path: root/2008/051808.txt

15:00  * NeddySeagoon calls the meeting to order
15:00 <@NeddySeagoon> Roll call
15:00 <@fmccor> Hello
15:00 <@tsunam> here
15:00 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, tgall_foo tsunam wltjr 
15:00 <@fmccor> Hello again
15:01 <@tsunam> got 30 minutes remember
15:01 < jmbsvicetto> back
15:01 <@NeddySeagoon> We have a quorum ... lets start
15:01 <@NeddySeagoon> Intoductions - I think we can skip that
15:01 <@NeddySeagoon> Foundation Bylaws Status ...
15:02 <@NeddySeagoon> We are legal again - see the link in topic  
15:02  * wltjr is present
15:02 <@fmccor> Now all we have to do to stay legal is make sure the annual reports are filed.
15:02 <@NeddySeagoon> Oops sorry fmccor that was your topic
15:02 <@fmccor> I just finished it.
15:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Foundation Bylaws Status - wltjr please say a few words ..  
15:03 <@wltjr> a few words, we are still working on it, I think we are on to the members article, just need to discuss it on -ml, I have been short of time, but don't want that to hold up the process
15:04 <@tsunam> and I don't want to review until its complete
15:04 <@wltjr> possibly should revise that section, make sure there is asection/article on amending the bylaws and then can stamp them as official anytime, and make changes afterwards
15:04 <@NeddySeagoon> we are discussing it here at 19:00 UTC next Saturday - Thats not a formal meeting :)
15:05 <@fmccor> Er, Sunday?
15:05 <@fmccor> I don't care, but need to know which ahead of time.
15:05 <@wltjr> tsunam: that's fine but if you omit taking part in the in depth review, I doubt we will want to revist sections you aren't happy with in depth again afterward
15:05 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, well spotted - I just wanted to make sure you were awake
15:05 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: About the meetings, you still need to clarify which powers will be granted to the officers/trustees and which require a foundation vote
15:05 <@NeddySeagoon> Its in /topic
15:05 <@wltjr> tsunam: so review in entirity is entirely your choice
15:05 <@fmccor> barely.
15:05 <@tsunam> wltjr: duh as far as my choice
15:05 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: I plan to go through the entire thing, and will before end of term, but I can't devote a ton of time to this
15:06 <@tsunam> wltjr: as far as Im concerned revising sections is all good, just need to review the full document as well to make sure it all still makes sense
15:06 <@wltjr> after all I am a dev out of necessity, not want or for fun, so I still have to make time for that, and only have so much for gentoo in general
15:06 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: imho, the meetings section has a direct dependency on that
15:06 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: understood
15:06 <@fmccor> wltjr, Actually, all you need to be is a member of the Foundation.
15:06 <@wltjr> tsunam: sure, I understand your point of view, I have to stop at times and review it as a whole to speak on any sections, just saying don't want to nit pick it again, just after doing that :)
15:06 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, feel free to comment on -nfp
15:07 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: I am still not 100% happy with the meeting section
15:07 <@NeddySeagoon> The bylaws so far are linked from /topic 
15:07 <@wltjr> but trying to move on, I think the meeting section should cover all meetings, foundation, board, officers, etc, not just members if there is ever a member meeting
15:08 <@wltjr> fmccor:not sure what that comment refers to about being a member of foudation?
15:08 <@NeddySeagoon> I think thats enough of a progress update.
15:08 <@wltjr> really no progress since last meeting on that topic, which was beneficial
15:08 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Gentoo Foundation Banking    your turn
15:09 <@tsunam> since we're legal I can begin talking to the 3-4 banks I was about what really is an option 
15:09 <@tsunam> and with our ein its not related to any of our tax records
15:09 <@NeddySeagoon> so nothing stopping progress now ?
15:09 <@tsunam> i need to talk to grant and see how old the check is...its a possibility that its far too old currently to be deposited and would need to get a new reissue of it
15:09 <@tsunam> shouldn't be no
15:09 <@tsunam> minus the check =)
15:10 <@NeddySeagoon> heh - yeah
15:10 <@NeddySeagoon> What about our end of year on 30 June   do you have to do any special then?
15:10 <@tsunam> nothing special for my stuff
15:11 <@NeddySeagoon> Just make up the accounts I suppose ?
15:11 <@tsunam> I need to get the quarterly reports done by then even if I won't be happy with the total difference between what we really have and what we probably have
15:11 <@fmccor> Lawyer is sending us specific information about what we have to file and when to keep NM happy.
15:11 <@wltjr> we likely need to find and retain an accountant
15:11 <@tsunam> any reason not to send payment to the lawyer anymore :-P
15:11 <@NeddySeagoon> Then on the 1st July ... its all our problem, since its a new business year
15:11 <@wltjr> tsunam: no, he did his job, pay him ;)
15:12 <@fmccor> tsunam, No.
15:12 <@tsunam> else I'll make the payment this coming week
15:12 <@NeddySeagoon> No
15:12 <@tsunam> announcement will go to -nfp like previously done
15:12 <@fmccor> There will be one more bill, because he did some work in May.  It should be small.
15:12 <@wltjr> unless we want to blame him for typo in tgall name :)
15:12 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, When do you think we will have a bank ?
15:12 <@tsunam> before our next election I hope
15:12 <@tsunam> depends ont the check neddy
15:12 <@wltjr> we also need to find a new RA ASAP before we incur any further bills from Mr. Chew
15:13 <@fmccor> wltjr, As I recall, the paperwork itself was fine. (As to names)
15:13 <@wltjr> I would assume whom ever we retain as a accountain could serve as RA
15:13 <@wltjr> fmccor: yeah, was just nit picking :) nothing that Mr. Chew did
15:13 <@NeddySeagoon> Is there a reason to retain two guys ?
15:14 <@fmccor> wltjr, I'd like to tie all of that to the discussion of where we end up --- i.e., if we want to move states.
15:14 <@tsunam> nothing in particular no
15:14 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, makes sense.  So a new RA is low priority ?
15:14 <@fmccor> I'd say for enxt meeting.
15:14 <@fmccor> ^next^
15:15 <@wltjr> fmccor: I agree
15:15 <@fmccor> Meaning for June.
15:15 <@NeddySeagoon> That soon ... ok, lets move on
15:15 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: as long as Mr. Chew doesn't have to do anything
15:15 <@NeddySeagoon> Bugs Assigned to Trustees
15:15 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, As opposed to before then.  July might be better, but not much later.
15:15 <@wltjr> I will see about drafting something up for the SSL bug if we are to proceed with CA cert
15:15 <@wltjr> fmccor: no sooner than later, June
15:16 <@fmccor> wltjr, Matters not to me. :)
15:16 <@wltjr> we need to find a new RA, I don't want to see any further bills from Mr. Chew, he is not affordable and we are spending others $
15:16 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, thats 117837 Funding request: wildcard SSL cert - Awaiting Reincorporation  ?
15:17 <@NeddySeagoon> Since time is short, I would like to move to # 176598 Illegal redistribution of sourcecode from 3gpp.org
15:17 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yeah I believe so, can't recall offhand
15:17 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: infra priority
15:17 <@NeddySeagoon> either its stalled or we need to poke someone
15:18 <@NeddySeagoon> We need to look after everyones IPR
15:18 <@NeddySeagoon> does anyone know anything about  176598 ?
15:19 <@wltjr> no, but quick read says we need to contact some package maintainers and have the modify what they are distributing with the package, as in not mirror, and pull directly from source
15:19 <@wltjr> s/have the/have them
15:20 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, its just a comment on the bug to get them to fetch restrict it, if its still being mirrored ?
15:20 < Philantrop> NeddySeagoon: I mailed upstream about what I wrote in comment 1 but never got a response
15:20 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: technically SSL bug 108944, but 176598 deps on it, so related 
15:20 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yes, comment on bug, be we need to follow up and make sure it takes place, and or take action directly if not
15:21 <@wltjr> s/be we/but we
15:21 <@NeddySeagoon> Philantrop, We have to act on the information we have ... if that means taking off the mirrors, thats what we have to see is done
15:21 <@tsunam> 176598 has already been resolved, lu_zero has said he'll stop it from being mirrored
15:22 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, Thanks - I missed that
15:22 <@wltjr> tsunam: ok, any reason he didn't close it, was he the only maintainer effected
15:22 <@NeddySeagoon> 99151 Request for advertisement space and vendor listing - is new, in that I missed it last time.  What do we do for this one ?
15:23 <@wltjr> tsunam: read his comment, but wasn't sure because it wasn't closed
15:23 <@wltjr> tsunam: I would is not I did
15:23 <@wltjr> unless 'd is did, not would
15:23 <@tsunam> easy enough to check 
15:23 <@tsunam> sec
15:24 < jmbsvicetto> tsunam: I read "I'd stop" and not "I'll stop". I might misunderstood the comment, though
15:24 <@fmccor> tsunam, It's distributed in a separate package, it seems, which has RESTRICT="mirror"
15:25 <@wltjr> no mention of bug 176598 in ffmpeg changelog
15:25 <@tsunam> both amr* have restrict=mirror
15:25 <@NeddySeagoon> Can it be closed ?
15:25 <@fmccor> media-libs/amrnb
15:25 <@tsunam> fmccor: what I looked at
15:25 <@tsunam> yes it can
15:25 <@wltjr> would have been nice if they mentioned that and/or the bug in Changelog
15:25 <@NeddySeagoon> Can we do it ?
15:26 <@fmccor> Ha!
15:26 <@wltjr> tsunam: what mplayer ebuild has restrict mirror? I see restrict strip
15:26 <@NeddySeagoon> 99151 Request for advertisement space and vendor listing - is new, in that I missed it last time.  What do we do for this one ?
15:26 <@tsunam> wltjr: mplayer doesn't need it
15:27 <@tsunam> wltjr: only amr* does asa that's what is what is in question
15:27 <@wltjr> tsunam: the bug says is does? I see no restrict on ffmpeg either, what package are we talking about
15:27 <@tsunam> both ffmpeg and mplayer depend on amr* for amr*
15:27 <@tsunam> wltjr: fail
15:27 <@fmccor> They depend on media-libs/amrnb which has the RESTRICT
15:28 <@tsunam> media-libs/amrnb and amr*
15:28 <@tsunam> whatever the other amr package is
15:28 <@tsunam> both those are restricted
15:28 <@wltjr> tsunam: ok, would be nice if the bug mentioned that
15:28 <@tsunam> wltjr: just look at the ebuilds :-P
15:28 <@fmccor> I think they changed it for the bug.
15:28 <@wltjr> tsunam: now that I am grepping the right ones :)
15:29 <@fmccor> mplayer ebuild, at least, still mentions the source URL for it, but doesn't use it any more.
15:30 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, before you go, DONM 15 June ?   
15:30 <@tsunam> donm?
15:30 <@NeddySeagoon> thats Fathers day on my US calander
15:30 <@tsunam> k
15:30 <@NeddySeagoon> Date Of Next Meeting
15:30 <@tsunam> works for me
15:31 <@tsunam> I don't have anything going on currently then
15:31 <@fmccor> Fine for me, too.
15:31 <@wltjr> um, no more holidays
15:31 <@NeddySeagoon> everyone else ?
15:31 <@NeddySeagoon> ok, 15 June it is
15:31 <@tsunam> lol poor wltjr 
15:31 <@wltjr> that makes it too difficult, as I had to choose over a family gathering last time
15:31 <@tsunam> wltjr: go to the family meeting :-P
15:31 <@fmccor> Do it the 22nd then.
15:31 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, how much time do you have ?
15:31 <@tsunam> use your phone to ssh in ;)
15:31 <@wltjr> tsunam: poor you to not have a family gathering of your own not to attend :)
15:31 <@tsunam> about another 10 minutes
15:31 <@NeddySeagoon> 22nd is OK too
15:31 <@wltjr> no, family time is family time
15:32 <@tsunam> wltjr: I'm 4 hours from the closest family, and instead I have good friends I can get together with so :-P
15:32 <@wltjr> it's not a big deal, just expect me to be MIA :)
15:32 <@fmccor> It's silly not to work around schedules when we know a month in advance.
15:32 <@NeddySeagoon> 22nd then 
15:32 <@tsunam> also fine
15:32 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, ^^
15:32 <@wltjr> tsunam: well friends can be some what like family, but still aren't blood
15:32 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yep :)
15:33 <@NeddySeagoon> DONM agreed as 22 Jun 1900 UTC here
15:33 <@tsunam> wltjr: blood isn't always friends and you still don't have to like your family :-P
15:33 <@tsunam> but anyways...
15:33 <@wltjr> fmccor: my family is tight, the things we do for each other, even my life long friends would not do for me, or vice versa
15:33 <@wltjr> er, tsunam  :)
15:33 <@NeddySeagoon> 99151 Request for advertisement space and vendor listing   <--- agenda itme 
15:33 <@NeddySeagoon> whats that about
15:33 <@wltjr> tsunam: one of my uncles lended another > $100k to save his business and family, you got a friend who would do that?
15:34 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, agenda please
15:34 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: that's soooo old
15:34 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, yeah bit its not closed ... just close it ?
15:34 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: but this is where we have no policy for sponsors, donors, advertisers
15:35 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: well I am not sure the original offer is even on the table any more, almost 3 years later
15:35 <@tsunam> considering the age of the bug, it should be closed ;(
15:35 <@NeddySeagoon> then we want to use that bug to trigger policy discussions etc ?
15:35 <@tsunam> due to said age
15:35 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: that'd be for the best
15:35 <@wltjr> close bug, file another that we need to have policies for such
15:35 <@tsunam> sponsor/donations should go the trustee's as SOP
15:35 <@wltjr> like what qualifies a sponsor for getting an ad on g.o, or just metion on sponsor page, etc
15:36 <@NeddySeagoon> ok we close the bug and add an agenda item for sponsors policy
15:36 <@tsunam> *nods*
15:36 <@NeddySeagoon> sdp ?
15:36 <@wltjr> works fo rme
15:36 <@fmccor> Fair enough.
15:36 <@tsunam> NeddySeagoon: standard operating procedure
15:36 <@NeddySeagoon> I'll do that after the meeting
15:37 <@NeddySeagoon> 126707 Proposal to fund bugday incentives/rewards  wasn't someone going to close that ?
15:37 <@tsunam> yes
15:37 <@fmccor> Yes.
15:37 <@NeddySeagoon> I'll do that too while I'm in bugsie
15:37 <@tsunam> k
15:37 <@NeddySeagoon> 77966 Clarify Foundation page on external entities
15:37 <@tsunam> now I'm out, have a good afternoon all, and I'll get done what I talked about 
15:38 <@NeddySeagoon> tsunam, enjoy
15:38 <@NeddySeagoon> We continue to be quorate - withdrawal of a member does not affect the quorum
15:39 <@NeddySeagoon> 77966 Clarify Foundation page on external entities  ?
15:39 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: already worked and closed the bugs in question so far, just FYI
15:39 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, thanks
15:39 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: np
15:39 <@NeddySeagoon> IS 77966 tied into Sponsors discussions ?
15:40 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: is that the correct bug #?
15:40 <@fmccor> No, 177966
15:40 <@wltjr> :)
15:40 <@NeddySeagoon> I messed up the copy and paste
15:41 <@wltjr> np, I think we can close as later or etc, this is exactly what we will be addressing in the member section of the bylaws
15:41 <@fmccor> To be honest, I don't even know what the bug means.
15:41 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, ok, we keep it open until bylaws are approved
15:41 <@wltjr> or leave open till we revise that section, I think they want disclosure of how gentoo is effected by outside influence
15:41 <@NeddySeagoon> 205965 [Tracker] Legal Issues - still empty
15:42 <@NeddySeagoon> 212021 Consider switching to Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 - copyright mess.  In essence, we cant do this
15:42 <@wltjr> unless we are filing other bugs for like bank account, tax/end of year reporting/filing, etc, then there is no point to it being open
15:42 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I would just close 205965, till we have something to track, and we can open a new tracker bug :)
15:43 <@wltjr> doing so now, unless others feel different
15:43 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, we should not have bugs for routine management activity
15:43 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I agree, so closing :)
15:43 <@NeddySeagoon> ok
15:43 <@wltjr> Looks like there was a dep bug, but it's resolved
15:43 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, you are very quiet
15:44 <@fmccor> I thought we did 212021,  maybe not.
15:44 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, That happens sometimes. :)
15:44 <@wltjr> we talked about it for sure at a past meeting, but wasn't sure we decided upon it
15:44 <@NeddySeagoon> We did it last month and it all got very difficult - we got bogged down
15:44 <@wltjr> have to check minutes, but I think we left it for another meeting
15:45 <@NeddySeagoon> We don't hold copyright therefore cant relicence
15:46 <@wltjr> ok, but should it be used for any new stuff?
15:46 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: Wasn't that CC-SA 3.0 bug about gentoo documentation?
15:46 <@fmccor> I'd say move to using the new license on new documents, at least.
15:46 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, it was about trustees pages
15:46 <@wltjr> yeah, if we can't relicense old stuff, fine, any new stuff must be CC-SA 3.0
15:46 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, agreed
15:47 < jmbsvicetto> fmccor: Seems a good idea
15:47 <@wltjr> shall I comment as such? but then what other action do we need to take to close bug?
15:47 <@NeddySeagoon> OK, we will close the bug on that basis
15:47 <@wltjr> I doubt stating all new docs should use CC-SA 3.0 in a bug will have any effect :)
15:47 < jmbsvicetto> fmccor: One could also ask authors of older docs if they would be willing to relicense it as CC-SA 3.0
15:47 <@fmccor> True.
15:48 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, you have to find *all* the contributors
15:48 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: well we should comment, but not close till we update any documents that mention what license it should go under, some place more visible than closed bug
15:48 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: You could set it as policy - like gentoo ebuilds are GPL-2
15:48 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: I meant for one doc at a time
15:48 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, that works for me
15:48 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: yeah but where is that stated? in a doc somewhere right?
15:48 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I think that's somewhere in the mission / philosophy or trustees page
15:48 <@fmccor> wltjr, It's in most of our documents that they are under CC ...
15:49 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: ok, will comment that we can't relicense, all new stuff will be CC-SA 3.0, but bug won't be closed till documentation/policies are updated to reflect that
15:49 <@fmccor> jmbsvicetto, Yes, it is.
15:49 <@wltjr> well if it'
15:49 <@wltjr> if it's not stated, we should state it somewhere, this might be another followed, but undocumented policy, which I hate
15:49 <@fmccor> It's documented somewhere.
15:49 <@fmccor> Just don't recall where.
15:49 <@wltjr> ok cool, then once updated, bug can be closed
15:50 <@wltjr> no worries, we can find out via bug, and others help there
15:50 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, comment on the bug, and we will find somewhere in our docs to make it clear
15:50 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml - under the "Gentoo is and will remain Free Software"
15:50 <@fmccor> I've seen it, perhaps in the developer documentation someplace.
15:50 <@NeddySeagoon> thanks jmbsvicetto 
15:51 <@NeddySeagoon>     * 217511 The Gentoo Store is Out of Date
15:51 <@fmccor> Creative Commons - Attribution / Share Alike version 2 (or later, at our discretion).
15:51 <@fmccor> We're covered.
15:52 <@NeddySeagoon> I would like to appoint some officers to run the Gentoo store and expand it to outlets in the major economic zones where GEntoo has a following
15:52 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: we likely need to do something different wrt to the store, for sure wrt to release media
15:52 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: this one likely needs to be put back a meeting or two
15:52 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I would like to see us have a meeting in July or August maybe entirely devoted to funding the foundation
15:52 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, agreed - I'm just stirring the pot a little
15:52 <@wltjr> oh crap, we let tsunam go to early, GNi status?
15:53 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: sure, I just think we need to do something drastically different
15:53 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I have no problem with a single topic session as long as the prep is done beforehand
15:53 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I am not opposed to having others run the store, but FYI, I would like to see the board and officers split off
15:54 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: if when that took place, the store could easily fall under a duty of the officers
15:54 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, tsunam no longer works there.  I do know its stablised though
15:54 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: interesting
15:54 <@wltjr> I am really concerned about our sponsors other than OSUOSL, and like Arizona State
15:54 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, the board and officers split is allowed, even encouraged  in the bylaws
15:55 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I think it's necessary
15:55 <@wltjr> I would like to see an increasing size/number long term board, with a fixed # of limited term officers
15:55 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I think its an excellent long term aim but we are like a new startup at the moment
15:56 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yep so much to do, so little time and man power, but we will get it done, maybe change the world in the process :)
15:56 <@NeddySeagoon> Think Apple and just Steve and Steve
15:56 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I agree.
15:56 <@wltjr> yep and what happend to Apple with no Steve :)
15:56 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I mean in the pre APPLE ][ days
15:56 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: revist store bug in future meeting
15:57 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: ah, same page :)
15:57 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, agreed
15:57 <@fmccor> I don't think we're in a position to go looking for officers besides ourselves just yet.
15:57 <@wltjr> fmccor: I agree, definitely not till we have defined roles and duties for them
15:57 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, I think we are pretty close for well defined projects
15:57 <@wltjr> which we should walk in those shoes first, before seeking others to fill
15:58 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, we would have to direct/manage officers
15:58 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: that's the point of a board, oversite :)
15:58 <@NeddySeagoon> anyway, that needs bylaws
15:58 <@wltjr> checks and balances
15:58 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yes
15:58 <@NeddySeagoon> OK, that brings us to   Any other business
15:59 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, ?? do you have  Any other business  for the meeting ?
15:59 <@fmccor> Not necessarily for this one.
15:59 <@wltjr> should we briefly discuss current problem with council?
15:59 <@fmccor> I do want to talk about ways of using our domain name
15:59 <@NeddySeagoon> can't you just say No ?
16:00 <@wltjr> I would like to file a request or have a meeting with them wrt to CoC, and if they feel that really should fall under the council to deal with
16:00 <@fmccor> I'm telegraphing.
16:00 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, well, get it out in the open ... start it now
16:00 <@wltjr> also i am not sure devrel should answer to the council on non-technical matters
16:00 <@fmccor> We spoke about it briefly earlier.  I think we can use it to help with voting and such.
16:00 <@wltjr> if it's a technical dispute brought to devrel, then council, otherwise social, trustees
16:01 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: That is a change of policy
16:01 <@wltjr> fmccor: I think it's good for long term, like what BSD has going on, but not sure of any immediate uses
16:01 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, Not until the present issue is resolved. That *has* to be done under the existing rules as council choose to interpret them
16:01 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: Not that I don't agree with it. Just pointing out that it requires a change in policy
16:02 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: bylaws are our core operating policy
16:02 <@wltjr> there is to much lack of structure wrt to Gentoo
16:02 <@fmccor> wltjr, devrel referees some ebuild "turf" disputes, and I think that's appropriate.  Normal path would be escalate to QA or Council.
16:02 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: agreed
16:02 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, When the dust has settled, and we know who to talk to 
16:02 <@wltjr> fmccor: that's why I feel devrel should make the call who they escalate the matter to
16:02 <@wltjr> most stuff ends up on the councils back because there was no where else to take things
16:02 <@fmccor> wltjr, Actually, we do.
16:03 <@fmccor> wltjr, Well, I do at least.
16:03 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I would think the "escalation" is usually started by the affected parties, not devrel
16:03 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, you make it sound like devrel is very disjoint
16:03 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: this problem, CoC came from the last council, it's taking out the current council, so I think it does need to be prioritized, or a third council will be dealing with CoC
16:04 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, When we are working correctly, almost everything should go to a mediator (ombudsman) whose job it is to fix it.
16:04 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, Its something for after the next council election, whenever that is.
16:04 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: ok, so what happens in the next 2-3 months while a new council is being elected?
16:04 <@wltjr> we are about to go down a really stupid path, that will effect Gentoo
16:05 <@wltjr> no council meetings for 2-3 months? wtf
16:05 <@fmccor> wltjr, It can take no more than a month, as per policy.
16:05 <@wltjr> is anyone really thinking about what they are calling for?
16:05 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, Probably nothing.  but we can't wade in.  Everyone will just unite against us.
16:05 <@wltjr> fmccor: impossible, our election process requires at min 2 months
16:05 <@wltjr> exactly where are policies don't meet reality
16:05 <@fmccor> wltjr, No, we can compress it.
16:05 <@fmccor> I think we did trustees in one month.
16:05 <@wltjr> fmccor: we did for the trustees, it can't be compressed much more wihtout contest
16:06 <@wltjr> fmccor: nope 2, and we didn't take over till 3rd
16:06 <@NeddySeagoon> It can be done in a month - after council make up their minds
16:06 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: how? who will run?
16:06 <@wltjr> you have to have a period of nominations
16:06 <@fmccor> 2 weeks for nominations, to for voting, something like that.
16:06 <@wltjr> this is not practical by any means
16:06 <@NeddySeagoon> 2 weeks nominations, 2 weeks vote
16:06 <@wltjr> ok, so we miss at least 1 council meeting for what?
16:06 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: It took 1 month
16:06 <@wltjr> why are we throwing away a month?
16:07 <@wltjr> it's a min 2 months, because one month will have no council meeting, the second, if there is a new council, will be getting their bearings and dealing with what ever left over mess
16:07 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, You should be able to take the management out for a month with no ill effects whatsoever
16:07 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I also don't see anything in the policy forbidding the council from having a meeting until it's replaced
16:07 <@wltjr> which their first task will likely be GLEP 39 revisal, then CoC
16:07 <@wltjr> all that does what technically for Gentoo?
16:07 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, that depends who gets elected ... or even if there are elections now
16:08 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: this is not management, this is Gentoo's heart and sole, you want to rip that out for a month
16:08 <@wltjr> the council is captain of the ship, they are the leader, we must have one at all times
16:08 <@wltjr> this entire situation is very stupid, we are about to take drastic action over a very minor offence
16:08 <@fmccor> wltjr, Actually, Council has very little effect on us.
16:09 <@wltjr> some might argue this is the best most effective council we have had in years, so yes let's mess that up ASAP
16:09 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I have made my personal opinion clear on -project
16:09 <@fmccor> This Council has spent a lot of time on PMS, and some time talking about CoC.
16:09 <@wltjr> fmccor: if that's true it's because they are wasting time on CoC stuff
16:09 <@wltjr> fmccor: but EAPI/PMS stuff effects all
16:09 <@wltjr> matters the council should be working on are global technical issues, leading the distro forward
16:09 <@wltjr> I can't see how that would not effect all
16:09 <@fmccor> Not much, day to day.
16:10 <@wltjr> fmccor: we say that, but we have never gone down this path
16:10 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, they should be but in practice, they are only technical arbiters
16:10 <@wltjr> we have no clue what the outcome will be, or the mess it will create in the mean time
16:10 <@wltjr> I am not one to follow such half baked ideas, and IMHO GLEP 39 is totall horrible
16:10 <@wltjr> it's mostly opinions, it started as a very unoffical doc, and seems was voted on as such, and still remains such today
16:10 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: It might be horrible, but it was put in place
16:11 <@fmccor> And it was a global decision. :)
16:11 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: that GLEP created the council, it put the council in place, and gave them 100% control over all global mattrers
16:11 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: It was subject to a global vote. So it certainly doesn't have less "strength" than a council elected by general vote
16:11 <@wltjr> which includes their own fate
16:11 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, we can offer help *after* council have made their election/no election decision
16:11 <@wltjr> was there a council before GLEP 39?
16:11 <@wltjr> what gives the council the power they have? it's all the same document
16:11 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: we need to step in above the council
16:11 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I have an opinion about this and I'll be posting it to the -project ml
16:12 <@wltjr> this is a clear case where we have left the rulling body to determine it's own fate
16:12 <@wltjr> show me in GLEP 39 where the council doesn't have power to decided on global descision, including ones that effect them?
16:12 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I don't agree. I think that's left for the dev community
16:12 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, We do not have that authority today. Trustees and Council were created equal with different terms of reference 
16:12 <@wltjr> again GLEP 39 created the council, all that voted on it in a global vote, gave up their global powers to the council
16:13 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: who says we don't have that power?
16:13 <@fmccor> Well, no.
16:13 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: what document states that? the foundation over sees all
16:13 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: My opinion is that *any* decision to change Gentoo's metastructure will always require a global vote
16:13 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: but that is not stated policy
16:13 <@fmccor> jmbsvicetto, Yes.
16:13 <@wltjr> policies can't be assumed
16:13 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I will need to trawl some very old emails
16:13 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: That's how it has always been conducted
16:14 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: there has never been a functioning foundation
16:14 <@wltjr> so yes, let's continue on with lack of structure because there has never been one
16:14 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: As I see it, that's changing from the current policy or view of council being the last buck and the Foundation being a mere holder of IP and assets and move to a view of foundation being the heart of gentoo and delegating techincal matters to council.
16:14 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, but the devs gave a lot of authority to council/trustees
16:14 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: true
16:14 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: this is more inline with Daniels thought process when the foundation was created, instead of what it's become since
16:14 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: But in my view, they never gave them "absolute power" as some have been arguing about
16:14 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: they did, in GLEP 39, what does section B state?
16:15 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: it's as clear as day
16:15 <@wltjr> #
16:15 <@wltjr> Global issues will be decided by an elected Gentoo council.
16:15 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: That's what I plan to address on my mail to project
16:15 <@fmccor> jmbsvicetto, Most definitely not.  The intent of the policy is to put Council and devrel on a pretty tight rein.
16:15 <@wltjr> a global vote gave the council that global power
16:15 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, in the interests of wrapping this up, do you have a motion to propose ?
16:15 <@wltjr> so now you want to strip the council of that power, and go against a policy that was globally voted in
16:15 <@wltjr> now who is not following their own policies?
16:16 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yes, that we contact the council, and see bout taking over the CoC stuff regardless of what else transpires
16:16 <@wltjr> there is nothing in GLEP 39 that has stripped the current council of their power and duties
16:16 <@wltjr> the current council members are still seen as such, and still have power to make global decisions
16:17 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, when ?
16:17 <@wltjr> thus we should not waste any time in contacting them, which we maybe should have a month or two back
16:17 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: ASAP, I guess a joint meeting between council and foundation
16:17 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I agree with you. Until we have elections and a new council, the current one keeps the power
16:18 <@fmccor> wltjr, I'm not sure we are in much better position right now for CoC than Council is.
16:18 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: which their power is global, and nothing states they can't act retroactively
16:18 <@wltjr> fmccor: it's not technical, let's not bog them down with it. granted we aren't much better off as stated
16:18 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: What I disagree with you is that I think the power to change Gentoo's metastructure remains in the hands of the dev community and was not transfered to council or trustees
16:18 <@wltjr> fmccor: in the interest of what's best for Gentoo, we should off the load from the technical lead
16:18 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I cannot support that as its written.
16:19 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: any vote of that nature is purely a courtesy, unless you can find a document requiring it
16:19 <@fmccor> I think that no matter how you go after CoC, you are going to get Proctors in some sort or other, so I suppose you are talking about where they "live"
16:19 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: no problem, so long as my voice is heard
16:20 <@wltjr> because I do see this coming back on Gentoo in some what shape or form, and not in a good way
16:20 <@fmccor> wltjr, I think you are correct in what you are asking for, but I'd like to think it through all the way before forcing it.
16:20 <@wltjr> and if things like this effect the project, all our foundational efforts go right out the window
16:20 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, Any restructuring can only start *after* a council decision.  If you were to change ASAP to after the decision in the election, then I'm for it
16:21 <@fmccor> I'll go along with that.
16:21 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: In the case of the CoC, I don't think it's an actual structure change
16:21 <@NeddySeagoon> Let me try
16:21 <@wltjr> there is to much misconseption here
16:21 <@wltjr> the foundation is the head of gentoo, above it all, the council is just the technical lead, the only time the council has authority over the foundation is on technical matters
16:22 <@wltjr> the council can't overrule the foundation, only on technical matters
16:22 <@wltjr> the foundation existed before the council, keep that in mind
16:22 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: And I see no problem for the current council to decide to hand that off to the Foundation. I do believe it should have been under the Foundation all along
16:22 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion ... that this meeting agrees to approach and work with council in any restructiong of Gentoo that may be required as a result of recent GLEP 39 issues
16:22 <@wltjr> Daniel Robbins had a vision, which never came true, for the Gentoo Foundation
16:22 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: I support that view. But you should be aware that's not what most devs around here think
16:22 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I think thats true
16:22 <@wltjr> sad he isn't willing to see that come to life, but after years of it failing, I can understand his unwillingness
16:23 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: because they joined a entity with a failed structure, and became used to and reliant on the only entity that showed any sort of power
16:23 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, Please say a few more words about your motion.
16:23 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: agreed
16:23 <@wltjr> anyway I am done, so we can conclude meeting
16:23 <@NeddySeagoon> ... with the aim of moveing non technical authority to the Foundation
16:23 <@wltjr> last thought, because that's how thing were done yesterday is no reason to do the same today
16:23 <@fmccor> wltjr, If we approached him again, he might be.  Do you suggest that?  (This is a serious question)
16:24 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, OK,  Second.
16:24 <@wltjr> if yesterdays way worked, fine, but I have yet to see a working Gentoo Foundation, ever, soo
16:24 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion ... that this meeting agrees to approach and work with council in any restructiong of Gentoo that may be required as a result of recent GLEP 39 issues  with the aim of moveing non technical authority to the Foundation
16:24 <@fmccor> Secon.
16:24 <@fmccor> ^++d
16:24 <@NeddySeagoon> Vote please
16:24 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: May I suggest changing it to "this board" ?
16:24 <@wltjr> fmccor: we can contact drobbins when we have a structure in place that works, a board split from the officers etc, to where he could be a board member, but not have to do anything, I think Daniel would be open to that
16:24 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, ok
16:25 <@wltjr> yeah
16:25 <@NeddySeagoon>  Motion ... that this board agrees to approach and work with council in any restructiong of Gentoo that may be required as a result of recent GLEP 39 issues  with the aim of moveing non technical authority to the Foundation
16:25 <@NeddySeagoon> ok now ?
16:25 <@fmccor> Yes.  I second it.
16:25 <@NeddySeagoon> Vote please
16:25 <@fmccor> And I vote yes.
16:26 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, ?
16:26  * tgall_foo mulls
16:26 <@wltjr> yeah (bit of a typo restructuring :) )
16:26 <@NeddySeagoon> I vote yes ... thats 3 in favour ... carried
16:26 <@fmccor> tgall_foo, You've been very quiet indeed.
16:26 <@NeddySeagoon> I'll write to council@ and trustees@  after the meeting
16:26 <@tgall_foo> fmccor: haven't been here ...  family things 
16:27 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: np
16:27 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: about to conclude soon, so check backlog
16:27  * tgall_foo does not like the idea of doing something just so any certain person can be a board member
16:27 <@fmccor> Um, I don't think we said that.
16:27 <@tgall_foo> but I'm not sure I am reading that right anyway
16:27 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, where do you read that ?
16:27 <@tgall_foo> wltjr's comment ...  I'm not quite sure what he meant by that 
16:28 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: oh I have no intentions of such, I don't care personally if Daniel comes back or not, I kinda hope not, but his thoughts and some comments I don't entirely disagree with
16:28 < jmbsvicetto> tgall_foo: Ah, so that drobbins can be a member?
16:28 <@fmccor> Oh, he was answering a question I asked him.
16:28 <@tgall_foo> ah ok
16:28 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: I do agree some what on his intial vision and conception of the foundation though
16:28 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, yup and I'm cool with that
16:28 <@wltjr> FYI, when RH did the Fedora thing, one of the main reasons that I chose Gentoow as the NPF aspect
16:28 <@NeddySeagoon> and our motion above ?
16:29 <@fmccor> Me, I'd like to have him in some capacity.
16:29  * tgall_foo votes yes for the record
16:29 <@wltjr> so I am very concerned with having a foundation that will keep Gentoo alive, since my business depends on and promotes the use of Gentoo
16:29 <@NeddySeagoon>  Motion ... that this board agrees to approach and work with council in any restructiong of Gentoo that may be required as a result of recent GLEP 39 issues  with the aim of moveing non technical authority to the Foundation ... complete with typos
16:29 <@wltjr> fmccor: I am not opposed, I just have not been impressed with his playing to the media
16:29 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, thanks
16:29 <@wltjr> the first part of our wikipedia page started to read like his own page :)
16:29 <@wltjr> I cleaned that up, and had to explain myself there
16:29 <@fmccor> We don't need to tell Council about the typos. :)
16:29 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, sounds like a good side conversation to have at some time
16:30 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, any more business ?
16:30 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: sure, but I wouldn't even approach him till the stuff is in place
16:30 <@tgall_foo> wltjr, no I mean having a business that is connected to gentoo 
16:30 <@wltjr> not because he wants it, but because I can pretty much assume he will say no otherwise, due to a lack of structure, etc
16:30 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: oh  :)
16:30 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: no
16:30 <@NeddySeagoon> tgall_foo, Any Other Business ?
16:30 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, naw ...  for another time
16:30 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: sure anytime :), it's all indirect, nothing direct, I have no products, services, or solutions based on Gentoo, atm
16:31 <@NeddySeagoon> I have one thing
16:31 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: shoot
16:31 <@NeddySeagoon> I have registered gentoo-foundation.org  and gentoofoundation.org in case we want to use them
16:32 <@NeddySeagoon> I'll donate them to gentoo if we do
16:32 <@tgall_foo> good thinking
16:32 <@NeddySeagoon> Now  they are registed we can discuss it in public
16:33 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: That might be a good way to have a mail voting system for gentoo
16:33 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, has some ideas about what we might do 
16:33 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: The link tove gave me about debian's system seems very interesting
16:33 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, I hadn't thought it through any  further than jmbsvicetto just mentioned.
16:33 <@NeddySeagoon> I've not read it yet
16:34 <@NeddySeagoon> anyway- I just wanted to share that
16:34 <@NeddySeagoon>  
16:34 <@NeddySeagoon> Open Floor time
16:34 <@NeddySeagoon> Anything from the floor
16:34 <@fmccor> I think it's great, and we should be able to use it to help with membership issues, voting, and such.
16:34 <@tgall_foo> i agree
16:34 <@fmccor> That's all my AOB ever was. :)
16:34 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: If we start looking seriously at that idea, we should really start with debian's system
16:35 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, we would need to try their coude out
16:36 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, well, I hope we can open the foundation to non devs, so we will need something that does not depend on accounts on woodpecker
16:36 <@fmccor> Could we run it in parallel with an election as a test?
16:36 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, Absolutely to both.
16:37 < shpaq> NeddySeagoon: i hope that too
16:37 < jmbsvicetto> fmccor: We would need to test it through
16:37 <@fmccor> jmbsvicetto, That's what I meant.
16:37 < jmbsvicetto> fmccor: And we would need to have people looking through the code
16:38 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, yeah, Debian don't have a very good reputation just now :0
16:38 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
16:38 <@wltjr> we must open up the foundation membership
16:38 <@fmccor> wltjr, yes, we have to get to that.
16:38 <@NeddySeagoon> Any more from the floor ?
16:39 <@wltjr> one thing I am thinking how to adress is business and individuals, where an invidivual might work for a business, that's a member, as in say Intel is a member, I am a member, I work for Intel, now Intel has potentially two votes, instead of one
16:39 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: The issue of membership by companies is going to raise some eyebrows
16:39 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: doesn't look like it, unless someone else speaks up
16:39 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: It will need careful consideration
16:40 <@NeddySeagoon> Intel can have a vote and the member can have a vote - they may vote differently
16:40 <@tgall_foo> it's an interesting question as to how a corp entity could have a vote
16:40 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: but if they are the same? like I have a different opinion, but don't want to go against my employer
16:40 <@tgall_foo> IE ... what happens if it's a one person shop ?
16:40 <@NeddySeagoon> Intel employees could have lots of votes
16:40 <@tgall_foo> and that individual is a member too ?   2 votes ?
16:40 <@wltjr> corp entities participate in many foundations
16:40 <@wltjr> also a corp entity, will have a buy in, membership won't be free to them
16:40 <@tgall_foo> yes .. but participation can mean many things
16:40 <@wltjr> for everyone else, membership is free
16:41 < jmbsvicetto> wltjr: hmm, that needs "lots" of discussion
16:41 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, thats some detail for another time ... can we close the meeting ?
16:41 <@wltjr> tgall_foo: single vote/voice can't bring about any specific radical change
16:41 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: yes
16:41 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: agreed, which is what will take place as we go through the members section
16:41 <@NeddySeagoon> Motion to close the meeting ...
16:41 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: just keep in mind, most common interest things, companies are given input on 
16:41 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: So the next regular meeting is on 22nd June and you'll have another meeting next weekend for the bylaws, right?
16:42 <@wltjr> be it w3c, gnome foundation, hyperstransport consortium, etc
16:42 <@tgall_foo> NeddySeagoon, second
16:42 <@fmccor> jmbsvicetto, That's my understanding.
16:43 < shpaq> could somebody put the info about bylaws meeting in topic?
16:43 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, yes and no.  We are gathering to discuss the bylaws, its not a formal meeting and no votes will be taken. It will go ahead as a discussion, even if we are not quorate
16:43 <@NeddySeagoon> shpaq, its there I hope
16:43 <@NeddySeagoon> vote on the motion to close please
16:43 <@fmccor> It's there for 25 May.
16:43 < shpaq> NeddySeagoon: yes it is, i fail
16:44 <@wltjr> yeah
16:44 <@fmccor> Yes on the motion.
16:44 <@NeddySeagoon> shpaq, and a link to the bylaws 
16:44 <@tgall_foo> yes : on motion
16:44 <@NeddySeagoon> I vote yes too
16:44 < shpaq> NeddySeagoon: i've already read it
16:44 <@NeddySeagoon> Meeting Closed

Additional commentary after meeting, non-official

16:45 <@NeddySeagoon> I'll write to council as I said
16:47 <@fmccor> I'm surprised there's no one from Council here.
16:47 <@wltjr> fmccor: given they missed their own last meeting :) are you really
16:48 <@fmccor> Actually, I'm wrong.  I didn't notice that amne is in here.
16:49 <@wltjr> fmccor: woot, bet he made their meeting as well :)
16:49 <@fmccor> Yes, he did.
16:51 <@fmccor> wltjr, If you missed it, Donnie announced at the Council non-meeting and on gentoo-dev@ that the discussion would be on -project.
16:51 <@wltjr> fmccor: I recall seeing that, part of why I was stating on -project, that people really didn't care, they were exposed
16:52 <@fmccor> Every discussion like that gets about 5 or 10 participants. 
16:53 <@fmccor> I typically don't say anything about topics I don't care about.
16:53 <@fmccor> (Hm, that was a silly comment.)
16:56 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: sorry, I got distracted reading mail. I didn't meant to imply that it was a formal meeting with votes
16:57 <@wltjr> jmbsvicetto: yes there will be a gathering, you can attend :)
16:57 <@NeddySeagoon> jmbsvicetto, thats ok. I just wanted to be clear, after last Thursday 
16:57 < jmbsvicetto> hehe
16:57 < jmbsvicetto> NeddySeagoon: understood
16:58 <@wltjr> damn, do we have our own slacker clause? seems the trustees need it more than council :)
16:58 <@wltjr> given past boards
16:58 <@fmccor> Nope.
16:58 <@NeddySeagoon> GLEP 39 does not apply to the Foundation - We have New Mexico law, until the bylaws are in place
16:58 <@wltjr> we should have one rule in place, in bylaws for all entities
16:58 <@wltjr> board, officers, council, yet-to-be-formed-governing-bodies
16:59 <@wltjr> same requirements for meetings, attendance, etc
16:59 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, probably not.  We answer to the law.  Council answers to the devs
16:59 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: we are more likely to hear from the devs vs the law on such matters
16:59 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: the law would only get involved, if per say some dev complained, or reported us
16:59 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, but the law prevails
17:00 <@wltjr> I am not sure there is a case ever of a company being sued, etc for not following it's own by laws
17:00 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I don't see where they law would ever step in and be enforced
17:00 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, possibly true ... if there was any conflict brought to our attention, we would fix the bylaws
17:01 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: actually in that regard, we are held more accoutable by members, the the law
17:01 <@NeddySeagoon> thats true.  Not all members are devs
17:02 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: I still think the bylaws should mention and encompass the trustess, after all it's a body that has power within Gentoo, and is part of how it operates, so should be included in bylaws, not some outside GLEP which isn't a GLEP per say, but there was no other place to put the info, so GLEP 39 it ended up in
17:02 <@wltjr> er s/encompass the trustees/encompass the council
17:02 <@wltjr> the bylaws should clarify the power of the board, officers, and council
17:03 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, the council is not yet within our remit ... we need to discuss structure with council
17:03 <@fmccor> You think so?  I'm not sure about the council.
17:04 <@fmccor> Actually, I think GLEP 39 is pretty good (but then, I supported the policy vote that led up to it).
17:04 <@wltjr> need to find out where the text came from I believe it exists in other more official places
17:04 <@wltjr> but per like wikipedia
17:04 <@wltjr> The current Board of Trustees[8] is composed of five members who were announced (following an election) on March 2, 2008.[9] There is also a subsidiary seven-member Gentoo Council whose members decide on technical issues and policies.[10]
17:04 <@wltjr> subsidary, means the council falls under the foundation, and board,just not on technical mattres
17:04 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, not until council agree.
17:05 <@fmccor> Council and its rules are there as a result of a vote of the developers, and really anything Council do is only with the consent of the developers.
17:05 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: more like not until the devs agree via global vote, as these types of decisions can't be left up to the council to decide their own fate
17:06 <@wltjr> the council was created after the foundation, and IMHO the relationship between the two never made sense, never functioned, and there really was no relationship or ties
17:06 <@wltjr> two heads, one snake, totally stupid IMHO, but foundation came first, and there was no choice amongst devs to creating the foundation
17:06 <@wltjr> that was Daniels decision, and the council was created after the fact
17:07 <@wltjr> as I asked others in the past, show me any other project, entity, etc with a structure like ours
17:07 <@fmccor> wltjr, You'd have to ask someone like g2boojum or ciaranm (or seemant or solar for that matter).
17:07 <@wltjr> no one thought about the big picture when creating the council
17:07 <@wltjr> fmccor: really I dont' care much about the past
17:07 <@wltjr> fact is the foundation has never functioned since created
17:08 <@wltjr> councils have been controversial since their inception
17:08 <@wltjr> what about any of this is in 100% perfect working order and ideal for the project?
17:08 <@wltjr> I am in no way saying to disban the concept of the council, there is a good reason for them to exist
17:08 <@wltjr> but that the coucil is at the top of Gentoo is sadly mistaken
17:09 <@wltjr> the council can't dictate to infra, they can request stuff, but even those request can require action by the trustees
17:09 <@wltjr> even infra must answer to trustees, not council, unless it's of technical nature
17:09 <@fmccor> This council or any other will always get into difficulties when it starts playing outside a rather narrow focus.
17:10 <@wltjr> the lack of a structure behind the foundation, is why the council is dealing with stuff, IMHO they should not, and has expanded their focus, because of MIA trustees
17:10 <@fmccor> Council is there to provide overall technical guidance and to act as a brake on devrel in case devrel gets carried away.
17:11 <@wltjr> I don't think there was ever more than 7 council members, the foundation started with 13 board members, if that shows the significance of the two, and the resulting failure of the one, now down to 5 :(
17:11 <@wltjr> council = CTO in a normal organization
17:11 <@fmccor> There was a lot of excitement about 3 years ago now, and current structure sort of reflects that.
17:11 <@fmccor> wltjr, exactly
17:12 <@fmccor> Actually, 5 board members seems to make more sense.
17:12 <@wltjr> in fact, I think anything we do, wrt to power moves from the council, should be expressed just as that, council = CTO, council != president, CEO, board, etc
17:12 <@wltjr> fmccor: well 5 officers maybe
17:12 <@wltjr> fmccor: I would like to see us have a large board, with unlimited terms, and growing members
17:13 <@wltjr> with fixed amount of officers
17:13 <@wltjr> not that I plan to be on the board forever, but that type of influence, might be best to have kept around, rather than replace annually
17:13 <@fmccor> wltjr, Longer term, perhaps.  That would make us look more like a traditional company.
17:14 <@wltjr> if one steps down, a vote is called to replace them, every year or so, another is added to the board via general vote
17:14 <@wltjr> something like that, not specifically
17:14 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, the ideal of a Foundation and Council were born of drobbins leaving Gentoo. They were conceided at the same time but impemented separately
17:14 <@fmccor> wltjr, I do agree with that.  You do not expect much turn over in a board unless one of them goes to prison or something.
17:14 <@wltjr> put another way, why should we limit our sphere of influence, I have always been of thenature, of someone has the skills, and is willing to provide input, why pass on that
17:15 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: possibly, but drobbins left in 04, foundation was created then, council/GLEP 39 is dated 05, a year later
17:15 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: seems to be a result of the void left, and again lack of structure or organization to the foundation
17:15 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: it likely would have been better if they were created at the same time
17:16 <@fmccor> There was a lot more going on than that.
17:16 <@wltjr> I am sure there was, there seems to have been lots of unrest, and all kinds of problems
17:16 <@wltjr> which as a user since 03, I had no knowledge of
17:16 <@fmccor> As I say, 3 years ago from just about now was very "exciting"
17:16 <@wltjr> first sign to me there was a problem, was Dec 05, when I wanted Tomcat 5.5, and only 5.0 was in tree, and noticed there was no maintainer :)
17:17 <@NeddySeagoon> email gone
17:17 <@fmccor> What got me into devrel dates back about 3 years.
17:18  * wltjr is about to be gone as well, weekly chores, and a bathroom to grout, tiled last weekend :)
17:18 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I think the council predates the GLEP
17:18 <@fmccor> wltjr, What you are seeing right now is very tame by comparison.
17:18 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: it can't GLEP 39 is what created the council in the first place, which is my entire point behind the global vote, they globally voted in a body to take over global matters and decisions :)
17:19 <@fmccor> No, GLEP comes after.
17:19 <@wltjr> at least per the document, or so it seems, I was around, but not paying any attention so can't say for sure
17:19 <@fmccor> We did not vote on the GLEP, we voted on the policy.
17:19 <@fmccor> The GLEP is what Grant wrote up to put it all into standard form.
17:19 <@wltjr> well the abstract of GLEP 39 says
17:19 <@wltjr> GLEP 4 is replaced with a new "metastructure" that retains established projects (and makes new projects easier to create), but adds a new "Gentoo Council" to handle global (cross-project) issues.
17:20 <@NeddySeagoon> ciaranm had a hand in the policy that was voted - it became a GLEP later
17:20 <@wltjr> adds a new, implies it did not exist before
17:20 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, I'm pretty sure it was documenting what existed
17:20 <@fmccor> The policy is a combination of ciaranm's work and a few others.
17:20 <@fmccor> NeddySeagoon, Yes, GLEP is after the fact.
17:20 <@wltjr> that's another thing, we are following the lead of a dev who was, well, he didn't retire because he wanted to, let's leave it at that :), granted I value his technical skill, etc. I do wonder at times who's lead we are following
17:21 <@wltjr> and seemant, g2boojum , etc are where atm? so it's nice this stuff was put into place, but seeing ones ideas through, and just having them followed is very different IMHO
17:21 <@fmccor> wltjr, He helped propose it.  We are following the lead of the developers who voted for it out of a choice of several.
17:21 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, It does not matter what the intent was when the document was written.  If the intent was not caputed in the words, its a crap document
17:22 <@fmccor> g2boojum is still active.
17:22 <@wltjr> fmccor: and even the devs vote I question, did they realize what they were voting on, or the implications, like calling for a new council in 30 days, or etc, doesnt' seem like there was much discussion debate on the matter, need to go look and find out
17:22 <@fmccor> And I suspect that vapier had a hand in it, but I don't really remember.
17:22 <@fmccor> Yes.
17:22 <@NeddySeagoon> read your email guys
17:23 <@fmccor> It was all well discussed, and it reflects what we wanted.
17:23 <@wltjr> fmccor: active by what standards? I think lack of removal is more out of respect or etc
17:23 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, I would suggest with the benefit of hindsight, it wasn't thought throgh
17:24 <@wltjr> I do believe it was a reaction to the times, which all felt a slacker clause was needed, but didn't think through the actual implication of that clause
17:24 <@fmccor> I like your email.
17:24 <@wltjr> much less detailing how it should be carried out
17:25 <@fmccor> It was thought through. 
17:25 <@NeddySeagoon> fmccor, thanks 
17:25 <@wltjr> NeddySeagoon: well stated, and I appreciate it coming from you
17:25 <@wltjr> had I said the exact same thing, coming from me, I can bet it would go down differently
17:25 <@NeddySeagoon> Well, GLEP 39 is what it is.
17:25 <@wltjr> and it sucks
17:26 <@fmccor> I don't have anything archived going back that far, but it was well discussed.
17:26 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, yes
17:26 <@wltjr> I had to re-read it several times, because of all the unofficial, side chatter stuff in there
17:26 <@wltjr> very little beef :), where's the beef :)
17:26 <@NeddySeagoon> wltjr, its like the Complete Shakespeare Company
17:27 <@wltjr> well, gotta run, need food, and other things to do
17:28 <@NeddySeagoon> Its getting late here too
17:28 <@wltjr> good meeting, and chatting with you all, lots of dicussions and even more work ahead, but the sun is starting to shine a bit, slowly but surely
17:28 <@NeddySeagoon> I think so too
17:29 -!- NeddySeagoon changed the topic of #gentoo-trustees to: Join our public mailing list gentoo-nfp at lists dot gentoo dot org | Next regular meeting, here, Sunday 22 June  at 1900 UTC - Agenda TBD | Logs/Minutes of past meetings http://tinyurl.com/2qcb4o |  Meeting to review and adopt bylaws to be continued with Article IV on May 25  http://xrl.us/bke7u | All meetings 1900 UTC | Gentoo Foundation In Good Standing http://www.nmprc.state.nm.us/cgi-bin/prcdtl.cgi?2463313
17:29 <@fmccor> Yes,
17:31  * fmccor is also off in search of food.