summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2015/07-23.mdwn
blob: 0d3fa67ccb19d2f2465f90bd93bd8e8dd30915c6 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
Date is 2015-07-24, times are UTC+10.  
[[!format txt """
--- Day changed Fri Jul 24 2015
06:59 < mupuf> good morning gentlemen! (sounds roughly the same as vietnam)
06:59 < whot> good morning
06:59 < danvet> good evening
07:01 < whot> marcoz: you made it! :)
07:01 < marcoz> hi whot   woohoo!
07:02 < marcoz> mupuf:   but you gotta have the rigth inflection! :)
07:02 < marcoz> hi danvet 
07:03 < agd5f> hi
07:04 < mupuf> marcoz: hard to convey that through IRC
07:04 < marcoz> mupuf: I have faith in you,  you coulud figure out how
07:06 < whot> robclark: huh, good question, not sure. 
07:07 < robclark> hi
07:07 < robclark> well, anyways, results.x.org should be easy..  the wiki I might need some sudo or for someone to make snapshot for me..
07:09 < mupuf> whot: so, should we start the meeting?
07:09 < whot> mupuf: yep, sorry. we'll do the expo thing after
07:09 < mupuf> keithp, egbert: Ping
07:10 < whot> mupuf: they're both on holidays, iirc
07:10 < mupuf> oh, right
07:10 < mupuf> I remember
07:10 < whot> alright, agenda is quite small again, bylaws, evoc and expo migration. anything I forgot?
07:12 < robclark> expo section short ;-)
07:12 < whot> heh
07:12 < mupuf> XDC?
07:12 < whot> oh, right. it's almost august
07:13 < whot> mupuf: want to start with the bylaws?
07:15 < mupuf> whot: sure
07:15 < mupuf> sorry, closed the irc client accidentally while pluging my scree
07:15 < mupuf> n
07:15 < mupuf> so, as agreed upon, I deleted the article about officers
07:16 < mupuf> wait, cue the commit log
07:16 < mupuf> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/foundation/bylaws/log/?h=SPI
07:17 < mupuf> then I also made explicit that recuring meetings did not need the 21-day notice that is currently specified in the bylaws
07:17 < mupuf> that is just stupid
07:17 < mupuf> "Regular meetings are excluded from this requirement provided the next meeting date is made public at the end of the meeting directly preceding it."
07:17 < robclark> yeah
07:17 < mupuf> Please review the wording
07:18 < robclark> s/Regular/Recurring/?
07:18 < mupuf> that's a loooong sentance 
07:18 < mupuf> Sounds good
07:19 < robclark> maybe something like "Recurring meetings are excluded from this requirement provided the next meeting date is made public at the end of the preceding meeting."
07:20 < whot> if you're polishing that, you can also fix the "agenda must be sent the day before" or whatever it is, we haven't done that in years
07:20 < mupuf> whot: well, that sounds like a sane requirement, but yeah, it is annoying
07:21 < mupuf> and we all suck at it
07:21 < whot> indeed
07:21 < whot> the main issue is it's just more email noise, and most of the items come up the day before
07:22 < mupuf> right
07:22 < mupuf> robclark: I am taking your sentance
07:22 < whot> anyway. you also mentioned upping the max to 3 ppl from the same company?
07:23 < robclark> k
07:23 < mupuf> yes, since we apparently had the problem a few times
07:24 < whot> I think only once, but I may misremember
07:24 < mupuf> For those who were not here 24h ago, here is the discussion I had with alanc: http://pastebin.com/1Jh9Vx3X
07:25 < mupuf> so, what is the opinion of everybody on the topic
07:26 <+alanc> I thought we hit it early, when keithp, jg & paul anderson were all elected from HP, then a few years ago with Intel
07:26 < mupuf> I understand the reasoning, we need diversity
07:26 <+alanc> maybe when keithp, anholt, & cworth were all at Intel?
07:26 < mupuf> and 4 would be too much
07:26 < danvet> yeah 3 from the same still seem reasonable imo
07:26 < mupuf> but given the shortage of contributors
07:27 < mupuf> err, potential board directors
07:27 < marcoz> worst case we'd have all board members from 3 companies
07:27 < danvet> mupuf, yeah with 3 we could volunteer one more intel if needed, we have some ;-)
07:27 < mupuf> hehe
07:27 <+alanc> there was more fear of vendor agendas in the early days, given some past experience with consortiums - but that's never seemed to be a problem in X.Org since most of our employers don't care enough about the things the board votes on
07:28 <+alanc> splitting technical decisions away from the board helped a lot with that too
07:28 < robclark> 4 is defn too much..  I think we should somehow prefer <=2 if given sufficient avail candidates from other companies... no idea how I'd word that..
07:28 < robclark> heh, there is that
07:29 < mupuf> robclark: oh, like accepting 3 if there are other candidates, even with less votes?
07:29 < mupuf> sounds risky too
07:29 < robclark> hmm
07:30 < marcoz> i think putting a conditional like that in the bylaws isn't a good idea
07:30 < mupuf> agreed
07:30 < robclark> yeah, like I said I'd have no idea how to even word that sort of thing..
07:31 < robclark> I guess just keep it simple and change to 3 then
07:31 < whot> ok, looks like we're mostly in agreement, can I get a yay/nay from everyone here?
07:31 < agd5f> yeah.  gotta be careful with the wording.  some company could theoretically convince candidates not to run so that it gives the appearance of only candidates from one company being available.  I doubt any company would do that with respect the the xorg board, but...
07:32 < mupuf> whot: where did you see anything related to the agenda being sent 1 day in advance?
07:32 < robclark> yay
07:32 < whot> mupuf: Conduct of Meetings, first \item
07:33 < mupuf> yay
07:33 < danvet> yay on max 3
07:34 < mupuf> whot: So, you are advocating for taking down the entire section?
07:34 < whot> oops, yes, in case that wasn't clear, yay/nay on changing to 3 max per company
07:34 < marcoz> yay
07:34 < mupuf> agd5f, whot: votes?
07:35 < whot> yay
07:35 < marcoz> having a specified agenda in advance seems like a good idea, maybe just me.  past experience with companies with meetings going awry
07:35 < whot> mupuf: not sure yet, I'll see how to reword it and send you a patch
07:36 < mupuf> ok, up for discussion at the next meeting then?
07:36 < agd5f> nay
07:36 < agd5f> nay on max 3 that is
07:37 < agd5f> yay on the agenda change
07:38 < mupuf> agd5f: can you explain your reasoning for the nay?
07:38 < mupuf> I am genuinely curious
07:39  * danvet too
07:39 < danvet> whot, isn't that entire meeting section about votes by all members?
07:39 < danvet> or do I look at the wrong section
07:39 < agd5f> mupuf, no reason in particular.  I feel like 2 has worked out ok.
07:39 < mupuf> agd5f: ack!
07:40 < mupuf> danvet: Conduct of Meetings
07:40 < whot> danvet: huh, yeah, sorry. ECOFFEE
07:40 < danvet> but we might want to fix that too ...
07:40 < danvet> we had much longer voting than 24h
07:41 < whot> ok, so we have 5-1 yay/nay for this, egbert and keith are missing. I guess we can ask them and reconsider, 5-3 would require more discussion, 7-1 would be ok to proceed IMO
07:42 < mupuf> yes, let's wait and not rush it
07:42 < danvet> +1
07:42 < robclark> sounds good
07:42 < whot> and note that this is only whether we put it into the bylaws, it doesn't take effect until the member vote
07:42 < whot> mupuf: anything else by-law related?
07:42 < mupuf> whot: can you propose a patch for the voting part?
07:42 < mupuf> I think we are good, thanks!
07:42 < whot> will do
07:43 < whot> ok, let's move on, EVoC has run into struggles, marcoz do you know any updates here?
07:43 < marcoz> stukreit: you online?
07:44 < marcoz> the problem is our student doesn't have a bankaccount.
07:44 < marcoz> I have no updates myself. I do not know if stukreit does
07:45 < stukreit> I'm here
07:45 < danvet> mupuf, isn't your patch for the notice for regular mtgs also only in the section about full member mtgs?
07:45 < danvet> the only thing I found about board mtgs essentially says we can do our own rules, as long as reasonable mtg summaries emerge somehow
07:45 < mupuf> danvet: yes
07:46 < danvet> mupuf, did we ever have regular member meetings?
07:46 < mupuf> there is a section called "Conduct of Meetings"
07:46 < stukreit> I'm still concerned about the person from Cameroon. Has anyone vetted her(?) identity?
07:47 < mupuf> stukreit: we said we should ask her to have a bank account of her own
07:47 < robclark> marcoz, I suppose it is worth checking what GSoC and OPW and others do?
07:47 < whot> not that I'm aware of, unfortunately. other than that she's applied multiple times already (OPW, EVoC). don't think she tried GSoC
07:47 < robclark> but requiring their own back acct seems sane
07:47 < whot> vetting identities of new contributors is hard
07:48 < danvet> do we split the evoc payment like gsoc?
07:48 < stukreit> <waiting untill the topic rolls back to this>
07:48 < danvet> mupuf, but that's about member meetings too ...
07:48 < marcoz> stukreit: has she followed up with you on getting an acct?
07:48 < mupuf> danvet: well, it is unclear
07:48 < danvet> stukreit, sorry I guess I can discuss this with mupuf offline
07:48  * danvet just confused really
07:49 < stukreit> not yet.  I'm raising the concern due to the failure of Nyah Check last year
07:49 < mupuf> well, we should not use the nationality as a way of failure concern, right?
07:49 < marcoz> it's a valid concern. it didn't even cross my mind to ask her about it before it got this far
07:49 < marcoz> i'll be updating the evoc page 
07:50 < danvet> yeah bank account in own name is imo sensible requirement
07:50 < whot> danvet: yes, we split the payments iirc
07:50 < robclark> I guess at minimum, lack of an own acct should == defer payment until we see some patches, or something like that..
07:50 < marcoz> and of course I seem to have forgotten my password. ugh
07:50 < danvet> otherwise if we split the payout I'd be ok, but I'm also gullible ;-)
07:50 < danvet> robclark, yeah that would work too
07:50 < stukreit> Yes, I'd like to have a good proof of contribution before any payment.
07:51 < mupuf> or her own bank account, fair enough
07:52 < danvet> btw for next time around should we have a requirement that there's a (trivial) patch merged from the student already?
07:52 < mupuf> danvet: Yeah, like I asked for the GSoC?
07:52 < danvet> opw has that, and I'd be happy to guinea-pig i915.ko for oddball checkpatch fixes
07:52 < danvet> mupuf, yup
07:52 < marcoz> danvet:  that's an existing requirement.  be abel to show you've contributed to some project though not necessarily xorg
07:53 < stukreit> has that requirement been met by this candidate?
07:54 < danvet> marcoz, do you mean "Applicants can show they know the process of upstreaming a patch" from the gsoc page?
07:55 < marcoz> lemme check the emails, but yes, she's been contributing for a while
07:55 < danvet> maybe we should clarify that, "know" doesn't imply "did"
07:55 < marcoz> danvet:  no, it's much more direct
07:56 < robclark> I guess if there is some history of contribution, I'm less concerned about the bank acct situation..
07:57 < robclark> I mean, less likely to be some drive by "send-me-money-pls-then-bye"..
07:57 <+alanc> bank account in own name is easy in north america & europe, not as easy in all parts of the world
07:57 < danvet> marcoz, can't find it, at least not on evoc/gsoc pages on x.org/wiki
07:57 < stukreit> I would disagree: It is problematic to send money to a random account that has no connection with our activities
07:58 < robclark> what does GSoC and OPW require?  That seems like a good enough precedent..
07:58 < whot> iirc OPW requires at least one patch to be sent to the project
07:59 < robclark> (I mean in terms of bank acct)
07:59 < marcoz> danvet: We discussed it in previous board meetings but I prob didn't update the wiki to state it (i haven't been able to edit pages for a long time.).   
07:59 < agd5f> here's the gsoc: http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/document/show/gsoc_program/google/gsoc2015/studentpaymentcards
08:00 < agd5f> looks like bank account or they send you a pre-paid mastercard
08:00 < danvet> marcoz, easy to fix, what should I put onto http://www.x.org/wiki/GSoCApplication/ ?
08:00 < danvet> and just checked, she has one patch in piglit merged by brian
08:02 < marcoz> thx danvet. #1  - Applicants can show proof of university attendence, either immediately preceeding session, or immediately following session.
08:02 < stukreit> How about strengthening the requirement to push changes for the EVOC project at hand before receiving first installment?  One failed payment is enough to bear before learning our lesson.
08:03 < marcoz> #2 - Applicants must have a financial account, either checking or savings, in their name, that is capable of wire transfers ( stukreit  can prob word that better)
08:04 < stukreit> I am on the GSOC mailing list. They occasionally see failed projects due to dissappearance/accepting other jobs etc.  We don't have enough reserves to handle many of those.
08:04 < marcoz> note, we've run over our timelimit. I have another meeting to get to
08:04 < marcoz> can we continue offline?
08:04 < stukreit> marcoz:  hat sentence is good. How about a minor edit "in their own name" ...
08:04 < marcoz> sounds good
08:05 < agd5f> yeah those look good
08:05 < marcoz> also, by 1st payment are you talking about the upfront stipend or the mid-term payment?
08:05 < whot> 1st payment is just 500, right? so it's not as devastating to the reserves
08:05 < stukreit> The "upfront".  Propose we rename this to "first"
08:06 < stukreit> It is more annoying when its your own hand that wrote out the figure.
08:06 < whot> but I agree with marcoz, we should take this offline, we're over the time
08:07 < danvet> ok edited both gsoc and evoc pages a bit, pls scream if it's bad
08:07 < danvet> also made it clear that we expect an upstreamed patch as demonstration for understanding how it's done
08:08 < whot> thanks
08:08  * danvet makes that a "simple patch"
08:08 < danvet> just in case it scares someone away
08:08 < whot> that's all we (well, I) have time for today, if you want to keep this running I'll add it to the irclogs afterwards
08:08 < danvet> gtg no sleep time over here
08:08 < whot> but at least I gotta go
08:08 < danvet> *now
08:09 < stukreit> grammar:  The first sentence should read: "..X.Org has been..."
08:09 < whot> thanks for attending, see you all in two weeks
08:11 < robclark> k, cya
08:12 < mupuf> danvet: ok!
08:13 < mupuf> danvet: well, one could reword it into : At least a simple patch
"""]]