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