[22:00:15] Meeting started by prometheanfire [22:00:31] Meeting chairs are: prometheanfire, alicef, dabbott, kensington, klondike, [22:00:36] Current subject: roll call, (set by prometheanfire) [22:00:39] o/ [22:00:44] here [22:00:45] o/ [22:01:03] quorum met [22:01:09] kensington: klondike ? [22:01:17] iirc kensington said he may not be able to make it [22:02:18] will wait one more min before moving on [22:03:38] ok, moving on [22:03:51] Current subject: activity tracker, (set by prometheanfire) [22:04:29] next item is to initiate the election, you ready to do that dabbott ? [22:04:42] it's for june, but it'd be good to have to community be aware that it's coming up [22:05:22] yes, we need to get a rough draft of the dates [22:05:40] first we prune the member list [22:05:52] procedure is doc'd here https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Elections#Procedure [22:06:01] we can vote on that later in this meeting [22:06:08] ok [22:06:16] next then [22:06:22] Current subject: alicef's items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:06:38] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/05#alicef [Foundation:Meetings/2018/05 - Gentoo Wiki] [22:06:39] (here, will comment re election process stuff later) [22:06:43] same no changes [22:06:51] ok [22:07:03] robbat2: I'll be asking about gdpr progress soon :D [22:07:10] klondike: here? [22:07:37] Current subject: prometheanfire's items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:07:59] no progress on the openssl stuff, that's more on the technical side of gentoo to solve (make stable 1.1) [22:08:59] gdpr is next, I didn't have time for this due to being gone for two weeks since the last meeting [22:09:05] but maybe infra did more? [22:09:07] jmbsvicetto: ping? [22:09:30] jmbsvicetto: robbat2, do we know what info we have, so we can move forward with control of it? [22:09:58] of devs, it's easy, LDAP has a lot, and they can get their own data back out of it [22:10:10] the other services are a different matter [22:10:23] do we have a list of those services? [22:10:30] that's the service catalog [22:10:55] what needs to happen with it is identify which services collect more than just IP [22:11:18] ip is considered personal if it can be tied back to the individual iirc [22:11:20] it needs somebody with a lot of time, which I don't have [22:11:30] don't think anyone has that time :| [22:13:02] ok, well, I guess we (foundation) need to ask infra formally for that info, since we do need to be in compliance [22:13:08] on the plus side, very few of our services go out of their way to deliberately collect stuff [22:13:17] forums collects the most [22:13:31] wiki & bugs collect just a little like name [22:13:43] I don't think it matters the how or why or how frequently .. :P [22:14:18] it's important that we move forward on this though [22:14:29] 25th May is teh deadline [22:14:32] there will be zero progress until somebody has time [22:14:36] deadline or not [22:14:48] yep [22:15:12] wait til the foundation gets sued again I guess .. [22:15:12] that'll sharpen a few wits [22:15:33] [22:15:39] veremitz: we cannot be personally sued for it, we can have a fine levied by the EU body [22:15:52] personally = the foundation [22:15:55] but that's not sueing [22:16:04] fine can be quite high [22:16:11] it's in the millions [22:16:15] yes, i'm ware of the fine cap [22:16:22] 10% or millions, whichever is greater [22:16:24] greater of 20% revenue or 20M EUR or some [22:16:34] ah, 20 [22:16:34] that's the maximum amount [22:16:44] that the fine is allowed to be [22:16:51] which does NOT mean every fine will be that [22:16:57] true [22:17:38] i'll tell people to poke at the service catalog, but that's the best I can do, due to nobody having time for this project [22:17:42] continue for the moment [22:17:44] sure [22:18:05] Current subject: community items, (set by prometheanfire) [22:18:13] LINK: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2018/05#Community_Items [Foundation:Meetings/2018/05 - Gentoo Wiki] [22:18:35] lets vote on the community items so they don't keep comming up each month [22:18:51] I vote 1 => 6 no 7 yes [22:19:14] ok, ya, I meant to clean those up [22:19:16] didn't we vote on a bunch last month [22:19:22] I can email eben if needed [22:20:29] dabbott: that'd be appreciated, I'd like the trustees to review before it's sent though [22:20:42] OK [22:21:03] i'm not a trustee anymore, but I believe #6 (reopen_nominations) is reasonable [22:21:24] robbat2: we had a conference call with him or was that someone else [22:21:32] I agree, I think it can be done next session though [22:21:35] prometheanfire: ok [22:21:38] was that bradley [22:21:38] this election is too close [22:22:00] and for #3, infra is under the foundation already, just say fine [22:22:12] i don't think it's too close, and we don't need to amend bylaws to do it [22:22:53] ok, on 1, I don't think it's a good idea to be tied down [22:22:59] therefore, no for me on 1 [22:23:26] formalizing the org structure (2) is also a no for now, given the other things we have in the air [22:23:55] control over infra is already done, so going to remove it, (no need for vote) [22:23:59] that's (3) [22:24:21] (4) trustees enforce CoC on council [22:25:10] I vote no, that's not our job, if something legal comes up we handle it because of that, not the CoC (which is not a legal doc) [22:25:25] (5) Trustees place user representitive on the council [22:25:39] no, that's not our job, it'd also mess up glep 39 a ton [22:25:46] comment re #4: everybody, incl. council & trustees should be respecting the CoC [22:26:07] robbat2: should be, but we are not the enforcement mechanism [22:26:08] you don't get a pass just because you're on some management body [22:26:20] the enforcement mechanism is comrel [22:26:31] yep [22:26:36] (6) Add reopen nominations option to ballot [22:26:55] there was a timeline posted for reopen_nominations that fit with the original timeline [22:27:13] if we can make the change now the I vote yes [22:27:29] condense the original process from 2 months to 6 weeks, and use the extra 2 weeks for a 2nd round if needed [22:27:33] even if not I vote yes, it'll simply be implimented as soon as possible [22:28:07] (7) contact sflc, yes (dabbott is doing it) [22:28:10] can we approve it and say exact timeline to be announced, but will keep to the approximate original schedule [22:28:14] please send an email to trustees with the election time line for this election [22:28:26] so I can get started [22:28:39] mgorny: can you talk to me for the timeline to reopen_noms later? [22:28:54] comment re scrubbing membership lists: i have my tooling almost done for the csv->yaml change [22:29:01] needs to be done for the AGM [22:29:05] it does show clearly we don't have many changes in teh list [22:29:32] we good to move on? robbat2 dabbott and mgorny will work on the move to the new election scheme [22:29:44] Current subject: infra update, (set by prometheanfire) [22:29:55] robbat2: can you give that ( jmbsvicetto seems absent ) [22:30:25] there was some hardware death due to old-age this past month [22:30:42] some of stuff we own, others of sponsor-owned [22:30:59] the original dipper died, we moved the content to blackcap (and renamed) [22:31:05] but the replacement was the same age [22:31:16] dipper runs the core rsync/distfiles generation [22:31:31] sometime in the future it will need to move [22:31:42] possibly to newly purchased hardware [22:31:54] it's not suited for the present VM hosting at OSL [22:32:10] because it's IO&CPU-heavy, and we don't want it co-located with untrusted VMs [22:32:34] might write a proposal to buy a pair of hypervisors for trusted VMs, to be at OSL [22:32:52] Now is the time to upgrade while we have the funds [22:32:53] would incl. a 10Gbit switch [22:33:11] ok [22:34:07] Current subject: open bugs, (set by prometheanfire) [22:34:54] I don't see much [22:35:19] to reduce the bus factor, is anybody among present trustees interested in learning at least some of the accounting/treasurer stuff? [22:35:44] i'd be teaching you as I taught zlg [22:35:50] if I wasn't planning wedding stuff I would [22:35:51] in return for help keeping it up to date [22:35:58] I'd say to ask me in a year :| [22:36:12] this offer also open to non-trustees who might be considering running next term [22:36:13] I could do it if alicef wants to take secretary duties [22:36:26] dabbott: yes [22:37:09] (i'll take more than one person if that presents itself) [22:38:00] robbat2: I don't have a background in accounting but could be used to keep stuff up to date untill we get someone more qualified [22:38:05] comments re financials, so it goes into minutes [22:38:45] i haven't had time to spend on it since last month, but the exchange stuff is mostly done, what remains is depreciation & value of donated services [22:38:51] plus data entry for this most recent year [22:39:23] ok [22:39:37] Current subject: new business, (set by prometheanfire) [22:39:39] tbh I just don't have much time, I work alot [22:39:55] I would be afraid i would fall behind [22:40:05] foundation removal of members [22:40:14] LINK: https://bugs.gentoo.org/653904 [653904 – Foundation member removal candidates (based on 2016+2017 elections)] [22:40:15] (i have new business) [22:40:32] mgornys list looks good, what ablut zlg [22:40:40] that list isn't accurate [22:40:50] the yaml will show more detail later [22:41:13] ya, I assume you are going to be helping with that then? [22:41:17] yes [22:41:25] robbat2: thanks [22:42:30] Current subject: council requests our vote on https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/b985f7c13359f521c451322dae59ebf7, (set by prometheanfire) [22:43:22] I don't think we need to vote, but I think it's an ok change [22:43:50] unofficial +1 for it from me [22:44:01] fine by me [22:44:52] dilfridge: there's your ack [22:45:06] Current subject: copyright assignment, (set by prometheanfire) [22:45:11] LINK: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-nfp/message/45d2eafb4416db744ab1e0af708534c5 [Re: [gentoo-nfp] Trustee meeting Meetings/2018/05 agenda - gentoo-nfp - Gentoo Mailing List Archives] [22:46:20] alicef: you a member of the copyright team [22:46:35] I defer to the copyright team [22:47:48] I think question 'a' would need to counsult with a lawyer [22:47:52] i don't remeber to have signed anything in 2003/2004 ... [22:48:16] unofficial answer as part of the people working on that glep: [22:48:22] successor to the GTI is hard [22:48:33] 1. we ARE the assignee of GTI [22:48:52] 1.1. but the dates of the documents mean some future obligations may still exist [22:49:14] 1.2. the release was specifically future obligations, needs review for current/past obligations [22:49:48] 2. I had proposed a futhur general release from the Foundation [22:49:51] it also say that as been nullified [22:50:03] 2.1. mostly as CYA for parts that wern't missed [22:50:15] 2.2. but to be rolled towards the new optional FLA work [22:50:46] robbat2: yep, that's my understanding, I guess we'll work with the copyright team (ulm, alicef) on this [22:51:40] ok [22:52:19] so I suppose the answer there is that work is ongoing [22:52:46] i'd ask that somebody draft the further release, and post to the lists for review [22:53:03] to collect that input, and take it to an IP lawyer for review [22:53:08] after community review [22:53:15] sure [22:53:34] it does sound like that's the right way forward given the timeline [22:54:04] ok, taking that [22:54:26] Current subject: date of next meeting, (set by prometheanfire) [22:54:29] Saturday, June 16 2018 22:00 UTC ? [22:54:38] i have my new business stuff still [22:54:42] when you're ready for it [22:54:42] oh, right [22:54:50] open floor for that [22:54:51] i will be on a plane during that next meeting [22:54:52] which is next [22:55:17] June 16 is ok here [22:55:22] I'm fine moving it a week later or earlier [22:55:38] no [22:55:43] later is better [22:55:45] not earlier [22:55:51] but I realise it impacts recording date [22:55:55] because that's next meeting [22:56:26] June 23 is ok here [22:56:52] alicef: june 23 good for you? [22:56:57] yes [22:57:00] ok [22:57:05] june 23 it is [22:57:11] Current subject: open floor, (set by prometheanfire) [22:57:14] robbat2: you're up [22:57:48] forums mods were approached, informally by email, by law enforcement [22:57:53] with a request for user information [22:58:06] this request was passed on to infra/trustees [22:58:26] i believe this is the first such request that we've had [22:59:14] we need to draft a response that a formal request (subpeona, warrant) is required for user info [22:59:27] and be ready to recieve that formal request [22:59:33] it may come with a data preservation order [23:00:13] a number of large tech firms have good guides for law enforcement on that [23:00:19] and I think we should crib heavily [23:00:36] unless we can find an even more closely fitting documetn for open source orgs [23:00:48] sounds good [23:00:57] this should be foundation writing the policy doc here [23:00:58] not infra [23:01:24] agreed [23:01:48] EBUSFACTOR :/ [23:01:58] I'll submit a doc by next meeting [23:02:15] prometheanfire: thanks [23:02:19] the LE agent should have a response not later than end of next week [23:02:34] neat [23:02:42] i shared some potential wording out of band for whomever is going to write that [23:02:49] i'll happily review that, but don't have time to write it [23:02:59] neither do I really [23:03:07] but what choice do I have :| [23:04:28] ok, anyone have anything else? [23:04:38] robbat2: that was homeland security asking [23:05:21] i was not specifying which agency [23:05:40] it's a almalgamated mess [23:05:51] (the US federal LE orgs) [23:06:33] yep [23:06:53] Current subject: ending, (set by prometheanfire) [23:07:01] dabbott: you are posting the logs/minutes [23:07:09] got it [23:07:12] alicef: you'll update the motions [23:07:20] request re logs [23:07:23] dabbott: no emails to send, this time [23:07:24] yes [23:07:35] the old logs had terrible file naming [23:07:36] I'll update the agenda (done) and topic [23:07:47] can you please start using ISO date naming for files? [23:07:52] and go back to fix old logs? [23:07:59] I'd like that too [23:08:05] i'll help dig up missing old logs as well if you find the dates of meetings for me [23:08:08] how un-american [23:08:24] i have an almost complete history of this channel since 2008/01/11 [23:08:31] Meeting ended by prometheanfire, total meeting length 4096 seconds