Log for 20180217 combined council/trustees meeting.

2 files changed, 318 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20180217.txt b/meeting-logs/20180217.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3166f51
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20180217.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,304 @@
+<mgorny> ok, it is time                                                 [22:00]
+<mgorny> !proj council
+<willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, mgorny, slyfox, tamiko, ulm,
+            williamh
+<mgorny> !proj trustees
+<willikins> mgorny: (trustees@gentoo.org) alicef, dabbott, jmbsvicetto,
+            kensington, klondike, maffblaster, prometheanfire, robbat2
+<mgorny> roll call!
+* ulm here
+* mgorny here
+<prometheanfire> here                                                   [22:01]
+* dilfridge here
+* K_F here
+<kensington> Here
+<prometheanfire> robbat2: stated he had other business to attend to, but I'll
+                 give his (short) update
+<dilfridge> welcome to the president's hour!                            [22:02]
+<mgorny> anyone else we should expect/wait for?
+<prometheanfire> I think we can move on                                 [22:03]
+<mgorny> hmm, wait a sec
+<mgorny> i'll try to ping people who are not on the channel
+<prometheanfire> not sure if alicef is awake yet (given the notice was sent
+                 out a couple of hours ago)
+<prometheanfire> k
+<mgorny> prometheanfire: could you /invite slyfox and tamiko?           [22:04]
+<prometheanfire> this channel shouldn't be private
+<prometheanfire> are their nicks not registered?
+<prometheanfire> (also, invited)                                        [22:05]
+<mgorny> prometheanfire: was asking in case they have auto-invite-join  [22:06]
+<mgorny> anyway, let's proceed
+<mgorny> 1. Copyright policy
+<mgorny> ulm, alicef                                                    [22:07]
+<ulm> some progress there
+<mgorny> i think the main items in TODO are updating for the FLA, then sending
+         it for wider review                                            [22:08]
+<ulm> DCO has been updated, as well as some of the policies
+<ulm> yes, we should create a FLA based on the FSFE's new version
+*** tamiko (~tamiko@gentoo/developer/tamiko) has joined channel
+    #gentoo-trustees
+*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.) has changed mode for #gentoo-trustees to +v
+    tamiko
+<prometheanfire> is that the only remaining item before sending for wider
+                 review?
+* prometheanfire would like a positive ack                              [22:09]
+<ulm> what I wanted to ask is if formatting this as a GLEP is fine with
+      trustees?
+<prometheanfire> rather than a passive one :D
+<prometheanfire> I suppose it'd still need our signoff, but the formatting
+                 itself shouldn't matter
+<prometheanfire> (need our signoff because copyright/legal)             [22:10]
+<ulm> sure, GLEP format doesn't necessarily imply GLEP workflow for approval
+      in this case
+* tamiko reporting in (sorry for the delay)
+<ulm> so I'll go ahead with what is in https://github.com/ulm/copyrightpolicy
+      and obtain a GLEP number for it                                   [22:11]
+<mgorny> i'd really like to see it applying ASAP
+<mgorny> i feel bad about every pull request without proper copyright policy
+         in place
+<mgorny> anyone have any questions, suggestions, requests or should we move
+         on?                                                            [22:12]
+<prometheanfire> ulm: sgtm
+<ulm> still not entirely clear what we should put in ebuild headers, that may
+      need another iteration
+<ulm> but we've already narrowed it down
+<prometheanfire> ya, it's getting more straigforward as we go           [22:13]
+<ulm> mgorny: nothing else from my side
+<mgorny> ok, let's move on                                              [22:14]
+<mgorny> - Financial status of the foundation
+<mgorny> prometheanfire: you wanted to say sth
+<prometheanfire> sure
+<prometheanfire> just repeating what robbat2 said earlier               [22:15]
+<prometheanfire> there hasn't been progress made on that front (tax wise)
+<prometheanfire> the tax guy he'd been seeing in person moved across the
+                 country, they can still work together, but not in person
+<prometheanfire> we (the trustees) have also been looking into someone to
+                 manage the books (and that alone)                      [22:16]
+<prometheanfire> that's it, any questions?
+<K_F> thanks for update, nothing specific from my side
+<mgorny> i've seen some discussion about using proprietary software for that
+         but i think that's out of the question given the SC            [22:18]
+<prometheanfire> ya, rich0 suggested it iirc, but robbat2 pointed him to the
+                 SC
+<ulm> "Gentoo will never depend upon ..." is rather clear               [22:19]
+<veremitz> is Gentoo actually depending on it? or just Using it?
+<NeddySeagoon> Just using it.
+* dilfridge heard some rumors about debian and gitlab
+<mgorny> which makes me wonder why infra is using Amazon AWS but well..
+                                                                        [22:20]
+<mgorny> we're straying from topic
+<prometheanfire> dilfridge: they use the open source gitlab iirc
+<NeddySeagoon> There are OS alternatives ... but it looks like CPAs don't use
+               them
+<prometheanfire> mgorny: or any cloud provider, or cdn, etc :P
+<mgorny> unless anyone has any comments regarding financials, let's move on
+<prometheanfire> ack
+<mgorny> - Purpose of the Foundation Council split                      [22:21]
+<mgorny> is there anything to add here or can we scratch it from future
+         agendas?
+<K_F> can likely scratch it                                             [22:22]
+<prometheanfire> scratch
+<ulm> +1
+<mgorny> - Legal protection for the foundation
+<mgorny> anything more here or scratch as well?
+<K_F> from my side any question got cleared up last time                [22:23]
+<prometheanfire> scratch                                                [22:24]
+<mgorny> ok, next
+<mgorny> - Criteria for accepting members to the foundation
+<mgorny> did anything happen here?
+<prometheanfire> not sure, I don't think so
+<prometheanfire> there was never a clear outcome there
+<mgorny> lemme quote the last summary                                   [22:25]
+<mgorny> *result* Foundation was willing to tighten this, something like
+<mgorny>         the staffer quiz to be given to non-devs (and judged by the
+<mgorny>         trustees and/or officers), it'd take a bylaw change and
+         someone
+<mgorny>         to 'champion' it.
+<mgorny> so, does anyone want to do it?
+<NeddySeagoon> It does not need a bylaw change.  Just a trustees vote.
+<prometheanfire> over the next month I do not (openstack packaging and travel)
+<klondike> Hi, sorry for the delay                                      [22:26]
+<prometheanfire> NeddySeagoon: woudln't it modify
+                 https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_4.3._Admission_of_Members
+<K_F> prometheanfire: no, it already requires a trustee vote to become a
+      member
+<K_F> so it'd just be a policy change on requirements for such an approval,
+      which wouldn't require bylaw change per se                        [22:27]
+<mgorny> anyone volunteering or wanting to add something, or should we move
+         on?
+<K_F> since the list of acceptance criteria is non-exhausive to begin with
+<prometheanfire> K_F: k, makes sense
+<mgorny> (sorry, got a big of lag here)
+<mgorny> bit*
+<NeddySeagoon> prometheanfire: The trustees would use the quiz to fulfil "cite
+               verifiable evidence of contributing to Gentoo"
+<mgorny> K_F: want to oversee this on Council end?                      [22:28]
+<prometheanfire> I'd be open to giving feedback to any proposal, but don't
+                 have time to do it myself
+<prometheanfire> NeddySeagoon: ack
+<K_F> mgorny: I can do that, but someone from trustees should be main
+      contributor of it
+<NeddySeagoon> Put it on the March Trustees agenda for a vote
+<NeddySeagoon> as quoted by mgorny above                                [22:29]
+<mgorny> ok, let's let Trustees decide later and move on
+<mgorny> - Funding for travel and meetups
+<dabbott> o/ sorry for being late                                       [22:30]
+<mgorny> anything to add here?
+<prometheanfire> mgorny: don't think so, nothing changed since the last time
+* Shentino is present
+<dilfridge> for whom?                                                   [22:31]
+<prometheanfire> the two trustee items can likely be changed into reporting
+                 and proctors
+<mgorny> yeah, let's take both at the same time                         [22:32]
+<mgorny> - CoC enforcement + Comrel
+<dilfridge> well
+<mgorny> dilfridge, prometheanfire
+* Shentino is present for himself as a foundation member observing the
+  meeting, but did want to cite bug 645192 in relation to the foundation
+  membership criteria just mentioned
+<willikins> Shentino: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg
+            competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo
+            Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees
+<dilfridge> as far as the e-mails got exchanged, I think prometheanfire
+            basically agrees with my plan for the proctors
+<prometheanfire> dilfridge: ya, generally, the main thing is that I want it to
+                 be independant                                         [22:33]
+<dilfridge> there may be some small details, but I offhand dont remember any
+            big issues with the proposed policies
+<prometheanfire> ya, the policies themselves seemed fine
+<mgorny> independent of whom? of gentoo completely?
+<dilfridge> I dont care how the project structure looks like as long as the
+            escalation path is fine
+<dilfridge> of comrel
+<dilfridge> the question was "subproject of comrel or not"              [22:34]
+<NeddySeagoon> It would be good to launch proctors with a CoC review and
+               endorsemeth by both council and trustees.
+<prometheanfire> NeddySeagoon: I imagine that's fine
+<mgorny> i should point out that 'subproject or not' problem is generally a
+         bit silly, given that gnetoo project structure is a bit silly and
+         hysterical by design
+<dilfridge> mgorny: exactly
+<mgorny> as for escalation, is it proctors -> comrel -> council?        [22:35]
+* prometheanfire generally doesn't have a problem with the CoC as it exists
+<dilfridge> yes
+<NeddySeagoon> prometheanfire: Review <> change
+<dilfridge> as for the other thing, reporting, well what prometheanfire
+            requested (notifying trustees when a comrel action is taken)
+            should be no problem either
+<prometheanfire> we just need to get that process codified is all       [22:36]
+<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                                       [22:37]
+<dilfridge> that's ok, I think, but
+<prometheanfire> I can ask during our meeting, but I don't think that's a
+                 problem
+<mgorny> one question would be whether we're proactively passing all
+         information or only when there is a need to
+<dilfridge> what I would like to avoid is that it messes up the escalation
+            path again
+<mgorny> dilfridge: if we only give it for informational purposes only, i
+         don't think so                                                 [22:38]
+<dilfridge> yes, exactly
+<prometheanfire> I'd like it to be proactive, so we know of potential problems
+                 ahead of time
+<NeddySeagoon> Trustees are informed.  There is no escalation path
+<mgorny> i.e. escalation still works the same, trustees don't need to
+         intervene unless something really illegal happens
+<prometheanfire> mgorny: yep, that's basically it
+<antarus> its not an escalation, just an audit                          [22:39]
+<antarus> (trail)
+<mgorny> prometheanfire: lemme rephrase. do you need just information that an
+         action was taken, or access to all evidence proactively?
+<dilfridge> sounds ok to me. I need to pass it by the team.
+<antarus> (or maybe notification is a better term)
+<mgorny> what i'm aiming for is spreading the private details as little as
+         possible
+<prometheanfire> mgorny: I think after action is taken would be sufficient
+                                                                        [22:40]
+<mgorny> ok, we have an agreement here, i presume prometheanfire and dilfridge
+         will work on it further
+<mgorny> anyone else have comments on this topic?
+<prometheanfire> sure
+<dilfridge> as I said I need to run this past the team                  [22:41]
+<mgorny> prometheanfire: on related topic, any news on moderation?
+<antarus> (I think there is an intersting argument on what actions the
+          trustees might take when notice is given, but I'll follow up with
+          prometheanfire ;)
+*** jstein (~jstein@gentoo/developer/jstein) has joined channel
+    #gentoo-trustees                                                    [22:42]
+* dilfridge brb, spaghetti transfer
+<prometheanfire> re: moderation, we can use mailman, and if we are all happy
+                 with it, it can be moved to a more permament install
+                                                                        [22:43]
+<kensington> Moderation--
+<mgorny> prometheanfire: did you establish if it's generally 'better' than
+         mlmmj?                                                         [22:44]
+<dilfridge> back
+<prometheanfire> I think so
+<prometheanfire> easier to manage                                       [22:45]
+<mgorny> any ETA on bringing it to production?
+* prometheanfire prefers to just manage it in a venv
+<prometheanfire> lets say next month, next combined meeting time at the
+                 earliest (given other constraints)
+<mgorny> ok                                                             [22:46]
+<mgorny> anything else to say or should we switch to open floor?
+<prometheanfire> it is simple to set up though, for anyone with python
+                 knowlege
+<prometheanfire> open floor is fine with me
+<mgorny> so, let the floor be open                                      [22:47]
+<mgorny> anyone has anything to discuss?                                [22:48]
+<dabbott> I would like opinions on accepting drobbins as a foundation member
+<NeddySeagoon> dabbott: He needs to do his quiz
+<prometheanfire> his contributions are generally far in the past, but he's
+                 doing his quiz (last I heard)
+<prometheanfire> does gentoo get good reciprocity from funtoo?          [22:49]
+<mgorny> didn't he have some recent contributions to Portage though?    [22:50]
+<mgorny> (i don't recall if those were actual patches)
+<antarus> mgorny: he send some patches that Zac merged
+<antarus> I'd appreciate it if he had a sponsor who could make a statement
+                                                                        [22:51]
+<antarus> there are a lot of ideas (and thoughts on leadership)
+<antarus> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/portage.git/log/?qt=author&q=drobbins
+<mgorny> well, *if* he is really doing quizzes and intending to return as a
+         developer, i don't think there is a need to separately consider
+         foundation membership
+<antarus> (are his portage patches)                                     [22:52]
+<mgorny> because that would be rather implicit then
+<prometheanfire> yep
+<dabbott> ok
+<Shentino> mgorny: I cited bug 645192 in relation to your issue regarding
+           foundation membership criteria
+<willikins> Shentino: https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 "Staff quiz and gpg
+            competence should be required for foundation membership"; Gentoo
+            Foundation, Proposals; CONF; shentino:trustees
+<antarus> yeah I'm trying to ascertain dabbott's feeling here ;)
+<prometheanfire> antarus: that gets an ack from me then
+<prometheanfire> K_F: might want to look at  https://bugs.gentoo.org/645192 if
+                 you are leading the council side of that               [22:53]
+<prometheanfire> 5 min til trustee meeting
+<klondike> yay
+<Shentino> I'm...not sure if I brought it up at the correct time during the
+           meeting but I do think it's a worthy issue
+<dabbott> I just asked him if he wanted to get more involved and he said yes,
+          was just checking on what everyone thoughts were
+<antarus> dabbott: I wasn't around for the politics of the last attempt by
+          drobbins
+<K_F> prometheanfire: I don't see anything there relevant for today's meeting,
+      but sure, the foundation quiz can be a superset of staff quiz
+<antarus> but IMHO there is no need to avoid admittance provided we think he
+          returns in good faith and I've been fairly happy with his
+          contributions thus far                                        [22:54]
+<antarus> no worse than others we have admitted ;)
+<mgorny> well, if there is no other topic to be included, then we might finish
+         and give trustees a 5                                          [22:55]
+<mgorny> they might want to visit their happy place before the meeting ;-)
+<klondike> antarus: people change over time and based on the context
+<ulm> mgorny: thank you for chairing
+<prometheanfire> :D
+<prometheanfire> yep, good meeting
+<dilfridge> ++
+<mgorny> thanks to everyone present
+<mgorny> next meeting March, same day, same hour?                       [22:56]
+<prometheanfire> ya, febuary being 28 days makes scheduling even easier :D
+<dabbott> sounds good                                                   [22:57]
+* mgorny bangs the gavel
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20180217.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20180217.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5714afe
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20180217.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+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+=cOfs
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----