diff options
author | 2023-10-08 20:48:00 +0200 | |
---|---|---|
committer | 2023-10-08 20:49:05 +0200 | |
commit | 58eb02abe439182c9620b6c341d97fa9643652a0 (patch) | |
tree | 667aeb432a35d0cc364cc98ce416b385dd57aef1 | |
parent | Add log for 2023 AGM (diff) | |
download | foundation-master.tar.gz foundation-master.tar.bz2 foundation-master.zip |
Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org>
-rw-r--r-- | 2023/20231002.log.txt | 320 |
1 files changed, 320 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/2023/20231002.log.txt b/2023/20231002.log.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..13133ce --- /dev/null +++ b/2023/20231002.log.txt @@ -0,0 +1,320 @@ +<@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 |