[21:58:52] Meeting started by prometheanfire [21:59:11] Meeting chairs are: alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, prometheanfire, [21:59:23] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire) [21:59:26] here [21:59:27] Here [21:59:30] hi [21:59:34] here [21:59:40] you started early! [21:59:56] oh, so I did, server time is 2 min ahead [21:59:56] alicef: said she was up late with kernel bugs [22:00:07] dabbott: ya, she was pinging me about them [22:00:19] prometheanfire: can you add klondike2 as chair? [22:00:31] Meeting chairs are: alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, klondike2, prometheanfire, [22:00:36] Thanks [22:00:48] ok, moving on [22:00:57] Yay [22:01:01] ACTION: dabbott is logging the meeting [22:01:07] yes [22:01:14] there is nothing in the activity tracker [22:01:22] o/ [22:01:29] excellent :) [22:01:32] no change in the mailing addr, unless someone has something there [22:01:34] antarus: :D [22:01:43] oh, should probably [22:01:47] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/02 [Foundation:Meetings/2018/02 - Gentoo Wiki] [22:01:59] alicef: good timing, you're up [22:02:01] there's one comment re mailing address [22:02:16] capitalone sent one of our tax forms to Wayne Chew [22:02:26] despite us having changed the address that the bank had [22:03:10] is that from the account we want to close [22:03:20] hmm, that's a good point [22:03:22] it wasn't clear on a quick glance [22:03:36] but that one was changing address as well [22:03:45] at least tsunam sent in the change of address form for that account [22:03:49] the sparks has the correct address afaik [22:03:58] if they processed it correct... ? [22:05:03] ya, guess that's something we need to verify and correct [22:05:08] can we pull all the money out of that account and let it close or do we have to notify them [22:05:26] robbat2: can you verify which account it was for, then we can proceed from there [22:05:32] we have the new checking account [22:05:35] dabbott: notify them [22:05:45] i will when I next spend time on finances yes [22:05:50] k [22:05:50] (which is probably not today at all) [22:05:52] in order to close the account [22:05:59] make a bug so we don't forget [22:06:06] ok [22:06:08] robbat2: thanks [22:06:14] who's making the bug? [22:06:20] i will [22:06:46] ACTION: dabbott is making a bug for the banking tax info being sent to the wrong address [22:06:57] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:07:05] alicef: have at it :D [22:07:44] no news on my side [22:08:07] alicef: how about the copyright work with ulm? [22:08:28] looks good for me [22:08:34] ok [22:08:47] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:08:53] prometheanfire: you're up [22:08:55] ok me [22:09:01] contact wizardedit (consultant) [22:09:10] done, he asked to be removed and I've done so [22:09:36] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/531540 [531540 – dev-libs/openssl: revise inclusion of elliptic curves with bindist USE flag] [22:10:12] for the openssl thing, I haven't done anything there [22:10:20] robbat2: have you had time to continue your work there? [22:10:32] maybe, but I had a question as well [22:10:37] sure [22:10:43] what progress was the openssl1.1 unmasking making? [22:11:02] most of the other distros look mostly set in for 1.1 already [22:11:15] so could we just offer bindist-safe-ecc on 1.1 only [22:11:58] if jmbsvicetto is here, maybe he knows [22:12:11] !seen jmbsvicetto [22:12:11] robbat2: jmbsvicetto was last seen 5 hours, 24 minutes and 16 seconds ago, saying "I meant irc activity" in #gentoo-groupcontacts [22:12:30] i guess not [22:12:36] let's just continue the meeting [22:12:58] ok [22:13:21] I guess that's something that'll need to be discussed in the ossl-1.1 tracker (general stablization) [22:13:34] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire) [22:13:41] robbat2: pong [22:13:50] jmbsvicetto: you're up [22:14:12] sorry, what was the question? The openssl-1.1 stabilization? [22:14:24] If so, I'm sorry but I haven't followed that [22:14:41] thanks, that covers that, also any infra items you had for the trustee meeting [22:14:47] jmbsvicetto: and the second one was infra updates [22:14:58] I didn't fill the funding request yet. I'm going to do that in a bit [22:15:32] Otherwise, I don't think there's any infra issue pending on trustees [22:15:57] ok [22:16:06] Current subject: treasure update, (set by prometheanfire) [22:16:09] robbat2: you're up [22:16:44] funding request clarification for other trustees: ~$1100 for SSD+parts for the server donated by flameeyes [22:16:56] i guess we'll just move that one to a bug for voting then [22:17:16] i have no actual progress update on treasurer/financials, just some comments [22:17:44] go ahead [22:17:49] 1. my CPA contact has moved to the other side of canada for family reasons [22:17:59] we're still in contact, but they aren't local to me anymore [22:18:28] 2. to that end, per the discussions yesterday, i think we should look for more bookkeeping AND CPA resources [22:18:56] update & re-post our advert, and solicit other options for that [22:19:22] splitting it to book-keeping service vs CPA service [22:19:29] ack, sounds good to me, I can ask about my friends father in law about that, but I doubt he has experience with using open source accounting [22:20:01] I wonder if the fsf could point us to someone [22:20:36] it wouldn't hurt to ask once we post the advert [22:20:45] yep [22:20:50] fsf, sfc, eff, apache [22:20:56] are who i'd start by asking [22:21:27] agreed, fsf is just who came to mind first [22:21:42] I might be able to ask the openstack people too at the PTG [22:21:55] probably ask on the ledger mailing lists as well :-) [22:22:09] and foundations list [22:23:11] moving on? [22:23:25] sounds good [22:23:46] Current subject: bugs, (set by prometheanfire) [22:23:56] 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] [22:24:10] I don't actually see anything new there [22:24:41] does that actually include lastchanged<30d ?! :P [22:24:52] veremitz: heh, ya [22:25:05] I know klondike mentioned going through the backlog [22:25:17] if the list is 'zaro boogs' all is good :D [22:25:33] ^use the force^ [22:25:58] to that end, would anybody object to making a component to split out the finance ones? [22:26:16] and having reimbursements move to finance when they are waiting on being closed out in book-keeping? [22:26:39] robbat2: I was going to suggest something like that [22:26:52] it'll make it easier to go over [22:26:52] were we going to discuss bug 645192? [22:26:54] robbat2: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees [22:27:15] issues Pom-poms to Shentino [22:27:30] gives credit for said pom poms to prometheanfire, it was his idea [22:27:35] prometheanfire: haven't had time to backlog [22:27:43] klondike2: np, just mentioning the intention [22:27:56] robbat2: ya, guess we should :P [22:27:57] We have somethings like the t-shirt mail we received 2 weeks ago [22:28:04] Which should be linked to a bug [22:28:16] I'll try to go over those to [22:28:18] *too [22:28:51] reguarding bug 645192, I think we should leave it for now, I suspect (hope) K_F is going to use it in his proposed membership application quiz [22:28:51] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees [22:29:23] Maybe this is the time to get K_F here? [22:29:53] prometheanfire: when did he say he might have it completed? [22:30:03] next meeting is the target [22:30:08] ok [22:30:22] ah, i haven't had time to read the log of the combined meeting [22:30:30] lets move on to the tshirt email klondike2 mentioned [22:30:50] Then all we need to do is vote on it as a requrment for membership? [22:31:12] I think we should reply yes, and specify donation to the paypal account [22:31:21] dabbott: more or less [22:31:27] ok [22:31:41] the basics of the quiz is that we'd vote based on the results of the quiz, but are not held to it [22:31:46] prometheanfire: I think we should check our agreement with Gentoo eV [22:31:47] as there is not a bylaw change [22:32:01] klondike2: what does that have to do with it? [22:32:10] ah, eu based [22:32:20] jup [22:32:49] possibly, id doesn't preclude donations to us though [22:33:10] i have one comment re visual of the shirt, the logo seems too blue [22:33:39] are there pantone colours for the logo somewhere? [22:33:43] ya, does look a bit odd [22:34:13] I may have seen some once .. not sure .. [22:34:17] i don't know if we have tracked pantone for the shirt, that would be a good project for somebody to do [22:34:40] I move that we give feedback in reguards to the color, mention gentoo eV and paypal [22:35:09] veremitz: ttps://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Artwork/Colors [22:35:19] dabbott: ty :D [22:35:27] klondike2: you want to take the lead on the shirt thing, being eu based? [22:35:41] I can do that, yes [22:35:48] is there an EU trademark on it? [22:35:54] should be .. >,< [22:36:09] ACTION: klondike2 to draft a reply the tshirt email (hellotux) [22:36:21] to the best of my knowledge the foundation does not hold any EU trademarks [22:36:33] same, I don't know of any [22:36:37] just the word & logo trademarks with the US PTO [22:36:42] next [22:36:46] Current subject: bug 638962, (set by prometheanfire) [22:36:48] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees [22:36:48] trustee-meetbot: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees [22:36:50] hmm worth thinking about .. but go on :D [22:37:12] they use our logo https://gentoo-ev.org/wiki/Ressourcen [22:37:12] until we get a proposal we can't vote on it [22:38:29] the uncouple needs a slight clarification [22:38:46] robbat2: mind updating the bug? [22:39:03] the name usage agreement we offer says that if you want to call an EVENT 'something gentoo something', you have to obide by CoC [22:39:27] but the CoC starts with 'Gentoo's Code of Conduct for public communication fora' [22:40:28] as a personal opinion, i don't think the CoC as it stands covers real-world situations enough [22:41:17] so it's maybe that the 'event' language of the usage agreement needs to be clearer as to why [22:41:57] but yes, it would go in a new bug [22:42:02] that existing one should close [22:42:38] mind updating it? [22:43:01] will do [22:43:05] action item it to me ;-) [22:43:43] ACTION: robbat2 to update bug 638962 [22:43:45] prometheanfire: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees [22:43:45] trustee-meetbot: https://bugs.gentoo.org/638962 "Uncouple the Gentoo Code of Conduct from its Trademark"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; gts:trustees [22:43:54] Current subject: new members, (set by prometheanfire) [22:44:03] gentoo dev: William Hubbs (williamh) [22:44:11] yes [22:44:13] yes [22:44:17] Yes [22:44:46] alicef: klondike2 klondike ? [22:44:57] yes [22:45:13] yes [22:45:42] I will send the email [22:45:50] thanks [22:45:50] ACTION: passed [22:45:57] Welcome WilliamH [22:46:01] Non gentoo dev: Daniel Robbins (drobbins) [22:46:17] he's been contributing to portage itself [22:46:20] is there .vote!? [22:46:24] defer till next month [22:46:26] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/log/?qt=author&q=drobbins [22:46:39] dabbott: mind if I ask why? [22:46:58] did you want to start the test [22:47:10] (i don't have a vote, but I would approve him and when the new quiz is ready, apply it to foundation members who aren't active devs) [22:47:26] sounds good :) [22:47:48] I like what robbat2 said [22:48:06] sounds reasonable [22:48:06] ok, next month then [22:48:18] unless anybody sees procedural issues with asking existing members to be tested [22:48:28] Current subject: cleanup, (set by prometheanfire) [22:48:30] robbat2: nah [22:48:36] Who will post the log? Minutes? (dabbott [22:48:41] Who will update the motions page? (aliceinwire [22:48:43] yeah thats a tricky one .. technically they've been Accepted already. [22:48:44] Who will send emails? (dabbott [22:48:49] Who will update agenda? (prometheanfire [22:48:49] yep [22:48:50] rich0 & NeddySeagoon might have thoughts on procedural validity [22:48:53] Who will update channel topic? (prometheanfire [22:49:08] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire) [22:49:12] I have an item [22:49:46] during the combined meeting, when discussing the reporting of comrel actions taken to the trustees, some clarifications were asked for [22:50:04] let me see if I can copy/paste the scrollback [22:50:56] 15:39 < mgorny+> as i've mentioned before, i don't think providing details to trustees would be a problem as long as confidentiality of appropriate private information is preserved [22:51:00] 15:40 < mgorny+> i.e. escalation still works the same, trustees don't need to intervene unless something really illegal happens [22:51:08] 15:41 < mgorny+> prometheanfire: lemme rephrase. do you need just information that an action was taken, or access to all evidence proactively? [22:51:17] that's the basics [22:51:45] first/second question get's an ack from me [22:52:16] third, I would be satisfied to be notified after action is taken [22:52:19] we only need to be notified after the fact so we are informed of the action taken, not before [22:52:22] any comments? [22:52:59] I think mgorny was inquiring as what the content of hte notification was [22:53:27] I wonder if we even need a notification :P [22:53:51] If we don't get a notification, will the legal responsability shift to the council? [22:53:55] klondike2: we need to be kept informed of actions that can cause legal trouble [22:53:55] i'd say copies of the threads of the compliant, communication with the person(s) who requested and were the subject of the action [22:53:59] klondike2: willful blindness [22:54:05] it could be very outline at the start of an issue, and then outcome could become more detailed perhaps .. eg. case admitted 10.11.07 ... case #34752 bug 0000 result: xXXX [22:54:07] not copies of council internal discussions [22:54:22] prometheanfire: for there to be willful blindness, shouldn't we be able to act on it? [22:54:44] klondike2: we can (see mgorny's second comment) [22:54:55] you could then react if case 99999 was taking 18 months to resolve ... [22:54:57] robbat2: ack, that sounds like what I'm looking for [22:55:02] Okay makes sense [22:55:25] communication that covers the relevant parties, and trying NOT to know council internals about why [22:55:45] robbat2: I'll add that to my reply to them [22:55:50] I single out that communication because that's what legal action would be based on [22:56:19] anyone else want to add to that? [22:56:34] robbat2: actually, my point was the other way around [22:56:49] i.e. protecting the possible intimate/private details from being spread to more people than absolutely necessary at the moment [22:57:30] I think he means retrospectively .. not concurrently .. [22:57:41] mgorny: i was looking at it from the other direction: what's the LEAST that the trustees need to know [22:57:53] it would be the mails with the parties [22:58:02] the second question, is when does that need to be known [22:58:39] can somebody remind me of how fast the council is supposed to move on comrel actions? [22:59:43] mgorny: ^^ [23:00:36] robbat2: could you rephrase the question? Council normally actions only when the party appeals [23:01:05] when an appeal is made to council, how fast is the council required to reach a decision? [23:01:22] lemme look into glep39 [23:01:54] seperately, when a request is made of comrel, is there anything that says how fast they have to respond? (for actions not initiated solely by comrel) [23:02:07] hm, doesn't seem to be specified but i think normally Council handles it before the next meeting [23:02:34] or at the next meeting [23:03:03] so it'd say <5-6 weeks (in case it came just before a meeting) [23:03:53] so a compromise: comrel actions shall be reported to trustees as they are completed, AND if the request is taking longer than X days to handle [23:04:05] to avoid requests being in uncompleted limbo [23:05:11] robbat2: sounds satisfactory to me, what method will we be notified? [23:05:18] as for the value of X, we'd want to see how long comrel actions take start-to-finish historically [23:05:33] s/AND if/or [23:05:45] and pick a value that gets most outliers [23:05:50] 90d ?! [23:05:53] robbat2: 2 years? ;-P [23:06:09] (if by finish you mean new comrel lead closing all old bugs) [23:06:11] if it's dragging more than a month I'd want to know [23:06:22] but i'm not sure how much faster than that is a benefit [23:06:34] depends on the issue really [23:06:50] I'd say a month is a good standard [23:07:06] more complicated issues could be more hairy legally too [23:07:20] well, the problem to some part is that many comrel issues do not need real action, and 'ignoring' them causes less problems than rejecting [23:07:32] (i.e. waiting for people to cool down) [23:07:46] comrel "timeout" lol [23:08:08] I'm not sure that's a good policy [23:08:59] well, a good policy would be to finally have comrel that encourages mediation and talking to people [23:09:07] but that's another thing entirely [23:09:19] both meditation & mediation [23:09:25] but i don't want to diverge the meeting [23:09:34] we're in open-floor already [23:09:38] but I have to go in 20 mins [23:10:04] robbat2: I'll write up your suggestions and desires as our response to comrel [23:10:11] and send that out tomorrow [23:10:25] ACTION: prometheanfire send email to comrel about reporting reqs [23:10:34] does anyone have anything else? [23:10:47] mgorny: i agree that getting people to calm down a bit by delaying response has value [23:10:58] but reporting that to trustees is good too [23:11:04] true [23:11:11] thinking of 'traditional' HR processes [23:11:14] and not letting it lag on too long [23:11:21] HR tries to ack something you send right away [23:11:23] i'm a bit afraid that this will result in trustees starting to interfere [23:11:24] a templated standard response is ok [23:11:33] but they don't action it for a bit longer [23:12:03] mgorny: atm we don't have a desire to interfere, make suggestions I think, but not order people around [23:12:07] Is there better guidance for when trustees with actually act? [23:12:14] will* [23:12:18] mgorny: A much simpler alternative is that the council takes all legal responsability and indemnifies the trustees for the council's actions then we mere trustees don't need to worry at all :P [23:12:20] mgorny: to avoid the interfere part, completed actions to be reported on some time interval rather than immediately? [23:12:36] antarus: when we think we should to legally protect the foundation (would be my guidance) [23:12:51] I mean I understand that, I still think its pretty vague [23:12:52] ;) [23:13:01] @trustees: bug 647966 [23:13:01] https://bugs.gentoo.org/647966 "Funding request for jacamar.gentoo.org"; Gentoo Foundation, Infra Support; CONF; jmbsvicetto:trustees [23:13:25] antarus: any more specific would be setting ourselfs up for failure imo [23:14:09] Well I mean this is the primary concern around the allocation of responsbilities [23:14:12] jmbsvicetto: will review for next meeting [23:14:32] mgorny: do you have suggestions on how the trustees can still be informed in a timely fashion and not interfere? [23:15:07] prometheanfire: ok, thanks [23:15:08] prometheanfire: 'suggestions' from trustees can be taken as binding [23:15:29] robbat2: i don't think the time really matters, it's rather what trustees do with the information [23:15:31] then how can we talk at all? [23:15:49] do we have to say 'this is non-binding' before everything? [23:16:10] mgorny: your concern is information leakage, trustee concern is legal-ass-covering [23:16:10] mgorny: I suspect 99% of the time we will do nothing [23:16:24] i agree [23:16:49] well, maybe it's fine [23:17:40] as long as trustees don't end up being used by one of the parties to push the result [23:17:59] that said, we should probably improve comrel policies on response time [23:18:04] that's why I suggested batch reporting after time [23:18:37] that also related to previous questions about transparency in reporting number of comrel actions open/completed to council [23:19:00] that will end up like a national security letter canary, mostly [23:19:09] "no actions have been taken" [23:19:10] "no actions have been taken" [23:19:12] "no actions have been taken" [23:19:18] ? [23:19:31] regular batch reporting I mean [23:19:41] still better than nothing imho. [23:19:42] ah [23:20:08] yeah but reporting when something happens is probably easier [23:20:40] we can discuss it via email if that satisfies people [23:20:52] atm we are 22m over (and dinner is almost done) [23:20:55] I figure some completely simple, anonymous stats would be an easy start [23:20:57] you can already creatively count bugs assigned/closed to comrel [23:21:13] ^ like that [23:21:19] so publishing it clearly isn't a big change [23:22:38] can I close the meeting in the mean time? [23:22:52] delaying the detailed information geting to trustees slightly does reduce the concern of tampering in process [23:22:54] how about suggesting to try something simple for a few months and do a review? [23:23:12] so if comrel/council have related ideas there, let's put that to email discussion? [23:23:12] INFO: next meeting date is Mar 17 2018 [23:23:22] robbat2: ack [23:23:37] my email will cc comrel and council and trustees [23:23:40] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 5088 seconds