Date is 2013-11-15, times are UTC+10.

--- Log opened Fri Nov 15 03:14:49 2013
08:01 < whot> good norming everyone
08:01 <+emmes> Guess I'm on time - this time ;-)
08:01 < agd5f> hello
08:02 <+alanc> good afternoon
08:02 < mupuf> hi :)
08:04 < whot> keithp: ping
08:04 < whot> advance notice, I've got massive lag time again today for some reason
08:05 < mupuf> whot: how massive?
08:05 < whot> 30s+
08:05 <+alanc> geez, it's like you're on the far side of the planet or something
08:06 < whot> mupuf: if you want to run the meeting that'd be great, because I can watch but not really interact..
08:06 < mupuf> whot: it didn't seem that bad, but I can try my best :)
08:06 < whot> agenda is limited anyway, I've got nothing but the bylaws 
08:07 < stukreit> small announcement:  hsbc accounts are closed. Long Live BofA account!
08:07 < mupuf> everyone has downloaded the new version?
08:07 < mupuf> stukreit: great!
08:08 < mupuf> I pushed an updated version a few minutes ag
08:08 < mupuf> the URL is
08:09 <+emmes> in "promote, and defend a free and open accelerated graphics stack" I would add a "including, but not limited to" in the list of components (DRM, ...)
08:09 <+emmes> we don't want to change the bylaws again only because we add support for another software system
08:10 < mupuf> research, develop, support, organize, administrate, standardize, promote, and defend a free and open accelerated graphics stack including, but not limited to, DRM, Mesa, Wayland and the X Window System, ?
08:10 < mupuf> first of all, is everyone OK with me switching to Latex?
08:10 <+emmes> something like that. In the original it's in paranthesis, but that doesn't matter.
08:11 < whot> latex is fine
08:11 <+emmes> I always liked and probably always will like latex ;-)
08:11 < mupuf> it is very good for visualization and tracking the diffs
08:11 < agd5f> sounds fine to me.  latex is fine with me too
08:11 <+alanc> certainly easier to review changes in git with latex than openoffice
08:11 < mupuf> I tried to re-create the style as much as possible
08:11 < mupuf> so the look and feel shouldn't be affected too much
08:12 < mupuf> I created two branches
08:12 < mupuf> master = current bylaw in effect
08:12 < mupuf> branches = development
08:12 < mupuf> or proposals
08:12 < mupuf> we should ask freedesktop to move that from my personnal repo to a more official one
08:14 <+alanc> I can create repos under the xorg directory on fd.o
08:14 < mupuf> alanc: that could work :)
08:15 < mupuf> emmes: I think it makes the sentence even longer than it used to be
08:15 <+alanc> xorg/doc/bylaws or a new subdir, like xorg/foundation/bylaws ?
08:16 < mupuf> xorg/foundation/bylaws would be nice
08:16 <+alanc> okay, will do it after the meeting - only takes a couple minutes to do, about half of which is me reading the directions again since we create new repos so rarely
08:17 < mupuf> great
08:17 < mupuf> who will have access to it?
08:18 <+alanc> the default would be anyone in the "xorg" group (i.e. everyone with push access to xorg/* git repos)
08:18 < mupuf> ok, not sure I can push there, so it would be nice if you could give me the rights for it
08:18 <+alanc> not sure if we can use acl's with git for just board access or if we'd need to get a board group created
08:19 <+alanc> yeah, looks like you're only in the nouveau group, not xorg
08:19 < whot> or we could get some secure board storage working that only the xorg board has access too. I still need that for all the other docs anyway
08:19 <+alanc> need someone more root-like to fix that
08:20 < whot> and i suspect the bylaws git repo is not the most important one for the public if the pdf is online
08:20 < mupuf> whot: it is good for them to see the changes
08:21 < mupuf> I'll try to pretty up the SPI branch before asking for reviews/votes
08:21 < whot> fair enough
08:21 < stukreit> Is there some prelim help or review from SPI that you want to do at this time?
08:22 < mupuf> can we try to come up with a better first sentence for article 0?
08:22 < mupuf> stukreit: yes!
08:22 < stukreit> (whoa, I didn't expect such enthusiasm)
08:22 < mupuf> can you have a look at 4.1?
08:22 < mupuf> :)
08:23 < mupuf> this was the hardest part to change
08:23 <+emmes> mupuf: then split this in two sentences: "research, develop, support, organize, administrate, standardize, promote, and defend a free and open accelerated graphics stack. This stack includes, but is not limited to Mesa, Wayland and the X Window System.
08:23 < stukreit> yes, I read that. Its got a lot in it. a nit: capitalize the first word of each item.
08:25 < mupuf> stukreit: ack, I'll need to do it on every list then
08:25 < mupuf> the current version is a mixed bag
08:26 < whot> fwiw, isn't it "administer", not "administrate"?
08:27 < mupuf> oh, good thing about using latex + git, we can send patches to the ML and get comments
08:27 < mupuf> but I'll try to do the most obvious things first
08:27 < mupuf> and we'll move to a more collaborative approach when I'm done
08:27 < mupuf> so, here is what bothers me a lot
08:28 < mupuf> are the services provided by SPI mandatory or compulsory? 
08:28 < mupuf> you can look for "SPI:" to find all the questions I have for them
08:28 <+emmes> that is a pretty good question. I guess the answer is "it depends"...
08:29 < mupuf> because some services are ... essential
08:29 < mupuf> like, signing contracts
08:30 < mupuf> the second list of 4.1 enumerates the services provided by SPI
08:31 < mupuf> I tried to copy the language style that was already in place, but asking a french dude to write english law may not yield the best results :D
08:31 < mupuf> "monies" kept cracking me up
08:36 < stukreit> I think the document is looking good.  The big box of questions is what changes in the SPI deal.  Have we made formal or informal contact with them yet?
08:36 < mupuf> how should I interpret your silence? You're scrolling through the document or you are already  you're bored with it already
08:36 < mupuf> stukreit: nope, I haven't
08:36 < mupuf> I wanted to show it to you first :)
08:37 < stukreit> fair enough.  Does the slang "chicken and egg" translate to french?
08:38 < mupuf> yep :)
08:38 < mupuf> l'oeuf et la poule
08:38 <+emmes> 2 questions: "accepting donations or assets valued at over \$300" - do we have any issues with that? sounds strange that *income* is limited...
08:39 < stukreit> ... and wouldn't you know it, the french pronunciation is swapped.
08:39 <+emmes> second: "transfering funds or assets without the consent of SPI" - what does "without the consent of SPI" exactly mean?
08:39 < mupuf> emmes: the board is not allowed to get and keep the money. SPI is supposed to get it.
08:40 < mupuf> the consent means we cannot do everything we want with the money
08:40 < agd5f> is the $300 something from SPI?
08:40 < mupuf> once the funds are managed by SPI, they can only transfer them to a 501(c)(3)
08:41 < mupuf> or whatever the status is called
08:41 < mupuf> the same status as we currently have
08:41 <+emmes> yes, but we should be able to *receive* the money, and *then* transfer it to them. Whether this has any practical implications beats me, probably not.
08:41 < mupuf> I guess we have to be proxies in some cases
08:41 <+emmes> Might also be that this is required due to American legalese...
08:41 < mupuf> the point of it is, we are not allowed to keep the "monies" :D
08:42 < stukreit> emmes: what doc are you reading from? please post it to this irc session.
08:42 < agd5f> we'd actually no longer be an independent entity AFAIU
08:42 < mupuf> stukreit: 4.1
08:42 <+emmes> I'm reading
08:42 <+emmes> about in the middle of the changeset.
08:43 < agd5f> so the money would be SPI's, we'd just get to decide more or less what to do with it
08:43 <+emmes> mupuf: I have no issues about not being allowed to keep income. I just wonder whether we're allowed to be proxy, or not at all.
08:43 < mupuf> agd5f: exactly
08:43 < stukreit> They don't hold it in trust for us?
08:44 < mupuf> emmes: I guess as long as you don't deposit on your account, it is all fine
08:44 < mupuf> deposit it*
08:44 <+emmes> about the second point: I'd rather like to see - in the end probably in writing - what SPI considers to be its consent. so we don't get any unexpected surprises from that.
08:45 < mupuf> from SPI PoV, they are pretty clear on their website
08:45 < mupuf> can't transfer money to anything but not-for-profit org
08:45 < mupuf> and if you want to pay for something, you need to go through them and they will check it is something you can do with the legal status they have (our current one)
08:46 < mupuf> so I guess, it doesn't restrict us
08:46 < whot> the rules are the same that we already have to follow anyway (being a 501c3 ourselves)
08:47 < mupuf> "SPI does not own, govern or control the associated projects. All actions by SPI on behalf of associated projects must comply with relevant laws, SPI's By-Laws and 501(c)3 status. SPI does not prohibit the project having a similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors."
08:47 < mupuf> Liability: SPI does not indemnify associated projects or members.
08:48 < mupuf> we still need to ask if we can do it with our "monies" :D
08:48 < stukreit> Hmnn, maybe we can give them 1/2 and give the other 1/2 to another sponsor. I have no idea if this would be useful, just a thought
08:48 < mupuf> the relevant page
08:49 < mupuf> stukreit: I don't see how it would be useful
08:49 <+alanc> not sure it would be worth the effort to split our fiscal sponsor
08:49 < stukreit> yes, especially since they leave the door open to leave at any time
08:49 <+emmes> stukreit: no, we don't want to split. that would be a MAJOR headache source...
08:50 < mupuf> and here are the services:
08:50 <+emmes> mupuf: sounds actually good enough to me. probably a good idea when talking to them to explain them what we want to do with our funds, and whether they see anything that would prohibit us to do so.
08:51 < mupuf> apparently, the IP, signing contracts and legal assistance services an optionnal
08:51 < mupuf> but it would be nice if we could make that clear
08:51 < mupuf> I just wonder about the EVoC
08:51 < mupuf> that's the only thing we do that they may not like
08:51 < stukreit> Yes, we have the ongoing relationship with SFLC
08:52 < mupuf> however guys, I'm not really confident in communicating with them. I mean, I can chime in, but I feel like I'm not going to be the best suited for the job.
08:53 < mupuf> stukreit: is that something you would feel confortable doing?
08:53 < stukreit> yes
08:53 < mupuf> just the talking, I can try to fix stuff, but I lack the historical knowledge
08:53 < agd5f> I don't think we would be signing contracts if we joined SPI, they would be signing on our behalf as we would effectively be the SPI
08:53 <+alanc> wasn't keith going to talk to them since he already had a relationship with them from handling freedesktop?
08:53 <+alanc> unfortunately, I think keithp is still traveling
08:53 < mupuf> alanc: that would be even better then, yes
08:54 < stukreit> right- keith had a twist on this iirc
08:54 < mupuf> whot: off topic: remind me we need to talk about when we want the new elections to happen. We didn't decide the last time IIRC
08:54 <+emmes> this is nothing that has to be done in the next 2 minutes - so keith traveling shouldn't be the major problem
08:54 < mupuf> sure
08:55 < stukreit> perhaps he raised it in portland, anyone remember?
08:56 < mupuf> I can't
08:56 <+alanc> keith was going to talk to SPI & SFLC about some stuff 
08:56 <+alanc> details of what we did with the existing 501(c)3 corp if we transfer all assets to SPI, etc.
08:57 < whot> mupuf: I'll add it to the list for next time, we're almost out of time for today
08:57 < stukreit> wrt re-purposing the new 501c3 status for freedesktop?
08:57 < mupuf> yes! that must be it
08:57 <+alanc> one more quick item for today's agenda: two weeks from today is the Thanksgiving holiday in the US - cancel next meeting?
08:57 < stukreit> k. I'll ask him if that took place
08:58 < whot> alanc: agreed
08:58 < mupuf> alanc: why not schedule it the week after?
08:59  * whot checks calendar
09:00 <+emmes> sounds reasonable - then we will have one additional meeting before xmas
09:00 < whot> moving it back by a week is better, yes. otherwise we'd only have one meeting on the 13 and then in the middle on the xmas. moving by one week gives us one on the 5 and one on the 19
09:01 < mupuf> seems better indeed
09:01 < agd5f> so are we moving just the next meeting, or shifting the whole series?
09:01 < mupuf> let's make a short meeting next week then
09:01 <+emmes> mupuf: next week a meeting, or only in 3 weeks?
09:02 < mupuf> emmes: meeting next week
09:03 < mupuf> by then, it would be nice if we could move the repo to its new location
09:03 < mupuf> all get push rights
09:04 < mupuf> and be ready to send the first version to SPI
09:04 < whot> what do we need to discuss next week?
09:04 < whot> getting 8 ppl together for an hour (and it won't be short, let's be honest) is costly
09:04 < mupuf> and it would be nice to discuss about when should the election be held
09:05 < stukreit> fyi I emailed Keith re spi etc.
09:05 < mupuf> whot: you prefer working by email?
09:05 < whot> yeah, if all you need is a "looks good, send it" email is easier here
09:05 < whot> plus, no guarantee we'll have heard back from SPI by next week,
09:05 < mupuf> ack
09:06 < stukreit> fyi2: Want to mention that I talked to Carol Smith of GSOC on the phone and got her to say our PO is all ready for invoice step.
09:06 < mupuf> so, should we just cancel the next meeting then?
09:06 < whot> so let's have the next two meetings on Dec 5 and 19, in Jan we can go back to the old schedule (9 Jan)
09:06 < agd5f> stukreit, so what do we need to do to invoice them?
09:07 < agd5f> whot, ok
09:07 < stukreit> we need to write an invoice.  I'll get some boilerplate and show it to you
09:07 < stukreit> she calls it "payment request"
09:08 < stukreit> btw folks, we left $2200 on the table for mentor travel expenses. 
09:09 < agd5f> true, but no one went to the mentor summit
09:09 < whot> stukreit:are you going to invoice or is agd5f doing it?
09:09 < stukreit> I'll write it, and get agd5f to review the paper.
09:09 < agd5f> sounds good
09:10 < whot> ok, thanks
09:10 < stukreit> (I'll submit it to google) their payment processing is a little tedious.
09:10 < whot> ok guys, that's all we have time for today. next meeting on Dec 5, usual timeslot