20:00 * NeddySeagoon bangs the virtual gavel to open the Feb 17 Gentoo Trustees meeting
20:00 <@NeddySeagoon> Who do we have ?
20:00 * NeddySeagoon is here
20:00 < pengfield> hi neddy
20:00 <@dabbott> here
20:00 <@_robbat2|irssi> so missing quantumsummers?
20:00 <@NeddySeagoon> _robbat2|irssi, ? rich0 ? quantumsummers|c ?
20:01 <@dabbott> and rich0
20:01 <@NeddySeagoon> We have a quorum, so we can start
20:01 <@NeddySeagoon> Do you want to give them a few min ?
20:01 <@_robbat2|irssi> sure
20:01 <@dabbott> ok
20:02 <@_robbat2|irssi> say 5?
20:02 <@dabbott> rich0 wanted to go over his mail about Copyright Policies
20:02 <@NeddySeagoon> I keep offering to post logs then not doing it. I won't offer this month
20:02 <@rich0> here...
20:02 <@_robbat2|irssi> i'll post up my logs
20:02 <@NeddySeagoon> hi rich0
20:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Thats 4 out of 5. quantumsummers|c can catch up ...
20:03 <@dabbott> i moved it to http://www.gentoo.org/foundation/en/minutes/2013/
20:03 <@NeddySeagoon> 3. Old Business
20:03 <@dabbott> for this year
20:03 <@NeddySeagoon> Copyright Policies ... over the rich0
20:04 <@rich0> I sent out my proposed wording.
20:04 <@rich0> The only concrete change I got was from robbat2 and that was requiring a DCO signoff on every commit.
20:04 <@rich0> I'll add that to the email, with the details of how that is implemented tbd.
20:04 <@_robbat2|irssi> for the record, since the mail was only to trustees, proposed wording to an RFC on copyright
20:04 <@rich0> (commit comment, etc)
20:04 <@NeddySeagoon> I was good with it subject ro _robbat2|irssi appraisal saying no changes as a result of FODEM meetings
20:05 <@rich0> Yes, and it will go out to -nfp once we're ok with the draft.
20:05 <@_robbat2|irssi> rich0: i'll see if I can edit in my DCO/fosdem notes into it
20:05 <@_robbat2|irssi> and send that to you later today
20:05 <@rich0> Sound sgood.
20:06 <@NeddySeagoon> wfm
20:06 <@rich0> Ok, I'll incorporate his suggestions, and send it out to -nfp.
20:06 <@rich0> It is only a proposal - everything is still subject to change anyway.
20:06 <@NeddySeagoon> no need to have it reviewed on the alias again ... go for -nfp and -announce
20:06 <@rich0> ++
20:07 <@NeddySeagoon> we will pass on 501(c)(3) registration status as quantumsummers|c isn't here. If he shows up, we can come back to it
20:07 <@rich0> That's it for me.
20:08 <@NeddySeagoon> Foundation Activity Tracker Update ... rich0 nothing ?
20:08 <@rich0> Not till May.
20:08 <@rich0> That's a break.
20:08 <@NeddySeagoon> Item 4 Bugs
20:08 <@_robbat2|irssi> i'll action bug 350759 myself
20:08 < willikins> _robbat2|irssi: https://bugs.gentoo.org/350759 "fix copyright in packages.gentoo.org"; Gentoo Infrastructure, gpackages - http://packages.gentoo.org/; IN_P; ago:trustees
20:09 <@NeddySeagoon> _robbat2|irssi, do you need the policy agreed first ?
20:09 <@_robbat2|irssi> not really, it's just changing the footer
20:10 <@NeddySeagoon> ok
20:10 <@rich0> I'd just say update that page when we get to it.
20:10 <@NeddySeagoon> any more bugs we need to discuss today ?
20:10 <@rich0> For any in-tree copyright notices those are likely to change a fair bit with new policy.
20:10 <@_robbat2|irssi> bug 443832 is relevant for today
20:12 <@_robbat2|irssi> i think for it, we need to outright admit that if there were any prior signed copyright assignments, we as the new trustees never got them
20:12 <@_robbat2|irssi> and do a blanket release
20:13 <@rich0> Release of what? Copyright back to the original holders?
20:14 <@_robbat2|irssi> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/devrel/copyright-assignment/assignment.txt?hideattic=0&revision=1.1&view=markup
20:14 <@NeddySeagoon> _robbat2|irssi, sounds good. IF there are any forms Grant may know about them but as he sent us what he had in 2008, I doubt he has them.
20:14 <@_robbat2|irssi> yeah, it's stuff that was mostly drobbins era
20:15 <@NeddySeagoon> yep
20:15 <@rich0> I understand the desire to figure out who signed what and when.
20:16 <@rich0> What I'm not understanding is why we would want to undo any agreements that have been signed. Perhaps I'm just missing something.
20:16 <@_robbat2|irssi> i also want to ask drobbins, klieber, dsd
20:16 <@NeddySeagoon> rich0, if we do a blanket release, we don't need to name names
20:16 <@rich0> Release of what?
20:16 <@_robbat2|irssi> to make that bug public
20:16 <@_robbat2|irssi> rich0: the original copyright assignment document
20:17 <@rich0> What do you mean by "releasing" it exactly?
20:17 -!- quantumsummers [~yaaic@gentoo/developer/quantumsummers] has joined #gentoo-trustees
20:17 -!- mode/#gentoo-trustees [+o quantumsummers] by ChanServ
20:17 <@_robbat2|irssi> we outright don't know who signed drobbin's original copyright assignment doc
20:17 <@NeddySeagoon> hi quantumsummers
20:17 <@rich0> So?
20:18 <@rich0> Those who signed it assigned copyrights, and those who did not may or may not have done so. (That is probably murky legally.)
20:18 <@quantumsummers> sorry I'm late.
20:18 <@NeddySeagoon> We do have drobbins assignment of copyright from GTI to the Foundation but thats all it says ... no original forms ever reached the 2008 Trustees
20:18 <@NeddySeagoon> np quantumsummers
20:18 <@_robbat2|irssi> actually, sorry, my prior research did turn up one dev
20:19 <@_robbat2|irssi> that signed it definetly
20:19 <@_robbat2|irssi> but mostly we don't know
20:19 <@rich0> With the agreements in place the foundation has very clear legal ownership of copyright of some portion of our code base, and less clear ownership of the rest. If we "release" people from the agreement then we have less clear ownership of the whole thing. How is that an improvement?
20:19 <@quantumsummers> btw i am on my phone. sorry ... out of town.
20:19 <@rich0> Again, I might be missing some nuance here.
20:19 <@NeddySeagoon> rich0, the agreements, if any, are lost
20:20 <@rich0> So, why the need to "release" them?
20:20 <@_robbat2|irssi> 1. we would need the actual agreements to ever enforce it
20:20 <@rich0> Perhaps.
20:21 <@rich0> But we can't enforce it if we release it either. So how is that an improvement?
20:21 <@_robbat2|irssi> ah, there's another nuance for you
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> the release is of duties
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> it doesn't remove us owning the code
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> it simply removes the requirement that they MUST assign
20:22 <@quantumsummers> seems we have a pickle.
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> copying from the bug:
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> Proposed wording for now:
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> > Gentoo Foundation, Inc. does hereby release all individuals who have
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> > signed the contract known as the "Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Copyright
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> > Assignment Form" from any future duties and obligations of these
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> > individuals associated with that contract. As of this date any
20:22 <@_robbat2|irssi> > provision of that contract requiring any future duties is hereby
20:23 <@_robbat2|irssi> > nullified.
20:23 <@rich0> Is anybody actually asking for this relief?
20:23 <@rich0> Do they want to make new contributions that aren't assigned in the future?
20:24 <@quantumsummers> what Robin states seems fine for some of things and less fine for others.
20:24 <@rich0> (That actually is something we should cover in any FLA - the period of time it applies to, and the ability to declare that at some point future contributions are no longer covered, but not the retroactive ability to unassign past ones).
20:24 <@NeddySeagoon> rich0, in practice nobody has legally assigned copyright since the drobbins days ... its all very murky.
20:24 <@rich0> NeddySeagoon, agreed. We /might/ be able to make a case that we have it, but it is murky at best.
20:25 <@rich0> But, my question is really, what exactly is broken? Is anybody being harmed by our failure to issue some kind of release?
20:25 <@NeddySeagoon> I think that what we do about the past may come from a policy, when we have one
20:25 <@rich0> If not, I'd suggest waiting until somebody asks us for one.
20:26 <@_robbat2|irssi> if anybody still around has agreed to the past policy, they should agree to the FLA again, and not try and say that i signed before
20:26 <@rich0> If harm is being done I'm all for taking action, but it seems unclear what is best at the moment. I agree with NeddySeagoon that the appropriate action may be more clear when we have a policy.
20:26 <@_robbat2|irssi> but if we want to postpone until we have the new policy, that's reasonable
20:26 <@_robbat2|irssi> and just enact it at the same time
20:26 <@NeddySeagoon> I would wait until we have a policy in place. If all we require is a licence (not copyright) then we should make that retroactive
20:26 <@rich0> Makes sense.
20:26 <@rich0> Let's get the future cleared up, then we can go back and clean up the past.
20:26 <@NeddySeagoon> agreed
20:27 * NeddySeagoon wants a ride in rich0s time machine
20:27 <@NeddySeagoon> Any more buds for today ?
20:27 * rich0 likes the leather seats and sunroof in the time machine.
20:27 <@NeddySeagoon> bugs?
20:28 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers, do you want to say anything on 501(c)(3) registration status and the CPA. I'm aware you are on your 'phone
20:29 <@NeddySeagoon> I'll take the pause as a 'its too difficult to type' :)
20:30 <@NeddySeagoon> 7. Advertising Requests
20:30 <@NeddySeagoon> link to www.fabrooms.de
20:30 < pengfield> that would be me
20:30 <@quantumsummers> laggy. sorry. nothing to report re financials. I do have got repos for us now. I need to push some stuff including all financial data for the foundations history.
20:31 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers, thanks for the update
20:32 <@_robbat2|irssi> sorry was afk for a sec
20:33 <@_robbat2|irssi> re the advertising request
20:34 <@NeddySeagoon> yes - a link from g.org/main/en/sponsors.xml link.
20:34 <@_robbat2|irssi> pengfield's request isn't the first that had a side of google pagerank effect
20:34 <@_robbat2|irssi> but the prior ones had been hardware sponsors
20:34 < pengfield> there are some that aren't
20:35 <@_robbat2|irssi> pengfield: aren't in which way?
20:35 -!- quantumsummers [~yaaic@gentoo/developer/quantumsummers] has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
20:36 <@_robbat2|irssi> some of our existing sponsors donated to us explicitly because they wanted the pagerank, they happened to use gentoo already so they qualified
20:36 < pengfield> well there are links to a christmas card manufakturer, toner etc.
20:36 < pengfield> so am I. so they donated goods?
20:36 <@_robbat2|irssi> err a christmas card manuf?
20:36 <@_robbat2|irssi> where do you see that on the sponsor page?
20:36 < pengfield> yeh :-)
20:37 < pengfield> "Kartenzia is a young start-up based in germany...."
20:37 <@rich0> My sense is that hardware and money are fungible at some level. I think the main considerations for listing sponsorships should be some kind of connection to Gentoo (using Gentoo, contributing, etc), and some kind of reasonably fair equivalence in the value of any donations.
20:37 <@_robbat2|irssi> hotelkatalog24, indoorcycling, kartenzia donate servers
20:37 <@_robbat2|irssi> from ovh/hetzner etc
20:38 < pengfield> ah, ok
20:38 <@_robbat2|irssi> ditto kredit, buchhorn, tintenalarm
20:38 <@_robbat2|irssi> so what the question really should be
20:38 <@_robbat2|irssi> is twofold:
20:38 <@_robbat2|irssi> assuming we keep the must-use-gentoo requirement
20:39 <@_robbat2|irssi> 1. are sponsors donating to boost their pagerank acceptable
20:39 <@NeddySeagoon> thats a given
20:39 <@_robbat2|irssi> 2. what's the fair value of donations?
20:39 <@rich0> Many orgs would just focus on monetary value, but the tradition in Gentoo has been to look more towards some kind of connection, and we'd probably want to discuss any move to outright buying of placement on -nfp. I suspect it would not be popular with our culture.
20:39 <@_robbat2|irssi> i would want to keep the must-use-gentoo requirement
20:40 <@NeddySeagoon> +1
20:40 <@rich0> I'm fine with #1. Most don't outright say it, but I suspect it is a major consideration for some (not all, and perhaps not even most).
20:40 < pengfield> I am not just wanting to "buy" a link. It's also about supporting the project, buying links can be done anywhere especially on sites that are more in the area I am focusing on.
20:40 <@_robbat2|irssi> but the slippery slope of donating for pagerank is happening, and I would like some outright approval from trustees of it
20:41 -!- quantumsummers [~yaaic@gentoo/developer/quantumsummers] has joined #gentoo-trustees
20:41 -!- mode/#gentoo-trustees [+o quantumsummers] by ChanServ
20:41 <@rich0> I think the current community-approved stance is that we can accept money for sponsor listings as long as there is some kind of real connection to Gentoo (ie using it, etc).
20:41 <@dabbott> _robbat2|irssi: as an example what does Kartenzia donate
20:41 <@NeddySeagoon> _robbat2|irssi, we have a cash sponsors policy endorsed by members, if we want to deviate from it, we would need to hold a vote of the members again
20:42 <@rich0> I don't think the pagerank benefits really change that - and switching to "nofollow" links and such would be a big change. If contribution has some kind of benefit I'm fine with that, though if it becomes too big if we ever get 401c status we might have to declare what that is.
20:42 <@_robbat2|irssi> dabbott: kartenzia & indoorcycling collectively donate one server to infra
20:43 <@_robbat2|irssi> i think pricing for that box at OVH is around 100EUR/mo, it's one of the nicer servers
20:45 <@dabbott> pengfield: would you be willing to do something similar
20:45 < pengfield> actually I was hoping for a one time donation and not something recurring
20:45 <@_robbat2|irssi> wrt to the existing cash sponsors policy, it was explicitly because kartenzia/indoor-cycling (well, their common sysadmin) didn't want to write up the document required
20:46 <@NeddySeagoon> pengfield, a one time donation for the link to last how long ?
20:46 -!- quantumsummers [~yaaic@gentoo/developer/quantumsummers] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
20:46 < pengfield> basically permanent
20:47 < pengfield> they way I see it, without a link I would probably ever only donate for the amount of EUR50 or so. If I could get a link I would be willing to pay EUR200-EUR250 for it.
20:47 <@NeddySeagoon> Thats a new suggestion ... I think we would want to consider that outside of the meeting
20:48 <@_robbat2|irssi> so that's more in line with the prior one-time hardware donations
20:48 < pengfield> fair enough
20:48 <@_robbat2|irssi> than any ongoing donations
20:48 < pengfield> yeh
20:48 <@_robbat2|irssi> the closest prior art we have
20:48 <@_robbat2|irssi> is OSTC
20:49 <@_robbat2|irssi> the polish financial trading company
20:49 <@_robbat2|irssi> but their donation was an order of magnitude larger than what you're proposing, and the explicitly couldn't donate hardware due to local law stuff
20:50 <@_robbat2|irssi> *they explictly
20:50 <@rich0> Looking at quantumsummers|c interview with them, that was also a pretty big and noteworthy Gentoo install as well.
20:50 < pengfield> I unfortunately don't have the same sort of backing as OSTC...
20:50 <@rich0> pengfield, a problem we both share. :)
20:50 < pengfield> :-)
20:50 <@_robbat2|irssi> pengfield: how big is your gentoo deployment then?
20:51 < pengfield> nothing noteworthy, I have one server and one pc...
20:51 < pengfield> server is running nagios etc...
20:52 <@_robbat2|irssi> the cash sponsor policy did propose fractional stuff, and we have the sidebar code for it, but what should the cutoff point be?
20:52 <@dabbott> pengfield: i understand and want to make sure you understand that i appreciate your offer of support
20:53 < pengfield> dabbot: no prob, I understand your dilemma. It's more of a bigger-picture question you're asking then my donation it seems to me
20:53 <@NeddySeagoon> _robbat2|irssi, thats sidebar though, not sponsors page
20:53 <@rich0> My personal sense is that the proposed contribution isn't really on the same level as those of our other listed sponsors. We certainly do value all our supporters - there are countless who contribute money, time, effort, encouragement, etc and most remain fairly unacknowledged.
20:53 <@NeddySeagoon> pengfield, whatever we agree with your will set a precedent for others ...
20:53 <@_robbat2|irssi> we should put together another large thanks list from the last year of paypal donations
20:54 <@_robbat2|irssi> maybe we can take a page from OSL's donation drive years ago
20:54 <@rich0> _robbat2|irssi, ++ I think we can't do enough to thank those who contribute in one way or another.
20:54 <@_robbat2|irssi> as background, in prior OSL donation drives
20:54 <@rich0> And countless contribute just by offering help on user forums and such.
20:54 <@NeddySeagoon> lets discuss this further ... we have learned a lot from today and need to digest in the light of any precedent we may set
20:55 <@_robbat2|irssi> they collected funds and put up small signs on their racks, log(donation) scaled your font size
20:55 < pengfield> sounds reasonable to me.
20:55 <@NeddySeagoon> pengfield, we might even kick off something new based on your offer ...
20:56 <@rich0> pengfield, thanks for bearing with us as we work through this stuff. And thanks all the same for your support in whatever ways you can offer it!
20:56 < pengfield> hehe, glad to hear it. My offer is on the table and you can contact me anytime, even for another meeting :-)
20:56 <@_robbat2|irssi> crazy idea: say paypal donations 0-A get your name, A-B link, B-C link+blurb etc, in a regular news posting thanking donations?
20:57 <@NeddySeagoon> pengfield, we will be here on the 3rd Sunday in March. As there is no resolution, it will be on the MArch agenda
20:57 <@_robbat2|irssi> not the sponsorship page, but still getting recognition
20:57 <@_robbat2|irssi> but need to work in the sidebar to that as well
20:57 <@_robbat2|irssi> maybe easier if we publish sidebar as actual ad rates
20:57 <@NeddySeagoon> lets take it to the alias ...
20:57 <@_robbat2|irssi> yeah
20:58 <@_robbat2|irssi> we're at 1 hour already
20:58 <@NeddySeagoon> pengfield, thanks for your time and your offer
20:58 <@dabbott> i could commit to doing the "regular news posting thanking donations"
20:58 <@NeddySeagoon> Cleanup ...
20:58 <@_robbat2|irssi> i'll post up the log as I said at hte start
20:58 <@NeddySeagoon> Date of Next Meeting - 17 Mar 2013 19:00 UTC
20:58 < pengfield> dabbott: makes sense
20:58 <@rich0> wfm
20:58 <@NeddySeagoon> me too
20:59 <@_robbat2|irssi> wfm
20:59 < pengfield> thanks all and dabbott please let me know how the decision goes one way or the other
20:59 <@dabbott> pengfield: will do
20:59 <@NeddySeagoon> Any other business ...
20:59 < pengfield> c u all!
20:59 <@NeddySeagoon> rich0, ?
20:59 -!- pengfield [~Adium@178-26-236-122-dynip.superkabel.de] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
20:59 <@rich0> yes?
21:00 <@NeddySeagoon> AoB ?
21:00 <@rich0> no
21:00 <@NeddySeagoon> dabbott, AoB ?
21:00 <@dabbott> non here
21:00 <@_robbat2|irssi> none from me
21:00 <@NeddySeagoon> thats odd _robbat2|irssi you alway have something :)
21:00 <@NeddySeagoon> I have one
21:01 <@NeddySeagoon> PayPal Dispute ... what are we doing about it,
21:01 <@_robbat2|irssi> real life has been busy for me, and my foundation business was focused on the actual agenda of copyright stuff instead of AoBZ
21:01 <@NeddySeagoon> hehe
21:01 <@_robbat2|irssi> who has the paypal login? I couldn't find it in my notes
21:01 <@NeddySeagoon> quantumsummers|c, for one.
21:01 <@dabbott> quantumsummers|c: ^^
21:01 <@rich0> paypal dispute?
21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> rich0, don't you get our PayPal emais ?
21:02 <@dabbott> someond donated 20 now is disputing it :)
21:02 <@_robbat2|irssi> i'll liase with the compliant if you want, but i didn't see his original donation email either
21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> +l
21:02 <@rich0> normally I do...
21:02 <@_robbat2|irssi> he claimed item not recieved
21:02 <@NeddySeagoon> _robbat2|irssi I'll forward the mail to the alias
21:03 <@_robbat2|irssi> i have the dispute email, but not the original dontation email
21:03 <@dabbott> i never saw it
21:03 <@_robbat2|irssi> that's why I wanted the login
21:03 <@dabbott> strange
21:03 <@_robbat2|irssi> to go and look up the transaction
21:04 <@NeddySeagoon> How do you tie them together - I will have the original mail.
21:04 <@_robbat2|irssi> the dispute email has the transaction id
21:04 <@_robbat2|irssi> i'll pm it to you as well
21:04 <@_robbat2|irssi> date was feb 11th
21:04 <@NeddySeagoon> Ah OK, I'll see what I can find
21:04 <@dabbott> NeddySeagoon: you look up the tranaction to see if it is legit
21:04 <@_robbat2|irssi> which should be unique enough anyway
21:04 <@_robbat2|irssi> we don't get that many donations
21:05 <@_robbat2|irssi> feb 11th for $20
21:05 <@NeddySeagoon> ok, I'll look after the meeting
21:05 <@NeddySeagoon> Who will post the log? _robbat2|irssi has offered
21:05 <@_robbat2|irssi> i'll do log
21:06 <@NeddySeagoon> Who will update the motions page? dabbott gets of lightly this month
21:06 <@dabbott> _robbat2|irssi: could you do Jan also ?
21:06 <@_robbat2|irssi> if my client was here yes
21:06 <@_robbat2|irssi> i'll check and do it if possible
21:06 <@_robbat2|irssi> since I was awol myself
21:06 <@NeddySeagoon> Who will send emails? - none to send
21:06 <@_robbat2|irssi> who's doing minutes?
21:06 <@NeddySeagoon> Open Floor ...
21:06 <@dabbott> NeddySeagoon: see if you have Jan
21:07 <@NeddySeagoon> _robbat2|irssi, we don't do minutes
21:07 <@NeddySeagoon> dabbott, ok
21:07 <@NeddySeagoon> I'll wrestle with cvs if I do before _robbat2|irssi converts it to git
21:08 * rich0 dreams of never having to look at cvs again.... Dreams that turn into rcs file nightmares...
21:08 * NeddySeagoon bangs the gavel to close the meeting