1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
|
<@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
|