11-10

<BrianPaul> testing
* bryce waves to BrianPaul 
<mupuf> hey Brian :)
<mupuf> hi everyone
<BrianPaul> hi guys
<robclark> BrianPaul, o/
<whot> morning
<robclark> BrianPaul, btw, if you haven't already read it.. https://www.khronos.org/files/adopters_agreement.pdf
<robclark> (although tbh most of it I'd probably need a lawyer to translate :-P)
<BrianPaul> skimmed it a few weeks ago.
* idr (~idr@c-76-105-241-150.hsd1.or.comcast.net) has joined
<mupuf> danvet: ping
<mupuf> egbert, bryce, whot,keithp: ping?
<bryce> ayup
<danvet> oops sorry, got distracted
<danvet> and ofc my secretary script died now
<danvet> oh well, let's do this by hand then
<mupuf> danvet: ready to go then?
<danvet> agenda: spi transition, khronos adoption agreement, membership thing on the signup page
<whot> mupuf: I'm here
<danvet> anything else?
<mupuf> maybe we should start with khronos, to free idr and BrianPaul?
<bryce> danvet, let's skip spi transition so we can focus on using Brian's time more effectively
<danvet> yup, agreed
<idr> I'm in a phone meeting too, so I'm non-free either way. :)
<BrianPaul> Neil Trevett sounded supportive.  What are our questions/issues?
<mupuf> idr: thanks for being here
<mupuf> I guess there are multiple questions
<danvet> I guess the big one is just review by spi, since only spi has the authority to sign anything
<robclark> I guess we can cover khronos first (or last?) if either of those options is more convenient for BrianPaul/idr..
<mupuf> the first one being, should we join or not?
<danvet> and spi might have some questions about potential liability they might get into
<BrianPaul> sorry, but what is spi?
<danvet> the other technicality is how we handle who's allowed to submit validation packages in x.org/mesa's name
<mupuf> can we vote on whether we should try joining?
<robclark> software in the public interest..
<danvet> BrianPaul, http://spi-inc.org/ new legal umbrella of x.org foundation
<danvet> x.org delaware inc is getting closed
<mupuf> danvet: I would say it would have to be someone appointed by the X.Org Foundation?
<danvet> mupuf, probably
<danvet> and I guess a formal ack from BrianPaul & idr as mesa representatives that this all sounds good would be good
<mupuf> idr should definitely be in the loop for this, if he has time, since he has experience with it.
<danvet> well formal, whatever you feel like ;-)
<mupuf> at least for the first submission
<bryce> with the agreement, it has provisions relating to internal use of software.  With the typical open source project the idea of "inside" is rather nebulous...
<idr> I've been trying to broker this deal for months, so I'm supportive.
<BrianPaul> I'm in favor of proceeding
<mupuf> bryce: this internal use is a question I tried to get answered from Neil but got no response for
<mupuf> It is a pretty important one ... for non-opengl APIs
<danvet> bryce, mupuf I guess we need to figure out what software would still be internal after khronos recent decision
<keithp> hey ho
<danvet> keithp, hi
<mupuf> keithp: hey :)
<bryce> mupuf, yeah, I think getting an answer to that question that nailed down is kind of fundamental here
* danvet shuffles attendee list around
<danvet> mupuf, can you pls follow up on that once more?
<mupuf> bryce: it is ... but even if the answer is: "won't be possible", it still is a good move for us to become adopters
<mupuf> because of GL
<mupuf> CL and openmax can come later
<danvet> other bit: I guess we should do a vote on whether I should formally ask spi to look at all this stuff?
<danvet> mupuf, yeah, we need to figure this out
<mupuf> danvet: yes, this is the first question
<mupuf> and yes, I will follow up.
<danvet> ta, noted
<bryce> I wonder also at what granularity this needs to be at.  E.g. is Mesa itself "the" project, or do each individual driver development effort need to be handled as their own thing, as far as the GL compliance validation work goes?
<idr> The vast majority of the current CTS comes from either dEQP or Khronos-paid contractors.  All of that will be open source.
<mupuf> so, how about people voice their concerns about becoming an adopter?
<idr> THere's a big chunk of older GLES 2.x era tests that have copyrights from companies that don't really exist, and none that will be open source.
<mupuf> idr: so it will be dropped from the official test suite?
<robclark> idr, so, question is can we skip those?
<idr> mupuf: No.  It will just continue to be closed source.
<mupuf> ok, gles conformance testing will still be closed
<robclark> so, that would be kind of a blocker for some..
<idr> Mobica (the main Khronos CTS contractor) is looking at what the loss of coverage would be if the older tests were dropped.
<bryce> mupuf, my concerns are only with procedural technicalities, I have no concerns against becoming an adopter per se.  If those technicalities can be figured out, joining sounds like a good step forward for the graphics community.
<idr> We'll probably also put out a list "to do" projects for outside contributions to replace them.
<robclark> I'm not sure if we could get an agreement to substitute google's deqp tests or something like that instead?
<mupuf> well, as far as I am concerned, even if we are not allowed to redistribute gles CTS or other APIs, I still support becoming an adopter.
<danvet> well even just getting desktop gl solved as step 1 would be awesome I think
<danvet> so vote on me asking spi to look into this and officially moving forward?
<mupuf> danvet: agreed
<mupuf> yes, let's vote
<mupuf> +1 from me
<danvet> I assume we'll have lots of technical questions to resolve for the foreseeable future ;-9
<bryce> +1 here too
<danvet> +1
<robclark> +1 for starting ball rolling w/ spi..
<whot> +1
<BrianPaul> I take it the vote is for X BOD members?
<bryce> BrianPaul, yep
<mupuf> BrianPaul: Yes :)
<mupuf> BrianPaul: any concerns on your side?
<danvet> BrianPaul, I have your ack as mesa rep already ;-)
<BrianPaul> no, I'm good with everything so far
<robclark> mupuf, as far as concerns, my main concern is what if any restrictions will there be on drivers that are not yet conformant, or where IHV hasn't paid khronos..
<danvet> one thing I wonder is whether we should ask khronos for a bit more formal definition of what they consider bona fida open source, just for the PR announcement
<robclark> (for both gles and gl since with gallium drivers have both with single pipe driver)
<danvet> might be useful for the big splash
<idr> robclark: From the last Khronos board discussion, I don't think that will be a problem.
<danvet> but can do that later
<mupuf> robclark: I guess Neil already answered this: It will be handled in a case by case basis
<danvet> yeah
<idr> robclark: If that IHV wants to ship a product and use the trademarks, they'll still have to pay up.
<mupuf> idr: yes, this part is the nice part
<danvet> and any company trying to game the idea is still liable for trademark infringement afaiui
<bryce> danvet, definitely, I wouldn't be comfortable seeing much PR on this until we have a better handle on the procedural side of things
<idr> I specifically asked about that at the Khronos board meeting because it was raised as an issue previously. :)
<robclark> idr, ok.. cool.. my only concern is it doesn't effect community..  if IHV wants to ship a product, I'm totally fine with it being their problem ;-)
<danvet> bryce, I meant less procedural, but more what khronos considers a real open project
<mupuf> I guess the PR release could say: "Get in touch with us if you wonder if you are elligible"
<danvet> we could spin that as an invitation for hw vendors to join mesa ;-)
<danvet> mupuf, yeah, that's what I mean
<danvet> there's lots of noise that maybe some arm gpu vendor will open source their stuff
<danvet> imo we want them into the fold, long term
<danvet> but that's an entirely different thing
<danvet> so anything else on this where we need BrianPaul & idr?
<mupuf> ack, it owuld be nice. And it will not cut the inflow of money too much since products will still have to pay
<danvet> yeah
<danvet> well, I guess that's it then for khronos topics
<danvet> BrianPaul, idr: thx a lot for attending
<danvet> next up: spi transition
<BrianPaul> sure, no problem
<danvet> bryce, ^^
<bryce> danvet, nothing significant to report this week.
<BrianPaul> bye then
* BrianPaul (~oftc-webi@c-67-165-194-100.hsd1.co.comcast.net) has left
<danvet> bryce, so still ongoing, nothing new, no hold-ups?
<bryce> pretty much.  Still awaiting word from stuart.
* idr (~idr@c-76-105-241-150.hsd1.or.comcast.net) has left (Ex-Chat)
<danvet> thx
<danvet> next up, one item I've dropped by accident:
<mupuf> PR release with Khronos?
<danvet> https://members.x.org/join.php <- we still have a really old membershipt agreement on that thing
<danvet> mupuf, oh right
<robclark> oh, I'd been meaning to ask bryce, is there an icon/img we should use for clickandpledge link?
<danvet> guess we should have asked brian and idr ...
<robclark> danvet, I guess we can follow up on that via email
<danvet> mupuf, can you pls start a subthread with just that part for brian&idr and maybe ask them whether we should do a statement?
<danvet> robclark, yeah
* danvet volunteering mupuf 
<danvet> mupuf, I'm not going to put that into the minutes to avoid phoronix spotting it ;-)
<mupuf> sure
<danvet> mupuf, so volunteered?
<bryce> robclark, I'll look, one sec
<robclark> k
<mupuf> yep
<danvet> thx
<bryce> robclark, yep there's one on http://spi-inc.org/donations/
<danvet> so back to that membership agreement
<danvet> I wonder whether we even still need that
<robclark> cool, thx
<danvet> now that we're no longer a legal entity we can't really make any kind of click-thru contracts either
<danvet> and the membership agreement seems to be all about the legal side
<danvet> should we just nuke it?
<danvet> thoughts?
<bryce> not sure, don't we still need to have a way to define who is eligible to vote in board elections?
<danvet> our bylaws state all that already
<danvet> https://members.x.org/docs/MemberAgreement02Apr2004.pdf
<danvet> that's the thing
<danvet> it even still mentions the old llc
* ftigeot has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
<danvet> which is shuttered since 10 years
<whot> were we supposed to have read that one before the meeting? :)
<danvet> whot, somewhat
<whot> doh
<danvet> I brought it up on board@
<robclark> bryce, so something like https://www.x.org/wiki/RobClark/
<danvet> then realized that I also need to find a volunteer to handle membership requests ;-)
<whot> I can keep doing that until we have another volunteer, it's not a lot of work
<bryce> robclark, make sure to use the X.org specific click&pledge page though (I think I sent you the link last week?)
<robclark> oh, yeah, I think you did.. one sec..
<danvet> so back to that membership thing, I'd propose we just remove it
<danvet> it's been legally void since 10 years
<danvet> and now with 0 x.org legal entity left it's imo entirely pointless
<whot> yeah
<whot> we need to change the membership system too, because right now members accept the membership agreement
<bryce> danvet, checking our bylaws we have:
<bryce> 2.1. Membership
<bryce> The Members of X.Org shall be designated as Members in good standing who have executed a Membership
<bryce> Agreement and who have elected to actively participate in the activities of X.Org. The X.Org membership
<bryce> 2
<bryce> does not include the SPI membership.
<danvet> oh I know, that's separate
<bryce> ah is it?  where's that then?
<danvet> but the current membership agreement we have is kinda silly
<danvet> on spi's page somewhere
<danvet> only if you're an spi member can you vote on spi issues
<danvet> that's in spi's bylaws somewhere
<keithp> and few of our members may actually care about that
<robclark> jfyi, updated frontpage w/ donate links..
<danvet> robclark, thx
<bryce> (ix) �Membership Agreement� means the X.Org Foundation Membership Agreement, as amended and in
<bryce> force from time to time.
<mupuf> danvet: the fact that it is legally void does not matter
<bryce> that doesn't sound like SPI membership
<danvet> mupuf, well, we'd need to at least update it
<mupuf> I guess we can update the membership agreement without changing the bylaws
<danvet> yeah, sounds like
<mupuf> so, no new vote necessary?
<danvet> well, someone needs to volunteer to update that thing I guess
<danvet> well, would be really nice if someone volunteers ;-)
<danvet> at least update our address and point at the latest bylaws ...
<mupuf> danvet: one would need to re-do it in latex or something
<danvet> would probably be someone with server access, or some clue about where this thing's source is
<mupuf> like I did with the bylaws
<danvet> hm, might even fit into the bylaw repo, conceptually
<robclark> danvet, I think I took a really brief look.. do we have original src to member agreement or does it need to be transcribed into tex?
<danvet> robclark, src might be gone indeed :(
<robclark> bleh
<robclark> (I guess that is also a question for whot/egbert/keithp since they've been around longer)
* ftigeot (~ftigeot@ivry12.zefyris.com) has joined
<mupuf> danvet: egbert may have it
<robclark> if we really don't have original anywhere then I can take a stab at transcribing and sticking into git w/ the bylaws, and then we can patch it from there..
<mupuf> but it will likely be from word
<whot> that thing predates me, and I don't think it was on expo anywhere
<mupuf> robclark: I would say we should create a new repo
<danvet> mupuf, might be worth checking the servers who touched it last
<danvet> for clues and archeology
<robclark> oh, good point..
<mupuf> I do not want people to associate this to the bylaws
<danvet> robclark, so signed up to look into this a bit?
<mupuf> because then they will think we should have to vote on it
<danvet> mupuf, we can do a new membership-agreement.git repo in parallel
<mupuf> even if it is a trivial change
<danvet> yeah, makes sense
<robclark> yeah, I'll poke around and one way or another get it into tex+git somewhere
<mupuf> danvet: yes, let's do this
<danvet> robclark, awesome, thanks a lot
<robclark> np
<mupuf> obviously, we will have to cancel everyone's membership at the next election
<mupuf> which is ... surprisingly soon
<danvet> oh garbage
<danvet> well I'm up for election, so I don't have to bother with technical details at least
<danvet> mupuf, I'll add a note that we need this for the next agenda
<robclark> btw someone got the members agreement handy?
<danvet> https://members.x.org/docs/MemberAgreement02Apr2004.pdf
<danvet> I'll add a link to the minutes
<robclark> thx
<danvet> anything else?
<robclark> well.. this is the history of that doc that we have:  http://hastebin.com/ajorerivox.sql ;-)
<danvet> haha
<danvet> ok, I guess that's all, thx for attending
<danvet> g'night
<mupuf> g'night!
* whot waves