* [gentoo-nfp] Joint meeting log
@ 2018-01-21 1:03 Matthew Thode
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Matthew Thode @ 2018-01-21 1:03 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-nfp, gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]
Hi,
Earlier I sent out an agenda for a meeting between the Council and
Trustees. The meeting itself was organized to be private with possible
redacted logs and a summary to be sent out afterwards. We've just had
the meeting and didn't have any private data so the full log will be
attached (see attachment). I'll also be sending a summary email
tomorrow.
--
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
[-- Attachment #1.2: gentoo-joint-meeting.log --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 48913 bytes --]
15:01 < prometheanfire@> .startmeeting
15:01 < dabbott > WilliamH: https://paste.pound-python.org/show/sqiz7RRQ7obBtLzMXm3c/
15:01 < dabbott > prometheanfire: no bot
15:01 < prometheanfire@> I know, it's fine, never asked for it :P
15:02 < klondike > I do have the agenda, but only because I use a graphical IRC client :P
15:02 * klondike taunts K_F
15:02 < prometheanfire@> so, first thing I think would be useful is to go over the roles the foundation and council have
15:02 < prometheanfire@> and how they'd be useful
15:03 < prometheanfire@> klondike: learn to use a tabbed terminal :P
15:03 < mgorny > Don't we do a roll call?
15:03 < klondike > Yes, first is the roll call
15:03 < prometheanfire@> sure
15:03 < prometheanfire@> count off
15:03 < prometheanfire@> o/
15:03 * dilfridge here
15:03 < klondike > Okay rollcall
15:03 * ulm here
15:03 * K_F here
15:03 < klondike > Here!
15:03 < dabbott > here o/
15:03 * mgorny here
15:03 < kensington > Here
15:03 < robbat2 > here
15:03 * WilliamH here
15:04 < klondike > alicef NeddySeagoon ?
15:04 < prometheanfire@> alicef is hopefully asleep in tokyo :P
15:04 < prometheanfire@> we can move on though
15:05 < robbat2 > prometheanfire: if you want willikins for bug resolving, i can bring him in here
15:05 < prometheanfire@> so, after I emailed the agenda, I got a response from William
15:05 < klondike > So meeting starts with: dilfridge ulm K_F klondike dabbott mgorny kensington robbat2 WilliamH
15:05 < prometheanfire@> robbat2: sure
15:05 < prometheanfire@> doesn't hurt at least
15:06 < klondike > prometheanfire: usually now we go for choice of chair :P
15:06 < klondike > I nominate prometheanfire for chair :)
15:06 < dabbott > seconded
15:06 < prometheanfire@> wfm, I assumed it was me since I organized it
15:06 < K_F > wfm
15:06 < WilliamH > wfm
15:06 < dilfridge > wfm
15:07 < prometheanfire@> so, going over the reason for the split between council/trustees
15:07 < prometheanfire@> 1. preventing conflict of intrest
15:07 < dilfridge > wanna use the agenda?
15:07 < prometheanfire@> 2. Prevent splitting ones time/resources/focus
15:07 < ulm > yeah, let's follow the agenda?
15:08 < K_F > which agenda item are we on?
15:08 < prometheanfire@> - Purpose of the Foundation Council split
15:08 < prometheanfire@> - Why we're preventing each from serving on in the other
15:08 < K_F > taking it out of order works for me, but we should state the agenda items for each discussion
15:09 < dabbott > prometheanfire: start at the begining of the agenda please
15:09 < prometheanfire@> ok, wasn't going for this being so formal, but ok
15:09 < prometheanfire@> Agenda:
15:09 < prometheanfire@> Council:
15:09 < prometheanfire@> - Copyright Policy
15:09 < prometheanfire@> bug 642072
15:09 < willikins > prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 "Joint venture to deal with copyright issues"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; mgorny:council
15:10 < prometheanfire@> the foundation has been evaluating if a change is needed and if so what that change should be
15:11 < dilfridge > change being that some DCO / FLA / whatever is introduced
15:11 < dilfridge > ?
15:11 < prometheanfire@> alicef started this before joining the trustees https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Aliceinwire/CopyrightPolicy
15:12 < ulm > which is based on earlier work by rich0 IIUC
15:12 < prometheanfire@> dabbott: not been decided at all, but those are the best options thus far
15:12 < prometheanfire@> ulm: yep
15:12 < mgorny > a number people have been throwing ideas but afaik nobody has done anything since, correct?
15:12 < prometheanfire@> I think what should be done first is stating why it needs to change in the first place
15:13 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: yes, it's been low priority, recent distractions didn't help
15:13 < mgorny > sure, making it possible to legally contribute ebuilds to gentoo is low priority
15:13 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: don't get snippy
15:13 < dilfridge > peace
15:13 < dilfridge > anyway
15:13 < mgorny > insulting council members is more important task
15:14 < WilliamH > mgorny: knock it off
15:14 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: if that's a reason then yes, it should be much higher of a priority
15:14 < dilfridge > stop it, it's offtopic now
15:14 < dilfridge > anyway,
15:15 < dilfridge > since the purpose of the foundation is to deal with legal issues and (material and intellectual) property of gentoo, that's one the most central things to it
15:15 < mgorny > is the 'current' policy documented somewhere?
15:16 < mgorny > when i've cleaned up proxy-maint, i had to write things from scratch because we couldn't find it
15:16 < prometheanfire@> does anyone have a prefered solution here?
15:16 < prometheanfire@> alicef's page seems to be the most comprehensive page
15:16 < dilfridge > well, I think we have settled that copyright *assignment* just doesnt work for everyone
15:17 < ulm > there are several open questions around the DCO/FLA
15:17 < dabbott > many developers don't want to sign anything
15:17 < WilliamH > Can someone get those answered?
15:17 < K_F > I'd say the bug is more full description , but in the end the results are the same, there are several legal questions that needs backing on
15:17 < mgorny > fwik alice's page was work-in-progress
15:17 < prometheanfire@> ok, the word several has been used a few times here
15:17 < K_F > starting with simple things like verification of real names of developers, to legal consent and copyright assignment
15:18 < prometheanfire@> enumerate please, in the bug
15:18 < mgorny > that said, i would scratch the part on licenses used by gentoo projects, and focus on the basics
15:18 < dilfridge > mgorny: looking at the page history, more work-without-progress
15:18 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: the most recent work has been in reviewing the FLA
15:18 < dilfridge > ok
15:19 < dilfridge > here's a general question, what do we gain by this?
15:19 < prometheanfire@> see https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fla.en.html
15:19 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: the ability to recieve ebuilds from users :P
15:19 < dilfridge > ok, that's a good point
15:19 < K_F > not only users, since there is no employment contract the same can be said for developerps
15:20 < prometheanfire@> true
15:20 < mgorny > i know a number of people had ideas but we can't do anything on random comments
15:20 < mgorny > we need a single person to sum it up and present
15:20 < robbat2 > mgorny: to answer your query about "current policy", there is extremely little existing _agreed_ policy. there were many proposals, but even the old almost non-existant assignment request were done by the first trustees or even earlier (gentoo technologies inc)
15:20 < prometheanfire@> by user I meant anyone
15:20 < ulm > assignment or signing of a DCO is a gain when copyright would ever have to be defended
15:21 < K_F > as a small point, any list of applications on projects allowed other licenses should be a schedule, to make easier to read and update in further contextes, e.g a registry approved by trustees and not part of the FLA/DCO itself
15:21 < ulm > but it's not clear to me if copyright could be enforced for a single ebuild
15:21 < robbat2 > to see if this stays on time for the rest of the meeting, action items here so far
15:21 < K_F > ulm: presumably would depend on complexity
15:21 < mgorny > we had people who explicitly rejected contributing to gentoo if their name does not appear in copyright line of ebuild
15:21 < dilfridge > ulm: tbh I find the FSF assignment policy a tad scary...
15:21 < robbat2 > council/ulm: please put all the questions you referred to onto the bug
15:21 < prometheanfire@> yes, we need to move on
15:22 < robbat2 > i have to go at 22:00 UTC
15:22 < mgorny > before we move on
15:22 < prometheanfire@> - Financial status of the foundation
15:22 < prometheanfire@> robbat2: ?
15:22 < mgorny > could we choose a single person to take care of this with a deadline?
15:22 < robbat2 > one person on each side
15:22 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: define 'take care of this'?
15:22 < robbat2 > i nominate ulm & alicef
15:22 < ulm > wfm
15:22 < K_F > robbat2: wfm
15:22 < prometheanfire@> wfm
15:22 < dilfridge > ++ ulm & alicef
15:22 < mgorny > prometheanfire: present a working proposal
15:22 < dabbott > wfm
15:22 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: k
15:22 < mgorny > for next meeting
15:22 < prometheanfire@> the only problem I see is timezones
15:23 < dilfridge > physicists don't sleep at night :D
15:23 < prometheanfire@> but they should be able to work it out
15:23 < dabbott > thanks ulm
15:23 < prometheanfire@> yep, thanks
15:23 < ulm > yeah, we'll somehow manage
15:23 < prometheanfire@> next topic
15:23 < prometheanfire@> robbat2: irs / financial status of the foundation?
15:24 < robbat2 > so there are two seperate parts here
15:24 < robbat2 > one is the actual finances of the foundation
15:24 < robbat2 > the other, is the taxation status
15:24 < robbat2 > and state of foundation as an entity re taxes
15:24 < robbat2 > they are very often conflated by people, and that needs to stop
15:25 < robbat2 > on the actual finances, we have full access to all of our bank accounts, and paypal account
15:25 < dilfridge > well... the main reason for the conflating was that rumor of outstanding taxes far beyond liquidity (which floated around some months ago)
15:25 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: never heard it...
15:26 < robbat2 > that isn't correct dilfrige
15:26 < dilfridge > good
15:26 < robbat2 > the taxes do NOT outstrip liquidity
15:26 < dilfridge > cause that went around on irc like a wildfire back then
15:26 < robbat2 > we have more than $120K USD cash on hand
15:27 < mgorny > robbat2: i don't think we really need to know the numbers
15:27 < robbat2 > i'd love it in a slightly less liquid investment, to get a better return on money
15:27 < mgorny > the item was more about IRS filings etc.
15:27 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: what channel if you don't mind me asking
15:27 < dilfridge > I dont remember anymore, that was some time ago
15:28 < robbat2 > they are connected...
15:28 < K_F > only relevant thing I can think of is the gentoo miniconf in prague
15:28 < robbat2 > the earlier trustees did very little bookkeeping
15:28 < robbat2 > which I noted in my miniconf talk
15:28 < robbat2 > i have almost all of the books resolved, there are just time-hard problems left in them
15:28 < robbat2 > like double-checking all of the forex transactions
15:28 < robbat2 > and correctly handling depreciation per IRS rules
15:29 < K_F > in case anyone hasn't seen the presentation, a copy is at https://download.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/2016-miniconf-prague/Gentoo%20Foundation%2C%20background%20and%20status%20report%20%20Robin%20Johnson-S3bmXVbxMgE.mp4 / https://download.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/2016-miniconf-prague/Gentoo%20Foundation%20Status.pdf
15:29 < prometheanfire@> robbat2: those deprication rules just changed too
15:29 < robbat2 > there is a small spot of missing data there: value of non-cash donations in the history of the foundation
15:29 < robbat2 > prometheanfire: again??
15:29 < robbat2 > (sigh)
15:29 < robbat2 > anyway, once the books are completed
15:30 < robbat2 > we have a US CPA who has been helping verify them one last time
15:30 < mgorny > robbat2: ETA?
15:30 < robbat2 > and specifically convert the financial data therein to generate the IRS forms
15:30 < robbat2 > mgorny: I have no ETA to give, because I don't have big enough blocks of time for it
15:31 < robbat2 > the early trustees did only the very first step of becoming a non-profit: getting a EIN (employer identication numer), and NEVER followed any further IRS filings
15:32 < mgorny > robbat2: just a rough? months, years?
15:32 < robbat2 > i hope before the end of this tax year
15:32 < robbat2 > (july)
15:32 < robbat2 > the CPA basically has us filing the stuff for many years back to
15:33 < robbat2 > on paper it was 6-7 years (depending on date); but the IRS has the right to request all them back to our inception
15:33 < dilfridge > so do we have any idea what order of magnitude of back taxes to expect?
15:33 < robbat2 > applying with all the of the stuff in order, and a letter saying, "sorry, the early part was a screwup"
15:33 < robbat2 > that very much depends on what status we get
15:34 < dilfridge > ok
15:34 < mgorny > well, that's all i wanted to know
15:34 < mgorny > for my part, we can move on now
15:34 < K_F > robbat2: what if we presume no change in status?
15:34 < dilfridge > robbat2: thanks a lot for your work there
15:34 < robbat2 > i spoke about back-taxes in the talk, but would like to avoid too much speculation
15:35 < K_F > i.e expect a break in continuation starting now for a non-profit, but taxing based on current status until that is approved
15:35 < robbat2 > the CPA has suggested that 20% of gross income over the outstanding history would not be unreasonable
15:35 < robbat2 > but that is not an IRS ruling in any way
15:35 < robbat2 > the IRS has a huge leeway
15:35 < WilliamH > dilfridge: ++
15:35 < K_F > presuming no pentalties, or including?
15:35 < robbat2 > it's not the taxes that are the concern, but the penalties
15:36 < robbat2 > most years we did not make enough for even the bottom bracket of taxes
15:36 < robbat2 > 20% of gross would be total
15:36 < dabbott > if we go to them before they come to us is what we want for sure
15:37 < prometheanfire@> robbat2: do you have anything else or can we move on?
15:37 < prometheanfire@> trustees have a meeting in 23 minutes
15:37 < robbat2 > 20% of gross would be around $40k USD
15:37 < klondike > Trustees can be in two places at the same time :P
15:37 < robbat2 > up to the end of last tax year
15:38 < dilfridge > that's survivable
15:38 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: easilly
15:38 < robbat2 > that's everything I have, unless there are specific questions
15:38 < K_F > robbat2: thanks for your work cleaning up
15:38 < mgorny > robbat2: thanks
15:38 < robbat2 > there was the funding for travel/meetings item which is connected to this
15:38 < klondike > robbat2: thanks mate!
15:39 < prometheanfire@> yes, this has been a multiyear effort, thanks robbat2
15:39 < WilliamH > robbat2: ++
15:39 < dilfridge > right, forgot about that... but that's not important/urgent, just a "nice to have"
15:39 < robbat2 > if we were fully a 501c6, there is a provision that says members of the foundation cannot benefit
15:40 < K_F > I'm not worried about that text, just needs to be an established broader policy for donations written properly
15:40 < robbat2 > at the point that the IRS paperwork IS in order, other foundations have shown me there ARE ways to hand reimbursements for such things
15:40 < K_F > s/donations/funding of travel cost/
15:40 < dilfridge > sounds good
15:40 < robbat2 > and how the foundation could employ members to ensure it's running
15:40 < prometheanfire@> K_F: mind making a bug for that (assigned to the trustees)?
15:41 < K_F > not really sure if we need a bug, but sure can do that
15:41 < prometheanfire@> K_F: just don't want to loose track of it
15:41 < WilliamH > K_F: bugs are good to track things. :-)
15:41 < robbat2 > the 'cash sponsor' policy is going to have to go; i started a very rough draft of a new sponsorship/donation policy before
15:42 < prometheanfire@> robbat2: similiar to freebsd's policy iirc
15:42 < robbat2 > yes, that helped
15:42 < prometheanfire@> I think we've covered travel funding as far as we need to (waiting on irs stablility)
15:42 < prometheanfire@> moving on
15:43 < prometheanfire@> - Purpose of the Foundation Council split
15:43 < robbat2 > self-funding waiting on that, unless it's being externally reimbursed
15:43 < robbat2 > yes, moved on
15:43 < dilfridge > there's two things here
15:43 < dilfridge > one is the separation of purpose
15:43 < prometheanfire@> conflicts of intrest and division of responsibility to prevent overwork, but I wasn't around then
15:43 < dilfridge > the other is why council members can't serve as trustees
15:44 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: sure, which specifically did you have questions about?
15:44 < dilfridge > well, the way I learnt it, wrote it down in the quizzes and the way it was handled for years, the separation of purpose and responsibilities is pretty clear
15:45 < ulm > the question is why there can be no overlap between the two
15:45 < dilfridge > my own question was more about point two here
15:45 < prometheanfire@> agreed
15:45 < dabbott > I was not around when the bylaws were put together
15:45 < prometheanfire@> ulm: No individual shall serve as a Gentoo Foundation Trustee and Gentoo Council Member concurrently
15:45 < prometheanfire@> ulm: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.2._Qualification
15:45 < ulm > prometheanfire: yes, why is that there?
15:45 < dilfridge > NeddySeagoon: do you remember?
15:45 < dabbott > Im pretty sure NeddySeagoon put that in but don't know why
15:46 < prometheanfire@> we could change the bylaws to allow serving on both, but I wasn't around then either
15:46 < klondike > Separation of powers
15:46 < ulm > I don't see a good reason, given that both bodies are elected
15:46 < WilliamH > two different electorates maybe?
15:46 < ulm > but largely overlapping
15:46 < mgorny > i think the separation is good for mutual overwatch
15:46 < klondike > Basically you want one of the bodies to stop the other one if it goes out of control xD
15:46 < dilfridge > which doesnt work because it just ends up with infighting
15:47 < klondike > Because we suck at conflict handling :P
15:47 < mgorny > infighting sounds like a misunderstanding in problem 1.
15:47 < prometheanfire@> ulm: I did get an email from William L. Thomson Jr. going over the split reasons (since he was around then)
15:47 < dabbott > at one point they were tring to incress foundation membership by accepting non devs but that needs to change imo
15:47 < mgorny > if separation of roles is clear, then there is no reason for infighting
15:47 < ulm > there could be a milder variant of the rule, like a max number of members serving in both bodies
15:48 < prometheanfire@> ulm: I'd be open to it, I just want to avoid the possible abuse it could bring (examples are in the email)
15:48 < dilfridge > that would make sense
15:48 < prometheanfire@> do you want me to forward that to council/trustees?
15:48 * WilliamH would like to see it
15:48 < dilfridge > sure (sometimes you find a gem in a haystack)
15:49 < ulm > or we could each nominate a liaison participating in the other body's meetings, and reporting to the other
15:49 * dilfridge refrains from more colorful comparisons
15:49 < prometheanfire@> I think cross serving could not ever result in one body having a majority in both, this would need those serving to call out their 'primary office' though
15:49 < mgorny > prometheanfire: yeah, do that when you have a minute (presuming you don't have it handy)
15:49 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: that's why I asked
15:49 < dilfridge > :)
15:49 < dilfridge > please do
15:50 < prometheanfire@> forwarded
15:50 * WilliamH thinks the laiason idea might be a good one
15:50 < WilliamH > liaison *
15:50 < robbat2 > the liaison need not be an elected member either
15:51 < prometheanfire@> can we move this to the next one? we are already going to go over on time
15:51 < ulm > sure, move on
15:51 < prometheanfire@> - Legal protection for the foundation
15:51 < prometheanfire@> this one was mine on the foundation side
15:51 < prometheanfire@> when I first was elected I started the process of getting a quote for D&O insurance
15:52 < klondike > prometheanfire: what's D&O?
15:52 < prometheanfire@> the threat of idella suing was the main catalyst iirc
15:52 < mgorny > foundation or trustees specifically?
15:52 < prometheanfire@> directors and officers
15:53 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: trustees, those who server at the pleasure of the foundation
15:53 < prometheanfire@> we recieved the quote but it was simply too high, something like 1k a month
15:53 < klondike > augh!
15:54 < prometheanfire@> we also recieved a quote for more general insurance for the foundation but it was about the same cost
15:54 < prometheanfire@> so, the summary of legal protection is that we've looked into it, but it was too expensive
15:54 < ulm > prometheanfire: that's in total, or per person?
15:54 < prometheanfire@> total, per month was 1-2k USD
15:55 < dilfridge > actually
15:55 < dilfridge > I had a slightly more specific question, but i'm not sure how relevant it still is
15:55 < prometheanfire@> sure, don't ask to ask :P
15:55 < dilfridge > let me bring a brief example from over here
15:56 < dilfridge > when in a german nonprofit (I#m trying to translate the terms) a new board of directors is elected,
15:56 < dilfridge > the first thing they usually do is have a vote whether the previous board is "released"
15:56 < ulm > dilfridge: that's the "Vorstand" of an "e.V."?
15:57 < dilfridge > which basically means "they did their job well, we take over the resposibility"
15:57 < dilfridge > yeah
15:57 < klondike > Oh same here, in sweden
15:57 < robbat2 > the US system has only implicit acceptane
15:57 < robbat2 > *acceptance
15:57 < prometheanfire@> there's no similiar concept here
15:57 < prometheanfire@> as robbat2 says
15:57 < dilfridge > if they don't, the previous board still has to sort out the mess (which can also be per person, i.e. only the treasurer)
15:57 < robbat2 > if you're willing to run as a trustee, you're taking on any prior liability issues they might have
15:57 < dilfridge > ok then this simply doesnt apply
15:58 < robbat2 > (i have to go in 3 mins)
15:58 < NeddySeagoon > dilfridge: It was to avoid council putting forward fundng request then voting the funding as they could be the same people. There are 5 trustees and 7 councillors, so if everyone reclused themselves, it would be impossible to fund council requests. Then ther was the bus factor.
15:58 < NeddySeagoon > In practice, there have been no council fundung requests
15:59 < prometheanfire@> NeddySeagoon: thanks for the clarification
15:59 < NeddySeagoon > Council members can be officicers and do all the work.
15:59 < prometheanfire@> ya, that wasn't brought up, anyone can be an officer, doesn't even need to be a member of the foundation
16:00 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: moving on?
16:00 < NeddySeagoon > for the foundation. They just can't have a vote, so it makes lille practical difference.
16:00 < dilfridge > moving on
16:00 < prometheanfire@> - Criteria for accepting members to the foundation
16:00 < prometheanfire@> who's was that?
16:00 < dilfridge > probably mine too
16:00 < prometheanfire@> k
16:00 < prometheanfire@> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.3._Admission_of_Members
16:00 < prometheanfire@> that's the bylaw covering admission of members
16:01 < dilfridge > yeah well, I know that by heart now
16:01 < prometheanfire@> lol
16:01 < mgorny > what's the purpose of admitting non-developer members to the foundation?
16:01 < prometheanfire@> I'd say the main purpose is to encourage non-developers to contribute to gentoo
16:02 < kensington > Not everyone who makes contributions is a dev
16:02 < prometheanfire@> that bylaw was in place before the non-commit developer was in place iirc
16:02 < mgorny > how does being a foundation member factor to contributing to gentoo?
16:02 < mgorny > what i mean, i really don't see a purpose in gentoo foundation having members at all
16:02 < dabbott > prometheanfire: no there has always been the 2
16:02 < mgorny > (excluding some legal requirements)
16:03 < prometheanfire@> you get to be a member by contributing (helping others with gentoo related issues is a way that can work)
16:03 < prometheanfire@> dabbott: oh, TIL
16:03 < mgorny > prometheanfire: but what benefit does that give to you, specifically? having your name on the member list? voting for trustees?
16:03 < prometheanfire@> basically it places a 'contribution gate' in front of having a vote in the elections and thus having a say in the running of the foundation
16:04 < NeddySeagoon > There is no legal requirement to have members. Members in a a NPO are lijke stockholders in a for profitp
16:04 < mgorny > oh
16:05 < NeddySeagoon > The members hold the board to account. Or can if they wish
16:05 < mgorny > so they get their share of no profit? ;-)
16:05 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: in this case, yes :P
16:05 < robbat2 > if our articles of incorporation had specified not having members, then we could indeed have a different structure
16:05 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: dilfridge, that answer your questions about that?
16:06 < robbat2 > but to change to not having members would be a change of both bylaws AND articles
16:06 < prometheanfire@> robbat2: good point
16:06 < dilfridge > well, yes, I'd just suggest coming up with some better specification of what "contribution" means
16:06 < dilfridge > I mean, not mailing list discussions and asking questions on irc alone?
16:06 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: open to talking about it during our meeting's open floor :P
16:07 < robbat2 > one of the original sugestions back when it was discussed was documentation translators & forum moderators/admins
16:07 < prometheanfire@> but I'd say that it'd have to have some significance
16:07 < robbat2 > gentoo used to have a LOT of good translated docs
16:07 < robbat2 > but the translators weren't devs
16:07 < dilfridge > mods are treated as developers
16:07 < robbat2 > now they are treated as devs
16:07 < dilfridge > we still have some "translators" who nobody has ever seen on the dev list
16:08 < robbat2 > but way back they weren't treated as devs
16:08 < dilfridge > hmm ok
16:08 < ulm > translators could be treated as non-ebuild devs too
16:08 < dabbott > yep
16:08 < ulm > no good reason to refuse them that
16:08 < prometheanfire@> could be is not 'are'
16:08 < robbat2 > this bylaws was written before we had non-ebuild-dev
16:08 < klondike > I recall having to be voted by the Foundation Board to become a member
16:08 < K_F > robbat2: iirc we had staffers even then?
16:08 < prometheanfire@> klondike: yep, the board is the gate
16:09 < mgorny > dilfridge: undertakers need better ways to check non-ebuild devs for activity
16:09 < mgorny > dilfridge: (but that's another topic)
16:09 < dilfridge > yeah
16:09 < klondike > K_F: we have had staffers since I got my @g.o at least
16:10 < prometheanfire@> ok, moving on due to time, if you have suggestions for a more solid list of requirements to become a non-dev member we'd be open to hearing them
16:10 < prometheanfire@> next topic
16:10 * K_F would simply scrap non-dev members
16:10 < NeddySeagoon > robbat2: I've always been a non-ebuild dev
16:10 < dabbott > me too, I just took the first quiz not the ebuild quiz but had a memtor and recruter
16:10 * NeddySeagoon was a staffer in 2006
16:11 < prometheanfire@> K_F: the problem there is that it puts the council / comrel as the master of the foundaion
16:11 < NeddySeagoon > I think we only have one now
16:11 < dilfridge > is that a problem? :)
16:11 < prometheanfire@> we already can be force retired and then not be able to run for election
16:11 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: yes, keep in mind the foundaion is a legal entity, which should be in control of itself
16:12 < mgorny > prometheanfire: and infra can take all gentoo boxes and make a lot of trouble...
16:12 < mgorny > the point is, people have power and people are expected not to abuse it
16:12 < mgorny > there's no other way
16:12 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: I think having safeguards against abuse is a good idea
16:13 < prometheanfire@> but that's just like, my opinion, man
16:13 < prometheanfire@> next topic
16:13 < prometheanfire@> - Funding for travel and meetups
16:13 < prometheanfire@> robbat2: already went over this
16:13 < K_F > issue is, only safeguard council (or devs) have of rogue trustees are lawsuits
16:13 < K_F > granted that isn't different from any shareholder position
16:13 < klondike > mgorny: I expect people to abuse power...
16:13 < K_F > but also why it is rather common practiec
16:13 < prometheanfire@> K_F: agreed, it's not perfect
16:14 < klondike > We call it least privilege :P
16:14 < prometheanfire@> moving on to the trustees items now
16:14 < NeddySeagoon > K_F: There are several recourses before lawsuits.
16:14 < K_F > NeddySeagoon: not really
16:14 < mgorny > klondike: that's why don't put single people at the top and have a structure to guard against it
16:14 < K_F > NeddySeagoon: or rather, not legally
16:14 < prometheanfire@> I'm going to join thw two items into one as they are related
16:14 < K_F > NeddySeagoon: you have several non-legal matters to protect devs being retired as well
16:14 < prometheanfire@> K_F: when dealing with a legal entity you only have legal recourse
16:15 < K_F > NeddySeagoon: since that was the original concern
16:15 < prometheanfire@> anyway, moving on
16:15 < K_F > prometheanfire: right
16:15 < prometheanfire@> - CoC enforcement
16:15 < NeddySeagoon > K_F: Memebers can act as a group and force the decision on the trustees. Given more time they can vote the trustees out.
16:15 < dilfridge > ok so
16:15 < WilliamH > prometheanfire: what enforcement?
16:15 < K_F > NeddySeagoon: given the number of trustees, most of which not active, that won't get quorum
16:16 < K_F > number of members*
16:16 < dilfridge > prometheanfire: actually your agenda structure is right
16:16 < WilliamH > prometheanfire: We don't seem to enforce the CoC.
16:16 < dilfridge > we're talking about two different things
16:16 < dilfridge > and that's been an ongoing discussion within comrel as well
16:16 < prometheanfire@> care to bring us up to date?
16:16 < NeddySeagoon > K_F: Thats why inactive members get retired. Its not perfect but it helps
16:16 < dilfridge > let's start with the CoC first
16:17 < mgorny > NeddySeagoon: especially if trustees are free to add as many members as they see fit and nobody can really verify them
16:17 < prometheanfire@> NeddySeagoon: K_F mgorny, please move the side conversation to another channel
16:17 < dilfridge > * Historically comrel was *NOT* responsible for the Code of Conduct enforchment in daily stuff
16:17 < NeddySeagoon > mgorny: That doesn't happen
16:17 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: who was?
16:17 < K_F > NeddySeagoon: no reason not to
16:17 < WilliamH > dilfridge: Well, what about creating a separate tlp that handles it?
16:17 < dilfridge > * That responsibility was taken on a few years ago (when hwoarang was lead) because nobody else was doing ti
16:18 < dilfridge > it
16:18 < WilliamH > prometheanfire: It was supposed to be the proctors, but they were disbanded after they sanctioned a council member.
16:18 < dilfridge > * I fully agree that this doesnt work so well, because several comrel members are not that active on irc/lists/... anymore.
16:18 < prometheanfire@> heh
16:19 < dilfridge > (usually you pick long-time devs for the job, who may get already a bit of distance)
16:19 < ulm > prometheanfire: it was more complicated than it sounds now
16:19 < prometheanfire@> ulm: I'm sure it was, just sounds funny now is all
16:19 < dilfridge > * So, we've been discussing internally (and with the council) to revive a Proctors-like team.
16:20 * WilliamH thinks that team should be revived asap
16:20 < WilliamH > The discussion stopped
16:20 < prometheanfire@> would the new-proctors be their own project or exist as a subproject of comrel?
16:20 < dilfridge > Basically, split the day-to-day minor affairs out of comrel again. I've written up a proposal, see
16:20 < dilfridge > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/User:Dilfridge/Project-P
16:20 * WilliamH thinks they should be their own project
16:20 < prometheanfire@> agreed
16:21 < dilfridge > which is based on a) current comrel policy, b) old proctors stuff, with a few notable changes and adaptions.
16:21 < K_F > I'd structure it as a subproject, myself, which allows for appeal to comrel before appeal to council
16:21 < K_F > otherwise everything needs to go directly to council, for a 2 day ban from mailing lists..
16:21 < dilfridge > one of the adaptions is that the "appeal path" is proctors -> comrel -> council
16:21 < K_F > but point being a rapid response team that can react immediately with shorter term reactions
16:21 < prometheanfire@> the appeal process could be part of the project definition, doesn't have to be a sub-project to appeal to comrel
16:21 < dilfridge > and (apart from one liaison) there is to be no overlap between comrel and proctors.
16:22 < dilfridge > anyway
16:22 < K_F > prometheanfire: it mostly does, mainly to set policies to enforce etc
16:22 < NeddySeagoon > I would keep it as its own project ... so there is no comrel involvement unless its explicitly requested.
16:22 < WilliamH > Would there even be time to appeal a short action?
16:22 < K_F > otherwise you have organizational conflict possibilities
16:22 < dilfridge > please read the text and feel free to start up a discussion with comrel and council in cc
16:22 < dilfridge > the current state of this proposal is as follows:
16:22 < WilliamH > NeddySeagoon: ++
16:23 < prometheanfire@> ya, I'd like to see it as it's own project specifically to avoid conflicts of intrest
16:23 < K_F > WilliamH: you might want to have it stricken from record, at least if X-time-repeats counts on stronger reactions
16:23 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: I will, thanks
16:23 < dilfridge > * No further input from comrel or council on the proposal
16:23 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: proctors could be the ML moderators as well
16:23 < dilfridge > * So I've started a process within comrel to get suggestions, who to approach (do you want to join that new team)
16:23 < mgorny > the possibility of moderation changes the environment a bit, yes
16:23 < WilliamH > I also think violations should be handled in bugs e.g. the way comrel does
16:24 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: I'd be down probably
16:24 < prometheanfire@> WilliamH: agreed
16:24 < dilfridge > * Unfortunately, only few comrel members have replied to that, and not a single person has gotten the 4 yes votes (the maximum is 2 atm)
16:24 < NeddySeagoon > I'm in if its separate to comrel
16:24 < dilfridge > NeddySeagoon: please read the page
16:25 < dilfridge > So, you could say it's stuck due to comrel-internal apathy.
16:25 < WilliamH > comrel doesn't need to approve the project if it isn't under comrel really? council does.
16:25 < NeddySeagoon > dilfridge: I'll provide separate feedback
16:25 < prometheanfire@> well, anyone can create a project...
16:25 < mgorny > if the project is separate, then i suppose council should approve the lead, as it does for comrel
16:25 < K_F > and QA
16:25 < prometheanfire@> the project would just have to get approval by the council
16:25 < WilliamH > mgorny: that's another issue, but council has no say over the comrel lead.
16:26 < dabbott > then they could pick there own lead
16:26 < prometheanfire@> by approval, I mean in the abilities of the project itself, not any particular member
16:26 < dilfridge > Yes, but a) you probably don't want every appeal going to the council, b) to have some consistency in small-things and big-things policy, having comrel somehow in the loop would be good
16:26 < K_F > I don't see that as possible without it being a subproject
16:27 < mgorny > yeah, i was thinking of QA
16:27 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: nothing preventing projects from working with eachother
16:27 < prometheanfire@> anyway, we can go over that later
16:27 < dilfridge > true, but it makes sense to structure according to desired outcome
16:27 < dilfridge > anyway, please read the page
16:27 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: and prometheanfire to work on reviving the proctors?
16:27 < prometheanfire@> so we have people working on it actively?
16:28 < dilfridge > works for me
16:28 < mgorny > dilfridge: what about the mediation of conflicts part? will that still be comrel's part?
16:28 < WilliamH > dilfridge: If proctors is a subproject, that also implies that proctors are comrel members.
16:28 < dilfridge > WilliamH: no
16:28 < WilliamH > dilfridge: and they shouldn't be.
16:28 < dilfridge > and they are not
16:28 < K_F > WilliamH: there is no such implicit membership
16:28 < ulm > projects don't necessarily inherit subprojects' members
16:28 < prometheanfire@> ok, well sort this out more later and have a more solid proposal next meeting
16:29 < dilfridge > mgorny: the way it's handled at the moment, mediation is more an action by single team members
16:29 < dilfridge > now about part two
16:29 < dilfridge > comrel
16:29 < prometheanfire@> only other question/request I have is that trustees should be notified of diciplinary actions taken (or not taken) by comrel (or proctors) just so we are aware of possible harrassment claims
16:30 < NeddySeagoon > Anyone can do mediation though. It way not succeed. Think the Omnibudswan project
16:30 < prometheanfire@> this will allow us to at least not be blindsided by something
16:30 < dilfridge > yes
16:30 < dilfridge > you didnt really miss anything
16:31 < dilfridge > regarding comrel actions and oversight, I'm citing someone else from the team whose opinion I support,
16:31 < dilfridge > "the recruitment / personnel management is up to those doing the work (distribution) and not to the legal entity that we created to take care of legal and financial issues"
16:31 < prometheanfire@> the legal entity that we created to take care of legal and financial issues
16:31 < prometheanfire@> the problem is that HR problems often become legal problems
16:31 < prometheanfire@> so we need to at least KNOW about it
16:31 < K_F > there is no HR problem without employment contract
16:32 < prometheanfire@> K_F: you can sue for anything over here
16:32 < WilliamH > K_F: sadly prometheanfire is correct.
16:32 < mgorny > prometheanfire: how often? do you have a number of how many comrel actions have rendered foundation actually liable?
16:32 < K_F > but I'm all for making stricter requirements to become a dev
16:32 < dilfridge > well
16:32 < prometheanfire@> mgorny: nope, because we don't know of any comrel actions
16:32 < WilliamH > mgorny: it has never been tested.
16:33 < prometheanfire@> we are not informed and can not be prepared for any action
16:33 < dilfridge > the last two comrel actions afaicr were idella4 and a recent e-mail admonishing someone
16:33 < mgorny > prometheanfire: have you ever received threats?
16:33 < prometheanfire@> yes
16:33 < mgorny > (for comrel actions?)
16:33 < prometheanfire@> yes
16:34 < dilfridge > prometheanfire: and that gives a rough impression of how many team actions there really are
16:34 < mgorny > prometheanfire: are comrel actions greater liability to the foundation than trustees publically defaming developers?
16:34 < dilfridge > now talking to someone in private and telling him, "please settle down a bit, it's enough", that's something else, but I suppose we don't have to tell you about that.
16:35 < prometheanfire@> anyway, the foundaion doesn't need to have a say in what (non)actions are taken by comrel, we just need to know about them to be prepared
16:35 < dilfridge > works for me
16:35 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: I'd say something along the lines of how bugs are responded to would do it
16:36 < dilfridge > we want to introduce regular team meetings to deal with open bugs
16:36 < prometheanfire@> alicef: :D
16:36 < dilfridge > which is something completely new and revolutionary for comrel
16:36 < prometheanfire@> lol
16:36 < WilliamH > dilfridge ++
16:36 < dilfridge > let's see how it works out :)
16:36 < NeddySeagoon > You can find out if comrel is still alive :)
16:36 < prometheanfire@> agreed
16:36 < WilliamH > dilfridge: imo open comrel bugs shouldn't sit forever.
16:37 < WilliamH > dilfridge: that's pretty demoralizing to the person who filed the bug.
16:37 < dilfridge > WilliamH: no, but it sometimes takes a LOT of motivation to start with such stuff :P
16:37 < mgorny > WilliamH: less demoralizing than comrel members closing bugs instantly as 'not a problem'
16:37 < WilliamH > dilfridge: I imagine it does.
16:37 < prometheanfire@> adding trustees as cc to comrel bugs would be my proposed solution, don't even need view/commenting rights for that (just alias setup)
16:38 < prometheanfire@> since bugs are THE way of driving comrel actions
16:38 < dilfridge > we'll figure something out
16:38 < prometheanfire@> k
16:38 < prometheanfire@> that was the last item
16:38 < prometheanfire@> open floor?
16:38 < WilliamH > I would agree with prometheanfire, that sounds pretty reasonable.
16:40 < prometheanfire@> who from the council side can work with me on cleaning up any info we don't want published from this meeting?
16:40 < prometheanfire@> I'm personally fine with publishing it fully, I don't think there was private info discussed
16:40 < K_F > I'd agree with that
16:41 < dilfridge > works for me
16:41 < WilliamH > wfm
16:41 < ulm > wfm too
16:41 < klondike > wfm
16:41 < mgorny > wfm
16:41 < prometheanfire@> cool
16:41 < WilliamH > I think there should be more of these. :-)
16:42 < prometheanfire@> I'll publish the log somewhere (probably dev space) and make a summary email to nfp and project lists
16:42 < prometheanfire@> WilliamH: agreed
16:42 < prometheanfire@> let's say same time next month?
16:42 < klondike > prometheanfire: avoid dev space for logs
16:43 < klondike > When you retire things will be gone
16:43 < K_F > prometheanfire: same time being tuesday 20th? wfm
16:43 < WilliamH > weekends are better
16:43 < mgorny > prometheanfire: if you mean Saturday, then i suppose so
16:43 < prometheanfire@> K_F: not quite
16:43 < mgorny > i think having the date 2 weeks in advance is good enough for me
16:43 < prometheanfire@> it'd be saturday the 17th at the same time
16:44 < WilliamH > wfm
16:44 < klondike > +1 for weekend
16:44 < klondike > 22 CET is late for a weekday but doable on saturday
16:44 < klondike > wfm
16:44 < prometheanfire@> ya, being intl hurts colaberation
16:45 < prometheanfire@> one of the reasons council and trustees have not seen eye to eye I think
16:45 < NeddySeagoon > Open nent time?
16:45 < NeddySeagoon > next*
16:46 < ulm > yeah, should be in #-council or #-trustees
16:46 < dilfridge > ++
16:46 < ulm > not a secret channel
16:46 < prometheanfire@> ah, agreed
16:46 < prometheanfire@> it was only in a secret channel because council requested iirc (mgorny or dilfridge requested iirc)
16:47 < dilfridge > I didnt but never mind
16:47 < prometheanfire@> we'll need to decide on the channel, but that can be done later
16:47 < prometheanfire@> dilfridge: misremembered then
16:48 < prometheanfire@> we should have someone else chair it too
16:48 * prometheanfire doesn't run to run yet another meeting
16:48 < K_F > we don't need on deciding on it now anyways
16:50 < prometheanfire@> ya, not saying we need to do that now
16:50 < prometheanfire@> let's decide on chair and location via email
16:50 < prometheanfire@> and consider this meeting closed
16:50 < prometheanfire@> time was chosen at least and that's the big thing
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2018-01-21 1:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-01-21 1:03 [gentoo-nfp] Joint meeting log Matthew Thode
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox