Date is 2013-11-01, times are UTC+10.
Day changed to 01 Nov 2013
07:12 < whot> ok, looks like we're all here except for emmes
07:13 < whot> agenda: banking updates, then I leave the floor to mupuf_ for election/logo/etc. issues. I have no updates on XDC co-location, sorry, last two weeks were a tad busy here
07:14 < whot> stukreit: any updates on bank moves, XDC payments, etc.
07:14 < stukreit> I got something to tell: We have a new business banking account with Bank of America. It was quite painless. I'm going to enjoy working with them. Later today I will transfer all the money to them and say adios to hsbc
07:14 <+keithp> \o/
07:14 < mupuf_> stukreit: hurray!
07:15 < stukreit> self hi five: /o\
07:15 < agd5f> woot!
07:15 < agd5f> any news from google about the PO for gsoc?
07:15 < stukreit> I will have a call with them today to see about minimizing wire txfer costs. and that may sway me to make the $100'ish amends to people
07:16 < whot> nice
07:16 < stukreit> I dunno where it is with Carol, have to look at the email between you me and her once more.
07:17 < stukreit> will have one more xdc payment: to Ian for stuff. He has to get me his rollup
07:18 <+alanc> boxes of donuts & boxes of coffee shouldn't be a huge amount
07:18 < mupuf_> alanc: voodoo donuts aren't inexpensive either ;)
07:19 < mupuf_> but I wish I had tried more of them :p
07:19 < stukreit> sure. but since I paid all the others from my personal acct, I'll pay him from there as well, then move one lump from xorg to me. ,
07:19 < stukreit> giving whot the trail of numbers, of course
07:19 <+alanc> yes, but compared to facility rental or transatlantic airfare, still much cheaper
07:20 < stukreit> that's all I have for today.
07:22 < whot> cool, thanks
07:22 < whot> mupuf_: your floor
07:23 < mupuf_> so, I was tasked with checking our by laws for what needs to be updated when moving to SPI
07:23 < mupuf_> there is actually a little more we can do but I'll come to it later
07:24 < mupuf_> the first obvious changes that need to be made are related to banking
07:24 < mupuf_> if we move to SPI, the role of the treasurer will change
07:25 < stukreit> that'd be a good thing
07:25 < mupuf_> our real treasurer would be at SPI, but I feel we should still keep the treasurer role, as a proxy to SPI
07:26 < mupuf_> so, everyone open the X.org foundation Bylaws and scroll to 4.21
07:27 < mupuf_> well, maybe this isn't the time for that though. whot, should I start by giving an overview first?
07:27 < mupuf_> yeah, seems like a good idea. Let's move on, we'll care about the details later
07:28 < mupuf_> Another article that may be impacted by our move to SPI will be article 5: Protection of directors and officers
07:28 < mupuf_> (officer == someone with a role, such as treasurer or secretary)
07:29 < mupuf_> this article defines the limitation of liability, the right to indemnification and advance payment of expenses (in case of being sued)
07:29 < mupuf_> I guess SPI would want to make changes there since they would be the legal entity
07:30 < mupuf_> Since IANAL, especially not in the USA, I guess that's a point we need to discuss with SPI
07:30 <+alanc> the horribly named http://www.x.org/wiki/BylawReview/ProposedBylawsRevised20061029.pdf is our actual current bylaws, right?
07:31 < mupuf_> alanc: that's the one I've been reading and basing my work on, yeah
07:31 < mupuf_> oh, but you have a better link, I got a scan of the bylaws :D
07:31 < whot> https://members.x.org/docs/XOrg_ByLaws_14Nov06.pdf is the one in the members interface
07:32 <+alanc> and has a different date at top
07:32 < mupuf_> yep, a few days older
07:32 < mupuf_> err, younger
07:33 <+alanc> so yeah, since X.Org won't be a separate corporation any more, we'd have to talk to SPI about their indemnification policies
07:33 < mupuf_> the next thing that should change is 6.7 (non-profit statement). This part tells we have the 501(c)(3) status
07:34 <+keithp> mupuf_: no, it doesn't say we *are* 501(c)3, just says we mean to comply with that
07:34 < stukreit> "within the meaning of"
07:34 < mupuf_> keithp: fair-enough
07:35 < mupuf_> "6.4 Banking arrangements "should also be changed
07:35 < mupuf_> (i), for sure
07:35 < mupuf_> well, all of it
07:36 < mupuf_> but I wonder if we have been good at following (ii)
07:36 < stukreit> Does SPI expect us to fix all of this before they begin their onboarding?
07:36 <+alanc> and (ii) we've wanted to change for years, but if the money all goes into SPI's account, it goes away
07:36 < mupuf_> that seems like a stupid idea, requiring two directors to sign checks :o
07:36 < stukreit> we were doing it, then dropped it.
07:36 <+alanc> mupuf_: no, since dual-signed checks were too painful when people are as physically spread out as we are
07:37 < mupuf_> yes, that's the point I wanted to make
07:37 <+keithp> stukreit: I'd say we should propose an updated set of bylaws that would be adopted were we to join SPI, and then have the members vote on the the whole process in one item
07:37 < mupuf_> keithp: seems like the most reasonable thing to do, indeed
07:38 <+keithp> I mean, we can't join SPI with the current bylaws, and if SPI doesn't accept us, then we don't need to change the bylaws
07:38 < stukreit> Or just start working with SPI and tell them the current state, and skip the vote.
07:38 <+keithp> stukreit: I think the general consensus was that we needed the membership's permission to join SPI as the current bylaws are in conflict with being part of SPI
07:38 <+keithp> so, as a part of SPI, we'd need new bylaws, which would require a vote
07:39 < mupuf_> we are required to have a vote when changing the bylaws
07:39 <+alanc> we should talk to SPI before we bring the bylaws to the members though, to make sure we're not wasting time if they don't want us, or want other changes
07:39 <+keithp> and, as mupuf_ says, bylaws changes require a 2/3 majority
07:39 < stukreit> got it. but we ought to show the changes to SPI and get them to say they will be ok, then we know the vote is worth the effort.
07:40 <+keithp> good point
07:40 < stukreit> what he said. the language _looks_ simple, but you never know until the pro puts his signature down.
07:41 < mupuf_> so, indeed, the plan should be: contact SPI, send them our current bylaws (with the list of problems we found in them), let them propose changes (they have the lawyers), we then need to agree on them and then we can ask the members to vote on the change
07:41 < mupuf_> the vote will thus be for both changing the bylaws and moving to SPI
07:41 < agd5f> seems like a plan
07:41 < stukreit> +1
07:41 <+alanc> +1
07:41 < agd5f> +1
07:41 < whot> +1
07:41 < marcoz> +1
07:42 <+keithp> +1
07:42 < whot> mupuf_: you're happy to take this on?
07:43 < mupuf_> contacting SPI?
07:43 < whot> collecting the chances, sending them to SPI
07:43 < mupuf_> I can definitely put up an email with what changes I see are needed, but they are the experts
07:44 < mupuf_> so, I can write what I think should be done, send it to the board's ML
07:44 < mupuf_> and send if you agree
07:44 < whot> yeah, but there may also be things in there that we need to change but they don't see them because they're not directly SPI-related.
07:44 < whot> yep, sounds good
07:44 < mupuf_> yes, that's my second point
07:44 < stukreit> spi probably has boilerplate to put in the banking section
07:45 < mupuf_> there are changes we should do too: the goal of the org
07:45 < mupuf_> stukreit: quite likely, yes
07:45 < mupuf_> right now, it is extremelly X11-centric
07:45 < mupuf_> and that leads me to what I wanted to tell at the last meeting, before running out of time
07:46 < mupuf_> people see us as useless because they see wayland and mir being the next step
07:46 < mupuf_> we have all agreed that the role of the X.org foundation was broader than X11 nowadays, but we need to make it clear
07:48 < mupuf_> a name change seems impossible (even though I find the name freedesktop much more fitting to what we do than X.org)
07:48 < mupuf_> and some members are actually fond of this one-letter domain name :p
07:50 < marcoz> if it leads to confusion about the foundation's goal, what about keeping the X, but changing the meaning. Instead of it mainly referring to X11, find something more generic. Or is that even possible to find a word that has 'X' in it that refers more broadly to the graphics stack?
07:51 < mupuf_> marcoz: the latter would be awesome!
07:51 < mupuf_> My view is that we are working on everything up to the toolkits (not included)
07:51 < whot> [ x for x in X11 wayland mesa ... ]
07:52 < marcoz> whot: that would be _awesome_. even geekier that GNU
07:52 < mupuf_> not sure I understand the geeky thing here
07:52 < mupuf_> I may lack some context
07:53 < whot> mupuf_: python notation (and probably some other langs as well) for collecting a list based on some other list
07:53 < marcoz> mupuf_: yea, a programming construct
07:53 < mupuf_> whot: ha, ok :)
07:54 < whot> mupuf_: [x * 2 for x in range(1, 5)] gives you [2, 4, 6, 8]
07:54 < whot> aaanyway
07:55 < mupuf_> Well, we do have this identity crisis. We need to redefine ourselves and our purpose. Then, change the logo to reflect this change
07:55 < mupuf_> and then, we conquer the world!
07:55 < marcoz> excellent Pinky
07:55 < whot> marcoz: damn, you beat me to it
07:56 < marcoz> whot: type faster!
07:56 < mupuf_> hey hey ;)
07:56 < mupuf_> marcoz: he probably saw that cartoon in Austrian ;)
07:57 < mupuf_> so he had to translate it first, before typing
07:57 < mupuf_> anyway, how should we proceed?
07:59 < marcoz> mupuf_: now I hear the brain in Arnold's voice.
07:59 < marcoz> arrrgh
07:59 < whot> ask the wayland guys if they want to be part of some X umbrella and if so what wording would be acceptable?
08:00 < mupuf_> marcoz: ;)
08:00 < mupuf_> so, we need to contacts a list of projects
08:00 <+emmes> sorry for being in time, but in the wrong timezone :-/ Oops.
08:00 <+alanc> didn't we do that like 6 months ago?
08:00 <+alanc> when we expanded the mission to include Wayland & Mesa?
08:01 < mupuf_> shouldn't we also add DRI/DRM?
08:01 <+alanc> I think we did already
08:01 < mupuf_> ok, we need to have a look at it
08:01 < mupuf_> what about cairo/pixman?
08:03 < marcoz> did we decide about casting a broad net to get lots of projects, or start with fewer, more important/larger projects?
08:03 <+alanc> guess it was more like a year ago: https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/xorg/commit/XorgFoundation.moin?id=eaa4251b427e767fbd94870c40bd41f9906b08e8
08:04 < mupuf_> alanc: thanks, I was unsure if I was loosing my memory already or not
08:05 < mupuf_> keithp: how do we fit compared to freedesktop?
08:05 <+alanc> http://www.x.org/wiki/BoardOfDirectors/IrcLogs/2012/10-04/
08:05 < agd5f> I gotta head out soon. tick or treaters starting to come by
08:06 < mupuf_> agd5f: they come early :)
08:06 <+keithp> mupuf_: freedesktop doesn't have *any* board or nominal technical directors; it's purely a construct for collaboration
08:07 < mupuf_> I see some potential here
08:08 < mupuf_> we can discuss that later, but it would be good for instance to mandate projects under the umbrella of the foundation to be hosted by freedesktop
08:09 < mupuf_> (I think the name kicks ass and is perfectly clear!)
08:10 <+alanc> in any case, we're over the hour, anything else for today?
08:11 < mupuf_> alanc: I think we can keep on talking about all this at the next meeting
08:11 -!- alanc changed the topic of #xf-bod to: X.Org Foundation Board: wfh! (work from home) | Next Meeting: Nov 14, 2pm pst (DST change!)
08:12 < marcoz> meeting officially over?
08:12 < whot> whoops, lost track of time there. mupuf_ can you get the bylaw changes (outside of the identity thing) by the next meeting?
08:13 < whot> over the board list, preferably
08:13 < mupuf_> well, does someone have the original file?
08:13 < mupuf_> or should I make a new document myself?
08:13 <+alanc> I want to say egbert might have had the original doc?
08:14 <+alanc> but that was before my time on the board
08:15 < mupuf_> I can try to contact him to get it
08:15 < mupuf_> I hope it is in latex (so as diffing will be easier!)
08:15 < whot> well, alternatively keep the changes as a separate file. not the end of the world either
08:16 < whot> either way, meeting closed for today, thanks guys. see you in two weeks