the person in question as auxiliary data +[23:22:02] What if the individual is a "part" of that company? What "percentage" does the individual need to represent for that requirement to be dropped? +[23:22:08] jmbsvicetto: that's not guaranteed to be enforced +[23:22:21] just reserve the right +[23:22:24] still feels like this is simply over-legislating +[23:22:31] prometheanfire: ++ +[23:22:38] with the understanding that said company only counts if it provides support for gentoo. So basically, I propose companies get listed but only a) if they support gentoo, and b) as a sub-listing under the company's owner +[23:22:40] is starting to agree with antarus xD +[23:22:48] so you are reserving rights you don't even plan on enforcing? :p +[23:22:55] what do you guys think of my idea? +[23:22:55] this is getting too complicated +[23:22:59] antarus: enforce selectivly +[23:23:10] Are we voting on the motion or not? +[23:23:11] just as judges have leeway in punishment +[23:23:14] I voted +[23:23:19] I mean its your listing, you might as well reserve all your rights (not merely to remove entries ;p) +[23:23:20] no +[23:23:23] .agree +[23:23:24] Spyro: only company owner can submit in that case? +[23:23:26] I vote no +[23:23:31] I have to agree with antarus on this one - this seems like something the Foundation doesn't even need to worry about (at least at this point) +[23:24:02] ok, hold the vote then +[23:24:04] 2 no 2 yes alicef ? +[23:24:07] antarus: ++ +[23:24:17] alicef: whoever submits a company would at the very minimum need the company owner's authorizaiton (either express or implied) at least to prevent issues of abuse of agency and/or fraud +[23:24:26] no +[23:24:35] this wasn't meant to be this complicated +[23:24:47] sorry :( +[23:24:50] beyond that I'm just a big fan of tidy paperwork +[23:25:11] this is apart from if a particular person or company should be lsited to begin with. +[23:25:16] no double listings under the same contact +[23:25:19] that's it +[23:25:29] prometheanfire: I can get on board that logically ;) +[23:25:39] prometheanfire: i like that +[23:25:48] definitely can agree with that. If companies, separate from their owners, deserve to be emntioned they can just be consolidated in the same entry as their owner +[23:25:50] e.g. for drobbins he should have 1 personal contact and one "breezeops" contact +[23:25:51] second? +[23:26:12] Ok +[23:26:13] it also makes sense for people to understand whom they are contacting for services +[23:26:16] as opposed to mixing +[23:26:18] antarus: in this case, I would suggest "Daniel Robbins" with a sublisting for DBA breezeops +[23:26:42] Spyro: I leave it to the trustees to debate implementation ;) +[23:26:43] whats the motion +[23:26:57] what if i'm under a company but willing also to give private support / +[23:27:05] That's a good question alicef +[23:27:11] .vote the consultants page contants must be unique +[23:27:21] alicef: usually you have legal trouble with the company for doing competing bussiness +[23:27:23] then you will have a different contact info +[23:27:34] klondike: not always +[23:27:37] I would opine in general that if you keep things tidy information-wise, the decision making parts will be simpler +[23:27:39] vote please +[23:27:41] the company can also don't mind +[23:27:53] .agree +[23:27:59] alicef: I think as long as you provide separate contact information; that should be allowed +[23:28:08] i think it too +[23:28:17] sounds good +[23:28:21] alicef: dabbott kensington vote please +[23:28:30] whats the motion ? +[23:28:33] 17:29 < prometheanfire@> .vote the consultants page contants must be unique +[23:28:42] and mispell +[23:28:49] seconded +[23:28:53] yes +[23:28:54] what about my last question ? +[23:28:55] *contacts? +[23:28:57] yes +[23:29:05] Yes +[23:29:08] is it enforced ? +[23:29:29] alicef: enforced? yes, I'm going to email drobbins about it after the meeting +[23:29:50] what if i'm under a company but willing also to give private support? +[23:29:54] alicef: yes the contact info must be unique +[23:30:17] or different +[23:30:25] exactly +[23:30:26] alicef: then you provide your company e-mail in one and your personal e-mail on the other +[23:30:36] yes +[23:30:36] yep +[23:30:39] thanks +[23:30:41] motion carried +[23:30:52] I'll contact drobbins after the meeting +[23:30:56] alicef: 2 motions so far +[23:31:03] I think +[23:31:06] yep +[23:31:07] yes :) +[23:31:12] first one was the ban +[23:31:27] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire) +[23:31:34] jmbsvicetto, robbat2 around: +[23:31:36] ? +[23:31:40] pong +[23:31:48] jmbsvicetto: infra update time +[23:32:45] prometheanfire: at this point we have no funding requests. I need to make a proposal for some hardware for the server flameeyes donated that arrived at OSL this week +[23:33:06] I thought that was antarus's server +[23:33:19] antarus was holding flameeyes server +[23:33:29] but ok, we can handle that later +[23:33:31] ah +[23:33:37] next +[23:33:49] Current subject: Treasurer Update, (set by prometheanfire) +[23:34:10] robbat2 is gone, but the earlier updates about tax are still true +[23:34:23] Current subject: open trustee bugs, (set by prometheanfire) +[23:34:36] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3817164&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- [Bug List: TrusteesOpenBugs] +[23:34:59] Anything urgent? +[23:35:18] bug 642422 +[23:35:29] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642422 [Bug Access Denied] +[23:36:20] I don't have bugzie login handy right now +[23:36:25] I'm fine with the footer to be replaced, but iirc it was not even his footer +[23:36:55] alicef: mind taking bug 369185 +[23:36:57] prometheanfire: 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 +[23:37:01] Oh that one +[23:37:07] Isn't infra handling now? +[23:37:09] prometheanfire: ok for me +[23:37:19] kensington: mostly, I think they just need our ack +[23:37:43] ok should we ack on the bug? +[23:37:48] yes +[23:37:51] robbat2's plan sounded good iirc +[23:38:02] You are not authorized to access bug #642422. +[23:38:24] I'll do so if you want (first request that robbat2 state the actions to be taken in the bug) +[23:39:22] klondike: I'll fix after the meeting +[23:39:39] ok, I just updated the bug requesting specific action plan +[23:39:50] no other urgent bugs +[23:40:31] Current subject: cleanup, (set by prometheanfire) +[23:40:44] date of next meeting is 2200 UTC 17th of Feb +[23:40:52] sound good? +[23:40:58] ok here +[23:41:05] Yep +[23:42:01] works for me +[23:42:55] alicef: is 22:00 ok or is later better? +[23:43:19] I can do later but not earlier +[23:43:32] she's afk atm +[23:43:38] we'll assume it's ok for now +[23:43:43] ok +[23:43:56] Who will post the log? minutes? +[23:44:10] got it +[23:44:29] Who will update the motions page? +[23:44:33] (should be alicef) +[23:44:37] alicef: will +[23:44:40] Who will send emails? +[23:44:58] is there any? +[23:45:15] dabbott: logs/minutes should be emailed to -nfp at least +[23:45:36] ok +[23:45:57] Who will update agenda? +[23:45:59] I will +[23:46:05] as an attachment or plain text? +[23:46:06] Who will update channel topic? +[23:46:07] I will +[23:46:12] dabbott: attachment I think +[23:46:17] ok +[23:46:48] ok for me +[23:47:07] yes just realized we are in 2018 +[23:47:12] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire) +[23:47:32] raises hand +[23:47:38] oh wait, open +[23:47:51] Spyro: go on +[23:48:01] I'd like to concur with the comment made on my foundation membership audit, and have completion of a staff quiz become a prerequisite to the granting of foundation membership. +[23:48:28] it was prom's idea +[23:48:38] wants to clean up the bug list +[23:48:42] i thought we already dicussed this +[23:48:44] klondike: ya... +[23:49:00] alicef: I don't know if it was ever brought to a formal vote or put on an official genda though +[23:49:07] klondike: ditto +[23:49:40] Last time I checked the bylaws the staff quiz was never mentioned as a membership criteria +[23:49:42] Spyro: it was discussed in the joint meeting (logs/minutes will be posted tonight) but the problem with that is that the trustees should have the final say in membership, not comrel/recruiting +[23:49:50] Can I just ping for an update on anything older than July 2017 and close it if we don't get any answer by next meeting? +[23:50:05] prom: I'd like to respond to that comment as I think there's been a misunderstanding +[23:50:05] klondike: kensington Leave bugs with fincancial stuff in the whiteboard. robbat2 is using them +[23:50:12] klondike: atm, no, some of those are valid +[23:50:16] Ohh okay +[23:50:24] NeddySeagoon: I know +[23:50:54] prometheanfire: my proposal is that foundation members pass the staff quiz, not that recruiters be the ones to evaluate it. What I'm proposing is a staff quiz that the trustees themselves would evaluate +[23:51:07] It can't hurt to review all to make sure they're the only outstanding owns though +[23:51:15] comrel/recruiting would be completely uninvolved +[23:51:17] that's possible, as long as we are the ones reviewing +[23:51:26] prometheanfire: does that clarify my proposal? +[23:51:28] klondike: nothing stopping you for asking for an update +[23:51:29] yes +[23:51:41] What project would these members join? +[23:51:51] I'll send a request for an update for any non financial bugs then +[23:51:54] some of them may be being used as reminders +[23:52:13] NeddySeagoon: it's the same as before, they'd still need to prove they've contrib'd to gentoo +[23:52:13] klondike: sounds good +[23:52:15] i think the point was that we are already doing a review +[23:52:30] prometheanfire: Sounds good +[23:52:40] alicef, prometheanfire: my apologies if I assumed you knew I was only talking about the quiz itself and not necessarily that comrel/recruiters would be involved +[23:52:42] and we vote for each member +[23:53:06] it's not a 'pass this quiz and you get membership', they do that AND have to prove contribution +[23:53:20] prometheanfire: ++ +[23:53:20] it was honestly just a clerical-error type misunderstanding :P +[23:53:26] prometheanfire++ +[23:53:45] make that a proposal and email it to the trustees (get one of us assigned to it) +[23:53:53] then it'd be brought up for a vote +[23:53:58] I'm booked :P +[23:54:45] anyone else for open floor? +[23:55:02] dances +[23:55:08] prom: were you instructing *me* to be the one to email the trustees? +[23:55:13] about the quiz proposal? +[23:55:15] ah my banner reimbourse +[23:55:23] Spyro: yes +[23:55:35] ...wait a minute what do you mean by "assign", are you talking about bugzilla? +[23:55:36] i added my paypal to bug +[23:55:41] to the bug +[23:55:43] alicef: probably need to talk to robbat2 +[23:55:50] prometheanfire: ok +[23:56:09] Spyro: no, just email and get one of us to take it up (have it be one of their agenda items) +[23:56:13] oh ok +[23:56:16] will do +[23:56:20] got a little confused +[23:56:22] Spyro: submit the bug and it will get assigned to the trustees +[23:56:33] ...so do I submit a bug or send an email or both? +[23:56:35] bug would help probably +[23:56:39] just a bug +[23:56:50] then one of us will look into it not prometheanfire he said he is too busy +[23:57:36] anything else? +[23:57:42] ok thanks I'll file a bug then +[23:58:19] Not from me, as said I'll send rfu on the non economy open bugs +[23:58:34] k +[23:58:36] Spyro: use the Product Foundation and Component Proposal +[23:58:47] klondike: make a list of bugs first, without sending the rfu +[23:58:51] all good here +[23:58:56] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 4874 seconds diff --git a/2018/20180217.log.txt b/2018/20180217.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..81ce379 --- /dev/null +++ b/2018/20180217.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,355 @@ +[21:58:52] Meeting started by prometheanfire +[21:59:11] Meeting chairs are: alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, prometheanfire, +[21:59:23] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire) +[21:59:26] here +[21:59:27] Here +[21:59:30] hi +[21:59:34] here +[21:59:40] you started early! +[21:59:56] oh, so I did, server time is 2 min ahead +[21:59:56] alicef: said she was up late with kernel bugs +[22:00:07] dabbott: ya, she was pinging me about them +[22:00:19] prometheanfire: can you add klondike2 as chair? +[22:00:31] Meeting chairs are: alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, klondike2, prometheanfire, +[22:00:36] Thanks +[22:00:48] ok, moving on +[22:00:57] Yay +[22:01:01] ACTION: dabbott is logging the meeting +[22:01:07] yes +[22:01:14] there is nothing in the activity tracker +[22:01:22] o/ +[22:01:29] excellent :) +[22:01:32] no change in the mailing addr, unless someone has something there +[22:01:34] antarus: :D +[22:01:43] oh, should probably +[22:01:47] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/02 [Foundation:Meetings/2018/02 - Gentoo Wiki] +[22:01:59] alicef: good timing, you're up +[22:02:01] there's one comment re mailing address +[22:02:16] capitalone sent one of our tax forms to Wayne Chew +[22:02:26] despite us having changed the address that the bank had +[22:03:10] is that from the account we want to close +[22:03:20] hmm, that's a good point +[22:03:22] it wasn't clear on a quick glance +[22:03:36] but that one was changing address as well +[22:03:45] at least tsunam sent in the change of address form for that account +[22:03:49] the sparks has the correct address afaik +[22:03:58] if they processed it correct... ? +[22:05:03] ya, guess that's something we need to verify and correct +[22:05:08] can we pull all the money out of that account and let it close or do we have to notify them +[22:05:26] robbat2: can you verify which account it was for, then we can proceed from there +[22:05:32] we have the new checking account +[22:05:35] dabbott: notify them +[22:05:45] i will when I next spend time on finances yes +[22:05:50] k +[22:05:50] (which is probably not today at all) +[22:05:52] in order to close the account +[22:05:59] make a bug so we don't forget +[22:06:06] ok +[22:06:08] robbat2: thanks +[22:06:14] who's making the bug? +[22:06:20] i will +[22:06:46] ACTION: dabbott is making a bug for the banking tax info being sent to the wrong address +[22:06:57] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:07:05] alicef: have at it :D +[22:07:44] no news on my side +[22:08:07] alicef: how about the copyright work with ulm? +[22:08:28] looks good for me +[22:08:34] ok +[22:08:47] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:08:53] prometheanfire: you're up +[22:08:55] ok me +[22:09:01] contact wizardedit (consultant) +[22:09:10] done, he asked to be removed and I've done so +[22:09:36] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/531540 [531540 – dev-libs/openssl: revise inclusion of elliptic curves with bindist USE flag] +[22:10:12] for the openssl thing, I haven't done anything there +[22:10:20] robbat2: have you had time to continue your work there? +[22:10:32] maybe, but I had a question as well +[22:10:37] sure +[22:10:43] what progress was the openssl1.1 unmasking making? +[22:11:02] most of the other distros look mostly set in for 1.1 already +[22:11:15] so could we just offer bindist-safe-ecc on 1.1 only +[22:11:58] if jmbsvicetto is here, maybe he knows +[22:12:11] !seen jmbsvicetto +[22:12:11] robbat2: jmbsvicetto was last seen 5 hours, 24 minutes and 16 seconds ago, saying "I meant irc activity" in #gentoo-groupcontacts +[22:12:30] i guess not +[22:12:36] let's just continue the meeting +[22:12:58] ok +[22:13:21] I guess that's something that'll need to be discussed in the ossl-1.1 tracker (general stablization) +[22:13:34] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:13:41] robbat2: pong +[22:13:50] jmbsvicetto: you're up +[22:14:12] sorry, what was the question? The openssl-1.1 stabilization? +[22:14:24] If so, I'm sorry but I haven't followed that +[22:14:41] thanks, that covers that, also any infra items you had for the trustee meeting +[22:14:47] jmbsvicetto: and the second one was infra updates +[22:14:58] I didn't fill the funding request yet. I'm going to do that in a bit +[22:15:32] Otherwise, I don't think there's any infra issue pending on trustees +[22:15:57] ok +[22:16:06] Current subject: treasure update, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:16:09] robbat2: you're up +[22:16:44] funding request clarification for other trustees: ~$1100 for SSD+parts for the server donated by flameeyes +[22:16:56] i guess we'll just move that one to a bug for voting then +[22:17:16] i have no actual progress update on treasurer/financials, just some comments +[22:17:44] go ahead +[22:17:49] 1. my CPA contact has moved to the other side of canada for family reasons +[22:17:59] we're still in contact, but they aren't local to me anymore +[22:18:28] 2. to that end, per the discussions yesterday, i think we should look for more bookkeeping AND CPA resources +[22:18:56] update & re-post our advert, and solicit other options for that +[22:19:22] splitting it to book-keeping service vs CPA service +[22:19:29] ack, sounds good to me, I can ask about my friends father in law about that, but I doubt he has experience with using open source accounting +[22:20:01] I wonder if the fsf could point us to someone +[22:20:36] it wouldn't hurt to ask once we post the advert +[22:20:45] yep +[22:20:50] fsf, sfc, eff, apache +[22:20:56] are who i'd start by asking +[22:21:27] agreed, fsf is just who came to mind first +[22:21:42] I might be able to ask the openstack people too at the PTG +[22:21:55] probably ask on the ledger mailing lists as well :-) +[22:22:09] and foundations list +[22:23:11] moving on? +[22:23:25] sounds good +[22:23:46] Current subject: bugs, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:23:56] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3290194&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- [Bug List: TrusteesOpenBugs] +[22:24:10] I don't actually see anything new there +[22:24:41] does that actually include lastchanged<30d ?! :P +[22:24:52] veremitz: heh, ya +[22:25:05] I know klondike mentioned going through the backlog +[22:25:17] if the list is 'zaro boogs' all is good :D +[22:25:33] ^use the force^ +[22:25:58] to that end, would anybody object to making a component to split out the finance ones? +[22:26:16] and having reimbursements move to finance when they are waiting on being closed out in book-keeping? +[22:26:39] robbat2: I was going to suggest something like that +[22:26:52] it'll make it easier to go over +[22:26:52] were we going to discuss bug 645192? +[22:26:54] robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees +[22:27:15] issues Pom-poms to Shentino +[22:27:30] gives credit for said pom poms to prometheanfire, it was his idea +[22:27:35] prometheanfire: haven't had time to backlog +[22:27:43] klondike2: np, just mentioning the intention +[22:27:56] robbat2: ya, guess we should :P +[22:27:57] We have somethings like the t-shirt mail we received 2 weeks ago +[22:28:04] Which should be linked to a bug +[22:28:16] I'll try to go over those to +[22:28:18] *too +[22:28:51] reguarding bug 645192, I think we should leave it for now, I suspect (hope) K_F is going to use it in his proposed membership application quiz +[22:28:51] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees +[22:29:23] Maybe this is the time to get K_F here? +[22:29:53] prometheanfire: when did he say he might have it completed? +[22:30:03] next meeting is the target +[22:30:08] ok +[22:30:22] ah, i haven't had time to read the log of the combined meeting +[22:30:30] lets move on to the tshirt email klondike2 mentioned +[22:30:50] Then all we need to do is vote on it as a requrment for membership? +[22:31:12] I think we should reply yes, and specify donation to the paypal account +[22:31:21] dabbott: more or less +[22:31:27] ok +[22:31:41] the basics of the quiz is that we'd vote based on the results of the quiz, but are not held to it +[22:31:46] prometheanfire: I think we should check our agreement with Gentoo eV +[22:31:47] as there is not a bylaw change +[22:32:01] klondike2: what does that have to do with it? +[22:32:10] ah, eu based +[22:32:20] jup +[22:32:49] possibly, id doesn't preclude donations to us though +[22:33:10] i have one comment re visual of the shirt, the logo seems too blue +[22:33:39] are there pantone colours for the logo somewhere? +[22:33:43] ya, does look a bit odd +[22:34:13] I may have seen some once .. not sure .. +[22:34:17] i don't know if we have tracked pantone for the shirt, that would be a good project for somebody to do +[22:34:40] I move that we give feedback in reguards to the color, mention gentoo eV and paypal +[22:35:09] veremitz: ttps://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Artwork/Colors +[22:35:19] dabbott: ty :D +[22:35:27] klondike2: you want to take the lead on the shirt thing, being eu based? +[22:35:41] I can do that, yes +[22:35:48] is there an EU trademark on it? +[22:35:54] should be .. >,< +[22:36:09] ACTION: klondike2 to draft a reply the tshirt email (hellotux) +[22:36:21] to the best of my knowledge the foundation does not hold any EU trademarks +[22:36:33] same, I don't know of any +[22:36:37] just the word & logo trademarks with the US PTO +[22:36:42] next +[22:36:46] Current subject: bug 638962, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:36:48] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees +[22:36:48] trustee-meetbot: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees +[22:36:50] hmm worth thinking about .. but go on :D +[22:37:12] they use our logo https://gentoo-ev.org/wiki/Ressourcen +[22:37:12] until we get a proposal we can't vote on it +[22:38:29] the uncouple needs a slight clarification +[22:38:46] robbat2: mind updating the bug? +[22:39:03] the name usage agreement we offer says that if you want to call an EVENT 'something gentoo something', you have to obide by CoC +[22:39:27] but the CoC starts with 'Gentoo's Code of Conduct for public communication fora' +[22:40:28] as a personal opinion, i don't think the CoC as it stands covers real-world situations enough +[22:41:17] so it's maybe that the 'event' language of the usage agreement needs to be clearer as to why +[22:41:57] but yes, it would go in a new bug +[22:42:02] that existing one should close +[22:42:38] mind updating it? +[22:43:01] will do +[22:43:05] action item it to me ;-) +[22:43:43] ACTION: robbat2 to update bug 638962 +[22:43:45] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees +[22:43:45] trustee-meetbot: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees +[22:43:54] Current subject: new members, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:44:03] gentoo dev: William Hubbs (williamh) +[22:44:11] yes +[22:44:13] yes +[22:44:17] Yes +[22:44:46] alicef: klondike2 klondike ? +[22:44:57] yes +[22:45:13] yes +[22:45:42] I will send the email +[22:45:50] thanks +[22:45:50] ACTION: passed +[22:45:57] Welcome WilliamH +[22:46:01] Non gentoo dev: Daniel Robbins (drobbins) +[22:46:17] he's been contributing to portage itself +[22:46:20] is there .vote!? +[22:46:24] defer till next month +[22:46:26] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/log/?qt=author&q=drobbins +[22:46:39] dabbott: mind if I ask why? +[22:46:58] did you want to start the test +[22:47:10] (i don't have a vote, but I would approve him and when the new quiz is ready, apply it to foundation members who aren't active devs) +[22:47:26] sounds good :) +[22:47:48] I like what robbat2 said +[22:48:06] sounds reasonable +[22:48:06] ok, next month then +[22:48:18] unless anybody sees procedural issues with asking existing members to be tested +[22:48:28] Current subject: cleanup, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:48:30] robbat2: nah +[22:48:36] Who will post the log? Minutes? (dabbott +[22:48:41] Who will update the motions page? (aliceinwire +[22:48:43] yeah thats a tricky one .. technically they've been Accepted already. +[22:48:44] Who will send emails? (dabbott +[22:48:49] Who will update agenda? (prometheanfire +[22:48:49] yep +[22:48:50] rich0 & NeddySeagoon might have thoughts on procedural validity +[22:48:53] Who will update channel topic? (prometheanfire +[22:49:08] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:49:12] I have an item +[22:49:46] during the combined meeting, when discussing the reporting of comrel actions taken to the trustees, some clarifications were asked for +[22:50:04] let me see if I can copy/paste the scrollback +[22:50:56] 15:39 < mgorny+> as i've mentioned before, i don't think providing details to trustees would be a problem as long as confidentiality of appropriate private information is preserved +[22:51:00] 15:40 < mgorny+> i.e. escalation still works the same, trustees don't need to intervene unless something really illegal happens +[22:51:08] 15:41 < mgorny+> prometheanfire: lemme rephrase. do you need just information that an action was taken, or access to all evidence proactively? +[22:51:17] that's the basics +[22:51:45] first/second question get's an ack from me +[22:52:16] third, I would be satisfied to be notified after action is taken +[22:52:19] we only need to be notified after the fact so we are informed of the action taken, not before +[22:52:22] any comments? +[22:52:59] I think mgorny was inquiring as what the content of hte notification was +[22:53:27] I wonder if we even need a notification :P +[22:53:51] If we don't get a notification, will the legal responsability shift to the council? +[22:53:55] klondike2: we need to be kept informed of actions that can cause legal trouble +[22:53:55] i'd say copies of the threads of the compliant, communication with the person(s) who requested and were the subject of the action +[22:53:59] klondike2: willful blindness +[22:54:05] it could be very outline at the start of an issue, and then outcome could become more detailed perhaps .. eg. case admitted 10.11.07 ... case #34752 bug 0000 result: xXXX +[22:54:07] not copies of council internal discussions +[22:54:22] prometheanfire: for there to be willful blindness, shouldn't we be able to act on it? +[22:54:44] klondike2: we can (see mgorny's second comment) +[22:54:55] you could then react if case 99999 was taking 18 months to resolve ... +[22:54:57] robbat2: ack, that sounds like what I'm looking for +[22:55:02] Okay makes sense +[22:55:25] communication that covers the relevant parties, and trying NOT to know council internals about why +[22:55:45] robbat2: I'll add that to my reply to them +[22:55:50] I single out that communication because that's what legal action would be based on +[22:56:19] anyone else want to add to that? +[22:56:34] robbat2: actually, my point was the other way around +[22:56:49] i.e. protecting the possible intimate/private details from being spread to more people than absolutely necessary at the moment +[22:57:30] I think he means retrospectively .. not concurrently .. +[22:57:41] mgorny: i was looking at it from the other direction: what's the LEAST that the trustees need to know +[22:57:53] it would be the mails with the parties +[22:58:02] the second question, is when does that need to be known +[22:58:39] can somebody remind me of how fast the council is supposed to move on comrel actions? +[22:59:43] mgorny: ^^ +[23:00:36] robbat2: could you rephrase the question? Council normally actions only when the party appeals +[23:01:05] when an appeal is made to council, how fast is the council required to reach a decision? +[23:01:22] lemme look into glep39 +[23:01:54] seperately, when a request is made of comrel, is there anything that says how fast they have to respond? (for actions not initiated solely by comrel) +[23:02:07] hm, doesn't seem to be specified but i think normally Council handles it before the next meeting +[23:02:34] or at the next meeting +[23:03:03] so it'd say <5-6 weeks (in case it came just before a meeting) +[23:03:53] so a compromise: comrel actions shall be reported to trustees as they are completed, AND if the request is taking longer than X days to handle +[23:04:05] to avoid requests being in uncompleted limbo +[23:05:11] robbat2: sounds satisfactory to me, what method will we be notified? +[23:05:18] as for the value of X, we'd want to see how long comrel actions take start-to-finish historically +[23:05:33] s/AND if/or +[23:05:45] and pick a value that gets most outliers +[23:05:50] 90d ?! +[23:05:53] robbat2: 2 years? ;-P +[23:06:09] (if by finish you mean new comrel lead closing all old bugs) +[23:06:11] if it's dragging more than a month I'd want to know +[23:06:22] but i'm not sure how much faster than that is a benefit +[23:06:34] depends on the issue really +[23:06:50] I'd say a month is a good standard +[23:07:06] more complicated issues could be more hairy legally too +[23:07:20] well, the problem to some part is that many comrel issues do not need real action, and 'ignoring' them causes less problems than rejecting +[23:07:32] (i.e. waiting for people to cool down) +[23:07:46] comrel "timeout" lol +[23:08:08] I'm not sure that's a good policy +[23:08:59] well, a good policy would be to finally have comrel that encourages mediation and talking to people +[23:09:07] but that's another thing entirely +[23:09:19] both meditation & mediation +[23:09:25] but i don't want to diverge the meeting +[23:09:34] we're in open-floor already +[23:09:38] but I have to go in 20 mins +[23:10:04] robbat2: I'll write up your suggestions and desires as our response to comrel +[23:10:11] and send that out tomorrow +[23:10:25] ACTION: prometheanfire send email to comrel about reporting reqs +[23:10:34] does anyone have anything else? +[23:10:47] mgorny: i agree that getting people to calm down a bit by delaying response has value +[23:10:58] but reporting that to trustees is good too +[23:11:04] true +[23:11:11] thinking of 'traditional' HR processes +[23:11:14] and not letting it lag on too long +[23:11:21] HR tries to ack something you send right away +[23:11:23] i'm a bit afraid that this will result in trustees starting to interfere +[23:11:24] a templated standard response is ok +[23:11:33] but they don't action it for a bit longer +[23:12:03] mgorny: atm we don't have a desire to interfere, make suggestions I think, but not order people around +[23:12:07] Is there better guidance for when trustees with actually act? +[23:12:14] will* +[23:12:18] mgorny: A much simpler alternative is that the council takes all legal responsability and indemnifies the trustees for the council's actions then we mere trustees don't need to worry at all :P +[23:12:20] mgorny: to avoid the interfere part, completed actions to be reported on some time interval rather than immediately? +[23:12:36] antarus: when we think we should to legally protect the foundation (would be my guidance) +[23:12:51] I mean I understand that, I still think its pretty vague +[23:12:52] ;) +[23:13:01] @trustees: bug 647966 +[23:13:01] https://bugs.gentoo.org/647966 "Funding request for jacamar.gentoo.org"; Gentoo Foundation, Infra Support; CONF; jmbsvicetto:trustees +[23:13:25] antarus: any more specific would be setting ourselfs up for failure imo +[23:14:09] Well I mean this is the primary concern around the allocation of responsbilities +[23:14:12] jmbsvicetto: will review for next meeting +[23:14:32] mgorny: do you have suggestions on how the trustees can still be informed in a timely fashion and not interfere? +[23:15:07] prometheanfire: ok, thanks +[23:15:08] prometheanfire: 'suggestions' from trustees can be taken as binding +[23:15:29] robbat2: i don't think the time really matters, it's rather what trustees do with the information +[23:15:31] then how can we talk at all? +[23:15:49] do we have to say 'this is non-binding' before everything? +[23:16:10] mgorny: your concern is information leakage, trustee concern is legal-ass-covering +[23:16:10] mgorny: I suspect 99% of the time we will do nothing +[23:16:24] i agree +[23:16:49] well, maybe it's fine +[23:17:40] as long as trustees don't end up being used by one of the parties to push the result +[23:17:59] that said, we should probably improve comrel policies on response time +[23:18:04] that's why I suggested batch reporting after time +[23:18:37] that also related to previous questions about transparency in reporting number of comrel actions open/completed to council +[23:19:00] that will end up like a national security letter canary, mostly +[23:19:09] "no actions have been taken" +[23:19:10] "no actions have been taken" +[23:19:12] "no actions have been taken" +[23:19:18] ? +[23:19:31] regular batch reporting I mean +[23:19:41] still better than nothing imho. +[23:19:42] ah +[23:20:08] yeah but reporting when something happens is probably easier +[23:20:40] we can discuss it via email if that satisfies people +[23:20:52] atm we are 22m over (and dinner is almost done) +[23:20:55] I figure some completely simple, anonymous stats would be an easy start +[23:20:57] you can already creatively count bugs assigned/closed to comrel +[23:21:13] ^ like that +[23:21:19] so publishing it clearly isn't a big change +[23:22:38] can I close the meeting in the mean time? +[23:22:52] delaying the detailed information geting to trustees slightly does reduce the concern of tampering in process +[23:22:54] how about suggesting to try something simple for a few months and do a review? +[23:23:12] so if comrel/council have related ideas there, let's put that to email discussion? +[23:23:12] INFO: next meeting date is Mar 17 2018 +[23:23:22] robbat2: ack +[23:23:37] my email will cc comrel and council and trustees +[23:23:40] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 5088 seconds diff --git a/2018/20180318.log.txt b/2018/20180318.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..da65b94 --- /dev/null +++ b/2018/20180318.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ +[07:00:08] Meeting started! use .action, .agreed, .info, .chairs, .subject and .comments to control the meeting. to end the meeting, type .endmeeting +[07:00:11] Users without speaking permission can use .comment #gentoo-trustees followed by their comment in a PM with me to vocalize themselves. +[07:01:09] .chairs prometheanfire klondike alicef kensington +[07:01:10] Meeting chairs are: prometheanfire, klondike, alicef, kensington, +[07:01:19] .subject rollcall +[07:01:19] Current subject: rollcall +[07:01:20] o/ +[07:01:21] o/ +[07:01:25] hi +[07:01:41] robbat2 and dabbott are afk (but let us know) +[07:01:47] yes +[07:01:47] so I'm logging +[07:01:52] i'm also +[07:02:26] nothing for the activity tracker +[07:02:35] or address change or irs +[07:02:35] o/ +[07:03:03] I will say that we should send out a request for a bookkeeper and/or tax guy +[07:03:14] finding one that works with open source stuff will be a pain +[07:03:23] .subject alicef's items +[07:03:24] yes and we need it soon i suppose :/ +[07:03:24] Current subject: alicef's items +[07:03:27] yes +[07:03:36] I'm very concerned that we're back to not making any progress again +[07:03:46] same here +[07:03:49] kensington: me too, we were doing well for a while +[07:04:39] but looks like robbat put the basis for a good way of bookkeeping +[07:04:48] do we have detail on exactly what needs doing, or do we need robbat2 for that? +[07:05:15] I think we need him +[07:05:15] so at least we have all in in git +[07:05:30] but we should have it written down and sent via email so we know what specifically is needed +[07:05:48] would be nice to have some documentation of the procedure +[07:06:08] that would be good, at the very least it would allow others to try and chip away at it, even if it's only a little bit here and there +[07:06:30] ok, so we'll ask for that when he gets back +[07:06:32] maybe having a trustee internal wiki would be nice +[07:06:56] could almost just use the infrawiki since a couple of us are on it already +[07:07:06] -*- antarus shudders +[07:07:17] but the new bookkeper could not be a infra +[07:07:23] antarus: you don't like the joke? +[07:07:32] which joke ? +[07:07:38] there was a joke :O +[07:07:55] fwiw, my propsal would be to write up proper RFP for someone to take on +[07:08:15] K_F: yes, that's basically what I'd want +[07:08:17] K_F: that would be nice too +[07:08:22] I'm also not convinced that robbat2 actually knows what is left +[07:08:38] like we know the outcomes we want, but not the work required to do it +[07:09:11] -*- antarus too would like an RFP +[07:09:11] without having this documented somewhere it's not going to be possible to get there +[07:09:22] FRP o/ +[07:09:23] we sent a request earlier, it wasn't very detailed +[07:09:26] RFP +[07:09:37] it might be good to have clear words about what was missing / what you want +[07:09:37] moving on then? +[07:09:43] ok +[07:09:46] -*- antarus nods, onward +[07:09:57] alicef: your items from the wiki +[07:10:02] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/03 +[07:10:40] Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support +[07:10:59] not yet +[07:11:12] (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page +[07:11:36] same for the donor page, working on it +[07:11:50] ok, as long as progress is being made +[07:12:06] still not sure what is the best for get paypal data +[07:12:22] ? +[07:12:23] (sent a mail to trustees about earlier detailed accounting of what was required from sept) +[07:12:44] thanks antarus +[07:12:57] yep, thanks +[07:13:21] prometheanfire: we need to get the name of people that donate, actually icould be possible to do it automatically +[07:13:30] how about FLA/CLA/licence stuff? +[07:13:32] alicef: ah +[07:14:15] that is stopped for now, i think we are waiting approval of the first glsa draft +[07:15:32] and is in discussion on the council meeting, but is difficult for me to get presence there +[07:15:35] glsa? +[07:16:10] i'm usually sleeping from 3am to 4am +[07:16:43] ok, moving on then I guess +[07:16:53] a glep sorry +[07:17:00] glsa/glep +[07:17:23] ah, k, thanks +[07:17:42] sure +[07:17:57] .subject prometheanfire's items +[07:17:57] Current subject: prometheanfire's items +[07:18:04] just the openssl ecc stuff +[07:18:22] which I think gentoo is finally moving to stablized 1.1, which is the prefered solution +[07:18:46] \o/ +[07:18:55] .subject infra update +[07:18:56] Current subject: infra update +[07:18:58] jmbsvicetto: ping +[07:21:01] prometheanfire: pong +[07:21:13] jmbsvicetto: infra update? +[07:21:46] prometheanfire: All the parts bought for jacamar have now arrived to OSUOSL. We're waiting for OSL to add them soon +[07:21:59] I don't think there are any other updates for now +[07:22:10] ok +[07:22:16] s/arrived to/arrived at/ +[07:22:17] jmbsvicetto meant to say: prometheanfire: All the parts bought for jacamar have now arrived at OSUOSL. We're waiting for OSL to add them soon +[07:22:28] .subject open bugs +[07:22:28] Current subject: open bugs +[07:22:47] .link https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3877212&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- +[07:22:51] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3877212&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- +[07:23:34] .link https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 +[07:23:37] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 +[07:23:39] .link https://bugs.gentoo.org/650552 +[07:23:42] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/650552 +[07:23:51] both of those are the FLA / copyright +[07:24:37] would be good to go over, we don't have to do so now +[07:24:57] klondike: you were going to go over old bugs? or separate the funding stuff into it's own queue? +[07:26:22] prometheanfire: Içm still on it +[07:26:40] k +[07:26:41] And remotely as I am getting the list would be hard +[07:26:53] Too much work and stuff happening on my life the last motnhs :( +[07:27:06] next item np +[07:27:31] applications +[07:27:33] Daniel Robbins (drobbins) +[07:28:22] he's contributed to gentoo (the portage codebase) and is on his way to devship last I checked, works well on the mailing list (if a little verbose) +[07:28:26] that's my impression +[07:29:10] anyone else have anything to say before we vote (or wish to delay it)? +[07:29:14] he did the test ? +[07:29:28] alicef: which test? +[07:30:09] probably just my missunderstanding +[07:30:40] but there was not some talk about implementing some kind of test for the membership +[07:31:10] there is, but there's been no movement on that yet +[07:31:45] I thougt we delayed the vote last week for implementing the test +[07:31:57] last meeting +[07:32:20] we did, but I don't think anyone was assigned to that +[07:32:33] iirc we asked that a test be submitted to us to vote on to impliment +[07:33:37] someone interested on working on it or we can go on ? +[07:34:00] not at the moment (enotime) +[07:34:26] nods, let's vote +[07:35:01] I vote to approve +[07:35:14] approve +[07:35:20] yes +[07:35:23] Approve +[07:35:34] yes +[07:35:40] ok, he's approved +[07:36:01] I think dabbott useually handled that, so I'll let dabbott know to do so +[07:36:17] next +[07:36:22] i will add to the motions +[07:36:28] thanks +[07:36:41] Who will post the log? Minutes? +[07:37:11] I can, I suppose +[07:37:34] still dabbott I think, because it's his server I think +[07:37:46] i will post to dabbot +[07:37:50] k +[07:37:54] Who will update the motions page? +[07:37:57] alicef: that one you? +[07:38:01] yes my job +[07:38:05] Who will send emails? +[07:38:14] which email ? +[07:38:19] dabbot again (mainly for drobbins) +[07:38:26] ah dabbot +[07:38:27] welcome email +[07:38:35] Who will update agenda? +[07:38:36] I will +[07:38:40] thanks +[07:38:45] Who will update channel topics? +[07:38:46] I will +[07:39:21] .subject open floor +[07:39:21] Current subject: open floor +[07:39:31] 5 min til end +[07:40:19] maybe we can also make the bot deal with the time +[07:40:34] like setting a timer for open floor +[07:40:35] time? +[07:40:37] I'd really want to see someone taking responsibility for writing up a RFP for the IRS/accounting in general for gent Gentoo Foundation +[07:40:40] ah +[07:41:01] antarus: can you if robbat2 can't? +[07:41:23] by all means, I'd be available to contribute to helping writing it up, but a trustee should be responsible for it per se +[07:41:31] K_F: i agree +[07:41:46] as it is the only way I can see it going forwards to getting a proper closure +[07:42:21] K_F: Ill be moving on April +[07:42:27] You want to come visit? +[07:43:02] I.e. Ill take the responsability iif you come here and we set a day to write it together. +[07:43:33] klondike: I can put of a weekend to come to goethenburg, to help writing it up, for sure +[07:43:43] Then I can take it :) +[07:43:52] klondike: K_F thanks +[07:44:29] Sorry for being so awayish, Im managin a big lan party network as we speak :P +[07:44:38] np +[07:45:11] anyone else have anything? +[07:45:37] updated motion list +[07:45:56] -*- alicef go back to sleep +[07:45:58] .endmeeting +[07:45:59] Meeting ended! total meeting length 2750 seconds diff --git a/2018/20180421.log.txt b/2018/20180421.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..02da26e --- /dev/null +++ b/2018/20180421.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,704 @@ +[21:59:34] Meeting started by prometheanfire +[21:59:41] klondike: ^cheers +[21:59:41] Anyways we have just started :) +[21:59:57] Meeting chairs are: klondike2, prometheanfire, dabbott, alicef, kensington, klondike, +[22:00:11] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:00:13] o/ +[22:00:19] here +[22:00:22] Remove klondike I don't have access to that computer now +[22:00:24] here +[22:00:29] Klondike2: it's just in case +[22:00:30] Here +[22:00:53] The computer is two hours away from here +[22:01:12] (And I'm on my phone) +[22:01:13] get walking +[22:01:42] Klondike2: I've told you to use irssi and not that GUI crap :p +[22:01:46] Two hours by public transport I estimate a few more of I walk :P +[22:01:51] ok, alicef is afk for now +[22:02:05] Current subject: old items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:02:30] nothing on the activity tracker, next month we may want to start the nomination period for elections though +[22:03:03] we'll skip over alicef's items as she's not here for now +[22:03:10] Klondike2: accounting report +[22:03:21] K_F: you and robbat2 too I suppose +[22:03:23] Okay +[22:03:35] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~k_f/irs-rfp-wip2.pdf [None] +[22:04:09] Kristian did an amazing work on the rfp +[22:04:39] Promethean. Can you paste the lines of my mail? +[22:04:48] K_F: thank-you for creating this document +[22:05:11] It's basically what we have to take +[22:05:37] K_F: yep thanks +[22:05:40] henr +[22:05:49] here +[22:06:03] hi alicef +[22:06:07] o/ +[22:06:11] alicef: ok, you'll be next +[22:06:41] o;k +[22:06:44] Klondike2: it'd be best of you just forward that to the list (or maybe robbat2 do so as he responded) +[22:07:10] basically this is just a base document to work on, but at least it should provide the basics for something that can be used towards third parties in a somewhat structured form +[22:07:18] Okay I haven't had mail access since then +[22:07:35] Klondike2: sure +[22:07:54] whats the next step? +[22:08:00] the short if it is that the rfp is nearly done, just some minor details need sorting +[22:08:14] dabbott: trustees finishing it up and sending it out +[22:08:36] next step after the rfp is complete is to create a list of places to send it and send it out +[22:08:58] that'll be done by next month (at the very least making that list) +[22:09:04] is the document source available then? +[22:09:22] I need a decision from us. +[22:09:41] kensington: ask k_f for access to the repo +[22:09:48] Klondike2: yes? +[22:09:49] Are you okay with the tooling requirement? +[22:10:01] Klondike2: I am +[22:10:03] kensington: git://git.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/trustee-financial-rfp.git is the source, robbat2, prometheanfire and klondike has write access +[22:10:04] Please vote yes or no +[22:10:12] K_F: thanks +[22:10:13] can I suggest something? +[22:10:17] or comment? +[22:10:20] let me copy and paste it +[22:10:53] well, it's a bit long +[22:11:03] is everyone able to read section 3.3 of the linked pdf? +[22:11:03] Daniel yes kf published last draft. +[22:11:17] I think the tooling requirement is unrealistic +[22:11:26] prometheanfire: tooling +[22:11:47] and a bit of free software activism, which by itself isn't wrong, but reality is that the task is more important than the freeness of the software the accountant happens to use +[22:11:48] What do you propose Daniel? +[22:11:50] just my 2c +[22:11:53] that's my comment. +[22:12:23] onliy OSS and/or sharable tools can be used +[22:12:28] ? +[22:12:31] I think we should require the ability to export into a standard oss readable format +[22:12:36] dabbott: the tooling is only set to not require trustees etc to have proprietary software, it opens up for web interface for using it +[22:12:37] that's all I care about +[22:12:47] fact is that most accounting tools are not free software so it severely limits your choice of accountants +[22:13:03] web interface is fine +[22:13:15] done with my comments, move on :) +[22:13:17] perhaps we can reword it to highlight the import/export/web ability so as not to "scare off" potential accountants +[22:13:27] it doesn't require accountants to use free software, only that we dont' have to use non-proprietary interface +[22:13:29] kensington: +1 +[22:13:32] even if it's exporting to csv or excel doc (via the good format whatever that is) is fine +[22:14:00] Okay I can reword that. I wanted to make sure it is pay from our social contract perspective +[22:14:19] xls[x]* for excel +[22:14:47] *okay +[22:15:11] Klondike2: appreciated but as long as we steer clear of that proprietary stuff on our end I think that's the best we can do +[22:15:20] Klondike2: yep, if you could clarify the way we import/export separate from general interaction (web interface) I think that'd help +[22:15:44] So everybody is okay alicef? +[22:16:04] I explicitly avoided adding that it needs to be exported in a way that is to be read by a current open source tool +[22:16:23] K_F: why's that? +[22:16:25] as we can always write a tool for that +[22:16:32] if we have the data +[22:16:46] and a third party likely don't know what exists +[22:16:56] as now from what i remember we are using ledger for accounting +[22:17:15] alicef: correct +[22:17:50] This is stated also on the rfp +[22:17:53] K_F: I see your point, but I think the current phrasing will cause this RFP to end up in /dev/null of most accountants +[22:18:12] kensington: if so that was not the intention +[22:18:12] well, we can discuss this outside of meeting (the particular wording) +[22:18:17] good to move on? +[22:18:22] K_F: I know +[22:18:25] Yes +[22:18:43] I'll hunt the responsible for the relevant gaps +[22:18:48] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:18:48] kensington: my experience is that most accountant want organizations to move to web based interface +[22:18:49] is already open source, but if we want to add a policy for that it dosen't have to come from the organ working on it? +[22:18:50] Klondike2: thanks +[22:19:03] K_F thanks a lot! Really! +[22:19:49] alicef: but if we hire an outside accounting firm they may use someting like quickbooks only +[22:19:49] kensington: so all 3.3 says is that trustees doesn't need to have non-proprietary software to interface with the accountant's interface +[22:20:03] dabbott: yes that a good point +[22:20:10] K_F: +1 +[22:20:21] Current subject: Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:20:26] alicef: progress there? +[22:20:37] but i thought using open source tool is already a rule in gentoo +[22:20:39] K_F: yep, it gives us some flexibility +[22:21:15] prometheanfire: working on it +[22:21:47] Current subject: (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:21:55] K_F: I'm not trying to nitpick, this is an excellent document and is very much appreciated, I just wanted to discuss the wording that may be confusing for someone not familiar with our domain +[22:22:21] also working on it +[22:22:33] kensington: by all means, if it can be clarified somehow, it should be done :) +[22:22:59] Current subject: Do we need date of birth in developer apps (how'd the email go)? , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:23:10] that's part of the licencing work +[22:23:13] so we can skip that for now +[22:23:20] we decided that arleady I thought +[22:23:31] yes skip for now +[22:23:32] or I thought we had when I last touched base with ulm / rich0 ;) +[22:23:40] didn't it devolve into several unrelated topics? +[22:23:47] antarus: someone should update the agenda then :P +[22:23:56] prometheanfire: I'll follow up with them +[22:23:59] move on +[22:23:59] signature possibility is required for s-o-b lines for DCO +[22:24:10] antarus: nothing about date of birth in the copyright glep so far +[22:24:26] Current subject: my items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:24:45] the tracker is in https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 +[22:24:50] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 [592438 – (openssl-1.1) [TRACKER] packages failing with >=dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0] +[22:25:02] no updates really, just a bunch of stuff failing to build with ossl-1.1 +[22:25:19] that's all I had +[22:25:24] alicef had one more item +[22:25:26] alicef: go ahead +[22:25:33] we have a mail to replay on the trustee about "Gentoo on WSL Follow-Up" +[22:26:27] alicef: the last email I saw seemed to just point us toward their docs more or less +[22:26:47] yes, we are actually interested on working on it ? +[22:27:25] that's something for a project to pick up imo +[22:27:38] whats WSL? +[22:27:44] windows services for linux +[22:27:51] iirc +[22:28:08] seems ripe to email to -project looking for interest? +[22:28:12] basically run linux userland in windows, officially +[22:28:20] antarus++ +[22:28:25] I'd say that's the next step +[22:28:27] Maybe we should start a project for creating a prefix? +[22:28:33] basically it's reverse wine +[22:28:36] ok for me +[22:28:52] alicef: can you own sending the email to -project ? +[22:29:08] that doesn't really sound like trustee domain +[22:29:29] It isn't it's pure dev stuff +[22:29:34] yep +[22:29:35] K_F: I think either we foward the mail ourselves (to -project) or ask them to email there? +[22:29:43] sure, the point was that they talked about some burocratic things that they didn't explain by mail AFAIR +[22:29:55] antarus: thats a good place to start +[22:30:24] It can be discussed to infinity +[22:30:25] .help +[22:30:34] lol +[22:30:39] O_o +[22:30:41] move on then? +[22:30:44] ok +[22:31:04] it crashed ? +[22:31:10] I'd like to do treasurer and infra updates before community +[22:31:15] Current subject: infra updates, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:31:21] jmbsvicetto: you're up (if around) +[22:32:00] I have a new set of guidelines, but I'll cover in community +[22:32:15] infra has a new server (jacamar) and its close to being operational; was diego's old server +[22:32:24] no other updates really atm unless jmbsvicetto has more +[22:32:29] I don't think there are updates for infra (not that I've seen) +[22:32:40] antarus: ya, that's already been handled on our side though +[22:32:44] nods +[22:33:06] Current subject: treasurer update, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:33:08] robbat2: around? +[22:33:42] I know he's put some links in this channel to some preliminary reports +[22:33:53] think he can't make it +[22:33:57] ya +[22:34:04] 2018-04-21 22:40:05<+robbat2> i'm not going to make the meeting, but idea for my cross-currency closing +[22:34:14] ^^ +[22:34:25] K_F: you mind then? +[22:34:58] he has done a good job at providing the FY reports (which is another point) +[22:35:50] https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 (back to 2005) +[22:36:26] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 [None] +[22:36:31] there are some discussion points on the final presentation, but .. +[22:36:32] ok, moving on then +[22:37:02] K_F: thanks for the update +[22:37:45] Current subject: community items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:37:55] Current subject: Recognize the separation of responsibilites for Gentoo (src: tamiko) , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:37:58] tamiko: around? +[22:38:08] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[22:39:18] This is relevant for the responsibility concerns you have prometheanfire +[22:40:01] ya, this interacts with the 3rd community item +[22:40:07] If you want to not be liable for, say, Council actions you want to have a clearly stated separation of responsibilities. +[22:40:46] Klondike2: sure +[22:40:54] Current subject: GDPR (src: mrueg) , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:40:54] may I comment +[22:41:02] mrueg: around? +[22:41:31] infra has been passing around a couple of 'guides' for coming into compliance +[22:41:44] drobbins: please do +[22:41:46] according to NM law, it's actually the other way around. +[22:41:47] the trustees will need to work with infra on it +[22:41:55] https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 +[22:42:09] I'll work with infra on gdpr +[22:42:13] so there is already a statute that protects the trustees +[22:42:22] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/2093daf1806149531b3da15c17a6b50c [[gentoo-nfp] Re: GDPR and Gentoo - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[22:42:35] should I do the link thing too? +[22:42:43] ok +[22:42:59] LINK: https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [» New Mexico Statutes 53-8-98. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powersLawServer] +[22:43:01] drobbins: we'll circle back to it next +[22:43:10] next, back to item 1 +[22:43:30] Current subject: Recognize the separation of responsibilites for Gentoo (src: tamiko) , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:43:33] again +[22:43:34] now +[22:43:37] LINK: https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [» New Mexico Statutes 53-8-98. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powersLawServer] +[22:43:43] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[22:43:55] drobbins: that only goes as to asserting powers for the foundation +[22:44:16] K_F: was just going to say that +[22:45:41] related to item 1 is item 3 +[22:45:48] so I'll link that now too +[22:46:01] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/944b824fc1d1ca89bcae2d1c3f0520b7 [[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[22:46:06] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/58dbc3cbbb11dc3be2c0ceb3ad8a2059 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[22:47:00] in the future it might be nice to title these, just fyi ;) +[22:47:03] Okay Matt, what do you want us to do? Vote on it? +[22:47:26] I suppose the short of my view of item1/3 is that we are working with council to better define responsilities +[22:47:32] a <.subject> would be good ;P +[22:47:49] oh nvm... +[22:47:52] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo's org structure (src: prometheanfire) , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:47:56] that was item 3 +[22:47:57] thanks +[22:48:09] +[22:48:19] We have some devs who can't be officials despite they help +[22:48:28] I'd like to continue with our talks with council +[22:48:36] Klondike2: yep, I wish that didn't complicate things +[22:48:49] prometheanfire: that would bwe ideal +[22:48:53] s/officials/officers/ ? +[22:49:01] antarus: I assume +[22:49:14] or 'official' devs? +[22:49:21] Antarus, yes language barriers here +[22:49:26] the old 'contributor' tag? +[22:50:00] so no motions on items 1 and 3? +[22:50:05] I'd say no +[22:50:15] unless another trustee wishes to make one +[22:50:31] (sorry, just trying to get as much covered as we can in the 1h ;p) +[22:50:35] (motion): continue dialog?! :D +[22:50:41] I imagine this is going to go to 2 hours +[22:50:48] veremitz: doesn't need a motion +[22:50:53] :) +[22:50:57] ok, moving on +[22:51:00] I would prefer a working agreement with council and trustees +[22:51:09] Battery at 48% +[22:51:12] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:51:17] dabbott: that's in progress I'd say +[22:51:27] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd [[gentoo-nfp] infra agenda item - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[22:51:29] prometheanfire: thanks +[22:51:59] Drobbins, take the voice +[22:52:04] we have a close relationship wit infra, no need imo +[22:52:30] antarus: you want to respond? +[22:52:37] Robin and I drafted what eventually became: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Infrastructure/Infrastructure_Guidelines +[22:52:49] I think you mostly did so in https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/f54b51799916ba483cf14251893d7b05 and https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/78bce34ba1259774c9c2c9501e3adc02 +[22:52:59] a written down version of informal guidelines regarding how infra administers hardware under its control +[22:53:01] antarus: that new? +[22:53:17] we wrote about a week ago on infra wiki and published ot main wiki today +[22:53:25] happy to incorporate feedback +[22:54:10] antarus: I think what drobbins was asking about was the actual hardware ownership +[22:54:21] antarus: maybe add a section about that (iirc it varries...) +[22:54:42] I meant ownership as well as control +[22:54:50] prometheanfire: apologies, I was under the impression the meeting was tomorrow +[22:55:11] jmbsvicetto: we switched it to today so that it's sunday in asia instead of monday +[22:55:17] did so a couple months ago :P +[22:55:23] is here also, just got here a few minutes ago. +[22:55:37] Jorge technically speaking it is in parts of the world +[22:55:40] drobbins: I don't think 'control' is well defined enough to say anything +[22:55:41] prometheanfire: I'll see what I can dig up in ledger +[22:55:47] thought the meeting was at 23:00 +[22:56:07] (in terms of ownership, we depreciate the stuff we own.) +[22:56:13] the in-kind donations are probably more of a mess +[22:56:15] WilliamH: that's the combined meeting (which is defunct now) +[22:56:38] as a point of order, was this posted to -nfp list for discussion to begin with= +[22:56:41] I think that trustees formalizing foundation control over assets would give the clarity for them to intervene legally if necessary if the property is trespassed +[22:56:51] K_F: yes, I linked it +[22:56:51] like, if escalation beyond bans is required +[22:56:57] K_F: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd +[22:57:16] K_F: also linked antarus's responses above +[22:57:18] prometheanfire: wfm, thanks +[22:58:11] formally, we own the hardware since we are the body that 'owns' things for gentoo +[22:58:35] prometheanfire: if you want to ask the question "how much of the current infrastructure is owned vs donated vs unaccounted" +[22:58:44] that seems like a reasonble question to pose and answer +[22:58:47] I don't have that answer today +[22:59:00] antarus: ya, I think we should figure that out +[22:59:06] but it seems more answerable than the previous; in terms of clarity +[22:59:24] anyway, antarus presented the status for infra. One thing left, something you're also going to talk in this meeting, is that we're starting to look at the GDPR +[22:59:25] antarus: wouldn't it still be owned by the foundation if it were donated to the foundation? +[22:59:37] as opposed to say leasing or renting it to the foundation +[22:59:53] ok, we can move forward on that +[23:00:08] jmbsvicetto: yep, I mentioned that +[23:00:15] jmbsvicetto: I'll be the contact for the trustees on it +[23:01:08] ok, guess we have our next steps there, next item +[23:01:29] Current subject: Trustees enforce CoC for Council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) +[23:01:41] +1 +[23:01:54] the email was never sent to -nfp so I'd like to move this to next month +[23:02:12] +1 +[23:02:18] prometheanfire: sounds good +[23:02:25] I thought I did +[23:02:39] it really needs to be discussed publicly first imo +[23:02:46] drobbins: I never found it +[23:02:57] drobbins: or the next item either +[23:03:04] The idea is nice and follows the principles of separation of powers set up by Machiavello +[23:03:16] Can I ask a question about CoC enforcement? +[23:03:22] WilliamH: sure +[23:03:26] I for one am in favor of council being accountable to someone, and trustees seems like a reasonable choice +[23:03:33] Doesn't comrel enforce that for everyone? +[23:03:42] they are supposed to afaik +[23:03:47] WiliamH: council is the body of appeal for comrel actions IIRC +[23:03:49] WilliamH: yes, they are suppoesd to +[23:03:57] IMVHO this is a potential conflict of interest +[23:04:42] so far council has recused themselves if needed +[23:04:57] I'm Spain the judicial power is responsible for controlling the executive power but the executive chooses the judges iirc +[23:04:59] anyway next item, as this should be discussed on the list before being brought here +[23:05:11] You can see how well it works ;) +[23:05:12] I would rather see council members not allowed to be in comrel or qa, but people don't see that as an issue. +[23:05:13] WilliamH: whoever does CoC enforcement does it to everyone - currently that's comrel +[23:05:41] a 'fairness rule' is needed +[23:05:56] so that comrel isn't used to pick sides in a conflict +[23:05:56] Klondike2: heh that's another story. +[23:06:22] ok, next item +[23:06:28] Current subject: Trustees place user representitive on the council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) +[23:06:34] this also wasn't sent to the list +[23:06:35] WilliamH: just like comrel deals with disciplinary actions for all developers, even if they're council members +[23:06:42] I'm generally against the idea though +[23:06:52] For the heck of it, how does comrel handle comrel? +[23:07:07] please send the proposal to the list and we can discuss it there +[23:07:23] it's require an amended glep39 at least, which needs a full dev vote +[23:07:30] prometheanfire: I did send both these to the list +[23:07:38] Shentino: they ignore it, like they ignore everything else +[23:07:40] Apr 8 +[23:07:42] drobbins: I didn't see them :| +[23:07:52] drobbins: link to archives.g.o ? +[23:07:52] wrt a user rep on the council, it would have to be an elected spot and I think we would need to keep the council having an odd number of members. +[23:07:58] veremitz: one moment +[23:08:11] I don't see them https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/threads/2018-04/2 +[23:08:14] That would also have to be a full dev vote since it affects glep 39? +[23:08:16] Drobbins if not in archive most likely we didn't get them +[23:08:33] WilliamH: yep +[23:08:37] drobbins: you sure you weren't banned then?! :P +[23:08:55] veremitz: I suspect that's the case +[23:09:04] prometheanfire: me2 +[23:09:12] Current subject: Add reopen nominations option to ballot (src: k_f, mgorny) , (set by prometheanfire) +[23:09:16] I also forwarded it to trustees@ +[23:09:21] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/c7412600866cd650c9d9b147f3a83966 [[gentoo-nfp] reopen nominations - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[23:09:26] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233 [[gentoo-nfp] New Trustee voting proposal (including _reopen_nominations) - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[23:09:31] dabbott replied to my trustees@ email +[23:09:33] drobbins: needs to hit the list .. public +[23:09:42] then we can build a fresh bike shed! :D +[23:09:46] winks to kensington :D +[23:09:48] veremitz: I believe it was blocked +[23:09:55] thus I forwarded to trustees +[23:09:58] Wait. Was Daniel banned on nfp? +[23:10:04] I was banned from -project but this was extended to -nfp +[23:10:12] (by mistake) +[23:10:14] it probably got dropped +[23:10:23] Kinda hard to officially raise an issue for discussion by posting to -nfp if you're banned from it +[23:10:33] yep, esp. when I'm not supposed to be +[23:10:33] mumbles in Spanish... +[23:10:37] and this is why trustees should handle -nfp as a special case +[23:10:45] Klondike2: yo quiero taco bell +[23:10:46] Shentino: but NO! +[23:11:15] Honestly I've been on a soy and garbanzo bean diet that I crave something cheesy and greasy and meaty +[23:11:22] drobbins: I'm not sure i follow? +[23:11:24] ^ OT +[23:11:31] when were you banned from -nfp? +[23:11:32] Daniel we are sorry for the inconvenience. Can you please resend the items so we can openly discuss them? +[23:11:33] all: https://imgur.com/GCTtBNi +[23:11:33] antarus: was drobbins banned from the nfp list? +[23:11:37] V: agreed, sorry +[23:11:42] I haven't seen that as a thing +[23:11:50] antarus: it appears when I was banned from -project, whoever implemented the ban also blocked my emails to -nfp +[23:11:53] infra's checking on that +[23:11:58] can we discuss the current item +[23:12:00] see the imgur link above for the post I made +[23:12:21] dolpins? again? +[23:12:26] I think "none of the above" is a good option. At least until we can have more people actually running for trustee +[23:12:41] please stop talking +[23:12:49] :| +[23:12:51] :P +[23:12:54] wish that'd print current chairs +[23:13:00] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233 +[23:13:03] Okay +[23:13:09] trustees, we should discuss this proposal +[23:13:22] prom: sorry, my comment about "none of the above" was in relation to the reopen nominations thing we're discussing +[23:13:22] Matt the idea is good, the impact not so much +[23:14:50] Klondike2: I can re-send but I also forwarded to trustess on Apr 8 so all the trustees received the email via the trustees alias, and dabbott replied, so I am sure the trustees received it and it should have been on the agenda for this meeting. +[23:15:25] drobbins: reading the ML logs I think you were not a member of -nfp with drobbins@funtoo.org until Mon Apr 9 +[23:15:27] Klondike2: impact not so much? +[23:15:33] so your april 8 emails were rejected +[23:15:50] I don't see any bans for you, nor mails rejected like I'd expect if a ban was present +[23:16:02] antarus: Does that mean only foundation members are allowed to post to -nfp? +[23:16:16] antarus: that appears to be correct +[23:16:28] pretty much for any gentoo list, you have to be a member of the list to post to the list; iirc +[23:16:29] it looks like I found out I was unsub'd from the list +[23:16:31] drobbins: just send them again to -nfp and we will get to it next month +[23:16:32] (because: spam) +[23:16:44] dabbott: ++ +[23:16:59] prometheanfire: that just makes the election more confusing +[23:17:01] I think the one thing the proposal needs is to describe the periods to use +[23:17:04] Matt impact may be less volunteers and trustees meeting delegitimated +[23:17:09] dabbott: it does complicate things +[23:17:20] more people need to get involved if they want to +[23:17:32] s/if they want to// +[23:17:33] Klondike2: so less people stepping forward is the outcome you'd see? +[23:17:34] nominate themselves if needed +[23:17:53] not make the election a 3 month process +[23:17:57] One of the outcomes yes +[23:18:04] why do you think that? +[23:18:18] dabbott: self nomination is allowed +[23:18:18] drobbins: ACK mail 1 to -nfp +[23:18:28] You like having your self worth crushed? +[23:18:28] I wanna see more people nominated honestly. A contested election would give the members choices to make. +[23:18:56] Has anyone confirmed that a ballot for the Trustees can even have a "fictional candidate"? +[23:19:01] There's less of a point in voting if nobody can win +[23:19:12] jmbsvicetto: I nominate Chuck Norris. +[23:19:30] Shentino: not a dev +[23:19:39] Shentino: can you please stop with the off-topic? It makes really hard to follow this discussion +[23:19:40] s/dev/foundation member/ +[23:19:41] jmbsvicetto: it's merely a marker, not a candidate +[23:19:44] Shentino: please stay on topic +[23:19:47] jmbsvicetto: they need to be a dev +[23:20:11] in that case j, what do you mean exactly by "fictional candidate"? +[23:20:18] my comment was in relation to that +[23:20:29] ulm: The old concern was that any candidate to a legal entity needed to "exist". I haven't seen anyone addressing that concern +[23:20:53] ulm: I don't know if that's a valid legal argument or not, but I don't think we should ignore it +[23:20:57] jmbsvicetto: iirc it was confirmed that it'd be allowed, NM gives us huge leeway for how tovote +[23:20:59] Shentino: reopen_nominations +[23:21:07] jmbsvicetto: I think we are unlikely to find that out here +[23:21:15] jmbsvicetto: I would err that they can be nominated, but perhaps not appointed? +[23:21:23] it was looked into and deemed possible +[23:21:27] dabbott: oh, you mean kinda like "make .PHONY"? +[23:21:28] antarus: I agree +[23:21:41] I think we need another revision to the proposal before voting (and possibly making it a bylaw change/addition) +[23:21:51] Shentino: read the email +[23:21:54] does that sound good to the other trustees? +[23:22:09] then make an informed comment if needed +[23:22:15] the proposal is simple enough +[23:23:11] K_F: we need to reconfirm it's legally possible, if it is then we need to decide on a schedule, once both of those are done we can vote/change policy +[23:23:12] So we work on a bylaw amendment for next month, will work on wording offline? +[23:23:21] K_F: it's simple enough, but I'm sure that the proposal would be illegal on PT jurisdiction. I have no knowledge if it'd be ok in NM or not +[23:23:23] antarus: that's my prefrence +[23:23:38] do we aim to have the bylaw amended prior to the next election? +[23:23:42] jmbsvicetto: I think it's fine, but we need to confirm +[23:23:45] if so there is some timeline involved +[23:23:58] prometheanfire: that's all I'm asking. Thanks +[23:24:00] antarus: next meeting would be the latest time we could do so +[23:24:05] the selection of trustees is wide enough that a reopen variant it irrelevant +[23:24:06] ok +[23:24:11] prometheanfire: ok for me +[23:24:41] dabbott: Klondike2 kensington ? +[23:25:12] ok +[23:25:25] We have been having the AGM in Augest so the election needs to be completed by then +[23:25:47] dabbott: yep, which is why next month is the latest we can make changes +[23:26:03] dabbott: iirc, the bylaws state the AGM takes place in August +[23:26:09] ok, it will never happen that fast this year +[23:26:18] dabbott: so any change would require a bylaw change +[23:26:45] ok, we have 3 to move on (out of 5, two not voting) so moving on +[23:26:51] Current subject: present financial reports for 2013-2017 , (set by prometheanfire) +[23:26:54] ok +[23:27:05] not at all.. it would only potentially require multiple rounds +[23:27:15] K_F: it could fit, yes +[23:27:20] Unless I see at least 100% more candidates than open slots in two elections I'll vote against. +[23:27:23] K_F: can you relink the reports? +[23:27:44] https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 +[23:27:51] with FY2005 - 2017 +[23:27:59] (just change the year in the URL) +[23:28:07] thanks +[23:28:12] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 [None] +[23:28:16] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2016 [None] +[23:28:19] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2015 [None] +[23:28:24] etc... +[23:28:37] Battery at 33 +[23:28:39] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2014 [None] +[23:28:42] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2013 [None] +[23:28:48] ok, the ones asked for are linked +[23:28:57] Current subject: contact SFLC/Eben Moglen for finance and legal advice, (set by prometheanfire) +[23:29:07] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/6e2c1974935494b7791e3958ef7e7562 [[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Contacting Eben Moglen - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[23:30:10] Do we have any takers here? +[23:30:21] sorry, takers == people to volunteer to contact Eben? +[23:30:39] I'm in favor of reaching out and retaining legal counsel +[23:30:45] Yes I'll have it hard for example +[23:31:04] it doesn't have to be the sflc though +[23:31:25] I think we need to define what we wish, which ties into the financial rfp +[23:31:47] imo this will be an extension of the financial work +[23:32:53] Okay so we wait until the rfp is done? +[23:32:56] I think so +[23:33:04] I think we can jump on directly +[23:33:19] the we can make a mini-rfp and send out to diferent people +[23:33:24] sfc sflc etc +[23:33:33] sorry, what concrete item are we waiting on? +[23:33:45] like we will write the rfp and send it out and retain financial services +[23:33:51] Drobbins this is your item what's your take? +[23:33:55] and this enables the board to do..what? +[23:34:25] I'm personlly frustrated as a foundation member where the foundation members (board included) speculate rampantly on various topics without seemingly consulting lawyers for anything +[23:34:27] there's no harm in making an approach, and following up with the RFP, surely? +[23:34:42] Provide a clear description to sflc and eben of our needs and status +[23:34:42] so I would prefer the board found some ongoing legal counsel; even if just for consulting (advisory) purposes +[23:34:53] antarus++ +[23:35:05] (which isn't to say, consult them for everything, which I would also oppose as costly ;p) +[23:35:48] antarus: a set of what we are looking for mainly +[23:35:53] Antarus so you volunteering as candidate for next election to change that? +[23:36:01] antarus: yes, it would be nice to talk to an actual lawyer about things +[23:36:08] that's one of the main draws of this +[23:36:11] Klondike2: I have a different plan in mind ;p +[23:36:24] 18:35 < antarus+> so I would prefer the board found some ongoing legal counsel; even if just for consulting (advisory) purposes +[23:36:27] yes +[23:36:41] sorry, so backing up +[23:37:01] besides what I'll term as 'vaguely random legal advice' what else does the board need counsel for? +[23:37:12] (or why do we think counsel is needed for financial work?) +[23:37:33] Because we suck at it! +[23:37:37] like if we are going to be a tax-exempt nonprofit, afaik there is legal work required for that; but its unclear that is a goal at this time; do we expect that to change after the rfp? +[23:37:53] or we think we will need counsel for the IRS? +[23:37:56] antarus: it's about tax exempt paperwork help +[23:38:15] that's the only tie, and a minor one really +[23:38:16] prometheanfire: so becoming tax-exempt is an explicit goal? +[23:38:39] antarus: not at this time, but it'd be nice to only have to have one lawyer/contact +[23:38:40] (like its bandied about often, but I was unclear it was something the board was seriously persuing) +[23:38:40] I suggest perhaps once you build a relationship, avenues will become more apparent once a dialogue is in place +[23:38:43] Making it's happy is an explicit goal +[23:39:04] Becoming tax exempt is a nice to have goal +[23:39:17] prometheanfire: what i'm trying to get at is that there is no need to wait for the rfp to seek legal services? +[23:39:19] Its should be irs +[23:39:21] that should be a core goal +[23:39:23] (we could just do it now) +[23:39:31] ^ this too +[23:39:41] first we need to reain an account / CPA firm, that should be #1 priority +[23:39:50] dabbott++ +[23:40:06] I think antarus suggests we do both in parallel ? +[23:40:09] if the rfp helps great if not hire someone +[23:40:22] soon +[23:40:24] antarus: we can do them in parallel, yes +[23:40:45] the legal help may steer the accounting help .. +[23:40:55] if we don't because we can't find people etow ork on it, thats a different issue (one is prioritization, the other is a strict dependency problem) +[23:41:40] I think we should start building legal reqs in any case, and i'll commit to doing that +[23:41:51] and we can move on? +[23:41:56] antarus: thanks +[23:42:02] ok, next step here is to building legal reqs, once those are built we can seek a contract +[23:42:06] antarus: yes +[23:42:13] Current subject: moderation of the nfp list , (set by prometheanfire) +[23:42:20] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/41c38f14752a491fe29f2c050ff5c3a2 [[gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[23:42:45] if we can decide on item 2.1 I think we can vote on this now +[23:42:55] I think delegation makes sense +[23:43:16] Okay Matt set your vote! +[23:43:20] Klondike2: what do you think of item 2.1? +[23:43:25] 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this) +[23:43:46] I'll just paste it +[23:43:48] 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even +[23:43:48] to Foundation members. +[23:43:48] 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the +[23:43:48] CoC. Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given. +[23:43:51] 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this) +[23:43:53] 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the +[23:43:56] trustees. +[23:44:10] In mother Spain we make ban causes public +[23:44:38] dabbott: kensington alicef ? +[23:44:48] prometheanfire: is there a motion? +[23:45:03] So personally I vote for yes including the ban cause being public +[23:45:20] kensington: I'm more asking about 2.2 before formally proposing this for a vote +[23:45:23] no for the public +[23:45:44] dabbott: reason? +[23:46:10] .vote motion one should ban causes be public? Yes our no +[23:46:11] they can ask us to appeal the decision +[23:46:19] reason given must be known by all trustees? +[23:46:28] we may be changing comrel policy +[23:46:47] veremitz: yes +[23:47:00] veremitz: that's an ok compromise +[23:47:01] s/known/shared with/ +[23:47:09] d'oh nearly +[23:47:10] prometheanfire: who are "those having actions enacted against them" ? +[23:47:22] alicef: whoever is banned/warned +[23:47:53] 22% +[23:48:00] If someone is banned from the -nfp list we should know who and the reason +[23:48:06] what if they are banned from the trustee mailing list ? +[23:48:21] then they can come to us for relief +[23:48:21] lends his battery bank to Klondike2 +[23:48:32] maybe make it "reason must be made available to trustees on their request"? +[23:48:32] That is out of scope of the policy +[23:48:37] I suggested amending 2.1 as follows 'The reason given needs to be given to to those acted against (banned or warned) and the trustees' +[23:49:13] ulm: I would tend to think they should be informed before there may be an appeal +[23:49:21] current members of the trustee ? +[23:49:38] alicef: that's what that means +[23:49:44] ok +[23:49:45] what actually triggered this proposal? +[23:50:00] kensington: just that the nfp list had no moderation as is +[23:50:02] is still in for fully public because it brings in things like accountability transparency and community pressure. +[23:50:10] prometheanfire: suits me fine +[23:50:15] prometheanfire: we might as well make the trustees moderate it then? +[23:50:39] antarus: do you want to moderate the list? I think deligation makes more sense +[23:51:10] prometheanfire: the board can do it as a whole +[23:52:00] possible, but I'd rather deligate it +[23:52:27] the problem is no one wants to sign up to moderate, so instead we end up with this burdensome process ;) +[23:52:34] signed up to moderate gentoo-dev already +[23:52:38] why do we need to moedate it at all? +[23:52:39] I'm probably not up for another +[23:53:34] ok, please vote on the following +[23:53:42] 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even to Foundation members. +[23:53:45] 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the CoC. Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given. +[23:53:48] 2.1. The reason given needs to be given to the trustees and those having the moderation enacte against them. +[23:53:51] 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the trustees. +[23:54:05] no +[23:54:05] yes +[23:54:15] nfp and trustee is not moderated by the secretary (at least was what i thought)? +[23:54:29] alicef: it is not at this point +[23:54:40] Moderators: calchan, dabbott, fox2mike, neddyseagoon, quantumsummers, rich0, robbat2 +[23:54:51] https://www.gentoo.org/get-involved/mailing-lists/all-lists.html +[23:54:58] O,o +[23:55:19] alicef: that's gentoo foundation announce +[23:55:37] Phone almost died, sorry +[23:55:45] is under gentoo-nfp The Gentoo NFP/Trustees Mailing list +[23:55:49] Klondike2: can you vote real quick on my proposal? +[23:56:55] No unless reason is public +[23:57:18] alicef: its a quirk of the ML software +[23:57:23] alicef: I'm not sure that moderation list has bearing on this +[23:57:25] antarus: right +[23:57:44] alicef: those are the moderators for the list, but the rules of the list software say that nearly no posts are moderated +[23:58:03] (in fact there are 0 rules on gentoo-nfp that funnel mail in to the moderation queue) +[23:58:10] i don't even now how to moderate it +[23:58:13] know +[23:58:40] alicef: are you able to vote? +[23:58:41] its not difficult, but we could cover it later unless you think its a blocker to voting? +[23:59:57] 2 hours already... +[00:00:04] yep +[00:00:16] alicef: anything preventing you from voting? +[00:01:39] the reason need to be given to trustee from comrel ? +[00:01:45] yep +[00:01:53] 2.1. The reason given needs to be given to the trustees and those having the moderation enacte against them +[00:02:59] did anything come of the mailman3 ML project? +[00:03:03] yes +[00:03:12] alicef: that your vote? +[00:03:15] veremitz: later +[00:03:15] yes +[00:03:18] ok +[00:03:22] my vote is yes +[00:03:27] motion carries +[00:03:36] prometheanfire: np +[00:04:00] next +[00:04:02] bug cleanup +[00:04:08] Klondike2: we can work tomorrow on that if you want +[00:04:24] next, new members +[00:04:41] Current subject: fearedbliss Jonathan Vasquez, (set by prometheanfire) +[00:04:48] yes +[00:04:51] yes +[00:04:51] yes +[00:04:52] yes +[00:05:06] I sent the list anybody against ping and close for them reply before +[00:05:08] I will send the email +[00:05:20] Tuesday cest +[00:05:25] Yes +[00:05:34] Klondike2: ok +[00:05:37] dabbott: thanks +[00:05:43] And I want to welcome him in Spanish +[00:05:43] next +[00:05:49] i will update the motions +[00:05:49] Current subject: Date of Next Meeting - Saturday, May 19 2018 22:00 UTC, (set by prometheanfire) +[00:05:59] that work? +[00:06:03] Dabbot let me send it please +[00:06:10] klondike: ok +[00:06:16] afaik I'm not here, but don't let that stop you +[00:06:21] So far yes +[00:06:25] I'll try to have updates on the legal item +[00:06:28] ok +[00:06:29] ok +[00:06:36] antarus: thanks +[00:06:42] finally +[00:06:43] Who will post the log? Minutes? (dabbott ) +[00:06:43] Who will update the motions page? (aliceinwire ) +[00:06:43] Who will send emails? (dabbott ) +[00:06:43] Who will update agenda? (prometheanfire ) +[00:06:45] Who will update channel topic? (prometheanfire ) +[00:06:49] that all sound good? +[00:07:00] alicef: I will post the motion this month +[00:07:08] Yes +[00:07:08] ? +[00:07:25] dabbott: ? +[00:07:30] I have it saved +[00:07:37] unless you want to +[00:07:46] sure, you are welcome :) +[00:07:56] ok, last item before close +[00:07:59] Current subject: Open Floor, (set by prometheanfire) +[00:08:08] I'd like this to be quick +[00:08:17] Klondike2: I think you can probably drop off here +[00:08:23] Dabbot I'll ping Jonathan when I get home later today +[00:08:25] I missed basically the whole meeting, but hi +[00:08:48] (I don't have anything useful to add, I don't think) +[00:08:56] Drobbins sorry for the missed items +[00:09:15] Bug 653640 +[00:09:18] dabbott: https://bugs.gentoo.org/653640 "Add HelloTux (Embroidered Shirts) to page "Stores offering Gentoo products" new section "Worldwide""; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; R030t1:trustees +[00:09:26] post to it when you can +[00:09:42] I vote either yes or vote asap +[00:09:45] dabbott: I'm in favor, but we can vote in the bug +[00:09:55] sounds good +[00:10:07] Klondike2: vote in the bug +[00:10:26] Bug vote tomorrow then +[00:10:39] k +[00:10:45] ending meeting +[00:10:48] Anything en jar +[00:10:56] Else? +[00:11:12] Klondike2: np +[00:11:17] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 7902 seconds diff --git a/2018/20180519.log.txt b/2018/20180519.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..142565f --- /dev/null +++ b/2018/20180519.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,254 @@ +[22:00:15] Meeting started by prometheanfire +[22:00:31] Meeting chairs are: prometheanfire, alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, +[22:00:36] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:00:39] o/ +[22:00:44] here +[22:00:45] o/ +[22:01:03] quorum met +[22:01:09] kensington: klondike ? +[22:01:17] iirc kensington said he may not be able to make it +[22:02:18] will wait one more min before moving on +[22:03:38] ok, moving on +[22:03:51] Current subject: activity tracker, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:04:29] next item is to initiate the election, you ready to do that dabbott ? +[22:04:42] it's for june, but it'd be good to have to community be aware that it's coming up +[22:05:22] yes, we need to get a rough draft of the dates +[22:05:40] first we prune the member list +[22:05:52] procedure is doc'd here https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Elections#Procedure +[22:06:01] we can vote on that later in this meeting +[22:06:08] ok +[22:06:16] next then +[22:06:22] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:06:38] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/05#alicef [Foundation:Meetings/2018/05 - Gentoo Wiki] +[22:06:39] (here, will comment re election process stuff later) +[22:06:43] same no changes +[22:06:51] ok +[22:07:03] robbat2: I'll be asking about gdpr progress soon :D +[22:07:10] klondike: here? +[22:07:37] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:07:59] no progress on the openssl stuff, that's more on the technical side of gentoo to solve (make stable 1.1) +[22:08:59] gdpr is next, I didn't have time for this due to being gone for two weeks since the last meeting +[22:09:05] but maybe infra did more? +[22:09:07] jmbsvicetto: ping? +[22:09:30] jmbsvicetto: robbat2, do we know what info we have, so we can move forward with control of it? +[22:09:58] of devs, it's easy, LDAP has a lot, and they can get their own data back out of it +[22:10:10] the other services are a different matter +[22:10:23] do we have a list of those services? +[22:10:30] that's the service catalog +[22:10:55] what needs to happen with it is identify which services collect more than just IP +[22:11:18] ip is considered personal if it can be tied back to the individual iirc +[22:11:20] it needs somebody with a lot of time, which I don't have +[22:11:30] don't think anyone has that time :| +[22:13:02] ok, well, I guess we (foundation) need to ask infra formally for that info, since we do need to be in compliance +[22:13:08] on the plus side, very few of our services go out of their way to deliberately collect stuff +[22:13:17] forums collects the most +[22:13:31] wiki & bugs collect just a little like name +[22:13:43] I don't think it matters the how or why or how frequently .. :P +[22:14:18] it's important that we move forward on this though +[22:14:29] 25th May is teh deadline +[22:14:32] there will be zero progress until somebody has time +[22:14:36] deadline or not +[22:14:48] yep +[22:15:12] wait til the foundation gets sued again I guess .. +[22:15:12] that'll sharpen a few wits +[22:15:33] +[22:15:39] veremitz: we cannot be personally sued for it, we can have a fine levied by the EU body +[22:15:52] personally = the foundation +[22:15:55] but that's not sueing +[22:16:04] fine can be quite high +[22:16:11] it's in the millions +[22:16:15] yes, i'm ware of the fine cap +[22:16:22] 10% or millions, whichever is greater +[22:16:24] greater of 20% revenue or 20M EUR or some +[22:16:34] ah, 20 +[22:16:34] that's the maximum amount +[22:16:44] that the fine is allowed to be +[22:16:51] which does NOT mean every fine will be that +[22:16:57] true +[22:17:38] i'll tell people to poke at the service catalog, but that's the best I can do, due to nobody having time for this project +[22:17:42] continue for the moment +[22:17:44] sure +[22:18:05] Current subject: community items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:18:13] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/05#Community_Items [Foundation:Meetings/2018/05 - Gentoo Wiki] +[22:18:35] lets vote on the community items so they don't keep comming up each month +[22:18:51] I vote 1 => 6 no 7 yes +[22:19:14] ok, ya, I meant to clean those up +[22:19:16] didn't we vote on a bunch last month +[22:19:22] I can email eben if needed +[22:20:29] dabbott: that'd be appreciated, I'd like the trustees to review before it's sent though +[22:20:42] OK +[22:21:03] i'm not a trustee anymore, but I believe #6 (reopen_nominations) is reasonable +[22:21:24] robbat2: we had a conference call with him or was that someone else +[22:21:32] I agree, I think it can be done next session though +[22:21:35] prometheanfire: ok +[22:21:38] was that bradley +[22:21:38] this election is too close +[22:22:00] and for #3, infra is under the foundation already, just say fine +[22:22:12] i don't think it's too close, and we don't need to amend bylaws to do it +[22:22:53] ok, on 1, I don't think it's a good idea to be tied down +[22:22:59] therefore, no for me on 1 +[22:23:26] formalizing the org structure (2) is also a no for now, given the other things we have in the air +[22:23:55] control over infra is already done, so going to remove it, (no need for vote) +[22:23:59] that's (3) +[22:24:21] (4) trustees enforce CoC on council +[22:25:10] I vote no, that's not our job, if something legal comes up we handle it because of that, not the CoC (which is not a legal doc) +[22:25:25] (5) Trustees place user representitive on the council +[22:25:39] no, that's not our job, it'd also mess up glep 39 a ton +[22:25:46] comment re #4: everybody, incl. council & trustees should be respecting the CoC +[22:26:07] robbat2: should be, but we are not the enforcement mechanism +[22:26:08] you don't get a pass just because you're on some management body +[22:26:20] the enforcement mechanism is comrel +[22:26:31] yep +[22:26:36] (6) Add reopen nominations option to ballot +[22:26:55] there was a timeline posted for reopen_nominations that fit with the original timeline +[22:27:13] if we can make the change now the I vote yes +[22:27:29] condense the original process from 2 months to 6 weeks, and use the extra 2 weeks for a 2nd round if needed +[22:27:33] even if not I vote yes, it'll simply be implimented as soon as possible +[22:28:07] (7) contact sflc, yes (dabbott is doing it) +[22:28:10] can we approve it and say exact timeline to be announced, but will keep to the approximate original schedule +[22:28:14] please send an email to trustees with the election time line for this election +[22:28:26] so I can get started +[22:28:39] mgorny: can you talk to me for the timeline to reopen_noms later? +[22:28:54] comment re scrubbing membership lists: i have my tooling almost done for the csv->yaml change +[22:29:01] needs to be done for the AGM +[22:29:05] it does show clearly we don't have many changes in teh list +[22:29:32] we good to move on? robbat2 dabbott and mgorny will work on the move to the new election scheme +[22:29:44] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:29:55] robbat2: can you give that ( jmbsvicetto seems absent ) +[22:30:25] there was some hardware death due to old-age this past month +[22:30:42] some of stuff we own, others of sponsor-owned +[22:30:59] the original dipper died, we moved the content to blackcap (and renamed) +[22:31:05] but the replacement was the same age +[22:31:16] dipper runs the core rsync/distfiles generation +[22:31:31] sometime in the future it will need to move +[22:31:42] possibly to newly purchased hardware +[22:31:54] it's not suited for the present VM hosting at OSL +[22:32:10] because it's IO&CPU-heavy, and we don't want it co-located with untrusted VMs +[22:32:34] might write a proposal to buy a pair of hypervisors for trusted VMs, to be at OSL +[22:32:52] Now is the time to upgrade while we have the funds +[22:32:53] would incl. a 10Gbit switch +[22:33:11] ok +[22:34:07] Current subject: open bugs, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:34:54] I don't see much +[22:35:19] to reduce the bus factor, is anybody among present trustees interested in learning at least some of the accounting/treasurer stuff? +[22:35:44] i'd be teaching you as I taught zlg +[22:35:50] if I wasn't planning wedding stuff I would +[22:35:51] in return for help keeping it up to date +[22:35:58] I'd say to ask me in a year :| +[22:36:12] this offer also open to non-trustees who might be considering running next term +[22:36:13] I could do it if alicef wants to take secretary duties +[22:36:26] dabbott: yes +[22:37:09] (i'll take more than one person if that presents itself) +[22:38:00] robbat2: I don't have a background in accounting but could be used to keep stuff up to date untill we get someone more qualified +[22:38:05] comments re financials, so it goes into minutes +[22:38:45] i haven't had time to spend on it since last month, but the exchange stuff is mostly done, what remains is depreciation & value of donated services +[22:38:51] plus data entry for this most recent year +[22:39:23] ok +[22:39:37] Current subject: new business, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:39:39] tbh I just don't have much time, I work alot +[22:39:55] I would be afraid i would fall behind +[22:40:05] foundation removal of members +[22:40:14] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/653904 [653904 – Foundation member removal candidates (based on 2016+2017 elections)] +[22:40:15] (i have new business) +[22:40:32] mgornys list looks good, what ablut zlg +[22:40:40] that list isn't accurate +[22:40:50] the yaml will show more detail later +[22:41:13] ya, I assume you are going to be helping with that then? +[22:41:17] yes +[22:41:25] robbat2: thanks +[22:42:30] Current subject: council requests our vote on https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/b985f7c13359f521c451322dae59ebf7, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:43:22] I don't think we need to vote, but I think it's an ok change +[22:43:50] unofficial +1 for it from me +[22:44:01] fine by me +[22:44:52] dilfridge: there's your ack +[22:45:06] Current subject: copyright assignment, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:45:11] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/45d2eafb4416db744ab1e0af708534c5 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee meeting Meetings/2018/05 agenda - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] +[22:46:20] alicef: you a member of the copyright team +[22:46:35] I defer to the copyright team +[22:47:48] I think question 'a' would need to counsult with a lawyer +[22:47:52] i don't remeber to have signed anything in 2003/2004 ... +[22:48:16] unofficial answer as part of the people working on that glep: +[22:48:22] successor to the GTI is hard +[22:48:33] 1. we ARE the assignee of GTI +[22:48:52] 1.1. but the dates of the documents mean some future obligations may still exist +[22:49:14] 1.2. the release was specifically future obligations, needs review for current/past obligations +[22:49:48] 2. I had proposed a futhur general release from the Foundation +[22:49:51] it also say that as been nullified +[22:50:03] 2.1. mostly as CYA for parts that wern't missed +[22:50:15] 2.2. but to be rolled towards the new optional FLA work +[22:50:46] robbat2: yep, that's my understanding, I guess we'll work with the copyright team (ulm, alicef) on this +[22:51:40] ok +[22:52:19] so I suppose the answer there is that work is ongoing +[22:52:46] i'd ask that somebody draft the further release, and post to the lists for review +[22:53:03] to collect that input, and take it to an IP lawyer for review +[22:53:08] after community review +[22:53:15] sure +[22:53:34] it does sound like that's the right way forward given the timeline +[22:54:04] ok, taking that +[22:54:26] Current subject: date of next meeting, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:54:29] Saturday, June 16 2018 22:00 UTC ? +[22:54:38] i have my new business stuff still +[22:54:42] when you're ready for it +[22:54:42] oh, right +[22:54:50] open floor for that +[22:54:51] i will be on a plane during that next meeting +[22:54:52] which is next +[22:55:17] June 16 is ok here +[22:55:22] I'm fine moving it a week later or earlier +[22:55:38] no +[22:55:43] later is better +[22:55:45] not earlier +[22:55:51] but I realise it impacts recording date +[22:55:55] because that's next meeting +[22:56:26] June 23 is ok here +[22:56:52] alicef: june 23 good for you? +[22:56:57] yes +[22:57:00] ok +[22:57:05] june 23 it is +[22:57:11] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:57:14] robbat2: you're up +[22:57:48] forums mods were approached, informally by email, by law enforcement +[22:57:53] with a request for user information +[22:58:06] this request was passed on to infra/trustees +[22:58:26] i believe this is the first such request that we've had +[22:59:14] we need to draft a response that a formal request (subpeona, warrant) is required for user info +[22:59:27] and be ready to recieve that formal request +[22:59:33] it may come with a data preservation order +[23:00:13] a number of large tech firms have good guides for law enforcement on that +[23:00:19] and I think we should crib heavily +[23:00:36] unless we can find an even more closely fitting documetn for open source orgs +[23:00:48] sounds good +[23:00:57] this should be foundation writing the policy doc here +[23:00:58] not infra +[23:01:24] agreed +[23:01:48] EBUSFACTOR :/ +[23:01:58] I'll submit a doc by next meeting +[23:02:15] prometheanfire: thanks +[23:02:19] the LE agent should have a response not later than end of next week +[23:02:34] neat +[23:02:42] i shared some potential wording out of band for whomever is going to write that +[23:02:49] i'll happily review that, but don't have time to write it +[23:02:59] neither do I really +[23:03:07] but what choice do I have :| +[23:04:28] ok, anyone have anything else? +[23:04:38] robbat2: that was homeland security asking +[23:05:21] i was not specifying which agency +[23:05:40] it's a almalgamated mess +[23:05:51] (the US federal LE orgs) +[23:06:33] yep +[23:06:53] Current subject: ending, (set by prometheanfire) +[23:07:01] dabbott: you are posting the logs/minutes +[23:07:09] got it +[23:07:12] alicef: you'll update the motions +[23:07:20] request re logs +[23:07:23] dabbott: no emails to send, this time +[23:07:24] yes +[23:07:35] the old logs had terrible file naming +[23:07:36] I'll update the agenda (done) and topic +[23:07:47] can you please start using ISO date naming for files? +[23:07:52] and go back to fix old logs? +[23:07:59] I'd like that too +[23:08:05] i'll help dig up missing old logs as well if you find the dates of meetings for me +[23:08:08] how un-american +[23:08:24] i have an almost complete history of this channel since 2008/01/11 +[23:08:31] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 4096 seconds -- cgit v1.2.3-65-gdbad