path: root/2023/20231002.log.txt

<@robbat2> ok, roll call!                                               [21:02]
* ulm here
<@robbat2> ulm, robbat2, soap, prometheanfire, dilfridge 
<@robbat2> ulm, robbat2, soap, prometheanfire, dilfridge : reping #1    [21:05]
* soap here
<@robbat2> ok, we have a quorum, but i'll really like more people
<@ulm> I've texted dilfridge                                            [21:06]
<@robbat2> ok, without everybody present, I don't want to discuss the
           date/time of meetings                                        [21:11]
<@robbat2> we said every 2 months during the AGM
<@robbat2> leave it at that for now                                     [21:12]
<@ulm> robbat2: maybe you could state the time slots that are possible for
       you?
<@ulm> for the council, Sunday always worked fine                       [21:13]
<@robbat2> the ideal timeslot for me would be Sundays 17:00-20:00 UTC
<@robbat2> (finished by 20:00 UTC)
<@robbat2> today only happened to work because it's a public holiday in Canada
                                                                        [21:14]
<@ulm> let's follow up to this after the meeting?
<@robbat2> yes
<@robbat2> 3. Pros and cons of a 501(c)(3) vs a 501(c)(6) organisation 
<@robbat2> this was previously discussed in
           https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:FoundationFutureState
<@ulm> under "Possible umbrellas"?                                      [21:15]
<@robbat2> and previous boards preferred the 501c3                      [21:16]
<@robbat2> but I realize since previous boards were US-centric, the non-USians
           including myself didn't have a complete grasp of the differences
<@ulm> yes, 501c3 looks like the natural choice                         [21:17]
<@soap> agreeed
<@ulm> but I'd like to have an idea of the restrictions this would impose on
       us
<@robbat2> record keeping: 501c3 have reporting requirements on funding
           sources: both to the IRS, and to the public                  [21:18]
<@ulm> for all donations, or only above a certain threshold?            [21:19]
<@robbat2> IRS: everybody; public: threshold                            [21:20]
<@ulm> k
<@robbat2> other restrictions:                                          [21:21]
<@robbat2> political involvement: 501c3 cannot support specific parties,
           canadidates, campaigns                                       [21:22]
<@ulm> this doesn't apply to us?
<@robbat2> it does sort of
<@robbat2> using the EU Cyber Resilience Act as an example: we have to be
           careful about how we handle it                               [21:23]
<@robbat2> we can say the act itself is a problem, and lobby for changes
<@robbat2> but we cannot support a specific parties or politician's
           actions/words about it
<@ulm> k, that's similar to what a non-profit in Germany would be allowed to
       do                                                               [21:24]
<@robbat2> can't say: "Gentoo, the Pirate Party and Rick Falkvinge say the CRA
           is flawed"
<@robbat2> can say: "Gentoo agreed with the Pirate Party & Rick Falkvinge's
           saying the CRA is flawed"                                    [21:25]
<@robbat2> *agree with
<@ulm> very subtle :)                                                   [21:26]
<@ulm> but doesn't look like a fundamental obstacle
<@robbat2> on the funding side, there's also a nuance, that won't matter if
           we're in an umbrella, but i'll cover it anyway
<@robbat2> the IRS has the "public support test", for public 501c3; that
           requires funding come from a broad set of donors
<@robbat2> on a rolling 6 year basis, 33% of total revenues must come from
           donors who EACH contribute strictly less than 2%             [21:28]
<@ulm> do you have a number on how we do there at present?              [21:29]
<@robbat2> back in 2004: FreeBSD nearly failed that requirement:
           https://news.slashdot.org/story/04/12/28/0044211/freebsd-foundation-passes-04-small-donation-needs?sdsrc=prevbtmprev
<@robbat2> Gentoo would have passed in *most* years                     [21:30]
<@robbat2> there are I think 3-4 years, non-consquetive where we had a large
           donor that risked this
<+ajak> does that apply to members of a 501c3 umbrella individually or the
        umbrella in the aggregate?                                      [21:31]
<@robbat2> i have a commented out piece of code somewhere in the financial
           statements that would show if we passed it
<@robbat2> for an umbrella, it's the whole umbrella in aggregate
<@robbat2> which makes it much easier overall
<@robbat2> other limitations: in both the 501c cases, there are some
           restrictions on how people are paid - this has never been a problem
           for Gentoo, because we had our own non-renumeration clauses with
           those in mind, since the inception                           [21:35]
<@robbat2> those are pretty much tl;dr: don't improperly take money from a
           non-profit                                                   [21:36]
<@robbat2> ulm, soap: does that answer most of your questions about 501c 3 /
           6?                                                           [21:38]
<@soap> yes
<@ulm> yes, no more questions for now
<@robbat2> overall status wise:                                         [21:39]
<@robbat2> SFC: gave us a soft no, they don't take linux distros really
<@robbat2> SPI: never responded to mgorny's questions after a few prods
<@soap> ok, but we could've just tried pining SPI again?
<@robbat2> they didn't respond last time, but it's been a year          [21:40]
<@robbat2> and they had some internal changes of board                  [21:41]
<@ulm> from the previous e-mail exchange with them I gathered that they don't
       have any paid staff doing accounting? or at least they didn't in 2017
<@robbat2> OSC: antarus dropped the ball on sending our questions to them, we
           could re-open it likely
<@ulm> OSC is 501c6 though                                              [21:42]
<@robbat2> the collective stuff has both 501c3 and 501c6 choices
<@ulm> yeah, and I find it somewhat confusing
<@ulm> OC is the platform, and there are OCF (501c3), OSC (501c6) plus several
       other fiscal hosts below?                                        [21:43]
<@robbat2> something like that
<@ulm> and we could also start our own directly under OC?               [21:44]
<@ulm>
       https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:FoundationFutureState#Starting_a_new_collective
       seems to indicate that
<@robbat2> SPI: i think they have paid somebody to help w/ the bookkeeping;
           but they *do* have an independent auditor for their financial
           statements 
<@ulm> my preference would be to try reiterating with SPI first         [21:45]
<@ulm> then maybe check out options with OC                             [21:46]
<@soap> second that
<@ulm> SFC seems to be out of the question
<@dilfridge> here
<@ulm> welcome :)
<@dilfridge> reading backlog
<@robbat2> SPI ran at a significant loss last year:
           https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/reports/202212/#index2h3
                                                                        [21:47]
<@robbat2> expenses of 563k to income of 108k
<@soap> wow
<@robbat2> they have a 5M warchest, so that's probably okay, but not great
           overall
<@robbat2> sorry, 3M, their formatting is a bit different than mine     [21:48]
<@dilfridge> ehm, now how did they manage that? :|                      [21:49]
<@robbat2> i haven't dug into the details, but covid hurt a lot of orgs due to
           upfront costs of conferences
<@ulm> Equity:Net-Assets seems to be the biggest loss
<@dilfridge> is that depreciation?                                      [21:50]
<@robbat2> i know the Ceph Foundation (under Linux Foundation) nearly went
           functionaly bankrupt
<@dilfridge> yeah, I mean, I kinda see that the covid years cannot be counted
             normal
<@ulm> have we contacted linux foundation, BTW?                         [21:51]
<@ulm> or are they not a good fit for us?
<@dilfridge> they are exclusivley c6                                    [21:52]
<@ulm> yes
<@robbat2> yes, we did
<@dilfridge> also, I dont really feel well with some org that claims "we're
             actually the biggest linux employer worldwide"
<@robbat2> i'll try dig out those mails as well, but they linked us to the
           agreement docs, and nobody liked it
<@robbat2> hmm, I see that link is dead
<@robbat2> i'll try find it
<@ulm>
       https://www.lfnetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2020/06/LF-Networking-Participation-Agreement-rev.-2020-06-01.pdf
       is a 404
<@robbat2>
           https://web.archive.org/web/20210809181218/https://www.lfnetworking.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/55/2020/06/LF-Networking-Participation-Agreement-rev.-2020-06-01.pdf
                                                                        [21:53]
<@robbat2> (i have to go in 5 mins, at 20:00 UTC)                       [21:54]
<@robbat2> (briefly at least)
<@ulm> ok, that pdf is too much to read during the meeting              [21:55]
<@dilfridge> I'll read through the spi mails and talk them over with mgorny
<@robbat2> in terms of time commitment, I feel starting our own 501c is
           nothing ANY of us want to take on
<@robbat2> that leaves us with SPI || OpenCollective                    [21:56]
<@dilfridge> agreed
<@ulm> yes
<@robbat2> OC is the shiny new choice, but I don't know about track record
<@robbat2> SPI is *old*
<@robbat2> which is good
<@dilfridge> beard like debian :D
* ulm just wanted to say that :)
<@robbat2> fastforwarding since I have to go in a moment:               [21:57]
<@robbat2> i'm going to resend the notification emails of people being
           removed, i was surprised to get zero responses
<@robbat2> no further response in 2 weeks, -> boot
<@ulm> agreed
<@robbat2> I think prometheanfire did file the annual report, but I want
           explicit confirmation again
<@robbat2> the taxes are done
<@robbat2> i need to make sure I put the tax pdfs into the repo         [21:58]
<@dilfridge> excellent
<@dilfridge> I think I may still need access somewhere there? or maybe I have
             and dont know it yet :)
<@robbat2> ssh git@git.gentoo.org |grep foundation
<@ulm> robbat2: should we end the meeting then, or can we continue with bugs
       and membership applications without you?
<@robbat2> you have quorum without me                                   [21:59]
<@robbat2> so continue
<@dilfridge> RW everywhere \o/
<@robbat2> if you need my input on bugs, you can ping
<@robbat2> i'll be back in 15-20
<@ulm> k
<@ulm> who wants to take over the chair?
<@dilfridge> (you are seriously asking? :o)                             [22:00]
<@ulm> ok, I do :)
<@ulm> 5. New membership applications
<@ulm> we have one application from arsen (which we missed in the AGM)  [22:01]
<@ulm> mail from 2023-01-22 with subject "Developer Foundation membership",
       message-id <86mt6ajkcp.fsf@gentoo.org>
<+Arsen> :-)
<@dilfridge> ++
<@ulm> motion: accept Arsen's application
* dilfridge yes
*** [Arfrever] (~Arfrever@apache/committer/Arfrever) has joined channel
    #gentoo-trustees
* ulm yes
<@ulm> soap: ^^                                                         [22:02]
* soap yes
<@dilfridge> swiss trains run on time!
* soap ducks
<@ulm> accepted with 3 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions, 2 absent
<@ulm> I'm not aware of any other application                           [22:03]
<@ulm> 6. Open bugs with trustees involvement
<@ulm> 55 open bugs, so we cannot go though all of them today           [22:04]
<@dilfridge> maybe until next time we can tag some of them as "action item" or
             similar
<@ulm> I had sent a list with 7 bugs                                    [22:05]
<@dilfridge> then we can have an agenda thing "open action items on bz"
<@ulm> yeah, good idea
<@ulm> bug 369185
<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/369185 "Official "g" logo's licensing
            under CC-BY-SA-4.0 should be mentioned at Gentoo Name and Logo
            Usage Guidelines"; Websites, Graphics; IN_P; sping:trustees
<@dilfridge> I like the FAQ solution                                    [22:06]
<@ulm> maybe not ready for vote just now, but can you read my last entry and
       comment on the bug please?
<@ulm> then we can vote there
<@dilfridge> done                                                       [22:07]
<@ulm> the next two are similar
<@ulm> bug 371541
<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/371541 "Offer vector graphic of
            "gentoo linux TM" text"; Websites, Graphics; IN_P; sping:trustees
<@ulm> bug 371543
<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/371543 "Offer vector graphic of
            newage/modern "gentoo" text"; Websites, Graphics; CONF;
            sping:trustees
<@ulm> I'd suggest to reassign to the artwork project                   [22:08]
<@dilfridge> yes
<@ulm> not sure what trustees should do there
* dilfridge doesnt dare to ask where it'll end up then
<@ulm> soap: ok with this?
<@soap> yes
<@dilfridge> ...
<@ulm> bug 613950                                                       [22:09]
<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/613950 "Change of Mailing Address:
            tracker bug"; Gentoo Foundation, Filings; CONF; robbat2:trustees
<@ulm> I fear we need robbat2 for this one
<@dilfridge> well it's a tracker, so nothing directly to be done        [22:10]
<@ulm> yeah, moving on
<@ulm> bug 634406
<willikins> ulm: https://bugs.gentoo.org/634406 "larrythecow.org
            potentially(?) profiting off of Gentoo mascot's name."; Gentoo
            Foundation, Proposals; IN_P; R030t1:trustees
<@prometheanfire> sorry, work was calling :|
<@ulm> I think this one can be closed, looks like domain parking now    [22:11]
<@ulm> this is the page from 2017:
       https://web.archive.org/web/20171014171418/http://larrythecow.org/
                                                                        [22:12]
<@ulm> obviously they've dropped our logo
<@dilfridge> the text is still the same, the graphics different
<@ulm> yeah, let's close the bug                                        [22:13]
<@ulm> bug 693288
<willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/693288 "sys-kernel/*-sources:
            non-redistributable files"; Gentoo Linux, Current packages; CONF;
            ulm:trustees
<@dilfridge> that feels a bit like an OPP                               [22:14]
<@ulm> this was filed by me, but I think it's not really actionable
<@ulm> reassign to kernel, or to licenses?
<@dilfridge> licenses
<@ulm> basically it's an upstream issue and there's nothing we can do   [22:15]
<@ulm> certainly we won't stop mirroring kernel sources
<@ulm> any objections against reassigning to licenses@                  [22:16]
<@soap> nope
<@ulm> last one, bug 796947
<willikins> https://bugs.gentoo.org/796947 "[Motion] Update IRC information in
            Privacy Policy"; Gentoo Foundation, Proposals; CONF; ulm:trustees
<@ulm> two suggestions in comment #3                                    [22:17]
<@dilfridge> I hate it but b is better                                  [22:18]
<@ulm> I'd prefer a)
<@soap> yup, b is better
<@ulm> ok, let's take a vote then
<@ulm> option a) or b) from https://bugs.gentoo.org/796947#c3           [22:19]
* dilfridge votes b)  
* ulm votes a)
* soap votes b)
<@dilfridge> ... and robin says in the bug he prefers b
<@ulm> yes he did                                                       [22:20]
<@ulm> prometheanfire: ^^
<+NeddySeagoon> The 'b's have it
<@prometheanfire> b, for what it's worth                                [22:21]
<@ulm> ok, that's 1 for a), 3 for b)
<@ulm> 1 absent                                                         [22:22]
<@ulm> I'm going to update the page then
<@ulm> anything else from the list at
       https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=CONFIRMED&bug_status=IN_PROGRESS&bug_status=VERIFIED&email2=trustees&emailassigned_to2=1&emailcc2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailtype2=substring&known_name=TrusteesOpenBugs&list_id=6961782&order=Last%20Changed&query_based_on=TrusteesOpenBugs&query_format=advanced&resolution=---
       ?                                                                [22:23]
<@dilfridge> that looks too much like work :/
<@ulm> 7. Foundation activity tracker                                   [22:24]
<@ulm> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Activity_Tracker
<@dilfridge> Secretary/Treasurer        Annual Report - New Mexico      [22:25]
<@dilfridge> due        15-Nov-2023 
<@ulm> yes, this one is for robbat2
<@dilfridge> everything else looks far in the future
<@ulm> Secretary/President      Prune non-voting members
<@ulm> we have discussed this already                                   [22:26]
<@ulm> Secretary/President      Send email to people listed Consultants are
       still valid (one month response time)    18-Dec-2016     17-Dec-2017
       (estimated)
<@ulm> not sure about this one, but looks like it's optional            [22:27]
<@ulm> 8. AOB / open floor
<+NeddySeagoon> ulm: They get an ad on our webpage somewhere.
<+NeddySeagoon> Action on Sec to update the members list.               [22:28]
<@ulm> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Consultants I think
<+NeddySeagoon> Add Arsen, so he can vote :)
<@ulm> I have one item for AOB
<@ulm> can we move https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Foundation:Gentoo_History to
       the main wiki name space?                                        [22:29]
<@dilfridge> yes please
<@ulm> so non-trustees (including NeddySeagoon) can edit it
<+NeddySeagoon> Heh :)                                                  [22:30]
<@ulm> prometheanfire: soap: any objections?
<@soap> no
<@ulm> anything else?                                                   [22:31]
<@soap> not from my side
<@dilfridge> not here
<@ulm> let's wait until 20:33
<@ulm> meeting closed                                                   [22:33]
<@ulm> thanks everyone!
<@dilfridge> thank you and sorry for being late
<@soap> thanks