[22:54:36] [connected at Thu Jul  5 22:54:36 2018]
[22:54:47] [I have joined #xf-bod]
[22:56:49] <bryce> danvet, I ran the command, can you push now?
[22:57:39] <bryce> -r--r--r-- 1 anholt xorgfoundation 77 Jun 21 21:11 /srv/bod.x.org/archives.git/objects/b4/3f537911dad73b9586dd13d1874bcbe6b5b08a
[22:57:43] <bryce> might be anholt this time
[22:59:32] <danvet> still no joy :-/
[22:59:40] <danvet> anholt, ^^ pls run the chmod on gabe.fd.o
[22:59:48] <danvet> there's a permission problem we just can't figure out
[22:59:49] <bryce> chmod -R g+w /srv/bod.x.org/archives.git |& cut -d\' -f2 | grep -v objects-old | xargs ls -ld
[22:59:55] <danvet> or maybe it was hwentlan?
[22:59:56] <bryce> mperes also has at least one
[23:00:08] <danvet> crap, mupuf is on vacations
[23:00:28] <bryce> hwentland has some too, yeah
[23:00:59] <hwentlan> what do i have?
[23:01:17] <bryce> 5 objects read-only for mperes, 6 for anholt, 5 for hwentland
[23:01:29] <anholt> really wish I knew what was going on with our permissions here
[23:01:30] <danvet> I still don't get why this even happens
[23:01:36] <bryce> me either
[23:01:36] <danvet> anholt, yeah ...
[23:02:07] <anholt> did my chmod
[23:02:24] <robclark> o/
[23:03:09] <anholt> oh, we're missing sharedRepository!
[23:03:11] <mupuf> Sorry guys! I'm here now :)
[23:03:32] <danvet> duh!
[23:03:53] <danvet> hwentlan, pls run the chmod on gabe.freedesktop.org
[23:03:55] <danvet> mupuf, you too
[23:04:03] <anholt> apparently I don't have sudo on gabe, so I can't just go fix it
[23:04:04] <danvet> chmod -R g+w /srv/bod.x.org/archives.git
[23:04:05] <hwentlan> just did
[23:04:09] <anholt> but the config is fixed now
[23:04:20] <danvet> anholt, thx a lot
[23:04:36] <bryce> ahh, thanks
[23:06:45] * mupuf seems to be able to clone alright :)
[23:07:01] <danvet> ok cool I can push again
[23:07:04] <danvet> let's get rolling
[23:07:09] <danvet> Agenda: igalia inquiry, gsoc, xdc19, fd.o, evoc
[23:07:14] <danvet> anything to add to the agenda?
[23:07:27] <danvet> keithp, around?
[23:08:28] <danvet> mupuf, it was all about pushing
[23:08:39] <mupuf> sorry, I missed the begining
[23:09:22] <danvet> mupuf, just run the chmod
[23:09:45] <mupuf> done
[23:10:18] <danvet> ok I think we'll go ahead without keithp
[23:10:37] <danvet> I'll be out next 2 mtgs, can someone run secretary duties for me pls? hwentlan?
[23:11:11] <danvet> or someone else?
[23:11:17] <hwentlan> i can do next time but will be on vacation (or nearly) for the one after
[23:11:42] <danvet> I'll take that, you can try to find a volunteer next time around :-)
[23:12:01] <danvet> wrt the igalia inquiry: pls read the mail on board@
[23:12:04] <danvet> "XDC 2018: Welcome party sponsoring proposal"
[23:12:12] <danvet> it's essentially the same collabora has done last year
[23:12:31] <danvet> sponsored social event outside of the main conference
[23:12:39] <danvet> we might get more of that
[23:13:00] <danvet> imo perfectly find as long as the PR on XDC18 official stuff is limited as described
[23:13:07] <danvet> (which is the same thing we've done last year)
[23:13:10] <danvet> thoughts?
[23:13:16] <robclark> basically lgtm.. I assume we are ok w/ "I call dib's on sponsoring this"?
[23:14:10] <danvet> what do you mean?
[23:14:11] <hwentlan> works for me
[23:14:12] <anholt> it sounded fine to me
[23:14:16] <keithp> oh, I'm here
[23:14:20] <danvet> keithp, hi
[23:14:25] <keithp> sorry, fighting with latex today
[23:15:04] <danvet> robclark, I think if there's multiple we can try to coordinate a bit to avoid overlap on the same day, but that's it
[23:15:09] <danvet> or did you mean something else?
[23:15:13] <robclark> danvet, ie. the exclusion of other sponsors.. which I assume is a normal thing (I don't recall ARM co-sponsiring an intel event at other confs or visa versa)
[23:15:19] <keithp> and, I'm also fine with igalia sponsoring an evening event
[23:16:27] <danvet> robclark, they could sponsor another social event/happy hour
[23:16:30] <danvet> we have 4 days
[23:16:35] <robclark> (but yeah, I'm +1)
[23:16:39] <danvet> so I don't htink there's a issue
[23:16:46] <robclark> sure, ofc
 secretary has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
<danvet> oops, quit too early, wrong key :-)
<danvet> ok I'll reply to Samuel's mail
<danvet> mupuf, gsoc?
<mupuf> sure!
<mupuf> not much to say, mentors are happy
<mupuf> and I am trying to get the students to blog mor
<mupuf> e
<mupuf> that's about it :)
<mupuf> oh, and next week is the second evaluation
* danvet typing
<danvet> ok quick xdc19 update
<danvet> I've heard from 2 possible bids thus far, one is already on board@
<danvet> I think it's looking good enough, but might be good to poke people who might be interested
<keithp> montreal has fine dining options and poutine; seems like a solid bid :-)
<danvet> yeah
<keithp> also, not USA, which is good
<danvet> intel is kinda looking, but portland we've been, and folsom ain't cool, and there's not really anything else ...
<danvet> keithp, yeah ...
<danvet> avoids the worst of the travel ban pain (which I honestly expect will get worse until xdc19)
<robclark> yeah, XDC in BOS would be nice some day, but seems like 'not in US' is a benefit atm :-/
<keithp> 2021 at the earliest
<danvet> yeah :-/
<bryce> boston's also pretty dang expensive
<bryce> (just had an event there a few months ago)
<hwentlan> i'm all for montreal... just around the corner here (i.e. 8 hours drive) and it's a nice city
<danvet> hm, having just sent out the mail to Samuel, I think I'll type up a proposal to clarify our sponsoring policy wrt social events
<danvet> 2 years in a row makes it precedence pretty much :-)
<robclark> bryce, between NERD center and having something at RH office (which tbh, I think XDC is slightly too large for now).. I think venue costs aren't bad.. but ofc that isn't the only cost
<danvet> I guess that's covered then with xdc19 ... or more?
<danvet> we also have a much better travel fund
<bryce> yeah redhat's offices were super nice
<danvet> but that's kinda a pain still
<danvet> ok next one ... fd.o
<danvet> hwentlan, ?
<keithp> danvet: daniels proposed a talk for xdc18 about that
<danvet> copypaste the same from last meeting, "everyone is busy"?
<danvet> keithp, yeah, but would be good we'd have a draft imo by then ...
<hwentlan> i had a bit of time to look at the old emails again and summarize my thoughts... not much concrete here
<danvet> draft of the bylaw patch I mean
<robclark> bryce, we have a killer setup for XDC at the size it was about 5 yrs ago :-P
<danvet> there's more ofc, so talk slot is good
<keithp> cool.
<hwentlan> do we want to treat freedesktop.org as separate and governed by X.Org, or as part of X.Org?
<hwentlan> are we interested in expanding X.Org's mission to include "interoperability and shared technologies for the X Window System"?
<hwentlan> are we talking about only adding fd.o admin/infrastructure? or more?
<keithp> hwentlan: part of X.org; the goal is to have X.org governance cover all existing fd.o roles
<danvet> I thought we'd just expand to hosting/running the infrastructure for that?
<hwentlan> i guess we can either have a brief discussion here or i can revive the email thread
<robclark> hwentlan, tbh, that isn't a stretch considering how we cover mesa and drm..
<danvet> but yeah, full merger
<danvet> and the part of fd.o's mission you quoted easily fits under "X and related stuff" I'd say
<keithp> fd.o doesn't have a public governance structure at this point; it's run by a secret cabal, and while we're all nice people, we need to fix it before something 'bad' happens
<hwentlan> do we think this requires an update the the X.Org Mission statement?
<danvet> hwentlan, yeah I think it needs to be extended
<danvet> to cover running the fd.o infrastructure
<mupuf> +1
<keithp> hwentlan: but we should already do that; you can build a free software desktop without using X...
<danvet> I don't think we want to make all the projects hosted on fd.o X.org members
<danvet> they'd object
<keithp> agreed
<danvet> also doesn't make sense imo
<keithp> we could extend membership offers to their participants
<danvet> wrt the software scope, I think the current mission statement covers that fairly well already
<keithp> danvet: there are some outliers, like systemd
<danvet> keithp, yeah that sounds like a good idea
<hwentlan> so essentially we'd want to broaden when bylaws talk about infrastructure, assets or contributions to be "X.Org or freedesktop.org"
<danvet> anyone active in an fd.o project can be member
<keithp> the fd.o cabal is already reviewing current projects to see if there are conflicts
<danvet> hwentlan, I think just broadening the mission statement is enough
<danvet> the fd.o stuff would become X.org assets
<danvet> since it'd be a full merger
<hwentlan> so basically expand on 1.1 Definitions - Equipment
<hwentlan> and membership
<robclark> of the outliers (systemd, gstreamer, not sure who else), how many use fd.o as primary dev platform vs just a github/etc mirror?
<danvet> keithp, a lot of this we can also enact as board policies, I don't think we need to spell everything out in the bylaws
<hwentlan> i should be able to send a patch for that by next meeting hopefully
<danvet> hwentlan, tbh I haven't looked at what would all need to be updated
<danvet> to expand the scope properly
<hwentlan> danvet, you also talked about refining the CoC and how we deal with it
<keithp> danvet: yeah, bylaws changes are hard, and we should be careful not to be overly prescriptive
<danvet> the other important bit is figuring out CoC enforcement for said infrastructure
<hwentlan> i'll have to give that one a bit more thought
<danvet> that should be in the bylaws, at least the cornerstones
<danvet> plus giving the board the power to figure out the details
<danvet> keithp, yup
<hwentlan> definitely
<danvet> going overboard could randomly annoy someone and prevent the vote we need
<keithp> danvet: the fd.o CoC covers any use of fd.o infra
<danvet> we need 2/3rds of all _members_ (not voters)
<danvet> so it's tough to change the bylaws
<danvet> keithp, yeah I'd just put a simple article in there with a) we enforce a coc b) who does that enforcement and ways to appeal c) board decides the details
<danvet> it's kinda in the bylaws already, but better to make it really clear for fd.o infra
<danvet> bryce, ha nv wants an invoice like everyone else ...
<bryce> danvet, heh
<danvet> game of telephone ftw
<danvet> hwentlan, if you have a patch/diff I expect it'll be much easier for everyone to come up with concrete suggestions for changes
<danvet> just need to start somewhere
<hwentlan> for sure
<robclark> hwentlan, if in doubt.. patches to board list and we can discuss.. like any other code base ;-)
<bryce> danvet, resent invoice directions to them.
<hwentlan> will do, hopefully within a few days. i agree it's easier to argue with a concrete patch, just haven't gotten the time yet :)
<bryce> danvet, maybe worth if you re-send a copy of your original sponsorship request to Matthew, in case that helps
<robclark> fair.. don't worry about first draft being perfect... but easier to have that as a basis to discuss ;-)
<danvet> bryce, I hope hardy will make sure stuff gets paid, he just couldn't figure out the technicalities
<danvet> big corp procurement seems to be a pain everywhere
<danvet> but yeah I'll help out if I need to
<danvet> hwentlan, anything more on fd.o?
<hwentlan> nothing more atm. i'll send the patch soon
<danvet> hwentlan, for the draft text pls make sure to cc: daniels and mithrandir since they're not on the board
<danvet> keithp, ^^ anyone else to cc?
<keithp> danvet: daniels
<keithp> oh, sorry, you've got them
<danvet> ok, evoc
<danvet> robclark, anything?
<hwentlan> what's mithrandir's email?
<robclark> ok.. one promising lead.. Veluri sent proposal to mesa-dev and should have cc'd board the other day
<danvet> tfheen@err.no 
<danvet> robclark, didn't see anything yet
<robclark> originally a driconf project, but in discussion about driconf support for wayland turned into a "we need an EGL extension for this" thing
<danvet> is that the outreachy follow-up we talked about?
<robclark> hmm, no
<robclark> was there an outreachy thing?  I missed that?
<danvet> hm, might be someone else I discussed that with ...
<robclark> on sec, I'll find the email
<danvet> not sure, but I think it was padovan?
<danvet> he's got an ex-outreachy who wants to do another one (but outreachy only allows 1)
<robclark> subject:"New EGL extension in mesa and 'adriconf' packaging - EVoC'18"
<danvet> or something like that
<danvet> robclark, ok found it now
<robclark> ok, I guess I am out of the loop on outreachy thing (but I guess someone should follow up on that)
<robclark> the EVoC thing started out as driconf project.. and he has a few patches merged upstream via github in adriconf
<danvet> I guess it was more an early inquiry
<robclark> later it turned into mesa egl extension (which touches mesa, where he does not have patch upstream yet)
<robclark> but seems like a useful thing to have
<danvet> yeah just scrolled through the gdoc proposal
<danvet> looks solid
<danvet> do we have a mentor?
<robclark> I guess open question is about git send-email patch upstream process.. since that is starting to look less useful
<robclark> yeah, I think nha or jean could do it
<danvet> could or willing to?
<danvet> once we have that it's imo good to go
<robclark> well, they have both been actively contributing to the proposal..
<robclark> but I guess we need to nail down who it will be
<danvet> we can also have 2 mentors alternating
<robclark> anyone ok w/ following up w/ vote for that (after nailing down details) on board@ list?
<danvet> sounds good to me
<robclark> (since it is getting a bit late already into summer)
<danvet> we can also vote here already assuming we get a mentor
<robclark> ok.. everyone please have look at proposal and comment if needed
<danvet> voting on board@ takes forever ime
<robclark> well, if it takes more than 2 wks then we vote at next mtg
<danvet> anholt, bryce hwentlan mupuf https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EHpLMx7BiZNZxf6MY4fAdmDIFpE5c1Rro9qhuJhag3c/edit#
<mupuf> danvet: already oin it
<danvet> robclark, btw did we ever get around to fixing the payement scale? same as gsoc?
<danvet> ah still fixed in 3 installments
<robclark> we didn't tackle that yet... I *guess* it woudl take a member vote (in which case we should take up at next election?)
<robclark> we defn should
<danvet> robclark, nah that's just board policies
<danvet> evoc isn't spelled out in the bylaws
<anholt> proposal looks good
<robclark> hmm, ok. then take up before next EVoC season
<mupuf> the wayland/EGL part is a death trap
<mupuf> Noty sure why adriconf needs to know the screen count
<robclark> mupuf, tbh, if we have EGL/x11 support for what driconf needs that would be good step in right direction
<robclark> mupuf, not all screens driven by same gpu
<danvet> robclark, personally I'm totally ok with what we have
<danvet> it's the same what outreachy does
<mupuf> robclark: oh dear....
<robclark> mupuf, yeah, laptops are horrible :-P
<mupuf> well, listing the gpus based on nodes and GBM is likely a better way than adding new protocols
<mupuf> or specs
<mupuf> driconf is anyway a mesa implementation detail
<danvet> not sure that works on EGL on wayland
<mupuf> danvet: applications are free to use anything with vulkan anyway
<danvet> and I'm just going to blindly trust the people who helped with the proposal on technical stuff :-)
<robclark> mupuf, I think we need a way to associate device w/ ctx.. maybe EGLDevice extension stuff gives us that?  idk?
<mupuf> and the compositor has no clue about that, so the concept is flawed and is X-specific anyway
<anholt> should the board be debating the technical details?  I think these questions should be the domain of the project.
<robclark> mupuf, but comments on proposal welcome ;-)
<danvet> and in the end most proposals don't survive contact with reality and patch review, but that really doesn't matter imo
<mupuf> anholt: agreed
<danvet> anholt, agreed
<mupuf> ok, I will comment on te proposal
<robclark> anholt, yeah, comments should be in reply to proposal ;-)
<mupuf> but let's not vote on it now, please
<danvet> as long as it looks like a good starting point to explore in an internship it's good enough
<danvet> mupuf, hm why?
<mupuf> hmm... 
<danvet> mupuf, I've done 2 outreachy this year now
<danvet> none worked out as plan
<danvet> both went well
<mupuf> well, in a sense, it still is a well-researched proposal, so in this sense, he/she seems good!
<danvet> heck, _my_ plans for patches tend to not work out as planned :-)
<mupuf> ha ha, of course
<robclark> mupuf, I guess I need to nail down who would be mentor and few details anyways before vote (which is why I propsed vote on @board list).. but I think even if implementation details change the proposal is good (imho)
<mupuf> well, I like the attitude
<danvet> robclark, voting on board@ takes a few months ime
<danvet> either now or next mtg
<danvet> and we're 3' over
<mupuf>  I can vote: +1
<danvet> +1
<bryce> sorry, I got to skedaddle.  I think I got all the current treasurer tasks finished during the meeting.  Email me if there's anything else.
<robclark> well, I'd be ok w/ provisional vote now (pending narroing down who is mentor.. which I assume we can sort)
<robclark> otherwise @board or next mtg
<danvet> yes provisional on finding a mentor ofc
* danvet doesn't want to change the minutes
<robclark> but for provisional tbd mentor I'm +1
<danvet> anholt, keithp hwentlan ?
<robclark> (and either way, please follow up w/ comments on implementation detail on list)
<keithp> yeah, I don't have a solid opinion at this point
<anholt> +1
<hwentlan> i'm not well versed on the technical side of this, but it looks like it's well researched and he seems willing and eager to work with the community... so no objections if we can find a mentor
<hwentlan> +1
<danvet> ok carries
<danvet> 5', apologies for taking a bit longer and thx for everyone hanging out
* danvet now fixing up the mess the early exit of the script made
<robclark> I'll follow up w/ potential mentors and sorting out logistics via email and report to board@
<danvet> bryce, thx a lot

[23:16:59] [disconnected at Thu Jul 5 23:16:59 2018]