[23:14:43] [connected at Thu Dec  7 23:14:43 2017]
[23:14:54] [I have joined #xf-bod]
[23:15:15] <robclark> Riastradh, afaik there are no longer servers to access.. it is all on fd.o now..
[23:15:16] <danvet> egbert, keithp around too?
[23:15:52] <danvet> Agenda: gsoc, evoc, fd.o, sponsoring level unification, xorg logo usage
[23:15:55] <Riastradh> bryce_: How does one get ssh'd into there?
[23:15:55] <danvet> anything else?
[23:16:18] <danvet> Riastradh, I though we've fixed you up with accounts and everything when you joined?
[23:16:23] <danvet> the board I mean
[23:16:26] <danvet> should have at least
[23:16:26] <Riastradh> danvet: I don't think so?
[23:16:32] <Riastradh> Unless I missed some email or something?
[23:16:36] <bryce_> Riastradh, yeah what danvet said :-)
[23:16:47] <Riastradh> I got mailman access, certainly.
[23:16:50] <danvet> Riastradh, I think robclark was supposed to fix you up
[23:16:50] <robclark> what more is there beyond ssh account on people.fd.o
[23:17:00] <bryce_> maybe our onboarding process needs more steps
[23:17:00] <robclark> danvet, I'm not a fd.o admin..
[23:17:03] * danvet a bit too lazy to dig out old emails
[23:17:14] <danvet> hm 
[23:17:22] <Riastradh> How does one get ssh access on people.fd.o?
[23:17:29] <danvet> Riastradh, fd.o account request
[23:17:35] * robclark assumed Riastradh already had fd.o account..
[23:17:38] <danvet> robclark, I thought gabe.fd.o was different
[23:17:41] <robclark> but yeah, I can dig up the link..
[23:17:47] <Riastradh> Heh.  OK, thanks!
[23:17:48] <bryce_> you'll also need gpg key access to unlock Finances/ but I vaguely recall setting that up when you joined
[23:18:01] <danvet> https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/AccountRequests/
[23:18:10] <robclark> not sure about gabe..  I thought it was same as annarchy
[23:18:13] <danvet> yeah I thought we've done all that
[23:19:00] <danvet> Riastradh, just mention that you need access to gabe too for the xorg-bod git repo
[23:19:03] <Riastradh> All I can find in my email is the mailman admin access, but we can take this offline.
[23:19:07] <Riastradh> danvet: Will do, thanks.
[23:19:10] <danvet> robclark, I have no idea
[23:20:13] <danvet> ok, let's get rolling
[23:20:24] <danvet> mupuf, do we have gsoc students lined up for fosdem track?
[23:20:36] <danvet> I think that was all
[23:20:41] <mupuf> at least one is interested. I contacted him on monday
[23:20:55] <mupuf> but libv was unsure there were slots left
[23:21:10] <mupuf> so... I held off getting more people until I heard back
[23:21:23] <mupuf> and then came independence day ... and I forgot :s
[23:21:47] <danvet> mupuf, you got your reminder :-)
[23:22:13] <mupuf> yeah... but I feel that now I have been unfair to the others if this one got a slot
[23:22:23] <danvet> mupuf, you'll survive :-)
[23:22:28] <danvet> we'll get them to xdc
[23:22:38] <mupuf> to be fair, I sent him an email because he pushed patches to mesa
[23:22:42] <mupuf> so... he is still active
[23:22:47] <danvet> mupuf, travel assistance needed from our side?
[23:22:54] <danvet> assuming talk gets accepted
[23:23:01] <mupuf> exactly, I need to knwo that
[23:23:08] <danvet> makes sense
[23:23:11] <keithp> I'm around; just hacking dri code
[23:23:15] <danvet> so next time around, there's still time
[23:23:17] <danvet> keithp, hi!
[23:23:41] <danvet> robclark, evoc? just the 18+ or not question I guess?
[23:24:07] <mupuf> danvet: do we agree if I send the email tomorrow to the students, if I know there are some slots available?
[23:24:09] <robclark> yeah, the 18+ question
[23:24:26] <robclark> mupuf, +1
[23:24:34] <keithp> I suspect supporting <18 in evoc would take a pile of legal work
[23:24:38] <danvet> mupuf, just make the bests for students
[23:24:43] <danvet> same here on the 18+
[23:24:43] <mupuf> and otherwise, I will send them an email saying they are invited for the next XDC, whenever the CFP is sent
[23:24:47] <bryce_> +1 on requiring age 18+ for evoc
[23:24:52] <danvet> mupuf, ack
[23:24:52] <mupuf> +1 for the 18+
[23:24:53] <danvet> +1
[23:24:53] <keithp> I remember having <18 as an intern at intel; the requirements were 'interesting'
[23:24:56] <Riastradh> Heh.  So GSoC _has_ employed at least one <18 student, but I think it was under the table from strings pulled from on high and they have serious legal counsel.
[23:25:15] <danvet> yeah, we don't have serious legal counsel ...
[23:25:22] <danvet> so that's it, enough +1
[23:25:25] <keithp> +1
[23:25:28] <Riastradh> +1
[23:25:43] * danvet might be slightly bad at counting today :-)
[23:25:49] <danvet> keithp, Riastradh sry ...
[23:25:59] <keithp> meh
[23:26:12] <danvet> robclark, can you pls update our wiki page and send out the reply to the inquiry from the student?
[23:26:42] <robclark> ok
[23:26:57] <danvet> thx
[23:27:05] <robclark> (I guess >=18 is the conclusion.. I can't really see any other sane way)
[23:27:19] <danvet> Riastradh, I guess no movement on fd.o talks?
[23:27:26] <danvet> robclark, that's what I put in minutes :-)
[23:27:35] <keithp> fd.o is making some progress in finding hosting at least
[23:27:44] <bryce_> keithp, oh?
[23:27:50] <Riastradh> danvet: Not at this moment, sorry.
[23:28:04] <robclark> k..  btw, I guess unpaid EVoC for under 18 is ok.. although not sure there will be as much interest in that
[23:28:18] <danvet> robclark, yeah, but that's kinda not evoc
[23:28:31] <danvet> I'll keep fd.o around for next week
[23:28:58] <danvet> bryce_, sponsoring level unification, thx for sending out the proposal ...
[23:29:00] <robclark> danvet, yeah, that is more just connecting a potential/future contributor w/ someone who could help guide them ;-)
[23:29:44] <danvet> yeah ...
[23:29:58] <danvet> robclark, maybe mention that in your reply that we can still try to find a mentor
[23:30:18] <robclark> right, that is what I was getting at ;-)
[23:30:37] <danvet> bryce_, should we just discuss that on the m-l?
[23:30:59] <danvet> from my side the only big thing is that the unified one should still be somewhat useful as a xdc sponsoring sales pitch
[23:31:06] <danvet> since that seems to be where the money is
[23:32:09] <danvet> if there's nothing else I'll just note that everyone should read&comment in the minutes
[23:33:10] <bryce_> danvet, thanks for the feedback on it, I plan on getting it revved today
[23:33:46] <bryce_> danvet, m-l for continuing discussion is fine
[23:34:01] <danvet> bryce_, sounds good, and thx for doing this
[23:34:12] <danvet> I guess final one: xorg logo request
[23:34:30] <danvet> it's for some X remote app, proprietary, doesn't even seem to exist yet
[23:34:45] <bryce_> do we have a brand usage policy?
[23:34:46] <danvet> I checked our files, we seem to discuss this about every 2 years for a random request
[23:34:52] <danvet> but no policies that I could find
[23:35:24] <danvet> I'm leaning towards "meh, make your own X logo" and go with the tradition of rejecting it :-)
[23:35:32] <bryce_> we went through that for Inkscape a while back, worked with lawyers and got:  https://inkscape.org/en/about/trademark-policy/
[23:35:39] <bryce_> sounds like X.org needs something similar
[23:36:19] <bryce_> 'twas a fair bit of work tho
[23:36:47] <danvet> yeah, might not be worth it for the oddball funky request every 2 years or so
[23:37:02] <danvet> tradition is also that we discuss having a proper policy, then doesn't happen :-)
[23:37:12] * danvet read a few old logs
[23:37:28] <bryce_> I seem to recall looking through past board minutes there had been an action item some time ago to do a logo redesign.  if that were done, that'd be a good point to get the mark registered and a policy written
[23:38:04] <danvet> I don't think that happened
[23:38:17] <danvet> I couldn't find anything that would indicate so at leastt
[23:38:25] <danvet> keithp, you remember anything of an old logo?
[23:38:31] <danvet> egbert, agd5f aren't around ...
[23:39:07] <danvet> the x.org swirl seems real old
[23:39:13] <bryce_> yeah
[23:39:17] <keithp> danvet: the original X logo, just the stylized X, was done in 1985 or so
[23:39:37] <keithp> The one with the swirl was done by Shiman's daughter on contract to the X.org Foundation, LLC
[23:39:56] <danvet> ah, checked the minutes
[23:40:05] <danvet> mupuf wanted to do a logo contest in 2013
[23:40:17] <danvet> keithp, so 10+ years at least
[23:40:27] <mupuf> danvet: we never got good ones, right?
[23:40:32] <keithp> likely
[23:40:35] <danvet> probably
[23:40:36] <mupuf> we got a good one for Nouveau though
[23:40:47] <keithp> I'm reasonably sure it was never registered as a trademark
[23:40:47] <bryce_> if X.org and fdo are going to be merging, holding off on branding work until after that's further along might make sense
[23:40:52] <danvet> our gfx design skills don't compare to our gfx coding skills unfortunately :-/
[23:40:56] <danvet> or luckily
[23:41:01] <danvet> depending how you look at it
[23:41:07] <mupuf> ha ha ha:D
[23:41:08] <keithp> certainly before 2004
[23:41:23] <keithp> oh, looks like before 2001
[23:41:38] <keithp> I have a poster about X dated october 2001 with the swirl'd logo
[23:42:17] <danvet> I wasn't allowed to vote back then!
[23:42:18] <keithp> it also claims that this logo was *not* done by Shiman
[23:42:51] <keithp> it does have an impressive blurred drop shadow though. Serious graphics arts.
[23:43:02] <danvet> oh we lost the drop shadow!
[23:43:09] <bryce_> the Inkscape community is thick with gfx designers, we have to beat them down with sticks.  If that's a need here, it can be solved...
[23:43:20] <danvet> or was that artistic freedom for that poster
[23:43:51] <danvet> bryce_, you should have seen the designs for the xdc17 video stream I discussed with mupuf
[23:44:02] <danvet> we agreed that consistently shitty is the best we can do
[23:44:10] <bryce_> hah
[23:44:11] <mupuf> danvet: ha ha, true!
[23:44:27] <mupuf> It ended up being passable, which is exactly what we aimed for
[23:44:49] <danvet> yeah, would have looked fake if it would have looked good
[23:45:00] <bryce_> that sounds like having an XDC where no one can get the projector to work with their laptop ;-)
[23:45:03] <mupuf> oh no! St├ęphane did not use them in the end
[23:45:20] <danvet> the fate of x.org logos it seems
[23:45:42] <danvet> ok, more seriously, we need to at least make a decision on the logo request
[23:45:46] <danvet> any suggestions?
[23:46:07] <bryce_> crickets :-)
[23:46:07] <Riastradh> Does it benefit X.org in any way?  Does it suggest endorsement by X.org in any way?
[23:46:17] <danvet> http://www.xremote.com/ is the current page
[23:46:30] <Riastradh> ...Do we get a cut of the profit?
[23:46:34] <danvet> tbh, seems like an enternally failing sham
[23:46:49] <danvet> it's the exact same logo request from a few years back afaik
[23:46:56] <robclark> tbh, they already have a better logo ;-)
[23:47:11] <danvet> robclark, not that hard
[23:47:34] <danvet> Riastradh, doesn't sound like anything is in for us
[23:47:37] <Riastradh> I see no reason this is worthwhile for X.org, so I'm inclined to -1.
[23:47:38] <danvet> it's also not anything open
[23:47:51] * danvet -1 too fwiw
[23:48:28] <mupuf> Riastradh: agreed, -1
[23:48:42] <keithp> does it even use X in any useful way?
[23:49:04] <danvet> keithp, not sure how real it is, but claims to be an optimized X remote thing
[23:49:04] <bryce_> -1 here too I guess.  I'd want to see us with an actual policy before granting freeform usage of the logo.
[23:49:16] <robclark> keithp, I assume x11 protocol..
[23:49:41] * robclark looking at archives..  this request seemed to come up initially (from same folks) in 2015..
[23:49:41] <Riastradh> keithp: Sounds like you'd have to put in a request for a download and then reverse-engineer whatever binary blob you get in order to answer that!
[23:49:42] <danvet> "The solution is X emulator for Microsoft Windows
[23:49:42] <danvet> desktops.  We do some reduction on the traffic to give a boost to the
[23:49:42] <danvet> performance.
[23:49:42] <danvet> Our disruption will hopefully be on the licence where we will charge
[23:49:42] <danvet> customer only for support and not license as do NoMachine and others."
[23:49:45] <danvet> fyi
[23:49:54] <keithp> so, not standards-compliant use of the protocol, that seems to indicate that it's not an X-based system, just a system using some X code
[23:50:27] <keithp> if you can't run regular X apps using it, or run it against a regular X server, then it's not the X window system
[23:51:07] <bryce_> btw, who holds the copyright on the logo?
[23:51:14] <keithp> I'm ok for commercial X solutions to use the X logo, but they have to be actual X solutions
[23:51:24] <keithp> bryce_: you ask like that's some kind of easy question to answer
[23:51:29] <bryce_> keithp, lol
[23:51:52] <keithp> afaik, there has never been any registration of any X logo. I'm not sure you could get a copyright, just a trademark registration though
[23:52:00] <Riastradh> Heh.
[23:52:06] <robclark> keithp, yeah, I'm not clear how it would actually let you connect to normal linux system and display x11 apps if they changed the proto..  so not sure if that is just marketing talk or if they have some linux side piece..
[23:52:16] <keithp> as such, we have an unregistered trademark, which is harder to enforce than a registered one, but just as valid
[23:53:18] <robclark> anyways, looks like their initial request was just to have the logo on the help screen..  I guess for that usage I'd be ok with it *iff* it was a standards compliant implementation of the protocol..
[23:55:47] <danvet> tbh the current webpage isn't even ready
[23:55:50] <Riastradh> If they do that, I would be inclined to ask for some verification of meaningful interoperability.
[23:55:59] <danvet> I guess we could also say that once they have something, we'll reconsider
[23:56:02] <danvet> but atm too unclear?
[23:56:16] <bryce_> keithp, I'm not knowledgeable on how unregistered trademarks work, but it sounds like it'd mostly be honor system, no real legal controls?
[23:56:22] <danvet> most of the text on the page is the standard template of their cms
[23:56:23] <robclark> yeah, I'd agree with that..
[23:56:32] <keithp> bryce_: oh, you can sue
[23:56:35] <danvet> bryce_, there's real legal force behind it
[23:56:42] <Riastradh> bryce_: If you protect your trademark then the courts will tend to uphold it when you get there.
[23:56:46] <robclark> danvet, I think I'd understand better if I knew if it was only server side or if there was a client side part of that
[23:56:49] <mupuf> same, +1 for asking for real information about how it will be set
[23:56:52] <danvet> just harder to prove sufficiently that you actually have defended the trademark and own it
[23:56:54] <keithp> which is the same as a registered one, just harder to prove that it's a valid trademark
[23:57:02] <mupuf> and us giving the right only for this particular purpose (well specified)
[23:57:11] <Riastradh> bryce_: If you don't ask people not to use your trademark, then courts may decide that you relinquished it.
[23:57:16] <danvet> and you can lose a registered one if you fail to defend it
[23:57:21] <mupuf> and we would sign them a contract which states exactly what we granted them
[23:58:17] <Riastradh> mupuf: +1
[23:58:22] <danvet> so time's running out: ok if I reply stating that right now there's not enough information to decide, and that we'd expect a fully interoperable solution?
[23:58:37] <robclark> +1
[23:58:41] * robclark gotta run.. bbl
[23:58:51] <Riastradh> Thoughts on asking for a financial contribution to XOF from anyone making commercial use of the logo?
[23:59:12] <danvet> probably makes it even more complicated
[23:59:34] <danvet> anyway, gtg too, I think this is the rough consensus
[23:59:35] <Riastradh> It does, yes, and not necessary to decide now if the email ends with a vague `we can revisit this later'.
[23:59:45] <danvet> no clear decision, we'll push back to the request to clarify
[23:59:59] <danvet> one more: voting season starts
[00:00:12] <danvet> mupuf, Riastradh roblcark and me have torns that don't expire
[00:00:20] <danvet> so would make the voting committee thing
[00:00:28] <danvet> assuming no one else decides to not re-run
[00:00:41] <danvet> next time around we need to volunteer someone to run that show
[00:00:50] <danvet> my excuse is that I'm already typing the minutes :-)
[00:01:29] <mupuf> hehe
[00:01:45] <mupuf> yep! we'll need to hunt for fresh blood again :D
[00:04:09] <Riastradh> Time to adjourn?
[00:04:12] <danvet> yup
[00:04:17] * danvet typing the reply
[00:04:22] <danvet> thx everyone for hanging out
[00:04:31] <Riastradh> Also, any notes on how xorg voting committees work?
[00:04:33] <bryce_> cya all
[00:04:50] <bryce_> Riastradh, there are some docs in the website under the Elections folder
[00:05:25] <Riastradh> bryce_: Thanks!
[00:05:51] <danvet> Riastradh, whot claims to have written it down somewhere
[00:05:58] <danvet> from last year
[00:06:06] <Riastradh> https://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections/ seems to be reasonably detailed.
[00:06:21] <danvet> like I said, I just type the minutes and run the mtgs :-)
[00:06:24] * danvet has no clue

[00:07:22] [disconnected at Fri Dec 8 00:07:22 2017]