diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | 2023/20230817.log.txt | 666 |
1 files changed, 666 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2023/20230817.log.txt b/2023/20230817.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d17b943 --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/20230817.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,666 @@ +<@robbat2> ulm, antarus, prometheanfire, soap, antarus, dabbott, robbat2: + meeting time [21:01] +* ulm here +* soap here +<antarus> here +<@robbat2> antarus: I forecast FY2024 depreciation as ~$10k, assuming no + capital purchases +<antarus> (they were done for the fiscal, and we paid no taxes this fiscal) + [21:02] +<@robbat2> somewhere I saw how to calculate efficiecny taking into account + depreciation +<@robbat2> but i'll have to dig it out +<antarus> I wrote the letter, but not an agenda [21:03] +<@robbat2> did we have a general template for the old meetings somewhere? +<antarus> Let me see if I have the one from last year +<@robbat2> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2022/09 +*** alexxy (~alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy) has quit: Quit: No Ping reply in + 180 seconds. [21:04] +<@robbat2> rollcall: present ulm, soap, antarus, robbat2 +<@robbat2> absent: prometheanfire, dabbott, anarchy +<@ulm> do we have a quorum of members? +*** alexxy (~alexxy@gentoo/developer/alexxy) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees [21:05] +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +v alexxy +<antarus> do we need one? [21:06] +<@robbat2> formally, the AGM is a meeting of members, not of trustees, and it + supposed to have a qourum of members, unless waived +<+dilfridge> Section 3.9. Member Quorum [21:07] +<+dilfridge> Except as otherwise required by law, by the Certificate of + Incorporation or by these Bylaws, one-third (1/3) of the members + entitled to vote, represented in person, shall constitute a + quorum at a meeting of members. +<@robbat2> however, we have *never* had a sufficent qourum present for an AGM, + in the history of the foundation +<@robbat2> there are 78 members currently on the books, so we'd need 26 + present [21:08] +<+sam_> when was the last time membership was pruned? [21:09] +<@robbat2> that's something I want to discuss here +<@robbat2> after the old business parts +<+sam_> ack +<antarus> we pruned it in June [21:10] +<antarus> but our pruning criteria isn't super effective +<@robbat2> that was pre-election +<@robbat2> anyway, by rough count, I think we have 22 members present +<@robbat2> very fast hacky code +<@ulm> "present" = in the channel? +<@robbat2> yes, as in the channel +<@robbat2> which kind of sucks in other ways +<@robbat2> which is why... [21:11] +<@ulm> that doesn't really mean they're actually present +<antarus> I mean I doubt it would count, even if we had the numbers +<antarus> so I'm not sure why we care +<@ulm> anyway, no quorum +<@robbat2> motion: agm to proceed without member quorum, to pass by qourum of + old & new trustees +<antarus> aye +<@robbat2> aye +<@soap> aye +<@ulm> yes [21:12] +<@ulm> actually, who are old and new trustees? +<@ulm> also, when and how have they been appointed? +<@robbat2> (absents: anarchy, prometheanfire) +<@robbat2> old: antarus, anarchy, prometheanfire, robbat2, soap [21:13] +<@ulm> sorry to ask this, but the information is sort of hard to come by +<@robbat2> (the formatting is terrible) +<@robbat2> new: ulm, robbat2, prometheanfire, soap, (vacant) +<@robbat2> [anarchy should have been up for re-election per terms, but we + didn't get a candidate] [21:14] +<@ulm> ok, so robbat2 and ulm have been elected this year +<@ulm> prometheanfire and soap in 2022 then? +<@ulm> or appointed w/o election? +<@robbat2> for the motion purposes: unique set: antarus, antarus, + prometheanfire, robbat2, soap, ulm (6); 4 ayes, 2 absent => + majority pass +<antarus> I believe in 2022 (assuming you mean gregorian calendar) they were + appointed [21:15] +<@ulm> antarus and anarchy in 2021, so their term ends now? [21:16] +<antarus> correct +<@ulm> thanks +<@robbat2> double-checking all the above is good, and should probably happen + out of band [21:17] +<@robbat2> paperwork steps for the meeting: +<@robbat2> 1. who's doing the formal logging? +<@ulm> robbat2: there's twice antarus in your list above +<@robbat2> good catch, one was supposed to be anarchy +<@robbat2> since he's not in the channel my autocomplete failed [21:18] +<@robbat2> paperwork 2: who's recording the minutes/motions +<@robbat2> i'll take the minutes task, and nominate ulm, so we can make sure + his access to commit them works ;-) +<@robbat2> *nominate ulm for the logging +<@ulm> logging like in irc log? [21:19] +<@robbat2> yes, uploaded to the right place +<@ulm> sure +<antarus> good cause I haven't tried commiting since I retire and my gpg key + won't sign stuff cause it expired ;p +<@robbat2> the previously posted agenda items from the email, as old business: +<@robbat2> president's report +<@robbat2> treasurer report +<@robbat2> appointment of officers [21:20] +<@robbat2> after that will be recurring task review & new business +<@robbat2> anybody need amendments to that agenda, or shall we turn it over to + antarus for the presidents report? [21:21] +<antarus> no [21:22] +<@robbat2> (i'm making a meeting page in the meantime) [21:23] +<@robbat2> antarus: the president's report please? +<antarus> + https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTmOGiQMHOSzfU-jALMAFyARnv252R2SdXUekHUPdZ21njwzVJm58K5mnYM_vhiphZM6rx_dvVV_m1n/pub +<antarus> I tried to keep it brief, finances are in good shape, we continue to + accrue cash. No particular problems in terms of operations from the + money-side. [21:24] +<antarus> Nitrokey contacted us in May regarding a new contact for the + nitrokey 3 [21:25] +<antarus> we have not yet responded +<antarus> (but it seems they are open to some kind of renewal in that + relationship.) +* dilfridge suggests that given the company's history no contract is signed + until the nitrokeys are actually deliverable +<+arthurzam> I also read that they aren't using the final firmware on those + keys currently being delivered, so various promised capabilities + weren't brought, and future upgrade would require somehow writing + the new firmware [21:27] +<antarus> I do not plan on being on the board anymore and I retired from + Gentoo in August of this year; I wish you teh best of luck in + finding a fiscal sponsor. +<antarus> Any questions about the report (brief as it is) +<+sam_> that doesn't agree iirc with what robbat2 said a week or two ago + [21:28] +<antarus> what doesn't? +<@robbat2> paperwork question: please submit a PDF/HTML version we can include + in the archives, because I don't trust docs.google.com to exist + forever +<antarus> I don't really intend to discuss the nitrokey contact at this exact + moment +<antarus> I will email it to nfp later as pdf +<antarus> I think? +<antarus> I 'm not sub' anymore +<antarus> I'll email it to trustees@ +<@robbat2> sam_: can you please clarify which part doesn't agree? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:40:29+0100] <@robbat2> and I propose to appoint antarus + back to the board as one of the existing bank signatories, because + we'll need all of them in the process of closing down accounts + [21:29] +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:42:10+0100] <+ulm> robbat2: that would require him not + to retire? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:42:24+0100] <+ulm> according to section 5.2 of the + bylaws? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:59:06+0100] <+ulm> robbat2: I have asked this before, + is there a date and time for the AGM already? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T19:59:23+0100] <+ulm> and if not, should we fix them? +<+sam_> [2023-07-31T22:47:52+0100] <@robbat2> we have not set an AGM datetime + yet +<+sam_> is that abandoned now? +<antarus> I'm happy to table the nitrokey discussion until later +<antarus> the intent isnt' to have at this point in the meeting. +<@ulm> +1 I suggest that we figure out nitrokey later, not during this meeting +<@robbat2> sam_: that's going to be covered in apointment of officers [21:30] +<+sam_> right, okay, antarus brought it up now which is why I say +<+sam_> happy to talk about it later though +<antarus> +1 [21:31] +<@robbat2> i have no questions about the substance of the president's report; + i have some remarks relevant to it that i'll cover as my treasurer + report shortly +<antarus> I agree it doesn't match, it doesn' +<antarus> doesn't need to, we can work on the disagreement at the appointment + time. +<@robbat2> ulm, soap: if you have no questions, we can motion to accept the + report [21:32] +<@ulm> no questions to the president's report +<@soap> no questions +<@robbat2> motion: accept the president's report as written +<@robbat2> aye +<@soap> yes +<antarus> aye [21:33] +<@ulm> yes +<@robbat2> motion passes: 4 aye, 2 absent +<@robbat2> treasurer's report: + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2023 + [21:34] +<@robbat2> i have some additional remarks that didn't fit there [21:35] +<@ulm> what's the meaning of the various programs in section 1.5? +<@ulm> i.e. Foundation / Infra / NONE? +<@robbat2> "Program" in this context refers to a specific section of the + business in the IRS classification stuff [21:36] +<@robbat2> it can be a organization division, and/or a project/initiative + division +<@robbat2> e.g. in a much larger non-profit, a major fundraising program to + buy real estate could be a project [21:37] +<@robbat2> there should be at least programs in any non-profit: the operating + tasks of the non-profit itself (Foundation in this case), and the + "business" of the non-profit +<@robbat2> in Gentoo's case, the "business" of the non-profit is things to + support our open source mission, so mostly Infra costs to run the + distro [21:39] +<@robbat2> ulm: that answer it well enough? I should give you a tour of the + finances repo that will help cover some more of that [21:40] +<+dilfridge> ok so for us non-cpa's, may I try to summarize the tables and you + tell me/us whether I see it correct? +<@ulm> thanks, that answers it +<@robbat2> *at least 2 progams in any non-profit +<@robbat2> dilfridge: yes please +<+dilfridge> "Statement of Financial Position" paragraph +<@ulm> it's actually not much different from the system for a e.v. in Germany +<@robbat2> (i'm not a CPA at all, the last accounting *course* I took was in + high school) [21:41] +<+dilfridge> left table (the large one), "Assets" is the sum over everything + we "have" (either bought hardware or cash) +<+dilfridge> minus the depreciation +<@robbat2> left table: assets & contra-assets [Accumulated-Depreciation] + [21:42] +<+dilfridge> this is a "current state", the depreciation is accumulated over + the past years, so purchase price - depreciation = rest value +<+dilfridge> right table: apparently sums up expenses and income over several + years, and then ends up with the current state described left +<@robbat2> right table is liabilities & equity [21:43] +<@robbat2> we have no liabilities (which is fantastic) +<+dilfridge> (unclear is, which time range) +<+dilfridge> the next part is "Statement of Activities" paragraph [21:44] +<+dilfridge> this is fairly easy (to me) and describes income and expenses in + the current financial year +<@robbat2> retained earnings in a corporation would be the value that has NOT + been taken out of the business (dividends to shareholders, + repayments to investors etc) +<@robbat2> correct on statement of activities [21:45] +<antarus> I thought we signed a contact with BCL libraries co-op, did we never + execute it? (in terms of "we have no liabilities") +<@robbat2> antarus: i'll cover that later +<antarus> k +<@robbat2> dilfridge: continue [21:46] +<+dilfridge> then, "statement of functional expenses" +<+dilfridge> this is splitting up the expenses of the previous paragraph into + subfields +<@robbat2> breakdown of all expenses, by the IRS perscribed program system +<antarus> I wish the mail expenses separated email and check-cashing services; + but I probably don't care enough to fix it ;p [21:47] +<antarus> er s/email/mail/ +<+dilfridge> (foundation running costs, infra running costs, asset + depreciation) +<@robbat2> Statement of Cash Flows would be a similar breakdown of Income, + it's not implemented in my financial statement report generator +<+dilfridge> last is "Capital Assets", which is essentially an inventory +<@robbat2> we have no investing or financing activities at this time (or ever + to my knowledge), so it would be identical to the income above + [21:48] +<+dilfridge> not very readable but that doesnt really matter as long as + someone knows what the numbers mean :o) +<@robbat2> yes, inventory of what we own; needs some detailed auditing, esp of + the stuff purchased for developers +<@ulm> after what time are computers fully depreciated to a book value of 0$? + [21:49] +<+dilfridge> that's it from me +<@robbat2> if you look at a previous year, the change-of-position section for + capital assets gives you a detailed description: + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_Foundation_Finances_FY2022#Change_of_Position +<+dilfridge> Assets:Capital:Computers:* 00.12 5 +<@robbat2> ulm: 5 years for computers, per IRS MACRS rules +<+dilfridge> I guess that ^ means 5 years? [21:50] +<@robbat2> correct +<@robbat2> ulm, soap, antarus: any further questions about the treasurer's + reports? [21:52] +<@soap> nope +<@ulm> no +<antarus> no +<@robbat2> prior to the motion; i'd like to note this report is pending + approval by the tax accountant, per the comments at the top. + [21:53] +<@robbat2> that does not constitute CPA review, just approval for correctness + for tax filing purposes +<@robbat2> motion: approve the FY2023 treasurer report [21:54] +<@robbat2> abstain (because I wrote the treasurer report) [21:55] +<@ulm> yes +<antarus> yes +<@soap> yes +<@robbat2> outcome: passes, 3 aye, 1 abstain, 2 absent +<@robbat2> additional remarks for FY2024: [21:56] +<@robbat2> I know that we would *like* to wind up the foundation into a fiscal + umbrella +<@robbat2> to make that easier, we need to ensure that we don't have tax owing + for FY2024 [21:57] +<@robbat2> for that, our expenses must balance or exceed the income +<@robbat2> fortunately that includes the contra-asset expense of depreciation + [21:58] +<@robbat2> based on present assets, my forecast is that FY2024 depreciation + will be approximately $10k +<+dilfridge> so, the depreciation will be lower +<+dilfridge> yes +<@robbat2> and our income is likely to be $16k again +<@robbat2> so we have to make additional capital purchases of at least $6k +<antarus> we could also just remove the donation button ;) [21:59] +<+dilfridge> cough +<+dilfridge> let's replace some athlons ;) +<antarus> We had discussed in the past giving money to someone else (like the + OSUOSL) +<antarus> although I'm not sure they have as easy of a donation method for our + donors to use [22:00] +<+dilfridge> that's something we could do at last resort [22:01] +<@robbat2> yes, donating to another 501c3 non-profit is an option, but need to + balance it carefully due to the tax credits +<antarus> anyway, just a remark +<antarus> don't need to sort it here. +<@ulm> could we spend some money for bug bounties? [22:02] +<@ulm> e.g. fix the e-mail archives? :) [22:03] +<+dilfridge> YES PLEASE +<@robbat2> yes, subject to working out the details for it +<@robbat2> (buying stuff is easier than paying people) [22:04] +<@robbat2> anything else, or we'll move on the discussion of the officers and + open seat +<antarus> nope [22:05] +<@robbat2> ok, officers: [22:07] +<@robbat2> + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Bylaws#Section_5.2._Qualification +<@robbat2> At the minimum, we *MUST* have President, Secretary, Treasurer; The + President & Secretary MUST NOT be the same person +<@ulm> these need not be board members, correct? [22:08] +<@robbat2> In addition to those roles we MAY have: Chair, Vice-Chair, + Vice-President, Assistant Secretary, Assistant Treasure + [22:09] +<@robbat2> Only the Chair & Vice-Chair MUST be board members +<@robbat2> e.g. Antarus can continue to be the president, even without being a + trustee or foundation member [22:10] +<+dilfridge> (assuming he isn't retired as developer) +<+sam_> are you proposing that or giving it as an example? +<@robbat2> that's as an example. The bylaws also don't require officers even + be a developer [22:11] +<@ulm> dilfridge: IIUC officers need not be devs +<@robbat2> ulm: as a civil servant, can you summarize restrictions that + prevent you from holding any officer roles? +<@ulm> I'd have to apply for that role again with my employer [22:12] +<@ulm> but I'd decline anyway, for lack of time, and also possible conflict of + interest, because I'm president of Gentoo e.V. [22:13] +<@robbat2> thanks [22:14] +<@robbat2> also of relevance: we have the two distinct sets of bank accounts, + with different signatories +<@robbat2> set 1 has prometheanfire & antarus as signatory +<@robbat2> set 2 has only dabbott left (further back tsunam & fmccor were also + on it) [22:15] +<@ulm> president and treasurer could be the same person? +<@robbat2> in practice, the bank accounts basically require US citizens as + signatories +<@robbat2> yes, president and treasurer could be the same person +<antarus> I'm not entirely sure set 1 even has me on it +<antarus> (but it could) [22:16] +<@robbat2> we need at least one of Secretary & President to be US citizens, + for some paperwork signing purposes +<@robbat2> to make the officer allocation easier: we need to fill the open + trustee seat [22:17] +<@robbat2> antarus: would you accept any appointment of the trustee seat, or + an officer role, or do you intend to exit as much as possible? + [22:19] +<antarus> I would decline even if appointed +<antarus> (sorry) +<+dilfridge> I have the same limitation as ulm (for any official role I have + to ask permission from my employer / the state of Bavaria) + [22:20] +<antarus> appoint mattst88 ;) +<+dilfridge> definitely not interested in becoming treasurer (robbat2 is doing + that just great) [22:21] +<@robbat2> yes, I intend to continue as treasurer unless anybody wants to oust + me ;-) [22:22] +<antarus> (I need to get lunch soon, so I may need a 20m break to fetch it) +<@robbat2> antarus: i have one specific request for you, since you're going to + decline the appointments [22:23] +<@robbat2> can you verify if you are still a signatory, and if you are, remain + until such time we have have 2 other US citizens as signatories, or + the accounts are closed? +<antarus> I will do the first part at least [22:26] +<@robbat2> thank you [22:28] +<antarus> the answer appears to be no; I think last time I did this we got + paper statements in teh mail I used to construct the financials + (interest payments, etc.) +<@robbat2> soap: are you subject to any restrictions about holding an officer + role? [22:29] +<@soap> no +<@soap> or I dont think so +<antarus> => lunch, back in 20 +<@soap> that said, I'm not keen on it either [22:30] +<@robbat2> prometheanfire isn't here, so I can't badger him into taking a role +<+dilfridge> (that's the point :o) +<@robbat2> since we need a US citizen to sign paperwork, he's the only + remaining choice other than the open seat +<+dilfridge> we could ask maffblaster for secretary [22:31] +<@soap> robbat2: oh, but I couldnt do it anyhow +<@soap> I'm not a US citizen? +<@robbat2> we need at least 1 of president/secretary to be US +<@robbat2> doesn't need to be both +<@ulm> robbat2: could you take on both president and treasurer roles? plus a + US citizen as secretary? +<@robbat2> yes, I could do that [22:32] +<@ulm> so how does this work? are we to nominate and vote for each position + separately? [22:34] +<@ulm> or find all officers first, then vote on all at once? [22:35] +<@robbat2> anything that fills the roles +<@robbat2> historical logs show both processes have been done +* ulm fears that we won't be able to fill all roles today +<@robbat2> yes, it's functionally impossible to fill them during this meeting + [22:36] +<@ulm> I nominate robbat2 as president +<@robbat2> i accept the nomination +<@ulm> I guess someone other than robbat2 should move :) [22:37] +* robbat2 pokes soap [22:38] +<@ulm> motion: vote for Robin Johnson as President of the foundation +<@soap> yes +<@ulm> yes +<@robbat2> yes [if I abstained it wouldn't pass] +<@ulm> *sigh* [22:39] +<@prometheanfire> o/ +<@robbat2> oi! +<@ulm> result: 3 aye, 3 absent +<@ulm> ah! +<@ulm> prometheanfire: please vote +<@prometheanfire> I need to read back stuff +<@ulm> motion is: vote for Robin Johnson as President of the Foundation + [22:40] +<@prometheanfire> yes +<@ulm> 4 aye, 2 absent +<@robbat2> motion passes +<@ulm> ok, I also nominate robbat2 as treasurer [22:41] +<@robbat2> prometheanfire: to catch you up here, we're sorting out the + officers for the Foundation; I'd like to nominate you as Secretary, + because we need a US citizen in that role +<@robbat2> i also accept the nomination for treasurer +<@prometheanfire> I can accept that [22:42] +<@ulm> motion: vote for Robin Johnson as Treasurer of the Foundation +<@soap> yes +<@prometheanfire> yes +<@ulm> yes +<@robbat2> abstain [we have enough to carry it] +<@ulm> 3 aye, 1 abstention, 2 absent [22:43] +<@robbat2> motion passes +<@ulm> motion passes +<@ulm> congratulations :) +<@robbat2> thanks +<@ulm> so now you can continue chairing :) +<@prometheanfire> robbat2: commiserations :P +<@robbat2> I nominate prometheanfire (Matthew Thode) as Secretary +<@prometheanfire> I accept the nomination for secretary +<@robbat2> motion: vote for prometheanfire (Matthew Thode) as Secretary + [22:44] +<@robbat2> aye +<@soap> yes +<@ulm> yes +<@prometheanfire> abstain +<@robbat2> motion passes; 3 aye, 1 abstain, 2 absent +<@robbat2> ulm's remark brings me to the optional officers [22:45] +<@robbat2> we haven't had a formal Chair since NeddySeagoon resigned +<@robbat2> do we need one, or are we happy to just run with ad-hoc chair? + [22:46] +<@prometheanfire> iirc the role for the chair was to lead meetings and set a + direction? Or was that president? +<@ulm> "The Chairman of the Board, if one is elected, shall preside at all + meetings of the Board of Trustees and members and shall have such other + duties and authority as may be conferred by the Board of Trustees." + [22:47] +<@robbat2> and under President: "If a Chairman of the Board is not elected, + the President shall preside at all meetings of the Board of + Trustees and members." +<@prometheanfire> ok, mainly meetings, I'm ok either way (ad-hoc or not) +<@robbat2> i'll skip it unless we want to propose somebody else as Chair; i + just want efficent meetings [22:48] +<@ulm> I'm also o.k. either way +<dwfreed> robbat2: is the quorum for these votes 6, even with the absent + people? +<+dabbott> I am here now if needed [22:49] +<@ulm> I think for that role I wouldn't have to ask my employer again, board + of trustees should cover it +<@robbat2> dwfreed: I think it needs a close reading of the New Mexico + corporate laws, if the quorum is new trustees/old trustees/both +* dilfridge always wanted to know how an ad-hoc chair looks like ... + https://labs.openai.com/sc/niyTuzmI1acmKrxyybATQBDz [22:50] +<@robbat2> but I think for the motions, we would have passed here under all 3 + variants +<dwfreed> robbat2: if quorum is 6, majority is 4 [22:51] +<dwfreed> not 3 +<@ulm> 4 out of 6 were present, for both votes +<@ulm> that's a quorum +<@prometheanfire> we can vote yes instead of abstain +<@ulm> but yeah, probably have to look up the law +<@robbat2> does anybody feel we need the other optional officers per the + bylaws? [22:52] +<@robbat2> vice-chair, vice-president,assistent-treasurer, +<@robbat2> assistant secretary +<@prometheanfire> only thing would be someone for contacting outside umbrellas +<@prometheanfire> not really needed though [22:53] +<@robbat2> as president, I'd appreciate help with that, but you don't actually + need to be an officer to take that on +<@prometheanfire> we can take that on ad-hoc as a group +<@robbat2> for the purpose of record keeping, and helping getting ulm up to + speed [22:54] +*** arisut_ (~none@gentoo/developer/alicef) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees [22:55] +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +v arisut_ +<@robbat2> we have one additional officer, not perscribed by the bylaws. + jmbsvicetto is the infra liason officer, as a check/balance on me + also leading infra +<@robbat2> i think he's on vacation presently [22:56] +*** steils- (~steils@steils.org) has joined channel #gentoo-trustees +<@robbat2> this brings us to the close of old business +<@robbat2> + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Meetings/2023/08#Old_Business +*** mattst88_ (~mattst88@gentoo/developer/mattst88) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees [22:57] +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +v mattst88_ +<@robbat2> for the open seat; if dilfridge will consider applying to his + government, I'd like to offer the open trustee seat to him +<@prometheanfire> I'm for that as well +<@ulm> +1 [22:58] +<+dilfridge> I'll submit the form tomorrow, if all goes well we should know in + a week or two +<@robbat2> that also sets the stage for the Council to have a majority on the + among the new trustees, which will align well to the future + umbrella replacing the foundation [22:59] +<@robbat2> with: ulm, soap, dilfridge all being council +<@ulm> dilfridge: if Bavaria is as quick as Rhineland-Palatinate :) +<+dilfridge> hrhr +*** sam__ (~sam@gentoo/developer/sam) has joined channel #gentoo-trustees +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +v sam__ +<@robbat2> thank you dilfridge +<+dilfridge> :] +<@robbat2> one new business item to discuss: pruning the membership, + post-election [23:00] +<@robbat2> august 1st I had emailed trustees@ with a list of potential members + to prune +<@robbat2> who had not voted in the last 2 elections +<@robbat2> it's 23 members on that list [23:01] +<@robbat2> out of the 78 members in the foundation today +*** sam__ (~sam@gentoo/developer/sam) is now known as sam_ [23:02] +<@robbat2> does anybody see benefits to keeping them as member outright (e.g. + organization size); or should we consider the pruning actions + (outright, or only if they don't object in N days) +<@ulm> last two elections were in 2021 and 2023, right? +<@robbat2> yes [23:03] +<@prometheanfire> I don't see benifets, if we need to disolve I think we + active members to vote (I think...) +<+sam_> just do it outright if they haven't voted in the last 2 [23:05] +<+sam_> what prometheanfire said really +<@ulm> I see no benefits of keeping them as members either +<@ulm> these are all retired devs AFAICS +<+sam_> in general (there's a few exceptions I can think of) tend not to + remain engaged [23:07] +<+sam_> +retired devs +<@robbat2> motion: pruning of membership - 23 members to be removed for not + voting in the last 2 elections; please vote with: aye-outright, + aye-unless-objected, nay +<@robbat2> aye-unless-objected (i'd give them 30 days in the email removing + them) [23:08] +<@ulm> aye-unless-objected +<@ulm> (just to be friendly, shouldn't make much of a difference) [23:09] +<@robbat2> prometheanfire, soap: your votes please +*** maffblaster (~maffblast@gentoo/developer/maffblaster) has joined channel + #gentoo-trustees +*** ChanServ (ChanServ@services.libera.chat) has changed mode for + #gentoo-trustees to +o maffblaster +<@soap> aye-unless-objected +<@robbat2> (prometheanfire: i'm giving you until :11:49, then i'll mark you + absent again) [23:10] +<@prometheanfire> aye +<@prometheanfire> sorry, baby woke [23:11] +<@robbat2> motion passes: 1 aye, 3 aye-unless-objected, 2 absent +<@robbat2> any other new business before paperwork/boring stuff? +<@ulm> no new membership applications? [23:12] +<@robbat2> none [23:13] +<antarus> sorry, ran long +<@robbat2> i'll ask again for new business after the paperwork stuff +<@robbat2> - logging: ulm +<@robbat2> - motions/minutes: robbat2 +<@robbat2> activity tracker: + https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Activity_Tracker#Recurring_Activities +<@robbat2> next up is tax filing, which i'll start w/ the tax accountant + tommorow [23:14] +<@robbat2> prometheanfire: as new Secretary, and *specifically* US citizen, + you need do to the New Mexico Annual Report filing +<@prometheanfire> yep [23:15] +<@robbat2> your deadline is Nov 15th +<@robbat2> that's all for required activities +<@ulm> I cannot edit the foundation wiki pages BTW [23:16] +<@robbat2> i'm NOT going to cover bugs at this meeting +<@robbat2> maffblaster: as Foundation wiki editor, can you please note what we + need to give ulm access +<@robbat2> last item: meeting schedule +<@robbat2> which I know ulm has opinions(TM) on +<@ulm> yes, let's please have regular meetings again +<@ulm> need not be monthly, but at least every two months would be good + [23:17] +<@ulm> can also be short if there's no/little business +<+ajak> and remember: if all goes well, no more foundation meetings ever + again! [23:18] +<@ulm> I'd suggest on Sunday, after the Council meeting +<@robbat2> ulm: i'll make you a deal: you track agenda items and i'll come to + short meetings :-) +<@ulm> I can do that +<@robbat2> i'll have to maybe to that time slot, I don't know my schedule + availability for that slot yet (it might have a recurring conflict) + [23:19] +<@ulm> k [23:20] +<@ulm> suggest another time then? +<@robbat2> after I know my conflict yes +<@robbat2> (i have to wait for the school year to start and figure out the + kids commitments for sept-dec) +<@robbat2> ulm: do you want/need a motion to say we'll have regular meetings + again? [23:21] +<@ulm> yes, let's do that +<@robbat2> motion: the Foundation Trustees shall have regularly scheduled + synchronous meetings again (e.g. IRC), at least semi-monthly [2 + months] [23:22] +<+dilfridge> bimonthly +<@robbat2> sorry [23:23] +<@robbat2> motion: the Foundation Trustees shall have regularly scheduled + synchronous meetings again (e.g. IRC), at least every 2 months +<@robbat2> bimonthly may be twice a month because English sucks +<antarus> aye [23:24] +<@prometheanfire> aye +<@ulm> https://xkcd.com/1602/ +<@robbat2> aye +<@ulm> yes +<+dilfridge> indeed, this is crazy +<+dilfridge> OED: "twice a month or every two months" :O +<@robbat2> soap: your vote please +<@soap> yes +<@robbat2> motion passes: 5 aye, 1 absent +<@robbat2> ok, last call for new business that you want in the formal + logs/minutes [23:25] +<@robbat2> 2 minute timer starting now +<@ulm> could I get the archives of trustees@ mail for the last 3 years? +<antarus> update on libraries contract and carbon60 hw? [23:26] +<@robbat2> ulm: yes, but it will take some collating, I'll have to verify if + there is a single place with it +<@prometheanfire> I may have it all (local maildir) +<@robbat2> antarus: the Carbon60 hardware is presently in my possesion, I've + got it racked, and was hoping to reinstall it this coming week + (i've got vacation) [23:27] +<@prometheanfire> would need to be sure there's nothing specific to me, but + all to, cc, bcc should be fine for a search +<@ulm> robbat2: I just want to have it on record here, in case somebody would + object to it +<@robbat2> the Contract being referred to was a short-term plan I had put + together: if we had to move the hardware on zero notice, without + being able to move the services, I had a "nearby" home for the + servers from their previous data center home [23:28] +<@robbat2> so that I could feel safe in moving them with data intact, + re-racking, and just updating IPs +<@robbat2> since we got the breathing room, I took the safer route: erasing + them before they left the Carbon60 building, and then taking them + [23:29] +<@robbat2> data therein was all of forums & bugs, which definetly included + sensitive materials +<@robbat2> it was only a short-term contract w/ the BC Libraries Cooperative, + who are a former full-time employer of mine, I still do some + consulting for them, and because of that consulting I knew they had + some rackspace free temporarily [23:31] +<@robbat2> it would have been at their cost basically +<@soap> robbat2: are we done here? it +<@soap> it's 30 min to midnight in CEST +<@robbat2> i have no objections to ulm's email request +<@robbat2> if anybody else objects to that, now is the time [23:32] +<antarus> no objections +<@robbat2> antarus: does my answers regarding the hardware/hosting answer your + question sufficently? +<antarus> yes [23:33] +<@robbat2> thanks, then i'll declare this meeting over +<@robbat2> may future meetings run shorter again +<@robbat2> 2h33m [23:34] +<@robbat2> not our longest meeting ever, getting there +<@ulm> thank you for chairing [23:36] |