From f118beba129b9f553cebdd81af923c8cfdf0ce71 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Abbott Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:00:55 -0500 Subject: added log for Feb trustee meeting --- 2017/meeting-20170226-log.txt | 286 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 286 insertions(+) create mode 100644 2017/meeting-20170226-log.txt diff --git a/2017/meeting-20170226-log.txt b/2017/meeting-20170226-log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..272f1f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/2017/meeting-20170226-log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,286 @@ +[18:58:51] Meeting started by prometheanfire +[18:58:59] Current subject: rollcall, (set by prometheanfire) +[18:59:08] here +[18:59:09] you're a minute early +[18:59:38] server is 3 min ahead :P +[18:59:55] anyway, present +[18:59:56] swift sends his regards +[19:00:11] antarus: ? +[19:00:19] I know he said he'd be driving +[19:01:01] well, moving on for now, we have quorum as is +[19:01:18] Current subject: meeting logging, (set by prometheanfire) +[19:01:26] I got it +[19:01:33] dabbott: you are logging (with meetbot's help now)? +[19:01:33] k +[19:01:51] brb afk toddler irq +[19:02:16] Current subject: activity tracker, (set by prometheanfire) +[19:02:19] nothing here +[19:03:01] Current subject: irs status report, (set by prometheanfire) +[19:03:17] I have a little news here, mainly on getting a CPA +[19:03:31] back +[19:03:44] I've reached out to the guy who does my taxes for rates +[19:03:53] robbat2: irs status report beyond that? +[19:04:30] i started on our own 990 form, but it needs the CPA-audited statements anyway +[19:04:43] because we made more than $25k gross in the last fiscal +[19:05:13] will we need to ask for an extention eventually? +[19:05:26] our past extensions have more than expired +[19:05:34] :| +[19:05:48] but since we're in the weird state of having not filed a 990 before +[19:05:50] i don't know +[19:06:30] since we're in the self-declared 501c state; this is where the CPA also comes in +[19:06:52] this is not the first year we've exceeded the $25k margin, and we know nothing was filed for that previous period either +[19:07:50] anyway, continue to the next item +[19:08:21] k +[19:08:37] Current subject: dabbott: Motion: Remove 67 members that have not voted in last 2 elections, (set by prometheanfire) +[19:08:46] dabbott: floor is yours :P +[19:08:57] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation_Talk:Meetings/2017/02 is the list of people +[19:09:05] i'm surprised it's so big +[19:09:16] Now all we need to do is vote, do we want to do this now or later +[19:09:35] please review the list +[19:09:57] we can think about it and revisit next month +[19:10:03] I'm surprised by a few of the devs I know on the list but not THAT surprised +[19:10:08] they can also reapply +[19:10:15] yep +[19:10:33] would notices be sent out to them if they are removed? +[19:10:39] I'm fine with it if so +[19:11:09] then i have to explain the whole mess and they get mad at me +[19:11:20] doesn't have to come from you +[19:12:07] there's some here I want to check when they were admitted to the foundation +[19:12:27] because if they only came into the foundation after the 2013 election, it's wrong to drop them now +[19:12:42] ah, edge case +[19:13:26] fair enough, move this til next month with robbat2 checking admission date? +[19:14:19] beandog is definetly wrong to include on here +[19:14:20] sounds good, please review the email I sent with the script I used and the data, just to be sure its correct +[19:14:30] because he wasn't a dev at the time of the 2013 election +[19:14:54] dabbott: do we have a list of when people joined the foundation? +[19:14:56] k, you alright with taking on that task robbat2? +[19:14:56] but he was a foundation member before +[19:15:22] i can try for it yeah, but the finances/IRS is more important, so i'd prefer somebody else +[19:15:32] he used to be a dev and retired and rejoined, i don;t think he ever lost his foundation status +[19:15:50] it should be entirely public data, so it doesn't need to be a trustee that reviews the list +[19:16:02] dabbott: can you verifiy join date for those in the list are older than 2013? +[19:16:33] I review the emails +[19:17:00] we should have their join/leave date for the foundation recorded somewhere +[19:17:36] ok, as a quick match against LDAP, beandog & zlogene are the only edge cases +[19:17:49] everybody else joined before 2013 +[19:18:08] joined as a dev that is +[19:18:11] robbat2: as a dev or member? +[19:18:24] that's why I asked for a list of when they joined the foundation +[19:18:34] I did it based on gentooJoin LDAP +[19:18:38] That has not been kept in the past afaik +[19:18:51] we need to start keeping it probably +[19:18:58] yep +[19:19:05] I have the emails since I have been doing it +[19:19:10] ok, zlogene is definetly wrong, he joined as a dev on 2013/06/05, which means he missed the recording date for trustees-201306 +[19:19:44] Ok I will remove him from the list, thanks +[19:19:57] robbat2: that's as a dev though right? +[19:23:22] yeah, this needs re-doing +[19:23:37] some of the people listed here were already removed in the 2016/06 election +[19:23:41] like vapier +[19:24:10] k, postpone til net month, this seems like an alright first pass list though, needs more filters +[19:24:16] i vote we approve the removal action, as emailing them, but the list of who needs editing +[19:25:13] .vote approve the removal action, as emailing them (the list of those who are being removed needs later approval) +[19:25:18] .help +[19:25:54] no voting in the bot +[19:26:08] robbat2: refining your motion +[19:26:13] approve the removal action, as emailing them (the list of those who are being removed needs later approval) +[19:26:26] prometheanfire: action then agreed +[19:26:49] ACTION: agreed +[19:27:27] .help action +[19:27:29] ok, let's try that again +[19:27:52] ACTION: approve the removal action, as emailing them (the list of those who are being removed needs later approval) +[19:28:04] aye +[19:28:10] dabbott: .agreed +[19:28:59] i think we need to figure out the bot better, and carry on without it for now +[19:29:00] bah +[19:29:09] robbat2: so, aye then? +[19:29:12] i second: "approve the removal action, as emailing them (the list of those who are being removed needs later approval)" +[19:29:15] aye +[19:29:27] ok, think we've all agreed on that +[19:29:48] Current subject: robbat2: treasurer report, (set by prometheanfire) +[19:30:20] i need to talk to the CPA, then can finalize it +[19:30:33] robbat2: the one I talked about earlier? +[19:30:58] i _think_ i have everything correct, but need their opinion on the depreciation handling and in-kind donation valuation +[19:31:33] yes, since we don't have any other CPAs that responded to our post last year +[19:32:00] k +[19:32:04] next? +[19:32:41] Current subject: robbat2: Foundation Mailing Address (bug 592200), (set by prometheanfire) +[19:32:43] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/592200 "Foundation needs to handle inbound postal mail better, by scanning & emailing"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; robbat2:trustees +[19:32:43] trustee-meetbot: https://bugs.gentoo.org/592200 "Foundation needs to handle inbound postal mail better, by scanning & emailing"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; robbat2:trustees +[19:33:01] you have the paperwork to get notarized +[19:33:33] yep, next step is that I notarize paperwork, then scan / upload so robbat2 can send them in +[19:34:01] Current subject: alicef: Is SPI worth another look?, (set by prometheanfire) +[19:34:09] alicef: around? +[19:34:31] yes +[19:34:56] can you update me ? +[19:35:07] update you? +[19:35:31] what we are interested to know about spi ? +[19:35:40] as general look ? +[19:36:21] I think so, and what they require for financials would be good to know as well +[19:37:26] err, we already said this last meeting, that alice was doing to look at the SPI stuff +[19:37:34] ya +[19:37:39] alicef: did nothing happen yet in that? +[19:37:44] alicef: feel free to look at it then :P +[19:38:02] we can have more than one project liason +[19:38:17] after talking with spi member, I talk about that +[19:38:28] because was looking like a requested thing from our email +[19:39:09] ya, we don't want a bus factor of 1 +[19:39:25] Are they interested in us joining them. what do they get out of it? +[19:41:07] as now i have talk not as project member but as offrecord talk, but i can try to deal as gentoo project member and ask more in detail +[19:41:23] that'd be appreciated +[19:41:31] thanks alicef +[19:41:32] ok +[19:41:38] moving on then :D +[19:41:48] Current subject: robbat2: Private Policy (is it published yet?), (set by prometheanfire) +[19:42:41] when did that wind up on my items? a3li was doing it before +[19:42:49] not sure +[19:43:01] anyway, it just needs to go onto the webpage and wiki in a locked form +[19:43:14] maffblaster_: ^^^ you can do it as the new wiki/www person ;-) +[19:43:21] robbat2: good point :D +[19:43:29] perfect +[19:43:40] next +[19:43:48] Current subject: prometheanfire:D&O insurance Bug 592198, (set by prometheanfire) +[19:43:51] https://bugs.gentoo.org/592198 "D&O insurance"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; prometheanfire:trustees +[19:43:51] trustee-meetbot: https://bugs.gentoo.org/592198 "D&O insurance"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; prometheanfire:trustees +[19:44:06] Woah. +[19:44:23] You need me to draft one up? +[19:44:25] so, next step is to submit some questions about the app +[19:44:34] maffblaster_: publish only I think +[19:44:41] Oh, that's easy. +[19:44:45] maffblaster_: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:A3li/Privacy_Policy_Draft we approved this already +[19:45:05] once our questions are answered we'll finalize the app and submit it +[19:45:07] I'll publish it and then probably create a link to it on www.g.o. +[19:45:17] the questions are set to be sent out monday (business day) +[19:45:43] next +[19:45:52] Current subject: prometheanfire: Combining Trustees and Council into 'The Board', (set by prometheanfire) +[19:46:07] no update, I may do something mid march when I have more time +[19:46:49] prometheanfire: for the bot to track what you say .info +[19:47:05] dabbott: next time, too late this far into the meeting +[19:47:20] prometheanfire: understood +[19:47:30] Current subject: Working with Gentoo-ev (results of meeting), (set by prometheanfire) +[19:47:55] talked with them (sping specifically) at fosdem +[19:48:11] not much to say, we are both basically doing the same thing in diferent jurisdictions +[19:48:56] it was a short meeting right before I got on a train to rotterdam, so wasn't that deep +[19:49:13] Current subject: prometheanfire: Do we need date of birth in developer apps., (set by prometheanfire) +[19:49:22] this came up recently here +[19:49:38] talked with robbat some yesterday while working on paperwork +[19:49:57] the main concern for us I think is about copyright assignment +[19:51:18] I think the suggestion for the following has merrit +[19:51:21] greater of local age of majority and US age of majority is met OR 'adult' allowing +[19:52:06] whats that mean? +[19:52:42] the dev applying needs to be the greater of their local age of majority or the US age of majority +[19:52:44] OR +[19:53:13] their guardian allows if they are under-age, not sure how we'd verify this part though +[19:53:57] to use two concrete examples: +[19:53:59] 1. a 14 year old Iranian student is of majority in Iran, but not of majority in the US [18-21] +[19:54:20] local age of majority means an adult in their country +[19:54:52] 2. a 20 year old Singaporian is not an adult in Singapore yet, but would be for the US +[19:55:14] we want to replace the need for the birthdate by a signed statement from the person 'I am of sufficent age of majority' +[19:55:38] ok sounds good +[19:55:53] brb toddler +[19:56:17] shouold we vote on this now or wait til next month? +[19:56:50] i think draft it as a proposed policy and post it for comments then vote next month +[19:56:51] So we don't need to verify the information just get them to ack +[19:57:10] ya +[19:57:17] send out draft update to -nfp +[19:57:22] and probably -project +[19:57:33] k, I'll do that then +[19:57:40] next +[19:57:44] swift had nothing +[19:58:00] prometheanfire: send the email to trustees and we can help +[19:58:11] Current subject: open trustee bugs, (set by prometheanfire) +[19:58:13] dabbott: k +[19:58:21] then once we have it the way we want send it out +[19:59:09] bug 605336 +[19:59:12] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/605336 "Funding request for livedvd handout copies, FOSDEM 2017"; Gentoo Foundation, Reimbursements; CONF; dilfridge:trustees +[19:59:26] hm? +[19:59:28] I think all we need to do is send the money +[19:59:35] invoice is coming +[19:59:47] I got sent one (by snail mail) with wrong numbers on it +[19:59:59] corrected one arrived end of the week +[20:00:00] yeah, there's several open reimbursement requests where I am waiting for invoices still +[20:00:02] dabbott: ah, thought you already uploaded one for some reason, ok, will wait on that +[20:00:07] will take a photo and attach it to the bug +[20:00:16] dilfridge: meant for you +[20:00:19] dabbott: not you :P +[20:00:58] don't think there's anything about bug 607622 for us to discuss +[20:01:00] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/607622 "a new sparc machine is needed"; Gentoo Foundation, Infra Support; CONF; ago:trustees +[20:01:12] alicef: bug #598010, i need the invoice if you want reimbursement +[20:01:14] robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/598010 "Reimbursement for Gentoo banner and Gentoo booth table cover."; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; alicef:trustees +[20:01:45] bug #610092, we need to approve the reimbursement (that's a invoice already) +[20:01:51] robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/610092 "Poster print reimbursment "Gentoo Ecosystem""; Gentoo Foundation, Reimbursements; CONF; dilfridge:trustees +[20:02:00] about cover table and pop up banner, the pop up banner will be made next week. about the cover table i need someone that can change the photoshop AI file. for order also that. +[20:02:00] we can vote on this though bug 610092 +[20:02:04] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/610092 "Poster print reimbursment "Gentoo Ecosystem""; Gentoo Foundation, Reimbursements; CONF; dilfridge:trustees +[20:02:18] but no luck as now +[20:02:42] i vote aye on 610092 +[20:02:43] alicef: I might be able to change it (or a friend at work can), send me an email with exactly what's needed +[20:02:53] I vote aye on 610092 +[20:03:09] dilfridge: that's the one I was thinking of :P +[20:03:16] heh, yep +[20:03:21] prometheanfire: thanks +[20:03:21] prometheanfire: we can vote on the bug +[20:03:40] dabbott: sure, but we can vote here too +[20:03:59] aye bug 610092 +[20:04:02] dabbott: https://bugs.gentoo.org/610092 "Poster print reimbursment "Gentoo Ecosystem""; Gentoo Foundation, Reimbursements; CONF; dilfridge:trustees +[20:04:40] k, will update the bug with vote results +[20:04:47] any other bugs +[20:06:10] k, next +[20:06:20] Current subject: membership apps, (set by prometheanfire) +[20:06:28] maffblaster's app +[20:06:40] yes +[20:06:40] I vote aye to accepting maffblaster as a member +[20:06:51] aye +[20:07:26] k, accepted +[20:07:31] seems he already has voice +[20:07:46] :P +[20:07:49] was just getting to that +[20:07:59] heh +[20:08:09] ACTION: appoint maffblaster Foundation Wiki Editor +[20:08:20] eh +[20:08:22] aye +[20:08:32] Thanks. Any action items I need to be aware of besides the Privacy Policy? +[20:08:58] maffblaster_: for now, no, maybe looking at updates to the contractor page thing +[20:09:08] agreed after we agree then .agree maffblaster approved as Foundation Wiki Editor +[20:09:27] AGREED: maffblaster approved as Foundation Wiki Editor +[20:09:32] Does that make maffblaster_ an officer? +[20:09:38] sweet :) +[20:09:48] NeddySeagoon: I don't think that's needed for this +[20:09:54] NeddySeagoon: I hope so +[20:10:10] Officer: Wiki Liaison ? +[20:10:42] As on officer, he would be covered by D&O insurance +[20:10:44] or Wiki and www Liaison +[20:11:21] NeddySeagoon: point +[20:11:27] i would say not an officer, because he has no financial impact +[20:11:37] (vs the treasurer / infra positions) +[20:11:48] Web and Wiki Liaison? +[20:12:31] we can take up to officer thing next meeting if desired, I don't think it hurts or helps us much really +[20:12:32] robbat2: I was thinking of publishing and liability +[20:12:43] NeddySeagoon: except for D&O +[20:12:50] prometheanfire: agreed +[20:13:29] Thanks guys. Glad to be part of the team. +[20:13:43] maffblaster_: just means more, thankless work :P +[20:14:06] thanks for all your help maffblaster_ +[20:14:28] You're welcome. +[20:14:30] I'm out! +[20:14:40] robbat2: would we need to update apps if making him an officer? +[20:14:59] yes, mostly the new mexico one +[20:15:19] well, that's just updating the site, but if that's it then it seems low effort +[20:15:31] NeddySeagoon: thankfully the US doesn't have some of the crazy publishing defamation laws that the UK does +[20:15:41] heh +[20:15:49] robbat2: of that we can agree :P +[20:16:08] prometheanfire: the concern then is later stuff requires listing all officers and getting signing on more of them +[20:16:57] robbat2: if that's the case, then I'm not sure it's necessary, especially with US publishing laws +[20:17:41] robbat2: we need to get him added to the foundation wiki namespace permissions +[20:17:52] should I open a bug? +[20:18:01] that'd be best, logging wise +[20:18:07] ok will do +[20:18:20] k, we can decide on officership next meeting +[20:18:25] anyone have anything else? +[20:18:31] he has the beaurcrat bit in wiki, but the bug should be done for logging +[20:19:15] i have no new business +[20:19:26] dabbott: anything else? +[20:19:31] open floor otherwise +[20:19:36] nothing here +[20:19:48] k, will close in 2 min +[20:21:36] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 4964 seconds -- cgit v1.2.3-65-gdbad