[14:00:17] <Riastradh>   Meeting now?  (Gotta switch rooms and networks.)
[14:00:34] <agd5f>    hey
[14:01:47] <mupuf>    Hey
[14:05:31] <mupuf>    No meeting today? :o
[14:08:39] <Riastradh>    Hi!
[14:09:55] <mupuf>    Hi... Not sure why noone is here :o
[14:12:30] <Riastradh>    Well, if there's no quorum, guess we can't conduct business...  That's OK by me -- I don't have much to report, but lots of $DAYJOB work!
[14:17:28] <bryce__>  I'm here :-)
[14:17:37] <Riastradh>    Huh.  Actually, a quorum is 25% of the board, per 3.11, which is 2 people, if I can count right.
[14:18:06] <bryce__>  danvet_, keithp ?
[14:18:24] <bryce__>  do we have an agenda?
[14:18:41] <Riastradh>    I have one item to report briefly on, no idea about any other agenda items.
[14:19:03] <keithp>   multi-tasking as usual
[14:19:11] <bryce__>  Riastradh, why don't you go ahead?
[14:20:04] <Riastradh>    OK.  I started to write mail to Daniel Stone following up on code of conduct, and realized I needed some more background about what we're trying to accomplish.
[14:20:14] <mupuf>    Yep, go for it. I have not much on the gsoc nor khronos, but i cqn talk a bit about it
[14:20:32] <bryce__>  (last time's Agenda: dissolution paperwork, gsoc, evoc, khronos, coc, xdc18)
[14:20:36] <Riastradh>    So I instead started a conversation with a contact at the Tor Project and some other people I know about how a CoC can actually be effective and meaningfully implemented, not simply pasted onto a project web site.
[14:21:21] <Riastradh>    That conversation is ongoing.  Main point so far is that the operationally useful part is to have independent and transparent confidential reporting channels.  The current conduct@fd.o is a bit lacking.
[14:22:26] <Riastradh>    So I plan to suggest (a) naming who reads mail at conduct@fd.o, (b) actively suggesting mailing individual recipients if anyone in the whole list is problematic, and (c) also offering individual project leads, perhaps X.org board, and/or anyone on the X.org board individually.
[14:25:24] <Riastradh>    Separately, it's not clear to me that we have formal authority to expel members on the grounds of conduct -- 4.1(viii) doesn't actually imply that power, to my reading.  I'm not yet sure what the right thing to do about that is -- expulsion is always messy no matter how you go about it (speaking from experience).
[14:25:44] <Riastradh>    If I learn anything else pertinent from the Tor Project (who, if you're not aware, had a very serious conduct issue that exploded last year) or other sources, I will comment on that next time.
[14:25:48] <Riastradh>    That's it.
[14:26:55] <mupuf>    Riastradh: thanks a lot
[14:27:05] <keithp>   yes, thanks
[14:27:08] <bryce__>  Riastradh, definitely agreed on messiness... best avoided. 
[14:27:11] <Riastradh>    Oh, one minor addendum: most material I've read about effective use of CoCs is for physical in-person events like conferences -- there seems to be little useful experience to draw on for global technical communities over electronic media.
[14:27:37] <mupuf>    as far as I understood, the board would just be a judge, the project would then have the ground to execute
[14:27:52] <mupuf>    but it sounds like putting the tough work on the project
[14:28:03] <bryce__>  even if unused, having the power to expel means the body would be more than just symbolic (although probably even a symbolic rebuke would carry weight)
[14:28:51] <Riastradh>    mupuf: Right.  Maybe we can revoke ML membership, XDC privileges, &c., without violating the bylaws, but I see no provision to revoke membership itself, which implies (at least) voting rights.
[14:29:18] <mupuf>    membership can be revoked, IIRC
[14:29:23] <Riastradh>    (Unless there's criminal conduct...in whatever jurisdiction is appropriate, which may be difficult to litigate, or a giant gaping loophole.)
[14:29:32] <mupuf>    but we do not have any other power
[14:29:47] <Riastradh>    mupuf: It can be revoked, but only for limited reasons.
[14:29:56] <Riastradh>    Oh, hm.
[14:30:07] <mupuf>    anyway, membership only grants voting pwoers
[14:30:08] <Riastradh>    Maybe the `rules or regulations of X.org' would include the CoC.
[14:30:23] <mupuf>    so it really is not what we are after here
[14:30:25] <bryce__>  isn't one of the limited reasons, 'failure to follow X.org's rules'?  failure to abide by CoC would fit.
[14:30:26] <Riastradh>    In which case that would constitute `good cause'.  Not sure how I missed that earlier in 2.8(ii).
[14:30:57] <mupuf>    what we want is a way to prevent people violating the code of conduct from repettingly doing so
[14:31:12] <bryce__>  Riastradh, ok, will you be sending a summary report to the board list?
[14:31:14] <mupuf>    so they need to be stripped out of their powers and potentially banned from mailing lists
[14:31:14] <Riastradh>    So for expulsion on grounds of CoC, we would need to make sure the CoC qualifies as `rules and regulations of X.org'.
[14:31:21] <agd5f>    having the board getting involved with CoCs doesn't seem like a good fit
[14:31:48] <mupuf>    agd5f: each community would have to have their own board, if we don't do it
[14:31:56] <Riastradh>    bryce__: Do you want basically everything I just said, in email?
[14:32:15] <mupuf>    hence why we could be doing the judging, and let the communities apply the decision (through fd.o)
[14:33:27] <agd5f>    are we going to require all fdo users to register as xorg members?
[14:33:54] <bryce__>  Riastradh, written as your recommendation for the plan we should follow, but yeah
[14:33:59] <Riastradh>    bryce__: OK.
[14:34:22] <mupuf>    agd5f: that would not do :s
[14:34:25] <bryce__>  and esp. if there's something the board should be voting on, be specific about that
[14:35:01] <bryce__>  Riastradh, also if you haven't already, make sure to read over the membership agreement, it has some additional regulations for members
[14:35:04] <agd5f>    I can see acting as an impartial judge, but I don't really think we should drag xorg membership into it (or the potential revocation)
[14:36:00] <bryce__>  Riastradh, ideally it would be nice if the CoC was mentioned in the membership agreement, but we discussed that a few meetings ago and sounds like revving the membership agreement is rather a hassle since it requires a membership vote to change
[14:36:58] <mupuf>    yes
[14:37:03] <Riastradh>    bryce__: I read it over (but apparently failed to read some key words) -- are you referring to anything outside 2.8?
[14:38:11] <Riastradh>    agd5f: I mention that only insofar as it gives such an impartial judge the appearance of teeth, not because I expect us to use it.  More important is the reporting point issue, and having multiple independent contacts with different political stature in the project.
[14:38:11] <bryce__>  Riastradh, I'll look at my notes again when I review your recommendation on the mailing list.  Guessing others may have more to discuss too before a plan gets nailed down, so hopefully that can be worked on in the list.
[14:38:22] <Riastradh>    bryce__: OK.
[14:38:25] <egbert>   hi guys, sorry for being late. today there's a holiday here and i was gone
[14:38:37] <bryce__>  welcome egbert :-)
[14:38:44] <Riastradh>    Anyway, I have monopolized half the meeting now, so if anyone has business...?
[14:38:49] <egbert>   bryce__: hi :)
[14:38:51] <bryce__>  ok, let's see what else we can do from the agenda
[14:39:02] <bryce__>  * dissolution paperwork
[14:39:29] <bryce__>  as mentioned here the other day - good news everyone, X.org Foundation is dissolved!
[14:39:38] <Riastradh>    Woooo!  We are no longer part of the precipitate?
[14:40:01] <bryce__>  I've received the official stamped letter of dissolution from Delaware, no further action needed there.
[14:40:37] <mupuf>    congrats again!
[14:40:50] <agd5f>    woot!
[14:40:58] <keithp>   hey, nice work!
[14:41:04] <bryce__>  I also contacted NRAI to terminate our service with them, and got our 2017 fee prorated down from 189 to around $75
[14:41:33] <bryce__>  I drafted the letter for that payment and sent the check out a couple days ago.  So that's done, and I believe no further action needed there.
[14:42:27] <bryce__>  I still need to request reimbursements.  I don't think I need board votes on any of that, but will follow up next meeting if I do.
[14:42:57] <bryce__>  so that's enough for that agenda item :-)
[14:43:08] <bryce__>  * sponsorship on website
[14:43:20] <egbert>   bryce__: you shall be called hero from now on! 
[14:43:36] <Riastradh>    The expense was already approved, no?  So no need to vote on reimbursement.
[14:43:37] <mupuf>    agreed
[14:43:38] <bryce__>  the person that wanted to sponsor us, that we thought was just spam, recontacted me and gave me a bunch more info
[14:44:16] <egbert>   bryce__: do you think it's worthwile?
[14:44:17] <bryce__>  so I think it might be worth pursuing after all, and am going to un-back-burner drafting a proposal for sponsor levels.  Will post to the list when it's ready.
[14:44:32] <agd5f>    nice
[14:44:56] <Riastradh>    bryce__: Well, if they want to give money...  Here's an example of a donation recognition policy summary: https://www.netbsd.org/donations/
[14:45:43] <egbert>   bryce__: if we can 'steal' things from somewhere else it's probably good.
[14:45:56] <bryce__>  Riastradh, thanks will take a look.  I recently did similar for Inkscape so have a few sources to draw from.
[14:46:10] <Riastradh>    I think the only important addendum that is not explicitly stated there is that the links are all rel=nofollow or whatever, as we no doubt previously discussed.
[14:46:37] <bryce__>  it's odd that people would want to be listed on our wiki, but you're right, money is money.
[14:47:14] <bryce__>  so I'll take an action item for that.
[14:47:21] <bryce__>  onward agenda...
[14:47:27] <bryce__>  * gsoc / evoc
[14:48:08] <bryce__>  iirc gsoc is underway so probably no news there?  anything to report on evoc?
[14:48:19] <Riastradh>    GSoC coding period starts Tuesday.
[14:48:25] <mupuf>    sorry
[14:48:39] <mupuf>    I was handling some bugzilla admin requests
[14:48:43] <Riastradh>    That's all I know; mupuf knows everything else!
[14:49:08] <mupuf>    So yes, I need to write one email to welcome everyone and remind them to set up a blog
[14:49:24] <mupuf>    one student already did
[14:49:31] <mupuf>    and I got the rights to add people to the plannet
[14:49:41] <mupuf>    and I tested it with whot's student
[14:51:05] <bryce__>  ok cool thanks
[14:51:23] <mupuf>    as for khronos, we got no news from them
[14:52:05] <mupuf>    so, nothing to report on
[14:52:26] <bryce__>  mupuf, ok.  Suppose you'll re-ping them if/when needed?
[14:52:32] <bryce__>  Since daniel's missing I suppose we can skip xdc18.
[14:52:42] <bryce__>  any other / new agenda items?
[14:52:43] <mupuf>    yeah, I'm sure they are just checking with legal on both sides
[14:57:02] <Riastradh>    I'm out of items.
[14:57:23] <bryce__>  ok great, I need to jaunt out to pick up my kids so will call it a wrap.
[14:57:26] <bryce__>  thanks all!
[14:57:33] <Riastradh>    Thanks!  See you in a couple weeks!
[14:57:48] <mupuf>    see you!
[15:05:41] <egbert>   cu
[15:06:30] <agd5f>    bye