[22:50:33] [connected at Thu Aug  3 22:50:33 2017]
[22:50:44] [I have joined #xf-bod]
[22:50:55] <danvet_> maybe I shouldn't randomly close windows :-)
[23:00:36] <egbert> hi guys!
[23:01:03] <Riastradh> Hi!
[23:01:14] <agd5f> hi
[23:02:38] <robclark> o/
[23:02:53] <danvet_> hi all!
[23:03:09] * keithp pauses writing power point slides
[23:03:22] <danvet_> Agenda: gsoc, xdc sponsorship, xdc18, khronos, coc, evoc, xdc 17 talks
[23:05:50] <danvet_> I guess bryce_ and mupuf are around too
[23:05:55] <mupuf> yes
[23:06:03] <danvet_> anything to add to the agenda?
[23:06:23] <mupuf> looks good
[23:06:28] <danvet_> we have a packed program already :-)
[23:06:32] <danvet_> mupuf, wanna start with gsoc?
[23:06:59] <mupuf> sure
[23:07:33] <mupuf> so, last week was the last examination week before the end of the GSoC
[23:07:41] <mupuf> there is basically another month now
[23:08:05] <keithp> sounds like it's going pretty well at least?
[23:08:07] <mupuf> and 4/4 students are still in the league
[23:08:22] <mupuf> yes, it is going on
[23:08:29] <mupuf> the xwayland project is tough, as expected
[23:08:34] <mupuf> but daniels is happy with him
[23:08:43] <Riastradh> mupuf: Do you have plans about the mentor summit?
[23:08:50] <mupuf> whot's student seems to be doing well too. At least, his blog posts are really good!
[23:09:08] <mupuf> Riastradh: I will be at google for XDC, I won't come back a month later :s
[23:09:25] <danvet_> I think thus far we never sent someone ...
[23:09:29] <mupuf> yeah...
[23:09:40] <agd5f> didn't stuart go one year?
[23:09:45] <keithp> not sure there's any particular reason to go
[23:09:47] <agd5f> he wanted to at least
[23:09:53] <danvet_> maybe, he's practically next door
[23:10:24] <danvet_> keithp, I guess if it's an unconference for the people who run gsoc, might be useful
[23:10:31] <Riastradh> I attended last year on behalf of NetBSD.  Found it moderately useful to swap notes about mentoring and organizational strategies.
[23:10:44] <danvet_> I've been to a few such about maintainer, just exchanging with peers is occasionally useful
[23:10:48] <Riastradh> Also learned about Outreachy there, and a few other things (have notes, but not in front of me).
[23:11:15] <keithp> iirc, there's funding to send someone, if there's anyone who wants to attend
[23:11:28] <mupuf> keithp: there is funding for 2
[23:11:43] <danvet_> but iirc not enough for international travel?
[23:12:03] <keithp> maybe canada
[23:12:03] <mupuf> pretty sure it is
[23:12:05] <Riastradh> Google donates a lump some -- something like $2k or a bit more -- and lets the orgs use it however they like.  Up to two representatives for each org can attend the conference.
[23:12:09] <Riastradh> lump sum
[23:12:17] <Riastradh> Or the orgs can just pocket the cash.
[23:12:30] <keithp> more funds for pastry at XDC
[23:12:31] <danvet_> I guess in the past we just pocketed
[23:12:34] <danvet_> yeah
[23:12:35] <danvet_> or evoc
[23:12:40] <mupuf> oh, yeah, right
[23:12:44] <Riastradh> (or the orgs can forget to file the paperwork and get no cash)
[23:12:54] <danvet_> we might have managed to pull that off a few times too
[23:12:57] <mupuf> I do remember them at some point talking about paying the hitel
[23:13:07] <mupuf> but I guess they prefer donating the money, it is just easier for them
[23:13:29] <Riastradh> (If we haven't filed the paperwork by now, then we lost the cash this year!)
[23:13:43] <danvet_> bryce_, ^^?
[23:13:45] <mupuf> we have
[23:13:50] <danvet_> ah cool
[23:13:52] <mupuf> SPI is taking care of everything
[23:13:54] <bryce_> hi sorry
[23:13:57] <danvet_> sweet
[23:14:00] <Riastradh> Cool.
[23:14:00] <danvet_> bryce_, nw
[23:14:25] <danvet_> anything else on gsoc, or xdc sponsoring next?
[23:14:55] <mupuf> I'm done with GSoC
[23:15:05] <mupuf> so far, the reviews from mentors have been good
[23:15:17] <danvet_> ok, finally got feedback from collabora, they're up for silver at half the price I put in the proposed text
[23:15:26] <danvet_> which iirc was roughly in line with that we figured out
[23:15:32] <mupuf> fair enough!
[23:15:34] <danvet_> so I just slashed the prices for all levels
[23:15:44] <bryce_> yeah let me know if there's any treasurer work for gsoc; I'd asked a few meetings back but at the time sounded like others had everything under control.
[23:15:53] <danvet_> 10k for platinum (the "you have too much money option"), 5k for gold (free for organizer)
[23:16:00] <danvet_> 2.5k for silver, 1k for bronze
[23:16:07] <danvet_> http://paste.debian.net/979745/
[23:16:18] <danvet_> text otherwise unchanged from what we discussed about 6 weeks ago
[23:17:07] <danvet_> we're imo super later for xdc17, so I'd propose we just go with that, I'll try a bit of haggling around and if it goes south we'll try better for xdc18
[23:17:11] <danvet_> thoughts?
[23:17:15] <robclark> sgtm
[23:17:17] <danvet_> better = start a bit earlier :-)
[23:17:41] <mupuf> +1 from me too
[23:17:49] <agd5f> +1
[23:18:16] <egbert> +1
[23:18:23] <danvet_> bryce_, probably need you for finance help on this
[23:18:37] <Riastradh> +1
[23:18:45] <egbert> btw, i won't make xdc this year. i have 2 conflicting events.
[23:19:55] <danvet_> I think that's enough +1
[23:19:55] <bryce_> +1
[23:20:06] <danvet_> any comments?
[23:20:22] <danvet_> I hope we can at least get collabora and igalia and then do a post-mortem after xdc17 :-)
[23:21:20] <danvet_> I guess next topic, xdc18
[23:21:27] <bryce_> those numbers align well with what a lot of projects do, if I recall from when I looked at it.  I suspect those will be fine indefinitely
[23:21:41] <danvet_> bryce_, yeah, I think the new numbers are more in line with what you've dug out
[23:22:09] <danvet_> samual submitted an extremely polished one
[23:22:24] <danvet_> read the pdf, it's real pretty if you haven't yet, and pls ask question on the thread
[23:22:37] <danvet_> I think we'll do the final vote at xdc, like last year?
[23:22:41] <keithp> yeah, seems like that group has some experience putting together free software conferences
[23:22:58] <danvet_> definitely
[23:23:09] <danvet_> we're probably small fish for them
[23:23:19] <danvet_> and the university seems to support foss too
[23:23:25] <keithp> indeed -- pictures of auditoriums with seating for 500 seemed a bit optimistic
[23:23:27] <danvet_> (there's a support letter from the dean)
[23:23:34] <danvet_> yeah :-)
[23:24:00] <keithp> Back in the day, we'd fill an MIT auditorium of that size
[23:24:25] <mupuf> keithp: back in the days where MIT was still pushing for X :D?
[23:24:50] <keithp> mupuf: indeed, we had to move from MIT to a giant hotel as there wasn't enough space
[23:28:27] <Riastradh> Sounds like XDC discussion is exhausted?
[23:28:33] <danvet_> I guess next topic: mupuf anything from khronos?
[23:28:43] <danvet_> sounds like spi dropped the ball all around ?
[23:29:03] <keithp> yeah, not sure what's up with that
[23:29:06] <mupuf> yes...
[23:29:10] <mupuf> we need them to pick it up
[23:29:14] <mupuf> I mean ,seriously
[23:29:16] <mupuf> ...
[23:29:23] <mupuf> it is a pretty safe contract to sign
[23:29:25] <danvet_> mupuf, can you pls haggle them once more
[23:29:28] <danvet_> ?
[23:29:41] <mupuf> well, what should we tell them?
[23:29:44] <danvet_> yeah it's not awesome :-(
[23:29:50] <danvet_> get moving, pls, pls PLS
[23:30:13] <mupuf> Hey, we truly deeply care about it, and we need to get this resolved? Khronos is a big group and we look like idiots now :s ?
[23:30:31] <bryce_> danvet_, SPI is a bit slow.  I'm *still* waiting on my reimbursement for the dissolution expenses if you believe it...
[23:31:21] <mupuf> :s
[23:31:42] <mupuf> the point of having them was to have someone paid to do this job
[23:32:17] <danvet_> bryce_, ugh :-(
[23:32:24] <danvet_> bryce_, should I add it to the agenda
[23:32:40] <danvet_> mupuf, it was more that we wouldn't be legally up for not doing it properly I think ...
[23:32:45] <bryce_> danvet_, nah I've been periodically re-pinging
[23:32:47] <danvet_> IRS chasing you, not fun
[23:32:51] <danvet_> bryce_, thx
[23:33:06] <bryce_> mupuf, afaik they're not paid, volunteers same as us
[23:33:15] <danvet_> yeah ...
[23:33:23] <danvet_> and at much bigger scale ...
[23:33:33] <danvet_> mupuf, anyway, jotted down that you're volunteered for the begging letter
[23:33:55] <bryce_> and fwiw I also have experience dealing with Software Conservancy, who *are* paid, and they're slow too.  Too much requested work for too few manhours.
[23:34:40] <mupuf> danvet_: ack
[23:35:19] <danvet_> thx
[23:36:04] <danvet_> ok, on the coc stuff, I guess the discussion is still going on on the baord@ list?
[23:36:14] <danvet_> Riastradh, did you check that fd.o did list the names now explicitly?
[23:36:19] <danvet_> that seemed like a really good point
[23:36:36] <Riastradh> danvet_: They do not list it yet, at <https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeOfConduct/>, at least.
[23:36:53] <danvet_> can you pls ping them again?
[23:37:02] <danvet_> daniels is a bit drowning atm afaik
[23:37:07] <Riastradh> OK.
[23:37:08] <danvet_> so might just have forgotten
[23:37:10] <danvet_> keithp, ^^
[23:37:17] <Riastradh> We have three things to do:
[23:38:12] <keithp> I agree that it's a good idea
[23:38:13] <Riastradh> 1. Decide whether to approve the CoC as part of the rules & regulations of X.org Foundation, or decide to try to make it a part of the membership agreement.
[23:38:20] <Riastradh> 2. Perhaps write our own such page for X.org, with our own list of points of contact.
[23:38:42] <Riastradh> 3. Ask each X.org project's owner to identify a primary point of contact for their project.
[23:38:47] <danvet_> not sure we even need to enact it
[23:38:52] <danvet_> fd.o isn't our own servers
[23:39:49] <danvet_> I guess I need to reply on the thread, iirc I forgot to do that :-/
[23:40:41] <keithp> The fd.o CoC affects anyone using fd.o servers, which host much of the x.org content. Letting x.org contributors know about that seems like a good idea
[23:40:42] <danvet_> but imo what we could do is serve as escalation decision body, especially when there's a coc issue about a project leader
[23:41:07] <danvet_> and yeah, we should endorse it officially imo as a good thing, for publicity
[23:41:16] <Riastradh> fd.o presumably also doesn't apply to, e.g., XDC or resources not hosted at fd.o like #xorg-devel.
[23:41:29] <keithp> an x.org CoC would relate to x.org-specific actions, like XDC participation etc
[23:41:32] <danvet_> but I'm not sure we need much in the way of formal rules and regulations
[23:41:48] <Riastradh> danvet_: Do we want to be able to expel members from X.org on grounds of CoC violation?
[23:41:52] <danvet_> yeah, and for XDC we already have an anti-harrassment policy
[23:42:00] <agd5f> right.  I think it's basically like a service we are providing to fdo
[23:42:07] <Riastradh> danvet_: If so, I think we need to make it part of X.org rules/regs.
[23:42:10] <danvet_> so already formal rules in place to ban someone from XDC if they're assholes
[23:42:21] <keithp> I think the main thing is a formal process for enforcement; the anti-harrassment stuff doesn't have any process?
[23:42:34] <danvet_> the fd.o coc isn't too formal either ...
[23:43:31] <danvet_> https://www.x.org/wiki/XorgFoundation/Policies/Harassment/ it's a bit thin, but I think it'll work
[23:43:38] <Riastradh> Two main points: (a) defining and publicizing reporting channels, (b) granting enforcement powers including, e.g., expulsion as X.org member.  For (a) no need for rules/regs; for (b) I think we do need it.
[23:43:40] <danvet_> report to board, board decides
[23:44:02] <keithp> danvet_: other than for problems with board members, yeah
[23:44:03] <danvet_> I thought we (= the board) can already expel?
[23:44:12] <danvet_> keithp, yeah that's always the real tricky part
[23:44:13] <keithp> which is the same issue that the conduct@lists.freedesktop.org address has
[23:44:17] <danvet_> yup
[23:44:57] <danvet_> but usual way to handle that is to report to someone personally, and then the reduced group holds a meeting with the accused board member barred from it
[23:45:15] <mupuf> I would say: Let's send an email on all the mailing lists that we want to follow the same CoC, and that we are open to discussion. Next year, during the voting period, people who re-register as members accept this CoC
[23:45:16] <danvet_> with 8 we shouldn't run out
[23:46:12] <Riastradh> danvet_: Not clear to me board has expulsion power for CoC violation if CoC is not part of rules & regs.  I.e., not clear CoC violation qualifies as `good cause' for revocation of membership, under bylaws 2.8.
[23:46:44] <danvet_> we can enact policies, I think this fits
[23:47:49] <Riastradh> The conference harassment policy is already an X.org Foundation policy approved by the board, which presumably falls under `rules & regulations'; this is similar but extends beyond the physical in-person conference.
[23:48:26] <agd5f> it gets a bit tricky with projects outside of xorg.  E.g., you wouldn't expel someone for larceny
[23:48:57] <Riastradh> agd5f: Well... 2.8(iii)
[23:49:00] <danvet_> nah, we can only expel someone as an XDC board member I think
[23:49:03] <danvet_> that's all
[23:49:17] <danvet_> and I guess we could recommend to fd.o admins that they do the same
[23:49:30] <danvet_> same for requesting a network ban on freenode
[23:49:31] <Riastradh> (But only if it involves use of X.org resources.)
[23:50:12] <danvet_> imo coc is (iv) in there
[23:50:19] <danvet_> you made X.org look bad, we kick you out
[23:50:43] <robclark> tbh, xorg members are not really all (or perhaps even a majority?) of people active on various xorg related projects..  so our member agreement can really only formally cover members..  (probably a good idea to add CoC too that, but it will take a vote, etc)..
[23:51:05] <danvet_> yes
[23:51:14] <Riastradh> So there are three options about formalities:
[23:51:20] <danvet_> imo all we can do as the board is revoke membership and ban from XDC
[23:51:28] <Riastradh> 1. Leave it as is; just hope 2.8(iv) is good enough.
[23:51:28] <robclark> for non-members, I guess it comes down to where the "infraction" is happening (ie. fd.o hosted list, etc)..  I guess..
[23:51:40] <Riastradh> 2. Vote on whether to approve CoC as X.org policy just like the conference harassment policy.
[23:51:51] <Riastradh> 3. Ask membership whether to approve CoC as part of member agreement next year.
[23:52:19] <Riastradh> Ordered by ascending difficulty and ascending potential perceived legitimacy of the outcome.
[23:52:20] <danvet_> I'd go with 2. + offer the board as escalation decision point when members are unhappy with fd.o decisions about that
[23:52:30] <danvet_> since that's what daniels (and by implication, fdo) offered
[23:52:59] <danvet_> + support the coc as a good idea in general, that doesn't hurt
[23:53:00] <Riastradh> So, shall we move to vote on whether to approve Contributor Covenant 1.4 as X.org policy?
[23:53:17] <danvet_> feels a bit rushed tbh ...
[23:53:18] <robclark> yeah, #1 in short term (and hopefully don't have to use it) and #2 in long term
[23:53:35] <danvet_> I think a package and agreement with fd.o would be good
[23:53:42] <robclark> (or maybe #3?.. is #2 just a board level vote?)
[23:53:49] <danvet_> but I'm not leaning strongly either
[23:53:53] <danvet_> yeah
[23:53:54] <Riastradh> #1 is nothing.  #2 is board vote.  #3 is membership vote.
[23:54:09] <Riastradh> (#1 is nothing *formal*, I should say.)
[23:54:29] <robclark> I think it would be good to have it in memberagreement (or bylaws?  but I think the former)..  which would be #3
[23:54:31] <danvet_> Riastradh, I guess I could try to type up my idea that's roughly #2 in reply to your thread?
[23:55:26] <Riastradh> danvet_: So you want to have a board vote, but not immediately?  (I already intend to offer volunteers on this board as a fallback reporting channel, and generally do what I can to support the CoC and handling reports.)
[23:55:26] <danvet_> btw, on the membership agreement
[23:55:36] <danvet_> https://members.x.org/join.php this still points at the old one :-(
[23:55:42] <danvet_> we should fix that for xdc17 ...
[23:55:46] <keithp> We can do all three in sequence -- #1 (status quo), #2, and then hold a project-wide vote at some point to either approve or override the board vote?
[23:55:59] <danvet_> keithp, sounds like a plan too
[23:56:06] <danvet_> robclark, can you try to fix that?
[23:56:14] * danvet_ has no idea who has server admin access to this
[23:56:26] <robclark> I think daniels..
[23:56:34] <robclark> (or maybe keithp has sudo powers?)
[23:56:42] <robclark> we don't really have our own server anymore
[23:56:53] <danvet_> daniels is drowning
[23:57:16] <robclark> keithp?
[23:57:26] <danvet_> robclark, can I just volunteer you to figure this out and pls make it happen somehow?
[23:57:55] <robclark> yeah.. although it probably ends up being asking the drowning man..
[23:58:02] <danvet_> yeah :-/
[23:58:11] <danvet_> ok, we're kinda running out of time
[23:58:18] <danvet_> evoc and xdc17 talks get spilled
[23:58:19] <robclark> I'll see if we can get a group/account set up that has admin access to just xorg stuff, perhaps
[23:58:27] <danvet_> yeah that might be useful
[23:58:46] <danvet_> can we postpone both to next mtg?
[23:58:58] <keithp> I don't have sudo on the x.org server anymore
[23:59:23] <keithp> oh, that's just gabe these days, right
[23:59:23] <danvet_> yeah would be good to have some kind of access to the web root at least
[00:00:10] <keithp> what address would you like it to use?
[00:00:40] <robclark> I guess we could point it at the git tree..
[00:01:15] <robclark> keithp, https://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/foundation/bylaws/plain/memberagreement.pdf?
[00:02:12] <Riastradh> Maybe shouldn't be a link to whatever is the current version in Git, but rather a link to a specific version in Git?
[00:02:15] <Riastradh> (or to a static page)
[00:02:30] <keithp> how about I just copy it to the docs directory and reference it from there
[00:03:18] <danvet_> copying sounds good to me
[00:03:35] <danvet_> if that's simpler
[00:03:45] <danvet_> keithp, so you're fixing this right now, still got access?
[00:04:56] <danvet_> anyway, I'm falling asleep
[00:05:06] <danvet_> thx everyone for hanging out
[00:05:08] <mupuf> we *need* to talk about the XDC
[00:05:13] <mupuf> the talks
[00:05:14] <danvet_> gnight
[00:05:18] <mupuf> who is in the paper commity?
[00:05:20] <danvet_> mupuf, when's the deadline?
[00:05:21] <robclark> keithp, wfm
[00:05:21] <keithp> danvet_: should be all fixed
[00:05:27] <mupuf> next wednesday
[00:05:28] <keithp> https://members.x.org/join.php
[00:05:35] <danvet_> keithp, perfect, thx a lot
[00:05:47] <danvet_> mupuf, we'll chat
[00:06:04] <mupuf> so, it is us two who are in the paper commity then?
[00:06:04] <danvet_> I'll send out a mail to googlers anyway, I can ask whether marcheu wants to hang out in the papers committee too
[00:06:08] <mupuf> We need to have a bigger one...
[00:06:14] <danvet_> it'll work :-)
[00:06:36] <mupuf> anyone else wants to help review?
[00:06:45] <danvet_> I think for now there's not much to decide except get the logistics in place
[00:07:19] * keithp is tempted to fix other glaring errors in the join page but decides not to
[00:07:22] <danvet_> ok, really late, I'm going to call it a day

[00:07:34] [disconnected at Fri Aug 4 00:07:34 2017]