[14:06:44] [connected at Thu Apr 11 14:06:44 2019]
[14:06:55] [I have joined #xf-bod]
[14:07:01] <bryce_> there we go
[14:07:03] <hwentlan> thanks
[14:07:13] <keithp> here
[14:07:35] <bryce_> robclark, Riastradh, daniels, anholt meeting time :-)
[14:07:39] <bryce_> heya keithp 
[14:07:59] <mupuf> So, guys, I have a good and a bad news
[14:08:06] <anholt> I'm here
[14:08:06] <tlwoerner> bryce_: technically daniels doesn't have to attend (?)
[14:08:14] <anholt> here now
[14:09:00] <bryce_> mupuf, ok fill us in while I dig up the agenda
[14:09:17] <mupuf> So, I looked at the results from the ballot
[14:09:43] <mupuf> we got the quorum for the change the bylaw changes
[14:10:03] <mupuf> and it got accepted 53 yes, 1 abstain and 2 no IIRC
[14:10:35] <mupuf> oops, 1 no and 2 abstain
[14:10:41] <mupuf> So, that was the good news
[14:11:25] <keithp> that does seem like good news...
[14:11:43] <mupuf> but the bad news is that the vote for candidates was botched
[14:11:59] <mupuf> the score is only dependant on the position of the list
[14:12:09] <mupuf> and sure-enough, I found the bug...
[14:12:14] <tlwoerner> do you have the raw data?
[14:12:23] <mupuf> and it escaped the unit testing, and it escaped the manual testing
[14:12:27] <keithp> wow
[14:12:29] <mupuf> what does it say about us...
[14:12:41] <mupuf> tlwoerner: that is the raw data...
[14:13:05] <bryce_> Agenda: elections, gsoc, treasurer report, xdc sponsors, (extended) travel policy
[14:13:26] <mupuf> when querying the list of answers from their ids, I did not maintain the order provided by the user, we instead get the order from the DB
[14:13:31] <hwentlan> that sounds like we'll have to re-run the election
[14:13:43] * mupuf is so ashamed :s
[14:14:15] <keithp> presumably the data is not available anywhere else?
[14:14:17] <mupuf> the patch is super short, and I am also improving the test to verify any sort of combination
[14:14:28] <mupuf> keithp: the data is lost for sure
[14:14:48] <keithp> ok
[14:15:16] <keithp> thanks for figuring it out
[14:15:27] <mupuf> well... that's the least I could do...
[14:15:33] <mupuf> but yeah, sucks for everyone
[14:16:09] <mupuf> the worst part is that multiple tested this :o and I completely missed this part
[14:16:13] <keithp> oh well, no real harm done
[14:16:17] <bryce_> hum, that does suck.  What should the plan be?
[14:16:19] * tlwoerner feels bad for mupuf
[14:16:23] <hwentlan> do we have any requirements on how much time we need to announce another election?
[14:16:35] <keithp> poor mupuf
[14:16:52] <mupuf> hwentlan: I am sure that an election that yielded no result is not a valid election anyway
[14:17:00] <hwentlan> agreed
[14:17:11] <keithp> I'm pretty sure our bylaws didn't anticipate this failure mode :-)
[14:17:12] <hwentlan> just curious on what our next steps should be
[14:17:14] <mupuf> no need to feel too bad for me: lessons learnt!
[14:17:38] <tlwoerner> but can we keep the results of the bylaw change?
[14:17:41] <mupuf> it's just so bad that this thing slipped through our fingers, despite our best intentions
[14:17:43] <keithp> presumably run another election
[14:17:53] <mupuf> tlwoerner: yes, we can keep the bylaws change
[14:17:59] <keithp> tlwoerner: if those results are correct, the only thing we need to do is run a board election
[14:18:24] <hwentlan> i'd propose we'd acceot the bylaw results and do another ballot for the board election
[14:18:36] <hwentlan> the question is whether to start it now or a week from now
[14:18:42] <bryce_> sounds good to me too
[14:18:47] <hwentlan> it should presumably run for another two weeks start-to-end
[14:19:09] <anholt> start right away once the fix is deployed, imo.
[14:19:23] <keithp> I'd say start in a week to give people time to realize that there's an election happening?
[14:19:31] <keithp> although, two weeks for voting...
[14:19:44] <bryce_> is it worth doing some live beta test?
[14:20:06] <keithp> mupuf: at least I'll get to vote this time? Something happened to my account and I was not able to sort it out in time...
[14:20:15] <hwentlan> maybe create a mock ballot for a couple days to let members play with it
[14:20:20] <keithp> bryce_: oh, that seems reasonable
[14:20:30] <hwentlan> and if that looks good then start the next election a week from today
[14:20:49] <mupuf> bryce_: YES!
[14:21:03] <keithp> run a fake ballot asking for people's favorite pastry
[14:21:04] <hwentlan> that way we can say "look we screwed up and this is what we do to assure you we've fixed it"
[14:21:13] <keithp> or cheese?
[14:21:21] <hwentlan> and mistakes happen... i guess unit tests aren't always failsafe
[14:21:23] <mupuf> +1 for the pastry
[14:21:38] <mupuf> hwentlan: especially when written by the same developer 
[14:21:53] * keithp experiences strong deja vu
[14:21:54] <mupuf> to be fair, I am scratchign my head as to how to make the test code be reasonable-looking
[14:21:55] <hwentlan> i'm good with pastry
[14:22:21] <mupuf> well, there is a french saying: never 2 without 3
[14:22:41] <keithp> ok, so something that looks like a board election (ask for n of m), but about pastry then
[14:22:51] <bryce_> +1
[14:22:52] <mupuf> yes
[14:23:39] <hwentlan> 6 pastries ideally, to keep it same as the number of board candidates
[14:24:03] <mupuf> oh, no worries, I will not struggle to find a good list of pastries
[14:24:09] * mupuf is a sucker for them
[14:24:19] <hwentlan> how long? run this until monday or tuesday maybe? then we can post the results of the fake election and declare that the 2nd run of the real one is a go
[14:24:26] <bryce_> meanwhile, who will announce the bylaw change?
[14:25:11] <bryce_> ok, guess it can be a task for danvet :-)
[14:25:23] <hwentlan> should i send that out as head of the election committee?
[14:25:57] <hwentlan> i figured i'd send one email with the results, that also outlines the fake election and the next election run
[14:25:58] <keithp> hwentlan: head of board election committee, I think
[14:25:59] <bryce_> hwentlan, perhaps trade emails with danvet to coordinate?
[14:26:13] <mupuf> bryce_: I think we need to announce the results when the new vote comes in. We should show the data the DB gives us, and say: look this makes no sense and this is a bug fixed by this commit <url>. A new mock election is under way with the fix deployed, let's vote on it and if the results look good, we'll start the new round on wednesday
[14:26:51] * mupuf will finish the fix now and get it deployed, setup the pastry thing and then we can move forward
[14:26:52] <anholt> mupuf: I like clearly documenting the failure like that.
[14:27:06] <hwentlan> so no calling out the bylaw results yet?
[14:27:07] <bryce_> mupuf, yes that does sound good
[14:27:07] <mupuf> let's at least put a positive spin on this
[14:27:23] <mupuf> hwentlan: yes, let's give the bylaw results
[14:27:37] * tlwoerner goes in search of french pastries...
[14:27:40] <mupuf> and just make a joke out of the results from the election
[14:27:53] <hwentlan> sounds good
[14:28:10] * hwentlan is looking for suggestions on jokes as those are not my forte
[14:28:20] <mupuf> as in, here are the results of the ranking... and if they look wrong to you, that's because they are!
[14:28:26] <mupuf> or something like this
[14:28:30] <keithp> mupuf: I'd not report anything like that
[14:28:44] <keithp> just 'the election software was broken and we don't have any results'
[14:28:59] <mupuf> keithp: yeah, I can see the appeal of that.
[14:29:03] <tlwoerner> thankfully the bug was noticed
[14:29:03] <bryce_> this is what I've drafted for the minutes, corrections welcomed:
[14:29:13] <bryce_> ITEM: elections
[14:29:13] <bryce_> The ballot for the bylaws changes passed with quorum, with results
[14:29:13] <bryce_> 53 yes/2 abstain/1 no.    
[14:29:13] <bryce_> The candidate votes failed to be recorded correctly by the election
[14:29:13] <bryce_> software, resulting in an invalid election.  A fix for the flaw   is
[14:29:13] <bryce_> implemented; we   will run a live beta test to be sure, then arrange to
[14:29:14] <bryce_> re-run the election in a few weeks.
[14:29:32] <mupuf> tlwoerner: yeah, it was pretty obvious
[14:30:28] <hwentlan> mupuf are you setting up the trial election?
[14:30:37] <mupuf> hwentlan: I will, when I am done with the fix and deployment
[14:30:38] <tlwoerner> bryce_: looks good
[14:30:53] <hwentlan> sounds good. let me know and i can announce it
[14:30:58] <mupuf> and I will make sure it works at least with one vote first (mine) then we can ask for more people
[14:31:07] <mupuf> I will do it before bed
[14:31:15] <bryce_> ACTIONS: hwentlan to announce results of the bylaws ballot.
[14:31:15] <bryce_> ACTIONS: mupuf to deply   fix and run a test (mock) election to verify fix.
[14:31:18] <mupuf> I am just improving the test now
[14:31:20] <bryce_> any other actions to track?
[14:31:27] <mupuf> sounds good
[14:32:17] <hwentlan> that's basically it. with the results of the bylaws ballot i'll also announce the mock election and the 2nd run of the real one
[14:32:45] <bryce_> ACTIONS: hwentlan to announce invalid candidate election, and plan going forward.
[14:32:54] <bryce_> ok great.
[14:32:58] <bryce_> anything else on elections?
[14:33:11] <hwentlan> i think that's it
[14:33:24] <bryce_> ok thanks.  Moving on:
[14:33:27] <bryce_> === gsoc ===
[14:33:37] <tlwoerner> the student application period closed on the 9th
[14:33:54] <tlwoerner> there are 3 proposals: 1 for freedreno 2 for wayland
[14:34:23] <tlwoerner> the freedreeno one looks strong, the person who proposed it worked with us early on to dot all the i's and cross all the t's
[14:34:33] * mupuf has failed to find any time to show the wayland proposals to Simon Ser, will do tomorrow
[14:34:41] <tlwoerner> the other two showed up a little bit by surprise
[14:34:52] <tlwoerner> mupuf: no prob
[14:35:27] <tlwoerner> both of the wayland ones were discussed on the wayland mailing list, but nobody coordinated with us
[14:35:40] <tlwoerner> therefore they didn't find/confirm mentors
[14:35:58] <tlwoerner> 1 of the proposals looks strong (if we can find a mentor)
[14:36:28] <tlwoerner> the other looks weaker because it appears to be work that is already mostly done by other projects
[14:36:51] <tlwoerner> we have until april 22 to decide, that's when we have to ask google for how many slots we want
[14:37:24] * tlwoerner would like to thank daniels and mupuf for providing feedback already
[14:37:57] * tlwoerner would like to thank robclark for helping so much with the freedreno proposal
[14:38:04] <tlwoerner> that's it for now
[14:38:06] <bryce_> thanks tlwoerner.
[14:38:37] <bryce_> is any bod help needed for making the decisions, or is that going to be up to the mentors?
[14:38:53] <bryce_> ...or something you can decide yourself
[14:39:22] <tlwoerner> i'm in no position to decide, i can't weigh the merit of the proposal for wayland
[14:39:30] <tlwoerner> (proposals)
[14:39:54] <tlwoerner> but mupuf is going to reach out to Simon
[14:40:11] <tlwoerner> plus, there was a person who provided a lot of feedback on the mailing list who i'm going to reach out to
[14:40:16] <mupuf> bryce_: mentors will be the judges
[14:40:29] <mupuf> the gsoc organisators should just be facilitators
[14:40:37] <tlwoerner> Pekka
[14:40:39] <bryce_> ok, well sounds like could just request 3 slots, and see what we're given.
[14:41:13] <mupuf> tlwoerner: when is the deadline for us to request the slots?
[14:41:18] <tlwoerner> april 22
[14:41:23] <bryce_> tlwoerner, yeah he's the lead maintainer on wayland
[14:41:40] <tlwoerner> an unused slot is wasted
[14:41:54] <tlwoerner> it can't be re-assigned to another org if we decided we can't use it
[14:42:12] <mupuf> exactly, it used to be that it was coming back in a pool, but not anymore, so we better not get more than we need
[14:42:22] <bryce_> oh okay.  used to be able to do that
[14:42:33] <keithp> sounds like we need to sort out potential mentors before apr 22 then
[14:42:40] <tlwoerner> https://developers.google.com/open-source/gsoc/help/slot-allocation#what_happens_if_we_received_more_slots_than_we_can_use
[14:42:42] <mupuf> keithp: yep, doesn't sound too bad
[14:42:44] <bryce_> yeah, sounds like that is the action here
[14:42:46] <keithp> if we don't have people interested in mentoring, we shouldn't ask for those slots
[14:42:53] <mupuf> +1
[14:42:55] <tlwoerner> keithp: yes agreed
[14:43:16] <bryce_> tlwoerner, you will handle figuring out the # and getting it in by apr 22?
[14:43:25] <tlwoerner> bryce_: yes
[14:43:40] <bryce_> great
[14:43:48] <bryce_> ok, anything else on gsoc?  else next topic
[14:44:07] <bryce_> === Treasurer Report ===
[14:44:15] <bryce_> anholt, how are things coming along?
[14:44:36] <bryce_> I took a look at the report script changes, looks good.
[14:44:44] <anholt> went through the email archives last week, found that you just weren't getting the information that I'm now getting as treasurer.  Oh well!
[14:45:01] <bryce_> yep
[14:45:12] <bryce_> well that's great to hear you're getting info
[14:45:51] <anholt> so now it's time to just propagate what little info we have from spi in, try to match up sponsors to the spi summaries, and then generate our own summary.
[14:46:28] <anholt> in good news, spi's treasurer stuff is now sorted out and they're producing monthly summaries.
[14:46:34] <bryce_> finally!
[14:46:40] <anholt> so hopefully once I catch up we won't fall behind again
[14:47:13] <bryce_> yeah they had been doing those summaries when we first joined, although they were delayed
[14:48:08] <bryce_> be aware that they have revised their past summaries once before.  Reconciling that was a bit of a pain.  Keep good notes in ledger.
[14:48:38] <anholt> yeah, I'm doing that as I sort out rewrites.
[14:48:47] <bryce_> anholt, I'm around if you ever have questions on something.  But yeah, info to me from SPI the last year has been extremely slim
[14:49:34] <bryce_> ok, if nothing else, moving to next topic
[14:49:42] <anholt> that's it for me
[14:49:47] <bryce_> === xdc sponsors ===
[14:50:16] <bryce_> danvet is working on this, so guess we should skip for this meeting
[14:50:36] <bryce_> === extended travel policy ===
[14:51:08] <bryce_> From last time's meeting:  "Plan to announce that change with big fanfares once xdc19 sponsor situation is
[14:51:08] <bryce_> clear (to gauge whether xdc18 was an outlier or not, and how much money is
[14:51:08] <bryce_> really available). Also concerns about publishing beneficiries. Plus time ran
[14:51:08] <bryce_> out, will continue discussion next meeting.
[14:51:08] <bryce_> "
[14:51:31] <bryce_> so, sounds like this is blocked on the resolution of the previous topic, and just carries for now.
[14:51:43] <bryce_> === Other Business ===
[14:52:04] <tlwoerner> danvet asked me to reach out to previous gsoc/evoc/outreachy people
[14:52:09] <tlwoerner> to invite them to xdc2019
[14:52:11] <bryce_> ah right
[14:52:14] <tlwoerner> does anyone have a list?
[14:52:35] <bryce_> tlwoerner, have you looked in the archives repo?
[14:52:57] * tlwoerner was hoping to avoid a dive into that black hole
[14:53:00] <bryce_> should be able to extract the names and/or contact info from that.  I know we tracked it in ledger for at least the past couple years
[14:53:10] <bryce_> heh
[14:53:34] <tlwoerner> mupuf: would you have a list?
[14:53:57] <tlwoerner> who worked on the outreachy stuff?
[14:56:37] <tlwoerner> in any case, i guess the idea is that there's funding for this project?
[14:56:59] <mupuf> tlwoerner: I can find the one for GSoC 2018
[14:57:01] <mupuf> but that's it
[14:57:18] * mupuf will finish with the members website first though
[14:57:46] <tlwoerner> mupuf: the 2018 gsoc list would be great! thanks
[14:58:08] <bryce_> ls archives/Finances/Mentorships/
[14:58:08] <bryce_> evoc.2012/  evoc.2015/  gsoc.2013/  gsoc.2015/  gsoc.docs/
[14:58:08] <bryce_> evoc.2014/  gsoc.2011/  gsoc.2014/  gsoc.2016/
[14:58:31] <bryce_> that's probably what you're looking for
[14:59:05] <hwentlan> i got to run unless i'm still needed here
[14:59:20] <bryce_> I think we're done
[14:59:23] <tlwoerner> bryce_: excellent!
[14:59:38] <bryce_> last call for opens or other new business...
[14:59:55] <hwentlan> thanks everyone
[15:00:13] <bryce_> ...alright, thanks all, meeting adjourned.
[15:00:13] <tlwoerner> bye!
[15:00:19] <bryce_> == End of Meeting ==

[15:00:47] [disconnected at Thu Apr 11 15:00:47 2019]