summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff log msg author committer range
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> 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 """]]