From a14a765caddfde912e196012b8cdf97cc5fac6b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David Abbott Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 20:19:28 -0400 Subject: added log for April Meeting --- ...-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt | 704 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 704 insertions(+) create mode 100644 2018/2018-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt diff --git a/2018/2018-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt b/2018/2018-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..02da26e --- /dev/null +++ b/2018/2018-04-21-21:59_Foundation-Meeting-2018-04.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,704 @@ +[21:59:34] Meeting started by prometheanfire +[21:59:41] klondike: ^cheers +[21:59:41] 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] o/ +[22:00:19] here +[22:00:22] Remove klondike I don't have access to that computer now +[22:00:24] here +[22:00:29] Klondike2: it's just in case +[22:00:30] Here +[22:00:53] The computer is two hours away from here +[22:01:12] (And I'm on my phone) +[22:01:13] get walking +[22:01:42] Klondike2: I've told you to use irssi and not that GUI crap :p +[22:01:46] Two hours by public transport I estimate a few more of I walk :P +[22:01:51] ok, alicef is afk for now +[22:02:05] Current subject: old items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:02:30] nothing on the activity tracker, next month we may want to start the nomination period for elections though +[22:03:03] we'll skip over alicef's items as she's not here for now +[22:03:10] Klondike2: accounting report +[22:03:21] K_F: you and robbat2 too I suppose +[22:03:23] Okay +[22:03:35] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~k_f/irs-rfp-wip2.pdf [None] +[22:04:09] Kristian did an amazing work on the rfp +[22:04:39] Promethean. Can you paste the lines of my mail? +[22:04:48] K_F: thank-you for creating this document +[22:05:11] It's basically what we have to take +[22:05:37] K_F: yep thanks +[22:05:40] henr +[22:05:49] here +[22:06:03] hi alicef +[22:06:07] o/ +[22:06:11] alicef: ok, you'll be next +[22:06:41] o;k +[22:06:44] Klondike2: it'd be best of you just forward that to the list (or maybe robbat2 do so as he responded) +[22:07:10] 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] Okay I haven't had mail access since then +[22:07:35] Klondike2: sure +[22:07:54] whats the next step? +[22:08:00] the short if it is that the rfp is nearly done, just some minor details need sorting +[22:08:14] dabbott: trustees finishing it up and sending it out +[22:08:36] next step after the rfp is complete is to create a list of places to send it and send it out +[22:08:58] that'll be done by next month (at the very least making that list) +[22:09:04] is the document source available then? +[22:09:22] I need a decision from us. +[22:09:41] kensington: ask k_f for access to the repo +[22:09:48] Klondike2: yes? +[22:09:49] Are you okay with the tooling requirement? +[22:10:01] Klondike2: I am +[22:10:03] kensington: git://git.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/trustee-financial-rfp.git is the source, robbat2, prometheanfire and klondike has write access +[22:10:04] Please vote yes or no +[22:10:12] K_F: thanks +[22:10:13] can I suggest something? +[22:10:17] or comment? +[22:10:20] let me copy and paste it +[22:10:53] well, it's a bit long +[22:11:03] is everyone able to read section 3.3 of the linked pdf? +[22:11:03] Daniel yes kf published last draft. +[22:11:17] I think the tooling requirement is unrealistic +[22:11:26] prometheanfire: tooling +[22:11:47] 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] What do you propose Daniel? +[22:11:50] just my 2c +[22:11:53] that's my comment. +[22:12:23] onliy OSS and/or sharable tools can be used +[22:12:28] ? +[22:12:31] I think we should require the ability to export into a standard oss readable format +[22:12:36] 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] that's all I care about +[22:12:47] fact is that most accounting tools are not free software so it severely limits your choice of accountants +[22:13:03] web interface is fine +[22:13:15] done with my comments, move on :) +[22:13:17] perhaps we can reword it to highlight the import/export/web ability so as not to "scare off" potential accountants +[22:13:27] it doesn't require accountants to use free software, only that we dont' have to use non-proprietary interface +[22:13:29] kensington: +1 +[22:13:32] even if it's exporting to csv or excel doc (via the good format whatever that is) is fine +[22:14:00] Okay I can reword that. I wanted to make sure it is pay from our social contract perspective +[22:14:19] xls[x]* for excel +[22:14:47] *okay +[22:15:11] 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] 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] So everybody is okay alicef? +[22:16:04] 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] K_F: why's that? +[22:16:25] as we can always write a tool for that +[22:16:32] if we have the data +[22:16:46] and a third party likely don't know what exists +[22:16:56] as now from what i remember we are using ledger for accounting +[22:17:15] alicef: correct +[22:17:50] This is stated also on the rfp +[22:17:53] 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] kensington: if so that was not the intention +[22:18:12] well, we can discuss this outside of meeting (the particular wording) +[22:18:17] good to move on? +[22:18:22] K_F: I know +[22:18:25] Yes +[22:18:43] I'll hunt the responsible for the relevant gaps +[22:18:48] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:18:48] kensington: my experience is that most accountant want organizations to move to web based interface +[22:18:49] 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] Klondike2: thanks +[22:19:03] K_F thanks a lot! Really! +[22:19:49] alicef: but if we hire an outside accounting firm they may use someting like quickbooks only +[22:19:49] 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] dabbott: yes that a good point +[22:20:10] K_F: +1 +[22:20:21] Current subject: Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:20:26] alicef: progress there? +[22:20:37] but i thought using open source tool is already a rule in gentoo +[22:20:39] K_F: yep, it gives us some flexibility +[22:21:15] prometheanfire: working on it +[22:21:47] Current subject: (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:21:55] 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] also working on it +[22:22:33] 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] that's part of the licencing work +[22:23:13] so we can skip that for now +[22:23:20] we decided that arleady I thought +[22:23:31] yes skip for now +[22:23:32] or I thought we had when I last touched base with ulm / rich0 ;) +[22:23:40] didn't it devolve into several unrelated topics? +[22:23:47] antarus: someone should update the agenda then :P +[22:23:56] prometheanfire: I'll follow up with them +[22:23:59] move on +[22:23:59] signature possibility is required for s-o-b lines for DCO +[22:24:10] 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] 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] no updates really, just a bunch of stuff failing to build with ossl-1.1 +[22:25:19] that's all I had +[22:25:24] alicef had one more item +[22:25:26] alicef: go ahead +[22:25:33] we have a mail to replay on the trustee about "Gentoo on WSL Follow-Up" +[22:26:27] alicef: the last email I saw seemed to just point us toward their docs more or less +[22:26:47] yes, we are actually interested on working on it ? +[22:27:25] that's something for a project to pick up imo +[22:27:38] whats WSL? +[22:27:44] windows services for linux +[22:27:51] iirc +[22:28:08] seems ripe to email to -project looking for interest? +[22:28:12] basically run linux userland in windows, officially +[22:28:20] antarus++ +[22:28:25] I'd say that's the next step +[22:28:27] Maybe we should start a project for creating a prefix? +[22:28:33] basically it's reverse wine +[22:28:36] ok for me +[22:28:52] alicef: can you own sending the email to -project ? +[22:29:08] that doesn't really sound like trustee domain +[22:29:29] It isn't it's pure dev stuff +[22:29:34] yep +[22:29:35] K_F: I think either we foward the mail ourselves (to -project) or ask them to email there? +[22:29:43] sure, the point was that they talked about some burocratic things that they didn't explain by mail AFAIR +[22:29:55] antarus: thats a good place to start +[22:30:24] It can be discussed to infinity +[22:30:25] .help +[22:30:34] lol +[22:30:39] O_o +[22:30:41] move on then? +[22:30:44] ok +[22:31:04] it crashed ? +[22:31:10] I'd like to do treasurer and infra updates before community +[22:31:15] Current subject: infra updates, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:31:21] jmbsvicetto: you're up (if around) +[22:32:00] I have a new set of guidelines, but I'll cover in community +[22:32:15] infra has a new server (jacamar) and its close to being operational; was diego's old server +[22:32:24] no other updates really atm unless jmbsvicetto has more +[22:32:29] I don't think there are updates for infra (not that I've seen) +[22:32:40] antarus: ya, that's already been handled on our side though +[22:32:44] nods +[22:33:06] Current subject: treasurer update, (set by prometheanfire) +[22:33:08] robbat2: around? +[22:33:42] I know he's put some links in this channel to some preliminary reports +[22:33:53] think he can't make it +[22:33:57] ya +[22:34:04] 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] ^^ +[22:34:25] K_F: you mind then? +[22:34:58] he has done a good job at providing the FY reports (which is another point) +[22:35:50] 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] there are some discussion points on the final presentation, but .. +[22:36:32] ok, moving on then +[22:37:02] 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] 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] This is relevant for the responsibility concerns you have prometheanfire +[22:40:01] ya, this interacts with the 3rd community item +[22:40:07] If you want to not be liable for, say, Council actions you want to have a clearly stated separation of responsibilities. +[22:40:46] Klondike2: sure +[22:40:54] Current subject: GDPR (src: mrueg) , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:40:54] may I comment +[22:41:02] mrueg: around? +[22:41:31] infra has been passing around a couple of 'guides' for coming into compliance +[22:41:44] drobbins: please do +[22:41:46] according to NM law, it's actually the other way around. +[22:41:47] the trustees will need to work with infra on it +[22:41:55] https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 +[22:42:09] I'll work with infra on gdpr +[22:42:13] 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] should I do the link thing too? +[22:42:43] 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] drobbins: we'll circle back to it next +[22:43:10] 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] again +[22:43:34] 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] drobbins: that only goes as to asserting powers for the foundation +[22:44:16] K_F: was just going to say that +[22:45:41] related to item 1 is item 3 +[22:45:48] 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] in the future it might be nice to title these, just fyi ;) +[22:47:03] Okay Matt, what do you want us to do? Vote on it? +[22:47:26] I suppose the short of my view of item1/3 is that we are working with council to better define responsilities +[22:47:32] a <.subject> would be good ;P +[22:47:49] oh nvm... +[22:47:52] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo's org structure (src: prometheanfire) , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:47:56] that was item 3 +[22:47:57] thanks +[22:48:09] +[22:48:19] We have some devs who can't be officials despite they help +[22:48:28] I'd like to continue with our talks with council +[22:48:36] Klondike2: yep, I wish that didn't complicate things +[22:48:49] prometheanfire: that would bwe ideal +[22:48:53] s/officials/officers/ ? +[22:49:01] antarus: I assume +[22:49:14] or 'official' devs? +[22:49:21] Antarus, yes language barriers here +[22:49:26] the old 'contributor' tag? +[22:50:00] so no motions on items 1 and 3? +[22:50:05] I'd say no +[22:50:15] unless another trustee wishes to make one +[22:50:31] (sorry, just trying to get as much covered as we can in the 1h ;p) +[22:50:35] (motion): continue dialog?! :D +[22:50:41] I imagine this is going to go to 2 hours +[22:50:48] veremitz: doesn't need a motion +[22:50:53] :) +[22:50:57] ok, moving on +[22:51:00] I would prefer a working agreement with council and trustees +[22:51:09] Battery at 48% +[22:51:12] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) +[22:51:17] 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] prometheanfire: thanks +[22:51:59] Drobbins, take the voice +[22:52:04] we have a close relationship wit infra, no need imo +[22:52:30] antarus: you want to respond? +[22:52:37] Robin and I drafted what eventually became: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Infrastructure/Infrastructure_Guidelines +[22:52:49] 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] a written down version of informal guidelines regarding how infra administers hardware under its control +[22:53:01] antarus: that new? +[22:53:17] we wrote about a week ago on infra wiki and published ot main wiki today +[22:53:25] happy to incorporate feedback +[22:54:10] antarus: I think what drobbins was asking about was the actual hardware ownership +[22:54:21] antarus: maybe add a section about that (iirc it varries...) +[22:54:42] I meant ownership as well as control +[22:54:50] prometheanfire: apologies, I was under the impression the meeting was tomorrow +[22:55:11] jmbsvicetto: we switched it to today so that it's sunday in asia instead of monday +[22:55:17] did so a couple months ago :P +[22:55:23] is here also, just got here a few minutes ago. +[22:55:37] Jorge technically speaking it is in parts of the world +[22:55:40] drobbins: I don't think 'control' is well defined enough to say anything +[22:55:41] prometheanfire: I'll see what I can dig up in ledger +[22:55:47] thought the meeting was at 23:00 +[22:56:07] (in terms of ownership, we depreciate the stuff we own.) +[22:56:13] the in-kind donations are probably more of a mess +[22:56:15] WilliamH: that's the combined meeting (which is defunct now) +[22:56:38] as a point of order, was this posted to -nfp list for discussion to begin with= +[22:56:41] 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] K_F: yes, I linked it +[22:56:51] like, if escalation beyond bans is required +[22:56:57] K_F: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd +[22:57:16] K_F: also linked antarus's responses above +[22:57:18] prometheanfire: wfm, thanks +[22:58:11] formally, we own the hardware since we are the body that 'owns' things for gentoo +[22:58:35] prometheanfire: if you want to ask the question "how much of the current infrastructure is owned vs donated vs unaccounted" +[22:58:44] that seems like a reasonble question to pose and answer +[22:58:47] I don't have that answer today +[22:59:00] antarus: ya, I think we should figure that out +[22:59:06] but it seems more answerable than the previous; in terms of clarity +[22:59:24] 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] antarus: wouldn't it still be owned by the foundation if it were donated to the foundation? +[22:59:37] as opposed to say leasing or renting it to the foundation +[22:59:53] ok, we can move forward on that +[23:00:08] jmbsvicetto: yep, I mentioned that +[23:00:15] jmbsvicetto: I'll be the contact for the trustees on it +[23:01:08] 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] +1 +[23:01:54] the email was never sent to -nfp so I'd like to move this to next month +[23:02:12] +1 +[23:02:18] prometheanfire: sounds good +[23:02:25] I thought I did +[23:02:39] it really needs to be discussed publicly first imo +[23:02:46] drobbins: I never found it +[23:02:57] drobbins: or the next item either +[23:03:04] The idea is nice and follows the principles of separation of powers set up by Machiavello +[23:03:16] Can I ask a question about CoC enforcement? +[23:03:22] WilliamH: sure +[23:03:26] I for one am in favor of council being accountable to someone, and trustees seems like a reasonable choice +[23:03:33] Doesn't comrel enforce that for everyone? +[23:03:42] they are supposed to afaik +[23:03:47] WiliamH: council is the body of appeal for comrel actions IIRC +[23:03:49] WilliamH: yes, they are suppoesd to +[23:03:57] IMVHO this is a potential conflict of interest +[23:04:42] so far council has recused themselves if needed +[23:04:57] I'm Spain the judicial power is responsible for controlling the executive power but the executive chooses the judges iirc +[23:04:59] anyway next item, as this should be discussed on the list before being brought here +[23:05:11] You can see how well it works ;) +[23:05:12] 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] WilliamH: whoever does CoC enforcement does it to everyone - currently that's comrel +[23:05:41] a 'fairness rule' is needed +[23:05:56] so that comrel isn't used to pick sides in a conflict +[23:05:56] Klondike2: heh that's another story. +[23:06:22] ok, next item +[23:06:28] Current subject: Trustees place user representitive on the council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) +[23:06:34] this also wasn't sent to the list +[23:06:35] WilliamH: just like comrel deals with disciplinary actions for all developers, even if they're council members +[23:06:42] I'm generally against the idea though +[23:06:52] For the heck of it, how does comrel handle comrel? +[23:07:07] please send the proposal to the list and we can discuss it there +[23:07:23] it's require an amended glep39 at least, which needs a full dev vote +[23:07:30] prometheanfire: I did send both these to the list +[23:07:38] Shentino: they ignore it, like they ignore everything else +[23:07:40] Apr 8 +[23:07:42] drobbins: I didn't see them :| +[23:07:52] drobbins: link to archives.g.o ? +[23:07:52] 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] veremitz: one moment +[23:08:11] I don't see them https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/threads/2018-04/2 +[23:08:14] That would also have to be a full dev vote since it affects glep 39? +[23:08:16] Drobbins if not in archive most likely we didn't get them +[23:08:33] WilliamH: yep +[23:08:37] drobbins: you sure you weren't banned then?! :P +[23:08:55] veremitz: I suspect that's the case +[23:09:04] prometheanfire: me2 +[23:09:12] Current subject: Add reopen nominations option to ballot (src: k_f, mgorny) , (set by prometheanfire) +[23:09:16] 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] dabbott replied to my trustees@ email +[23:09:33] drobbins: needs to hit the list .. public +[23:09:42] then we can build a fresh bike shed! :D +[23:09:46] winks to kensington :D +[23:09:48] veremitz: I believe it was blocked +[23:09:55] thus I forwarded to trustees +[23:09:58] Wait. Was Daniel banned on nfp? +[23:10:04] I was banned from -project but this was extended to -nfp +[23:10:12] (by mistake) +[23:10:14] it probably got dropped +[23:10:23] Kinda hard to officially raise an issue for discussion by posting to -nfp if you're banned from it +[23:10:33] yep, esp. when I'm not supposed to be +[23:10:33] mumbles in Spanish... +[23:10:37] and this is why trustees should handle -nfp as a special case +[23:10:45] Klondike2: yo quiero taco bell +[23:10:46] Shentino: but NO! +[23:11:15] Honestly I've been on a soy and garbanzo bean diet that I crave something cheesy and greasy and meaty +[23:11:22] drobbins: I'm not sure i follow? +[23:11:24] ^ OT +[23:11:31] when were you banned from -nfp? +[23:11:32] Daniel we are sorry for the inconvenience. Can you please resend the items so we can openly discuss them? +[23:11:33] all: https://imgur.com/GCTtBNi +[23:11:33] antarus: was drobbins banned from the nfp list? +[23:11:37] V: agreed, sorry +[23:11:42] I haven't seen that as a thing +[23:11:50] antarus: it appears when I was banned from -project, whoever implemented the ban also blocked my emails to -nfp +[23:11:53] infra's checking on that +[23:11:58] can we discuss the current item +[23:12:00] see the imgur link above for the post I made +[23:12:21] dolpins? again? +[23:12:26] 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] please stop talking +[23:12:49] :| +[23:12:51] :P +[23:12:54] wish that'd print current chairs +[23:13:00] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233 +[23:13:03] Okay +[23:13:09] trustees, we should discuss this proposal +[23:13:22] prom: sorry, my comment about "none of the above" was in relation to the reopen nominations thing we're discussing +[23:13:22] Matt the idea is good, the impact not so much +[23:14:50] 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] drobbins: reading the ML logs I think you were not a member of -nfp with drobbins@funtoo.org until Mon Apr 9 +[23:15:27] Klondike2: impact not so much? +[23:15:33] so your april 8 emails were rejected +[23:15:50] I don't see any bans for you, nor mails rejected like I'd expect if a ban was present +[23:16:02] antarus: Does that mean only foundation members are allowed to post to -nfp? +[23:16:16] antarus: that appears to be correct +[23:16:28] pretty much for any gentoo list, you have to be a member of the list to post to the list; iirc +[23:16:29] it looks like I found out I was unsub'd from the list +[23:16:31] drobbins: just send them again to -nfp and we will get to it next month +[23:16:32] (because: spam) +[23:16:44] dabbott: ++ +[23:16:59] prometheanfire: that just makes the election more confusing +[23:17:01] I think the one thing the proposal needs is to describe the periods to use +[23:17:04] Matt impact may be less volunteers and trustees meeting delegitimated +[23:17:09] dabbott: it does complicate things +[23:17:20] more people need to get involved if they want to +[23:17:32] s/if they want to// +[23:17:33] Klondike2: so less people stepping forward is the outcome you'd see? +[23:17:34] nominate themselves if needed +[23:17:53] not make the election a 3 month process +[23:17:57] One of the outcomes yes +[23:18:04] why do you think that? +[23:18:18] dabbott: self nomination is allowed +[23:18:18] drobbins: ACK mail 1 to -nfp +[23:18:28] You like having your self worth crushed? +[23:18:28] I wanna see more people nominated honestly. A contested election would give the members choices to make. +[23:18:56] Has anyone confirmed that a ballot for the Trustees can even have a "fictional candidate"? +[23:19:01] There's less of a point in voting if nobody can win +[23:19:12] jmbsvicetto: I nominate Chuck Norris. +[23:19:30] Shentino: not a dev +[23:19:39] Shentino: can you please stop with the off-topic? It makes really hard to follow this discussion +[23:19:40] s/dev/foundation member/ +[23:19:41] jmbsvicetto: it's merely a marker, not a candidate +[23:19:44] Shentino: please stay on topic +[23:19:47] jmbsvicetto: they need to be a dev +[23:20:11] in that case j, what do you mean exactly by "fictional candidate"? +[23:20:18] my comment was in relation to that +[23:20:29] 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] 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] jmbsvicetto: iirc it was confirmed that it'd be allowed, NM gives us huge leeway for how tovote +[23:20:59] Shentino: reopen_nominations +[23:21:07] jmbsvicetto: I think we are unlikely to find that out here +[23:21:15] jmbsvicetto: I would err that they can be nominated, but perhaps not appointed? +[23:21:23] it was looked into and deemed possible +[23:21:27] dabbott: oh, you mean kinda like "make .PHONY"? +[23:21:28] antarus: I agree +[23:21:41] I think we need another revision to the proposal before voting (and possibly making it a bylaw change/addition) +[23:21:51] Shentino: read the email +[23:21:54] does that sound good to the other trustees? +[23:22:09] then make an informed comment if needed +[23:22:15] the proposal is simple enough +[23:23:11] 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] So we work on a bylaw amendment for next month, will work on wording offline? +[23:23:21] 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] antarus: that's my prefrence +[23:23:38] do we aim to have the bylaw amended prior to the next election? +[23:23:42] jmbsvicetto: I think it's fine, but we need to confirm +[23:23:45] if so there is some timeline involved +[23:23:58] prometheanfire: that's all I'm asking. Thanks +[23:24:00] antarus: next meeting would be the latest time we could do so +[23:24:05] the selection of trustees is wide enough that a reopen variant it irrelevant +[23:24:06] ok +[23:24:11] prometheanfire: ok for me +[23:24:41] dabbott: Klondike2 kensington ? +[23:25:12] ok +[23:25:25] We have been having the AGM in Augest so the election needs to be completed by then +[23:25:47] dabbott: yep, which is why next month is the latest we can make changes +[23:26:03] dabbott: iirc, the bylaws state the AGM takes place in August +[23:26:09] ok, it will never happen that fast this year +[23:26:18] dabbott: so any change would require a bylaw change +[23:26:45] 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] ok +[23:27:05] not at all.. it would only potentially require multiple rounds +[23:27:15] K_F: it could fit, yes +[23:27:20] Unless I see at least 100% more candidates than open slots in two elections I'll vote against. +[23:27:23] K_F: can you relink the reports? +[23:27:44] https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 +[23:27:51] with FY2005 - 2017 +[23:27:59] (just change the year in the URL) +[23:28:07] 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] etc... +[23:28:37] 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] 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] Do we have any takers here? +[23:30:21] sorry, takers == people to volunteer to contact Eben? +[23:30:39] I'm in favor of reaching out and retaining legal counsel +[23:30:45] Yes I'll have it hard for example +[23:31:04] it doesn't have to be the sflc though +[23:31:25] I think we need to define what we wish, which ties into the financial rfp +[23:31:47] imo this will be an extension of the financial work +[23:32:53] Okay so we wait until the rfp is done? +[23:32:56] I think so +[23:33:04] I think we can jump on directly +[23:33:19] the we can make a mini-rfp and send out to diferent people +[23:33:24] sfc sflc etc +[23:33:33] sorry, what concrete item are we waiting on? +[23:33:45] like we will write the rfp and send it out and retain financial services +[23:33:51] Drobbins this is your item what's your take? +[23:33:55] and this enables the board to do..what? +[23:34:25] 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] there's no harm in making an approach, and following up with the RFP, surely? +[23:34:42] Provide a clear description to sflc and eben of our needs and status +[23:34:42] so I would prefer the board found some ongoing legal counsel; even if just for consulting (advisory) purposes +[23:34:53] antarus++ +[23:35:05] (which isn't to say, consult them for everything, which I would also oppose as costly ;p) +[23:35:48] antarus: a set of what we are looking for mainly +[23:35:53] Antarus so you volunteering as candidate for next election to change that? +[23:36:01] antarus: yes, it would be nice to talk to an actual lawyer about things +[23:36:08] that's one of the main draws of this +[23:36:11] Klondike2: I have a different plan in mind ;p +[23:36:24] 18:35 < antarus+> so I would prefer the board found some ongoing legal counsel; even if just for consulting (advisory) purposes +[23:36:27] yes +[23:36:41] sorry, so backing up +[23:37:01] besides what I'll term as 'vaguely random legal advice' what else does the board need counsel for? +[23:37:12] (or why do we think counsel is needed for financial work?) +[23:37:33] Because we suck at it! +[23:37:37] 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] or we think we will need counsel for the IRS? +[23:37:56] antarus: it's about tax exempt paperwork help +[23:38:15] that's the only tie, and a minor one really +[23:38:16] prometheanfire: so becoming tax-exempt is an explicit goal? +[23:38:39] antarus: not at this time, but it'd be nice to only have to have one lawyer/contact +[23:38:40] (like its bandied about often, but I was unclear it was something the board was seriously persuing) +[23:38:40] I suggest perhaps once you build a relationship, avenues will become more apparent once a dialogue is in place +[23:38:43] Making it's happy is an explicit goal +[23:39:04] Becoming tax exempt is a nice to have goal +[23:39:17] 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] Its should be irs +[23:39:21] that should be a core goal +[23:39:23] (we could just do it now) +[23:39:31] ^ this too +[23:39:41] first we need to reain an account / CPA firm, that should be #1 priority +[23:39:50] dabbott++ +[23:40:06] I think antarus suggests we do both in parallel ? +[23:40:09] if the rfp helps great if not hire someone +[23:40:22] soon +[23:40:24] antarus: we can do them in parallel, yes +[23:40:45] the legal help may steer the accounting help .. +[23:40:55] 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] I think we should start building legal reqs in any case, and i'll commit to doing that +[23:41:51] and we can move on? +[23:41:56] antarus: thanks +[23:42:02] ok, next step here is to building legal reqs, once those are built we can seek a contract +[23:42:06] 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] if we can decide on item 2.1 I think we can vote on this now +[23:42:55] I think delegation makes sense +[23:43:16] Okay Matt set your vote! +[23:43:20] Klondike2: what do you think of item 2.1? +[23:43:25] 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this) +[23:43:46] I'll just paste it +[23:43:48] 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even +[23:43:48] to Foundation members. +[23:43:48] 2. Formally give comrel rights to moderate the list, pursuant to the +[23:43:48] CoC. Moderate in this case means enact warnings/bans with reason given. +[23:43:51] 2.1. The reason given needs to be public (not sure about this) +[23:43:53] 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the +[23:43:56] trustees. +[23:44:10] In mother Spain we make ban causes public +[23:44:38] dabbott: kensington alicef ? +[23:44:48] prometheanfire: is there a motion? +[23:45:03] So personally I vote for yes including the ban cause being public +[23:45:20] kensington: I'm more asking about 2.2 before formally proposing this for a vote +[23:45:23] no for the public +[23:45:44] dabbott: reason? +[23:46:10] .vote motion one should ban causes be public? Yes our no +[23:46:11] they can ask us to appeal the decision +[23:46:19] reason given must be known by all trustees? +[23:46:28] we may be changing comrel policy +[23:46:47] veremitz: yes +[23:47:00] veremitz: that's an ok compromise +[23:47:01] s/known/shared with/ +[23:47:09] d'oh nearly +[23:47:10] prometheanfire: who are "those having actions enacted against them" ? +[23:47:22] alicef: whoever is banned/warned +[23:47:53] 22% +[23:48:00] If someone is banned from the -nfp list we should know who and the reason +[23:48:06] what if they are banned from the trustee mailing list ? +[23:48:21] then they can come to us for relief +[23:48:21] lends his battery bank to Klondike2 +[23:48:32] maybe make it "reason must be made available to trustees on their request"? +[23:48:32] That is out of scope of the policy +[23:48:37] 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] ulm: I would tend to think they should be informed before there may be an appeal +[23:49:21] current members of the trustee ? +[23:49:38] alicef: that's what that means +[23:49:44] ok +[23:49:45] what actually triggered this proposal? +[23:50:00] kensington: just that the nfp list had no moderation as is +[23:50:02] is still in for fully public because it brings in things like accountability transparency and community pressure. +[23:50:10] prometheanfire: suits me fine +[23:50:15] prometheanfire: we might as well make the trustees moderate it then? +[23:50:39] antarus: do you want to moderate the list? I think deligation makes more sense +[23:51:10] prometheanfire: the board can do it as a whole +[23:52:00] possible, but I'd rather deligate it +[23:52:27] the problem is no one wants to sign up to moderate, so instead we end up with this burdensome process ;) +[23:52:34] signed up to moderate gentoo-dev already +[23:52:38] why do we need to moedate it at all? +[23:52:39] I'm probably not up for another +[23:53:34] ok, please vote on the following +[23:53:42] 1. Affirm that access to the nfp list is a privilege not a right, even to Foundation members. +[23:53:45] 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] 2.1. The reason given needs to be given to the trustees and those having the moderation enacte against them. +[23:53:51] 2.2. Those having actions enacted against them are able to appeal to the trustees. +[23:54:05] no +[23:54:05] yes +[23:54:15] nfp and trustee is not moderated by the secretary (at least was what i thought)? +[23:54:29] alicef: it is not at this point +[23:54:40] Moderators: calchan, dabbott, fox2mike, neddyseagoon, quantumsummers, rich0, robbat2 +[23:54:51] https://www.gentoo.org/get-involved/mailing-lists/all-lists.html +[23:54:58] O,o +[23:55:19] alicef: that's gentoo foundation announce +[23:55:37] Phone almost died, sorry +[23:55:45] is under gentoo-nfp The Gentoo NFP/Trustees Mailing list +[23:55:49] Klondike2: can you vote real quick on my proposal? +[23:56:55] No unless reason is public +[23:57:18] alicef: its a quirk of the ML software +[23:57:23] alicef: I'm not sure that moderation list has bearing on this +[23:57:25] antarus: right +[23:57:44] 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] (in fact there are 0 rules on gentoo-nfp that funnel mail in to the moderation queue) +[23:58:10] i don't even now how to moderate it +[23:58:13] know +[23:58:40] alicef: are you able to vote? +[23:58:41] its not difficult, but we could cover it later unless you think its a blocker to voting? +[23:59:57] 2 hours already... +[00:00:04] yep +[00:00:16] alicef: anything preventing you from voting? +[00:01:39] the reason need to be given to trustee from comrel ? +[00:01:45] yep +[00:01:53] 2.1. The reason given needs to be given to the trustees and those having the moderation enacte against them +[00:02:59] did anything come of the mailman3 ML project? +[00:03:03] yes +[00:03:12] alicef: that your vote? +[00:03:15] veremitz: later +[00:03:15] yes +[00:03:18] ok +[00:03:22] my vote is yes +[00:03:27] motion carries +[00:03:36] prometheanfire: np +[00:04:00] next +[00:04:02] bug cleanup +[00:04:08] Klondike2: we can work tomorrow on that if you want +[00:04:24] next, new members +[00:04:41] Current subject: fearedbliss Jonathan Vasquez, (set by prometheanfire) +[00:04:48] yes +[00:04:51] yes +[00:04:51] yes +[00:04:52] yes +[00:05:06] I sent the list anybody against ping and close for them reply before +[00:05:08] I will send the email +[00:05:20] Tuesday cest +[00:05:25] Yes +[00:05:34] Klondike2: ok +[00:05:37] dabbott: thanks +[00:05:43] And I want to welcome him in Spanish +[00:05:43] next +[00:05:49] 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] that work? +[00:06:03] Dabbot let me send it please +[00:06:10] klondike: ok +[00:06:16] afaik I'm not here, but don't let that stop you +[00:06:21] So far yes +[00:06:25] I'll try to have updates on the legal item +[00:06:28] ok +[00:06:29] ok +[00:06:36] antarus: thanks +[00:06:42] finally +[00:06:43] Who will post the log? Minutes? (dabbott ) +[00:06:43] Who will update the motions page? (aliceinwire ) +[00:06:43] Who will send emails? (dabbott ) +[00:06:43] Who will update agenda? (prometheanfire ) +[00:06:45] Who will update channel topic? (prometheanfire ) +[00:06:49] that all sound good? +[00:07:00] alicef: I will post the motion this month +[00:07:08] Yes +[00:07:08] ? +[00:07:25] dabbott: ? +[00:07:30] I have it saved +[00:07:37] unless you want to +[00:07:46] sure, you are welcome :) +[00:07:56] ok, last item before close +[00:07:59] Current subject: Open Floor, (set by prometheanfire) +[00:08:08] I'd like this to be quick +[00:08:17] Klondike2: I think you can probably drop off here +[00:08:23] Dabbot I'll ping Jonathan when I get home later today +[00:08:25] I missed basically the whole meeting, but hi +[00:08:48] (I don't have anything useful to add, I don't think) +[00:08:56] Drobbins sorry for the missed items +[00:09:15] Bug 653640 +[00:09:18] 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] post to it when you can +[00:09:42] I vote either yes or vote asap +[00:09:45] dabbott: I'm in favor, but we can vote in the bug +[00:09:55] sounds good +[00:10:07] Klondike2: vote in the bug +[00:10:26] Bug vote tomorrow then +[00:10:39] k +[00:10:45] ending meeting +[00:10:48] Anything en jar +[00:10:56] Else? +[00:11:12] Klondike2: np +[00:11:17] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 7902 seconds -- cgit v1.2.3-65-gdbad