[22:55:21] [connected at Thu Aug 18 22:55:21 2016]
[22:55:32] [I have joined #xf-bod]
[22:56:00] <bryce> robclark, thanks
[22:56:17] <bryce> robclark, yeah it'd just be bod + admins
[22:56:17] <agd5f> hello
[22:56:18] <whot> good morning
[22:56:49] <danvet> you're too early ;-)
[22:57:01] <robclark> bryce, yeah, if bod+admins I guess that is ok..  I'm not sure we could do better than that other than just encrypting the files
[22:57:36] <whot> danvet: perfect timing if you ask me, with 1 minute to go :)
[22:57:50] <danvet> hm, my time must be off
[22:59:09] <danvet> indeed, ntp server is awol
[22:59:15] <danvet> anyway, here we go
[22:59:17] <egbert> hi guys!
[22:59:20] <danvet> Agenda: travel requests (Samuel & Sebastian), SPI transfer, financial records,
[22:59:20] <danvet> x.org
[23:01:17] <danvet> mupuf, keithp around?
[23:01:40] <keithp> yup
[23:02:18] <danvet> I guess we can start then
[23:02:29] <danvet> first travel requests I'd say
[23:02:36] <danvet> hm, gsoc for agenda, in case mupuf shows up
[23:03:00] <danvet> first one is from Samuel, to present about the latest&greatest on nouveau
[23:03:30] <danvet> for roughly 350 EUR for just the flight (he can stay with mupuf)
[23:04:00] <robclark> that sounds affordable.. +1
[23:04:03] <keithp> seems reasonable to me; +1
[23:04:05] <whot> +1
[23:04:06] <bryce> +1
[23:04:07] <agd5f> seems fine +1
[23:04:17] <danvet> +1
[23:04:20] <danvet> and carries
[23:04:47] <keithp> danvet: we have too few bits and overflow on votes?
[23:05:06] * keithp really did mis-parse that as an arithmetic carry...
[23:05:07] <danvet> more than 5 is good enough ;-)
[23:05:17] <mupuf> hey, sorry
[23:05:23] <danvet> ah mupuf's here too
[23:05:35] <keithp> mupuf: are you up for Samuel as room mate?
[23:05:39] <mupuf> +1
[23:05:40] <danvet> so next travel request: sebastian from golem.de, for reporting
[23:05:51] * mupuf will host the entire nouveau team :p
[23:06:16] <danvet> he also offered to do a presentation about marketing for open source projects
[23:06:26] <danvet> I have no idea about golem.de, but it's german only
[23:06:27] <whot> that one may be interesting for us
[23:06:37] <danvet> and the presentation didn't look that interesting to me
[23:06:39] <mupuf> yep, I read the presentation
[23:06:41] <mupuf> it is good!
[23:06:48] <danvet> there we go ;-)
[23:06:49] <keithp> egbert: any thoughts on golem.de?
[23:06:57] <mupuf> and golem.de .. I have seen it many times
[23:07:07] <whot> i used to read it back in the day, iirc it's up there with heise
[23:07:14] <egbert> i've hard of it, other than that, I don't know much about it.
[23:07:28] <whot> haven't read it for a long time though
[23:07:29] <danvet> sebastian is asking 300EUR for flight and around 500 for hotel, but sounded like he's happy with a partial funding too
[23:08:06] <bryce> how relevant is the presentation topic to the folks that will be at the event?
[23:08:14] * mupuf would say, golem touches a way broader public than lwn does
[23:08:33] <bryce> and does the publication regularly cover X.org matters?
[23:08:35] <mupuf> bryce: very. It is about documenting changes better and the kind of things to put in
[23:08:39] <whot> well, execpt for the german-only bbit :)
[23:09:06] <mupuf> whot: sure, sure. But I doubt Ars or gizmag would come ;)
[23:09:55] <whot> hehe
[23:09:59] <mupuf> bryce: checking now
[23:10:05] <bryce> mupuf, hmm well documenting changes better does sound worthwhile but the proposal he posted to the list sounded more like optimizing press releases rather than changelog entries
[23:10:29] <whot> and quite frankly, that's what we could really do with...
[23:10:38] <danvet> optimizing changelogs for better press releases
[23:11:27] <mupuf> http://forum.golem.de/kommentare/opensource/107,index.html
[23:11:45] <keithp> Do we have a program committee seleccting talks for the conference? If so, that's where the talk selection should come from
[23:11:51] * mupuf has been pushing some nouveau devs to better document their pull requests to make them phoronix-proof
[23:12:08] <keithp> And, if his talk is selected, then we would be able to make a decision on whether to sponsor him with that input
[23:12:12] <mupuf> keithp: I guess we should decide now, since this is sort of urgent
[23:12:20] <danvet> scrolling through sebastians articles, much less technical than lwn, but seems fairly decent coverage of news from all around
[23:12:27] <danvet> with a pile of graphics stuff in there
[23:12:50] <danvet> but with german-only it has a rather narrow focus
[23:12:57] <danvet> compared to where our community is all from
[23:12:58] <keithp> Who decides what talks are going to be given? It doesn't seem like the board should be in charge of that
[23:13:18] <danvet> keithp, mupuf is chair and I promised to help him out
[23:13:20] <mupuf> keithp: right, it usually is a subset of the board
[23:13:38] <keithp> mupuf: ok, so you two get to pick whether his talk is going to be accepted.
[23:13:40] <egbert> keithp: i think usually the organizer is involved.
[23:13:46] <danvet> but yeah deciding about the talk and travel sponsoring together is kinda not great
[23:13:50] <keithp> *then* the full board can decide on whether to sponsor his travel
[23:13:56] <egbert> but this is the first time that we need to pick, isn't it?
[23:14:11] <keithp> egbert: no, we've had a couple of talks in the past that we've said 'no thanks' to
[23:14:27] <robclark> well, I guess we can decouple talk and sponsorship, since it sounded like he would like to cover the event anyways..
[23:14:35] <keithp> and they were similarly general and not desktop specific
[23:14:35] <danvet> keithp, did they come with travel requests?
[23:14:36] <robclark> (I mean, lwn isn't giving a presentation)
[23:14:43] <mupuf> yep, having been in the election commitee for what, 3 XDCs, it is the normal way to go
[23:15:02] <keithp> danvet: I'd like to separate the questions and have the two of your making up the PC decide whether you want that talk heard by the group first
[23:15:09] <mupuf> we accepted lwn's travel request before the election comitee accepted his talk (since it did not happen)
[23:15:19] <mupuf> so, why would this be different for sebastian?
[23:15:25] <danvet> well lwn is imo special
[23:15:40] <keithp> mupuf: lwn is effectively the 'publication of record' for X.org :-)
[23:15:42] <mupuf> sure, proven coverage :)
[23:15:51] <danvet> since their coverage is indeed great, and it's imo really useful for everyone who couldn't attend as a technical summary
[23:16:01] <danvet> keithp, yup, exactly
[23:16:08] <mupuf> but how about other devs who submitted weeks before the deadline?
[23:16:31] <egbert> i believe we need to treat everyone who did equally.
[23:16:31] <danvet> I think golem.de is too much fluff pieces for the masses and too narrow with just german-speakers to justify travel sponsoring just for the coverage
[23:16:36] <keithp> ignoring his presentation and focusing solely on the offer of press coverage, what kind of coverage is on offer, I guess?
[23:17:12] <danvet> keithp, I'd say similar to phoronix, but less crap
[23:17:19] <danvet> he seems to do about 1 article per day
[23:17:19] <mupuf> yeah, maybe we can split and offer travel sponsorship based on this
[23:17:20] <egbert> in the past Michael did the 'coverage for the masses' - when he attended xdc he never asked for funding.
[23:17:29] <bryce> yeah my vote on lwn was informed by the established precident, and it being specialized to LWN
[23:17:36] <jcristau> danvet: lwn coverage is good as a record of the talks even for people who did attend, i would say
[23:17:37] <egbert> phoronix i mean
[23:17:52] <danvet> jcristau, yeah, viz jetlag and beer ;-)
[23:18:17] <bryce> I suppose a policy regarding travel funding for the general press in attending XDC would be more relevant here; separate from the question of the talk acceptance
[23:18:25] <danvet> keithp, I'd say looking at the articles it's about what arstechnica does for their short news coverage
[23:18:26] * mupuf sees sebastian as a potential person who could get more involved in the community and not only make articles, but also help with the communication of the foundation
[23:18:37] <danvet> roughly one page with a summary and a little bit of context
[23:18:37] <mupuf> so, I would be ready to give him a chance
[23:18:54] <mupuf> bryce: sounds fair
[23:18:57] <danvet> bryce, hm yeah ...
[23:19:04] <robclark> well, sounded like partial funding, for ex. cover the flights, might be an option..
[23:19:42] <mupuf> we could say that we cover half of it, and if the talk gets accepted, the other half?
[23:20:00] <danvet> tbh personally I don't see much value in reporting for the masses
[23:20:09] <bryce> same
[23:20:13] <mupuf> getting people interested?
[23:20:25] <danvet> much of the talks are very technical, we don't do any announcements or anything like that at xdc
[23:20:33] <mupuf> that's what I am trying to do on G+, and probably what alanc is doing on twitter
[23:20:49] <mupuf> danvet: that is not true, we do make plenty of announcements at XDC
[23:21:00] <danvet> same here with twitter, but doing that throughout the year is imo better ...
[23:21:02] <mupuf> last XDC, AMD said they would release their stack
[23:21:20] <mupuf> and nvidia defined more their collaboration
[23:21:21] <danvet> don't they do that like every year ;-)
[23:21:21] <robclark> (and this year, maybe they actually will?  :-P)
[23:21:27] <mupuf> stuff that usually hits slashdot
[23:21:32] <mupuf> robclark: hehe
[23:21:40] <danvet> mupuf, not if it's written in german
[23:21:44] <mupuf> fair point
[23:22:14] <bryce> if they're giving a talk, that's one thing, but if it's just press access, well there are lots of news blogs out there and my worry would be we're setting a precident and opening a door for a lot of random funding requests
[23:22:19] <egbert> like i said/ phoronix did this in the past and didn't ask for sponsorship
[23:22:32] <mupuf> bryce: right
[23:22:39] <mupuf> egbert: agreed too
[23:22:40] <danvet> bryce, egbert agreed to both
[23:23:10] <mupuf> well, let's focus on the talk then, we will check it out tomorrow thouroughtly and see
[23:23:21] <danvet> proposal: we'll reject the travel request for press coverage, since german is too narrow and we haven't ever sponsored for popular/mass coverage
[23:23:30] <bryce> for strictly promotional/awareness purposes, $1000 EUR could be used in a lot of other ways more effectively IMHO
[23:23:34] <mupuf> danvet: +1
[23:23:35] <egbert> it's nice to reach out to the masses - but do we have all that much money left that we do want to afford this?
[23:23:50] <egbert> bryce: right
[23:23:51] <danvet> and reconsider once mupuf&me have figured out whether to accept his talk or not
[23:23:59] <keithp> danvet: agreed
[23:23:59] <bryce> danvet, sounds good
[23:24:02] <egbert> +1
[23:24:04] <robclark> +1
[23:24:15] <whot> +1
[23:24:23] <danvet> I think the lwn exception as essentially our XDC proceeds is perfectly fine and makes sense
[23:24:32] <danvet> +1 too
[23:24:33] <bryce> +1
[23:24:35] <danvet> so that's done
[23:24:48] <danvet> bryce, should we maybe clarify our travel sponsoring policy?
[23:25:08] <bryce> danvet, I think that would be good to do, yes
[23:25:12] <agd5f> +1
[23:25:14] <danvet> that we essentially require an accepted talk, but there's an established exception for lwn or similar to essentially publish our proceeds?
[23:25:24] <danvet> bryce, can I sign you up to fix our wiki?
[23:25:26] <keithp> danvet: proceedings :-)
[23:25:29] <bryce> hah
[23:25:32] <bryce> ok sure
[23:25:34] * danvet not even sure where we have that
[23:25:47] <danvet> keithp, already had a beer, it's getting hard to english correctly ;-)
[23:25:50] <mupuf> danvet: we can keep it to: technical and well-established English-speaking media
[23:25:54] <bryce> I seem to recall when the LWN question came up we tinkered the policy but I'll doublecheck
[23:26:24] <mupuf> providing good coverage of the graphics stack all year round
[23:26:27] <keithp> mupuf: focus on the technical; I wouldn't mind coverage in other languages if they were as good as lwn
[23:26:38] <mupuf> keithp: ack, sounds good
[23:26:44] <keithp> google translate offers a fun time if nothing else
[23:27:38] <egbert> keithp: the target audience for tech articles can usually deal with english ones
[23:28:21] <bryce> ah yes, on https://www.x.org/wiki/Events/ it says "Sponsorship also available for reporter(s) from a Board-selected publisher"
[23:28:23] <danvet> yeah, everyone just learn english
[23:28:40] <danvet> bryce, yeah I think we should clarify that per our discussion here
[23:28:53] <danvet> ok, next up: spi transfers
[23:28:54] <keithp> danvet: and list lwn.net explicitly?
[23:28:57] <bryce> ok.  also maybe I could cross-reference it from https://www.x.org/wiki/XorgWorkshops/ which seems like another place someone might look
[23:29:11] <danvet> keithp, minutes say "lwn-like in-depth coverage of the technical talks"
[23:29:17] <danvet> I'll let bryce word-smith the wiki
[23:29:34] <bryce> I think we had decided not to explicitly say LWN but I'm fine either way
[23:29:51] <danvet> I'd say not restrict to lwn-only
[23:29:57] <whot> just say it, lets not dance around the topic
[23:29:57] <danvet> but atm they're about the only ones really
[23:30:09] <danvet> since about 20 years ;-)
[23:30:14] <bryce> I'll draft something up
[23:30:16] <robclark> bryce, not entirely sure how to word it, but maybe something like "in depth coverage (e.g. lwn)"??
[23:30:17] <danvet> thx
[23:30:25] <bryce> re-spi transfers
[23:30:47] <bryce> I know this task is in stuart's court presently
[23:30:54] <danvet> http://paste.debian.net/790343/ <- the magic text bryce&I worked on
[23:31:09] <danvet> I'll send that to bryce on dead trees tomorrow if no one has anything to add/correct there
[23:31:13] <bryce> I'm not certain where we're at exactly at the moment, I vaguely recall he was waiting on something
[23:31:16] <danvet> hopefully it's goog enough
[23:31:30] <danvet> bryce, that piece of paper I was supposed to create ;-)
[23:31:45] <bryce> ok
[23:31:47] <mupuf> so, we gave up trying to give the foundration away to SFLC?
[23:31:53] <danvet> bryce, btw can we now accept donations
[23:31:59] <bryce> yes
[23:32:32] <bryce> I should probably add links in the wiki for this, but it's all set up now for accepting CC's and such
[23:32:42] <danvet> https://www.x.org/wiki/XorgFoundation/ <- here please
[23:32:57] <danvet> also I have a few mails from the past 2 years where people asked how they could sponsor
[23:33:11] <danvet> and I told them it's too much trouble with tax filings until we've merged with spi
[23:33:13] <bryce> https://co.clickandpledge.com/advanced/default.aspx?wid=34115
[23:33:17] <danvet> I need to ping them as soon as that's updated
[23:34:06] <keithp> danvet: a fine plan. With a bit of publicity, we should be able to gather enough sponsorship to keep running xdc indefinitely, and perhaps a few evoc spots too
[23:34:06] <danvet> bryce, can you pls edit that too?
[23:34:12] <bryce> yep will do so today
[23:34:22] <danvet> keithp, yeah I'll run some blog noise too for sure
[23:34:26] <danvet> bryce, thx
[23:34:40] <bryce> we also have a donation page that just shows X.org, trying to dig up that link; that's the one we should actually use
[23:35:22] <danvet> yeah, that would be best
[23:35:28] <danvet> and maybe a link to the other methods
[23:35:41] <bryce> danvet, let's also loop stuart in on the X.org dissolution doc, and coordinate the fund transfers.
[23:35:44] <danvet> I think there's even one for at least Germans, through a proxy non-profit
[23:35:49] <danvet> to make it tax-deductible
[23:35:57] <bryce> if he has any other issues blocking him we should track them
[23:36:02] <danvet> hm, stuart not around
[23:36:12] <danvet> bryce, can you take care of that too?
[23:36:27] <bryce> ah, oh okay
[23:36:29] <danvet> I'll just send you the current version, we can do this again if it's not good enough ;-)
[23:36:33] <danvet> but like to get this going ...
[23:36:36] <bryce> agreed
[23:36:40] <danvet> excellent
[23:36:42] <alanc> stuart has been out for family emergency
[23:36:44] <danvet> I guess that's it
[23:36:46] <danvet> alanc, :(
[23:37:10] <danvet> bryce, anything else wrt transfers, or should we move ahead to the financial records topic?
[23:37:10] <keithp> alanc: sorry to hear that
[23:37:30] * keithp is heading out now; have fun kids
[23:37:42] <bryce> danvet, nothing else.  Maybe given the family situation we hold off until Monday to email requests to him?
[23:38:01] <danvet> bryce, sure
[23:38:10] <danvet> the dead tree snail mail will take a week anyway
[23:38:18] <danvet> so next up is financial records
[23:38:21] <bryce> I emailed to the list my proposed additions to the archives.  Looking for any concerns regarding privacy of any of the data
[23:38:27] <danvet> have folks read bryce's mail already?
[23:38:42] <robclark> the rfc, yeah
[23:39:22] <whot> i havent yet, sorry
[23:39:37] <bryce> presently I know of no issues and everything looks safe, so I'm comfortable putting it in, but just for sanity checking want to doublecheck with others
[23:39:56] <agd5f> bryce, I agree
[23:40:16] <danvet> whot, should we postpone?
[23:40:18] <danvet> mupuf, ?
[23:40:24] <robclark> I think defn should be restricted to BoD (and not members, as I mentioned earlier), but that seems to be the case?
[23:40:34] <danvet> yes, should be
[23:40:34] <bryce> basically, there are some bank account numbers (both ours and mentees/xdc attendees), physical addresses, and SWIFT/IBAN/etc. numbers
[23:40:38] <egbert> i haven't had a chance to look at it, either.
[23:40:49] <whot> i wish there was something to encrypt git repos
[23:40:50] <danvet> egbert, sorry, forgot you :(
[23:41:04] <bryce> the repo is private to X.org board/foundation, and managed by freedesktop admins.  No one else should have access.
[23:41:15] <robclark> we could always create new git repo where we checkin encrypted files..
[23:41:16] <mupuf> bryce: yeah, sounds about right
[23:41:27] <robclark> a bit more cumbersome.. but it is an option
[23:41:40] <danvet> whot, https://www.agwa.name/projects/git-crypt/
[23:41:49] <bryce> whot, I've used pgp with git for password sharing.  It's a bit of a pain in the ass but seems maximally secure
[23:42:12] <robclark> git-crypt looks interesting
[23:42:24] <whot> let's postpone and figure out if there's something we can use first
[23:43:34] <robclark> fair 'nuf
[23:44:09] <danvet> sounds good
[23:44:13] <bryce> ok, one other related bit that I think would be safe to push now:
[23:44:28] <bryce> I pulled out IRS docs and am going to push those to the IRS directory
[23:44:45] <bryce> those don't contain any data that isn't already in the archives (tax ids, etc.)
[23:44:50] <danvet> yeah I think no one has any concerns on that at all
[23:45:02] <bryce> ok, the rest I'll hold off on
[23:45:10] <agd5f> I think most of that stuff is public anyway (via the IRS)
[23:45:11] <danvet> mupuf, gsoc: all good?
[23:45:20] <mupuf> well, the end is supposed to be very soon
[23:45:43] <mupuf> oh, and I did not request from google to go to the conference though L
[23:45:46] <mupuf> :s
[23:46:05] <danvet> ok, no news = good news
[23:46:11] <danvet> egbert, x.org?
[23:46:40] <egbert> danvet: no news unfortunately :(
[23:47:30] <whot> sorry guys, I have to run, talk to you next time
[23:47:53] <danvet> whot, well we're pretty much done anyway
[23:48:17] <egbert> ok, have a good night then!
[23:48:20] <danvet> egbert, you'll keep chasing that one?
[23:48:26] <danvet> x.org domain I mean
[23:48:33] <egbert> danvet: definitely.
[23:51:26] <danvet> awesome
[23:51:31] <danvet> ok, I guess that's it then
[23:51:38] <danvet> thx everyone for participating
[23:51:43] * danvet ^Z now
[23:51:49] <robclark> k, gn

[23:52:00] [disconnected at Thu Aug 18 23:52:00 2016]