council/meeting-logs: add 20180610 logs summary

Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>

2 files changed, 222 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/meeting-logs/20180610.txt b/meeting-logs/20180610.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..646b94d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20180610.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+19:00 <@slyfox> !proj council
+19:00 <+willikins> (council@gentoo.org) dilfridge, k_f, mgorny, slyfox, tamiko, ulm, williamh
+19:01 <@dilfridge> [23:20:01] <mgorny> i've asked soap if he'd be able to proxy for me just in case but haven't received a reply yet
+19:01 <@slyfox> https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/a5b6a88e117443ba86a5c310195ed65f
+19:01 <@dilfridge> ^ this is from yesterday so semi-confirmation
+19:01 <@slyfox> ^ our current agenda
+19:01 <@slyfox> Let's start with "1. Roll call"
+19:01  * WilliamH here
+19:01  * slyfox here
+19:01  * Whissi is here to proxy K_F 
+19:01  * dilfridge here
+19:01  * Soap__ here (for mgorny)
+19:02 <@slyfox> tamiko, ulm ^
+19:02 <@dilfridge> tamiko said he can't make it
+19:02 <@WilliamH> slyfox: tamiko  won't be here
+19:02  * ulm here
+19:02 <@slyfox> \o/
+19:02 <@slyfox> 6 of 7 then
+19:02 <@dilfridge> we have quorum!
+19:02 <@slyfox> 2. Proposal for procedure to appoint SPI liaison by dilfridge@
+19:02 <@slyfox>     https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/70f054aac20e5c80f14590cc5cbf4418
+19:03 <@dilfridge> right, so one short remark
+19:03 <@slyfox> (dont expect my summary to be correct. I understood almost nothing)
+19:03 <@dilfridge> I didnt intend that we vote on the details now.
+19:03 <@dilfridge> My intention was that we decide whether to contact SPI, and start talking about the details.
+19:03 -!- sultan [~sultan@unaffiliated/sultan] has joined #gentoo-council
+19:04 <@dilfridge> "the details"= how the liaison is appointed
+19:04 <@WilliamH> I would rather see us hold off on this since this is our last meeting and we don't know who will be elected for the council by next meeting
+19:05 <@dilfridge> I mainly decided to bring this up again because I came to the conclusion that the council shouldnt feel constrained *not* to think about finances.
+19:05 <+Soap__> this really is more a fork in the road decision
+19:05 <+Soap__> dilfridge: double negative?
+19:05 <@ulm> dilfridge: do I understand correctly that for the time being, talks to the SPI would be for information only and without commitment?
+19:06 <+Soap__> so the council should think about finances?
+19:06 <@dilfridge> yes, intended (I wanted to use the word "constrain" somewhere)
+19:06 <@dilfridge> ulm: well, it would be signalling SPI "we are interested, let's talk about the details"
+19:06  * WilliamH is with Soap__  The council in the past has had nothing to do with finances etc.
+19:07 <@dilfridge> Soap__: yes
+19:07 <@WilliamH> We are just the technical leadership of Gentoo and we handle appeals from comrel/qa.
+19:07 <@dilfridge> since we're overseeing the entire technical development, it's kinda silly that the hardware is out of our control
+19:08 <@dilfridge> but that's only part of the motivation
+19:08 <+Whissi> Starting to talk with SPI shouldn't be a problem. We can always stop talking.
+19:08 <@dilfridge> right, just that normally you don't do that in a frivolous way...
+19:09 <+Soap__> why is this contentious?
+19:09 <@dilfridge> meaning, starting to talk without being willing to commit something is stupid
+19:09 <@WilliamH> That's exactly why we should not vote on this this meeting.
+19:09 <+Soap__> like, what (if any) are the downsides to SPI?
+19:09 <+Soap__> for me SPI seems liek a no-brainer
+19:10 <+Whissi> Same for me. But K_F raised copyright concerns I didn't follow.
+19:10 <@WilliamH> I don't know a lot of the history, but robbat2 does. I think we talked to spi in the past and they weren't interested.
+19:11 <@slyfox> Can anyone formulate a point (a few points) we shoud decide on today?
+19:11 <@dilfridge> WilliamH: that was a completely different approach, it was SPI taking over the entire foundation
+19:11 <@ulm> WilliamH: if that will be the result, than at least we've tried
+19:11 <@slyfox> Or should we have a bit more duscussion offline first?
+19:11  * WilliamH would rather see more discussion before voting on something like this.
+19:11 <+Soap__> dilfridge: whats the goal here? accounting and books by SPI without transferring foundation?
+19:11 <@WilliamH> Not to mention we have an election coming up.
+19:12 <@dilfridge> well, essentially the motion is the first two paragraphs of the mail (down to the double blank line)
+19:12 <@dilfridge> Soap__: "opening a second account and seeing how things work out"
+19:12 <@dilfridge> Soap__: "getting tax-deductible donations"
+19:12 <+Soap__> also the whole IRS crap?
+19:12 <@WilliamH> Soap__: I believe robbat2 is fixing that.
+19:13 <@dilfridge> the IRS crap is the problem of the foundation, and is precisely the reason why my (not-yet-relevant) draft for the liaison rules excludes foundation staff
+19:13 <+Soap__> but will this do IRC automatically, i.e. 95% of the foundation burden is offloaded?
+19:13 <+Soap__> IRS*
+19:13 <@dilfridge> (so the two things run legally and financially separate)
+19:13 <+Soap__> like, from 2019-onwards, IRS forms are done by SPI?
+19:14 <@dilfridge> no, because SPI does stuff for the money they handle, and the Foundation does stuff for their money
+19:14 <+Whissi> From my understanding, current foundation is in trouble. Any donation we receive today can be lost due to our tax problems. Opening another channel for donations via SPI would allow us to keep receiving donations which will be safe in case we won't resolve the tax issue...
+19:14 <@WilliamH> Soap__: no. the foundation would still be responsible for their forms.
+19:14 <+Soap__> so the idea is, for all future transactions, to try and channel them through SPI?
+19:15 <@WilliamH> Whissi: I don't think they are in trouble, robbat2 is handling it I thought.
+19:15 <@dilfridge> Whissi: I dont think it is that bad, but *unless* the IRS situation is completely resolved, nobody will want to "take over" their stuff
+19:15 <@dilfridge> Soap__: well, let's take it slow and just offer both paths
+19:15 <@dilfridge> and see how it goes
+19:15 <@WilliamH> Whissi: There seems to be a lot of inaccurate information out there about how bad off the foundation is.
+19:16 <@WilliamH> Whissi: it is more a perception by some than reality I think.
+19:16 <@dilfridge> the foundation is doing OK, thanks to robbat2 and in spite of quantumsummers,
+19:16 <+Soap__> dilfridge: I dont see any downsides to this, so I would go for it
+19:16 <@dilfridge> but they do not have a viable long-term model, since they are short on people for the work
+19:16 <@WilliamH> I think the foundation is not as bad off as some have made it out to be.
+19:17 <+Whissi> Up to my knowledge, the final deadline is ~August/September. If we won't be able to resolve it until deadline, IRS or whoever is responsible will take actions against foundation.
+19:17 <+Whissi> Final actions.
+19:17 <@dilfridge> it was bad in the past, right now it's getting OK, the future is unclear
+19:17 <@dilfridge> Whissi: this is waaay older than one year
+19:17 <@WilliamH> dilfridge: that isn't their fault, anyone who wants to run for trustee can do so.
+19:18 <@slyfox> 15 minutes into the meeting. Should we use first two paragraps as-is from the https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-project/message/70f054aac20e5c80f14590cc5cbf4418 email to vote on? 
+19:18 <@slyfox> If no objections i'll post it here as-is
+19:18 <@dilfridge> I would not worry too much about the IRS status, but no other *financial organization* will want to take over unless it is resolved.
+19:18 <@WilliamH> dilfridge: ++ wrt IRS status
+19:19 <@dilfridge> slyfox: wfm
+19:19 <@WilliamH> imo a lot of fud has been spread wrt the trustees
+19:19 <@slyfox> Allright. Decision time:
+19:19 <@slyfox> The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest 
+19:19 <@slyfox> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project.
+19:19 <@slyfox> The intention is for SPI to become an *additional* service provider of the 
+19:19 <@slyfox> Gentoo developer community for Accepting Donations, Holding Funds, and Holding 
+19:19 <@slyfox> Assets. The SPI project liaison shall be appointed by the Gentoo council.
+19:19 <@slyfox> No transfer of funds or assets of any kind between SPI and the Gentoo 
+19:19 <@slyfox> Foundation is stipulated (it would be the trustees' responsibility anyway), so 
+19:19 <@slyfox> any (dys)function of the Gentoo Foundation has no impact on this new business 
+19:19 <@slyfox> relationship. Equally, the business relationship with SPI shall have no impact 
+19:19 <@slyfox> on the current function of the Gentoo Foundation. Essentially, the proposal is 
+19:19 <@slyfox> that we start with an empty account at SPI. (I'll be happy to make the first 
+19:19 <@slyfox> donation.)
+19:20  * slyfox abstains
+19:20 <@dilfridge> (we can omit the last bracket from the motion :)
+19:20  * dilfridge yes (after all I'm proposing it)
+19:20 <@WilliamH> why abstain?
+19:20  * Soap__ yes
+19:20  * WilliamH no
+19:21  * ulm yes
+19:21  * Whissi yes
+19:22 <@slyfox> my personal perception of the council@ not being involved into financial or legalese (copyright) stuff but i'm fine with others doing it :)
+19:22 <@slyfox> Moving on to "3. Open bugs with council involvement"
+19:22 <@ulm> but we won't be, as the SPI would handle it
+19:22 <@slyfox> Picking bugs one by one from bugzies search at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council#Open_bugs_with_Council_participation
+19:22 <@WilliamH> ulm: we would be though because someone would have to work with spi
+19:22 <@slyfox> bug #637328 Document GLEP Cha security@gentoo.org IN_P --- GLEP 14 needs to be updated 
+19:23 <+willikins> slyfox: https://bugs.gentoo.org/637328 "GLEP 14 needs to be updated"; Documentation, GLEP Changes; IN_P; mgorny:security
+19:23 <@slyfox> Is anyone around to have an update on it? I guess K_F would be the pest person
+19:23  * slyfox adds a note to the bug
+19:23 <+Whissi> Security project is making progress. Hopefully we will be able to show you something next meeting.
+19:23 -!- sultan [~sultan@unaffiliated/sultan] has quit [Quit: leaving]
+19:24 <@slyfox> \o/ Posting to the bug as an update
+19:24 <@slyfox> bug #642072 Gentoo C unspecif council@gentoo.org CONF --- Joint venture to deal with copyright issues 
+19:24 <+willikins> slyfox: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642072 "Joint venture to deal with copyright issues"; Gentoo Council, unspecified; CONF; mgorny:council
+19:25 <@ulm> nicely progressing
+19:25 <@ulm> we have settled on a policy with a Gentoo DCO and without a FLA/CLA
+19:26 <+Soap__> DCO?
+19:26 <@ulm> and I am going to post it as GLEP 76 tonight
+19:26 <@ulm> "Gentoo Developer's Certificate of Origin"
+19:26 <@slyfox> Good. That's the https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/glep-copyrightpolicy.html , right?
+19:26 <@WilliamH> Soap__: similar to what the kernel does.
+19:26 <@ulm> yes, that one
+19:26 <@ulm> any last-minute comments? now is the chance :)
+19:26 <+Soap__> ulm: gist of it?
+19:27 <+Soap__> if I work on gentoo, they get copyright?
+19:27 <@dilfridge> no
+19:27 <@ulm> no, you keep the copyright
+19:27 <@WilliamH> ulm: It will require signed-off-by in our commits
+19:27 <@ulm> but you have to certify that it's free software and has traceable origin
+19:27 <@dilfridge> "if you want to get your work into gentoo, you need to certify (Signed-off-by) that you can legally do so (follow the license)"
+19:27 <@WilliamH> like the kernel
+19:27 <@ulm> WilliamH: right
+19:28 <+Soap__> ulm: so ebuilds are mien then?
+19:28 <@dilfridge> https://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/glep-copyrightpolicy.html#id20
+19:28 <+Soap__> the copyright header is void?
+19:28 <@WilliamH> What does that mean wrt the mandatory copyright by gentoo everywhere in the tree?
+19:28 <@dilfridge> ^ the text block here
+19:28 <@WilliamH> I guess repoman will need to be fixed to not check that?
+19:28 <@slyfox> sounds reasonable
+19:28 <@dilfridge> the copyright header is replaced by something more flexible
+19:29 <@ulm> WilliamH: repoman will have to be updated indeed
+19:29 <+Whissi> Will that sign-off become a requirement in future?
+19:29 <@slyfox> perhaps it's worth showing a few blurb examples in GLEP itself
+19:29 <@ulm> Whissi: yes
+19:29 <@WilliamH> Whissi: yes
+19:29 <+Soap__> dilfridge: can I just sign over copyright? knowing when to change that LARGEST-CONTRIBUTOR sounds like unnecessary busywork for me
+19:29 <@dilfridge> yes, likely git-hook enforced
+19:30 <@dilfridge> Soap__: no, because you're german
+19:30 <@ulm> Soap__: don't change it if you don't care
+19:30 <+Whissi> How is that possible? I.e. how do we deal with code from today which isn't signed?
+19:30 <@dilfridge> german law doesnt allow copyright transfer :)
+19:30 <+Soap__> dilfridge: well, german in switzerland technically :P
+19:30 <+Soap__> (but swiss law has the same clause)
+19:30 <@dilfridge> ok you just spared me having to look it up :D
+19:31 <@ulm> Whissi: the transition plan hasn't been worked out in detail
+19:31 <+Whissi> OK :)
+19:31 <+Soap__> it sounds like EAPI 0
+19:31 <@WilliamH> The old code will go away eventually in theory.
+19:31 <@dilfridge> maybe start with the current header and add to it?
+19:31 <@ulm> but I think we won't remove all foundation copyright lines on day 0 :)
+19:31 <+Soap__> i.e. will take 15 years to have all ebuilds properly tagged
+19:31 <@slyfox> Let's move on to next item
+19:31 <@slyfox> bug #650964 Gentoo I Mailing infra-bugs@gentoo.org IN_P --- gentoo-dev ML: Implement council decision on user whitelisting 
+19:31 <+willikins> slyfox: https://bugs.gentoo.org/650964 "gentoo-dev ML: Implement council decision on user whitelisting"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Mailing Lists; IN_P; k_f:infra-bugs
+19:32 <@slyfox> any infra@ reps around?
+19:32 <+Whissi> !proj infra
+19:32 <+willikins> Whissi: (infra@gentoo.org) a3li, alicef, antarus, blueknight, grknight, idl0r, jmbsvicetto, maffblaster, mgorny, prometheanfire, robbat2, zlogene, zx2c4
+19:32 <@slyfox> otherwise I'll ask for update in the bug
+19:33 <@slyfox> asked: https://bugs.gentoo.org/650964#c17 . Moving on
+19:33 <@slyfox> bug #655734 Gentoo I Mailing council@gentoo.org CONF --- Access/status of gentoo-managers@l.g.o 
+19:33 <+willikins> slyfox: https://bugs.gentoo.org/655734 "Access/status of gentoo-managers@l.g.o"; Gentoo Infrastructure, Mailing Lists; CONF; mgorny:council
+19:33 <@slyfox> AFAIY this item is FYI
+19:34 <@slyfox> [y/n/a] Council: 5/0/1 Trustees: 3/0/0
+19:34 <@ulm> yes, and copyright team has got access
+19:34 <@slyfox> \o/
+19:34 <@ulm> so I think the bug can be closed
+19:34 <@slyfox> Worth closing the bug?
+19:34 <@slyfox> -ETOOSLOW
+19:35 <@slyfox> Closed
+19:35 <@slyfox> 4. Open floor
+19:35 <@slyfox> \o/
+19:36 <@slyfox> Here come great opportunity for community to express their cheers, worries or random updates :)
+19:36 <+b-man> Man, TomWij retired :(
+19:37 <+Soap__> wasnt TomWij like bikeshedded to death by the forum?
+19:37 <+b-man> Soap__: I don't forum... so I am not sure
+19:37 <@WilliamH> I don't either.
+19:37 <+Soap__> b-man: neither do I, I prefer my sanity
+19:37 <+b-man> Haha
+19:38 <@WilliamH> The forums have some pretty crazy stuff
+19:38 <+Soap__> s/some/only
+19:38 <@WilliamH> don't get me started
+19:38 <+Soap__> 90/100 threads are about collective systemd bikeshed hate
+19:39 <@dilfridge> or worse
+19:39 <@WilliamH> There's at least one where I was attacked personally, but afaik no one did anything about it and it is still available.
+19:39 <+Soap__> the forums really are the somalia of gentoo
+19:39 <+Soap__> mob rule
+19:39 <+Whissi> Don't talk bad about our users!
+19:40 <+Soap__> sadly, half the people participating in those lynch fights
+19:40 <+Soap__> are "staffers"
+19:40 <+Soap__> anyhow
+19:40 <+Soap__> slyfox: I guess we're done?
+19:40 <+Whissi> slyfox: I have nothing to contribute.
+19:40 <@slyfox> yup
+19:41 <@slyfox> I hereby declare meeting done!
diff --git a/meeting-logs/20180610.txt.asc b/meeting-logs/20180610.txt.asc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ad49287
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meeting-logs/20180610.txt.asc
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
+
+iF0EABECAB0WIQSZKa0VG5avZRlY01hxoe52YR/zqgUCWx+7PgAKCRBxoe52YR/z
+qgWJAJ9+mNf5xCMVGXPfWynJj4iPU6OmFwCfUAAfLQsQRJ8MGvd/31N/4k9KpPo=
+=YhEW
+-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----