[21:02:01] <@ajak> !proj council
[21:02:02] <willikins> (council@gentoo.org) ajak, dilfridge, mattst88, mgorny, sam, soap, ulm
[21:02:03] <@ulm> has the meeting started? :)
[21:02:12] <@dilfridge> wat
[21:02:16] -*- dilfridge here
[21:02:22] <@soap> ok, 1. Roll call
[21:02:28] -*- dilfridge here
[21:02:29] -*- ajak here
[21:02:31] -*- ulm here
[21:02:32] -*- mgorny here
[21:02:52] -*- soap here
[21:03:05] -*- mattst88 here
[21:03:33] <@soap> sam MIA?
[21:04:16] <@soap> ok, let's continue, sam will likely still join
[21:04:37] <@soap> 2. Status of dissolving the foundation/moving under an umbrella org
[21:05:01] <@ulm> no news unfortunately
[21:05:10] <@soap> ulm: didnt you want to share some insights you gained talking to trustees?
[21:06:02] <@soap> AGM is soon, and IIRC the newly elected trustees only take office after the AGM?
[21:06:41] <@ulm> no answer yet, but I'll ping robbat2 again in the trustees channel
[21:07:17] <@soap> ok, anyone else have any insights or more to say?
[21:07:18] <@ulm> I think the main question is how to get the process with open collective back on track?
[21:07:18] <@mattst88> are we, the council, blocked on anything in terms of reaching back out to the umbrella organization?
[21:08:09] <@ulm> soap: IIUC trustees take office as soon as they're elected
[21:08:15] <@mattst88> (IMO we should take charge of this)
[21:08:28] <@soap> ulm: oh ok
[21:08:42] <@mattst88> we'll need the trustees to do some specific things, but clearly relying on them to make this happen has not worked
[21:09:05] -*- ajak nods
[21:09:21] <@soap> ok, what do we suggest? we need to reach out to OCF again is my understanding?
[21:09:36] <@mattst88> yes
[21:09:47] -*- ulm still believes that getting everybody on the same page would be best
[21:10:03] <@ulm> of course, if that fails, council should go ahead
[21:10:10] <@soap> ulm: that requires knowing on which page the trustees are
[21:10:14] <@mattst88> ulm: what percentage of your questions has robbat2 actually responded to, would you estimate?
[21:10:56] <@ajak> given the amount of scrollback in -trustees and how much progress there is to support.. dealing with trustees seems slow-going at best
[21:10:58] <@ulm> less than 100%
[21:11:39] <@ajak> this is a council agenda item because trustees were slow in working on this in the past, so no need to keep that dependency now
[21:11:48] <@soap> agreed
[21:11:49] <@mattst88> what would you like to know before reapproaching open collective?
[21:12:27] <@mattst88> (that's a question for ulm)
[21:12:45] <@ulm> I'd like to see that previous draft of a letter first
[21:12:52] <@ulm> by antarus, I think
[21:13:06] <@mattst88> I forwarded this to council@, didn't I?
[21:13:14] -*- ajak thought so
[21:13:25] <@soap> yes
[21:13:45] <@mattst88> yes, I did. Jul 28.
[21:13:45] <@mattst88> Message-ID: <CAEdQ38E-7-MhWuLzoa7sRSW+Cvi1==0+WY=ey8Sp9YDHt3N5aA@mail.gmail.com>
[21:14:26] <@mattst88> you even said in #-private
[21:14:27] <@mattst88> 14:34 <@        ulm> | mgorny: I haven't received anything except the e-mail from mattst88
[21:14:27] <@ulm> that was the actual draft?
[21:14:51] <@mattst88> yes, that's what antarus said
[21:15:00] <@ulm> doesn't really look like anything that should be sent in an official capacity :/
[21:15:15] <@ajak> well it was a draft.. so can be revised?
[21:15:15] <@mattst88> great news! it wasn't :P
[21:16:02] <@mattst88> okay, so what would you like to know from the trustees before we reapproach open collective?
[21:16:22] <@soap> if it's getting them to draft a letter... not so sure
[21:16:25] <@mattst88> I'd like to actually get some concrete actions; not just "wait until everyone is on the same page"
[21:16:46] <@ulm> I'm just saying that this clearly needs more work, if it was the actual "draft"
[21:16:53] <@mattst88> yes, it needs work
[21:16:59] <@mattst88> I'm not saying we send that
[21:17:22] <@mattst88> I'm asking, for the 3rd time, what would you like to know from the trustees before the Council reapproaches open collective?
[21:17:27] <@mattst88> Is this question unclear?
[21:17:51] <@soap> I think the only way forward is for the council to draft this letter
[21:18:37] <@ulm> mattst88: sorry, but that I'm here with two hats doesn't mean that I take all the blame
[21:18:48] <@mattst88> I'm not blaming you
[21:19:04] <@ulm> I'm member of the board since less than two weeks, so don't expect any wonders
[21:19:06] <@mattst88> I'm asking you what you want to know, since you seemed hesitant to contact open collective at this point
[21:19:30] <@ajak> we're not expecting wonders, just trying to get on the same page within council ;)
[21:19:52] <@mattst88> > 15:09              * | ulm still believes that getting everybody on the same page would be best
[21:20:04] <@mattst88> what does this mean, concretely? That's what I'm asking you
[21:20:35] <@mattst88> and you're being weirdly defensive -- I don't expect that you have solved all the Foundation's problems
[21:20:56] <@mattst88> I'm just asking you what you want to know before Council takes the lead and reengages with open collective
[21:20:58] <@ulm> as I said, I'll ask in the trustees channel again, and see if there's any suggestion how to restart the process with OC
[21:21:10] <@ulm> hopefully I'll get an answer before the AGM
[21:21:40] <@mattst88> why do you think it's important to get a suggestion from the trustees channel (i.e. robbat2)?
[21:21:57] <@ulm> also, the AGM's date hasn't been fixed yet :(
[21:21:58] <@mattst88> the trustees weren't even aware that the draft hadn't been sent for 6 months
[21:21:59] <@soap> ok, so we decide to solicit more information from the trustees until the next meeting, and if we don't have more information, we proceed on our own?
[21:23:22] <@ulm> we can decide then if the proceed on our own, yes
[21:23:49] <@mattst88> great, we'll delay for another month because of completely nebulous concerns
[21:26:47] <@ulm> ok, I think I must ask if I have the trust of the council
[21:27:07] <@ulm> soap: can we make this a motion please?
[21:28:19] <@soap> ok so motion: "The council solicits more information from the trustees on how to restart the process with Open Collective until the next council meeting. Either way, after the next council meeting, the council will take action in moving forward, whether with support from the trustees or not."
[21:28:40] -*- dilfridge yes
[21:28:45] -*- ajak yes
[21:28:53] -*- mgorny yes
[21:28:55] -*- ulm yes
[21:29:09] -*- soap yes
[21:29:23] <@mattst88> I support moving forward regardless of soliciting information from the trustees
[21:29:34] <@mattst88> and I think delaying based on that is a waste of time and effort
[21:29:47] <@ajak> yes, i'd agree that seems unecessary but whatever will move things forward..
[21:30:02] <@soap> mattst88: this is a compromise
[21:30:14] <@soap> even though I agree it seems unnecessary
[21:30:17] -*- mattst88 abstains
[21:30:20] <@dilfridge> compromise
[21:30:38] <@dilfridge> just imagine, we could move faster if the trustees cooperate :)
[21:31:36] <@soap> great and I just got a fire call :/
[21:31:40] <@soap> will have to wait
[21:31:47] <@soap> 3. Open bugs with Council participation [1]
[21:32:04] <@soap> no real movement on bug 883715
[21:32:05] <willikins> soap: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:council
[21:33:01] <@ulm> e-mail discussion was mostly against AFAICS?
[21:33:09] <@mgorny> are you aware if there any recruits pending in that sit?
[21:33:30] <@ulm> no idea
[21:33:33] <@ulm> juippis: ^^
[21:34:54] -*- ajak not sure that's really material here
[21:35:16] <@soap> not, but it's an important point for prioritising discussion on it
[21:35:20] <@ajak> at least not for discussion NOW in the meeting
[21:35:22] <@ajak> yes
[21:35:40] <@ulm> it's pretty acacdemic if there's nobody interested in it
[21:35:51] <@soap> it does feel pretty academic at this point
[21:36:18] <@soap> what about a preliminary motion, that closes the topic for now but can be retabled at a later stage?
[21:36:49] <@mattst88> sounds good to me
[21:37:08] -*- dilfridge yes
[21:37:17] <@ulm> like, council suggests to recruiters not to admit pseudonymous developers at this point?
[21:37:48] <@ulm> probably "suggests" is too weak
[21:38:47] <@soap> motion: "The council does not see the need for admitting anonymous or pseudonymous developers at this stage (bug 883715), but is willing to reconsider the topic should a demonstrable need arise or new arguments are brought forward."
[21:38:47] <willikins> soap: https://bugs.gentoo.org/883715 "(new) Developers who wish to stay anonymous"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; juippis:council
[21:39:37] -*- ajak yes
[21:39:53] -*- ulm yes
[21:39:57] <@mgorny> that's not how i'd word it but it roughly matches the purpose
[21:39:59] -*- mgorny yes
[21:40:07] <@mgorny> s/purpose/point/
[21:40:11] -*- soap yes
[21:40:22] -*- mattst88 yes
[21:40:26] <@ulm> mgorny: better wording?
[21:41:55] <@mgorny> "Given no consensus on the topic, the Council tables the motion for the time being but is willing to reconsider […]"
[21:42:14] <@ulm> nah, soap's was better :)
[21:42:20] <@soap> I dont think there's no consensus
[21:42:37] <@mgorny> hmm, yeah, perhaps "consensus" is not the word i'm looking for
[21:42:38] <@soap> there is somewhat of a consensus that there's no need and this is a solution looking for a problem
[21:42:46] <+Arsen> decision?
[21:43:06] <@mgorny> nevermind
[21:43:11] <@soap> ok so dilfridge?
[21:43:23] -*- dilfridge yes
[21:43:25] <@mgorny> basically i meant that the discussion didn't lead to general approval
[21:43:28] <@soap> 6y/1a
[21:44:11] <@soap> ok
[21:44:16] <@soap> 4. Open floor
[21:45:41] <+arthurzam> You didn't link the meeting agenda mail, so here it is https://marc.info/?l=gentoo-project&m=169159821426651
[21:46:41] <@soap> ok nothing
[21:46:54] -*- soap closes the meeting