Date is 2013-10-18, times are UTC+10.

--- Day changed Fri Oct 18 2013
07:03 < whot> alrighty, shall we get started?
07:03 < keithp> indeed!
07:04 < mupuf_> whot: I guess so :)
07:05 < whot> items on the list: additional repayments for sponsorships, update on bank status, umbrella decision vote, XDC co-location options
07:06 < whot> you guys already know this bit, but for the public record: we now have a google+ account
07:06 < mupuf_> don't forget the logo contest / what is our identity and goal
07:06 < mupuf_> yeah, and speaking about this, we have around 100 followers
07:07 < mupuf_> (99 to be precise)
07:07 < mupuf_> and so far, 17 posts
07:08 < mupuf_> 11 real posts
07:08 < whot> oh, and of course the twitter accout @XOrgFoundation
07:09 < whot> mupuf_: you ok with maintaining the G+ account? i know we all have access, but having one person responsible is more effective
07:09 < stukreit> ok, on the sponsorships:  I do not blame the bank.  on 10/10 I looked up the exchange rate online in order to pay the european folks in euros, saving them the exchange rates&fees. The rate I got at the time was 1.4073, pretty far from the 1.354 than Matthias quoted.  I can calculate out the difference and make them whole. And going forward, we need to state policy for payment, e.g. who's quote for exchange rates we'll use, and the intent to pay
07:09 < whot> alanc: same for the twitter account?
07:10 < stukreit> and, naturally, the receipts I get outside of the US are in other currencies.
07:10 < mupuf_> whot: yeah, having maintainers is the way to go. I'm ok with it. Please submit me ideas if you would like anything
07:10 < whot> stukreit: the banks will give you two different exchange rates anyway. if I pay something in US, the bank takes X, and if you then give me US back, I end up actually getting X - something, even if the exchange rate doesn't change
07:11 < stukreit> I'm aware of that. Exchanging currencies is a big business.  However, in this case, the rate I used was just way off from what Matthias found at
07:11 < whot> other than that, I think the policy should be to re-pay what people spent in their money
07:12 <+emmes> stukreit: if the rate was 1.40, then it looks ok. i just googled for the exchange rate, took the first hit.
07:12 < stukreit> emmes: plz forward the link you got for that. And recall, I did the calc on oct 10.
07:12 < whot> stukreit: does the bank let you pay in other currencies? then you can just go and say I need X EUR to arrive, tell me how much USD that is
07:13 <+emmes> whot: will be difficult, because the exchange rate will always be different between original payment and reimbursement. That's ok, sometimes you win, sometimes you loose.
07:13 < stukreit> whot: BofA lets you pay in $$ or Euros, so other currencies are SOL
07:13 <+emmes> whot: at least I can't do that here. tried this once, didn't find the possibility anywhere.
07:13 < whot> emmes: afaik it's the sending bank that charges, not the receiving one
07:14 < stukreit> correct, we just need a rule on this so the action can be fully explained and verified
07:14 < agd5f> knowing banks, they both probably charge some fee
07:15 < stukreit> oh, and we had one win: The $35 wire txfer fee apparently got charged only for the first of the 3 transfers that day.  Still, fees like this make it hard to "do the right thing". 
07:15 < stukreit> BitCoin/SilkRoad anyone?
07:15 < whot> i'd say request a receipt that states how much the recipient was actually charged by their bank, then go to our bank and give that much back
07:16 <+emmes> stukreit: I used and checked the graph for min and max manually. That's why I didn't give an exact amount, but it was way below 1.40 (approx. 1.35).
07:16 < whot> so e.g. if the flight invoice says 100 USD and my bank takes 140 AUD out, then that's kinda what I'd be wanting back
07:17 < whot> emmes: better to check the credit card statement and go from there next time
07:18 < stukreit> There can be 2 rules:  1) agree on who quotes exchange rates, and I calculate from $US receipts to Euros (if you're eurozone)  2) Use the number in your bank statement.   Does this sound reasonable to people?
07:19 < whot> can we agree that we should be reimbursing people for what they actually paid?
07:19 < whot> stukreit: +1
07:19 < marcoz> +1 for reimbursing people what they paid, in their own currency
07:19 < mupuf_> I agree, but it delays the process a bit because we need to wait for the bank to actually display the transaction
07:19 <+emmes> stukreit: for the record: shows it was 1.3544, and the rate never exceeded 1.365 for the last month
07:19 < mupuf_> it may take some time
07:20 < whot> emmes: that's still not the rate the bank gives you though
07:20 < stukreit> I think we need the 2 rules.  Also, I can logon and see my credit card and bank activities almost immediately.
07:20 < whot> stukreit: that's a per-bank thing though. I can do that for one of my CC, not for the other one
07:20 < stukreit> reminder: in this case, I did the calculation. The bank is not at fault.  
07:21 < stukreit> whot:  That's the difference in services that makes this so maddening.
07:22 < mupuf_> stukreit: let's try best effort. We will never be able to know how much to actually send
07:22 < mupuf_> don't worry about it too much
07:22 <+emmes> whot: depends. I got it when I withdrew money from my account.
07:23 <+emmes> I'm fine with any rule we come up with. I just wanted to know where the difference came from, and it's clearly the exchange rate the bank was using.
07:23 < whot> I think stukreit's proposal is good and the best attempt we can do, there will be minor differences here and there but nothing extreme
07:24 <+emmes> right +1
07:24 < stukreit> I still need a mechanism to make up the 100E or so for 3 payments. 
07:24 < stukreit> And a statement of the exchange rate during each XDC
07:24 < whot> stukreit: ask everyone for the difference in monies received and pay that
07:24 < stukreit> k
07:25 < whot> everyone in agreement with stuart's propsal up there?
07:25 <+emmes> i'd be fine to pospone that until next year, before we have xxx$ of wire transfer costs again. but that is only my opinion.
07:26 < stukreit> I already have a folder in my homedir for XDC2013, I will make a note of that
07:26 < mupuf_> same here
07:27 < mupuf_> and this is travel assistance
07:29 < whot> so, what's the outcome? +1s or postpone? I count two +1 and a few indecisions :)
07:29 < mupuf_> keithp: you are the 100th follower on the G+ account, you just won ... nothing ;)
07:32 < mupuf_> whot: I guess this is a per-person thing to vote
07:32 < whot> again: what's the outcome? +1s or postpone? I count two +1 and a few indecisions :)
07:32 < marcoz> +1
07:32 < agd5f> +1
07:32 < mupuf_> I mean, I personnally am ok with not getting back all the money or delaying the delta payment
07:32 < mupuf_> but that may not be the case of david for instance (who is a real student)
07:33 < whot> mupuf_: the delta payment is just this time, for next time not needed if we can agree on the amount + exchange rate. I know with the changes the AUD had several months ago, that could've been 20% of my travel costs. not easy for a student
07:33 < mupuf_> right
07:34 < stukreit> yes, and he is less likely to attend next year's conference, so I'll contact him and see if he'll take paypal or something.
07:34 < mupuf_> stukreit: why isn't he likely to attend next year's conference?
07:34 < whot> ok, I count 5 + 1, that's enough to pass (I'm assuming stuart +1 his own proposal)
07:35 < whot> vote carried, for next reimbursment request agree on 1) the exchange rate and 2) the actual recipient's amount beforehand to avoid discrepancies
07:35 < whot> stukreit: any updates on the bank switch?
07:35 < stukreit> just because. I don't want to speculate, but not all GSOC or EVOC students stick around. Hope he does though.
07:36 < stukreit> no updates
07:37 < whot> ok, thanks
07:37 < mupuf_> stukreit: well, he has been involved for quite a while
07:37 < whot> As for the umbrella org merger: we will need a member vote, the current by-laws require it as I sent out to the list
07:38 < whot> What's our timeframe, plan, etc. to get that done?
07:39 < agd5f> I gotta step out.
07:39 < marcoz> Do member votes like this fall into the same timeframes as elections?
07:39 < agd5f> do we have an election this year?
07:41 < marcoz> yes,  every year 4 of the 8 are up for election. (for 2 year terms). I think mupuf_  is running it this year
07:41 < whot> agd5f: the last election was completed in April 2013
07:42 < whot> which brings up the next question, do we have enough steam to get this done before the next election, or should be attempt to combine the two. I think the latter
07:43 < mupuf_> I don't think we should wait until the next election
07:44 < mupuf_> we should start the referendum/vote pretty soon
07:44 < mupuf_> then take our time to actually move to SPI if it was accepted
07:44 < stukreit> good plan
07:46 < mupuf_> any other +1 on this?
07:46 < mupuf_> if not, any reason?
07:47 <+emmes> +1 from me
07:47 < whot> mupuf_: how much work is it to get an election set up and completed?
07:47 < marcoz> mupuf_: are we able to move the election this year back to Dec where it should be? or is that too big a jump (Apr to Dec) ?
07:48 < whot> mupuf_: because to vote, we'd also need to know what to vote on, i.e. revised bylaws
07:49 < mupuf_> whot: no idea, let me think. We need to send an email asking for people to become candidates, ask some people personally, update the wiki with all the candidates, send an email asking for members to vote then annoucing who got elected. That should be about it, right?
07:50 < mupuf_> marcoz: I was thinking about this, when was the delay introduced?
07:50 < mupuf_> we can move it to january
07:50 < mupuf_> and next year, make it happen on december
07:51 < mupuf_> not sure december is the best month for that though
07:51 < mupuf_> whot: why do we need to revise the bylaws?
07:52 < marcoz> slowly over several elections. I added about 3wks myself this last year.
07:53 < whot> mupuf_: mostly because I suspect several of the by-law paragraphs won't make sense if we're part of an umbrella org
07:53 < whot> however, given that our time is nearly up, I'm happy to punt that to you to report back at the next meeting :P
07:54 < mupuf_> whot: well, this part of the bylaws doesn't impact the election process, so that should be orthogonal
07:54 < mupuf_> our time is not nearly up, we have been onboard for about 6 months :D
07:54 < whot> meeting time, I mean :)
07:55 < mupuf_> oh, crap
07:55 < mupuf_> can we move on to the items I added?
07:55 < whot> also, I just quoted that one paragraph that requires us to vote, there are more that would need to be at least reviewed first. so I'm assigning that part to you. congratulations :)
07:55 < mupuf_> whot: you are too kind! :)
07:55 < whot> I've got two more items on the list. First is just a FYI, I've received requests to co-located XDC with other conferences next year to save on travel costs. This is ongoing, I'm looking into costs, etc
07:56 < whot> mupuf_: logo contest? your floor
07:56 < mupuf_> well, let's first tlak about the conference
07:57 < mupuf_> if we were to co-locate with LinuxCon, then XDC would move to the 10th of October
07:57 < mupuf_> that's a significant change in the schedule
07:57 < mupuf_> and may not be convenient to students
07:57 < whot> let's not talk about the details here, because co-location can carry significant costs, and until we know them there's not much point discussing them
07:58 < mupuf_> how are you evaluating the costs?
07:58 < mupuf_> oh, you mean really physically co-locating
07:58 < whot> so as I said, this is just a FYI/heads-up so it's not a surprise when details come later
07:58 < whot> yeah, like an extra room at the LPC, or whatever
07:59 < whot> and getting them to organise most, except possible donuts :)
07:59 < mupuf_> ack
07:59 < whot> anyway, let's move on. logo
07:59 < mupuf_> so, logo contest then
07:59 < mupuf_> the idea was that every year, we seem to bring up the issue of the aging logo
07:59 < mupuf_> so, I decided to have a look into it
07:59 < whot> aging logo? matches the code then :)
08:00 < mupuf_> my plan was to start a new contest, a serious one (not one organised by Michael from phoronix)
08:01 < mupuf_> and to prove it to be serious, I would like to kindly asking distributions/vendors to propose a logo (since they have a pro team of graphics designers)
08:01 < mupuf_> but while thinking about this, the problem of the scope/role of kept arising
08:02 < mupuf_> and apparently, some people (FOSDEM) still think that the foundation is only about X11/X-Server
08:02 < mupuf_> that led me to believe that a potential name change could be a good idea, but that is out of the question
08:03 < mupuf_> so, I thought about fd.o. What is our relationship to them?
08:03 < mupuf_> it seems like the foundation covers many fd.o projects
08:04 < mupuf_> (DRI, input, windows managers, cairo/pixman?)
08:04 < mupuf_> so, I started this idea of a logo contest and ended up with an identity crisis
08:04 < mupuf_> I guess we really need to communicate on our role
08:05 < mupuf_> insiders know we are more open than X
08:05 < mupuf_> but the name suggests otherwise
08:05 < mupuf_> and so does our wiki
08:06 < mupuf_> so, if you don't mind, I would like us to discuss about what should be the scope of our organization
08:06 < mupuf_> and how we interact with free desktop (which is a good name IMO to explain what we are doing!)
08:07 < mupuf_> this is also important for me, as a G+ administrator since i need to be able to define what I should cover or not
08:07  * alanc has returned from his 2-3pm meeting
08:08 < mupuf_> since we are talking about changing our legal status, I guess it will also be the perfect time to introduce our new role more publicly
08:08 <+alanc> whot: yes, I'm fine taking care of the twitter account
08:08 < mupuf_> (all that because I wanted to make shirts for the next XDC :D)
08:11 < whot> uhm, I don't think this is something we can reasonably discuss today. We're already over time and I have to go really soon
08:11 < mupuf_> sure sure
08:12 < mupuf_> we can schedule that for the next meeting
08:13 < whot> yeah, let's do that
08:14 < mupuf_> great, thank you
08:14 < whot> alright, let's call it closed for today. thanks everyone for attending