[21:59:34] Meeting started by prometheanfire
[21:59:41] <veremitz> klondike: ^cheers
[21:59:41] <Klondike2> Anyways we have just started :)
[21:59:57] Meeting chairs are: klondike2, prometheanfire, dabbott, alicef, kensington, klondike,
[22:00:11] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:00:13] <prometheanfire> o/
[22:00:19] <dabbott> here
[22:00:22] <Klondike2> Remove klondike I don't have access to that computer now
[22:00:24] <kensington> here
[22:00:29] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: it's just in case
[22:00:30] <Klondike2> Here
[22:00:53] <Klondike2> The computer is two hours away from here
[22:01:12] <Klondike2> (And I'm on my phone)
[22:01:13] <prometheanfire> get walking
[22:01:42] <K_F> Klondike2: I've told you to use irssi and not that GUI crap :p
[22:01:46] <Klondike2> Two hours by public transport I estimate a few more of I walk :P
[22:01:51] <prometheanfire> ok, alicef is afk for now
[22:02:05] Current subject: old items, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:02:30] <prometheanfire> nothing on the activity tracker, next month we may want to start the nomination period for elections though
[22:03:03] <prometheanfire> we'll skip over alicef's items as she's not here for now
[22:03:10] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: accounting report
[22:03:21] <prometheanfire> K_F: you and robbat2 too I suppose
[22:03:23] <Klondike2> Okay
[22:03:35] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~k_f/irs-rfp-wip2.pdf [None]
[22:04:09] <Klondike2> Kristian did an amazing work on the rfp
[22:04:39] <Klondike2> Promethean. Can you paste the lines of my mail?
[22:04:48] <kensington> K_F: thank-you for creating this document
[22:05:11] <Klondike2> It's basically what we have to take
[22:05:37] <dabbott> K_F: yep thanks
[22:05:40] <alicef> henr
[22:05:49] <alicef> here
[22:06:03] <dabbott> hi alicef
[22:06:07] <alicef> o/
[22:06:11] <prometheanfire> alicef: ok, you'll be next
[22:06:41] <alicef> o;k
[22:06:44] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: it'd be best of you just forward that to the list (or maybe robbat2 do so as he responded)
[22:07:10] <K_F> basically this is just a base document to work on, but at least it should provide the basics for something that can be used towards third parties in a somewhat structured form
[22:07:18] <Klondike2> Okay I haven't had mail access since then
[22:07:35] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: sure
[22:07:54] <dabbott> whats the next step?
[22:08:00] <prometheanfire> the short if it is that the rfp is nearly done, just some minor details need sorting
[22:08:14] <K_F> dabbott: trustees finishing it up and sending it out
[22:08:36] <prometheanfire> next step after the rfp is complete is to create a list of places to send it and send it out
[22:08:58] <prometheanfire> that'll be done by next month (at the very least making that list)
[22:09:04] <kensington> is the document source available then?
[22:09:22] <Klondike2> I need a decision from us.
[22:09:41] <prometheanfire> kensington: ask k_f for access to the repo
[22:09:48] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: yes?
[22:09:49] <Klondike2> Are you okay with the tooling requirement?
[22:10:01] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: I am
[22:10:03] <K_F> kensington: git://git.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/trustee-financial-rfp.git is the source, robbat2, prometheanfire and klondike has write access
[22:10:04] <Klondike2> Please vote yes or no
[22:10:12] <kensington> K_F: thanks
[22:10:13] <drobbins> can I suggest something?
[22:10:17] <drobbins> or comment?
[22:10:20] <prometheanfire> let me copy and paste it
[22:10:53] <prometheanfire> well, it's a bit long
[22:11:03] <prometheanfire> is everyone able to read section 3.3 of the linked pdf?
[22:11:03] <Klondike2> Daniel yes kf published last draft.
[22:11:17] <drobbins> I think the tooling requirement is unrealistic
[22:11:26] <alicef> prometheanfire: tooling
[22:11:47] <drobbins> and a bit of free software activism, which by itself isn't wrong, but reality is that the task is more important than the freeness of the software the accountant happens to use
[22:11:48] <Klondike2> What do you propose Daniel?
[22:11:50] <drobbins> just my 2c
[22:11:53] <drobbins> that's my comment.
[22:12:23] <alicef> onliy OSS and/or sharable tools can be used
[22:12:28] <alicef> ?
[22:12:31] <prometheanfire> I think we should require the ability to export into a standard oss readable format
[22:12:36] <K_F> dabbott: the tooling is only set to not require trustees etc to have proprietary software, it opens up for web interface for using it
[22:12:37] <prometheanfire> that's all I care about
[22:12:47] <drobbins> fact is that most accounting tools are not free software so it severely limits your choice of accountants
[22:13:03] <prometheanfire> web interface is fine
[22:13:15] <drobbins> done with my comments, move on :)
[22:13:17] <kensington> perhaps we can reword it to highlight the import/export/web ability so as not to "scare off" potential accountants
[22:13:27] <K_F> it doesn't require accountants to use free software, only that we dont' have to use non-proprietary interface
[22:13:29] <dabbott> kensington: +1
[22:13:32] <prometheanfire> even if it's exporting to csv or excel doc (via the good format whatever that is) is fine
[22:14:00] <Klondike2> Okay I can reword that. I wanted to make sure it is pay from our social contract perspective
[22:14:19] <veremitz> xls[x]* for excel
[22:14:47] <Klondike2> *okay
[22:15:11] <kensington> Klondike2: appreciated but as long as we steer clear of that proprietary stuff on our end I think that's the best we can do
[22:15:20] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: yep, if you could clarify the way we import/export separate from general interaction (web interface) I think that'd help
[22:15:44] <Klondike2> So everybody is okay alicef?
[22:16:04] <K_F> I explicitly avoided adding that it needs to be exported in a way that is to be read by a current open source tool
[22:16:23] <prometheanfire> K_F: why's that?
[22:16:25] <K_F> as we can always write a tool for that
[22:16:32] <K_F> if we have the data
[22:16:46] <K_F> and a third party likely don't know what exists
[22:16:56] <alicef> as now from what i remember we are using ledger for accounting
[22:17:15] <prometheanfire> alicef: correct
[22:17:50] <Klondike2> This is stated also on the rfp
[22:17:53] <kensington> K_F: I see your point, but I think the current phrasing will cause this RFP to end up in /dev/null of most accountants
[22:18:12] <K_F> kensington: if so that was not the intention
[22:18:12] <prometheanfire> well, we can discuss this outside of meeting (the particular wording)
[22:18:17] <prometheanfire> good to move on?
[22:18:22] <kensington> K_F: I know
[22:18:25] <Klondike2> Yes
[22:18:43] <Klondike2> I'll hunt the responsible for the relevant gaps
[22:18:48] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:18:48] <K_F> kensington: my experience is that most accountant want organizations to move to web based interface
[22:18:49] <alicef> is already open source, but if we want to add a policy for that it dosen't have to come from the organ working on it?
[22:18:50] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: thanks
[22:19:03] <Klondike2> K_F thanks a lot! Really!
[22:19:49] <dabbott> alicef: but if we hire an outside accounting firm they may use someting like quickbooks only
[22:19:49] <K_F> kensington: so all 3.3 says is that trustees doesn't need to have non-proprietary software to interface with the accountant's interface
[22:20:03] <alicef> dabbott: yes that a good point
[22:20:10] <veremitz> K_F: +1
[22:20:21] Current subject: Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:20:26] <prometheanfire> alicef: progress there?
[22:20:37] <alicef> but i thought using open source tool is already a rule in gentoo
[22:20:39] <prometheanfire> K_F: yep, it gives us some flexibility
[22:21:15] <alicef> prometheanfire: working on it
[22:21:47] Current subject: (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:21:55] <kensington> K_F: I'm not trying to nitpick, this is an excellent document and is very much appreciated, I just wanted to discuss the wording that may be confusing for someone not familiar with our domain
[22:22:21] <alicef> also working on it
[22:22:33] <K_F> kensington: by all means, if it can be clarified somehow, it should be done :)
[22:22:59] Current subject: Do we need date of birth in developer apps (how'd the email go)? , (set by prometheanfire)
[22:23:10] <prometheanfire> that's part of the licencing work
[22:23:13] <prometheanfire> so we can skip that for now
[22:23:20] <antarus> we decided that arleady I thought
[22:23:31] <alicef> yes skip for now
[22:23:32] <antarus> or I thought we had when I last touched base with ulm / rich0 ;)
[22:23:40] <kensington> didn't it devolve into several unrelated topics?
[22:23:47] <prometheanfire> antarus: someone should update the agenda then :P
[22:23:56] <antarus> prometheanfire: I'll follow up with them
[22:23:59] <antarus> move on
[22:23:59] <K_F> signature possibility is required for s-o-b lines for DCO
[22:24:10] <ulm> antarus: nothing about date of birth in the copyright glep so far
[22:24:26] Current subject: my items, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:24:45] <prometheanfire> the tracker is in https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438
[22:24:50] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 [592438 – (openssl-1.1) [TRACKER] packages failing with >=dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0]
[22:25:02] <prometheanfire> no updates really, just a bunch of stuff failing to build with ossl-1.1
[22:25:19] <prometheanfire> that's all I had
[22:25:24] <prometheanfire> alicef had one more item
[22:25:26] <prometheanfire> alicef: go ahead
[22:25:33] <alicef> we have a mail to replay on the trustee about "Gentoo on WSL Follow-Up"
[22:26:27] <prometheanfire> alicef: the last email I saw seemed to just point us toward their docs more or less
[22:26:47] <alicef> yes, we are actually interested on working on it ?
[22:27:25] <prometheanfire> that's something for a project to pick up imo
[22:27:38] <dabbott> whats WSL?
[22:27:44] <antarus> windows services for linux
[22:27:51] <antarus> iirc
[22:28:08] <antarus> seems ripe to email to -project looking for interest?
[22:28:12] <prometheanfire> basically run linux userland in windows, officially
[22:28:20] <prometheanfire> antarus++
[22:28:25] <prometheanfire> I'd say that's the next step
[22:28:27] <Klondike2> Maybe we should start a project for creating a prefix?
[22:28:33] <prometheanfire> basically it's reverse wine
[22:28:36] <alicef> ok for me
[22:28:52] <antarus> alicef: can you own sending the email to -project ?
[22:29:08] <K_F> that doesn't really sound like trustee domain
[22:29:29] <Klondike2> It isn't it's pure dev stuff
[22:29:34] <dabbott> yep
[22:29:35] <antarus> K_F: I think either we foward the mail ourselves (to -project) or ask them to email there?
[22:29:43] <alicef> sure, the point was that they talked about some burocratic things that they didn't explain by mail AFAIR
[22:29:55] <K_F> antarus: thats a good place to start
[22:30:24] <dabbott> It can be discussed to infinity
[22:30:25] <Klondike2> .help
[22:30:34] <prometheanfire> lol
[22:30:39] <alicef> O_o
[22:30:41] <prometheanfire> move on then?
[22:30:44] <alicef> ok
[22:31:04] <alicef> it crashed ?
[22:31:10] <prometheanfire> I'd like to do treasurer and infra updates before community
[22:31:15] Current subject: infra updates, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:31:21] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: you're up (if around)
[22:32:00] <antarus> I have a new set of guidelines, but I'll cover in community
[22:32:15] <antarus> infra has a new server (jacamar) and its close to being operational; was diego's old server
[22:32:24] <antarus> no other updates really atm unless jmbsvicetto has more
[22:32:29] <prometheanfire> I don't think there are updates for infra (not that I've seen)
[22:32:40] <prometheanfire> antarus: ya, that's already been handled on our side though
[22:32:44] <antarus> nods
[22:33:06] Current subject: treasurer update, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:33:08] <prometheanfire> robbat2: around?
[22:33:42] <prometheanfire> I know he's put some links in this channel to some preliminary reports
[22:33:53] <veremitz> think he can't make it
[22:33:57] <prometheanfire> ya
[22:34:04] <K_F> 2018-04-21 22:40:05<+robbat2> i'm not going to make the meeting, but idea for my cross-currency closing
[22:34:14] <veremitz> ^^
[22:34:25] <prometheanfire> K_F: you mind then?
[22:34:58] <K_F> he has done a good job at providing the FY reports (which is another point)
[22:35:50] <K_F> https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 (back to 2005)
[22:36:26] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 [None]
[22:36:31] <K_F> there are some discussion points on the final presentation, but ..
[22:36:32] <prometheanfire> ok, moving on then
[22:37:02] <prometheanfire> K_F: thanks for the update
[22:37:45] Current subject: community items, (set by prometheanfire)
[22:37:55] Current subject: Recognize the separation of responsibilites for Gentoo (src: tamiko) , (set by prometheanfire)
[22:37:58] <prometheanfire> tamiko: around?
[22:38:08] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[22:39:18] <Klondike2> This is relevant for the responsibility concerns you have prometheanfire
[22:40:01] <prometheanfire> ya, this interacts with the 3rd community item
[22:40:07] <Klondike2> If you want to not be liable for, say, Council actions you want to have a clearly stated separation of responsibilities.
[22:40:46] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: sure
[22:40:54] Current subject: GDPR (src: mrueg) , (set by prometheanfire)
[22:40:54] <drobbins> may I comment
[22:41:02] <prometheanfire> mrueg: around?
[22:41:31] <prometheanfire> infra has been passing around a couple of 'guides' for coming into compliance
[22:41:44] <kensington> drobbins: please do
[22:41:46] <drobbins> according to NM law, it's actually the other way around.
[22:41:47] <prometheanfire> the trustees will need to work with infra on it
[22:41:55] <drobbins> https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98
[22:42:09] <prometheanfire> I'll work with infra on gdpr
[22:42:13] <drobbins> so there is already a statute that protects the trustees
[22:42:22] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/2093daf1806149531b3da15c17a6b50c [[gentoo-nfp] Re: GDPR and Gentoo - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[22:42:35] <drobbins> should I do the link thing too?
[22:42:43] <drobbins> ok
[22:42:59] LINK: https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [» New Mexico Statutes 53-8-98. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powersLawServer]
[22:43:01] <prometheanfire> drobbins: we'll circle back to it next
[22:43:10] <prometheanfire> next, back to item 1
[22:43:30] Current subject: Recognize the separation of responsibilites for Gentoo (src: tamiko) , (set by prometheanfire)
[22:43:33] <prometheanfire> again
[22:43:34] <prometheanfire> now
[22:43:37] LINK: https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [» New Mexico Statutes 53-8-98. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powersLawServer]
[22:43:43] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[22:43:55] <K_F> drobbins: that only goes as to asserting powers for the foundation
[22:44:16] <prometheanfire> K_F: was just going to say that
[22:45:41] <prometheanfire> related to item 1 is item 3
[22:45:48] <prometheanfire> so I'll link that now too
[22:46:01] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/944b824fc1d1ca89bcae2d1c3f0520b7 [[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[22:46:06] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/58dbc3cbbb11dc3be2c0ceb3ad8a2059 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[22:47:00] <antarus> in the future it might be nice to title these, just fyi ;)
[22:47:03] <Klondike2> Okay Matt, what do you want us to do? Vote on it?
[22:47:26] <prometheanfire> I suppose the short of my view of item1/3 is that we are working with council to better define responsilities
[22:47:32] <veremitz> a <.subject> would be good ;P
[22:47:49] <veremitz> oh nvm...
[22:47:52] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo's org structure (src: prometheanfire) , (set by prometheanfire)
[22:47:56] <prometheanfire> that was item 3
[22:47:57] <antarus> thanks
[22:48:19] <Klondike2> We have some devs who can't be officials despite they help
[22:48:28] <prometheanfire> I'd like to continue with our talks with council
[22:48:36] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: yep, I wish that didn't complicate things
[22:48:49] <dabbott> prometheanfire: that would bwe ideal
[22:48:53] <antarus> s/officials/officers/ ?
[22:49:01] <prometheanfire> antarus: I assume
[22:49:14] <veremitz> or 'official' devs?
[22:49:21] <Klondike2> Antarus, yes language barriers here
[22:49:26] <veremitz> the old 'contributor' tag?
[22:50:00] <antarus> so no motions on items 1 and 3?
[22:50:05] <prometheanfire> I'd say no
[22:50:15] <prometheanfire> unless another trustee wishes to make one
[22:50:31] <antarus> (sorry, just trying to get as much covered as we can in the 1h ;p)
[22:50:35] <veremitz> (motion): continue dialog?! :D
[22:50:41] <prometheanfire> I imagine this is going to go to 2 hours
[22:50:48] <prometheanfire> veremitz: doesn't need a motion
[22:50:53] <veremitz> :)
[22:50:57] <prometheanfire> ok, moving on
[22:51:00] <dabbott> I would prefer a working agreement with council and trustees
[22:51:09] <Klondike2> Battery at 48%
[22:51:12] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire)
[22:51:17] <prometheanfire> dabbott: that's in progress I'd say
[22:51:27] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd [[gentoo-nfp] infra agenda item - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[22:51:29] <dabbott> prometheanfire: thanks
[22:51:59] <Klondike2> Drobbins, take the voice
[22:52:04] <dabbott> we have a close relationship wit infra, no need imo
[22:52:30] <prometheanfire> antarus: you want to respond?
[22:52:37] <antarus> Robin and I drafted what eventually became: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Infrastructure/Infrastructure_Guidelines
[22:52:49] <prometheanfire> I think you mostly did so in https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/f54b51799916ba483cf14251893d7b05 and https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/78bce34ba1259774c9c2c9501e3adc02
[22:52:59] <antarus> a written down version of informal guidelines regarding how infra administers hardware under its control
[22:53:01] <prometheanfire> antarus: that new?
[22:53:17] <antarus> we wrote about a week ago on infra wiki and published ot main wiki today
[22:53:25] <antarus> happy to incorporate feedback
[22:54:10] <prometheanfire> antarus: I think what drobbins was asking about was the actual hardware ownership
[22:54:21] <prometheanfire> antarus: maybe add a section about that (iirc it varries...)
[22:54:42] <drobbins> I meant ownership as well as control
[22:54:50] <jmbsvicetto> prometheanfire: apologies, I was under the impression the meeting was tomorrow
[22:55:11] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: we switched it to today so that it's sunday in asia instead of monday
[22:55:17] <prometheanfire> did so a couple months ago :P
[22:55:23] <WilliamH> is here also, just got here a few minutes ago.
[22:55:37] <Klondike2> Jorge technically speaking it is in parts of the world
[22:55:40] <prometheanfire> drobbins: I don't think 'control' is well defined enough to say anything
[22:55:41] <antarus> prometheanfire: I'll see what I can dig up in ledger
[22:55:47] <WilliamH> thought the meeting was at 23:00
[22:56:07] <antarus> (in terms of ownership, we depreciate the stuff we own.)
[22:56:13] <antarus> the in-kind donations are probably more of a mess
[22:56:15] <prometheanfire> WilliamH: that's the combined meeting (which is defunct now)
[22:56:38] <K_F> as a point of order, was this posted to -nfp list for discussion to begin with=
[22:56:41] <Shentino> I think that trustees formalizing foundation control over assets would give the clarity for them to intervene legally if necessary if the property is trespassed
[22:56:51] <prometheanfire> K_F: yes, I linked it
[22:56:51] <Shentino> like, if escalation beyond bans is required
[22:56:57] <prometheanfire> K_F: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd
[22:57:16] <prometheanfire> K_F: also linked antarus's responses above
[22:57:18] <K_F> prometheanfire: wfm, thanks
[22:58:11] <prometheanfire> formally, we own the hardware since we are the body that 'owns' things for gentoo
[22:58:35] <antarus> prometheanfire: if you want to ask the question "how much of the current infrastructure is owned vs donated vs unaccounted"
[22:58:44] <antarus> that seems like a reasonble question to pose and answer
[22:58:47] <antarus> I don't have that answer today
[22:59:00] <prometheanfire> antarus: ya, I think we should figure that out
[22:59:06] <antarus> but it seems more answerable than the previous; in terms of clarity
[22:59:24] <jmbsvicetto> anyway, antarus presented the status for infra. One thing left, something you're also going to talk in this meeting, is that we're starting to look at the GDPR
[22:59:25] <Shentino> antarus: wouldn't it still be owned by the foundation if it were donated to the foundation?
[22:59:37] <Shentino> as opposed to say leasing or renting it to the foundation
[22:59:53] <prometheanfire> ok, we can move forward on that
[23:00:08] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: yep, I mentioned that
[23:00:15] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: I'll be the contact for the trustees on it
[23:01:08] <prometheanfire> ok, guess we have our next steps there, next item
[23:01:29] Current subject: Trustees enforce CoC for Council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire)
[23:01:41] <Shentino> +1
[23:01:54] <prometheanfire> the email was never sent to -nfp so I'd like to move this to next month
[23:02:12] <Klondike2> +1
[23:02:18] <dabbott> prometheanfire: sounds good
[23:02:25] <drobbins> I thought I did
[23:02:39] <prometheanfire> it really needs to be discussed publicly first imo
[23:02:46] <prometheanfire> drobbins: I never found it
[23:02:57] <prometheanfire> drobbins: or the next item either
[23:03:04] <Klondike2> The idea is nice and follows the principles of separation of powers set up by Machiavello
[23:03:16] <WilliamH> Can I ask a question about CoC enforcement?
[23:03:22] <prometheanfire> WilliamH: sure
[23:03:26] <Shentino> I for one am in favor of council being accountable to someone, and trustees seems like a reasonable choice
[23:03:33] <WilliamH> Doesn't comrel enforce that for everyone?
[23:03:42] <WilliamH> they are supposed to afaik
[23:03:47] <Shentino> WiliamH: council is the body of appeal for comrel actions IIRC
[23:03:49] <prometheanfire> WilliamH: yes, they are suppoesd to
[23:03:57] <Shentino> IMVHO this is a potential conflict of interest
[23:04:42] <prometheanfire> so far council has recused themselves if needed
[23:04:57] <Klondike2> I'm Spain the judicial power is responsible for controlling the executive power but the executive chooses the judges iirc
[23:04:59] <prometheanfire> anyway next item, as this should be discussed on the list before being brought here
[23:05:11] <Klondike2> You can see how well it works ;)
[23:05:12] <WilliamH> I would rather see council members not allowed to be in comrel or qa, but people don't see that as an issue.
[23:05:13] <jmbsvicetto> WilliamH: whoever does CoC enforcement does it to everyone - currently that's comrel
[23:05:41] <drobbins> a 'fairness rule' is needed
[23:05:56] <drobbins> so that comrel isn't used to pick sides in a conflict
[23:05:56] <WilliamH> Klondike2: heh that's another story.
[23:06:22] <prometheanfire> ok, next item
[23:06:28] Current subject: Trustees place user representitive on the council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire)
[23:06:34] <prometheanfire> this also wasn't sent to the list
[23:06:35] <jmbsvicetto> WilliamH: just like comrel deals with disciplinary actions for all developers, even if they're council members
[23:06:42] <prometheanfire> I'm generally against the idea though
[23:06:52] <Shentino> For the heck of it, how does comrel handle comrel?
[23:07:07] <prometheanfire> please send the proposal to the list and we can discuss it there
[23:07:23] <prometheanfire> it's require an amended glep39 at least, which needs a full dev vote
[23:07:30] <drobbins> prometheanfire: I did send both these to the list
[23:07:38] <kensington> Shentino: they ignore it, like they ignore everything else
[23:07:40] <drobbins> Apr 8
[23:07:42] <prometheanfire> drobbins: I didn't see them :|
[23:07:52] <veremitz> drobbins: link to archives.g.o ?
[23:07:52] <WilliamH> wrt a user rep on the council, it would have to be an elected spot and I think we would need to keep the council having an odd number of members.
[23:07:58] <drobbins> veremitz: one moment
[23:08:11] <prometheanfire> I don't see them https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/threads/2018-04/2
[23:08:14] <WilliamH> That would also have to be a full dev vote since it affects glep 39?
[23:08:16] <Klondike2> Drobbins if not in archive most likely we didn't get them
[23:08:33] <prometheanfire> WilliamH: yep
[23:08:37] <veremitz> drobbins: you sure you weren't banned then?! :P
[23:08:55] <prometheanfire> veremitz: I suspect that's the case
[23:09:04] <veremitz> prometheanfire: me2
[23:09:12] Current subject: Add reopen nominations option to ballot (src: k_f, mgorny) , (set by prometheanfire)
[23:09:16] <drobbins> I also forwarded it to trustees@
[23:09:21] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/c7412600866cd650c9d9b147f3a83966 [[gentoo-nfp] reopen nominations - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[23:09:26] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233 [[gentoo-nfp] New Trustee voting proposal (including _reopen_nominations) - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[23:09:31] <drobbins> dabbott replied to my trustees@ email
[23:09:33] <veremitz> drobbins: needs to hit the list .. public
[23:09:42] <veremitz> then we can build a fresh bike shed! :D
[23:09:46] <veremitz> winks to kensington :D
[23:09:48] <drobbins> veremitz: I believe it was blocked
[23:09:55] <drobbins> thus I forwarded to trustees
[23:09:58] <Klondike2> Wait. Was Daniel banned on nfp?
[23:10:04] <drobbins> I was banned from -project but this was extended to -nfp
[23:10:12] <drobbins> (by mistake)
[23:10:14] <veremitz> it probably got dropped
[23:10:23] <Shentino> Kinda hard to officially raise an issue for discussion by posting to -nfp if you're banned from it
[23:10:33] <drobbins> yep, esp. when I'm not supposed to be
[23:10:33] <Klondike2> mumbles in Spanish...
[23:10:37] <Shentino> and this is why trustees should handle -nfp as a special case
[23:10:45] <Shentino> Klondike2: yo quiero taco bell
[23:10:46] <veremitz> Shentino: but NO!
[23:11:15] <Shentino> Honestly I've been on a soy and garbanzo bean diet that I crave something cheesy and greasy and meaty
[23:11:22] <antarus> drobbins: I'm not sure i follow?
[23:11:24] <veremitz> ^ OT
[23:11:31] <antarus> when were you banned from -nfp?
[23:11:32] <Klondike2> Daniel we are sorry for the inconvenience. Can you please resend the items so we can openly discuss them?
[23:11:33] <drobbins> all: https://imgur.com/GCTtBNi
[23:11:33] <prometheanfire> antarus: was drobbins banned from the nfp list?
[23:11:37] <Shentino> V: agreed, sorry
[23:11:42] <prometheanfire> I haven't seen that as a thing
[23:11:50] <drobbins> antarus: it appears when I was banned from -project, whoever implemented the ban also blocked my emails to -nfp
[23:11:53] <prometheanfire> infra's checking on that
[23:11:58] <prometheanfire> can we discuss the current item
[23:12:00] <drobbins> see the imgur link above for the post I made
[23:12:21] <veremitz> dolpins? again?
[23:12:26] <Shentino> I think "none of the above" is a good option. At least until we can have more people actually running for trustee
[23:12:41] <prometheanfire> please stop talking
[23:12:49] <prometheanfire> :|
[23:12:51] <Shentino> :P
[23:12:54] <prometheanfire> wish that'd print current chairs
[23:13:00] <prometheanfire> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233
[23:13:03] <Klondike2> Okay
[23:13:09] <prometheanfire> trustees, we should discuss this proposal
[23:13:22] <Shentino> prom: sorry, my comment about "none of the above" was in relation to the reopen nominations thing we're discussing
[23:13:22] <Klondike2> Matt the idea is good, the impact not so much
[23:14:50] <drobbins> Klondike2: I can re-send but I also forwarded to trustess on Apr 8 so all the trustees received the email via the trustees alias, and dabbott replied, so I am sure the trustees received it and it should have been on the agenda for this meeting.
[23:15:25] <antarus> drobbins: reading the ML logs I think you were not a member of -nfp with firstname.lastname@example.org until Mon Apr 9
[23:15:27] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: impact not so much?
[23:15:33] <antarus> so your april 8 emails were rejected
[23:15:50] <antarus> I don't see any bans for you, nor mails rejected like I'd expect if a ban was present
[23:16:02] <Shentino> antarus: Does that mean only foundation members are allowed to post to -nfp?
[23:16:16] <drobbins> antarus: that appears to be correct
[23:16:28] <antarus> pretty much for any gentoo list, you have to be a member of the list to post to the list; iirc
[23:16:29] <drobbins> it looks like I found out I was unsub'd from the list
[23:16:31] <dabbott> drobbins: just send them again to -nfp and we will get to it next month
[23:16:32] <antarus> (because: spam)
[23:16:44] <prometheanfire> dabbott: ++
[23:16:59] <dabbott> prometheanfire: that just makes the election more confusing
[23:17:01] <prometheanfire> I think the one thing the proposal needs is to describe the periods to use
[23:17:04] <Klondike2> Matt impact may be less volunteers and trustees meeting delegitimated
[23:17:09] <prometheanfire> dabbott: it does complicate things
[23:17:20] <dabbott> more people need to get involved if they want to
[23:17:32] <veremitz> s/if they want to//
[23:17:33] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: so less people stepping forward is the outcome you'd see?
[23:17:34] <dabbott> nominate themselves if needed
[23:17:53] <dabbott> not make the election a 3 month process
[23:17:57] <Klondike2> One of the outcomes yes
[23:18:04] <prometheanfire> why do you think that?
[23:18:18] <prometheanfire> dabbott: self nomination is allowed
[23:18:18] <veremitz> drobbins: ACK mail 1 to -nfp
[23:18:28] <Klondike2> You like having your self worth crushed?
[23:18:28] <Shentino> I wanna see more people nominated honestly. A contested election would give the members choices to make.
[23:18:56] <jmbsvicetto> Has anyone confirmed that a ballot for the Trustees can even have a "fictional candidate"?
[23:19:01] <Shentino> There's less of a point in voting if nobody can win
[23:19:12] <Shentino> jmbsvicetto: I nominate Chuck Norris.
[23:19:30] <prometheanfire> Shentino: not a dev
[23:19:39] <jmbsvicetto> Shentino: can you please stop with the off-topic? It makes really hard to follow this discussion
[23:19:40] <veremitz> s/dev/foundation member/
[23:19:41] <ulm> jmbsvicetto: it's merely a marker, not a candidate
[23:19:44] <dabbott> Shentino: please stay on topic
[23:19:47] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: they need to be a dev
[23:20:11] <Shentino> in that case j, what do you mean exactly by "fictional candidate"?
[23:20:18] <Shentino> my comment was in relation to that
[23:20:29] <jmbsvicetto> ulm: The old concern was that any candidate to a legal entity needed to "exist". I haven't seen anyone addressing that concern
[23:20:53] <jmbsvicetto> ulm: I don't know if that's a valid legal argument or not, but I don't think we should ignore it
[23:20:57] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: iirc it was confirmed that it'd be allowed, NM gives us huge leeway for how tovote
[23:20:59] <dabbott> Shentino: reopen_nominations
[23:21:07] <antarus> jmbsvicetto: I think we are unlikely to find that out here
[23:21:15] <veremitz> jmbsvicetto: I would err that they can be nominated, but perhaps not appointed?
[23:21:23] <prometheanfire> it was looked into and deemed possible
[23:21:27] <Shentino> dabbott: oh, you mean kinda like "make .PHONY"?
[23:21:28] <jmbsvicetto> antarus: I agree
[23:21:41] <prometheanfire> I think we need another revision to the proposal before voting (and possibly making it a bylaw change/addition)
[23:21:51] <dabbott> Shentino: read the email
[23:21:54] <prometheanfire> does that sound good to the other trustees?
[23:22:09] <dabbott> then make an informed comment if needed
[23:22:15] <K_F> the proposal is simple enough
[23:23:11] <prometheanfire> K_F: we need to reconfirm it's legally possible, if it is then we need to decide on a schedule, once both of those are done we can vote/change policy
[23:23:12] <antarus> So we work on a bylaw amendment for next month, will work on wording offline?
[23:23:21] <jmbsvicetto> K_F: it's simple enough, but I'm sure that the proposal would be illegal on PT jurisdiction. I have no knowledge if it'd be ok in NM or not
[23:23:23] <prometheanfire> antarus: that's my prefrence
[23:23:38] <antarus> do we aim to have the bylaw amended prior to the next election?
[23:23:42] <prometheanfire> jmbsvicetto: I think it's fine, but we need to confirm
[23:23:45] <antarus> if so there is some timeline involved
[23:23:58] <jmbsvicetto> prometheanfire: that's all I'm asking. Thanks
[23:24:00] <prometheanfire> antarus: next meeting would be the latest time we could do so
[23:24:05] <K_F> the selection of trustees is wide enough that a reopen variant it irrelevant
[23:24:06] <antarus> ok
[23:24:11] <alicef> prometheanfire: ok for me
[23:24:41] <prometheanfire> dabbott: Klondike2 kensington ?
[23:25:12] <kensington> ok
[23:25:25] <dabbott> We have been having the AGM in Augest so the election needs to be completed by then
[23:25:47] <prometheanfire> dabbott: yep, which is why next month is the latest we can make changes
[23:26:03] <jmbsvicetto> dabbott: iirc, the bylaws state the AGM takes place in August
[23:26:09] <dabbott> ok, it will never happen that fast this year
[23:26:18] <jmbsvicetto> dabbott: so any change would require a bylaw change
[23:26:45] <prometheanfire> ok, we have 3 to move on (out of 5, two not voting) so moving on
[23:26:51] Current subject: present financial reports for 2013-2017 , (set by prometheanfire)
[23:26:54] <dabbott> ok
[23:27:05] <K_F> not at all.. it would only potentially require multiple rounds
[23:27:15] <prometheanfire> K_F: it could fit, yes
[23:27:20] <Klondike2> Unless I see at least 100% more candidates than open slots in two elections I'll vote against.
[23:27:23] <prometheanfire> K_F: can you relink the reports?
[23:27:44] <K_F> https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017
[23:27:51] <K_F> with FY2005 - 2017
[23:27:59] <antarus> (just change the year in the URL)
[23:28:07] <prometheanfire> thanks
[23:28:12] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 [None]
[23:28:16] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2016 [None]
[23:28:19] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2015 [None]
[23:28:24] <prometheanfire> etc...
[23:28:37] <Klondike2> Battery at 33
[23:28:39] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2014 [None]
[23:28:42] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2013 [None]
[23:28:48] <prometheanfire> ok, the ones asked for are linked
[23:28:57] Current subject: contact SFLC/Eben Moglen for finance and legal advice, (set by prometheanfire)
[23:29:07] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/6e2c1974935494b7791e3958ef7e7562 [[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Contacting Eben Moglen - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[23:30:10] <Klondike2> Do we have any takers here?
[23:30:21] <antarus> sorry, takers == people to volunteer to contact Eben?
[23:30:39] <prometheanfire> I'm in favor of reaching out and retaining legal counsel
[23:30:45] <Klondike2> Yes I'll have it hard for example
[23:31:04] <prometheanfire> it doesn't have to be the sflc though
[23:31:25] <prometheanfire> I think we need to define what we wish, which ties into the financial rfp
[23:31:47] <prometheanfire> imo this will be an extension of the financial work
[23:32:53] <Klondike2> Okay so we wait until the rfp is done?
[23:32:56] <prometheanfire> I think so
[23:33:04] <Klondike2> I think we can jump on directly
[23:33:19] <prometheanfire> the we can make a mini-rfp and send out to diferent people
[23:33:24] <prometheanfire> sfc sflc etc
[23:33:33] <antarus> sorry, what concrete item are we waiting on?
[23:33:45] <antarus> like we will write the rfp and send it out and retain financial services
[23:33:51] <Klondike2> Drobbins this is your item what's your take?
[23:33:55] <antarus> and this enables the board to do..what?
[23:34:25] <antarus> I'm personlly frustrated as a foundation member where the foundation members (board included) speculate rampantly on various topics without seemingly consulting lawyers for anything
[23:34:27] <veremitz> there's no harm in making an approach, and following up with the RFP, surely?
[23:34:42] <Klondike2> Provide a clear description to sflc and eben of our needs and status
[23:34:42] <antarus> so I would prefer the board found some ongoing legal counsel; even if just for consulting (advisory) purposes
[23:34:53] <veremitz> antarus++
[23:35:05] <antarus> (which isn't to say, consult them for everything, which I would also oppose as costly ;p)
[23:35:48] <prometheanfire> antarus: a set of what we are looking for mainly
[23:35:53] <Klondike2> Antarus so you volunteering as candidate for next election to change that?
[23:36:01] <prometheanfire> antarus: yes, it would be nice to talk to an actual lawyer about things
[23:36:08] <prometheanfire> that's one of the main draws of this
[23:36:11] <antarus> Klondike2: I have a different plan in mind ;p
[23:36:24] <prometheanfire> 18:35 < antarus+> so I would prefer the board found some ongoing legal counsel; even if just for consulting (advisory) purposes
[23:36:27] <prometheanfire> yes
[23:36:41] <antarus> sorry, so backing up
[23:37:01] <antarus> besides what I'll term as 'vaguely random legal advice' what else does the board need counsel for?
[23:37:12] <antarus> (or why do we think counsel is needed for financial work?)
[23:37:33] <Klondike2> Because we suck at it!
[23:37:37] <antarus> like if we are going to be a tax-exempt nonprofit, afaik there is legal work required for that; but its unclear that is a goal at this time; do we expect that to change after the rfp?
[23:37:53] <antarus> or we think we will need counsel for the IRS?
[23:37:56] <prometheanfire> antarus: it's about tax exempt paperwork help
[23:38:15] <prometheanfire> that's the only tie, and a minor one really
[23:38:16] <antarus> prometheanfire: so becoming tax-exempt is an explicit goal?
[23:38:39] <prometheanfire> antarus: not at this time, but it'd be nice to only have to have one lawyer/contact
[23:38:40] <antarus> (like its bandied about often, but I was unclear it was something the board was seriously persuing)
[23:38:40] <veremitz> I suggest perhaps once you build a relationship, avenues will become more apparent once a dialogue is in place
[23:38:43] <Klondike2> Making it's happy is an explicit goal
[23:39:04] <Klondike2> Becoming tax exempt is a nice to have goal
[23:39:17] <antarus> prometheanfire: what i'm trying to get at is that there is no need to wait for the rfp to seek legal services?
[23:39:19] <Klondike2> Its should be irs
[23:39:21] <veremitz> that should be a core goal
[23:39:23] <antarus> (we could just do it now)
[23:39:31] <veremitz> ^ this too
[23:39:41] <dabbott> first we need to reain an account / CPA firm, that should be #1 priority
[23:39:50] <kensington> dabbott++
[23:40:06] <veremitz> I think antarus suggests we do both in parallel ?
[23:40:09] <dabbott> if the rfp helps great if not hire someone
[23:40:22] <dabbott> soon
[23:40:24] <prometheanfire> antarus: we can do them in parallel, yes
[23:40:45] <veremitz> the legal help may steer the accounting help ..
[23:40:55] <antarus> if we don't because we can't find people etow ork on it, thats a different issue (one is prioritization, the other is a strict dependency problem)
[23:41:40] <antarus> I think we should start building legal reqs in any case, and i'll commit to doing that
[23:41:51] <antarus> and we can move on?
[23:41:56] <dabbott> antarus: thanks
[23:42:02] <prometheanfire> ok, next step here is to building legal reqs, once those are built we can seek a contract
[23:42:06] <prometheanfire> antarus: yes
[23:42:13] Current subject: moderation of the nfp list , (set by prometheanfire)
[23:42:20] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/41c38f14752a491fe29f2c050ff5c3a2 [[gentoo-nfp] agenda item: moderation of the nfp list - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives]
[23:42:45] <prometheanfire> if we can decide on item 2.1 I think we can vote on this now
[23:42:55] <Klondike2> I think delegation makes sense
[23:43:16] <Klondike2> Okay Matt set your vote!
[23:43:20] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: what do you think of item 2.1?
[23:43:25] <prometheanfire> 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this)
[23:43:46] <prometheanfire> I'll just paste it
[23:43:48] <prometheanfire> 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even
[23:43:48] <prometheanfire> to Foundation members.
[23:43:48] <prometheanfire> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the
[23:43:48] <prometheanfire> CoC. Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.
[23:43:51] <prometheanfire> 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this)
[23:43:53] <prometheanfire> 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the
[23:43:56] <prometheanfire> trustees.
[23:44:10] <Klondike2> In mother Spain we make ban causes public
[23:44:38] <prometheanfire> dabbott: kensington alicef ?
[23:44:48] <kensington> prometheanfire: is there a motion?
[23:45:03] <Klondike2> So personally I vote for yes including the ban cause being public
[23:45:20] <prometheanfire> kensington: I'm more asking about 2.2 before formally proposing this for a vote
[23:45:23] <dabbott> no for the public
[23:45:44] <prometheanfire> dabbott: reason?
[23:46:10] <Klondike2> .vote motion one should ban causes be public? Yes our no
[23:46:11] <dabbott> they can ask us to appeal the decision
[23:46:19] <veremitz> reason given must be known by all trustees?
[23:46:28] <dabbott> we may be changing comrel policy
[23:46:47] <dabbott> veremitz: yes
[23:47:00] <prometheanfire> veremitz: that's an ok compromise
[23:47:01] <veremitz> s/known/shared with/
[23:47:09] <veremitz> d'oh nearly
[23:47:10] <alicef> prometheanfire: who are "those having actions enacted against them" ?
[23:47:22] <prometheanfire> alicef: whoever is banned/warned
[23:47:53] <Klondike2> 22%
[23:48:00] <dabbott> If someone is banned from the -nfp list we should know who and the reason
[23:48:06] <alicef> what if they are banned from the trustee mailing list ?
[23:48:21] <dabbott> then they can come to us for relief
[23:48:21] <veremitz> lends his battery bank to Klondike2
[23:48:32] <ulm> maybe make it "reason must be made available to trustees on their request"?
[23:48:32] <Klondike2> That is out of scope of the policy
[23:48:37] <prometheanfire> I suggested amending 2.1 as follows 'The reason given needs to be given to to those acted against (banned or warned) and the trustees'
[23:49:13] <veremitz> ulm: I would tend to think they should be informed before there may be an appeal
[23:49:21] <alicef> current members of the trustee ?
[23:49:38] <prometheanfire> alicef: that's what that means
[23:49:44] <alicef> ok
[23:49:45] <kensington> what actually triggered this proposal?
[23:50:00] <prometheanfire> kensington: just that the nfp list had no moderation as is
[23:50:02] <Klondike2> is still in for fully public because it brings in things like accountability transparency and community pressure.
[23:50:10] <kensington> prometheanfire: suits me fine
[23:50:15] <antarus> prometheanfire: we might as well make the trustees moderate it then?
[23:50:39] <prometheanfire> antarus: do you want to moderate the list? I think deligation makes more sense
[23:51:10] <dabbott> prometheanfire: the board can do it as a whole
[23:52:00] <prometheanfire> possible, but I'd rather deligate it
[23:52:27] <antarus> the problem is no one wants to sign up to moderate, so instead we end up with this burdensome process ;)
[23:52:34] <antarus> signed up to moderate gentoo-dev already
[23:52:38] <kensington> why do we need to moedate it at all?
[23:52:39] <antarus> I'm probably not up for another
[23:53:34] <prometheanfire> ok, please vote on the following
[23:53:42] <prometheanfire> 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even to Foundation members.
[23:53:45] <prometheanfire> 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the CoC. Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given.
[23:53:48] <prometheanfire> 2.1. The reason given needs to be given to the trustees and those having the moderation enacte against them.
[23:53:51] <prometheanfire> 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the trustees.
[23:54:05] <kensington> no
[23:54:05] <dabbott> yes
[23:54:15] <alicef> nfp and trustee is not moderated by the secretary (at least was what i thought)?
[23:54:29] <prometheanfire> alicef: it is not at this point
[23:54:40] <alicef> Moderators: calchan, dabbott, fox2mike, neddyseagoon, quantumsummers, rich0, robbat2
[23:54:51] <alicef> https://www.gentoo.org/get-involved/mailing-lists/all-lists.html
[23:54:58] <veremitz> O,o
[23:55:19] <prometheanfire> alicef: that's gentoo foundation announce
[23:55:37] <Klondike2> Phone almost died, sorry
[23:55:45] <alicef> is under gentoo-nfp The Gentoo NFP/Trustees Mailing list
[23:55:49] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: can you vote real quick on my proposal?
[23:56:55] <Klondike2> No unless reason is public
[23:57:18] <antarus> alicef: its a quirk of the ML software
[23:57:23] <prometheanfire> alicef: I'm not sure that moderation list has bearing on this
[23:57:25] <prometheanfire> antarus: right
[23:57:44] <antarus> alicef: those are the moderators for the list, but the rules of the list software say that nearly no posts are moderated
[23:58:03] <antarus> (in fact there are 0 rules on gentoo-nfp that funnel mail in to the moderation queue)
[23:58:10] <alicef> i don't even now how to moderate it
[23:58:13] <alicef> know
[23:58:40] <prometheanfire> alicef: are you able to vote?
[23:58:41] <antarus> its not difficult, but we could cover it later unless you think its a blocker to voting?
[23:59:57] <Klondike2> 2 hours already...
[00:00:04] <prometheanfire> yep
[00:00:16] <prometheanfire> alicef: anything preventing you from voting?
[00:01:39] <alicef> the reason need to be given to trustee from comrel ?
[00:01:45] <prometheanfire> yep
[00:01:53] <prometheanfire> 2.1. The reason given needs to be given to the trustees and those having the moderation enacte against them
[00:02:59] <veremitz> did anything come of the mailman3 ML project?
[00:03:03] <alicef> yes
[00:03:12] <prometheanfire> alicef: that your vote?
[00:03:15] <prometheanfire> veremitz: later
[00:03:15] <alicef> yes
[00:03:18] <prometheanfire> ok
[00:03:22] <prometheanfire> my vote is yes
[00:03:27] <prometheanfire> motion carries
[00:03:36] <veremitz> prometheanfire: np
[00:04:00] <prometheanfire> next
[00:04:02] <prometheanfire> bug cleanup
[00:04:08] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: we can work tomorrow on that if you want
[00:04:24] <prometheanfire> next, new members
[00:04:41] Current subject: fearedbliss Jonathan Vasquez, (set by prometheanfire)
[00:04:48] <dabbott> yes
[00:04:51] <kensington> yes
[00:04:51] <prometheanfire> yes
[00:04:52] <alicef> yes
[00:05:06] <Klondike2> I sent the list anybody against ping and close for them reply before
[00:05:08] <dabbott> I will send the email
[00:05:20] <Klondike2> Tuesday cest
[00:05:25] <Klondike2> Yes
[00:05:34] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: ok
[00:05:37] <prometheanfire> dabbott: thanks
[00:05:43] <Klondike2> And I want to welcome him in Spanish
[00:05:43] <prometheanfire> next
[00:05:49] <alicef> i will update the motions
[00:05:49] Current subject: Date of Next Meeting - Saturday, May 19 2018 22:00 UTC, (set by prometheanfire)
[00:05:59] <prometheanfire> that work?
[00:06:03] <Klondike2> Dabbot let me send it please
[00:06:10] <dabbott> klondike: ok
[00:06:16] <antarus> afaik I'm not here, but don't let that stop you
[00:06:21] <Klondike2> So far yes
[00:06:25] <antarus> I'll try to have updates on the legal item
[00:06:28] <prometheanfire> ok
[00:06:29] <dabbott> ok
[00:06:36] <dabbott> antarus: thanks
[00:06:42] <prometheanfire> finally
[00:06:43] <prometheanfire> Who will post the log? Minutes? (dabbott )
[00:06:43] <prometheanfire> Who will update the motions page? (aliceinwire )
[00:06:43] <prometheanfire> Who will send emails? (dabbott )
[00:06:43] <prometheanfire> Who will update agenda? (prometheanfire )
[00:06:45] <prometheanfire> Who will update channel topic? (prometheanfire )
[00:06:49] <prometheanfire> that all sound good?
[00:07:00] <dabbott> alicef: I will post the motion this month
[00:07:08] <Klondike2> Yes
[00:07:08] <alicef> ?
[00:07:25] <alicef> dabbott: ?
[00:07:30] <dabbott> I have it saved
[00:07:37] <dabbott> unless you want to
[00:07:46] <alicef> sure, you are welcome :)
[00:07:56] <prometheanfire> ok, last item before close
[00:07:59] Current subject: Open Floor, (set by prometheanfire)
[00:08:08] <prometheanfire> I'd like this to be quick
[00:08:17] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: I think you can probably drop off here
[00:08:23] <Klondike2> Dabbot I'll ping Jonathan when I get home later today
[00:08:25] <dwfreed> I missed basically the whole meeting, but hi
[00:08:48] <dwfreed> (I don't have anything useful to add, I don't think)
[00:08:56] <Klondike2> Drobbins sorry for the missed items
[00:09:15] <dabbott> Bug 653640
[00:09:18] <willikins> dabbott: https://bugs.gentoo.org/653640 "Add HelloTux (Embroidered Shirts) to page "Stores offering Gentoo products" new section "Worldwide""; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; R030t1:trustees
[00:09:26] <dabbott> post to it when you can
[00:09:42] <Klondike2> I vote either yes or vote asap
[00:09:45] <prometheanfire> dabbott: I'm in favor, but we can vote in the bug
[00:09:55] <dabbott> sounds good
[00:10:07] <prometheanfire> Klondike2: vote in the bug
[00:10:26] <Klondike2> Bug vote tomorrow then
[00:10:39] <prometheanfire> k
[00:10:45] <prometheanfire> ending meeting
[00:10:48] <Klondike2> Anything en jar
[00:10:56] <Klondike2> Else?
[00:11:12] <drobbins> Klondike2: np
[00:11:17] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 7902 seconds