[21:59:34] Meeting started by prometheanfire [21:59:41] klondike: ^cheers [21:59:41] Anyways we have just started :) [21:59:57] Meeting chairs are: klondike2, prometheanfire, dabbott, alicef, kensington, klondike, [22:00:11] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire) [22:00:13] o/ [22:00:19] here [22:00:22] Remove klondike I don't have access to that computer now [22:00:24] here [22:00:29] Klondike2: it's just in case [22:00:30] Here [22:00:53] The computer is two hours away from here [22:01:12] (And I'm on my phone) [22:01:13] get walking [22:01:42] Klondike2: I've told you to use irssi and not that GUI crap :p [22:01:46] Two hours by public transport I estimate a few more of I walk :P [22:01:51] ok, alicef is afk for now [22:02:05] Current subject: old items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:02:30] nothing on the activity tracker, next month we may want to start the nomination period for elections though [22:03:03] we'll skip over alicef's items as she's not here for now [22:03:10] Klondike2: accounting report [22:03:21] K_F: you and robbat2 too I suppose [22:03:23] Okay [22:03:35] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~k_f/irs-rfp-wip2.pdf [None] [22:04:09] Kristian did an amazing work on the rfp [22:04:39] Promethean. Can you paste the lines of my mail? [22:04:48] K_F: thank-you for creating this document [22:05:11] It's basically what we have to take [22:05:37] K_F: yep thanks [22:05:40] henr [22:05:49] here [22:06:03] hi alicef [22:06:07] o/ [22:06:11] alicef: ok, you'll be next [22:06:41] o;k [22:06:44] Klondike2: it'd be best of you just forward that to the list (or maybe robbat2 do so as he responded) [22:07:10] basically this is just a base document to work on, but at least it should provide the basics for something that can be used towards third parties in a somewhat structured form [22:07:18] Okay I haven't had mail access since then [22:07:35] Klondike2: sure [22:07:54] whats the next step? [22:08:00] the short if it is that the rfp is nearly done, just some minor details need sorting [22:08:14] dabbott: trustees finishing it up and sending it out [22:08:36] next step after the rfp is complete is to create a list of places to send it and send it out [22:08:58] that'll be done by next month (at the very least making that list) [22:09:04] is the document source available then? [22:09:22] I need a decision from us. [22:09:41] kensington: ask k_f for access to the repo [22:09:48] Klondike2: yes? [22:09:49] Are you okay with the tooling requirement? [22:10:01] Klondike2: I am [22:10:03] kensington: git://git.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/trustee-financial-rfp.git is the source, robbat2, prometheanfire and klondike has write access [22:10:04] Please vote yes or no [22:10:12] K_F: thanks [22:10:13] can I suggest something? [22:10:17] or comment? [22:10:20] let me copy and paste it [22:10:53] well, it's a bit long [22:11:03] is everyone able to read section 3.3 of the linked pdf? [22:11:03] Daniel yes kf published last draft. [22:11:17] I think the tooling requirement is unrealistic [22:11:26] prometheanfire: tooling [22:11:47] and a bit of free software activism, which by itself isn't wrong, but reality is that the task is more important than the freeness of the software the accountant happens to use [22:11:48] What do you propose Daniel? [22:11:50] just my 2c [22:11:53] that's my comment. [22:12:23] onliy OSS and/or sharable tools can be used [22:12:28] ? [22:12:31] I think we should require the ability to export into a standard oss readable format [22:12:36] dabbott: the tooling is only set to not require trustees etc to have proprietary software, it opens up for web interface for using it [22:12:37] that's all I care about [22:12:47] fact is that most accounting tools are not free software so it severely limits your choice of accountants [22:13:03] web interface is fine [22:13:15] done with my comments, move on :) [22:13:17] perhaps we can reword it to highlight the import/export/web ability so as not to "scare off" potential accountants [22:13:27] it doesn't require accountants to use free software, only that we dont' have to use non-proprietary interface [22:13:29] kensington: +1 [22:13:32] even if it's exporting to csv or excel doc (via the good format whatever that is) is fine [22:14:00] Okay I can reword that. I wanted to make sure it is pay from our social contract perspective [22:14:19] xls[x]* for excel [22:14:47] *okay [22:15:11] Klondike2: appreciated but as long as we steer clear of that proprietary stuff on our end I think that's the best we can do [22:15:20] Klondike2: yep, if you could clarify the way we import/export separate from general interaction (web interface) I think that'd help [22:15:44] So everybody is okay alicef? [22:16:04] I explicitly avoided adding that it needs to be exported in a way that is to be read by a current open source tool [22:16:23] K_F: why's that? [22:16:25] as we can always write a tool for that [22:16:32] if we have the data [22:16:46] and a third party likely don't know what exists [22:16:56] as now from what i remember we are using ledger for accounting [22:17:15] alicef: correct [22:17:50] This is stated also on the rfp [22:17:53] K_F: I see your point, but I think the current phrasing will cause this RFP to end up in /dev/null of most accountants [22:18:12] kensington: if so that was not the intention [22:18:12] well, we can discuss this outside of meeting (the particular wording) [22:18:17] good to move on? [22:18:22] K_F: I know [22:18:25] Yes [22:18:43] I'll hunt the responsible for the relevant gaps [22:18:48] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:18:48] kensington: my experience is that most accountant want organizations to move to web based interface [22:18:49] is already open source, but if we want to add a policy for that it dosen't have to come from the organ working on it? [22:18:50] Klondike2: thanks [22:19:03] K_F thanks a lot! Really! [22:19:49] alicef: but if we hire an outside accounting firm they may use someting like quickbooks only [22:19:49] kensington: so all 3.3 says is that trustees doesn't need to have non-proprietary software to interface with the accountant's interface [22:20:03] dabbott: yes that a good point [22:20:10] K_F: +1 [22:20:21] Current subject: Add Foundation:Consultants reference to https://www.gentoo.org/support, (set by prometheanfire) [22:20:26] alicef: progress there? [22:20:37] but i thought using open source tool is already a rule in gentoo [22:20:39] K_F: yep, it gives us some flexibility [22:21:15] prometheanfire: working on it [22:21:47] Current subject: (non-corporate) donors / "friends" page, (set by prometheanfire) [22:21:55] K_F: I'm not trying to nitpick, this is an excellent document and is very much appreciated, I just wanted to discuss the wording that may be confusing for someone not familiar with our domain [22:22:21] also working on it [22:22:33] kensington: by all means, if it can be clarified somehow, it should be done :) [22:22:59] Current subject: Do we need date of birth in developer apps (how'd the email go)? , (set by prometheanfire) [22:23:10] that's part of the licencing work [22:23:13] so we can skip that for now [22:23:20] we decided that arleady I thought [22:23:31] yes skip for now [22:23:32] or I thought we had when I last touched base with ulm / rich0 ;) [22:23:40] didn't it devolve into several unrelated topics? [22:23:47] antarus: someone should update the agenda then :P [22:23:56] prometheanfire: I'll follow up with them [22:23:59] move on [22:23:59] signature possibility is required for s-o-b lines for DCO [22:24:10] antarus: nothing about date of birth in the copyright glep so far [22:24:26] Current subject: my items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:24:45] the tracker is in https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 [22:24:50] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/592438 [592438 – (openssl-1.1) [TRACKER] packages failing with >=dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0] [22:25:02] no updates really, just a bunch of stuff failing to build with ossl-1.1 [22:25:19] that's all I had [22:25:24] alicef had one more item [22:25:26] alicef: go ahead [22:25:33] we have a mail to replay on the trustee about "Gentoo on WSL Follow-Up" [22:26:27] alicef: the last email I saw seemed to just point us toward their docs more or less [22:26:47] yes, we are actually interested on working on it ? [22:27:25] that's something for a project to pick up imo [22:27:38] whats WSL? [22:27:44] windows services for linux [22:27:51] iirc [22:28:08] seems ripe to email to -project looking for interest? [22:28:12] basically run linux userland in windows, officially [22:28:20] antarus++ [22:28:25] I'd say that's the next step [22:28:27] Maybe we should start a project for creating a prefix? [22:28:33] basically it's reverse wine [22:28:36] ok for me [22:28:52] alicef: can you own sending the email to -project ? [22:29:08] that doesn't really sound like trustee domain [22:29:29] It isn't it's pure dev stuff [22:29:34] yep [22:29:35] K_F: I think either we foward the mail ourselves (to -project) or ask them to email there? [22:29:43] sure, the point was that they talked about some burocratic things that they didn't explain by mail AFAIR [22:29:55] antarus: thats a good place to start [22:30:24] It can be discussed to infinity [22:30:25] .help [22:30:34] lol [22:30:39] O_o [22:30:41] move on then? [22:30:44] ok [22:31:04] it crashed ? [22:31:10] I'd like to do treasurer and infra updates before community [22:31:15] Current subject: infra updates, (set by prometheanfire) [22:31:21] jmbsvicetto: you're up (if around) [22:32:00] I have a new set of guidelines, but I'll cover in community [22:32:15] infra has a new server (jacamar) and its close to being operational; was diego's old server [22:32:24] no other updates really atm unless jmbsvicetto has more [22:32:29] I don't think there are updates for infra (not that I've seen) [22:32:40] antarus: ya, that's already been handled on our side though [22:32:44] nods [22:33:06] Current subject: treasurer update, (set by prometheanfire) [22:33:08] robbat2: around? [22:33:42] I know he's put some links in this channel to some preliminary reports [22:33:53] think he can't make it [22:33:57] ya [22:34:04] 2018-04-21 22:40:05<+robbat2> i'm not going to make the meeting, but idea for my cross-currency closing [22:34:14] ^^ [22:34:25] K_F: you mind then? [22:34:58] he has done a good job at providing the FY reports (which is another point) [22:35:50] https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 (back to 2005) [22:36:26] LINK: https://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/.private/wip-foundation-financial-statements/FY2017 [None] [22:36:31] there are some discussion points on the final presentation, but .. [22:36:32] ok, moving on then [22:37:02] K_F: thanks for the update [22:37:45] Current subject: community items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:37:55] Current subject: Recognize the separation of responsibilites for Gentoo (src: tamiko) , (set by prometheanfire) [22:37:58] tamiko: around? [22:38:08] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [22:39:18] This is relevant for the responsibility concerns you have prometheanfire [22:40:01] ya, this interacts with the 3rd community item [22:40:07] If you want to not be liable for, say, Council actions you want to have a clearly stated separation of responsibilities. [22:40:46] Klondike2: sure [22:40:54] Current subject: GDPR (src: mrueg) , (set by prometheanfire) [22:40:54] may I comment [22:41:02] mrueg: around? [22:41:31] infra has been passing around a couple of 'guides' for coming into compliance [22:41:44] drobbins: please do [22:41:46] according to NM law, it's actually the other way around. [22:41:47] the trustees will need to work with infra on it [22:41:55] https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [22:42:09] I'll work with infra on gdpr [22:42:13] so there is already a statute that protects the trustees [22:42:22] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/2093daf1806149531b3da15c17a6b50c [[gentoo-nfp] Re: GDPR and Gentoo - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [22:42:35] should I do the link thing too? [22:42:43] ok [22:42:59] LINK: https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [» New Mexico Statutes 53-8-98. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powersLawServer] [22:43:01] drobbins: we'll circle back to it next [22:43:10] next, back to item 1 [22:43:30] Current subject: Recognize the separation of responsibilites for Gentoo (src: tamiko) , (set by prometheanfire) [22:43:33] again [22:43:34] now [22:43:37] LINK: https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/new-mexico/nm-statutes/new_mexico_statutes_53-8-98 [» New Mexico Statutes 53-8-98. Unauthorized assumption of corporate powersLawServer] [22:43:43] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/72cd545080420eab7cb1403cea7caab4 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Re: [gentoo-project] Foundation meeting agenda for April 2018 - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [22:43:55] drobbins: that only goes as to asserting powers for the foundation [22:44:16] K_F: was just going to say that [22:45:41] related to item 1 is item 3 [22:45:48] so I'll link that now too [22:46:01] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/944b824fc1d1ca89bcae2d1c3f0520b7 [[gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [22:46:06] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/58dbc3cbbb11dc3be2c0ceb3ad8a2059 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Agenda item: Formalize Gentoo's org structure - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [22:47:00] in the future it might be nice to title these, just fyi ;) [22:47:03] Okay Matt, what do you want us to do? Vote on it? [22:47:26] I suppose the short of my view of item1/3 is that we are working with council to better define responsilities [22:47:32] a <.subject> would be good ;P [22:47:49] oh nvm... [22:47:52] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo's org structure (src: prometheanfire) , (set by prometheanfire) [22:47:56] that was item 3 [22:47:57] thanks [22:48:09] [22:48:19] We have some devs who can't be officials despite they help [22:48:28] I'd like to continue with our talks with council [22:48:36] Klondike2: yep, I wish that didn't complicate things [22:48:49] prometheanfire: that would bwe ideal [22:48:53] s/officials/officers/ ? [22:49:01] antarus: I assume [22:49:14] or 'official' devs? [22:49:21] Antarus, yes language barriers here [22:49:26] the old 'contributor' tag? [22:50:00] so no motions on items 1 and 3? [22:50:05] I'd say no [22:50:15] unless another trustee wishes to make one [22:50:31] (sorry, just trying to get as much covered as we can in the 1h ;p) [22:50:35] (motion): continue dialog?! :D [22:50:41] I imagine this is going to go to 2 hours [22:50:48] veremitz: doesn't need a motion [22:50:53] :) [22:50:57] ok, moving on [22:51:00] I would prefer a working agreement with council and trustees [22:51:09] Battery at 48% [22:51:12] Current subject: Formalize Gentoo Foundation's control over Gentoo infrastructure (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) [22:51:17] dabbott: that's in progress I'd say [22:51:27] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd [[gentoo-nfp] infra agenda item - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [22:51:29] prometheanfire: thanks [22:51:59] Drobbins, take the voice [22:52:04] we have a close relationship wit infra, no need imo [22:52:30] antarus: you want to respond? [22:52:37] Robin and I drafted what eventually became: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Infrastructure/Infrastructure_Guidelines [22:52:49] I think you mostly did so in https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/f54b51799916ba483cf14251893d7b05 and https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/78bce34ba1259774c9c2c9501e3adc02 [22:52:59] a written down version of informal guidelines regarding how infra administers hardware under its control [22:53:01] antarus: that new? [22:53:17] we wrote about a week ago on infra wiki and published ot main wiki today [22:53:25] happy to incorporate feedback [22:54:10] antarus: I think what drobbins was asking about was the actual hardware ownership [22:54:21] antarus: maybe add a section about that (iirc it varries...) [22:54:42] I meant ownership as well as control [22:54:50] prometheanfire: apologies, I was under the impression the meeting was tomorrow [22:55:11] jmbsvicetto: we switched it to today so that it's sunday in asia instead of monday [22:55:17] did so a couple months ago :P [22:55:23] is here also, just got here a few minutes ago. [22:55:37] Jorge technically speaking it is in parts of the world [22:55:40] drobbins: I don't think 'control' is well defined enough to say anything [22:55:41] prometheanfire: I'll see what I can dig up in ledger [22:55:47] thought the meeting was at 23:00 [22:56:07] (in terms of ownership, we depreciate the stuff we own.) [22:56:13] the in-kind donations are probably more of a mess [22:56:15] WilliamH: that's the combined meeting (which is defunct now) [22:56:38] as a point of order, was this posted to -nfp list for discussion to begin with= [22:56:41] I think that trustees formalizing foundation control over assets would give the clarity for them to intervene legally if necessary if the property is trespassed [22:56:51] K_F: yes, I linked it [22:56:51] like, if escalation beyond bans is required [22:56:57] K_F: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/151b44012a649a98a5e5268d3ed35bdd [22:57:16] K_F: also linked antarus's responses above [22:57:18] prometheanfire: wfm, thanks [22:58:11] formally, we own the hardware since we are the body that 'owns' things for gentoo [22:58:35] prometheanfire: if you want to ask the question "how much of the current infrastructure is owned vs donated vs unaccounted" [22:58:44] that seems like a reasonble question to pose and answer [22:58:47] I don't have that answer today [22:59:00] antarus: ya, I think we should figure that out [22:59:06] but it seems more answerable than the previous; in terms of clarity [22:59:24] anyway, antarus presented the status for infra. One thing left, something you're also going to talk in this meeting, is that we're starting to look at the GDPR [22:59:25] antarus: wouldn't it still be owned by the foundation if it were donated to the foundation? [22:59:37] as opposed to say leasing or renting it to the foundation [22:59:53] ok, we can move forward on that [23:00:08] jmbsvicetto: yep, I mentioned that [23:00:15] jmbsvicetto: I'll be the contact for the trustees on it [23:01:08] ok, guess we have our next steps there, next item [23:01:29] Current subject: Trustees enforce CoC for Council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) [23:01:41] +1 [23:01:54] the email was never sent to -nfp so I'd like to move this to next month [23:02:12] +1 [23:02:18] prometheanfire: sounds good [23:02:25] I thought I did [23:02:39] it really needs to be discussed publicly first imo [23:02:46] drobbins: I never found it [23:02:57] drobbins: or the next item either [23:03:04] The idea is nice and follows the principles of separation of powers set up by Machiavello [23:03:16] Can I ask a question about CoC enforcement? [23:03:22] WilliamH: sure [23:03:26] I for one am in favor of council being accountable to someone, and trustees seems like a reasonable choice [23:03:33] Doesn't comrel enforce that for everyone? [23:03:42] they are supposed to afaik [23:03:47] WiliamH: council is the body of appeal for comrel actions IIRC [23:03:49] WilliamH: yes, they are suppoesd to [23:03:57] IMVHO this is a potential conflict of interest [23:04:42] so far council has recused themselves if needed [23:04:57] I'm Spain the judicial power is responsible for controlling the executive power but the executive chooses the judges iirc [23:04:59] anyway next item, as this should be discussed on the list before being brought here [23:05:11] You can see how well it works ;) [23:05:12] I would rather see council members not allowed to be in comrel or qa, but people don't see that as an issue. [23:05:13] WilliamH: whoever does CoC enforcement does it to everyone - currently that's comrel [23:05:41] a 'fairness rule' is needed [23:05:56] so that comrel isn't used to pick sides in a conflict [23:05:56] Klondike2: heh that's another story. [23:06:22] ok, next item [23:06:28] Current subject: Trustees place user representitive on the council (src: drobbins) , (set by prometheanfire) [23:06:34] this also wasn't sent to the list [23:06:35] WilliamH: just like comrel deals with disciplinary actions for all developers, even if they're council members [23:06:42] I'm generally against the idea though [23:06:52] For the heck of it, how does comrel handle comrel? [23:07:07] please send the proposal to the list and we can discuss it there [23:07:23] it's require an amended glep39 at least, which needs a full dev vote [23:07:30] prometheanfire: I did send both these to the list [23:07:38] Shentino: they ignore it, like they ignore everything else [23:07:40] Apr 8 [23:07:42] drobbins: I didn't see them :| [23:07:52] drobbins: link to archives.g.o ? [23:07:52] wrt a user rep on the council, it would have to be an elected spot and I think we would need to keep the council having an odd number of members. [23:07:58] veremitz: one moment [23:08:11] I don't see them https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/threads/2018-04/2 [23:08:14] That would also have to be a full dev vote since it affects glep 39? [23:08:16] Drobbins if not in archive most likely we didn't get them [23:08:33] WilliamH: yep [23:08:37] drobbins: you sure you weren't banned then?! :P [23:08:55] veremitz: I suspect that's the case [23:09:04] prometheanfire: me2 [23:09:12] Current subject: Add reopen nominations option to ballot (src: k_f, mgorny) , (set by prometheanfire) [23:09:16] I also forwarded it to trustees@ [23:09:21] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/c7412600866cd650c9d9b147f3a83966 [[gentoo-nfp] reopen nominations - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [23:09:26] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233 [[gentoo-nfp] New Trustee voting proposal (including _reopen_nominations) - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [23:09:31] dabbott replied to my trustees@ email [23:09:33] drobbins: needs to hit the list .. public [23:09:42] then we can build a fresh bike shed! :D [23:09:46] winks to kensington :D [23:09:48] veremitz: I believe it was blocked [23:09:55] thus I forwarded to trustees [23:09:58] Wait. Was Daniel banned on nfp? [23:10:04] I was banned from -project but this was extended to -nfp [23:10:12] (by mistake) [23:10:14] it probably got dropped [23:10:23] Kinda hard to officially raise an issue for discussion by posting to -nfp if you're banned from it [23:10:33] yep, esp. when I'm not supposed to be [23:10:33] mumbles in Spanish... [23:10:37] and this is why trustees should handle -nfp as a special case [23:10:45] Klondike2: yo quiero taco bell [23:10:46] Shentino: but NO! [23:11:15] Honestly I've been on a soy and garbanzo bean diet that I crave something cheesy and greasy and meaty [23:11:22] drobbins: I'm not sure i follow? [23:11:24] ^ OT [23:11:31] when were you banned from -nfp? [23:11:32] Daniel we are sorry for the inconvenience. Can you please resend the items so we can openly discuss them? [23:11:33] all: https://imgur.com/GCTtBNi [23:11:33] antarus: was drobbins banned from the nfp list? [23:11:37] V: agreed, sorry [23:11:42] I haven't seen that as a thing [23:11:50] antarus: it appears when I was banned from -project, whoever implemented the ban also blocked my emails to -nfp [23:11:53] infra's checking on that [23:11:58] can we discuss the current item [23:12:00] see the imgur link above for the post I made [23:12:21] dolpins? again? [23:12:26] I think "none of the above" is a good option. At least until we can have more people actually running for trustee [23:12:41] please stop talking [23:12:49] :| [23:12:51] :P [23:12:54] wish that'd print current chairs [23:13:00] https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/1cf0c52c0ffd6cad6f914ac46e87a233 [23:13:03] Okay [23:13:09] trustees, we should discuss this proposal [23:13:22] prom: sorry, my comment about "none of the above" was in relation to the reopen nominations thing we're discussing [23:13:22] Matt the idea is good, the impact not so much [23:14:50] Klondike2: I can re-send but I also forwarded to trustess on Apr 8 so all the trustees received the email via the trustees alias, and dabbott replied, so I am sure the trustees received it and it should have been on the agenda for this meeting. [23:15:25] drobbins: reading the ML logs I think you were not a member of -nfp with drobbins@funtoo.org until Mon Apr 9 [23:15:27] Klondike2: impact not so much? [23:15:33] so your april 8 emails were rejected [23:15:50] I don't see any bans for you, nor mails rejected like I'd expect if a ban was present [23:16:02] antarus: Does that mean only foundation members are allowed to post to -nfp? [23:16:16] antarus: that appears to be correct [23:16:28] pretty much for any gentoo list, you have to be a member of the list to post to the list; iirc [23:16:29] it looks like I found out I was unsub'd from the list [23:16:31] drobbins: just send them again to -nfp and we will get to it next month [23:16:32] (because: spam) [23:16:44] dabbott: ++ [23:16:59] prometheanfire: that just makes the election more confusing [23:17:01] I think the one thing the proposal needs is to describe the periods to use [23:17:04] Matt impact may be less volunteers and trustees meeting delegitimated [23:17:09] dabbott: it does complicate things [23:17:20] more people need to get involved if they want to [23:17:32] s/if they want to// [23:17:33] Klondike2: so less people stepping forward is the outcome you'd see? [23:17:34] nominate themselves if needed [23:17:53] not make the election a 3 month process [23:17:57] One of the outcomes yes [23:18:04] why do you think that? [23:18:18] dabbott: self nomination is allowed [23:18:18] drobbins: ACK mail 1 to -nfp [23:18:28] You like having your self worth crushed? [23:18:28] I wanna see more people nominated honestly. A contested election would give the members choices to make. [23:18:56] Has anyone confirmed that a ballot for the Trustees can even have a "fictional candidate"? [23:19:01] There's less of a point in voting if nobody can win [23:19:12] jmbsvicetto: I nominate Chuck Norris. [23:19:30] Shentino: not a dev [23:19:39] Shentino: can you please stop with the off-topic? It makes really hard to follow this discussion [23:19:40] s/dev/foundation member/ [23:19:41] jmbsvicetto: it's merely a marker, not a candidate [23:19:44] Shentino: please stay on topic [23:19:47] jmbsvicetto: they need to be a dev [23:20:11] in that case j, what do you mean exactly by "fictional candidate"? [23:20:18] my comment was in relation to that [23:20:29] ulm: The old concern was that any candidate to a legal entity needed to "exist". I haven't seen anyone addressing that concern [23:20:53] ulm: I don't know if that's a valid legal argument or not, but I don't think we should ignore it [23:20:57] jmbsvicetto: iirc it was confirmed that it'd be allowed, NM gives us huge leeway for how tovote [23:20:59] Shentino: reopen_nominations [23:21:07] jmbsvicetto: I think we are unlikely to find that out here [23:21:15]