Date is 2013-09-06, times are UTC+10.
--- Day changed Fri Sep 06 2013 07:06 < whot> ok, let's get the meeting started 07:06 < mupuf> stukreit: are you here? 07:06 <+keithp> alanc: I don't see why 1.15 can't be soonish? 07:06 < agd5f> mupuf, he said he can't make it 07:06 < whot> I've got four items on the todo list. big ticket item is the umbrella org discussion, and any discussion about banking. small ticket items are some email aliases and action items 07:06 < mupuf> I must have missed the email then 07:06 <+alanc> stukreit & emmes both said they'd miss today 07:06 < whot> let's get the small ones out of the way first 07:07 < whot> email alias: i want an alias for treasurer@ and secretary@ for the board so that we don't need to change our contact's emails after elections 07:07 <+alanc> (keithp: should probably discuss that on #xorg-devel later so we don't derail the board meeting) 07:08 < agd5f> whot, +1 for that idea 07:08 <+alanc> +1 07:08 < whot> Bart has been nice enough to fwd me what comes into his inbox, but having this as a simple alias is probably easier for anyone else (obviously we still have to sync with previous members, but...) 07:08 < marcoz> +1 for aliases 07:08 < whot> which brings up the question - who sets that up? sitewranglers? 07:09 < agd5f> anholt maybe? whoever has admin access on the server 07:09 <+keithp> whot: expo.x.org is still the MX host for x.org 07:09 < whot> keithp: and that means? 07:09 <+keithp> whot: it's not an fd.o machine 07:09 <+alanc> I don't think most of the current board got accounts on expo 07:10 <+keithp> alanc: not clear that I have an account either 07:10 < whot> ok, so any volunteers? (I don't have access, at least that I know of) 07:10 <+alanc> I have an account, but not root access 07:10 <+alanc> heh, expo's /etc/aliases already has: 07:10 <+alanc> secretary: email@example.com 07:11 <+alanc> no treasurer though 07:11 < whot> heh. ok, I'll chase this up with anholt 07:11 <+alanc> yeah, anholt, daniels, or ajax I think all had root in the past 07:11 <+alanc> I thought keithp did too 07:12 < whot> which brings up the next thing: do we have a list anywhere of "things that should happen after an election"? 07:12 < whot> because switching alias is now one of the things on the list 07:12 <+alanc> firstname.lastname@example.org is his, if you ever get really lazy typing 07:12 <+alanc> Carl Worth made a "what to do for new board members" page in the wiki at one point 07:12 < whot> ok, I'll figure that out too then 07:14 <+alanc> https://foundation.x.org/bod/NewBoardMember 07:14 < whot> ok, next item: list of action items. I've set up the wiki page which should do for now. someone suggested that trello is ideal for this but it would obviously require an account there (or a google account, anyway). i'll do a bit of testing with it, but if you veto that now it saves me some time 07:14 < whot> alanc: cool thx. now I need to remember what my pwd was for that :) 07:15 * agd5f googles trello 07:15 <+alanc> umm, looks like you don't have one 07:15 < whot> to rephrase, if you're not comfortable using your google account and not willing to create a trello account there, then no point me investigating it 07:15 < whot> agd5f: trello.com 07:16 <+alanc> current list of accounts on board wiki is anholt,daniels,bart,mherrb,cworth,dberkholz,alanc,agd5f,mhopf,keithp,stukreit 07:16 <+keithp> alanc: yeah, I don't appear to have a current SSH key installed 07:16 <+alanc> so we need to add whot,marcoz, & mupuf? 07:18 <+alanc> looks like tollef has an account on expo, I think he had root too 07:18 <+keithp> he should have 07:18 <+alanc> & benjsc 07:19 < whot> alanc: can you add the accounts to the board wiki? 07:19 < whot> so we can move on with that topic 07:19 < whot> so again, regarding trello the question isn't yet whether we use it but whether having to use an external account is a veto. I know keith is not happy with the xorg google cal, so if that's the case here to no point me persuing it 07:20 < marcoz> whot: keithp: what's wrong with the xorg google cal? 07:20 < mupuf> so, I read up a bit on trello, do we really need to have such complexity for a TODO list? 07:21 <+keithp> marcoz: wasn't aware that it was broken? 07:21 <+alanc> whot: I cannot, file is only editable by root - can send mail about what board members need to do, but then we'll need an admin to complete it 07:21 < marcoz> when was it broken? I updated stuff last week on it. 07:21 < whot> keithp: have you ever used the calendar? last we talked about it you weren't happy that it requires a google account 07:21 * keithp has no memory of that. I've used the calendar and even added stuff 07:22 < whot> ah, ok. nevermind then 07:22 < marcoz> I can understand not liking that a google acct is required. 07:22 <+keithp> yeah, it's not ideal, but running our own infrastructure isn't ideal either 07:23 < marcoz> that might be a nice seque into the next topic? 07:23 < whot> yes, let's move on 07:23 < whot> so: umbrella orgs. any comments on anything specific so far? 07:24 <+alanc> I don't think apache is a good fit for us, we'd have to change licenses, change organizational structure, fit into their model, etc. 07:24 <+alanc> better fit for new projects getting started than those bringing 30 years of baggage 07:24 < mupuf> I personnaly tend to like the idea of having an umbrella org managing our account, status and providing donation capabilities (as opposed to doing everything ourselves) 07:25 < mupuf> alanc: +1, apache is not the right umbrella for us 07:25 <+alanc> SPI & SFLC seem like the best fits we've seen so far 07:25 < agd5f> I guess it would be good to find out if we can be a member and a 501(c)3 ourselves 07:25 < mupuf> agd5f: what would be the point? 07:26 < whot> what would happen to our current account when joining and umbrella. and does being 501c3 or not affect our spending of that money? 07:26 < whot> joining an umbrella... 07:27 < agd5f> mupuf, if we were to be granted 501c3 again and we choose to work with an umbrella org as well 07:27 < mupuf> agd5f: I don't get the point of doing that 07:28 <+alanc> I think we'd have to ask them about it, but I generally thought that it would involve merging our current non-profit corporation into their corporation (maybe as a subsidiary? need corporate lawyers to figure that part out) 07:28 <+keithp> agd5f: being as separate 501(c)3 organization causes us to need to file taxes and other forms in a timely fashion 07:28 -!- marcoz [~email@example.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:28 < mupuf> to me, either we do everything ourselves or we go under an umbrella 07:28 < agd5f> so would we disolve the current xorg corporation when we joined? 07:29 <+keithp> agd5f: I don't think we'd need a separate corporation 07:29 < agd5f> *dissolve 07:30 < whot> that's just the "corporation" right, not the foundation - which would keep going as-is, pretty much, right? 07:30 <+keithp> right, we'd retain our board of directors, membership and elections 07:30 <+keithp> all of that would be responsible for directing the use of current and new funds 07:30 < agd5f> that's what's not clear to me 07:31 <+keithp> the only thing that would disappear is the legal entity responsible for filing taxes :-) 07:31 < agd5f> I thought the foundation and the corporation were one and the same 07:31 < whot> agd5f: aiui we'd be as-is now but don't have direct access to the account but rather have to go through the umbrella to get reimbursed 07:32 < mupuf> yeah, as long as their tresurer takes less than 2 weeks to answer, it should be good-enough 07:32 < agd5f> so we'd basically dissolve the current X organization and re-form it as a "project" 07:32 < mupuf> but we should contact them to check if they would be ok with the EVoC 07:32 < whot> good point 07:33 <+keithp> mupuf: in my dealings with SPI, they're OK with anything which is legal and aligned with the general charter of both the organization and SPI 07:33 < agd5f> plus stuff like our current funds and bylaws are tied to the corporation right? 07:33 <+keithp> agd5f: monies, yes, bylaws, not so much 07:34 <+keithp> the bylaws are part of the 501(c)3 application, but only as they ensure that the organization is structured in compliance with the requriements for that 07:37 <+alanc> we might be able to simplify our bylaws & membership forms when they aren't covering a separate corporation, since we'd defer to the umbrella org bylaws for certain parts 07:37 < agd5f> it's still not clear to me how we get from the current situation to an umbrella org. I was under the impression that we would join the umbrella org and they would handle our taxes, etc. in exchange for part of the money, but I though we were still a separate corporate entity 07:37 <+alanc> I thought joining them would replace our corporate entity with theirs 07:38 <+keithp> agd5f: I thought the point of using an umbrella org was to eliminate the overhead of running a corporation, mostly in terms of tax filings and other financial paperwork 07:39 < mupuf> keithp: same here 07:39 -!- marcoz [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #xf-bod 07:40 < marcoz> stupid firewall. did I miss anything? 07:40 < mupuf> marcoz: let me copy paste you the logs in pm 07:40 < agd5f> keithp, right, I thought they took that aspect over for you 07:40 <+alanc> mostly just us trying to figure out how joining an umbrella works and if our corporate entity survives or is absorbed 07:41 < agd5f> but I guess it makes more sense that it would be dissolved 07:41 <+keithp> alanc: I think our corporate entity would be dissolved and the funds transfered 07:41 <+alanc> which is also what I thought 07:41 < whot> one question is: what's the point of having a corp. entity if we're not doing anything corporate 07:42 < agd5f> whot, in order to have a non-personal bank account 07:42 < mupuf> agd5f: the umbrella org will provide that for us 07:43 < mupuf> SPI's goal is to be as lightweight as possible IIRC 07:43 < agd5f> right, but previously, that's why we were (are) a corp 07:43 < mupuf> so they deal with everything with regards to the bank and the USA administration 07:43 < whot> so we should figure out what happens to our money if we transfer it to the umbrella 07:43 < whot> if that also takes the 5/10% cut, or is left as-is 07:44 < mupuf> whot: obviously, we need to trust the treasurer of the umbrella 07:44 < mupuf> whot: the website said 5/10% cut of the DONATIONs 07:44 < mupuf> but the boostrapping isn't really detailed 07:44 < mupuf> I guess that's another question to add to our question list to the umbrella 07:44 <+keithp> mupuf: shouldn't affect existing funds, but we'll need to be sure 07:45 < mupuf> keithp: yeah, I remember you saying that in our last meeting 07:47 < whot> as for SPI and SFC, I was struggling to find real differences, beside the obvious 5 vs 10% off donations 07:48 < mupuf> does anyone have any problem with dropping our current corporation? That should be the first question 07:48 < jcristau> there were a few lwn articles detailing the differences a while back iirc 07:50 < whot> http://lwn.net/Articles/548542/ 07:50 <+keithp> mupuf: the big issue is abandoning the 501(c)3 work that SFLC accomplished 07:51 <+alanc> I see sfconservancy.org has strict rules about licenses being approved by both FSF & OSI, while I don't see such rules on spi-inc.org 07:52 <+alanc> while we're about 99.5% compliant, as we occasionally get reminded, we've got a few weird outlier licenses, especially in the fonts 07:52 < whot> imo that is something that could be negotiated? 07:53 <+keithp> seems likely 07:53 < whot> "hi, we've had this package for 20 years and it's got a weird license, can we have an exception for this please" 07:54 <+alanc> I suppose the other main point of consideration with staying separate vs. joining is that once we've transferred all the foundation's property (cash & any copyrights/trademarks we may have gotten from our predecessors) it's harder to separate them out if we ever want to change our minds 07:55 * alanc once again remembers an ancient action item that we needed to track down if we ever got the copyrights/trademarks transferred from The Open Group or not 07:58 -!- marcoz [~email@example.com] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] 07:59 < agd5f> according to the lwn article, SFC is a Comprehensive fiscal sponsor while SPI is a Grantor/grantee fiscal sponsor 08:00 < agd5f> Grantor/grantee model seems to imply there is still some autonomy 08:00 -!- marcoz [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #xf-bod 08:00 -!- marcoz [~email@example.com] has quit  08:01 -!- marcoz [~firstname.lastname@example.org] has joined #xf-bod 08:01 <+keithp> I've got another meeting to get to; do we have any conclusions here? 08:01 < whot> we're nearly out of time, but looks like there are still some questions open. I'll send a list of what was definitely left open from this meeting to the board list. can we research and discuss those, the next meeting will be at XDC 08:02 < marcoz> keithp: my conclusion: corporate firewalls suck 08:03 < whot> i think so far the only conclusion we have is that ASF doesn't seem the right fit and SPI and SFC are still in the running 08:03 < mupuf> whot: already? Gosh, I really need to book the hotel :o 08:03 < whot> mupuf: it's the friday before the conference, but I think moving that meeting to the conference is better 08:03 < whot> well, thu before the conference for everyone else, I guess 08:03 < mupuf> whot: I agree 08:05 < marcoz> agree on moving the next meeting to xdc 08:05 < whot> last item on the list was switching bank accounts, we'll skip that for today. not much we can discuss here anyway other than recommendations (which I guess excludes the non-US members anyway...) 08:05 < agd5f> sounds good. let me know if there is IRC or you need me to call in 08:06 < whot> so unless anyone has any other comments, I'll call this closed for today. Next meeting is at XDC 08:06 <+keithp> See y'all 08:07 <+alanc> I think we just let stuart do what's necessary to pay the bills for XDC, and decide there on longer term plans, depending on whether we stay separate and keep our own account or hand all our money over to someone else