summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
blob: 66981ebad90cc36dc6d69fb2453c7d03b564ce2e (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
--- Log opened Sun Apr 20 14:26:31 2008
14:26 -!- Irssi: #gentoo-trustees: Total of 26 nicks [7 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 19 normal]
14:26 -!- mode/#gentoo-trustees [+o wltjr] by ChanServ
14:27 -!- Irssi: Join to #gentoo-trustees was synced in 62 secs
14:30 <@tgall_foo> hey wltjr 
14:37 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: afternoon
14:48 <@NeddySeagoon> Its 8:00pm local :)
14:48 < rane> hi guys
14:49 < rane> i'm late 48 minutes or early 12?
14:49 < rane> or maybe it's not today
14:49 <@wltjr> rane: 11 min still
14:50  * fmccor checks in
14:50 <@fmccor> We're trying to keep this to no more than an hour, correct?
14:51 <@fmccor> Good afternoon.  Majority rules. :)
14:51 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, I hope so. any real life meeting that takes over an hour usually accomplishes very little
14:52 <@NeddySeagoon> Its not very popular, only 26 nicks, perhaps we should drop the price of the tickets ?
14:53 <@fmccor> Or offer free beer.
14:54 <@NeddySeagoon> :)
14:56 < rane> or use Donnie to advertise it more
14:57 <@NeddySeagoon> rane, I don't think the majority of devs are interested in the Foundation ... unless users are saying Gentoo is in crisis because we don't have one 
14:59 <@tgall_foo> ok
14:59 <@tgall_foo> fmccor: I hope we can keep it to under 30 minutes!   
15:00  * NeddySeagoon calls the meeting to order. Roll Call ...
15:00 <@tgall_foo> present!
15:00 < rane> go go go
15:00  * wltjr is present
15:00 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, wltjr tsunam 
15:01  * fmccor is here
15:01  * tgall_foo notes it is a very nice day out so it's quite difficult to be here :-)
15:01 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, do you stll have tsunams cell number handy ?
15:01 <@fmccor> Cold here with rain and thunderstorms.
15:02 <@fmccor> Someplace
15:02 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, Would you give him a prod please.  Keep an eye on your screen too
15:03 <@NeddySeagoon> 1. Introductions   we can probably skip that
15:03  * fmccor looks
15:03 <@NeddySeagoon> 2. Actions From the Last Meeting ...
15:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Incorporation Status - fmccor    you want to say a few words ?
15:05 <@fmccor> Sure.  All paperwork for reinstatement was filed with New Mexico on the 15th and we are waiting for them to respond.
15:05 <@fmccor> Lawyer's office figures two or 3 days up to 3 weeks, depending on how busy the state agency is.
15:05 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, The status http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/cgi-bin/prcdtl.cgi?2463313  will be updated when they are bone ?
15:06 <@NeddySeagoon> done*
15:06 <@wltjr> should be those are public records, should be same database
15:06 <@NeddySeagoon> thanks
15:06 <@fmccor> Yes, I suppose.
15:07  * tgall_foo notes the URL for the minutes but qualifies it as not necessarily being up to date
15:07 <@fmccor> Lawyer says he will send all of us copies of the reinstatement papers from NM.
15:07 <@tgall_foo> great
15:07 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, Hmm - to the UK too ?
15:08 <@tgall_foo> anything more to be done there or just hurry up and wait ?
15:08  * wltjr thinks we might want to consider EarthMail at some point
15:08 <@NeddySeagoon> I'll be happy with a scan
15:08 <@wltjr> should be able to get a box or something in NM, and they will digitize all mail, and store it physically
15:08 <@wltjr> multi user accounts, I wouldn't normally use it, but might be ideal for an entity like us
15:09 <@NeddySeagoon> Its hurry up and wait then 
15:09 <@NeddySeagoon> Next ...
15:09 <@NeddySeagoon> Foundation Bylaws Status - all
15:09 <@fmccor> Lawyer can't scan --- that's why I have paper copies.
15:09 <@fmccor> I think there are two issues.
15:10  * wltjr is still working through it, but thinks we might need a meeting specific on the by laws
15:10 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, to agree the exact wording, probably
15:10 <@wltjr> fmccor: earth mail scans it all, but can't be registered agent
15:10 <@fmccor> Voting --- I think we are clear on that now.  (Essentially, do it like now, non-developers vote via signed (pgp) email).
15:10 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, what do you see as issues ?
15:10 <@tgall_foo> yes I think we need a working meeting specific to the bylaws ... OR we should consider forming a committee to work on it and come back with a recommendation
15:10 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: well I have lots of comments, i am taking notes on the sections, none are in depth, but need to be discussed
15:11 <@fmccor> Membership.  I actually think we have essential agreement on that.
15:11 <@wltjr> fmccor: actually the who signing thing wrt to the by laws should take in account gpg keys
15:11 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, We will look forward to your email - if they can be discussed off line, so much the beter
15:11 <@wltjr> short of legal signings, and there is also mention of snail mail in their like in section 3.4 Notice, I don't think applies
15:12 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, snail mail might be required by law
15:12 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, yep, no IRC voting for the membership
15:12 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: well I almost think we should all go section by section through it in a meeting, and discuss it
15:12 <@wltjr> will take way to long via email IMHO
15:12 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, I agree  ... or form a committee
15:12 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: well then we have to make sure we start doing that, but I am not sure it;s applicable for us, we should consititue electronic mail instead
15:12 <@fmccor> There are 5 of us --- I think that's a good enough size for a committee.
15:12 <@tgall_foo> with the direction that the committee needs to complete it's work by say 1 month's time
15:12 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, agreed but not until we have done a pass by email, then we need a meeting on what left
15:13 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: not sure we need it to be a committee, I think we will want direct input on it, wrt to our thoughts
15:13 <@tgall_foo> just suggesting options
15:13 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: sure I would love to delegate it ;)
15:13 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, so you're proposing .. .initial go through via email ... and then a dedicated meeting ?
15:13 <@wltjr> but like for exapmle section 5.3 compensation, I think we should flat out say there isn't compensation
15:13 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, yes
15:13 <@wltjr> I don't think we should leave it up to a committee to decide that
15:14 <@fmccor> Let's go by email and then meet in 2 weeks with the goal of finishing it off.  I think we ourselves are the committee.
15:14 <@wltjr> also 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.9 all seem to require member voting for any action, and that's going to be allot of work
15:14 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, so how about you make that a motion ? ;-)
15:14 < Philantrop> May I just ask why non-devs should be members of the Foundation? I didn't really find a reason on -nfp@.
15:14 <@tgall_foo> Philantrop, not everyone writes code ....
15:14 <@fmccor> Philantrop, retired developers are members now.
15:14 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I think the bylaws should be general.  If we make $100M this year, we will have earned smoe compensation
15:14 <@wltjr> approval, removal, etc of any member is basically done by voting, board or officers have no power to approve, remove, etc
15:15 < Philantrop> fmccor: Yes, which I didn't like either.
15:15 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: well ok if we earn $100m, and next year new officers decide to pay themselves $50k
15:15 < Philantrop> tgall_foo: "Devs" includes staff as it is today. :-)
15:15 <@wltjr> or more, I think we need to flat out say it's volunteer
15:15 <@wltjr> until the foundation has $, offices, and can pay people ot work part time or full time
15:15 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I have no strong feelings on thge point
15:15 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, agreed.  Note that in some cases (like details of membership) the bylaws can authorize the trustees to set policy by, say, unanimous vote.
15:15 <@tgall_foo> Philantrop, depends on your definition .. which from person to person has historically not been the same ...   I agree with you tho 
15:16 <@wltjr> IMHO turstees have no business paying themselves at this time, so without a re-write of by laws, should be no provisions for such things
15:16 <@NeddySeagoon> Can we agree that wltjr will complete he review, we will each respond by email once only than have a meeting ?
15:16 <@tgall_foo> we're getting into detail ...   
15:16 < Philantrop> tgall_foo: No, that's really pretty clear. "Gentoo Dev" includes staff. 
15:16 <@fmccor> Trustees, no.  Officers perhaps.
15:16 <@wltjr> nor things like increasing the # of trustees without a update of by laws, as in 5.7
15:16 <@tgall_foo> Philantrop, historically that wasn't the case ... juts fyi
15:17 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, works for me.
15:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Can we agree that wltjr will complete he review, we will each respond by email once only than have a meeting ?
15:17 <@tgall_foo> can we close on process please ?
15:17 <@wltjr> yeah, there's lots of detail, thus IMHO we should do a meeting specific to it, and go through each section, shouldn't take more than 1-2 hours
15:17 <@fmccor> Agreed.
15:17 <@NeddySeagoon> ok ... agrred - one round of email, then meeting
15:17 <@wltjr> yep, I am barely in section 5, so no where near ready to speak on it entirely
15:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets move on
15:18 <@NeddySeagoon> Gentoo Foundation Banking - tsunam   
15:18 <@wltjr> sure, but I think we can do better discussing in irc than email, but either way
15:18 <@tgall_foo> so motion that the process for forming a set of bylaws to approve will consist of 1) a round of input via email followed by 2) a dedicated meeting (to be set at some date by the chair) to cover and finalized the proposed bylaws 
15:18 <@wltjr> that works
15:18 <@NeddySeagoon> yes
15:18 <@fmccor> Yes
15:18 <@tgall_foo> the motion needs a second ...
15:18 <@NeddySeagoon> seconded
15:18 <@fmccor> second
15:19 <@NeddySeagoon> Thats 3 ot of 5 carried
15:19 <@NeddySeagoon> Gentoo Foundation Banking - tsunam   
15:19 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, point of order 
15:19 <@wltjr> did anyone call him?
15:19 <@NeddySeagoon> Anyone know whats happening ?
15:19 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, you need to ask for further discussion ... then hearing none call for a vote 
15:19  * fmccor is not finding tsunam's cell number.  Thinks we need a list posted someplace we can find it.
15:19 <@tgall_foo> fmccor: I thought that was out via email
15:19  * wltjr calls tsunam, has it handy
15:19  * tgall_foo is a stickler for Roberts Rules
15:20 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, ok .. I think its clear from the record, so I'm not going to go over it
15:20 <@wltjr> tsunam will be here shortly
15:21 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets come back to banking ...
15:21 <@NeddySeagoon> 3. Formal Communications With Members
15:21 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: well we do need to proceed accordingly, so tgall_foo isn't wrong for pointing out things, so no worries on this one, but we should get into habit of proper proceedings
15:21 <@tgall_foo> ok ... so by the bylaws I need to post notice of meetings in it would seem several circumstances
15:21 <@NeddySeagoon> We are required by law to notify members of meetings, the AGM at least 
15:22 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, Agreed
15:22 <@tgall_foo> besides helps the minutes ;-)
15:22 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yeah and I believe one of those ways is via snail mail per by laws, I believe, seems a bit much IMHO unless that's only for special meetings or voting
15:22 <@tsunam> *waves*
15:22 <@NeddySeagoon> If we use email modelled on snail mail, we need a mailing list
15:22 <@tgall_foo> well there's meetings of the membership
15:23 <@tgall_foo> and then these meetings
15:23 <@NeddySeagoon> welcome tr
15:23 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: something like post to ml/announcement-ml and formal pr piece should be good no? 
15:23 <@NeddySeagoon> welcome tsunam 
15:23 <@fmccor> tgall_foo, It is, but not under an obvious subject.
15:23 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: maybe if we have a list of members emails, we email each one
15:24 <@tgall_foo> i would like top suggest that in either case that a post on gentoo.org with the link to the proposed agenda should suffice
15:24 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: thus no option to not get, no need to be on a list or following, direct email, will bounce if they don't get it
15:24 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, It must not have an opt out ... so gentoo-foundation-announce  would be good with all members subscrible
15:24 <@tgall_foo> least until the bylaws are worked out
15:24 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: bounce can be considered return to sender wrt to regular mail
15:24 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yeah that works
15:25 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: we have list of emails, we add them to ml, we use ml for notice, guess one might say not personal, but each get's their own copy, just have to know from infra on bounces
15:25 < Philantrop> NeddySeagoon: I can reject any regular mail and the same should be possible for a mailinglist. Initially, subscribe every member but let them opt-out.
15:25 <@fmccor> wltjr, I think that would be sufficient.
15:25 <@tsunam> course we need an accurate list of members to begin with *cough*
15:25 <@wltjr> yes, and the whole membership process sucks
15:25 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, yeah
15:25 <@tsunam> membership process is 
15:25 <@wltjr> members vote to approve other members, I guess we are supposed to have some form?
15:26 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, Well, we are in the process of sorting that
15:26 <@fmccor> Philantrop, I think an opt-out would be the same as a resignation.
15:26 <@tsunam> "been a developer for a year, yes...you're a member of the foundation
15:26 <@tgall_foo> again ... until the bylaws are sorted out ......  how about just a post to gentoo.org for now?
15:26 <@tgall_foo> I agree the membership issue is a bit complicated
15:26 <@wltjr> for devs or staff members it's not a problem, but wrt to the community, users, etc
15:26 < Philantrop> fmccor: Oh, great. So I need to accept any mail if I want to be a member?
15:26 <@fmccor> Any mail to the foundation members, sure.
15:26 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, nope, you can send it to /dev/null
15:27 <@wltjr> Philantrop: we will likely use email as a form of formal notification in lieu of like snail mail
15:27 <@tsunam> wltjr: community/users have no ability to be in the foundation
15:27 <@tsunam> wltjr: that's not complicated
15:27 < Philantrop> wltjr: As I said: I can reject any mail from my local sports club when the postman wants to deliver it. Same should be possible here.
15:27 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ex devs ?
15:27 <@wltjr> tsunam: well at this time, I think that's something we need to change
15:27 <@wltjr> Philantrop: filter it then
15:27 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: bylaws state that they are gone after a period of time "retired"
15:28  * fmccor favors something like member@foundation.gentoo.org
15:28 <@tsunam> wltjr: I don't
15:28 < Philantrop> wltjr: Some people pay for bandwidth...
15:28 <@wltjr> Philantrop: or as to be removed from the foundation membership
15:28 <@tsunam> Philantrop: what you do on your side, we don't care about
15:28 <@wltjr> Philantrop: if your talking mail from g.o, do it on d.g.o, and via procmail, will never hit your machine or pipe
15:28 <@tsunam> Philantrop: its a non issue
15:28 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, agreed ... but their gentoo.org address may be gone before they leave the Foundation
15:28 <@wltjr> tsunam: I think the by laws at least the draft mentions a application or form we lack
15:29 <@wltjr> tsunam: so I think there is supposed to be ways for he community to join, it's just never been available or created
15:29 <@tsunam> wltjr: 2 seconds... Name: Address: phone number: 
15:29 < Philantrop> tsunam: Ok, thanks. Considering that you want to keep non-devs as members, "drive the distribution" and blackmail members into being part of a mailinglist, I think I'll just stay out of this foundation thing.
15:29 <@tsunam> wltjr: no...
15:29 <@wltjr> tsunam: 4.3, membership application
15:29 <@fmccor> wltjr, The bylaws can authorize the trustees to set such a thing up.
15:30 <@tsunam> wltjr: you are supossed to apply to become a member of the foundation. We have until this point just said anyone who's been a year is lumped in
15:30 <@tgall_foo> well are we trying to implement notification of members prior to acceptance of the bylaws .. or are we trying to get something in place prior to the approval of the bylaws just so people cn know about these meetings ?
15:30 <@tsunam> wltjr: we've always limited it to the developers
15:30 <@tsunam> wltjr: there's no way to tell the good longstanding of a "user" they could have been around for 7 years, or 7 days 
15:31 <@wltjr> developers/staff members, etc, should get auto application/joining of foundation as part of recruitment, which they can opt out of during recruitment or afterward I guess
15:31 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, I don't see the order as important, the members don't get to vote on the bylaws this time round.
15:31 <@wltjr> tsunam: well application doesn't mean acceptance
15:31 <@fmccor> tsunam, I'd leave the possibility in the bylaws and bump the details to action by the trustees.
15:31 <@NeddySeagoon> They may get to vote on chnages, later
15:31 <@wltjr> as I read it, applications are voted on by all members, which a 1/3 majority or etc would be required for approval or acceptance into foundation
15:31 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, true...  seems to me that short term as long as we get the word out as best can that should be good enough until the bylaws are in force   at which case we will be in agreement on membership issues
15:32 <@fmccor> Correct --- bylaws (by law, in fact) are initially under control of the board (trustees).
15:32 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, ok.  I propose we postpone further discussion on this topic until the bylaws are agreed
15:32 <@wltjr> and the board or officers have no influence or power of membership, that's purely up to a vote, once there are members to the foundation, or so section 4 seems to read
15:32 <@NeddySeagoon> Do I hear a second ?
15:32 <@wltjr> yeah this is all by law sstuff
15:32 <@fmccor> Second
15:32 <@tgall_foo> second
15:33 <@NeddySeagoon> Vote
15:33 <@fmccor> And agreed.
15:33 <@wltjr> yeah
15:33 <@tgall_foo> yea
15:33 <@NeddySeagoon> OK, lets move on
15:33 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, back to you  Gentoo Foundation Banking
15:34 <@tsunam> waiting on EIN as I have no intention to use my EIN (social security) to setup the bank account
15:34  * wltjr wonders if there is much he can do less NM papers
15:34 <@wltjr> tsunam: never got that from g2boojum ?
15:34 <@tsunam> nope
15:34 <@tsunam> I've not gotten the value of the check he has in his posession either
15:34 <@wltjr> tsunam: did you get access to store? does any trustee have access to it?
15:34 <@tsunam> and I've called him twice
15:34 <@tsunam> wltjr: nope
15:35 <@fmccor> Our NMPRC# is 2463313
15:35 <@wltjr> ok, we need to get on g2boojum then a bit, so we can leave him alone  :) just need a check and EIN from him
15:35  * wltjr will look for  EIN lookup tool
15:35 <@tsunam> I really need access to the value of the check so that I can get close to balancing the entire foundation quarterly reports
15:35 <@tsunam> that's the hold up I have on the quarterly reports for the past 2 years
15:35 <@wltjr> tsunam: also the store has $$ I hear
15:35 <@fmccor> That seems to be how New Mexico identifies us.
15:35 <@tsunam> fmccor: that won't work for opening a bank account
15:36 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, Its pretty moot until we have a working bank account
15:36 <@tsunam> fmccor: ein is a federal tax number
15:36 <@tgall_foo> indeed
15:36 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: well tsunam still needs to be aware of amounts and in control of store
15:36 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, True
15:36 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: might be able to transfer store funds to paypal, or something
15:36 <@wltjr> one location
15:37 <@fmccor> tsunam, NM doesn't care about that, so I don't have it.
15:37 <@wltjr> tsunam: we should see if you can put that check into paypal for now
15:37 <@tsunam> fmccor: aye :(
15:37 <@tsunam> wltjr: no
15:37 <@wltjr> so all funds are in one place till we have a bank account
15:37 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, is there any point is anyone else calling g2boojum ?
15:37 <@wltjr> tsunam: well up to you, just didn't want you to have to track $ else where
15:37 <@tsunam> wltjr: I don't want all gentoo money in an account that can be shut down temporary by paypal itself and we have access to NO money
15:38 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, agreed
15:38 <@wltjr> tsunam: I doubt paypal would do that to a NPO, a quick phone call to the news or etc would likely end that
15:38 <@tsunam> wltjr: possibly
15:38 <@wltjr> tsunam: but who's to say the same couldn't happen to the store?
15:38 <@tsunam> wltjr: I'd rather avoid the issue though
15:38 <@wltjr> tsunam: or the check be lost or etc
15:38 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, the mud would stick.  Lets keep or money in several places
15:38 <@wltjr> tsunam: well IMHO I would trust PayPal with $ before cafepress
15:38 <@fmccor> Could you put it into an escrow account?
15:38 <@tsunam> wltjr: it'd be in a firesafe box with grant, same with me, and unless either of us kicks the bucket we'd know where it is
15:39 <@tsunam> wltjr: also be sent via fexex/ups with tracking
15:39 <@tgall_foo> well once we have the check we should have the ein which gets us an account 
15:39 <@wltjr> tsunam: and insured?
15:39 <@tsunam> tgall_foo: correct
15:39 <@tsunam> wltjr: should be yes
15:39 <@wltjr> tsunam: point being if bank is MIA if anything happens to check what then?
15:39 <@tsunam> wltjr: be expensive to insure =)
15:39 <@wltjr> thus cash ASAP IMHO and get some where you can control
15:40 <@wltjr> tsunam: should be moot, should have status before funds :)
15:40 <@tsunam> wltjr: we've not had access to that cash in the check for 2 years...
15:40 <@wltjr> depending on when we get in touch with g2boojum 
15:40 <@tsunam> wltjr: this all assumes the check is still GOOD
15:40 <@NeddySeagoon> Any more for any more on banking ?
15:40 <@tgall_foo> is it a cashier's check?
15:40 <@wltjr> I am pretty sure I can get EIN, if not from a free online tool I have a client :)
15:40 <@tsunam> wltjr: checks do have a shelf life
15:40 <@wltjr> tsunam: thus cash it, if we need to in PayPal fo rnow
15:40 <@wltjr> before g2boojum heads for mexico
15:40 <@tsunam> lol
15:40 <@NeddySeagoon> heh
15:40 <@tsunam> again, I need the check for that
15:40 <@wltjr> tsunam: same for the store, before infra buys toys
15:41 <@wltjr> but serious, does anyone have access to the store?
15:41 <@tsunam> wolf
15:41 <@wltjr> isn't that supposed to be under out control?
15:41 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, so the next move is to pester g2boojum 
15:41 <@fmccor> Yes
15:41 <@wltjr> tsunam: can you get that from him plz
15:41 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: correct
15:41 <@wltjr> I believe should have been provided during hand over of reins, along with check, ein, etc :)
15:41 <@tsunam> wltjr: I really don't want to be in charge of the store personally but
15:41 <@NeddySeagoon> ok ... lets move on, we can't resolve anythng here
15:41 <@wltjr> tsunam: just for now because it has $ ni it
15:41 <@tsunam> meh
15:41 <@tsunam> fine fine
15:42 <@wltjr> tsunam: I don't care so much about the store, but I hear there is $ there, and it's a few $k I believe
15:42 <@tgall_foo> do one of us have to be in charge of the store?
15:42 <@wltjr> tsunam: I don't see wolf doing anything bad there, but again technicalities, no longer his responsibility in the organization, so
15:42 <@fmccor> No, we can delegate.
15:42 <@tgall_foo> kk
15:42 <@wltjr> yeah I don't care about that, just that any $ goes to the treasurer or is in their control
15:42 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets get bacl to the agenda please
15:43 <@wltjr> funds should be available to no one else, IMHO
15:43 <@NeddySeagoon> 4. Voicing Foundation Members in #gentoo-trustees
15:43 <@tsunam> I have no issue with that
15:43 <@wltjr> are only devs voiced here?
15:43 <@tgall_foo> lotta work but worth it
15:43 <@NeddySeagoon> The whole point of this was to be able to take votes of the members on IRC
15:43 <@wltjr> sure, ties into having a list though :)
15:43 <@wltjr> and nics that they stick with and don't change
15:44 <@NeddySeagoon> There are no voices here now
15:44 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I would keep the channel public, but voice the members as well.  Why?  Because then they are immediately identified.
15:44 <@wltjr> I have np with members having a voice, once we have a list and know who they are :)
15:44 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, you think its useful for other things than voting ?
15:44 <@fmccor> E.g., I can see the trustees by the little green dot.  I'd like to be able to see the members by the little orange dot.
15:45 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, It's useful for a quick count of what members are here in case we ever need it.
15:45 <@NeddySeagoon> My view is that anyone may speak and seek to inflence the foundation but only members get to vote ... so why bother woth voice ?
15:46 <@tgall_foo> just a quick identifier....
15:46 <@NeddySeagoon> ok
15:46 <@fmccor> Right.
15:46 <@tgall_foo> perk of membership :-)
15:46 <@fmccor> Also right.
15:46 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion that members be voiced here, after the bylaws have been adopted
15:46 <@fmccor> second.
15:46 <@tsunam> aye
15:46 <@NeddySeagoon> vote
15:46 <@fmccor> Yes.
15:46 <@wltjr> yeah
15:46 <@NeddySeagoon> Carried
15:46 <@tgall_foo> yea
15:47 <@NeddySeagoon> 5. Bugs Assigned to Trustees
15:47 <@NeddySeagoon> 117837 Funding request: wildcard SSL cert
15:47  * wltjr would like to wait on the SSL cert with CA till we have a new papers
15:47 <@fmccor> Reasonable.
15:47 <@wltjr> the letter seems to state the paper work accompanies it, and I know previous paperwork has been sent
15:47 <@NeddySeagoon> Do we need the papers ?
15:48 <@wltjr> but if they question it, like who is requesting it, we have nothing to back that up, as in who we are, and our authority
15:48 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: the letter seems to mention it, infra says they will use letter previously on file, but that just doesn't sound right to me
15:48 <@NeddySeagoon> it should only be a few weeks tops .. ok
15:48 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ^^
15:48 <@wltjr> yeah, NM was pretty quick last time, i would imagine by end of next ewek
15:48 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: hmm?
15:49 <@tgall_foo> so table this one ?
15:49 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Can we agreed now that we will fund this as soon as our paperwork is in order ?
15:49 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: no need for funding on cert
15:49 <@wltjr> CA is free
15:49 <@wltjr> just have to file  papers with them
15:49 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: that's not up to me, I will just write the check/paypal the money if everyone concurs
15:49 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: we have the money to be able to fund it yes
15:49 <@NeddySeagoon> even better
15:50 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, it seems to be free :)
15:50 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: we could vote if we want to do CA or paid cert, infra kinda perfers CA for the whole spirit
15:50 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: taco said paid, robbat2 said CA, so :)
15:50 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion to back the CA cert as soon as paperwork is available 
15:50 <@wltjr> second
15:50 <@NeddySeagoon> vote
15:50 <@wltjr> yeah
15:50 <@fmccor> yes.
15:51 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ?
15:51 <@tgall_foo> yea
15:51 <@tsunam> abstain
15:51 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, may I ask why ?
15:51 <@tsunam> its whatever infra decides is best for them in my opinion
15:52 <@wltjr> tsunam: stalemate unless another comments on bug
15:52 <@tsunam> they are the ones who ultimatley have to decide so they should pick what they want to use 
15:52 <@wltjr> tsunam: I am not getting between taco and robbat2 :)
15:52 <@tsunam> generally stalemates = no :-P
15:52 <@tsunam> wltjr: I have no problem on that :-P
15:52 <@fmccor> wltjr, :)
15:52 <@wltjr> tsunam: so what we do neither?
15:52 <@tsunam> tell infra to pick one
15:52 <@wltjr> tsunam: your the tree hugger, thought you would be on the side of free :)
15:52 <@wltjr> tsunam: I did
15:53 <@tgall_foo> I count 3-0-1   with 1 not voted yet
15:53 <@wltjr> tsunam: I got two answers
15:53 <@wltjr> tsunam: robbat2 commented again about CA so I guess that's final?
15:53 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, I understand you abstention. Thank you for sharing.   We should go back to infra then, since our role is to support them
15:53 <@wltjr> ok, I will get further comments from them :)
15:54 <@wltjr> ah last comment from taco said no CA
15:54  * tgall_foo notes the motion passed
15:54  * wltjr shakes head at infra
15:54 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, make a comment on the bug that we will support either cert
15:55 < jmbsvicetto> Didn't I send a list with the full list of members of the foundation?
15:55 <@fmccor> Yes.
15:55 < jmbsvicetto> ok
15:55 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, you did
15:55 < jmbsvicetto> Philantrop: The idea was to have an annoucement list that would only be used for things like meetings' notices
15:55 <@NeddySeagoon> next bug   # 126707 Proposal to fund bugday incentives/rewards
15:55  * wltjr commented on bug
15:56 < Philantrop> jmbsvicetto: Let's talk about that during open floor.
15:56 < jmbsvicetto> Philantrop: sure
15:57 <@tsunam> I would suggest talking to current bugday runners as this bug is over 2 years old
15:57 <@NeddySeagoon> I'm against doing anything like this on a regular basis
15:57 < eroyf> wow
15:57 <@tsunam> see if they still would like it
15:57 < eroyf> that's really old
15:57 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I say we defer till a later date/meeting, low priority, and we have no funds, depending on what they are seeking
15:57 < eroyf> before my time as bugday lead
15:57 <@tgall_foo> I agree with Grant ...  t-shirts or something tangible is best ... cash prize I'm not so hot on that kind of idea
15:57 < eroyf> does welp know about it?
15:57 <@wltjr> or close it :)
15:57 <@tsunam> eroyf: unlikely
15:57 <@fmccor> tgall_foo, I agree
15:57 < eroyf> i didn't know about it
15:57 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets close 
15:57 <@NeddySeagoon> it
15:57 < eroyf> giving cash prizes sucks.. give them a t-shirt instead or something
15:58 < eroyf> that'd be win
15:58 < eroyf> but talk with welp about it
15:58 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, k ... and then they can reopen with a proposal if they really want to do that ?
15:58 <@NeddySeagoon> eroyf, shipping costs more than the Tee shirt
15:58 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, yes
15:58 <@wltjr> also once funds are available and plentiful, after bank account etc
15:58 < eroyf> NeddySeagoon: yeah :(
15:58 <@tgall_foo> I'll volunteer to talk to welp about it then if everyone is ok with that
15:59 <@fmccor> Fine with me.
15:59 <@wltjr> no problem here
15:59 <@NeddySeagoon> motion to close bug 26707 Proposal to fund bugday incentives/rewards
15:59 <@tgall_foo> second
15:59 <@NeddySeagoon> vote
15:59 <@fmccor> Yes.
15:59 <@tsunam> yes
15:59 <@wltjr> yeah
16:00 <@NeddySeagoon> Carried
16:00 <@tgall_foo> yea as well
16:00 <@NeddySeagoon> Bug 77966 Clarify Foundation page on external entities
16:00  * tgall_foo was typing minutes at the time ;-)
16:01 <@tgall_foo> bug 177966 FYI
16:01 <@NeddySeagoon> I'm not sure what this one means
16:01 <@tgall_foo> dunno either ... motion to close
16:01 <@NeddySeagoon> Oops ... copy and past from the agenda
16:01 <@tsunam> basically, we need to define clearly what is outside of the core gentoo (every company)
16:01 <@tsunam> and that no matter how much money they give, they can't push the foundation to do anything
16:01 <@tsunam> needs to be clearly defined
16:01 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Won't the bylaws do that ?
16:02 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: cause vendors are going to read our bylaws *nods*
16:02 <@tgall_foo> yeah seems like bylaws thing to at least keep our eyes on
16:02 <@NeddySeagoon> Lets keep this bug open until the bylaws are adopted
16:02 <@wltjr> yeah and it seems per wolf's comments on -nfp he would like to see the foundation be more of a liason between the community and development and steer that
16:03 <@wltjr> which will have to do with vendors and sponsors, as they are community members, in a sense and might want to influence or steer, etc
16:03 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I think that's how the Foundation was envisoned
16:03  * wltjr has no opposition, but the foundation is a long way from taking care of itself much less leading anything or being a liason
16:03 <@NeddySeagoon> wolf said as much
16:03 <@wltjr> I think we can lay down that foundation, but I am not sure if we will get to see the reality
16:03 <@wltjr> by the time we sell it to members, the council, etc, likely be next year :(
16:04 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion to keep this bug running until the bylaws are adopted 
16:04 <@wltjr> good for gentoo, which is bigger than us lowly board members
16:04 <@wltjr> second
16:04 <@NeddySeagoon> vote
16:04 <@wltjr> yeah
16:04 <@fmccor> yes
16:04 <@tgall_foo> ney
16:04 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, ?
16:05 <@tgall_foo> I'd personally still close that one out ....  but no worries ... 
16:05  * wltjr hmm, get's spicey, grabs some popcorn
16:05 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, ?
16:05 <@tsunam> abstain
16:06 <@tsunam> this one really doesn't matter to me, I think we need to change the wording on the page but others feel the "bylaws" are enough so
16:06 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, I see the closure of the bug as some words pointing to a section in the approved bylaws 
16:06 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, sure that works as well
16:06 <@NeddySeagoon> Carried - just
16:06 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: then do you change your vote? if not motion doesn't pass
16:06 <@tgall_foo> personally I'm not sure we can have a set of bylaws that wouldn't say something to that effect based on donations ..  again .. no matter!
16:06 <@tsunam> I don't think that's a valid approach but meh
16:07 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr 3 out of 5 is ok
16:07 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, well Neddy hasn't voted yet
16:07 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I didn't think we had that, unless you voted yeah, guess that's implied by motion
16:07  * NeddySeagoon votes Aye
16:07 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: yeah that's what I thought, my count was 2-1-1
16:07 <@tgall_foo> there ya go .. passes
16:07 <@wltjr> ok better :)
16:08  * wltjr checks his anal retentiveness, yep all there :)
16:08 <@NeddySeagoon> Next bug 205965 [Tracker] Legal Issues   It was still empty last time I looked
16:09 <@wltjr> I say defer on the last one, I have no interest in talking about licenses atm
16:09 <@tgall_foo> yup still is now
16:09 <@tgall_foo> so nothing to do there :-)
16:09 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, yeah I agree
16:09 <@wltjr> pretty low priority, so likley can put back a few meetings
16:09 <@fmccor> wltjr, nor do I
16:09 <@wltjr> unless member base protests :)
16:09 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, is should be quite quick  - everything else has moved to ver 3
16:10 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: ok
16:10 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: kernel hasn't :-P
16:10 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: is that something we should decide or members vote on?
16:10 < jmbsvicetto> Is this to move the ebuilds licenses from GPL-2 to GPL-3?
16:10 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Gentoo docs have
16:10 <@tgall_foo> ah .. reading the bug more fully yeah .. seems like a no brainer to approve
16:11 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, Only the Foundation pages on g.o
16:11 <@NeddySeagoon> Bug 212021 Consider switching to Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0
16:11  * wltjr agrees with NeddySeagoon and tgall_foo after re-reading bug, been a bit, my bad
16:11 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion to move to Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 as documents are revised
16:11 <@tgall_foo> tho ... one bug a boo
16:11 <@tgall_foo> "I'd like to mention that unlike the ebuilds in the tree, there's no "copyright
16:11 <@tgall_foo> assignment" in the documentation team. That could mean that we can't simply
16:11 <@tgall_foo> "relicense" our work under a new version of this license."
16:12 <@tgall_foo> that's a problem
16:12 <@NeddySeagoon> Foundation Docs, that is
16:12 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: Ah, ok.
16:12 <@tsunam> tgall_foo: very good point
16:12 <@tgall_foo> tho reading Neddy's motion ... that works for me
16:12 <@NeddySeagoon> I don't want to just update the docs for a licence bump
16:13 <@wltjr> seconded
16:13 <@NeddySeagoon> before we vote ...
16:13 <@NeddySeagoon> I don't think there is copyright assignment anywhere in Gentoo
16:14 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, for dev status there is
16:14 <@tsunam> the best we can do on this is to suggest moving forward to use 3.0 as its not copyright assigned, it belongs to creator
16:14 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, you signed something ?
16:14 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, yup ... and so should you have as part of your dev status
16:14 < jmbsvicetto> tgall_foo: It used to be a long, *looong* time ago
16:14 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, Nope
16:14 <@tsunam> tgall_foo: many have not
16:15 <@tsunam> tgall_foo: hasn't in quite a while, it was during the Gentoo INC days when daniel ran
16:15 <@tgall_foo> well .. all it prevents is ownership of files
16:15 <@NeddySeagoon> Is my motion vaild ?
16:15 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: it can only be a "suggestion"
16:15 <@tgall_foo> yup tsunam is right
16:15 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: if voted for
16:15 <@NeddySeagoon> ley me reword it then ...
16:16 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion to suggest a move to Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 as Foundation documents are revised
16:16 < jmbsvicetto> tgall_foo: That also doesn'
16:16 <@NeddySeagoon> suggest to authors ...
16:17 < jmbsvicetto> tgall_foo: There's also the legal issue for non-US citizens as that copyright assignment isn't valid in many countries including (most?) of the EU countries
16:17 <@tgall_foo> jmbsvicetto, that's how the FSF does things and it works quite well
16:17 <@tgall_foo> jmbsvicetto, the actual document agreement might have had problems ... but that's a different issue
16:17 <@NeddySeagoon> I think the wider copyright issues are outside the scope of this discssion
16:17 < jmbsvicetto> tgall_foo: One example that has been raised before is Germany as you can't waive your copyright there
16:18  * tgall_foo takes it outside
16:18 <@wltjr> if it needs discussion I say defer, if we all know our stance then vote, approaching 10 mins on this item
16:18  * tgall_foo calls the question
16:18 <@NeddySeagoon> It seems to need more discussion - lets defer
16:19 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion to defer bug  212021 
16:19 <@wltjr> seconded
16:19 <@tsunam> aye
16:19 <@NeddySeagoon> vote
16:19 <@wltjr> yeah
16:19 <@fmccor> yes
16:19 <@tgall_foo> yes
16:19 <@NeddySeagoon> Carried
16:20 < jmbsvicetto> My point was only about ebuilds, not documents and CC-SA
16:20 <@NeddySeagoon> 6 Any other business
16:20 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, ?
16:20 <@fmccor> Yes
16:20 <@wltjr> yes, if we can speak on it or if there is any info, tsunam can you speak, I think you know topic
16:20 <@wltjr> tsunam: mostly a question to you anyway
16:20 <@fmccor> Small point --- could we set a goal for finishing off the bylaws?
16:20 <@NeddySeagoon> I'm going round everone by name
16:21 <@wltjr> fmccor: 2 months max?
16:21 <@tsunam> wltjr: GNi Support
16:21 <@wltjr> tsunam: plz if there is any info
16:21 <@fmccor> wltjr, That works
16:21 <@tgall_foo> yes 2 months max ...  1 month should be reasonable
16:21 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, when will you circulate your email ?
16:21 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I will try to finish going through the by laws
16:21 <@tsunam> Current status: Servers are not being pulled at this time. I've been in talks with both Philip and Derek (CEO and CTO) respectively
16:21 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I almost think we might start an email/thread per section
16:21 <@fmccor> tgall_foo, I agree, but other things keep intruding. :)
16:21 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, when will  ??
16:22 <@tsunam> however, there will be some changes to what we have access to and quite potentially some payment monthly we will need to make to GNi
16:22 <@tgall_foo> fmccor: it's a goal ... not a deadline :-D
16:22 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I hope today, let's say end of day tomorrow, have a bunch of home improvement to do, got stalled last night, damn can of mud was dry and solid :(
16:22 <@tsunam> something like bandwidth+power or such
16:22  * wltjr has no problem with Gentoo paying for infra services if funds are available and/or we have revnue
16:22 <@fmccor> tgall_foo, This is an instance where it would be better if we could all get together in a locked room until it was done.
16:23 <@wltjr> fmccor: yeah I was really thinking IRC
16:23 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, do you know approx costs and how it fits our ability to pay
16:23 <@wltjr> what if we do a by laws day?
16:23 <@wltjr> we set aside one day to all sit and hash out the by laws
16:23 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: no costs at this point have been discussed
16:23 <@tgall_foo> fmccor: yes it would ... 
16:23 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, thanks
16:23 <@tsunam> It was also brought up that GNi felt and I concur that 501(c)3 was a very important aspect to support 
16:23 <@wltjr> I think it's more ideal to both Gentoo and our Sponsors to meet them half way if possible
16:24 <@wltjr> I have no problem with 501c3, we just need to look into what happens if we do something wrong in the first 5 years, and lose status
16:24 <@wltjr> I don't see that being an issue, but we should still be aware before going forward
16:24 <@fmccor> wltjr, by laws day is fine if we can find one.
16:24 <@tgall_foo> ok .. so for something actionable there ...  seems like a by-laws day ?
16:24 <@tsunam> I have a contact that has done 501(c)3's and has an organization as such that I"m in contact with
16:24 <@wltjr> fmccor: yeah and time zones don't help, really it shouldn't be more than 3-4 hours or so
16:25 < jmbsvicetto> open to the members or just for the trustees? (bylaws day)
16:25 <@NeddySeagoon> it can't be a day ... we are spread over 8 timezones
16:25 <@wltjr> tsunam: yes but it's not up to us
16:25 <@wltjr> tsunam: we are relying on 4 other boards
16:25 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, it'll just seem like a day
16:25 <@tsunam> wltjr: 4 other boards?
16:25 <@tgall_foo> first week in may ?
16:25 <@wltjr> tsunam: 5 years, 1 + 4
16:25 <@NeddySeagoon> Does everyone have VoIP ?   Can we do it voice ?  it will be faster
16:25 <@tsunam> wltjr: if its setup properly, they should have no ability to violate it in that time
16:25 <@wltjr> tsunam: I don't want to see our hard work go down the drain and status revoked to a private charity, without possibility of seeking 501c3 again
16:25 <@fmccor> No.
16:26 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: I could, but no mic generally unless I'm on the desktop
16:26 <@wltjr> tsunam: yes, lots of ways to violate even if on accident
16:26  * fmccor does not have VoIP
16:26 <@NeddySeagoon> Scratch VoIP
16:26 <@wltjr> tsunam: again I don't see it being a huge issue, but there is the potential liability, and not sure about you, I want to make sure my efforts last
16:26 <@tsunam> wltjr: you have a serious issue of trust :(. Ultimately you have to rely and believe that those who take over will do the right thing
16:27 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, you might still be a trustee in 5 years
16:27 <@wltjr> tsunam: I think it's proven on avg humans don't do the right thing, without some rules  :)
16:27 <@tsunam> wltjr: saying we're not doing something because of what someone in the future might do...is sabatoge of the entire organization
16:27 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: sure, but there are lots of circumstances
16:27 <@wltjr> ok let me put it this way
16:27 <@fmccor> Yes, in general there is little turn over in a Corporate Board.
16:27 <@wltjr> if it was easy to become a 501c3, the IRS wouldn't require a 5 year probation or what ever period :)
16:27 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, All we can do is lay a solid foundation for others to build on
16:28 <@wltjr> I agree, but again there is a reason the IRS waits 5 years before granting status forever
16:28 <@tgall_foo> the linux kernel would have serious problems if it didn't have a network for trust ....
16:28 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: At this point are you sure there'll be gentoo distro in 5 years?
16:28 <@tgall_foo> anyway ... is there something actionable here ?
16:28 <@tsunam> currently no
16:28 <@wltjr> those reasons might be some what out of our control, and I just want to know what happens with then $hit hits the fan
16:28 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: if we do things right yes
16:28 <@tgall_foo> ok ... so any other business ?
16:29 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: if we do things right, Gentoo might be able to start funding and carrying itself, and really moving foward, securing it's own future
16:29  * tgall_foo needs to get going
16:29 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I like your email thread per section ... it will save bandwidth.  Any reason not to to it on -nfp ?
16:29 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: not at all, just might get more input and lengthy process, but section by section will keep each email lenght managable :)
16:29 <@NeddySeagoon> yep
16:30 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, AoB ?
16:30 <@wltjr> ok, so we need to wrap up, and give some time for open floor
16:30 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, AoB ?
16:30  * fmccor has nothing else.
16:30 <@wltjr> tsunam: so anything immediate from GNi? are we ok between now and next meeting or will we need to pay them at all
16:30 <@tgall_foo> AoB ?   
16:30 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: no just to wrap up where things are at wrt to GNi
16:30 <@tgall_foo> rather AoB == ??
16:30 <@tsunam> wltjr: currently nothing
16:31 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, Any other Business ... the current agenda item :)
16:31 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: Any other Business
16:31 <@tsunam> wltjr: I will need to talk with derek some more about the options and get an update
16:31 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, AoB == none for me
16:31 <@wltjr> tsunam: ok, so we can get an update next month, and hopefully not invoices/bills in the mean time
16:31 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, AoB ?
16:31 <@tsunam> jmbsvicetto: I knew what AOB is =)
16:31  * fmccor didn't. :(
16:31 <@wltjr> tsunam: cool, no worries, not trying to pester or bug, just wanting to know if we need to act sooner than later
16:31 <@tsunam> wltjr: I know
16:31 <@NeddySeagoon> Nothing from me either
16:31 <@wltjr> finally got in touch with a buddy from Sonic.net yesterday, so will lobby them soon
16:32 <@NeddySeagoon> 7.   Open floor
16:32 <@wltjr> tsunam: you got my emial about being in CA next week/weekend 29th-4th
16:32 <@tsunam> wltjr: aye
16:32 <@tsunam> wltjr: not sure, south bay area folk don't tend to like to head up to SFO 
16:33 <@NeddySeagoon> SFO ?
16:33 <@wltjr> tsunam: yeah, wasn't sure if the indian place was worth a meet
16:33 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: san francisco
16:33 <@tgall_foo> say .. did anyone still have in their buffer or grab a log?  I alas didn't remember to start saving until 14:33 local time
16:33 <@tgall_foo> I was taking minutes tho so things are at least recorded 
16:33 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, Well, my logger is here
16:34 <@NeddySeagoon> and its all in my back buffer
16:34 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: sorry
16:34 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: meant tgall_foo 
16:34 <@tsunam> jmbsvicetto: lol no worries =)
16:34 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, groovy .. could you send it to me via email then?
16:34 <@tgall_foo> I'll push the minutes out this evening
16:34 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, ok
16:34 <@NeddySeagoon> Anything for open floor ?
16:34 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, thanks!
16:34 <@wltjr> Philantrop: did you have something?
16:34 < Philantrop> May I just ask why non-devs should be members of the Foundation? I didn't really find a reason on -nfp@.
16:35 < Philantrop> wltjr: ^^^
16:35 <@tgall_foo> Philantrop, what is your definiton of a non-dev ?
16:35 <@wltjr> Philantrop: just a default, I think we will have provisions for them to remove themselves
16:35 < Philantrop> tgall_foo: Anyone who's not in our LDAP.
16:35 <@NeddySeagoon> As the bylaws are being proposed, there is no provision for non devs to be menbers
16:35 <@tsunam> Philantrop: I beleive the main reason for that ability is that people are looking for those who have specialization in running business's/nfp's and wuld do better then developers
16:35 <@wltjr> Philantrop: just a convienience, since they are contributing, part of the community, etc
16:35 <@tgall_foo> Philantrop, so what would be their interesting gentoo then ?
16:36 <@wltjr> Philantrop: are you talking users, or like gentoo staff?
16:36 < Philantrop> wltjr: Ex-devs.
16:36 <@NeddySeagoon> Longer term, it might be a good idea as they have wider interests than the dev pool
16:36 <@wltjr> then again my thoughts are kinda the same for all
16:36 <@tsunam> wltjr: gentoo staff are in ldap
16:36 <@wltjr> Philantrop: well door should be open to them, but keep in mind, application is not acceptance
16:36 <@tgall_foo> Philantrop, well if they remove the "ex" ....  
16:36 <@wltjr> atm acceptance is determined by a vote of the members
16:37 <@wltjr> I would like to see that expanded a bit, or requirements reduced, so all members don't have to vote anytime someone wants in
16:37 <@wltjr> trustees/officers should have some say or influence on acceptance, maybe
16:37 <@tgall_foo> I dunno .. I have a bit of a problem with people being involved with an organization and not willing to be a member ... IE if you want to be a foundation member and volunteer the time .. you ought to be able to maintain dev status
16:37 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: There's nothing preventing non-devs from becoming officers
16:37 <@wltjr> Philantrop: does that address your concern?
16:37 <@NeddySeagoon> lets get the bylaws adopted first ... they can be amended later
16:37 < Philantrop> tgall_foo: Exactly my point.
16:38 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I think Wulf's (Philantrop) question is about members
16:38 <@wltjr> I think if a status is removed for some negative reason, that would be grounds for declination of application
16:38 <@wltjr> but any former dev, is the same as someone not affiliated with gentoo
16:38 < Philantrop> More specifically: I don't really feel comfortable with someone who has been a dev some years ago to still influence the GF.
16:38 <@wltjr> they can come back as a user, or foundation member, I guess, shouldn't be anything wrong with that
16:39 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, it will be an interesting email thread
16:39 <@wltjr> Philantrop: their influence will be very minor, just a voice as one of an unlimited number of members
16:39 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, but they have a vote
16:39 <@wltjr> Philantrop: no way for a single person really to have much influence, unless they have followers that are members :)
16:39 <@wltjr> but action requires 1/3 of members
16:39 < Philantrop> wltjr: You're the one with the trust issue ;-) - what if they team up?
16:39 <@fmccor> Philantrop, I guess I disagree.  It's quite possible for someone to have an interest in Gentoo but not wish to be a developer.
16:39 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, it's like selling your shares in a company .. and coming back to the stock holder's meeting and voting
16:39 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, Why, its not technical influence ?
16:40 <@wltjr> Philantrop: I believe the power section gives the board/officers power to overrule, if not we can see about adding that
16:40 <@wltjr> yes, but this is volunteer
16:40 <@wltjr> I might volunteer to the Red Cross today, then take a few years off, and then go on a mission 
16:40 <@wltjr> what's wrong with that? 
16:40 < Philantrop> NeddySeagoon: Well, you seem to agree with wolf's mail on -nfp@ that you want to "drive the distribution". That would be more than just keeping Gentoo's assets which I think the Foundation should be limited ot.
16:40 < Philantrop> *to
16:40 < jmbsvicetto> I think we could gain a lot from moving in the direction of the Mozilla Foundation or the Fedora/OpenSuSE involvement of users
16:41 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, nothing ...  and during that time if you go ex-dev ... then come back ...  just get rid of the ex... that's all I sask
16:41 <@tgall_foo> s/sask/ask/
16:41 < Philantrop> tgall_foo: Exactly.
16:41 <@wltjr> sure, but when I come back i might come back in a non-dev form
16:41 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, I read wolfs email to mean "facilitate by opening doors"
16:41 <@tgall_foo> and we have a very liberal definition of developer here
16:41 <@wltjr> maybe I am older wiser, went from being a programmer, to managing groups of them
16:41 <@fmccor> Yes, it will be an interesting thread.  I strongly disagree with Foundation members must be developers.
16:42 <@wltjr> who knows, but wrt to foundation and members, all we are talking is ideas
16:42 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, heh cat herding
16:42 < Philantrop> wltjr: Then you probably don't have enough interest in Gentoo. It's really simple to become any kind of dev.
16:42 <@wltjr> Philantrop: there is more to Gentoo than just technical aspects
16:42 <@fmccor> Developers are actually pretty ill suited for the role (in my opinion only).
16:42 <@wltjr> Philantrop: what about education?
16:42 <@wltjr> that's part of our mission, what if I want to teach people Gentoo
16:42 < Philantrop> wltjr: Docs, forums staff, etc. - all devs.
16:42 <@tgall_foo> fmccor: right .. but remember ...  we have a very liberal definition of developer here
16:42 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, its not so simple to become staff.  Staff are often invited
16:43 <@wltjr> Philantrop: what about users or teachers who teach Gentoo in school
16:43 <@wltjr> Philantrop: or sys admins who use our stuff daily
16:43 < Philantrop> wltjr: Why should they have *any* influence on the Gentoo Foundation?
16:43 <@wltjr> Philantrop: chicken and egg
16:43 <@tgall_foo> there might be a new "class" of developer who doesn't write code or docs or work on infra .. but still does something else
16:43 <@wltjr> Philantrop: no users, no distro, even if there are devs, no sponsors, no infra
16:43 <@wltjr> Philantrop: think ebay, do they care about sellers, no
16:43 <@fmccor> tgall_foo, That would be Foundation member, no?
16:43 <@tgall_foo> but before that happens .. people are going to have to be convinced it's a class of dev that makes sense
16:44 <@wltjr> Philantrop: no buyers, no sellers
16:44 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, Looking back over the time since the Foundation was started, there is little evidence that developers want to run it
16:44 < Philantrop> NeddySeagoon: Not to run it but to influence it.
16:44 <@wltjr> Philantrop: and there is a ton of non-developer work to be done
16:44 <@fmccor> Foundation is almost all non-developer.
16:44 < Philantrop> NeddySeagoon: Especially if you want to do more than just safe-keeping the assets.
16:44 <@wltjr> Philantrop: it's more than that
16:45 <@wltjr> Philantrop: what do you consider things with sponors? an assest? 
16:45 < Philantrop> wltjr: It shouldn't be, IMHO.
16:45 < Philantrop> wltjr: Of course.
16:45 <@wltjr> Philantrop: and what about when there are no assests?
16:45 <@wltjr> as in funds?
16:45 < Philantrop> wltjr: Then we don't need a Foundation.
16:45 < Philantrop> wltjr: Assets != funds.
16:45 <@wltjr> Philantrop: a foundation can also generate such things, not just be accountable
16:46 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, Well, they didn't want to influence it either...  We have 28 nicks in the channel, 5 trustees, my logger leaves 22 nicks who might by trying to infulence us
16:46 <@wltjr> Philantrop: point is we have not done fund raising, etc
16:46 < Philantrop> wltjr: Think of the Gentoo trademark in the USA.
16:46 <@wltjr> Philantrop: that's one aspect, but not all of it, or mission is beyond just assets and trade mark enforcement
16:47 <@tgall_foo> well sounds like this is a deeper discussion as part of our membership discussion for the bylaws
16:47 < Philantrop> NeddySeagoon: Give them some time... :-)
16:47 <@wltjr> and that's as things are now, if we can do all those things and move beyond to what like wolf and others have spoken of
16:47 <@fmccor> Philantrop, I think we all have a view of where the Foundation should be headed, and I suspect yours and mine are different. :)
16:47 < Philantrop> fmccor: Most likely, yes. :-)
16:47 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, So far its been yourself and jmbsvicetto 
16:47 <@wltjr> Philantrop: bottom line to have real influence over the foundation, you need to be on the board or an officer, members have limited powers to a point
16:47 <@tgall_foo> if there isn't anything else to be raised ... I suspect a motion to adjourn woudl be good so the membership .... discussion to go somewhere where there are drinks involved
16:48 < Philantrop> NeddySeagoon: Yes, but just wait till you have details on GNi... :->
16:48 <@wltjr> wrt to NM, members are pretty much powerless :) and for most all other legal matters, and it seems board and trustees can overrule members, so :)
16:48 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, I don't think we will resolve anyting here.  The bylaws will be on -nfp  you can comment on the emails there
16:48 <@NeddySeagoon> Can we close the meeting please
16:48 < Philantrop> NeddySeagoon: Yes.
16:48 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: agrees we should adjorn meeting
16:48 <@fmccor> wltjr, everything comes down to the board.
16:48 <@tgall_foo> motion to adjourn
16:48 <@fmccor> second
16:48 <@NeddySeagoon> seconded
16:48 <@wltjr> fmccor: which is why we are on it
16:48 <@NeddySeagoon> Vote
16:48 <@wltjr> yeah
16:48 <@tgall_foo> yes
16:49 <@NeddySeagoon> yes
16:49 <@fmccor> yes
16:49 <@tsunam> yes
16:49 <@NeddySeagoon> Carried 
16:49 <@NeddySeagoon> Date of next meeting 
16:49 <@NeddySeagoon> ??
16:49 <@tgall_foo> thanks everyone!  (2 weeks aka May 4th 19:00 UTC)
16:49 <@NeddySeagoon> For the bylaws ?
16:50 <@NeddySeagoon> Meeting Closed