summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2022
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorLyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>2022-04-28 17:41:21 -0400
committerLyude Paul <lyude@redhat.com>2022-04-28 17:41:21 -0400
commit50eed6f0193f4c723d6dfa08ff1fdf05bb2a4c4c (patch)
treeff17195727b65701e60bfaf8b1980772fc3abeb6 /BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2022
parent8216760784a48a9deebee882b69606af6cd80615 (diff)
Xorg BoD minutes 2022-04-28
Diffstat (limited to 'BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2022')
-rw-r--r--BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2022/04-28.mdwn407
1 files changed, 407 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2022/04-28.mdwn b/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2022/04-28.mdwn
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4fed5e96
--- /dev/null
+++ b/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2022/04-28.mdwn
@@ -0,0 +1,407 @@
+[[!format txt """
+[15:02:24] [connected at Thu Apr 28 15:02:24 2022]
+[15:02:25] [I have joined #xf-bod]
+[15:02:32] <danvet> once more for the secretary
+[15:02:34] * danvet waves
+[15:02:37] <mfilion> o/
+[15:03:08] <tlwoerner> hello
+[15:03:09] <Lyude> Alright - we can actually skip roll call since we've got quorum (other members present: alyssa, rg3igalia)
+[15:03:10] <alyssa> hello!
+[15:03:25] <rg3igalia> hi secretary! :)
+[15:03:35] <Lyude> hi! so: Agenda for today: Elections, XDC2022, XDC2023, GSoC/Outreachy/EVoC, MIPI alliance and CSI, treasurer report for 2021, new parent organization, sysadmins
+[15:04:03] <Lyude> So elections of course finished, and we have two new board members: alyssa and rg3igalia! Congrats on making it onto the board :)
+[15:04:15] <rg3igalia> thank you!
+[15:04:20] <mfilion> Indeed, welcome
+[15:04:21] <danvet> congrats!
+[15:04:49] <alyssa> thank you ^^
+[15:05:03] <tlwoerner> technically, is there a date elections are supposed to take place?
+[15:05:27] <danvet> Lyude, we had one thing from that: Dropping the board vote step in the election procedure
+[15:05:28] <Lyude> tlwoerner: not precisely, we usually come up with the schedule on the spot but it's usually around the same time each year
+[15:05:32] <danvet> should probably vote on that?
+[15:05:36] <Lyude> danvet: ah right, yeah definitely
+[15:06:02] <danvet> for everything else mfilion already volunteered to deliver a perfect show next year with no flaws :-P
+[15:06:32] <Lyude> tl;dr for those not in the know: it turns out for whatever reason we have an extra step on the election instructions: https://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections/ step 18: "Present results to full board of Directors for certification…"
+[15:06:42] <mfilion> Before talking procedure though, we need to discuss the actual results
+[15:07:04] <Lyude> mfilion: do we? I'm pretty sure we already approved them
+[15:07:10] <mfilion> After losing nearly 20% in membership year to year, we had our worst election turnout since 2018
+[15:07:30] <mfilion> I see this as a huge wake up call for X.Org
+[15:08:08] <mfilion> If people don't even care about renewing their membership, and even less (significantly less) about taking a minute to vote, what does that say about the Foundation
+[15:08:21] <alyssa> ...or maybe just the elections procedure.
+[15:08:50] <Lyude> tbh I think I probably should have sent out more reminders, the other thing is I'm wondering how many election emails actually got out
+[15:09:00] <mfilion> I think this is the time for us to take a step back and see what we need to do to turn things around, and give more credibility to X.org
+[15:09:08] <mfilion> I don't even think its a question of reminders
+[15:10:04] <danvet> in the past turn out was very much a question of reminders
+[15:10:12] <mfilion> I'm glad we're looking at moving parent org, but I think it might also be time to look at a rebrand as well
+[15:10:26] <danvet> like for bylaw changes we sent folks daily reminders in the 2nd week
+[15:10:52] <danvet> mfilion, you mean like a non-garbage website and stuff?
+[15:11:14] <alyssa> FWIW-- I talked to a member, who commented that they don't usually vote because of the overhead of voting (including "fixing [their] account")... which isn't a high priority for them compared to other FOSS graphics duties.
+[15:11:24] <alyssa> Nothing to do with credibility and everything to do with procedures
+[15:11:38] <Lyude> yeah
+[15:11:43] <danvet> alyssa, you can log in with gitlab account
+[15:11:45] <alyssa> And the fact that, let's face it, no matter who wins the board election, X.org will probably be fine
+[15:12:06] <mfilion> X.Org is dying, it's time to refresh it
+[15:12:11] <alyssa> ("Funny thing to say as someone who just campaigned." "Ah, well.")
+[15:12:41] <danvet> so LF technical board (aka the linux kernel board) votes last year
+[15:12:44] <danvet> Board had 1012 authorized voters; 237 of them cast ballots.
+[15:13:06] <danvet> I'm not sure whether you want to make a case that the linux kernel is irrelevant
+[15:13:33] <mfilion> lol are you comparing us to the LF?
+[15:13:39] <danvet> and LF tech board authorized voters is a lot stricter than what we have, iirc it's 50 commits
+[15:13:48] <danvet> well strictly speaking this is the only board the kernel has
+[15:13:56] <danvet> and it was the only one I could quickly find results for
+[15:14:17] <mfilion> I'm just saying, we had 83% turnout last yea, it had been going up every year for 3 consecutive years, and now huge drop
+[15:14:23] <mfilion> and if we're going to be moving parent org
+[15:14:38] <mfilion> I think we should take the opportunity to also consider a rebrand
+[15:14:57] <tlwoerner> xxorg
+[15:14:59] <Lyude> mfilion: while I'm totally in favor of a rebrand (and I think it's totally needed as well), I just caution against taking the election turnout results as a prediction of the future
+[15:15:00] <mfilion> i.e. Freedesktop Foundation instead of X.Org Foundation
+[15:15:23] <rg3igalia> might agree on the rebranding, but a single data point can hardly be considered a trend to conclude the org is dying, imho
+[15:15:25] <danvet> mfilion, I'm not seeing how that fixes anything
+[15:15:31] <mfilion> It would instantly give us more scope & reach
+[15:15:40] <alyssa> ...Would it?
+[15:15:41] <mfilion> i.e. I spoke to some GStreamer people and they would join if we did that
+[15:15:48] <danvet> like actual non-shitty website, or some outreach effort and all that, absolutely
+[15:16:01] <danvet> changing the name is kinda meh
+[15:16:07] <danvet> and an absolute pile of work
+[15:16:14] <mfilion> SFC can help us with that
+[15:16:17] <mfilion> easily
+[15:16:31] <danvet> it would drop the need to stop caring about our x.org domain name troubles
+[15:16:44] <alyssa> https://x.org/ is coveted? ;p
+[15:17:22] <Lyude> lol, will pm you about that in a bit alyssa
+[15:17:29] <mfilion> even if we have a nice modern website, it's still only x.org, and xdc is still our only source of revenue.
+[15:17:33] <alyssa> "It would instantly give us more scope & reach" It's not self-evident why that's something to strive for.
+[15:17:34] <danvet> alyssa, yeah you're pm are disabled or something
+[15:17:50] <alyssa> danvet: try again now, allowlisted you
+[15:18:01] * danvet not cool enough probably
+[15:18:05] <Lyude> I mean I think it's a good idea to strive for since we do want to make sure we have a steady stream of income in order to maintain things like gitlab
+[15:18:24] <Lyude> I'm just a bit surprised that something like a name would be the determining factor for folks like gstreamer joining
+[15:18:47] <danvet> yeah the entire "x.org does anything but x.org" has become a running gag for years
+[15:19:06] <danvet> so really can't use it to explain why suddenly all the people who got the joke in the past forgot about it
+[15:19:28] <danvet> and it is a pretty cool domain :-)
+[15:19:47] <mfilion> haha yes it is a cool domain
+[15:19:48] <Lyude> but how much of this is really just speculation in terms of how effective solutions are, we do have the ability to ask our users and get more data on this.
+[15:20:26] <Lyude> I think the more important thing is just getting across to new people what X.org does do, make it apparent on the front page - that sort of thing
+[15:20:57] <danvet> yeah also can we get through the agenda and do the big philosophical brainstorming at the end?
+[15:21:04] <Lyude> yeah good point lol
+[15:21:10] <mfilion> lol in a rush danvet?
+[15:21:37] <danvet> mfilion, it's like half past 9 and I might not have a life, but I do want some evenings
+[15:21:49] <Lyude> we just want t omake sure we get the items done so that we don't run out of time :P, we have the rest of the meeting after that
+[15:21:49] <mfilion> we can do these meetings earlier
+[15:22:02] <mfilion> also, I think we should move these meetings away from irc, but we can discuss that later to
+[15:22:48] <danvet> imo as long as x.org/mesa are on irc we might as well be too, otherwise it's just more complicated
+[15:23:06] <Lyude> So XDC2022/2023: Since samuel is on leave, I've been handling the XDC stuff - sent out the CFP (for XDC2022) and RFP (for XDC2023) this week
+[15:23:27] <Lyude> Oh- also we're waiting on LPC to get plans together for shipping us throw mics
+[15:24:03] <Lyude> MIPI alliance and CSI: haven't gotten to this, I guess I should be able to start poking again at the same time that I start poking SFC
+[15:24:04] <mfilion> that's just a lame excuse danvet
+[15:24:08] <danvet> I have +4 sponsors committed, 2 are in the "ensure budge stage" so that part is going fine too
+[15:24:29] <danvet> mfilion, we do occassionally need to pull in people here, so if they're not on whatever platform you want it's a pin
+[15:24:34] <danvet> they are pretty much all here
+[15:24:39] <danvet> they = lots of our members
+[15:24:56] <danvet> so no no lame excuse, I agree we should have something a tad more modern maybe for our communities
+[15:25:04] <danvet> but just moving the board achives not much imo
+[15:25:19] <Lyude> it's also easier for members to read the meeting transcripts (which does happen)
+[15:25:50] <mfilion> I would interested to see how many actually reads the transcripts
+[15:26:01] <Lyude> I know phoronix definitely does
+[15:26:17] <alyssa> I occassionally do (well, did.)
+[15:26:19] <rg3igalia> I usually do
+[15:26:19] <mfilion> he doesn't, he has a tool that skims through them automatically
+[15:26:26] <Lyude> huh
+[15:26:41] <alyssa> usually just read Lyude's excellent summaries, though
+[15:26:43] <mfilion> all his news are automated, that's how he finds stuff so quickly
+[15:26:53] <tlwoerner> ooh, we could mess with his tool
+[15:27:05] <tlwoerner> or at least prod it
+[15:27:14] <mfilion> lol
+[15:27:20] <rg3igalia> now that you mention phoronix, did they publish anything about the elections this year?
+[15:27:24] <Lyude> Also, new parent organization: no updates yet, will start poking folks now that elections are over
+[15:27:30] <alyssa> rg3igalia: I didn't see anything
+[15:28:07] <Lyude> Sysadmins: we definitely need more sysadmins as always!
+[15:28:18] <Lyude> and tlwoerner: do you want to go over GSoC stuff?
+[15:28:26] <tlwoerner> okay
+[15:28:32] <mfilion> Lyude what updates are you looking for regarding parent org?
+[15:28:43] <Lyude> mfilion: oh nothing, this is on me to start working on
+[15:28:55] <tlwoerner> the contributor proposal period ended Apr 19
+[15:28:57] <Lyude> i had just been planning on starting this at the end of elections
+[15:29:03] <tlwoerner> we have received 5 proposals: 4 genuine, 1 spam
+[15:29:13] <tlwoerner> we have until May 12 to rank the 4 proposals and put in our slot request
+[15:29:21] <tlwoerner> i was asked to send the payment info to Martin Michlmayr, which i did
+[15:29:44] <tlwoerner> we have 7 mentors
+[15:30:27] <mfilion> nice nice
+[15:30:30] <Lyude> tlwoerner: nice work!
+[15:30:52] * anholt arrives
+[15:30:59] <alyssa> anholt: welcome :)
+[15:31:06] <Lyude> oh wow, just in time anholt
+[15:31:19] <tlwoerner> the GSoC rules have changed substantially this year, it's causing some turmoil
+[15:31:36] <tlwoerner> but i'm sure we'll be okay
+[15:31:38] <Lyude> You mean the ability to have different lengths of projects, right?
+[15:31:55] <danvet> anholt, in case you didn't see it, I had a question on the google xdc issue, would be good to confirm that one way or another
+[15:31:59] <tlwoerner> the worst change is that the participant be "new" to open source
+[15:32:06] <danvet> or should I ping stephane?
+[15:32:08] <Lyude> oh dear
+[15:32:14] <tlwoerner> but there's not definition of "new"
+[15:32:54] <tlwoerner> on one hand we have one proposal for a young person who is still in school, but has been contributing to the linux kernel for over a year
+[15:33:18] <tlwoerner> of course the first couple patches are trivial, but then they get more sophisticated
+[15:33:52] <tlwoerner> on the other hand we have one proposal from a person who graduated 3 years ago, has no open source contributions anywhere, and works as a software developer
+[15:34:03] <anholt> danvet: sorry, I'm missing it. what xdc issue?
+[15:34:15] <danvet> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorgfoundation/bod-archive/-/issues/57
+[15:34:29] <danvet> you said you started the invoice, afaik they're not yet committed
+[15:34:36] <danvet> if they're committed I should add the logo asap
+[15:34:45] <anholt> hmm, let me check, did I reply to the wrong issue?
+[15:34:46] <Lyude> tlwoerner: sheesh, yeah that rule doesn't sound good at all
+[15:35:10] <danvet> anholt, iirc you had that reply on all the others that needed an invoice too
+[15:35:23] <Lyude> It really shouldn't be up to google on determining things like that but on the actual mentoring organizations…
+[15:35:30] <danvet> anholt, there's 4 in the invoicing process now, all assigned to you
+[15:36:24] <Lyude> tlwoerner: is that all of the gsoc stuff
+[15:36:26] <Lyude> *?
+[15:36:38] <Lyude> also - do you have an email with the proposals that we need to rate anywhere?
+[15:36:43] <tlwoerner> Lyude: yes, sorry
+[15:37:33] <Lyude> anholt: want to go over the 2021 treasurer report?
+[15:37:45] <anholt> I don't think there's anything to go over, i just need to push it out
+[15:37:46] <tlwoerner> Lyude: the rating should be done by the mentors. do you want to mentor? ;-)
+[15:37:53] <Lyude> oh oops :P
+[15:37:58] <Lyude> anholt: sounds good
+[15:38:16] <Lyude> then we've just got a vote on procedure, and we can finish off with mfilion's topic
+[15:38:46] <mfilion> and continue the discussion about moving this off irc
+[15:38:49] <danvet> anholt, thx for typing up the report and all
+[15:39:45] <Lyude> https://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/Elections/ so is everyone ( anholt, danvet, mfilion, alyssa, rg3igalia, mdnavare)
+[15:39:51] <Lyude> oops
+[15:39:57] <Lyude> *is everyone OK with us removing rule 18 here?
+[15:40:12] <alyssa> Why was rule 18 added in the first place?
+[15:40:14] <rg3igalia> can you give a bit more context?
+[15:40:21] <mfilion> yep I'm fine with it
+[15:40:59] <Lyude> rg3igalia: basically we have an election rule that states that before the election results are final, all board members have to certify the election results beforehand. the reason we want to remove it is because I don't think this has actually been followed the last few elections
+[15:41:04] <Lyude> alyssa: that I'm not totally sure about
+[15:41:16] <Lyude> I have a feeling it might have something to do with the xfree86 days
+[15:41:34] <anholt> it seems like a plausible safeguard to me, and doesn't feel like a problem
+[15:41:36] <danvet> alyssa, git blame says "port over election process from old board wiki"
+[15:41:41] <danvet> I don't have the old board wiki
+[15:41:50] <anholt> but I don't feel strongly
+[15:42:09] <alyssa> danvet: quite..
+[15:42:15] <danvet> yeah I think at most it causes 1-2 days more or so
+[15:42:27] <danvet> imo it's fine, the entire thing is like 2 months anyway
+[15:42:36] <rg3igalia> same opinion as anholt, I guess it's good just in case the election committee goes rogue or something, but I don't have strong feelings either way
+[15:42:45] <danvet> but mfilion wasnt to chain the world here, so that's why it came up
+[15:42:46] <tlwoerner> if nothing else, clarify which board should certify it: the outgoing board or the incoming
+[15:42:58] <anholt> seems obviously like outgoing to me.
+[15:43:07] <rg3igalia> only makes sense to be the outgoing one, yes
+[15:43:11] <danvet> tlwoerner, yeah that's a good point, but outgoing is the only one that exists at that point really
+[15:43:13] <anholt> like, they haven't been certified, so they're not on the board.
+[15:43:42] <danvet> anholt, I guess you could also make a case that the outgoing board might have gone rogue, but at that point the org is probably dead and needs to be reconstituted somehow
+[15:44:08] <danvet> imo it's ok to keep it, and there might be a case where this prevents org disaster
+[15:44:15] <mfilion> how so?
+[15:44:36] <Lyude> I assume a situation similar to what happened originally with xfree86
+[15:44:37] <danvet> election committee messing with the vote
+[15:44:53] <danvet> but yeah at that point your org is probably dead enough that you need a new one
+[15:44:58] <tlwoerner> someone disagreeing with the method, or the software
+[15:45:08] <tlwoerner> what if a bug is found in the way the tally is done
+[15:45:33] <rg3igalia> or someone complains again about not being able to leave slots blank :P
+[15:45:40] <mfilion> right but look at this latest election, we had two new members, two returning members, leaving only 4 to certify, one of which was on paternity leave, and 2 (3?) who were on the election committee
+[15:46:03] <mfilion> so what was the point of getting it "certified" if only the committee members could certify it lol
+[15:46:05] <Lyude> why not give the opportunity to reject the results, without making it mandatory that we vote to accept them?
+[15:46:37] <rg3igalia> that also sounds sensible
+[15:46:38] <danvet> Lyude, well if the vote isn't mandatory you can just certify the result
+[15:46:51] <mfilion> exactly
+[15:46:52] <danvet> and often it's quicker to get the vote than to have like a few days of time built in for rejectio
+[15:47:27] <danvet> mfilion, the full outgoing board votes, so your issue isn't an issue
+[15:47:39] <danvet> unless the board is sub-par, for which there's already rules in the bylaws
+[15:48:41] <Lyude> danvet: I guess the way I see it is that in terms of certification, the more important thing is that there's a route to challenge the results. having something like "Unless objections are raised in the 3 days after posting these results, they may be considered final"
+[15:48:44] <danvet> I think the only case here is when the election committee goes bonkers, and puts only their special friends on the list
+[15:48:59] <danvet> and all the people who re-run get ousted or something
+[15:49:31] <danvet> Lyude, yeah maybe we can put that in, and state that any member can raise objections and the outgoing board will consider them or something like that
+[15:49:48] <alyssa> IMHO the better fix there is make membership permanent (or at least last for longer than 2 years without renewal)... might help effective turnout, too... would need a bylaw change I guess
+[15:50:05] <Lyude> well, the problem is that we want membership to reflect active participation
+[15:50:29] <danvet> alyssa, then x.org would have a pile of people on the membership list who haven't been active for 10+ years
+[15:50:38] <anholt> alyssa: the issue with that is then you have an approximately-0% voting rate among members, which iirc runs into trouble with other bylaws about needing x% voting to make changes.
+[15:50:42] <danvet> the old member system was very informative in this regard
+[15:50:47] <Lyude> especially when it comes to stuff like khronos certification and vesa spec access (I think it's also worth considering that x's place in the world tends to be those things, gitlab + XDC)
+[15:50:50] <danvet> plus what anholt says
+[15:50:54] <alyssa> anholt: ah, right.
+[15:50:55] <tlwoerner> …must have X commits … in the last Y days!
+[15:50:56] <danvet> and Lyude
+[15:51:04] <mfilion> I wouldn't make membership permanent
+[15:51:10] <mfilion> but I would make it every 2 years instead of yearly
+[15:51:10] <danvet> tlwoerner, yeah the downside of that is that it's gatekeep-y
+[15:51:17] <Lyude> yeah, making it longer might not be a bad idea
+[15:51:22] <Lyude> so long as it isn't permanent
+[15:51:25] <danvet> atm our gate is "bothered to renew" which personally I really like as a balance
+[15:51:47] <Lyude> (also I will brb)
+[15:51:49] <danvet> mfilion, then people forget that they need to renew and you get see-saw in membership
+[15:51:51] <mfilion> 20% didn't bother to renew, and of those who did, 35% didn't bother voting
+[15:52:01] <danvet> it's like foxes and rabbits in population density
+[15:52:13] <mfilion> and I don't know if anyone noticed, but of the 4 people elected, each had at least 20% of voters saying they shouldn't be on the board
+[15:52:48] <rg3igalia> that's... normal?
+[15:52:50] <danvet> mfilion, we don't have full preferential voting, which means tactical voting is a possibility
+[15:52:53] <danvet> aka you can't say that
+[15:53:04] <danvet> also 20% is effing low imo
+[15:53:12] <mfilion> not really, good luck at past results
+[15:53:15] <mfilion> nowhere near that
+[15:54:00] <mfilion> in your election danvet, you only had 10% putting you off the board :p
+[15:54:11] <mfilion> and you finished first
+[15:54:18] <keithp> that was probably danvet voting though
+[15:54:22] <mfilion> hahaha
+[15:54:38] <Lyude> there are very few instance I've ever voted someone at the bottom with the reason being me not wanting them on the board
+[15:54:51] <Lyude> the majority of the time it's more like "I want these people on the board more"
+[15:55:10] <anholt> same.
+[15:55:11] <Lyude> for reasons like that I feel like it's kind of hard to draw intent from a ranked voting system
+[15:55:19] <rg3igalia> agreed
+[15:55:20] <Lyude> besides who they want on the board, of course
+[15:55:36] <danvet> yeah we don't do full preference voting, so tactical voting is a good strategy aka I do the same as Lyude and anholt
+[15:55:50] <Lyude> I do think this does bring up a point for us needing to fix the empty ballot issue
+[15:56:00] <Lyude> because then those votes can be directly interpreted as such
+[15:56:05] <Lyude> or rather lack of
+[15:56:34] <mfilion> We had a solid drop in membership, and even bigger drop in turnout (it was 83.5% a year ago), I'm not looking forward to next year's election
+[15:56:53] <danvet> Lyude, if we do preference instead of points your true preference would be the best voting strategy, but we do points so it isn't indeed
+[15:57:16] <danvet> mfilion, more reminders and it should be fixed really
+[15:57:35] <danvet> we've tanked the first "should we join spi" vote like this too
+[15:57:37] <anholt> mfilion: I think you are really underestimating the importance of reminders to turnout.
+[15:58:00] <danvet> our reminder was literally "make your vote and these stop"
+[15:58:11] <daniels> re fd.o vs. X.Org - our infra is as much for GSt/NM/PipeWire as for gfx - currently they have no representation and all they contribute is some runners. given the everlasting existential issue has been getting interest in keeping the org sustainable, I genuinely don’t understand the position that we shouldn’t widen the net.
+[15:58:16] <danvet> same about reminding folks to renew x.org
+[15:58:43] <daniels> and that if we keep the scope narrow by trying to keep a small target, that’s self-perpetuating
+[15:58:55] <mfilion> +1
+[15:59:00] <daniels> (cf. what I said when we merged fd.o in under the umbrella)
+[15:59:02] <danvet> daniels, I did propose widening the net when we did the fd.o merger, and reception wasn't the greatest iirc
+[15:59:12] <daniels> danvet: amongst whom?
+[15:59:36] <daniels> the same bunch of people the net doesn’t already cover … ?
+[16:00:09] <Lyude> i feel like there's multiple stats issues here. not to say I don't agree with widening the net: I think at the very least it's something we should be looking into, but I'm also noticing a lot of points in this discussion that equate correlation to causation. like what danvet just mentioned: daniels is right in that that's not really a good sample
+[16:00:28] <daniels> right now we’re in a weird position of being responsible to/for GSt but pushing them far enough away they do their own everything. ditto PipeWire, NM, etc. I don’t see how the arbitrary division helps any of us.
+[16:00:45] <Lyude> we don't actually know what the reception is, we know what the reception was from the people who voted - which begs the question who voted and in which portions of the community, and why
+[16:01:12] <danvet> daniels, I did ping them all on domain names, and maybe that was the wrong thing, but didn't get any vibes they'd want to join
+[16:01:25] <danvet> but yeah I guess we can kick this off
+[16:01:33] <daniels> I mean, has anyone here other than me (as an admin primarily) and mfilion (working closely with the media people) actually ever spoken to GSt/PW/etc?
+[16:01:41] <danvet> and the discussion back was more with our net
+[16:02:03] <Lyude> daniels: yeah, that's definitely a good point
+[16:02:07] <daniels> danvet: why would Wim hand pipewire.org over to an org which explicitly disclaims responsibility for PW?
+[16:02:10] <daniels> I wouldn’t
+[16:02:13] <anholt> daniels: yeah, I haven't talked to gstreamer since back when I was trying to do gstreamer gl work.
+[16:02:43] <daniels> anholt: my condolences. it’s still that bad. but I would like to fix that in part by building more bridges :)
+[16:03:20] <Lyude> I feel like these are things we should start surveying communities (explicitly so) that we serve
+[16:03:26] <daniels> ++
+[16:03:28] <alyssa> ^^
+[16:03:32] <danvet> yeah that sounds solid
+[16:03:54] <Lyude> does anyone want to take this up by the way?
+[16:04:03] <danvet> daniels, I figured at least someone would bring that up, but got nothing
+[16:04:11] <danvet> but then mail isn't all that great for this stuff
+[16:04:16] <alyssa> "responsible to/for GSt but pushing them far enough away" <--- IMO this is the most persuasive point in favour of expansion
+[16:04:47] <Lyude> I think that's why we need to look at talking to community leaders in spots like pipewire, gst, etc. because at the very least I'd expect them to have a general idea of how their communities feel
+[16:05:10] <daniels> danvet: I’m also in favour of not-email/IRC because it’s good for procedural things but bad for wider-ranging open discussion
+[16:05:13] <tlwoerner> does WINE fall under the fd.o umbrella
+[16:05:25] <daniels> and the discussion we need to have with them is not point-by-point
+[16:05:29] <daniels> tlwoerner: no
+[16:05:45] <tlwoerner> co-locating events with members would be a good start, or at least speaking at their events
+[16:05:55] <tlwoerner> ironic that XDC is co-located with a non-fd.o org?
+[16:06:07] <Lyude> Something else to think about too: while I'm not concerned about the election results, I think in retrospect: things like keeping X.org around are definitely going to require active effort, which means we need to be ahead of the curb in terms of keeping X.org relevant as opposed to being strictly reactive
+[16:06:16] <danvet> daniels, yeah I guess kicking off the old "should stuff fd.o hosts also have membership rights" thing might be good
+[16:06:19] <daniels> Lyude: I can provide all the contacts and intros on demand
+[16:06:30] <danvet> since things changed a lot with the huge amount of infra we provide now
+[16:07:02] <Lyude> I do think membership rights likely should be a given to some extent, btw
+[16:08:16] <Lyude> anyway - rg3igalia, mfilion, alyssa - would any of y'all be up to starting these discussions?
+[16:09:44] <mfilion> I'll discuss this further with @daniels and see who we need to speak too, but sure happy to bring it up with the gst & pw people, already know most of them
+[16:09:55] <alyssa> Lyude: I don't feel I have the relevant skills/connections/etc
+[16:10:09] <alyssa> mfilion: seems eager though?
+[16:10:17] <rg3igalia> same here, glad mfilion spoke up :)
+[16:10:39] <Lyude> alyssa: fwiw, it's easier then it looks :) (also I was kind of expecting someone would provide the connections here anyway), I'm fine with whoever wants to do it. Just want to make sure I'm not overvolunteering mfilion
+[16:10:47] <Lyude> (delegation is important)
+[16:12:08] <mfilion> so what's left on the discussion list today?
+[16:12:46] <Lyude> mfilion: that was it (I think we may have forgotten to finish the vote on the election rules though), I wanted to have your item last so we'd get the most time to talk about it
+[16:13:33] <daniels> mfilion: you want more? haha
+[16:14:38] <mfilion> @daniels lol still don't have a consensus here about these meetings & IRC. but we can discuss that again in two weeks.
+[16:14:57] <Lyude> yeah - there's a lot to go over here still, and I'll make sure that's on the agenda
+[16:15:47] <Lyude> anyway, thanks for the meeting everyone!
+[16:16:21] <danvet> mfilion, if you want to move the irc thing, imo this isn't the place
+[16:16:38] <danvet> instead figure out options (including how to bridge them to irc or I think it'll be impossible to sell)
+[16:16:48] <mfilion> to sell to who?
+[16:16:50] <hwentlan____> as an interested party that's no longer on the board I appreciate that the board meetings are public (though I'm not set on IRC per se). I guess tlwoerner and daniels would agree
+[16:16:54] <danvet> kick of discussion with our communities, set up a server, get people moving
+[16:16:56] <mfilion> GNOME stopped using IRC 10 years ago this year. we're clearly overdue. and it's not the transcripts that count but the minutes. which is what you already note anyway Lyude.
+[16:16:57] <danvet> and I'll move with them
+[16:17:12] <danvet> but moving the board is imo completely pointless
+[16:17:16] <danvet> *the board only
+[16:17:19] <mfilion> our communities can stay on irc
+[16:17:31] <mfilion> but these meetings staying here is dumb
+[16:17:42] <danvet> why?
+[16:17:52] <alyssa> oh, tangent question re: including gstreamer and pipewire -- would the media subsystem of the kernel also want to move? what about the audio subsystem?
+[16:18:05] <alyssa> given that DRM is here
+[16:18:21] <danvet> alyssa, I had some chats whether they would want to move to fd.o
+[16:18:29] <danvet> and they had reservations
+[16:18:38] <alyssa> and not the DMA kind? :-p
+[16:18:47] <danvet> dma?
+[16:18:57] <alyssa> dma reservations :-p
+[16:18:59] <mfilion> danvet I don't know any other foundation that relies on irc in 2022 for their board meetings. every time I mention to people that we're still on irc, their jaw just drops to the floor.
+[16:19:02] <rg3igalia> we could also go step by step, maybe they would be easier to convince if pipewire and gstreamer are already in
+[16:20:42] <Lyude> i think more convincing arguments might have reasoning as to why, since I assume people's preference for IRC has to do with it being easy for us. i also think that members should at least get asked how they feel about this since it does affect their ability to see transcripts as we mentioned before
+[16:21:22] <Lyude> I do see some value in having meetings on something else btw: although some of that stems from the discussion I feel is going to come at some point soon around us just onsidering something other then IRC in general
+[16:21:52] <danvet> mfilion, if you're thinking voice or so that would seriously suck
+[16:22:00] <danvet> since then I'd actually have to be here all the time
+[16:22:18] <danvet> anything text is much easier for these
+[16:22:24] <Lyude> i think we can reschedule meetings too, I mean we usually update the schedule every so often depending on what timezone the moast board members are in now
+[16:22:33] <daniels> hwentlan____: obviously minutes are completely essential - I don’t think we get any non-member participation other than me & tlwoerner tbf
+[16:22:46] <daniels> so I don’t think we can say that IRC helps that
+[16:23:12] <daniels> danvet: being present is arguably a feature …
+[16:23:15] <anholt> danvet: ok, I think I've flushed my treasurer queue.
+[16:24:03] <mfilion> lol danvet what's the point if you can't be bothered to be fully present once every two weeks? and most of the time, our meetings last 30 minutes...
+[16:24:09] <Lyude> fwiw too - it's not like I wasn't able to do minutes at all with video meetings
+[16:24:38] <mfilion> exactly, you do a great job at taking notes Lyude
+[16:24:53] <danvet> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xorgfoundation/bod-archive/-/issues/52#note_1360837 <- anholt should that read Khronos or copypasta mistake?
+[16:25:05] <Lyude> mfilion: when you have an organization that's mostly run by developers then the amount of time those poeple have to spend on the organization is limited - and it kind of needs to stay that way because otherwise it's more difficult to find volunteers since most people can't put in more time
+[16:25:06] <mfilion> danvet what you just said about being present sums up why people aren't renewing and aren't voting. they can't be bothered.
+[16:25:33] <danvet> mfilion, dude I pulled in like 200k while "not being present"
+[16:26:05] <danvet> or maybe it's only 150k dunno, I'm "not present enough" I guess
+[16:26:48] <Lyude> also, I think the value of the meetings is really dependent on if we're not getting things done. if we're getting things done, then what is the purpose of moving the meeting elsewhere? if we're not getting things done, which things? these are actual questions btw
+[16:26:55] <danvet> there's occasionally a quicke in the oven or some other shit to do
+[16:26:59] <danvet> and text allows me to take care of that
+[16:27:09] <danvet> voice would be like "why am I bothering with this" frankly
+[16:29:02] <Lyude> hm.
+[16:29:27] <anholt> we do waste some time here being async when we could probably wrap a meeting in a bit less time. but, also, it's pretty great for me to be able to catch up to the meeting if I show up late. I'm in favor of text for this.
+[16:29:46] <Lyude> we need video meetings sometimes because of the benefits of long form discussion especially when it comes to topics like this one, but we want IRC meetings because most of the time the things we're dealing with don't require long form discussions.
+[16:29:52] <Lyude> *shrugs*
+[16:29:55] <Lyude> why not both
+[16:30:28] <Lyude> we could have IRC meetings as regularly scheduled, and have monthly or bi monthly video meetings or whatever kind of schedule we deem needed
+[16:30:31] * anholt heads out
+[16:30:35] <Lyude> see ya!
+[16:30:40] * alyssa as well
+[16:31:01] <danvet> Lyude, we had one per year, and aside from electing a few officers those tended to be about as much as these here
+[16:31:08] <danvet> at xdc
+[16:31:36] * rg3igalia also has to leave, thanks everyone!
+[16:32:08] <Lyude> danvet: yeah
+[16:32:31] <Lyude> i guess just thinking about this it really comes down to needs and why we're doing this. like, mfilion, do you know what gnome's stated reasoning for moving their meetings from IRC was?
+[16:32:32] <danvet> and at least in the past all substantial long form stuff was xdc hallway track or long mail threads
+[16:32:58] <danvet> also personally I absolutely suck at discussions in big meetings without serious prep work and material
+[16:33:05] <mfilion> Not sure Lyude, I could reach out and ask.
+[16:33:07] <Lyude> (also btw, the meeting is over but I'm happy to continue discussing this and probably will)
+[16:33:29] <danvet> mail forces people to provide that material so I can ponder it upfront and then type a reply
+[16:33:52] <Lyude> danvet: yeah I'm not great at verbal discussion either
+[16:34:18] <danvet> 1:1 is ok, but anything else I routinely tell people I wont show here at intel until they deliver the material upfront
+[16:34:43] <danvet> "we'll explain in the meeting" "yeah and I won't be able to parse it fast enough and think it through"
+[16:34:52] <danvet> so yeah, not a fan in the least
+[16:34:59] <Lyude> it's also worth noting for some folks that can be an actual barrier to being able to participate in meetings
+[16:35:21] <mfilion> I'm not going to push if everyone is against it.
+[16:35:30] <danvet> we should have more hallway track for this stuff, that's at least for me been dearly missing past 2.5 years
+[16:35:34] <Lyude> mfilion: fwiw I think it's really good you're bringing up all this stuff
+[16:35:41] <danvet> and I guess it starts to show :-(
+[16:35:55] <mfilion> I just think if we want to grow, we need to look at what other foundations are doing
+[16:37:16] <Lyude> mfilion: imho: it's more about keeping the org around, healthy and sustainable. I think growth is nice if it happens, but if it's needed and we're doing things to keep X.org relevant it'll likely happen as we need it. keep in mind, "things to keep X.org relevant" being getting a new website, looking into better representation for various projects under our umbrella, etc.
+[16:37:59] <Lyude> and definitely making sure we don't only keep member counts, but have an influx of new members
+[16:38:21] <Lyude> one situation I've thought about for a long time that I want to make sure we don't run into is a mass exodus of people retiring in a decade or two and causing the community to fall apart
+[16:38:55] <Lyude> I think we've been doing a good job of that, but it's definitely important we stay on top of things to keep it that way
+[16:39:04] <mfilion> right that's where the rebrand discussion comes in, why we need to expand to remain relevant
+[16:39:21] <Lyude> mhm, realizing I think we may have had slightly different definitions of expand and grow
+[16:41:02] <Lyude> if by expand you mean in terms of communities we have under our umbrella, then yeah i can't agree with that more
+[16:41:12] <mfilion> the name is just a legacy thing now, and weighs on how people perceive us. I mean, just look at our gsoc projects, not one has to do with X.
+[16:44:13] <Lyude> mhm.
+[16:45:35] <Lyude> mfilion: I actually have to start getting to work on other stuff as well, I guess we can continue next week when you've got some more input from various communities?
+[16:46:48] <daniels> re meeting format, async things by definition don’t require everyone to be present at a certain time
+[16:47:35] <Lyude> sorry, next meeting week
+[16:47:55] <daniels> so if async is a feature then it can be in issues with reminders/dates/etc - and keep the sync for less formulaic/procedural/ack-only so you can use the valuable time for more valuable things
+[16:49:48] <daniels> Lyude: btw when fd.o and X.Org merged, a GNOME board-to-board was proposed to share experiences - they were keen but we didn’t follow through on it - would be worth the session though I think
+[16:50:43] <Lyude> yeah definitely
+[17:12:29] <danvet> yeah we were a bit distracted with a sudden hole in the bank and a lot of that fell through cracks :-(
+[17:17:45] <daniels> danvet: yeah … I remember that :\
+[17:18:17] <daniels> but that’s another argument for having an organisation not necessarily comprised entirely of full-time developers tbh
+[17:20:07] <danvet> Lyude, we forgot the khronos topic
+[17:20:13] <danvet> which isn't great :-(
+[17:20:37] <danvet> instead of philosophical blattering we should have done our jobs at least ...
+[17:23:14] <mfilion> danvet what's needed? can we do via email?
+[17:25:03] <danvet> yeah I typed one up
+[17:25:43] <danvet> mfilion, Lyude anholt mdnavare rg3igalia see board@
+[17:25:49] <danvet> alyssa seems gone already
+"""]]
+[17:41:21] [disconnected at Thu Apr 28 17:41:21 2022]