path: root/2017/meeting-20170326-log.txt

[19:02:53] Meeting started by prometheanfire
[19:03:22] <prometheanfire> roll call
[19:03:32] <robbat2> present
[19:03:34] <dabbott> here
[19:03:38] <SwifT> here as well
[19:03:47] <prometheanfire> here
[19:03:59] <prometheanfire> antarus let anyone know he'd be gone?
[19:04:06] <robbat2> not me
[19:04:35] <dwfreed> I'll text him, I've got it up already
[19:04:49] <prometheanfire> k
[19:04:52] <prometheanfire> moving on for now
[19:05:20] <prometheanfire> activity tracker doesn't seem to have anything for us to do atm
[19:05:25] <prometheanfire> irs status report?
[19:05:41] <robbat2> no action, i need bank statements
[19:05:44] <prometheanfire> yep
[19:05:52] <robbat2> (bank status not on agenda?)
[19:05:56] <prometheanfire> I need to email / call again because it'll have been a week on monday
[19:06:03] <prometheanfire> robbat2: should probably be added
[19:06:28] <prometheanfire> I'll add it under my todo items
[19:06:33] <antarus> I'm here
[19:06:33] <prometheanfire> dabbott
[19:06:33] <prometheanfire>     Motion: Remove 27 members that have not voted in last 2 elections.
[19:06:35] <prometheanfire>     Members to be removed
[19:06:46] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation_Talk:Meetings/2017/02 [Foundation Talk:Meetings/2017/02 - Gentoo Wiki]
[19:07:24] <prometheanfire> so, the list got wittled down, what caused that to happen?
[19:07:30] <dabbott> grobian did not want to be removed so i say 26
[19:07:43] <robbat2> i reviewed it and updated
[19:07:48] <robbat2> there were some people wrongly added
[19:07:57] <robbat2> that were impossibilities
[19:08:09] <dabbott> robbat2: thanks
[19:08:10] <robbat2> like not being a member for the first of the two votes
[19:08:14] <prometheanfire> yep
[19:08:45] <prometheanfire> so, vote on removing the 26 members from the rolls (grobian removed)
[19:09:04] <robbat2> seconded
[19:09:08] Current subject: vote on removing the 26 members from the rolls, (set by prometheanfire)
[19:09:24] <prometheanfire> bah
[19:09:28] <prometheanfire> ok, vote
[19:09:31] <prometheanfire> aye
[19:09:32] <robbat2> aye
[19:09:33] <antarus> aye
[19:09:36] <dabbott> aye
[19:09:37] <SwifT> aye
[19:09:54] <prometheanfire> k, motion carried, dabbott will you contact them upon removal?
[19:10:07] <dabbott> ok
[19:10:07] <prometheanfire> or are we just removing them
[19:10:24] <robbat2> i think we have to attempt to notify them by bylaw
[19:10:42] <robbat2> bylaw/articles-of-incorp
[19:10:49] <dabbott> I can send them an email
[19:10:53] ACTION: dabbott contact those members to be removed
[19:11:29] <prometheanfire> next
[19:11:41] Current subject: robbat2:  Treasurer Report, (set by prometheanfire)
[19:12:09] <robbat2> thought we marked as provisionally accepted before; since it won't change prior to getting missing bank statements
[19:12:21] <robbat2> if not, mark as provisionally accepted now and remove from agenda
[19:12:31] <prometheanfire> robbat2: it's still on the schedule
[19:12:32] <prometheanfire> k
[19:12:46] ACTION: robbat2: remove  Treasurer Report from agenda
[19:12:53] <robbat2> :-P
[19:13:00] Current subject: robbat2 Foundation Mailing Address bug 592200, (set by prometheanfire)
[19:13:25] <robbat2> mail service is operational for test physical mail that was sent; changing of addresses is live
[19:13:26] LINK: https://592200.bugs.gentoo.org [592200 – Foundation needs to handle inbound postal mail better, by scanning & emailing]
[19:13:35] <robbat2> we should start a new bugs for changing addresses in various places
[19:14:03] <prometheanfire> agreed
[19:14:18] <prometheanfire> there was a couple of emails about what we need to change as well
[19:14:56] ACTION: open bugs for changing foundation mail addresses with various things (NMPRC done, bank in progress, ...)
[19:15:09] <prometheanfire> robbat2 dabbott antarus SwifT prometheanfire 
[19:15:22] Meeting chairs are: robbat2, dabbott, antarus, swift, prometheanfire
[19:15:26] <prometheanfire> there we go
[19:15:26] <robbat2> kicks the bot
[19:16:00] <antarus> automation is the future ;)
[19:16:03] Current subject: Is SPI worth another look? (alicef), (set by prometheanfire)
[19:16:06] <prometheanfire> alicef: awake?
[19:16:58] <robbat2> it'd be 4am for her
[19:16:59] <prometheanfire> will move on in the mean time
[19:17:06] <prometheanfire> robbat2: she's been here before
[19:17:16] Current subject: Private Policy (is it published yet?), (set by prometheanfire)
[19:17:26] <robbat2> yes it's live
[19:17:29] ACTION: robbat2: remove this item from the agenda
[19:17:31] <prometheanfire> :P
[19:17:31] <robbat2> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Privacy_Policy
[19:18:12] Current subject: prometheanfire: D&O insurance Bug 592198, (set by prometheanfire)
[19:18:39] <prometheanfire> need to send in updated forms tomorrow
[19:18:53] <prometheanfire> once those are in I think we'll be good
[19:19:20] Current subject: prometheanfire: bank access, (set by prometheanfire)
[19:19:58] <prometheanfire> I sent in the forms ~1 week ago to regain access to our accounts, I'll be calling in tomorrow and sending an email to get an update
[19:20:13] Current subject: prometheanfire:  Combining Trustees and Council into 'The Board', (set by prometheanfire)
[19:20:18] <dabbott> prometheanfire: thanks
[19:20:44] <prometheanfire> not sure I want to get rid of this item, but it's on the backburner for now as focus is now on the insurance and bank items
[19:20:59] Current subject: prometheanfire:  Do we need date of birth in developer apps, (set by prometheanfire)
[19:21:06] <prometheanfire> .comment      copyright assignment (greater of local age of majority and US age of majority is met OR 'adult' allowing)
[19:21:14] INFO: copyright assignment (greater of local age of majority and US age of majority is met OR 'adult' allowing)
[19:21:32] <prometheanfire> so, we've had a month to think on this
[19:22:10] <prometheanfire> I think we do need date of birth and that date of birth needs to be the greater of local age of majority and US age of majority
[19:22:35] <prometheanfire> I don't think we should concern ourselves with 'adults' allowing it at this point as it adds complexity we are not ready for (imo)
[19:22:49] <NeddySeagoon> Does DoB need to be proved?
[19:22:55] <antarus> for what purpose are we collecting this information?
[19:23:06] <prometheanfire> antarus: copyright assignment
[19:23:15] <antarus> we don't do copyright assignment
[19:23:25] <prometheanfire> thought our ebuilds did
[19:23:47] <prometheanfire> my nova ebuild says
[19:23:48] <prometheanfire> # Copyright 1999-2017 Gentoo Foundation
[19:24:13] <NeddySeagoon> Some people cannot assign copyright
[19:24:43] <prometheanfire> I'm prety sure we require it so we can redistribute our ebuilds
[19:25:07] <antarus> Let me ask a different question
[19:25:14] <antarus> well no, I wil lnot
[19:25:17] <SwifT> the (re)distribution is handled through the licensing, not the copyright
[19:25:20] <prometheanfire> they are gpl2
[19:25:24] <antarus> I don't think we need people's dob
[19:25:36] <antarus> (or I don't understand why we think we do)
[19:25:41] <antarus> and so I am against collection
[19:25:50] <antarus> we should have a clear reason why we collect it
[19:25:59] <NeddySeagoon> That statemet is in our ebuilds.  It may or may not have any legal standing.  You would need to ask a court and nobody wants to do that.
[19:25:59] <robbat2> can a minor license the gentoo foundation to distribute their works?
[19:26:05] <prometheanfire> so, better question, why do we do copyright assignment in our ebuilds?
[19:26:41] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I think generally 'no'
[19:27:02] <robbat2> historically, we had it the assignment line in the ebuilds, so that we would have legal standing to sue infringers
[19:27:29] <robbat2> the same reason why FSF wants works assigned to them
[19:28:09] <antarus> NeddySeagoon: I think you raise an interesting point, (fraud basically)
[19:28:20] <antarus> but its unclear what business risk there is in having fraudulant dobs
[19:28:44] <prometheanfire> robbat2: makes sense
[19:28:47] <antarus> if we are collecting dobs and names in order to assign copyright, and they are fradulent, what does that do to any assignment?
[19:29:04] <robbat2> that's why I wanted a good-faith statement that they are of majority; rather than needing their DoB
[19:29:05] <prometheanfire> antarus: one topic at a time
[19:29:08] <NeddySeagoon> antarus: If we need DoB - why?  And if we do need it is an assertion good enough or do we need proof?
[19:29:23] <robbat2> we don't have any proof for any prior developers
[19:29:33] <prometheanfire> so first, can we agree that we need copyright assignment?
[19:30:04] <NeddySeagoon> prometheanfire: Thats not a simple y/n
[19:30:12] <antarus> what we want is to have ownership of documents / code so we have standing
[19:30:23] <antarus> generally copyright assignment was one way to do that
[19:30:50] <robbat2> assignment, CLA/*LA, DCO, ...
[19:31:06] <antarus> I'm actually OK with saying "we want copyright assignment, we will collect DoB for that purpose, we don't require proof of DoB"
[19:31:16] <antarus> DoB will only be used for that purpose
[19:31:41] <prometheanfire> I think we are generally agreed that we want copyright assignment
[19:31:55] <robbat2> the linux kernel takes DCOs for contribution, preserves the copyright lines of the authors, and doesn't require any knowledge of majority
[19:32:09] <NeddySeagoon> We won't get copyright assignment from everyone.
[19:32:17] <prometheanfire> robbat2: gentoo seems against DCO for some reason
[19:32:25] <prometheanfire> NeddySeagoon: ya
[19:32:31] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I'd like to do it like that though
[19:32:32] <antarus> huh?
[19:32:39] <robbat2> FSF requires copyright assignments, uses their own copyright line, and wants to know of majority
[19:32:39] <antarus> we already have copyright assignment today we said
[19:32:48] <robbat2> those are two common extremes so far
[19:32:55] <antarus> or you are saying the copyright line is not assignment? :)
[19:32:56] <prometheanfire> antarus: we do
[19:33:11] <prometheanfire> antarus: but once people are told what that actually means they may not like it
[19:33:16] <NeddySeagoon> antarus: Maybe not
[19:33:17] <robbat2> *FSF requries explicit assignment documents, not just a line
[19:33:30] <antarus> I don't intend to discuss the legal implications
[19:33:36] <antarus> so I'm trying not to do that
[19:33:36] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I don't think we will succeed going down the FSF route
[19:33:51] <prometheanfire> also, the FSF route seems to have a ton of overhead
[19:34:00] <robbat2> yes; my personal opinion is that we should be going to the DCO route, not sure why people objected before
[19:34:29] <prometheanfire> we could try again...
[19:34:45] <antarus> There was a thread fairly recently (last year) with some objections afaik
[19:34:54] <antarus> anyway, I want to go back to DoB collection
[19:35:01] <antarus> I presume we assert that minors cannot sign paperwork
[19:35:08] <antarus> and the DoB is to infer that they are majority age?
[19:35:11] <prometheanfire> antarus: more or less that's my opinion
[19:35:20] <prometheanfire> also true
[19:35:23] <antarus> and this is done to shield the foundation from fradulent / ineffective paperwork?
[19:35:33] <prometheanfire> +
[19:35:46] <antarus> (I will spell fraudulent right from now on ;))
[19:35:53] <antarus> where is DoB stored?
[19:35:54] <antarus> LDAP?
[19:36:01] <robbat2> yes
[19:36:04] <prometheanfire> that's where I'd put it
[19:36:16] <antarus> Do we have DoB for all existing developers?
[19:36:18] <robbat2> restricted to infra / devrel-lead / recruiter
[19:36:18] <NeddySeagoon> An assertion of majority is as good as an assertion of DoB
[19:36:33] <prometheanfire> NeddySeagoon: I think that'd be my prefrence
[19:36:42] <robbat2> yes, we have DoB for almost every single develoepr that gentoo ever had
[19:37:07] <antarus> is the almost due to exceptions in process, or just "early gentoo was bad at process"?
[19:37:07] <NeddySeagoon> robbat2: Well, LDAP has that field filled in 
[19:37:18] <robbat2> early gentoo bad at process
[19:37:18] <K_F> at least in norway, the DoB is also used as a dis-ambiguity measure for multiple persons with same name
[19:38:01] <robbat2> we have DoB for every active developer in the last 5 years at least; probably longer
[19:38:09] <antarus> so the first decision needs to be, Dob v age of majority?
[19:38:19] <antarus> (or a majority assertion)
[19:38:47] <antarus> the second question  is about proof; I suspect if we make people submit a signed age of majority assertion
[19:38:55] <prometheanfire> since we already do DoB, that would be less effort at this point
[19:38:56] <antarus> its probably OK against fraud
[19:39:34] <K_F> (there is at least one other person with same name as mine, incidentally born same year..)
[19:39:42] <robbat2> 831 devs in LDAP, 518 have birthday fields that's a valid date 
[19:39:59] <dabbott> DOB first choice assertion second, new developers choice
[19:39:59] <K_F> so unless wanting a SSN..
[19:40:28] <robbat2> yeah hell no
[19:40:32] <prometheanfire> lol
[19:40:54] <prometheanfire> if we go the second route we'd need a new ldap field for 'adult'
[19:41:11] <antarus> would we?
[19:41:23] <robbat2> no, i'd say that the trustees take that proof, and if it wasn't provided, they are not a dev
[19:41:28] <antarus> (would we allow developers below the age of majority?)
[19:41:48] <NeddySeagoon> antarus: We have
[19:41:48] <robbat2> only with the proof doc, that the trustees then retain
[19:41:59] <robbat2> if you're in LDAP, you're allowed
[19:42:01] <prometheanfire> robbat2: makes sense
[19:42:18] <prometheanfire> antarus: stop getting to far ahead, one thing at a time
[19:43:07] <prometheanfire> so, we validate DoB or signed age of majority assertation (and store the latter in foundation accessable location)
[19:43:35] <antarus> er
[19:43:38] <antarus> we are validating DoB now?
[19:44:21] <prometheanfire> how far down that rabbithole do we want to go?
[19:44:42] <robbat2> we don't validate DOB in any way presently
[19:44:56] <antarus> I don't want to do that
[19:45:09] <robbat2> it would not surprise me if at least one DOB in ldap was fake
[19:45:22] <NeddySeagoon> just the one ?
[19:45:28] <prometheanfire> heh
[19:45:29] <antarus> Lets not speculate on the number
[19:45:51] <prometheanfire> so, do we want to validate DoB?
[19:45:56] <prometheanfire> if so, how?
[19:46:05] <dabbott> no
[19:46:09] <antarus> I think what I want is this idea that we collect the DoB for a specific purpose
[19:46:10] <prometheanfire> I'd rather not
[19:46:16] <antarus> and submitting an incorrect DoB is fraud
[19:46:28] <antarus> but honestly I lean toward majority assertion anyway
[19:46:33] <antarus> I don't want poeple's DoB
[19:46:45] <antarus> I just want to know they are an adult, and they signed an assertion saying so
[19:47:03] <antarus> and if they signed it fraudulently, thats illegal and bad on them
[19:47:22] <prometheanfire> antarus: that's basically where I'd hope this end up
[19:47:27] <antarus> but we had a process for copyright assignment and this was the process
[19:48:11] <prometheanfire> by signed I assume you mean hand written, not crypto
[19:48:30] <robbat2> i'd actually prefer crypto
[19:48:41] <antarus> I'm flexible
[19:48:43] <robbat2> because singatures are PII in at least one jurisdiction
[19:48:45] <prometheanfire> how well does that hold in legal?
[19:48:48] <robbat2> *signatures
[19:48:50] <antarus> (on that aspect)
[19:48:51] <prometheanfire> ah, cool
[19:48:58] <antarus> is there an open source docusign? :)
[19:49:10] <antarus> its a similar concept IMHO
[19:49:16] <prometheanfire> sure
[19:49:24] <prometheanfire> ok
[19:49:26] <robbat2> and if one of the goals is to reduce the amount of PII, we shouldn't start capturing signatures just to drop DOB
[19:49:52] <prometheanfire> new statement
[19:50:15] <prometheanfire> (crypto) signed document stating DoB or assertation of age of majority
[19:51:08] <prometheanfire> that sound good?
[19:51:28] <NeddySeagoon> Local age of majority or USA?
[19:51:37] <prometheanfire> the greater of the two
[19:51:46] <robbat2> i think we need to make it more nuanced than that
[19:51:59] <robbat2> because of some of the jurisdictions that go to both extremes
[19:52:10] <robbat2> 12 year old in some places, vs 23 in others
[19:53:19] <robbat2> if they are 21, and living in a place where majority is 23; they could be fine in the US
[19:53:27] <prometheanfire> robbat2: does 'greater of local and us not work'?
[19:53:54] <antarus> us doesn't have a single age of majority, afaik
[19:54:09] <prometheanfire> if we get their DoB we still need their location so we know if they are allowed
[19:54:26] <antarus> this is why I like the age of majority assertion more
[19:54:27] <antarus> ;)
[19:54:28] <robbat2> "your age must meet or exceed either local majority OR the US majority age for voting (18)"
[19:54:57] <prometheanfire> canada is 19
[19:54:58] <prometheanfire> neat
[19:55:14] LINK: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Age_of_majority [Age of majority - Wikiwand]
[19:56:01] <robbat2> canada is 18 for voting, 19 for drinking (in most places)
[19:56:25] <prometheanfire> ya, that link has 21 for colorado
[19:56:34] <prometheanfire> anyway
[19:56:35] <K_F> drinking is really no interesting for the debate, the question is when they can sign a valid contract
[19:56:42] <antarus> age of majority is not the same as age of license
[19:56:47] <antarus> (drinking, voting, etc)
[19:56:49] <prometheanfire> K_F: yep
[19:57:11] <robbat2> can voting be a reasonable proxy for contract signing?
[19:57:17] <K_F> no
[19:57:24] INFO: I like "Your age must meet or exceed either local majority OR the US majority age for voting (18)"
[19:57:32] <prometheanfire> "your age must meet or exceed either local majority OR the US majority age for voting (18), this can be asserted by either providing a crypto signed document stating your assertation of age of majority or by providing your date of birth"
[19:57:45] <K_F> robbat2: there are scenarios where you can vote before legally being able to sign a valid contract
[19:58:04] <antarus> K_F: I mean, there are always exceptions
[19:58:07] <antarus> emancipation, etc.
[19:58:18] <dilfridge> so... we've had (much) younger devs in the past
[19:58:21] <K_F> (e.g in Norway you can vote from age 16 in certain scenarios, but legal age of contract is 18)
[19:58:45] <NeddySeagoon> dabbott: Or parent/guardian permission
[19:58:48] <robbat2> yeah, at least one of the minor devs in Gentoo's past was emancipated :-)
[19:58:53] <prometheanfire> dilfridge: wait a tic :P
[19:59:02] <dabbott> NeddySeagoon: good point
[19:59:10] <antarus> dilfridge: I presume we would handle that by having a guardian sign
[19:59:21] <K_F> antarus: yup, that'd work in that case
[19:59:26] <NeddySeagoon> K_F also in Scotland
[19:59:27] <prometheanfire> are we happy with my previous statement?
[19:59:54] <dabbott> yes
[19:59:56] <antarus> yes
[20:00:01] <prometheanfire> or should we alter it to state 'contract signing' instead of voting
[20:00:38] <NeddySeagoon> of age to legally enter into contracts
[20:01:33] <prometheanfire> if they provide DoB they also need to provide location, then we'd have to figure out if they are of age to legally enter into contracts
[20:02:06] <NeddySeagoon> ask for what we really want to know
[20:02:11] <antarus> again, this is why I think DoB is silly
[20:02:19] <prometheanfire> antarus: I'm just pointing it out
[20:02:46] <antarus> we are over :x
[20:02:56] <prometheanfire> ya
[20:03:04] <prometheanfire> so, table this for next time?
[20:03:07] <antarus> we did bad job of time management on this one, haha
[20:03:14] <antarus> yeah
[20:03:20] <robbat2> let's take the text of that, and propose it to the list anyway
[20:03:21] <prometheanfire> k
[20:03:29] <robbat2> specifically noting that we are trying to drop having to retain PII (DOB)
[20:03:41] <prometheanfire> robbat2: sgtm
[20:03:53] <robbat2> i'd even drop the "or by providing your date of birth" entirely
[20:04:27] <antarus> I'm interested in hearing what the recruiters think about it
[20:04:50] <prometheanfire> robbat2: that'd be my prefrence
[20:05:05] <prometheanfire> I made a todo item for myself for this
[20:05:05] <robbat2> ok, so moving on
[20:05:06] <robbat2> open bugs
[20:05:08] <prometheanfire> next
[20:05:17] Current subject: open bugs, (set by prometheanfire)
[20:05:24] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=3290194&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=--- [Bug List: TrusteesOpenBugs]
[20:05:26] <dabbott> prometheanfire: send an email to trustees and we can finalize
[20:05:34] <prometheanfire> dabbott: sgtm
[20:05:57] <robbat2> the only one I see as a new bug needing remark is the GitHub TOS
[20:06:08] <robbat2> and FSF/Conservency seems to be taking care of it fine
[20:06:17] <robbat2> i'm ok with backing up their decisions on it
[20:06:30] <dabbott> robbat2: +1
[20:06:32] <prometheanfire> ya, between what fsf and greg were both saying I don't think we need to do much there for now
[20:06:36] <antarus> pretty much that yep
[20:07:06] <SwifT> indeed
[20:07:37] <dabbott> thats the first bug i ever saw in RED
[20:07:45] <prometheanfire> next
[20:07:49] <K_F> are we certain their assertion covers our needs?
[20:07:58] <robbat2> there's open  bugs for reimbursement, where the trustees already approved, but as treasurer I'm waiting for invoices still to pay
[20:08:38] <prometheanfire> ya
[20:08:44] <prometheanfire> no new members applied
[20:09:02] <prometheanfire> only remaining thing is cleanup
[20:09:04] <prometheanfire>      Date of Next Meeting - Sun Apr 16 2017 19:00 UTC
[20:09:09] <prometheanfire> that good for people?
[20:09:14] <dabbott> ok here
[20:09:18] <antarus> I am doing a bunch of travel
[20:09:19] <prometheanfire> ok here
[20:09:23] <antarus> so tentative OK
[20:09:27] <robbat2> that's easter
[20:09:36] <prometheanfire> robbat2: not ok?
[20:09:47] <antarus> so it is yeah,
[20:09:51] <antarus> delay it a week
[20:09:54] <robbat2> just expect might be busy with kid
[20:09:56] <prometheanfire> k
[20:10:03] <antarus> I also do not want to meet on easter
[20:10:06] <prometheanfire> apr 23?
[20:10:09] <antarus> will be a brunch or something ;)
[20:10:13] <SwifT> yes, April 23 would be easier for me as well
[20:10:25] <prometheanfire> apr 23 is good here
[20:10:34] <dabbott> ok here, April 23
[20:10:41] <robbat2> speaking of schedules
[20:10:51] <robbat2> june also should have it later, as june 14th is mothers day
[20:11:03] <NeddySeagoon> Thats today here
[20:11:17] <prometheanfire> robbat2: I'll remember when creating next months agenda
[20:11:47] <prometheanfire> one more thing after this, then we are done I think
[20:11:53] <prometheanfire> so is apr 23 good?
[20:11:56] <robbat2> yes
[20:11:59] <dabbott> yes
[20:12:05] <prometheanfire> yes
[20:12:12] <antarus> yes
[20:12:23] <NeddySeagoon> robbat2: JUn 14 is a Wed
[20:12:32] <prometheanfire> k, swift said it was better, assuming it's good
[20:12:44] <prometheanfire> NeddySeagoon: check may :P
[20:12:56] <prometheanfire> ok, last thing
[20:12:59] <robbat2> i meant may ;-)
[20:13:06] <SwifT> yes
[20:13:10] <prometheanfire> alicef asked for Gentoo Developer Certificate
[20:13:11] <SwifT> sorry am on mobile :P
[20:13:28] <robbat2> yes, there's a template in the repo; you're the president, you get to sign it
[20:13:41] <prometheanfire> oh, wasn't aware of that
[20:13:47] <prometheanfire> k, I can do that then
[20:13:58] <prometheanfire> k, open forum for the next 2 min
[20:14:38] <antarus> if you sat through the punishment of the past 75 minutes, now is your time to shine ;)
[20:14:56] <robbat2> hmm, last cert copy I had was scribus, not sure if we converted it to another format
[20:14:58] <NeddySeagoon> has another beer
[20:15:19] <prometheanfire> goes for some scotch :D
[20:15:21] <antarus> !time NeddySeagoon 
[20:15:22] <willikins> antarus: Europe - London - Sun Mar 26 21:15 BST
[20:15:27] <antarus> acceptable
[20:15:32] <robbat2> (the cert I had was for arajuo in 2009)
[20:15:38] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 4364 seconds